Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.
Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech
Speaker 1: are you. It's time for the tech news for Thursday
Speaker 1: October nineteenth, twenty twenty three, and we're going to start
Speaker 1: off with some tech in national security concerns here in
Speaker 1: the United States. So this week the Five Eyes Alliance
Speaker 1: met at Stanford University to discuss matters of tech and security.
Speaker 1: And you know, the Five Eyes Alliance sounds like something
Speaker 1: out of you know, a Sherlock Holmes novel or maybe
Speaker 1: Game of Thrones or something, but in fact, it's a
Speaker 1: group that consists of representatives from the United States, the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. And they discussed
Speaker 1: current and future threats to safety and innovation, and the
Speaker 1: general consensus was that China is the largest threat in
Speaker 1: that regard. The group cited instances of Chinese hackers infiltrating
Speaker 1: computer systems, as well as of actual spies conducting industrial espionage,
Speaker 1: and of various attempts to compromise business insiders, all in
Speaker 1: an effort to steal intellectual property and tech secrets. Much
Speaker 1: was made of the fact that China has an enormous
Speaker 1: program centered on state backed hacking projects, a program that's
Speaker 1: larger than all other nations combined in fact, and that
Speaker 1: China has directed operatives to focus on emerging technologies, including
Speaker 1: stuff like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The representatives also
Speaker 1: warned that the emergence of generative AI could help hackers
Speaker 1: create more efficient attacks, making their efforts even more effective.
Speaker 1: The meeting concluded with representatives warning the audience that this
Speaker 1: is something all governments and businesses will need to be
Speaker 1: aware of or else they will run the risk of
Speaker 1: being caught unawares. Sounds like a real fun group. On
Speaker 1: a related note, the US government has updated its export
Speaker 1: rules and added restrictions on the types of processors that
Speaker 1: companies are allowed to ship to China. As it stands,
Speaker 1: big companies like AMD, Nvidia, and Intel are not allowed
Speaker 1: to ship their high end processors to China unless they
Speaker 1: first secure an export license from the US Department of Commerce.
Speaker 1: That actually includes Nvidia's g Force RTX forty ninety graphics cards,
Speaker 1: and I think most people would associate that with high
Speaker 1: end computer gaming. But as we've seen, powerful GPUs could
Speaker 1: be put to work doing all sorts of processing besides,
Speaker 1: you know, making puddles of water all reflective in sessions
Speaker 1: of call of duty or whatever. Further, the rules mean
Speaker 1: that companies will not be able to rely on Chinese
Speaker 1: manufacturing to make these products. And since a lot of
Speaker 1: chip manufacturing, or the very least chip assembly, will take
Speaker 1: place in China, that's going to push these companies to
Speaker 1: pivot to find alternatives that in turn is likely to
Speaker 1: impact the cost of production. And I think we all
Speaker 1: know that that's probably going to mean for us down
Speaker 1: the road that we're going to be paying higher prices
Speaker 1: for these chips for ourselves in the products that we
Speaker 1: were purchasing. China is not the only country that's on
Speaker 1: the US's list of no nos when it comes to exports.
Speaker 1: There's also the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: All will require that companies first secure and export license
Speaker 1: with the US Department of Commerce before they can legally
Speaker 1: send those high performing chips to those destinations. A couple
Speaker 1: of weeks ago, a hacker leaked stolen information from the
Speaker 1: genetic testing company twenty three and meters, So according to
Speaker 1: the company, the suspicion is the hacker used a technique
Speaker 1: called credential stuffing, So that's when a hacker is able
Speaker 1: to pull data from other breaches and then uses that
Speaker 1: data to try and match user names and emails and
Speaker 1: stolen passwords for other services and try combinations of them
Speaker 1: so they can see if someone's used the same password
Speaker 1: at multiple locations, which is why you should not do that.
Speaker 1: Do not use the same password or even just a
Speaker 1: small group of passwords for all of your services. You
Speaker 1: should have a unique password for every single service, because
Speaker 1: it's bad enough. If one of your accounts gets hacked,
Speaker 1: that's terrible. It is a horrible hassle and it can
Speaker 1: really have a negative impact on you and your livelihood.
