Well, google And the fbi
electric@lemmy.world 6 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.
Dieinahole@kbin.social 6 months ago
WallEx@feddit.de 6 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 6 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 6 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.
Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Presumably it was GSuite/Google Workspace. While they advertised unlimited storage if you paid for 5 accounts, it wasn’t really enforced so you could pay something like $20/month and get unlimited storage on G-drive. There was a daily cap on how much data can be moved, but that’s fine for hosting incremental backups like many that took advantage.