0:04

Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production of

0:06

I Heart Radios How Stuff Works. Hey

0:12

there, and welcome to Tech Stuff. I'm your host,

0:14

Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer

0:16

with I Heart Radio and I love all things

0:19

tech. And we are continuing

0:21

on our look back on the big text

0:23

stories of twenty nineteen. Now,

0:25

the last episode was all about bummers.

0:28

This one is only mostly about

0:31

bummers. But don't blame me. I

0:33

didn't make the news. Also,

0:36

I should point out that, of course I'm

0:38

just giving kind of a high level overview

0:40

of stuff that happened in twenty nineteen, because

0:42

to cover everything that happened in tech would

0:45

be beyond even my impressive capabilities.

0:48

And I should also add that I've

0:50

got some updates to stuff what happened

0:53

in the last episode, because, as

0:55

it turns out, when I recorded part one and

0:58

when I'm recording part two, time

1:00

past and stuff continue to

1:02

develop. That's how news works, and

1:04

I resent it. But one story I do

1:07

need to follow up on broke between

1:09

that time and that was that Dennis

1:12

Muhlenberg, the CEO of Boeing,

1:15

resigned from Boeing as

1:17

the company was dealing with the consequences of

1:19

the seven thirty seven max fleet being

1:21

grounded, among other problems

1:24

at the company. Generally speaking, analyst

1:26

said that his stepping down was sort of a necessary

1:28

part of Boweing regaining confidence

1:31

among customers and shareholders. Not

1:33

that all blame should be put on the CEOs

1:35

shoulders, but that this was one

1:37

of those steps a company has to take in

1:40

order to convince people, hey, we

1:42

are really taking this seriously and

1:44

we need to make some changes. Now.

1:47

The next two stories that I want

1:49

to talk about are related, and they

1:51

are both extremely dark and

1:54

upsetting, but I also feel they

1:56

are important to acknowledge and consider.

1:59

And for some of you you might feel as though

2:01

I'm going to get really preachy

2:03

about this. I am not going to apologize

2:06

for that in this case. Now,

2:08

the first dark story is about March

2:10

fifteen, two thousand nineteen. That

2:13

was when a gunman carried out attacks on

2:15

two different mosques in christ Church,

2:17

New Zealand, killing fifty one

2:19

people and injuring another forty

2:21

nine. Now, the reason the story gets

2:24

included in tech news is

2:26

that the gunman streamed the attack

2:28

on the first mosque over on

2:30

Facebook Live. Other people

2:33

grabbed the video feed, and then they began to

2:35

post it elsewhere, which ensured that

2:37

even as platforms were removing it, others

2:40

were hosting it. The New

2:42

Zealand government classified the video as objectionable,

2:45

which is a legal classification

2:47

in New Zealand. It meant that distributing, copying,

2:50

or exhibiting the video would be against the law,

2:53

but the video was already out on the internet. Now

2:55

most platforms have created digital fingerprints

2:58

of the video in order to detect future uploads,

3:01

thus blocking it automatically and then

3:03

removing them very quickly. The gunman,

3:05

identified as Britain Tarrant, had

3:08

been active in far right organizations

3:10

and white supremacy groups online

3:13

and off, and there's been a rise

3:15

in activity in online communities of

3:17

such radical groups, raising

3:19

warnings of extremists using the Internet

3:22

to recruit others and reinforce some

3:24

truly awful beliefs. And

3:26

this brings me to story number two,

3:29

which is that these groups have made use of

3:31

some notable online communities to

3:33

encourage one another and create a space

3:36

for extremism. One of those

3:38

online communities, and perhaps the

3:40

most infamous, is eight kun formerly

3:43

known as eight chan. The history

3:45

of eight chan dates back to when

3:48

Frederick Brennan created it, as an alternative

3:51

to an earlier online message board

3:53

community called four chan. Now,

3:56

Brennan felt four chan was becoming too

3:58

restrictive, which is a sentence

4:00

that's hard to even believe if you're at

4:02

all familiar with four chan. The

4:04

only rule on a chan was

4:07

that you weren't supposed to post or link

4:09

to any content that would be illegal

4:11

in the United States. Brennan

4:14

ended his association with the site in

4:16

two thousand eighteen. In two thousand

4:18

nineteen, in the wake of shootings in christ

4:20

Church, New Zealand, also in Poway,

4:22

California, and El Paso, Texas, and

4:26

also links back to eight chan showing

4:28

how the perpetrators of those three different

4:30

shootings had used eight chan to publish their

4:32

own manifestos. Brennan,

4:34

the founder of the site, was one of the voices

4:36

calling for the site to get shut down.

4:39

That actually did happen in August two

4:42

thousand nineteen, but the site since

4:44

returned as a con as of November

4:46

two thousand nineteen. And there is a pretty

4:49

complicated situation going on here.

4:51

On the one hand, the founders of the Internet

4:54

and of the Worldwide Web envisioned a

4:56

platform that would support freedom of speech

4:58

and the exchange of ideas. On the

5:00

other hand, many people, particularly

5:03

those from already vulnerable communities,

5:05

are put in danger as extremism

5:08

is on the rise. The safe haven

5:10

for those who espouse these extremist,

5:14

radical, racist, and misogynist

5:17

and violent beliefs as

5:19

contributing to an increasingly toxic

5:21

subculture. In addition, several

5:24

tech companies have enabled this

5:27

subculture. It hasn't necessarily

5:29

been a conscious decision, but

5:32

the principles of running a business in which

5:34

your goal is to return value to shareholders

5:37

isn't always in alignment with doing

5:39

what's actually best for the general

5:42

population. In fact, those two things

5:44

can often come into conflict with

5:46

one another. In some cases, like

5:48

eight Kun, this is far more apparent,

5:51

but it's also the case with stuff like more

5:53

public platforms such as Twitter and

5:55

Facebook. Those companies struggle

5:58

with how to deal with a particularly thorny

6:00

subject to varying degrees of success,

6:03

most of which satisfy very few

6:05

people. I wish I had

6:07

a solution to this very large problem,

6:10

but I believe such a solution has to

6:12

go much deeper than taking a

6:15

website offline or removing

6:17

an option for people to voice these hateful

6:19

philosophies. That's part of it, but

6:21

it doesn't address the deeper underlying

6:24

problems that feed into that toxicity

6:26

to begin with. So all I can really

6:28

do is appeal to you guys

6:31

to exercise compassion and critical

6:34

thinking. Those two things are absolutely

6:36

necessary in my view. All

6:38

Right, the darkest of

6:41

the dark stuff in this episode is over,

6:43

so let's move on. One

6:45

thing that happened in twenty nineteen might

6:47

set us on a path for widespread

6:49

use of drones to deliver packages.

6:52

In the spring of twenty nineteen, the Federal

6:55

Aviation Administration or f A a certified

6:58

Wing that's the drone delivery

7:00

startup company that's owned by the Google

7:02

parent company alphabet UH.

