Speaker 1: Welcome to Tech Stuff. I'm Os Voloshan here with Cara
Speaker 1: Price High as Hi Cara. So we've talked on the
Speaker 1: show a fair bit about facial recognition technology and the
Speaker 1: ubiquity of data scraping by private companies. It does sometimes
Speaker 1: feel a bit like we are living in a kind
Speaker 1: of science fiction movie about the population of people who
Speaker 1: are being technologically surveiled.
Speaker 2: I think the movie is called Minority Report, and we
Speaker 2: live in it right now.
Speaker 1: And over the past few months, it's become impossible to
Speaker 1: ignore how government agencies are partnering with private companies to
Speaker 1: help in the efforts to do mass deportations.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very disconcerting to read about how government agencies
Speaker 2: are using facial recognition technology to detain deput tees.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's not just facial recognition. We'll get into
Speaker 1: all the different technologies that are being used today with
Speaker 1: our friend Joseph Cox from four oho form Media. The
Speaker 1: amount of data that immigration and customs enforcement can scrape
Speaker 1: and utilize is pretty mind blowing. And on the other
Speaker 1: side of it, people have developed products to help track
Speaker 1: ice activity, but those products and apps have been removed
Speaker 1: from the Apple App Store, and also I think from
Speaker 1: the Android app stores, which limits how much people are
Speaker 1: able to use these tools.
Speaker 2: You know, how private tech companies are responding to ICE
Speaker 2: does put a spotlight on the relationship between Silicon Valley
Speaker 2: and this presidential administration.
Speaker 1: Joseph said, it's really astonishing what a different environment it
Speaker 1: is now versus the first Trump administration in that respect,
Speaker 1: which we'll get into but without further ado, here's my
Speaker 1: conversation with Joseph Cox. Thanks for joining us today.
Speaker 3: Joseph, yeah, absolutely, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: So I've got to be questions what's going on with
Speaker 1: ICE in technology and how worried should we all be
Speaker 1: about what's going on?
Speaker 3: So ICE is buying essentially every surveillance technology available under
Speaker 3: the sun. A very brief overview is facial recognition technology,
Speaker 3: social media surveillance, phone location data, spyware for hacking into
Speaker 3: phones remotely fake cell phone towers as well, if you
Speaker 3: can imagine it, and if a law enforcement agency has
Speaker 3: had it before in the US, ICE has almost certainly
Speaker 3: this point purchased it or adapted it, or is at
Speaker 3: least thinking about buying it. As for your second question,
Speaker 3: we actually just published an article today about ICE and
Speaker 3: Customs and Border Protection officials using a facial recognition app
Speaker 3: in the field on people that stops to verify their citizenship.
Speaker 3: And a lawmaker who's also been following the issue told
Speaker 3: me that ICE believes a result from this app can
Speaker 3: override a birth certificate in determining whether someone is a
Speaker 3: citizen of the United States or not. That is obviously
Speaker 3: incredibly alarming that you're going to take the results from
Speaker 3: a piece of technology and you're going to trust that
Speaker 3: and a notoriously inaccurate technology sometimes, and you're going to
Speaker 3: trust that over the piece of paper that says that
Speaker 3: somebody is a US citizen.
Speaker 1: What is the reliability of facial recognition software today?
Speaker 3: So I don't know about this specific technology it's called
Speaker 3: Mobile Fortify, but broadly, over the years, as companies and
Speaker 3: governments have been deploying and developing facial recognition technology, we've
Speaker 3: seen there are racial biases. Often because the data sets
Speaker 3: of all of these photos of faces used to train
Speaker 3: the AI or the machine learning algorithms, they don't have
Speaker 3: as many black people or brown people in them, so
Speaker 3: they can actually be very inaccurate at directly identifying people.
Speaker 3: We've seen a ton of coverage in the New York Times,
Speaker 3: for example, where people have been arrested by mistake because
Speaker 3: they believe one black man is actually another one based
Speaker 3: on the facial recognition technology. Again, I don't know the
Speaker 3: accuracy of this specific tool that ICE is using. They
Speaker 3: all do vary, but this bias, and especially racial bias,
Speaker 3: has been our longstanding criticism of facial recognition over the
Speaker 3: past five, six, even ten years.
