WEBVTT - Tech News: Meta Is Going to Court Again

0:00:04.400 --> 0:00:07.800
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.

0:00:11.800 --> 0:00:14.280
<v Speaker 1>Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host

0:00:14.400 --> 0:00:17.079
<v Speaker 1>Jonathan Strickland of an executive producer with I Heart Radio.

0:00:17.160 --> 0:00:19.439
<v Speaker 1>And how the tech are you. It's time for the

0:00:19.440 --> 0:00:23.200
<v Speaker 1>tech news for Thursday, July two thousand twenty two. Let's

0:00:23.239 --> 0:00:26.880
<v Speaker 1>get to it with some stories about Meta. A class

0:00:26.880 --> 0:00:31.560
<v Speaker 1>action lawsuit filed against Meta means that CEO Mark Zuckerberg

0:00:32.000 --> 0:00:36.559
<v Speaker 1>and former CEO Cheryl Sandberg will each have to testify

0:00:36.600 --> 0:00:40.640
<v Speaker 1>in federal court regarding their alleged roles in the Cambridge

0:00:40.640 --> 0:00:45.159
<v Speaker 1>Analytica scandal. And it seems like a lifetime since that

0:00:45.280 --> 0:00:48.320
<v Speaker 1>scandal first became public. Now, in case you do not

0:00:48.520 --> 0:00:52.400
<v Speaker 1>know what that scandal was all about, a British political

0:00:52.440 --> 0:00:57.600
<v Speaker 1>consultancy firm that worked with conservative political campaigns here in

0:00:57.640 --> 0:01:02.640
<v Speaker 1>the States leveraged data that had been scraped from Facebook.

0:01:02.760 --> 0:01:06.120
<v Speaker 1>So there was this app developer slash professor who had

0:01:06.160 --> 0:01:10.640
<v Speaker 1>created a political survey app and it was a pay

0:01:10.760 --> 0:01:13.399
<v Speaker 1>for survey, so you would get paid if you took it.

0:01:14.120 --> 0:01:17.160
<v Speaker 1>But what the people who took the survey didn't know

0:01:17.440 --> 0:01:21.000
<v Speaker 1>is that by granting the app permission, it gave the

0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:25.720
<v Speaker 1>app uh an elevated ability to see into not just

0:01:25.760 --> 0:01:29.440
<v Speaker 1>their own personal information, but that of their friends on Facebook.

0:01:29.959 --> 0:01:33.720
<v Speaker 1>So the app essentially made it possible for the app

0:01:33.760 --> 0:01:38.200
<v Speaker 1>developer to look at friend profiles as if the developer

0:01:38.280 --> 0:01:41.800
<v Speaker 1>were in fact that person's friend, and so the app

0:01:41.920 --> 0:01:45.520
<v Speaker 1>was able to collect massive amounts of information from people

0:01:45.560 --> 0:01:48.760
<v Speaker 1>who never consented to share that info in the first place.

0:01:49.200 --> 0:01:51.440
<v Speaker 1>Right Like, if you were a friend of someone who

0:01:51.520 --> 0:01:55.560
<v Speaker 1>took this survey, you didn't tell the survey that it

0:01:55.640 --> 0:01:59.800
<v Speaker 1>was okay to scrape your data. Anyway, Cambridge Analytica mostly

0:02:00.000 --> 0:02:02.880
<v Speaker 1>proved to be an ineffective entity as far as the

0:02:02.880 --> 0:02:08.200
<v Speaker 1>political campaign consultancy gig is concerned, but it's still is

0:02:08.240 --> 0:02:11.800
<v Speaker 1>true that the company relied heavily on information that violated

0:02:11.800 --> 0:02:15.760
<v Speaker 1>consumer privacy laws. Meta already went through an investigation that

0:02:15.840 --> 0:02:18.840
<v Speaker 1>was conducted by the Federal Trade Commission about this, and

0:02:18.880 --> 0:02:22.280
<v Speaker 1>the company had paid out a five billion dollar fine.

0:02:22.320 --> 0:02:26.480
<v Speaker 1>That's billion with a B, not chump change. But this

0:02:26.560 --> 0:02:30.560
<v Speaker 1>case alleges that several key executives of the company were

0:02:30.639 --> 0:02:34.480
<v Speaker 1>responsible for how the Cambridge Analytica story unfolded. They say

0:02:34.560 --> 0:02:37.240
<v Speaker 1>that the executives knew more about what was going on

0:02:37.480 --> 0:02:41.600
<v Speaker 1>earlier than they indicated, and that they may have even

0:02:41.600 --> 0:02:44.480
<v Speaker 1>taken some steps within the company to try and conceal

0:02:44.600 --> 0:02:48.040
<v Speaker 1>what was happening because it did not reflect well on Facebook.

0:02:48.720 --> 0:02:51.160
<v Speaker 1>The court has demanded that Meta hand over more than

0:02:51.240 --> 0:02:55.120
<v Speaker 1>one thousand documents that the company had previously withheld, citing

0:02:55.160 --> 0:02:58.639
<v Speaker 1>them as privileged information. Looks like some of that privilege

0:02:58.680 --> 0:03:01.760
<v Speaker 1>is gonna get stripped away. Sticking with Meta for a

0:03:01.760 --> 0:03:06.000
<v Speaker 1>couple more stories, nonprofit organizations that focus on civil and

0:03:06.080 --> 0:03:10.880
<v Speaker 1>digital rights are criticizing Meta for its Meta Human Rights Report.

0:03:11.440 --> 0:03:14.600
<v Speaker 1>That's an eighty three page document that the company published

0:03:14.680 --> 0:03:19.119
<v Speaker 1>last week. The report is supposed to document Meta's impact

0:03:19.240 --> 0:03:23.760
<v Speaker 1>on human rights and how it tries to protect human rights,

0:03:23.760 --> 0:03:27.920
<v Speaker 1>but these organizations are saying that the report fails to

0:03:27.960 --> 0:03:31.119
<v Speaker 1>do this. Instead, it serves more as a whitewashing document

0:03:31.720 --> 0:03:35.080
<v Speaker 1>meant to absolve Meta of its role in facilitating the

0:03:35.080 --> 0:03:40.080
<v Speaker 1>spread of hate speech, extremism, misinformation, and that kind of thing. Further,

0:03:40.400 --> 0:03:44.120
<v Speaker 1>the organizations say that Meta was citing its own press

0:03:44.160 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 1>releases in the document to use that as evidence of

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:50.800
<v Speaker 1>how the company is working to support human rights, which

0:03:51.040 --> 0:03:55.200
<v Speaker 1>kind of boils down into because I said so, right,

0:03:55.400 --> 0:03:59.120
<v Speaker 1>like a like a a nonsensical argument like that. The

0:03:59.280 --> 0:04:03.480
<v Speaker 1>organizations also say that the document mentions several safeguards that

0:04:03.520 --> 0:04:06.600
<v Speaker 1>are meant to protect human rights, but that the document

0:04:06.720 --> 0:04:10.840
<v Speaker 1>fails to disclose that Meta has subsequently removed many of

0:04:10.880 --> 0:04:15.120
<v Speaker 1>those safeguards. So there's this growing criticism that Meta's reports

0:04:15.240 --> 0:04:17.600
<v Speaker 1>in general, not just this one but others as well,

0:04:17.640 --> 0:04:22.279
<v Speaker 1>that all claimed to increase transparency, failed to include anything

0:04:22.279 --> 0:04:25.280
<v Speaker 1>of real substance within those reports, and that the company

0:04:25.320 --> 0:04:27.400
<v Speaker 1>is really just kind of going through the motions or

0:04:27.440 --> 0:04:30.919
<v Speaker 1>putting on a kind of responsibility theater while failing to

0:04:30.960 --> 0:04:35.880
<v Speaker 1>make significant operational changes that would produce results. Pretty nasty

0:04:35.920 --> 0:04:39.320
<v Speaker 1>criticism directed to the company. And to round out our

0:04:39.360 --> 0:04:43.600
<v Speaker 1>Meta news, a company called Meta dot i S, which

0:04:43.680 --> 0:04:48.960
<v Speaker 1>is an art installation company, is suing Meta for trademark violation.

0:04:49.040 --> 0:04:51.680
<v Speaker 1>Now I'm pretty sure I actually mentioned Meta dot i

0:04:51.960 --> 0:04:56.479
<v Speaker 1>s way back shortly after Facebook changed its name to

0:04:56.520 --> 0:05:00.720
<v Speaker 1>Meta last year. Now, according to Meta dot i S,

0:05:01.279 --> 0:05:05.080
<v Speaker 1>they tried to work with the Facebook version of Meta,

0:05:05.240 --> 0:05:08.720
<v Speaker 1>but they found no real success there, and the art

0:05:08.760 --> 0:05:12.479
<v Speaker 1>insplation company now says it has trouble securing clients because

