If you’ve never heard of or used Dropbox, you owe it to yourself to give it a shot. And if you’re not backing up your important files on a regular basis, you’re really begging for trouble.
Everyone is in need of a good backup, and Dropbox fits the bill very well for most users. In addition, it provides excellent syncing functionality to keep your data up to date between all of the computers that you use. It’s free for the first 2 GB, and above that you can pay for either 50 or 100 GB of space. We’ll be addressing Dropbox Pro accounts (50 or 100 GB accounts) in this article.
In my experience, Dropbox is the most easy to use, mature, and trustworthy service available for online backup and syncing. It does have one caveat, however: the most space you can use is 100 GB (at least for the moment). You can’t even pay for more in a single account. Granted, 100 GB is a lot of space (especially to back up online), but if you’re like me, you have more than 100 GB of precious home movies of your little ones.
So what do you do? Find out after the break…
Here’s what I’ve figured out. It’s a hack but it’s well worth it; it’s working great for me. Dropbox allows you to pay a small monthly fee ($3.99 at the time this article was written) in addition to your standard fee, to enable an extra service they call “Packrat”. Packrat allows you to keep all of your deleted files, as well as all of the previous revisions of all of your files, for all time. This means that when you delete a file from your Dropbox folder it will still remain on the Dropbox servers, and you can go back and restore the file later, if necessary. Dropbox intends this feature to be used for backup purposes (in case files are accidentally deleted, etc.).
This incredible feature is easy to use for more than just-in-case scenarios, however. Due to Dropbox’s unlimited history for deleted files (when using Packrat), you can upload a batch of files, delete them, upload a new batch of files, delete them, and repeat this process until you’ve uploaded every file in your collection. This isn’t great for syncing because it won’t let you sync more than 100 GB at a time between computers, but it is great for backing up that 200 GB home video collection.
Say you have 200 GB of home videos in a folder on your hard disk. This is how you would proceed:
- Create a folder in your Dropbox folder for the videos that you would like to upload (we’ll call it “Videos”).
- Move some of the videos in your collection into your new Dropbox Videos folder. Make sure you don’t move too much to fit in your Dropbox account.
- Wait for these new files to upload to Dropbox (which obviously may take a very long time).
- Once the files are uploaded, move the video files back to the previous folder they were in, outside of the Dropbox folder. Dropbox will interpret these files as being deleted, but you’ll still be able to retrieve them via deleted files in your Dropbox account.
- Move a new batch of video files into your Dropbox Videos folder, wait for the files to upload, and repeat the process until all of your files have been uploaded.
Once you have all of your files uploaded (or at any point in the middle of the process), you can go to Dropbox’s website and see your deleted files. Just click the “Show Deleted Files” option on the toolbar (or under More Actions), and you can restore or download your deleted files. The point is that all your files, whether they total more than 100 GB or not, are still backed up on Dropbox’s servers. In the event that your hard drive crashes, it may be a slight nuisance, but you’ll still be able to fairly easily get your files back from Dropbox’s servers. This way, Dropbox can be used as an unlimited backup service. The only catch is that you can only retrieve (and keep syncing) 100 GB at a time, so if your account is already full you’ll have to temporarily delete some other files to retrieve the files you’re going for.
There are services available that provide unlimited backup space for less money (and that don’t require a “hack” to use), but none of them provide the amazing robustness and syncing functionality that Dropbox has. Rather than subscribe to two different services (and have two different bills), I’ve chosen to take this route, and it’s working well for me.
If this article clued you in to this functionality, drop a comment and let me know how it works for you. :)
Update: I’ve been told that using Dropbox’s Packrat features in this manner is against Dropbox’s terms of service. I’ve yet to hear it officially from Dropbox, but use this strategy at your own risk. I’m working on getting Dropbox’s official commentary on the matter; as of yet they have not responded.
