February 7, 2025 • 35 mins
Do smart fridges help business? This week in the News Roundup, Oz and producer Eliza Dennis unpack Walgreens’ refrigeration woes, the future of supersonic planes, and what the Vatican has to say about AI. On TechSupport with 404 Media’s Joseph Cox, the FBI’s unique relationship to one encrypted phone company. And finally, Oz tests out Google’s virtual office assistant in When Did This Become a Thing?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Thanks for tunion to techt Stuff. If you don't recognize
my voice, my name is Ozvoloshan, and I'm here because
the inimitable Jonathan Strickland has passed the baton to Kara
Price and myself to host tech Stuff. The show will
remain your home for all things tech, and all the
old episodes will remain available in this feed. Thanks for listening.
(00:21):
Welcome to tech Stuff, a production of iHeart Podcasts and Kaleidoscope.
I'm Osvoloshan. Today will bring you the headlines, including supersonic planes,
a conversation with four or four Media's Joseph Cox about
the aftermath of quote the largest sting operation ever on
Today's Tech Support. Then we're back with another When did
this become a thing? This time we're looking into Google's
(00:43):
new assistant Gemini. All of that on the Weekend Tech.
It's Friday, February seventh, So this week I'm hosting solo again.
Kara Price is out for a few weeks, but our
producer Eliza Dennis is here to help me through the headlines. Eliza,
welcome back.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Thanks, happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
We've got an exciting potpourri. We've got planes, fridges, and
Roman Catholicism.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
This list is giving me jeopardy vibes.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Let's start with fridges, but we're going to do all three.
But we'll start with fridges. These aren't ordinary fridges. They're
smart fridges. And I read a story in Bloomberg by
Austin Carr under the headline Walgreens replaced fridge doors with
smart screens. It's now a two hundred million dollar fiasco.
It all started a few years ago when Walgreens began
(01:32):
installing smart refrigerators in some of their stores.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
I don't think I ever saw one of these in
the many, many Wilgreens I've been in. How about you, os.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
I haven't actually seen them in person either, but the
Bloomberg article was very well written and visually described. Most
of these fridges are actually in Chicago, and they're not
really smart fridges, they're actually smart doors. Picture a door
size computer screen, and the screen mimics exactly what you'd
see through at last door into the space, so basically
(02:04):
rows of gatorade or energy drinks. But instead of the
actual product, you're now looking at a digital image of
the product that's inside the fridge. And that means digital prices,
no more sticker price tags.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Okay, so is this just trying to make sure that
employees don't have to walk around with those guns and
re stick prices every time there's a sale.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Probably a bit of that. And also dynamic pricing, so
the ability to change in real time.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Kara talked about this a few weeks ago, This dynamic
pricing where prices can fluctuate at a moment's notice. And
it's also a side effect of the smart shopping carts
that she talked about, you know, those being piloted by Instacart.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Yes, the screens, both on the caper cuts and on
these fridges can do smart pricing, but they also play ads,
and per Bloomberg, this is called quote unquote retail media advertising,
which is a gold rush right now. So you know,
the fridges are interesting, but there's a legal aspect here too.
So Walgreens signed a ten year contract with the startup
(03:03):
behind the screens, Cooler Screens, Inc. After an early pilot
showed that the screens could boost sales about to five percent. However,
early gains turned into a month's long contentious legal slog.
Here's the overview. So Walgreens installed ten thousand smart doors
and planned to install thirty five thousand more, but back
in twenty twenty three, things started to go a little wrong.
(03:27):
The screens started advertising the wrong items, They flickered, they
went blank, some even called on fire. Yeah, and they
weren't popular with the higher ups at Walgreens. According to Bloomberg,
the CEO of Walgreens at the time asked her team,
why do our stores look like an effing casino? And
(03:49):
not only that, maybe a casino would have been tolerable
if it also boosted sales hugely, but Walgreens claimed there
was practically no boost in sales.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Okay, so ugly and ineffective, you know, that's that's the take.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
And so Walgreens had enough and started this legal process
to try and get out of the contract. Early Cooler
Screens didn't like this, and back in June twenty three,
they sued Walgreens for a breach of contract. Walgreens then
counter sued for monetary damages.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
This is the.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Baldoni Lively of smart fridges. But Cooler Screens then found
another way to fight back. According to Bloomberg, they secretly
cut the data fees to these smart screen doors. In
over one hundred Walgreens locations in Chicago.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
How did that affect Walgreens?
