Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio
Speaker 1: and I love all things tech. And this is the
Speaker 1: tech news for a Thursday, October seven, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: And before I get to the news, uh, I need
Speaker 1: to issue a correction because I totally bungled something in
Speaker 1: yesterday's episode. So if you've already listened to that one,
Speaker 1: there was you know, I was talking about space navigation
Speaker 1: in that episode, and I made a dumb mistake on
Speaker 1: my part, totally me and then I doubled down on it,
Speaker 1: which made it worse. But fortunately Twitter user Charlie Tango
Speaker 1: Bravo pointed this out to me. And the issue was
Speaker 1: I was describing the inverse square law, and what I
Speaker 1: said was that the intensity of a signal goes down
Speaker 1: by half upon the square of the distance. This was
Speaker 1: a complete misunderstanding on my part about the inverse square law.
Speaker 1: I mean, yes, the strength of a signal decreases over distance,
Speaker 1: but not that's not the relationship. Anyway. I could have
Speaker 1: avoided this entirely by just taking a little bit more
Speaker 1: time to make sure I understood the inverse square law
Speaker 1: before I included an explanation of it in my podcast.
Speaker 1: So again, this is all on me, and that stinks.
Speaker 1: I never want to get something wrong, and of course
Speaker 1: it's even worse than I could have avoided it if
Speaker 1: I had just been a little more careful, so my
Speaker 1: apologies to all of you for that. It also means
Speaker 1: that the example I gave was fundamentally wrong. I have
Speaker 1: recorded an updated segment that Tari is putting into yesterday's episode,
Speaker 1: so that doesn't solve the problem for everybody who's already
Speaker 1: listen to it, but it does mean that at least
Speaker 1: in in the future, should someone be going back and
Speaker 1: pulling up that episode, they won't have the wrong definition
Speaker 1: and explanation in there. And again thanks to Charlie Tango
Speaker 1: Bravo for the heads up. Uh and I I'll try
Speaker 1: to do better. I'm gonna make mistakes. I just hope
Speaker 1: they're not as embarrassing as that one. But let's get
Speaker 1: to the news. First up, A hacker pulled more than
Speaker 1: a hundred gigabytes of data down from Twitch, the video
Speaker 1: streaming service that Amazon owns and caters, primarily to gamers.
Speaker 1: That data included source code for the platform itself, so
Speaker 1: like the actual code that Twitch runs on. Uh. It
Speaker 1: included records showing how much top streamers were making due
Speaker 1: to the platform. So we're talking about, you know, like
Speaker 1: top performers making millions of dollars. Not all that information
Speaker 1: was you know, new necessarily, but it was all in
Speaker 1: one place. So a lot of people have been shocked
Speaker 1: by that. Also, stuff like user data, including potentially encrypted passwords.
Speaker 1: Now passwords being encrypted, that's a good thing. It that
Speaker 1: means that, you know, you can't just immediately read them.
Speaker 1: But however, with enough time and effort and a sufficiently
Speaker 1: powerful computer system, you can break encryption. It's just a
Speaker 1: question of how good was the encryption That will tell
Speaker 1: you how long it will typically take for you to
Speaker 1: break it. And for that reason, a lot of folks,
Speaker 1: including myself, are suggesting that anyone who has a Twitch
Speaker 1: account should go in and change their password. Hopefully you're
Speaker 1: not using the same password on Twitch as you are
Speaker 1: for other sites, because that could potentially mean that all
Speaker 1: of those accounts are now vulnerable to right, because if
Speaker 1: the hackers and all the people who are purchasing this
Speaker 1: information on the you know, digital black market. If they
Speaker 1: are all aware of the password you used and use
Speaker 1: it everywhere, well, now you've just you know, you've handed
Speaker 1: a skeleton key to people who just need to try
Speaker 1: it in all the different locks. While you're at it,
Speaker 1: while you're changing your password on Twitch, you should probably
Speaker 1: also go ahead and activate two factor authentication. That way,
Speaker 1: should someone ever get your password, they would still need
Speaker 1: your phone before they could access your account. So it's
Speaker 1: a good thing to have that active. Uh. It appears
Speaker 1: that the hacker was taking advantage of a vulnerability that
Speaker 1: was created when Amazon was doing some reconfiguration of Twitches servers.
