WEBVTT - Tech News: The Algorithms are Against Us

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

0:00:12.119 --> 0:00:14.880
<v Speaker 1>Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,

0:00:15.040 --> 0:00:17.959
<v Speaker 1>Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio

0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:21.120
<v Speaker 1>and I love all things tech and today it's the

0:00:21.160 --> 0:00:27.600
<v Speaker 1>tech news for Tuesday, June twenty twenty one. My voice

0:00:27.680 --> 0:00:31.320
<v Speaker 1>is still blown out from a birthday weekend. Some of

0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:35.680
<v Speaker 1>my apologies for that, but let's get to actual tech news.

0:00:36.720 --> 0:00:41.520
<v Speaker 1>South Korea is the latest battleground that sees enormous companies

0:00:41.560 --> 0:00:46.479
<v Speaker 1>from different tech sectors locking horns with each other. Recently,

0:00:46.800 --> 0:00:50.239
<v Speaker 1>a South Korean court passed the buck on a decision

0:00:50.280 --> 0:00:54.600
<v Speaker 1>about whether or not streaming services like Netflix should pay

0:00:54.800 --> 0:00:59.800
<v Speaker 1>bandwidth usage fees to Internet service providers. Alright, so he

0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:03.120
<v Speaker 1>here's the skinny on what's really going down. So on

0:01:03.160 --> 0:01:05.679
<v Speaker 1>the one side, you've got the I s p s,

0:01:05.680 --> 0:01:09.319
<v Speaker 1>the Internet service providers, and they're saying that services like

0:01:09.720 --> 0:01:15.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, these streaming services place a

0:01:15.240 --> 0:01:19.920
<v Speaker 1>particularly heavy demand on bandwidth. You know that that traffic

0:01:20.040 --> 0:01:22.440
<v Speaker 1>takes up a lot of bandwidth on the I s

0:01:22.440 --> 0:01:26.760
<v Speaker 1>P networks, and thus these companies should pay a fee

0:01:27.240 --> 0:01:29.400
<v Speaker 1>to the I s p s to offset the cost

0:01:29.640 --> 0:01:33.800
<v Speaker 1>of providing that bandwidth to them. But Netflix and other

0:01:33.840 --> 0:01:38.399
<v Speaker 1>streaming services have argued that I s P customers, you know,

0:01:38.440 --> 0:01:40.600
<v Speaker 1>the people on the actual end, the people who are

0:01:41.360 --> 0:01:45.560
<v Speaker 1>choosing to go to Netflix or YouTube or whatever, they

0:01:45.600 --> 0:01:49.840
<v Speaker 1>already pay a subscription fee for their services, and that

0:01:50.240 --> 0:01:54.440
<v Speaker 1>any I s P that would charge content providers for

0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:58.720
<v Speaker 1>delivering it and the end user on the other side

0:01:58.760 --> 0:02:02.040
<v Speaker 1>for ordering it, that amounts to double dipping. That the

0:02:02.080 --> 0:02:06.160
<v Speaker 1>company is charging twice for the same service. It's just

0:02:06.240 --> 0:02:09.359
<v Speaker 1>that they're charging two different entities but for the same thing.

0:02:10.040 --> 0:02:12.639
<v Speaker 1>And I want to be clear here, both the I

0:02:12.919 --> 0:02:16.359
<v Speaker 1>s p s and Netflix and other major streaming services,

0:02:16.840 --> 0:02:21.600
<v Speaker 1>they're all huge companies, right. These entities are really mostly

0:02:21.639 --> 0:02:24.760
<v Speaker 1>concerned about making money and then keeping as much of

0:02:24.760 --> 0:02:28.239
<v Speaker 1>that money as they possibly can. So there are no

0:02:28.240 --> 0:02:31.840
<v Speaker 1>noble good guys in this story. In other words, now

0:02:31.880 --> 0:02:35.480
<v Speaker 1>here in the United States, advocates have long protested the

0:02:35.520 --> 0:02:38.679
<v Speaker 1>idea of an I s P charging content companies for

0:02:38.800 --> 0:02:42.680
<v Speaker 1>bandwidth usage. They argue that this is unfair and that

0:02:42.760 --> 0:02:46.480
<v Speaker 1>net neutrality, which among other things, promotes the idea that

0:02:46.560 --> 0:02:50.280
<v Speaker 1>all content is equal on the Internet, demands that I

0:02:50.440 --> 0:02:54.400
<v Speaker 1>sp s not prioritize services or levy bandwidth fees like

0:02:54.480 --> 0:02:59.560
<v Speaker 1>that because it would discourage those companies from offering those services.

