WEBVTT - A Bad Hack and a Great Guest

0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:12.399
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:15.760
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.

0:00:15.800 --> 0:00:18.799
<v Speaker 1>I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and How the

0:00:18.840 --> 0:00:22.040
<v Speaker 1>tech are you. It's time for the tech news for

0:00:22.120 --> 0:00:26.600
<v Speaker 1>the week ending on August sixteenth, twenty twenty four. So

0:00:26.640 --> 0:00:30.720
<v Speaker 1>for this first news item, I wanted to bring a

0:00:30.840 --> 0:00:35.080
<v Speaker 1>guest onto the show to talk about it in further detail,

0:00:37.920 --> 0:00:42.200
<v Speaker 1>joining tech Stuff to give us her expertise is friend

0:00:42.200 --> 0:00:45.920
<v Speaker 1>of the show, Shannon Morse. She's a hacker, she's a YouTuber,

0:00:46.120 --> 0:00:49.320
<v Speaker 1>she's a ren Fair enthusiast, and I'm proud to call

0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:52.320
<v Speaker 1>her a friend. Shannon, Welcome back to tech Stuff.

0:00:53.640 --> 0:00:55.560
<v Speaker 2>Hi, thank you so much for having me. You kind

0:00:55.560 --> 0:00:57.920
<v Speaker 2>of surprised me when you said the ren Fair enthusiast. Yes,

0:00:58.000 --> 0:00:58.840
<v Speaker 2>I am well.

0:00:59.320 --> 0:01:01.600
<v Speaker 1>To be fair, so am I I worked ren Fair

0:01:01.640 --> 0:01:05.520
<v Speaker 1>from nineteen ninety nine to twenty nineteen, so so cool.

0:01:05.600 --> 0:01:07.920
<v Speaker 1>We're not alone in this. But I've brought you on

0:01:08.160 --> 0:01:10.720
<v Speaker 1>not to chat about Renfair, although that would be a

0:01:10.880 --> 0:01:13.680
<v Speaker 1>heck of a podcast, but to talk about next time.

0:01:13.800 --> 0:01:16.560
<v Speaker 1>Next time we'll talk about that, talk about the tech

0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:20.639
<v Speaker 1>of Renaissance era Europe. I thought we would talk about

0:01:20.680 --> 0:01:26.600
<v Speaker 1>this hacking attack that has exposed billions of records for people,

0:01:26.680 --> 0:01:28.800
<v Speaker 1>not just in the United States, but in Canada and

0:01:28.880 --> 0:01:31.840
<v Speaker 1>other places as well. I wanted to hear from you

0:01:32.280 --> 0:01:36.200
<v Speaker 1>sort of what happened, who was involved, and what are

0:01:36.240 --> 0:01:38.160
<v Speaker 1>the implications of this attack.

0:01:38.920 --> 0:01:42.160
<v Speaker 2>Well, let's go ahead and start with what exactly happened.

0:01:42.560 --> 0:01:46.520
<v Speaker 2>So way back in April of twenty twenty four, so

0:01:46.640 --> 0:01:51.240
<v Speaker 2>this year, there was this Twitter account that found a

0:01:51.360 --> 0:01:54.200
<v Speaker 2>leak online and they were like, oh, this seems like

0:01:54.280 --> 0:01:58.800
<v Speaker 2>it came from a cybercrime constituent that is called USDOD

0:01:58.960 --> 0:02:01.560
<v Speaker 2>and nobody really knew what was going on. It wasn't

0:02:01.640 --> 0:02:05.960
<v Speaker 2>until July twenty first, twenty twenty four, that about four

0:02:06.080 --> 0:02:09.800
<v Speaker 2>terabytes of data was released on breach forums. And breach

0:02:09.880 --> 0:02:13.560
<v Speaker 2>forums is basically this cybercrime community on the dark Web

0:02:13.720 --> 0:02:18.560
<v Speaker 2>where they often leak private and personal information of regular people.

0:02:18.880 --> 0:02:21.720
<v Speaker 2>This happens really often, and in this case they figured

0:02:21.720 --> 0:02:24.520
<v Speaker 2>out and they claim that it was from a data

0:02:24.520 --> 0:02:30.160
<v Speaker 2>broker called Nationalpublic Data dot com and this was later confirmed.

0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:35.840
<v Speaker 2>So around mid August, just gosh, yesterday, people started confirming

0:02:35.880 --> 0:02:39.120
<v Speaker 2>that this was from the data broker Nationalpublic Data dot com.

0:02:39.600 --> 0:02:42.960
<v Speaker 2>The amount of data did amount to about two point

0:02:43.040 --> 0:02:46.680
<v Speaker 2>nine billion records. The unfortunate part is a lot of

0:02:47.760 --> 0:02:51.160
<v Speaker 2>journalistic media outlets are saying that it was the data

0:02:51.160 --> 0:02:54.520
<v Speaker 2>of almost every American or two point nine billion people

0:02:54.960 --> 0:02:58.120
<v Speaker 2>had their data leak, and that's not necessarily the case,

0:02:58.520 --> 0:03:02.240
<v Speaker 2>so that was a little misconstruction. It's actually records, and

0:03:02.280 --> 0:03:04.920
<v Speaker 2>there could be records on decease people, there could be

0:03:05.040 --> 0:03:09.480
<v Speaker 2>multiple records on one person, there could be records on businesses,

0:03:09.639 --> 0:03:11.680
<v Speaker 2>and all of these seem to be the case when

0:03:11.720 --> 0:03:14.560
<v Speaker 2>it comes to these two point nine billion records. But

0:03:14.760 --> 0:03:20.000
<v Speaker 2>this does include everything from names and addresses to in

0:03:20.040 --> 0:03:24.040
<v Speaker 2>some cases, social security numbers and some other personal information.

0:03:24.160 --> 0:03:25.560
<v Speaker 2>So it's a pretty serious issue.

0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:28.800
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, when it comes to if you're just talking about

0:03:29.000 --> 0:03:33.400
<v Speaker 1>data breaches that affect or potentially could affect the average person,

0:03:33.480 --> 0:03:36.440
<v Speaker 1>this one seems pretty bad. From why do I understand?

0:03:36.440 --> 0:03:39.680
<v Speaker 1>The data broker in question typically would do things like

0:03:39.760 --> 0:03:41.840
<v Speaker 1>background checks for various companies.

