Talk:EnCase

Notability
On the subject of notability, I would point out that not only are there various tools aimed at defeating EnCase specifically, but there are also books on it (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Encase-Computer-Forensics-Official-Certified/dp/0782144357 for example). Courses are offered on it too: http://homepage.athenaclc.com/outlines/security/Computer%20Forensics%20and%20Investigations.pdf Mojo-chan (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Encase is THE most common forensic toolkit around. IMO it is notable enough for an article. Fireice (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the notability tag because this article has not yet passed WP:N, especially WP:WEB/WP:PRODUCT, both of which cover software in some manner. Key issue is the lack of any sourcing from reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article could use improvement, but that is not reason to think Encase not notable. Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, there is no need to take a deletionist stance.Mojo-chan (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Still, it has certain standards because not paper is not a reason to keep everything. Fix the article if you think it can be improved TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not an expert of this subject, but some time ago I came across a short Italian book about computer forensics for newbies, which says that EnCase is the most famous forensic sofware (Riccardo Meggiato, L'investigatore informatico, Apogeo, 2006, ISBN 88-503-2520-7, chapter 8, pages 139-142). It also says that the Linux-based operating system "Helix" is widely used as well, thus I think that the Helix (Linux distribution) article, which has been deleted due "lack of notability", may be restored. But I don't know if it is good to cite an Italian book on the English-language Wikipedia, and I don't know if a book for newbies is a good source. Someone more expert than me may find something better out there... --KingFanel (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead links and “successfully” used
The article stated that “Data recovered by EnCase has been used successfully in various court systems around the world, such as in the cases of the BTK Killer and David Westerfield”. The article gave several supporting references, but one of those references has now been removed: “Reference no longer available. Website no longer stores referenced article”.

There are two comments I want to make. The first is that I’m sure this is not a unique situation. It is an unfortunate fact of life that online references are not permanent. I have added many in the past, and I’m sure the same will happen to some of them, if it hasn’t already happened. But I have copies of the referenced articles as permanent proof, and I’m sure other people have them also. In this particular case, I was able to find copies of the removed reference on other websites: it, and the resulting discussions on those websites, contain valuable information.

There has to be a better way than just removing the reference from the Wikipedia article. What I have seen is the message “dead link” being tagged onto the reference, in other words, the reference remains, and anyone who wants to examine that reference has at least a starting point for a search (which is what I did). I don’t know what the Wikipedia standard is, but I think that is a good solution.

My second comment is that the removed reference was not about either the BTK killer or Westerfield, who were both convicted (the latter maybe wrongfully), but about a school teacher who was acquitted, despite the EnCase evidence. So some people might question if it was used “successfully” in that case.

So maybe one can justify removal of that reference, just not on the grounds given. However, an even better solution might be to use the reasons for the acquittal as the starting point for a section on the limitations of this software.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)