What Happens To Your Files When a Cloud Service Shuts Down? 592
MrSeb writes "Megaupload's shutdown poses an interesting question: What happens to all the files that were stored on the servers? XDA-Developers, for example, has more than 200,000 links to Megaupload — and this morning, they're all broken, with very little hope of them returning. What happens if a similar service, like Dropbox, gets shut down — either through bankruptcy, or federal take-down? Will you be given a chance to download your files, or helped to migrate them to another similar service? What about data stored on enterprise services like Azure or AWS — are they more safe?"
And if you're interested, the full indictment against Megaupload is now available.
Evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of the old saw, "Neither your life nor your property are safe when the legislature is in session."
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Informative)
The actual answer is (as always) to have backups of anything you feel is important. If the data is important enough, you make multiple backups to different kinds of media and store them in different places.
And, with any backup solution, one must plan for contingencies. Now that MU is offline, and the other personal file uploading sites are in danger of the same scrutiny/takedown, maybe it's time to roll your own private cloud with friends and family as storage nodes. They host your files, you host theirs. Model it after a weird hybrid bittorrent/RAID setup. That whole Storage Spaces thing from Microsoft would be a good model if it can be scaled to the network layer. The loss of any node would not bring down the entire storage pool and would allow itself enough time to re-balance the load among the remaining nodes.
Obviously, there are some logistics concerns with this method. However, a private cloud like this would certainly survive the antics of a jilted media conglomerate (or a cabal of them). And, as it would be a backup solution to data you are already keeping elsewhere (right?), it wouldn't be the only copy of the data in the event the cloud goes down.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
And if it's damning, there are plenty of dead-man-switch based e-mail services that will happily e-mail your file to several news outlets for a cheap price if you fail to check in.
Hey you just described early 1990's BBS' (Score:3)
welcome to the future.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"...roll your own private cloud with friends and family as storage nodes. They host your files, you host theirs. Model it after a weird hybrid bittorrent/RAID setup..."
Once the FBI and **AA's find out your "rolling your own" underground clandestine P2P under-the-radar private information (translated into "intelligence" by the agency) sharing (translated into "espionage") system they will for sure decide that you are a terrorist/spy and send a drone to take out your network and your family.
They probably alre
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I am surprised that NAS's haven't caught on very well. I have had one since 2007, and have been living in "the cloud" ever since. I can access all of my data over the internet, and it also serves as a nice little low power web server that can run gallery and various other apps. It can stream media, and I can even kick off a bit torrent movie download at work, and then watch it when I get home. All the other functions are really just gravy, as I originally bought this set up to replace a large old power hungry pc that was acting as a file server to supplement my roommate and I's meager laptop drives. I am protected both by RAID 1 and an external USB hard drive that I do a full backup to on a weekly basis. The only thing I am really missing is having a backup kept off-site, which I could do if I was willing to swap out disks, or pay for a service that would allow me to do an online backup.
Its a little pricey (about $400 for disks + the NAS itself) and requires some knowledge to set up properly, but I have no real space limitations, upload/download limits, and I can add or disable features as I see fit. Oh and of course, mine runs linux on top of a low power arm CPU.
Re:Evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so pay a little extra and buy 2 external USB hard disks instead of just the one and every few days/every week you rotate the disk through an offsite location the feds wont know about or find.
Re: (Score:3)
That answer doesn't work for a forum like XDA-Developers. They can't exactly back up the URLs that all their links point to. If a service like this goes down backups do nothing to alleviate the painful process of updating all their gazillion links to point wherever they move the new copies from their backups to.
I thought old people knew the saying "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Where was that kind of reasoning here?
On-line back-ups are the worst example... (Score:5, Informative)
The actual answer is (as always) to have backups of anything you feel is important.
Ironically, the specialist on-line back-up services seem to be among the worst offenders in terms of guarantees.
For example, we looked into this a few months ago, and one huge and very well known back-up service had Ts & Cs that seemed to say (quite clearly, IIRC) that if they decided to close down the service for any reason then they would have no obligation in terms of granting customers data access beyond letting you download what you could over the next 3 days. On a fully saturated leased line, with no-one else hitting their servers at the same time, you still couldn't download the volume of data that even their entry-level business packages supported within that time frame! And clearly in practice not everyone has a handy leased line available and it is highly unlikely that the back-up service's servers would stand up to their entire customer base trying to do that at once. They normally offer other ways to retrieve your data en masse if necessary, such as posting it on discs for a small fee, but those options all stop as soon as they announce the closure. Basically, they offer a back-up service that can disappear at any time without giving you a chance to retrieve everything, so better hope your office doesn't burn down around the time they decide to do that, then.
We didn't take out a contract. We did notice that while the above was the worst case of not really providing the advertised service at all, several of the other big name specialist off-site back-up services didn't seem to be much better. None of them actually promised to take steps such that even if they had to shut down at short notice for any reason there was a always a credible plan in place to get your data back to you.
