Tes ailes, fragile et pliées
Sont fatiguer du ciel bleu azur
Ce sentiment de solitude continue à grimper a moi
Une bougie esseuler y brûle toujours

Est-ce que je peut enterrer tous sa avec des mots vides
Je ne sais même plus
Aussi longtemps que je pourrais nager librement dans mes rêves
Tu seras avec moi et je n’aurais point besoin d’aller dans se ciel

Comme d’habitude
Lorsque je tourne le coin de la rue
Je me mêle à la foule
Je me fonds dans cette masse anonyme

Je perds tout repère
Je ne trouve plus mes mots
Mais une chose, ta voie
Reste encore et encore

Tout ce que je sais de toi
Tes joies, tes colères
Me fait avancer
Si je lève les mes yeux vers le ciel

May I suggest another research conducted: What really happens to the message archive/conversations deleted from instant messaging tools or websites that provide instant messaging features? (such as facebook, yahoo messenger, etc.)

this is a very interesting question im certain a lot of people cant answer for themselves, but really really want to know.

Thank you again and if there is any kind of forum to discuss more about architectural “flaws” and privacy matters (or security matters for that case) i would appreciate it if anyone would let me know.

Suppose I’m an employee at a photo-sharing site, and I browse around on my lunch break. If one of the photos I looked at is deleted an hour later, could the site be prosecuted because a copy is still on my (presumably company-owned) hard drive (in my browser’s local cache)? Your interpretation would seem to say yes.

What about backups? It would be irresponsible of a site operator to *not* have the ability to recover from hardware failures, which means they may have copies of deleted photos still lurking in recent backups. In order to avoid prosecution, would they have to expand the “deletion” process to include opening all their backups and removing the content? Your interpretation would seem to say yes.

Similarly, even if it’s deleted from all hard drives immediately, someone with physical access to a drive could probably recover the photo (since “deleting” a file, on many filesystems, doesn’t actually erase the data). Is the logical conclusion of this that photo-sharing sites need to implement military-style data-destruction protocols? Your interpretation would seem to lean that way.

It may turn out, of course, that the law is interpreted in this fashion, but if it is then it’s a law written with no respect for actual reality, and should be amended.

Thanks for putting it on.
cheers

Often, the decision is made to no longer link directly to the content still stored on disc. If the data resides in a database, that data is rarely deleted, it is usually flagged as deleted, and hence not ‘visible’. The data remains for various reasons, one of the most common reasons being data integrity. One piece of information relies on another which relies on another. Deleting one piece can really screw up a database.

However, all too often, the TOS, T&C, Privacy and whatever other rules the websites have will describe this. How many times do people actually bother reading these though, and then moan about it after the fact.

I’m with Jessica on this one. Creating one’s own website is easy and you have control over it. Learn about which services you intend to use BEFORE using them and if you don’t like their rules, don’t use them.

As for the cached images, there are too many caches out on the net to be certain of it being deleted in time. For instance, if you guys keep checking that the images have been deleted, the cache servers will reset a counter that indicates how long ago the file was last accessed. It will then start counting down again. For instance, if the cache deletes files not accessed within the last five days, but you access it on the fourth day, you’ll now need to wait another five days. I’m not saying this is the case with all caches, but it is quite typical of how caches work.