7:05

They certified them to operate as an

7:07

air carrier. This regulatory

7:09

step allows Wing to make commercial deliveries

7:12

in the United States. The company had

7:14

already been conducting tests in Australia

7:16

in anticipation of receiving government approval

7:18

in the United States. And there's still many

7:21

questions that need to be answered, and we're likely

7:23

to see very limited roll out of drone

7:25

delivery services in specific

7:27

regions as companies and local governments

7:30

kind of hash out the best way to move

7:32

forward now. Personally, I'm

7:35

curious to see if drone delivery

7:37

will prove to be a more efficient means of

7:39

delivering packages on a large enough

7:41

scale to make sense. I

7:43

mean, I can see how it could be incredibly useful in

7:46

scenarios where getting to a

7:48

location is challenging and the need

7:50

to deliver something important like medication

7:53

is really urgent, but I'm not entirely

7:55

convinced yet that it would make sense from

7:57

a more general use standpoint.

8:00

However, I also haven't run the figures, nor

8:03

do I know how much it costs to operate

8:05

delivery services as they stand right

8:07

now, So it's entirely possible

8:10

that this is a viable alternative to more traditional

8:12

delivery services. I just don't know

8:14

enough to comment on it firmly, But

8:17

it's hard for me to believe that, on the face

8:19

of it, that it would be more cost

8:21

effective and efficient unless

8:24

you just had truly enormous fleets, in which case

8:26

then you have the technological and

8:28

administrative difficulties that come with managing

8:31

that large of a fleet. So

8:33

I just don't know. Sticking with government

8:35

approval, because there are a lot of stories that fall

8:38

into that category this year, the

8:40

Federal Communications Commission in the United

8:42

States, or the FCC, approved

8:45

the merger of telecommunications companies

8:47

T Mobile and Sprint. Now.

8:50

According to analysts, the chief purpose of

8:52

this merger is to enhance T mobiles

8:54

five G technology rollout to

8:56

give it a stronger position in the United States

8:58

as a As you know, five G networks are starting

9:01

to come online. Just a few years ago,

9:03

according to reports from a consulting firm called

9:05

McKenzie, T Mobile was eyeing a

9:07

merger was Sprint, but for a different

9:10

reason. It was in an effort to become

9:12

more competitive against A T and T and

9:14

Verizon, which are the other two major

9:16

cellular phone carriers in the United

9:19

States. While the FCC has

9:21

given its approval, that's just one

9:23

regulatory hurdle that telecommunications

9:26

companies have to overcome before they can merge.

9:28

Regulatory agencies at both the state

9:31

and federal levels are still considering

9:33

this plan, and they may place restrictions

9:35

or limitations on any merger, or they might

9:38

deny it outright. T Mobile

9:40

has reportedly been renegotiating the deal

9:42

in the meantime, and the old reports

9:45

from two thousand and fifteen, the ones that stated

9:47

tea Mobile was first looking at Sprint

9:49

for a possible merger, said that t

9:52

Mobile also entertain the notion of

9:54

allowing Comcast, the mega

9:57

cable corporation, to acquire

9:59

Team Bowl. There may well be

10:01

some serious offers for acquisitions

10:04

like that in the near future of

10:06

either te Mobile or Sprint, or emerged

10:09

version of the two from such a

10:11

cable company, whether it's Comcast or a

10:13

different one. Speaking of corporate

10:16

maneuvers, one drama that finally

10:19

finished playing out in nineteen

10:22

really kind of fizzled out and sputtered

10:24

a bit was the tale of Amazon's

10:27

HQ two in New York City.

10:30

So let's backtrack a bit. The company

10:32

initially announced it was looking into expanding

10:34

its corporate headquarters, which are based

10:36

out of Seattle, Washington, into a

10:39

different city. In two thousand

10:41

eighteen. They famously held

10:43

a Request for Proposals in asking

10:46

for cities that were eager to host

10:49

this new headquarters to present

10:52

their their proposals their deals. That

10:54

in turn prompted a series of stories about

10:56

incredibly generous tax

10:59

breaks and other incentives, as well as

11:01

some fairly absurd publicity

11:03

stunts that stretched throughout most

11:05

of until in November

11:08

of that year, Amazon announced it had settled

11:10

on two locations that would share

11:13

the duty of being HQ two. One

11:16

is in Arlington, Virginia, and the other

11:18

was in New York City, New York. Now,

11:20

there was some pretty hefty criticism

11:23

early on from various sources

11:25

that alleged Amazon had

11:28

chosen these two locations from the beginning,

11:30

that had these in mind when

11:33

they even asked for the proposals in the first place.

11:36

One of the pieces of supposed evidence

11:38

that they used to support this claim

11:41

is that Amazon CEO

11:43

Jeff Bezos apparently had homes near

11:45

those two proposed locations, and

11:48

that the whole selection process was therefore nothing

11:51

more than an effort to create

11:53

a competitive environment so that

11:55

both New York and Arlington would

11:58

continuously improve their deals

12:00

so Amazon we get the sweetest tax break,

12:03

but that presumably the plan

12:06

all along was to move into those two locations.

12:08

Whether that's true or not, we get to

12:11

two thousand nineteen, and early in

12:13

twenty nineteen, New York City residents

12:15

voiced some rather critical opinions about

12:18

their new proposed neighbor. Journalists

12:21

reported that the proposed HQ

12:23

two site in New York City would take

12:25

up land that had previously been intended

12:27

for the use of six thousand homes,

12:30

including a significant number of low

12:32

income homes. Alexandria

12:34

Accacio Cortez, a US representative

12:37

from New York, voiced concern that the

12:39

incentives offered to Amazon would

12:41

hurt the city both in the near and the

12:44

long term, that it would undermine efforts

12:46

to fund government improvements

12:48

to critical infrastructure in the city

12:51

because of these enormous tax breaks. You know, if Amazon

12:53

is not paying taxes, that revenue is not coming

12:56

from them, the financial burden falls on everyone

12:58

else in New York and frequently that means

13:00

that programs have to get reduced

13:03

or cut so that you can, you

13:05

know, make your money stretch out further. In

13:07

February two thou nineteen, Amazon announced

13:10

it was canceling its plan to build

13:12

out its location in New York City. Amazon

13:14

does lease out some office

13:17

space, a significant amount of office space

13:19

in New York, but it no longer plans to

13:21

have a second corporate headquarters there. And

13:24

since we're talking about Amazon, let's

13:26

move on to one of the properties that Amazon

13:28

owns, and that would be the Ring Company.

13:31

That's the company that produces surveillance

13:33

cameras and and surveillance doorbells,

13:36

you know doorbells that have the cameras and communication

13:38

systems. Well, in twenty nineteen, there

13:40

were a few stories of hackers who had

13:42

gained access to users Ring

13:45

equipment, whether it was the surveillance

13:47

cameras or the Ring doorbells.

13:50

Some hackers did this in an effort to expose

13:52

vulnerability, so they were doing it to say,

13:54

hey, we need to fix this because it's

13:56

a problem. But others did it specifically

13:59

to her asks or exploit people,

14:02

and those stories were alarming

14:05

and continue to be alarming. Some of them involve

14:07

kids, and it's incredibly disturbing, and

14:10

they've led to at least one class action

14:12

lawsuit against Amazon. The

14:15

allegation is that Ring isn't

14:17

doing enough to ensure customers privacy

14:19

and security are maintained, which is particularly

14:22

a problem for a company that markets

14:24

equipment that's meant to enhance security,

14:27

not exploit vulnerabilities. Now

14:30

I haven't seen all the details about

14:33

how the Ring systems were actually hacked.