Speaker 1: I want to get in start of the specific tools, Joseph,
Speaker 1: but before we get there, I actually several years ago
Speaker 1: hosted a podcast on a very different topic, which was
Speaker 1: called Forgotten Women at Fuarez, and it was about the
Speaker 1: femicides and murders of women on the Texas Mexico border.
Speaker 1: And one of the interesting things that came out of
Speaker 1: spending time there was how everyone on the US side
Speaker 1: of the border talks about the twenty five miles inland
Speaker 1: from the border as this kind of zone where the
Speaker 1: law that govern law enforcement don't really apply. There's all
Speaker 1: these kind of special exceptions for border enforcement and stuff,
Speaker 1: and that therefore that area became a kind of early
Speaker 1: testing ground for both actions that might be considered extra judicial,
Speaker 1: but also for technologies that the wider population wouldn't accept
Speaker 1: if they were deployed on the wider population. Are we
Speaker 1: now seeing the metastasis of the border area and the
Speaker 1: technology used to surveil it and control it across the
Speaker 1: whole country?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think absolutely. I think a concrete example would
Speaker 3: be the use of surveillance drones. Many people will associate
Speaker 3: these very large predator drones with the US War on terror,
Speaker 3: firing health fire missiles in the Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, that
Speaker 3: sort of thing. Those same drones or be unarmed have
Speaker 3: been surveiling the US Mexico border and the Canadian border
Speaker 3: as well for years and years and years. What happened
Speaker 3: now more regularly and more frequently is that DHS will
Speaker 3: fly those same high powered surveillance drones again that were
Speaker 3: designed for war zones above US cities. The most recent
Speaker 3: example of that was the La anti Ice protests and
Speaker 3: DHS flew those same drones above the city. They even
Speaker 3: published some of the footage in social media posts. And
Speaker 3: we see it in all sorts of different technology as well,
Speaker 3: maybe downloading the contents of your phone, which is very
Speaker 3: easy at a border where people have fewer rights obviously
Speaker 3: because they're crossing a border or entering or leaving. We're
Speaker 3: absolutely going to see that sort of thing proliferating. And
Speaker 3: that's one of the main worries from the surveillance experts
Speaker 3: I speak to, is this trickle down effect of well,
Speaker 3: this technology starts in an immigration context, then it goes
Speaker 3: to domestic immigration enforcement, and then it ends up with
Speaker 3: local cops or local sheriff's office.
Speaker 1: Or you hear Trump talking about having the military practiced
Speaker 1: on pops in sanctuary cities. Makes me think of Anderil,
Speaker 1: the weapons manufacturer who are doing all these drones and
Speaker 1: autonomous weapons that are being exported to Taiwan in preparation
Speaker 1: for a potential conflict there. But I believe that Anderil
Speaker 1: back in twenty sixteen developed a lot of these technologies,
Speaker 1: these weapons of wars, again starting off with border contracts.
Speaker 1: So this intersection of the tech the military and using
Speaker 1: military methods to control domestic populations, I mean, as just
Speaker 1: a set of ideas, it's quite terrifying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Andreill runs these AI powered towers all across the
Speaker 3: US Mexico border and the US Canadian border as well.
Speaker 3: They're capable of all sorts of things like AI object recognition,
Speaker 3: tracking people, tracking vehicles, alerting DHS officials, all of that
Speaker 3: sort of thing. And there is just a big shift
Speaker 3: now in Silicon Valley in the tech companies where they
Speaker 3: are more explicitly going to work with the government. Whereas
Speaker 3: before Facebook, Instagram, Meta, Twitter or whoever uber, they were
Speaker 3: very much separate from the government. We're making consumer goods,
Speaker 3: We're making an app for whatever reason. Tech companies today
Speaker 3: are not only leaning into they're very proud to work
Speaker 3: with the government. And Andrew has been a leader in that,
Speaker 3: And obviously other examples would be palanted, for example, where
Speaker 3: these companies say, this is our purpose is to protect
Speaker 3: the United States. Now, of course, how people understand what
Speaker 3: protecting the United States might actually be is obviously going
Speaker 3: to vary, especially when we talk about surveillance technology and
Speaker 3: how that's being used and who is being used against.
Speaker 1: You mentioned facial recognition. Clearview AI always seems to come
Speaker 1: up sort of as the big batter wolf of this
Speaker 1: topic area. Can you explain a bit about how that
Speaker 1: technology or that company is being used by or partnered with,
Speaker 1: the government.
