Well, I would guess the number of people who need to backup 4T is rather small.
My thinking is that most people likely max out well below the 0.5T that the same $5 buys you on Google now, making that variant actually cheaper for them than Backblaze.
For those people it means paying less per month and getting privacy and better control (data retention!) in return. Should be a no-brainer.
Backblaze lets you add a personal encryption key. I guess they could log that key when you try to decrypt and restore, although I trust they don't. I suppose the NSA probably gets the key when it gets transmitted, but I don't really care. Am I missing something here? If Backblaze's encryption implementation is substantially worse, I may switch.
"Well, what do I have to hide?" is a bad argument with respect to whether the NSA should be doing the things it does, but with respect to whether I am going to spend money and effort to hide my photos and documents from them, I think it's a fair argument.
I care very much, however, whether hackers will have access to my files, as they can cause havoc with things like tax returns that the NSA won't (I mean, the government already has my tax returns....).
So I was mainly curious if there was some significant flaw in Backblaze's encryption that should worry me from the perspective of a non-nation state adversary.
Can anyone comment how Crashplan stacks up vs Backblaze here? I'm leaning towards it as it'll save the data for more than 30 days after deletion, and security's another factor in my choice.
Backblaze can probably afford to be $5/mo per computer because the average computer using it has less than 4TB; OTOH, if there is a more cost effective option for the low end, it won't make sense to use Backblaze on the low end, which will drive up Backblaze's sustainable per computer price.
