0:04

Welcome to tech Stuff, a production

0:06

from I Heart Radio. Hey

0:12

there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm

0:14

your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive

0:16

producer with I Heart Radio and a love of all

0:19

things tech. And this is the tech

0:21

News episode for Tuesday, March

0:23

twenty one.

0:26

Now, last week we had an episode

0:29

that really went into how various companies

0:31

and organizations are tracking

0:33

you. But don't worry, We're only

0:36

gonna do that a little bit in today's

0:38

episode. So, which

0:40

app do you think is

0:42

the most invasive? TikTok?

0:46

Nope, not that one. YouTube, Nope,

0:49

Facebook, you're getting warmer.

0:52

But according to the cloud storage

0:54

company p Cloud, the actual

0:56

answer is Instagram,

0:59

So we're still in the Facebook family. That

1:01

makes sense, right, that tracks The

1:04

company came to this conclusion after

1:06

reviewing updated app privacy

1:08

labels. See not that

1:10

long ago. Apple updated its

1:12

privacy policy and it now requires

1:15

companies to more thoroughly list out

1:17

the ways in which those companies collect

1:20

and use data through

1:22

these apps. And this is one of the reasons

1:24

why it took Google a long time

1:26

to update the company's apps on iOS.

1:29

Because it should come as a surprise

1:31

to no one that Google is collecting

1:34

a lot of user information. Well,

1:37

the same appears to be true of Instagram,

1:39

only more so. According to p

1:41

Cloud, Instagram collects nearly

1:44

eighty percent of users personal

1:46

data, including stuff like search

1:48

history, location, financial

1:52

information like what bank

1:54

do you use, where do you shop that

1:56

kind of thing, plus who your

1:58

contacts are, and Instagram

2:00

shares that information with various

2:03

third parties who presumably are

2:05

paying a decent price for that level

2:07

of access. Now, this is how companies

2:09

like Facebook, which by the way, was

2:11

in second place behind Instagram,

2:14

It's how they can market you to various

2:17

advertisers. The more these companies

2:19

know about each user, the

2:22

more they can target that user with specific

2:24

ads. They can match that user up with

2:27

advertisers, and being able to go to advertisers

2:30

with the message that hey,

2:32

our app is going to put your ads

2:35

in front of the people who are most likely to act

2:37

on those ads. That's a powerful

2:39

selling point. We are well

2:42

beyond the old days where you might,

2:44

as part of your marketing strategy, really rely

2:47

on putting up a billboard in

2:49

a prominent location in town and

2:51

hope you get as many eyeballs as possible.

2:54

Now we have companies identifying which

2:56

eyeballs are the most valuable to

2:58

any given client, and then sending

3:01

those ads that way. Now,

3:03

what's the moral of this story, Well,

3:06

it's that we should all be aware of how

3:08

apps are collecting our information,

3:11

how we are providing data to

3:13

these apps. If we're okay

3:15

with that, no worries, right,

3:18

I mean, it's this is a personal thing. But

3:20

if we're not okay with that, we need to

3:22

consider if those apps are really

3:24

something we want to use, because

3:27

there's not really an easy way for us to go

3:29

in and cherry pick which points

3:31

of data can and cannot be used

3:34

by any given app. I mean, just doing

3:36

that alone would become a full time job. Now,

3:38

in the interest of full disclosure, I have

3:41

Instagram on my phone, So

3:44

I say this as someone who is

3:46

both aware that the app is collecting

3:48

a lot of data and still is using

3:50

that app. I'm one of those people. But

3:52

I am also very very

3:54

boring. So my

3:57

hope is that Facebook is not getting

3:59

very much money at all for my information,

4:01

because come on, I'm lame.

4:05

According to the Korea Herald, the

4:07

giant tech company l G is

4:10

now considering just shutting down

4:12

its smartphone division entirely.