0:03:00.000 --> 0:03:02.360
<v Speaker 1>In addition, at least here in the US, we also

0:03:02.400 --> 0:03:04.839
<v Speaker 1>have the issue that I s p s typically are

0:03:04.919 --> 0:03:08.639
<v Speaker 1>also content providers, and if the I s p s

0:03:08.680 --> 0:03:13.800
<v Speaker 1>are charging third party companies like Netflix or YouTube or whatever,

0:03:14.720 --> 0:03:18.040
<v Speaker 1>but they're not having to deal with that themselves. As

0:03:18.120 --> 0:03:22.359
<v Speaker 1>they go forward and offer services, that creates an unfair advantage,

0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:26.880
<v Speaker 1>it becomes anti competitive, it gets really messy. Well, the

0:03:26.880 --> 0:03:30.600
<v Speaker 1>South Korean court essentially said, y'all made this mess, go

0:03:30.760 --> 0:03:33.800
<v Speaker 1>figure it out yourselves, and that gives the I s

0:03:33.840 --> 0:03:36.680
<v Speaker 1>p s and South Korea the ability to negotiate with

0:03:36.720 --> 0:03:40.640
<v Speaker 1>Netflix and other streaming services to demand these sort of

0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:43.200
<v Speaker 1>bandwidth fees. That likely means that these companies are going

0:03:43.240 --> 0:03:47.360
<v Speaker 1>to have to pay some sort of bandwidth fee if

0:03:47.400 --> 0:03:49.520
<v Speaker 1>they want their traffic carried by the I s p

0:03:49.640 --> 0:03:52.080
<v Speaker 1>s and South Korea, which they do. South Korea is

0:03:52.480 --> 0:03:56.360
<v Speaker 1>a big market, but again, the streaming companies are huge.

0:03:56.400 --> 0:03:59.280
<v Speaker 1>Some of them are part of the largest media companies

0:03:59.320 --> 0:04:02.440
<v Speaker 1>in the world. You look at companies like NBC Universal

0:04:02.800 --> 0:04:06.440
<v Speaker 1>owned by Comcast, like it's huge, and it would shock

0:04:06.560 --> 0:04:09.960
<v Speaker 1>me if this all just ends with negotiations, and that's that.

0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:12.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm certain we're going to see more legal challenges follow

0:04:13.080 --> 0:04:16.080
<v Speaker 1>as big powerful companies throw their weight around in an

0:04:16.080 --> 0:04:21.520
<v Speaker 1>effort to eliminate bandwidth fees. Honestly, watching this stuff sort

0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:25.360
<v Speaker 1>of feels like I'm tuning into Godzilla versus Kong, and

0:04:25.520 --> 0:04:29.920
<v Speaker 1>in more ways than one, because the end consumer tends

0:04:29.960 --> 0:04:32.800
<v Speaker 1>to be the biggest victim of these kinds of struggles,

0:04:33.080 --> 0:04:36.280
<v Speaker 1>because no matter what happens, someone typically is going to

0:04:36.440 --> 0:04:39.520
<v Speaker 1>raise the cost of their subscription service in order to

0:04:40.160 --> 0:04:43.960
<v Speaker 1>cover whatever the additional cost is of providing it. Right, So,

0:04:44.520 --> 0:04:48.200
<v Speaker 1>if Netflix has to pay a bandwidth fee in order

0:04:48.200 --> 0:04:52.560
<v Speaker 1>to be carried across South Korean i SP networks, you

0:04:52.600 --> 0:04:55.679
<v Speaker 1>can bet the Netflix will also increase its subscription fee

0:04:55.680 --> 0:04:59.160
<v Speaker 1>for South Korean customers because they love to pass the

0:04:59.240 --> 0:05:04.400
<v Speaker 1>costs on to you. Just kind of how capitalism stuff works.