Speaker 1 (04:33):
So, I mean these stores had dozens of doors that
look kind of glazed over, and customers obviously couldn't see
what was inside anymore, so employees had to physically and
valiantly but vaguely describe what was behind each door, like
there would be hand pasted signs saying assorted sports, drinks
and coffee. This went on for about a week until
(04:56):
Walgreens got a judge to issue a temporary restraining order
against Cooler Screen, and this forced the company to restore
the data feeds. So Walgreen's got their unwanted smart doors back,
but the screens were still not performing as hoped, so
Walgreens started physically removing them in early twenty twenty four,
and uninstallation was completed in August last year.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
What's your takeaway as well?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
You know, it's always these tech fails are always amusing.
There was a great little side in the Bloomberg article
about a Reddit post which went viral showing a customer
joking if only there was some other technology that would
let us see what's inside there lah exactly. So for me,
the takeaway here is that, you know, the latest consumer
(05:38):
technology can be exciting, specific can boost sales for corporations,
exciting for corporations, But sometimes the best tech is centuries old,
and in this case, the good old last display case
still does the job.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Okay, I love that story. Let's hear about planes.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Yeah, so this one was. I heard about this last
week and I personally spend way too much time on play,
so I was very intrigued to read about a team
who've just had a breakthrough in potentially making flying much
much faster.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
How fast are we talking?
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Well, take flying from San Francisco to Tokyo usually an
eleven hour flight. What if I told you there was
a way to make that flight only six hours.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
I mean, I still wouldn't be able to afford it,
but I would want to go all the time. Fair.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
So this is an aviation startup called Boom, and what
they're trying to do is to create a modern commercial
supersonic flight, as in a plane that flies so fast
it breaks a sound barrier quote, displacing sound waves so
quickly that they can press into a single thunderous lap,
forming the so called sonic boom. That's the name Boom.
(06:46):
And this is according to an article this week in
the San Francisco Standard.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
So how far are we from Boom? Kind of like
you know, taking me to London.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Well, Boom had its first successful test flight that broke
the sound barrier just last week, flying high over California's
Mojave Desert. This XB one prototype broke the sound barrier.
But to be clear, the XP one is just a prototype,
and it is a scale model. In fact, it's a
single seater, whereas the planned aircraft called the Overture, which
(07:18):
has yet to be built, is going to be eighty seats. Now,
of course, military jets break the sound barrier all day,
every day, and this isn't that new in this sense,
has a history of supersonic passenger aircrafts in commercial use.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
So this is the Concord as.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
The Concord exactly, and I think one of the most
iconic planes in history. The Concord was first put into
flight in the sixties. It was a supersonic jet that
shuttler likes of Michael Jackson, Phil Collins, Paul McCartney, the
Pope and even the Queen back and forth across the Atlantic.
But per the San Francisco Standard, it costs twenty thousand
(07:52):
dollars per round trip adjusted for inflation, So yeah, not
for us. They're also environmental concerns. I think it consumed
I read, four times as much fuel as a seven
four seven and carried only a quarter of the people,
So that's sixteen times less efficient for any mental math nerds,
(08:12):
they would be able to get much quicker than me.
And then there are also some crashes and fires. Okay,
so all of this meant that the Concord flew its
last flight more than twenty years ago, in two thousand
and three. But now there's Overture gunning to take its place.
And what they're trying to do over at Boom is
to build a supersonic plane that would be accessible to
regular people. And they're trying to do this by using
(08:32):
modern tech that will cost less than the concords of
yester year, and also using more sustainable fuel. So this,
perhaps unsurprisingly, has caught the eye of Silicon Valley luminaries,
people like Sam Altman, Read Hoffmann, Mike Morritz have all invested,
and if things go to plan, Boom says that Overture
could begin commercial flights in five years.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Oh wow, okay, how is that going to happen?
