WEBVTT - Tech News: Concerns about AI on the Rise

0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:12.360
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:15.960
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.

0:00:16.000 --> 0:00:19.759
<v Speaker 1>I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech

0:00:19.800 --> 0:00:22.480
<v Speaker 1>are you. It's time for the tech news for Thursday,

0:00:22.680 --> 0:00:29.440
<v Speaker 1>July thirteenth, twenty twenty three. A lot of bummer news today,

0:00:30.240 --> 0:00:33.919
<v Speaker 1>which I wish weren't the case, but that's kind of

0:00:33.920 --> 0:00:37.239
<v Speaker 1>how the AI cookie crumbles. Before we get into all that,

0:00:37.920 --> 0:00:41.919
<v Speaker 1>one story that I missed on Tuesday was an update

0:00:41.960 --> 0:00:46.519
<v Speaker 1>to Microsoft's quest to acquire video game giant Activision Blizzard.

0:00:46.760 --> 0:00:51.000
<v Speaker 1>So quick recap. Microsoft announced its plan to acquire Activision Blizzard,

0:00:51.040 --> 0:00:54.640
<v Speaker 1>which was going through a really rough PR patch to

0:00:54.640 --> 0:00:59.200
<v Speaker 1>put it lightly way back in early twenty twenty two. Now,

0:00:59.240 --> 0:01:03.640
<v Speaker 1>since then, these companies have encountered resistance among various regulators

0:01:03.680 --> 0:01:06.760
<v Speaker 1>around the world, primarily in the United States and the

0:01:06.840 --> 0:01:11.000
<v Speaker 1>United Kingdom. While some of those knots have been loosened,

0:01:11.040 --> 0:01:13.679
<v Speaker 1>at least one that was really looming was the US

0:01:13.680 --> 0:01:17.880
<v Speaker 1>Federal Trade Commission, or FTC and its request for an

0:01:17.959 --> 0:01:22.400
<v Speaker 1>injunction to block the acquisition. Now, to be clear, this

0:01:22.520 --> 0:01:25.919
<v Speaker 1>move would have been like a temporary hold on the deal,

0:01:26.080 --> 0:01:30.319
<v Speaker 1>while the FTC mounts a more substantial legal challenge, But

0:01:30.520 --> 0:01:35.160
<v Speaker 1>on Tuesday, a federal judge decided against that request for

0:01:35.280 --> 0:01:38.520
<v Speaker 1>injunction and the deal would be allowed to move forward.

0:01:39.000 --> 0:01:42.080
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft wants to close this deal by July eighteenth, so

0:01:42.160 --> 0:01:46.200
<v Speaker 1>it's coming up right soon. The FDC is now appealing

0:01:46.400 --> 0:01:50.480
<v Speaker 1>to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Unsurprisingly, reps for

0:01:50.640 --> 0:01:53.600
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft and Activision Blizzards say the deal will actually be

0:01:53.680 --> 0:01:57.280
<v Speaker 1>really good for consumers as well as for competition. I

0:01:57.320 --> 0:02:03.720
<v Speaker 1>would humbly suggest that consolidation is is rarely good for competition. Still,

0:02:03.760 --> 0:02:06.520
<v Speaker 1>the federal judge says that the FTC failed to show

0:02:06.560 --> 0:02:10.400
<v Speaker 1>it has adequate justification to object to the deal in

0:02:10.440 --> 0:02:14.840
<v Speaker 1>the first place, that the FTC's arguments aren't really legally convincing.

0:02:15.440 --> 0:02:17.960
<v Speaker 1>Now I've not read all these arguments, but I can

0:02:18.040 --> 0:02:20.840
<v Speaker 1>imagine that the FTC is having a tough time arguing

0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:24.640
<v Speaker 1>their point, because it's pretty difficult to show how a

0:02:24.680 --> 0:02:28.320
<v Speaker 1>deal is going to have negative impact on competition before

0:02:28.360 --> 0:02:32.519
<v Speaker 1>the deal happens. We usually only recognize these things in hindsight.