14:35

There are different ways to gain access to connected

14:38

systems on a network. Sometimes

14:40

you can find a vulnerability in an endpoint,

14:43

such as an actual device connected to the network.

14:46

So in those cases you would say, all right, the hacker managed

14:48

to hack into the network via

14:51

this RING device. That

14:54

very well maybe the case maybe they were able

14:56

to brute force a password through

14:58

that and the got access that way. But

15:01

other times hackers might find a way to compromise

15:03

the network itself and then they can access

15:06

the various components connected to that network

15:08

as if they were, in fact the legitimate

15:10

administrator of the network. In

15:13

the case of Ring, it sounds to me as though

15:15

they found it through password vulnerabilities.

15:19

The lawsuit states that Ring should have required

15:21

users to create more robust passwords

15:23

and to require two factor authentication

15:26

to prevent abuse. And just in case you're

15:28

not familiar with the concept, two factor

15:30

authentication is a subset of what

15:33

is called multi factor authentication,

15:35

which just means that you're using two or

15:38

more factors, which really just means two

15:40

to three factors to authenticate

15:42

your identity. And those factors

15:45

are categories of stuff, right.

15:47

Those categories are what you know.

15:50

This would be something like a password or a pin,

15:52

so it would be something that you have knowledge of and you

15:55

provide when you're accessing a

15:57

system. The second factor is

16:00

what you have, like what you physically

16:02

have on you that could be a mobile device, So

16:05

it could be that you provide your password

16:07

or pen and then it sends a code to your

16:09

mobile device, which you also have to enter, or

16:11

you might have a token that you have to use

16:14

in some way to access the system. And then

16:16

the third factor is what you are, and

16:19

this would refer to things like biometric data.

16:21

Maybe it's a retinal scan or

16:24

fingerprint scan or voice scan. Multi

16:26

factor authentication requires you present at least

16:29

two of those three factors, possibly one

16:31

of all three. It all depends on the implementation.

16:34

So you might enter a password, then you receive your

16:36

code, you enter the code, and then you get access.

16:39

But that proves you both know the password

16:42

and you also have possession of an authorized

16:44

mobile device, which limits the possibility

16:47

that an unauthorized person is going

16:49

to gain access to that system.

16:51

Now, this touches on an issue that I think

16:54

is really important and is growing more important

16:56

as the Internet of Things gets bigger.

16:59

And I'm sure you've heard the saying that a chain

17:01

is only as strong as its weakest link.

17:04

In network security, there are many potential

17:07

weak links. You could have a badly

17:10

designed piece of hardware or software

17:12

that has vulnerabilities in it, and that

17:15

offers an in road for an intrusion

17:17

into a network. You can also have users

17:19

who practice really poor security habits,

17:22

like they choose common passwords

17:24

like a common dictionary word as a password. That's

17:26

a terrible, terrible habit and no one should

17:28

do it. Or they're using the same password

17:30

for multiple services, also a

17:32

terrible idea. But this raises a

17:35

question who should be accountable for

17:37

data security? After all, users

17:40

should be employing strong, unique

17:42

passwords as a matter of habit. And if

17:44

you heard about someone's house being robbed because

17:46

they forgot to lock the door, I

17:49

don't think your first instinct would be to sue

17:51

the lock company for letting it happen.

17:53

I think end users are at least partly

17:56

accountable for good data security.

17:58

However, that being said, I also think

18:01

that companies have a responsibility.

18:04

They need to create rules that require

18:06

strong passwords and multi factor

18:08

authentication by default. They

18:10

need to essentially force users to

18:13

be more careful. They enable users

18:15

to practice good security, and

18:17

by enable users, I really mean limit

18:20

the options that users have that

18:22

that result in poor security. I

18:25

think it's the user's responsibility to be

18:27

more secure and the company's responsibility

18:29

to enable it. But that's just me.

18:32

Now, when we come back, we'll look at some more

18:34

stories from twenty nineteen. Here's

18:44

a story that started making the news

18:46

just before twenty nineteen wrapped up. I mean I

18:49

learned about it shortly before

18:51

coming into the studio. So Devin

18:53

Wilson, or at Atomic

18:56

Thumbs on Twitter, criticize

18:58

the company so Nos for what he

19:00

saw as a particularly egregious example

19:03

of trying to control the aftermarket on

19:05

electronics now. Sons is primarily

19:08

known for making speaker systems, particularly

19:11

smart speakers, and like a lot

19:13

of tech companies, it depends heavily

19:15

on creating incentives for established

19:18

Sons customers to upgrade

19:20

and update their equipment. You know, if

19:22

everyone just went out and bought the latest Sons

19:25

speaker and they thought,

19:28

oh, this works great and had no reason

19:30

to upgrade, the company would

19:32

have a very rough year. So they have

19:34

to create incentives for people to keep buying

19:37

their stuff. In that way. Sonas

19:39

is strategy is really similar to that of things

19:41

like smartphone handset manufacturers. It's

19:44

the Apple iPhone model. In other words,

19:46

each subsequent generation of devices

19:49

incorporates features that older devices

19:51

cannot support, whether that lack

19:53

of support comes from technical limitations

19:55

of the hardware or managerial

19:58

decisions. Is a moot point as a pose,

20:00

I mean it could come down to executives say, just

20:02

don't let this run on older stuff,

20:05

not that the older stuff is inherently

20:08

incapable of running. It doesn't

20:10

matter. The end result is the same. So

20:12

NOS has a trade up program

20:15

that gives existing so nos users a

20:17

thirty credit toward a new

20:19

so nos device if those

20:21

users activate what is called recycle

20:24

mode on their older so nos device.

20:27

Now, recycle mode starts

20:29

a countdown clock. It's a twenty

20:32

one day countdown, and at

20:34

the end of that SONS puts the device

20:36

on a blacklist so that it is bricked,

20:39

meaning you can't use it at all.

20:42

It will not work, it is ineffective,

20:45

and it also means that you can't give it away

20:47

or sell it, or at least you can't do so ethically

20:50

because you'd just be handing over what amounts to

20:53

being a giant paperweight with a lot

20:55

of circuit boards and wires in it. So

20:57

really the only options are to try

21:00

and hack the speakers, which isn't

21:02

really an option most people would feel comfortable

21:04

trying to tackle and would probably have limited

21:07

use anyway, or you could send

21:09

the speaker to an e waste recycling facility,

21:12

or you just throw the darn thing away. That's

21:15

not a great option. It adds e waste.

21:17

E waste is bad stuff, and recycling,

21:19

while better than throwing stuff out, isn't

21:22

as environmentally friendly as reusing

21:24

stuff. If you've ever heard reduce, reuse,

21:27

recycle, well it's in that order

21:29

of preference. You want to reduce the

21:31

amount of waste you generate. You want

21:33

to reuse stuff as much as you can. The

21:36

stuff you can't reuse, you recycle.

21:38

The stuff you can't reuse or

21:40

recycle, then you can throw away. But

21:43

even that is, you know, not great.

