Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio
Speaker 1: and I love all things tech and today it's the
Speaker 1: tech news for Tuesday, June twenty twenty one. My voice
Speaker 1: is still blown out from a birthday weekend. Some of
Speaker 1: my apologies for that, but let's get to actual tech news.
Speaker 1: South Korea is the latest battleground that sees enormous companies
Speaker 1: from different tech sectors locking horns with each other. Recently,
Speaker 1: a South Korean court passed the buck on a decision
Speaker 1: about whether or not streaming services like Netflix should pay
Speaker 1: bandwidth usage fees to Internet service providers. Alright, so he
Speaker 1: here's the skinny on what's really going down. So on
Speaker 1: the one side, you've got the I s p s,
Speaker 1: the Internet service providers, and they're saying that services like
Speaker 1: you know, Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, these streaming services place a
Speaker 1: particularly heavy demand on bandwidth. You know that that traffic
Speaker 1: takes up a lot of bandwidth on the I s
Speaker 1: P networks, and thus these companies should pay a fee
Speaker 1: to the I s p s to offset the cost
Speaker 1: of providing that bandwidth to them. But Netflix and other
Speaker 1: streaming services have argued that I s P customers, you know,
Speaker 1: the people on the actual end, the people who are
Speaker 1: choosing to go to Netflix or YouTube or whatever, they
Speaker 1: already pay a subscription fee for their services, and that
Speaker 1: any I s P that would charge content providers for
Speaker 1: delivering it and the end user on the other side
Speaker 1: for ordering it, that amounts to double dipping. That the
Speaker 1: company is charging twice for the same service. It's just
Speaker 1: that they're charging two different entities but for the same thing.
Speaker 1: And I want to be clear here, both the I
Speaker 1: s p s and Netflix and other major streaming services,
Speaker 1: they're all huge companies, right. These entities are really mostly
Speaker 1: concerned about making money and then keeping as much of
Speaker 1: that money as they possibly can. So there are no
Speaker 1: noble good guys in this story. In other words, now
Speaker 1: here in the United States, advocates have long protested the
Speaker 1: idea of an I s P charging content companies for
Speaker 1: bandwidth usage. They argue that this is unfair and that
Speaker 1: net neutrality, which among other things, promotes the idea that
Speaker 1: all content is equal on the Internet, demands that I
Speaker 1: sp s not prioritize services or levy bandwidth fees like
Speaker 1: that because it would discourage those companies from offering those services.
Speaker 1: In addition, at least here in the US, we also
Speaker 1: have the issue that I s p s typically are
Speaker 1: also content providers, and if the I s p s
Speaker 1: are charging third party companies like Netflix or YouTube or whatever,
Speaker 1: but they're not having to deal with that themselves. As
Speaker 1: they go forward and offer services, that creates an unfair advantage,
Speaker 1: it becomes anti competitive, it gets really messy. Well, the
Speaker 1: South Korean court essentially said, y'all made this mess, go
Speaker 1: figure it out yourselves, and that gives the I s
Speaker 1: p s and South Korea the ability to negotiate with
Speaker 1: Netflix and other streaming services to demand these sort of
Speaker 1: bandwidth fees. That likely means that these companies are going
Speaker 1: to have to pay some sort of bandwidth fee if
Speaker 1: they want their traffic carried by the I s p
Speaker 1: s and South Korea, which they do. South Korea is
Speaker 1: a big market, but again, the streaming companies are huge.
Speaker 1: Some of them are part of the largest media companies
Speaker 1: in the world. You look at companies like NBC Universal
Speaker 1: owned by Comcast, like it's huge, and it would shock
Speaker 1: me if this all just ends with negotiations, and that's that.
