It's mainly server backups (encrypted by PGP even) (50% of storage), Movies, Music, Documentaries, Apps (legal and/or free/opensource) (30%), and empty space i had added a few weeks ago for more backups (switching from daily to 3hourly)

This line of reasoning is very troublesome.

Your argument seems to be: "Don't make waves. Don't do anything out of the ordinary."

To many people, having Linux installed on a computer is something that people have no legitimate reason for.

No innovation or individuality. Everyone has to be exactly the same.

Also, your line of reasoning goes against presumption of innocence. The suspect doesn't have to explain why he has that much storage. The police/prosecutor have to explain what criminal acts he's doing with that storage.

He owns one large ISP in Austria and has multiple personal projects. And no judge has ever said that running a Tor exit node isn't legal AFAIK.

> I can't imagine what legal uses an individual could have for 100Tb of storage.

An example:

Raw captures (e.g., digitized home movies) can take up a lot of space, even if they're losslessly-compressed with a codec like Huffyuv or Lagarith.

I have five raw captures of the same 2-hour VHS movie sitting on my HDD, as I plan to average them to reduce the appearance of artifacts due to tracking differences. Each capture is losslessly-compressed with Huffyuv and approximately __50GB__.

That's ~250GB right there.

If you do anything with video/photo's and many other types of things the space adds up quickly. I had 2TB filled with just games that I had purchased. Just my steam folder alone is pretty massive. Files are getting a lot larger with the amount of storage we have access to. Just compare a floppy disk to a CD to a DVD. You've only used floppy's and someone comes up to you and shows you a CD... "WOW! what legal use could you POSSIBLY have for that!"