April 15, 2017 at 3:10 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Liable for Data Loss
April 17, 2017 at 4:23 am
Actually, I think it won't be long before this whole thing turns around and people can sue software companies for data loss. All someone has to do is make the case for data theft (even though the company isn't officially trying to steal the data) and show a severe loss of money due to the time it takes to recovery lost data, or prove that the lost data can't be recovered (incompatibility with the upgraded software) and they're off to the races. Of course, it would have to be a government bringing suit or a major corporation (IMHO) before the courts would take it seriously. But I still see it happening.
April 17, 2017 at 6:57 am
Brandie Tarvin - Monday, April 17, 2017 4:23 AMActually, I think it won't be long before this whole thing turns around and people can sue software companies for data loss. All someone has to do is make the case for data theft (even though the company isn't officially trying to steal the data) and show a severe loss of money due to the time it takes to recovery lost data, or prove that the lost data can't be recovered (incompatibility with the upgraded software) and they're off to the races. Of course, it would have to be a government bringing suit or a major corporation (IMHO) before the courts would take it seriously. But I still see it happening.
If that happens, the results might not be good. An outfit like MS with hundreds of millions of machines in all sorts of states of upkeep and configuration can never guarantee against data loss.
As for the small entrepreneurs creating apps for ios and Android.... business insurance would be astronomical, even if their product is solid. Major problem for startups.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
April 17, 2017 at 7:01 am
You would expect to see a secondary insurance market if this is a case for the courts.
Does anyone have a survey of the actual size and scope of the issues and cases?
412-977-3526 call/text
April 17, 2017 at 7:11 am
To my mind, the Microsoft case seems to be more about customer manipulation than data loss. If they hadn't forced/coerced people into "upgrading", would there still be a case against them?
The three biggest mistakes in life...thinking that power = freedom, sex = love, and data = information.
April 17, 2017 at 7:22 am
IMHO - Monday, April 17, 2017 7:11 AMTo my mind, the Microsoft case seems to be more about customer manipulation than data loss. If they hadn't forced/coerced people into "upgrading", would there still be a case against them?
This is right. When the decision to upgrade is made, liability for the consequences of the upgrade is usually on the decision maker. This was always customer's before, but Microsoft forced them to upgrade, so the damage is their fault. If I choose to upgrade, I make sure I have a good backup first or data loss is my own fault. But if you force the upgrade on me at an unexpected time, I never had a chance to make that backup.
April 17, 2017 at 7:44 am
It would be hard to prove that the data loss was the result of a botched upgrade, unless there were a statistically sufficient number of other users who experienced similar loss at the same time or some extremely comprehensive and trustworthy forensics by a 3rd party. On the other hard, juries in civil trials have a more fast and loose policy when it comes to the burden of proof, especially when the trial resolves around something very technical, the defendant is a billionaire corporation, and the plaintiff(s) are little guys with a good lawyer.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
April 17, 2017 at 11:55 am
ken.romero - Monday, April 17, 2017 7:22 AMIMHO - Monday, April 17, 2017 7:11 AMTo my mind, the Microsoft case seems to be more about customer manipulation than data loss. If they hadn't forced/coerced people into "upgrading", would there still be a case against them?This is right. When the decision to upgrade is made, liability for the consequences of the upgrade is usually on the decision maker. This was always customer's before, but Microsoft forced them to upgrade, so the damage is their fault. If I choose to upgrade, I make sure I have a good backup first or data loss is my own fault. But if you force the upgrade on me at an unexpected time, I never had a chance to make that backup.
Couldn't agree more, you break it you buy it
April 17, 2017 at 12:05 pm
Disclosure first - we're a Microsoft partner and MSP and support lots of users at customer sites.
We've seen ONE occurrence of data loss from Windows 10 upgrades. And that user, when we diagnosed the event after the fact, admitted that he'd seen a prompt to do something, clicked one of the buttons and hadn't actually read the message. He also said that "yeah, it warned me a couple of times that it was going to do something" (as in delete his apps and data), but he clicked yes to proceed.
Personal opinion - it's going to be hard to make MS liable when the user is warned what is going to happen but continues anyway without a backup. Or, in this case, not storing documents on the server shares like he'd been told to do for many months.
Just about every software package or app used will eventually go through an upgrade. Making software companies liable for all mistakes that users can make will result in significant cost increases to cover the required insurance.
April 17, 2017 at 12:57 pm
I'm not sure we're looking to make vendors liable for users' mistakes. It's more that vendors need to be liable for vendor mistakes, which isn't always the case now.
April 17, 2017 at 1:11 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor - Monday, April 17, 2017 12:57 PMI'm not sure we're looking to make vendors liable for users' mistakes. It's more that vendors need to be liable for vendor mistakes, which isn't always the case now.
Not sure how you would define a vendor mistake. An update on a clean install would almost never create data loss, that's a pretty easy situation to test. The problem is the unlimited number of hardware/software combinations out there, many with odd ball software or even malware. There is no way to validate all possible combinations. We've seen KBs that caused problems only with very specific combinations, and percentage wise were extremely rare so as to suggest that suitable testability is not in the cards.
There is, however, a potential problem with MS silent patching. There users cannot even take the proper precaution of a full backup just before the patch.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
April 18, 2017 at 4:14 am
jay-h - Monday, April 17, 2017 1:11 PMThere is, however, a potential problem with MS silent patching. There users cannot even take the proper precaution of a full backup just before the patch.
So how are they (MS) handling it with business users (corporations) who have deployed Windows 10 out in their environments? Are the businesses unable to test / control the patching because the silent patching is going on with MS dictates it? Or has MS made an exception?
It seems extremely ridiculous that MS would not consider the burden they're placing on corps by insisting patching goes on MS's schedule instead of the business's schedule. But if they're trying to push everyone to the same patch level at the same time, I can see that they would fail to consider bad interactions in certain environments or the need for businesses to know what they are pushing out before everyone gets it on their machines. Especially in this day and age of data theft / breaches, when a bad patch can leave a door wide open for anyone who's looking.
April 18, 2017 at 7:38 am
Isn't it wrong that people are talking about ensuring that they have an opportunity to back up data before a patch is installed? Backups should be a continuously executed operation. Even for individuals. Even using the simplest strategy.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
April 18, 2017 at 7:44 am
Gary Varga - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 7:38 AMIsn't it wrong that people are talking about ensuring that they have an opportunity to back up data before a patch is installed? Backups should be a continuously executed operation. Even for individuals. Even using the simplest strategy.
I make extra backups before patching. To catch minor file changes / additions (and anything else I haven't thought of) that may have changed since the last backup.
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply