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 or Tuesday,
Speaker 1: March fourteenth, two thousand twenty three, and first up, Happy
Speaker 1: pie Day, everybody. That's three fourteen Pie Day, at least
Speaker 1: the way we do dates here in the United States.
Speaker 1: All Right, Today, we're going to be looking at a
Speaker 1: lot of updates to stories that we've been following for
Speaker 1: a while. I should probably start by saying that the
Speaker 1: collapse of Silicon Valley Bank or SVB and the US
Speaker 1: government's response to guaranteed depositors access to their funds continues
Speaker 1: to arguably be the biggest story right now at the moment.
Speaker 1: There are countless articles and explainers on it, including yesterday's
Speaker 1: episode of this very podcast. So if you want to
Speaker 1: know more, you can listen to yesterday's episode. I talk
Speaker 1: all about the bank and what led to the collapse.
Speaker 1: I will say that it was pretty interesting to see
Speaker 1: a bunch of important folks in tech and investment cry
Speaker 1: out for a bailout when some of these folks are
Speaker 1: the same who will typically criticize those kinds of decisions.
Speaker 1: I guess when it's your money, it's important enough for
Speaker 1: a bailout, but if it's someone else's money, they should
Speaker 1: have known better. Anyway, I'm grateful that the relief provided
Speaker 1: by the government means that folks who work for companies
Speaker 1: that banked with SVB can continue to be paid, because
Speaker 1: goodness knows, none of this is their fault. Also to
Speaker 1: those same tech billionaires who helped fuel the panic that
Speaker 1: led to the collapse in the first place, you're all idiots.
Speaker 1: I know that's just an opinion, but at this point
Speaker 1: I feel like I could say, like it's a fact
Speaker 1: they fueled the crisis that they were scared of, Like
Speaker 1: they are the reason why it happened. Their attempts to
Speaker 1: avoid the problem created the problem. All right, enough of that.
Speaker 1: Earlier today, news broke that Meta plans another round of layoffs,
Speaker 1: this time affecting around ten thousand staff. Last year, Meta
Speaker 1: laid off eleven thousand employees. These new layoffs are going
Speaker 1: to stretch over the next few months. Mark Zuckerberg explained
Speaker 1: that the company is restructuring and will be quote focused
Speaker 1: on flattening our organs, canceling lower priority projects, and reducing
Speaker 1: our hiring rates end quote. The earlier round of layoffs
Speaker 1: last year already took a big swing at reducing the
Speaker 1: vertical dimensions of Meta's hierarchy, you know, flattening it out.
Speaker 1: So it sounds to me like this move is really
Speaker 1: going to affect middle management a lot. Zuckerberg also wore
Speaker 1: that he suspects the economic conditions that we're in right
Speaker 1: now could continue for several years. Apparently, one area of
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg is still gung ho on supporting would be any
Speaker 1: area relating to the Metaverse initiative, including augmented and virtual
Speaker 1: reality projects. And maybe those projects really will pay off
Speaker 1: in the long run. And maybe I'm just a negative
Speaker 1: nancy about this whole thing, but if you've been listening
Speaker 1: to tech stuff, you know I've been worried about it.
Speaker 1: I've been worried about the potential for success down the road,
Speaker 1: and also worried about it creating an even deeper and
Speaker 1: wider digital divide than what already exists. To put a
Speaker 1: cherry on top of all this, After this announcement with public,
Speaker 1: Meta's stock price rose by around five percent and here's
Speaker 1: where you can just insert a random rant by yours
Speaker 1: truly about how layoffs often make investors happy because they
Speaker 1: look at it as reduced costs and thus more profit.