21:46

So Wilson's point was that so

21:49

NOSES program actually incentivizes

21:52

creating e waste. It encourages

21:54

people to break their old device in

21:56

order to get this thirty percent credit

21:58

towards their next purchase, and it

22:01

makes those old devices useless to

22:03

anyone. And sure, they

22:05

these people might go and recycle their

22:08

old Sons speakers, but

22:10

it's not as good an option as to keep the equipment

22:13

in working order so that someone else

22:15

can actually make use of it, rather than for it

22:17

to just go to waste. Critics

22:19

have said, this really isn't about

22:22

reducing waste, it's about so Nos

22:24

limiting the viability of a secondary

22:27

market. Because Sonas doesn't make

22:29

money off of someone selling off an

22:31

old pair of speakers or anything like

22:33

that. The company has a financial incentive

22:36

to discourage aftermarket resales

22:38

and to create pathways for people to buy directly

22:41

from Sons or or from retailers

22:43

who are carrying so Nos speakers.

22:46

So the criticism states that this is

22:48

a devious way for Sons to play

22:50

the environmentally conscious card,

22:52

you know, to make it look like they're being eco

22:55

friendly, while actually they're taking

22:57

aim at a market that can undercut

22:59

their own and revenues, that being the resale

23:02

market. You know, we've seen this with other

23:04

properties as well, other types of gadgets

23:06

and electronics as well as video games. This

23:09

idea of getting rid of that resale

23:11

market in order to create the incentive

23:13

for people to go out and buy new copies

23:16

as opposed to used copies or used

23:19

devices in this case. All

23:21

right, well, how about we do some Apple news.

23:24

A big piece of news regarding Apple broke

23:26

in late June two thousand nineteen, when

23:28

Jonathan I've, better known as Sir Johnny

23:31

I've announced he was leaving

23:33

the company. He had been with Apple for

23:35

nearly three decades, working primarily

23:38

in design. He joined the company back in nineteen

23:40

nine six when it wasn't a bit of a pickle. That

23:42

was a year before the ousted Steve Jobs

23:45

would return to the company. He was

23:47

one of the influential designers who defined

23:49

Apple's iPhone approach, setting

23:51

the stage for the company's meteoric rise

23:54

in success. He announced

23:56

he would be heading up a new design company

23:58

called Love From and that he

24:00

would still work with Apple on projects,

24:03

just from an independent business owner

24:05

standpoint as opposed to an Apple

24:07

executive. I've played an

24:09

intrinsic role in designing some of Apple's

24:11

defining products over the last twenty years,

24:14

so it will be interesting to see how the company moves

24:16

forward. I've and Jobs together

24:19

were often cited as the visionaries

24:22

who kind of set Apple on its course,

24:25

and people have been asking what

24:27

Apple's up to ever since Jobs passed

24:29

away. So with Ive's departure, I'm

24:31

wondering how that's going to affect the company as

24:33

well. Apple wasn't just dealing with

24:36

the departure of one of its more famous

24:38

employees. However, the company also had

24:40

some other snags in twenty nineteen due

24:42

to product issues. At the beginning

24:44

of the year, Benjamin Mayo of the Apple

24:47

news and rumors site nine to

24:49

five Mac broke a big

24:51

story about a vulnerability in the company's

24:54

FaceTime app. So, for those who aren't

24:56

familiar, FaceTime is a video chat

24:58

app. It's so you can video calls

25:01

on iOS devices. Uh

25:03

though I should add that at least one Apple

25:05

user had tried to warn the company

25:07

more than a week before the story broke.

25:10

They had found this independently, so

25:13

it was a known issue, arguably

25:15

not just to the Apple community but to Apple

25:17

itself before the story broke

25:20

in nine to five Mac. Anyway, Mayo

25:22

found that if you used FaceTime to

25:25

make a call between any devices running

25:27

iOS version twelve point one or later, and

25:30

then you added your own number into the

25:32

call, as if you were conferencing in yourself

25:35

the person making the call, you would

25:38

be able to hear the audio from the receiver's

25:40

phone before the receiver had

25:42

chosen to accept the call in the first place. So

25:45

all you would have to do is put in someone's number,

25:48

have it start to dial a FaceTime call

25:51

conference in yourself, and you could listen

25:54

in on the other phones

25:56

microphone. You could even

25:58

use some options to act debate the camera

26:01

on the phone. And it wasn't just phones,

26:03

it was also you know, other mobile

26:05

devices, but also max because the mac os

26:08

supported FaceTime as well, so if

26:10

you did this, you could presumably

26:12

use someone's Mac computer to spy

26:15

on their home. Uh And because

26:18

this would only work as long as the other device

26:20

was ringing, and FaceTime times out after

26:22

a certain amount of ringing, that

26:25

ringing actually lasts a lot longer on

26:28

mac Os. A call can

26:30

end up going much longer in

26:33

the in the calling phase for mac Os

26:35

because the thought is not everyone is at

26:37

their computer all the time, so you

26:39

might be across the house when the call

26:41

comes in, you might not hear it at first, so they

26:44

have a longer calling session

26:48

that will last until there's an automatic

26:50

cut off, which means you could

26:52

presumably spy longer until

26:55

someone noticed that there was a FaceTime

26:57

call coming in. So this was a huge

27:00

law on the software and the vulnerability

27:03

would be patched. But initially Apple's

27:05

response was just to suspend the group FaceTime

27:08

feature so that you couldn't conference anyone

27:10

in at all. You could only do person to person calls,

27:12

you couldn't do conference calls. And

27:14

then in February twenty nineteen, the

27:17

company pushed out the patch that sealed up those vulnerabilities

27:19

and re enabled group FaceTime features.

27:22

Another problem Apple faced was the release

27:24

of iOS version thirteen and

27:27

the release of Mac OS ten point

27:29

one five a k A. Catalina.

27:32

Critics found problems with both, identifying

27:35

numerous bugs that prompted some tech

27:37

reporters to advise people, especially

27:40

for people looking at buying a new iPhone, to

27:42

wait for patches before updating

27:45

to the latest OS version or buying a new

27:47

phone. Even Apple announced

27:49

iOS thirteen point one a

27:52

patch to thirteen point oh before

27:55

thirteen point oh had even shut,

27:58

which indicated that the initial rule east

28:00

wasn't really ready for implementation. So

28:02

why was iOS thirteen so

28:05

buggy? Or maybe I should say why is it because

28:07

not all those bugs have been fixed? Well? Some

28:10

people have suggested that Apple was being overly

28:12

aggressive when adding in new features

28:15

to the operating system, and that feature

28:17

creep might have been an issue. David

28:20

Shaer, and Apple software engineer

28:22

theorized that perhaps teams working

28:24

on certain features, were reluctant

28:26

to admit when they were falling behind

28:29

on deadlines, and that rather than

28:31

cutting back on features, rather than saying let's

28:34

not do this because it's taking too much time

28:36

and we need to ship, things were

28:38

kept in the mix far longer than they needed

28:41

to be, and Share also listed

28:43

several other possible contributing factors. It's

28:46

all in the post on tidbits dot

28:48

Com. I recommend checking that out if

28:50

you want to learn more. The piece is titled six

28:53

reasons why iOS thirteen and

28:55

Catalina are so Buggy, and

28:58

he goes into much greater detail there now.

29:01

In late December, Apple pushed out

29:03

an update for its mobile operating

29:05

system, and this one's called iOS thirteen

29:08

point three, which might make you think

29:10

it's the third update to iOS

29:14

to this version, but it's not the third

29:16

update. It's actually the eighth update

29:19

since iOS thirteen was first

29:21

announced. Many of the updates

29:24

were in the iOS thirteen point one

29:26

and iOS thirteen point two designations.