0:05:13.360 --> 0:05:17.600
<v Speaker 1>people assume that Meta dot i S is associated with

0:05:17.760 --> 0:05:21.400
<v Speaker 1>meta slash Facebook. And why would that be a problem. Well,

0:05:21.440 --> 0:05:25.799
<v Speaker 1>according to the art company, Facebook's reputation is so bad

0:05:25.960 --> 0:05:30.320
<v Speaker 1>right now, with so much negative press and perception, that

0:05:30.640 --> 0:05:34.040
<v Speaker 1>this spills over to affect the art company, even though

0:05:34.040 --> 0:05:37.560
<v Speaker 1>there's no connection other than having the same name. And

0:05:37.680 --> 0:05:42.640
<v Speaker 1>since meta dot i s pre existed Facebook's Meta, they

0:05:42.680 --> 0:05:45.320
<v Speaker 1>they are arguing that they should have the valid claim

0:05:45.360 --> 0:05:48.560
<v Speaker 1>on that trademark. Whether or not that argument will stand

0:05:48.600 --> 0:05:51.400
<v Speaker 1>up in court remains to be seen, and it's always

0:05:51.400 --> 0:05:55.400
<v Speaker 1>possible or even probable that meta slash Facebook will settle

0:05:55.400 --> 0:05:57.960
<v Speaker 1>out of court if the law team feels their case

0:05:58.160 --> 0:06:02.280
<v Speaker 1>isn't strong enough to win. All right, now, let's talk

0:06:02.320 --> 0:06:06.200
<v Speaker 1>about Netflix and the world of business, which I clearly

0:06:06.400 --> 0:06:10.000
<v Speaker 1>do not understand. So earlier this year, Netflix held an

0:06:10.000 --> 0:06:12.880
<v Speaker 1>earnings call and revealed that for the first time, it

0:06:13.040 --> 0:06:16.719
<v Speaker 1>lost more subscribers than it had gained over a quarter,

0:06:17.360 --> 0:06:21.560
<v Speaker 1>and subsequently, the stock price on Netflix took a nose dive. Well,

0:06:21.600 --> 0:06:24.320
<v Speaker 1>the company recently had its earnings call for the second

0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:27.680
<v Speaker 1>quarter of the year and revealed it lost nearly a

0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:31.120
<v Speaker 1>million subscribers. So in the first quarter it lost two

0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:34.760
<v Speaker 1>hundred thousand. This time it lost like nine hundred seventy

0:06:34.800 --> 0:06:38.040
<v Speaker 1>thousand subscribers, so that's like way more than it lost

0:06:38.040 --> 0:06:40.520
<v Speaker 1>in the first quarter. That's not as bad as what

0:06:40.640 --> 0:06:45.080
<v Speaker 1>Netflix thought it was gonna be. The initial forecast was

0:06:45.120 --> 0:06:48.800
<v Speaker 1>going to be a two million drop in subscribers, so

0:06:49.680 --> 0:06:51.640
<v Speaker 1>it's not as bad as what they thought it was

0:06:51.680 --> 0:06:55.600
<v Speaker 1>gonna be. It was half as bad, less better than

0:06:55.640 --> 0:06:57.680
<v Speaker 1>half as bad, I guess it's a weird way to

0:06:57.720 --> 0:07:00.560
<v Speaker 1>say it, but less than half of what they they

0:07:00.600 --> 0:07:03.839
<v Speaker 1>had forecast, so still worse than they did in the

0:07:03.880 --> 0:07:06.080
<v Speaker 1>first quarter, but not nearly as bad as they thought

0:07:06.120 --> 0:07:08.080
<v Speaker 1>it was going to be. In the second quarter, and

0:07:08.160 --> 0:07:13.080
<v Speaker 1>revenue was actually up by eight point six so yeah,

0:07:13.080 --> 0:07:15.960
<v Speaker 1>the company has, you were, subscribers, but it's earning more money,

0:07:16.040 --> 0:07:19.680
<v Speaker 1>largely because of, according to the company, the dollars standing

0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:24.800
<v Speaker 1>in the world economy. And consequently, Netflix's stock price increased

0:07:24.800 --> 0:07:29.960
<v Speaker 1>by seven point four percent on Wednesday, which is wild, right,

0:07:30.040 --> 0:07:33.280
<v Speaker 1>Like def flix Is stock price dropped when they lost

0:07:33.280 --> 0:07:36.760
<v Speaker 1>two hundred thousand, but when up when they quote unquote