Speaker 1: But I know I'm a broken record, so we'll just
Speaker 1: keep ongoing. Sticking with Meta, the company has warned the
Speaker 1: Canadian government that should the government pass the proposed Online
Speaker 1: News Act, Meta will block links to news sites on
Speaker 1: Instagram and Facebook in Canada. So this is similar to
Speaker 1: a situation that unfolded in Australia. And what we have
Speaker 1: here is a pretty complicated situation, all right. So let's
Speaker 1: start with this proposed law. It would allow media companies
Speaker 1: to negotiate with platforms like Facebook to secure a revenue
Speaker 1: sharing agreement for links to news sources on Facebook. So
Speaker 1: when links to news sources appear on Facebook, the revenue
Speaker 1: that Facebook generates from people scrolling through all of that
Speaker 1: would be shared some percentage of that would be shared
Speaker 1: with the media companies. The media companies are arguing that
Speaker 1: their work is showing up on Facebook, which means the
Speaker 1: content is being seen by Facebook users and presumably adding
Speaker 1: value to their Facebook experience. But the media companies aren't
Speaker 1: seeing any rev share for their content being shown on
Speaker 1: Facebook's platform. And yes, if someone does click through the
Speaker 1: link and goes to the article, well then the media
Speaker 1: company gets the page impression that way, right, like they
Speaker 1: get the little counter goes up by one. But the
Speaker 1: media companies are saying that they're providing value to platforms
Speaker 1: like Facebook, but they're not getting the rev share back
Speaker 1: in return, so that Meta is profiting off of the
Speaker 1: media companies without giving anything back. And Meta's argument is, hey,
Speaker 1: we don't post those links. That's not us. Those are
Speaker 1: posted by our users, and we can't be held accountable
Speaker 1: for what our users post. So as long as those
Speaker 1: posts don't violate any of our policies, it's allowed. That's
Speaker 1: on the user. And essentially Meta is saying that the
Speaker 1: company is exploiting these news sources at all because they're
Speaker 1: not the ones posting them. On top of all this,
Speaker 1: we have the very real problem of funding for journalism.
Speaker 1: That there's a lack of funding, and that lack of
Speaker 1: funding means that in the absence of good journalism, we
Speaker 1: end up with bad, cheaper journalism, and that in turn
Speaker 1: means people are less informed overall, and they're more likely
Speaker 1: to encounter misinformation and bias and propaganda and that collectively
Speaker 1: this represents a decline in the public good. So, like
Speaker 1: I said, this is a complicated situation. I honestly don't
Speaker 1: know what the right approach is now. Down in Australia,
Speaker 1: META eventually agreed with a final version of a similar law.
Speaker 1: Results there have been mixed. I wouldn't say that it
Speaker 1: was a huge success on either side, and META seems
Speaker 1: determined to fight similar legislation in Canada and here in
Speaker 1: the United States. So we'll have to see where this goes.
Speaker 1: And again, I don't know what the right way forward
Speaker 1: is here. This one is really complicated. Okay, pop quiz time.
Speaker 1: What do the United States, Taiwan, India, Canada, the European
Speaker 1: Union and the Netherlands, which I understand is in the EU,
Speaker 1: but this is a little bit different. What do they
Speaker 1: all have in common? Well, all of these countries and
Speaker 1: the EU have banned TikTok to some extent on the
Speaker 1: grounds of national security concerns. Most of those countries and
Speaker 1: organizations have restricted the band to government owned devices, so
Speaker 1: that just means that government employees are not allowed to
Speaker 1: install TikTok on their work device, but they could still
Speaker 1: put it on their personal device if they wanted to.
Speaker 1: India did go a little harder on this, but then
Speaker 1: India has also been banning China based apps for a
Speaker 1: while and has had border disputes with China in the
Speaker 1: recent past, so you know, you can see where that
Speaker 1: would be a more extreme stance than in other countries. Well. Now,
Speaker 1: the regional government of New South Wales in Australia may
Speaker 1: soon be joining this list of government agencies that ban
Speaker 1: the use of TikTok on government owned devices. The Guardian
Speaker 1: reports that while there is a policy that requires government
Speaker 1: employees to clear any app with their superiors before they
Speaker 1: can install it on a government owned device, there is
Speaker 1: no policy specifically about TikTok, but this could potentially change
Speaker 1: at the moment. Each department within the New South Wales
Speaker 1: government has the authority to decide its own policies, so
Speaker 1: it's kind of a department by department basis, but there
Speaker 1: could potentially be a government wide band that would trickle
Speaker 1: down to every single department. That as a possibility. Apparently,
Speaker 1: New South Wales is also looking at the overall Government
Speaker 1: of Australia for some guidance on this as well, so
Speaker 1: we'll have to see if New South Wales joins the list.
