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 this is the
Speaker 1: tech news for Tuesday, December seven, twenty twenty one. Rohinga refugees,
Speaker 1: survivors of a genocide campaign, and Myanmar have brought two
Speaker 1: class action lawsuits against Meta, you know, the company that
Speaker 1: used to be known as Facebook. One of those class
Speaker 1: action lawsuits is in the United States and the other
Speaker 1: one is in the United Kingdom, and together the lawsuits
Speaker 1: are seeking around a hundred fifty billion dollars in damages.
Speaker 1: I don't know why I put a d at the
Speaker 1: end of billion there. The Rohinga are a Muslim people,
Speaker 1: and extremist Buddhists in Myanmar, encouraged by the country's government,
Speaker 1: had sought to Why about those people? Uh, the atrocities
Speaker 1: are just absolutely horrifying anyway. The lawsuits claim that Facebook
Speaker 1: exacerbated an already deadly situation in Myanmar, facilitating the spread
Speaker 1: of hate speech and misinformation, and that this contributed to
Speaker 1: various users in Myanmar growing more extreme and organizing acts
Speaker 1: of unspeakable violence and cruelty and brutality. They further alleged
Speaker 1: that Facebook did nothing to remove posts from Myanmar's government
Speaker 1: offices that essentially called for the extermination of the Rohinga people. Further,
Speaker 1: the lawsuit alleges that Facebook's algorithm, which is the one
Speaker 1: I was talking about in yesterday's episode of Tech Stuff,
Speaker 1: encouraged people to join groups that aligned with user beliefs.
Speaker 1: So let's say there's someone in Myanmar who joins Facebook
Speaker 1: and that this person already harbors negative views about the
Speaker 1: Rohinga people. Facebook's algorithm starts to recommend groups for this
Speaker 1: person to join, and these are groups filled with others
Speaker 1: who harbor racist or xenophobic beliefs about the Rohinga and
Speaker 1: the user joins the group and becomes part of an
Speaker 1: echo chamber that escalates matters, and it drives people who
Speaker 1: are already prejudiced toward extremism and adding fuel to an
Speaker 1: already dangerous fire. And meanwhile, Facebook was profiting off the
Speaker 1: whole thing, because, as I mentioned in yesterday's episode, the
Speaker 1: whole business purpose of Facebook is to keep as many
Speaker 1: people on the platform for as long as possible to
Speaker 1: serve up as many ads as possible. So the lawsuit
Speaker 1: claims Facebook execs didn't care that the platform was contributing
Speaker 1: to a hostile situation, to put it lightly, because it
Speaker 1: was a profitable situation. At least in the company's ledger,
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs wrote, quote to maximize engagement, Facebook does not
Speaker 1: merely fill users news feeds with disproportionate amounts of hate
Speaker 1: speech and misinformation. It employs a system of social rewards
Speaker 1: that manipulates and trains users to create such content. End quote.
Speaker 1: The complaint goes on to say that Facebook was made
Speaker 1: aware of the anti Rohinga material on the site as
Speaker 1: far as back as two thousand thirteen, but failed to
Speaker 1: do anything about it. Here in the US, the plaintiffs
Speaker 1: hope to have the matter tried under Burmese law. Now.
Speaker 1: The reason for that, you know, under Burmese lawns of
Speaker 1: US laws, because the United States famously has the Communications
Speaker 1: Decency Act, which contains section to thirty. Uh that's the
Speaker 1: infamous section that grants platforms immunity from liability for the
Speaker 1: stuff that their users post, at least under certain situations.
