A music and science lover has revealed that some birds can store and retrieve digital data. Specifically, he converted a PNG sketch of a bird into an audio waveform, then tried to embed it in the song memory of a young starling, ready for later retrieval as an image. Benn Jordan made a video of this feat, sharing it on YouTube, and according to his calculations, the bird-based data transfer system could be capable of around 2 MB/s data speeds.
Imagine the possibilities for piracy and secure messaging (provided that the birds don’t snitch on you).
If you take control of enough birdhouses you can launch DDoS attacks.
Yeah. This could be in a plot in one of the episodes of the simpsons.
The image 💀
I was thinking about wind talkers becoming bird singers.
2MB/s / 16Mbps is enough for 4K HEVC video and audio. In theory you could encode a full movie with enough starlings.
And they say physical media is dead!
The average lifespan of a starling is usually between two and five years.
This just gave me an idea for a new movie rental service. You’ll never own anything. If we can get homing pigeons to learn movies, we could cut delivery costs
They tried to make this a thing once :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-D
If Disney did this, they’d probably just poison the birds so they die faster.
Capitalism at its worst. Here let’s make more plastic garbage so that you have to buy more things.
Is it a subscription though? Investors like that
A million monkeys on typewriters is old news. Now we’re gonna teach a million starlings to play back the entire bee movie.
I like Benn Jordan a lot but I really doubt a bird can sing 2 MB / s. I saw the spectrogram and it looked pretty fuzzy
You could find out which frame of the movie starlings like the best
We’re finally getting tweets back
Reducing Benn Jordan down to just “enthusiast” is wild.
Musician/Wizard/Activist
The breadth of capability this guy has is insane to me. Almost every time I watch one of his videos I find that he’s managed to basically gain a new field of expertise. It’s really impressive.
Hear me out! Bird factor authentication!
Please honk your seagull to unlock your ed25519-sk ssh key
I’ve been honking my seagull all morning, until my wife came in and caught me…
Now what do I do?
Ask her to join you?
Inb4 Doom can now run on birds.
Latency tho…
Only a matter of time before megacorps put ads and a subscription service on bird calls, now. 😫
This is a whole new twist over RFC 1149: IP over Avian Carriers
Not to be a wet blanket, but every time this comes up I get annoyed by some factual inaccuracies in the articles about this. It is not digital! He drew an image on a computer, but converted it to an analogue spectrogram to store on the bird. That’s neat as hell, but it’s not digital. The image that he got back was slightly corrupted.
Now I would be fascinated to see a follow-up seeing if you can actually modulate a digital signal and have is survive a round trip through the bird bit-for-bit accurate. I suspect in reality it would be much lower data rate, but definitely not nothing!
By your definition nothing can be digital since the world is analog. Even the bits in your CPU are voltages in transistors. As such, every real life signal can be distorted.
The point with digital transfers is that you round it back to either 0 or 1, hoping that no bits are distorted enough to have any loss at all.
Exactly. Digital logic, when implemented in analogue, generally have to have forbidden zones where a signal in that range is considerer invalid. Regardless of implementation, digital is about the discretized logic of the system. That is explicitly the whole point of digital: Minor analogue distortion does not change the information content of the signal unless it is so bad as to flip a bit.
Minor analogue distortion does not change the information content of the signal unless it is so bad as to flip a bit.
This isn’t true in the general case. In the real world, you can have all kinds of distortions: random noise, time shifts, interference from other signals, etc.
You don’t usually see the effects of these because the protocols are designed with the communication channel characteristics in mind in order to reproduce the original signal.
Using birds is just another communication channel with its own distortion characteristics.
That’s exactly what they said.
Precisely… And digital modulation’s entire purpose is for a digital signal to survive those distortions bit-for-bit perfect. Even if we call the digitally-generated spectrogram digital information, the bird simply did not reproduce it exactly. Whatever time, frequency, and amplitude resolution you apply to the signal, if it’s low enough that the bird reproduced the signal exactly within that discretized scheme, then it simply did not achieve 2 MB/s. I would bet that the Shannon capacity of this bird is simply nowhere near 2 MB/s.