0:05:04.760 --> 0:05:09.160
<v Speaker 1>Moving on over at YouTube, there was a recent kerfuffle

0:05:09.320 --> 0:05:13.640
<v Speaker 1>regarding a channel ban that raised some eyebrows. The platform

0:05:13.720 --> 0:05:17.120
<v Speaker 1>placed a quote unquote permanent ban on a channel called

0:05:17.360 --> 0:05:22.159
<v Speaker 1>right wing watch Now. This channel posts videos that examine

0:05:22.240 --> 0:05:28.240
<v Speaker 1>and document and critique extremist political conservatives. YouTube claimed that

0:05:28.360 --> 0:05:31.800
<v Speaker 1>the band was just a mistake. That quote, upon further review,

0:05:32.160 --> 0:05:35.800
<v Speaker 1>has now been reinstated end quote. But this has prompted

0:05:35.880 --> 0:05:40.360
<v Speaker 1>some questions from multiple angles. YouTube automates much of its

0:05:40.400 --> 0:05:43.120
<v Speaker 1>review process. I mean it has to because there's like

0:05:43.200 --> 0:05:47.640
<v Speaker 1>five hours of YouTube content uploaded every single minute. There's

0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:53.040
<v Speaker 1>just no way that human beings could review every single

0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:56.000
<v Speaker 1>piece of content uploaded to the platform and determine whether

0:05:56.080 --> 0:06:01.720
<v Speaker 1>or not it meets the platform's policies. So that means

0:06:01.760 --> 0:06:04.640
<v Speaker 1>that algorithms are in charge of making the early call

0:06:04.680 --> 0:06:07.640
<v Speaker 1>as to whether a channel or a specific video is

0:06:07.640 --> 0:06:11.600
<v Speaker 1>in violation of YouTube's policies, and those policies appear to

0:06:11.640 --> 0:06:14.800
<v Speaker 1>be the ones regarding the spread of stuff like misinformation

0:06:14.960 --> 0:06:19.080
<v Speaker 1>and hate speech, though right wing watches purpose is to

0:06:19.279 --> 0:06:23.159
<v Speaker 1>document these sorts of things, not to generate hate speech

0:06:23.240 --> 0:06:26.080
<v Speaker 1>or promote hate speech, but rather to say, this is

0:06:26.160 --> 0:06:28.760
<v Speaker 1>someone who said this thing, and we are making a

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:32.680
<v Speaker 1>document to prove that this is what has happened. So

0:06:32.720 --> 0:06:36.560
<v Speaker 1>it's more about holding people accountable for their words and actions,

0:06:37.000 --> 0:06:40.600
<v Speaker 1>it's not about promoting those as being you know, valid

0:06:40.600 --> 0:06:43.840
<v Speaker 1>points of view. And so it appears that YouTube's algorithms

0:06:43.880 --> 0:06:47.279
<v Speaker 1>have a hard time distinguishing between channels that violate the

0:06:47.360 --> 0:06:52.400
<v Speaker 1>platform's rules and channels that just try to hold those

0:06:52.440 --> 0:06:55.880
<v Speaker 1>other channels accountable. And I think this illustrates how people

0:06:56.000 --> 0:06:59.960
<v Speaker 1>are really complicated and we just don't have algorithms sophistic

0:07:00.240 --> 0:07:04.440
<v Speaker 1>enough to keep up with that. Speaking of algorithms using

0:07:04.440 --> 0:07:08.000
<v Speaker 1>a sort of brute force approach to human interactions, let's

0:07:08.000 --> 0:07:12.040
<v Speaker 1>talk about Amazon. According to a report in Bloomberg, the

0:07:12.120 --> 0:07:15.240
<v Speaker 1>company has been relying on algorithms to determine whether or

0:07:15.280 --> 0:07:18.680
<v Speaker 1>not flex drivers are worth keeping around, which is kind