Update #2:Per Phillip’s comment below, Dropbox has confirmed that using Packrat in this manner is against their terms of use. Unfortunately for them, however, it is impossible to determine when a user has “correct” or “incorrect” intentions when using the service. For Dropbox’s sake (and for the sake of keeping your account), I would advise against using this method for massive amounts of data. In a pinch, however, I see nothing wrong or dangerous in using Packrat this way, as long as it is done moderately. If Dropbox wants to stop users from using the Packrat service in this manner, they need to better-define what is or is not acceptable usage in measurable ways (instead of in ways they cannot truly confirm).
So this only works for the pro account huh? That’s a funny little trick though, but it actually makes sense.
Here’s an official statement (as far as I can tell – the user is marked as “Dropbox Support”): http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?id=27475#post-171430
Thanks, Philip. Yes, Dropbox has confirmed that using Packrat in this manner is against their terms of use. Unfortunately for them, however, it is impossible to determine when a user has “correct” or “incorrect” intentions when using the service. For Dropbox’s sake (and for the sake of keeping your account), I would advise against using this method for massive amounts of data. In a pinch, however, I see nothing wrong or dangerous in using Packrat this way, as long as it is done moderately. If Dropbox wants to stop users from using the Packrat service in this manner, they need to better-define what is or is not acceptable usage in measurable ways (instead of in ways they cannot truly confirm).
I understand that previous versions and deleted files do not count against my storge quota. However, when retrieving files, how is it allowed when I already have 100MG in my dropbox folder?
Wanda, that’s one caveat. If your Dropbox is completely full (with 100 GB, not MB), you’ll have to temporarily delete some files in order to retrieve the deleted files. You shouldn’t ever lose anything, but you do have the inconvenience of only being allowed 100GB of actual files in your Dropbox at any one time.
“If Dropbox wants to stop users from using the Packrat service in this manner, they need to better-define what is or is not acceptable usage in measurable ways (instead of in ways they cannot truly confirm).”
While this statement may be technically true, it does not offset the fact that your original post presents unethical use of Dropbox’s Pack-Rat feature. Neither or the two follow-on updates you have added to this post address the intent of your original idea. Is it acceptable when companies to use the careful parsing of technicalities to defraud consumers? No. Likewise, it is equally unacceptable to use the same tactic against a company like Dropbox. Please consider either making a clear statement on your thoughts about the ethics of using Pack-Rat this way, or take this post down altogether. As it stands, it looks like you may believe this form of abuse to be okay simply because Dropbox has not implemented complete protections against it.
Ted, let me clarify a few things. First of all, take a look at this post on Dropbox’s forums:
http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?id=23619
Take a look at Adam G.’s comments. He straight up says that the method should not be used for massive amounts of data, but that “a few GB here and there in a pinch, however, I think is fine.” Here we have a Dropbox employee saying that this usage is acceptable in moderation.
My update ultimately reiterates Adam’s statement. I write: “I would advise against using this method for massive amounts of data. In a pinch, however, I see nothing wrong or dangerous in using Packrat this way, as long as it is done moderately.”
I understand that my post is controversial, and I understand that it has the potential to enable users to use Dropbox in a way that Dropbox does not intend. However, I’m a firm believer in freedom of information and I frown on censoring it; I believe I would be doing a disservice to both the public and Dropbox by removing my post entirely. If Dropbox asks me to remove the post, I will certainly do so, but I do not believe it is the moral thing to do at this point.
The morals are certainly very complicated in this situation, but there are moral issues on both sides of the equation, and my decision stands as-is for the moment.
If necessary, I can get into the important differences between defrauding consumers with technicalities and using a company’s product in different ways than the original intent. However, as for right now I need to get back to being productive. That said, I’m more than willing to respond if you feel the need to continue the discussion.
Jason:
Thank you for directing me to the Dropbox forums thread. I came to your post from a different thread while doing competitive research on file retention policies. (I work for a company that has some competitive overlap with Dropbox.) The thread provides more context. Having read it, I now would suggest that you at least link back to it (which you have done by posting it here in the comments thread).
Admittedly, I still feel the main post reads as though you advocate doing something that I’m not sure you really mean to advocate–especially as a self-avowed believer in freedom of information. Certainly, there is as much in *how* one presents information as *whether* one presents it. Would taking a position on the matter somehow compromise the information you present?
