WEBVTT - Tech News: Drones Over New Jersey

0:00:04.400 --> 0:00:12.440
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey thereon

0:00:12.600 --> 0:00:16.200
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm

0:00:16.200 --> 0:00:19.360
<v Speaker 1>an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the tech

0:00:19.400 --> 0:00:21.840
<v Speaker 1>are you. It's time for the tech news for the

0:00:21.880 --> 0:00:27.000
<v Speaker 1>week ending on Friday the thirteenth in December of twenty

0:00:27.160 --> 0:00:31.520
<v Speaker 1>twenty four. So let's start off with something kind of

0:00:31.560 --> 0:00:36.240
<v Speaker 1>spooky for Friday the thirteenth. Apparently, for a few weeks now,

0:00:36.520 --> 0:00:41.560
<v Speaker 1>folks in New Jersey have been reporting strange aircraft flying overhead,

0:00:41.560 --> 0:00:46.519
<v Speaker 1>particularly along coastal regions. Most of the reports have referred

0:00:46.520 --> 0:00:50.800
<v Speaker 1>to the aircraft as drones, though various authorities have said

0:00:50.840 --> 0:00:55.200
<v Speaker 1>that at least in some of these cases, that's a misidentification.

0:00:55.680 --> 0:00:58.720
<v Speaker 1>They say that many of these reports are actually about

0:00:58.720 --> 0:01:03.160
<v Speaker 1>your run of the mill manned aircraft, just plane planes,

0:01:03.680 --> 0:01:06.319
<v Speaker 1>so to speak. But numerous citizens have said there have

0:01:06.360 --> 0:01:10.200
<v Speaker 1>been many instances of drones flying overhead, and we're talking

0:01:10.319 --> 0:01:13.920
<v Speaker 1>like big ones, not your little bitty quad copters, but

0:01:14.040 --> 0:01:17.200
<v Speaker 1>much larger drones. And no one has really come forward

0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:21.600
<v Speaker 1>with an official explanation as to what's going on or

0:01:21.640 --> 0:01:25.080
<v Speaker 1>who's behind it. And when there's a lack of information,

0:01:25.600 --> 0:01:29.120
<v Speaker 1>there will always be a surplus of speculation. We humans

0:01:29.160 --> 0:01:33.000
<v Speaker 1>don't like to have big, unanswered questions, right, So if

0:01:33.040 --> 0:01:35.959
<v Speaker 1>we don't have an answer, sometimes we just invent one.

0:01:36.480 --> 0:01:39.720
<v Speaker 1>And that includes one claim that the drones launch from

0:01:39.800 --> 0:01:45.600
<v Speaker 1>an Iranian mothership. That's a story that US Representative Jeff

0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:49.200
<v Speaker 1>Van Drew said to Fox News, though later he clarified

0:01:49.240 --> 0:01:54.000
<v Speaker 1>that he's actually seen no concrete evidence tying any drone

0:01:54.040 --> 0:01:58.600
<v Speaker 1>activity in New Jersey to Iran, so maybe it's not

0:01:58.760 --> 0:02:03.720
<v Speaker 1>an Iranian mothership after all. According to various news outlets,

0:02:04.160 --> 0:02:06.480
<v Speaker 1>most of the reports, like I said, have come along

0:02:06.560 --> 0:02:09.480
<v Speaker 1>the coastal areas of New Jersey, though there have been

0:02:09.560 --> 0:02:13.919
<v Speaker 1>reports of them coming as far inland as parts of Pennsylvania.

0:02:14.000 --> 0:02:17.640
<v Speaker 1>The FBI is asking people to send in videos and

0:02:17.639 --> 0:02:20.240
<v Speaker 1>photos of these drones in action in an attempt to

0:02:20.280 --> 0:02:23.840
<v Speaker 1>suss out what might be going on, if there is

0:02:23.919 --> 0:02:26.960
<v Speaker 1>something going on, because it's always possible that it's not like,

0:02:27.040 --> 0:02:30.800
<v Speaker 1>it's possible that this is all about misidentification and a few,

0:02:31.120 --> 0:02:35.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, completely innocent cases of people just operating drones

0:02:35.240 --> 0:02:39.520
<v Speaker 1>that aren't at all malicious or malevolent. Officials have said

0:02:39.560 --> 0:02:42.760
<v Speaker 1>repeatedly that there's no evidence that the drones are any

0:02:42.840 --> 0:02:46.240
<v Speaker 1>kind of credible threat, and there's no evidence tying them

0:02:46.360 --> 0:02:49.280
<v Speaker 1>to any foreign powers, so they are not suspected to

0:02:49.280 --> 0:02:55.359
<v Speaker 1>be under foreign control. However, with this ongoing lack of information,

0:02:55.960 --> 0:03:00.200
<v Speaker 1>that hasn't stopped people from saying exactly the opposite, and

0:03:00.760 --> 0:03:04.480
<v Speaker 1>I honestly don't know what's going on. My guess is

0:03:04.560 --> 0:03:08.959
<v Speaker 1>knowing how humans behave. The explanations or lack thereof that

0:03:09.080 --> 0:03:11.480
<v Speaker 1>the officials have given so far are not going to

0:03:11.520 --> 0:03:15.800
<v Speaker 1>satisfy people, and speculation will just continue to grow over

0:03:15.840 --> 0:03:19.440
<v Speaker 1>the coming days. Generally, when these sort of things happen,

0:03:20.080 --> 0:03:23.440
<v Speaker 1>I typically see this culminating in one of two ways.

0:03:23.720 --> 0:03:27.880
<v Speaker 1>Either we eventually do figure out what's happening, whether that's

0:03:28.560 --> 0:03:32.760
<v Speaker 1>some sort of concentrated effort to have drones fly over

0:03:32.840 --> 0:03:36.840
<v Speaker 1>New Jersey for one reason or another, or it eventually

0:03:36.920 --> 0:03:38.880
<v Speaker 1>will just kind of fade away and people will forget

0:03:38.920 --> 0:03:41.800
<v Speaker 1>about it. That's it, Like, I don't think there's anything

0:03:41.800 --> 0:03:45.200
<v Speaker 1>else that comes of this. Also, just to remind folks,

0:03:45.680 --> 0:03:50.920
<v Speaker 1>the way the US regulates drone use here is typically

0:03:50.960 --> 0:03:55.240
<v Speaker 1>tied to drone weight, So if a drone weighs less

0:03:55.240 --> 0:03:59.200
<v Speaker 1>than fifty five pounds, then you can operate it with

0:03:59.360 --> 0:04:03.040
<v Speaker 1>fewer restrictions and regulations. Although you are supposed to have

0:04:03.680 --> 0:04:07.760
<v Speaker 1>like an identifier tag, a digital tag that links the

0:04:07.880 --> 0:04:13.000
<v Speaker 1>drone to you, like that you are the authorized operator

0:04:13.080 --> 0:04:15.960
<v Speaker 1>of that drone. When you get above fifty five pounds,

0:04:16.000 --> 0:04:19.039
<v Speaker 1>then a lot more strict regulations come into play. But

0:04:19.160 --> 0:04:22.280
<v Speaker 1>that being said, while larger drones do weigh more than

0:04:22.320 --> 0:04:25.160
<v Speaker 1>smaller ones, there's also been a lot of advancements made

0:04:25.440 --> 0:04:30.080
<v Speaker 1>in lightweight materials like carbon fiber that have allowed for

0:04:30.600 --> 0:04:35.920
<v Speaker 1>larger drones that surprisingly don't weigh that much. So I

0:04:35.960 --> 0:04:38.720
<v Speaker 1>don't know what's going on here, but I do know

0:04:39.080 --> 0:04:41.840
<v Speaker 1>that it's been going on long enough that it's become

0:04:41.960 --> 0:04:45.480
<v Speaker 1>national news for a while. Apparently it was just news

0:04:45.520 --> 0:04:49.039
<v Speaker 1>in New Jersey and hadn't really gone much further than that.

0:04:49.200 --> 0:04:51.440
<v Speaker 1>This is the first I've heard of it, so we'll

0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:53.840
<v Speaker 1>see where it goes from here, if it goes anywhere.

0:04:54.560 --> 0:04:58.760
<v Speaker 1>Matt Novak of Gizmoto has a piece titled Trump's pick

0:04:58.839 --> 0:05:02.599
<v Speaker 1>for FTC chair is ready to undo the good things

0:05:02.680 --> 0:05:05.880
<v Speaker 1>from Lena Kahn, and I think it's well worth a read.

0:05:06.200 --> 0:05:08.520
<v Speaker 1>So a lot of what is said in the article

0:05:08.640 --> 0:05:12.360
<v Speaker 1>isn't exactly a surprise. If you know how US politics work.