Speaker 1: The case law on the matter is a little bit muddled. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: some scientists and academics have sent an open letter to
Speaker 1: Meta Slash Facebook and to Mark Zuckerberg, calling on the
Speaker 1: company to share research that staff have done to determine
Speaker 1: the mental health impact that products like Instagram, Facebook, and
Speaker 1: WhatsApp can have on the young, and by young, I
Speaker 1: mean like kids to teenagers. The group also asks that
Speaker 1: met us seek out an independent third party to review
Speaker 1: that research to help protect against bias, because obviously any
Speaker 1: company that conducts research on itself has a potential conflict
Speaker 1: of interest going on there. This follows the news reports
Speaker 1: about leaked internal documents from the company that indicated Instagram
Speaker 1: use might be mentally harmful, particularly for young women, that
Speaker 1: it could potentially lead to problems like body image issues,
Speaker 1: eating disorders, and anxiety. The documents obviously caused a lot
Speaker 1: of concern, but at the same time, the group of
Speaker 1: scientists say that without independent scrutiny, the methodology might not
Speaker 1: be rigorous enough to give insight into the scope of
Speaker 1: the problem or even you know, if there is a problem,
Speaker 1: because it's possible that those who were surveyed for the
Speaker 1: internal research were already dealing with mental health issues independent
Speaker 1: of their usage of Facebook's products. Maybe those products exacerbated
Speaker 1: existing issues, maybe they created them. It's impossible to say
Speaker 1: based upon the limited research. So the point that scientists
Speaker 1: are making is that it is a matter of concern
Speaker 1: and should be investigated more thoroughly and with transparency, and
Speaker 1: to behave otherwise is unethical, irresponsible, and potentially cruel. The
Speaker 1: letter points out that platforms like Facebook have a global
Speaker 1: reach and thus any effects it might have upon mental
Speaker 1: health are a worldwide concern. But because big tech companies
Speaker 1: like Meta Slash Facebook, because they rarely share research with
Speaker 1: the scientific community, it is impossible to ascertain if an
Speaker 1: effect is present and if so, to what extent. No
Speaker 1: word on if Zuckerberg has written back yet. Now let's
Speaker 1: give Facebook a little bit of credit in our next
Speaker 1: news story. And this news story is actually from last week,
Speaker 1: but it broke after we had published our news episode,
Speaker 1: and it's about how Facebook identified and removed a disinformation
Speaker 1: campaign that was originating out of China. Now, Facebook reps
Speaker 1: didn't go so far as to say that this was
Speaker 1: a state backed disinformation campaign, but it was a campaign
Speaker 1: conducted by state backed companies and it was amplified by
Speaker 1: state back media. But you know, Facebook left a little
Speaker 1: bit of wiggle room there before saying, like the Chinese
Speaker 1: government itself ordered the campaign. It's kind of like when
Speaker 1: you say the word allegedly before you say something about someone.
Speaker 1: I do that a lot on this show anyway. The
Speaker 1: campaign was centered on a Swiss biologist named Wilson Edwards,
Speaker 1: who had posted a claim that the United States government
Speaker 1: had resorted to quote enormous pressure and even intimidation end
Speaker 1: quote to force scientists around the world to blame China
Speaker 1: for the origin of the coronavirus, essentially to implicate China
Speaker 1: as being the place where the coronavirus first emerged. Essentially,
Speaker 1: the campaign was saying that the scientific community had only
Speaker 1: directed any attention towards China at all because the US
Speaker 1: government was forcing it to. A bunch of accounts on
Speaker 1: Facebook emerged and engaged with this content, liking it and
Speaker 1: reposting it, and then the Chinese media picked up the
Speaker 1: story and ran with it. Only it turns out there
Speaker 1: is no Swiss biologists named Wilson Edwards, and that hundreds
Speaker 1: of those Facebook accounts were created all around the same time.
Speaker 1: They were all like posting at close to the same time,
Speaker 1: sometimes with identical messages. In one case, a an account
Speaker 1: accidentally posted the directions for how to spread this disinformation
Speaker 1: and that the whole thing was in fact a manufactured story.
