7 ms·

> This is incredible. Government telling me how to backup my data. Incredible. No more incredible than the government telling you that you need liability insur

> This is incredible. Government telling me how to backup my data. Incredible. No more incredible than the government telling you that you need liability insurance in order to drive a car. Do you think that is justifiable?

fauigerzigerk 1y ago
The difference is that you cannot choose who you're sharing a road with while you can usually choose your IT service providers. You could, for instance, choose a cheaper provider and make your own backups or simply accept that you could lose your data. Where people have little or no choice (e.g government agencies, telecoms, internet access providers, credit agencies, etc) or where the blast radius is exceptionally wide, I do find it justifiable to mandate safety and security standards.
- johannes1234321 1y ago
  Losing data is mostly(*) fine if you are a small business. If a major bank loses it's data it is a major problem as it may impact a huge number of customers and an existential way, when all money is "gone" (*) From state's perspective there is still a problem: tax audits, bad if everybody avoids them by "accidental" data loss
  - fauigerzigerk 1y ago
    As I said, a wide blast radius is a justification and banks are already regulated accordingly. A general obligation to keep financial records exists as well.
- Chris2048 1y ago
  > you cannot choose who you're sharing a road with while you can usually choose your IT service providers You can choose where to eat, but the gov still carrier out food heath and safety inspections. The reason is that it isn't easy for customers to observe these things otherwise. I think the same applies to corporate data handling & storage.
  - fauigerzigerk 1y ago
    It's a matter of balance. Food safety is potentially about life and death. Backups not so much (except in very specific cases where data regulation is absolutely justifiable). If any legislation is passed regarding data, I would prefer a broader rule that covers backup as well as interoperability/portability.
robocat 1y ago
> liability insurance in order to drive a car. Do you think that is justifiable? New Zealand doesn't require car insurance, and I presume there are other countries with governments that that don't either. I suspect most people in NZ would only have a sketchy idea of what liability is, based on learning from US TV shows.
- cyphar 1y ago
  It seems New Zealand is one of very few countries where that is the case, and that's because you guys have a government scheme that provides equivalent coverage for personal injury without being a form of insurance (ACC). As far as I understand, part of the registration fees you pay go to ACC. I would argue this is basically a mandatory insurance system with another name.
- bigtones 11mo ago
  Australia is the same. Its part of the car registration cost annually.

fauigerzigerk 1y ago

The difference is that you cannot choose who you're sharing a road with while you can usually choose your IT service providers. You could, for instance, choose a cheaper provider and make your own backups or simply accept that you could lose your data. Where people have little or no choice (e.g government agencies, telecoms, internet access providers, credit agencies, etc) or where the blast radius is exceptionally wide, I do find it justifiable to mandate safety and security standards.

johannes1234321 1y ago
Losing data is mostly(*) fine if you are a small business. If a major bank loses it's data it is a major problem as it may impact a huge number of customers and an existential way, when all money is "gone" (*) From state's perspective there is still a problem: tax audits, bad if everybody avoids them by "accidental" data loss
- fauigerzigerk 1y ago
  As I said, a wide blast radius is a justification and banks are already regulated accordingly. A general obligation to keep financial records exists as well.
Chris2048 1y ago
> you cannot choose who you're sharing a road with while you can usually choose your IT service providers You can choose where to eat, but the gov still carrier out food heath and safety inspections. The reason is that it isn't easy for customers to observe these things otherwise. I think the same applies to corporate data handling & storage.
- fauigerzigerk 1y ago
  It's a matter of balance. Food safety is potentially about life and death. Backups not so much (except in very specific cases where data regulation is absolutely justifiable). If any legislation is passed regarding data, I would prefer a broader rule that covers backup as well as interoperability/portability.

robocat 1y ago

> liability insurance in order to drive a car. Do you think that is justifiable? New Zealand doesn't require car insurance, and I presume there are other countries with governments that that don't either. I suspect most people in NZ would only have a sketchy idea of what liability is, based on learning from US TV shows.

cyphar 1y ago
It seems New Zealand is one of very few countries where that is the case, and that's because you guys have a government scheme that provides equivalent coverage for personal injury without being a form of insurance (ACC). As far as I understand, part of the registration fees you pay go to ACC. I would argue this is basically a mandatory insurance system with another name.
bigtones 11mo ago
Australia is the same. Its part of the car registration cost annually.