Freaking Out About Nazi Content On The Internet Archive Is Totally Missing The Point

from the moral-panics dept

The moral panics around anyone finding "bad" content online are getting out of control. The latest is a truly silly article in the San Francisco Chronicle whining about the fact that there is Nazi content available on the Internet Archive, written by the executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute, Steven Stalinsky, who is quite perturbed that his own personal content moderation desires are not how the Internet Archive moderates.

For the past decade, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) research has been exposing the Internet Archive's enabling of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other jihadi propaganda efforts and its function as a database for their distribution of materials, recruitment campaigns, incitement of violence, fundraising and even daily radio programs. We wrote that ISIS liked the platform because there was no way to flag objectionable content for review and removal — unlike on other platforms such as YouTube. Today, the Internet Archive enables neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the same ways, and its terms of use still deny responsibility for content uploaded to it.

Right, so let's stop right there. Yes, for over a decade, we've written about ongoing complaints among the pearl clutching crew that you could find terrorist content online, along with their demands that websites pull it down, leading to social media sites shutting down the accounts of human rights groups who were documenting war crimes committed by terrorist organizations.

There's a key point in this: just because this information is available does not mean it is only used for nefarious purposes. Indeed, it is often used for important and valuable purposes -- such as documenting crimes. Or creating historical archives that show truly horrific crimes and ignorant thinking. Deleting that and sweeping it under the rug is not a reasonable approach either. But this entire article by Stalinsky seems premised on the idea that every bit of evidence of Nazi-ism should disappear. That seems incredibly counterproductive.

A recent two-year study I co-authored reviews the massive amount of content being uploaded, downloaded and shared by these groups on the Internet Archive and how it is used for recruitment and radicalization. This includes historical Nazi content such as copies of Der Sturmer, the virulently antisemitic Nazi-era propaganda newspaper, and speeches and writings by Adolph Hitler, Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi figures.

This historical material is interspersed with neo-Nazi content, including tens of thousands of pages with titles such as "Adolf Hitler: The Ultimate Red Pill," "666 Adolf Hitler Quotes" and "Joseph Goebbels, Master of Propaganda, Heil Hitler," and videos and writings by convicted Holocaust deniers.

And the answer to this content is... to set it all on fire? Like that won't come back to bite you?

Extremist works are available on the platform for download — and for radicalization — including seminal white supremacist books, training manuals for carrying out attacks, recruitment videos and several manifestos of white supremacist mass shooters.

And it's also available for activists, journalists, researchers and more to study it and figure out how to counter it.

Yes, these are serious issues and I can understand the concerns about how this information could be misused (though, despite an attention grabbing headline about how the website is a "favorite" for "neo-Nazis", the actual article supplies little to no evidence to support that claim). But simply hiding the information doesn't make it go away--nor does it deal with any of the underlying reasons such information might be appealing to some ignorant people. It is brushing a serious issue under the rug, and doing so in a way that can have seriously bad consequences -- as we've seen with social media sites deleting evidence of war crimes.

Everyone seems to think that content moderation is easy -- just do what I would do -- without ever thinking through the actual trade-offs and challenges of having to actually make these decisions. The article here seems to be written in incredibly bad faith, assuming that removing these historical documents is the only possible and acceptable solution, without bothering to grapple with the serious difficulties and trade-offs involved in making such decisions. Are there ways that the Internet Archive could better handle this content? Probably! Will being scolded as a "favorite" of "neo-Nazis" help make that work better? That seems unlikely.

Filed Under: archive, content moderation, library, nazi content, steven stalinsky, terrorist content, user generated content
Companies: internet archive

A Conversation About Video Game Preservation In The Gaming Industry Is Long, Long Overdue

from the we-need-some-speed dept

There has been quite an uptick recently when it comes to the conversation around video game preservation. There are probably several reasons for this. First and most notably, the confluence of the trend toward the gaming public primarily purchasing digital games rather than shiny disks, and the emergence of the latest generation of video game consoles has brought the question of what happens to older games into stark relief for many in the gaming public. Second, America has been in something of a love affair over the last decade or so with all things "retro". And, finally, the concept of video games as works of creative art, rather than wastes of time to be sneered at, has found firm purchase within our society. All of this has combined to make the public much, much more interested in preserving antiquated video games. And, frankly, very disappointed at how often the gaming industry doesn't take preservation at all seriously.

