[miken123]

Because these companies never lose data, like during some lightning strikes, oh wait: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33989384

As a government you should not be putting your stuff in an environment under control of some other nation, period. That is a completely different issue and does not really relate to making backups.

[ncruces]

“The BBC understands that customers, through various backup technologies, external, were able to recover all lost data.”

You backup stuff. To other regions.

[littlestymaar]

But the Korean government didn't backup, that's the problem in the first place here…

[kspacewalk2]

>As a government you should not be putting your stuff in an environment under control of some other nation, period.

Why? If you encrypt it yourself before transfer, the only possible control some_other_nation will have over you or your data is availability.

[shakna]

You're forgetting that you're talking nation states, here. Breaking encryption is in fact the role of the people you are giving access.

Sovereign delivery makes sense for _nations_.

[littlestymaar]

First of all, you cannot do much if you keep all the data encrypted on the cloud (basically just backing things up, and hope you don't have to fetch it given the egress cost). Also, availability is exactly the kind of issue that a fire cause…

[firesteelrain]

For this reason, Microsoft has Azure US Government, Azure China etc

[whatevaa]

Yeah, I heard that consumer clouds are only locally redundant and there aren't even backups. So big DC damage could result in data loss.

[Johnny555]

By default, Amazon S3 stores data across at least separate datacenters that are in the same region, but are physically separate from each other:

Amazon S3 provides a highly durable storage infrastructure designed for mission-critical and primary data storage. S3 Standard, S3 Intelligent-Tiering, S3 Standard-IA, S3 Glacier Instant Retrieval, S3 Glacier Flexible Retrieval, and S3 Glacier Deep Archive redundantly store objects on multiple devices across a minimum of three Availability Zones in an AWS Region. An Availability Zone is one or more discrete data centers with redundant power, networking, and connectivity in an AWS Region. Availability Zones are physically separated by a meaningful distance, many kilometers, from any other Availability Zone, although all are within 100 km (60 miles) of each other.

You can save a little money by giving up that redundancy and having your data i a single AZ:

The S3 One Zone-IA storage class stores data redundantly across multiple devices within a single Availability Zone

For further redundancy you can set up replication to another region, but if I needed that level of redundancy, I'd probably store another copy of data with a different cloud provider so an AWS global failure (or more likely, a billing issue) doesn't leave my data trapped in one vendor).

I believe Google and Azure have similar levels of redundancy levels in their cloud storage.

[lima]

What do you mean by "consumer clouds"?

[alwa]

I mean… at the risk of misinterpreting sarcasm—

Except for the backup strategy said consumers apply to their data themselves, right?

If I use a service called “it is stored in a datacenter in Virginia” then I will not be surprised when the meteor that hits Virginia destroys my data. For that reason I might also store copies of important things using the “it is stored in a datacenter in Oregon” service or something.

[lima]

...on a single-zone persistent disk: https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/compute/15056#57195...

> GCE instances and Persistent Disks within a zone exist in a single Google datacenter and are therefore unavoidably vulnerable to datacenter-scale disasters.

Of course, it's perfectly possible to have proper distributed storage without using a cloud provider. It happens to be hard to implement correctly, so apparently, the SK government team in question just decided... not to?