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Well, they're not going to operate the planes themselves. They're
doing deals with the airline industry, and according to the standard,
they've actually made deals with three airlines, including American Airlines,
who have put down a nonrefundable deposit on twenty overtures,
which is I guess a bold move given that one
hasn't been built yet. Yes, and of course there's a
(09:16):
big question about the boom, with the clue being in
the name flying over Land, whether or not that will
be allowed.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Yeah, I'm not ready for that. Sound. Let's move on
to the next thing. You already mentioned the Pope, but
you have something else to tell me.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Yes, So it was actually John Paul the Second May
He Rest in Peace, who was the Concord passenger, but
actually said, this story is about the current Pope Francis.
It's not my all time favorite papal Ai story. Do
you remember the deep fake Pope Eliza.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
In the Yes, absolutely wearing the.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Coat, wearing the white Montclair puffer jacket in the mountains,
the papal puffer.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
What a fashion easter.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
But this is a more serious one because right now
it seems like there's a throwdown brewing between God and
God in the Machine Akai. Pote Francis has raised concerns
previously about the ethical and moral implications of AI and
its effect on relationships and education, and warfare and work.
According to a story in The New York Times with
the fabulous headline citing shadow of Evil, Vatican warns about
(10:20):
the risks of AI. Those statements have now been synthesized
into a document called Antiqua et Nova Ancient and New,
and it's meant to warn those of the Catholic Faith
that AI is both a source of tremendous opportunities but
also profound risks.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Okay, so kind of threading the needle there, What else
did it say? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (10:40):
I mean, the paper pointed out that there is potential
for misinformation, eroded trust, harm in the social development of children,
the replacement of human work, and the development of autonomous weapons,
all of which, you know, franklier themes of this show.
But the Papal warning tried to bring into focus what
it means to be human and the ethical considerations we
(11:01):
should bear in mind when using AI. For example, the
document says, quote in all areas where humans are called
to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here.
So what this kind of says to me is that
the paper is as much about how we choose to
use AI than about AI itself. And you know what's
interesting was the Vatican of your you know, may have
(11:24):
tried to ban this, like the Catholic Church banning the
printing press and burning the people who try to print stuff. Happily,
five hundred years later we've you know, the Church has
moved on and they're not trying to say, you know,
don't use AI. They're trying to say, think about what
makes you human when you're using this.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Yeah, it's actually a really nice reminder that we can
all decide how we want to move through the world
and also how we interact with both human and machine.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
I think that's well put. Well, thanks for joining me, Eliza.
I'm missing Cara, but I'm enjoying chatting to you each week.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
That's my pleasure.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Us Coming up, we hear from our friends at four
or four Media about a plea deal in one of
the largest sting operations ever. That's next on tech support.
Stay with us today for our tech support segment, We're
(12:20):
turning to four or four Media's Joseph Cox to discuss
a story he's been reporting on for years. It's about
a sting operation with ripple effects throughout some of the
biggest criminal organizations globally, and a raid made possible by
the tech that we just can't live without our phones.
But this isn't about your iPhone, Pixel or Galaxy. It's
(12:42):
about encrypted phones. Joseph wrote a book called Dark Wire
about the Encrypted Device Company a NOM, it's unique relationship
with the FBI, and the biggest criminal raid in recorded history.
And now some of the people arrested in that sting
operation are pleading guilty, which calls into question if there'll
be a trial. Joseph is great to see.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
You, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
So if you don't mind, let's start at the beginning.
What is a non.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Yes, So, a NOOM was part of the encryptis phone industry.
And as you say, it's not like the normal apply
I phones or Google androids that we all use. These
are very special phones that have sometimes a microphone removed,
the camera taken out, sometimes even the GPS removed, because
basically they're marketed to serious drug traffickers and criminals.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
And do they look like old you know, like plip
phones or nockia old phones, or what's the physical appearance
of these phones.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Yeah, that's the funny thing. They do look like ordinary phones.
Back in the day when there was a company called
Phantom Secure that was a sort of BlackBerry with a
quirity keyboard. Nowadays they will look like a Google Pixel,
but they will operate very differently.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
And a non was basically a handset manufacturer.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
It's hard to describe. It was almost like a software developer,
a tech startup, a hackefon as well. But basically what
they would do is that they would make their own software,
which is sending encrypto messages, wiping data from the phone,
redacting parts of photos you may take and send across
the device, and then installing that onto Android's phones. So
(14:20):
they're almost like an operating system developer and app developer
as well. But I would say it's mostly on the
software side.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
And you mentioned that these were very popular with criminals.
