> If you think about it, that sums up almost any robust back-up system you go to the effort of setting up
Exactly, which is why people should think harder than they do about backups. You should make sure that you are not exposed to risk you don't want to be exposed to because someone else's development priorities differ from your point of view.
True data protection is unfortunately a complicated business and most people see the flashy presentations on services' sites and trust all is well without giving it a second thought.
While I agree it should be the service's responsibility to cover these eventualities, it is not good practise to assume that they do. You might misunderstand what they do and not see risk were it is present, they might have honest coding mistakes that cause problems down the line, there could be ineptitude anywhere down the line, and so forth. If you are paying for their service then you might legitimately expect to be covered by some for of insurance for loss in the event of it being caused by a problem in the code/infrastructure, but never assume that until being explicitly told it is present and you have read the small print, and don't ever assume this at all for a free/cheap service.
Exactly, which is why people should think harder than they do about backups. You should make sure that you are not exposed to risk you don't want to be exposed to because someone else's development priorities differ from your point of view.
True data protection is unfortunately a complicated business and most people see the flashy presentations on services' sites and trust all is well without giving it a second thought.
While I agree it should be the service's responsibility to cover these eventualities, it is not good practise to assume that they do. You might misunderstand what they do and not see risk were it is present, they might have honest coding mistakes that cause problems down the line, there could be ineptitude anywhere down the line, and so forth. If you are paying for their service then you might legitimately expect to be covered by some for of insurance for loss in the event of it being caused by a problem in the code/infrastructure, but never assume that until being explicitly told it is present and you have read the small print, and don't ever assume this at all for a free/cheap service.