One of my colleagues made a strong case that we should use something like encrypted files uploaded to AWS if we wanted cloud back-ups, for the simple reason that Amazon make most of their money elsewhere but rely on AWS themselves as well, which with their scale means it is inconceivable that the service would be shut off with the loss of data before we had chance to retrieve it. In the end, we decided (as we have with most other cloud services) that the whole idea didn't live up to the hype, and we opted to lease a dedicated server housed in someone else's data centre and we basically just do an automatic rsync from our normal servers to the back-up with suitable levels of encryption applied throughout.
Re: (Score:3)
The only point of those services is to allow people to conveniently distribute ANY content, including movies etc. but not limited to.
A cheap CDN for many sites, kind off, to distribute their files.
Just like servers are a way to distribute content, that does not mean they are solely for copyrighted content.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Funny)
As a point, the government will be using all files hosted on those servers as evidence in the case. They will not likely, and are not required to, give access to those files.
Yeah, expect a subpeona in the mail.
"Uh, I was so shocked by the news I forgot the password to my 8GB zip file."
"No worries, we have a crack team of security hackers who will have it open in a few minutes if you can't supply it."
"..."
"We'll call upon you if we need you for anything. Bye!" *click* nrrrrr...
*click* diit-doot-doot-deet-diit-doot-deet-doot-deet-doot "Hello, I'd like a ticket to New Zealand! FAST!"
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing as Dotcom was arrested in NZ, you may want to fly to a less US-friendly locale. I hear Venezuela is lovely this time of year.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Evidence (Score:4, Informative)
No they haven't, they just don't rubber stamp them the way that they do in some places. If you really want to be safe go to Ireland, they rarely extradict anybody to the US. The last time I heard of them doing it was somebody that had killed 3 people in a drunk driving crash. Before that it had been literally years since they extradited anybody at all to the US.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Informative)
The EU currently is evaluating whether all extradictions to the US will be stopped because the bradley manning case shows that suspects in the US are not safe from torture. (Long periods of isolation are torture according to international standards)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
RAR? What is this the early 2000's? Don't you mean 7Zip?
Re:Evidence (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Funny)
No, pirates don't use RAR or ZIP. They use YARR, matey!
Re:Evidence (Score:4, Funny)
Yet Another Recursive Repository?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory XKCD reference (Score:4, Funny)
It had to be said: obligatory xkcd reference. [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
In all seriousness, changing the file name on a TrueCrypt file won't help you. The file headers won't match, and you can tell what a file is by inspection. Full disk encryption shows up right away unless you modify the boot loaders.
It should not be all that hard to distinguish a Truecrypt file from other files just through classification alone.
The strength of Truecrypt is not so much in hiding the fact you are using it, but the strength of chaining multiple algorithms together, random pools to create the
Re:Evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't be ridiculous. This is the 21st century. Evidence isn't necessary beyond a vague plausibility when it comes to copyright infringement.
And once the lawsuit is started, it doesn't really matter if you're guilty or not, since you don't have the time or money to fight the legal battle anyway (for a statistically probable definition of "you.")
America: Guilty until innocence is paid for.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If they can crack your encrypted zip file in a few minutes, then youve done something horribly wrong.
Protip, ROT13 is encoding, not encryption.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I know cloud storage is trendy and all, and maybe I'm just an old fogey, but things like this just confirm my feeling that you should keep your stuff local. There isn't a lot of functional difference between a local storage appliance and storing your stuff in "the cloud". You can even outsource administration if you choose. The difference is, you won't lose your stuff due to the suspected bad behavior of some other company.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
That, in a word, is horseshit.
The legitimate users of the service have lost real property without any intent to do wrong. The takedown was without warning. The folks who lost their legitimate data have had their fourth amendment rights absolutely trampled.
And you think they should be grateful that all they lost was their data, and not their physical freedom?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no doubt that some people used megaupload for for copyright infringement, but it was also a perfectly legitimate service used for lawful purposes by many people.
We don't go bust Ma Bell just because we know that more than one crime has been plotted over the phone.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless they're complete morons they haven't lost any data. Anybody that trusts a cloud service to protect their data without retaining at least one copy is asking for trouble. So, unless their house burned down and their backups melted offsite as well they shouldn't have lost any data.
That being said, losing data to the feds that can then trawl through it looking for criminal offenses is much more reasonable. Although, those folks really should have chosen a service that encrypts the copies on the server.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Informative)
those folks really should have chosen a service that encrypts the copies on the server.
Right, because you can trust them not to decrypt everything for the government:
http://digital-lifestyles.info/2007/11/09/hushmail-opens-emails-to-us-dea/ [digital-lifestyles.info]
Re: (Score:3)
That's why you insist upon the data being encrypted before being uploaded to the service and only being decrypted after it's safely on your computer. It greatly reduces the amount of things that can happen to it when it's out of your control.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
A huge part of the whole cloud approach is that it is an approach to data storage that comes with all of the redundancy built in. The idea is that it's expensive to run your own redundant data stores, keep them secure, etc. So, one basically outsources it to the cloud.