29:29

Oh and by the time you hear this, iOS

29:31

thirteen point three point one might

29:34

be available. It's currently in beta.

29:36

As a record this episode. Gordon

29:38

Kelly of Forbes suggests that

29:40

if you have a device running an earlier version

29:43

of iOS thirteen, you should absolutely update

29:45

to thirteen point three, but

29:47

if you're still running iOS twelve,

29:50

you might actually still want to wait a

29:52

little bit longer before you upgrade.

29:54

He does say that things are starting to

29:57

look promising, that the initial

29:59

months following the release of iOS thirteen

30:01

were pretty bad. He would give a categorical

30:04

skip this update until it's fixed

30:07

recommendation. That recommendation

30:09

is slowly starting to soften as

30:11

these numerous patches are

30:13

addressing some of the more serious bugs

30:16

and vulnerabilities that people have found

30:18

in iOS thirteen. But this has not been

30:20

an illustrious launch for Apple.

30:23

Bugs and operating system updates are really

30:26

nothing new. I mean, it happens all the time.

30:28

No one's perfect, and operating systems are large

30:30

and complicated pieces of software. But it

30:33

does create a bit of an image problem, particularly

30:36

if you're a company like Apple that has built

30:39

itself on a reputation that its devices

30:41

just work, and it also complicates

30:43

a discussion that relates back to data security.

30:47

Generally speaking, it's a good idea to

30:49

keep as up to date with operating

30:51

system and security patches as you

30:53

possibly can. So if there's an update,

30:56

generally speaking, it's good to install

30:59

right away. Now, eventually you

31:01

might find that your particular device

31:03

can't support whatever the latest and greatest

31:06

version of the operating system is. That

31:09

does happen where the hardware itself

31:11

cannot physically support the software, but

31:13

keeping up to date reduces the opportunities

31:15

that hackers can take to exploit vulnerabilities.

31:19

However, when the operating system itself is

31:21

a buggy mess and the updates

31:23

aren't much better, it's not as

31:25

clear cut a case that updating

31:28

is your best option. It may be that,

31:31

yeah, you can update, and that will technically

31:33

patch some things, but could open

31:35

up either brand new vulnerabilities or

31:37

might just make stuff not work anymore. That's

31:40

not great either. All right, let's pop

31:42

on over to Microsoft, Apple's old

31:44

rival and sometimes savior. If you've

31:46

listened to old episodes of tech Stuff, you know what I'm referring

31:49

to. Now. I don't have a whole lot to say

31:51

about Microsoft in twenty nineteen. The

31:53

company has moved much of its operations into

31:55

cloud based services, but it did

31:57

launch a product in late twenty nineteen

32:00

has folks like me a little excited.

32:02

It's the hollow lens too. Now,

32:04

the hollow lens is an augmented reality

32:07

platform, and augmented reality involves

32:10

overlaying digital information on top

32:12

of the real world around us in

32:14

some way. Now, you typically can achieve

32:17

this through one of several approaches.

32:19

You could have special glasses that

32:22

act as a projection screen to display

32:24

information in front of you as you look around,

32:26

so that you have digital information that you're looking

32:28

at, but you can also look through that

32:31

and see the real world beyond it. You

32:33

could even have headphones that feeds

32:35

you information by audio that enhance

32:37

your experience of moving through a physical environment.

32:39

That's the type of augmented reality. It's maybe

32:41

not as flashy as the first type,

32:44

but it's still very legitimate. You could

32:46

have an app on a smartphone that can recognize

32:48

certain images and display data on top of

32:50

a video view of the world. So in this case,

32:53

you're looking at the world through your smartphone

32:55

screen, which then can overlay digital

32:57

information on top of that video view. But

33:00

it's as if you're looking at the real world

33:02

around you if you just kind of ignore the fact that

33:04

you're really looking at a monitor. Alright,

33:07

So the hullo lens and its

33:10

sequel hollow Lens to the augment

33:13

in ing or if you prefer hollow lens

33:15

to electric boogaloo. It's

33:17

a head mounted display and the first

33:19

generation of the hollow lens received a very

33:21

limited release because it wasn't intended

33:24

as a consumer electronics product.

33:27

It wasn't meant to go to the average person. It

33:29

was more of a first step into a new market

33:32

for Microsoft. The company launched

33:34

the Hollow Lens two in November two thou nineteen

33:37

with a price tag of three thousand, five

33:39

hundred dollars. So it's still far from

33:41

being priced as a basic component

33:44

of home computing. Right. No one,

33:47

h not, not your average person is going to go out

33:49

and adopt the hollow lens too.

33:52

At I will not be buying

33:54

a hollow lens too. I just can't justify

33:56

that expense for something you

33:59

know that would interesting but have

34:01

limited utility in my life. However,

34:04

you could say that this is slowly moving

34:07

this technology into the consumer

34:09

space. Now, the new version of

34:11

the hollow lens has an improved field of view,

34:13

so users will have a less restricted view

34:15

of the world around them. To me, the

34:18

headset looks kind of like imagine you've

34:20

got a pair of safety goggles. And

34:22

then above the safety goggles

34:24

that you look through, so those are clear, you're looking at

34:26

the world around you. Above that, you've

34:28

got a device that has a camera

34:30

system mounted inside of it, and

34:34

that part is actually attached to like a headband,

34:36

so you're wearing that on your forehead. And

34:39

then below that is where the safety

34:41

goggles are. That's kind of what it looks like. I'm

34:43

doing a poor job describing it, but it's hard to

34:46

do in an audio format. But

34:48

the cameras that face out from

34:50

this device capture the

34:52

scene around you, right. It takes in

34:54

that information and interprets it through the

34:56

computational system inside the device,

34:59

which the determines what data

35:02

to display on your

35:04

your lenses when you're looking at

35:06

something in particular. So as

35:08

an example, let's say you're looking at

35:10

an electrical panel, then the data

35:13

that pops up might tell you what each

35:15

element on that electrical panel relates back

35:18

to, So it's kind of like a labeling system

35:20

in that case. That's just one use case for

35:22

this kind of technology. The

35:24

company also tweaked the gesture control

35:27

interface that the hollow lens uses.

35:30

UH. This was to improve on responsiveness

35:32

and to cut down on false positives. So

35:34

gestures obviously would be an important

35:37

way to control this kind of technology. You might

35:39

use voice control as well. Google Glass

35:41

did that, but it seems weird because that

35:43

sounds like you're talking to yourself. I can

35:45

see that from personal experience, because I got to play with Google

35:47

Glass for a while. But the

35:50

gesture controls, they did something that I thought was pretty clever.