0:05:12.720 --> 0:05:16.279
<v Speaker 1>Every time there's a change in administrations and someone's tenure

0:05:16.440 --> 0:05:20.360
<v Speaker 1>is up, departments like the FTC are affected. Even if

0:05:20.400 --> 0:05:23.280
<v Speaker 1>the new president is from the exact same party as

0:05:23.360 --> 0:05:26.160
<v Speaker 1>the outgoing president, you can expect things to shake up

0:05:26.160 --> 0:05:29.200
<v Speaker 1>a bit. But obviously it's more dramatic when there's a

0:05:29.240 --> 0:05:33.479
<v Speaker 1>shift in power dynamics between Democrat and Republican leaders. So

0:05:34.040 --> 0:05:38.080
<v Speaker 1>this is an overwhelmingly Republican administration that's coming in next year.

0:05:38.320 --> 0:05:40.720
<v Speaker 1>And in this case, Trump's pick is a guy named

0:05:40.720 --> 0:05:44.719
<v Speaker 1>Andrew Ferguson, who is already on the FTC. He's part

0:05:44.720 --> 0:05:48.120
<v Speaker 1>of the commission already, he was appointed under Joe Biden.

0:05:48.360 --> 0:05:51.039
<v Speaker 1>So the way the FTC works is there are five

0:05:51.320 --> 0:05:54.440
<v Speaker 1>members of the Commission, and at most three of those

0:05:54.440 --> 0:05:57.479
<v Speaker 1>members can come from a single political party. And since

0:05:57.480 --> 0:06:00.440
<v Speaker 1>in the United States we effectively just have two political parties,

0:06:00.480 --> 0:06:02.880
<v Speaker 1>I mean there are others, but they represent such a

0:06:02.920 --> 0:06:06.040
<v Speaker 1>small slice that you really just talk about two Republican

0:06:06.080 --> 0:06:08.480
<v Speaker 1>and Democrat, it means, in effect you get three from

0:06:08.520 --> 0:06:11.360
<v Speaker 1>one to two from the other. Novak says that Ferguson

0:06:11.440 --> 0:06:13.480
<v Speaker 1>is poised to roll back some of the moves the

0:06:13.560 --> 0:06:16.240
<v Speaker 1>FTC has made over the last few years. So, for example,

0:06:16.720 --> 0:06:20.880
<v Speaker 1>one of the changes that Lena Kahn's FTC made was

0:06:20.960 --> 0:06:24.560
<v Speaker 1>to ban non compete clauses. Now, if you've never had

0:06:24.600 --> 0:06:27.200
<v Speaker 1>one of these hanging over you, let me kind of

0:06:27.240 --> 0:06:30.760
<v Speaker 1>clue you in. So these clauses are measures that companies

0:06:30.800 --> 0:06:34.000
<v Speaker 1>put into place in employee agreements, and they state that

0:06:34.040 --> 0:06:37.159
<v Speaker 1>you're not allowed to work for a competing company for

0:06:37.279 --> 0:06:40.560
<v Speaker 1>a certain length of time once your employment with your

0:06:40.640 --> 0:06:45.359
<v Speaker 1>current employer ends. So typically the non compete might be

0:06:45.440 --> 0:06:48.479
<v Speaker 1>something like six months. So if I were under a

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:51.400
<v Speaker 1>non compete like that, I'm not saying I am and

0:06:51.440 --> 0:06:54.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm not not saying that I'm not or whatever. That

0:06:54.880 --> 0:06:56.440
<v Speaker 1>was so many negatives. I don't even know where I

0:06:56.480 --> 0:06:59.200
<v Speaker 1>am now. Anyway, if I had that kind of non

0:06:59.240 --> 0:07:02.120
<v Speaker 1>compete clause, I would mean that should my employment with

0:07:02.200 --> 0:07:06.120
<v Speaker 1>iHeart end tomorrow for whatever reason, whether I quit or

0:07:06.160 --> 0:07:08.320
<v Speaker 1>they lay me off, or whatever it might be, I

0:07:08.320 --> 0:07:12.440
<v Speaker 1>would not be allowed to seek employment with a company

0:07:12.520 --> 0:07:15.560
<v Speaker 1>like Spotify for half a year or so, or else

0:07:15.680 --> 0:07:19.040
<v Speaker 1>risk legal action because I would have violated the non

0:07:19.080 --> 0:07:23.160
<v Speaker 1>compete clause. Cohn and her fellow Democrat commissioners argued that

0:07:23.200 --> 0:07:26.640
<v Speaker 1>these clauses are hurtful to employees, which I agree with

0:07:26.840 --> 0:07:29.880
<v Speaker 1>they are, and they're mostly used by companies as a

0:07:29.920 --> 0:07:33.480
<v Speaker 1>way to intimidate their employees into staying on board rather

0:07:33.520 --> 0:07:36.200
<v Speaker 1>than jumping ship to a better opportunity. Let's say that

0:07:36.320 --> 0:07:39.480
<v Speaker 1>I had risen to a certain level within iHeart, and

0:07:39.520 --> 0:07:45.040
<v Speaker 1>I had deep knowledge of proprietary information in the company

0:07:45.120 --> 0:07:47.880
<v Speaker 1>that really, you know, it's part of the trade secrets

0:07:47.880 --> 0:07:51.920
<v Speaker 1>that let iHeart do what it does. Obviously, there'd be

0:07:51.960 --> 0:07:54.480
<v Speaker 1>a vested interest in making sure I don't take that

0:07:54.560 --> 0:07:58.360
<v Speaker 1>information with me when I leave and then give that

0:07:58.760 --> 0:08:01.520
<v Speaker 1>to the benefit of some other competitor. That would be bad,

0:08:01.760 --> 0:08:03.600
<v Speaker 1>so you can see it from that level. But more

0:08:03.640 --> 0:08:06.240
<v Speaker 1>often than not, these non competes get thrown in on

0:08:07.720 --> 0:08:10.960
<v Speaker 1>positions that just don't have that big of an impact

0:08:11.040 --> 0:08:13.960
<v Speaker 1>to the overall organization, but it has an enormous impact

0:08:14.000 --> 0:08:18.000
<v Speaker 1>to the individual, right like iHeart. If they got rid

0:08:18.080 --> 0:08:20.400
<v Speaker 1>of me, I'm sure they would miss me, but they

0:08:20.520 --> 0:08:23.720
<v Speaker 1>do they'd be fine. I, on the other hand, would

0:08:23.720 --> 0:08:25.680
<v Speaker 1>be struggling to figure out what the heck I'm going

0:08:25.760 --> 0:08:28.480
<v Speaker 1>to do if I can't get another job in this

0:08:28.640 --> 0:08:31.640
<v Speaker 1>field within six months. That would be really tough on me.

0:08:31.880 --> 0:08:35.600
<v Speaker 1>So the FTC made this big change. And the concern

0:08:35.640 --> 0:08:39.880
<v Speaker 1>that Novak raises is that the new FTC under Trump's

0:08:40.080 --> 0:08:44.560
<v Speaker 1>administration is going to start rolling back the protections that

0:08:44.600 --> 0:08:47.960
<v Speaker 1>the previous administration put in place in order to benefit

0:08:48.240 --> 0:08:52.280
<v Speaker 1>employees versus businesses. And the thought is that the FTC

0:08:52.480 --> 0:08:55.760
<v Speaker 1>moving forward is going to be much more friendly with

0:08:55.960 --> 0:09:00.000
<v Speaker 1>the folks who own and operate businesses and much less

0:09:00.080 --> 0:09:02.680
<v Speaker 1>less helpful to those who work for them. Will have

0:09:02.840 --> 0:09:06.040
<v Speaker 1>to see. Meanwhile, big tech companies are lining up in

0:09:06.080 --> 0:09:09.160
<v Speaker 1>what looks like an attempt to get on Trump's good side.

0:09:09.520 --> 0:09:13.240
<v Speaker 1>Both Meta and Amazon have contributed the equivalent of a

0:09:13.320 --> 0:09:18.680
<v Speaker 1>million dollars each to Trump's inaugural fund, as in the

0:09:18.760 --> 0:09:24.240
<v Speaker 1>money going to his inauguration ceremony. Dana Mattioli and Rebecca

0:09:24.320 --> 0:09:28.160
<v Speaker 1>Balhause of The Wall Street Journal wrote that Zuckerberg appears

0:09:28.160 --> 0:09:30.920
<v Speaker 1>to be trying to mend defenses. You know, Trump has

0:09:31.000 --> 0:09:35.200
<v Speaker 1>long held a rather acrimonious stance against Meta, So why

0:09:35.280 --> 0:09:37.720
<v Speaker 1>is that? A Couple of reasons. One is he got

0:09:37.760 --> 0:09:41.200
<v Speaker 1>banned from Meta's Facebook platform after the whole January sixth

0:09:41.280 --> 0:09:44.600
<v Speaker 1>debacle several years back. Another is that he has long

0:09:44.679 --> 0:09:49.319
<v Speaker 1>maintained that various online platforms, including stuff like Google and Facebook,

0:09:49.440 --> 0:09:53.160
<v Speaker 1>have long held an anti conservative bias and actively suppressed

0:09:53.200 --> 0:09:56.440
<v Speaker 1>free speech. And seeing how folks like Zuckerberg and Bezos

0:09:56.480 --> 0:10:00.800
<v Speaker 1>are accustomed to accumulating vast amounts of wealth, they appear

0:10:00.840 --> 0:10:03.360
<v Speaker 1>to be taking steps to keep that trend going strong

0:10:03.679 --> 0:10:08.640
<v Speaker 1>and not inviting Trump to make things harder for them. Meanwhile,

0:10:08.720 --> 0:10:12.720
<v Speaker 1>Amazon's going to carry the inauguration ceremonies on Amazon Prime Video,

0:10:13.040 --> 0:10:14.760
<v Speaker 1>and I expect we're going to see a lot more

0:10:14.800 --> 0:10:18.280
<v Speaker 1>moves from leaders and big tech companies that are similar

0:10:18.280 --> 0:10:22.040
<v Speaker 1>to this in an effort to avoid Trump's rather mercurial wrath.