Speaker 1: But it can turn into a total disaster if it
Speaker 1: turns out the now the people who did that attack
Speaker 1: have the keys to all your stuff because you use
Speaker 1: the same log in and password for everything. Well, now
Speaker 1: that some hacker has done this again and the new
Speaker 1: leak includes millions of data points about twenty three and
Speaker 1: Me's customers, it's big news. The information covers around four
Speaker 1: million people, and the hacker posted the information on a
Speaker 1: forum known as a Hive of Scum and Villainy a
Speaker 1: hacker forum, and it has the imposing name Beach Forums.
Speaker 1: Trust me, it's scarier than it sounds anyway. The hacker
Speaker 1: claims that the records include information on people from very
Speaker 1: wealthy backgrounds. Twenty three and Me has informed users that
Speaker 1: they should both update their passwords and also enable multi
Speaker 1: factor authentication. According to tech Crunch, twenty three and meter
Speaker 1: quote blamed the incident on its customers for reusing passwords
Speaker 1: and an opt in feature called DNA relatives, which allows
Speaker 1: users to see the data of other opted end users
Speaker 1: whose genetic data matches theirs. End quote. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: twenty three and Me is saying you should stop reusing
Speaker 1: your passwords so much, you're the reason why this attack worked.
Speaker 1: But they're also like, oh, and also, we have this
Speaker 1: option in our service that if you turn it on,
Speaker 1: means that hackers could potentially use your account to scrape
Speaker 1: other accounts. So other accounts that might be very well
Speaker 1: protected as far as passwords go, they could still be
Speaker 1: vulnerable because of this opt in feature. So really everyone's
Speaker 1: at fault. I guess a lot of victim blaming going
Speaker 1: around over at twenty three and me. But anyway, that's
Speaker 1: the update on that story. The Washington Post published an
Speaker 1: article with advice on what people can do if they
Speaker 1: are worried about the twenty three and me breach. The
Speaker 1: article also expanded a little bit on the attack itself.
Speaker 1: They said that the hacker was specifically calling out the
Speaker 1: fact that the breach included many Jewish people in it,
Speaker 1: and considering world events right now, that is particularly sinister,
Speaker 1: like that has an edge to it in my mind.
Speaker 1: The suggestions in the article include pretty much the same
Speaker 1: steps that twenty three and Me suggested. You know, select
Speaker 1: a unique, impossible to guess password for the service and
Speaker 1: for every other service. It should not be a password
Speaker 1: that you've used anywhere else, and the article goes on
Speaker 1: to suggest that users who are really concerned can ask
Speaker 1: twenty three and me to delete all information about you
Speaker 1: from their servers. It also points out that only a
Speaker 1: few states in the United States have laws that compel
Speaker 1: a company to follow through on those requests, and those
Speaker 1: states are California, Colorado, and Virginia, which leaves forty seven
Speaker 1: states that you know don't have a law that does that.
Speaker 1: But requesting the deletion within the service will then prompt
Speaker 1: them to send you a confirmation email, and then you
Speaker 1: have to, you know, click in the confirmation email to
Speaker 1: confirm that yes, you want all of your data delete it.
Speaker 1: And even then, twenty three and me will keep some
Speaker 1: information due to quote unquote legal and lab requirements. However,
Speaker 1: when asked to elaborate on that, twenty three and Me
Speaker 1: did not expound upon the nature of that data. So
Speaker 1: I don't know exactly what they do retain, but they
Speaker 1: do retain something, not truly that they delete all of
Speaker 1: the user data. The article also suggests that perhaps you
Speaker 1: should resist sharing genetic information in general, which you know,
Speaker 1: not very helpful because the cat is already out of
Speaker 1: the bag. Like I get it, like saying you shouldn't
Speaker 1: have done that, But you know what, saying you shouldn't
Speaker 1: have done that doesn't help anybody because the person who
Speaker 1: did it already knows they shouldn't have done it. It's
Speaker 1: just a whole superiority thing. It's one of my pet peeves.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm getting head up about it. Like the
Speaker 1: I told you so, nature doesn't It doesn't help anything.
Speaker 1: It just makes you look like a jerk. I know
Speaker 1: because I used to say it all the time and
Speaker 1: I was a jerk and some days I still am. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I also think sharing genetic information isn't a very good idea.