35:53

So for example, they built in a system

35:55

where you would hold out your hand and

35:58

you would look down at your hand and

36:00

you and by moving your head a little bit, you could

36:02

position an icon so that

36:04

it appears to be projected onto

36:06

the palm of your hand. Then you could touch

36:09

that icon with the fingers of your other

36:11

hand to activate it and launch

36:13

whatever the app is. And that's kind of

36:15

neat. It adds a sort of tactle response

36:18

to the gesture control that otherwise

36:20

was lacking. Now I haven't been able to try

36:22

a hollow lens of either generation

36:25

yet, but I hope I can at

36:27

some point. I love the potential of augmented

36:29

reality, and I think really clever

36:32

implementations have enormous possibilities

36:34

in the future. But I think it was probably

36:36

gonna be several more years before we see

36:39

this as a common technology for the everyday

36:41

person. However, for certain industries

36:44

I suspect it will play a much larger role

36:46

moving forward. We've already seen it being used

36:48

in the medical field, and engineering

36:51

will probably see it move beyond that slowly,

36:54

and then gradually we'll see it possibly

36:56

enter into the mainstream market if

36:59

there's a compelling enough use case. If it's

37:01

more of a curiosity, I would argue Google

37:03

Glass kind of fell into that category, then

37:05

it probably won't receive much traction, kind

37:07

of like how virtual reality has

37:09

been struggling again. All

37:12

right, when we come back, we'll talk about

37:14

some more stories, including touching on what

37:16

a little company that rhymes with Schmoogle

37:19

has been up to. Okay,

37:28

let's talk Google. So, like Facebook,

37:31

Google came under intense scrutiny

37:33

throughout two thousand nineteen, whether

37:36

it was about user privacy or

37:38

allegations that the company was covering

37:41

up really terrible behavior

37:44

and turning a blind eye despite employee

37:46

protests, or allegations that

37:48

the company's search results were purposefully

37:51

promoting certain material, specifically

37:54

sites that were in alignment with Google's

37:57

own perceived agenda perceived

37:59

by the public guy should say at the

38:01

expense of other materials. So, in other words,

38:04

that Google was promoting things

38:06

that fell in line

38:08

with what Google wanted and suppressing

38:11

anything that Google didn't like. That was the

38:13

charge. The company had to weather a lot

38:15

of strife in twenty nineteen, and to be clear, at

38:17

least some of that strife was brought on by

38:19

the company itself. One big

38:22

change for the company actually requires us to take

38:24

a step back and look up a level

38:26

higher than Google itself. At Google's

38:29

parent company, which I mentioned earlier, is

38:31

Alphabet Now. In early December

38:34

nineteen, Larry Page, a co founder

38:37

of Google, announced that he was stepping down

38:39

as the CEO of Alphabet.

38:42

Sunday, the CEO of Google itself,

38:44

would become the new CEO of Alphabet,

38:47

while simultaneously remaining CEO

38:49

of Google. Sarah A. Brenn, another

38:52

co founder, had stepped down as Alphabet's

38:54

president, but both Page and

38:57

Brand said they were going to remain on the board of directors

38:59

for or the company. Paige

39:01

and Brand said that their decisions reflected

39:03

a need for Google's management structure to streamline,

39:07

but it also came into time when the company was

39:09

dealing with big problems from within

39:11

and without. There was the scrutiny

39:13

that I mentioned earlier, in which government agencies

39:16

and advocacy groups were criticizing Google's

39:18

policies and talking about its

39:20

power in the marketplace, and there

39:23

were also allegations that the company

39:25

had engaged in some retaliation against

39:27

a few employees. Now to understand

39:30

that last bit, we have to look back a little

39:32

further than the beginning of twenty nineteen. So

39:34

in twenty eighteen, internal issues

39:36

within Google became big news as

39:38

thousands of employees protested issues

39:41

ranging from sexual harassment problems

39:43

in the workplace to quote, unethical

39:46

business decisions that create a workplace

39:48

that is harmful to us and our colleagues

39:51

end quote. Now, that last quote actually

39:53

comes from four former Google employees

39:56

who posted a piece on Medium after

39:58

they were fired. This was around

40:01

Thanksgiving twenty nineteen. The

40:03

four employees had been leading efforts to

40:06

unionize at Google to organize

40:08

employees, and it was a move that

40:10

did not look good on Google's

40:12

part, and it certainly appears at a

40:14

casual glance at least, that

40:17

Google executives were trying to squash

40:19

employees from being able to organize

40:21

in a union or other organizational

40:24

structure. The company's official

40:26

response to inquiries about the firing

40:29

was that the employees had allegedly violated

40:32

Google's security policies, an

40:34

allegation that the four former employees

40:37

deny. The story is still playing

40:39

out as I record this episode, and

40:41

it does tap into another upsetting

40:43

trend in business in general and the text

40:46

fear in particular. It has become

40:48

pretty common practice for a lot

40:50

of companies to require employees to sign

40:53

an agreement that limits the

40:55

rights an employee has when

40:57

they want to address problems in the workplace.

41:00

Companies enact these policies so that they

41:02

can limit their own liability and limit

41:04

the impact those types of problems can have on

41:06

business. The agreements typically force

41:09

employees to try and work through issues

41:11

through internal systems at the company,

41:14

like going through human resources, and

41:17

it really places restrictions on

41:19

other options, such as pursuing a legal

41:22

case against the company, like you could get severely

41:25

punished for going outside the

41:27

company and seeking outside help.

41:30

Now, assuming the HR department is on the

41:32

side of the employees, you

41:34

could maybe argue that this policy isn't

41:37

too restrictive. It might be you might not feel

41:39

great about it. But if you think, oh, well, HR

41:41

is gonna be on the employees side, maybe

41:44

you're going to say, well, I'm willing to endure

41:46

it. But at least in some cases, particularly

41:49

with Google, it's appeared that the HR department

41:52

was really more on the side of the corporation on

41:54

the employees. That they had

41:57

a tendency to shut down complaints

41:59

or to try to mitigate the fallout of complaints

42:01

by kind of shifting people around

42:04

without removing or punishing anyone

42:06

who was the focal point

42:08

of an allegation, and so they weren't

42:10

really addressing the underlying issues,

42:13

which left the affected employees with very

42:15

few options. And it's pretty ugly

42:17

stuff. So that's one of the things that I think

42:19

a lot of employees around the

42:22

world really, but particularly in the tech

42:24

space, have started to kind

42:27

of act out against. And we're

42:29

not done with Google yet. The company launched

42:31

its gaming service, Google Stadia

42:33

in two thousand nineteen. That service

42:36

allows users to access games via streaming,

42:38

so you're actually running

42:41

the game on one of Google's servers

42:44

and you're playing it via

42:46

your local connection. According

42:48

to Google, you can stream games up to

42:50

four K resolution and sixty frames per

42:52

second, assuming that your Internet

42:55

connection and your hardware can support

42:57

that. The service launched with some

42:59

stupality problems and with a pretty

43:01

limited library of games, and so far

43:04

it hasn't really taken off, despite

43:07

the fact that it removes the need for buying

43:09

a high end gaming rig or even

43:12

a gaming console to access current

43:14

generation games. Now. To be fair, Google

43:16

is not the only company that has tried this model

43:19

with only limited success. There

43:21

are lots of companies that have tried a similar

43:23

approach and also have had some issues

43:26

getting anywhere with it. Meanwhile,

43:29

over at YouTube, which again is part of Google,

43:31

it's part of that alphabet company, other

43:33

problems were plaguing Googlers.

