6 ms·

As a whole, I'd say it's for better. Obviously Nine PBS's situation is shitty and fuck "OSS" for putting them in that position, but they are not Iron Mountains

As a whole, I'd say it's for better. Obviously Nine PBS's situation is shitty and fuck "OSS" for putting them in that position, but they are not Iron Mountains customer. They are strangers to Iron Mountain who just demanded 50TB of customers data from Iron Mountain. The only sane response is to tell Nine PBS to come back with a court order, and (hopefully) to tell their lawyers to just make sure Nine PBS is in fact the rightful owner and if so, not to fight them on it. Anything else is the sort of stuff that causes blog posts and news articles about data breaches to be written.

namibj 1mo ago
Yeah; I haven't read TFA but IMO especially if Iron Mountain is aiding the procurement of said court order through giving some (potentially redacted as required for privacy purposes) "sample" court documents that could be readily used as reference so the lawyer on the Nine PBS side (filing with the court to get a judge to order Iron Mountain to release that data to Nine PBS) doesn't need to waste their time repeating all the drafting from scratch for what I'm assuming would be a (from the legal perspective) straight-forward request (that nonetheless has to specifically account for the particular legal data possession/ownership/access-rights situation under which the data in question is stored at Iron Mountain), especially as relevant for the situation at hand allowing Nine PBS to put a temporary data retention legal hold on these 50TB giving them a fair deadline (not merely "legally 'reasonable'") either on charity (understanding the gravity of the "this Nine PBS data is a public good (at a cursory glance)"/"information wants to be free") or offering general reasonable list price of what they bill for retaining 50TB stored under the storage model at play for "just one more month" (or whatever fair deadline) paid by Nine PBS.

namibj 1mo ago

Yeah; I haven't read TFA but IMO especially if Iron Mountain is aiding the procurement of said court order through giving some (potentially redacted as required for privacy purposes) "sample" court documents that could be readily used as reference so the lawyer on the Nine PBS side (filing with the court to get a judge to order Iron Mountain to release that data to Nine PBS) doesn't need to waste their time repeating all the drafting from scratch for what I'm assuming would be a (from the legal perspective) straight-forward request (that nonetheless has to specifically account for the particular legal data possession/ownership/access-rights situation under which the data in question is stored at Iron Mountain), especially as relevant for the situation at hand allowing Nine PBS to put a temporary data retention legal hold on these 50TB giving them a fair deadline (not merely "legally 'reasonable'") either on charity (understanding the gravity of the "this Nine PBS data is a public good (at a cursory glance)"/"information wants to be free") or offering general reasonable list price of what they bill for retaining 50TB stored under the storage model at play for "just one more month" (or whatever fair deadline) paid by Nine PBS.