Now we're in a situation where the manner in which some subset of the users of a given cloud can bring the entire thing down for everyone, resulting in the loss and exposure of everyone's data.
Let's consider for a minute AWS. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of companies that exist pretty much solely in AWS space. They rely upon the cloud for their existence. AWS is a lot more reputable than Megaupload. However, at the end of the day, the same problem potentially exists with storing things in the AWS cloud.
And if this can happen to one company, it can happen to any, including the "more reputable" ones like AWS. Especially with the SOPA-esque laws and treaties being pushed.
This will absolutely break the cloud model. It renders all the advantages of the cloud moot, and in fact, opens up a completely new security hole (that of unwarranted seizure and or destruction of data by government agencies, or perhaps even rival corporations with an accusation of illicit content). Disney thinks that MyLittleComic is storing their data in JoesCloud? Accuse JoesCloud of hosting illicit data, get the whole thing nuked.
This results in loss of business (at least in the USA); it makes it harder for the smaller firms and startups to be viable; and it further entrenches those corporations that are big enough to pay the appropiate bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbyist donations in Washington DC.
Finally, I would never, ever argue against due diligence. I would, however, claim that for a number of organizations that cloud use IS due diligence. And I'd still maintain that a good number of folk's fourth amendment rights were just tossed into the crapper.
Re: (Score:3)
> A huge part of the whole cloud approach is that it is an approach to data storage that comes with all of the redundancy built in. The idea is that it's expensive to run your own redundant data stores, keep them secure, etc. So, one basically outsources it to the cloud.
Parenthetically, how is cloud storage even remotely more secure than a storage appliance in your own machine room? Especially since you're depending on some other company, who only has a contractual obligation to you, and is trying to ru
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
A huge part of the whole cloud approach is that it is an approach to data storage that comes with all of the redundancy built in. The idea is that it's expensive to run your own redundant data stores, keep them secure, etc. So, one basically outsources it to the cloud.
I disagree. If you are using the "cloud" as your sole backup strategy, you have failed. I personally use 3 points of failure. Primary storage, which can be distributed and redundant by itself. Secondary storage, which is really just a copy of Primary but on different hardware. Finally, Offsite storage. I don't use Amazon for that, but another service which is a differential backup, with versioning, and we maintain the encryption keys locally. Only encrypted data gets uploaded to the service.
And if this can happen to one company, it can happen to any, including the "more reputable" ones like AWS. Especially with the SOPA-esque laws and treaties being pushed.
I don't think any company will be safe with SOPA type laws. The end game is going to be complete control and Big Brother watch points at every level of the network. The fundamental idea being that we can't live without Government thinking for us, doing what is in our best interest, and that it needs to be able to watch everything everywhere to protect the American Way of Life. Freedom cannot exist without UnFreedom.
If only I was making that up. How many examples could I give that show Government has that idea? Carnivore? Echelon? Clipper Chip?
This will absolutely break the cloud model. It renders all the advantages of the cloud moot, and in fact, opens up a completely new security hole (that of unwarranted seizure and or destruction of data by government agencies, or perhaps even rival corporations with an accusation of illicit content). Disney thinks that MyLittleComic is storing their data in JoesCloud? Accuse JoesCloud of hosting illicit data, get the whole thing nuked.
This is happening right now. I honestly believe the majority of all DMCA take down notices are fraudulent, hostile, and premeditated sociopathic behavior on the part of content companies.
Not just the DMCA either. Every aspect of government and regulations is gamed by corporations to gain an advantage on other corporations, citizens, or to suppress unpopular speech. Some of it has nothing to do with laws either. Astroturfing?
This results in loss of business (at least in the USA); it makes it harder for the smaller firms and startups to be viable; and it further entrenches those corporations that are big enough to pay the appropiate bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbyist donations in Washington DC.
The US has been fucked for years. The DMCA alone is responsible for huge monetary losses. People are just coming here to learn about technology and get degrees to flee elsewhere where there is more freedom, which is deeply tragic and ironic.
MegaUpload was not in the US. While I don't think this is SOPA-esque behavior because the FBI did conduct an investigation (due process), the people involved were clearly not just complicit, but actively involved in criminal copyright infringement, and stole data from their users. Seriously, we all know this true. Everybody has for years. Let's not feign ignorance simply because it serves the noble purpose of fighting for freedom. MegaUpload was a slimy ass site where you were more likely to get infected by something than to get what you wanted. Anybody I ever dealt with professionally used a different service for private file sharing like Dropbox.
What I do have serious questions about is how the FBI thinks it has international jurisdiction to arrest anyone anywhere when no US laws were violated on US soil.