If your argument is that the bandwidth calculation is incorrect, then sure I think that’s fair.
But I don’t think it’s correct to say it’s not a digital channel juts because it doesn’t have optimal bandwidth.
Gozz is correct. You’re misunderstanding the nature of a digital signal. What the author did was convert a digital signal to an analog signal, store that analog signal on a bird, then record that analog signal. Whether it was redigitized after the fact is irrelevant. It is not a digital process end-to-end. This is the same as if I were to download a YouTube video, record that video on a VHS tape, then redigitize that video. Not only would the end result not be a bit for bit match, it wouldn’t be a match at all despite containing some of the same visual information, because it would be the product of a digital-analog-digital conversion.
It isn’t a digital channel because it does not reproduce digital data. Unless it’s a one-bit signal of “does this look like a bird? yes/no”, but then the human making that assessment is part of the channel. To claim this is a digital system would require us to be so reductive as to redefine the meaning of the word.
That’s not really how it works in the real world. Usually you have both bandwidth and noise constraints.
Sure you can send something like a square wave but this isn’t practical for real communication channels. Typically you’re sending many sine waves in parallel with multiple amplitudes and phase offsets to represent a sequence of bits (QAM). Then on top of that you’d encode the original data with both a randomizer (to prevent long runs from looking like nothing) and error correction. So usually the system can handle some level of distortion.
What you’re hoping is that by the time the data reaches the user (really, Layer 3), all the errors have already been handled and you never see any issues.
The bird is just another type of noisy channel with its own distortion characteristics.
The point is that at the physical layer you still have a well defined log likelihood test to produce digital information. That’s why QAM lasted so long even though it is not power efficient - because it has an analytical likelihood function.
This is the boundary between digital and analog communications. Since he did not use a digital modulation scheme, this would be a form of analog comms
Why couldn’t you have a likelihood function for the bird?
As a trivial case, you can just say: Does the spectrum look like a bird? Then you’d have a digital channel by your definition for a single bit.
The actual channel bandwidth is obviously higher than that.
Yes you could likely design an optimized modulation scheme to do this, likely some kind of bird specific frequency shift keying. You can also do any kind of quadrature modulation in the audio spectrum (original dialup used acoustic modems).
This person just didn’t do that in this case. It’s still a very cool experiment by YouTube maker standards though.
My point is that it doesn’t have to be optimal to be considered digital. Which in the general case means basically any communication channel can be digital.
If the argument is that they didn’t correctly calculate the bandwidth, then sure.
You are not addressing my critique of your statement, just piling on a bunch of useless extra knowledge just so that you can feel superior.
I dunno how you’d use check digits with a bird, but this seems the obvious way to deal with corruption. Or maybe give the bird more treats.
Hmm, not so sure. He produced a digital signal, who’s spectrogram happened to be an image, and then played that digital signal to a bird. Dunno if a analogue spectrogram really even makes sense as a concept. The only analogue part of the chain would be the birds vocalisations, right?
The whole sequence is:
- Digitally synthesized spectrogram (lossless)
- Played through a DAC and speaker to produce an analogue signal (lossy)
- Heard by the bird (analogue, lossy)
- Reproduced by the bird (analogue, lossy)
- Captured by an ADC as a digital audio signal (lossy)
- Spectrum-analysed to observe a similar (but corrupted) reproduction of the shape in the original spectrogram
To be transferring digital information, we would instead need to modulate and demodulate the digital signal (exactly like an old modem) so that the analogue corruption does not affect the digital signal:
- Image file (lossless)
- Bit stream (lossless)
- Analogue modulation of bit stream played through DAC (lossy)
- Heard by the bird (lossy)
- Reproduced by the bird (lossy)
- Demodulated to recover exact bit stream despite distortion (lossless again)
- Decode bit stream to recover original image file, bit-for-bit perfect
I extremely doubt that this bird is capable of 2MB/s. For reference that would make it 280+ times fast than dialup, and barely slower than ADSL. This setup is basically just using the bird instead of a telephone line.
