Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Be there and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'mond executive producer with I Heart Radio and
Speaker 1: how the tech are you? It is time for the
Speaker 1: tech news or Tuesday, December six, two thousand two. Here
Speaker 1: in the United States, the FBI is investigating a pair
Speaker 1: of what it calls intentional attacks on electrical substations in
Speaker 1: North Carolina. So over the weekend, someone caused damage to
Speaker 1: these two substations and they knocked out power to around
Speaker 1: forty five thousand people. That's more than half the population
Speaker 1: of More County where the attacks occurred. The act has
Speaker 1: brought increased attention to the United States vulnerable power grid,
Speaker 1: something that lots of folks have been calling out for
Speaker 1: quite some time in the past. The Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: published pieces that cited unnamed US security officials who said
Speaker 1: that Russian and Chinese hackers, possibly acting with state backing,
Speaker 1: that is, the government's funding these hacking groups, had injected
Speaker 1: malware into the US power grid system. That's an accusation
Speaker 1: that China said was completely baseless. But in this particular case,
Speaker 1: the attacks were physical rather than computerized, and it highlights
Speaker 1: the fact that many electrical substations are located in remote
Speaker 1: areas with limited protection. These attacks came about a week
Speaker 1: after the Department of Homeland Security reissued a warning that
Speaker 1: power grid infrastructure could be attempting target for domestic extremists.
Speaker 1: So that's about all we know right now. I'm sure
Speaker 1: I will follow up on this story as more information
Speaker 1: becomes available. Late last week, Meta published a policy paper
Speaker 1: that argues against lawmakers regulating the metaverse. So the paper
Speaker 1: lays out a case that says laws already in existence
Speaker 1: will apply to the metaverse, meaning there's not really any
Speaker 1: need to draft new legislation specifically regarding the mataverse because
Speaker 1: that kind of regulation could potentially inhibit innovation. And this
Speaker 1: is a pretty standard argument we see from companies that
Speaker 1: any attempts to regulate an industry will reduce innovation and
Speaker 1: inhibit development. We've heard it in the cable industry, We've
Speaker 1: heard it in software, We've heard it pretty much everywhere,
Speaker 1: And from a certain perspective, you can understand that right,
Speaker 1: particularly in a world where the government's understanding of technology,
Speaker 1: specifically the US government in this case, tends to lag
Speaker 1: well behind the technology itself, so then you end up
Speaker 1: with laws that are often drafted on misconceptions, misunderstanding that
Speaker 1: kind of thing, and things get messy. But on the
Speaker 1: other hand, we've also seen countless examples of big tech
Speaker 1: companies enacting policies that were at times at least harmful
Speaker 1: to users, either directly or indirectly, and there's definitely no
Speaker 1: reason to believe that things will be any different with
Speaker 1: the development of the metaverse. Of course, you could argue
Speaker 1: that regulating the metaverse right now would be premature anyway,
Speaker 1: because we're years away from anything we would call an
Speaker 1: actual metaverse implementation, and there are a lot of people,
Speaker 1: including myself, who question if folks will really participate in
Speaker 1: the metaverse to an appreciable extent. But then there's the
Speaker 1: problem that development of the metaverse is going to happen gradually.
Speaker 1: There'll be a lot of little steps. It might be
Speaker 1: one of those things where only in retrospect when we say, ah,
Speaker 1: this is what I would point to as the birth
Speaker 1: of the metaverse, and at the time it may be
Speaker 1: harder to see, and if laws lag behind, we could
Speaker 1: have a lot of problems until the law finally catches up.
Speaker 1: So this is a complicated issue. I will say that
Speaker 1: Meta clearly has a vested interest in being able to
Speaker 1: pursue the company's vision of what the metaverse will be
Speaker 1: with as few limitations as possible, So it's not like
Speaker 1: it's coming from this from an objective background. And certainly
Speaker 1: investors don't want to see more obstacles put in the
Speaker 1: way because Meta is already spending billions of dollars each
Speaker 1: year trying to develop this thing that won't manifest for
Speaker 1: several more years. So yeah, complicated issue. In other Meta
Speaker 1: political news, the company is threatening to remove news from
Speaker 1: Facebook should a piece of legislation make it through US Congress. Now,
Speaker 1: this is very similar to a situation that happened in
Speaker 1: Australia last year. So at the heart of the matter
Speaker 1: is the fact that news outlets want a share of
Speaker 1: Facebook's revenue that is generated from users engaging with the
Speaker 1: outlets content on Facebook, and the law would make it
Speaker 1: easier for these various forms of news media to negotiate
Speaker 1: collectively with companies like Google and Meta. Meta does not
Speaker 1: like that idea one bit and essentially said, hey, if
Speaker 1: you let these companies negotiate collectively, we're just going to
Speaker 1: remove news articles from Facebook News will not be allowed
Speaker 1: on Facebook anymore. Andy Stone, spokesperson for Meta, says that
Speaker 1: the company provides a valuable tool for news outlets because
Speaker 1: they get benefits and added traffic and subscriptions from Facebook users.
