jeagerkinght
jeagerkinght t1_jeb2n2y wrote
Reply to comment by beyond_hatred in N.H. governor’s policy to destroy records within 30 days raises transparency concerns by mindi4nh
Currently building a storage server for a municipal government in central NH, storage is not "cheap". I certainly agree that records should be kept for longer than 30 days, but indefinite is also way too long. The 7 years comment seems appropriate
jeagerkinght t1_iye847d wrote
Reply to comment by Suitable_Balance_930 in Yet Another Study Shows U.S. Broadband Users Are Being Ripped Off By Local Monopolies by speckz
As someone working in municipal govermnet, how would one go about starting this? And who actually did the work to build it out?
jeagerkinght t1_iwg9a6i wrote
Reply to comment by MrchntMariner86 in TIL that the civilian sailors of the U.S. Merchant Marine had a higher casualty rate during World War II than any branch of the armed forces. by p38-lightning
As a former Kings Point student, can confirm lots of my friends have the same story
jeagerkinght t1_jef8m3z wrote
Reply to comment by Happy_Confection90 in N.H. governor’s policy to destroy records within 30 days raises transparency concerns by mindi4nh
Oh I agree completely, digital is the way to go, but by no means is digital storage "cheap". Cheaper than it used to be? Certainly. But not "cheap", especially on a government budget.
To throw this into perspective, the city that I work for is spending $82k on 50ish TB of storage and backing that up. And that doesn't include the operating system to run on the server, nor the power to actually run it. Thats just the physical system. Not to mention that that hardware is only good for so long, then it need to be replaced and all that data needs to be migrated. And you need to pay someone to manage that server to make sure nothing gets corrupted or lost due to unforeseen hardware failure.
I still think that this data should be kept for 7 years, maybe longer, but no matter how you store it, it's not "cheap".