Well, it's happening again. In the near future, Electronic Arts will be shutting down the servers and online portions of several Need For Speed games.

Today, via Reddit (while most the English-speaking world is on a holiday), it’s been announced that Need For Speed: Carbon, Need For Speed: Undercover, Need For Speed: Shift, Shift 2: Unleashed and Need For Speed: The Run will be “retired”. Which I suppose is an apposite word, given they’ll be limping off the tracks as they leave digital storefronts today, and their servers switched off come the end of August.

The reasons given are the usual: that maintaining servers for the few remaining players is prohibitively expensive, and hey, look, they’ve released loads of (astoundingly poor) NFS games since then, so you could buy those instead!

Note a couple of things on this. While the offline portions of the games will still be playable for those who have already purchased them, new buyers will no longer have a place to legitimately buy them. Also, while there is a single player component, a big draw of the games was and continues to be the ability to race against friends online. Finally, note that this announcement comes with absolutely no plan to make the game or online play available in any other way.

Which is where the preservation conversation comes in. Once again, we have a game publisher that enjoys full rights controls over its property choosing to simply deprive the public of some or all of that property. A more perfect antithesis of the concepts of the public domain and copyright law generally probably can't be found. While EA explained away its decision to "retire" these games as the expense that comes along with maintaining servers and backend infrastructure for relatively fewer players -- along with a suggestion that disappointed gamers simply by new games in the Need For Speed series -- it's not like there aren't steps it could take to play nicely with its fans if it wanted to.

It’s always this way. “Shrug! What else could we do?!” Well, here are some other things they could do:

They could release the source code for the 10-15 year old games, and allow others to continue their development in the public domain. They could release the server code for the games, to allow enthusiasts to continue to host the few dedicated players remaining. They could offer to upgrade players to one of the many NFS games of the 2010s (although this may be crueller than just nothing at all). They could recognise that last year EA made a revenue of $5.5bn, and it’s likely they could just about afford to leave the servers on with minimal maintenance, without taking too big of a hit

Delisting them from stores just seems... petty! Sure, they don’t offer all the available features when the servers are off, but come on. Quarter the prices—hell, be decent enough to make them free—and let people buy them as single-player artefacts of the past.

In other words, either preserve the games for fans yourselves, EA, or let the fans do it for you. Either option is viable. But simply switching off the servers and making the games no longer available for purchase at any price is probably not so much a petty thing to do as it is a callous thing to do.

And when a company starts acting callous towards its dedicated fans, well, that's not a good plan for building either goodwill or more buying fans.

Filed Under: archive, need for speed, preservation, video games
Companies: electronic arts

DailyDirt: Storing Digital Bits In More Ways

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

"Lots of copies keeps stuff safe" is an archivist mantra for preserving data for a long, long time. It certainly looks like there's no end to the development of data storage. We have magnetic tape (multiple varieties), CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray, HD-DVDs, hard drives, solid state drives and the list goes on and on. Certain industries seem to make money every time there's a shift from, say, LPs to cassettes to CDs (to streaming?), but what happens when everyone can store every song ever recorded in the palm of their hand? Technology isn't there yet, but it might be soon.