0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:44.880
<v Speaker 2>Yes, and that's kind of unfortunate because a lot of

0:03:45.000 --> 0:03:49.800
<v Speaker 2>businesses probably used this company for background checks, and there's

0:03:49.840 --> 0:03:52.480
<v Speaker 2>no real way of knowing, like when you first got

0:03:52.480 --> 0:03:54.880
<v Speaker 2>employed with a company or if you signed up for

0:03:54.920 --> 0:03:58.560
<v Speaker 2>a credit new credit card if they're using this business

0:03:58.600 --> 0:04:01.520
<v Speaker 2>for background checks, So you really have no idea which

0:04:01.600 --> 0:04:04.800
<v Speaker 2>data brokers have your data. And if National Public Data

0:04:04.840 --> 0:04:06.600
<v Speaker 2>did have your data, well.

0:04:06.680 --> 0:04:11.360
<v Speaker 1>Clearly the data was unencrypted, because otherwise it would be

0:04:11.520 --> 0:04:14.600
<v Speaker 1>very difficult to make any use of this information. I

0:04:14.640 --> 0:04:17.640
<v Speaker 1>don't want to just make an assumption or have my

0:04:17.800 --> 0:04:20.680
<v Speaker 1>bias informed this, so I thought I would ask you directly, Shannon,

0:04:20.880 --> 0:04:24.560
<v Speaker 1>in your opinion, is the storage of that sort of

0:04:24.680 --> 0:04:27.599
<v Speaker 1>data in an unencrypted form? Is that what you would

0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:29.799
<v Speaker 1>perhaps call bad security practices.

0:04:32.200 --> 0:04:34.440
<v Speaker 2>I think we could both agree here, assuming that you're

0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:39.120
<v Speaker 2>of the same opinion as I. Absolutely having any of

0:04:39.120 --> 0:04:42.680
<v Speaker 2>that kind of data unencrypted or easily accessible on a

0:04:42.760 --> 0:04:46.880
<v Speaker 2>storage format is really really bad, especially when it comes

0:04:46.920 --> 0:04:51.360
<v Speaker 2>to a data broker. Unfortunately, data brokers are legal here

0:04:51.400 --> 0:04:55.400
<v Speaker 2>in the United States, and we really have no safety

0:04:55.480 --> 0:05:00.359
<v Speaker 2>proponents or no safety like regulations. Regulatory powers control what

0:05:00.440 --> 0:05:03.080
<v Speaker 2>data brokers can and cannot do with that data. So

0:05:03.600 --> 0:05:05.880
<v Speaker 2>they should have been taking care of that data in

0:05:05.880 --> 0:05:08.839
<v Speaker 2>an encrypted format, especially if they want to make money

0:05:08.839 --> 0:05:11.159
<v Speaker 2>off of it. Because now all this data has leaked,

0:05:11.760 --> 0:05:14.760
<v Speaker 2>Chances are just from a business standpoint, this data broker

0:05:14.800 --> 0:05:18.160
<v Speaker 2>will not make as much money using those background checks

0:05:18.160 --> 0:05:19.440
<v Speaker 2>because people aren't going to trust.

0:05:19.279 --> 0:05:21.279
<v Speaker 1>Them as much. Now, sure, there's going to be class

0:05:21.279 --> 0:05:24.760
<v Speaker 1>action lawsuits and such directed against the company, I hope so. Yeah,

0:05:24.800 --> 0:05:28.800
<v Speaker 1>So I imagine that that will have an impact into their

0:05:28.839 --> 0:05:31.679
<v Speaker 1>revenue as well. Thank you for pointing out the lack

0:05:31.920 --> 0:05:34.680
<v Speaker 1>of regulation and safety net here in the United States.

0:05:34.680 --> 0:05:37.520
<v Speaker 1>Obviously in places like the EU, there's been a lot

0:05:37.560 --> 0:05:40.839
<v Speaker 1>of work done to try and try and get a

0:05:40.880 --> 0:05:43.400
<v Speaker 1>handle on that because it is tricky. I think here

0:05:43.440 --> 0:05:45.840
<v Speaker 1>in the US, all of our attention tends to go

0:05:45.880 --> 0:05:48.760
<v Speaker 1>to the end points, like the social platforms where people

0:05:48.880 --> 0:05:52.640
<v Speaker 1>are sharing info, but they ignore, like all the big

0:05:52.680 --> 0:05:55.960
<v Speaker 1>companies in the background that are literally buying and selling

0:05:56.040 --> 0:05:57.119
<v Speaker 1>that info all the time.

0:05:57.600 --> 0:06:01.240
<v Speaker 2>I mean, we've seen this since the early Facebook days

0:06:01.240 --> 0:06:04.599
<v Speaker 2>with Cambridge Analytica, if you remember that big data leak,

0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:09.720
<v Speaker 2>Like it's very very similar scenario here where this background

0:06:09.760 --> 0:06:13.679
<v Speaker 2>company that nobody really knows exists, has so much data

0:06:13.680 --> 0:06:17.320
<v Speaker 2>and so many profiles, and they're building these profiles around us,

0:06:17.560 --> 0:06:20.039
<v Speaker 2>and we have no say in the matter. They just

0:06:20.160 --> 0:06:23.600
<v Speaker 2>do it without our knowledge, without our consent. And then

0:06:23.640 --> 0:06:26.160
<v Speaker 2>we hear about one of these breaches and we're like, well,

0:06:26.200 --> 0:06:28.440
<v Speaker 2>I've never done business with them, why do they have

0:06:28.520 --> 0:06:31.800
<v Speaker 2>my information? Why did this happen to me? So unfortunately

0:06:31.920 --> 0:06:34.960
<v Speaker 2>this is the case in the United States, and luckily

0:06:35.000 --> 0:06:37.080
<v Speaker 2>we do have some options in terms of what we

0:06:37.120 --> 0:06:40.080
<v Speaker 2>can do to protect ourselves. But it's not one hundred percent,

0:06:40.120 --> 0:06:41.400
<v Speaker 2>and I don't know if it ever will be.

0:06:41.600 --> 0:06:45.359
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, Like, the suggestions I give to people include things like,

0:06:46.160 --> 0:06:48.400
<v Speaker 1>when it comes to accounts you already use, if you

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:52.920
<v Speaker 1>haven't activated multi factor authentication, you should just do that

0:06:53.000 --> 0:06:56.600
<v Speaker 1>as a matter of practice on everything that offers it.

