The Little Hacker's Room

Check out “Magic Flute: Primal Find Sings of Music’s Mystery“ in yesterday’s WSJ. The article describes the development of music as a central part of what Jacob Bronowski called the “Ascent of Man“:

“I believe that before we evolved language, our communication was more musical than it is now,” says cognitive archaeologist Steven Mithen at the University of Reading in England, author of “The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body.” Unlike Darwin, Dr. Mithen is convinced that music was crucial to human survival. “Using music to express emotion or build a sense of group belonging would have been essential to the function of human society, especially before language evolved prior to modern humans.”

The discovery of the world’s oldest musical instrument—a 35,000-year-old flute made from a wing bone—highlights a prehistoric moment when the mind learned to soar on flights of melody and rhythm.

Researchers announced last week in Nature that they had unearthed the flute from the Ice Age rubbish of cave bear bones, reindeer horn and stone tools discarded in a cavern called Hohle Fels near Ulm, Germany. No one knows the melodies that were played in this primordial concert hall, which sheltered the humans who first settled Europe. The delicate wind instrument, though, offers evidence of how music pervaded daily life eons before iTunes, satellite radio and Muzak.

…the ability to create musical instruments reflects a profound mental awakening that gave these early humans a crucial edge over the more primitive Neanderthal people who lived in the same epoch. “The expansion of modern humans hinged in part on new ways of storing symbolic information that seemed to confer an advantage on these people in competition with Neanderthals,” Dr. Conard says.

To Dr. Patel, music-making was a conscious innovation, like the invention of writing or the control of fire. “It is something that we humans invented that then transformed human life,” he says. “It has a profound impact on how individual humans experience the world, by connecting us through space and time to other minds.”

If even something as central to our daily lives as music is, in fact the result of technological innovation over time and if technology can, as with music, change the way we think, communicate and build communities, I can’t help but wonder:  What will our descendants think thousands of years from now as they look back on the rise of today’s web and social networking technologies? If nothing else, this sense of perspective should make us better appreciate how important the development of communications media really is to the future of the human species.

Impossible as it is to predict how that staggeringly complex process will unfold—e.g., will Google make us smarter or stupider?—I’ll just humbly suggest that, rather than try to tinker with the future course of the species by trying to fine-tune public policy today to produce the “right” outcome, we would do better to follow the same principle that has guided the medical profession for 24 centuries: First, Do No Harm. In other words, if we don’t know what the effects of regulatory intervention in new media will be in the long-term, we’d be better off to leave well enough alone.

Post from: The Technology Liberation Front, the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.

Come join us for one of our semi-regular happy hours as we celebrate the Digital Revolution (while also denouncing the scourge of centralizing, totalitarian Digital Jacobinism).

All those interested in technology, the freedom of technology and technologies of freedom are welcome.  We’ll be at the Science Club at 1136 19th St NW, Washington DC from 5:30-8 pm.

RSVP on Facebook today!

Post from: The Technology Liberation Front, the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.

Michael Tiemann reports on his recent trip to Brazil for FISL 10. He notes that free software adoption is growing rapidly within the Brazilian government. He also describes an effort by the Malaysian government to reward use of free software, rather than the development of it, because that can lead to multiple, competing solutions that don't necessarily solve the users' problems. In addition, he also noted a barrier to free software adoption: "On the alarm front, I heard specific confirmation of a storyline I've been following, which is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is basically telling governments: if you want contributions/investments from us, then you'll give Microsoft cabinet-level access to inform policy, and you'll use Microsoft products. For example, donations to educational initiatives require installing and teaching Microsoft products."

There is another bill [PDF] in the SCO bankruptcy for us to go over with a fine-toothed comb, this one from Pachulski Stang, their 20th bill. There is another from Tanner [PDF]. And we have finished doing the text of the exhibits to SCO's proposed sale, and I noticed some things in the trademark list I thought I might highlight. It always pays to do these text versions. You do notice things that otherwise don't seem to stand out.

First, I notice a trademark on the list is actually dead, WEBMIN, cancelled as of January of this year, so I think it might be useful to go through that list more carefully than SCO did. Certainly a potential buyer would want to know what it is actually getting, I would think. And creditors might want to know if the sale price makes any sense. And that's not the only odd thing.

