Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet. As a production
Speaker 1: of My Heart Radio and Unboss Creative. I'm Bridget Todd,
Speaker 1: and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet.
Speaker 1: I talk a lot about disinformation and media manipulation on
Speaker 1: this show. Sometimes it's social media boats being driven by
Speaker 1: foreign bad actors, But what do you do in the
Speaker 1: media manipulation isn't coming from overseas bad actors, but instead
Speaker 1: from a mainstream, widely read media outlet. I've been monitoring
Speaker 1: the increasing attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris since she
Speaker 1: became Vice president. Now, I already knew that she was
Speaker 1: going to face racist, sexist attacks because she's a black
Speaker 1: woman in a visible position, and that's just kind of
Speaker 1: what happens. And it might be kind of hard to
Speaker 1: see if you're not primed to see massage noir the
Speaker 1: combination of racism and sexism that we face as black women.
Speaker 1: But just look at some of the recent media narratives
Speaker 1: out there about Vice President Harris. They're all really racially
Speaker 1: coded and gendered. Recent stories painted out to be a pushing,
Speaker 1: domineering black woman or uppity, which is basically just a
Speaker 1: racist framing for black women who don't know their plays
Speaker 1: or acting above their station. A recent story about Harris's
Speaker 1: senior aide stepping down was framed as disarray in Harris's office.
Speaker 1: Or take this recent Fox News headline, Kamala Harris reportedly
Speaker 1: spends over five hundred dollars on cookware and a Parisian
Speaker 1: shop amid us economic uncertainty? How is Harris spending her
Speaker 1: own money on fancy pans even a news story? And
Speaker 1: we're not just seeing this from hyperpartisan outlets like Fox News.
Speaker 1: Last night, Politico published one of the most ridiculous pieces
Speaker 1: I have ever seen, and that is really saying something.
Speaker 1: The piece, called Kamala Harris is a Bluetooth phobic, is
Speaker 1: about how Vice President Harris uses wired headphones instead of
Speaker 1: the wireless Bluetooth kind, and the article's framing like basically
Speaker 1: calls her a crazy person because of it. Former aids
Speaker 1: say the Vice President has long and careful about security
Speaker 1: and technology, with some describing it as prudent and others
Speaker 1: suggesting it's a bit paranoid. The piece also goes on
Speaker 1: to say that when people visited Harris's office back when
Speaker 1: she was California as Attorney General, she would instruct aids
Speaker 1: not to let them wait in her office alone, as
Speaker 1: if that's not a totally normal thing for people to do.
Speaker 1: The piece goes on to say that her office did
Speaker 1: not respond when Politico asked if there was a fun
Speaker 1: origin story to Harris's bluetoothwariness or for any background on
Speaker 1: the particular security risks Harris believes bluetooth technology represents. But
Speaker 1: you know what the journalists who wrote this story could
Speaker 1: have done to get background on the security risk of
Speaker 1: bluetooth headphones literally just fucking google it, Because bluetooth headphones
Speaker 1: are actually an extremely well documented security risk. And this
Speaker 1: is not some obscure thing that only techy's know. It's
Speaker 1: a pretty commonly known thing literally first page of Google.
Speaker 1: Bluetooth's known security risks are also part of the government's
Speaker 1: official security protocols. For instance, did you know that White
Speaker 1: House computers have Bluetooth disabled as a default setting for
Speaker 1: precisely this reason. Last year, the government's National Security Agency
Speaker 1: Defensive Cybersecurity Branch recommended users disabled Bluetooth altogether to avoid
Speaker 1: having their conversations compromised. And according to The Daily Beast,
Speaker 1: who just published a fantastic breakdown of the different security risks,
Speaker 1: involving Bluetooth. Members of the current Slate Estate Department nominees
Speaker 1: ranging from would be assistant secretaries to potential ambassadors, have
Speaker 1: also been warned by the n s A about Bluetooth's
Speaker 1: potential failability from a security perspective, and briefing is done
Speaker 1: by security engineering officers with the U S Foreign Service.
Speaker 1: Nominees are told that an open Bluetooth connection can be
Speaker 1: a quote cracked window allowing bad actors access to their
Speaker 1: devices and data. It can also allow attackers to physically
Speaker 1: track you and create logs of your physical movements, habits,
Speaker 1: and behavior in ways that can help predict your future movements.