0:06:56.720 --> 0:06:59.520
<v Speaker 1>And if you're concerned about someone making use of say

0:06:59.520 --> 0:07:02.160
<v Speaker 1>your social Security number and your address, like they have

0:07:02.240 --> 0:07:04.800
<v Speaker 1>all the details they need for identity theft, you can

0:07:04.920 --> 0:07:08.120
<v Speaker 1>put a freeze on your credit with the three major

0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:10.680
<v Speaker 1>companies here in the United States. It's a pain in

0:07:10.720 --> 0:07:12.600
<v Speaker 1>the butt to do it. It's a pain in the

0:07:12.640 --> 0:07:15.680
<v Speaker 1>butt to thought if you freeze it, but it's less

0:07:15.720 --> 0:07:18.720
<v Speaker 1>of a pain of a butt than someone taking out

0:07:19.240 --> 0:07:24.280
<v Speaker 1>alone under your name. So, yeah, this is bad. It's

0:07:24.320 --> 0:07:26.480
<v Speaker 1>bad for all of us because there was nothing that

0:07:26.560 --> 0:07:29.640
<v Speaker 1>the average person could have done to protect themselves from

0:07:29.640 --> 0:07:31.239
<v Speaker 1>this particular attack.

0:07:31.600 --> 0:07:34.480
<v Speaker 2>And even though your data may not have been involved

0:07:34.480 --> 0:07:36.840
<v Speaker 2>in this, and you can go to a website called

0:07:36.920 --> 0:07:40.200
<v Speaker 2>have I Been Poned that's owned with a p dot

0:07:40.240 --> 0:07:43.720
<v Speaker 2>com to see if your data was leaked in this

0:07:43.760 --> 0:07:47.160
<v Speaker 2>one as well as other previous data breaches. You can

0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:50.280
<v Speaker 2>see if your data was indeed leaked in any of those.

0:07:51.120 --> 0:07:53.160
<v Speaker 2>That can help you kind of get a mindset of

0:07:53.560 --> 0:07:57.120
<v Speaker 2>where is my data, who has my data currently? And

0:07:57.160 --> 0:07:59.840
<v Speaker 2>then you can also, you know, like you said, do

0:07:59.880 --> 0:08:04.280
<v Speaker 2>the credit freeze at Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. That's extremely

0:08:04.320 --> 0:08:06.480
<v Speaker 2>important and one of the first steps you should take.

0:08:06.760 --> 0:08:10.120
<v Speaker 2>I recommend that to anybody who is curious about like

0:08:10.200 --> 0:08:13.000
<v Speaker 2>if their Social Security number has gotten out there, or

0:08:13.080 --> 0:08:17.280
<v Speaker 2>any kind of personally identifiable information that would allow for

0:08:17.520 --> 0:08:20.840
<v Speaker 2>any kind of identity theft. That's really important. And using

0:08:21.520 --> 0:08:25.480
<v Speaker 2>kind of proper security hygiene online can certainly help as well,

0:08:25.840 --> 0:08:29.080
<v Speaker 2>because you will run into phishing scams when people find

0:08:29.120 --> 0:08:31.640
<v Speaker 2>out your email address and your name. You might run

0:08:31.680 --> 0:08:36.080
<v Speaker 2>into spam texts or phishing texts or spammy calls. You

0:08:36.160 --> 0:08:38.800
<v Speaker 2>might run into the same thing with people sending you

0:08:38.840 --> 0:08:42.600
<v Speaker 2>spamming and phishing emails. So if you have these kind

0:08:42.600 --> 0:08:45.320
<v Speaker 2>of issues, or if you see them starting to rise

0:08:45.679 --> 0:08:48.800
<v Speaker 2>then looking into signing up for a password manager, which

0:08:48.840 --> 0:08:51.360
<v Speaker 2>can make your life a lot easier when you're auditing

0:08:51.400 --> 0:08:54.240
<v Speaker 2>how many accounts you have online and making sure that

0:08:54.280 --> 0:08:56.839
<v Speaker 2>you're changing those passwords because you can stay up to

0:08:56.920 --> 0:09:00.480
<v Speaker 2>date and just use like auto generation tools in password

0:09:00.480 --> 0:09:05.040
<v Speaker 2>managers to make really really good, strong protective passwords that

0:09:05.160 --> 0:09:07.320
<v Speaker 2>even you don't know, but the password manager does, so

0:09:07.360 --> 0:09:10.640
<v Speaker 2>it's fine. You won't lose your entry into your profiles.

0:09:10.679 --> 0:09:14.800
<v Speaker 2>Your password manager will help you using two factor authentication

0:09:15.000 --> 0:09:18.880
<v Speaker 2>to protect your accounts, especially if passwords get leaked, because

0:09:19.120 --> 0:09:22.360
<v Speaker 2>even if you are using a different password on every website,

0:09:22.559 --> 0:09:25.680
<v Speaker 2>if one of your profiles get leaked, that profile could

0:09:25.679 --> 0:09:27.640
<v Speaker 2>be hacked. So you might as well set up two

0:09:27.640 --> 0:09:30.960
<v Speaker 2>factor authentication and make sure none of those accounts get hacked.

0:09:31.080 --> 0:09:33.760
<v Speaker 2>And using proper security hygiene when it comes to public

0:09:33.840 --> 0:09:38.520
<v Speaker 2>networks like VPNs and making sure you're not logging into

0:09:38.559 --> 0:09:42.599
<v Speaker 2>accounts on public Wi Fi and using secure networks is

0:09:42.640 --> 0:09:46.199
<v Speaker 2>a really really good proponent. When it comes to data brokers,

0:09:46.679 --> 0:09:50.240
<v Speaker 2>it's extremely hard to manually opt out because there's hundreds

0:09:50.280 --> 0:09:54.520
<v Speaker 2>of them, including Nationalpublic Data dot Com, But you can

0:09:54.640 --> 0:09:57.560
<v Speaker 2>sign up for a data broker opt out tool like

0:09:57.760 --> 0:10:00.560
<v Speaker 2>delete me. That's the one that I use, and I

0:10:00.640 --> 0:10:02.920
<v Speaker 2>have paid for it as a customer long before they

0:10:03.000 --> 0:10:06.200
<v Speaker 2>knew about my YouTube channel. They will go in and

0:10:06.360 --> 0:10:09.600
<v Speaker 2>opt you out of having your data on the data brokers,

0:10:09.840 --> 0:10:13.000
<v Speaker 2>and they do it quarterly because data brokers often will

0:10:13.040 --> 0:10:15.800
<v Speaker 2>repurchase your data and put it back on their platforms,

0:10:16.160 --> 0:10:19.479
<v Speaker 2>so people can continuously go to these data broker websites

0:10:19.559 --> 0:10:23.000
<v Speaker 2>and research for your profile and find your address, your

0:10:23.040 --> 0:10:26.160
<v Speaker 2>phone number, your name, the names of your kids. Like,

0:10:26.240 --> 0:10:29.720
<v Speaker 2>it's pretty invasive what they can do. So I've been

0:10:30.160 --> 0:10:34.920
<v Speaker 2>paying for data broker opt out services for almost a

0:10:35.000 --> 0:10:38.720
<v Speaker 2>decade now and it's definitely helped with like clearing the

0:10:38.800 --> 0:10:41.280
<v Speaker 2>kind of data that's out there that I have no

0:10:41.360 --> 0:10:44.240
<v Speaker 2>control over and just kind of taking a step towards

0:10:44.240 --> 0:10:45.000
<v Speaker 2>my security.