0:07:36.840 --> 0:07:41.320
<v Speaker 1>only lost nine seventy thousand subscribers. I'm just not able

0:07:41.360 --> 0:07:43.640
<v Speaker 1>to see the matrix when it comes to the stock market,

0:07:43.880 --> 0:07:47.520
<v Speaker 1>and you know, it's such a relief that I'm not

0:07:47.560 --> 0:07:49.840
<v Speaker 1>a day trader, because I would have completely lost my

0:07:49.880 --> 0:07:53.680
<v Speaker 1>mind at this point. Microsoft and Google are both pumping

0:07:53.760 --> 0:07:57.520
<v Speaker 1>the brakes on hiring new employees due to economic pressures.

0:07:57.760 --> 0:08:01.520
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg reports that Microsoft has been shut down open job

0:08:01.560 --> 0:08:05.920
<v Speaker 1>listings in various departments like Azure and security. Company reps

0:08:05.920 --> 0:08:09.720
<v Speaker 1>say there's essentially a hiring freeze for most departments, but

0:08:09.920 --> 0:08:13.120
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft will continue to honor job offers that have already

0:08:13.120 --> 0:08:17.960
<v Speaker 1>been extended to prospective employees, and they may make the

0:08:17.960 --> 0:08:20.960
<v Speaker 1>occasional exception for positions that are considered to be critical

0:08:20.960 --> 0:08:25.560
<v Speaker 1>to operations. Business Insider reports that Google has entered into

0:08:25.600 --> 0:08:29.240
<v Speaker 1>a two week hiring freeze while the company assesses its

0:08:29.280 --> 0:08:34.240
<v Speaker 1>actual quote unquote headcount needs, and like Microsoft, Google is

0:08:34.280 --> 0:08:36.920
<v Speaker 1>also going to honor any job offers that have already

0:08:36.920 --> 0:08:41.120
<v Speaker 1>been extended to future Googlers. So yeah, things are are

0:08:41.160 --> 0:08:44.760
<v Speaker 1>still looking pretty rough in the tech sector in general.

0:08:44.960 --> 0:08:48.160
<v Speaker 1>Will probably see that spill over into other industries as well,

0:08:48.400 --> 0:08:52.120
<v Speaker 1>or continue to spill over because it's already happening over

0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:54.800
<v Speaker 1>in the UK, the g c h Q and the

0:08:54.880 --> 0:08:58.079
<v Speaker 1>U k's National Cybersecurity Center are calling on tech companies

0:08:58.120 --> 0:09:01.360
<v Speaker 1>to practice client side scan ending in an effort to

0:09:01.400 --> 0:09:04.760
<v Speaker 1>seek out illegal material, namely images and videos related to

0:09:04.840 --> 0:09:08.720
<v Speaker 1>child abuse. Now, this is an ongoing struggle and it

0:09:08.840 --> 0:09:11.880
<v Speaker 1>is a highly charged topic because on the one side,

0:09:12.400 --> 0:09:15.280
<v Speaker 1>you have people who want to leverage technology to uncover

0:09:15.360 --> 0:09:18.520
<v Speaker 1>instances of child abuse so that the perpetrators can be

0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:24.960
<v Speaker 1>held accountable, and that's completely understandable. Child abuse is absolutely horrifying.

0:09:25.520 --> 0:09:28.640
<v Speaker 1>And on the other side, you have privacy advocates arguing

0:09:28.679 --> 0:09:32.120
<v Speaker 1>that any sort of client side scanning mandate is a

0:09:32.200 --> 0:09:35.319
<v Speaker 1>huge threat to privacy. It's an enormous amount of surveillance,

0:09:35.559 --> 0:09:40.079
<v Speaker 1>and it would also arguably necessitate the outlawing of end

0:09:40.080 --> 0:09:43.000
<v Speaker 1>to end encryption, because if you have true end to

0:09:43.200 --> 0:09:47.520
<v Speaker 1>end encryption, no other parties other than those involved in

0:09:47.640 --> 0:09:50.520
<v Speaker 1>that communication would be able to read the messages. So

0:09:50.600 --> 0:09:54.680
<v Speaker 1>even the service carrying the messages would not be able

0:09:54.720 --> 0:09:58.440
<v Speaker 1>to see what was inside that communication. So there's no

0:09:58.480 --> 0:10:01.560
<v Speaker 1>way they could do scanning in that event, And if

0:10:01.600 --> 0:10:04.280
<v Speaker 1>they're required to do scanning, then the logic goes, you