43:36

So in September of twenty nineteen,

43:38

YouTube changed its policy for verified

43:41

creators. Verified

43:43

creators are an interesting thing. So these are

43:45

creators who had earned a verified

43:47

check mark and that indicated

43:50

that essentially up until recently,

43:53

that they had attracted at least one

43:55

hundred thousand subscribers. I

43:57

happen to be one of these verified

44:00

uh creators, but more

44:03

on that in the minute, because it's an interesting case.

44:06

So in the past, YouTube

44:08

had issued verified check marks two accounts

44:10

that had reached that one hundred thousand subscriber

44:12

mark or more. That's all you really had

44:14

to do in order to get the verified check Now

44:19

they decided to change that so that

44:22

not only would you need the one hundred thousand

44:24

subscribers, you also need to

44:26

have your account be active, meaning you have to

44:28

be uploading content on a semi regular

44:30

basis, and it doesn't need to be you know,

44:33

had had been quiet without an upload

44:35

for ages. Also, the accounts needed

44:37

to be authentic. In other words, the

44:40

account need to be linked back to a real

44:42

creator, brand, or entity that YouTube

44:44

could verify was in charge of creating

44:46

that content. This meant

44:49

that a lot of the people

44:51

who had the little check mark didn't

44:53

necessarily meet those requirements. So

44:56

then YouTube revoked the

44:58

verified badge for thousands

45:00

of creators, and that created an uproar.

45:03

I happened to be one of the creators who lost my badge

45:06

I lost. I got an email it said you're verified

45:08

badges going away. Now. In my case,

45:11

I wasn't fussed about it. I'll explain that again

45:13

in just a minute. So YouTube's motivation

45:16

was to clarify what a verification

45:18

check mark actually meant, because

45:22

one confusion was that people thought that a check

45:24

mark meant that YouTube was

45:26

endorsing the content of that creator,

45:29

that somehow YouTube was saying, yes, we approve

45:31

of this. This is what that check mark means. But

45:34

it wasn't meant to be that. It was meant to be an indicator

45:37

that the associated account was authentic

45:40

and not some sort of impersonation

45:42

account. And this is a legit issue

45:44

over on YouTube because a lot of creators,

45:47

really popular creators, see their

45:49

work get lifted and

45:52

reposted under other accounts.

45:54

So you might create a really awesome

45:57

video and maybe it gets a little bit of notice,

46:00

so somebody else captures that video,

46:02

they use a program to download it, then they

46:04

re upload it under their own account, and

46:06

they try to get that one to take off. It's

46:09

even possible for a copy

46:12

to outperform the original, and

46:14

that means that the person who originally put in the work

46:16

to making that thing be what it

46:19

is doesn't get the benefit

46:21

of it. They aren't able to monetize the

46:24

appearance on the other channel. You

46:26

can put down takedown strikes and stuff

46:29

like that, but it means having to constantly, you

46:31

know, search the internet, search YouTube

46:34

for copies of your work. So

46:37

YouTube wanted to create a system

46:40

that would make a more straightforward

46:43

approach to verification, in the sense

46:45

that if you saw the check mark, you knew

46:48

this person was a legit, that the

46:50

content coming from that person's channel

46:53

was in fact coming from that creator.

46:56

And uh so they

46:59

put that change and they revoked all those

47:01

check marks. People went

47:03

nuts, and so YouTube

47:05

walked it back a week later, and a week later

47:08

it gave everybody their verified check marks

47:10

back, including me, which again

47:12

in my case, I don't think it was necessary.

47:15

So let me explain about

47:17

my check mark. So a few years

47:19

ago, I was hosting a video

47:22

series called forward Thinking

47:24

This is for Work, and the channel

47:26

for forward Thinking was linked to my

47:29

personal YouTube channel for reasons

47:31

I don't remember at this point. I think it was so

47:33

that I could go in and make changes

47:36

if I needed to, even though

47:38

typically we would have other people handle all

47:40

of that. For some reason, they trusted me and

47:42

they linked the channel to my personal

47:45

YouTube account. The result was

47:47

I got a check mark because the Forward

47:49

Thinking series had a

47:52

pretty good subscriber base, like two

47:54

fifty thousand subscribers, so it

47:57

met the criteria and it got the

47:59

check mark. King to me, now, this is

48:01

despite the fact that on my channel,

48:04

I very rarely post anything.

48:07

I've only got a few videos up on my personal

48:09

channel, and when I do put a video up,

48:12

I get only a few views. You know, it's typically

48:14

like, hey, my mom watches my stuff, which

48:16

is totally fine. I'm I was doing it for

48:18

fun. I wasn't trying to do it as a

48:20

YouTuber, right, So in my case,

48:23

when my check mark went away, I thought, you

48:25

know, that's totally fair. I'm an outlier

48:27

and I don't meet this

48:30

requirement. I definitely don't deserve the check

48:32

mark. It's okay that it's gone, But

48:34

there are lots of creators out there who

48:36

did deserve the check mark and they saw

48:39

it go away. So for them,

48:41

I'm glad that it came back, because that

48:44

thing can really help you. That check

48:46

mark means that you have a little

48:48

bit more clout when it comes to stuff like

48:51

looking for sponsorships, maybe getting advertisers

48:53

to support your channel, monetizing your work

48:56

so that you can get compensated for it. That's

48:59

important. Now my case, again, I

49:01

was doing it for fun. I never expected it

49:03

to be anything beyond that for my

49:05

own personal channel, so I didn't worry about

49:07

it. Forward thinking was a different story, but that was also

49:11

a project that had a company backing

49:13

it, so that was a totally different case. So

49:15

yeah, I'm glad that it got fixed

49:18

and moving forward, YouTube is being

49:21

much more picky about

49:23

who gets a verification check mark, but

49:25

they're not wholesale eliminating

49:27

all the previously awarded check

49:29

marks. But another controversy that's

49:32

also playing out on YouTube is one

49:34

that's going to roll into and beyond,

49:36

and it all has to do with a law from the

49:38

nineteen nineties intended to protect

49:41

children, and that law is

49:43

a US law. It's called Children's

49:45

Online Privacy Protection Act or

49:47

Kappa CEO p p A. It

49:50

was again first established as law, and

49:54

in twenty nineteen, the Federal Trade Commission,

49:56

also known as the FTC, brought

49:59

a suit again YouTube

50:01

and alleged that YouTube had been illegally

50:04

collecting the personal information of children

50:06

without their parents consent, that

50:09

kids were watching videos on YouTube,

50:11

that what they were watching was being tracked

50:13

by YouTube, and that this was creating

50:15

a digital fingerprint that advertisers

50:18

were using to target advertising towards

50:21

those children, and the children being too young

50:23

to consent to this meant

50:26

that this whole practice under Kappa was

50:28

illegal, and specifically

50:31

that the company was using this quote

50:33

in the form of persistent identifiers

50:35

that are used to track users across the

50:38

Internet end quote. So in

50:40

other words, this would be the sort of thing where if

50:42

you were watching a bunch of videos about elephants

50:45

and then you happened to navigate over to say

50:48

Amazon, you might see a bunch

50:50

of suggestions that relate in some

50:52

way to elephants. And the

50:55

concern was that this was going to be targeting

50:57

kids, and there was no way for kids

50:59

to give legal consent to allow that to happen,

51:02

and that data has value

51:04

in it, and children's privacy and

51:06

security also has value

51:08

to them, so that was the problem.

