Google calls Drive data loss "fixed," locks forum threads saying otherwise
A bug in Google Drive has led to reports of files silently disappearing, with some users unable to recover months of work despite Google claiming the issue is fixed and locking support forum threads. Commenters question Google’s transparency, legal risk, and commitment to customer support, especially for paid services, drawing parallels to past product shutdowns and account lockouts. The incident feeds a broader skepticism about relying on any single cloud provider for critical data and prompts renewed emphasis on multi-layer backup strategies such as local storage, NAS devices, and independent cloud copies.
Scope and Nature of the Data Loss
- Multiple users report missing or corrupted Google Drive data: files apparently deleted around March, uploads that appear in search but can’t be downloaded, and files vanishing after name conflicts between web and desktop actions.
- Google’s official framing (“issues accessing local files that had yet to be synced”) is seen as downplaying outright deletion of local data.
- Some argue the bug is clearly in the Windows Drive for Desktop client (v84) and limited to unsynced local files; others note reports of losses from web-only usage (e.g., Sheets) and question whether backend issues are also involved.
- It’s unclear whether any already-synced cloud data was actually destroyed or whether the problem is solely lost uploads and inconsistent sync state.
Google’s Handling and Communication
- Many criticize Google’s response: no public postmortem, vague help-center language, and locking of support threads where users continue to report problems.
- This is viewed as emblematic of Google’s poor customer relations and opaque support culture, especially galling for paying customers.
- Some defend thread locking as necessary to stop rumor propagation and manage pathological or never-satisfied users, while others see it as silencing legitimate complaints.
- There’s debate about legal risk: transparency vs potential liability or even securities issues if Google knowingly misrepresents the incident.
Backups, Cloud Risk, and Redundancy
- Strong emphasis on 3-2-1 backup practices: three copies, two media, one off-site. Cloud storage alone is “storage,” not “backup.”
- Several anecdotes of catastrophic data loss (failed disks, university systems, Dropbox glitches) reinforce the need for multiple, tested backups.
- Discussion of S3 durability: 11 nines implies some objects are lost each year, even if probability per object is tiny; distinction between durability and availability is noted, and durability is not in the SLA.
- Risks highlighted: synced deletions propagating to local copies, account hacks or closures, ToS-based lockouts, and keeping all backups with one cloud provider.
Alternatives and Shifting Trust
- Some see this as part of a broader erosion of trust in Google products and a push toward NAS/home storage (e.g., Synology, DIY ZFS) plus selective cloud use.
- Others suggest staying with cloud but adding independent providers or local backups, and treating any sync client as a potential single point of failure.