• Storing digital information in minerals could create memory technology that's durable for a million years. However, the problem probably won't be how long the information remains un-corrupted -- but how long it'll be before the tech is obsolete and no one can retrieve their ancient file formats. Storing information for hundreds or thousands of years can be done, but it's also difficult to ensure the technology to read it will still exist. [url]
• 3D Xpoint is a new kind of non-volatile memory from Intel and Micron that claims to be 1,000 times faster than current flash drives and solid state drives. It's also 10 times denser than conventional memory and is expected to be commercially available in 2016. [url]
• Photonic memory chips sound like the future, and some researchers have even created a non-volatile kind of memory using phase change materials. Using light instead of electrons as the basis for computing devices isn't quite ready yet, but creating more and more components that could form a completely optical computer could jumpstart a different kind of Moore's law. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: archive, backup, data, media, memory, non-volatile memory, photonic memory, storage
Companies: ibm, intel, micron

DailyDirt: Keeping Information For A Really, Really, Really Long Time

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The problem of storing digital data usually involves transferring data from an older format to a newer one -- with the hopes that the newer one won't be replaced as quickly as the older format it just replaced. Maybe some archivists out there like to go through this periodic technology shift and verify that the data we've stored is still readable, but wouldn't it be nice if there was a "store it and forget it" format?

• A single gram of DNA can store up to 455 exabytes of data, and roughly four grams of DNA could store all of the world's collected information. It's not cheap to store arbitrary data on DNA yet, but the costs are coming down. [url]
• Stored data on DNA encased in glass at freezing temperatures could survive for a couple million years. The DNA of a woolly mammoth in Siberia was preserved for 40,000 in a tundra, so it's not unthinkable that we might want to keep a few backups of our data on ice. [url]
• Making large DNA crystals with precisely-controlled structures is something that can be done with a "DNA-brick self-assembly" method. Being able to do this could help fabricate all kinds of nanoscale designs and create a manufacturing process for complex, artificial DNA structures. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: archive, backup, data, dna, nanotechnology, self-assembly, storage

This Week In Techdirt History

from the who-was-suing-whom? dept

Another week? Another week to look back through Techdirt history.

Five Years Ago::

Oh the lawsuits we witnessed. A sculptor sued the Post Office for featuring his sculpture on a stamp -- even though that sculpture was a part of the Korean War Memorial in DC. The amazing thing was the sculptor eventually won the lawsuit. To this day I don't get it. I can't see how (a) no one bothered to get the rights from the guy in the first place and (b) how this wasn't fair use. Speaking of nutty legal situations, this was also the week that Kevin Cogill, the guy who uploaded (but did not initially leak) Guns 'N Roses long-awaited album was sentenced to 2 months house arrest and told to produce propaganda for the RIAA -- something he never actually had to do, leading to him telling the full story of his crazy situation earlier this year.

This week the National Portrait Gallery in the UK threatened someone at Wikipedia for downloading public domain images. A filmmaker sued some online forums because commenters cost him a job and Wells Fargo sued itself.

Meanwhile, Amazon had made the book 1984 disappear from people's Kindles, a Swedish ISP was refusing to give up IP addresses and (in a twist) Belgium was fining Yahoo for protecting the privacy of its US users.

Finally, we were writing about artists who were refusing copyright as against their religious beliefs, journalists demanding money from Google, songwriters insisting that they can't write songs without copyright and newspapers still believing that paywalls would solve all their troubles.

Ten Years Ago:

The RIAA was busy a decade ago. Not only were they pushing the "INDUCE" Act to try to make inducing copyright infringement a form of copyright infringement (Congress never passed it, but the Supreme Court effectively created an inducement standard soon after), but they were also busy pushing Audible Magic's filtering system as the precursor to ContentID. In fact, most non-YouTube sites still make use of Audible Magic. Meanwhile, Streamcast was accusing the record labels of collusion (some things never change).

Microsoft won $4 million from a spammer, Cameron Diaz was sending legal threats to Gawker and we were just figuring out how to use mobile phones on planes. Just in time, too, because 3G mobile services were just starting to show up.

Fifteen Years Ago:

Oh those dot com boom days. Microsoft became the first company to be worth over $500 billion. They're well below that today. Petopia -- one of a big list of "pet dot coms" raised $66 million despite not having launched yet. Network Solutions randomly transferred Excite.com's domain to some dude in Illinois. Other than pet dot coms, the most overhyped thing in that time was "free PC" companies who would offer you free (but really crappy and underpowered) computers if you let them put ads all over the screen. Except... all of those companies were failing to make any money.