Finally, I would never, ever argue against due diligence. I would, however, claim that for a number of organizations that cloud use IS due diligence. And I'd still mainta
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Then feel sorry for the thousands of small businesses who can't afford their own IT shops and have to farm their IT services out to consultants. If the consultant says, "We can host your data in the cloud so that both your office in Spokane and the one in Portland can access it without an expensive leased line and two dedicated file servers and save you a ton of money" it sounds like a good idea. "The Cloud" is the big buzz word, being pushed by some very respectable companies like IBM, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft, and the person who they're paying to be the expert recommends it. System works fine, they save a ton of money, they sell widgets or insurance, they're not IT experts. They're the ones who are going to get screwed, and royally.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
The legitimate users of the service have lost real property
No they haven't. It has been argued time and time again on this very site that the idea of "intellectual property" is nonsense and that the loss of data does not deprive you of anything real. If it's a legitimate argument for people who download music and movies, then it's a legitimate argument in this case. Or else it's inaccurate in both cases. You can't have it both ways.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
No they haven't. It has been argued time and time again on this very site that the idea of "intellectual property" is nonsense and that the loss of data does not deprive you of anything real. If it's a legitimate argument for people who download music and movies, then it's a legitimate argument in this case. Or else it's inaccurate in both cases. You can't have it both ways.
The discussions you're referring to were about making more copies of the data. This discussion is about taking offline servers with copies, many of which were probably the last accessible to the original uploader. This is akin to BBC scraping its archives in the 1970s. Good luck getting the surviving copies back from those who downloaded them before server shutdown.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the indictment:
all users are warned in Megaupload.comâ(TM)s âoeFrequently Asked Questionsâ and Terms of Service that they should not keep the sole copy of any file on Megaupload.com and that users bear all risk of data loss. The Mega Conspiracyâ(TM)s duty to retain any data for even a premium user explicitly ends when either the premium subscription runs out or Megaupload.com decides, at its sole discretion and without any required notice, to stop operating.
But besides this, Megaupload was not positioned as a legitimate backup site. If that's what people wanted, it sure wasn't competing against Carbonite. Numerous sources describe that if you didn't have a premium account then any files you uploaded got deleted if they weren't downloaded within a 21 day period. That's not for backups; that's purely for sharing files, for transferring files from me to you.
There are a ton of people in this story saying exactly this - if you uploaded your only copy of a file to this (or any other) cloud site, then more fool you.
Finally, my comment was about the poster I replied to talking about people being deprived of real property, and pointing out that the prevailing claim on Slashdot is that data files aren't real. One or a thousand copies of the file - according to posters here, it makes no difference in the real world.
So a data file disappears, forever? So what? Nobody's lost real property, have they? Unless you argue about all the work and effort and time spent to create that work - but now we're back to recognizing that electronic data files, despite not being real, nonetheless have "real" origins, and "real" impacts.
The debate is clearly purely semantic, but it's used constantly on Slashdot when the shoe is on the other foot and it's somehow considered an irrefutable stance.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not defending copyright infringement here, I'm just pointing out your terrible logic.
Re:Evidence (Score:4, Informative)
Copying is not theft. Jefferson said "he who lights a taper from me, receives light without darkening me."
But destruction of your only copy IS theft. "He who snuffs my own taper while it's sitting on the shelf where I intentionally left it for access later DOES darken me."
Sure, some people use cloud storage as a way to transfer files from point A to point B, ending up with three copies: A's, cloud's, and B's. But many people use cloud storage for... you know... storage. Archives. Record-keeping. Zero copies at home, one archive copy in the cloud. This is a real danger of cloud services, and governmental shuttering of sites is only one way that a cloud can fail.
The lost is real (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Incorrect. Rights are things that occur naturally, like ownership of your body, your speech, your thought.
Preventing people from copying is a *temporary monopoly* that has been given to you as a privilege. And like all government-granted monopolies it is only given to you for a short term, and only so long as the monopoly is considered beneficial for society.
As Thomas Jefferson wisely wrote ~250 years ago, "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the
Is it an interesting question... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if the answer is "backup"?
Re:Is it an interesting question... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if the answer is "backup"?
Everyone has been told time and again that backing up to the cloud is a great idea. A lot of businesses bought into that. The risks of doing just that have now been made abundantly clear. Personally I'm reaching for my DAT.
Re:Is it an interesting question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't "backing up to the cloud" mean that you still have the original copy stored locally?
Re: (Score:3)
It does if you're doing it right. But you could still be screwed if your dog eats your laptop right after your cloud goes poof.
Re:Is it an interesting question... (Score:5, Funny)
Cloud backup: The safety of an 8-member RAID0 array of SSDs combined with the speed of tape.
Re:Is it an interesting question... (Score:4, Informative)
Tape has terrible random access speed but any half-decent LTO tape drive can move data as fast as - if not faster than - most hard disks.
Re:Is it an interesting question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Offsite != cloud. Though you know this already. Personally I find the idea of using the cloud for offsite backups horrendous. The last thing I want to do after having lost everything is wait for eons for 100GB of backup to finish.