0:07:18.720 --> 0:07:21.640
<v Speaker 1>of a big yikes. Al right. So, in order to

0:07:21.680 --> 0:07:26.320
<v Speaker 1>meet the demand of its customers, Amazon uses subcontracted drivers

0:07:26.360 --> 0:07:31.040
<v Speaker 1>to supplement Amazon's normal delivery channels. So in other words,

0:07:31.920 --> 0:07:34.880
<v Speaker 1>Amazon has way more stuff to ship out than its

0:07:34.960 --> 0:07:38.440
<v Speaker 1>normal channels would support, so they end up hiring on

0:07:38.640 --> 0:07:43.000
<v Speaker 1>additional subcontracted drivers. These drivers can actually sign up to

0:07:43.080 --> 0:07:45.760
<v Speaker 1>participate in the service, and then they have the ability

0:07:45.800 --> 0:07:49.040
<v Speaker 1>to set shifts, saying, you know, I can drive on Mondays,

0:07:49.080 --> 0:07:51.920
<v Speaker 1>Wednesdays and Fridays, for example. I can do all that

0:07:52.000 --> 0:07:54.920
<v Speaker 1>through interacting with an app. But these drivers are also

0:07:54.960 --> 0:07:59.320
<v Speaker 1>held accountable by this automated system, and it tracks their

0:07:59.360 --> 0:08:04.160
<v Speaker 1>performance in various ways, including customer feedback, and apparently a

0:08:04.240 --> 0:08:07.800
<v Speaker 1>single outlying issue might cause enough of a blip in

0:08:07.800 --> 0:08:11.360
<v Speaker 1>a person's standing to prompt the algorithm to terminate that

0:08:11.400 --> 0:08:16.160
<v Speaker 1>person's employment. So let's say you're a driver and you're

0:08:16.200 --> 0:08:19.560
<v Speaker 1>doing everything correctly. You know, you're handling the packages with care,

0:08:20.080 --> 0:08:23.840
<v Speaker 1>you're going places, but you encounter something that prevents you

0:08:23.880 --> 0:08:26.640
<v Speaker 1>from being able to make a delivery on time. In

0:08:26.680 --> 0:08:31.640
<v Speaker 1>some instances, it was that, uh, the person that was

0:08:31.680 --> 0:08:33.920
<v Speaker 1>supposed to receive the package was living in an apartment

0:08:33.960 --> 0:08:37.080
<v Speaker 1>complex that was in behind a gate. The gate was locked,

0:08:37.120 --> 0:08:41.640
<v Speaker 1>and the driver was unable to contact anyone to open

0:08:41.679 --> 0:08:44.360
<v Speaker 1>the gate so that they could make the delivery, and

0:08:44.400 --> 0:08:48.040
<v Speaker 1>then they ended up getting a black mark against their

0:08:48.040 --> 0:08:52.240
<v Speaker 1>own record. The driver did, and despite the efforts of

0:08:52.280 --> 0:08:56.120
<v Speaker 1>trying to improve their rating by you know, doing their job,

0:08:56.679 --> 0:09:01.240
<v Speaker 1>they ultimately got fired by computer code. As it were,

0:09:01.280 --> 0:09:07.439
<v Speaker 1>an algorithm itself terminated that person's employment. Something outside of

0:09:07.440 --> 0:09:09.720
<v Speaker 1>a driver's control can lead to enough of an issue

0:09:10.000 --> 0:09:13.640
<v Speaker 1>to trigger the algorithm, even if that driver did subsequently

0:09:13.640 --> 0:09:16.800
<v Speaker 1>work hard to improve their rating. And when this happens,

0:09:17.240 --> 0:09:21.400
<v Speaker 1>drivers really only have two options. They can accept the

0:09:21.480 --> 0:09:24.840
<v Speaker 1>algorithm's decision. Essentially, they can take their walking papers and

0:09:24.880 --> 0:09:29.360
<v Speaker 1>that's that, or they can pony up a two hundred

0:09:29.440 --> 0:09:33.199
<v Speaker 1>dollar fee if they want to try and dispute the termination.