Speaker 1: But we also live in a world where companies are
Speaker 1: constantly conditioning us to share more information about ourselves, right, Like,
Speaker 1: that's what all of social media is predicated upon, is
Speaker 1: us sharing information about ourselves, and we kind of get
Speaker 1: a little reward for that by the way, people who
Speaker 1: you know, engage with the stuff we post, and in
Speaker 1: the meantime, all we're really doing is feeding the machine,
Speaker 1: which is a big ol' yuck. So yeah, I also
Speaker 1: don't think that you should share your genetic data on,
Speaker 1: especially on a platform that is, you know, publicly viewable.
Speaker 1: But I also think we all need to kind of
Speaker 1: take a step back on how much we're sharing online anyway,
Speaker 1: because what we're really doing is just you know, lining
Speaker 1: the pockets of these companies with lots of more, lots
Speaker 1: more money because they can advertise to us more effectively.
Speaker 1: But all right, that's enough soap boxing. Let's let's keep
Speaker 1: on going. Our next story might have you questioning what
Speaker 1: the I in CIA actually stands for. Now, for the record.
Speaker 1: The CIA is the central intelligence agency here in the
Speaker 1: United States. The main job of the CIA is to
Speaker 1: protect US national security, primarily through gathering and analyzing foreign intelligence.
Speaker 1: But anyway, earlier this month, the CIA included a link
Speaker 1: in its bio on x, you know, the service formerly
Speaker 1: known as Twitter, and the link was meant to take
Speaker 1: people to a CIA run channel on telegram uh And
Speaker 1: it was meant so that for people who have intelligence
Speaker 1: that is important to national security, they could have a
Speaker 1: secure and private way to contact someone at the CIA
Speaker 1: and share the information. So what you're supposed to do
Speaker 1: is use tour the tor browser and you clandestinely contact
Speaker 1: the CIA over the dark web. But there was a
Speaker 1: problem because the restrictions on biolink on x meant that
Speaker 1: when this was posted, the address for that telegram channel
Speaker 1: got cut off a bit, so, in other words, it
Speaker 1: was no longer the actual telegram channel for the CIA.
Speaker 1: If you were to try and go to that telegram channel,
Speaker 1: you would find that it went to an unclaimed channel,
Speaker 1: which meant someone could claim it and then pose as
Speaker 1: the CIA. A man named Kevin mcshehon noticed this problem
Speaker 1: and took the steps to register the channel before a
Speaker 1: malicious actor could do it. And he even posted a
Speaker 1: message that revealed that if you did go to that
Speaker 1: telegram channel, that it was not an official CIA channel
Speaker 1: and said do not share sensitive information with anyone, and
Speaker 1: he listed it both in English and in Cyrillic. The
Speaker 1: CIA has since addressed the problem by ensuring that the
Speaker 1: full address for the real telegram channel is appearing in
Speaker 1: the ex bio. And as I read about this in Motherboard,
Speaker 1: the title of the article suggests that the problem was
Speaker 1: due to a flaw in X, but I think I
Speaker 1: would be more inclined to wag by thinker at the
Speaker 1: CIA for not double checking that the address that appeared
Speaker 1: in the bio was in fact the correct one. So yeah,
Speaker 1: it may be because the limitation on bio length and
Speaker 1: X caused it to happen, But that seems like that's
Speaker 1: something you should triple check is correct before you just
Speaker 1: walk away. Okay, we've got other news stories to cover today.
Speaker 1: Before we get to that, let's take a quick break. Okay,
Speaker 1: So the media outlet New Scientist posted an article last
Speaker 1: week that I did not see until today, but I
Speaker 1: figure it's an important one to bring up because we're
Speaker 1: talking about security and hackers a lot. In today's episode,
Speaker 1: a cryptography expert named Daniel Bernstein, who works at the
Speaker 1: University of Illinois, Chicago, came forward to say that the
Speaker 1: US National Security Agency, the NSA, has been pushing to
Speaker 1: influence the adoption of standards related to post quantum cryptography,
Speaker 1: and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or nis T,
Speaker 1: refutes this accusation. So essentially, what Bernstein is saying is
Speaker 1: that the NSA wants to shape these standards, which would
Speaker 1: then weaken cryptography, because otherwise quantum cryptography could potentially be
Speaker 1: so strong that the NSA would not be able to
Speaker 1: crack it. And the NSA is all about reading stuff
Speaker 1: that you didn't intend the NSA to read. You might remember,
Speaker 1: the NSA has a pretty nasty track record of finding
Speaker 1: ways to intercept communications. This was a huge scandal like
Speaker 1: a decade ago, and that capability also led to abuse.
