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. But you can call
Speaker 1: me Techno King. I hear that that that title is
Speaker 1: actually already taken. This is the tech news for Tuesday,
Speaker 1: March twenty one. An internet security company called e set
Speaker 1: that's e s e T reports that several well funded
Speaker 1: hacking groups, perhaps as many as six, we're actively exploiting
Speaker 1: the zero day vulnerabilities in the Microsoft Exchange Server product.
Speaker 1: I reported on this problem last week, and now it
Speaker 1: appears as though it's gotten much more serious than it
Speaker 1: was first reported. Previously, micros often said it had detected
Speaker 1: the Chinese backed hacking group Halfnium, that that was the
Speaker 1: group that had taken advantage of the vulnerabilities in the software.
Speaker 1: Set says it wasn't just Halfnium, but also hacker groups
Speaker 1: called calypso w, Nitty Group, web Sick, Lucky Mouse, and Tick.
Speaker 1: The Register reports that a cybersecurity researcher in Taiwan with
Speaker 1: the handle orange Sigh discover the vulnerability way back on
Speaker 1: December and had even built an exploit that would give
Speaker 1: a hacker the ability to perform a remote code execution
Speaker 1: attack on a targeted system with the vulnerable software in place.
Speaker 1: Now that security speak, that means it would give hackers
Speaker 1: the opportunity to run processes on a targeted computer. So
Speaker 1: you could compromise a machine and then have it execute
Speaker 1: other code and thus get even further control over the device.
Speaker 1: Orange Side had actually built out such a potential attack
Speaker 1: vector by January one, But this hacker wasn't actually looking
Speaker 1: to cause damage. Instead, it was to see if those
Speaker 1: vulnerabilities could be exploited in this way. They could, so
Speaker 1: he reported his discovery to Microsoft on January five, and
Speaker 1: then he worked with Microsoft employees to draft a report
Speaker 1: that was then sent to the company's primary security partners
Speaker 1: around the world. That was sent out on February twenty three.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, half of the hum exploited those same
Speaker 1: vulnerabilities way back on January three, and a second wave
Speaker 1: of attacks happened five days after Microsoft sentence report, So
Speaker 1: the timing raises some questions. As pointed out in the register,
Speaker 1: it's possible that all of these groups independently found the
Speaker 1: same vulnerabilities and exploited them. It's also possible that there
Speaker 1: was a lot of cooperation between those groups of hackers,
Speaker 1: or it might even be possible that the later five
Speaker 1: hacking groups learned about the vulnerability from the February twenty
Speaker 1: three report, or maybe even we're spying on the the
Speaker 1: Microsoft team and Orange Size as they were drafting their report.
Speaker 1: We just don't know the timing. But whatever the case,
Speaker 1: it was bad. Something odd happened on Twitter over the weekend. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: many odd things frequently happened on Twitter, but in this case,
Speaker 1: it was that the word Memphis became the city that
Speaker 1: must not be named or something like that. Because if
Speaker 1: you did sendella tweet that contained the word Memphis in
Speaker 1: over the weekend, you got hit with a twelve hour suspension.
Speaker 1: Naughty you. Now, according to those who got hit with this,
Speaker 1: I think we can call it an over the top reaction.
Speaker 1: The word was somehow triggering Twitter's moderation policies, specifically in
Speaker 1: regards to rules against posting private information to Twitter. So,
Speaker 1: for example, you're not supposed to post someone else's address
Speaker 1: on Twitter. That's against the rules. Twitter cleared things up
Speaker 1: in a tweet of their own stating that quote, A
Speaker 1: number of accounts that tweeted the word Memphis were temporary
Speaker 1: limited due to a bug. It's been fixed and the
Speaker 1: accounts have now been restored. We're sorry this happened. End quote.