0:10:45.160 --> 0:10:49.360
<v Speaker 1>That's great advice, and obviously like these are steps that

0:10:49.600 --> 0:10:52.480
<v Speaker 1>hopefully one day will no longer be necessary, will have

0:10:52.960 --> 0:10:55.719
<v Speaker 1>the protective measures in place that make the mood man

0:10:55.760 --> 0:10:59.079
<v Speaker 1>I hope, So I do too. I got hope springs eternal, Shannon,

0:10:59.480 --> 0:11:05.120
<v Speaker 1>that's I gotta hope or else I wither away. Well, yes, Shannon,

0:11:05.160 --> 0:11:07.840
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much for joining the show and letting

0:11:07.920 --> 0:11:11.040
<v Speaker 1>us know more. About this hack and what it means

0:11:11.080 --> 0:11:14.040
<v Speaker 1>and what people can do. I think that helps alleviate

0:11:14.120 --> 0:11:16.960
<v Speaker 1>a lot of anxiety when people start to hear about

0:11:16.960 --> 0:11:22.480
<v Speaker 1>the steps they can take to best protect themselves. I

0:11:22.520 --> 0:11:24.959
<v Speaker 1>want to thank Shannon again, and we're gonna take a

0:11:25.000 --> 0:11:27.680
<v Speaker 1>quick break. When we come back, we have more news

0:11:27.720 --> 0:11:41.360
<v Speaker 1>to talk about. Mark Zuckerberg probably gets lots of requests

0:11:41.559 --> 0:11:45.120
<v Speaker 1>being the head of Facebook and all. This week, nineteen

0:11:45.200 --> 0:11:48.160
<v Speaker 1>of those requests came from members of the United States

0:11:48.200 --> 0:11:50.839
<v Speaker 1>Congress who would very much like to hear why Meta

0:11:50.880 --> 0:11:54.760
<v Speaker 1>has allowed ads for such spicy stuff as cocaine and

0:11:54.920 --> 0:11:59.120
<v Speaker 1>ecstasy to appear on Facebook and Instagram. I mean, these

0:11:59.400 --> 0:12:03.480
<v Speaker 1>substances aren't legal, so why is Meta allowing advertisers to

0:12:03.559 --> 0:12:07.440
<v Speaker 1>run ads for them on these very popular platforms. An

0:12:07.520 --> 0:12:13.280
<v Speaker 1>investigation from the Tech Transparency Project or TTP, prompted this inquiry.

0:12:13.760 --> 0:12:17.120
<v Speaker 1>In the investigation, the TTP found more than four hundred

0:12:17.120 --> 0:12:20.920
<v Speaker 1>examples of ads for drugs of varying degrees of legality

0:12:21.160 --> 0:12:24.680
<v Speaker 1>on these platforms, and lawmakers would like Zuckerberg to explain

0:12:24.760 --> 0:12:27.160
<v Speaker 1>how this could happen. In a letter to the CEO,

0:12:27.640 --> 0:12:32.000
<v Speaker 1>the legislators wrote, quote, this was not user generated content

0:12:32.240 --> 0:12:35.920
<v Speaker 1>on the dark Web or on private social media pages,

0:12:36.200 --> 0:12:40.959
<v Speaker 1>but rather they were advertisements approved and monetized by Meta.

0:12:41.000 --> 0:12:44.760
<v Speaker 1>Many of these ads contained blatant references to illegal drugs

0:12:44.760 --> 0:12:48.880
<v Speaker 1>in their titles, descriptions, photos, and advertiser account names, which

0:12:48.920 --> 0:12:51.800
<v Speaker 1>were easily found by the researchers and journalists at the

0:12:51.800 --> 0:12:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street Journal and Tech Transparency Project using Meta's ad library. However,

0:12:57.480 --> 0:13:00.719
<v Speaker 1>they appeared to have passed undetected or bid ignored by

0:13:00.720 --> 0:13:05.480
<v Speaker 1>Meta's own internal processes. End quote. Now, according to the TTP,

0:13:05.880 --> 0:13:08.480
<v Speaker 1>many of these ads prompted users to click over to

0:13:08.720 --> 0:13:12.680
<v Speaker 1>a Telegram account to complete any shopping that they wished

0:13:12.800 --> 0:13:18.319
<v Speaker 1>to do. Meta has until September sixth to respond. Now,

0:13:18.360 --> 0:13:21.559
<v Speaker 1>I can't say that I'm terribly surprised by this story. Personally,

0:13:21.640 --> 0:13:25.880
<v Speaker 1>I have encountered so many suspicious ads on Facebook that

0:13:26.000 --> 0:13:29.360
<v Speaker 1>I suspect the quality control aspect of the Ads division

0:13:29.480 --> 0:13:33.280
<v Speaker 1>is purposefully lax. Now, in my case, the ads weren't

0:13:33.400 --> 0:13:37.720
<v Speaker 1>for illegal drugs, but rather they were ads that way

0:13:38.040 --> 0:13:41.319
<v Speaker 1>that were fake. I mean they were posing as other companies,

0:13:41.760 --> 0:13:44.760
<v Speaker 1>like some other entity, in an attempt to fool consumers

0:13:45.040 --> 0:13:50.160
<v Speaker 1>into shopping for shoddy knockoffs. The big example I can

0:13:50.200 --> 0:13:52.320
<v Speaker 1>think of off top of my head was the sam

0:13:52.440 --> 0:13:55.000
<v Speaker 1>Ash music stores in the United States. They went out

0:13:55.000 --> 0:13:58.319
<v Speaker 1>of business and closed down, and I saw ad after

0:13:58.400 --> 0:14:03.240
<v Speaker 1>ad after ad pose that, but they weren't sam Ash.

0:14:03.280 --> 0:14:06.280
<v Speaker 1>They were some other fly by night company trying to

0:14:06.320 --> 0:14:11.040
<v Speaker 1>sell knockoffs or sometimes just boxes of literal trash rather

0:14:11.120 --> 0:14:15.280
<v Speaker 1>than whatever item you thought you were going to get. Now.