Speaker 1: I'm certain we're going to see more legal challenges follow
Speaker 1: as big powerful companies throw their weight around in an
Speaker 1: effort to eliminate bandwidth fees. Honestly, watching this stuff sort
Speaker 1: of feels like I'm tuning into Godzilla versus Kong, and
Speaker 1: in more ways than one, because the end consumer tends
Speaker 1: to be the biggest victim of these kinds of struggles,
Speaker 1: because no matter what happens, someone typically is going to
Speaker 1: raise the cost of their subscription service in order to
Speaker 1: cover whatever the additional cost is of providing it. Right, So,
Speaker 1: if Netflix has to pay a bandwidth fee in order
Speaker 1: to be carried across South Korean i SP networks, you
Speaker 1: can bet the Netflix will also increase its subscription fee
Speaker 1: for South Korean customers because they love to pass the
Speaker 1: costs on to you. Just kind of how capitalism stuff works.
Speaker 1: Moving on over at YouTube, there was a recent kerfuffle
Speaker 1: regarding a channel ban that raised some eyebrows. The platform
Speaker 1: placed a quote unquote permanent ban on a channel called
Speaker 1: right wing watch Now. This channel posts videos that examine
Speaker 1: and document and critique extremist political conservatives. YouTube claimed that
Speaker 1: the band was just a mistake. That quote, upon further review,
Speaker 1: has now been reinstated end quote. But this has prompted
Speaker 1: some questions from multiple angles. YouTube automates much of its
Speaker 1: review process. I mean it has to because there's like
Speaker 1: five hours of YouTube content uploaded every single minute. There's
Speaker 1: just no way that human beings could review every single
Speaker 1: piece of content uploaded to the platform and determine whether
Speaker 1: or not it meets the platform's policies. So that means
Speaker 1: that algorithms are in charge of making the early call
Speaker 1: as to whether a channel or a specific video is
Speaker 1: in violation of YouTube's policies, and those policies appear to
Speaker 1: be the ones regarding the spread of stuff like misinformation
Speaker 1: and hate speech, though right wing watches purpose is to
Speaker 1: document these sorts of things, not to generate hate speech
Speaker 1: or promote hate speech, but rather to say, this is
Speaker 1: someone who said this thing, and we are making a
Speaker 1: document to prove that this is what has happened. So
Speaker 1: it's more about holding people accountable for their words and actions,
Speaker 1: it's not about promoting those as being you know, valid
Speaker 1: points of view. And so it appears that YouTube's algorithms
Speaker 1: have a hard time distinguishing between channels that violate the
Speaker 1: platform's rules and channels that just try to hold those
Speaker 1: other channels accountable. And I think this illustrates how people
Speaker 1: are really complicated and we just don't have algorithms sophistic
Speaker 1: enough to keep up with that. Speaking of algorithms using
Speaker 1: a sort of brute force approach to human interactions, let's
Speaker 1: talk about Amazon. According to a report in Bloomberg, the
Speaker 1: company has been relying on algorithms to determine whether or
Speaker 1: not flex drivers are worth keeping around, which is kind
Speaker 1: of a big yikes. Al right. So, in order to
Speaker 1: meet the demand of its customers, Amazon uses subcontracted drivers
Speaker 1: to supplement Amazon's normal delivery channels. So in other words,
Speaker 1: Amazon has way more stuff to ship out than its
Speaker 1: normal channels would support, so they end up hiring on
Speaker 1: additional subcontracted drivers. These drivers can actually sign up to
Speaker 1: participate in the service, and then they have the ability
Speaker 1: to set shifts, saying, you know, I can drive on Mondays,
Speaker 1: Wednesdays and Fridays, for example. I can do all that
Speaker 1: through interacting with an app. But these drivers are also
Speaker 1: held accountable by this automated system, and it tracks their
Speaker 1: performance in various ways, including customer feedback, and apparently a
Speaker 1: single outlying issue might cause enough of a blip in
Speaker 1: a person's standing to prompt the algorithm to terminate that
Speaker 1: person's employment. So let's say you're a driver and you're
Speaker 1: doing everything correctly. You know, you're handling the packages with care,
Speaker 1: you're going places, but you encounter something that prevents you
Speaker 1: from being able to make a delivery on time. In
Speaker 1: some instances, it was that, uh, the person that was
Speaker 1: supposed to receive the package was living in an apartment
Speaker 1: complex that was in behind a gate. The gate was locked,
Speaker 1: and the driver was unable to contact anyone to open
