Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage IT

Google Drive Misplaces Months' Worth of Customer Files (theregister.com) 82

Posted by msmash from the PSA dept.
Google Drive users are reporting files mysteriously disappearing from the service, with some posters on the company's support forums claiming six or more months of work have unceremoniously vanished. From a report: The issue has been rumbling for a few days, with one user logging into Google Drive and finding things as they were in May 2023. According to the poster, almost everything saved since then has gone, and attempts at recovery failed. Others chimed in with similar experiences, and one claimed that six months of business data had gone AWOL. There is little information regarding what has happened; some users reported that synchronization had simply stopped working, so the cloud storage was out of date.

Others could get some of their information back by fiddling with cached files, although the limited advice on offer for the affected was to leave things well alone until engineers come up with a solution. A message purporting to be from Google support also advised not to make changes to the root/data folder while engineers investigate the issue. Some users speculated that it might be related to accounts being spontaneously dropped. We've asked Google for its thoughts and will update should the search giant respond.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Drive Misplaces Months' Worth of Customer Files More

Google Drive Misplaces Months' Worth of Customer Files

Comments Filter:

  • deleting files? (Score:3)

    by The-Ixian ( 168184 ) on Monday November 27, 2023 @10:10AM (#64034729)

    I have been getting tons of notices and alerts from Google telling me that they are going to be deleting old content.

    I ignore them so I haven't been following closely what they are actually deleting since I have other methods of backing up my important content.

    Could this purge be the cause? Perhaps others have been ignoring the warnings as well.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I think you are talking about inactive account notices. They have decided to start deleting accounts that have not been used for 2 years. Such accounts are vulnerable to getting hacked, because the owner never changes the password and it gets leaked in data breaches from other sites.

      By the way, Google has a dead man's switch feature that you can enable. It will delete your account sooner than 2 years after you stop accessing it. I have mine set to 3 months.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jhecht ( 143058 )
        One of the problems of Google's notice that they will delete accounts not used for two years is that they don't define what they mean by "not used" (at least not where I have been able to find it). I have Apple Mail download my gmail and almost never open Google's Webmail. Does that mean I'm not using it?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          They do list some things that they consider to be activity, like logging in. It doesn't explicitly say using IMAP/POP to access your email, but it does mention "sending an email".

          Either way, they will email you multiple times when it gets to the 2 year stage, so you have plenty of time to simply log in once and reset the timer.

  • My constant reminder (Score:4, Informative)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday November 27, 2023 @10:23AM (#64034771)

    Cloud, noun, English word for a very temporary puff of vapor somewhere up in the sky.
    Klaut, verb, German, imperative plural to "klauen", homonym to cloud, command to a group of people to steal something.

  • How many times must it be said? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Miles_O'Toole ( 5152533 ) on Monday November 27, 2023 @10:29AM (#64034805)

    There is no cloud. There is only somebody else's computer. When you put your data on somebody else's computer, it is no longer your data it is their data. How much clearer can this be?

    There was a time when I might have felt sorry for people who lost half a year's work "because cloud fart", but that time has passed. They deserve what they get. I'll reserve my limited supply of sympathy for people who deserve it.

    • Re:How many times must it be said? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kurkosdr ( 2378710 ) on Monday November 27, 2023 @10:38AM (#64034833)
      Yeah, let's blame the users for the fact some service provider sells a service (if you want more than 15GB, you have to pay) but is criminally negligent in running it (no backups Google? wtf).

      • You have a bit of a point, but consider how many times behaviour you describe as "criminally negligent" passes completely or nearly without consequences. This isn't the first time a corporation has behaved irresponsibly and gotten away with it. In fact, it isn't the second, third or tenth time. In spite of their disclaimers, your data is not sacred to them. If it's lost or stolen, rarely do they pay fines amounting to more than "cost of doing business", if they pay anything at all.

        So by this time, I wou

        • So by this time, I would expect anybody who's serious about keeping their data safe to have more than one backup, one of them completely under their own car and control.

          That might be true, but it shouldn't be. I should be able to outsource keeping my data safe to someone more technically capable than I am.

          • As somebody who isn't particularly competent in that area, I agree with you. I've just come to realize that as limited as I am in that area, I'm also the one who cares most about my data. So in the end, it's up to me to do everything I can to ensure its safety. In my old fashioned, perhaps outdated world view, that includes having a copy of it under my direct personal care.

          • A lot of things "shouldn't be" but instead of trying to live in fantasy land, you need to live in reality. The reality of the situation is if you are trusting a single source to keep your data safe, you aren't being very prudent. At the very least, you should have your files saved to Google AND locally. That's the bare minimum. Ideally, you would have local files, cloud files AND a 3rd offsite spot for your files, such as backing up all those important things to a separate hard drive that you take home with

      • Yeah, let's blame the users for the fact some service provider sells a service ... but is criminally negligent in running it

        I don't mean to be a hard ass here, but a 'cloud drive' that is used as primary storage rather than as a copy for backup purposes, is obviously a poor choice that the user made. I also blame the person who walks down a dark alley with lots of money in their pocket and gets mugged/raped. Sure, the person mugging you is doing something highly illegal and should be held accountable; however, YOU are the one who does not want bad things to happen; therefore, it is incumbent upon YOU to take measures to protect

    • Not if those files are encrypted, and not if the contract says the files are not theirs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      When you put your data on somebody else's computer, it is no longer your data it is their data.

