Talk:Backblaze

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Apple Inc. Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I removed the notability tag after adding several references. The TechCrunch article is in the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060200763.html so I think the notability criterion is satisfied. Echawkes (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement[edit]

While I don't want to question the notability, the article currently looks like an advertisment, with statements like "supporting unlimited file sizes for as low as $3.96/month". I'll try to remove and rephrase some of that, but I hope that somebody who knows the company should provide content that does not sound like a press release can provide more useful content. TSawala (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported assertion[edit]

The statement found in the Encryption section, "However, because decryption of private keys is done server side, this level of security is unlikely to protect against a government subpoena or serious data breach[citation needed].", was tagged September of 2017. This is now March 2018 and the statement persists. Should there be an acceptable period of review before an assertion is removed to protect the integrity of the wiki? I am tempted to delete the statement now but am still a relative noob in editing. Comments? Smash591 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok to remove such a statement now, since a few months passed. The whole paragraph would need a source addressing the threat model of the system: "take a Trust No One approach" is marketing-speak more than meaningful information. --Nemo 19:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]