Encrypt/secure files on external HDD?

OK i did skim over the thread initially because i was busy at the time, I see what you are trying to achieve now. There is no real way i can think of to achieve what you are wanting. There was a program called securom that is now defunct.

Depending on the Data type then you could look at authoring that data in a way that makes it non editable. Eg like taking a photo of documents instead of sending the actual documents. PDF are also another option that until more recent times was usually used as it was harder to edit,
eg i would send for example a resume as PDF because it means the person has to intentionally try to edit that format and also a bonus of that format means it can open in any browser so it makes accessibility easier to the recipient. You can take this sort of logic and apply it to other data. Many generic users would not even know you can edit a PDF for example.

You can also use in some cases encrypted rar files so that they person can view the data but cannot edit it because you never gave them the key.

It all depends on the data at this point Just look at the Data you have and see if there is ways to present that data in other forms which allow in a way to make them non editable.

If we are talking about gb or tb of data then ditto you are out of luck. I think also if you are sharing data with someone then you are also giving that right away, at that point the question asks why are you so concerned about them not editing anything?

Malneb said:

why are you so concerned about them not editing anything?

because its my stuff, you know.. pretty simple

mulambo said:

because its my stuff, you know.. pretty simple

Sure but that is not conductive to actually protecting data to just say "its my data simple". The paradigm is this, either protecting data where its about keeping other people away from that data which is why why use encryption. Which means in turn its already a given if you allow someone to said data then that means you trust that person with said data 100%.

Permissions in computers since UNIX state a clear paradigm which is on a basic level and also a POSIX standard and further in another method called ACL which is a system derived from the earlier system and is loosely speced around POSIX.

Basic example

r = read
w = write
x = execute

You give or deny any user, person or group any combination of those allowances. Or you encrypt entirely data where you want more robust measure of protection. There is no grey area and read access also means that the person can copy said data, they also need to be able to read to do any of the other features. So opening a document or viewing a picture or listening to a song is read permissions granted, which means they can copy that data.

You let them read and execute but not write data, so they can still copy and read but they cannot alter data. Past that then ditto.

So really you either give them access or you don't.

Malneb said:

Sure but that is not conductive to actually protecting data to just say "its my data simple". The paradigm is this, either protecting data where its about keeping other people away from that data which is why why use encryption. Which means in turn its already a given if you allow someone to said data then that means you trust that person with said data 100%.

Permissions in computers since UNIX state a clear paradigm which is on a basic level and also a POSIX standard and further in another method called ACL which is a system derived from the earlier system and is loosely speced around POSIX.

Basic example

r = read
w = write
x = execute

You give or deny any user, person or group any combination of those allowances. Or you encrypt entirely data where you want more robust measure of protection. There is no grey area and read access also means that the person can copy said data, they also need to be able to read to do any of the other features. So opening a document or viewing a picture or listening to a song is read permissions granted, which means they can copy that data.

You let them read and execute but not write data, so they can still copy and read but they cannot alter data. Past that then ditto.

So really you either give them access or you don't.

Logic doubt.
Why "copy" = "read" ?
Copying means duplicating.
Example: you have a written exam to do. A colleague asks you to make him read your stuff. Then he entirely copies it and presents it as his stuff. The teacher gets upset and start doubting of both the real author (you) and the smartarse (your colleague).
Hope that makes sense.

mulambo said:

Logic doubt.
Why "copy" = "read" ?
Copying means duplicating.

In computers, when we say "read" what we actually refer to is to create a copy of the data from permanent storage, like a hard disk, to a temporary working location, like RAM. Then the CPU does calculations with it and outputs some result. The practical effect can be as to display an image on screen or dumping it to another file, or something completely different.

But the initial step is the critical one. From HD to RAM. This is unavoidable and it's what puts data outside of your control. Even if you fully control the HD it came from, it doesn't matters, it's now data in RAM under that computer's control, and it can just display it (the good case) or put it into another file outside your control (the bad case). Both are totally possible and the direct result of giving read access to the files. Hence it implies that read permission is also permission to copy.

What you're seeking is the exact problem DRM have attempted to solve, and while some obstacles were created, they all ultimate failed for a determined attacker. This is why piracy still exists and it's impossible to prevent from a technical level..
Many multimillon dollar companies have tried to do what you're asking for.
They ALL failed.
Every single time.
Music, movies, software, all is still pirated, copied without permission and plagarized, since centuries ago.
Those companies learned to accept that they can sell a lot, but some will be still copied without permission. They try to minimize those, but ultimately cannot prevent it completely.

What you can do is to manage your risk. Don't showcase your very best job, but a small portion of it, use watermarks, lower resolutions and the like. Minimize your losses should the worst happens.

mulambo said:

Example: you have a written exam to do. A colleague asks you to make him read your stuff. Then he entirely copies it and presents it as his stuff. The teacher gets upset and start doubting of both the real author (you) and the smartarse (your colleague).

This is actually a very good example.Once your colleague reads your work, how can you prevent him from writing it somewhere else? Or saying it aloud from memory?
He has your text in his head, so from that point on, he could really do anything with that, honest or not.
The only possible way to prevent the risk is to not let him read you stuff.

Hence it implies that read permission is also permission to copy.

Not at all.
Read and copy are two different words by themselves, on the dictionary.
If read = copy

Then anybody who reads a book, can copy it and even sell it with his/her name on it?

Come on. We're talking about honesty here.
Computers are just built the dishonest way, that's what I'm assuming.

Once your colleague reads your work, how can you prevent him from writing it somewhere else? Or saying it aloud from memory?

With my knife, that's how, lol.
Jokes aside, no. I get that computers are a simplified version of human intellect with varied results according to the wonders of artificiality. But we humans behave according to moral principles. Computers are given no morality (or are we just screwed too deep into computers so we have lost it, forgot about it?). That's how it is.

Anyway this is a whole different discussion and I'm honestly getting tired of it.
What remains is that, even in dictionaries, read and copy are different words.
If one implies the other, it means who reads is a thief.

read
verb
verb: read; 3rd person present: reads; past tense: read; past participle: read; gerund or present participle: reading
/riːd/
1.
look at and comprehend the meaning of (written or printed matter) by interpreting the characters or symbols of which it is composed.
"it's the best novel I've ever read"

copy
noun
noun: copy; plural noun: copies
1. a thing made to be similar or identical to another.

verb
verb: copy; 3rd person present: copies; past tense: copied; past participle: copied; gerund or present participle: copying

1. make a similar or identical version of; reproduce.