      This is nonsense.

      For example, I use cloud backup with Duplicati and Jottacloud. All the data is encrypted on my end before it is sent out. I assume Jottacloud can access it, but it's just random bytes to them. The key and encryption are too strong for there to be any realistic prospect of cracking then.

      Of course, you should have a backup of any data you store in the cloud. For Google Drive there is an issue, which is that you can't easily automate downloading of all original file types. Google Docs document

      • It's not nonsense...as proved by the thousands of people who get caught every year with their pants to their knees. So you have multiple backups? Good for you! If something effs up, you'll be one of those who will have my sympathy. But how many people do you know who take those extra steps to secure their data?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          How does that relate to "cloud providers own your data"?

          Not having multiple backups is unwise, but doesn't mean your data belongs to someone else.

          • Figure of speech. In terms of realpolitik, whoever controls something pretty much owns it, no matter whose name is on the deed.

            If an entity (person or corporation) you entrusted with something valuable can lose it through failure to take proper care of it, and then tell you to get stuffed, is it yours anymore?

            I'm not just thinking of lost work data. I would include all those cases where the personal data of millions of people was stolen or left exposed for the taking, and the entities responsible faced li

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bongo ( 13261 )

      There is no cloud. There is only somebody else's computer. When you put your data on somebody else's computer, it is no longer your data it is their data. How much clearer can this be?

      There was a time when I might have felt sorry for people who lost half a year's work "because cloud fart", but that time has passed. They deserve what they get. I'll reserve my limited supply of sympathy for people who deserve it.

      Modify slightly to "someone else's mistakes."

    • There is no cloud. There is only somebody else's computer

      While that's true, cloud used to have a broader meaning before more providers came along that were too lazy to create a true cloud. A cloud is a redundant multi-server architecture where the loss of any node up to a certain percentage causes no outages or data loss. Just like a cloud is many droplets of water treated as a whole

      That said, RAID is not a backup and nobody should treat cloud sync as a backup - merely a physically distributed RAID. Mistakes are replicated just the same.

      • It's like how the definition of "artificial intelligence" keeps getting changed to exclude systems that are actually demonstrated to be working and useful, at which point they just become tools.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Calydor ( 739835 )

      Honestly, I'd compare a cloud storage solution to a bank. You don't want to hold all your money (files) yourself, so you put them some place you have been told they'll be secure and you can get to them whenever you want.

      Then the bank gets robbed, the cloud service gets hit with an EMP, whatever.

      The bank has (should have) insurance so you can still get your money even if they no longer have those exact coins and bills. A cloud service ... really should have had something similar.

      • I love your analogy! As a matter of fact, part of my backup strategy involves an actual bank. One of my accounts includes a safety deposit box at no extra charge. I have been using it for some time as a home for one of two encrypted 6 TB drives I use for backup purposes. I just swap them out periodically. It's not foolproof, but it certainly limits the damage I would suffer in the event of some problem at my place to one backup period. The other drive lives in a metal box in the basement most of the t

    • One has to avoid idealism here. Sure, if one is fastidious about backups etc., it's safer to keep data on your own stuff. But in practice, most people and orgs are sloppy at such. Cloud is arguably still statistically the better choice for the average group. Harping only goes so far.

    • "There is no cloud. There is only somebody else's computer."

      Yes, AWS becomes magically not-the-cloud when Amazon itself uses it.

      The problem with these data loss events isn't that it's "the cloud" is that the data isn't backed up. On-premises data that isn't backed up is also data that isn't backed up.

      One of things I'll never forgive the otherwise intelligent jwz for is pushing this stupid meme.

    • There is no cloud. There is only somebody else's computer. When you put your data on somebody else's computer, it is no longer your data it is their data. How much clearer can this be?

      There was a time when I might have felt sorry for people who lost half a year's work "because cloud fart", but that time has passed. They deserve what they get. I'll reserve my limited supply of sympathy for people who deserve it.

      I have everything on a Time Machine Seagate. Also on iCloud. Also on Drive + GPhotos. Redundancy has its advantages.

  • You can export your data (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tora ( 65882 ) on Monday November 27, 2023 @10:31AM (#64034821)

    I do this monthly. https://takeout.google.com/ [google.com]

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      You can use rclone to access you Google Drive data as well. Beware that documents created in Google Docs are converted when accessed that way, but other file types are not. I do nightly backups with rclone, and monthly with Takeout.

    • If you had space to store your Takeout data, you wouldn't have anything to takeout because you'd already be hosting it yourself.