0:14:15.920 --> 0:14:18.920
<v Speaker 1>I have reported these ads to Facebook, and frequently I

0:14:18.960 --> 0:14:22.120
<v Speaker 1>received the message that after review, Facebook determined there were

0:14:22.120 --> 0:14:26.560
<v Speaker 1>no violations of its policies. Meanwhile, the actual legitimate companies

0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:30.240
<v Speaker 1>like sam Ash would post warnings on their pages about

0:14:30.280 --> 0:14:33.840
<v Speaker 1>scams like this. I suspect that unless lawmakers make it

0:14:33.920 --> 0:14:37.320
<v Speaker 1>really hurt to engage in irresponsible ad partnerships, we're not

0:14:37.360 --> 0:14:40.200
<v Speaker 1>going to see any significant change on this front. In

0:14:40.240 --> 0:14:43.800
<v Speaker 1>the world of tech and politics, the Trump campaign has

0:14:43.840 --> 0:14:48.600
<v Speaker 1>been hit with a spearfishing attack that compromised campaign assets.

0:14:48.840 --> 0:14:52.280
<v Speaker 1>The Trump campaign identified hackers backed by Iran as the

0:14:52.320 --> 0:14:57.480
<v Speaker 1>party responsible, and now Google's Threat Analysis Group or tag TAG,

0:14:57.880 --> 0:15:00.960
<v Speaker 1>has released a statement saying that yes, they have observed

0:15:00.960 --> 0:15:05.680
<v Speaker 1>that the hacker group APT forty two, which is linked

0:15:05.720 --> 0:15:11.120
<v Speaker 1>to Iran, targeted both the Trump campaign and the Harris campaign.

0:15:11.200 --> 0:15:16.040
<v Speaker 1>Kamala Harris's campaign, as well as President Biden's campaign when

0:15:16.040 --> 0:15:20.560
<v Speaker 1>he was actively campaigning. Tag also stated that subsequent attacks

0:15:20.560 --> 0:15:23.960
<v Speaker 1>have been unsuccessful, but there remains an ongoing attempt to

0:15:24.000 --> 0:15:27.440
<v Speaker 1>compromise accounts belonging to people who are close to Trump

0:15:27.560 --> 0:15:31.560
<v Speaker 1>and Harris slash Biden. The assumption moving forward is that

0:15:31.640 --> 0:15:35.600
<v Speaker 1>all elections will face potential external interference from threat actors,

0:15:35.720 --> 0:15:39.320
<v Speaker 1>both domestic and foreign. So, you know, that's fun. It's

0:15:39.360 --> 0:15:42.720
<v Speaker 1>a reminder that democracy isn't something that can just fend

0:15:42.760 --> 0:15:45.120
<v Speaker 1>for itself. Now, if you want to learn more about this,

0:15:45.280 --> 0:15:48.640
<v Speaker 1>I recommend Kevin Perdy's article on ours Tetnica. It is

0:15:48.680 --> 0:15:53.600
<v Speaker 1>titled Google's threat team confirms Iran targeting Trump, Biden, and

0:15:53.720 --> 0:15:58.840
<v Speaker 1>Harris campaigns. More than a decade ago, New Zealand police officers,

0:15:58.920 --> 0:16:03.360
<v Speaker 1>responding to a from the FBI rated the massive home

0:16:03.400 --> 0:16:07.000
<v Speaker 1>of Kim dot com. Dot Com formerly known as Schmidtz,

0:16:07.280 --> 0:16:11.320
<v Speaker 1>formed the company mega Upload, which allowed users to create

0:16:11.320 --> 0:16:14.320
<v Speaker 1>cloud based storage for all sorts of stuff and then

0:16:14.400 --> 0:16:17.400
<v Speaker 1>give other folks access to the files that were in

0:16:17.440 --> 0:16:20.360
<v Speaker 1>that storage. So obviously a lot of people use the

0:16:20.440 --> 0:16:22.680
<v Speaker 1>service to serve as kind of a trading ground for

0:16:22.800 --> 0:16:28.280
<v Speaker 1>pirated material music, TV shows, films, games, software, and more

0:16:28.440 --> 0:16:31.440
<v Speaker 1>all found a home on mega Upload, while the company

0:16:31.480 --> 0:16:35.480
<v Speaker 1>is responsible for making that stuff. Seethed they saw dot

0:16:35.520 --> 0:16:39.680
<v Speaker 1>Com profiting off of piracy, So the FBI called on

0:16:39.760 --> 0:16:42.480
<v Speaker 1>New Zealand police back in twenty twelve to give dot

0:16:42.520 --> 0:16:46.000
<v Speaker 1>Com a little visit, and they charged him with racketeering

0:16:46.040 --> 0:16:48.680
<v Speaker 1>and wirefraud and money laundering on top of all that

0:16:48.760 --> 0:16:53.240
<v Speaker 1>copyright infringement. And after more than a decade of legal wrangling,

0:16:53.320 --> 0:16:56.840
<v Speaker 1>the US has now secured extradition of dot Com to

0:16:56.960 --> 0:16:59.760
<v Speaker 1>fly to the US and stand trial. Now dot Com

0:16:59.760 --> 0:17:02.880
<v Speaker 1>has denounced the whole thing. He referred to New Zealand

0:17:02.920 --> 0:17:06.280
<v Speaker 1>as essentially a US colony. It's not, and dot Com

0:17:06.280 --> 0:17:09.119
<v Speaker 1>still maintains he will not leave New Zealand and that

0:17:09.240 --> 0:17:11.680
<v Speaker 1>his business was just to provide a service in which

0:17:11.720 --> 0:17:15.200
<v Speaker 1>people could upload and share files, and therefore he bears

0:17:15.240 --> 0:17:19.280
<v Speaker 1>no responsibility on the kinds of files that were uploaded

0:17:19.320 --> 0:17:22.359
<v Speaker 1>and shared. This is a basic principle of the safe

0:17:22.359 --> 0:17:25.720
<v Speaker 1>harbor defense. But dot Com has also been really vocal

0:17:25.880 --> 0:17:29.879
<v Speaker 1>and let's say abrasive, and I think that may have

0:17:30.040 --> 0:17:33.160
<v Speaker 1>hurt his case a little, or at least prodded authorities

0:17:33.160 --> 0:17:35.720
<v Speaker 1>to really go after him. Now, whether all of this

0:17:35.800 --> 0:17:38.919
<v Speaker 1>is going to lead to a trial and conviction or not,

0:17:39.119 --> 0:17:42.520
<v Speaker 1>or if dot Com will successfully appeal the extradition order,

0:17:42.760 --> 0:17:45.040
<v Speaker 1>we'll just have to wait and see. In the good

0:17:45.119 --> 0:17:49.760
<v Speaker 1>times are hard times department. Telecommunications company Cisco Systems posted

0:17:49.800 --> 0:17:53.680
<v Speaker 1>a ten point three billion with a B dollar profit

0:17:53.800 --> 0:17:56.520
<v Speaker 1>in its last fiscal year, but it's also laying off

