> Yeah usually the thing about deadlines is that you should communicate them as harshly as possible, then let them slip when they do arrive.

Is this not exactly what has happened? He was clearly threatened harshly, and... the data isn't yet deleted?

In this case, the initial notification (reproduced in the article) didn’t threaten to delete the files. Instead of communicating the threat harshly, it said that after 60 days his account would be placed in “read-only” mode.

It sounds like he (I think reasonably) believed that would be the new reality after the grace period: that he couldn’t write new files, but that his existing data would be accessible indefinitely in read-only form.

Sure, it’s clear from the context that Google vaguely wants him to stop being a headache for them. But planning for a read-only future is very different from planning for your data to be vaporized. As GP points out, Google could get eviction done in the same timeframe but save considerable face if the initial correspondence had said “you’re using way too much, it’s against our TOS, and we’re deleting your data in 30 days,” then given him a 30-day “reprieve” when the deadline drew near.

He wasn’t threatened harshly. He was told his data would become read-only, which he took at face value and assumed his data would remain safe. Then suddenly he was told the data would be deleted within seven days.

> He wasn’t threatened harshly. [...] he was told the data would be deleted within seven days

How exactly is that not a harsh threat? Sounds like a harsh threat to me. They were nice before, he didn't comply, now they're jerks. But it remains just a threat unless they actually wipe the data. Which they won't, because he's surely downloading it right now while we yell about it on HN.

> They were nice before, he didn't comply…

He didn’t comply with what? Show me where in Google’s communications where it said they were going to delete his data.

I was referring to the making it read-only.

And there’s no practical way to download that amount of data within seven days, just based on the bandwidth this would require. The situation would be totally different if they gave him six months notice for the deletion.

I think you're misunderstanding the contention upthread and confusing the threat ("we'll delete all your stuff in 7 days") with the actual enforcement of that threat (deleting said data, which hasn't happened, and I'm betting almost certainly won't as the guy will find some way to comply).

The poster upthread was trying (vainly, I guess) to make a distinction between the two.

No; the opposite happened.

Google initially told him that there was no hard deadline for getting the data off—just that his drive would be read-only as long as it was over the limit.

Then, 6 months later, they told him he had 7 days to get it off or it would be wiped.

Right, exactly. "He has 7 days or it would be wiped" is a threat, not a punishment. Was the data wiped or not? What are you willing to bet that we'll actually see a followup claiming the data was wiped? Almost certainly he's going to download the thing onto $3k of SSDs and get off the service, which is what everyone wants.

Moving 237.22 TB in 7 days requires ~3.14 Gbps of bandwidth, assuming that the clock starts ticking the moment that he actually starts moving data. In practice, the requirements would be even higher (subtracting out the time between notice being sent and read, plus time to actually set up alternative storage). Does Google even provide that level of read throughput to Google Drive customers?

I have to repeat the question: do you genuinely believe this data is going to be inevitably deleted, or maybe do you think that the threat will work and the guy will get his stuff downloaded somehow?

Do you similarly think it's perfectly ok for a loanshark to "threaten" to smash the customer's knees if they don't pay up in 7 days? Because obviously they wouldn't really do that?