5 ms·

>If he were paying for the consumed storage as a standard Drive customer, this wouldn’t be happening. >Burke said he paid Google “a lot of money for a long tim

>If he were paying for the consumed storage as a standard Drive customer, this wouldn’t be happening. >Burke said he paid Google “a lot of money for a long time”

E39M5S62 3y ago
"a lot of money" and "a long time" are subjective.
- Nicksil 3y ago
  >"a lot of money" and "a long time" are subjective. You've missed the point. It's the fact that this guy did pay for the services.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    As far as I can tell, they did not pay for an "unlimited storage forever" service. They paid for an "unlimited storage this month for $X" service. Eventually Google stopped offering that deal, and he continued storing his data as if the payments for data storage in the past would entitle him to store the data indefinitely into the future as well.
    - Nicksil 3y ago
      >as if the payments for data storage in the past would entitle him to store the data indefinitely into the future as well. Why do you think he thought this?
      - jsnell 3y ago
        Because he stopped paying for the service of unlimited storage for this month (as that service was no longer offered), didn't migrate the data to somebody offering a better deal, and expected for it to be retained indefinitely?
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        I think you need context. Google stopped offering unlimted storage, the journalists was raided by the FBI some 7 months ago, and during that legal dispute he was occupied until Google gave a 7 day ultimatim. He already did have data backed up, and it was seized by the government because Fox News or Kayne West really didn't want that news page (live on a URL already) "leaked" or whatever.
        Nicksil 3y ago
        >didn't migrate the data to somebody offering a better deal Why would this be considered? What if he didn't want to migrate 200+ TB of data and just decided to stay where he's at, continuing to pay Google a lot of money? >expected for it to be retained indefinitely? For as long as he pays for the service, right?
        jsnell 3y ago
        As per the article, he hasn't been paying for the service for like six months. And he was never paying "a lot of money" for this. He was paying like 1% the going rate, and for every month that he paid that he did get the promised unlimited storage.
        Nicksil 3y ago
        >And he was never paying "a lot of money" for this. You're being obtuse: "a lot of money" in this context is a relative amount and you know that.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        And in this case, that amount is an order of magnitude lower that what the service cost to provide. It seems odd that after underpaying by a lot for a long time, that the user would complain that they were given 2 months of free service and then 5 more months of read-only access to get their stuff off. Sure, Google should have communicated more clearly but Burke's expectations here are also entirely unreasonable. The real villain of this story is the FBI and how computer seizures are handled. The FBI still hasn't charged Tim Burke with anything and are holding his MFA devices hostage trying to get him to unlock his phone for them.
  - selectodude 3y ago
    Google is wrong for ever offering unlimited storage. However if everybody is charging $20,000+ per year and Google is charging $1000, you gotta know that you’re living on borrowed time. Even backblaze, with their low margins and commodity hard drives charges $18k. The concept of counterparty risk strikes again.

>If he were paying for the consumed storage as a standard Drive customer, this wouldn’t be happening. >Burke said he paid Google “a lot of money for a long time”

E39M5S62 3y ago

"a lot of money" and "a long time" are subjective.

Nicksil 3y ago
>"a lot of money" and "a long time" are subjective. You've missed the point. It's the fact that this guy did pay for the services.
- jsnell 3y ago
  As far as I can tell, they did not pay for an "unlimited storage forever" service. They paid for an "unlimited storage this month for $X" service. Eventually Google stopped offering that deal, and he continued storing his data as if the payments for data storage in the past would entitle him to store the data indefinitely into the future as well.
  - Nicksil 3y ago
    >as if the payments for data storage in the past would entitle him to store the data indefinitely into the future as well. Why do you think he thought this?
    - jsnell 3y ago
      Because he stopped paying for the service of unlimited storage for this month (as that service was no longer offered), didn't migrate the data to somebody offering a better deal, and expected for it to be retained indefinitely?
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        I think you need context. Google stopped offering unlimted storage, the journalists was raided by the FBI some 7 months ago, and during that legal dispute he was occupied until Google gave a 7 day ultimatim. He already did have data backed up, and it was seized by the government because Fox News or Kayne West really didn't want that news page (live on a URL already) "leaked" or whatever.
      - Nicksil 3y ago
        >didn't migrate the data to somebody offering a better deal Why would this be considered? What if he didn't want to migrate 200+ TB of data and just decided to stay where he's at, continuing to pay Google a lot of money? >expected for it to be retained indefinitely? For as long as he pays for the service, right?
        jsnell 3y ago
        As per the article, he hasn't been paying for the service for like six months. And he was never paying "a lot of money" for this. He was paying like 1% the going rate, and for every month that he paid that he did get the promised unlimited storage.
        Nicksil 3y ago
        >And he was never paying "a lot of money" for this. You're being obtuse: "a lot of money" in this context is a relative amount and you know that.
        shkkmo 3y ago
        And in this case, that amount is an order of magnitude lower that what the service cost to provide. It seems odd that after underpaying by a lot for a long time, that the user would complain that they were given 2 months of free service and then 5 more months of read-only access to get their stuff off. Sure, Google should have communicated more clearly but Burke's expectations here are also entirely unreasonable. The real villain of this story is the FBI and how computer seizures are handled. The FBI still hasn't charged Tim Burke with anything and are holding his MFA devices hostage trying to get him to unlock his phone for them.
- selectodude 3y ago
  Google is wrong for ever offering unlimited storage. However if everybody is charging $20,000+ per year and Google is charging $1000, you gotta know that you’re living on borrowed time. Even backblaze, with their low margins and commodity hard drives charges $18k. The concept of counterparty risk strikes again.