0:02:33.200 --> 0:02:35.799
<v Speaker 1>Either way, the announcement means we are a little bit

0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:40.400
<v Speaker 1>closer to Activision Blizzard joining the Microsoft family. Now, we've

0:02:40.480 --> 0:02:43.720
<v Speaker 1>got a lot to talk about with AI today, and

0:02:43.800 --> 0:02:46.440
<v Speaker 1>first up, I figure I should mention the ongoing labor

0:02:46.520 --> 0:02:49.960
<v Speaker 1>strikes in Hollywood. For a few months now, the Writer's

0:02:50.000 --> 0:02:53.720
<v Speaker 1>Guild of America has been on strike, and today sag AFTRA,

0:02:54.040 --> 0:02:57.399
<v Speaker 1>which is an actors' union, is poised to join them

0:02:57.440 --> 0:03:00.680
<v Speaker 1>after the negotiating committee failed to reach an agreement with

0:03:00.840 --> 0:03:03.840
<v Speaker 1>movie studio producers and the committee came to a unanimous

0:03:03.880 --> 0:03:06.880
<v Speaker 1>vote to support a strike. Now, there are a lot

0:03:06.880 --> 0:03:10.200
<v Speaker 1>of different issues at play here, but one of those

0:03:10.440 --> 0:03:13.800
<v Speaker 1>is the role of AI in Hollywood. So understandably, there

0:03:13.840 --> 0:03:17.040
<v Speaker 1>are concerns that studios could choose to lean on AI

0:03:17.680 --> 0:03:21.480
<v Speaker 1>rather than say, a human writing staff to create entertainment.

0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:23.720
<v Speaker 1>So writers are worried that they're going to be called

0:03:23.760 --> 0:03:27.000
<v Speaker 1>in to punch up an AI generated script and then

0:03:27.040 --> 0:03:29.520
<v Speaker 1>receive a lower payout because they didn't actually write the

0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:32.440
<v Speaker 1>first draft. They were just hired to punch up an

0:03:32.480 --> 0:03:35.320
<v Speaker 1>already existing script. This could end up being a lot

0:03:35.360 --> 0:03:39.040
<v Speaker 1>of work because AI is not necessarily great at writing

0:03:39.080 --> 0:03:42.480
<v Speaker 1>such scripts. Meanwhile, actors are worried about their likeness and

0:03:42.560 --> 0:03:46.000
<v Speaker 1>their voices as AI gets increasingly better at creating digital

0:03:46.120 --> 0:03:49.880
<v Speaker 1>duplicates and how does that impact their ability to make

0:03:49.920 --> 0:03:52.280
<v Speaker 1>a living. Keep in mind that most of the people

0:03:52.320 --> 0:03:57.040
<v Speaker 1>in Hollywood aren't your mega celebrities who have multi million

0:03:57.120 --> 0:04:02.560
<v Speaker 1>dollar houses in Beverly Hills. Most of them are working professionals.

0:04:02.640 --> 0:04:05.520
<v Speaker 1>You know, they're going gig to gig and making what

0:04:05.560 --> 0:04:08.200
<v Speaker 1>they can and you know, saving and all that kind

0:04:08.240 --> 0:04:11.880
<v Speaker 1>of stuff. They're not all millionaires. Based off an article

0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:16.240
<v Speaker 1>and Deadline that seems to confirm every stereotype of producers

0:04:16.240 --> 0:04:20.359
<v Speaker 1>being greedy and manipulative jerkfaces, the studios are eager for

0:04:20.480 --> 0:04:24.479
<v Speaker 1>any option that maximizes profit and shareholder value. That article

0:04:24.480 --> 0:04:28.240
<v Speaker 1>in Deadline essentially said that the producer's strategy is to

0:04:28.279 --> 0:04:32.040
<v Speaker 1>wait until October before coming back to the negotiating table

0:04:32.080 --> 0:04:36.880
<v Speaker 1>with the WGA the writers because by that point, the

0:04:36.920 --> 0:04:40.320
<v Speaker 1>writers will be desperate because they'll be, you know, having

0:04:40.320 --> 0:04:43.560
<v Speaker 1>trouble paying rent and mortgages. So it's it's pretty much

0:04:43.600 --> 0:04:46.600
<v Speaker 1>pure evil. When you read that article, it's kind of

0:04:46.600 --> 0:04:48.839
<v Speaker 1>hard to come to any other conclusion. It has really

0:04:48.920 --> 0:04:52.880
<v Speaker 1>galvanized the labor movement in Hollywood right now. Now, it's

