> These archives represent an important part of our region’s history, and we look forward to ensuring their preservation and protection through the Court-approved process.

Apparently you didn't find them important enough to have backups. Hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in net income and they couldn't afford a cheap NAS with 4 disks. Incredible.

▲

MadnessASAP 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They did, they contracted with a vendor to store and backup the data. If that is insufficient then just about every customer of AWS, Azure, GCP, OCP, and every other managed storage provider is guilty of the same sin.

▲

aaronmdjones 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have to agree with GP here, this is pretty incredible. They contracted with a vendor to store their data, not to back it up. It's not a backup if you can lose it in the same instant you lose the data.

You're right, they are. If your data can't survive a single storage host vanishing from existence, you don't have a backup. If your data can't survive one predictable or regularly occurring catastrophic act of nature, you don't have a backup. If your data can't survive a piece of malware -- with all of the credentials you have -- erasing it, you don't have a backup.

EDIT: Also, if you don't regularly test that your backups actually work, you probably don't have a backup. Lots of companies learn that one the hard way.

	▲	jambalaya8 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you do not have at least one, but usually two copies of a backup in your physical possession, you do not have a backup. \|o-o\|

▲

stronglikedan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then that is just the 1 in 3-2-1 backups, and neglecting the 3 & 2 is a sin (wrt backup strategies).

▲

Barbing 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I wonder the proportion of companies who store backups with a minimum of two separate vendors. Low?