The slow speed of internet services in general is a disincentive to perform frequent backups. Use physical media, and take it offsite to a different location. Store it at your friend's house or at work.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't "backing up" also usually involve multiple failsafes?
Why would you upload it to one place and *only* one place?
You can easily use sites like Rapidshare, Fileserve, etc. as a backup service. Links deleted in 90 days? Have an automated script download them every 89 days to reset the counter or however the rules go.
Re: (Score:3)
I think any source is at risk. Relying on your data being in one location is always a risk.
Using the a cloud data storage location simply adds another layer of redundancy to help prevent you from losing your data. It is probably not the most reliable method, and it is almost certainly not the most secure.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't "the cloud" supposed to provide redundant back?
Isn't that a big part of the point right there?
Re: (Score:3)
In the example given, it isn't even that interesting - with Dropbox, your files are available locally as its a syncing service and not a cloud access service. The only scenario in which you won't have a local copy is if you are using the website only (i.e. not as the service is designed to be used) or have been very very prolific with Selective Sync.
If Dropbox goes away, my files remain available in my local Dropbox folder.
Not an issue for Dropbox (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not an issue for Dropbox (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Consider them gone. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can afford to lose the data, it's fine to have it in the cloud.
If you can't, you are SOL if you don't have a backup - one that is not in the cloud.
Re:Consider them gone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, this is why on-shore cloud computing will never take off, why would a foreign entity want to put in this position. XDA won't get their hosting back, but I highly doubt they lost anything, it's developers after all. But imagine if your business relied on megaupload, say for high speed downloads of your companies product, you'd be hurting.
Still I don't see how paying uploaders can directly be linked to promoting file sharing. It's still the uploaders choice to make the money via copyrighted material...
And a Third Suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
Now XDA-Developers is going to have tens of thousands of once helpful posts that now lead to a broken link. How could they have avoided this? Well, I'd imagine that someone could have written an internal bot for their forums that would harvest links to the external megaupload. They then could have subscribed to megaupload, downloaded said linked files and created a local cache of their files purely for their own use on a small RAID. Now the last thing the bot would need to do is take the megaupload URL and develop some unique URI
It's a pain in the ass but let's face it, some forums could perish when their codependence on megaupload is fully realized in a very painful manner. And I don't think that's a fair risk to the users who have created hundreds of thousands of posts.
Re:Consider them gone. (Score:5, Insightful)
I never understood why people would upload a copy of a file to the Internet, manually/purposefully delete their only local copy, and proceed to complain that they no longer have a local copy.
Why on earth would you delete it from your computer?!?
There is NO excuse for this problem.
This is FAR from a new issue with "the cloud" either.
People used to do the exact same thing with web-hosting.
They would upload their website to a web server somewhere, delete their only copy, then when the hosting company went under, had the server crash, disk failure, whatever... the user would proceed to blame the ISP for the fact the user themselves deleted their only copy from their own computer. wtf?
The standard rule for backups is, if you can't bother to have two copies (One on your computer, one backed up on another device) then it clearly wasn't important enough to warrant bitching about when you lose it. That rule implied ONE copy was not enough... Why on earth would people think ZERO copies is any better?
Hard drives die. It's a fact of life. The "if" is always a yes, only the "when" is variable.
That fact alone is reason enough to already have more than one copy in your own home on your own equipment.
A provider disappearing like this should be nothing worse than a minor inconvenience in finding somewhere else to host it and upload another copy, then chase down URLs pointing there and update them. Sure, that can be a bit of work and is quite annoying, but it should be nothing on the scale of data loss.
Storage is cheap.
Encryption is easy (Thanks to the efforts of projects like PGP [symantec.com], GPG [gnupg.org], and TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org])
BackupPC [sourceforge.net] is free, runs on Linux which is free, and can be as simple as an old Pentium-2 desktop sitting unused in your basement that you toss a couple extra hard drives in.
You set it up once and it does everything for you! It daily grabs copies of other computers, all automated, all by itself. It can backup Linux, Windows, and even OSX via the network. You can feed it DHCP logs to watch for less frequently connected machines like laptops. It de-duplicates to save disk space, and can email you if and when a problem crops up. I only check mine twice or so a year just to make sure things are running (never had a problem yet) and as it deletes older backups only when needed to make room for new ones, with de-duplication I can go grab a file from any date between now and three years ago, at any stage of editing (Well, in 3 day increments for my servers.. but it's all configurable, and should be set based on the importance of the data!)
On ubuntu and debian based systems, it is a single apt-get install away. Likely just as easy on any other distro with package management.
Any true computer geek can slap together such a system with zero cost and spending less than an afternoon. Anyone else can do so for minimal cost and perhaps a day of work.
Apple has ridiculously easy backup software (Time Machine?), and Windows has the advantage of most of the software out there being written for it, so the odds that there are less than five different software packages to do this exact same thing is next to impossible.