0:10:04.320 --> 0:10:06.959
<v Speaker 1>can't have end to end encryption. Now you can see

0:10:06.960 --> 0:10:10.600
<v Speaker 1>the validity of both sides, I imagine, because yes, child

0:10:10.600 --> 0:10:14.400
<v Speaker 1>abuse is terrible, it should be stopped. It absolutely needs

0:10:14.440 --> 0:10:21.240
<v Speaker 1>to be detected and halted and better yet prevented. Now,

0:10:21.240 --> 0:10:24.840
<v Speaker 1>on the other side, eliminating secure means of communication and

0:10:24.880 --> 0:10:28.199
<v Speaker 1>introducing more surveillance can put people into danger, people who

0:10:28.200 --> 0:10:32.040
<v Speaker 1>are innocent of committing any crimes. You know, maybe they

0:10:32.120 --> 0:10:36.319
<v Speaker 1>are a political activist or a journalist or something along

0:10:36.320 --> 0:10:40.440
<v Speaker 1>those lines. And if you have a government that turns

0:10:40.559 --> 0:10:46.360
<v Speaker 1>against those kinds of things, then having a client scanning side, uh,

0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:49.360
<v Speaker 1>you know technology in place, one that law enforcement could

0:10:49.440 --> 0:10:53.240
<v Speaker 1>theoretically access, puts those people at risk. So some of

0:10:53.280 --> 0:10:56.720
<v Speaker 1>the privacy side argue that using technology to address a

0:10:56.760 --> 0:11:01.480
<v Speaker 1>societal problem isn't effective, that all technology really does is

0:11:01.520 --> 0:11:05.040
<v Speaker 1>go after a symptom or the outcome, it doesn't actually

0:11:05.040 --> 0:11:08.679
<v Speaker 1>address the root causes, and that the money and effort

0:11:08.720 --> 0:11:12.559
<v Speaker 1>that would be spent making this technological approach would be

0:11:12.559 --> 0:11:15.680
<v Speaker 1>better directed at creating social programs that aim to prevent

0:11:15.760 --> 0:11:19.800
<v Speaker 1>child abuse in the first place. Okay, we've got other

0:11:19.840 --> 0:11:22.280
<v Speaker 1>stories to talk about, some of which are not nearly

0:11:22.320 --> 0:11:24.520
<v Speaker 1>as heavy as what we just talked about. But before

0:11:24.520 --> 0:11:34.000
<v Speaker 1>we get to those, let's take a quick break. Okay,

0:11:34.040 --> 0:11:37.600
<v Speaker 1>we're gonna talk about some stories that relate to electric vehicles,

0:11:37.600 --> 0:11:42.320
<v Speaker 1>and first up, the US Post Office or USPS UH

0:11:42.520 --> 0:11:47.000
<v Speaker 1>for the United States Postal Service had initially committed to

0:11:47.080 --> 0:11:51.880
<v Speaker 1>purchasing five thousand all electric mail trucks because it's adding

0:11:51.960 --> 0:11:56.480
<v Speaker 1>fifty vehicles to its fleet, but now the USPS says

0:11:56.679 --> 0:11:59.080
<v Speaker 1>it will actually be closer to half of those fifty

0:11:59.080 --> 0:12:02.160
<v Speaker 1>thousand that will be all trick vehicles, and that when

0:12:02.240 --> 0:12:04.960
<v Speaker 1>looking at all vehicles the USPS plans to purchase in

0:12:04.960 --> 0:12:08.079
<v Speaker 1>the near future, which goes beyond just the mail trucks,

0:12:08.200 --> 0:12:12.240
<v Speaker 1>goes to everything, that's about eighty four thousand vehicles total.

0:12:12.760 --> 0:12:17.160
<v Speaker 1>The USPS plans for around those to be electric vehicles.

0:12:17.160 --> 0:12:19.640
<v Speaker 1>It's a good move, especially for the mail trucks. They

0:12:19.640 --> 0:12:24.880
<v Speaker 1>are notoriously gas guzzling vehicles. The Grumman Long life vehicles,

0:12:24.960 --> 0:12:28.480
<v Speaker 1>which are the kind that the USPS has as most

0:12:28.480 --> 0:12:32.560
<v Speaker 1>of its fleet, they average around UH somewhere around ten

0:12:32.720 --> 0:12:35.800
<v Speaker 1>miles per gallon due to the stop and go nature

0:12:35.920 --> 0:12:38.319
<v Speaker 1>of postal workers duties. So I switched to e v

0:12:38.480 --> 0:12:41.480
<v Speaker 1>S would mean the USPS would significantly reduce its carbon

0:12:41.480 --> 0:12:45.080
<v Speaker 1>emissions across its fleet. Over at the Foreign Motor Company,

0:12:45.920 --> 0:12:49.280
<v Speaker 1>it's planning on cutting eight thousand jobs in order to

0:12:49.360 --> 0:12:53.120
<v Speaker 1>reallocate resources towards building more electric vehicles of its own.