Speaker 1: But the News Media Alliance argues that some publishers, such
Speaker 1: as local newspapers, are having their content posted to Meta
Speaker 1: and they're not receiving any revenue in return, and that's
Speaker 1: driving more and more of these smaller companies out of
Speaker 1: business now. As I mentioned, last year, we saw a
Speaker 1: similar situation in Australia, and there too, Facebook threatened to
Speaker 1: pull all news feeds, and for a while it did
Speaker 1: shut down news feeds to Facebook. But since then things
Speaker 1: have entered into a more stable environment with media outlets
Speaker 1: able to negotiate with Meta. So I guess the world
Speaker 1: didn't come to an end after all. A subset of
Speaker 1: recently laid off Meta employees say they're not getting the
Speaker 1: severance package that they had been promised. These employees were
Speaker 1: part of what is called the Sorcer Development Program. So
Speaker 1: this hires on employees, typically employees from what the company
Speaker 1: calls diverse backgrounds for a short term. It's like a
Speaker 1: twelve year term with the potential of moving into a
Speaker 1: career position at the company by the end of the apprenticeship.
Speaker 1: So they are not contract employees. They are instead short
Speaker 1: term employees who received the same sort of benefits as
Speaker 1: a full time employee would. It's just that their continued
Speaker 1: employment isn't guaranteed at the conclusion of that twelve month program. Anyway,
Speaker 1: people in the program were among the eleven thousand recently
Speaker 1: laid off at Meta, and they believe that they are
Speaker 1: entitled to the same severance package as full time employees are,
Speaker 1: since otherwise they get the exact same benefits as full
Speaker 1: time employees. But they say instead they're receiving much less.
Speaker 1: Instead of sixteen weeks of base pay and health care
Speaker 1: for six months, they say they're receiving eight weeks of
Speaker 1: base pay and three months of COBRA. The group has
Speaker 1: sent a letter to Meta executives, and I have to
Speaker 1: say it's a very polite letter. It suggests that maybe
Speaker 1: this was just like a clerical error instead of something
Speaker 1: that was being done on purpose. Back in March, I
Speaker 1: had a representative from Meta's oversight board joined the show
Speaker 1: to talk about what that group does, and one thing
Speaker 1: it does is issue recommendations on how Meta can draft
Speaker 1: and enforce policies in a responsible, accountable, and equitable way.
Speaker 1: And this week, the Oversight Board is recommending that Meta
Speaker 1: overhaul its policy regarding v I P accounts on Facebook
Speaker 1: and Instagram because Meta seems to follow a kind of
Speaker 1: George orwell animal farm approach. You know, all accounts are equal,
Speaker 1: but some accounts are more equal than others. So what
Speaker 1: I'm saying is that Meta treats accounts that belonged to
Speaker 1: important people or important businesses differently than the accounts that
Speaker 1: belong to the rest of us. These important accounts are
Speaker 1: given a lot more leeway. They can bend or break
Speaker 1: Meta's rules without Meta responding to the situation, and yeah,
Speaker 1: that is inherently unfair. It actually has an official name
Speaker 1: within Meta. The policy is called cross check. If someone
Speaker 1: is thought to be of commercial value to Meta, that
Speaker 1: being their presence on Meta drives revenue to the company,
Speaker 1: they get a longer leash than the average user does.
Speaker 1: The Oversight Board recommends that Meta change this to make
Speaker 1: the program more equitable and transparent. The board actually made
Speaker 1: thirty two recommendations in total. Now here's the thing. Meta
Speaker 1: is in no way required to adopt any or all
Speaker 1: of those recommendations. That can ignore every single one if
Speaker 1: they want. They have no obligations to take on these recommendations. However,
Speaker 1: they are obligated to make a formal response to these
Speaker 1: recommendations within sixty days, although Meta has already asked for
Speaker 1: and received an extension, so it'll be ninety days. In
Speaker 1: this case, I am not holding my breath that we're
Speaker 1: gonna see any massive changes, even though this policy is
Speaker 1: a real bad look for the company. The Communication Workers
Speaker 1: of America or c m A say that Microsoft has
Speaker 1: chosen to recognize voluntarily a union of around three video
Speaker 1: game testers with Zinimax Studios. That's the parent company of Bethesda,
Speaker 1: among other companies. Bethesda's responsible for the Fallout and Elder
Speaker 1: Scrolls video game series you know, Skyrim. Anyway, when employees
Speaker 1: vote to unionize, companies can either recognize the union and
Speaker 1: thus begin to work together on things like employee negotiations
Speaker 1: and such, or companies might resist until some larger authority
Speaker 1: like the US National Labor Relations Board gets involved. And
Speaker 1: while Microsoft is currently engaged in acquiring Activision Blizzard, which
Speaker 1: is a company that has resist employee attempts to organize
Speaker 1: multiple times in the past, Microsoft has gone a different
Speaker 1: route in this case. I find it a little surprising
Speaker 1: because Microsoft is also a company that, at least traditionally
Speaker 1: has not been super keen on employee organization efforts. But
Speaker 1: this is good news for testers at Zimax Studios. Okay,
Speaker 1: we've got some more news to go through before we
Speaker 1: get to that, let's take a quick break. We're back.
