[comboy]

Why not b2 or glacier since you're encrypting anyway? If you don't have that much data then maybe M-DISC?

Personally I think safe is.. unnecessary. What is it protecting you from when your data is encrypted? If you put it in a safe then you probably care enough about the data not to have it in a single location no matter how secure it seemingly is.

[sigstoat]

> What is it protecting you from when your data is encrypted?

various forms of physical damage, including fire and accidental crushing

where do you think they ought to store their drives?

a little safe that will hold easily 100TB costs $50 and can hold your passport and such too.

[emidln]

Ignoring for a moment how insecure most cheap locks are (including locks on safes), little safes are rarely effective vs a prybar + carrying them away to be cut into at the attacker's leisure. Larger safes have some of the same issues w.r.t. cutting, but you can make it less convenient for an adversary to do it (and make them spend more time where they might be caught).

[rmorey]

All true, but I think the threat model here really is fire, flooding, etc

[sigio]

The $50 safes are not fire-rated... and hardly break-in rated. For fire-safety you need something big, and mostly heavy, which will be costly (shipping/moving it alone)

[dharmab]

Honeywell and First Alert sell small fire safes for around $100 that actually hold up to fire and water damage.

https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-fireproof-do...

Break-ins are not in my threat model for a document safe. If they were, I'd get a deposit box at a bank. I just want some of my personal mementos and documents to survive a fire.