How to recover a photo I was forced to delete

In article , Aragorn
wrote:


Even though the OP's use of "BAR" had me confused, what I construed as
"an inappropriate action" was someone accepting money from someone else,
e.g. in exchange for a beneficial verdict on his vehicle.

that's pretty much impossible because the test is mostly computer
driven. they plug in an obd dongle and it reads the readiness monitors
from the vehicle. there's no way to bribe the computer.

the only place a bribe might work is if they 'don't notice' something
physical on the vehicle, like the gas cap failing which is very rare.

On 2014-06-08 14:45:32 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 22:15:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-06-08 04:42:16 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 14:03:42 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Joe Beanfish
wrote:

This won't help with getting old photos back, but to prepare for such
situations in the future you could install dropbox or similar cloud
storage app that can send all camera pics to the cloud immediately. So
even if you delete from phone, it's still there in the cloud. By default
the saved camera pics on dropbox are private to the owner (you).

Be careful of using up your data plan if you take a lot of pics though...

yet another useful aspect of the cloud.

How do you get to the cloud without using your data plan from a mobile
phone?

WiFi hotspot.

The point made was that images could be sent to the cloud immediately,
and it was pointed out that this can use data plan minutes.

If you are in a hotspot, fine and dandy. If not, you do use data plan
minutes. If you wait until you are in a hotspot, you lose some of the
protection of the immediate back-up.

Yup! However, your question was phrased in broad terms, and I provided
the obvious answer to getting to the cloud without using your data plan.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-06-08 15:08:42 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 16:48:00 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 06/05/2014 11:11 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 20:00:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

the fact that they 'made' him delete something tells me they want to
hide whatever it was that he saw and because it could turn out bad for
them. otherwise, why would they care?

That is conjecture on our part. Regardless the evidence captured in
that photograph is for now unavailable. To my suspicious mind there is
more to this story than the OP is telling us, and I have a feeling he
arrived at the Referee Smog Station with a problem vehicle and an
attitude.

My guess too: attitude. One of those incidents escalated by
attitude.

You've obviously never had to deal with the California
smog-certification process.

No, I haven't, but if you think the process is somehow uniquely
frustrating you are wrong. Try waiting in line for two hours to renew
a driver's license and be rejected because you don't have two
acceptable documents showing your current address.

That we do online here, not in line.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/7/14 8:42 AM, in article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article , lid says...

In article , Silent Knight wrote:
I took a picture at the bar referee smog station of ...

I find it fascinating that this has (already) led to a thread of 75+
posts, most of which have nothing to do with the question being asked
and everything to do with the reason that the OP asked it.

Had the OP simply asked: "I have taken a photograph on my phone and
have unfortunately deleted it. Is there any way that I can get it back.
The phone is a Galaxy S3 running Android 4.3 and the picture was saved
on the SD card. I use Ubuntu Linux." he would have had a handful or
relevant replies and that would have been that.

Because he went into all the irrelevant stuff about a "smog station"
and "inappropriate action" this has become a much larger thread and all
sorts of issues have been discussed.

I love that about usenet -- but it does show that you have to be
careful to ask the question you mean to ask if you hope to get a simple
answer (mine would be: "testdisk").

I'm British, and the phrase "bar referee smog station" meant absolutely
nothing to me ... I gather now that it's somewhere one has to take a
vehicle to have the engine emissions checked, but my first thought was
that the OP was talking about some sort of shelter outside a bar where
smokers could go to indulge their addiction.

Two nations divided by a common language, eh?

In this case one nation. I live in the US and had no idea what a "BAR
referee smog station" was--I envisioned an establishment for smoking
lawyers initially. Most places in the US just call it an "emissions
test station" and don't have special ones for "referees". This seems to
be something uniquely Californican.


As are a LOT of things... :-)

On Thursday, 5 June 2014 16:25:12 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article , Aragorn


the options are definitely more limited for linux but linux users
should be used to that. that's why they dualboot windows and/or use
wine.

You were doing alright until you had to throw in that little bit of
trolling flame bait here-above.


nothing trolling or flame bait about it. it's *reality*.

nope. Linux is better at fixing, mounting or recovering files on *any* file system. Especially if the OS is a close relative like Android.