Speaker 1: Ours Technica, which is one of my favorite websites. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm being serious here. It is fantastic stick. It has
Speaker 1: a great piece titled why Sony says it can't trust
Speaker 1: Microsoft's Call of Duty offer? One word Bethesda. So this
Speaker 1: all has to do with the planned acquisition of Activision
Speaker 1: Blizzard by the aforementioned Microsoft. You might remember that Microsoft
Speaker 1: announced this planned deal last year and that the companies
Speaker 1: had hoped to complete the acquisition by this summer. Activision
Speaker 1: Blizzard produces several popular video game franchises, including Call of Duty,
Speaker 1: and this has prompted Sony to protest vociferously to this acquisition,
Speaker 1: and Sony has been lobbying regulators in the EU to
Speaker 1: block the acquisition from happening, saying that it would be
Speaker 1: a reduction in competition and create an unfair monopoly situation
Speaker 1: with Microsoft. Now currently, regulators in the EU are considering
Speaker 1: Microsoft's appeal that's designed to try and rescue this deal.
Speaker 1: The decision on that is supposed to be made by
Speaker 1: late April. Microsoft says that it has extended an offer
Speaker 1: a guarantee that Microsoft will produce Call of Duty for
Speaker 1: Sony's own consoles and release the title on the same
Speaker 1: day and date as when it will come out for
Speaker 1: Microsoft's consoles as well as PCs, so another word saying
Speaker 1: Sony will get the equal access to the titles. There
Speaker 1: would be nothing different about them. They won't be inferior.
Speaker 1: They'll come out the same day. We will put this
Speaker 1: agreement in writing and we will guarantee it for ten years.
Speaker 1: Sony's argument is that Microsoft has already shown its hand
Speaker 1: with Bethesda, which is another game producer that Microsoft previously acquired,
Speaker 1: and Sony's pointing out that Microsoft has announced that of
Speaker 1: coming Bethesda titles like Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls
Speaker 1: game are going to be exclusive to PC's and Xbox consoles,
Speaker 1: that Sony console owners will not get access to these games,
Speaker 1: and that this shows how Microsoft you can't take them
Speaker 1: at their word. Microsoft is like, hey, we never once
Speaker 1: said that we were not going to do that with Bethesda.
Speaker 1: We never made a promise. The EU regulators kind of
Speaker 1: assumed that that was what Microsoft was going to do,
Speaker 1: that it was going to have these out for all
Speaker 1: the platforms, but Microsoft never actually said that. They're like,
Speaker 1: but this time we are saying that, so you can't
Speaker 1: say that we were dishonest because we never made a
Speaker 1: claim otherwise. And in this case, we are putting down
Speaker 1: and writing this agreement. So it's a pretty complicated and
Speaker 1: highly charged conversation going on, and I recommend you go
Speaker 1: check out the piece in Ours Technica if you want
Speaker 1: to learn more. Again, it's really well done. It's called
Speaker 1: why Sony says it can't trust Microsoft's call of duty?
Speaker 1: Offer one word, Bethesda. Okay, we're going to take a
Speaker 1: quick break. When we come back, we've got some more
Speaker 1: news to talk about, all right. Next up, Insider reports
Speaker 1: that the law firm Edelson has filed a class action
Speaker 1: lawsuit against the AI company Do Not Pay. Now, y'all
Speaker 1: might remember that Do Not Pays CEO Joshua Browder has
Speaker 1: made some big claims slash publicity stunts relating to his
Speaker 1: company's AI system, which is meant to assist people in
Speaker 1: doing stuff like drafting legal documents and fight parking tickets.