Speaker 1: We've seen a couple of examples of server reconfigurations leading
Speaker 1: to big issues. In this case, it created an opportunity
Speaker 1: for a hacker to attack. In Facebook's case, it led
Speaker 1: to a situation where the internet essentially forgot that Facebook
Speaker 1: and all of its services existed for like six hours.
Speaker 1: So it really does tell us that you know, these processes,
Speaker 1: even when they are routine and mundane, you have to
Speaker 1: do them with a lot of care or else you
Speaker 1: can introduce some pretty big problems. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: attempted to downplay some statements that were made by the
Speaker 1: whistle blower and former Facebook employee Francis Hogan that she
Speaker 1: was making to the United States Senate. Zuckerberg said that
Speaker 1: the research Hoggan was citing had been taken completely out
Speaker 1: of context, and that it was painting a misleading portrait
Speaker 1: of what Facebook is, and he should know because he
Speaker 1: and other Facebook executives have made it kind of an
Speaker 1: art form to present, let's call it a highly curated
Speaker 1: image of Facebook, highlighting stuff that appears positive and then
Speaker 1: downplaying or even ignoring stuff that's negative, and meanwhile the
Speaker 1: entire time claiming that the company is operating in a
Speaker 1: transparent way. At one point, when The New York Times
Speaker 1: published an article that showed how Facebook was being selective
Speaker 1: to choose, you know, what kind of data to report
Speaker 1: and what data not to report, a Facebook spokesperson brushed
Speaker 1: it off and said, we're guilty of cleaning up our
Speaker 1: house a bit before we invited company. Okay, so here's
Speaker 1: the thing, though, Um, that's not what transparency means. Transparency
Speaker 1: doesn't mean let's just show you the pretty stuff. That's
Speaker 1: not transparency Facebook. Well, anyway, I suspect we're going to
Speaker 1: see a lot more scrutiny into the company in the
Speaker 1: weeks to come, and probably more examples of spin and
Speaker 1: damage control from the company as well. But I think
Speaker 1: tolerance for Facebook's shenanigans is at kind of a low
Speaker 1: point right now. I'm not saying it can't go lower.
Speaker 1: It might, but um, yeah, I think Facebook is kind
Speaker 1: of treading on thin ice at the moment. I think
Speaker 1: the government is of the United States in particular, is
Speaker 1: UH is kind of gearing up to to lay the
Speaker 1: smack down on Facebook, and the same is true in
Speaker 1: other parts of the world. By the way, all right,
Speaker 1: let's get back to hoggins testimony for a second. At
Speaker 1: one point, she talked about how Facebook's algorithms have exacerbated
Speaker 1: xenophobic rhetoric and made dangerous situations a whole lot worse
Speaker 1: in different parts of the world. One of the things
Speaker 1: you refer to was the coup in Myanmar, the military cue,
Speaker 1: and how face books algorithm pushed posts that turned the
Speaker 1: dial up with calls for things like ethnic violence within
Speaker 1: that country. And she also warned that the same thing
Speaker 1: is kind of unfolding now in Ethiopia. Researchers with the
Speaker 1: human rights organization Global witness back up that statement. They
Speaker 1: conducted a study in the mean Mar case. They actually
Speaker 1: looked to to a Facebook page that was a page
Speaker 1: dedicated to Myanmar's military, and that page didn't have any
Speaker 1: violations to Facebook's policies on it. They then liked that
Speaker 1: page to see what would happen next, and then Facebook
Speaker 1: started to suggest other pages that they might want to follow,
Speaker 1: and among those pages there were a bunch that had
Speaker 1: abusive content in them, stuff that was calling for like
Speaker 1: violence against specific ethnic minority groups. And even if you
Speaker 1: start from a place that doesn't violate Facebook's terms of service,
Speaker 1: it does not take long for stuff that is not
Speaker 1: playing by the rules to pop up, promoted by Facebook itself.
Speaker 1: I mean, you wouldn't necessarily even know it existed except
Speaker 1: for the fact that Facebook's algorithm is suggesting it to you.
Speaker 1: So this can quickly lead to a situation where a
Speaker 1: person sees frequent posts calling for violence or discrimination or
Speaker 1: promoting harmful and hateful ideologies, and it gets reinforced with
Speaker 1: every visit to Facebook. And now, I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: would go so far as to say that Facebook is
Speaker 1: the root cause of these problems. That is far too simplistic.