Speaker 3: Yes, so we just revealed that I paid clearview AI
Speaker 3: another five million dollars for access to its technology. Ice
Speaker 3: has been contracting with Clearview for years. It's something of
Speaker 3: the established player in the government or law enforcement facial
Speaker 3: recognition space. What Clearview did several years ago was basically
Speaker 3: scrape a ton of photos of people's faces from the
Speaker 3: World Wide Web, so they're then no profiles, are social
Speaker 3: media profiles. And they made this massive database which is
Speaker 3: now something like ten billion images, and they allowed people
Speaker 3: to upload a photo and we will then show you
Speaker 3: similar photos, probably of the same person, and you can
Speaker 3: then figure out who this person is. And when it
Speaker 3: was revealed by The New York Times several years ago,
Speaker 3: that was really crossing the line, like Facebook could have
Speaker 3: done this, and although they had facial recognition technology, it
Speaker 3: was to tag people, you know, when you tag your
Speaker 3: friends and your photos. It wasn't to unmask strangers. Google
Speaker 3: could have done it. They said, this is two dangerous,
Speaker 3: we don't want to Clearview cross that line. And incredibly
Speaker 3: controversial all the time, still controversial now, but it's almost
Speaker 3: normal now. There are Clearview contracts every single day essentially
Speaker 3: where local cops are already using that, sheriff's offices are
Speaker 3: or using that, and ICE is absolutely using it as well.
Speaker 3: With this latest contract. Ice spent this five million dollars
Speaker 3: in part because it believes it can use facial recognition
Speaker 3: technology to unmask the people that it believes are quote,
Speaker 3: assaulting officers.
Speaker 1: So that's facial recognition. There's also location tracking. Talk about flock.
Speaker 3: Flock is an interesting company. A lot of people may
Speaker 3: have actually heard about it because it is proliferated around
Speaker 3: local communities. And what they do is they sell these
Speaker 3: cameras to police departments or homeowner associations or neighborhoods or
Speaker 3: city governments or whatever. And these cameras they sit stationary
Speaker 3: at the road and they continuously scan every vehicle that
Speaker 3: goes by. That will be the model of the car,
Speaker 3: the brand, the color, and most importantly the license plate.
Speaker 3: And this creates this vast surveillance network that law enforcement
Speaker 3: officers can tap into without a warrant. Typically you enter
Speaker 3: xyz license plate, it shows you all the locations this
Speaker 3: vehicle has been and.
Speaker 1: Do you have to be law enforce where anyone can
Speaker 1: use this?
Speaker 3: If your homeowners association, it's going to be the authorized
Speaker 3: user of that particular homeowners association or that neighborhood or something.
Speaker 3: It's similar to a ring camera. In a way, but
Speaker 3: you're not going to be able to access all of
Speaker 3: the data.
Speaker 1: I couldn't if I was a stalker and know my
Speaker 1: ex's number plate and therefore track them around the country
Speaker 1: as an individual person. But as a member of law enforcement,
Speaker 1: I could.
Speaker 3: Yes. Essentially yes, and law enforcement have access to this
Speaker 3: sort of additional capability, which is the National Lookup Tool,
Speaker 3: where a cop, say in Texas, can search cameras in
Speaker 3: Illinois or California. And that's not even a hypothetic example.
Speaker 3: We actually reported that a law enforcement office in Texas
Speaker 3: searched for a woman who self administered an abortion, and
Speaker 3: it searched cameras all over the country, and crucially, we
Speaker 3: found cops were performing lookups for ICE in this tool.
Speaker 3: We got these spreadsheets has said all the reasons why,
Speaker 3: and you scroll through them and some just say ICE,
Speaker 3: some say immigration or immigration enforcement. Immigration protest was another
Speaker 3: one as well, and that was already rarely interesting enough,
Speaker 3: and Flock made serious changes after we revealed that, But
Speaker 3: we then also learned that ICE actually had direct access
Speaker 3: as well. They didn't even have to go through the cops,
Speaker 3: and that's apparently stopped now, But ICE were getting access
Speaker 3: to that system through a side door via local police,
Speaker 3: but then also just direct access as well, so you've.
Speaker 1: Got facial rehognition, license plate tracking, and then we have
Speaker 1: this sort of system that sits even above, which is
Speaker 1: the investigative case management you mentioned Palentier earlier. This is
Speaker 1: this a Palentier product.