0:04:52.960 --> 0:04:55.000
<v Speaker 1>quite possible that this means we're going to be in

0:04:55.040 --> 0:04:57.919
<v Speaker 1>a real dry spell as far as movies, TV and

0:04:57.960 --> 0:05:02.120
<v Speaker 1>streaming content goes at least any content that would be

0:05:02.200 --> 0:05:04.880
<v Speaker 1>coming out of Hollywood and that that could last for

0:05:05.279 --> 0:05:08.360
<v Speaker 1>a little while. And I think this battle is one

0:05:08.360 --> 0:05:11.520
<v Speaker 1>that's needed. Of course, I am biased because I'm still

0:05:11.640 --> 0:05:15.080
<v Speaker 1>fuming that my old place of employment decided to eschew

0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:18.840
<v Speaker 1>human writers in favor of AI. But y'all don't need

0:05:18.880 --> 0:05:20.599
<v Speaker 1>to hear me go off on that again. If you

0:05:20.640 --> 0:05:22.920
<v Speaker 1>did miss it, just listen to a couple of recent

0:05:22.960 --> 0:05:27.479
<v Speaker 1>episodes where I talk about what happened at houstuffworks dot com.

0:05:27.800 --> 0:05:30.520
<v Speaker 1>Now it turns out that sacking employees in favor of

0:05:30.560 --> 0:05:35.039
<v Speaker 1>AI doesn't play well to the general public. CEO Summit

0:05:35.240 --> 0:05:39.279
<v Speaker 1>Shaw found that out on Twitter. He posted on Twitter

0:05:39.680 --> 0:05:43.040
<v Speaker 1>that his company quote had to lay off ninety percent

0:05:43.120 --> 0:05:48.520
<v Speaker 1>of our support team because of this AI chatbot. Tough, yes, necessary,

0:05:49.080 --> 0:05:54.520
<v Speaker 1>absolutely end quote. He claimed that this AI chatbot outperformed

0:05:54.760 --> 0:05:58.159
<v Speaker 1>his customer support staff, so he had no choice but

0:05:58.279 --> 0:06:02.400
<v Speaker 1>to replace human beings with artificial intelligence. He said that

0:06:02.440 --> 0:06:06.080
<v Speaker 1>this chatbot could resolve problems in a fraction of the

0:06:06.160 --> 0:06:09.080
<v Speaker 1>time that it took human workers, saying that it was

0:06:09.200 --> 0:06:13.360
<v Speaker 1>a difference of minutes with AI versus hours with humans,

0:06:13.640 --> 0:06:16.400
<v Speaker 1>and that this saved on customer support costs by up

0:06:16.400 --> 0:06:19.520
<v Speaker 1>to eighty five percent. Now Folks on Twitter descended like

0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:23.720
<v Speaker 1>piranha on Shaw's message. Some argued that the layoffs really

0:06:23.760 --> 0:06:26.640
<v Speaker 1>had more to do with a failing business model and

0:06:26.720 --> 0:06:29.920
<v Speaker 1>not an indication that AI is actually superior to human staff,

0:06:30.000 --> 0:06:33.719
<v Speaker 1>essentially saying Shaw was using AI as a shield to

0:06:34.440 --> 0:06:38.719
<v Speaker 1>guard against perceptions that his company was doing poorly. Shaw

0:06:38.760 --> 0:06:40.800
<v Speaker 1>has not backed down from his claims and says it

0:06:40.880 --> 0:06:44.400
<v Speaker 1>might be that he's on the more aggressive side and

0:06:44.560 --> 0:06:47.080
<v Speaker 1>that you know, talking about and taking action as something

0:06:47.080 --> 0:06:49.560
<v Speaker 1>that perhaps other business leaders are reluctant to do, but

0:06:49.600 --> 0:06:52.520
<v Speaker 1>that this is where we're all headed fun times, because

0:06:52.520 --> 0:06:54.479
<v Speaker 1>I don't see how that ends up being a win

0:06:54.600 --> 0:06:58.680
<v Speaker 1>in the long run. The Clerkson Law Firm has proposed

0:06:58.680 --> 0:07:03.440
<v Speaker 1>a class action loss suit against Alphabet, Google, and DeepMind.

