this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
925 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
59605 readers
3415 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
tl;dr: Google fucked him proper. But he was naive thinking he could store that much data with a tech giant, his "life's work", risk free.
I store my shit on Google Drive. But it's only 2TB of offsite backups, not my primary.
Time and again I've learned the past 25-years, no one gives a shit about their data until they lose it all. People gotta get kicked in the fork so hard they go deaf before they'll pay attention.
Naive, perhaps, but if a company advertises a service, they better fucking deliver on that service. Sure, I wouldn't store all of my important documents solely on a cloud service either, but let's not victim blame the guy here who paid for a service and was not given that service. Google's Enterprise plan promised unlimited data; whether that's 10 GB or 200 TB, that's not for us nor Google to judge. Unlimited means unlimited. And in an article linked in the OP, even customer service seemed to assure them that it was indeed unlimited, with no cap. And then pulled the rug.
And on top of that, according to the article, Google emailed them saying their account would be in "read-only" mode, as in, they could download the files but not upload any. Which is fine enough-- until Google contacted them saying they were using too much space and their files would all be deleted. Space that, again, was originally unlimited.
Judge the guy all you want, but don't blame him. Fuck Google, full stop.
The problem here is that Google's "unlimited" plan was real, but it was for the G-Suite Enterprise product, which they discontinued. Two years ago, they started moving everything and everyone to a new product offering, Google Workspace. The Enterprise plans there have unlimited* data, and that asterisk is important, because it specifies that unlimited is no longer unlimited, which is dumb. It's a pool of data shared between users, and each user account contributes 5TB towards the pool, capping at 300 users. From there, if I remember correctly, additional 10TB chunks cost $300/month.
I feel bad for this guy, but the writing has been on the wall for years now. Google has changed their account structure and platform costs to discourage this type of use.
I heard there was a process for requesting additional data, but you have to actually pay for the 5 users and they’ll bump it a few TB every couple months on request. That’s from people reporting their experience with support, so it might not be totally consistent.
I kind of get it though, people hear “unlimited storage” and then don’t even make an effort to be efficient with that space, and just want to keep everything forever. There’s a real cost to that storage, and it’s higher than many think since it’s not just a single HDD like many would have sitting on their desk but a series of arrays/pools and all the related systems to ensure reliability and uptime. They probably did some calculation where 99% of users would be profitable even with their “unlimited storage” and eating it on the other 1% was a reasonable advertising cost. Over time that calculation changed and they had to update the service.
Google made a promise they didn't keep and articles like this are the consequence of that.
It's not ideal, but it still feels better than "let them lie and then blame their victims for believing it".
Yes, that’s true, but it’s also true that Google has a long history of discontinuing services suddenly, so expecting them to keep this particular promise was extremely naive.
I feel like a tl;dr should mention the FBI. You summed up the headline.
In fairness their electronics were taken by the FBI so they at least had something besides Google. In hindsight the offsite backup would of protected them from both the FBI and Google if they stored them at a trustee's home
Or the trustee would get their home raided and devices taken, too.
Yeah that's a possibility but that massively depends on the level of surveillance the journalist is under but lets assume moderate. With that in mind, the only method I can think of would be physically hiding the drive/s in the other house (more paperwork needed for the alphabet people) in a place that would still be accessible, with permission of the owner of course. Don't know how thorough raids are at looking for stuff but I can think of a couple places that may be sufficient if its poor to moderate job. Be screwed if they're combing the entire place though so the journalist would have to rely on encryption
Yes, this. I don't trust ANYONE on the Internet. If you want something forever you download it yourself and back it up. Even tech giants like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit will not be here forever. YouTube will just delete your videos that have been up for 13 years without warning.
He clearly cared about his data, don't equate this man to the people who don't really think about it and don't actually back their stuff up (and come crying to everyone when their 10 year old disk dies)
People like to say to use the 3-2-1 backup strategy, which is really good advice, but it does NOT scale, trust me. I guarantee you I have more disposable income than this journalist (I assume that because journalists make shit money), and when I looked into a 3-2-1 solution with my meager 60TB of data, the cost starts to become astronomical (and frankly unaffordable) for individuals.