Speaker 3: So it started as DHS project and it's basically a
Speaker 3: centralized database and you look into it and you can
Speaker 3: look up a person that is their name, social Security number,
Speaker 3: maybe identifying features like tattoos or scars, that sort of thing.
Speaker 3: Palenteer then started work on that, and this was years
Speaker 3: and years ago. They've been doing this for something like
Speaker 3: ten years at this point. But then with the second
Speaker 3: Trump administration, something changed and it became clear that ICE
Speaker 3: and DHS more broadly needed this tool to be a
Speaker 3: bit more powerful, which is where they brought in Palenteer
Speaker 3: to actually take over the development, not just the maintenance,
Speaker 3: of this project. And that's how we come to immigration OS, which,
Speaker 3: according to material I got leaked from inside Palenteer, is
Speaker 3: designed to make it much easier to find the physical
Speaker 3: location of aliens. Of course, the US government's terms for
Speaker 3: immigrants essentially we don't know all of the different data
Speaker 3: that's going into this system alan to their entire the
Speaker 3: entire purpose of their existence is to match together all
Speaker 3: of this different sorts of data from all over the
Speaker 3: place and make it intelligible and readable for government customers.
Speaker 3: So we can assume that Immigration OS is probably bringing
Speaker 3: data from all over the place into an interface that
Speaker 3: ICE or DHS can use to I mean, essentially track
Speaker 3: down people at least recording some TIRA.
Speaker 1: I got interesting. One of my dear friends and board
Speaker 1: members at Kaleidoscope is a man called Stuart Carl who's
Speaker 1: a First Amendment lawyer. He was actually the general counselor
Speaker 1: for the Wall Street Journal for many years, and now
Speaker 1: he teaches at Columbia Journalism School, and he advised students
Speaker 1: basically to avoid posting on social media who are not
Speaker 1: US citizens about political matters at least until after they graduate.
Speaker 1: I think his point was get your degree that you've
Speaker 1: come for, and then decide where you want to draw
Speaker 1: your line. He got a lot of blowback for that,
Speaker 1: and there was debate and a York Time story about it.
Speaker 1: But this idea of second guessing what you post on
Speaker 1: social media in the current political environment, I mean, how
Speaker 1: programmatic is social media scrapian analysis versus opportunistic when they
Speaker 1: already want to build a case against somebody.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they do it in several different ways, but broadly,
Speaker 3: you have right wing agitators who are constantly going through
Speaker 3: social media Twitter, Instagram. Whatever they see something they don't like,
Speaker 3: they flag it to the administration. And we have several
Speaker 3: very high profile right wing social media personalities who are
Speaker 3: clearly doing that, and they're emitting as much on their
Speaker 3: own social media. The other side are these technological tools
Speaker 3: which ICE has, Customs and Border Protection has, and the
Speaker 3: State Department I believe has as well, and these are
Speaker 3: broadly speaking AI powers. They say they can make decisions
Speaker 3: or inferences based on somebody's profile, what they've posted, the
Speaker 3: location they've done it from, and all of that sort
Speaker 3: of thing. Again, already a black box. We're also trying
Speaker 3: to look at a black box from the outside, so
Speaker 3: it's doubly opaque about what is actually going on. But
Speaker 3: what we do know is that these government agencies SUS
Speaker 3: spend millions and millions of dollars on social media surveillance tools.
Speaker 3: We just don't know exactly how it goes from post
Speaker 3: to visa being taken away. But the threat is absolutely
Speaker 3: there that if you say something that the administration does
Speaker 3: not agree with, there's every chance that some sort of
Speaker 3: pretense will be used to revoke you your immigration status.
Speaker 1: You know. As this sort of ice crisis royals the country.
Speaker 1: There are certain courts that are fighting back. I mean
Speaker 1: recently in Chicago, one of the judges basically hauled in
Speaker 1: the local head of border patrol and said, you know,
Speaker 1: you have to come and report to me every single
Speaker 1: day at six pm and what you're doing. You can't
Speaker 1: throw tear gas into crowds where children are about to
Speaker 1: arrive with the warning, etc.
Speaker 3: Etc.
Speaker 1: And essentially kind of insisted on some kind of role
Speaker 1: for judiciary in managing the behavior or the illegal behavior
Speaker 1: or the potentially illegal behavior of some officials. How's that
Speaker 1: playing out in the tech realm, That's a.
