4 ms·
Yes, and this is exactly why they should be keeping both digital (online and offline) as well as paper copies of their records. If they can't afford to have go
by tw04 7y ago
Yes, and this is exactly why they should be keeping both digital (online and offline) as well as paper copies of their records.
If they can't afford to have good backups of their data, they can't afford to have digital records in the first place. This is the equivalent of a community saying they can't afford filing cabinets so they just stack paper on the floor in the boiler room. Nobody would find that acceptable, and they shouldn't find this acceptable either.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago"Why are they wasting OUR tax dollars on this ridiculous, unneeded, IT infrastructure! My property taxes are going up to pay for your incompetence!"
- mc32 7y agoI think one issue is that they can’t know for certain when they became compromised. So they may be able to get data back but can’t know that that data has integrity, unless they’ve hashed it since the beginning of time.
- Dylan16807 7y agoHonestly, though, if you just filter to what could be backed up on paper you'll find that backups are trivial. A pretty big storage room, stuffed with ten thousand bankers boxes, each holding five thousand double-sided sheets of paper? At a reasonably generous 80KB per side you have 8TB. That's one data tape. Even a "library of congress" is only 10TB.