From time to time, I have a perisistent feeling that iCloud might be misplacing my files. It's just a feeling, but I realized that it's quite challenging to be sure it's not happening.
Canon's cloud platform has lost users' files and can't restore them
211–220 of 419 posts
Re: Canon's cloud platform has lost users' files and can't restore them
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The cloud is not a backup Of course the cloud is a backup. Why do you think it isn’t? Because it may break? All storage may break. The cloud is a backup. Like all backups, you need multiple independent backups.
321 rule for backups: 3 copies, 2 different media, at least 1 off site Something is not a backup if you haven't tested that you can restore from it. All backups not in your direct physical possession should be encrypted before being written.
[deleted]
Re: Canon's cloud platform has lost users' files and can't restore them
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or what? They could and they did.
Or they could like, not. I think there's a world where corporations aren't given a carte blanche pass on human decency. I believe that world is nicer and where possible I work to give it room to exist; I boycott Disney because I believe what they did to the copyright system is wrong. I don't use Google or Microsoft products because I don't think they treat users with respect. (Minus youtube which I use a mirror, and…
> I think there's a world where corporations aren't given a carte blanche pass on human decency.
I'll wager a guess that in that world a corporation is not a 'legal person'. In that world, a "person" must have human characteristics. They call it the Legal Turing Test.
Re: Canon's cloud platform has lost users' files and can't restore them
#214Lesson for those designing cold-storage solutions--design your system, as much as reasonable, to not support deletion operations. The reason why files get lost is usually due to software bugs, bad configurations, and operator errors. Design your system to protect against these things.
If memory serves, a class of Glacier storage (AWS) isn't practical to use in the EU because the inability to delete makes it impossible to serve "Right to Erasure" GDPR requests.
I see memory served me incorrectly! Apologies if I have spread misinformation. It was an offhand comment from an AWS rep a few years ago and things may have changed.
Re: Canon's cloud platform has lost users' files and can't restore them
#215This is all because someone thought it would be “easy” to add a stream of recurring revenue for cloud photo storage but didn’t take the time to design the service from a technical perspective to be resilient enough to not crash and burn.
How do you know this?
Because this explanation:
>Canon has announced the results of its investigation into the loss of image data on the image.canon cloud platform. According to Canon, when the company switched over to a new version of the image.canon software on 30 July, the code to control the short-term storage operated on both the short-term storage and the long-term storage functions, causing the loss of some images stored for more than 30 days.
seems pretty banal. Updating a service and forgetting to update the backups is not an uncommon thing, and quite a few software companies have published post mortems saying they did exactly that.
Re: Canon's cloud platform has lost users' files and can't restore them
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Minus youtube which I use a mirror" ?
Not the poster, but intent was probably something like "... which I use [via] a mirror" I suppose it partially aligns with the intent of a boycott
Mhm, it was a disclosure of the extent of the boycott, as it is unfortunately difficult to get away from YouTube. Taken further it's also about denying data (which recommendations I click through, at which times, from which videos, in which moods etc, and social graph via view timings).
Edit: I don't believe that kind of stuff should be collected without explicit, informed user consent. Make it clear what you're collecting and doing with it and chances are I'll opt-in.
https://instances.invidio.us/ Deleted sibling comment: https://i.imgur.com/YhXIU6O.png
Re: Canon's cloud platform has lost users' files and can't restore them
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but not all photos at the original resolution Thats why you backup the original data and NOT the downscaled etc one. >But how much are you really willing to pay, per month, for that safety? You have to backup ALL your customers data, otherwise DONT go into file-hosting business.
With your argument, Google photos should also not be in business since they also don't back up your original resolution unless you pay.
But Google makes it very clear that they don't backup the original photos.
Re: Canon's cloud platform has lost users' files and can't restore them
#218From time to time, I have a perisistent feeling that iCloud might be misplacing my files. It's just a feeling, but I realized that it's quite challenging to be sure it's not happening.
It’s not so hard. A few command line commands on a Mac. Store the md5 of each file, throw it into a JSON file. Load it all up in a dict. I do something similar every month. Gotta do something with those cores overnight :)
It’s very brute force and inelegant, but also simple and quick enough.
Re: Canon's cloud platform has lost users' files and can't restore them
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or that actually happened, in the known Ford Pinto Memo "affair": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost–benefit_analys...
And a little further down the same page you linked.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safet... Turns out the Pinto was within the realm of normal for a car of that type and era and if you're building something normal it's hard to justify recalling it at great expense unless everyone else is recalling it to (in which case that would be normal).
This thread has been a bit of a roller coaster.
Re: Canon's cloud platform has lost users' files and can't restore them
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intent tends to matter with the law. Ford knew there was a problem, knew they could fix it, and elected not to because "it's a small number of deaths". You can replace things, not people. That retrospective analysis utterly misses the point: for the area they were responsible for, if the company knew they could do better and elected not to, then they got treated exactly as they should have.
>Intent tends to matter with the law. Ford knew there was a problem, knew they could fix it, and elected not to because "it's a small number of deaths". You can replace things, not people. Per the link posted by the GP the Pinto did not have any problems relative to other cars of the same type and era. Ford's "intent" (if you can call it that since they didn't know the future at the time) was to say "err, we don't re…
Seems like you're failing to address the 'knew they were going to kill people' part.
Everyone can always do better, but everyone doesn't know exactly which of their decisions will end up killing another person. If you DO know that, then you're obligated to change things.