[QUOTE]\nSo is overwriting. The fact that you refuse to understand or accept the \nmathematics does not prevent the truth.[/QUOTE]\n\nA thing called "science", or "proof" does though.\n\nI never refused to accept that "IF" someone used a very\nstrong encryption, and "IF" the only method of getting that\ndata was brute force cracking, it could take far too long,\nastronomical amounts of time. Those are quite narrowly\ndefined conditions, not encryption in itself but a degree of\nmore restrictons in fact. Same applies to random multipass\noverwriting, it's not some sorta loose concept, there are in\nfact recognized standards which nobody has been able to\nrecover from. So on one hand we have data that still\nexists but is either very hard to decrypt, or much easier\ndepending on the method available (I for one would not start\nout trying to brute force the encryption, that would be the\nlast resort). On the other hand, we have a proper overwrite\nwhich has no possible alternate method of access, has no\nreasonable expectation that it's only a matter of time or\nexpense. \n[QUOTE]\nThe only foolproof method is never to create the data in the first place.[/QUOTE]\n\n\nMaybe, but even if we want to indulge all the optimists out\nthere that think "someday, anything will be possible", we're\nstill left having nobody that can recover proper mulitplass\nrandom overwritten data. Maybe in 50 years they'll be able\nto. Will the supposed remaining remnants of magnetism (IOW,\nsupposed to possibly correlate to some level of the past\ndata writes) be intact on a 50 year old platter? Likely\neven any data that hadn't been overwritten at all would be\ndifficult to read at that point.