0:10:22.559 --> 0:10:27.040
<v Speaker 1>Speaking of that, TikTok's clock is running mighty low here

0:10:27.040 --> 0:10:29.920
<v Speaker 1>in the United States. Now. You could recall that earlier

0:10:29.960 --> 0:10:33.440
<v Speaker 1>this year, Congress passed a law that would require TikTok's

0:10:33.480 --> 0:10:37.439
<v Speaker 1>parent company, Bye Dance to divest itself of TikTok or

0:10:37.480 --> 0:10:41.080
<v Speaker 1>else face a nationwide ban on the app. Bye Dance

0:10:41.120 --> 0:10:44.199
<v Speaker 1>being a Chinese company, and the worry here is that

0:10:44.360 --> 0:10:47.920
<v Speaker 1>TikTok could just be a siphon for information that could

0:10:47.920 --> 0:10:51.560
<v Speaker 1>go direct to China. So anyway, TikTok has been fighting

0:10:51.600 --> 0:10:54.120
<v Speaker 1>this law ever since and challenged it in court by

0:10:54.280 --> 0:10:56.760
<v Speaker 1>arguing that it goes against the First Amendment, the right

0:10:56.840 --> 0:10:59.520
<v Speaker 1>of free speech. But a court found otherwise, and an

0:10:59.559 --> 0:11:02.640
<v Speaker 1>appeal panel has agreed, which is not a good sign

0:11:02.679 --> 0:11:06.280
<v Speaker 1>for TikTok. The agreement comes down to a few things. One,

0:11:06.679 --> 0:11:09.680
<v Speaker 1>the judicial system in the United States traditionally is reluctant

0:11:09.720 --> 0:11:13.800
<v Speaker 1>to contradict Congress, particularly in matters that involve national security,

0:11:14.000 --> 0:11:16.240
<v Speaker 1>and that, of course, is how the TikTok ban has

0:11:16.320 --> 0:11:20.040
<v Speaker 1>been framed, so that's one potential reason why the court

0:11:20.080 --> 0:11:23.960
<v Speaker 1>was reluctant to overturn this. Secondly, the court has found

0:11:23.960 --> 0:11:26.959
<v Speaker 1>that TikTok could operate in the United States without issue

0:11:27.040 --> 0:11:30.160
<v Speaker 1>if byte Edance actually divested itself of the company. So,

0:11:30.200 --> 0:11:32.880
<v Speaker 1>in other words, the court has essentially said there's no

0:11:32.960 --> 0:11:36.160
<v Speaker 1>freedom of speech issue here because TikTok has a solution

0:11:36.280 --> 0:11:39.520
<v Speaker 1>to this problem. Just separate from the Chinese parent company

0:11:39.679 --> 0:11:43.640
<v Speaker 1>and you can continue as per usual. TikTok has appealed

0:11:43.679 --> 0:11:45.959
<v Speaker 1>to the Supreme Court, but there are doubts that the

0:11:46.040 --> 0:11:48.439
<v Speaker 1>highest court in the United States will hear the case,

0:11:48.679 --> 0:11:51.480
<v Speaker 1>which means they'll just have to abide by the rulings

0:11:51.520 --> 0:11:54.559
<v Speaker 1>of the lower courts. TikTok has also filed an emergency

0:11:54.600 --> 0:11:57.800
<v Speaker 1>request to delay the law's effects until the Supreme Court

0:11:57.840 --> 0:12:00.640
<v Speaker 1>can weigh in and until the Trump administry can say

0:12:00.640 --> 0:12:04.960
<v Speaker 1>something about it. And the US government opposes this move,

0:12:05.120 --> 0:12:06.800
<v Speaker 1>So we haven't seen how this is going to turn

0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:10.199
<v Speaker 1>out yet. The ban is scheduled to begin on January nineteenth,

0:12:10.400 --> 0:12:14.920
<v Speaker 1>one day before Trump's inauguration, so time is running out. Interestingly,

0:12:15.000 --> 0:12:18.160
<v Speaker 1>during Trump's first term as president, he led the charge

0:12:18.160 --> 0:12:20.400
<v Speaker 1>on banning TikTok. He's the one who brought it up.

0:12:20.440 --> 0:12:24.400
<v Speaker 1>He even passed an executive order demanding TikTok separate from Byteedance,

0:12:24.640 --> 0:12:28.040
<v Speaker 1>but that order was never enforced. During his campaign, however,

0:12:28.080 --> 0:12:31.560
<v Speaker 1>Trump appeared to have reversed his decision because, well, he said,

0:12:31.559 --> 0:12:33.559
<v Speaker 1>it's because lots of people like to use the app,

0:12:33.640 --> 0:12:36.240
<v Speaker 1>which I mean, that's true, But I don't see how

0:12:36.240 --> 0:12:39.920
<v Speaker 1>that actually addresses the supposed risk to national security that

0:12:39.960 --> 0:12:42.880
<v Speaker 1>he was concerned about a few years earlier. All I'm

0:12:42.880 --> 0:12:46.240
<v Speaker 1>saying is that Trump changes his mind a lot, and

0:12:46.720 --> 0:12:49.080
<v Speaker 1>if he had said something like upon further reflection, I

0:12:49.160 --> 0:12:52.200
<v Speaker 1>determined that there's no risk to national security, at least

0:12:52.440 --> 0:12:55.440
<v Speaker 1>I think his decision to reverse his stance would make

0:12:55.480 --> 0:12:58.400
<v Speaker 1>more sense. But honestly, I think the real reason he

0:12:58.440 --> 0:13:00.800
<v Speaker 1>reversed his stance, at least during the campaign, is that

0:13:00.960 --> 0:13:03.280
<v Speaker 1>one of his big campaign donors also happened to be

0:13:03.280 --> 0:13:06.800
<v Speaker 1>someone who is heavily invested in byte dance and TikTok

0:13:07.240 --> 0:13:10.760
<v Speaker 1>so in order to keep those dollars coming into his campaign.

0:13:11.240 --> 0:13:14.840
<v Speaker 1>This is my opinion. Trump said whatever he thought would

0:13:14.840 --> 0:13:17.880
<v Speaker 1>get him that money, and now since he's gotten what

0:13:18.000 --> 0:13:20.920
<v Speaker 1>he wanted that he got elected president, I don't know

0:13:20.960 --> 0:13:24.280
<v Speaker 1>that he's so concerned about it. We'll see. I don't

0:13:24.360 --> 0:13:26.440
<v Speaker 1>know if he's going to follow through. All Right, We've

0:13:26.480 --> 0:13:28.640
<v Speaker 1>got a lot more news to cover before we get

0:13:28.679 --> 0:13:30.480
<v Speaker 1>to that, though. Let's take a quick break to thank

0:13:30.520 --> 0:13:43.040
<v Speaker 1>our sponsors. Okay, we're back, and we're switching gears away

0:13:43.040 --> 0:13:46.960
<v Speaker 1>from politics, for which I am thankful. So let's talk

0:13:47.080 --> 0:13:52.079
<v Speaker 1>about Google's latest push into the world of mixed reality.

0:13:52.360 --> 0:13:55.200
<v Speaker 1>Kevin Party of Ours Technica has a piece about this.

0:13:55.400 --> 0:14:01.920
<v Speaker 1>It's titled Google steps into extended Reality again with Android XR.