Meanwhile, Virgin was trying to get ahead of the digital music world by allowing you to download music and burn it to a CD (what a concept!). In one of our earliest stories about patent lawsuits, Ask Jeeves was being sued for infringement and we noted with disgust that it was by a company that didn't appear to actually do anything, but just try to sue people. This was before the term "patent troll" was popular. Those were the early days of patent trolling though.

46 Years Ago:

We weren't around, but this week Intel was founded, after Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore and Andy Grove split from Fairchild Semiconductor (which Noyce, Moore and six others had started as the "traitorous eight" after quitting Shockley Semiconductor as a group). Intel, of course, became a key player in the computer revolution, but the story of the company's founding is also an important Silicon Valley lesson in the nature of people who aren't happy with their current jobs jumping ship to start something new. So much of Silicon Valley history is based on stories like that.

Filed Under: archive, look back

US News Dumps Pre-2007 Archive, Putting A Proxy Paywall Between Writers And Their Work

from the maybe-some-heads-up-would-have-been-in-order? dept

One of the logistical problems facing long-running publications is the archiving of old material. I say "problem," even though some publications view it more as an opportunity to finally move paper archives to digital in order to preserve them (and even make money in the process). Others view it as dead weight and simply dump anything older than some arbitrary cutoff date (or lock it up behind a paywall). US News & World Report seems to fall into the latter camp.

One of Jim Romenesko's readers recently noted that the publication had ditched a lot of its previously archived material. When contacted about the now-eradicated archives, US News editor Brian Kelly had this to say:

“Last week we launched a new content management system and decided that we could not effectively keep archived web content published prior to 2007 on our site. Those stories, which mostly originated in the print magazine, are available on the LexisNexis and EBSCO archive services, as well as in bound volumes.”

If US News just wanted to paywall its archives, it certainly could have done so. (Not that that's a great idea...) Now it's being done by proxy via LexisNexis and EBSCO, destinations most people aren't going to go when looking for US News stories. Then there's the "bound volumes" Kelly mentions, which are only useful to someone in the vicinity of those printed copies.

The problem here is that US News' many contributors have now effectively lost access to their reporting work. It doesn't appear anyone was notified about the removal, at least not from what's contained in Kelly's statement. Presumably, those contributors have their own copies stored locally, but linking to a body of work (when looking for work elsewhere, etc.) just became a lot more difficult and potential outlets are far less likely to follow a link to a gated article -- and that's presuming the journalist will spend the time and money to locate their US News contributions in the first place.

There's no notification on the website telling readers that the site's archives only date back to 2007. (Not to mention, the website's search function seems to be fundamentally broken…) And it's not as though this was just a simple dump of everything pre-2007. The US News site has selected articles archived dating back as far as 1993. So, it appears US News has done some very selective archiving to preserve anything deemed "important." Everything else is in the hands of third parties.

A large digital archive can be expensive to maintain and show little return on the investment. But even if US News was uninterested in performing this service for its readers, it should have at least considered how it would affect its writers. If nothing else, the Internet Archive has been preserving previous versions of the US News site, and all without feeling the need to put a monetary barrier between writers and their work.

Filed Under: archive, brian kelly, journalism, paywall
Companies: us news & world report

UK Political Party Tries To Dump 10 Years Of Speeches Down The Memory Hole

from the because-that-ALWAYS-works...-ALWAYS dept

Every so often a public figure will come to the dubious conclusion that the past can be erased. This was a difficult proposition even before the advent of the internet. These days, it's nearly impossible. But long odds rarely deter the particularly inspired… or particularly stupid.

Some abuse the easily-abusable laws in European countries to generate memory holes. Max Mosely has been fruitlessly pursuing the removal of so-called "not actually a Nazi orgy" photos for years. Others simply blunder around, issuing baseless legal threats and questionable DMCA notices. Others, like the UK Conservative Party, do their own dirty work.