Speaker 1: I'm reminded of stories about how some people on NSA's
Speaker 1: staff would use these tools that were meant to do
Speaker 1: things like detect potential terrorists, cell communications, things like that,
Speaker 1: but they were using the tools to do stuff like
Speaker 1: snoop on people they knew, like an ex romantic partner
Speaker 1: and they're using these these government level surveillance tools for
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff, And you know that obviously wasn't
Speaker 1: the intended purpose for the tools. But it turns out
Speaker 1: a tool is only trustworthy if the person who's using
Speaker 1: it is also trustworthy, and people can be total jerkfaces.
Speaker 1: Bernstein maintains that the NIST is not being transparent when
Speaker 1: it comes to establishing these standards and that the consequences
Speaker 1: of this could be unreliable security measures moving forward. That
Speaker 1: you know, if the NSA essentially has the equivalent of
Speaker 1: a back door to get into these otherwise encrypted communication channels,
Speaker 1: that means other people could potentially find their way through
Speaker 1: those back doors too. It. Like I've always said, this,
Speaker 1: putting a back door into a security system means you
Speaker 1: no longer have a secure system, just full stop. Like,
Speaker 1: the whole point of creating a secure system is to
Speaker 1: not have ways for people to get in that aren't
Speaker 1: through specific checkpoints. So I still feel that way about this.
Speaker 1: Earlier this week, US Senator Michael Bennett sent a letter
Speaker 1: to Google, TikTok X, and Meta regarding how these platforms
Speaker 1: are handling the influx of misinformation in the wake of
Speaker 1: the war between Israel and hamas As. I'm sure you
Speaker 1: know there's been a surge in that kind of content
Speaker 1: across all of social media, and Bennett has accused the
Speaker 1: respective algorithms of these platforms of amplifying that signal and
Speaker 1: quote contributing to a dangerous cycle of outrage, engagement, and
Speaker 1: redistribution end quote. Bennett is seeking information on the policies
Speaker 1: and processes each platform follows to combat misinformation, though whatever
Speaker 1: those might be, they are clearly not sufficient, at least
Speaker 1: according to Bennett. In his letter, he writes, quote, the
Speaker 1: mountain of false content clearly demonstrates that your current policies
Speaker 1: and protocols are inadequate end quote. Bennett also criticized how Google, Meta,
Speaker 1: and X have all made cuts, sometimes drastic ones, to
Speaker 1: the various teams dedicated to detecting and removing disinformation and
Speaker 1: hate speech. While I feel the Senator is making some
Speaker 1: legitimate criticisms, I'm not sure what follow up there's going
Speaker 1: to be from all of this. If you are in
Speaker 1: New Zealand or the Philippines and you're not already on
Speaker 1: X formerly known as Twitter, pretty soon you're gonna have
Speaker 1: to pay admission if you do want to join, and
Speaker 1: that's because X is going to require a one dollar
Speaker 1: annual subscription fee for new users starting in those countries. Now,
Speaker 1: according to X, this is to discourage bot farms. Only
Speaker 1: by paying the fee will the account be able to
Speaker 1: post and interact with other posts. If you don't pay
Speaker 1: the fee, you can follow folks on Twitter and you
Speaker 1: can read posts on Twitter, but you can't interact with them,
Speaker 1: and you can't post anything yourself. So you might be asking,
Speaker 1: all right, well, they're starting in New Zealand and the Philippines,
Speaker 1: does that mean that's where all the bot farms are. No,
Speaker 1: It's just these are serving as a testing ground for
Speaker 1: this new policy, and then the thought is, assuming it works,
Speaker 1: that policy will roll out to other countries. Now, X
Speaker 1: says this is not intended to be a revenue generator,
Speaker 1: and I'm inclined to believe them. I mean, at one
Speaker 1: dollar per user per year, I think it's pretty fair
Speaker 1: to say that's not a revenue generator. Instead, what this
Speaker 1: is meant to be as a deterrent for people who
Speaker 1: want to run armies of spambots, because if they want
Speaker 1: all those spambots to be able to post and that's
Speaker 1: the only way that spambots are useful. Then they have
Speaker 1: to pay a dollar for every single one of those spambots.