0:12:53.679 --> 0:12:57.240
<v Speaker 1>The layoffs will affect Ford's Blue Division, which is the

0:12:57.360 --> 0:13:01.040
<v Speaker 1>part of Ford that focuses on building internal combustion engine

0:13:01.160 --> 0:13:05.400
<v Speaker 1>or i c E vehicles. This follows the recent reorganization

0:13:05.400 --> 0:13:09.200
<v Speaker 1>of Ford into the Blue Division and the Model E Division,

0:13:09.520 --> 0:13:12.040
<v Speaker 1>and it's another sign of the massive shift in the

0:13:12.080 --> 0:13:15.520
<v Speaker 1>automotive industry as more companies are transitioning to building non

0:13:15.559 --> 0:13:18.319
<v Speaker 1>i c E vehicles. Now, when it comes to e

0:13:18.440 --> 0:13:21.640
<v Speaker 1>V companies, you could argue that none is more famous

0:13:21.679 --> 0:13:25.720
<v Speaker 1>than Tesla, which is back in the news because of cryptocurrency.

0:13:25.800 --> 0:13:31.080
<v Speaker 1>So back in one, Tesla purchased a large amount of bitcoin,

0:13:31.160 --> 0:13:33.800
<v Speaker 1>to the tune of about one point five billion dollars

0:13:33.800 --> 0:13:37.480
<v Speaker 1>worth of the digital currency, but in a recent earning statement,

0:13:37.520 --> 0:13:41.640
<v Speaker 1>the company revealed it had sold off or three quarters

0:13:41.679 --> 0:13:45.560
<v Speaker 1>of its bitcoin holdings. Now, considering how far the value

0:13:45.559 --> 0:13:49.320
<v Speaker 1>of bitcoin has dropped since twenty one, that could mean

0:13:49.360 --> 0:13:52.679
<v Speaker 1>that Tesla took up fairly big loss on that investment.

0:13:52.880 --> 0:13:55.480
<v Speaker 1>It's hard to say exactly how much, because the company

0:13:55.520 --> 0:13:59.840
<v Speaker 1>did not reveal at what price it's sold that its

0:14:00.080 --> 0:14:05.000
<v Speaker 1>coin holdings. Brian Johnson and analyst at Barclays estimated that

0:14:05.080 --> 0:14:08.440
<v Speaker 1>Tesla was looking at a four hundred sixty million dollar

0:14:08.559 --> 0:14:11.560
<v Speaker 1>bitcoin impairment from the sell off, which is an big

0:14:11.559 --> 0:14:14.840
<v Speaker 1>old alchi Elon Must said that the decision to sell

0:14:14.880 --> 0:14:17.280
<v Speaker 1>off the chunk of bitcoin holdings had nothing to do

0:14:17.320 --> 0:14:20.000
<v Speaker 1>with the cryptocurrencies value. He said, This is not a

0:14:20.080 --> 0:14:24.120
<v Speaker 1>condemnation on crypto, he said, instead, it was just a

0:14:24.160 --> 0:14:27.400
<v Speaker 1>free up resources due to the ongoing challenges of operating

0:14:27.400 --> 0:14:31.120
<v Speaker 1>in China, which has strict COVID lockdown policies that have

0:14:31.200 --> 0:14:35.400
<v Speaker 1>been disrupting Tesla's operations there. When pressed if Tesla would

0:14:35.400 --> 0:14:38.680
<v Speaker 1>reinvest in bitcoin later down the line, must refer to

0:14:38.680 --> 0:14:41.760
<v Speaker 1>bitcoin as quote a side show to a side show

0:14:41.880 --> 0:14:45.040
<v Speaker 1>end quote, which does seem like kind of a condemnation

0:14:45.240 --> 0:14:48.680
<v Speaker 1>of cryptocurrency, So who ne who knows? And this follows

0:14:48.680 --> 0:14:52.320
<v Speaker 1>Tesla's previous move to stop accepting bitcoin as payment for