Speaker 1: It's just not reflective of the truth. But I think
Speaker 1: it's fair to say that Facebook is acting like an amplifier.
Speaker 1: It's taking a signal and boosting it. U S Senator
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren and House Representative Deborah Ross have introduced proposed
Speaker 1: legislation that they're calling the Ransom Disclosure Act, So they're
Speaker 1: calling for companies to have a legal obligation reveal when
Speaker 1: they have paid off a ransom as a result of
Speaker 1: a ransomware attack. Now, if you've been listening to my
Speaker 1: show for a while, you know I mean I I've
Speaker 1: beaten this dead horse so many times that I always say,
Speaker 1: never pay the ransom, because paying a ransom means you're
Speaker 1: sending the signal this criminal activity is profitable that encourages
Speaker 1: future attacks both against you and other entities. Plus, you
Speaker 1: can never guarantee that the attackers will actually return to
Speaker 1: you whatever it is that they have locked down, just
Speaker 1: in case. Ransomware is something you're not really familiar with. Typically,
Speaker 1: this involves hackers gaining access to a system and then
Speaker 1: they will encrypt large amounts of data and file folders
Speaker 1: and things like that in the system. So without a
Speaker 1: decryption key, without a way to reverse that process, all
Speaker 1: that data becomes unusable. It's it's it's gibberish, so you
Speaker 1: can't do anything with it. Um. Now, there are some
Speaker 1: different variations on this attack, but they all basically boiled
Speaker 1: down to a hacker trying to make critical systems or
Speaker 1: data inaccessible to the rightful owners. And then the hackers say,
Speaker 1: fork over the money, usually in the form of cryptocurrency,
Speaker 1: and then we'll hand you the decryption key so that
Speaker 1: you can get all your stuff back. So this bill,
Speaker 1: if passed into law, would require companies to disclose any
Speaker 1: ransom payment they made to hackers within forty eight hours
Speaker 1: of having made that payment, including how much they paid
Speaker 1: and in what format they paid it in. I imagine
Speaker 1: that if this bill does become law, it will discourage
Speaker 1: companies from trying to quietly handle these sorts of matters
Speaker 1: in the hopes that no one finds out about it,
Speaker 1: because if the government does find out that a company
Speaker 1: paid a ransom and that it did not comply with
Speaker 1: the rules, there's going to be some pretty serious consequences. Uh.
Speaker 1: Of course, this has not been passed into a law,
Speaker 1: it may never make it to a law, but is
Speaker 1: interesting to see the proposal over in Europe. A majority
Speaker 1: in the European Parliament voted on a band throughout the
Speaker 1: EU with regard to police using facial recognition surveillance to
Speaker 1: identify people who are not suspected of committing a crime.
Speaker 1: And as we've seen many times through lots of different studies,
Speaker 1: facial recognition technologies are incredibly prone to bias. Bias tends
Speaker 1: to disproportionately affect people in ethnic minority groups, and the
Speaker 1: European Parliament also released a statement that said, at least
Speaker 1: in part quote, to respect privacy and human dignity, m
Speaker 1: EPs ask for a permanent ban on the automated recognition
Speaker 1: of individuals in public spaces, noting that citizens should only
Speaker 1: be monitored when suspected of a crime. Parliament calls for
Speaker 1: the use of private facial recognition databases like the clear
Speaker 1: View AI system which is already in use, and predictive
Speaker 1: policing based on behavioral data to be forbidden end quote.