0:14:02.360 --> 0:14:05.840
<v Speaker 1>I had not heard the term extended reality before. I've

0:14:05.840 --> 0:14:09.520
<v Speaker 1>heard mixed reality, I've heard augmented, I've heard virtual, extended

0:14:09.520 --> 0:14:11.640
<v Speaker 1>as a new one for me, or if it's not new,

0:14:11.800 --> 0:14:14.240
<v Speaker 1>I hadn't I didn't remember it. But some of y'all

0:14:14.320 --> 0:14:18.360
<v Speaker 1>might recall that years ago Google really got things moving

0:14:18.440 --> 0:14:20.840
<v Speaker 1>in the AR space, at least as far as the

0:14:20.960 --> 0:14:26.240
<v Speaker 1>general tech consumer is concerned, when they launched Google Glass. Now,

0:14:26.280 --> 0:14:29.360
<v Speaker 1>to be clear, Google Glass was not the first example

0:14:29.400 --> 0:14:32.600
<v Speaker 1>of augmented reality, not by far. It was just an

0:14:32.640 --> 0:14:37.120
<v Speaker 1>early example of a technology that was somewhat consumer facing. Now,

0:14:37.160 --> 0:14:41.000
<v Speaker 1>I say somewhat because Google Glass was really limited upon release.

0:14:41.040 --> 0:14:42.960
<v Speaker 1>It was very expensive. I think it was like fifteen

0:14:43.040 --> 0:14:45.880
<v Speaker 1>hundred dollars for one of those sets, and it never

0:14:45.920 --> 0:14:50.040
<v Speaker 1>really evolved beyond that very limited run for the average consumer.

0:14:50.080 --> 0:14:53.480
<v Speaker 1>It did become an enterprise tool for some companies, but

0:14:53.960 --> 0:14:55.800
<v Speaker 1>that and it kind of found a place there at

0:14:55.880 --> 0:14:59.440
<v Speaker 1>least I think until twenty twenty three, but it hasn't

0:14:59.480 --> 0:15:03.080
<v Speaker 1>really had a larger impact. Now, Google is promoting a

0:15:03.120 --> 0:15:06.920
<v Speaker 1>mixed reality platform that's built upon the Android operating system

0:15:07.080 --> 0:15:10.920
<v Speaker 1>that's best known for the operating system for mobile devices.

0:15:11.360 --> 0:15:14.400
<v Speaker 1>Party writes that Samsung will be coming out with a

0:15:14.440 --> 0:15:18.400
<v Speaker 1>mixed reality headset built on Android XR at some point

0:15:18.480 --> 0:15:21.760
<v Speaker 1>next year. Currently, it's known as project Mouhan, though I'm

0:15:21.800 --> 0:15:23.480
<v Speaker 1>sure it's going to have a very different name by

0:15:23.520 --> 0:15:26.920
<v Speaker 1>the time it's an actual product. Google's video that promotes

0:15:27.000 --> 0:15:30.800
<v Speaker 1>the Android XR project is a little light on details,

0:15:30.960 --> 0:15:33.760
<v Speaker 1>but it indicates that users should expect to be able

0:15:33.800 --> 0:15:37.720
<v Speaker 1>to tap into features found in other existing Google products,

0:15:37.720 --> 0:15:40.920
<v Speaker 1>such as like Google Lens or you know, auto translation

0:15:41.040 --> 0:15:43.800
<v Speaker 1>tools and maps and that kind of thing. I honestly

0:15:43.920 --> 0:15:49.600
<v Speaker 1>don't know if there really is a market for XR headsets.

0:15:49.760 --> 0:15:51.880
<v Speaker 1>You know. I know that Meta has been offering ar

0:15:52.000 --> 0:15:54.880
<v Speaker 1>light glasses for quite some time now. You can get

0:15:54.920 --> 0:15:57.640
<v Speaker 1>you know, those those Meta ray bands or whatever, and

0:15:57.680 --> 0:16:00.040
<v Speaker 1>those are popular with some folks. I don't know, you

0:16:00.080 --> 0:16:03.680
<v Speaker 1>know how large that customer base is. And of course,

0:16:03.760 --> 0:16:06.960
<v Speaker 1>Apple came out with the Vision Pro early this year,

0:16:07.000 --> 0:16:09.920
<v Speaker 1>but the lack of support for that platform suggests to

0:16:09.960 --> 0:16:12.600
<v Speaker 1>me that Apple at the very least is backing off

0:16:13.000 --> 0:16:16.840
<v Speaker 1>on pushing AR headsets for a while. Maybe they won't

0:16:17.080 --> 0:16:21.120
<v Speaker 1>totally end development, but I imagine it's no longer a priority

0:16:21.320 --> 0:16:26.840
<v Speaker 1>because while everyone who tried the Apple Vision Pro said

0:16:26.880 --> 0:16:30.040
<v Speaker 1>they were pretty impressed by it, it just didn't have

0:16:30.560 --> 0:16:35.160
<v Speaker 1>the splash needed to establish a foundation for Apple to

0:16:35.200 --> 0:16:40.000
<v Speaker 1>really build upon and the lack of ongoing interest from

0:16:40.720 --> 0:16:44.920
<v Speaker 1>the general public. I think then translated to Apple's own

0:16:45.720 --> 0:16:48.640
<v Speaker 1>lack of interest in supporting it. So yeah, I don't

0:16:48.680 --> 0:16:52.360
<v Speaker 1>know if Google's going to crack the nut on consumer

0:16:52.480 --> 0:16:56.040
<v Speaker 1>mixed reality. Maybe we'll see, But I mean Google has

0:16:56.120 --> 0:17:00.800
<v Speaker 1>been instrumental in releasing tons and tons and tons of

0:17:00.840 --> 0:17:06.719
<v Speaker 1>different products that received middling to low success rates, and

0:17:06.760 --> 0:17:11.840
<v Speaker 1>then those elements would get engulfed into other Google efforts

0:17:11.960 --> 0:17:14.720
<v Speaker 1>and whatever it was that was launched would just disappear.

0:17:14.800 --> 0:17:16.880
<v Speaker 1>So I guess what I'm saying is that when these

0:17:16.920 --> 0:17:21.680
<v Speaker 1>mixed reality headsets hit the market, be cautious before adopting it,

0:17:21.720 --> 0:17:25.840
<v Speaker 1>because Google has a very long history of abandoning stuff

0:17:26.400 --> 0:17:29.840
<v Speaker 1>not long after launch, so that's not necessarily going to

0:17:29.880 --> 0:17:31.919
<v Speaker 1>be the case here. I'm just saying, if it's going

0:17:32.000 --> 0:17:35.080
<v Speaker 1>to be really expensive and you don't necessarily have the

0:17:35.080 --> 0:17:39.440
<v Speaker 1>money to spare, maybe hold back for generation two or three,

0:17:39.840 --> 0:17:41.920
<v Speaker 1>just to make sure that it's going to stick around.

0:17:42.480 --> 0:17:45.600
<v Speaker 1>Emmanuel Meberg of four h four Media has an article

0:17:45.640 --> 0:17:52.400
<v Speaker 1>titled YouTube enhances comment section with AI generated nonsense, and y'all,

0:17:52.480 --> 0:17:55.639
<v Speaker 1>I just can't. I mean, YouTube's comment section is already

0:17:55.680 --> 0:17:58.879
<v Speaker 1>a breeding ground for nonsense. Now, don't get me wrong,

0:17:59.080 --> 0:18:01.879
<v Speaker 1>there are actually some great community members out there in

0:18:01.960 --> 0:18:06.000
<v Speaker 1>various communities who post positive and supportive and helpful comments.

0:18:06.400 --> 0:18:09.200
<v Speaker 1>There are others who might be a little more abrasive,

0:18:09.560 --> 0:18:13.360
<v Speaker 1>but they clearly mean well in their criticism. Then there's

0:18:13.400 --> 0:18:16.119
<v Speaker 1>the ones who don't mean well in their criticisms, and

0:18:16.160 --> 0:18:20.200
<v Speaker 1>then the outright jokesters and trolls. The jokesters just want

0:18:20.240 --> 0:18:23.640
<v Speaker 1>an opportunity to crack a punchline and work on their material,

0:18:23.840 --> 0:18:26.359
<v Speaker 1>and the trolls just want to upset whomever they can.

0:18:26.880 --> 0:18:29.760
<v Speaker 1>And then you've got like stalkers who are fostering unhealthy

0:18:29.760 --> 0:18:33.560
<v Speaker 1>parasocial relationships online. And then you've got bots that are

0:18:33.600 --> 0:18:36.199
<v Speaker 1>just trying to trick people into going to malicious or

0:18:36.240 --> 0:18:39.359
<v Speaker 1>shady websites. Do we really need to add more AI

0:18:39.480 --> 0:18:42.600
<v Speaker 1>to this mix? Who? Apparently, YouTube's answer is yes. Now,

0:18:42.640 --> 0:18:45.640
<v Speaker 1>in this case, the AI is actually intended to give

0:18:45.800 --> 0:18:48.960
<v Speaker 1>content creators the ability to interact with, or at least

0:18:48.960 --> 0:18:53.400
<v Speaker 1>to appear to interact with their communities without as much effort.