0:07:03.880 --> 0:07:07.479
<v Speaker 1>Alphabet is the parent company to those other two companies.

0:07:08.080 --> 0:07:11.560
<v Speaker 1>The law firm accuses the companies of rifling through well

0:07:12.320 --> 0:07:15.880
<v Speaker 1>pretty much everything that's ever been online and all for

0:07:15.960 --> 0:07:19.800
<v Speaker 1>the purposes of training AI language models. The lawsuit argues

0:07:19.840 --> 0:07:26.080
<v Speaker 1>that Google, without permission, used personal, professional, copyrighted, and private works,

0:07:26.120 --> 0:07:30.440
<v Speaker 1>including stuff like private email, all to train AI and

0:07:30.480 --> 0:07:33.920
<v Speaker 1>that this represents a huge breach of trust and privacy,

0:07:34.040 --> 0:07:37.120
<v Speaker 1>and that those afflicted, which is pretty much anyone who

0:07:37.160 --> 0:07:40.480
<v Speaker 1>has ever had any of their information posted online, ever,

0:07:41.320 --> 0:07:44.680
<v Speaker 1>it gives them the right to deserve justice. Google's own

0:07:44.720 --> 0:07:47.800
<v Speaker 1>privacy policy, which updated on July first, says it may

0:07:47.840 --> 0:07:52.160
<v Speaker 1>collect data that is quote publicly available online end quote.

0:07:52.320 --> 0:07:57.600
<v Speaker 1>But the law firm argues this is drastic overreach, that

0:07:57.760 --> 0:08:01.360
<v Speaker 1>just because something is publicly available, that doesn't mean it's

0:08:01.560 --> 0:08:05.720
<v Speaker 1>free for use for whatever purpose, and that seems reasonable

0:08:05.720 --> 0:08:08.240
<v Speaker 1>to me. Now. According to one of the plaintiffs in

0:08:08.280 --> 0:08:12.200
<v Speaker 1>the lawsuit, there is evidence that google bard was trained

0:08:12.240 --> 0:08:16.440
<v Speaker 1>on copyrighted works, including this person's works. And if you

0:08:16.560 --> 0:08:19.560
<v Speaker 1>use the correct prompts with google Bard, you could essentially

0:08:20.240 --> 0:08:22.840
<v Speaker 1>get the works presented back to you. So like you

0:08:22.880 --> 0:08:25.600
<v Speaker 1>could ask what's the beginning of chapter three of such

0:08:25.640 --> 0:08:28.600
<v Speaker 1>and such and it would recite it to you. And

0:08:28.640 --> 0:08:30.520
<v Speaker 1>that means that there could be a workaround for people

0:08:30.560 --> 0:08:32.679
<v Speaker 1>who want to access a writer's work, but you know,

0:08:33.120 --> 0:08:35.160
<v Speaker 1>they don't want to have to pay for it. And

0:08:35.240 --> 0:08:37.960
<v Speaker 1>I get it. The Internet has trained us to expect

0:08:38.040 --> 0:08:42.760
<v Speaker 1>stuff for free. We've been kind of conditioned to expect that. However,

0:08:43.320 --> 0:08:45.760
<v Speaker 1>like I said at the beginning of this episode, if

0:08:45.800 --> 0:08:50.319
<v Speaker 1>writers can't make a living writing, then writing kind of stops.

0:08:50.720 --> 0:08:55.360
<v Speaker 1>So the approach ultimately becomes self destructive, and we're not

0:08:55.400 --> 0:08:59.280
<v Speaker 1>done with AI yet. Business Insider has an article about

0:08:59.320 --> 0:09:02.720
<v Speaker 1>how folks who created applications and processes that are built

0:09:02.720 --> 0:09:05.840
<v Speaker 1>on top of GPT four, which is the most recent

0:09:05.960 --> 0:09:10.320
<v Speaker 1>build of open AI's large language model, have started to

0:09:10.400 --> 0:09:14.200
<v Speaker 1>run into some issues recently. The article references users on

0:09:14.280 --> 0:09:17.440
<v Speaker 1>Twitter who have said that the model has become less

0:09:17.679 --> 0:09:22.120
<v Speaker 1>useful and described it as being dumber or lazier than

