Re:Fire destroys S. Korean government's cloud storage system...
by johannes1234321 on Monday October 06, 2025 @07:01AM
(#45490015)
Losing data is mostly() fine if you are a small business. If a major bank loses it's data it is a major problem as it may impact a huge number of customers and an existential way, when all money is "gone"
() From state's perspective there is still a problem: tax audits, bad if everybody avoids them by "accidental" data loss
Re:Fire destroys S. Korean government's cloud storage system...
by fauigerzigerk on Monday October 06, 2025 @10:26AM
(#45491813)
As I said, a wide blast radius is a justification and banks are already regulated accordingly. A general obligation to keep financial records exists as well.
Re:Fire destroys S. Korean government's cloud storage system...
by Chris2048 on Monday October 06, 2025 @12:26PM
(#45493078)
> you cannot choose who you're sharing a road with while you can usually choose your IT service providers
You can choose where to eat, but the gov still carrier out food heath and safety inspections. The reason is that it isn't easy for customers to observe these things otherwise. I think the same applies to corporate data handling & storage.
Re:Fire destroys S. Korean government's cloud storage system...
by fauigerzigerk on Monday October 06, 2025 @02:49PM
(#45494821)
It's a matter of balance. Food safety is potentially about life and death. Backups not so much (except in very specific cases where data regulation is absolutely justifiable).
If any legislation is passed regarding data, I would prefer a broader rule that covers backup as well as interoperability/portability.
Where people have little or no choice (e.g government agencies, telecoms, internet access providers, credit agencies, etc) or where the blast radius is exceptionally wide, I do find it justifiable to mandate safety and security standards.