Speaker 3: Very good question, actually, Yeah. And with the court stuff, obviously,
Speaker 3: that is the American system working as intenders, where you
Speaker 3: have all of these different branches of government and all
Speaker 3: of these other things, like the courts, and they provide
Speaker 3: these checks and balances. That doesn't exist really for the
Speaker 3: private surveillance tech social media industry. We have had impact
Speaker 3: through our reporting. Again, our reporting or FLOCK ended up
Speaker 3: with the company removing California, Illinois, and I think a
Speaker 3: couple more states from its National Lookup TOL, meaning ICE
Speaker 3: can no longer access those through the police, and then
Speaker 3: FLOCK also stopped. It's more direct sharing with ICE and
Speaker 3: Customs and Border Protection as well. There has been some
Speaker 3: pressure from Democrats on House committees looking into the facial
Speaker 3: recognition side as well after our reporting. That being said,
Speaker 3: accountability looks very very different in the second of Trump administration,
Speaker 3: where you have masked agents, you have officials physically assaulting
Speaker 3: people in the corridors of court rooms in New York
Speaker 3: and then two days later they're back at work. Accountability
Speaker 3: looks very very different here. And for the tech stuff,
Speaker 3: the accountability comes from the outside. It's not really from government,
Speaker 3: because of course the government wants to work for these companies.
Speaker 3: It can come from inside where people are clearly annoyed
Speaker 3: inside Pale or Flock and then they'll provide information to me.
Speaker 3: But it looks very very different to as you say,
Speaker 3: taking a senior official in front of a judge and
Speaker 3: having him report every day. It's just a completely different environment.
Speaker 1: After the break the people fighting back against the ICE
Speaker 1: surveillance state stay with us. There is also resistance tech.
Speaker 1: I'm very curious to hear about ice block. I mean,
Speaker 1: our producer Eliza made an interesting point that, you know,
Speaker 1: after the California fires, there was this great interest in
Speaker 1: funding fire watching apps and early warning systems, and there's
Speaker 1: also an explosion of apps around helping communities avoid ice
Speaker 1: round apps and stuff that it will be fair, they
Speaker 1: didn't receive the same funding attention. Talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about these apps and the resistance to them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so ice block is the most prominent one. It
Speaker 3: was launched earlier this year. People only really started to
Speaker 3: pay attention in around June when CNN covered the app.
Speaker 3: And all ice block does is it allows people to
Speaker 3: report sightings of ICE officials in their local proximity. It
Speaker 3: uses the location data off your iPhone. It was only
Speaker 3: on iPhone. It wasn't on Android for privacy reasons, is
Speaker 3: what the developer told me. And if you see an
Speaker 3: ICE official or some sort of ICE raid within five
Speaker 3: miles of you or whatever, you can report it and
Speaker 3: then other people around the area will receive a push alert.
Speaker 3: It's rarely similar to ring the neighborhood app or even
Speaker 3: a citizen or something like that. All the fire watching
Speaker 3: apps you mentioned as well. Time goes on. The DOJ
Speaker 3: does not like that CNN has reported this and amplified it.
Speaker 3: The DOJ even says it's trying to find a way
Speaker 3: to charge CNN. Obviously that didn't come to anything at
Speaker 3: least yet. But fast forward to September and there is
Speaker 3: a horrible shooting at an ICE facility where a gunman
Speaker 3: shoots at the facility and he hits free detainees. I
Speaker 3: believe two died and one survived. When authorities looking to
Speaker 3: that person, they look at his phone and they find
Speaker 3: that that person was searching for ice spotting apps explicitly
Speaker 3: ice block. The DOJ and Pambondi, the Attorney General then
Speaker 3: uses that as a justification to go to Apple and say, look,
Speaker 3: you have to remove this app. This is encouraging violence
Speaker 3: against ICE officials. Putting aside the fact that obviously ICE
Speaker 3: officials are going to be an ICE facility, I don't
Speaker 3: think you need an app to determine that. But Apple
Speaker 3: gives in and it removes not just that app, but
Speaker 3: a host of other ones at the explicit request of
Speaker 3: the US Department of Justice. Now Apple removes and Google
Speaker 3: removes apps every single day for doing sketchy or weird
Speaker 3: or misleading stuff. It is an entirely different thing for
Speaker 3: the US government to go and say remove this app,
Speaker 3: especially when that app was actually facilitating First Amendment protected
Speaker 3: speech as well. This is not illegal to report where
Speaker 3: law enforcement are. That's a core tenant of the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's kind of extraordinary. I want to help people
Speaker 1: look back on this time. I mean, obviously, people who
Speaker 1: are rich and powerful like getting richer and more powerful.