Linux Journal takes a look at a hospital with Linux thin clients for patients. "The happy healers at Glendale Adventist Medical Center, in conjunction with Linux luminaries IBM and Novell, as well as the networkers at NoMachine, have found a way to insert Linux into the lives of its patients. Rather than blank walls and bad TV to stare at, patients in the new West Tower at Glendale Adventist have access to the outside world, via Linux-based thin clients available right in the patient's room. The setup utilizes servers from IBM, the networking and compression expertise of NoMachine, and SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop to provide patients with access to the internet, where they can do everything from learning about their condition and treatment to keeping family and friends abreast of their progress via the standard cast of internet characters: Twitter, Facebook, and the omnipresent blogs."

CentOS has updated openswan (input validation flaws), pidgin (denial of service), ruby (denial of service).

Debian has updated nagios (arbitrary program execution).

Gentoo has updated libwmf (pointer use-after-free flaw), modsecurity (denial of service).

Red Hat has updated ruby (denial of service).

SUSE has updated java (multiple vulnerabilities), optipng, cups, quagga, pango, strongswan, perl-DBD-Pg, irssi, openssl/libopenssl-devel, net-snmp, ImageMagick/GraphicsMagick, perl, ipsec-tools/novell-ipsec-tools, poppler/libpoppler3/libpoppler4, yast2-ldap-server, tomcat6, gstreamer-plugins/gstreamer010-plugins-bad, apache2-mod_php5 (various issues).

Ubuntu has updated perl (buffer overflow), nagios (arbitrary program execution).

Psystar has filed a Debtor's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Case [PDF]. They would like to leave Chapter 11, and of course that means they have to have a viable plan to present to the bankruptcy court.

They claim they have a new product that will dazzle the world and be more profitable. But they kind of had to say something like that, I think, because they already told the court in their bankruptcy petition back on May 21 that they don't make "a significant profit" on each sale of their prior products. So they couldn't just say, "Oops. This didn't work. We thought we could stay in business while in Chapter 11 without Apple being able to sue us, so we could make money while they could only grit their teeth in frustration. But they got the judge to lift the stay. So get me out of here."

They have to show the judge instead that if they leave Chapter 11, they will be able to make a profit and pay off creditors. So they have to show the court a plan for survival after they leave Chapter 11. What can they show? Something had to be different. The old business plan wasn't enough. Hence a new product announcement.

In short, bankruptcy didn't protect them from Apple the way they hoped, I surmise. Apple on June 17 prevailed on its motion to lift the bankruptcy stay on the litigation, and Psystar says it can't afford to do both the litigation and the bankruptcy. So it wants to be relieved of the bankruptcy expense. They can't get out of bankruptcy now unless the court believes they can be viable. So they announce a new product. I expect Apple will oppose and instead ask for Chapter 7. A plan based on a hope for future profits? Sounds like SCO to me.

IBM has announced the release of Milepost GCC, an extension to the GCC compiler which uses machine learning techniques to improve application performance on embedded processors. "'Our technology automatically learns how to get the best performance from the hardware -- whether mobile phones, desktops, or entire systems -- the software will run faster and use less energy,' noted Dr. Bilha Mendelson, Manager of Code Optimization Technologies at IBM Research - Haifa. 'We opened the compiler environment so it can access artificial intelligence and machine learning guidance to automatically determine exactly what specific optimizations should be used and when to apply them to ramp-up performance.'" The code can be downloaded from the Milepost site.

Stable kernels 2.6.30.1, 2.6.29.6, and 2.6.27.26 have been released by the stable team. Each contains quite a number of patches (111, 35, and 32 respectively) all over the tree, some with security implications. The 2.6.29.6 release comes with an important note: "This is the last release of the 2.6.29 kernel series. All users are strongly suggested to move to the 2.6.30 release series at this time."