Speaker 1: The n s A warn nominees that Bluetooth can be
Speaker 1: used to track your locations using equipment called sniffers, even
Speaker 1: if your phone cellular service is turned off. And here's
Speaker 1: the scary case. Cybersecurity researchers found that Bluetooth allowed bad
Speaker 1: actors to steal targets, contacts, call logs, and messages, and
Speaker 1: let them send fake messages from their targets phones. Not
Speaker 1: to be clear, most regular people really do not need
Speaker 1: to worry about this kind of thing. I know, I
Speaker 1: personally don't use Bluetooth headphones, not for security reasons, but
Speaker 1: mostly because I find Bluetooth technology to be kind of
Speaker 1: stanky and like slow to connect, and honestly, I just
Speaker 1: don't want to have to worry about losing one of
Speaker 1: my two air pods on a train. And I also
Speaker 1: think that the wire can be a really good signal
Speaker 1: to the world that I am obviously wearing headphones. Those
Speaker 1: little earbuds can get lost behind my hair, and then
Speaker 1: people try to talk to you while you're wearing headphones
Speaker 1: and it's just very awkward. But even though normal people
Speaker 1: don't really have to worry about this, it's still something
Speaker 1: that we should all know. And if you're the Vice
Speaker 1: President of the United States, obviously you need to have
Speaker 1: this level of awareness about digital security. The Daily Beast
Speaker 1: talk to a former n Essay threat intelligence analyst who
Speaker 1: said it's a fine protocol for almost everyone eaven with
Speaker 1: the vulnerabilities that Blue to present, because these kinds of
Speaker 1: attacks require reasonably close access to exploit it, along with
Speaker 1: an actor who has both the capability and the intent
Speaker 1: to do so. This means only a few thousand people
Speaker 1: out of the billions on Earth need to worry about
Speaker 1: this problem. And the Vice President of the United States
Speaker 1: is one of them. So did political mention any of
Speaker 1: these widely known and easily verifiable facts about bluetooth technology
Speaker 1: in their piece about how crazy and paranoid harrisses for
Speaker 1: not having conversations over bluetooth. Uh? No, of course they didn't.
Speaker 1: And this is what really makes me so angry. What
Speaker 1: a missed opportunity to educate and inform the public on
Speaker 1: the security realities of technology many of us use every day.
Speaker 1: What is even the point of a piece like this
Speaker 1: if it's not meant to inform the public And framing
Speaker 1: Harris is a paranoid, crazy person for following pretty clear
Speaker 1: digital security guidance isn't just lazy, which it is, I
Speaker 1: think it's also actively harmful because it obscures the facts.
Speaker 1: It actively contributes to the public being less informed about
Speaker 1: the role of technology. But why would a journey let's
Speaker 1: do something like inform the public when they can settle
Speaker 1: for cheap attacks on a black woman in politics to
Speaker 1: frame her as a domineering crazy person. And here's the thing,
Speaker 1: there are plenty of real reasons to be critical of
Speaker 1: Vice President Harris. I'm not saying that everybody should or
Speaker 1: has to agree with her policies or even like her,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't mean it's okay for her to be
Speaker 1: attacked with unfair shallow smear jobs either as a black woman.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it feels like we cannot win. Harris is criticized
Speaker 1: for buying expensive cookwear and then criticized for using the
Speaker 1: cheap oh wired headphones that come with your iPhone instead
Speaker 1: of spending hundreds of dollars for the wireless ones. And
Speaker 1: even when we do the correct thing, we're still criticized
Speaker 1: for it. It is exhausting, and what's worse, it doesn't
Speaker 1: leave room for actual conversations about substance. And I think
Speaker 1: that's kind of a point. If Harris and black women
Speaker 1: are associated with controversies, yes even made up b as controversies,
Speaker 1: it'll create a media ecosystem where black women and women
Speaker 1: of color can't fairly compete and are being judged by absurd,
Speaker 1: unfair standard instead of being judged by our policies, words, records,
Speaker 1: and actions. And media outlets like political need to decide
Speaker 1: what kind of ecosystem they want to contribute to. Got
Speaker 1: a story about an interesting thing in tech, or just
Speaker 1: want to say hi, you can reach us at Hello
Speaker 1: at tangodi dot com. You can also find transcripts for
Speaker 1: today's episode at tangdi dot com. There Are No Girls
Speaker 1: on the Internet was created by me Bridget Tod. It's
Speaker 1: a production of iHeart Radio and Unboss creative Jonathan Strickland
Speaker 1: as our executive producer. Terry Harrison is our producer and
Speaker 1: sound engineer. Michael Amato is our contributing producer. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate
Speaker 1: and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from
Speaker 1: iHeart Radio, check out the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts.