this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
563 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

84041 readers
3181 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
563
Google Starts Scanning All Your Photos As New Update Goes Live (www.forbes.com)
submitted 2 days ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world
125 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Google confirms its latest update can scan all your photos to “use actual images of you and your loved ones” in AI image generation. That means Gemini seeing who you know and what you do. You likely have tens or hundreds of thousands of photos. They’re all exposed if you update.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Toribor@corndog.social 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Backblaze B2 is about $7 a month per TB.

Almost every major backup solution natively supports S3 compatible storage.

[–] aphonefriend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

Might want to reconsider back blaze. Their on the fast lane to enshitification too. https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/67378795

[–] Landless2029@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

$7/month per TB is expensive as a data hoarder...

Best to scope it down to documents, git and photos.

The rest gets an onsite backup to externals.

[–] markko@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Obviously cloud storage is convenient, but there's definitely better value in on-site backups.

That works out to $84/year, which is about what you could get a 1TB HDD for.

2 x 1TB HDDs in RAID will be much cheaper and reasonably safe in the long run.

1TB SSDs will be even better value due to their extended lifespans, and you'd get much better speeds.

[–] Toribor@corndog.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I back up to local storage and then replicate offsite to S3 nightly.

On-prem backups are great and cheap and fast and definitely plan A but a robust backup solution is going to require offsite storage of some sort. Object storage is one of the cheapest ways to do that for most situations, particularly for things that can't be replaced like photos.

[–] markko@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I'd do the same if I wasn't so tight with my money lol. I prefer having multiple on-site backups so I don't have the subscription fees.

If something bad enough happens to my house that it destroys all my backups then I imagine photos are not going to be very high on my list of priorities.