Speaker 1: the gate so that they could make the delivery, and
Speaker 1: then they ended up getting a black mark against their
Speaker 1: own record. The driver did, and despite the efforts of
Speaker 1: trying to improve their rating by you know, doing their job,
Speaker 1: they ultimately got fired by computer code. As it were,
Speaker 1: an algorithm itself terminated that person's employment. Something outside of
Speaker 1: a driver's control can lead to enough of an issue
Speaker 1: to trigger the algorithm, even if that driver did subsequently
Speaker 1: work hard to improve their rating. And when this happens,
Speaker 1: drivers really only have two options. They can accept the
Speaker 1: algorithm's decision. Essentially, they can take their walking papers and
Speaker 1: that's that, or they can pony up a two hundred
Speaker 1: dollar fee if they want to try and dispute the termination.
Speaker 1: So yeah, these Flex drivers have to pay two hundred
Speaker 1: bucks to have a termination reviewed, and that does not
Speaker 1: guarantee that the decision will get overturned. Amazon claims that
Speaker 1: the complaints about this system represent a very small percentage
Speaker 1: of drivers and that it's not representative of how most
Speaker 1: Flex drivers interact with the system. But yeah, seems kind
Speaker 1: of suss in my opinion. Last week, Canada's government proposed
Speaker 1: a law that would make online hate speech a crime
Speaker 1: that could be punished with fines of up to twenty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars Canadian, which is, you know, a bit more
Speaker 1: than sixteen thousand dollars in America, and that's for the
Speaker 1: first offense. For a second offense, that find goes up
Speaker 1: to fifty thousand dollars Canadian or around forty tho US.
Speaker 1: The law would also extend safe harbor protections to platforms. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, let's say I were to post a
Speaker 1: video containing hate speech directed at some group on YouTube.
Speaker 1: I never would do this, but for a hypothetical situation.
Speaker 1: Let's say that I did, I would be the one
Speaker 1: held accountable. I could face punishment. However, YouTube would not
Speaker 1: be on trial. In the United States. This is similar
Speaker 1: to our Section to thirty law, which says platforms cannot
Speaker 1: be held legally responsible for the content posted by their users.
Speaker 1: The Canadian government has said that this law is not
Speaker 1: going to target just any one who has something negative
Speaker 1: to say, but rather genuine expressions of hate speech. So
Speaker 1: generally speaking, speech meant to intimidate, discriminate, and otherwise harm
Speaker 1: some group of people, or, as the proposal states, speech
Speaker 1: quote motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race,
Speaker 1: national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental
Speaker 1: or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or
Speaker 1: any other similar factor end quote. The government pointed out
Speaker 1: that victims of such speech quote lose their freedom to
Speaker 1: participate in civil society online end quote. Now, the timing
Speaker 1: of the proposal has been seen to be a bit
Speaker 1: odd in the sense that in Canada, the House of Commons,
Speaker 1: a major part of the Canadian government, has adjourned for
Speaker 1: the summer. The government says that the bill is going
Speaker 1: to be reintroduced later this fall, though that's probably only
Speaker 1: going to happened if the Liberal Party remains in power
Speaker 1: in Canada. Some conservatives have said that this timing is
Speaker 1: a bit suspect, and that perhaps the Liberals never really
Speaker 1: intended to pursue it as an actual law, but rather
Speaker 1: introduced it mainly for the purposes of scoring political points
Speaker 1: ahead of an election. Uh. Some of those conservatives have
Speaker 1: also argued that the proposals are a threat to the
Speaker 1: freedom of speech, though it seems pretty clear to me
Speaker 1: that the Liberals who proposed this legislation already considered that
Speaker 1: and said hate speech itself is a threat to freedom
Speaker 1: of speech because it intimidates the targets of that hate speech,
Speaker 1: and it prevents those targets from expressing themselves. So it
Speaker 1: is in itself a threat to the freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: And as I said earlier, people are complicated. Hey do
Speaker 1: you remember the Solar winds hack. That's the one that
Speaker 1: affected thousands of computers and stole data from some pretty
Speaker 1: darn big companies. Well, the hacker group behind it, known
Speaker 1: as Nobilium, has attacked Microsoft again. This time, the hackers
Speaker 1: targeted a computer that belonged to a Microsoft customer, service agent.