Hell, even for non-geeks, most people have that one guy or gal in the family who supports everyones computers. Just ask them! They will likely be ecstatic to help, possibly will donate spare parts from their collection (Or find you the best prices on parts if not) - and be content in the fact they won't have to tell you things like "Sorry, your hard drive has the click-o-death, I can't recover anything from it." which no one likes to need to say.
This is worth repeating: There is NO excuse for this problem.
Personally, if it's important, I have a bare minimum of four copies.
One for actually using, on my system drive.
One that got a
Cloud was stupid from the start in the first place (Score:5, Insightful)
The foolishness that is millions of users trusting a single giant computing grid owned by a single private corporation was stupid in the first place.
it is everyone putting their eggs in the same giant basket
ranging from policy changes to mergers/takeovers/acquisitions to bankruptcies to government intervention - whatever you can imagine. its a single point of failure and your important stuff is gone.
moreover, these cloud stuff are utilized for making collaboration tools work. so if cloud is gone, there goes your entire communication in between your team, company, clients, workgroup, whatever.
its strategically stupid. run your own cloud if you want. dont put your stuff on another company's turf. its dangerous.
All their eggs in the same basket (Score:5, Insightful)
But once the SOPA-esque laws and treaties become The Way That Things Are (tm) - and unless things change drastically, they eventually will - and once the Great Consolidation has run its course - what choice will there be?
Re:All their eggs in the same basket (Score:5, Insightful)
How is SOPA going to stop you from hosting your files yourself?
Re:All their eggs in the same basket (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't.
It would, however, prevent you from using any sort of cloud hosting if you want to keep your data private. Because in order to be SOPA compliant, a cloud would have to scan your data to ensure that you didn't have any sort of "illicit" files.
So - why use the cloud at all? Well, for better or worse, services like AWS make it possible for certain businesses to grow and thrive - and in some cases, exist at all.
Which brings us back to my original point. Given the constant push by the seriously monied interests in SOPA-esque laws and treaties worldwide, and given the trend towards consolidation of the various corporations and services out there, eventually, it's going to be hard for a certain class of business and user not to have all their eggs in one basket - a basket that has both corporate and government eyes peeking at pretty much every bit that's out there.
If this scenario does not appeal, then perhaps a way to change the underlying trends of corporate and government Big Brotherhood needs be found.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't any government that is the problem. Stupid clients who think you are a dinosaur for not putting everything "in the cloud" who are the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
No it's not, you luddite. If I upload a file into the cloud, the file now exists in two places. I have it, and the cloud has it, and now maybe other people have it too. It is exactly the opposite of everything putting their eggs in one basket. It is more like magically multiplying your single egg among many baskets, so that any basket which disappears still leaves you with a bunch of eggs in a bunch of baskets, with plenty of eggs for everyone.
If I'm wrong, then you will kindly point out how now nobody can
Files = Pokemon (Score:3, Funny)
I've always wondered what happens to Pokemon in a trainers' computer when the trainer dies/quits/etc. I imagine the same would happen to megaupload files. Like the pokemon lost in a nonphysical oblivion for all eternity, these files will endure an endless torture of nothingness.
Re:Files = Pokemon (Score:5, Funny)
Lots of us do but few are willing to admit it ;-)
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)
For the same reason that some suspects are kept in jail pending their trial: it is considered highly likely by the judge presiding over the case that the criminal activity would continue, or evidence be destroyed. "Due process" includes that decision, and the prosecution and defendant both state their position before the judge makes that decision. That stage has passed.
BTW, I read the complaint. The core of the accusations are twofold: first that the Megaupload folks willfully hosted infringing content (thus losing the safe harbor protections that shield other hosting services); they knew and did nothing. Second, that through other businesses and websites they controlled, the Megaupload folks deliberately solicited infringing content and directed it to Megaupload (hence the "conspiracy" charges, which mean something very specific and not necessarily the tinfoil hats and black helicopters so popular among bloggers who think they know the meaning of a word). If those complaints are true (and none of us here knows that or will decide that; we are not the jury, and we are not seeing the evidence), then yeah, they're gonna go to jail and be stripped of every penny they own. That's reality, regardless of whether Anonymous, Slashdot, or anyone else likes it or not.
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem with the "willful" argument in general.
Either you can have a cloud in which your data is private, or the owners of the cloud can actively prevent the use of the cloud for hosting "infringing content".
You can't have both.
Re: (Score:3)
The servers can be seized as evidence and the service shut down to prevent additional harm being done while the case is decided. It's effectively very similar to a restraining order. It's a civil thing, so innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply, but rather until the issue is determined, the justice department moves to ensure more harm is not done. The idea is that to do so it should be pretty damn clear that policies are not being followed and the indictment does a pretty good job of documenting how
Re: (Score:3)
The servers can be seized as evidence and the service shut down to prevent additional harm being done while the case is decided. It's effectively very similar to a restraining order. It's a civil thing, so innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply, but rather until the issue is determined, the justice department moves to ensure more harm is not done. The idea is that to do so it should be pretty damn clear that policies are not being followed and the indictment does a pretty good job of documenting how they were not.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment [scribd.com] - around page 30 is the most damning part.