Dave Philips reviews the Linux version of Pianoteq (commercial software) on Linux Journal. "On the 15th of May 2009 the Modartt company announced the release of version 3.0.3 of their award-winning Pianoteq, a professional-quality digital keyboard instrument created by an audio synthesis method known as physical modeling. The program is vastly praised by its users, but in order to feel the love you've had to run a Windows machine or a Mac box. Until now, that is. The latest release introduces various new attractions, and the one that interests me the most is support for a native Linux version."

Yesterday was a big day for any business, nonprofit organization, or fundraiser that relies on affiliate advertising that depend upon Internet advertising for important revenue and fundraising efforts: Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the nexus tax and calls up Overstock.com to invite to reinstate their affiliates in California.

As we’ve written previously, all sorts of organizations depend on Internet advertising. Online companies are experimenting with new ways to deliver products, services, and content, and business of all kinds are going online to reach consumers and advertise to receptive audiences. The Gov’s veto sends a strong message that this growing business model is welcome in California.

It is important to note that the proposed budget legislation was indeed a tax increase. Contrary to the statements of nexus tax proponents, in no event would new money flow into California. Any incremental sales tax collected from online sellers just moves from the California purchaser to the state treasury, at a time when households are being squeezed by a struggling economy. The result: fewer advertising dollars would flow to California publishers and websites who employ and serve California’s residents today.

And this is one tax increase that would have serious unintended consequences. An affiliate advertising tax would harm California businesses, nonprofit organizations, and even public schools that depend upon Internet advertising for important revenue and fundraising efforts.

Post from: The Technology Liberation Front, the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.

SCO has been a busy bee, filing a motion to amend/correct its complaint against AutoZone and a motion to amend/correct the protective order in SCO v. IBM. What it wants in the IBM motion is to get to use documents it got in discovery in that action in the bankruptcy, to demonstrate "the value of its claims". Heh heh. Not sure how well that will work out for SCO. I think we may safely expect an opposition from IBM.

And in AutoZone, it would like to "expand" its copyright claims to include OpenServer. Surprise. Surprise. That's all it reliably has left to use to be annoying, I think. It also wants to add a claim for breach of agreements. Presumably this is to try to avoid losing outright, now that Novell has been ruled the owner of the copyrights SCO initially sued about. So, even if Novell is upheld by the appeals court, SCO evidently wants to continue somehow, in some way, whatever works. SCO tells the court that the court can allow the amendment, if justice so requires. I am not sure justice is the foundation on which I'd build my house, if I were SCO. People might start to have deep thoughts.

Lori Drew was convicted late last year on charges related to her role in a cruel hoax that led to the tragic suicide of thirteen-year old Megan Meier in Missouri in 2006. But today, at her sentencing, the judge threw out her convictions. Millions around the world were horrified by Megan’s fate, and many will probably be upset that Drew might go unpunished. But we need to separate three questions in this case:

1. Should the federal anti-hacking law under which she was convicted really be applied in such cases?
2. What, precisely, was Drew’s involvement?
3. The key question: What should be done about the general problems of cyberbullying and cyberharassment?

Misuse of the Anti-Hacking Statute

Judge Wu has yet to issue his written opinion but seems to have agreed with the various experts on Internet law who argued that, however tragic the Meier case was, the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (CFAA) should not have been applied to Drew. Most notably, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an Amicus Brief in support of Drew’s motion to dismiss the charges against her—summarized by Groklaw and the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. Orin Kerr, a leading Internet law professor, felt so strongly about the consequences of using the CFAA to criminalize violations of privately written terms of service that he joined Drew’s defense team. Kerr demonstrated the problems of essentially allowing private parties to create the grounds for criminal offenses (if violated by users) by suggesting obviously ridiculous new terms of service for the Volokh Conspiracy, the group blog he writes on.

Hard as it may be for those who want to “see justice done” in this case, the CFAA just isn’t the right law to apply—which raises the question of whether new laws are needed, discussed below.

Uncertainty About Drew’s Role

The judge may also have been influenced by uncertainty as to Drew’s actual role in the case. Initial coverage of the story suggested that Drew created the fake MySpace persona of a teen boy (”Josh Evans”), then used that profile to woo Meier, a classmate of Drew’s daughter, only to deliberately—and cruelly—break her heart. After Missouri prosecutors and the FBI declined to press charges against Drew, federal prosecutors in California decided to do so, but Drew consistently maintained that it was not her idea to create the account.

When she finally went to trial, Ashley Grills, an 18-year-old friend of the Drew family, changed her story: Grills had initially claimed that creating the account was Ms. Drew’s idea, but admitted at trial that she (not Drew) created the fake “Josh Evans” account and that most of the conversations between Meier were with Grills, not Lori Drew. In particular, the final blow that seems to have driven the emotionally fragile Meier to suicide apparently came from Grils, not Drew:”You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.”

We’ll probably never know exactly what actually happened, but it does appear that Drew was not the prime instigator behind the hoax, as she first appeared to be, but played more the role of a facilitator. Unconscionable as its for any adult, especially a parent to encourage, promote or even allow such behavior, it may not create legal liability.

Cyberbullying: What’s Next?

The real question here is how we should deal such cases more generally. Adam Thierer and I released a major study of these issues a few weeks ago: Cyberbullying Legislation: Why Education is Preferable to Regulation—which Adam recently dicussed at a Capitol Hill briefing. We distinguish among three problems that have been conflated in coverage of this issue:

1. Cyberbullying: kid-on-kid abuse online
2. Cyberharassment generally: people of all ages using the Internet to harass each other
3. Adult-on-kid cyberharassment: the Megan Meier case

Confusion of these three issues has resulted in some very inappropriate responses to the problem. Most notably, Rep. Linda Sánchez has proposed the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act,” which would make it a federal felony with a sentence of up to two years to transmit “any communication… with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” While Sánchez claims uses the word “cyberbullying” (Problem #1), her rhetoric (and the title of the bill) is really focused on adult-on kid cyberharassment (Problem #3). Punishing that special kind of abuse by adults of children, who are particularly vulnerable, might well be something federal law should address. But Sánchez’s bill doesn’t do that; instead, it seeks to punish all cyberharassment (Problem #2). Sánchez’s fails in several other respects to clearly define its terms and scope, thus raising serious constitutional concerns about the bill’s effect on chilling constitutionally protected free speech, as well as about the due process rights of those who might be prosecuted under the bill.

In our paper, we highlight a number of substantial changes that would need to be made to create a narrowly-tailored bill appropriate to the problem of adult-on-kid cyberharassment. But we also explain why it’s probably not possible to craft a law consistent with the Constitution to address the general issue of cyberharassment: While state laws generally apply to cyberstalking (where a threat of physical harm is made or felt), it’s profoundly difficult to distinguish between “harassment” and simple online conversations.

We do think something can and should be done about the very real problem of kid-on-kid cyberbullying (Problem #1). But rather than treat kids as felons (the Sánchez approach), lawmakers could get serious about supporting online safety education, awareness-building efforts, prevention, and intervention. Such an approach would avoid thorny constitutional problems and has recently been floated in both chambers of Congress. In mid-May, the “School and Family Education about the Internet (SAFE Internet) Act” (S. 1047) was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and in the House by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). The measure proposes an Internet safety education grant program that will be administered by the Department of Justice, in concurrence with the Department of Education, and the Department of Health & Human Services. These agencies will also work in consultation with education, Internet safety, and other relevant experts to administer a five-year grant program, under which each grant will be awarded for a two-year period. Eligible non-profits may use the grants to:

(1) identify, develop, and implement Internet safety education programs, including educational technology, multimedia and interactive applications, online resources, and lesson plans;
(2) provide professional training to elementary and secondary teachers, administrators, and other staff on Internet safety and new media literacy;
(3) develop online-risk prevention programs for children;
(4) train and support peer-driven Internet safety education initiatives;
(5) coordinate and fund research initiatives that investigate online risks to children and Internet safety education;
(6) develop and implement public education campaigns to promote awareness of online risks to children and Internet safety education;
(7) educate parents about teaching their children how to use the Internet and new media safely, responsibly, and ethically and help parents identify and protect their children from risks relating to use of the Internet and new media

This is exactly the right approach. This bill truly deserves the name “Cyberbullying Prevention Act,” while the Sánchez bill might more accurately be called the “Cyberharassment (of all kinds) Punishment Act.” Rather than pursuing regulation through criminal sanctions that would chill protected speech, education is the better approach—something the federal government can help to support. As Adam and I conclude in our paper:

Again, real online safety and proper netiquette begin at home. We need to teach our kids to be good cyber-citizens. We shouldn’t expect the government (or even schools) to do it all for us. But to the extent government can do something constructive about this problem, it is education and awareness-building that will have the most profound, lasting results. Although more substantive penalties cannot be ruled out entirely, creating new classes of crimes to deal with this problem is unlikely to solve the scourge of cyberbullying.