Speaker 1: The hackers got hold of sensitive data relating to Microsoft
Speaker 1: customers and then launched targeted attacks against those customers. Now,
Speaker 1: apparently the hackers were able to access information through the
Speaker 1: second half of May. According to Microsoft, and included in
Speaker 1: the hacked information, we're building contact info for customers as
Speaker 1: well as which products and services those customers were paying for,
Speaker 1: which is pretty useful information. If you wanted to create
Speaker 1: a targeted attack on those customers, you could create a
Speaker 1: really convincing phishing attack because you could be specific about
Speaker 1: which products the customers were using, so you could say, like,
Speaker 1: you know, we have an update to your Microsoft server
Speaker 1: software and have an attachment that contains malware on it.
Speaker 1: Microsoft have to send out emails to customers urging them
Speaker 1: to be cautious with any incoming communications that are purporting
Speaker 1: to be from Microsoft. It's always good to double check
Speaker 1: that any email message you get is legit. Looking at
Speaker 1: the return email address is a good way to start.
Speaker 1: It's not the only thing you should do, but it's
Speaker 1: a good start. You should also just not click on links,
Speaker 1: or open attachments or anything like that from an email
Speaker 1: that doesn't appear to be legit. The company says that
Speaker 1: so far it has no evidence that any customers have
Speaker 1: actually been compromised through a follow up attack. We will
Speaker 1: hope that that continues. And from Microsoft, let's head over
Speaker 1: to Apple, a company that has had a few issues
Speaker 1: with information leaks getting out into the public before the
Speaker 1: company was able to wow an audience with a one
Speaker 1: More Thing reveal. So Apple's reputation for innovation includes how
Speaker 1: the company unveils new products, but that can all be
Speaker 1: ruined with a leak to the public. And so now,
Speaker 1: according to front page Tech, Apple is requiring some employees
Speaker 1: who belong to certain product teams to where body cameras
Speaker 1: similar to, or perhaps even identical to those worn by
Speaker 1: law enforcement. Apple has been cracking down on known sources
Speaker 1: of leaks, as well as driving home the idea that
Speaker 1: Apple employees are not to share information with people known
Speaker 1: to have published Apple leaks. The body camera thing seems
Speaker 1: more than a bit extreme to me. It sounds incredibly invasive,
Speaker 1: and uh, I guess I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.
Speaker 1: And that's the news for Tuesday, June one. I will
Speaker 1: be back tomorrow with some more acronyms and initialisms. Should
Speaker 1: be closing that out, I hope with one last episode
Speaker 1: and more news later this week, and then who knows
Speaker 1: what I'll talk about. Well, maybe you know. If you
Speaker 1: have a suggestion for a topic I should cover on
Speaker 1: a future tech Stuff, let me know on Twitter. The
Speaker 1: handle for the show is stuff h s W. Some
Speaker 1: of you have been reaching out. It's been great. Keep
Speaker 1: up the good work because that's really helpful for me.
Speaker 1: And I'll talk to you again really soon. Y Text
Speaker 1: Stuff is an I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts
Speaker 1: from my Heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.