Dataliths vs. the digital dark age

Digital technology has allowed us to store more information at less cost than ever before. At the same time, it’s made this information very fragile in the long term. A book can sit in an abandoned building for centuries and still be readable. Writing carved in stone can last for thousands of years. The chances that your computer’s disk will be readable in a hundred years are poor, though. You’ll have to go to a museum for hardware and software to read it. Once you have all that, it probably won’t even spin up. If it does, the bits may be ruined. In five hundred years, its chance of readability will be essentially zero.

Archivists are aware of this, of course, and they emphasize the need for continual migration. Every couple of decades, at least, stored documents need to be moved to new media and perhaps updated to a new format. Digital copies, if made with reasonable precautions, are perfect. This approach means that documents can be preserved forever, provided the chain never breaks.

Fortunately, there doesn’t have to be just one chain. The LOCKSS (lots of copies keeps stuff safe) principle means that the same document can be stored in archives all over the world. As long as just one of them keeps propagating it, the document will survive.

Does this make us really safe from the prospect of a digital dark age? Will a substantial body of today’s knowledge and literature survive until humans evolve into something so different that it doesn’t matter any more? Not necessarily. To be really safe, information needs to be stored in a form that can survive long periods of neglect. We need dataliths.

Several scenarios could lead to neglect of electronic records for a generation or more. A global nuclear war could destroy major institutions, wreck electronic devices with EMPs, and force people to focus on staying alive. An asteroid hit or a supervolcano eruption could have a similar effect. Humanity might surive these things but take a century or more to return to a working technological society.

Less spectacularly, periods of intense international fear or attempts to manage the world economy might create an unfriendly climate for preserving records of the past. The world might go through a period of severe censorship. Lately religious barbarians have been sacking cities and destroying historical records that don’t fit with their doctrines. Barbarians generally burn themselves out quickly, but “enlightened” authorities can also decide that all “unenlightened” ideas should be banished for the good of us all. Prestigious institutions can be especially vulnerable to censorship because of their visibility and dependence on broad support. Even without legal prohibition, archival culture may shift to decide that some ideas aren’t worth preserving. Either way, it won’t be called censorship; it will be called “fair speech,” “fighting oppression,” “the right to be forgotten,” or some other euphemism that hasn’t yet lost credibility.

How great is the risk of these scenarios? Who can say? To calculate odds, you need repeatable causes, and the technological future will be a lot different from the comparatively low-tech past. But if we’re thinking on a span of thousands of years, we can’t dismiss it as negligible. Whatever may happen, the documents of the past are too valuable to be maintained only by their official guardians.

Hard copy will continue to be important. It’s also subject to most of the forms of loss I’ve mentioned, but some of it can survive for many years with no attention. As long as someone can understand the language it’s written in, or as long as its pictures remain recognizable, it has value. However, we can’t back away from digital storage and print everything we want to preserve. The advantages of bits are clear: easy reproduction and high storage density. This isn’t to say that archivists should abandon the strategy of storing documents with the best technology and migrating them regularly. In good times, that’s the most effective approach. But the bigger strategy should include insurance against the bad times, a form of storage that can survive neglect. Ideally it shouldn’t be in the hands of Harvard or the Library of Congress, but of many “guerilla archivists” acting on their own.

This strategy requires a storage medium which is highly durable and relatively simple to read. It doesn’t have to push the highest edges of storage density. It should be the modern equivalent of the stone tablet, a datalith.

There are devices which tend in this direction. Milleniata claims to offer “forever storage” in its M-Disc. Allegedly it has been “proven to last 1,000 years,” though I wonder how they managed to start testing in the Middle Ages. A DVD uses a complicated format, though, so it may not be readable even if it physically lasts that long. Hitachi has been working on quartz glass data storage that could last for millions of years and be read with an optical microscope. This would be the real datalith. As long as some people still know today’s languages, pulling out ASCII data should be a very simple cryptographic task. Unfortunately, the medium isn’t commercially available yet. Others have worked on similar ideas, such as the Superman memory crystal. Ironically, that article, which proclaims “the first document which will likely survive the human race,” has a broken link to its primary source less than two years after its publication.