51:11

Well, YouTube would settle this lawsuit

51:14

out of court. They paid a hundred seventy

51:16

million dollars in fines, which really sounds

51:19

like a lot, but for YouTube, it's nothing. And

51:21

if that's where it all ended, we would just wrap

51:24

up the story and beyond with it. But in addition

51:26

to the fine, the company had to agree

51:28

to create a system that is compliant

51:31

with Kappa. So this would mean

51:33

that any creator who was making

51:35

child directed content, meaning

51:38

content meant to be viewed by

51:40

children would be affected by this. They

51:42

would have to be Kappa compliant. They

51:44

would have to make sure that

51:47

they were running a channel that was not gathering

51:49

information about the uh

51:51

the children watching it, that they were not building

51:54

in targeted advertising, that

51:56

they had to self identify as

51:59

being a creator it was creating

52:01

child directed content. You had to

52:03

actually go into your little profile and

52:05

click and say whether or not your channel

52:08

was meant for kids or not. But this raises

52:10

questions like what exactly is child

52:12

directed? And it has a lot of creators

52:14

nervous right now because there are creators

52:17

who do, for example, unboxing videos,

52:19

and some of them are clearly meant for kids.

52:22

Some of them are hosted by kids and clearly meant

52:24

for kids, but there are others where

52:27

it may not be for kids. It maybe for people

52:29

who really are into collecting toys

52:32

that are from their favorite you

52:34

know, franchises, for example, so

52:37

toy unboxing would likely

52:39

be in the spotlight. Creators who

52:41

use video games are likewise concerned.

52:44

There are people who are using video games to tell stories

52:46

that are people use let's plays or

52:49

play throughs, but they're not necessarily

52:51

meant for kids. There's also people who are working

52:53

in animation, and that animation may

52:55

not be meant for kids, but the general perception

52:58

is that cartoons are children and

53:01

they're concerned that they will be interpreted

53:04

as being child directed when they don't

53:06

intend to be, and that they will be affected by

53:08

this. There's a lot of fear that

53:10

this is going to have an effect on monetization,

53:13

so that people might not be able to get paid

53:15

for what they're making, which means they'll probably

53:17

stop making it. I mean, you've got to make

53:19

your living. Uh. They may move

53:21

on to a different platform than YouTube, or

53:24

they may just stop entirely. Every

53:26

single violation of Kappa can

53:29

be fined up to a maximum of forty

53:31

two dollars.

53:33

Now, keep in mind some of these channels

53:36

have hundreds or thousands of videos

53:38

up online, so if they were

53:41

identified as being child directed and

53:43

that their material wasn't Kappa compliant,

53:46

they could get that maximum fine

53:48

for every single video that seemed

53:51

to be that was on their channel.

53:53

So the cost could be staggering. So

53:55

it's possible we'll see entire channels

53:58

go dark with PAS videos

54:00

hidden away or deleted, all out

54:02

of fear that a mislite labeling situation

54:05

could result in massive fines, and there's still

54:07

a lot of uncertainty around this issue, and we're

54:10

not entirely sure how it's all going to play out

54:12

now. As for me, well, I'm in favor

54:15

of rules that protect kids from having their data

54:17

harvested without consent. I mean, I don't

54:19

like that idea at all about kids getting

54:21

tracked and targeted and advertising that's

54:24

you know, before they're able to even work

54:27

with the idea of what that means. They're

54:29

particularly uh, you know, vulnerable

54:32

to it. It's one thing to be

54:34

an adult and to understand, at least

54:36

on a basic level, what is going on when we

54:38

use the internet. It's another matter entirely

54:41

for children. However, the application

54:43

of those rules can be pretty chaotic

54:46

and disruptive, particularly to people

54:48

who are well intentioned. They are not

54:50

trying to create child directed content, but

54:53

they're worried about their material being

54:56

misrepresented or misunderstood as child

54:58

directed, and therefore every thing is

55:00

put in danger. That's not great

55:02

either, and channels that are clearly

55:05

not meant for kids could get caught up in

55:07

the crosshairs through no fault of their own.

55:09

So this is a situation worthy of attention.

55:12

Because it stands to affect hundreds

55:15

of creators on YouTube who

55:18

are not trying to make stuff for kids.

55:20

Then you've got people who like

55:23

their main audience are

55:25

kids, and they're not making stuff for kids.

55:28

Just so happens that their audience is

55:30

mostly kids. That's an issue

55:32

all on its own, and one that I don't

55:35

have any solutions for. If you're making

55:37

stuff that you know you didn't intend

55:40

to appeal to children, but children

55:43

think it's fantastic, where

55:45

does that put you because you weren't targeting them,

55:48

but that's your audience. That's

55:50

tough. Now. There are a lot of other stories

55:52

I didn't get to like, for example,

55:54

the Testlas Cybertruck debut and

55:57

how awkward it was when they had

55:59

the debut and they hit it with a sledgehammer

56:02

and then they threw some stuff at

56:04

the windows and the windows started cracking.

56:06

That was pretty a pretty rough

56:08

showing. And the cybertruck itself is is

56:11

really funky. It's a very odd

56:13

design, kind of reminds me of a Lamborghini Kuntash

56:16

or an old DeLorean in a way.

56:19

Or I didn't talk about how the Samsung Galaxy

56:21

folds mobile device, the foldable

56:24

smartphone how that launch

56:27

didn't go so well. You could say that the fold

56:29

cracked under pressure. I

56:32

didn't talk about the launch of Star Wars Galaxy's

56:34

Edge at Disneyland and Disney World. That was a

56:36

big deal, not just in tech obviously, but in theme

56:39

parks. Uh. There were the seemingly endless

56:41

supply of movie and television streaming

56:43

services that either launched in twenty

56:46

nineteen or were announced in twenty nineteen,

56:48

stuff like Disney Plus and the upcoming

56:51

HBO streaming service, Apple Plus

56:53

launched just tons of them. Now there

56:56

was Baby Yoda. But I

56:58

think it's a good time to wrap up this episode.

57:02

Let's set our sights on twenty

57:05

Yeah, you know what, Let's all get

57:07

twenty twenty vision in the

57:09

year with a pun. I guess technically

57:11

I'm starting the year with a pun because I think this episode

57:13

goes live on January

57:16

one. Anyway, that was twenty nineteen

57:19

in a nutshell. I've got a lot

57:21

of plans for I'm looking

57:23

forward to sharing with you more

57:25

wonderful stories about technology, interesting

57:28

stuff about how tech works, how it affects

57:30

us, how we affect it, how

57:32

things change over time, and how that change

57:34

can be messy. But sometimes once

57:37

you get through the messy parts, you can get

57:39

something really incredible. So we're

57:41

gonna look at those stories as well as well as the times

57:44

where things just didn't go right. We'll

57:46

be covering more of those as well. If you guys have suggestions

57:49

for future topics I should cover in technology,

57:52

let me know. The Facebook and Twitter

57:54

handle are both tech stuff hs

57:56

W. It's best to reach out to me there and

57:59

I We'll talk to you again really

58:01

soon. Hext

58:06

Stuff is a production of I Heart Radio's How Stuff

58:08

Works. For more podcasts from I heart

58:11

Radio, visit the I heart Radio app,

58:13

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen

58:15

to your favorite shows.