0:14:52.360 --> 0:14:55.240
<v Speaker 1>car purchases. It did do that briefly, but it has

0:14:55.280 --> 0:14:58.360
<v Speaker 1>curtailed that practice for quite some time now. That was

0:14:58.400 --> 0:15:01.040
<v Speaker 1>a move that the company credited to a concern about

0:15:01.080 --> 0:15:05.280
<v Speaker 1>the environmental impact of bitcoin mining. Whether or not that

0:15:05.400 --> 0:15:08.480
<v Speaker 1>was the one and only reason, I don't know, but

0:15:08.600 --> 0:15:12.040
<v Speaker 1>that's the reason they gave James Murray, the director of

0:15:12.040 --> 0:15:16.080
<v Speaker 1>the United States Secret Service, has announced his retirement and

0:15:16.120 --> 0:15:18.560
<v Speaker 1>he's moving on to join the private sector. And you

0:15:18.640 --> 0:15:21.600
<v Speaker 1>might wonder why am I talking about the director of

0:15:21.600 --> 0:15:24.920
<v Speaker 1>the Secret Service in a podcast that's about tech. Well,

0:15:24.920 --> 0:15:27.880
<v Speaker 1>it's because the company he is going to join is

0:15:28.000 --> 0:15:32.320
<v Speaker 1>Snap Incorporated, the parent company of Snapchat. So Murray will

0:15:32.320 --> 0:15:36.720
<v Speaker 1>oversee security at Snapping, which makes sense, though I have

0:15:36.760 --> 0:15:39.640
<v Speaker 1>to admit, if I were working in the security division

0:15:39.720 --> 0:15:43.680
<v Speaker 1>at Snap, I feel pretty intimidated when the former director

0:15:43.680 --> 0:15:47.080
<v Speaker 1>of the Secret Service came on board. A security researcher

0:15:47.320 --> 0:15:50.880
<v Speaker 1>has found an interesting way to compromise computer systems that

0:15:50.960 --> 0:15:53.240
<v Speaker 1>have an air gap. But before I even get into

0:15:53.240 --> 0:15:57.280
<v Speaker 1>this story, let me just say this exploit is technically possible,

0:15:57.880 --> 0:16:00.720
<v Speaker 1>but it isn't in any way practice at coals, so

0:16:00.880 --> 0:16:03.640
<v Speaker 1>I don't think there's any need to panic about it.

0:16:03.680 --> 0:16:07.480
<v Speaker 1>But it is an interesting security vulnerability. So let's talk

0:16:07.520 --> 0:16:10.040
<v Speaker 1>about this. First of all, what is an air gap. Well,

0:16:10.040 --> 0:16:12.840
<v Speaker 1>that's when you make sure a computer system isn't connected

0:16:12.880 --> 0:16:16.920
<v Speaker 1>to the Internet in any way. It is self contained, uh,

0:16:16.960 --> 0:16:19.880
<v Speaker 1>and it's isolated, so it makes it very difficult to

0:16:19.920 --> 0:16:23.840
<v Speaker 1>breach the system. If there are no pathways, you know,

0:16:24.200 --> 0:16:27.560
<v Speaker 1>into the system online, then hackers can't really gain access,

0:16:27.920 --> 0:16:32.680
<v Speaker 1>at least not remotely. But Mordecai Gurry, a security researcher,

0:16:32.720 --> 0:16:34.800
<v Speaker 1>it came up with a way that theoretically would let

0:16:34.800 --> 0:16:38.160
<v Speaker 1>someone steal from an air gapped system and to do

0:16:38.240 --> 0:16:43.400
<v Speaker 1>so wirelessly. And that sounds impossible, right, and it almost is.

0:16:43.720 --> 0:16:46.040
<v Speaker 1>So to get this to work, first you would have

0:16:46.080 --> 0:16:49.400
<v Speaker 1>to inject malware into the air gap system, which pretty

0:16:49.480 --> 0:16:53.360
<v Speaker 1>much means you or someone under your direction or you know,

0:16:53.480 --> 0:16:55.840
<v Speaker 1>maybe you trick them or whatever. They have to physically

0:16:55.920 --> 0:16:59.720
<v Speaker 1>deliver malware to the system in some way. Maybe it's

0:16:59.760 --> 0:17:03.480
<v Speaker 1>playing a USB stick into a machine and transferring malware

0:17:03.560 --> 0:17:07.600
<v Speaker 1>that way. So that's reason number one that this is impractical,