Speaker 1: The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company or t s MC, has
Speaker 1: long been a major player in the semiconductor fabrication industry,
Speaker 1: but political pressures have an impact on the company's business,
Speaker 1: with the U S imposing sanctions against China that sometimes
Speaker 1: also affect Taiwan. T SMC has been building a fabrication
Speaker 1: facility here in the United States. It's not yet open,
Speaker 1: it's still being built out, but now Nicka Asia reports
Speaker 1: that companies Apple and Nvidia have already signed up to
Speaker 1: be customers to buy chips produced from this facility. Moving
Speaker 1: more semiconductor fabrication to the US has been a big
Speaker 1: priority for the Biden administration, and many have pointed to
Speaker 1: an increased domestic production as a huge step towards ensuring
Speaker 1: national security and productivity. Business Insider reports that Amazon is
Speaker 1: launching an ad verification program as part of its Shopper Panel,
Speaker 1: that is, Amazon's invitation only panel of Amazon customers, who,
Speaker 1: in return for sharing information about themselves and their purchases,
Speaker 1: received small incentives, typically around ten bucks a month for
Speaker 1: their participation. The new ad verification element will invite shop
Speaker 1: Panel members to earn two additional bucks per month, and
Speaker 1: in return, the users consent to Amazon monitoring their traffic
Speaker 1: data to see stuff like what time of day they're
Speaker 1: browsing the web, how much time they're spending there, what
Speaker 1: ads are they seeing, where did they see them. The
Speaker 1: program covers not just Amazon's ads, but i'll a third
Speaker 1: party ads, And personally, I think privacy is worth more
Speaker 1: than two or even twelve bucks a month, but it's
Speaker 1: up to each person in the program to decide whether
Speaker 1: or not it's worthwhile. I think there are some privacy
Speaker 1: concerns that folks should take into account before they make
Speaker 1: any sort of decision. Wired James Jackson has a great article.
Speaker 1: It is titled Tesla's Berlin Hub can't hire enough people
Speaker 1: or keep them. It's a great read, but I want
Speaker 1: to give you some key points that are made in
Speaker 1: the article. One is that Tesla's reputation in Germany, at
Speaker 1: least among engineers and workers, isn't exactly stellar. The piece
Speaker 1: explains that Tesla's compensation packages are below the industry standard
Speaker 1: in Germany and that lots of employees will leave Tesla
Speaker 1: in order to go work somewhere else that has better
Speaker 1: compensation and benefits. There's also a general shortage of talent
Speaker 1: in the auto industry in Germany, and there's no shortage
Speaker 1: of job openings, so it's difficult for pretty much anyone
Speaker 1: to reach a fully staffed status, let alone a company
Speaker 1: that is getting a reputation for not compensating its employees,
Speaker 1: as well as others in the area. Making matters more
Speaker 1: difficult is that testless facility requirement that employees be fluent
Speaker 1: in German, because this discourages otherwise qualified individuals from other
Speaker 1: parts of Europe, namely Poland, from seeking employment there. Former
Speaker 1: employees also say that they experienced sudden and dramatic changes
Speaker 1: to their job descriptions, requiring them to put in more
Speaker 1: hours at different times of the day throughout the week,
Speaker 1: and such changes were overly disruptive and it kind of
Speaker 1: sounds like this Tesla facility is experiencing issues very similar
Speaker 1: to other Elon Musk operations, and this is one place
Speaker 1: where that kind of thing really just isn't going over
Speaker 1: very well. Recently, I covered how Neuralink, another Elon Musk company,
Speaker 1: was aiming to implant a brain computer interface or b
Speaker 1: c I into a human brain within the next six months.