Speaker 1: And here I was thinking that it was Belgium that
Speaker 1: was the rudest word in the universe. Thanks Douglas Adams,
Speaker 1: he steered me wrong again. Heading over to Facebook, Reuter's
Speaker 1: reports that the company has begun adding labels to posts
Speaker 1: dedicated to discussing the safety of the various COVID vaccines,
Speaker 1: and soon they are going to extend this labeling system
Speaker 1: to all posts about the COVID vaccines in general. It
Speaker 1: will also launch a vaccine tracking tool to help people
Speaker 1: in the United States find where they can go to
Speaker 1: get vaccinated once they are eligible. Previously, Facebook came under
Speaker 1: fire due to the proliferation of misinformation about vaccines that
Speaker 1: spread across the platform, much in the same way as
Speaker 1: misinformation campaigns affected political discourse in the United States in
Speaker 1: twenty And this is really a big move in a
Speaker 1: lot of ways because Facebook has long maintained a very
Speaker 1: stand office approach when it comes to handling misinformation campaigns
Speaker 1: In general, but in particular ones against vaccines, not just
Speaker 1: COVID vaccines, but all vaccines. So the new labels include
Speaker 1: messaging that explains that these vaccines go through rigorous testing
Speaker 1: before they're ever deployed to the public, and they represent
Speaker 1: a safe course of action, particularly compared to not getting
Speaker 1: the vaccination. Now, the company is also building out its
Speaker 1: list of banned false claims about the COVID vaccine and
Speaker 1: the disease in general, and as such has removed around
Speaker 1: two million additional posts from Facebook and Instagram as result
Speaker 1: over the last couple of months. And uh, this is
Speaker 1: a crazy one. The company says it's now pulling back
Speaker 1: on the reach of users who have been flagged for
Speaker 1: posting false information repeatedly. Now, who could have thought that
Speaker 1: by turning off the amplify signal on a message you
Speaker 1: could reduce its overall impact on people. I get the
Speaker 1: whole freedom of speech thing, but it's not just freedom
Speaker 1: of speech. It's that Facebook, like I said, amplifies messaging,
Speaker 1: and by taking that move to reduce that, that's a huge,
Speaker 1: huge thing. As for vaccines, I sincerely hope everyone out there,
Speaker 1: everyone out there who can get it goes and gets
Speaker 1: it so all of you folks out there, when you're eligible,
Speaker 1: I hope you're able to go and get the vaccine
Speaker 1: as soon as possible. I registered to be notified when
Speaker 1: I'm eligible. I'm in Georgia. Our state is dead last
Speaker 1: in the United States when it comes to vaccination, so
Speaker 1: not huge hopes that's going to happen super fast for me,
Speaker 1: but I did register for it. Now, I have a
Speaker 1: history with severe allergic reactions, so I have some concerns
Speaker 1: about getting it, but I plan on getting my vaccine
Speaker 1: in a medical center of some sorts so I can
Speaker 1: at least be under observation in case I go into
Speaker 1: ani fyl axis, because trust me, that's not fun at all.
Speaker 1: But I'm still gonna get it because we do need
Speaker 1: to get to herd immunity and protect each other. It's important.
Speaker 1: So y'all stay safe out there, Okay, be careful, get
Speaker 1: vaccinated when you can, and hey, I love you, so
Speaker 1: take care of yourself. The U. S. Department of Justice
Speaker 1: announced an indictment against the CEO of sky Global, Jean
Speaker 1: Francois EEP, as well as Thomas Herdman, a former Sky
Speaker 1: Global distributor. Now the d o J is accusing these
Speaker 1: two of having facilitated the development, sale, and distribution of
Speaker 1: special encrypted phones to international drug traffickers in violation of
Speaker 1: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO. Now, essentially,
Speaker 1: the d o J is saying, you guys create a
Speaker 1: way for criminals to communicate with one another in a
Speaker 1: secret and secure way, and that means your complicit in
Speaker 1: helping them commit crimes. But those accusations actually go beyond that.
Speaker 1: They allege that sky Global wasn't just providing the communication infrastructure,
Speaker 1: but also allowing for money laundering activities, primarily in the
Speaker 1: form of cryptocurrency transactions. On top of that, the d
Speaker 1: o J states that sky Global set up numerous shell
Speaker 1: companies to try and hide what was going on. So
Speaker 1: if these allegations are true, I believe we really should
Speaker 1: see justice served against those who are responsible. Part of
Speaker 1: me worries that this is also an attack on encryption
Speaker 1: in general. That's something that various law enforcement agencies around
Speaker 1: the world have targeted in various ways, and you can
Speaker 1: sort of understand from their perspective, right, encryption makes it
Speaker 1: very hard to suss out what people, including criminals, are doing.
