3 ms·

They’ve really buried the lede here: this reads like the person paying for the account was not the post author, and AWS asked the payer (who from their perspect

• floating-io 1y ago
  While that is certainly true, the idea that they can so rapidly decimate your data without the possibility to restore is still terrifying if that's your only copy of that data. They should have to hold it for at least 90 days. In my opinion, it should be more like six months to a year. In my mind, it's exactly equivalent to a storage space destroying your car five days after you miss a payment. They effectively stole and destroyed the data when they should have been required to return it to the actual owner. Of course, that's my opinion of how it should be. AFAIK, there is no real legal framework, and how it actually is is entirely up to your provider, which is one reason I never trust them.
  • adastra22 1y ago
    It sounds like it wasn’t OP’s data though, which is an important distinction.
    • nerdponx 1y ago
      It was his, along with his clients' data.
    • anonymars 1y ago
      That's not the impression I got > When AWS demanded this vanished payer validate himself, I pointed out that I already had my own Wise card on file—the same card I’d used to pay before the payer arrangement, kept active specifically in case the payer disconnected while I was traveling or offline
  • akerl_ 1y ago
    The post suggests that even if AWS’s policy had been to hold the data for a year, the same thing would have happened, because they deleted the data early due to operator error. Similarly, a physical storage company can totally make a mistake and accidentally destroy your stuff if they mix up their bookkeeping, and your remedy is generally either to reach an amicable settlement with them or sue them for your damages.
• blargey 1y ago
  The lede buried under that lede is that (according to an insider?) some AWS employee accidentally wiped everything immediately (contrary to typical practice in such situations of retaining data while things get sorted out), leading to a chain of brushing-off / covering-up percolating through whatever support chain the OP was talking to.
  • akerl_ 1y ago
    That does seem to be a mistake on their part. And the comms we’re seeing look bad. But the overall post and the double buried ledes make me question the degree to which we’re getting the whole story.
    • Ancapistani 1y ago
      > And the comms we’re seeing look bad. Right or wrong, those messages look like very standard AWS-speak for "this is your mistake, not ours". I have no idea if that's a reasonable stance or not, but I _will_ say that AWS's internal culture contributes to this sort of bad press. If they would respond to their customers with even a trace of empathy and ownership, this post would likely never have been written.
    • tgsovlerkhgsel 1y ago
      If that's the case, then the mistake isn't that a support agent made the mistake, the mistake is that such a mistake was even possible.
      • akerl_ 1y ago
        I really love this game of debating the appropriate derivative of a mistake. Maybe the mistake was inventing non-immutable data storage?
  • cmckn 1y ago
    > accidentally wiped everything immediately There is no “wipe everything immediately” button.
• luckylion 1y ago
  The payer is the owner of the account? I doubt that is AWS' default stance, because their contract is with the account holder, not the payer. Me paying your bill doesn't give me ownership of your stuff - as far as AWS is concerned, your bill is paid, and that's the extent of their involvement, everything else is between you and me. If what he writes is true, he remained the account holder and even had a backup billing method in place - something he probably wouldn't have if he wasn't the account holder. I don't know if he's completely honest about the story, but "somebody else paid, so we decided they are now the owner" isn't how that works.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• seuros 1y ago
  The person paying the account is not the author, i'm. What happen is that the person paying for the account had to settle an invoice of many thousand of dollars. They offered me AWS gift cards,to send me electronics and they will pay for it in parts. They lost lot of money because of crypto collapse. So i accepted their solution to pay for my OSS usage for few months. That like if i was going to pay for your rent for 1 year. You don't pay, while i don't have to pay 3-4 years of your rent at once. What happen, is that AWS dropped a nuclear bomb in your house, in the middle of the month .. then tell you later that it was about payment. If they told me in the first email it was about the payer, i will have unlinked and backuped.