Speaker 1: In this kind of thing, it's been around since like
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen. The class action lawsuit alleges that Do not
Speaker 1: Pay is performing legal duties without first securing a law
Speaker 1: degree or a license. Further, that the tool is not
Speaker 1: subjected to any supervision by a real lawyer, and that
Speaker 1: the whole thing has not ever been barred in any jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: Barred in this case doesn't mean prevented. It means the
Speaker 1: service has not asked the bar to serve as legal
Speaker 1: counsel in any jurisdiction. This is something lawyers have to do.
Speaker 1: Just because you're a lawyer in one jurisdiction doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that you can practice law in another one. You have
Speaker 1: to pass the bar in that jurisdiction. So, as a result,
Speaker 1: the law firm Edelson is saying do not Pay is
Speaker 1: practicing law without a license. Browler says his company will
Speaker 1: fight the lawsuit, and that the whole reason he believes
Speaker 1: in the company in the first place is that he
Speaker 1: sees lawyers as manipulating and monopolizing the legal system to
Speaker 1: benefit themselves rather than their clients. Essentially, that lawyers exist
Speaker 1: to make lawyers rich, and that your average citizen ends
Speaker 1: up being the victim of this legal system, and that
Speaker 1: do not Pay was meant to provide an alternative to
Speaker 1: securing a lawyer. But then the law firm is saying, well,
Speaker 1: that may be true, but you know, you still have
Speaker 1: to play by the rules, and you're not, so we'll
Speaker 1: see where this goes from here. A ransomware group called alphv,
Speaker 1: which uses malware that's called black Cat, claims that it
Speaker 1: has compromised Amazon's ring as the doorbell security camera system.
Speaker 1: It's been controversial because of reports that Amazon was sharing
Speaker 1: video from customer ring cameras to law enforcement without the
Speaker 1: input of customers. They're a whole thing about that, but anyway,
Speaker 1: Amazon itself says that it doesn't have any evidence of
Speaker 1: a data breach in its systems, that this ransomware group
Speaker 1: did not breach Amazon systems, but that they did attack
Speaker 1: a third party vendor and further indicated that this vendor
Speaker 1: does not actually have access to customer records. So apparently
Speaker 1: there was a successful ransomware attack. It was to a
Speaker 1: third party vendor relating to Amazon's Ring product, but according
Speaker 1: to Amazon, it's not Amazon itself. It is not quite
Speaker 1: clear what information the hackers were able to access. They
Speaker 1: are threatening to leak that data should there demands not
Speaker 1: being met. This is where I remind everyone it's always
Speaker 1: a bad idea to pay off ransomware hackers because paying
Speaker 1: a ransom proofs that the attack is profitable. It encourages
Speaker 1: future attacks against you and others because it worked. Plus
Speaker 1: there's never a guarantee that the attackers are actually going
Speaker 1: to abandon plans to exploit compromise data down the road.