Good luck,
–Ted
Ted, I’m not sure how I missed not linking back to forum post; I’m glad you pointed it out.
The main post (without the updates) clearly advocates using Dropbox in a way that is against their terms of service, yes. However, it is important to note that I wrote the article before I realized this simple fact. Even still, I believe it to be against my personal code of conduct as a blogger to change the way the original article is written. This is why I’ve instead chosen to include important updates at the end, rather than changing the content of the original post.
I’m unclear on how anything I’ve written would conflict with freedom of information ideologies, since I’m attempting to be open and honest about Dropbox’s technical limitations and vulnerabilities and the Dropbox team’s responses to the issue.
I do find this topic interesting, so if you’re available I’d appreciate some specifics on how you feel that the post violates freedom of information ideologies. Granted, if I had a bird’s eye view of the subject before writing the article I probably would have written it differently (or not at all), but I still don’t understand how that necessarily conflicts with freedom of information.
Furthermore, I’d like to know more of what you mean by “taking a position on the matter.” What position am I perceived to be taking and how might that potentially compromise the facts that I’ve presented?
Thanks for the constructive criticism and level-headed responses. :)
Jason:
I haven’t really been trying to point out a conflict with freedom of information ideologies…at all. However, your first response to my comment reads as if you are using that ideology to rationalize the publication of a how-to about cheating Dropbox. As Dropboxers have pointed out in the forums thread, your technique amounts to gaming the system and a violation of their ToS. With that information, the post stops being merely technical how-to and becomes an *ethical* how-to. You’re showing people how to abuse the Dropbox service, but making no statement that it would be wrong to do so.
Without taking such a stand on the matter, your first response to me reinforces what I see as an ethical anti-pattern: how to hide behind freedom of information. “I don’t advocate cheating Dropbox…I’m just sayin’.”
If you intended “Update #2″ to make a clear statement, it misses the mark because your reasoning is about the possible consequences (“..for the sake of keeping your account…”). Coupled with your statement about “measurable ways,” it allows the reader to infer that you’re saying, “if you think you can get away with it, go for it.”
We see such ethical squishiness all too often from politicians, like when they use the language of non-accountability (e.g. “Mistakes were made.”). That’s one reason why I assert that *how* you present information is important. From your conscientious replies so far, I don’t think that you would still endorse using the technique you describe to game the Dropbox system. So why not add a statement at the beginning of the post (dated so that it’s clear that it was not part of the original) that clearly states your current position since your original post?
–Ted
P.S. I feel like I’m moralizing and being tedious. I’d be happy to continue discussing in personal email, but at this point, let’s discontinue the public thread before readers get the idea that I believe myself to be some kind of general ethical authority. I’m not! :)
Ted…I do see your points. I was mainly just confused what you meant about freedom of information.
I believe my first response is at least partially justified by Adam G.’s statements in the forum post. With permission to use the functionality in moderation, I really shouldn’t have to justify why the information is useful in moral ways. Perhaps I should have just left the second half of the response out and not gone into the morality at all. After all, I’m far from an expert on the subject.
My update #2 was an attempt to infer that Dropbox is providing conflicting information, and that they need to better define acceptable and/or unacceptable use and be sure that they can measure the differences. I can see how a “get away with it” impression can be taken, however, and I won’t deny that a part of me did want to intentionally imply that. Perhaps that means my response wasn’t flawless… ;)
The trick here still remains, though. Those who use the suggested method here are not “gaming the system” so long as Dropbox employees continue to say that it is okay in moderation (in a “pinch”). The real reason why I am hesitant to add anything further to the article is because I’m hoping that Dropbox will eventually take an official and public stance on the matter (one that doesn’t conflict with itself and can be enforced). I’d rather not elaborate any further on the morality, legality, or Dropbox intentions on the matter until Dropbox takes true ownership of the issue.
Feel free to email me back a response if you’d like. I think you’re right, though; we’ve driven this into the ground (it’s my fault for hounding you for more information). Still, thanks for the interesting conversation; I appreciate your thoughts and the time you’ve spent. :)