This is a criminal case, not a civil case. It's not similar to a restraining order. Evidence was seized so that it can be used to prosecute the accused. I wish them good luck with their defense. They're sure going to need it.
Simple... (Score:3, Funny)
Your files will glow in golden sunlight when the cloud dissipates... =)
Fortunately, we've already discussed this problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, we need a magical, distributed, self-healing data storage system. I think I've heard of one or two of these (can anyone provide links, if they exist?) but I guess they haven't been popular enough to be remembered. (And I'm not talking about mere P2P; I'm thinking something more like distributed, redundant storage with the structural resilience of BitCoin.)
Don't put all your eggs in one basket (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even trust GMail to keep my e-mail store forever, but download them to my own copy of Thunderbird each day. GMail is probably not going away any time soon, but what would I do if for some reason they shut down my account? Customer service for issues like this at Google isn't exactly stellar. If you don't have your own backups of what you have in the cloud, you are asking for trouble.
There is nothing magic about the "Cloud" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
It goes away. Hope you had a backup.
If you're lucky, the cloud provider may provide you with a one-time access to your account, but isn't it far safer to assume that if your cloud provider goes down, you've lost everything you put in? Not just data, either - if you've prepaid your account, you probably lost all that stored value as well.
Cloud storage providers especially. What happens if your hard drive dies? You lose the data. What happens if your backup tapes fail - you've lost the backup. What happens if your dropbox/skydrive/etc. disappear? You've lost your files.
All those XDA Developer links? Gone. hope the original authors are still around to upload them elsewhere or that someone downloaded it and can upload it.
Cloud providers make us lazy - we think "it'll always be around and I can grab it later". Turns out later can disappear - perhaps temporary (e.g., your or their internet connection dies), or permanently. But it's really just the same as storing files locally - there's a chance the storage may fail.
This is why you can't rely on cloud services (Score:4, Informative)
One story down (Score:5, Interesting)
Is a case against some Dell folks for massive insider trading scam.
Wanna take a whild guess as to who gets more jail time?
While I'll gladly build a cloud based system... (Score:3, Insightful)
SOPA breaks the notion of the Cloud (Score:5, Insightful)
Prime example evidence #1 of how SOPA breaks the cloud.
A single complaint that a cloud service has a copyright file can result in a takedown of the entire cloud. Stranding all clients of that cloud.
Thanks to the government and their extra-judicial processes, they have broken the notion of internet provided services.
I just read the full indictment (Score:5, Informative)
What happens to the Cloud when it rains ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The economics of using multiple hosting providers (Score:3)
Shouldn't matter. (Score:3)
If you're using file storage/replication services as a backup, then you have the originals. The point of a backup is that you can lose either of the copies and still have another. That's relevant whether it's the original that goes up in flames, or the backup.
If you're these services as the sole-source for storage, then you're doing it just as wrongly as if you used a single local storage device, or else the data isn't important enough to worry about losing.
I told you so. Repeatedly. (Score:3)
Data loss is FAR from the worst possible outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Drives seized, eventually end up for sale to the public, random people now own your data.
2. Cloud provider hacked, dangerous random people now own your data.
3. Drives seized, feds download all your data and start going through it to see if they can make a case against you. (Oh, you don't think they can? Keep in mind the words of Cardinal Richelieu: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.")
4. Drives seized, someone decides to make a few extra bucks selling your data to your competitors. Or spammers. Or phishers.
5. Drives seized, someone graciously decides to let you "have your data back", but what you get back is not what you think it is -- it's been quietly, carefully modified. Maybe your research statistics have been subtly corrupted; maybe there's malware in it; maybe it's missing a few key pieces here and there.
When you use a cloud provider, all you've got is your best hope. And "hope" is not a valid security strategy.
What happens to them? (Score:4, Funny)
First Rule of Cloud Computing Use: Never upload anything to the cloud you wouldn't want the entire world to see.
Are you going to get this data back? Of course not. The servers have been seized by the government because they were used for criminal activities. They're not going to take the time to go through everyone's files to find the good ones and give them back.
They're going to count up the number of items that look like copyrighted content (7 billion copyrighted photographs, 28 million ripped DVDs, etc.), come up with a multiplier for each type ($5,000 for each photo, $15 million for each DVD, etc.) and then tell the judge the copyright infringement at Megaupload was so massive, the value of the damages is greater than the amount of U.S. debt held by China.
Second Rule of Cloud Computing Use: Never assume that you have any guarantee of access to anything in the cloud.
Keep in mind that the Rules of Cloud Computing Use are a necessary because of the Three Laws of Cloud Computing:
Feds going through your data (Score:3)
Losing access to your data is only one of the points to be made here.
There's also the question of the government having access to your information. With one blanket warrant (the website), the government now has access to all the files of all users, whether infringing or not.