0:18:53.760 --> 0:18:57.840
<v Speaker 1>It's meant to let creators reply to comments faster and easier, But,

0:18:58.000 --> 0:19:02.200
<v Speaker 1>as my Berg writes, the results aren't always helpful. In fact,

0:19:02.200 --> 0:19:07.760
<v Speaker 1>in his words, they sometimes can end up being quote misleading, nonsensical,

0:19:08.000 --> 0:19:11.720
<v Speaker 1>or weirdly intimate end quote. Now, this tool is not

0:19:11.880 --> 0:19:14.600
<v Speaker 1>fully automated. It's not like it just automatically goes and

0:19:14.640 --> 0:19:18.760
<v Speaker 1>starts answering every comment left on a creator's channel. Instead,

0:19:19.080 --> 0:19:22.679
<v Speaker 1>it sort of auto suggests a reply, and if the

0:19:22.760 --> 0:19:25.520
<v Speaker 1>reply is one that the content creator likes, they can

0:19:25.600 --> 0:19:27.960
<v Speaker 1>just post it. So that's pretty good, right. It gives

0:19:27.960 --> 0:19:31.320
<v Speaker 1>the creator the ultimate editorial control to whether you know,

0:19:31.440 --> 0:19:34.920
<v Speaker 1>they post it or just write their own response. It's

0:19:35.000 --> 0:19:37.400
<v Speaker 1>kind of like the auto messages that are generated by

0:19:37.440 --> 0:19:40.439
<v Speaker 1>a lot of different texting or messaging apps these days.

0:19:40.880 --> 0:19:43.440
<v Speaker 1>I suggest reading My Bird's piece for a full rundown

0:19:43.480 --> 0:19:46.560
<v Speaker 1>on the topic, as it includes some amusing examples of

0:19:46.560 --> 0:19:49.720
<v Speaker 1>how the AI suggested replies that maybe just aren't the

0:19:49.760 --> 0:19:53.440
<v Speaker 1>best fit for the comments that were left behind. Brandon

0:19:53.520 --> 0:19:56.879
<v Speaker 1>Viiglia Rollo of The Register has a headline that definitely

0:19:56.880 --> 0:20:00.560
<v Speaker 1>caught my attention this week. The headline is America cops

0:20:00.640 --> 0:20:04.920
<v Speaker 1>are using AI to draft police reports and the ACLU

0:20:05.119 --> 0:20:09.480
<v Speaker 1>isn't happy. So police officers cops they have to write

0:20:09.560 --> 0:20:13.240
<v Speaker 1>up reports detailing their work they have to document everything

0:20:13.280 --> 0:20:16.000
<v Speaker 1>that they're doing when it relates to their interactions with

0:20:16.080 --> 0:20:19.600
<v Speaker 1>the public and pursuing suspects and all that stuff. They

0:20:19.640 --> 0:20:22.520
<v Speaker 1>have to report everything because all of those details matter,

0:20:22.600 --> 0:20:26.800
<v Speaker 1>particularly once an issue reaches the court system, where prosecutors

0:20:26.840 --> 0:20:30.640
<v Speaker 1>are reliant upon these reports in order to make their case. Now,

0:20:30.680 --> 0:20:35.960
<v Speaker 1>once upon a time, many many many years ago, one

0:20:36.000 --> 0:20:41.600
<v Speaker 1>of my first jobs was to transcribe similar reports. Now

0:20:42.040 --> 0:20:45.160
<v Speaker 1>I had to take handwritten reports, and then I would

0:20:45.240 --> 0:20:47.760
<v Speaker 1>have to type those reports up. This was for a

0:20:47.800 --> 0:20:50.800
<v Speaker 1>security firm. It was not a police station. It was

0:20:50.840 --> 0:20:53.880
<v Speaker 1>a police force. But several members of the security team

0:20:53.920 --> 0:20:57.439
<v Speaker 1>were either active cops or former cops and they were

0:20:58.000 --> 0:21:01.360
<v Speaker 1>moonlighting as security officers. And y'all to say those reports

0:21:01.359 --> 0:21:06.480
<v Speaker 1>were often incomprehensible is being too generous. Not all police

0:21:06.480 --> 0:21:10.639
<v Speaker 1>officers are gifted with the ability to write a clear,

0:21:11.119 --> 0:21:15.480
<v Speaker 1>concise report. Some of those reports they might as well

0:21:15.480 --> 0:21:17.720
<v Speaker 1>have been gibberished. Now, granted, I was working again for

0:21:17.760 --> 0:21:21.040
<v Speaker 1>a security firm, not for a police station, so it

0:21:21.080 --> 0:21:24.159
<v Speaker 1>could have been different because of that. But anyway, I

0:21:24.160 --> 0:21:27.080
<v Speaker 1>can see why police forces might wish to experiment with

0:21:27.119 --> 0:21:29.960
<v Speaker 1>a tool that makes writing reports a lot easier to

0:21:30.000 --> 0:21:33.479
<v Speaker 1>do and easier to understand and reference, you know, easier

0:21:33.480 --> 0:21:36.080
<v Speaker 1>to follow. Like some of those reports, I would type

0:21:36.240 --> 0:21:39.640
<v Speaker 1>literally what had been written, but I couldn't tell you

0:21:39.720 --> 0:21:43.119
<v Speaker 1>what the report was actually saying, because it wasn't written

0:21:43.160 --> 0:21:46.240
<v Speaker 1>in a way that followed a clear line of thought,

0:21:46.240 --> 0:21:49.680
<v Speaker 1>at least not from my perspective. But there's an understandable

0:21:49.680 --> 0:21:53.320
<v Speaker 1>concern that an automated approach to generating reports could result

0:21:53.320 --> 0:21:58.680
<v Speaker 1>in documentation that's treated as official but as fundamentally incorrect, misleading,

0:21:59.080 --> 0:22:04.600
<v Speaker 1>or militia, even if it's not intentionally malicious. The technology

0:22:04.640 --> 0:22:08.800
<v Speaker 1>that viglia Rollo alludes to is called Draft one. It's

0:22:08.800 --> 0:22:13.040
<v Speaker 1>from a company called Axon. So this technology takes footage

0:22:13.480 --> 0:22:17.120
<v Speaker 1>captured by body cameras that are warned by police officers,

0:22:17.320 --> 0:22:21.959
<v Speaker 1>and it then generates reports based off that footage. Cops

0:22:22.000 --> 0:22:24.560
<v Speaker 1>then have the ability to edit these reports, and so

0:22:24.640 --> 0:22:27.120
<v Speaker 1>they can go in and correct any mistakes that might

0:22:27.119 --> 0:22:30.600
<v Speaker 1>be in the generated report. They might elaborate on points

0:22:30.640 --> 0:22:34.159
<v Speaker 1>that weren't captured by the camera or the AI tool.

0:22:34.520 --> 0:22:37.760
<v Speaker 1>But the ACLU has pointed out that offloading reports to

0:22:37.840 --> 0:22:42.840
<v Speaker 1>AI reports that again prosecutors rely upon during criminal trials

0:22:43.080 --> 0:22:46.719
<v Speaker 1>that's inevitably going to lead to civil rights violations and

0:22:46.760 --> 0:22:51.240
<v Speaker 1>related issues, and I think that's a pretty safe bet

0:22:51.640 --> 0:22:54.000
<v Speaker 1>that there will be these negative consequences. I mean, we've

0:22:54.000 --> 0:22:58.760
<v Speaker 1>already talked multiple times on this show about how certain technologies,

0:22:58.760 --> 0:23:03.400
<v Speaker 1>such as facial recognition algorithms, frequently have massive blind spots

0:23:03.440 --> 0:23:07.960
<v Speaker 1>that disproportionately affect already vulnerable populations. So in the case

0:23:08.000 --> 0:23:11.760
<v Speaker 1>with facial recognition tools, if you're not a white male,

0:23:12.400 --> 0:23:16.240
<v Speaker 1>the success rate for those tools begins to fall, and

0:23:16.680 --> 0:23:20.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, depending upon what demographic you fall into, you

0:23:20.000 --> 0:23:23.520
<v Speaker 1>could end up being the victim of a false positive

0:23:23.840 --> 0:23:26.320
<v Speaker 1>or a false negative. I mean, it's proven to be

0:23:26.359 --> 0:23:31.199
<v Speaker 1>an unreliable technology because of the inherent bias that underlies

0:23:31.320 --> 0:23:34.159
<v Speaker 1>the tech. Not saying that the tech can't get to

0:23:34.200 --> 0:23:37.280
<v Speaker 1>a point where it could reliably identify people, but as

0:23:37.320 --> 0:23:42.639
<v Speaker 1>it has been trained and designed, it doesn't for certain populations.

0:23:42.920 --> 0:23:47.720
<v Speaker 1>And often these are the same populations that are disproportionately criminalized.

0:23:48.119 --> 0:23:51.400
<v Speaker 1>And to get into that gets into a whole sociology

0:23:51.440 --> 0:23:53.960
<v Speaker 1>thing that goes so far beyond tech. So we're not

0:23:54.040 --> 0:23:56.400
<v Speaker 1>going to do that. I'm just saying tools like this

0:23:56.560 --> 0:24:00.160
<v Speaker 1>can add to those problems. And make them worse. So well,

0:24:00.200 --> 0:24:04.720
<v Speaker 1>the ACLU is urging that police not use this tool.