Speaker 1: Facebook subsequently removed more than six hundred accounts connected with
Speaker 1: this attempt, and security officials say that this was pretty
Speaker 1: par for the course as far as Chinese disinformation campaigns go,
Speaker 1: Uh saying that it was pretty clumsy, it was shoddy work,
Speaker 1: and that these campaigns lack the sophistication and effectiveness that
Speaker 1: we typically see with Russian disinformation campaigns, which are far
Speaker 1: more effective. So, in other words, the Chinese have room
Speaker 1: for improvement when it comes to spreading misinformation, and I
Speaker 1: have no doubt they will work hard to get up
Speaker 1: to speed with, you know, like Russia. On a related note,
Speaker 1: Twitter and Meta slash Facebook have revealed that both of
Speaker 1: these companies have removed thousands of accounts connected to various
Speaker 1: state backed disinformation campaigns and coronavirus misinformation campaigns. Twitter has
Speaker 1: removed around two thousand accounts that were spreading misinformation about
Speaker 1: human rights issues in China. That is, these were Twitter
Speaker 1: accounts that we're pushing the state backed messaging that there
Speaker 1: are no human rights issues going on in China, and
Speaker 1: Meta has removed three other coordinated inauthentic behavior or see
Speaker 1: i B operations in addition to the one I just
Speaker 1: covered a second ago. So that whole misinformation campaign about
Speaker 1: the United States pressuring the scientific community that would be
Speaker 1: one of the coordinated in authentic behavior or c i
Speaker 1: B operations. Meta also said that some campaigns involved creating
Speaker 1: a ton of accounts and then mass reporting a target
Speaker 1: account in an effort to get Meta to remove it. So,
Speaker 1: for example, let's say that there's an activist in Vietnam,
Speaker 1: they might find that their account has been targeted by
Speaker 1: one of these mass reporting campaigns in an effort to
Speaker 1: silence them. So, in other words, some groups starts creating
Speaker 1: a bunch of accounts and uses all the accounts to
Speaker 1: report the activist with the goal of getting them banned
Speaker 1: or removed. Meta also identified another form of harassment it
Speaker 1: calls brigading. This is when a bunch of folks some
Speaker 1: are brigading. I guess uh. This is when a bunch
Speaker 1: of folks, sometimes hundreds or thousands of people coordinate to
Speaker 1: harass targets in an effort to silence them. It's kind
Speaker 1: of like we've seen this before where it wasn't necessarily
Speaker 1: an organized campaign. Things that have grown organically where a
Speaker 1: bunch of people pile on start harassing a specific person.
Speaker 1: I remember, like during the Me Too movement that was
Speaker 1: really ugly, like there were a lot of women getting
Speaker 1: targeted by groups of people who kind of organically, we're
Speaker 1: doing this, Well, this is a more coordinated effort to
Speaker 1: do that, one that potentially state backed, so it's a
Speaker 1: mass intimidation tactic. Meta pointed out a situation that emerged
Speaker 1: in Europe, specifically in Italy and in France, in which
Speaker 1: anti vaxers were brigading against medical professionals and politicians and
Speaker 1: folks like journalists. And you know, there was a time
Speaker 1: when I really thought the idea of social networks, like
Speaker 1: online social networks, that that was a good thing, that
Speaker 1: it was connecting people together, that was the democracy of
Speaker 1: the web, and it would allow for the freedom of
Speaker 1: expression on a scale never before seen. But y'all, it's
Speaker 1: really hard for me to look at online social networks
Speaker 1: today as anything other than toxic. It could be that
Speaker 1: I'm just getting too old and too cynical, but yeah,
Speaker 1: um ugly stuff. I'm glad to see that the companies
Speaker 1: are trying to fight against that. Obviously, it will be
Speaker 1: a never ending battle that there will always be entities
Speaker 1: out there that are trying to use these platforms to
Speaker 1: further their own agenda. But I'm glad to see, at
Speaker 1: least in this case, that there are some actions being taken.
Speaker 1: Microsoft announced that it has sees servers that the company says,
Speaker 1: we're being used by a group of hackers based out
Speaker 1: of China. Microsoft has called the group Nickel, and the
Speaker 1: company says it had been tracking Nickel's activities since two
Speaker 1: thousand and sixteen. The group have been focused on gathering
Speaker 1: intelligence with these servers, primarily as a way to find
Speaker 1: effective means to silence or compromise targets. So you might say, well,
Speaker 1: what kind of targets, Well, you know, this is a
Speaker 1: China based hacker group, So, as I'm sure all of
Speaker 1: you have guessed, the targets are typically people and entities
Speaker 1: that the Chinese government has viewed as being a problem,
Speaker 1: including human rights organizations and journalists. So the hacker group
Speaker 1: typically performs reconnaissance on these targets to determine what kind
Speaker 1: of software and technology they are using that gives them
Speaker 1: the information they need in order to start hunting for
Speaker 1: potential exploits that they can use to compromise the targets
Speaker 1: devices and perhaps do surveillance or lock down the devices,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Microsoft obtained a court order allowing the company
Speaker 1: to seize the servers and redirect traffic so that it
Speaker 1: doesn't go to Nichols hackers. Instead, the traffic will go
Speaker 1: to Microsoft, which will then use the information to study
Speaker 1: the hackers techniques and potentially their goals. Now does that
Speaker 1: mean that Nicol is out of commission because all these
Speaker 1: servers got seized. Not hardly. Microsoft warns that the group
Speaker 1: is still very much capable of acting against targets. This
Speaker 1: was just part of their operations that's now been disrupted. Essentially,
Speaker 1: the intelligence gathering part of their operations has hit a snag.