Speaker 1: And we've seen a growing concern around the world regarding
Speaker 1: how various authorities, particularly in law enforcement capacities, have been
Speaker 1: relying upon facial recognition technologies and how the technology can
Speaker 1: cause harm to innocent people. Even if everyone's using the
Speaker 1: tech correctly, the tech itself can just be wrong. So
Speaker 1: that's assuming if you're using it correctly. That's a big assumption.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of cases where people are just
Speaker 1: not using tech the right way. I'm sure you've encountered
Speaker 1: this just in general. Well, when you're talking about people
Speaker 1: in positions of authority who are using that to be
Speaker 1: part of a surveillance package on citizens, that becomes an
Speaker 1: incredibly dangerous situation, one that can lead to an authoritarian
Speaker 1: police state, uh and a lot of human rights being
Speaker 1: violated in the process. So I think this is an
Speaker 1: important point and something that I'm seeing pop up in
Speaker 1: other places around the world. Well, we have a few
Speaker 1: more stories to go through, but before we get to
Speaker 1: any of those, let's take a quick break. BlackBerry, which
Speaker 1: is a name I've not heard in a long time,
Speaker 1: A long time anyway. BlackBerry has a research team that
Speaker 1: reports that it discovered a Chinese state sponsored hacker group
Speaker 1: that was using three different fishing schemes, all targeting companies
Speaker 1: and individuals in India. The BlackBerry researchers say that it
Speaker 1: looks like the hackers were operating both as spies, so
Speaker 1: conducting espionage on behalf of the Chinese government and also
Speaker 1: pursuing quote financially motivated operations end quote. So you know,
Speaker 1: tricking people out of money and stealing and also spying
Speaker 1: on behalf of an authoritarian government. You know the usual.
Speaker 1: The name of this hacker group is APT forty one,
Speaker 1: and they lured in targets by sending out messages claiming
Speaker 1: to be related to official matters like you know, taxes
Speaker 1: or COVID nineteen measures. These are common tactics, right. You
Speaker 1: You set the bait by picking something that is likely
Speaker 1: to get a reaction from your target, something that that
Speaker 1: they would be concerned about. If you send them a
Speaker 1: message saying, hey, you know, we found some money that
Speaker 1: we owe you in taxes because you overpaid, a lot
Speaker 1: of people are gonna think, oh awesome and just open
Speaker 1: that up, right, very common tactic, or sometimes they pray
Speaker 1: on fear. Right, They say, it looks like you underpaid
Speaker 1: and if you don't pay this fee, then you're going
Speaker 1: to end up facing jail time and you're scaring them
Speaker 1: into a opening up the the attachment, which typically has
Speaker 1: some form of malware on it, or it lures you
Speaker 1: into sharing information you really shouldn't. The researchers showed that
Speaker 1: these hackers weren't being particularly careful about disguising the fact
Speaker 1: that a single group was behind the different fishing schemes.
Speaker 1: They were kind of using some of the same assets
Speaker 1: across the three different types of attacks. And they also said, like,
Speaker 1: there's not a whole lot they can do in these
Speaker 1: cases because you know, it's a it's an organization that's
Speaker 1: within China. It's you know, kind of you know, untouchable.
Speaker 1: So the best thing to do, you know, you can
Speaker 1: start to try and block IP addresses and stuff, but
Speaker 1: there are ways around that. So the best thing to
Speaker 1: do is to raise awareness in as many people as
Speaker 1: possible to try and decrease the number of positive attacks.
Speaker 1: If you can make it to the point where hackers
Speaker 1: just aren't getting that many hits, you can get it
Speaker 1: to a point where where the return on investment is
Speaker 1: so low that there's no point and even bothering. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's unlikely to ever reach that point, but it's a
Speaker 1: good gold strike for In past episodes, I've talked about
Speaker 1: the Pegasus software that's you know kind of it's really malware.
Speaker 1: It's software that uses a zero click attack through iOS
Speaker 1: and I Message. In particular, Apple includes I Message by
Speaker 1: default in all iPhones. You cannot uninstall it, at least
Speaker 1: not under normal conditions, and I Message will automatically accept
Speaker 1: any messages sent from other iOS devices that have sent
Speaker 1: a message to that phone's specific phone number. So really
Speaker 1: you just need your Targets phone number, and you need
Speaker 1: an iOS device that has the Pegasus software on it,
Speaker 1: and you can send an attack that effectively turns your
Speaker 1: Targets phone into a spying device. It can give you
Speaker 1: access to stuff like that phone's camera and microphone. Essentially
Speaker 1: you can operate the phone as if you were in
Speaker 1: direct possession of it. It's a powerful malware tool. This
Speaker 1: product comes from an Israeli company called n s O Group,
Speaker 1: and they say that the purpose to the malware is
Speaker 1: to give governmental authorities their customers a tool to infiltrate,
Speaker 1: you know, like criminal and terrorist organizations. You use this
Speaker 1: when you're doing like a sting operation. But you know,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really matter what the company says the tool
Speaker 1: was intended to do. It actually matters how people really
Speaker 1: use the tool. So the whole thing was to set
Speaker 1: up the fact that a UK judge has said that
Speaker 1: Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai,
Speaker 1: used Pegasus to infect the phone belonging to his ex wife,
Speaker 1: the Princess Hya bin al Hussein. And I should also
Speaker 1: add that he targeted, according to the judge, her entire
Speaker 1: legal team. And this was all during a very acrimonious
Speaker 1: custody battle between the Sheik and the princess over there
Speaker 1: their two children. Um So the UK Judge Andrew McFarlane
Speaker 1: factored this into his ruling on that case. Now, that
Speaker 1: whole judgment was done a year ago, but it was
Speaker 1: held in private. It was it was under lock and
Speaker 1: key for a full year before being published this year.