Speaker 1: But it also provides protection against governments or government agencies
Speaker 1: or gigantic private companies that might otherwise abuse the rights
Speaker 1: of citizens and others. So, in other words, criminals might
Speaker 1: use encryption, but encryption isn't a crime now. I say
Speaker 1: that only so that we keep an eye on this
Speaker 1: story to see how the legal argument shapes up against
Speaker 1: sky Global, to make sure that we're not seeing an
Speaker 1: attempt to undermine encryption as a valid approach in the
Speaker 1: first place. Router's reports that India is poised to pass
Speaker 1: a law that would make it illegal to mine, trade, transfer,
Speaker 1: or possess private cryptocurrencies, while leaving the door open for
Speaker 1: a state backed digital currency. An earlier version of this
Speaker 1: bill had even suggested a jail sentence of around ten
Speaker 1: years for violating the law, though as I record this episode,
Speaker 1: it's unclear whether or not that penalty made it into
Speaker 1: the more recent version of the law. It is not
Speaker 1: available for public review. Now. Should this law pass, and
Speaker 1: it looks like it's going to, Indian citizens will have
Speaker 1: a grace period of about six months to liquidate their
Speaker 1: digital wallets or face penalties. At the time I record this,
Speaker 1: cryptocurrency transactions are way up in India, where it's estimated
Speaker 1: that investors hold about one point four billion dollars worth
Speaker 1: of cryptocurrency. But I should stress that is just an
Speaker 1: estimate because there's virtually no hard data available to make
Speaker 1: a more firm claim than that. It sounds as though
Speaker 1: investors are determined to stick with cryptocurrency, at least until
Speaker 1: the bill becomes official. Now, at that point, are we
Speaker 1: going to see a massive move to sell off cryptocurrency
Speaker 1: and it's so, how will that affect the value of
Speaker 1: currencies like bitcoin? All of that remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: And while some leaders in India have likened cryptocurrency to
Speaker 1: ponzi schemes, I think that might be going a bit
Speaker 1: too far. Yeah, there are a lot of ponzi schemes
Speaker 1: that lean on the public's general lack of understanding about cryptocurrencies.
Speaker 1: But the value of cryptocurrency is at least as real
Speaker 1: as other kinds of money is, I guess, though I
Speaker 1: would still argue it's not really terribly useful as a
Speaker 1: currency due to the volatility of bitcoin. Tender, the dating app,
Speaker 1: is about to get a new feature, match Group, the
Speaker 1: company that owns Tender, as well as Hinge Okay, Cupid,
Speaker 1: and Match has announced that it has invested in a
Speaker 1: background check platform called Garbo. As described on the Garbo website,
Speaker 1: the company is quote a new kind of background check
Speaker 1: designed to help proactively prevent gender based violence in the
Speaker 1: digital age end quote. Garbo itself is a not for
Speaker 1: profit organization founded by women, and the goal is to
Speaker 1: provide access to public reports and records that could indicate
Speaker 1: that it's most definitely time to swipe left on that
Speaker 1: perspective date. Those records include stuff like criminal records like
Speaker 1: arrests and convictions, and what or not the person has had, say,
Speaker 1: a restraining order filed against them in the past, and
Speaker 1: other data like that that makes it clear that you're
Speaker 1: not looking at mr right, You're looking at Mr. This
Speaker 1: guy is seriously bad news. However, Garbo reps have also
Speaker 1: acknowledged there are disparities to take into account when scraping
Speaker 1: the internet for signs that your possible date has had
Speaker 1: a brush with the law. Here in the United States,
Speaker 1: there's no denying that there are systemic iniquities in the
Speaker 1: justice system, and as a result, people of color are
Speaker 1: disproportionately affected by these flaws. To that end, Garbo has
Speaker 1: said that they would take that into account and strikes
Speaker 1: stuff like charges of drug possession out of the equation,
Speaker 1: so those are not factored into reports. Those disproportionately affect
Speaker 1: people of color. As of right now, there is no
Speaker 1: integration on TENDER yet, so it's impossible for me to
Speaker 1: say what form this is going to take once it
Speaker 1: is implemented. But beyond the lookout for that, a group
Speaker 1: of scientists, including University of Arizona researcher Jacken Thonga, have
Speaker 1: proposed an interesting project, and it involves sending examples of
Speaker 1: sperm and egg cells from more than six and a
Speaker 1: half million species of animals to the Moon, along with
Speaker 1: thousands of different types of seeds. It's similar to something
Speaker 1: we already have here on Earth. This val Barred Seed Bank,
Speaker 1: which is in Norway, keeps hundreds of thousands of seeds
Speaker 1: safe in an effort to ensure biodiversity on the planet.