0:09:22.120 --> 0:09:27.040
<v Speaker 1>it had been previously. Problems include making careless mistakes, which

0:09:27.160 --> 0:09:28.880
<v Speaker 1>makes me think back to the days when I was

0:09:28.920 --> 0:09:31.920
<v Speaker 1>taking math courses. Sometimes I would forget something simple like

0:09:31.960 --> 0:09:34.480
<v Speaker 1>a negative sign, and so I would get an entire

0:09:34.520 --> 0:09:36.920
<v Speaker 1>problem wrong, even though you know, step by step I

0:09:36.960 --> 0:09:39.760
<v Speaker 1>was doing things correctly, but because I was careless or

0:09:39.840 --> 0:09:43.280
<v Speaker 1>lacked attention to detail, I got the wrong answer, and

0:09:43.760 --> 0:09:46.520
<v Speaker 1>thus you know that was a valuable lesson in paying

0:09:46.559 --> 0:09:51.280
<v Speaker 1>more attention. Well, apparently GPT four has some of those

0:09:51.320 --> 0:09:54.000
<v Speaker 1>same issues, where it will make some of these careless

0:09:54.040 --> 0:09:58.160
<v Speaker 1>mistakes like drop a bracket, which in code can really

0:09:58.240 --> 0:10:01.559
<v Speaker 1>just lead to a massive a bug or failure in

0:10:01.640 --> 0:10:05.200
<v Speaker 1>the program. Now, some have said the tool is also

0:10:05.280 --> 0:10:09.120
<v Speaker 1>less likely to quote unquote remember between prompts. That means

0:10:09.160 --> 0:10:12.000
<v Speaker 1>it gets to be harder to use GPT four to

0:10:12.080 --> 0:10:14.600
<v Speaker 1>build stuff, because at some point or another in the

0:10:14.640 --> 0:10:18.959
<v Speaker 1>building process it forgets what it was doing. The trade

0:10:18.960 --> 0:10:22.000
<v Speaker 1>off on this is that GPT four is now faster

0:10:22.720 --> 0:10:26.120
<v Speaker 1>than it had been at launch. So the developer community

0:10:26.240 --> 0:10:29.040
<v Speaker 1>is growing to suspect that open ai made some changes

0:10:29.440 --> 0:10:32.960
<v Speaker 1>that speeds things up, but at the cost of accuracy

0:10:33.000 --> 0:10:37.000
<v Speaker 1>and performance. Open Ai so far has declined to speak

0:10:37.120 --> 0:10:42.040
<v Speaker 1>about the perceived problems. All right, we've got a lot

0:10:42.080 --> 0:10:45.040
<v Speaker 1>more stories to cover before we get to that. Let's

0:10:45.040 --> 0:10:57.360
<v Speaker 1>take a quick break. We're back and I think it

0:10:57.360 --> 0:11:00.000
<v Speaker 1>can wrap this up in one more segment of store.

0:11:00.840 --> 0:11:06.280
<v Speaker 1>So starting off, yesterday, US Congress representatives released a report

0:11:06.360 --> 0:11:10.960
<v Speaker 1>accusing three major tax preparation companies, that being H and R, Block,

0:11:11.320 --> 0:11:16.160
<v Speaker 1>Tax Act, and Tax Slayer of sharing sensitive private customer

0:11:16.240 --> 0:11:21.600
<v Speaker 1>data with Meta, you know, Facebook's owner, and that Meta

0:11:21.640 --> 0:11:25.439
<v Speaker 1>was using this information to what else, improve its targeted

0:11:25.520 --> 0:11:30.000
<v Speaker 1>advertising strategy, and that these actions weren't taken with the

0:11:30.160 --> 0:11:34.200
<v Speaker 1>knowledge or consent of customers. And here's where I remind

0:11:34.280 --> 0:11:37.120
<v Speaker 1>folks outside the United States that over here in the US,

0:11:37.200 --> 0:11:40.960
<v Speaker 1>tax preparation can get really complicated, and for a lot

0:11:40.960 --> 0:11:44.280
<v Speaker 1>of people it falls way outside their comfort zone. So

0:11:44.440 --> 0:11:48.439
<v Speaker 1>tons of folks depend upon third parties to prepare their taxes.