Being willing to wipe your own collective memory takes a special kind of bravery, the kind often associated with reckless acts shortly preceded by the phrase, "Hold my beer."

pixelpusher220 was the first to send in the ComputerWeekly story which details the efforts the UK's Conservative Party recently made to eradicate an entire decade's worth of speeches from the internet.

The Conservative Party has attempted to erase a 10-year backlog of speeches from the internet, including pledges for a new kind of transparent politics the prime minister and chancellor made when they were campaigning for election.

Prime minister David Cameron and chancellor George Osborne campaigned on a promise to democratise information held by those in power, so people could hold them to account. They wanted to use the internet transform politics.

But the Conservative Party has removed the archive from its public facing website, erasing records of speeches and press releases going back to the year 2000 and up until it was elected in May 2010.

The Conservative Party did more than simply delete the speeches from its site. It also blocked out Google and the Internet Archive using an extensive addition to its robots.txt. This is just a small excerpt of conservatives.com's bot blocking additions.

Disallow: /News/News_stories/2000/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2001/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2002/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2003/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2004/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2005/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2006/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2007/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2008/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2009/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2010/01/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2010/02/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2010/03/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2010/04/
Disallow: /News/News_stories/2010/05/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2000/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2001/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2002/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2003/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2004/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2005/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2006/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2007/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2008/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2009/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2010/01/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2010/02/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2010/03/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2010/04/
Disallow: /News/Speeches/2010/05/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2000/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2001/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2002/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2003/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2004/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2005/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2006/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2007/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2008/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2009/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2010/01/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2010/02/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2010/03/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2010/04/
Disallow: /News/Articles/2010/05/

So, how did it get the Internet Archive to remove its historical collection, something ComputerWeekly writer Mark Ballard likens to "sending Men in Black to strip history books from a public library and burn them in the car park?"

Well, apparently the Internet Archive treats changes to robots.txt files as retroactively applicable. Once the bot blocker informed IA it was no longer welcome to crawl these pages, it erased the corresponding archives as a "matter of courtesy."

By making this change, the Conservative Party was able to eliminate 1,158 "snapshots" the Archive had gathered over the last 14 years, a rather breathtaking eradication accomplished without ever having to strong arm internet historians or stare down Google directly.

The Conservative Party has offered no comment on the slash-and-burn of its own history, simply saying it has passed along the query to its "website guy."

Now that the speeches (and the Archives) have been removed, conservatives.com's robots.txt has been trimmed down to something more manageable.

User-agent: *
Disallow: /XMLGateway/
Disallow: /sitecore/
Disallow: /users/
Disallow: /flash/
Disallow: /pdf/
Disallow: /layouts/site.aspx
Disallow: /Activist_centre/
Disallow: /News/Blogs.aspx
Disallow: /News/Blogs/
Disallow: /sitecore/
Disallow: /Get_involved/Join/Friend.aspx
Disallow: /Get_involved/Join/Member.aspx
Disallow: /Get_involved/Join/Youth.aspx
Sitemap: http://www.conservatives.com/xmlFeeds/GoogleSitemap.aspx

A search through its xml sitemap confirms that nothing remains of the pre-2010 speeches. The earliest speech listed in the xml file is from June of 2010. Users browsing the site will be hard pressed to find any speeches earlier than January of 2013, however. Searching through the sitemap will uncover direct links to earlier speeches but clicking the "Archive" button to view older speeches automatically limits results to 2013. Here's the shady URL the "Archive" button leads to:

http://www.conservatives.com/News/SpeechList.aspx?SearchType=NewsDate&SearchTerm=130101-131231

So, why are these speeches being buried? Perhaps it has something to do with the Cameron's promises of government transparency and accountability made while campaigning, something he increasingly lost interest in once in power.

"Above all, the power for anyone to hold to account those who in the past might have had a monopoly of power - whether it's government, big business, or the traditional media," said Cameron, who was then campaigning for power as leader of the Conservative opposition.

