>>1024925 (OP)
>>1024930
Lmao what a bunch of ill-informed LARPers.
Definitely not an SSD. SSDs are far less reliable than a HDD, and when an SSD fails the data is totally gone. When a HDD fails, the data can almost always be recovered. SSDs also fail without warning. A HDD will have many, many signs leading up to a failure.
I would suggest the old standby: a three-fold data-loss prevention strategy.
A) first, you should have it on a physical, accessible storage medium, i.e. a good, high-quality HDD. Furthermore, I'd suggest you usually leave this drive powered on, at least in a low-power mode, and make sure you access it regularly. In other words, have it on your main machine.
B) second, I would suggest an on-site, long term backup. For the average home-user, a CD or DVD disk will do fine. I'd suggest you make sure to read the disks at least once a year and perform a hash-check on them to ensure data integrity, and replace them once every few (maybe once a year, since disks are cheap) years, because data-rot can be a real problem. Alternatives are a flash-storage medium, which have some of the same shortcomings discussed previously, or tape. Tape is definitely the best, but it can be prohibitively expensive for some.
C) third, you're going to want to have some kind of off-site storage. If you're really talking about family photos, it's easy because it isn't private data. Thus, dropbox, Google drive, wikipedia commons, archive.org, etc. etc. will do fine. If it is not actually family photos, and something private, it becomes trickier, but any data can safely be stored on a botnet service if it is first encrypted. Just don't lose the encryption key.
Honestly anon, if I were you, I would have a three-fold strategy like described above. However I would also store the photos on multiple computers, multiple phones, multiple online backup services, etc. so as to be more resilient. But that's just me.