Speaker 1: The chik has subsequently denied the allegations and also argued
Speaker 1: that the court didn't actually have the authority to share
Speaker 1: that kind of information anyway, and also heads of foreign
Speaker 1: state or exempt from inquiries into the legality of their actions.
Speaker 1: That doesn't really say to me, hey, I totally didn't
Speaker 1: do that thing you accused me of doing. And the
Speaker 1: story actually gets worse from there, but it also gets
Speaker 1: away from the tech angle. So I'll just say there's
Speaker 1: a lot more to it. But it's another example of
Speaker 1: how a tool could be, you know, made to do
Speaker 1: one specific thing and maybe that that effort was sincere.
Speaker 1: But if people start turning it to another use, that's
Speaker 1: still that's still a bad thing, right, Like you still
Speaker 1: have to look at the company that's making the tool
Speaker 1: and say, hey, you are propagating a piece of malware
Speaker 1: that is causing an enormous amount of harm, And it
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter what your intent was anyway. Have you
Speaker 1: ever found yourself waiting into a flame war on Twitter?
Speaker 1: Maybe you got your dander up and you jumped into
Speaker 1: a hotly contested thread before you really thought it over.
Speaker 1: Maybe you even did it by accident. You were just
Speaker 1: replying to someone cheekily and then it blew up in
Speaker 1: your face, and maybe you regretted it afterwards. Maybe you've
Speaker 1: got all these different replies and retweets and stuff, and
Speaker 1: maybe just going on Twitter now is stressful and upsetting. Well,
Speaker 1: now Twitter is rolling out a feature to folks using
Speaker 1: the Android and iOS Twitter apps that could help prevent
Speaker 1: this from happening. The apps will now occasionally show prompts
Speaker 1: when it looks like you might be engaging in a
Speaker 1: Twitter thread that appears to be quote unquote intense. One
Speaker 1: example they gave was a prompt that reads, let's look
Speaker 1: out for each other and the mess our values make
Speaker 1: Twitter better. And then they includes some reminders to maybe
Speaker 1: convince you to act like, you know, a compassionate human being.
Speaker 1: Like it says that, you know, chances are the person
Speaker 1: who's on the other end of that Twitter handle is
Speaker 1: a person that ignores the fact that there's like a
Speaker 1: rampant bot problem on Twitter, but you know, you get it.
Speaker 1: And it also says, hey, you know, we shouldn't ignore facts.
Speaker 1: Facts are important. Facts are facts, and even if they're
Speaker 1: inconvenient to our own perspective, we cannot just dismiss a fact. Uh.
Speaker 1: It also says, yeah, having different perspectives is a good thing,
Speaker 1: you know, Like you can get people who have different
Speaker 1: perspectives having a conversation, and new ideas can develop and
Speaker 1: people can be opened up to other points of view,
Speaker 1: which is sometimes true. Essentially, what Twitter is trying to
Speaker 1: do is to remind us not to go nuclear on
Speaker 1: the platform, and I think that is good advice. But
Speaker 1: I also think this is important for Twitter because social media,
Speaker 1: your platforms can really come under fire if it looks
Speaker 1: like they're facilitating stuff like hate speech and misinformation. Apple
Speaker 1: has established a new policy that app developers will need
Speaker 1: to follow starting January thirty one next year. Uh at
Speaker 1: least any app developers who release apps that require users
Speaker 1: to create an account of some sort. Apple wants all
Speaker 1: of those kinds of apps to include an option to
Speaker 1: delete user accounts if the user wants to do that.
