[marklyon]

I started using rsync.net a number of years ago to house remote backups of my then-employer's critical data. At that time, we had a SBS 2k3 server for all the in-office files; the rsync team was more than happy to walk me through establishing (and testing) an automated backup solution that worked well until we decommissioned the in-office domain controller. I visited and helped them move from the current iteration of an on-premise Windows server to a Synology for in-office file storage (and for capturing backups of cloud services) and they were again more than happy to assist in setting up that process as well.

The type of data stored with them requires notification of the data subjects if there is a breach (even if that breach is due to legal process), I've found the warrant canary to be quite reassuring and understandable to the non-technical people whose business is at risk in the event of data loss. We don't get that same level of assurance with some of the other places we might store our backup.

It's hard to think of a "cloud" provider as providing personalized service, but rsync.net pulls it off. They've helped take the fear out of storing critical data on "other people's computers" by proving themselves reliable, trustworthy, and helpful.

[rsync]

(I recognize your name)

That's really interesting ... you're the first customer I have ever heard make the connection between the breach notification provisions of (for instance) a BAA and the Warrant Canary.

I have very briefly considered that link myself but never gave it much serious thought. To be honest, we worry a bit if the kind of customer that is giving careful thought to custody and disclosure and notifications would be spooked by the Warrant Canary and just think it was weird ...

So I'm glad to hear that and I think that perhaps we should reconsider making that explicit link ...