0:09:33.840 --> 0:09:36.840
<v Speaker 1>So yeah, these Flex drivers have to pay two hundred

0:09:36.840 --> 0:09:40.640
<v Speaker 1>bucks to have a termination reviewed, and that does not

0:09:40.840 --> 0:09:45.679
<v Speaker 1>guarantee that the decision will get overturned. Amazon claims that

0:09:45.720 --> 0:09:49.160
<v Speaker 1>the complaints about this system represent a very small percentage

0:09:49.160 --> 0:09:52.360
<v Speaker 1>of drivers and that it's not representative of how most

0:09:52.440 --> 0:09:57.320
<v Speaker 1>Flex drivers interact with the system. But yeah, seems kind

0:09:57.320 --> 0:10:01.840
<v Speaker 1>of suss in my opinion. Last week, Canada's government proposed

0:10:01.880 --> 0:10:05.080
<v Speaker 1>a law that would make online hate speech a crime

0:10:05.120 --> 0:10:07.400
<v Speaker 1>that could be punished with fines of up to twenty

0:10:07.440 --> 0:10:10.839
<v Speaker 1>thousand dollars Canadian, which is, you know, a bit more

0:10:10.880 --> 0:10:14.839
<v Speaker 1>than sixteen thousand dollars in America, and that's for the

0:10:14.880 --> 0:10:17.920
<v Speaker 1>first offense. For a second offense, that find goes up

0:10:17.960 --> 0:10:21.839
<v Speaker 1>to fifty thousand dollars Canadian or around forty tho US.

0:10:22.679 --> 0:10:26.640
<v Speaker 1>The law would also extend safe harbor protections to platforms. So,

0:10:26.679 --> 0:10:29.760
<v Speaker 1>in other words, let's say I were to post a

0:10:29.880 --> 0:10:34.000
<v Speaker 1>video containing hate speech directed at some group on YouTube.

0:10:34.280 --> 0:10:37.400
<v Speaker 1>I never would do this, but for a hypothetical situation.

0:10:37.440 --> 0:10:39.800
<v Speaker 1>Let's say that I did, I would be the one

0:10:39.920 --> 0:10:44.480
<v Speaker 1>held accountable. I could face punishment. However, YouTube would not

0:10:44.559 --> 0:10:47.439
<v Speaker 1>be on trial. In the United States. This is similar

0:10:47.480 --> 0:10:51.080
<v Speaker 1>to our Section to thirty law, which says platforms cannot

0:10:51.080 --> 0:10:54.960
<v Speaker 1>be held legally responsible for the content posted by their users.

0:10:55.559 --> 0:10:58.280
<v Speaker 1>The Canadian government has said that this law is not

0:10:58.320 --> 0:11:01.439
<v Speaker 1>going to target just any one who has something negative

0:11:01.480 --> 0:11:05.080
<v Speaker 1>to say, but rather genuine expressions of hate speech. So

0:11:05.160 --> 0:11:09.400
<v Speaker 1>generally speaking, speech meant to intimidate, discriminate, and otherwise harm

0:11:09.880 --> 0:11:13.880
<v Speaker 1>some group of people, or, as the proposal states, speech

0:11:14.200 --> 0:11:18.880
<v Speaker 1>quote motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race,

0:11:19.400 --> 0:11:25.120
<v Speaker 1>national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental

0:11:25.280 --> 0:11:31.000
<v Speaker 1>or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or

0:11:31.040 --> 0:11:35.360
<v Speaker 1>any other similar factor end quote. The government pointed out

0:11:35.400 --> 0:11:39.000
<v Speaker 1>that victims of such speech quote lose their freedom to

0:11:39.040 --> 0:11:43.400
<v Speaker 1>participate in civil society online end quote. Now, the timing

0:11:43.400 --> 0:11:45.880
<v Speaker 1>of the proposal has been seen to be a bit

0:11:46.000 --> 0:11:49.520
<v Speaker 1>odd in the sense that in Canada, the House of Commons,

0:11:49.840 --> 0:11:53.160
<v Speaker 1>a major part of the Canadian government, has adjourned for

0:11:53.200 --> 0:11:55.920
<v Speaker 1>the summer. The government says that the bill is going