Hopefully datalith writers will be available before too long, and after a few years they won’t be outrageously expensive. The records they create will be an important part of the long-term preservation of knowledge.

Posted in commentary. Tags: , . Comments Off on Dataliths vs. the digital dark age

Honda MP3 player defect

Recently Eyal Mozes hired me to determine why the sound system in his new Honda Civic wouldn’t play some MP3 files. This was a chance to do some interesting investigative work, and I’ve found what I think is a previously unidentified product defect.

He sent me twenty MP3 files, ten of which would play on his system and ten of which wouldn’t. First I ran some preliminary tests, establishing that iTunes, QuickTime Player, Audacity, and even my older Honda stereo had no trouble with the files. Then I ran Exiftool on them and looked at the output to see what the difference was.

The first thing I looked for was variable bitrate encoding, which is the most common cause of failure to play MP3 files. None of them used a variable bitrate. Looking more closely, I saw that all the files had both ID3 V1 and V2 metadata. This is legitimate. In the files he’d indicated as non-playable, though, the length of the ID3 V2 segment was zero. This was true in all the non-playable files, while all the playable ones had ID3 V2 with some data fields. I verified with a hex dump that the start of the files was a ten-byte empty ID3 V2.3 segment.

I continued looking for any other systematic differences, but that was the only one I found. It’s highly likely that the MP3 software in Eyal’s car — and, therefore, in many Hondas and maybe even other makes — has a bug that makes a file fail to play if there’s a zero-length ID3 V2 segment. (Update: Just to be clear, this is a legitimate if unusual case, not a violation of the format.)

Eyal had gone to arbitration to get his vehicle returned under the warranty; Honda’s response was unimpressive. Initially, he told me, Honda claimed that the non-playing files were under DRM. This is nonsense; there’s no such thing as DRM on MP3 files. They withdrew this claim but then asserted that “compatibility issues” related to encoding were the problem, without giving any specifics. The ID3 header in an MP3 file is unrelated to the encoding of the file, and I didn’t see any systematic differences in encoding parameters between the playable and non-playable files. Honda claimed to be unable to tell how the files were encoded. They may not have been able to tell what software was used, but the only “how” that’s relevant is the encoding parameters.

This problem won’t make your brakes fail or your wheels fall off, but Honda should still treat it as a product defect, come up with a fix, and offer it to customers for free. If they can upgrade the firmware, that’s great; if not, they’ll have to issue replacement units. The bug sounds like one that’s easy to fix once the programmers are aware of it. The testing just wasn’t thorough enough to catch this case.

If anyone wants to hire me for more file format forensic work, let me know. This was fun to investigate.

Pono’s file format

I’ve been seeing weirdly intense hostility to the Pono music player and service. A Business Insider article implies that it’s a scheme by Apple to make you buy your music all over again at higher prices. Another article complains that it will hold “only” 1,872 tracks and protests that “the Average person” (their capitalization) doesn’t hear any improvement. I wonder if some of these people are outraged because they’re confusing Pono with Bono and thinking this is the new copy-proof file format which he said Apple is working on.

In fact, Pono isn’t using any new format and isn’t introducing DRM. Its files are in the well-known FLAC format. FLAC stands for “Free Lossless Audio Codec.” The term technically refers only to the codec, not the container, but it’s usually delivered in a “Native FLAC” container. It can also be delivered in an Ogg container, providing better metadata support and slightly larger files.

The “lossless” part of the name refers to FLAC’s compression. MP3 uses lossy compression, which removes some information, sacrificing a little audio quality to make the file smaller. FLAC delivers larger files, giving better quality and a larger file size for the same sampling rate and bit resolution. According to CNET, “Pono’s recordings will range from CD-quality 16-bit/44.1kHz to 24-bit/192kHz “ultra-high resolution.” 96 kilohertz (dividing 192 by 2 per the Nyquist theorem) is way beyond the threshold of human hearing, so it’s understandable that people are skeptical about whether it offers any benefit over a lower sampling rate. Frequencies that high are normally filtered out.

FLAC is non-proprietary and DRM-free, and it has an open source reference implementation. Someone could put FLAC into a DRM container, but then why not use a proprietary encoding? Using FLAC is a step forward from the patent-encumbered MP3, with license requirements that effectively lock out free software.

iTunes doesn’t support FLAC files, so the Business Insider claim that Pono is Apple’s way of making you buy music over again is idiotic. It’s like saying Windows 8 is an Apple scheme to make you buy new software.

As the number of gigabytes you can stick in your pocket keeps growing, the need for compression decreases. For many people, amount of music storage takes priority over improved sound quality, but some will pay for a high-end player that gives them the best sound possible. I don’t get why this infuriates so many critics. At any rate, the file format shouldn’t scare anyone.

For more discussion of FLAC as it relates to Pono, see “What is FLAC? The high-def MP3 explained” on CNET’s site; the headline is totally wrong, but the article itself is good.

Posted in commentary. Tags: , , , . Comments Off on Pono’s file format

Article on PDF/A validation with JHOVE

An article by Yvonne Friese does a good job of explaining the limitations of JHOVE in validating PDF/A. At the time that I wrote JHOVE, I wasn’t aware how few people had managed to write a PDF validator independent of Adobe’s code base; if I’d known, I might have been more intimidated. It’s a complex job, and adding PDF/A validation as an afterthought added to the problems. JHOVE validates only the file structure, not the content streams, so it can miss errors that make a file unusable. Finally, I’ve never updated JHOVE to PDF 1.7, so it doesn’t address PDF/A-2 or 3.

I do find the article flattering; it’s nice to know that even after all these years, “many memory institutions use JHOVE’s PDF module on a daily basis for digital long term archiving.” The Open Preservation Foundation is picking up JHOVE, and perhaps it will provide some badly needed updates.

Posted in commentary. Tags: , , , . Comments Off on Article on PDF/A validation with JHOVE

The misuses of HTML frames

HTML framesets have some good uses, such as including third-party content. They also have misuses, such as disguising third-party involvement.

Recently I needed to set up domain forwarding for a subdomain registered with Godaddy. (The choice of registrar wasn’t my fault.) A couple of options were available, including one that claimed to guarantee that the subdomain would persist through navigation in the address bar. That sounded like a good thing, so I picked it.

At first it seemed to work fine; but when I tried to use the URL of an image on the site, there were weird errors. I soon found out what was going on: Godaddy was wrapping every page referenced by the subdomain in a frameset! This looks like a duck and clicks like a duck, but it isn’t one, and anything that tries to treat HTML as a JPEG file isn’t going to work very well.

Stack Overflow has several reports of people being bitten by this:

Frame wrapping is a good-enough solution for some cases, but when you aren’t told it’s happening, that’s a seriously wrong way to do it. It’s also a security concern, since your domain points at an IP address that you don’t control, and only indirectly at your own site.

This is a blog on file formats, not on irresponsible domain registrars, so the moral here is to realize that framesets aren’t a completely transparent way to provide third-party content. It’s fine to use them, but only if you’re aware that the frameset host and the frame provider are active partners.

Posted in commentary. Tags: , . 1 Comment »

The return of music DRM?

U2, already the most hated band in the world thanks to its invading millions of iOS devices with unsolicited files, isn’t stopping. An article on Time‘s website tells us, in vague terms, that

Bono, Edge, Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen Jr believe so strongly that artists should be compensated for their work that they have embarked on a secret project with Apple to try to make that happen, no easy task when free-to-access music is everywhere (no) thanks to piracy and legitimate websites such as YouTube. Bono tells TIME he hopes that a new digital music format in the works will prove so irresistibly exciting to music fans that it will tempt them again into buying music—whole albums as well as individual tracks.