Clearly, based on the emerging research, the young people who are involved in cyberbullying incidents—both as perpetrators and targets—have many problems. Addressing these painfully real issues will require applying effective risk prevention and intervention strategies. Instead of promoting such education, prevention, and intervention solutions, the Sánchez bill would simply create a new federal felony to address this problem. But criminalizing kid-on-kid behavior in whatever form will likely not solve the age-old problem of kids mistreating each other. Indeed, this problem has traditionally been dealt through counseling and rehabilitation at the local level. By contrast, the federal justice system generally works through criminal penalties. If federal criminal law has a role to play, it is in punishing clear cases of harassment of minors by adults in ways that do not chill free speech protected by the First Amendment and that are consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantees.

Unlike the Sánchez bill, the Menendez bill is grounded in the need to implement such counseling and rehabilitation approaches in schools and communities. If members of Congress want to enact legislation that has a chance of effectively reducing truly harmful behavior—and which avoids constitutional pitfalls and subsequent court challenges—the Menendez bill provides the best avenue to accomplish that important goal at this time.

Post from: The Technology Liberation Front, the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.

The leading trade associations in the online advertising industry have just released their new self-regulatory principles—the first comprehensive self-regulatory principles industry has produced, which track closely with the suggested guidelines released by the FTC in February.

I commend the industry for setting a new standard in transparency, consumer control and data security. These Principles do much to empower Americans to make their own decisions about privacy, but I fear that many critics of so-called “targeted advertising” will never be satisfied, no matter how high industry raises the bar.

These critics have insisted that ordinary users can’t be trusted to make the “right decisions” about privacy and have insisted on imposing restrictive default “opt-in” rules for the online data collection that makes online advertising valuable to websites that rely on ad revenue.  Such pre-emptive privacy regulation would stunt the growth of revenue for the “Free” online content and services we’ve all come to take for granted.  During a time of economic recession, and as traditional media like newspapers struggle to make the transition from print to the Internet, it’s more important than ever that policymakers allow self-regulation to evolve.  Only by doing so can we expect continued innovation and creativity online. We must all remember:  There is no free lunch!

I’ll lead a panel discussion on July 10 on Capitol Hill about “Regulating Online Advertising: What Will it Mean for Consumers, Culture & Journalism?”  Please RSVP here.

Post from: The Technology Liberation Front, the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.

The Free Software Foundation Europe presents an interview with Smári McCarthy. "Stian Rødven Eide: One of the most profiled projects you have been involved with is the Fab Lab, having headed the Icelandic branch for over a year now. While best known for its use of 3D printers, the Fab Lab is actually a much broader concept that goes far beyond technical innovation. Can you tell us a bit about your work there, and what you hope to achieve? Smári McCarthy: There are two sides to the Fab Lab story. On the one hand, there’s the research side, which is all about developing the universal constructors, figuring out the hard science of digital fabrication. In that realm I think our work is done when we can download chicken sandwiches off the Internet."

The July, 2009 edition of the GNOME Journal has been published. Contents include: "a review of Project Hamster by Les Harris, an interview on working with upstream with Laszlo Peter by Stormy Peters, using git for GNOME translators by Og Maciel, an introduction to GNOME Zeitgeist by Natan Yellin, a look at some of GNOME Do's advanced features by Jorge Castro, and lastly, the Behind the Scenes feature continues with Owen Taylor by Paul Cutler."

CentOS has updated seamonkey (arbitrary code execution).

Fedora 9 has updated xorg-x11-xfs (race condition).