Speaker 1: So the hackers still have the tools to attack targets
Speaker 1: through malware and exploits, they just don't have the same
Speaker 1: ability to gather information about their targets as they used to,
Speaker 1: and even that is probably a temporary situation. Microsoft has
Speaker 1: become one of the leading companies crusading against hackers, particularly
Speaker 1: hackers that are financially motivated and that target companies and
Speaker 1: you might wonder, well, how did this happen? Why did
Speaker 1: Microsoft take the torch on this one? Well, you gotta
Speaker 1: remember a lot of those companies happen to be Microsoft customers,
Speaker 1: and in some cases, Microsoft is doing this because it
Speaker 1: doesn't want its own products to be uh the gateway
Speaker 1: that hackers used to get access to a potential client's systems.
Speaker 1: So there's a pretty big motivator going on right there. Alright,
Speaker 1: we have some more news stories to cover in this episode.
Speaker 1: Before we get to that, let's take a quick break.
Speaker 1: We're back. So about a year ago, word got out
Speaker 1: that a Russian backed hacker group And yeah, I know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot about hackers in this episode. Not my fault,
Speaker 1: they just keep making the news. Anyway, a year ago,
Speaker 1: this Russian backed hacker group, actually two groups, had managed
Speaker 1: to compromise a product from the company's Solar Winds and
Speaker 1: through an exploit, we're able to target around one hundred
Speaker 1: of Solar Winds high profile clients. They're able to infect
Speaker 1: thousands of clients, but they were specifically targeting around a
Speaker 1: hundred of them, which included like nine federal agencies in
Speaker 1: the United States. The hackers were able to create what
Speaker 1: was called a supply chain attack, So they were focusing
Speaker 1: not on their ultimate targets right list of one hundred organizations. Instead,
Speaker 1: they were focusing on a trusted vendor that all of
Speaker 1: those targets were using. They all were buying software from
Speaker 1: Solar Winds. So the thought the hackers had was, well,
Speaker 1: if we can infect the software that everyone is purchasing,
Speaker 1: then we can infiltrate all these systems without having to
Speaker 1: target each one individually. By compromising the vendor, the hackers
Speaker 1: were able to exploit the trust that these companies had
Speaker 1: in that vendor and then use maliciously altered products to
Speaker 1: gain access to the targeted systems. Now, the hacking groups
Speaker 1: responsible for that attack are targeting cloud solution providers or
Speaker 1: c sps. These are companies that, as the name says,
Speaker 1: they provide cloud computing solutions to customers. So the ideas
Speaker 1: infiltrate the CSP and you know, make sure you're hiding
Speaker 1: from detection, and then you can snoop on that CSPs customers.
Speaker 1: You can potentially develop techniques to infiltrate systems that way.
Speaker 1: Because so much of companies work nowadays moved to the cloud,
Speaker 1: so it's another way to get access to targets without
Speaker 1: having to focus on them individually. Security researchers have pointed
Speaker 1: out that the hacker groups are quick to develop and
Speaker 1: adopt new techniques, which makes them particularly difficult to combat.
Speaker 1: It's also a drastic contrast with the shoddy disinformation campaign
Speaker 1: out of China we talked about earlier their nine and Day. Really,
Speaker 1: here in the United States, there's an ongoing political battle
Speaker 1: that frames itself as a freedom of speech battle, and
Speaker 1: what it really comes down to is whether social networking
Speaker 1: platforms have the right to moderate content that is objectionable. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't want to get too political on here. First
Speaker 1: of all, I think everyone here knows how I lean politically.