DanP

On 2014-06-07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 09:42:53 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , lid says...

In article , Silent Knight wrote:
I took a picture at the bar referee smog station of ...

I find it fascinating that this has (already) led to a thread of 75+
posts, most of which have nothing to do with the question being asked
and everything to do with the reason that the OP asked it.

Had the OP simply asked: "I have taken a photograph on my phone and
have unfortunately deleted it. Is there any way that I can get it back.
The phone is a Galaxy S3 running Android 4.3 and the picture was saved
on the SD card. I use Ubuntu Linux." he would have had a handful or
relevant replies and that would have been that.

Because he went into all the irrelevant stuff about a "smog station"
and "inappropriate action" this has become a much larger thread and all
sorts of issues have been discussed.

I love that about usenet -- but it does show that you have to be
careful to ask the question you mean to ask if you hope to get a simple
answer (mine would be: "testdisk").

I'm British, and the phrase "bar referee smog station" meant absolutely
nothing to me ... I gather now that it's somewhere one has to take a
vehicle to have the engine emissions checked, but my first thought was
that the OP was talking about some sort of shelter outside a bar where
smokers could go to indulge their addiction.

Two nations divided by a common language, eh?

In this case one nation. I live in the US and had no idea what a "BAR
referee smog station" was--I envisioned an establishment for smoking
lawyers initially. Most places in the US just call it an "emissions
test station" and don't have special ones for "referees". This seems to
be something uniquely Californican.

If you want to be pernickety - it doesn't seem to be an emission test
station and is removed at least one layer back from that purpose.

What follows are deductions made on the basis of very sketchy
information. I could well be seriously wrong at any point. As far as I
can make out, the situation is as follows:

All modern cars are loaded with sensors reporting to computers (Engine
Management Units (EMUs) and other similar names) which manage the
running of the engine on the basis of what the sensors report. The
primary concern of an EMU is to run the engine so as to minimise fuel
consumption while maximising power and keeping emissions within
prescribed limits.

Permissible emissions are limited by law but vary according to
circumstances. High emissions under one set of conditions can be
traded for low emissions under another. The way to determine whether
or not an engine is overall acceptable is to measure it's emissions
while running it through a specified driving cycle.

Here is the catch. An engine which has acceptable emissions when new
can deteriorate to a condition where it's emissions are unacceptably
foul. Fortunately the EMUs can catch this by logging the way that the
engine now requires to be run for compliance with the original test
driving cycle. The BAR can scan the EMU and from the recorded data
determine whether or not the engine still complies with the emission
limits. This becomes a particular problem if the EMU has lost all it's
data as a result of the battery being recently disconnected.

For the BAR to reach a conclusion the engine has to be run over a
sufficiently wide range of conditions to meet the original driving
cycle requirements and for the results to be recorded by the EMU. This
may take some time.

I understand that when this test was introduced there was only one
driving cycle under which the emissions had to qualify. Later they
introduced a two-cycle test followed shortly after by a three-cycle
test. (Each cycle within these tests is different from the other
cycles within that test).

The intention to apply increasingly rigourous testing (1, 2 and 3
cycle) was signaled in advance so vehicles able to comply with a new
test were already on the road before the new test became mandatory.

From reading the OP's posts, I suspect the problem is that his
vehicle's EMU has lost all it's data and has not run sufficiently far
to load the EMU with new driving cycle sufficient to satisfy the BAR.
To further complicate the problem, I also suspect that the OP is
driving a vehicle which from it's date of manufacture is required to
qualify under a two-cycle test but is fitted with an EMU capable of
recording it's compliance with a three-cycle test. Further, his
vehicle has been driven sufficiently to encounter the conditions of
only a two-cycle test. Finally, it is my suspicion that the BAR will
not accept the EMU's data for only a two-cycle test, which is all that
is required, but is insisting that the vehicle satisfactorily record
data to show that it complies with the later three cycle test.

I'm not surprised that the OP did not try to explain all this at the
beginning.

But this explanation leaves unclear how a photograph could display
inapproriate behaviour, which was the main claim of the OP.

