• Electric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Lot of didn’t-read-the-article-itis in here. FBI seized his physical storage, cloud was the only option for the journalist and it did not make financial sense to pay for multiple cloud backups. Google is entirely the bad guy here.

    • WallEx@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well, he did ignore that he wasn’t paying for storage for half a year and did nothing to prevent data loss. Even ignored the grace period. That is at least negligent.

      • kirk782@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        He assumed that Google assured him that his current data would be safe. But saying that your account will move into read only mode doesn’t equate to keeping those much TBs of data on server forever.

        Though I have a question. Was this unlimited service that Google offered was a one time payment thing(seems unlikely, since only couple of cloud providers like pCloud do so and that too on a much lesser scale) or a recurring subscription thing? If it was the later, then it is naive to believe that a for profit corporation would keep that much data without raking in money.

        • WallEx@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Iirc it was a subscription, but I could be wrong. Having unlimited data with a one time payment doesn’t sound like a Google thing to do. There are running costs.

  • Iapar@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Guess he could make reporting on tech giants pulling this shit his new lifework.

  • pachrist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Just some advice to anyone who finds themselves in this specific situation, since I found myself in almost the exact same situation:

    If you really, really want to keep the data, and you can afford to spend the money (big if), move it to AWS. I had to move almost 4.5PB of data around Christmas of last year out of Google Drive. I spun up 60 EC2 instances, set up rclone on each one, and created a Google account for each instance. Google caps downloads per account to 10TB per day, but the EC2 instances I used were rate limited to 60MBps, so I didn’t bump the cap. I gave each EC2 instance a segment of the data, separating on file size. After transferring to AWS, verifying the data synced properly, and building a database to find files, I dropped it all to Glacier Deep Archive. I averaged just over 3.62GB/s for 14 days straight to move everything. Using a similar method, this poor guy’s data could be moved in a few hours, but it costs, a couple thousand dollars at least.

    Bad practice is bad practice, but you can get away with it for a while, just not forever. If you’re in this situation, because you made it, or because you’re cleaning up someone else’s mess, you’re going to have to spend money to fix it. If you’re not in this situation, be kind, but thank god you don’t have to deal with it.