It’s hard to read this as anything but an attempt to bring digital rights management (DRM) back to online music distribution. Users emphatically rejected it years ago, and Apple was among the first to drop it. You haven’t really “bought” anything with DRM on it; you’ve merely leased it for as long as the vendor chooses to support it. People will continue to break DRM, if only to avoid the risk of loss. The illegal copies will offer greater value than legal ones.

It would be nice to think that what U2 and Apple really mean is just that the new format will offer so much better quality that people will gladly pay for it, but that’s unlikely. Higher-quality formats such as AAC have been around for a long time, and they haven’t pushed the old standby MP3 out of the picture. Existing levels of quality are good enough for most buyers, and vendors know it.

Time implies that YouTube doesn’t compensate artists for their work. This is false. They often don’t bother with small independent musicians, though they will if they’re reminded hard enough (as Heather Dale found out), but it’s hard to believe that groups with powerful lawyers, such as U2, aren’t being compensated for every view.

DRM and force-feeding of albums are two sides of the same coin of vendor control over our choices. This new move shouldn’t be a surprise.

Posted in commentary, News. Tags: , , . Comments Off on The return of music DRM?

Best viewed with a big-name browser

A few websites refuse to present content if you use a browser other than one of the four or so big-name ones.

An "unsupported browser" message from Apple's support website

The example shown is what I got when I accessed Apple’s support site with iCab, a relatively obscure browser which I often use. Many of Google’s pages also refuse to deliver content to iCab.

There is a real problem that JavaScript isn’t standardized, and it’s necessary to test with each browser to be confident that a page will work properly. However, if a page sticks with the basics of JavaScript and isn’t trying to do animations, video, or other cutting-edge effects, then any reasonably up-to-date implementation of JavaScript should be able to handle it. It’s reasonable to display a warning if the browser is an untested one, but there’s no reason to block it.

Browsers can impersonate other browsers by setting the User-Agent header, and small-name browsers usually provide that option for getting around these problems. After a couple of tries with iCab, I was able to get through by impersonating Safari. Doing this also has an advantage for privacy; identifying yourself with a little-used browser can greatly contribute to unique identification when you may want anonymity. From the standpoint of good website practices, though, a site shouldn’t be locking browsers out unless there’s an unusual need. Web pages should follow standards so that they’re as widely readable as possible. This is especially important with a “contact support” page.

Apple and Google both are browser vendors. Might we look at this as a way to make entry by new browsers more difficult?

Posted in commentary. Tags: , . Comments Off on Best viewed with a big-name browser

The animated GIF is the new blink tag

In the early days of HTML, the most hated tag was the <blink> tag, which made text under it blink. There were hardly any sensible uses for it, and a lot of browsers now disable it. I just tested it in this post, and WordPress actually deleted the tag from my draft when I tried to save it. (I approve!)

Today, though, the <blink> tag isn’t annoying enough. Now we have the animated GIF. It’s been around since the eighties, but for some reason it’s become much more prevalent recently. It’s the equivalent of waving a picture in your face while you’re trying to read something.

I can halfway understand it when it’s done in ads. Advertisers want to get your attention away from the page you’re reading and click on the link to theirs. What I don’t understand is why people use it in their own pages and user icons. It must be a desire to yell “Look how clever I am!!!” over and over again as the animation cycles.

Fortunately, some browsers provide an option to disable it. Firefox used to let you stop it with the ESC key, but last year removed this feature.

If you think that your web page is boring and adding some animated GIFs is just what’s needed to bring back the excitement — Don’t. Just don’t.

Update: I just discovered that a page that was driving me crazy because even disabling animated GIFs wouldn’t stop it was actually using the <marquee> tag. I believe that tag is banned by the Geneva Convention.

Posted in commentary. Tags: , , . Comments Off on The animated GIF is the new blink tag

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 63 other followers