0:11:55.960 --> 0:11:59.680
<v Speaker 1>to be reintroduced later this fall, though that's probably only

0:11:59.679 --> 0:12:02.240
<v Speaker 1>going to happened if the Liberal Party remains in power

0:12:02.320 --> 0:12:06.959
<v Speaker 1>in Canada. Some conservatives have said that this timing is

0:12:07.000 --> 0:12:10.680
<v Speaker 1>a bit suspect, and that perhaps the Liberals never really

0:12:10.720 --> 0:12:14.320
<v Speaker 1>intended to pursue it as an actual law, but rather

0:12:14.640 --> 0:12:18.199
<v Speaker 1>introduced it mainly for the purposes of scoring political points

0:12:18.240 --> 0:12:21.560
<v Speaker 1>ahead of an election. Uh. Some of those conservatives have

0:12:21.600 --> 0:12:24.040
<v Speaker 1>also argued that the proposals are a threat to the

0:12:24.080 --> 0:12:26.960
<v Speaker 1>freedom of speech, though it seems pretty clear to me

0:12:27.080 --> 0:12:30.600
<v Speaker 1>that the Liberals who proposed this legislation already considered that

0:12:30.720 --> 0:12:34.040
<v Speaker 1>and said hate speech itself is a threat to freedom

0:12:34.040 --> 0:12:38.160
<v Speaker 1>of speech because it intimidates the targets of that hate speech,

0:12:38.280 --> 0:12:42.960
<v Speaker 1>and it prevents those targets from expressing themselves. So it

0:12:43.120 --> 0:12:46.240
<v Speaker 1>is in itself a threat to the freedom of speech.

0:12:46.559 --> 0:12:51.480
<v Speaker 1>And as I said earlier, people are complicated. Hey do

0:12:51.520 --> 0:12:54.120
<v Speaker 1>you remember the Solar winds hack. That's the one that

0:12:54.200 --> 0:12:57.960
<v Speaker 1>affected thousands of computers and stole data from some pretty

0:12:58.040 --> 0:13:01.920
<v Speaker 1>darn big companies. Well, the hacker group behind it, known

0:13:01.960 --> 0:13:07.319
<v Speaker 1>as Nobilium, has attacked Microsoft again. This time, the hackers

0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:11.120
<v Speaker 1>targeted a computer that belonged to a Microsoft customer, service agent.

0:13:11.720 --> 0:13:15.280
<v Speaker 1>The hackers got hold of sensitive data relating to Microsoft

0:13:15.320 --> 0:13:20.439
<v Speaker 1>customers and then launched targeted attacks against those customers. Now,

0:13:20.480 --> 0:13:24.400
<v Speaker 1>apparently the hackers were able to access information through the

0:13:24.520 --> 0:13:29.080
<v Speaker 1>second half of May. According to Microsoft, and included in

0:13:29.120 --> 0:13:33.800
<v Speaker 1>the hacked information, we're building contact info for customers as

0:13:33.840 --> 0:13:37.880
<v Speaker 1>well as which products and services those customers were paying for,

0:13:38.320 --> 0:13:41.000
<v Speaker 1>which is pretty useful information. If you wanted to create

0:13:41.040 --> 0:13:44.440
<v Speaker 1>a targeted attack on those customers, you could create a

0:13:44.520 --> 0:13:47.960
<v Speaker 1>really convincing phishing attack because you could be specific about

0:13:47.960 --> 0:13:51.880
<v Speaker 1>which products the customers were using, so you could say, like,

0:13:52.520 --> 0:13:55.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, we have an update to your Microsoft server

0:13:55.559 --> 0:13:59.040
<v Speaker 1>software and have an attachment that contains malware on it.

0:13:59.520 --> 0:14:02.559
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft have to send out emails to customers urging them

0:14:02.559 --> 0:14:05.959
<v Speaker 1>to be cautious with any incoming communications that are purporting

0:14:06.000 --> 0:14:08.840
<v Speaker 1>to be from Microsoft. It's always good to double check

0:14:09.120 --> 0:14:12.400
<v Speaker 1>that any email message you get is legit. Looking at

0:14:12.400 --> 0:14:14.520
<v Speaker 1>the return email address is a good way to start.