Speaker 1: It's not really a secret, and I don't want to
Speaker 1: impart my bias on this story. But essentially this was
Speaker 1: ah There was a law in Texas that was proposed
Speaker 1: and passed and signed into law that was created by
Speaker 1: conservatives who objected to platforms like Facebook and Twitter that
Speaker 1: were removing posts and banning accounts belonging to mostly conservative
Speaker 1: politicians who were adamant on passing on misinformation on everything
Speaker 1: from the elections to COVID nineteen Texas passed a law
Speaker 1: that said platforms would be banned from doing that. They
Speaker 1: were saying that the platforms were effectively censoring uh individuals. Well,
Speaker 1: now a federal judge has placed an injunction against that law,
Speaker 1: meaning it cannot be enforced, saying that the law has
Speaker 1: hypocritically effectively censored the social network platforms when it says
Speaker 1: they're not allowed to moderate users submitted content. The judge
Speaker 1: said that the law is quote replete with institutional defects,
Speaker 1: including unconstitutional content and speaker based infringement on editorial discretion,
Speaker 1: and onerously burdensome disclosure and operational requirements end quote. Now,
Speaker 1: according to Ours Technica, the law as it was written
Speaker 1: wouldn't apply to conservative social networks like Parlor and gab
Speaker 1: because this law specifically targeted platforms that had at least
Speaker 1: fifty million monthly users, and Parlor and gab are below
Speaker 1: that threshold. One Texas senator proposed lowering that to twenty
Speaker 1: five million monthly users, and that would have in fact
Speaker 1: lumped Gab and Parlor into all the others, but the
Speaker 1: Senate rejected that proposal, which does make it sound like
Speaker 1: this was less about guaranteeing the right of free speech
Speaker 1: for conservatives and more about restricting the moderating policies of
Speaker 1: larger social networks. Over in the UK, the High Court
Speaker 1: has ruled that Uber's business model is unlawful and the
Speaker 1: company must comply with rules set out by the Private
Speaker 1: Higher Vehicle sect. That act actually predates Uber, it was
Speaker 1: first passed into law back in UK courts had previously
Speaker 1: overruled Uber's claim that drivers are contractors and not workers.
Speaker 1: According to UK courts, they are workers and thus Uber
Speaker 1: is responsible for meeting obligations as an employer. This new
Speaker 1: ruling says that Uber's attempts to have its contractual approach
Speaker 1: made lawful are just done and dusted. It's a no go,
Speaker 1: which means Uber will need to make fundamental changes in
Speaker 1: how it operates in the UK in order to be
Speaker 1: a legal business. See Part of Uber's argument was that
Speaker 1: when a passenger uses Uber to book a ride, Uber
Speaker 1: acted only as like an agent to connect a driver
Speaker 1: to a passenger and then handle payment and that's it,
Speaker 1: and that the actual contract of passage would just be
Speaker 1: between the driver and the passenger and Uber would be
Speaker 1: out of the picture. But the court says, no, my,
Speaker 1: that's not how it exitn't it Yep, the contract and
Speaker 1: does have the legal obligations relating to that contract. I
Speaker 1: don't know why they talk like that. And so now
Speaker 1: ride hailing companies like Uber, at least in London will
Speaker 1: have to pay more taxes per trip, which likely means
Speaker 1: we're gonna see price hikes in Uber in London in
Speaker 1: the near future. It might also mean that Uber will
Speaker 1: reevaluate operating in the UK at all, because it could
Speaker 1: be in that, you know, without having these loopholes or
Speaker 1: at least in this case uh illegalities in place, Uber
Speaker 1: will be unable to quote unquote disrupt I mean, compete
Speaker 1: with taxi services, So we'll have to see the company,
Speaker 1: Samsung is making a big change, but it's just an
Speaker 1: internal change. The company is dividing into two internal divisions,
Speaker 1: so still one company, but two internal divisions. One is
Speaker 1: going to focus on semiconductors and the other is going
Speaker 1: to focus on consumer electronics like televisions and phones. Each
Speaker 1: division will have its own CEO. So this organizational change
Speaker 1: will likely mean that we won't see much change on
Speaker 1: the outside, at least nothing that's really obvious. But the
Speaker 1: thought is this will allow each internal division to have
Speaker 1: a more unified and focused strategy in the in its
Speaker 1: individual market, rather than having to craft an overall strategy
Speaker 1: for a large company with very different divisions. When you
Speaker 1: do that, when you're trying to create big strategies for
Speaker 1: companies that have a lot of diverse departments, it can
Speaker 1: mean that you end up with a strategy that's okay,
Speaker 1: but not really great for any one division because you
Speaker 1: can't prioritize anything. If you do, then you end up
Speaker 1: leaving others behind. So this is a way to really
Speaker 1: prioritize each of those divisions and focus on them without
Speaker 1: having to worry about leaving something else behind. Cannon, the
Speaker 1: Camera Company, has announced it has developed an image sensor
Speaker 1: that can take high quality photographs even in the arc.
Speaker 1: Now that's a pretty huge development. It's a tricky one
Speaker 1: because image sensors are, you know, by definition, reliant on light.