These are non phones. What was the advantage of them?
Why did you want these phones?
Speaker 3 (14:34):
So criminals are of course always trying to stay one
step ahead of law enforcement. Back in the day, that
would have been something like the TV series The Wire
right where they're using payphones or they're using pages, but
of course cops got wind of that, so then criminals
turned to encryption, And to me, it's the biggest technological
(14:55):
leapf criminals since the inventure of the mobile phone. If
you are a serious criminal, you're only going to be
taken seriously if you have one of these phones. It's
almost essential to be a cocaine or a heroine or
a methamphetamine trafficka today.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Wow, obviously it's not just criminals who rely on encryption.
We had Mariuth Whittaker on the podcast, and you know,
she made the case for the benefits of encryption.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Yeah. Absolutely, And I think that's the important thing in
that encryption is beneficial to everybody. I use it every
single day. Ironically, I use Signal and other encrypted messaging
apps to talk to criminals who are using these encryptive
phones as well. It's a messy for the issue, but
I think we can all agree that, you know, there
(15:38):
is a net positive and overwhelming net positive for us
being able to use encryption. That being said, law enforcement
are not just going to sit by and let that happen.
They're going to think of new ways to sort of
penetrate the secret system.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
So you mentioned that, you know, the old mafia techniques
of payphones and pages. Basically law enforcement got ahead of them.
How did the FBI find out about a NOM?
Speaker 3 (16:03):
So what happened first was the FBI shut down Phantom Secure,
this other encryptive phone company very very popular with the
Similarer drug cartel, Australian bikers, that sort of thing, and
they wanted to get a backdoor into it which would
have allowed them to read all of the messages. That
didn't happen. But then what did basically fall into their
(16:23):
lap was that someone who was selling phones for Phantom
Secure and some other companies, they were making their own
next generation of encryptive phone called a NOOM, and they
offered it to the FBI, and they said, look, would
you like to take this and use it for your
own investigations. Of course, in return, I would like not
to be prosecuted. Ideally I would also like to get
(16:45):
some money for it. But I can't overstate how exciting
that was to the FBI. Rather than trying to put
a backdoor into an existing app or into an existing company,
they could just make their own encryptive phone company and
then read the messages.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Of criminals incredible drinking directly from the fire hoods, so
to speak. Do you know exactly how how the deal
was struck.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
So their pseudonym is AFGU AFG double Low, And my
understanding is that the deal came around fairly quickly and
the main thing for the FBI and the Australian Federal
Police that were also part of this investigation, they just
wanted to make sure that it worked. Basically, it's one
(17:27):
thing for AFGU to promise, oh, sure you can backdoor
this phone, It'll all be okay. It's another for it
to actually, you know, work out in practice in the
real world. I go into this in much more detail
in the book. There's a series of events where they
do verify it is working. There's a scene where someone
from AFP is laying down on their sofa at home
and they're seeing messages flash up on their laptop screen
(17:50):
when they're being intercepted in real time. So this wasn't
just a pipe dream anymore. It was going to become
a reality, you know, if the criminals bought the phones.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
At least on the cover of your book, which is
called Darkwoir, this is described as quote the largest sting
operation ever which makes you wonder just how large was
it and how ubiquitous were a NON phones in the underworld.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
I mean, a non grew to the same size, if
not bigger than some of the actual encryptive phone companies
for criminals. They got to something like twelve thousand devices,
which doesn't sound like that much to us ordinary people,
but Phantom Secure was only something between seven and ten thousand,
So the FBI was almost better than some of the
(18:33):
criminal organizations at this At this as well as for
why I called it the largest thing operation ever, it's
not just sort of the audacity of it, but when
law enforcement around the world eventually acted on this information,
they did sort of a worldwide relay race of raids
all across the planet. Something like nine thousand law enforcement
(18:54):
officers acted in one single day, which is almost difficult
to put into words. And now there's a challenge because
you can't even imagine law enforcement activity on that scale.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
No, what an incredible scene. How did it rise to prominence?