4:15

You might remember that. Earlier this year, LG

4:17

announced that it was looking into the possibility

4:20

of selling off its smartphone

4:22

division to some other company and just

4:24

getting out of the smartphone game. Now

4:27

apparently no suitable parties

4:29

have made an offer to LGS liking,

4:32

so the company may just shut down

4:34

that division entirely and then try to cut

4:36

its losses. And LG has

4:39

been experiencing losses through its

4:41

smartphone division. While LG

4:44

is the third largest smartphone

4:46

maker behind Apple and Samsung,

4:48

at least according to market share that

4:51

is from a counterpoint research. Depending

4:53

on which analysts you look at, you get different

4:56

numbers for these things. Anyway,

4:58

despite being a big are in the smartphone

5:00

space, the division has been operating at

5:03

a loss for several years in

5:05

a row. In fact, according to

5:07

the website gives China, l

5:09

G has lost four point four

5:11

three billion dollars total

5:14

and has had a loss at the end of every

5:16

single one of the past twenty

5:19

three consecutive quarters. This

5:22

is a pretty big deal. LG had

5:24

even made a pretty big splash this year

5:27

earlier at CS with the reveal of

5:29

the rollable smartphone, a

5:31

smartphone that can actually change screen

5:34

sizes dynamically because

5:36

it uses a flexible oh LED

5:38

display that can unroll as

5:40

it expands, and it also

5:42

shows that the smartphone business is a really

5:45

tough one to be in. Development costs

5:47

are really high. It's a huge

5:50

challenge to stand out when you've got

5:52

so many different smartphone companies

5:54

and models that are all on the market,

5:56

you know, and they're all competing for the same customers,

5:59

and the challenge to price units so

6:02

that they are competitive in such a dense

6:04

field. So not a huge

6:06

surprise. It is sort

6:08

of the end of an era with LG getting

6:11

out because LG has played such a big

6:13

part in smartphones. Atlas

6:16

VPN released a report stating that

6:18

in twenty twenty, there was a one

6:20

thousand, nine two percent increase

6:23

in development of malware aimed

6:25

at the Mac operating system.

6:28

Now, percentages are tricky things,

6:30

right, because it doesn't actually tell you

6:32

the total numbers. If only

6:35

one instance of Mac

6:37

OS malware had happened in twenty

6:40

nineteen, that would just mean that there

6:42

were one thousand, ninety two of them in twenty

6:44

twenty, and that number is dwarfed

6:47

by the number of incidents you would expect for Windows

6:50

based operating systems, But in this

6:52

case, the report found evidence of six

6:54

hundred seventy four thousand, two hundred

6:57

seventy three news samples of malware

6:59

for the MA cos. Still that's

7:02

nothing. I mean, half a million is a lot, so

7:04

it's not nothing, But it's not the

7:07

same as what you see for Windows. That's orders

7:09

of magnitude bigger with Windows. So

7:11

I just want to be clear because I don't

7:14

want people saying my anti Mac bias

7:16

is coming into play. The same group

7:19

that is Atlas VbN found

7:22

ninety one oh five million

7:25

new Windows malware samples. Now

7:28

that means that Windows would rack up as

7:30

many examples of malware new

7:33

malware in just three days

7:36

as Mac had for the

7:38

entire year of twenty Still,

7:41

this is a reminder that Mac computers

7:43

are not magically immune

7:45

to malware. I'm not actually

7:47

sure what the perception is these days,

7:50

but when I got started in podcasting, there

7:52

was this kind of general belief among

7:55

the public that Mac computers

7:57

were effectively malware proof.

8:00

And there was, you know, some truth

8:02

to that, but not because the Mac operating

8:04

system was just magically better than

8:06

Windows. It had more to do

8:08

with opportunity. Because if you

8:11

are someone who's developing malware you

8:13

probably want that malware to hit as

8:15

many targets as possible, and

8:17

the market share of Windows versus Mac

8:20

os machines was really

8:22

out of whack. It just made more sense

8:24

to develop malware targeting PCs

8:26

because there were way more PC

8:28

users out there. But we've

8:30

seen a rise in instances of Mac based

8:33

malware over the past few years and

8:35

it's a solid reminder that there

8:37

is no bulletproof operating system

8:39

out there, and no matter what type of machine

8:42

we used to access files and the Internet,

8:44

we need to be wary of malware.