0:24:04.880 --> 0:24:09.240
<v Speaker 1>That in fact, municipalities end up banning the use of

0:24:09.800 --> 0:24:14.080
<v Speaker 1>AI generated police reports because of the potential harm it

0:24:14.119 --> 0:24:18.280
<v Speaker 1>can have on innocent citizens or just citizens in general,

0:24:18.320 --> 0:24:21.920
<v Speaker 1>Like it can violate your rights, and that's something that

0:24:22.680 --> 0:24:25.520
<v Speaker 1>is not supposed to happen and yet does a lot.

0:24:25.600 --> 0:24:27.359
<v Speaker 1>So let's not make the problem worse. It's what the

0:24:27.440 --> 0:24:31.280
<v Speaker 1>ACLU is saying. As viglia Rolo points out, the company

0:24:31.320 --> 0:24:35.040
<v Speaker 1>behind this I mentioned them once before, Axon already has

0:24:35.080 --> 0:24:37.879
<v Speaker 1>a pretty rough reputation. So a couple of years ago,

0:24:38.160 --> 0:24:45.840
<v Speaker 1>Axon proposed the brilliant idea of attaching tasers to remote

0:24:45.880 --> 0:24:49.639
<v Speaker 1>controlled drones for the purposes of law enforcement. So you

0:24:49.680 --> 0:24:54.520
<v Speaker 1>would have like taser armed flying drones that some police

0:24:54.520 --> 0:24:59.119
<v Speaker 1>officer using a remote control could operate and then zap

0:24:59.200 --> 0:25:02.800
<v Speaker 1>people with. Not very long after the company made that announcement,

0:25:02.880 --> 0:25:08.320
<v Speaker 1>their entire or nearly their entire ethics board resigned in protest.

0:25:08.720 --> 0:25:11.160
<v Speaker 1>Like when you've got an ethics board and they're like, oh,

0:25:11.200 --> 0:25:15.240
<v Speaker 1>for heaven's sake, this is so clearly not ethical, what

0:25:15.400 --> 0:25:19.480
<v Speaker 1>are we even doing here? And then they just they leave,

0:25:19.880 --> 0:25:22.080
<v Speaker 1>don't even bother to shut the door on the way out.

0:25:22.480 --> 0:25:25.840
<v Speaker 1>That is sending a pretty strong message. Now, in that case,

0:25:25.920 --> 0:25:30.320
<v Speaker 1>Axon did back away from that particular project, so we

0:25:30.400 --> 0:25:34.840
<v Speaker 1>don't have those taser armed drones flying around, for which

0:25:34.840 --> 0:25:37.560
<v Speaker 1>I am thankful. I highly recommend the article and the

0:25:37.600 --> 0:25:40.520
<v Speaker 1>register if you want to learn more about this. Again.

0:25:40.880 --> 0:25:44.240
<v Speaker 1>That's by Brandon viglia Rolo and the article title is

0:25:44.359 --> 0:25:47.879
<v Speaker 1>American cops are using AI to draft police reports and

0:25:47.920 --> 0:25:52.800
<v Speaker 1>the ACLU isn't happy. All right, let's take another quick break.

0:25:52.800 --> 0:25:54.639
<v Speaker 1>When we come back, I got a couple more news

0:25:54.680 --> 0:26:08.520
<v Speaker 1>items I want to talk about, and we'll be right back. Okay.

0:26:09.080 --> 0:26:12.240
<v Speaker 1>Next up, we have a story from Avrum Pilch of

0:26:12.320 --> 0:26:15.880
<v Speaker 1>Tom's Hardware. Tom's Hardware is a great resource, by the way,

0:26:15.920 --> 0:26:17.840
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if you've ever used it. I highly

0:26:17.880 --> 0:26:20.000
<v Speaker 1>recommend it. I mean I used to use Tom's Hardware

0:26:20.200 --> 0:26:24.160
<v Speaker 1>just to literally get my hands on certain electronic pieces

0:26:24.200 --> 0:26:26.439
<v Speaker 1>and that kind of stuff. But there's a ton of

0:26:26.480 --> 0:26:29.960
<v Speaker 1>great articles on there too. Anyway. Pilch's article on Tom's

0:26:29.960 --> 0:26:35.240
<v Speaker 1>Hardware is titled Microsoft recall screenshots, credit cards and Social

0:26:35.240 --> 0:26:39.200
<v Speaker 1>Security numbers. Even with the sensitive Information filter enabled, Okay,

0:26:39.520 --> 0:26:41.640
<v Speaker 1>that's a little hard for me to parse the way

0:26:41.640 --> 0:26:43.919
<v Speaker 1>I said it. Essentially, what they're talking about here, what

0:26:44.040 --> 0:26:48.040
<v Speaker 1>Pilch is saying is that Microsoft Recall, which is a

0:26:48.200 --> 0:26:54.639
<v Speaker 1>feature in certain new Windows eleven laptops, the Copilot plus PCs.

0:26:54.760 --> 0:26:59.440
<v Speaker 1>Essentially it has some blind spots, some issues that probably

0:26:59.480 --> 0:27:04.320
<v Speaker 1>need to be a if you don't recall Microsoft recall.

0:27:05.840 --> 0:27:08.480
<v Speaker 1>I love how I changed my pronunciation, just depending on

0:27:08.520 --> 0:27:11.439
<v Speaker 1>how I feel anyway. It's a feature that's in recent

0:27:12.040 --> 0:27:16.040
<v Speaker 1>PCs in which the computer takes screenshots of whatever it

0:27:16.119 --> 0:27:19.440
<v Speaker 1>is you're doing on the device, and it just keeps

0:27:19.480 --> 0:27:22.960
<v Speaker 1>a record of these screenshots. Then you can actually search

0:27:23.240 --> 0:27:26.600
<v Speaker 1>those screenshots to find information. And you might say, well,

0:27:26.600 --> 0:27:30.320
<v Speaker 1>what good does that do. Well, let's say you are

0:27:30.359 --> 0:27:32.919
<v Speaker 1>doing something that you very rarely have to do, Like

0:27:32.960 --> 0:27:34.679
<v Speaker 1>it's a task that you have to do once in

0:27:34.720 --> 0:27:36.960
<v Speaker 1>a blue moon, so every time you do it, you

0:27:37.040 --> 0:27:39.280
<v Speaker 1>have to relearn how to do it because you're not

0:27:39.400 --> 0:27:42.320
<v Speaker 1>doing it every day. Well, this could help you quickly

0:27:42.359 --> 0:27:44.640
<v Speaker 1>go back and retrace your steps and say, ah, here,

0:27:44.760 --> 0:27:46.679
<v Speaker 1>that's what I need to do in order to complete

0:27:46.680 --> 0:27:49.320
<v Speaker 1>this task. I just you know, search my screen shots

0:27:49.320 --> 0:27:50.720
<v Speaker 1>and I found out what I need to do, and

0:27:50.760 --> 0:27:55.359
<v Speaker 1>I'm good to go. And Microsoft had introduced this or

0:27:55.400 --> 0:28:00.280
<v Speaker 1>announced this earlier this year, but that initial announcement did

0:28:00.280 --> 0:28:03.800
<v Speaker 1>a lot of people to voice concerns about the feature,

0:28:04.000 --> 0:28:07.679
<v Speaker 1>specifically concerns about security and privacy. People didn't like the

0:28:07.720 --> 0:28:11.440
<v Speaker 1>idea of their activities on the computer becoming like a record,

0:28:11.520 --> 0:28:15.040
<v Speaker 1>a searchable record, for lots of reasons. I think you

0:28:15.080 --> 0:28:18.199
<v Speaker 1>can probably imagine there are a lot of legitimate reasons

0:28:18.200 --> 0:28:21.760
<v Speaker 1>why you wouldn't want to have like a searchable record

0:28:21.880 --> 0:28:25.800
<v Speaker 1>of your activities on your computer. For example, let's say

0:28:26.119 --> 0:28:30.920
<v Speaker 1>that you were researching something like divorce, like maybe you're

0:28:30.960 --> 0:28:34.480
<v Speaker 1>in an unhappy relationship, you wouldn't necessarily want that to

0:28:34.520 --> 0:28:38.040
<v Speaker 1>be a searchable record on your computer. Or maybe you're

0:28:38.200 --> 0:28:41.880
<v Speaker 1>researching something about a health issue and that's not anyone

0:28:41.880 --> 0:28:44.520
<v Speaker 1>else's business, so you don't want that to be searchable.