Speaker 1: They might just engage in some double dipping as it were. Also,
Speaker 1: always practice good security protocol most of the time. Not
Speaker 1: all the time, but most of the time. These attacks
Speaker 1: come as the result of someone handing over access because
Speaker 1: of a phishing attack or social engineering, So just practice
Speaker 1: good security. That cuts back on a lot of these attacks,
Speaker 1: not all of them. Some hackers are more clever and
Speaker 1: find different ways to intrude on systems, but it will
Speaker 1: cut back on a lot of them. India's IT Ministry
Speaker 1: has proposed rules that will require smartphone companies and carriers
Speaker 1: to make it possible for users to uninstall any preinstalled
Speaker 1: apps on a smartphone, and then new smartphones will have
Speaker 1: to be submitted to a government standards agency to make
Speaker 1: sure that they meet whatever those security standards are. So
Speaker 1: the reason the ministry gives for this move is related
Speaker 1: to national security. So the argument is that if phone
Speaker 1: manufacturers like Apple make it impossible to uninstall certain apps,
Speaker 1: maybe even just a small number of them. Well, those
Speaker 1: apps become prime targets for hackers because the hackers know
Speaker 1: that everyone who has, say an iPhone, is definitely going
Speaker 1: to have the phone app on that iPhone because it's
Speaker 1: you can't uninstall it. So if you know that everybody
Speaker 1: who has that kind of phone is going to have
Speaker 1: the specific app that gives you a target to aim for,
Speaker 1: you try and find a vulnerability in that app that
Speaker 1: you can exploit and potentially access any phone that has
Speaker 1: that app on it. So the I Ministry solution is
Speaker 1: to make every app uninstallable so that users could choose
Speaker 1: a different app that has the exact same functionality to
Speaker 1: handle those services. This would be a pretty big move
Speaker 1: and it would potentially mean that, you know, in the future,
Speaker 1: India iPhone owners could do something unprecedented that replace the
Speaker 1: phone app with a third party option, not just adding
Speaker 1: an option, but removing the native Apple phone capabilities. Should
Speaker 1: these rules go into affect, India will give manufacturers a
Speaker 1: year to comply. Reportedly, the meetings that were held about
Speaker 1: these rules included representatives from the major manufacturing companies, including Apple,
Speaker 1: So yeah, really interesting to see where this goes from here. Finally,
Speaker 1: there's some hubbub surrounding a Samsun feature introduced in the
Speaker 1: Galaxy S twenty Ultra smartphone. It's also in the S
Speaker 1: twenty one. The feature is called space Zoom, and the
Speaker 1: way Samsung claims it works is that you take your
Speaker 1: smartphone right, and you point that son of a gun
Speaker 1: at that thar moon and you take a photo using
Speaker 1: the space Zoom feature, which Samsung casually calls the one
Speaker 1: hundred x space zoom. So presumably this means you could
Speaker 1: take a photo at one hundred times magnification and then
Speaker 1: this app this feature, the space Zoom feature, according to Samsung,
Speaker 1: captures a whole bunch of photos in quick succession, so
Speaker 1: it takes a ton of pictures of the Moon in
Speaker 1: just a split second, right, and then it uses AI
Speaker 1: to take the best features of each photo and stitch
Speaker 1: together a high quality image of the Moon so that
Speaker 1: you get a much higher resolution picture of it. You
Speaker 1: can see things like craters and stuff. So while the
Speaker 1: preview image might just look okay, the final photo could
Speaker 1: be pretty stunning, which is really cool, right, except there
Speaker 1: are folks claiming that this is not what Samsung is
Speaker 1: actually doing. They claim instead that Samsung is using neural
Speaker 1: links and massive database of photos of the Moon that
Speaker 1: we're taken by high resolution telescopes, like a whole database
Speaker 1: of high resolution moon photography, and they're using that as
Speaker 1: reference material, and that the AI is not combining a
Speaker 1: bunch of photos that you took. Instead, what it's doing
Speaker 1: is it's applying textures and sharpening features on the image
Speaker 1: you took using AI, using the pre existing high definition
Speaker 1: photographs as reference material. So the argument is that Samsung
Speaker 1: is using false advertising when it comes to how this
Speaker 1: feature actually works. So instead of it being this cool
Speaker 1: kind of in camera system that's paired with AI to
Speaker 1: create the best possible photo, it's more like it's a
Speaker 1: photoshop by AI feature. So yeah, clever Samsung. All right,
Speaker 1: that wraps up this episode of stuff. Hope you are
Speaker 1: all well. If you have suggestions for future topics, reach
Speaker 1: out to me. You can do so on Twitter. They
Speaker 1: handle for the show is tech Stuff HSW or you
Speaker 1: can let me know on the iHeartRadio app. It's free
Speaker 1: to download and use. Just navigate over to tech Stuff
Speaker 1: use that little microphone icon you see. You can leave
Speaker 1: a thirty second voice message for me. Let me know
Speaker 1: what you would like to hear in a future episode,
Speaker 1: and I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff
Speaker 1: is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.