0:11:48.760 --> 0:11:52.320
<v Speaker 1>I understand this concept is strange in some other countries

0:11:52.320 --> 0:11:54.000
<v Speaker 1>where a lot of that work is already done by

0:11:54.000 --> 0:11:56.920
<v Speaker 1>the government on behalf of its citizens. Pretty sure that

0:11:56.960 --> 0:11:59.120
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't fly here in the States because there are too

0:11:59.160 --> 0:12:02.640
<v Speaker 1>many people here have a deep distrust in the government,

0:12:02.679 --> 0:12:06.319
<v Speaker 1>particularly when it comes to handling something like your personal finances.

0:12:07.000 --> 0:12:09.040
<v Speaker 1>I can't entirely blame them for that, By the way,

0:12:09.200 --> 0:12:12.400
<v Speaker 1>our government has done a lot of boneheaded stuff anyway.

0:12:12.760 --> 0:12:19.000
<v Speaker 1>According to the report, these companies shared information like income amounts,

0:12:19.440 --> 0:12:23.160
<v Speaker 1>how much people were expecting in refunds, how much tax

0:12:23.200 --> 0:12:27.880
<v Speaker 1>they owed the government, the names of their dependence and more.

0:12:28.240 --> 0:12:31.640
<v Speaker 1>In addition, one of those companies, Taxpayer, was also accused

0:12:31.679 --> 0:12:36.360
<v Speaker 1>of having shared similar information with Google. The congressional representatives

0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:39.560
<v Speaker 1>are calling for a full investigation into the matter. There's

0:12:39.640 --> 0:12:42.280
<v Speaker 1>been some talk that this information was designed in such

0:12:42.280 --> 0:12:46.000
<v Speaker 1>a way as to not make it quite as personally identifiable.

0:12:46.080 --> 0:12:49.280
<v Speaker 1>But I think that's all rubbish because we have seen

0:12:49.400 --> 0:12:52.320
<v Speaker 1>time and again it takes very few points of data

0:12:52.679 --> 0:12:55.560
<v Speaker 1>for you to narrow in and figure out who that

0:12:55.640 --> 0:12:59.240
<v Speaker 1>data belongs to. We've seen it time and again. You

0:12:59.280 --> 0:13:01.240
<v Speaker 1>only need a few points of data to be able

0:13:01.320 --> 0:13:06.480
<v Speaker 1>to weed out the vast majority of folks and zoom

0:13:06.520 --> 0:13:09.520
<v Speaker 1>in on the people it could possibly be, which means

0:13:10.120 --> 0:13:13.840
<v Speaker 1>you could quote unquote anonymize data all you like and

0:13:13.920 --> 0:13:16.320
<v Speaker 1>you could still make it possible to figure out who

0:13:16.400 --> 0:13:20.800
<v Speaker 1>that data belongs to. Anyway, Once again, I feel like

0:13:20.840 --> 0:13:23.320
<v Speaker 1>I need to go on the broken record route and

0:13:23.360 --> 0:13:26.880
<v Speaker 1>call for the need for comprehensive data security and privacy

0:13:26.960 --> 0:13:30.200
<v Speaker 1>laws here in the US, because of course companies are

0:13:30.240 --> 0:13:32.920
<v Speaker 1>going to engage in this type of behavior if there's

0:13:32.960 --> 0:13:35.960
<v Speaker 1>even just a little ambiguity over whether or not it's legal.

0:13:36.320 --> 0:13:39.280
<v Speaker 1>So it needs to be spelled out in black and

0:13:39.320 --> 0:13:42.559
<v Speaker 1>white what is and is not legal, and what the

0:13:42.760 --> 0:13:47.120
<v Speaker 1>consequences are for breaking the law Before that happens. We're

0:13:47.120 --> 0:13:49.400
<v Speaker 1>going to see stuff like this over and over again.

0:13:50.040 --> 0:13:53.800
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft revealed that Chinese hackers were able to access Microsoft

0:13:53.920 --> 0:13:57.400
<v Speaker 1>email accounts belonging to two dozen government agencies and a

0:13:57.480 --> 0:14:02.119
<v Speaker 1>massive data breach. The agencies include both US and European departments.