On 2014-06-08, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-08 04:36:56 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 14:03:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

the fact that they 'made' him delete something tells me they want to
hide whatever it was that he saw and because it could turn out bad for
them. otherwise, why would they care?

That is conjecture on our part. Regardless the evidence captured in
that photograph is for now unavailable. To my suspicious mind there is
more to this story than the OP is telling us, and I have a feeling he
arrived at the Referee Smog Station with a problem vehicle and an
attitude.

My guess too: attitude. One of those incidents escalated by
attitude.

he later said one emissions readiness monitor was not ready which is
not enough to fail. if they still failed him, then he's right and they
(and you) are wrong.

Being right about qualifying to pass the test is a completely
different subject. What is at issue here is what the OP, and the BAR
employee, did in the process. What the "inappropriate" action was has
not been explained.

based on what he posted, they failed him when it should have passed.

That's not an inappropriate action. There may have been a mistake,
but that's not an inappropriate action.

We are still only hearing the OP's side of the story. He claims they
failed his vehicle, when he believes it should have passed. We have not
heard from the testing facility.
The real issue is that he is probably facing a massive repair bill to
bring his vehicle into compliance and he is throwing a hissy fit,
because he is not going to be able to have his vehicle registered until
he has spent that money to pass and the smog certificate is issued.

No he is not throwing a hissy fit. He is asking how he can recover a
deleted photograph, something this thread has long forgotten over many
people, including you, throwing hissy fits over a wide variety of
subjects.

On 2014-06-08 17:48:59 +0000, William Unruh said:

On 2014-06-08, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-08 04:36:56 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 14:03:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

the fact that they 'made' him delete something tells me they want to
hide whatever it was that he saw and because it could turn out bad for
them. otherwise, why would they care?

That is conjecture on our part. Regardless the evidence captured in
that photograph is for now unavailable. To my suspicious mind there is
more to this story than the OP is telling us, and I have a feeling he
arrived at the Referee Smog Station with a problem vehicle and an
attitude.

My guess too: attitude. One of those incidents escalated by
attitude.

he later said one emissions readiness monitor was not ready which is
not enough to fail. if they still failed him, then he's right and they
(and you) are wrong.

Being right about qualifying to pass the test is a completely
different subject. What is at issue here is what the OP, and the BAR
employee, did in the process. What the "inappropriate" action was has
not been explained.

based on what he posted, they failed him when it should have passed.

That's not an inappropriate action. There may have been a mistake,
but that's not an inappropriate action.

We are still only hearing the OP's side of the story. He claims they
failed his vehicle, when he believes it should have passed. We have not
heard from the testing facility.
The real issue is that he is probably facing a massive repair bill to
bring his vehicle into compliance and he is throwing a hissy fit,
because he is not going to be able to have his vehicle registered until
he has spent that money to pass and the smog certificate is issued.

No he is not throwing a hissy fit. He is asking how he can recover a
deleted photograph, something this thread has long forgotten over many
people, including you, throwing hissy fits over a wide variety of
subjects.

I have a feeling that recovering the deleted photograph is secondary to
the smog test failure of his vehicle. That is going to cost him some
very real money.
....and if I believed that the failure was due to an action, or
negligence of the smog inspection station, I might well throw a hissy
fit.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 11:41:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I have a feeling that recovering the deleted photograph is secondary to
the smog test failure of his vehicle. That is going to cost him some
very real money.

It probably is going to cost him some real money and that's why the OP
is so strongly motivated by whatever it was that went on. But it does
not necessarily follow that failure is going to cost him some "real
money". My wife had the 'Engine Fault' light come on in her car, which
would have caused her car to fail the BAR emissions test, and it cost
her only a small sum to have the offending part replaced in the
throttle body.

...and if I believed that the failure was due to an action, or
negligence of the smog inspection station, I might well throw a hissy
fit.

And I doubt that they could have succesfully ordered you to delete a
photograph of whatever they were doing wrong.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

And I doubt that they could have succesfully ordered you to delete a
photograph of whatever they were doing wrong.

not legally but they can certainly bully someone into it and that is
completely unacceptable.