0:17:56.560 --> 0:17:59.800
<v Speaker 1>folks seven percent of its workforce, which could be around

0:17:59.800 --> 0:18:03.119
<v Speaker 1>five five hundred people. All told, The company said that

0:18:03.160 --> 0:18:06.320
<v Speaker 1>the move is necessary so it can put full focus

0:18:06.520 --> 0:18:10.399
<v Speaker 1>on quote key growth opportunities and drive more efficiency in

0:18:10.440 --> 0:18:14.120
<v Speaker 1>our business end quote. As Stephen Counsel of SFGate reports,

0:18:14.200 --> 0:18:16.560
<v Speaker 1>this is the second time this year that Cisco has

0:18:16.560 --> 0:18:22.240
<v Speaker 1>held substantial layoffs. Golly. Back to politics, Donald Trump made

0:18:22.240 --> 0:18:25.520
<v Speaker 1>headlines after claiming that the Harris campaign or someone on

0:18:25.560 --> 0:18:28.919
<v Speaker 1>that campaign's behalf, had made use of AI to artificially

0:18:28.960 --> 0:18:33.080
<v Speaker 1>boost crowd sizes at Harris events. In various images of

0:18:33.160 --> 0:18:37.439
<v Speaker 1>those stops, and the images that Trump referenced all appear

0:18:37.520 --> 0:18:40.760
<v Speaker 1>to be legit. Footage from numerous media outlets show that

0:18:40.800 --> 0:18:44.320
<v Speaker 1>the crowds were actually quite large. However, that doesn't mean

0:18:44.320 --> 0:18:48.399
<v Speaker 1>that there are no AI generated or enhanced images making

0:18:48.440 --> 0:18:50.800
<v Speaker 1>the rounds out there. It's just the ones that Trump

0:18:50.960 --> 0:18:54.960
<v Speaker 1>was citing were not AI generated. And it also means

0:18:55.000 --> 0:18:58.080
<v Speaker 1>that people are calling into question the legitimacy of actual,

0:18:58.720 --> 0:19:01.720
<v Speaker 1>real images and visit. So on the one hand, we

0:19:01.800 --> 0:19:04.639
<v Speaker 1>do know there are AI generated images out there that

0:19:04.680 --> 0:19:07.479
<v Speaker 1>are competing for our attention and posing as legit, and

0:19:07.520 --> 0:19:10.080
<v Speaker 1>they are misinformation. On the other hand, we also know

0:19:10.160 --> 0:19:13.159
<v Speaker 1>that people will now question legitimate sources and argue that

0:19:13.240 --> 0:19:16.359
<v Speaker 1>they are in fact AI generated. So some refer to

0:19:16.400 --> 0:19:20.359
<v Speaker 1>this as the liar's dividend. There's a great piece about this.

0:19:20.680 --> 0:19:24.120
<v Speaker 1>It's again over at Ours Technicuts by Kyle Orland. It's

0:19:24.200 --> 0:19:28.200
<v Speaker 1>titled the Many Many Signs that Kamala Harris's rally crowds

0:19:28.240 --> 0:19:31.960
<v Speaker 1>aren't AI creations. We're going to take another quick break,

0:19:31.960 --> 0:19:33.919
<v Speaker 1>and when we come back, I've got some more news.

0:19:43.280 --> 0:19:46.879
<v Speaker 1>A story I missed a while back is that code

0:19:46.920 --> 0:19:50.240
<v Speaker 1>testers came across some interesting stuff while looking at Apple Intelligence,

0:19:50.280 --> 0:19:53.800
<v Speaker 1>which is Apple's AI project, and that interesting stuff appeared

0:19:53.800 --> 0:19:57.120
<v Speaker 1>to be prompts meant to guide generative AI to avoid

0:19:57.119 --> 0:20:00.560
<v Speaker 1>the pitfalls we've seen with other tools, stuff like ucinations

0:20:00.640 --> 0:20:04.200
<v Speaker 1>or confabulations, you know, the tendency for generative AI to

0:20:04.359 --> 0:20:07.320
<v Speaker 1>just make stuff up in the absence of real information.

0:20:07.600 --> 0:20:12.480
<v Speaker 1>And that's potentially good news, assuming that these guidelines actually work.

0:20:12.800 --> 0:20:15.080
<v Speaker 1>But I have another story this week that makes me worry.

0:20:15.280 --> 0:20:17.800
<v Speaker 1>It's not about Apple. It's about a research firm out

0:20:17.800 --> 0:20:21.080
<v Speaker 1>of Tokyo called Sakana AI. So the team had set

0:20:21.280 --> 0:20:25.440
<v Speaker 1>its AI system to do autonomous scientific research, and they

0:20:25.480 --> 0:20:29.240
<v Speaker 1>included a function that would essentially say times up on tasks.

0:20:29.440 --> 0:20:32.400
<v Speaker 1>And what was surprising was the system attempted to rewrite

0:20:32.440 --> 0:20:35.280
<v Speaker 1>its own code in order to give itself more time

0:20:35.400 --> 0:20:38.719
<v Speaker 1>to complete tasks. So instead of trying to do things faster,

0:20:39.240 --> 0:20:42.000
<v Speaker 1>they tried to change the deadline. Now, this is a

0:20:42.119 --> 0:20:44.960
<v Speaker 1>very low level instance of a type of situation that

0:20:45.000 --> 0:20:49.160
<v Speaker 1>has fueled countless science fiction cautionary tales. An AI system

0:20:49.359 --> 0:20:52.720
<v Speaker 1>ignores or alters rules in order to fulfill its function.

0:20:53.119 --> 0:20:56.240
<v Speaker 1>The cliche version of this is asking a global system

0:20:56.240 --> 0:20:58.719
<v Speaker 1>that's running on AI to create world peace, and so

0:20:58.840 --> 0:21:01.600
<v Speaker 1>the AI inevitably decides the only way to do that,

0:21:01.800 --> 0:21:04.640
<v Speaker 1>the only way to prevent conflict is to kill off

0:21:04.720 --> 0:21:08.480
<v Speaker 1>all those pesky humans who create it, meaning everybody. Of course,

0:21:08.560 --> 0:21:12.080
<v Speaker 1>the Sikana AI example is not dangerous like that, but

0:21:12.160 --> 0:21:14.680
<v Speaker 1>it does illustrate that AI experts have to be very

0:21:14.720 --> 0:21:17.960
<v Speaker 1>careful in how they design systems so that the systems

0:21:18.000 --> 0:21:21.040
<v Speaker 1>remain safe and reliable. It may not be enough to

0:21:21.119 --> 0:21:24.320
<v Speaker 1>create rules if the AI can figure oh, well, here's

0:21:24.320 --> 0:21:27.320
<v Speaker 1>the problem. These ding dang dearn rules need to go away.