0:14:02.480 --> 0:14:05.360
<v Speaker 1>The attackers managed to gain access earlier this year May

0:14:05.400 --> 0:14:08.719
<v Speaker 1>at the latest, but maybe even earlier than that. Microsoft

0:14:08.800 --> 0:14:12.760
<v Speaker 1>was unaware of the intrusion until mid June. According to

0:14:12.800 --> 0:14:18.280
<v Speaker 1>security experts, the attacks were extremely sophisticated and obviously precisely targeted.

0:14:18.800 --> 0:14:22.280
<v Speaker 1>The vulnerability appears to have been in Microsoft's cloud services,

0:14:22.640 --> 0:14:25.160
<v Speaker 1>which highlights one of the big challenges with cloud computing.

0:14:25.680 --> 0:14:29.200
<v Speaker 1>Organizations end up having to hand over at least partial

0:14:29.240 --> 0:14:32.200
<v Speaker 1>control to a third party and in trust that the

0:14:32.240 --> 0:14:35.480
<v Speaker 1>third party is going to protect the systems and information

0:14:35.720 --> 0:14:39.040
<v Speaker 1>that are nested in the cloud on behalf of the customer.

0:14:39.440 --> 0:14:43.080
<v Speaker 1>The alternative is to keep all your systems on premises,

0:14:43.120 --> 0:14:47.080
<v Speaker 1>but as systems grow more sophisticated and complex, and as

0:14:47.360 --> 0:14:52.040
<v Speaker 1>organizations become more distributed, the physical requirements of sticking strictly

0:14:52.080 --> 0:14:56.360
<v Speaker 1>with on prem becomes untenable. So there is a real

0:14:56.840 --> 0:14:59.880
<v Speaker 1>need for things like cloud computing. But it also shows

0:15:00.080 --> 0:15:05.160
<v Speaker 1>that cloud computing requires massive investments in security, which Microsoft

0:15:05.200 --> 0:15:08.240
<v Speaker 1>has done. It's just this was a case where bad

0:15:08.280 --> 0:15:11.200
<v Speaker 1>actors were able to exploit a vulnerability and it went

0:15:11.320 --> 0:15:13.800
<v Speaker 1>unnoticed for at least a few months or at least

0:15:13.840 --> 0:15:17.760
<v Speaker 1>two months. Amazon has filed a challenge to the EU's

0:15:17.880 --> 0:15:22.000
<v Speaker 1>Digital Services Act or DSA that's scheduled to become a

0:15:22.040 --> 0:15:26.760
<v Speaker 1>fully operational act death Star style by August twenty fifth. Now,

0:15:26.760 --> 0:15:28.800
<v Speaker 1>this Act is part of the EU's efforts to create

0:15:28.880 --> 0:15:33.560
<v Speaker 1>rules and restrictions and regulations that apply to big tech companies.

0:15:34.080 --> 0:15:36.720
<v Speaker 1>If the EU determines the tech company counts as a

0:15:36.840 --> 0:15:42.240
<v Speaker 1>quote unquote very large online platform or VLOP, then that

0:15:42.320 --> 0:15:45.600
<v Speaker 1>company has to meet certain obligations in order to comply

0:15:45.800 --> 0:15:49.560
<v Speaker 1>with these new regulations. So among those criteria is the

0:15:49.600 --> 0:15:54.640
<v Speaker 1>requirement to police disinformation and hate speech on the platform.

0:15:55.200 --> 0:15:58.480
<v Speaker 1>Amazon's not super keen on being held accountable for doing

0:15:58.520 --> 0:16:04.280
<v Speaker 1>that and wants to dispute its classification as a VLOP. Now,

0:16:04.320 --> 0:16:08.200
<v Speaker 1>considering Amazon is a leading cloud computing company, it seems

0:16:08.240 --> 0:16:10.880
<v Speaker 1>like it's a pretty steep hill to climb to say

0:16:10.880 --> 0:16:14.520
<v Speaker 1>that we're not a VLOP. But then Amazon reps have

0:16:14.640 --> 0:16:18.440
<v Speaker 1>a few salient points to make. Amazon is primarily known

0:16:18.520 --> 0:16:22.040
<v Speaker 1>as an online retail company. They say, we're not a

0:16:22.040 --> 0:16:25.000
<v Speaker 1>search engine, at least not in the traditional sense. We're

0:16:25.000 --> 0:16:27.960
<v Speaker 1>not a social network, even though there are some social