8:47

And now we transition to a

8:49

segment I like to call robots

8:52

are scary and they

8:54

can be over In the UK, the

8:57

Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said

8:59

that Britain's mill terry will be able

9:01

to achieve a greater effect with

9:03

fewer actual soldiers in the future

9:06

thanks to technology, and part

9:08

of that involves drones now.

9:10

The established strength of the UK Army

9:13

in the mid two thousands was set at eighty two

9:15

thousand troops. UH This includes

9:17

all people who have received basic training

9:19

and then a secondary specialized training

9:21

to focus on a particular role or area

9:23

of expertise. Today, the army

9:26

has seventy six thousand, five hundred

9:28

personnel, including seventy six

9:30

thousand, three hundred fifty soldiers. Wallace's

9:33

plans would reduce this number to seventy

9:35

two five hundred by

9:38

five. At the same time, the defense

9:40

budget in the UK is to increase

9:42

by twenty four billion pounds over

9:44

the next four years, So the question

9:46

is where is that money going if the army

9:49

is actually scaling back on the number of

9:51

soldiers that will be part of the army.

9:53

Well, big part of it is automated systems

9:56

and drones, including replacing

9:58

existing Reaper drones with

10:01

Protector drones. That is

10:03

a little bit confusing to some

10:06

folks, I'm sure, because both the Reaper

10:08

and the Protector are themselves

10:11

variants of the Predator B class

10:13

drone. Other big expenses

10:16

include establishing a national cyber

10:18

force, building out a digital

10:20

backbone for the purposes of rapid

10:22

data sharing, and the development of

10:24

a future combat air system.

10:27

Technology is going to play a much

10:29

bigger role, and in theory it

10:31

will reduce the need to have as many

10:33

human soldiers as are currently in service

10:36

in the UK, so at

10:38

least some of that responsibility

10:41

will fall to technology and

10:44

the operators who are in charge of

10:46

it, including the drones,

10:48

which, by the way, are pretty

10:51

terrifying things. Meanwhile,

10:54

on this side of the pond, Ben Callos,

10:56

a New York City Council member, has

10:58

raised concerns about the New York Police Force

11:01

using robots to respond to

11:03

a hostage situation that took place in

11:05

the Bronx. The robot in question

11:08

was a Diggi Dog from Boston Dynamics,

11:10

and according to Ours Technica, Callos

11:13

reacted with horror seeing this robot

11:15

in use, which then prompted him to propose

11:17

a ban on police forces from owning

11:20

or operating robots that are armed

11:22

with weaponry. But I do want to be clear

11:25

that the Digi Doog robot wasn't

11:28

armed. It was only equipped with

11:30

surveillance cameras which gave police a

11:32

view into an area that was considered

11:34

too dangerous for a human officer to

11:36

enter. But it wasn't like Diggi Dog

11:39

was packing heat or anything. Even

11:41

so, without weapons, the Digi Dog

11:43

still has its critics. The American

11:46

Civil Liberties Union has asked why

11:48

the Digi Dog didn't show up on

11:50

a police list of surveillance devices

11:53

that they use. That's

11:55

a problem because New York recently passed

11:57

a law that states law enforcement

11:59

agencies have to divulge that kind

12:01

of information. Groups like the

12:03

A c L You are concerned that there

12:05

aren't proper privacy protections in place

12:08

that would prevent police from abusing the

12:10

surveillance power on citizens. I

12:13

did not realize how many words

12:15

start with P in that sentence. Uh,

12:18

there were until I actually said it

12:20

out loud. But there have been a lot of people,

12:22

myself included, who have been warning against

12:24

the use of armed robots because going

12:26

down that pathway could lead to another type

12:29

of arms race, and that's one

12:31

that will undoubtedly lead to tragic

12:33

consequences, whether by intent

12:35

or accident. Callis himself

12:38

isn't totally anti robot. He said

12:41

that utility robots like the digit

12:43

dog are not really what he's concerned

12:45

about. Despite that initial, you

12:48

know, reaction of horror, I guess, nor

12:50

would he want to see bomb disposal robots

12:53

get banned either, But he is

12:55

concerned about there being a slippery

12:57

slope. The ARS Technica piece

12:59

at atually quotes the director of the Ethics

13:01

and Emerging Sciences Group at California

13:04

Polytechnic, and he points

13:06

out that what is a non lethal

13:08

robot today could be tweaked and

13:10

modified and become a lethal

13:13

robot in the future, and we've

13:15

already seen what happens when

13:17

we militarized police forces.