0:14:14.600 --> 0:14:16.080
<v Speaker 1>It's not the only thing you should do, but it's

0:14:16.080 --> 0:14:19.200
<v Speaker 1>a good start. You should also just not click on links,

0:14:19.280 --> 0:14:22.440
<v Speaker 1>or open attachments or anything like that from an email

0:14:22.640 --> 0:14:26.000
<v Speaker 1>that doesn't appear to be legit. The company says that

0:14:26.120 --> 0:14:28.480
<v Speaker 1>so far it has no evidence that any customers have

0:14:28.600 --> 0:14:32.520
<v Speaker 1>actually been compromised through a follow up attack. We will

0:14:32.640 --> 0:14:36.800
<v Speaker 1>hope that that continues. And from Microsoft, let's head over

0:14:36.840 --> 0:14:39.680
<v Speaker 1>to Apple, a company that has had a few issues

0:14:40.080 --> 0:14:42.800
<v Speaker 1>with information leaks getting out into the public before the

0:14:42.840 --> 0:14:46.120
<v Speaker 1>company was able to wow an audience with a one

0:14:46.240 --> 0:14:50.920
<v Speaker 1>More Thing reveal. So Apple's reputation for innovation includes how

0:14:50.960 --> 0:14:54.720
<v Speaker 1>the company unveils new products, but that can all be

0:14:54.880 --> 0:14:57.800
<v Speaker 1>ruined with a leak to the public. And so now,

0:14:58.080 --> 0:15:02.320
<v Speaker 1>according to front page Tech, Apple is requiring some employees

0:15:02.360 --> 0:15:06.840
<v Speaker 1>who belong to certain product teams to where body cameras

0:15:06.880 --> 0:15:11.160
<v Speaker 1>similar to, or perhaps even identical to those worn by

0:15:11.240 --> 0:15:15.600
<v Speaker 1>law enforcement. Apple has been cracking down on known sources

0:15:15.640 --> 0:15:18.080
<v Speaker 1>of leaks, as well as driving home the idea that

0:15:18.160 --> 0:15:21.440
<v Speaker 1>Apple employees are not to share information with people known

0:15:21.480 --> 0:15:25.720
<v Speaker 1>to have published Apple leaks. The body camera thing seems

0:15:25.760 --> 0:15:31.080
<v Speaker 1>more than a bit extreme to me. It sounds incredibly invasive,

0:15:31.600 --> 0:15:35.880
<v Speaker 1>and uh, I guess I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.

0:15:36.400 --> 0:15:41.040
<v Speaker 1>And that's the news for Tuesday, June one. I will

0:15:41.040 --> 0:15:44.760
<v Speaker 1>be back tomorrow with some more acronyms and initialisms. Should

0:15:44.800 --> 0:15:47.760
<v Speaker 1>be closing that out, I hope with one last episode

0:15:48.080 --> 0:15:51.000
<v Speaker 1>and more news later this week, and then who knows

0:15:51.040 --> 0:15:53.440
<v Speaker 1>what I'll talk about. Well, maybe you know. If you

0:15:53.480 --> 0:15:55.840
<v Speaker 1>have a suggestion for a topic I should cover on

0:15:55.880 --> 0:15:58.680
<v Speaker 1>a future tech Stuff, let me know on Twitter. The

0:15:58.720 --> 0:16:02.200
<v Speaker 1>handle for the show is stuff h s W. Some

0:16:02.280 --> 0:16:04.640
<v Speaker 1>of you have been reaching out. It's been great. Keep

0:16:04.720 --> 0:16:06.880
<v Speaker 1>up the good work because that's really helpful for me.

0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:15.920
<v Speaker 1>And I'll talk to you again really soon. Y Text

0:16:15.920 --> 0:16:19.400
<v Speaker 1>Stuff is an I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts

0:16:19.400 --> 0:16:22.160
<v Speaker 1>from my Heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio app,

0:16:22.280 --> 0:16:25.440
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.