0:16:28.000 --> 0:16:33.320
<v Speaker 1>network functionalities built into Amazon, such as user reviews. And further,

0:16:33.680 --> 0:16:37.440
<v Speaker 1>Amazon argues that large retailers in the EU are not

0:16:37.480 --> 0:16:41.560
<v Speaker 1>being classified as vlops, So why is Amazon being held

0:16:41.600 --> 0:16:44.880
<v Speaker 1>to a standard when other large retailers in the EU

0:16:45.040 --> 0:16:48.360
<v Speaker 1>are not. The reps say that while Amazon agrees that

0:16:48.760 --> 0:16:51.640
<v Speaker 1>the company bears responsibility to make sure that the products

0:16:51.680 --> 0:16:55.440
<v Speaker 1>it offers on its marketplace are legal, it should not

0:16:55.520 --> 0:16:58.600
<v Speaker 1>fall into the classification of a very large online platform

0:16:58.920 --> 0:17:03.080
<v Speaker 1>because it is fundament different from platforms like Facebook or Google.

0:17:03.640 --> 0:17:08.000
<v Speaker 1>EU reps haven't directly addressed Amazon's statements, but have indicated

0:17:08.040 --> 0:17:11.359
<v Speaker 1>that all vlops will need to take steps to comply

0:17:11.480 --> 0:17:14.920
<v Speaker 1>with the law. However, the process for doing that will

0:17:14.960 --> 0:17:17.919
<v Speaker 1>be different depending upon the nature of the platform. So

0:17:17.960 --> 0:17:20.800
<v Speaker 1>a marketplace will do this in a very different way

0:17:21.160 --> 0:17:25.239
<v Speaker 1>than a social network, for example. And finally, I have

0:17:25.280 --> 0:17:29.480
<v Speaker 1>a recommended article for y'all today. It's from Lucas Ropek

0:17:29.720 --> 0:17:34.120
<v Speaker 1>of Gizmodo. The article is titled a proposed law would

0:17:34.200 --> 0:17:38.080
<v Speaker 1>force Internet companies to spy on their users for the DEA.

0:17:38.880 --> 0:17:42.520
<v Speaker 1>So this really applies to people living in the United States.

0:17:42.520 --> 0:17:45.639
<v Speaker 1>It all stems from a very real problem how do

0:17:45.680 --> 0:17:50.719
<v Speaker 1>you crack down on illegal and deadly drug trade online

0:17:51.320 --> 0:17:56.000
<v Speaker 1>without also creating a surveillance state. So I recommend you

0:17:56.119 --> 0:17:59.000
<v Speaker 1>check out that article. It's really well written, it's extensive.

0:17:59.080 --> 0:18:02.119
<v Speaker 1>It goes into detail about the actual nature of the problem,

0:18:02.359 --> 0:18:05.800
<v Speaker 1>why this is something that we do need to address,

0:18:05.920 --> 0:18:10.680
<v Speaker 1>and why the proposed solution could potentially be a really

0:18:10.720 --> 0:18:13.600
<v Speaker 1>bad one. Again, the title of that article is a

0:18:13.680 --> 0:18:16.960
<v Speaker 1>proposed law would force Internet companies to spy on their

0:18:17.040 --> 0:18:21.280
<v Speaker 1>users for the dea over at gizmoto, And just full disclosure,

0:18:21.359 --> 0:18:24.359
<v Speaker 1>I have no connection to Gizmoto. I do not know

0:18:24.480 --> 0:18:27.000
<v Speaker 1>Lucas Robek. I just thought this was a very good

0:18:27.119 --> 0:18:31.280
<v Speaker 1>article that folks should read. And that is it for

0:18:31.359 --> 0:18:35.640
<v Speaker 1>the news for Thursday, July thirteenth, twenty twenty three. I

0:18:35.680 --> 0:18:39.000
<v Speaker 1>hope you are all well, stay safe out there, and

0:18:39.080 --> 0:18:48.080
<v Speaker 1>I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is

0:18:48.119 --> 0:18:52.639
<v Speaker 1>an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the

0:18:52.720 --> 0:18:56.320
<v Speaker 1>iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your

0:18:56.359 --> 0:18:59.720
<v Speaker 1>favorite shows.