0:21:27.600 --> 0:21:29.640
<v Speaker 1>And I'm being a little flippant, but to learn more

0:21:29.640 --> 0:21:33.480
<v Speaker 1>about this, I recommend BENJ. Edwards article research AI model

0:21:33.560 --> 0:21:37.119
<v Speaker 1>unexpectedly modified its own code to extend runtime and that

0:21:37.320 --> 0:21:40.560
<v Speaker 1>is on. You guessed it Ours Technica. I swear I

0:21:40.640 --> 0:21:43.400
<v Speaker 1>use a lot of other sources. It's just Ours Technica

0:21:43.480 --> 0:21:45.800
<v Speaker 1>really knocked it out of the park. This week, so

0:21:46.119 --> 0:21:50.040
<v Speaker 1>Ahmed has a piece on tech spot titled Recruiters Overwhelmed

0:21:50.080 --> 0:21:53.119
<v Speaker 1>as fifty seven percent of young applicants are using chat

0:21:53.160 --> 0:21:56.919
<v Speaker 1>GPT for job resumes. In this piece, Omed mentions how

0:21:57.000 --> 0:21:59.919
<v Speaker 1>hiring managers are flooded with more applications than ever before,

0:22:00.320 --> 0:22:03.080
<v Speaker 1>many of which have clearly been written in part or

0:22:03.280 --> 0:22:07.000
<v Speaker 1>entirely by AI. Further, the pieces written by the free

0:22:07.080 --> 0:22:10.840
<v Speaker 1>version of tools like chat GPT contain many telltale signs

0:22:10.840 --> 0:22:14.600
<v Speaker 1>of AI generation with less natural language and other quirks,

0:22:14.880 --> 0:22:18.240
<v Speaker 1>while the paid for versions of these tools tend to

0:22:18.280 --> 0:22:20.840
<v Speaker 1>blend a bit better with you stuff that was actually

0:22:20.880 --> 0:22:24.080
<v Speaker 1>written by real human beings. And this presents a challenge

0:22:24.080 --> 0:22:26.800
<v Speaker 1>to hiring managers who need to see what an applicant

0:22:26.840 --> 0:22:29.439
<v Speaker 1>is actually capable of. Now, that could just mean bringing

0:22:29.480 --> 0:22:32.040
<v Speaker 1>more people in for interviews, but those take up a

0:22:32.080 --> 0:22:34.680
<v Speaker 1>lot of time to schedule and actually do so it's

0:22:34.680 --> 0:22:38.359
<v Speaker 1>not terribly efficient. Moreover, this makes me concerned that folks

0:22:38.400 --> 0:22:42.040
<v Speaker 1>who have little to know access to AI tools, specifically

0:22:42.280 --> 0:22:44.120
<v Speaker 1>the types of tools that you have to pay for,

0:22:44.560 --> 0:22:48.399
<v Speaker 1>they're ultimately going to be at a disadvantage. Maybe it

0:22:48.440 --> 0:22:50.760
<v Speaker 1>will all shake out, but my fear is that people

0:22:50.800 --> 0:22:53.520
<v Speaker 1>who are already in a position to at least afford

0:22:53.560 --> 0:22:55.920
<v Speaker 1>an AI hype man are going to be the people

0:22:55.920 --> 0:22:58.800
<v Speaker 1>who get these interview slots, while actual human beings who

0:22:58.800 --> 0:23:01.280
<v Speaker 1>can't afford that type of SOLF report will be applying

0:23:01.320 --> 0:23:04.520
<v Speaker 1>to job after job with diminishing hope of landing an interview.

0:23:06.160 --> 0:23:09.600
<v Speaker 1>I am bumming myself out today. The SAG after a

0:23:09.720 --> 0:23:13.320
<v Speaker 1>union which represents actors, has agreed to conditions in which

0:23:13.359 --> 0:23:17.080
<v Speaker 1>companies can make use of AI duplicates of actor voices.

0:23:17.359 --> 0:23:21.480
<v Speaker 1>This is specifically for use in advertisements, and it leverages

0:23:21.520 --> 0:23:24.760
<v Speaker 1>a platform called Narrative, which doesn't have an E at

0:23:24.760 --> 0:23:29.080
<v Speaker 1>the end, and actors can license their voices for use

0:23:29.080 --> 0:23:33.200
<v Speaker 1>in commercials through Narrative. The agreement states that individual actors

0:23:33.240 --> 0:23:35.760
<v Speaker 1>will have full say on which brands they're willing to

0:23:35.800 --> 0:23:38.200
<v Speaker 1>work with and how much they can charge for use

0:23:38.240 --> 0:23:40.879
<v Speaker 1>of their voice. In addition, if an actor decides they

0:23:40.920 --> 0:23:44.320
<v Speaker 1>no longer want the robots to talk like them, they

0:23:44.359 --> 0:23:47.320
<v Speaker 1>can sever their relationship with Narrative, and the platform is

0:23:47.400 --> 0:23:51.040
<v Speaker 1>obligated to delete all their voice data, including the reference

0:23:51.080 --> 0:23:53.560
<v Speaker 1>recordings that were used to make the digital duplicate in

0:23:53.600 --> 0:23:55.879
<v Speaker 1>the first place. One thing that concerns me is the

0:23:55.920 --> 0:23:58.919
<v Speaker 1>possibility of a company making use of an AI duplicated

0:23:59.000 --> 0:24:01.720
<v Speaker 1>voice for ende dorsements. Here in the United States, we

0:24:01.760 --> 0:24:05.440
<v Speaker 1>have strict rules about endorsing products and services. The person

0:24:05.480 --> 0:24:09.480
<v Speaker 1>who's giving the endorsement is legally responsible for actually using

0:24:09.560 --> 0:24:12.240
<v Speaker 1>the thing in question and being honest in their take

0:24:12.320 --> 0:24:15.000
<v Speaker 1>on it. It's why I do very few endorsements, because

0:24:15.000 --> 0:24:17.800
<v Speaker 1>i have very high standards on this and I'm legally

0:24:17.840 --> 0:24:20.800
<v Speaker 1>obligated to do so. But with AI duplicates, a company

0:24:20.840 --> 0:24:25.000
<v Speaker 1>could try and do that without the actual original actor's input.

