New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
There is literally no reason for the provider to delete ALL OF THE DATA, i repeat ALL OF THE DATA of a paying customer that it still have active service. In fact, nobody did this, like ever. I can understand if the guy late on renewal, but no. The guy has an active subscription. There is no justifiable reason, for this. Just because you failed or have no idea to implement a STOP SWITCH when your customer get over quota, doesn't mean you can just outright delete ALL OF THE DATA. I want to know what's the logic of the developer that engineer such a contraption.
exactly. if the storage was full don't allow further uploads but keep the uploaded data safe. why to delete that? Indeed Filen is culprit as they've developed some bad deletion policy.
You are only allowed to use 100 Mbps of that 10 Gbps port. It's up to you to keep under 100 Mbps. If you go over 100 Mbps, we won't throttle you, we'll just terminate your service.
Yes, it's that ridiculous when you think about it.
In fairness, your statement should read "if you go over 100 Mbps, we will give you multiple warnings over the span of several weeks. If you ignore those, then we will terminate your service".
When you think about it like that this is not that uncommon in other services. If you constantly max out resources like cpu or bandwidth on a shared vps, it is not uncommon that the provider will terminate the service. It's often defined in the AUP.
But this is like comparing apples with oranges so I don't really see the point of it.
Emails can easily get lost, and if you max out the CPU or any other resource, you should have the service suspended, not terminated with all files deleted (unless your actions are clearly intentional and abusive). But going over a storage limit? That shouldn't even be possible. Your storage should just be capped.
They deleted all his data for going over quota.
How is that reasonable in any universe, comparison, or analogy?
What kind of moron is going to use a backup service where it's even possible for a quota issue (real or imagined, amount irrelevant) to cause deletion of all existing stored data?
Not an actual question.
If you haven't already, go back and read Cybr's post. It sounds like it was an edge-case bug, where the system thought they were downgrading. Still not good, but it makes more sense in light of this.
Sounds like @VeloxMedia ... And I mean it
He ignored several warnings over several weeks, then complains when the thing that they warned him about actually happened.
Not saying I agree with their policy, but complaining when something you have been repeatedly warned will happen actually happens is peak snowflake.
Did he ignore it or just not read it because he didn't think it contained what it contained?
The problem is that the provider would ever do that. It doesn't matter whether they gave warnings via email, certified mail, or painted it in the sky. At most, warnings would be a mitigating factor in this offense.
A storage service should not be a Pythagorean cup.
Atleast user got a full refund and a free lifetime account and they made/making changes but I have never seen them as a reliable provider and this case shows that my opinion is correct.
If i try to upload something and would exceed my quota, the upload is not possible or gets canceled during the upload, atleast every provider I've used or I'm using handles this that way, except file, which is why I never saw them as a reliable backup provider.
Ignoring warnings because he didn't think they contained what they contained? Jesus, you took that "peak snowflake" comment and proved me wrong, this is peak snowflake.
I think your reading comprehension skills need some work.
You would have to elaborate on that statement, I can not see anything that would make someone draw that conclusion.
That's extra funny after you said
(that's redundant)
Not reading something is the person with the reading comprehension problem.
We have come to the point where according to some people, giving out emails on an unjustified action renders it justified.....
It reminds me of those extremist anarcho-libertarian memes.
Not at all. But being warned (multiple times) that this will happen if you do not take action, and then complain when it does happen, it's so fucking snowflake it's not even funny. Absolutely no personal responsibility, it's always someone else's fault even when I break the rules.
I do not agree with filen's policies. I think they are bad, and I would never use them. However, they are in the right to set their policies and op agreed to them when he signed up. If op choses to ignore those policies, even when warned multiple times, it is his own fault that it will have repercussions.
Did anyone say they were breaking the law or didn't have the legal right?
We're all criticizing what they did, not accusing them of doing something they had no "right" to do. I don't think anyone here is saying anything other than "wow, what a scummy thing to do". Fortunately or unfortunately, they have the right to behave that way, and at least in the US, such a contract, while shitty, is not unconscionable and thus is valid in court.
However, this is all hypothetical because it turned out to be a mistake where the system thought they were downgrading and inappropriately deleted data. The staff of the provider apologized and recognized that what they did was so bad that they actually gave the customer a free 2 TB lifetime account. So even the provider disagrees with you and never intended this.