Speaker 1: And if you're trying to coordinate a campaign that has
Speaker 1: thousands of spam bots, that's thousands of dollars out of
Speaker 1: your pocket to do it. So while I'm not crazy
Speaker 1: about this idea, I do think the strategy could potentially
Speaker 1: work for X and it doesn't put a hefty burden
Speaker 1: on most new users. Most folks can cough up a
Speaker 1: dollar for a year's subscription to being able to use Twitter,
Speaker 1: and if it means that it cuts back on the
Speaker 1: spam armies, then that's a good thing. So I often
Speaker 1: am very critical of X, but in this case, I
Speaker 1: think it might actually make sense switching gears, as it were,
Speaker 1: to a different elon Musk company Tesla held an earnings
Speaker 1: call this week, and Musk gave an update on the
Speaker 1: long delayed cyber truck. Now, we first heard about this
Speaker 1: concept way back in twenty nineteen, and since then a
Speaker 1: lot of people have put in a pre order for one,
Speaker 1: like a million customers have reserved a cyber truck, and
Speaker 1: it sounds like folks are going to have to keep
Speaker 1: on waiting. At least a lot of them are because
Speaker 1: Musk says that Tesla will start to deliver cyber trucks
Speaker 1: to customers beginning on November thirtieth, So that's good, but
Speaker 1: it will take quite a bit longer before Tesla can
Speaker 1: ramp up manufacturing to meet demand. In fact, Musk said,
Speaker 1: the goal is that they're hoping the company can get
Speaker 1: up to manufacturing two hundred and fifty thousand cyber trucks
Speaker 1: per year. That's not even likely to be reached until
Speaker 1: after twenty twenty four. And because you've got a million
Speaker 1: people who have put a reservation on the cyber truck,
Speaker 1: that means it's going to take several years before Tesla
Speaker 1: can even meet the demand of pre orders. And that,
Speaker 1: of course, that's assuming everybody wants to keep their pre
Speaker 1: order on their truck. But yeah, just because you have
Speaker 1: a pre order, it may mean you're still like three
Speaker 1: years out from being able to get your vehicle or more.
Speaker 1: Musk said that quote we dug our own grave with
Speaker 1: the cyber truck end quote. I think that was apparent
Speaker 1: when during a demonstration of how strong the cyber truck's
Speaker 1: windows are, they shattered the Windows anyway. During the call,
Speaker 1: Musk also gave a somewhat pessimistic view on where the
Speaker 1: global economy is going in general. Will also ways to
Speaker 1: bring down the price on Tesla vehicles. They said, we've
Speaker 1: got to get the costs to come down. And that
Speaker 1: makes sense because there are also a lot more auto
Speaker 1: companies that are making vehicles that now compete directly with
Speaker 1: the ones that Tesla manufactures. And it's not just Tesla.
Speaker 1: It's having to face a tough economy. Both Apple and
Speaker 1: Microsoft are seeing declines. There's a decline in MacBook shipments
Speaker 1: that one analyst has pointed to. Windows eleven adoption is
Speaker 1: trailing well behind what Windows ten did, So we're seeing
Speaker 1: these issues throughout the tech space. Okay, well, this brings
Speaker 1: us to the end of the episode. I do have
Speaker 1: a couple of article recommendations for you. First up as
Speaker 1: a piece from ap news dot Com titled Fuji's Rapper
Speaker 1: says lawyer's use of AI helped tank his case, pushes
Speaker 1: for new trial. I just think that's interesting. One, it's
Speaker 1: the Fuji is Two, it's not the first time we've
Speaker 1: heard how AI being used in a trial setting has
Speaker 1: not gone According to Plan. The other piece I recommend
Speaker 1: is by Emon Javers and Page Tortorelli of CNBC. That
Speaker 1: one's titled The Secret Life of Jimmy Jeong, who Stole
Speaker 1: and lost more than three billion dollars. That story involves cryptocurrency,
Speaker 1: stealing money from the Silk Road, living like a rock star,
Speaker 1: being the victim of a break in like it's got everything.
Speaker 1: There's also a documentary that CNBC has released called How
Speaker 1: To Steal and Lose more Than three Billion in Bitcoin.
Speaker 1: Both of those are well worth checking out. And that's
Speaker 1: it for this week. I will talk to you again
Speaker 1: really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more
Speaker 1: podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen to your favorite shows.