13:20

To learn more about this, I highly

13:22

recommend reading the full article on

13:24

Ours Technica. It is titled New

13:26

York lawmaker wants to ban police

13:29

use of armed robots. It's by Sydney

13:31

Fussele, who writes for Wired dot

13:33

com. So, like I said, I found

13:35

the article over at ours Technica. It is

13:37

extremely well written and well researched,

13:40

So go check that out. And now

13:42

let's move to some varying degrees of

13:44

weird stories. Our first one

13:47

is that the final bid for Twitter

13:49

CEO Jack Dorsey's first tweet

13:52

has been made. The transaction

13:55

has happened. Specifically,

13:57

this was a bid for the n f T or

14:00

on fungible token version

14:02

of that tweet. Now. I have an episode

14:04

coming up explaining what n f t

14:07

s are and how they work. That's going

14:09

to be later this week, but for the purposes

14:11

of this story, it's safe to boil it down and

14:14

just say this is a way to certify a

14:16

digital thing as being unique

14:19

anyway. In this case, the n f t was

14:21

Dorsey's first tweet, which reads

14:24

just setting up my Twitter. Dorsey

14:27

posted that back on March twenty one,

14:29

two thousand six. Back then Twitter

14:32

had no vowels. I mean, the service

14:34

would let you use vowels, but the

14:36

the company didn't use vowels in the name, so

14:38

it was spelled t W T t R.

14:42

The winning bid came from Senna Estav,

14:44

the CEO at Bridge Oracle and

14:48

stiv Or Stav. His winning

14:50

bid was for two million, nine

14:52

hundred fifteen thousand, eight

14:55

hundred thirty five dollars

14:57

and forty seven cents, which is

15:00

not a round number and

15:02

I don't know if that number has

15:04

any special significance. He

15:07

paid for the tweet using Ether cryptocurrency,

15:10

and Dorsey took the money, converted

15:13

it to bitcoin, and then donated it

15:15

to give directly a charitable

15:17

organization that gives money

15:19

directly to those who needed That

15:22

two million and such and such dollars

15:24

ended up being just under fifty one

15:26

bitcoin. The actual value

15:28

was fifty point eight seven

15:31

five one six six nine

15:33

bitcoin, because that's how bitcoin

15:36

works. Five of the

15:38

bid actually went to the platform sent

15:41

that's c E n T. That

15:43

is the platform that hosted the auction

15:46

pretty wild. Also wild

15:48

is that the actor William Shatner,

15:50

perhaps best known as the original Captain

15:53

James T. Kirk in the Star Trek

15:55

franchise, has turned ninety

15:58

years old, and he has also spawned

16:00

an AI version of himself

16:02

with the help of a company called story

16:04

File. Now, according

16:07

to the CEO of story File, there

16:09

will be a video version

16:11

of William Shatner that will

16:14

not be a deep fake. It will

16:16

not be an avatar. In her words,

16:18

it will be the real Shatner.