Speaker 1: As regents cut back on biodiversity, there's an increased risk
Speaker 1: that a disease or blight could wipe out enormous populations
Speaker 1: of plants. Because they're all essentially the same plant, they
Speaker 1: all have the same lack of ability to withstand certain
Speaker 1: types of illness. Then if they get wiped out, all
Speaker 1: the life forms that depend on those plants could suffer,
Speaker 1: and then the ones that depend upon the animals that
Speaker 1: depend on the plants, and so on. It goes up
Speaker 1: the chain. But here's the problem with that. See Norway,
Speaker 1: at least last I checked, is actually on Earth. In fact,
Speaker 1: Earth is as the superhero the tick would say, where
Speaker 1: we keep all our stuff? And if something truly calamitous
Speaker 1: were to happen to the Earth, all of that would
Speaker 1: be gone. Therefore, say these scientists, wouldn't it be a
Speaker 1: great idea to establish a sort of vault on the
Speaker 1: Moon to keep safe samples of various life forms, so
Speaker 1: that should a true catastrophe occur, there will still be
Speaker 1: samples that survivors of that catastrophe can retrieve to help
Speaker 1: prepare the damage. The team suggests that we build a
Speaker 1: vault within the lava tubes that are under the surface
Speaker 1: of the Moon. These tubes have been dormant for billions
Speaker 1: of years and completely untouched in the meantime. Donga estimates
Speaker 1: that to establish this vault on the Moon would require
Speaker 1: around two hundred fifty rocket launches, both to send up
Speaker 1: all the various components to make up the vault itself
Speaker 1: and the three five million samples that would be housed there.
Speaker 1: The concept gets really science ACTIONI though it's all based
Speaker 1: in science fact. So, for example, the storage temperatures needed
Speaker 1: to preserve the samples would be so incredibly low, I
Speaker 1: mean like crazy cold, that metal itself would freeze, which
Speaker 1: makes shelving a bit of a headache for storing all
Speaker 1: these samples. So the researchers have proposed using superconductor material that,
Speaker 1: when cool to these very very cold temperatures, can enter
Speaker 1: into a type of magnetic lock when paired with a
Speaker 1: permanent magnet, and you get quantum levitation. This is something
Speaker 1: we can do here on Earth if you have access
Speaker 1: to the right equipment. It's not easy to get hold of,
Speaker 1: but you can do it, and it's really interesting. Now,
Speaker 1: the thought of using superconductors as shelving tickles me quite
Speaker 1: a bit. As it stands, this is all a proposal,
Speaker 1: it's not an actual project yet. Whether we ever see
Speaker 1: a real series of missions to carry this out remains
Speaker 1: to be seen. And finally, in Pennsylvania, robots are people too, well,
Speaker 1: not really, but they are kind of sort of classified
Speaker 1: as podest Trians. If they happen to be autonomous delivery drones.
Speaker 1: The state has deemed it legal for delivery robots to
Speaker 1: make use of sidewalks and pathways as well as roadways,
Speaker 1: and that they will be considered as pedestrians from a
Speaker 1: legal standpoint. That means it's officially legal for these robots
Speaker 1: to share the road and sidewalks with human beings, which
Speaker 1: is a big deal because making robots that are safe
Speaker 1: to interact in human spaces that have actual human beings
Speaker 1: in them, and we human beings tend to be squishy, well,
Speaker 1: that's a really challenging field of robotics. It requires a
Speaker 1: lot of work to make the robots safer operation within
Speaker 1: those spaces, as well as the designs to keep the
Speaker 1: robots protected because you know, people are just the worst.
Speaker 1: Add to that the fact that humans can be distracted,
Speaker 1: which means the robots might have to factor in someone
Speaker 1: who isn't really paying attention as they walk down the sidewalk.
Speaker 1: I know I've been guilty of that, Or the fact
Speaker 1: that human beings can change their minds really quickly and
Speaker 1: stop in place all of a sudden or change direction immediately.
Speaker 1: You've got a lot of logical challenges you have to tackle.
Speaker 1: But these rules that Pennsylvania is putting in place well
Speaker 1: mean companies can at least operate their robots on the
Speaker 1: sidewalks and such within certain parameters, like once a robot
Speaker 1: gets particularly massive, it's no longer legally allowed on sidewalks.
Speaker 1: But not everyone is a big fan of this idea.
Speaker 1: I may have to do a full episode dedicated to this,
Speaker 1: because it's an interesting challenge, not just from a tech standpoint,
Speaker 1: but also a legal standpoint and then a cultural standpoint.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of different factors at play here,
Speaker 1: but I'll save that for a later episode. Well that's it.
Speaker 1: Those are the top stories I have for you for Tuesday,
Speaker 1: March one. I hope you guys are staying safe. Join
Speaker 1: me for a new episode of tech Stuff tomorrow, and
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you again really soon. Text Stuff is
Speaker 1: an I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio, visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.