Speaker 1: Uh So, like if you just delete an app off
Speaker 1: your phone, that doesn't delete your account, The account is
Speaker 1: still sitting there on the servers of whatever developer I
Speaker 1: created the app for you, and it's still holding all
Speaker 1: that data, So you might want to close an account
Speaker 1: out entirely. Apple wants that to be built into the
Speaker 1: apps themselves, so that you're not just saying I'm not
Speaker 1: just using this app anymore. You know, you're saying I
Speaker 1: don't want to have an account anymore. The Verge has
Speaker 1: pointed out that Apple's policy has some wiggle room in it.
Speaker 1: For example, there's nothing thing that would stop a company
Speaker 1: from routing any sort of cancelation request to a customer
Speaker 1: service agent who then tries their best to talk you
Speaker 1: out of canceling your account, which reminds me of every
Speaker 1: experience I've ever had while trying to cancel cable service.
Speaker 1: But I think that generally speaking, this is a good move.
Speaker 1: It's not going to solve every problem, of course, but
Speaker 1: it at least gives users a chance to make a
Speaker 1: cleaner break when they decide they no longer want to
Speaker 1: rely on a specific service. Speaking of Apple, I've talked
Speaker 1: before about how a US judge has ruled that Apple
Speaker 1: must allow developers who want to use a different in
Speaker 1: app purchase option besides Apple's official one to be able
Speaker 1: to do so. That's what the judges said. They said
Speaker 1: that these developers, if they want to sell stuff within
Speaker 1: their apps, you know, like a video game app, offering
Speaker 1: things like character skins, that they are not required to
Speaker 1: go through Apple's own system to do that. That Apple
Speaker 1: should not require that to be the case. This is
Speaker 1: at the heart of how Apple makes a ton of
Speaker 1: revenue through the app store. It's not by creating apps,
Speaker 1: but rather by taking a chunk out of you know,
Speaker 1: taking a cut of up to like out of these
Speaker 1: in app purchases. And a Dutch antitrust authority has made
Speaker 1: a similar judgment against Apple. The authority has said that
Speaker 1: the rules that Apple had in place are anti competitive
Speaker 1: and that Apple must allow developers to offer their own
Speaker 1: in app purchasing options if they want to. So it
Speaker 1: looks like there's a growing movement to push back against
Speaker 1: Apple's policies. South Korea made a similar ruling, which affects
Speaker 1: not just Apple but also Google because Google does the
Speaker 1: same thing. So we're starting to see more countries say,
Speaker 1: you know, you can't do this. It's anti competitive and
Speaker 1: it's harmful to developers who you know, are really reliant
Speaker 1: upon those in app purchases to generate the revenue they
Speaker 1: need to stay in business. Finally, someone managed to get
Speaker 1: access to the Facebook profile page for the U S
Speaker 1: n V ship the U S S Kid. The person
Speaker 1: has used that Facebook profile to stream game sessions of
Speaker 1: Age of Empires, a real time strategy computer game. Vice
Speaker 1: dot com reports that whomever is responsible is h might
Speaker 1: be good at guessing the Navy's passwords, but they are
Speaker 1: not a good Age of Empires player, according to Vice,
Speaker 1: and I checked the profile just before I started recording
Speaker 1: this episode, and at least when I checked it, it
Speaker 1: looked like the Navy had not re established ownership of
Speaker 1: the page. But then again, nothing has been posted to
Speaker 1: that page since October four. However, all those gaming sessions
Speaker 1: were still up on the profile at the time of
Speaker 1: this recording, which suggests to me that the Navy has
Speaker 1: not regained control of that page yet, which makes me
Speaker 1: wonder what's going on. I would think that Facebook would
Speaker 1: respond to that. Maybe the Navy just has Maybe there's
Speaker 1: just too much going on right, maybe they just haven't
Speaker 1: sent the request yet. Well that's the news for Thursday,
Speaker 1: October seven, two twenty one. And yes, I did just
Speaker 1: have to look at a calendar because I had already
Speaker 1: forgotten what day it was. If you have suggestions for
Speaker 1: topics I should cover in future episodes of tech Stuff,
Speaker 1: please reach out to me. The best way to do
Speaker 1: that is on Twitter. The handle for the show is
Speaker 1: text Stuff H s W and I'll talk to you
Speaker 1: again really soon. Text Stuff is an I Heart Radio production.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from My Heart Radio, visit the I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.