Speaker 1: The sensor can reportedly capture color photographs, and it uses
Speaker 1: a technology called a single photon avalanche diode. Now I
Speaker 1: would love to tell you how that works, but honestly,
Speaker 1: it's beyond me. Apparently it acts kind of like an amplifier,
Speaker 1: except instead of taking an incoming electric signal and then
Speaker 1: boosting it with a transistor or vacuum tube. This tech
Speaker 1: can take a single incoming photon and use it to
Speaker 1: generate a large number of electrons. The company plans to
Speaker 1: enter mass production with the sensor late next year, and
Speaker 1: I'm really curious to learn more about this tech, though
Speaker 1: I can't claim I'll actually understand how it works any
Speaker 1: better than I do right now, which is to say
Speaker 1: I don't, I don't, I don't. In a previous news episode,
Speaker 1: I talked about how NASA launched a special spacecraft that
Speaker 1: will act as kind of like a battering ram in
Speaker 1: an effort to move an asteroid out of its orbital
Speaker 1: path around a different asteroid. This asteroid is not on
Speaker 1: any sort of collision course with the Earth, but the
Speaker 1: project is a test to see if this would be
Speaker 1: a working strategy to deflect any incoming meteor or asteroid
Speaker 1: so that it doesn't hit the Earth in the future. Well,
Speaker 1: adding onto that story is the fact that NASA has
Speaker 1: unveiled and impact monitoring algorithm called Century too, and yes,
Speaker 1: it is replacing an earlier algorithm called century So the
Speaker 1: purpose of this algorithm is to analyze the paths of
Speaker 1: any as that stands for near Earth asteroids, and then
Speaker 1: calculate impact probabilities, like what is the probability that one
Speaker 1: day this particular asteroid will collide with the Earth. Now,
Speaker 1: as we know, the Earth has been hit with massive
Speaker 1: objects from space before, so it's really just a matter
Speaker 1: of time before it happens again. However, that matter of
Speaker 1: time could be measured in millions of years. Still, it's
Speaker 1: best to know about these things as early as possible
Speaker 1: to give us the best chance to prevent an impact
Speaker 1: from happening. Century too, is meant to calculate those risks
Speaker 1: to give scientists enough warning time to develop a plan
Speaker 1: should any in e A have a high probability of
Speaker 1: colliding with the Earth. Of course, this algorithm will only
Speaker 1: work with the n e as we know about, and
Speaker 1: a lot of NASA's other work in this field is
Speaker 1: all about expanding our knowledge of the neighborhood and looking
Speaker 1: out for other possible planet party crashers. Finally, I've talked
Speaker 1: on the show several times about quantum computing and how
Speaker 1: it has the potential to revolutionize how we deal with
Speaker 1: certain computational problems. I've also mentioned that it could with
Speaker 1: the right algorithmic approach spell an end to modern cryptography. Well,
Speaker 1: now a company called Cambridge Quantum is making hay while
Speaker 1: the sun shines, announcing that it has developed a way
Speaker 1: to generate superior cryptographic keys. Now, from what I can tell,
Speaker 1: these are still traditional cryptographic keys. They're just a more
Speaker 1: robust ursion with a lot more randomness thrown in. So
Speaker 1: random number generation is a very tricky thing to do
Speaker 1: with machines. Because machines rely on sets of instructions in
Speaker 1: order to process operations, it is hard to write instructions
Speaker 1: that create randomness. Usually we just manage pseudo randomness. So
Speaker 1: in fact, you could argue that instructions are kind of
Speaker 1: anti random right they are ordered anyway, these are not
Speaker 1: quantum cryptographic keys. I did once to see a presentation
Speaker 1: about quantum cryptography that was so fascinating and incomprehensible that
Speaker 1: I cannot even start to explain it here. So this
Speaker 1: is not the cryptography of the future necessarily. However, the
Speaker 1: company does imply that its platform will generate cryptographic keys
Speaker 1: that are more secure than the ones that we typically
Speaker 1: use today, and will also be able to generate them
Speaker 1: at a rate faster than other methods. So that's pretty cool.
Speaker 1: And that's the news for Tuesday, December at the one.
Speaker 1: If you have suggestions for topics I should cover in
Speaker 1: future episodes of tech Stuff, please reach out to me.
Speaker 1: The what best way to do that is over on Twitter.
Speaker 1: The handle for the show is text Stuff H s
Speaker 1: W and I'll talk to you again really soon. 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.