• @gardylou
    link
    English
    436 months ago

    The root problem is that Google offered unlimited storage as an option in the first place. That at least should have given a clear stated cap on uploads. The guy should have been more proactive since May too, no one really is fully in the right here.

    • @olympicyes
      link
      English
      126 months ago

      Cloud storage like that cost $3-6k per month without egress fees, depending on service. He could’ve been a little more skeptical about the free offering. If you’re not paying you have no recourse.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        166 months ago

        I’m pretty sure he was paying - the deletion email mentions that his subscription would be cancelled.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          46 months ago

          Yeah he was probably paying like $10/mo for a really basic GSuite organization with unlimited data. I know because I did that for a few years with some TBs of backups. When I first set the account up, I knew with certainty that Google would eventually cut me off because yeah that kind of service is worth way more than $10/mo in reality.

          I’ve been getting emails for months saying I’m over the limit. I can’t remember if they ever said specifically they would delete my data because I stopped paying for it before it got to that point. Kind of crazy IMHO to assume Google will store so many TBs forever for only $10/mo. Still, would be real nice of them to give this guy a little more time to download his data.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            46 months ago

            It’s not ridiculous when that’s the service they offered. The courts should honestly stick them to their word (small companies have been driven out of business for much less) but we all know that’s not happening in a corporatocracy like this.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              16 months ago

              True. To be fair, I believe the original terms required you pay for a minimum of 5 employees (so $50/mo). No great love for Google here, and I would love to see the courts make them honor something like this if they did indeed advertise falsely.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Yeah, that’s my main issue - having a 1 week deadline for deletion sprung on you when it’s not physically possible to extricate the data in that timespan is rough.

        • @olympicyes
          link
          English
          16 months ago

          You’re right, that’s a paid plan. I guess my point was more that you need to look out for your own interests a bit. If his storage has been read-only for the past 6 months then that would be a strong clue to do something about it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Probably, but A) dude literally had his hardware yoinked by the cops and B) there was no reasonable schedule shared with the user re: data deletion.

            I wish googles “read only” notification said “we will delete your data after 3 months of read-only status”, just to allow folks to properly plan. If you told me the only penalty was my data will be read only, and kept accepting my money, I would assume everything is okay.

      • newcockroach
        link
        English
        06 months ago

        I don’t know about google but being a free used doent change that you are a coustmer and that you will be affected by it. If you go to a public collage and you are getting a free education ,then arent you allowed to question the authorities?. Other than that the journalist is in the wrong too.