16:21

What that actually means, I guess is up

16:23

to interpretation. But the

16:25

idea is that this video version

16:27

of Shatner will be able to interact with people

16:30

and respond to people, just as

16:32

William Shatner himself would if

16:34

he were, you know, doing like a video conference

16:37

with you. So, in other words, it should

16:39

be a digital copy of William

16:41

Shatner, though I have questions about how

16:44

faithfully the video will recreate the experience

16:47

of actually interacting with the star. Shatner

16:50

said he wanted to create a way that would allow his family

16:52

and friends to interact with him for all

16:54

time. The video version should be

16:56

up and running by May of this year, and

16:59

I really, really hope that

17:01

if you ask it very

17:03

trivial questions about Star Trek,

17:06

it will prompt the video Shatner

17:08

to respond in the same way that

17:11

the real Shatner did in an old Saturday

17:13

Night Live sketch in which he

17:15

appeared as uh if you were

17:17

a guest at a science fiction convention and

17:20

he fields increasingly weird

17:22

questions from a big group of nerdy Star Trek

17:25

fans until he just explodes and yells, get

17:27

a life, will you people? That's

17:29

what I want from my Shatner interaction.

17:31

I'll be disappointed if I don't get it. And

17:35

our final story for today's episode

17:37

comes as a huge personal challenge

17:39

for me, but I will do my best to keep

17:41

things at the standards that we expect

17:44

for tech stuff. In

17:47

San Francisco, a couple who founded

17:49

a company called you Biome have

17:52

now been indicted on multiple fraud

17:54

charges by the federal government. You

17:56

Biome was in the how

17:59

do I put this uh fecal

18:01

matter testing business? Now.

18:04

The pitch was that this startup company

18:06

would take your sample

18:10

and then they would run tests on

18:12

it and determine like your gut health

18:15

and give recommendations on how to improve your

18:17

general well being. The only

18:19

problem, according to the charges

18:21

anyway, is that their methods were

18:24

totally untested and without evidence,

18:26

and there was no proof that they were even

18:29

at all effective. In the meantime,

18:32

the company developed so called clinical

18:34

tests that they urged

18:36

medical professionals to give

18:39

to patients, but these

18:41

tests, again according to the charges, also

18:43

lacked any sort of actual validation

18:46

or accreditation. The whole

18:48

purpose of the tests was

18:50

just to create a way for you biom to seek

18:53

reimbursements from health insurance

18:55

companies. So essentially, again

18:57

according to the charges, this was about

19:00

committing a type of insurance fraud if

19:02

in fact the tests had no validity

19:05

and had no you

19:07

know, medical necessity.

19:09

The story is very similar to that of thora

19:12

nos in that the pitch for it sounds

19:14

plausible, right a company

19:16

that you know analyzes poop to

19:18

determine gut health. That seems like that

19:20

would be achievable in a startup

19:23

kind of company. But according

19:25

to the charges, the couple fooled an

19:27

awful lot of people in the process of

19:29

trying to get this business

19:31

going. It sounds like a really

19:34

crappy situation to me. No

19:37

Beans A dun Winton did

19:39

the thing I said I wasn't gonna do anyway.

19:42

But they also gained praise from various

19:44

parties, including Gwyneth

19:47

Paltrow's lifestyle company Goop,

19:49

which I mean for

19:51

Goop to praise Poop not a

19:54

big surprise if

19:56

you follow Goop. The

19:58

story of you Bioms should mind everyone

20:00

that hype can be exciting,

20:03

but it can also be really hazardous, not

20:05

just to your investment,

20:08

but potentially to your health. If you're counting

20:10

on something that doesn't actually have

20:12

any medical validity

20:15

to it, you could be making really bad decisions.

20:18

So before you Biom began

20:20

to fall apart back in twenty nineteen, and

20:22

it reached a valuation of more than half

20:24

a billion dollars. That

20:28

is terrible. It tells us that there

20:30

is there's something seriously broken

20:32

in the investment tech sector. It's

20:35

really just enough for you to give them all the stink.

20:37

I Well,

20:40

that wraps up all the stories for

20:42

Tuesday March, or

20:45

at least all the stories I wanted to talk about.

20:48

We'll be covering more tech news later

20:50

in the week. If you have any suggestions

20:52

for topics I should cover in episodes

20:54

of Tech Stuff, let me know. Reach out

20:57

to me on Twitter. The handle for the show

20:59

is text of H s W and

21:01

I'll talk to You again really

21:04

soon. Y. Text

21:09

Stuff is an I heart Radio production.

21:12

For more podcasts from my heart Radio,

21:14

visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

21:17

or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.