[fauigerzigerk]

The difference is that you cannot choose who you're sharing a road with while you can usually choose your IT service providers. You could, for instance, choose a cheaper provider and make your own backups or simply accept that you could lose your data.

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.

[Chris2048]

> 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.

[fauigerzigerk]

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.

[johannes1234321]

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

[fauigerzigerk]

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.