- Played through a DAC and speaker to produce an analogue signal (lossy)
- Analogue modulation of bit stream played through DAC (lossy)
These steps are literally the same thing. You’re converting some data into sound for the bird to hear.
Edit: Actually, most physical modulation schemes use sinusoids anyways. So that’s exactly the same as playing a spectrum.
Yes, the near-identical sentences (only drawing a distinction between the processes where one exists) would indicate that. The “heard by the bird” and “reproduced by the bird” steps were also the same. But this is necessary context to make clear the digital data (“bit-stream”) that is being modulated into the signal.
It is far from “exactly the same”. The similarity is only in that both go through the same analogue channel. The entire point is that the modulated signal can be reconstructed exactly, while the spectrogram cannot.
The article title says they converted a PNG and the bird was able to “recall the file”, and yet it produced an indisputably different file. That it looks vaguely the same to the cursory human observer does not make it the same file.
The entire point is that the modulated signal can be reconstructed exactly,
But this isn’t true. Just because a signal is modulated doesn’t mean it can’t be distorted.
A spectrogram is just showing that arbitrary data can be sent though this channel. It’s literally a form of modulation.
I suppose you have caught me out slightly lacking in precision or pedantry. A digital to analogue modulation scheme is able to exactly reconstruct the original digital signal within the design tolerances for noise and distortion. Yes, eventually a signal may degrade or be corrupted, but prior to that point the reproduction is literally and exactly perfect. That exactitude is just about the definition of a digital system. This bird system is incapable of reproducing the input image of the bird exactly. It is not a digital communication system, unless you consider the “PNG” of the bird to have not been the message being carried.
I thought we were being pedantic here?
Yes, eventually a signal may degrade or be corrupted, but prior to that point the reproduction is literally and exactly perfect.
Modulation schemes are characterized via a probabilistic tolerance, so even when you are within the tolerances, you can get an incorrect value at some expected rate. Note that you can even define a modulation scheme with a high error rate and be ok with that.
That’s why I take issue with the concept of an exactly perfect reproduction. Usually there are layers above the digital modulation to handle these possibility to decrease the error rates even lower.
And no, I don’t consider the PNG to be the data carried. I think the way the author does the bandwidth calculations is incorrect.
The sound from the speakers he must have used was also “analog”. Sound - defined as a pressure wave through a medium - can’t be digital. Though the difference between analog and digital kinda loses meaning in cases like this.
Every signal is ultimately analog. Voltage along a wire, sound, light, the world is analog and it all needs to be converted into our concept of digital (which is typically binary values).
Well of course NSA’s spy device can store information. We’ve known this for decades
Birds are totally organic organisms. Rightttttt. BIRDS ARENT REAL!!!
They’re just covering up the truth of the time cube
But, birds aren’t real.
This only seems to support the theory
There are only flying dinosaurs.
Lol ok there might be no real birds left but they definitely exist in the fossil record, it was likely the inventions of trains that drove birds to the next highest dimension (which isn’t real, hence birds were real but now they are not).
Me, everytime I see a bird:
better than me:
Data on a bird ? This will convince people about birds being drones more now.
deleted by creator
good to see there are new developments in the IP Over Avian Carrier space
Though this proprietary implementation of cloud storage for IPoAC is very innovative, it’s really only useful for enthusiasts of the protocol and it comes with some security concerns. Writing data to the storage is inconsistent and requires a lot of effort on the uploader’s part. And if you do manage to get the data to write properly, there’s no guarantee retrieving the data will be lossless.
The most worrying part for me, however, is that there’s no guarantee that the data can be removed from the cloud without obliterating the server it’s stored on or waiting for the device to degrade over time. Until these are addressed I don’t think we’ll see widespread adaptation.