This is roughly akin to the government getting a search warrant for a bank, and rooting around in all the safety deposit boxes.
Another question relates to the security of the data.
As I understand it, MegaUpload allows users to choose who has access to their data. If your data was valuable, what happens if that value is lost due to the feds losing control over it?
Does the government guarantee the safety of the data? Can the government be sued if your trade secrets mysteriously find their way to the hands of your competitors? Or to China?
Indicting the owners of MegaUpload is one thing, but every way you look at it the seizure of the data is an infringement of people's rights.
toast (Score:3, Insightful)
What Happens To Your Files When a Cloud Service Shuts Down?
They're toast.
That was the easiest "Ask Slashdot" ever. What's the next question?
No, really. That's all there is to say about it. Everything else either follows from there, is trivially obvious, or is pure speculation, ranting, off-topic or trolling.
List of Seized cars... (Score:3, Interesting)
2005 Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM, VIN WDB2093422F165517, LicensePlate No. “GOOD”;69.
2004 Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM AMG 5.5L Kompressor, VINWDB2093422F166073, License Plate No. “EVIL”;70.
2010 Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG L, VIN WDD2211792A324354, LicensePlate No. “CEO”;7071.
2008 Rolls-Royce Phantom Drop Head Coupe, VINSCA2D68096UH07049; License Plate No. “GOD”;72.
2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG, VIN WDD2120772A103834, LicensePlate No. “STONED”;73.
2010 Mini Cooper S Coupe, VIN WMWZG32000TZ03651, License PlateNo. “V”;74.
2010 Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG, VIN
WDC1641772A608055, LicensePlate No. “GUILTY”;75.
2007 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG, VIN WDD2163792A025130, LicensePlate No. “KIMCOM”;76.
2009 Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG, VIN WDC1641772A542449,LicensePlate No. “MAFIA”;77.
2010 Toyota Vellfire, VIN 7AT0H65MX11041670, License Plate Nos.“WOW” or “7”;78.
2011 Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG, VIN WDB4632702X193395, LicensePlate Nos. “POLICE” or “GDS672”;79.
2011 Toyota Hilux, VIN MR0FZ29G001599926, License PlateNo. “FSN455”;80.
Harley Davidson Motorcycle, VIN 1HD1HPH3XBC803936, LicensePlate No. “36YED”;81.
2010 Mercedes-Benz CL63 AMG, VIN WDD2163742A026653, LicensePlate No. “HACKER”;82.
2005 Mercedes-Benz A170, VIN WDD1690322J184595, License PlateNo. “FUR252”;83.
2005 Mercedes-Benz ML500, VIN WDC1641752A026107, License PlateNo. DFF816;84.
Fiberglass sculpture, imported from the United Kingdom with EntryNo. 83023712;85.
1957 Cadillac El Dorado, VIN 5770137596;86.
2010 Sea-Doo GTX Jet Ski, VIN YDV03103E010;87.
1959 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible, VIN 59F115669;88.
Von Dutch Kustom Motor Bike, VIN 1H9S14955BB451257;89.
2006 Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM, VIN WDB2094421T067269;90.
2010 Mini Cooper S Coupe, VIN WMWZG32000TZ03648 LicensePlate No. “T”;7191.
1989 Lamborghini LM002, VIN ZA9LU45AXKLA12158, License PlateNo. “FRP358”;92.
2011 Mercedes-Benz ML63, VIN 4JGBB7HB0BA666219;
Trust *anything* to the cloud. Pay the stupid tax. (Score:3)
You thought your content was safe. You lost. You thought your content was secure. You lost. You thought your content couldn't be seen or decrypted by third parties. Odds are, you lost there too.
I wish I had more sympathy, but "the cloud" still looks like a sucker's game pushed by government-corporations as a way to acquire, monitor and control digital content for economic and political purposes. Think anything else and you're just being a gullible fool. Sorry, but that's the real world you see in those broken links today.
Re:PIPA/SOPA Backlash (Score:4, Informative)
I would not be in the least bit surprised if a class action suit against the government (or something of that nature) was launched from all those who had legitimate files on Megaupload. Imagine if the USG shut down Youtube when it was first starting up. But truthfully, we are as a society held to the laws we make. To quote a lawyer once while I was in court, "If people don't like the laws, they should change them."
What are you smoking? First, you can't sue the government (easily). Second, the ones to sue are the people running Megaupload. If you had a valid contract with them to give them money so they store your data, then it was _their_ duty to ensure your data is safe. One part of their duty is to not commit illegal activities that gets them closed down.
Re:PIPA/SOPA Backlash (Score:4, Insightful)
One part of their duty is to not commit illegal activities that gets them closed down.
At this point, it has not been demonstrated whether Megaupload has committed any illegal activities (remember the presumption of innocence and all that). The problem is that it's not unfathomable for an entity to be taken down in this fashion regardless of whether they actually commited any crime; especially if SOPA/PIPA or any similar legislation ever gets passed.