Speaker 1: But the capitulation every step of the way of private companies,
Speaker 1: especially tech companies, to these requests and mandates, it's quite extraordinary.
Speaker 1: I wonder how it will be judged by history.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I remember in the first Trump administration, I feel
Speaker 3: like there was so much more pushback from tech companies,
Speaker 3: you know, even surveillance companies as well. I think Amazon
Speaker 3: stopped selling its facial recognition technology to law enforcement agencies
Speaker 3: for a period of time as well. That has completely
Speaker 3: gone Now. It is absolute capitulation to the government. It
Speaker 3: is doing whatever they want. It is not really pushing back.
Speaker 3: I mean Apple removes that app. You know, a few
Speaker 3: weeks earlier or whatever it was, Tim Cook was giving
Speaker 3: Trump a golden statue of the Apple logo or whatever.
Speaker 3: Another example is that DHS right now is using a
Speaker 3: lot of memes from the Halo video game franchise which
Speaker 3: are dehumanizing immigrants and basically comparing them to like an
Speaker 3: alien parasite. Microsoft hasn't responded to that. Microsoft hasn't, you know,
Speaker 3: asked them to take it down. It's an entirely different
Speaker 3: environment now than it was in the first Trump administration
Speaker 3: where it comes to tech and even just business right
Speaker 3: and private companies.
Speaker 1: So who's fighting back? I mean, there's Joshua Aaron who
Speaker 1: founded the ice block app. Where is their resistance to this?
Speaker 1: And also what the normal people do in their daily
Speaker 1: lives to protect themselves from the reach of some of
Speaker 1: these technologies and keep themselves safe.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean there's a lot of different things people
Speaker 3: are doing. There are other apps similar to ice Block.
Speaker 3: There was one called eyes up. There was just cataloging
Speaker 3: videos of ice abuses. I wasn't even tracking the physical
Speaker 3: location of people. That developer who he only gave me
Speaker 3: his first name, Mark, but he's doing work in his
Speaker 3: own way.
Speaker 2: There.
Speaker 3: You even have states like New York State is basically
Speaker 3: building it's equivalent of that, which is, hey, if you
Speaker 3: have videos of abuses by ICE, send them to us,
Speaker 3: Like there will be consequences for this later. So people
Speaker 3: right now are thinking about, well, how do we collect
Speaker 3: evidence for accountability later? Like it can't happen now. There's
Speaker 3: no real way to hold a ICE agent who maybe
Speaker 3: detains a US citizen unlawfully to account because they're masks,
Speaker 3: and there's this complete culture of we're just going to
Speaker 3: do whatever we want. But people are preparing for that.
Speaker 3: As for the second part of your questions and what
Speaker 3: people can do to protect their privacy, I mean, it
Speaker 3: really depends on the technology, but I would sort of
Speaker 3: suggest some of the normal stuff when it comes to
Speaker 3: tracking mobile phones, which is, keep the phone fully up
Speaker 3: to date, uninstall sketchy apps, don't give location permissions. Of course,
Speaker 3: there's lots more you could do, and it's going to
Speaker 3: depend upon your individe your use case. So you a
Speaker 3: lawyer defending immigrants, so you're a journalist, are you an
Speaker 3: activists whatever? So people should do their own research. But
Speaker 3: there are things that people can do if they think
Speaker 3: it's appropriate.
Speaker 1: Joseph thank you, Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: That's it for this week for tech Stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm Cara Price and I'm os Vlocian. This episode was
Speaker 1: produced by Eliza Dennis, Tyler Hill and Melissa Slaughter. It
Speaker 1: was executive produced by me Cara Price, Julia Nutter, and
Speaker 1: Kate Osborne for Kaleidisco and Katrina nor velve iHeart Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Jack Insley mixed this up. Kyle Murdoch wrote our theme song.
Speaker 2: Join us on Friday for the Week in Tech, where
Speaker 2: we'll run through the headlines.
Speaker 1: You need to follow, and please do rate and review
Speaker 1: the show and reach out to us at tech Stuff
Speaker 1: podcast at gmail dot com. We want to hear from you.