Speaker 1: Now the US government is investigating Neuralink for animal well
Speaker 1: welfare violations. UH. Some employees have indicated that at least
Speaker 1: in some cases, rushed tests have resulted in needless animal
Speaker 1: suffering and death. That while animal testing maybe a necessary
Speaker 1: step to develop b c I chips to make them
Speaker 1: safe for humans, the pressure to carry out tests quickly
Speaker 1: has led to mistakes, and those mistakes have had cruel
Speaker 1: effects on animal tests subjects, and it also necessitates that
Speaker 1: those tests have to be then repeated, because a mistake
Speaker 1: means you can't rely upon any data that was generated
Speaker 1: by the test, so you've got to scrap it and
Speaker 1: do it again, which influs more harm on animals. So
Speaker 1: Reuter's reports that the company has killed around fift animals
Speaker 1: since two thousand eighteen, which includes like monkeys and pigs
Speaker 1: and sheep, but Reuter's also says that's merely an estimate
Speaker 1: because neuralalink doesn't actually document the number of animals that
Speaker 1: are killed in tests. Finally, the U. S Secret Service
Speaker 1: says that hackers, potentially with the backing of the Chinese government,
Speaker 1: stole at least twenty million dollars in tentaiver COVID relief benefits.
Speaker 1: Hacker group called APT forty one is responsible. It's a
Speaker 1: known hacker group with ties to the Chinese government, and
Speaker 1: it effectively took US taxpayer dollars that were intended to
Speaker 1: help people who were impacted by COVID in the United States,
Speaker 1: particularly those who became unemployed. And it's possible that this
Speaker 1: problem extends well beyond APT forty one, and that foreign
Speaker 1: backed pandemic fraud operations could be pretty darn common. The
Speaker 1: Secret Service has only gone so far as to say
Speaker 1: it is pursuing more than one thousand ongoing investigations relating
Speaker 1: to fraud and public benefits programs. So that's not specifically COVID.
Speaker 1: That could be lots of other stuff, but it just
Speaker 1: shows that this is of a wide ranging issue. It
Speaker 1: actually sounds like the fraud might not have been too
Speaker 1: hard to pull off. According to the Labor Department Office
Speaker 1: of Inspector General, four states in the United States, remember
Speaker 1: we got fifty of them. Four states saw more than
Speaker 1: fort of pandemic benefits paid out improperly. Like at that point,
Speaker 1: you're getting pretty close to a coin flip situation as
Speaker 1: to whether or not the tax money is actually going
Speaker 1: to the people who need it or not. And that
Speaker 1: is unthinkable. It's a really bad situation because the US
Speaker 1: employees a mishmash of different computer systems, and having one
Speaker 1: computer system compromise can be enough to cause massive problems
Speaker 1: because you do still have some interconnectivity between different systems
Speaker 1: throughout the United States. And the solution typically is, well,
Speaker 1: you kind of gotta take everything down and rebuild it
Speaker 1: with a new system, which is a huge undertaking. Only that,
Speaker 1: but you have to get approval and funding. It's just
Speaker 1: the sort of thing that is not likely to happen
Speaker 1: because it is such a huge job to do, right,
Speaker 1: You've got a lot of inertia built up in existing systems,
Speaker 1: and so it's not likely that state and federal governments
Speaker 1: are going to be able to do that. And meanwhile,
Speaker 1: we know that many of these systems have been compromised,
Speaker 1: so it is a really bad situation. Okay, well, that's
Speaker 1: it for the news for Tuesday, December six two. I'll
Speaker 1: be back later this week to give new news update.
Speaker 1: Hopefully there'll be some fun good news in there, because
Speaker 1: you know, I don't like being all doom and gloom either.
Speaker 1: I just report on what's breaking. That's kind of it's
Speaker 1: it's up to the world to be a little bit
Speaker 1: of a better place, I guess. But yeah, well we're
Speaker 1: gonna look for some good news earlier this week anyway.
Speaker 1: If you have any suggestions for topics for tech stuff,
Speaker 1: remember I'm doing an into the year wrap up pretty soon.
Speaker 1: You've got any suggestions for stories I should make sure
Speaker 1: I include in my wrap up, let me know. One
Speaker 1: way to do that is to download the I Heart
Speaker 1: radio app. It's free to download and use. Navigate over
Speaker 1: to tech stuff just put tech stuff in the search field.
Speaker 1: You'll pop on over there. You'll see that there's this
Speaker 1: little microphone icon. If you click on that, you can
Speaker 1: leave a voice message up to thirty seconds in length.
Speaker 1: Let me know that way. If you would prefer not
Speaker 1: to do that, you can also get in touch with
Speaker 1: me via Twitter. To handle for the show is tech
Speaker 1: Stuff H. S W and I'll talk to you again
Speaker 1: really soon. Tech 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.