0:28:44.880 --> 0:28:47.920
<v Speaker 1>There are a lot of legitimate and innocent reasons why

0:28:48.120 --> 0:28:50.719
<v Speaker 1>you wouldn't want to have a full record of your

0:28:50.760 --> 0:28:54.600
<v Speaker 1>activities just sitting there on your computer. But let's say

0:28:54.640 --> 0:28:56.800
<v Speaker 1>that you did come around to saying, okay, well this

0:28:56.880 --> 0:28:59.160
<v Speaker 1>is more helpful than harmful. I definitely want to make

0:28:59.200 --> 0:29:04.120
<v Speaker 1>sure that and Microsoft assured people that the recall feature

0:29:04.240 --> 0:29:07.400
<v Speaker 1>exists solely at the device level. In other words, it's

0:29:07.440 --> 0:29:10.800
<v Speaker 1>not sending information over the cloud to Microsoft or to

0:29:10.880 --> 0:29:14.520
<v Speaker 1>other partners. It all lives on the machine. So that way,

0:29:14.760 --> 0:29:17.840
<v Speaker 1>as long as the machine is in your possession, you're good.

0:29:18.360 --> 0:29:20.720
<v Speaker 1>But that's still kind of a concern because if someone

0:29:20.760 --> 0:29:22.720
<v Speaker 1>were to get access to your machine, then they would

0:29:22.720 --> 0:29:25.640
<v Speaker 1>be able to see a full history of your activities

0:29:25.720 --> 0:29:30.120
<v Speaker 1>that might include stuff that gives them information about logins

0:29:30.160 --> 0:29:33.400
<v Speaker 1>and all that other kind of information. So then Microsoft said, Okay,

0:29:33.600 --> 0:29:37.160
<v Speaker 1>we're gonna work on this. They kind of pushed back

0:29:37.400 --> 0:29:40.640
<v Speaker 1>the debut of recall, and then they incorporated a couple

0:29:40.640 --> 0:29:44.200
<v Speaker 1>of new features. One is that the screenshots are all encrypted,

0:29:44.360 --> 0:29:47.600
<v Speaker 1>which means if you don't have administrative access to the

0:29:47.600 --> 0:29:49.640
<v Speaker 1>computer or whatever, or user access, like you don't have

0:29:49.680 --> 0:29:52.960
<v Speaker 1>the password to get into someone's machine, you can't do

0:29:53.040 --> 0:29:57.200
<v Speaker 1>anything with those files unless you first decrypt them. Presumably

0:29:57.240 --> 0:29:59.000
<v Speaker 1>that would take a very long time to do and

0:29:59.000 --> 0:30:02.880
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't be worth your effort. But as Pilch notes, sometimes

0:30:03.520 --> 0:30:08.080
<v Speaker 1>recall will capture sensitive information that it should not capture

0:30:08.360 --> 0:30:10.880
<v Speaker 1>in a screenshot and will leave it in plain text.

0:30:11.120 --> 0:30:14.160
<v Speaker 1>Although the screenshot itself is encrypted, if you were to

0:30:14.200 --> 0:30:16.520
<v Speaker 1>look at the screenshot, you would see the information that

0:30:16.560 --> 0:30:20.360
<v Speaker 1>shouldn't be protected in clear text. That's a problem. So

0:30:20.880 --> 0:30:25.400
<v Speaker 1>for example, credit card information. By default, screenshots are not

0:30:25.440 --> 0:30:28.760
<v Speaker 1>supposed to be taken of that kind of info. And

0:30:29.120 --> 0:30:32.760
<v Speaker 1>if you're using like a shopping site, Recalls pretty good

0:30:32.800 --> 0:30:35.720
<v Speaker 1>about not doing that. But Pilch found that if you

0:30:35.760 --> 0:30:38.520
<v Speaker 1>were using other cases, like let's say you've got a

0:30:38.520 --> 0:30:41.760
<v Speaker 1>PDF file and you open up the PDF file and

0:30:41.800 --> 0:30:44.520
<v Speaker 1>you're filling out the fields on this PDF file, they've

0:30:44.520 --> 0:30:48.400
<v Speaker 1>made it, you know, editable, so you might have a

0:30:48.440 --> 0:30:52.000
<v Speaker 1>file that has government information on it, like if you

0:30:52.040 --> 0:30:54.760
<v Speaker 1>were filing for a passport or something. He found that

0:30:54.800 --> 0:30:58.480
<v Speaker 1>in those cases, Recall would take screenshots and the sensitive

0:30:58.480 --> 0:31:02.080
<v Speaker 1>information would be clearly viewable in the screenshots, and that's

0:31:02.120 --> 0:31:05.840
<v Speaker 1>an issue. Again. The screenshot itself is encrypted and it

0:31:05.880 --> 0:31:08.840
<v Speaker 1>lives just on the device, but still a concern like

0:31:08.880 --> 0:31:11.920
<v Speaker 1>there's this record there that doesn't necessarily need to be there.

0:31:12.280 --> 0:31:15.920
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft says that it's continually working on its features, so

0:31:16.440 --> 0:31:19.120
<v Speaker 1>maybe this will be something that gets patched out later on,

0:31:19.520 --> 0:31:22.080
<v Speaker 1>but I think it's good to be alert and aware

0:31:22.320 --> 0:31:25.400
<v Speaker 1>about these sorts of things. So every country in the

0:31:25.400 --> 0:31:29.000
<v Speaker 1>world has rules around certain bands of radio frequencies and

0:31:29.080 --> 0:31:31.800
<v Speaker 1>how those bands can be used. So here in the

0:31:31.920 --> 0:31:36.240
<v Speaker 1>United States, the Federal Communications Commission or FCC oversees this,

0:31:36.440 --> 0:31:39.800
<v Speaker 1>and recently they opened up a frequency band, the six

0:31:39.920 --> 0:31:44.120
<v Speaker 1>gigahertz frequency band. In fact that the band itself is

0:31:44.160 --> 0:31:48.080
<v Speaker 1>like one point two gigaherts wide. But they've opened this

0:31:48.200 --> 0:31:52.640
<v Speaker 1>up to very low power devices. So this doesn't apply

0:31:52.760 --> 0:31:56.480
<v Speaker 1>to anyone who perhaps wanted to build a mega transmitter

0:31:56.880 --> 0:31:59.480
<v Speaker 1>in the six gigahertz band or anything like that. There's

0:31:59.480 --> 0:32:01.960
<v Speaker 1>still not a lot to do that. However, it does

0:32:02.200 --> 0:32:06.600
<v Speaker 1>allow for short range wireless devices, so for example, in

0:32:06.840 --> 0:32:12.080
<v Speaker 1>car entertainment systems or short range health monitoring devices, those

0:32:12.160 --> 0:32:15.360
<v Speaker 1>kinds of things, Internet of things kind of applications. The

0:32:15.440 --> 0:32:18.520
<v Speaker 1>data throughput in the six gigahertz range is far greater

0:32:18.560 --> 0:32:21.040
<v Speaker 1>than what you would get with the technology like Bluetooth.

0:32:21.400 --> 0:32:24.640
<v Speaker 1>But that just means that the implementation of the technology

0:32:24.720 --> 0:32:28.760
<v Speaker 1>should guide your choice as to which technology, which wireless

0:32:28.760 --> 0:32:34.000
<v Speaker 1>technology you incorporate into your invention. So if whatever application

0:32:34.080 --> 0:32:37.160
<v Speaker 1>you have in mind just requires small amounts of data

0:32:37.200 --> 0:32:40.400
<v Speaker 1>transfers like it's just little packets of data. Bluetooth would

0:32:40.400 --> 0:32:43.280
<v Speaker 1>be a great solution for that. It's it does that

0:32:43.440 --> 0:32:45.720
<v Speaker 1>job great, But if you need something that has a

0:32:45.760 --> 0:32:51.480
<v Speaker 1>bit more oomph in the data transmission context, well then

0:32:51.800 --> 0:32:55.480
<v Speaker 1>you would probably want to use this band of frequencies.