0:17:07.640 --> 0:17:10.800
<v Speaker 1>but not impossible. You know, people have been able to

0:17:10.800 --> 0:17:14.920
<v Speaker 1>get physical access to air gap systems before, but it's

0:17:14.960 --> 0:17:17.439
<v Speaker 1>not always easy. I mean, you you might find it

0:17:17.480 --> 0:17:20.080
<v Speaker 1>easier if you're able to trick someone on the inside

0:17:20.119 --> 0:17:23.160
<v Speaker 1>to do it for you, but even that's risky. So

0:17:23.359 --> 0:17:26.600
<v Speaker 1>then the researcher discovered that these SATA cables s A

0:17:26.680 --> 0:17:29.160
<v Speaker 1>t A cables that are used in these computer systems

0:17:29.680 --> 0:17:33.760
<v Speaker 1>EMIT a low power radio signal between five point nine

0:17:35.640 --> 0:17:40.959
<v Speaker 1>and five point nine six giga hurts, and that's not surprising.

0:17:41.359 --> 0:17:44.760
<v Speaker 1>If you run current through a wire, it will generate

0:17:45.320 --> 0:17:50.000
<v Speaker 1>an electromagnetic field. So these signals could act kind of

0:17:50.040 --> 0:17:55.560
<v Speaker 1>like Morse code. You know each character as it goes

0:17:55.600 --> 0:17:59.320
<v Speaker 1>over this wire. Uh emits a slightly different signal. So

0:17:59.359 --> 0:18:03.240
<v Speaker 1>if you set up a receiver near a compromised air

0:18:03.280 --> 0:18:06.080
<v Speaker 1>gapped system, and by near I mean you'd have to

0:18:06.119 --> 0:18:09.520
<v Speaker 1>be within a hundred times or three point nine feet

0:18:10.040 --> 0:18:12.680
<v Speaker 1>in order to not have too much of an error

0:18:12.720 --> 0:18:17.480
<v Speaker 1>rate introduced into the signal, and you limited your transmission

0:18:17.520 --> 0:18:21.439
<v Speaker 1>bit rate to about one bit per second. Remember a

0:18:21.440 --> 0:18:25.080
<v Speaker 1>bit is a zero or a one. Then it means

0:18:25.080 --> 0:18:27.400
<v Speaker 1>you would have to sit really close to the system

0:18:27.480 --> 0:18:31.760
<v Speaker 1>for a really long time in order to get anything useful. Presumably,

0:18:32.040 --> 0:18:35.000
<v Speaker 1>if you could somehow get access to this air gap

0:18:35.119 --> 0:18:39.280
<v Speaker 1>system and then planned to computer with wireless capability close

0:18:39.400 --> 0:18:41.280
<v Speaker 1>enough to it in a way that folks are not

0:18:41.400 --> 0:18:44.359
<v Speaker 1>likely to see it and thus remove it, you could

0:18:44.520 --> 0:18:49.480
<v Speaker 1>very slowly siphon information from that target system. So it's

0:18:49.520 --> 0:18:52.119
<v Speaker 1>good to be aware that this vulnerability as possible, but

0:18:52.240 --> 0:18:55.399
<v Speaker 1>it's an unlikely scenario you would ever encounter in real life.

0:18:55.960 --> 0:18:58.440
<v Speaker 1>And that's it for this episode of tech Stuff. Hope

0:18:58.440 --> 0:19:00.359
<v Speaker 1>you enjoyed it. Please reach out to me and let

0:19:00.400 --> 0:19:02.560
<v Speaker 1>me know about any topics you would like me to

0:19:02.640 --> 0:19:05.159
<v Speaker 1>cover in the future. You can do so on Twitter

0:19:05.320 --> 0:19:07.679
<v Speaker 1>that's tech stuff hs W, or you can do so

0:19:07.760 --> 0:19:09.800
<v Speaker 1>on the I Heart Radio app by navigating over to

0:19:09.840 --> 0:19:12.040
<v Speaker 1>tech Stuff and using a little microphone icon and you

0:19:12.080 --> 0:19:14.080
<v Speaker 1>can leave a voice message up to thirty seconds in

0:19:14.160 --> 0:19:19.360
<v Speaker 1>length and I will talk to you again really soon. Yeah.

0:19:23.480 --> 0:19:26.520
<v Speaker 1>Text Stuff is an I heart Radio production. For more

0:19:26.560 --> 0:19:29.960
<v Speaker 1>podcasts from I Heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio app,

0:19:30.119 --> 0:19:33.280
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.