Imagine you just lost two servers you can't replace, or you're a potential customer reading this thread, and are afraid of the same.
This is what they read as the company's response to this loss:
"Anyone with any self-managed server with ANY provider should always keep their own multiple backups. Dumbass."
Note the change I made at the end to reflect how some people [who are empathizing with someone who was attacked and lost their property] will interpret that statement. Did any of that statement help the situation at all? Did it help customers feel better? Or did it have the opposite effect? Would this be considered a good way to engender goodwill for your brand?
Now consider this reinterpretation of the statement:
"With self-managed servers, it is good best practice to keep multiple backups for yourself, no matter who your service provider is."
I am not sure why you would respond to an accusation about victim blaming by reiterating the exact thing that caused the accusation. You might want to reconsider continuing this particular aspect of discussion for PR reasons. It's not an argument you're going to win.
Unless you sign up for a managed service that claims to include backups or whatever, you are responsible for your own backups. What's controversial about that?
The issue is that Namecheap was the one that fucked up here, and now is not the time to emphasize "you should really be prepared for us fucking up in this manner". It's victim blaming. It looks shitty. The argument I refer to isn't "you should have offsite backups". The argument is that Namecheap is implicitly victim blaming, and they're not going to convince many people that they aren't.
Eh.. I don't really agree that this is victim blaming. But then again, I find that I disagree with most uses of the phrase "victim blaming". Pointing out that somebody did something sub-optimal, while still acknowledging the mis-deeds, mistakes, etc. of other parties, is not "victim blaming" in my book. It's just pointing out the truth.
I mean, if you go for a stroll through the roughest neighborhood in town, unarmed, by yourself, at night, and you get mugged, is it wrong to point out that going for that walk was stupid? Saying so doesn't mean the the mugger isn't guilty or that what happened is right in any sense. It's just acknowledging reality.
I don't know where any of you live, but saying recklessness is "victim blaming" sounds like a first world privilege. Yes, in generally in the first world, screaming for your rights can actually work.
In other worlds however, the problem is usually too widespread. You might get a lot of attention, comiseration, etc. but in the end, being reckless goes against survival. People who point this out should not be shushed for pointing out what you need to do to survive.
Its amazing to see that this "victim blaming" mentality is growing in Brazil. Violence here is out of control. You might get mugged/shot/kidnapped for no reason, or not displaying any wealth. Having been kidnapped myself, and chatted with the kidnappers, they do look for signs of wealth before pouncing. Therefore, yes, the victim does has an ounce of control over their risk and it's not wrong to point that out.
It does not solve violence, and attackers will just look for other victims regardless of their reward estimate. However, would you tell your children not to not show affluence/vulnerability in shady places just because you don't want to "victim blame"?
>I mean, if you go for a stroll through the roughest neighborhood in town, unarmed, by yourself, at night, and you get mugged, is it wrong to point out that going for that walk was stupid?
Yes, this is the textbook example of victim blaming. Placing any amount of blame on the person who is the victim in this situation is saying that they don't have the right to walk down a street and not be mugged. I am admittedly not the best at describing this because up until recently I had the same thought process as you. I would encourage you to find better explanations than what I can offer and be willing to have your beliefs challenged.
Yes, this is the textbook example of victim blaming.
Then "victim blaming" is a meaningless concept and we should quit using it. Because if I choose to do something stupid, I do bear some responsibility for the outcome, even if somebody else violates my rights. That doesn't absolve the other party of course, which is my point. That is, you can blame the perpetrator of a crime while also pointing out that the victim could (possibly should) have done things differently.
Placing any amount of blame on the person who is the victim in this situation is saying that they don't have the right to walk down a street and not be mugged.
It isn't "blame" for the actions of the other person. Why wouldn't you point out the stupidity of knowingly putting yourself in a dangerous situation?
Victim blaming is used to vindicate a perpetrator of a wrong doing. That isn't being done here, nor in the mugging example.
You can say a victim is stupid without giving any vindication to the person in the wrong.
Namecheap are saying "be responsible for your backups, but yeah we screwed up on our security policy" - They are seperate things, that the victim here has conflated, but are seperate problems (in regards to namecheaps offering).
It's not victim blaming. It's simply a reiteration that it helps to have this in place if you are specifically opting to rent/lease a server that does not offer it.
I don't believe you properly understand what victim blaming is or the argument I am making here, hence the reason I recommended you and your CIO don't bother continuing trying to discuss this. You're giving people reason to dislike Namecheap for no gain to yourself and your brand.
Agreed. However, is this messaged anywhere in your documentation or setup instructions? Do you provide instructions how how to set this up with a 3rd party or list of 3rd parties?
Although backups are #1 item on any list of best practices, making an easy, and tested, implementation method would be a good practice on your part.