Hacker News Reader

Comment by yeukhon | Hacker News Reader

If the claim is true, would you rather someone pull it out and access your data? This is like breaking HSM. So why “fuck that shit”? I hear a lot of people worrying not enough encryption. So perhaps take this as a positive thing??? Having an extra layer of protection is never a bad idea.

View on HN

Because I didn't ask for it! In fact, I already ran TrueCrypt and LUKS on those drives, so I was encrypting the data myself! But now, if any of the enclosures break (the controllers go bad), I have no way of recovering the data at all! That's a shitty design.

Not everyone cares about encryption first. Personally, I’d rather have my entire HDD published on nytimes.com than lose the data on it.

> Personally, I’d rather have my entire HDD published on nytimes.com than lose the data on it.

If your data is that valuable, surely you were already taking backups/snapshots of it. Right?

What if this is the backup and the enclosure is damaged by some natural disaster but the disk is OK. I guess he should have thought of that possibility, but what if he didn't?

Then this is not really the backup though... I mean it is not a backup if you don't understand it completely.

Sure, I completely agree. It strikes me as unnecessary, however, for a manufacturer to deliberately add a counter-intuitive and indeed dangerous element to a device commonly used for backup. In particular, many home backup systems are not created by experts who might think of things like this.

Yes that'S the entire point of the discussion. Yet people still claim you should backup your backup. But where are you going to backup it to? To another encrypted drive where the enclosure might fail? No you're going to use an unencrypted HDD and be done with it. You can always add encryption on top of an unencrypted HDD.

It turns out that you very often need hard drives to make said backups.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com