[lnxg33k1]

Yeah I also bought a lifetime plan from that cloud storage company few years ago, scammed by the marketing page, only to find out somewhere in the settings page that my data were never in switzerland or even in EU but were physically in US, and had to pay to move them to EU, just deleted my account, I guess the swiss thing is just a marketing scam

[rsync]

Ironically, I am in Zurich right now supervising upgrades and capacity increases in ZH4.

Our terms of service[1] Explicitly state that your data will never leave the location you’ve chosen.

So if you’re still in the market for cloud storage in Zürich, email us. We’ll give you a “screwed by pcloud” discount.

[1] rsync.net/resources/notices/tos.html

[tionis]

Gotta love the rsync.net marketing. Good company, best support I have ever had with any internet firm. Can only recommend their product if it fits your use case.

[danillonunes]

Just fyi, clicked the "pricing" link from the TOS page and got a 404.

[rsync]

I am told this has been fixed ...

[stilisstuk]

What did pcloud do?

[tablespoon]

>> In one example, it's a cloud storage company, they say on their marketing page and their about page that they are based in Switzerland and under Swiss law, but if you look at the legal pages the company you sign up with are actually based in Bulgaria. Their servers are based in Texas, USA and Luxemburg, Europe and their development team in Bulgaria.

> Yeah I also bought a lifetime plan from that cloud storage company few years ago, scammed by the marketing page, only to find out somewhere in the settings page that my data were never in switzerland or even in EU but were physically in US

Anyone want to name names?

[dylan604]

I'm confused on the lack of naming names. It's not libel if you show the pages being discussed as evidence. So I'm not sure what the cause for the pussyfooting around name and shame.

[lnxg33k1]

I bought it from pCloud, and the person I replied to also said in another reply that he was talking about pCloud, so I think we both have had the same experience and it should be ok to name names as one person could be lying but if 2 people who never met each other say the same thing I guess that would make it at least believable

[stilisstuk]

I am fairly happy with pcloud though. Didn't buy for privacy (i use encryption for that), but for cheapness. I am not aware of any violation of trust like what is mentioned here.

[lnxg33k1]

But to be honest i have had my files there for few years unencrypted and in US without realizing, so it's not that encryption was needed or anything special, but it just sucks to be a victim of marketing practice advertising "your files are under the jurisdiction of Switzerland" and find out that they never been, then it's a good service? It's debatable, it's cross platform and has good client support for Linux OSes, but from mobile for example i have never been able to show to friends pics and videos, always timed out, and i have good connections, i.e. TMobile and Vodafone for mobile (I'm Italian living abroad)

But whether or not you need encryption, is that ok to advertise something that you don't have?

[stilisstuk]

In that case... I get it. But yeah... Everybody did/does it and it's stupid. And i knew it was stupid back then (even my current mail provider does the same; Belgium yada yada, but have been honest about cooperating with police). I even figured the lifetime option was a sign that they would collapse years ago. But i took a risk, and I have very cheap storage online.

Also. Yes. The Android app is very bad compared to e.g. drive/photos

[dylan604]

Great, so to get the full picture of your point, one must read the entire thread.

My actual point, was why in the world would you not post the name of the company in the original post? What thought processes occurred that suggested you shouldn't provide the name in the first place?

[lnxg33k1]

I am not sure, i am relatively new to HN, and read the post i replied to not mentioning the service's name, so i used the same approach

[atok1]

You got played. Just remember to never trust marketing in the future and always read the fine print, no matter how long it may be.

[elliekelly]

> always read the fine print, no matter how long it may be.

I think it’s time we stop doling out this advice and acknowledge that it’s entirely unrealistic. I’m a lawyer. I read the fine print a lot. Sometimes just for fun. But even I don’t “always” read it. Usually I don’t even read it so much as I give it a skim. If I read the fine print each and every time I came across it during the day I would literally do nothing else. Not even sleep.

And that’s to say nothing of the average person’s hope of actually understanding what the fine print even means!

But even for someone very well-suited (a retired lawyer, for example, with all the time in the world) the suggestion to always read the fine print is absurd.

These are contracts of adhesion. As consumers we usually don’t have any leverage to change the terms or even much of a choice to take our business elsewhere. It makes far more sense to regulate consumer contracts and force businesses not to screw people over than it does to ask millions of people to waste hours of their lives reading pages and pages of legalese they don’t understand and couldn’t change even if they did.

[lnxg33k1]

I agree with you, but i also think as i wrote before in another reply, another issue i would like to submit to you as a lawyer with experience in law, reading the TOS to me seems something to make you feel relatively good on the moment but most of it retain the right to change those after you've bought something, what do you think about that?

[lnxg33k1]

It's been a year since i bought anything, so i solved it like that, the issue is not even the fine print anymore is that anything retains the right to change the terms and conditions without explanation or warning, in Italy we have a law that if a company change the terms and conditions it has to communicate it to you and has to give you 30 days in order to stop the contract without any penalty, it works for services and software but we don't have anything to protect people from hardware to force company to buy back devices in case of unilateral TOS changes, so it sucks a bit, on the other hand in the rest of EU there isn't even the protection for software