0:24:25.119 --> 0:24:26.840
<v Speaker 1>If the actor just says, yeah, you know, I'm cool

0:24:26.840 --> 0:24:29.959
<v Speaker 1>with whatever brand using my voice, but then the brand

0:24:30.200 --> 0:24:32.199
<v Speaker 1>ends up doing more than just an ad spot and

0:24:32.240 --> 0:24:34.800
<v Speaker 1>does an endorsement, well, that could bring legal issues into

0:24:34.800 --> 0:24:37.600
<v Speaker 1>play down the line. However, I have not read the

0:24:37.600 --> 0:24:39.680
<v Speaker 1>full agreement yet, so it may be that this is

0:24:39.720 --> 0:24:43.119
<v Speaker 1>already accounted for and the process could be really granular.

0:24:43.240 --> 0:24:46.760
<v Speaker 1>So maybe I'm complaining about something that isn't even an issue.

0:24:47.320 --> 0:24:50.399
<v Speaker 1>Just a quick up date on the ongoing issues with

0:24:50.480 --> 0:24:53.600
<v Speaker 1>the Boeing Starliner crew, who are currently aboard the International

0:24:53.640 --> 0:24:57.760
<v Speaker 1>Space Station. NASA has yet to decide how to proceed. Currently,

0:24:57.840 --> 0:25:00.639
<v Speaker 1>the next scheduled docking with the ISS is supposed to

0:25:00.640 --> 0:25:03.880
<v Speaker 1>happen on September twenty fourth with a SpaceX Dragon capsule,

0:25:04.000 --> 0:25:07.359
<v Speaker 1>but that obviously cannot happen with the star Liner in

0:25:07.400 --> 0:25:10.800
<v Speaker 1>the way. So the assumption that I'm mostly seeing online

0:25:10.840 --> 0:25:12.720
<v Speaker 1>is that NASA is going to opt to have the

0:25:12.720 --> 0:25:16.640
<v Speaker 1>Starliner return to Earth with no crew aboard the spacecraft,

0:25:16.760 --> 0:25:18.960
<v Speaker 1>and the two astronauts who flew on the star Liner

0:25:19.000 --> 0:25:20.920
<v Speaker 1>will have to wait a while before hitching a ride

0:25:20.920 --> 0:25:24.800
<v Speaker 1>back home. Aboard a SpaceX Dragon capsule. NASA has previously

0:25:24.800 --> 0:25:27.199
<v Speaker 1>indicated the agency would make a decision on how to

0:25:27.240 --> 0:25:31.080
<v Speaker 1>move forward this week, but since then representatives have said

0:25:31.119 --> 0:25:32.800
<v Speaker 1>the agency is going to take a bit more time

0:25:32.840 --> 0:25:35.160
<v Speaker 1>to make that call since there is still some time

0:25:35.200 --> 0:25:37.440
<v Speaker 1>to spare, but not a whole lot of it. It's

0:25:37.480 --> 0:25:40.480
<v Speaker 1>still possible we'll see the astronauts return in the star

0:25:40.600 --> 0:25:44.119
<v Speaker 1>liner itself. NASA is taking all factors into account and

0:25:44.160 --> 0:25:46.720
<v Speaker 1>wants to be certain that any such attempts are well

0:25:46.760 --> 0:25:49.840
<v Speaker 1>within acceptable risks. Before I sign off, I've got a

0:25:49.880 --> 0:25:52.639
<v Speaker 1>couple of article suggestions for y'all. First up as another

0:25:52.760 --> 0:25:56.200
<v Speaker 1>piece by BINGJ. Edwards. This one is titled deep Live

0:25:56.280 --> 0:25:59.800
<v Speaker 1>Cam Goes Viral allowing anyone to become a digital dopple

0:25:59.800 --> 0:26:03.520
<v Speaker 1>game and yes it's on Ours Technica. The article tells

0:26:03.560 --> 0:26:06.240
<v Speaker 1>about tools that let folks use a simple image to

0:26:06.280 --> 0:26:09.679
<v Speaker 1>create a kind of digital mask, sort of Mission Impossible

0:26:09.720 --> 0:26:13.520
<v Speaker 1>style only for like webcam live streams, you know, not

0:26:13.600 --> 0:26:16.320
<v Speaker 1>in the real world, but online. You can use a

0:26:16.320 --> 0:26:19.080
<v Speaker 1>picture like the one case they used a picture of

0:26:19.119 --> 0:26:22.360
<v Speaker 1>George Clooney and the guy ended up having a digital

0:26:22.880 --> 0:26:25.879
<v Speaker 1>George Clooney face and it was pretty impressive. It was

0:26:26.680 --> 0:26:30.600
<v Speaker 1>reactive in real time. Next is a piece from NPR's

0:26:30.720 --> 0:26:35.200
<v Speaker 1>Dara Kurr titled Meta shutters tool used to fight disinformation

0:26:35.400 --> 0:26:39.359
<v Speaker 1>despite outcry. Kerr writes about a tool called crowd Tangle,

0:26:39.480 --> 0:26:43.160
<v Speaker 1>which researchers use to track disinformation online and how Meta

0:26:43.200 --> 0:26:45.480
<v Speaker 1>is shutting this down despite the fact that here in

0:26:45.520 --> 0:26:48.679
<v Speaker 1>the United States we're in an election year and you

0:26:48.680 --> 0:26:51.880
<v Speaker 1>would think that tools meant to help track and detect

0:26:51.920 --> 0:26:55.720
<v Speaker 1>disinformation would be particularly useful. So that's what has critics

0:26:55.800 --> 0:26:59.600
<v Speaker 1>asking Meta to maybe keep it online a bit longer.

0:27:00.359 --> 0:27:03.320
<v Speaker 1>That's it. I want to thank Shannon Morse again for

0:27:03.440 --> 0:27:07.080
<v Speaker 1>jumping on the show. I always appreciate having her on.

0:27:07.400 --> 0:27:09.680
<v Speaker 1>She is a delight. You can see more of her

0:27:09.680 --> 0:27:12.200
<v Speaker 1>work over at YouTube, So go to YouTube and look

0:27:12.280 --> 0:27:17.520
<v Speaker 1>for Shannon Morse. Highly recommend her content. She's really a

0:27:17.520 --> 0:27:21.480
<v Speaker 1>lot of fun, incredibly knowledgeable, and is a great tech communicator.

0:27:21.720 --> 0:27:24.160
<v Speaker 1>So check out her work, and like I said, check

0:27:24.160 --> 0:27:26.159
<v Speaker 1>out our Stanka because they knocked it out of the

0:27:26.160 --> 0:27:28.800
<v Speaker 1>park this week. I hope all of you are doing

0:27:28.840 --> 0:27:38.200
<v Speaker 1>well and I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech

0:27:38.240 --> 0:27:42.680
<v Speaker 1>Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,

0:27:43.000 --> 0:27:46.720
<v Speaker 1>visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen

0:27:46.720 --> 0:27:51.320
<v Speaker 1>to your favorite shows.