
It looks like rclone has been banned on Amazon Cloud Drive - nifoc
https://twitter.com/njcw/status/865319897580097537
======
tyingq
Not much info other than several 3rd party tools not working. Is it really
banned, or just broken by an Amazon side change?

~~~
cmer
It actually is banned according to this:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/6bv8a4/rclone_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/6bv8a4/rclone_has_stopped_working_with_acd_user_claims/?st=J2W7GNS8&sh=bbcf4a30)

~~~
tyingq
I suppose if the tool is popular with a crowd called "data hoarders", I'm not
that surprised.

------
unstatusthequo
Crap I wonder about Arq5? Didn't get any error today so maybe not. Though I
wonder if its just a matter of time... Back to SpiderOak then.

------
simon1573
rclone is the sole reason for why went with ACD. Let's hope it's just a hick
up. Could it be related to the "I can see other people's files"-issue?

------
Eleopteryx
Just let people upload unencrypted .mkvs without it being an issue and
deduplication (of a very finite number of releases) will be a cinch. Everybody
wins.

------
i336_
Here are my thoughts and what I know (not affiliated, but actively looking for
tons of cheap storage, so very interested in ACD)

This is the public world record for high you can go with ACD if _all_ the
planets align:
[https://i.imgur.com/kiI4kmp.png](https://i.imgur.com/kiI4kmp.png) (small
screenshot) /
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/5s7q04/i_hit_a...](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/5s7q04/i_hit_a_bit_of_a_milestone_today/)

At the other end of the spectrum, I learned from some archivists a little
while ago how someone hit some kind of impenetrable brick wall at only 100TB.
I unfortunately don't know what their upload size/time ratio was like or if
the data was encrypted.

Here are my thoughts.

Amazon are selling unlimited storage, and clearly have the capacity to
actually support surprisingly deep file lockers, so they're making good on
their promise and letting people just feed them files all day long.

But when you get to this level of scale, you have to seriously think carefully
about what you're storing.

If it's encrypted, _why_ is it encrypted? If it's PCI-DSS data, that shouldn't
be on ACD, that's commercial usage. If it's surveillance footage, home
environments don't _generally_ create terabytes of footage as the months go by
(unless the DVRs are garbage). Etc etc.

My point: it's generally hard to find a home/personal use to store data that
must categorically be encrypted, so the only reason data will be encrypted is
either a) paranoid types who want to keep their data to themselves or b)
people who have something to hide. (a) are annoying, but (b) are a liability.

One thing I can imagine some types of people leaping at ACD for is storing
encrypted tomes of porn, the kind that generates FBI visits and makes people
go away. Considering that Amazon is making good on their offer to actually
provide tons and tons of space for ~$60/yr, the _scale_ of data that is being
stored becomes a liability if it's encrypted, because you don't know if it's
bad material.

The reason for this is that, if the keys to the encrypted tome(s) get out, and
a _lot_ of content is discovered in one place, it's _possible_ Amazon could
get caught in the ensuing mushroom cloud. That would be _really_ bad PR at the
very least, and it would be a miracle if there wasn't any legal fallout as
well.

So considering the worst case scenario...

...UNencrypted personal media collections are essentially just a nuisance, not
an imminent legal disaster, in the grand scale of things. Everyone has files
of "interesting" origin nowadays; it's the Internet. (A recent article on here
noted how Spotify seeded their collection with media obtained from scene
torrent releases.)

Plus, if your data is _not_ encrypted, Amazon can deduplicate everything so
much more easily as well - and considering that Amazon probably have a copy of
near every possible permutation of data in existence (S3...), it's a whole lot
easier to handle "I don't ever want this FLAC to go away" if you can use
refcounting to do it. And no two encrypted files should ever match.

I realize I sound like a shill either/both for Amazon and/or the scary
vulnerable kind of end-user transparency. I do feel weird recommending this.
But I come from the standpoint of trying to figure out what's likeliest to
actually work out in practice when using ACD. In the reddit example above, the
majority of the data was not encrypted, and even though it was porn it went
through fine.

That being said, I do have to admit I'm not quite ready to just go ahead and
tell Amazon about the music or videos I've _obtained_ , even though my
collection is really tiny.