I mean, did the FBI have other people who were
kind of promoting in the criminal underworld? Was it entirely organic? Like,
how did this become the encryption phone of choice.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
With a norm you can only speak to other and
NOM users in the same way, if you're on a
phantom secure phone, you can only speak to phantom secure
users as well. That's especially interesting when it comes to
the world of drug trafficking because if you get somebody
who's really really big in the world of cocaine trafficking,
or maybe one of these kingpins who's hiding out in Dubai,
(19:41):
if they switch over to a NORM, then everybody underneath
them needs to switch as well, and you basically have
this multi level marketing scheme essentially, where it's the people
at the top who dictate what everybody else underneath has
to use as well. And then that's how they did it.
The FBI wasn't sending out agents itself to sell the phones.
(20:02):
They let the phones organically spread among serious drug traffickers.
And one of the most important people for that was
a guy called hak An Aik. He was Australia's most
wanted man and he's a top tier drug trafficker, I mean,
getting billions of dollars worth of product into Australia. And
when he switched over to a NORM and started using
(20:23):
the phones and selling the phones as well, I mean
what better ambassador for your phone company than one of
the most wanted traffickers.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
In the world.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
The raids were in twenty twenty one, and there are
arrests made, But you publish a story just this week.
What's happened since twenty twenty one, and what was the
story from this week?
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Yes, So, in a sort of cruel twist, the FBI
and the US and the lover authorities didn't just charge
the criminal users of a norm as in the drug traffickers,
the hit men, the money launders, that sort of thing.
US authorities also charged the people who sold a Noom
phones the hest of the FBI. And the reason was
(21:02):
in the FBI eyes that, well, a Noon became a
criminal entity in its own rights, so we're going to
charge you as well. So there was almost a double
whammy there. And we were all getting ready for this
big trial coming up in March where a few of
them were going to go on the stand essentially and
try to defend themselves. But now they are pleading guilty essentially,
(21:25):
And that is really important because at the trial, the
US authorities were preparing to name Afku, They were going
to name their informant, which to me is crazy but
that was something that we're going to have to do,
and now Afgu's identity will probably remain secret.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
I'm fascinated by this story, Joseph, been grateful for you
and for coming on to Day to talk about it.
I'm also interested in it because it's this kind of
sort of there's this ironic element to it, right where
the very thing which is supposed to keep these criminals
safe ended up getting them caught. It makes me think
about the Hezbollah exploding Pages story, where Israeli intelligence had
(22:03):
understood that Hezbollah were using pages because they thought they
were safer than mobile phones, and then Israel essentially inserted
themselves into the production of these pages and inserted explosives
and in so doing killed Hezbela operatives with collateral damage
as well. These two stories have an interesting connection, which
is about how the tech we use and how the
(22:26):
tech we trust can be turned against us. And I'm curious,
if you're not a Hezbollah operative or a drug dealer,
what should you be thinking about when you read this story.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
I mean, in the case of a NOOM, it was
drug traffickers. In the case of the Pages, it was
a designated terrorist group. It can for us though, I
think make people ordinary people suspicious of software they should
be able to trust. I want people to still have
that trust. I don't want people to feel like, well,
who do I know who's actually running this? Maybe it's
(22:57):
a whole honeypot or something like that. And I think
these operations where authorities attack the supply chain could so doubt.
And I mean from the drug traffickers I've spoke to
and the people who sell these phones to criminals. More
and more of the drug traffickers are moving to ordinary
apps that we all use because they don't trust the
encryptophones anymore. There's been so many operations where even the
(23:19):
drug traffickers are saying, well, I'm just going to move
the signal or something. And what does that mean for
us now? Because I don't think law enforcements are just
going to put themselves in the back and go home.
They will be looking for the next thing to compromise
or investigate.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
Joseph, thank you, thank you so much. Coming up and
look at the uses of Gemini in your Gmail and
its similarities to a polarizing office assistant from decades past.
That's on when did this become a thing? Stay with us?
(23:59):
It's time for our next segment, When did this become
a thing? Where we bring you a story or observation
from our lives and try to figure it out. In
other words, ask the question when did this become a thing?
And if you've got an email account with Google, which,
according to Google, around one point eight billion people do,
you might have noticed something pop up on your screen recently,
(24:21):
a sparkly little feature called Gemini. Now Gemini isn't new,
per se, It's a new name for Google's a I tool.
You may remember Barred, which was Gemini's predecessor, But about
a year ago Google gave their chatbot a glow up.