Cameron was going to make sure the information revolution would hold people like prime ministers to account, he said another speech on 11 October 2007, at the Google Zeitgeist Conference in San Francisco.

"It's clear to me that political leaders will have to learn to let go," he said then. "Let go of the information that we've guarded so jealously."

Transparency would make public officials accountable to the people, said Cameron then. He was riding at the front of the wave that would wash us into a new world, and a new age.

Like many politicians, transparency and accountability sound like great ideas when you're lapping up applause (and votes) and hoping to stick it to your legislative adversaries. But it swiftly loses its luster the first time it's applied to you and your activities. Then it's back to the old ways that have "worked" for years. Obfuscation, opacity and a growing tendency to view your constituents as the enemy swiftly replace the campaigning ideals.

Years down the road, after many years at the helm, this viewpoint realignment culminates in running a decade's-worth of empty promises through the internet shredder in hopes of trimming down the number of irate citizens using your own words against you.

Unfortunately for those manning the shredder, they seem to have missed another set of archives, one located in their own backyard. A commenter at ComputerWeekly points out that the Conservative Party site has been archived by the British Library since 2004, and many of those supposedly vanished speeches are only a few clicks away.

All this effort will do for the Conservative Party is make it look worse. There's zero net gain to be had here. Nothing completely vanishes from the net and even if the Internet Archive may err on the side of courtesy in its efforts, others will be saving, securing and stashing the same documents and webpages certain entities wish to remove from the public eye. The harder they try, the more likely they are to fail.

Filed Under: archive, conservative party, deleting history, history, internet, speeches, uk

DailyDirt: The Future Of Storage

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Storing digital data can be unreliable if you want it to last a really long time. But there are many ways to store vast amounts of data, and if you're not in a hurry to retrieve the data, it can be somewhat cheap to maintain an enormous amount of information nowadays. Here are just a few examples of storing LOTS of data in somewhat unconventional ways.

• Printing at about 100,000 dots per inch in full color has been achieved by researchers at the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) in Singapore. As a proof of principle, a test image of Lenna was formed on a silicon wafer covered with a nanoscale metal coating. [url]
• Amazon is starting to offer archival storage for just $0.01 per gigabyte per month. This Glacier storage service is aimed at replacing old tape archives and geographically distinct facilities, but retrieving the data isn't so convenient: data retrieval requests can take hours (hence the name Glacier) and there's also a retrieval fee after you've accessed more than 5% of your data vault in a month. [url]
• Geneticists in Boston have stored a 5.27-megabit book (containing 53,246 words, 11 JPG image files and a JavaScript program) on DNA. This is the highest density of non-biological data ever encoded by DNA, and a gram of material could store 455 exabytes of data. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: archive, data, dna, exabyte, gigabyte, nanoscale, printing, storage
Companies: amazon

DailyDirt: In The Year 2525...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Computers have made it easier and easier for people to create incredible amounts of data -- passing the zettabyte barrier in 2010. The growth of data is actually surpassing our ability to store it, and it's a bit concerning that our ability to store digital information for long periods of time isn't too reliable (just try to access stuff on a 5.25" floppy). Here are just a few interesting links on preserving information for thousands of years.

• Digitally-stored information about nuclear waste needs to be accessible many thousands of years from now. Engraving the info on sapphire discs with platinum is just one proposed solution that could work for future archaeologists -- but in what language should it be written? [url]
• If you thought your burned CDs/DVDs lasted forever, think again. But if you still want to store your data on plastic discs, there's a company (Millenniata) that sells an optical disc engraving technology for writing CDs/DVDs that work with standard CD/DVD readers -- and that claims to last for about 1,000 years (or at least hundreds of years). [url]
• Neanderthals were making cave paintings over 40,800 years ago in Spain. How much of our art will survive the next 40,000 years? [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: archaeologists, archive, data, neanderthal, storage
Companies: millenniata