6 comments

  • hn_throwaway_99 25 minutes ago
    I think stories like these highlight the need for clearer (not necessarily more) regulations around contractor/subcontractor/client relationships and what happens when one of them goes tits up.

    There were rampant issues in the fintech world that exploded when Synapse, a banking as a service provider, went bankrupt and their ledger didn't match what partner banks had in their accounts. End users were told "your deposits are FDIC insured", but in bankruptcy court the judge was sort of at a loss over how to rectify things - the banks weren't insolvent, and the FDIC (rightfully) said "hey, this isn't our problem, our regulated entities are in compliance". Looks like a similar situation happened here, where the contractors are both doing the "not it" thing.

    I feel like a lot of tech innovation and "business process innovation" over the past 15 years was just ignoring regulations that were built up over decades, only discovering the reasons for those regulations when the tide went out and seeing that lots of companies had been pantsless the whole time.

  • boscillator 1 hour ago
    The ruling seems fair and reasonable, and I'm surprised they couldn't come to the same conclusion without a court.
    • Jtsummers 1 hour ago
      Sometimes these things can go better for companies like Iron Mountain when there's a court order/decision in place to cover them. Nine PBS, in order to access their own data, could end up accessing data belonging to other people and that may not be properly covered under existing contracts and policies. It's a risk for Iron Mountain if this happens. Having a court decision and court set procedures that essentially force them to participate and also establishes third party review of the data will give them some cover if one of those other clients of the now defunct OSS discovers that Nine PBS accessed or inadvertently retained their data.
    • bluGill 1 hour ago
      A court is needed for cover since it is possible that sometimes else's data will be seen or even corrupted in the process. This way they can say they were doing what the court asked for. That is legal cover for everyone to do what they want. Also legal limits on what they can do.

      That is how I interpret the article anyway

  • s1artibartfast 1 hour ago
    Im curious why this topic has been popping up in the news. It seems like a bog standard contractor/subcontractor obligation case.
    • dylan604 1 hour ago
      If Iron Mountain made a deal with PBS-affiliate, they'd be breaking the terms of the contract with their customer (the fact it is defunct is just an asterisk). If you were an Iron Mountain client and one of your customers made an end run around you to go directly to Iron Mountain because they refused to pay your bill, you'd be pissed at Iron Mountain.

      By solving this as they have done, Iron Mountain can assure other clients they will not just let a third person circumvent their clients. They can now say they only did it by a court order even if they were more than willing to accept the asterisk and do it on principle. Everyone is happy. Everyone is whole.

    • telotortium 27 minutes ago
      The initial reporting implied it was some catastrophic data loss, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Universal_Studios_fire. The truth, while concerning, is a lot more boring.

      Also some articles and people on social media were unclear that it was just a single PBS station involved, rather than all PBS content. I saw comments that thought that all the archives for Sesame Street were lost.

    • Barbing 42 minutes ago
      A non-profit in a deeply unfair situation tugs at the heartstrings.
    • anigbrowl 1 hour ago
      Archival/secure storage is big business with big liability headaches if you make a bad decisiion.
  • Magicrafter13 53 minutes ago
    > These archives represent an important part of our region’s history, and we look forward to ensuring their preservation and protection through the Court-approved process.

    Apparently you didn't find them important enough to have backups. Hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in net income and they couldn't afford a cheap NAS with 4 disks. Incredible.

    • MadnessASAP 50 minutes ago
      They did, they contracted with a vendor to store and backup the data. If that is insufficient then just about every customer of AWS, Azure, GCP, OCP, and every other managed storage provider is guilty of the same sin.
      • aaronmdjones 34 minutes ago
        I have to agree with GP here, this is pretty incredible. They contracted with a vendor to store their data, not to back it up. It's not a backup if you can lose it in the same instant you lose the data.

        You're right, they are. If your data can't survive a single storage host vanishing from existence, you don't have a backup. If your data can't survive one predictable or regularly occurring catastrophic act of nature, you don't have a backup. If your data can't survive a piece of malware -- with all of the credentials you have -- erasing it, you don't have a backup.

        EDIT: Also, if you don't regularly test that your backups actually work, you probably don't have a backup. Lots of companies learn that one the hard way.

        • jambalaya8 24 minutes ago
          If you do not have at least one, but usually two copies of a backup in your physical possession, you do not have a backup. |o-o|
      • stronglikedan 31 minutes ago
        Then that is just the 1 in 3-2-1 backups, and neglecting the 3 & 2 is a sin (wrt backup strategies).
    • Barbing 43 minutes ago
      I wonder the proportion of companies who store backups with a minimum of two separate vendors. Low?
  • alexthedigger 24 minutes ago
    So many activist judges, you just have to shop around until you find the right one. It’s amazing, no downsides, no penalties. In my next career I’m going to be a judge.