Fedora 10 has updated xorg-x11-xfs (race condition).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has updated pidgin (denial of service) and openswan (input validation flaws).

Ubuntu has updated kernel (multiple vulnerabilities).

iTWire reports on a new Linux installation by a Glendale, California hospital. "Adventist Medical Center (GAMC) has installed thin clients running Linux virtual desktops in 65 patient rooms in its new West Tower. "Just as easily as the hospital provides patients with TVs in rooms, now we provide personal computing," said Roger Pruyne, senior programmer/analyst and project manager for the GAMC Patient Computing project. The system combines NoMachine's NX remote access and virtualisation software, SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop, and an IBM System x3650 server. GAMC estimates that this approach saves 98 percent of the cost that would have been involved if conventional PCs had been selected."

My friend Megan McArdle has a sharp post on the causes of the newspaper’s imminent demise:

Journalism is not being brought low by excess supply of content; it’s being steadily eroded by insufficient demand for advertising pages. For most of history, most publications lost money, or at best broke even, on their subscription base, which just about paid for the cost of printing and distributing the papers. Advertising was what paid the bills. To be sure, some of that advertising is migrating to blogs and similar new media. But most of it is simply being siphoned out of journalism altogether. Craigslist ate the classified ads. eHarmony stole the personals. Google took those tiny ads for weird products. And Macy’s can email its own damn customers to announce a sale…

We’re not witnessing the breakup of a monopoly, in which more players make more modest incomes providing more stuff, and everyone flourishes (except the monopolist). We’re witnessing the death of a business model. And no one has figured out how to pay for hard news. Hard news stories take a great deal of time to write–more time than most amateurs can afford, which is why blogs tend to do opinion rather than journalism. Moreover, they are at least greatly improved when their authors are not worried about losing their jobs if what they write pisses off a local power broker.

I think there’s a lot to this: a key part of the newspaper’s business model was that economies of scale made them one of the very few efficient ways of distributing small pieces of printed information to a lot of people. So lots of different kinds of content—classified ads, personal ads, display ads, and various kinds of news reporting—got bundled together and sold as one package. The Internet makes it cheap to distribute information of all kinds, and so the newspaper is getting disaggregated. And so some of the cross-subsidies that supported the traditional newspaper are going away.

So the death of the classified is one important cause of newspapers’ worsening business model. But it’s also true that newspapers are “being brought low by excess supply of content.” The websites of mainstream media outlets run display ads, and these ads generate revenues. They don’t generate enough revenue to cover the costs of producing content, but that’s simply a function of supply and demand: if there were fewer online news sources, the ones that were left would be able to command higher rates. This is easy to see with the following thought experiment: imagine if the government granted the New York Times a monopoly in the news reporting business, so that no other media outlet were permitted to provide news online. Under those circumstances, the Times would be insanely profitable. They’d have tens of millions of daily readers and be able to charge outrageous amounts of money for their display ads.

Each traditional outlet that goes out of business makes the others a little more profitable. Eventually, the market will reach an equilibrium–if necessary, with dramatically fewer news outlets and higher revenues for each one. But there’s no “death of a business model” here. The newspapers have always given away content in order to sell ads. The news websites of the future will do the same thing. There just may be fewer of them than there were in the past.

The part I think Megan is ignoring is that the while it’s often true that hard news stories take a “great deal of time to write,” the Internet has made the process much easier for many types of news. Most obviously, the laborious process of editing and typesetting stories on strict deadlines is being replaced by much more flexible editing using web-based content management systems. Many primary sources (court decisions, regulatory filings, government data) that once required a physical trip to obtain can now be downloaded off the web. Reporters also have access to a vast new universe of primary sources from user-generated media that simply didn’t exist in the past.

It’s possible that the absolute number of reporters doing “hard news” in the future will be lower than it was in the past. And certainly the next decade will be a tough one for print journalists. But there’s nothing fundamentally broken about the “give away content, sell ads” business model. And we’re not heading toward a dystopian future in which no one produces hard news.

Post from: The Technology Liberation Front, the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.

A new economic study on the costs and benefits of open access in three countries - Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK - finds that the annual savings would run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.