1) To the best of their knowledge the data on the hard drive could not be restored so the hard drive was degaussed and destroyed.
2) However since they don't track hard drives individually they really have no idea what happened to the hard drive.
On 1 the testified that the data hard drive “could not be restored” , which means they could reload data onto the hard drive, not that the hard drive was damaged to the point that existing data on the malfunctioning hard drive was not recoverable. This also implies that the hard drive was not severely damaged and was still functional enough such that the technician tried to reload the drive with data to restore it.
The use of the term “restore “ in attempts to reload Lerner's original disk is semantically significant because restore has a very specific meaning.
In the context of recovering from a hard drive crash, the term restore means returning the drive to it's original pre crash state with all of the backed up data reloaded from the back up archives.
This implies two different things.
First, archival back up data of some sort for Lerner's drive was in possession of the techs who tried to reload her “failed” hard drive but were unable to do so.
Second, it is reasonable to assume that the techs goal was to “repair” Lerner's non functional computer if it was in fact non functional. In that case the techs would have installed a new hard drive into Lerner's computer and then restore Lerner's backed up data onto the new hard drive to restore the drive (remember Lerner is a VERY high level IRS employee and the IRS is legally obligated to preserve her data). The paperwork implies that back up data required to restore the drive was in existence and should have been loaded to Lerner's new drive when they could not load the back ups onto her ‘failed” drive to restore it.
Rather than tracking her old hard drive, it would be a good idea to check the repair history of her computer and determine the current disposition of her computers. These days most people have mirror image data on their desk top commuter, their portable computer and their cell phone.
It is also strange that the focus of the documents in IRS possession is solely on the hard drive and not on the repair of her non functional computer.
Did she bring in the whole computer for repair, or just the hard drive? the documents imply she only brought in the bare hard drive to have it checked and not the whole computer.
If so, who removed the drive for her and why did she not simply bring in the whole computer.
Are we to believe that a 64 year old woman with a law degree, no technical training and who is “not good at math” tore apart her government IRS furnished computer, removed the hard drive and then hand delivered it to IRS IT Techs?
Or did she have the hard drive removed by some third party. If so, who did it?
Rather than tracking her old hard drive, it would be a good idea to check the repair history of her computer and determine the current disposition of her computers. These days most people have mirror image data on their desk top commuter, their portable computer and their cell phone.
It would also be really interest to know why absolutely no data was recoverable from her hard drive .
It is really all but impossible for a drive to fail and destroy the data on such that it cannot be recovered forensically. There are cases where people have destroyed their hard drives by beating them with a hammer to destroy the data and forensic techs have reassembled the fractured discs of the drive with super glue and read the data off of them.
About the only way that this could happen is if the drive was erased and over written 7 times or if the drive was degaussed to destroy the data on the disk .
The testimony provided by the IRS left a lot information out and a lot of terminology used is misleading.
” In that case the techs would have installed a new hard drive into Lerner’s computer and then restore Lerner’s backed up data onto the new hard drive to restore the drive (remember Lerner is a VERY high level IRS employee and the IRS is legally obligated to preserve her data). The paperwork implies that back up data required to restore the drive was in existence and should have been loaded to Lerner’s new drive when they could not load the back ups onto her ‘failed” drive to restore it.’
Exactly!