0:32:56.000 --> 0:32:59.520
<v Speaker 1>One other issue with this is that you could run

0:32:59.520 --> 0:33:03.200
<v Speaker 1>into interfer appearence. That's why the FCC has only allowed

0:33:03.200 --> 0:33:07.040
<v Speaker 1>for very low power applications using this band because if

0:33:07.040 --> 0:33:10.000
<v Speaker 1>it's very low power, the range of transmission is not

0:33:10.040 --> 0:33:13.000
<v Speaker 1>going to be very far, so the chance for interference

0:33:13.160 --> 0:33:17.480
<v Speaker 1>is lower. If you have higher power outputs, then you're

0:33:17.480 --> 0:33:20.920
<v Speaker 1>going to have more opportunities for interference, which means more

0:33:21.280 --> 0:33:24.400
<v Speaker 1>error rates and things of that nature. So if you

0:33:24.560 --> 0:33:28.160
<v Speaker 1>just restrict how much power the device is able to use,

0:33:28.200 --> 0:33:31.320
<v Speaker 1>you really sidestep that problem just because they don't transmit

0:33:31.400 --> 0:33:35.760
<v Speaker 1>far enough for interference to typically be an issue. Okay,

0:33:35.800 --> 0:33:39.960
<v Speaker 1>our last story before we get to recommended reading is

0:33:40.000 --> 0:33:43.200
<v Speaker 1>about the game awards that happened this week. Now I'm

0:33:43.200 --> 0:33:44.760
<v Speaker 1>going to cut right to the chase. The Game of

0:33:44.800 --> 0:33:49.360
<v Speaker 1>the Year went to Astrobot. I have not played Astrobot,

0:33:49.400 --> 0:33:52.760
<v Speaker 1>but everything I've heard suggests that it is worthy of

0:33:52.800 --> 0:33:54.960
<v Speaker 1>the title of Game of the Year, even though I'm

0:33:55.000 --> 0:33:57.760
<v Speaker 1>a little salty that like a dragon Infinite Wealth didn't

0:33:57.800 --> 0:33:59.680
<v Speaker 1>make it to the nominee list for a Game of

0:33:59.680 --> 0:34:02.280
<v Speaker 1>the Year. But then I play maybe three or four

0:34:02.320 --> 0:34:06.120
<v Speaker 1>games in a twelve month period, so I don't have

0:34:06.200 --> 0:34:08.439
<v Speaker 1>the experience to make a good call on these kinds

0:34:08.440 --> 0:34:11.319
<v Speaker 1>of things, Like I am certainly not an expert because

0:34:11.320 --> 0:34:14.520
<v Speaker 1>I don't play enough. But anyway, the Game Awards are

0:34:14.560 --> 0:34:17.480
<v Speaker 1>really known for two things, you know, giving out trophies

0:34:17.480 --> 0:34:21.040
<v Speaker 1>to games and creators and also showing a buttload of

0:34:21.120 --> 0:34:24.920
<v Speaker 1>trailers for upcoming video game titles. So some of the

0:34:25.000 --> 0:34:29.560
<v Speaker 1>stuff shown off during the awards included a teaser for

0:34:29.640 --> 0:34:33.200
<v Speaker 1>a game from Naughty Dog. They make the uncharted games.

0:34:33.480 --> 0:34:38.040
<v Speaker 1>It's titled Intergalactic the Heretic Project. They showed a trailer

0:34:38.080 --> 0:34:41.799
<v Speaker 1>for an elden Ring multiplayer spinoff game called night Rain.

0:34:42.400 --> 0:34:45.160
<v Speaker 1>They showed off a trailer for a new entry in

0:34:45.239 --> 0:34:48.279
<v Speaker 1>the Venerable Witcher series of games, so this would be

0:34:48.360 --> 0:34:50.960
<v Speaker 1>the Witcher four. They gave a first look at the

0:34:51.040 --> 0:34:56.560
<v Speaker 1>upcoming Borderlands four game. They announced a new Turrok game

0:34:56.640 --> 0:35:00.560
<v Speaker 1>of all things that was a shock and lots more

0:35:00.600 --> 0:35:03.640
<v Speaker 1>stuff too, So if you are a gamer, and somehow

0:35:03.640 --> 0:35:06.000
<v Speaker 1>you missed out on all the hype and all the announcements.

0:35:06.200 --> 0:35:08.400
<v Speaker 1>I recommend you take some time today to watch a

0:35:08.480 --> 0:35:12.360
<v Speaker 1>truckload of trailers and catch up and get excited for

0:35:12.400 --> 0:35:14.640
<v Speaker 1>what's coming next year. I'll have to say, like the

0:35:14.680 --> 0:35:18.319
<v Speaker 1>last couple of years have been pretty darn phenomenal on

0:35:18.360 --> 0:35:20.719
<v Speaker 1>the video game front. There have been some really incredible

0:35:20.760 --> 0:35:22.880
<v Speaker 1>titles to come out, and while I've only had a

0:35:22.960 --> 0:35:25.400
<v Speaker 1>chance to play a few of them, I'm just amazed

0:35:25.760 --> 0:35:28.360
<v Speaker 1>at the creativity and the innovation that's going on in

0:35:28.400 --> 0:35:31.799
<v Speaker 1>the video game space, mostly in the independent space, like

0:35:32.080 --> 0:35:35.160
<v Speaker 1>the TRIPAA titles and stuff. Those are always, you know,

0:35:35.320 --> 0:35:38.160
<v Speaker 1>impressive and everything. And I'd be lying if I said

0:35:38.160 --> 0:35:41.479
<v Speaker 1>I wasn't looking forward to Grand Theft Auto six. I am,

0:35:41.920 --> 0:35:46.480
<v Speaker 1>But honestly, I think some of the most exciting developments

0:35:46.520 --> 0:35:50.600
<v Speaker 1>in the video game space have been in the independent area.

0:35:51.000 --> 0:35:54.759
<v Speaker 1>There've been some great games. No independent itself is a

0:35:54.760 --> 0:35:58.520
<v Speaker 1>broad spectrum. Some independent studios are teeny tiny and consist

0:35:58.600 --> 0:36:01.400
<v Speaker 1>of maybe one or two people, and some independent studios

0:36:01.560 --> 0:36:05.400
<v Speaker 1>are actually quite large and have support from much bigger

0:36:05.480 --> 0:36:09.160
<v Speaker 1>companies somewhere along the line. So you know, that's a

0:36:09.239 --> 0:36:12.680
<v Speaker 1>huge range in itself. Okay, I do have some recommended

0:36:12.719 --> 0:36:16.040
<v Speaker 1>reading for y'all, and this stuff is pretty deep and

0:36:16.080 --> 0:36:19.120
<v Speaker 1>some of it's super heavy, So I didn't tackle it

0:36:19.120 --> 0:36:23.640
<v Speaker 1>in today's episode because typically the entries here are fairly short,

0:36:23.680 --> 0:36:26.440
<v Speaker 1>and I feel like these are stories that require a

0:36:26.480 --> 0:36:30.839
<v Speaker 1>lot more reading and consideration and you can't easily summarize them.

0:36:30.880 --> 0:36:34.080
<v Speaker 1>So up first is Ian Sample's piece in The Guardian

0:36:34.280 --> 0:36:39.400
<v Speaker 1>titled unprecedented risk to life on Earth Scientists call for

0:36:39.560 --> 0:36:43.719
<v Speaker 1>halt on mirror life MicroB research, you know, in case

0:36:43.760 --> 0:36:46.520
<v Speaker 1>those drones over New Jersey aren't filling you with enough

0:36:46.680 --> 0:36:50.600
<v Speaker 1>existential dread, but a very important piece just scary. Then

0:36:50.680 --> 0:36:54.560
<v Speaker 1>there's Dan Gooden's peace in Ours Tetnica titled Russia takes

0:36:54.680 --> 0:36:59.200
<v Speaker 1>unusual route to hack Starlink connected devices in Ukraine and

0:36:59.280 --> 0:37:02.520
<v Speaker 1>it details the rather circuitous route that Russia has created

0:37:02.600 --> 0:37:05.799
<v Speaker 1>in an effort to spy on Ukrainian forces in that war.

0:37:06.200 --> 0:37:10.560
<v Speaker 1>And finally there's Ashley Bellinger's piece, also in Ours Technica

0:37:10.640 --> 0:37:15.319
<v Speaker 1>that's titled character dot AI steps up teen safety after

0:37:15.400 --> 0:37:20.520
<v Speaker 1>bots allegedly caused suicide self harm. So yeah, that last

0:37:20.600 --> 0:37:24.520
<v Speaker 1>article in particular is very hard to read It does

0:37:24.600 --> 0:37:28.200
<v Speaker 1>deal with kids and mental health issues and suicide, but

0:37:28.280 --> 0:37:32.160
<v Speaker 1>I think it's important to stay informed about how interactions

0:37:32.160 --> 0:37:36.400
<v Speaker 1>with AI can have very real and sometimes extremely tragic

0:37:36.600 --> 0:37:40.440
<v Speaker 1>consequences in our world, and to learn more about what

0:37:40.520 --> 0:37:44.480
<v Speaker 1>companies are doing or not doing to address those issues.

0:37:44.800 --> 0:37:48.319
<v Speaker 1>That's it for this episode. It was a long news episode,

0:37:48.360 --> 0:37:50.080
<v Speaker 1>but you know, we're wrapping up the year. There's a

0:37:50.120 --> 0:37:52.480
<v Speaker 1>lot to talk about, and besides which I won't be

0:37:52.520 --> 0:37:55.440
<v Speaker 1>doing this much longer, so it's good to get it

0:37:55.440 --> 0:37:58.160
<v Speaker 1>all out now. I hope all of you out there

0:37:58.360 --> 0:38:02.279
<v Speaker 1>are doing really well. I'll talk to you again really soon.

0:38:08.920 --> 0:38:13.560
<v Speaker 1>Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,

0:38:13.880 --> 0:38:17.600
<v Speaker 1>visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen

0:38:17.640 --> 0:38:18.680
<v Speaker 1>to your favorite shows.