  • I configured a few terabytes of my drive to use Google Drive Sync to keep a local copy. It seems to have been unaffected by this, although my CLOUD files are definitely reverted. If you have drive sync I'd pause syncing temporarily until this gets resolved.
  • We use OneDrive at my company but all our computers now have this REG change mode, and this is a direct copy and paste with comments:
    [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\OneDrive]
    "FilesOnDemandEnabled"=dword:00000000
    ;disables the "it's on the cloud but not stored locally to save space...oh wait, you're on a cell tether on a work site ;and need to download a giant PDF from the cloud? Oops! Good luck with that" feature that's on by default.

    FilesOneDemand is their magical space saving, delete i

    • FilesOnDemand is baked into Windows and offered to other software providers too. But each program that uses it would have to have a setting to disable it unless there's a systemwide setting that won't break said software.

      I agree on the large files but a lot of users need access to more files than fit on their machine.

      Files on Demand also provides an OS hook for backup software to query for changes and make backups of files that are not stored on the computer. So at least it is easy to back up along with y

  • .... And I have brought many arguments against large companies as well as government entities storing data to the "cloud", except as a faster/better version of tape backup. US Army Recruiting and Human Resources Command had a big presentation from Microsoft, when MS first jumped on the Data Center = Cloud bandwagon. There were already redundant Data Centers under direct Army control, onsite, fully secured, and staffed with government employees that can (practically) never be fired.

    No employee headcount c

  • If you live by the cloud... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Monday November 27, 2023 @11:59AM (#64035207)

    If you have important files that live only in the cloud - especially if they only reside on one company's infrastructure - then you're a fool and you deserve what you get. Make multiple copies on drives in your physical possession, and store them at separate sites.

    The cloud is for convenience and as a backstop - it's not for primary storage of irreplaceable data.

    • If you have important files that live in only one location, you are a fool. Whether or not that one location is the cloud is irrelevant.

      • If you have important files that live in only one location, you are a fool. Whether or not that one location is the cloud is irrelevant.

        I'd say that if you have important files in fewer than three locations you're a fool. Lots of people only have them in two locations - and in that case I trust a removable drive more than I trust the cloud. And I don't think I'd be happy with only cloud backups, even if there are several. I'm not happy when somebody else's hardware and infrastructure stand between me and my data. Hell, I still use POP3 and store all my emails locally so I can access them without a 'net connection.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mcrbids ( 148650 )

      If you have important files that live only on your computer - especially if they only reside on one computer, then you're an even bigger fool and deserve what you get.

      For the most part, cloud providers do a much better job than individual people do. Putting it on Google's servers is generally safer than keeping it only on your own computer.

      Also, have you ever tried to back up a Windows host? It's ridiculously complicated! Sure, there are plenty of "easy" solutions, but does that back up SQL Server? That fa

      • If you have important files that live only on your computer - especially if they only reside on one computer, then you're an even bigger fool and deserve what you get.

        For the most part, cloud providers do a much better job than individual people do. Putting it on Google's servers is generally safer than keeping it only on your own computer.

        Also, have you ever tried to back up a Windows host? It's ridiculously complicated! Sure, there are plenty of "easy" solutions, but does that back up SQL Server? That fancy accounting package you spent $4000 for? Where *does* it keep those files?

        I found this out recently when I upgraded a hard drive and reloaded the OS onto the new drive. Why would you think it would be so danged difficult to get Quickbooks client files transfered to a new hard drive?

        hahahaha

        Fair enough. It's been well over a decade since I dealt with Windows in any serious way, and even then any backup short of a Ghost image was iffy. We used Ghost a lot, but it was easy for us because we had a small dev operation and could take servers offline without too much grief.

        As for files 'only on your computer', I don't allow that to happen for very long. I'm not as disciplined about it as I should be so I'm bound to get burned eventually, but not too badly. I backup to removable drives and keep some

  • Your files will be lost "unceremoniously", unless you pay for the festivities.

  • It's the American thing to do after all.
    But a product that doesn't work a advertised? DO MORE RESEARCH NEXT TIME!

    Did a reasonable amount of research and went with what you felt is a good option that failed anyway? DO BETTER RESEARCH NEXT TIME!

    Trust literally any company NOT to lie to you if they'll make so much as 0.001c by lying? Well...

    Ok that's your actual fault. Virtually no large company at this point should be expected to do anything except lie, cheat, and steal to get more money. I'll just throw out

  • This is why I never accepted Microsoft's integration of OneDrive into Office 365. I always make separate local copies of critical project files. As for Google, anyone who trusts them is running risks.
  • "There is no such thing as "The Cloud", just other peoples computers."

    I don't use -any- cloud based storage by any company. I don't trust any of them. This is a prime example WHY.

    I keep multiple redundant backups. And use a couple different NAS's for my own "cloud backup". All secured to the HILT (firewalls etc..).
  • Meant to tell you, but, well, you should have seen it coming really.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Sometimes insanity is the only alternative" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.

Close