And now we're being aided by Gemini, which is a
constellation of stars, of course, and many people's least favorite
(24:42):
sign of the zodiac. I went to Google's own blog
called the Keyword to learn more, and I found out
that once again, studying Latin pays dividends. I wish I had,
Gemini is actually Latin for twins. And then, to my amazement,
the blog made reference to a stronger quote. A key
characteristic of the Gemini zodiac sign is a dual natured
(25:04):
personality capable of adapting quickly connecting to a wide range
of people and seeing things from multiple perspectives. Apparently, earlier
versions of the name for this product included Titan, which
is the name of Saturn's largest moon, but also a
rather more intimidating name. Remember this AI is your friend
and partner.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Kids.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
If you haven't seen Gemini in your inbox yet, you've
definitely seen it on Google dot Com. Whenever that aioverview
pops up after performing at Google Search, that's Gemini doing
its thing. When I first saw those AI overviews, they
kind of shocked me. I do find them pretty useful
when I want to know how to do something like
(25:46):
I'm having trouble getting audio output from my microphone into
my recorder. What should I do? But if I'm researching
in a more open ended way, I don't find it
very useful at all. However, recently, Gemini actually entered my
work email inbox and it felt a little intrusive. When
I would go to write or apply to an email,
(26:07):
next to my cursor, a little message appeared saying help
me write. I've actually never tried it before, but I
thought today would be a good day to give it
a whirl. So I'm pulling up my work email, clicking compose,
and there's a little little thing saying help me write,
which I'm going to click on, and I'm going to
(26:27):
say I would like to interview the Pope about his
views his views on AI for the Tech Stuff Podcast.
Please write an email to the Vatican Communications Office asking
for an interview and making the most compelling case as
(26:50):
to why he should do it. Let's see what happens
create just thinking. Okay, Dear Vatican Communications, my name is
os Voloshian and I am reaching out from the Tech
Stuff Podcast. We will be honored to have the opportunity
to interview His Holiness, Pope Francis about his views on AI.
We believe that His Holiness's perspective on AI would be
(27:11):
incredibly valuable to our audience. As a global leader and
voice of moral authority, his insights on the ethical and
societal implications of AI will be particularly impactful. The Tech
Stuff Podcast reaches a wide audience of tech enthusiasts, industry professionals,
and policymakers. An interview with His Holiness undoubtedly generates significant
interest and spark important conversations around AI. We will be
(27:34):
happy to accommodate His Holiness's schedule and preferences for the
interview format. We're also open to discussing any specific topics
or themes that he would like to address. Thank you
for your timing consideration. We eagerly await your response. Sincerely,
oz Well, I do like I wouldn't have thought about
referring to him as his Holiness, but I like the
use of his correct title. I'm not sure that that
(27:57):
email quite do the trick. The tone is so obsequious,
I don't know how many his Holinesses you can fit
into one email, but also so grandiose. I mean, I
love hosting text stuff, but the idea that tech stuff
could be the perfect platform for the Pope to start
a global conversation is also kind of absurd. So there's
this kind of mismatch of tones and a demonstration of
(28:20):
a fundamental misunderstanding of the task at hand. Now, Gemini
doesn't just write emails. It's supposed to be a kind
of full suite virtual office assistant. And don't get me wrong,
I would love it if it really helped me be
more productive. But either I'm not using it right or
it's just not there yet. Because in all of these capacities.
It's a little meh, But why did Gemini just show
(28:41):
up in my work email one day? And the answer
to that is that Google had originally hoped that businesses
would pay twenty dollars per month on top of their
Google Workspace enterprise price, but the adoption of that was
very low, so instead Google decided to increase workspace costs
by two dollars per month for all users and into
great Gemini everywhere, a case of the good old maxim
(29:04):
if you build it, make them come. All of this
made me think about my best friend growing up. Clippy.
For those too young to remember, Clippy was an anthropomorphized
paper clip that was introduced into Microsoft Office in nineteen
ninety six as part of a project spearheaded by Melinda Frenchgates,
Bill Gates's wife at the time. And by an anthropomorphized
(29:28):
paper clip, I mean he was an animated cartoon paper
clip with large, shifty eyes and bushy floating eyebrows, and
Clippy would be there, bouncing on a piece of ruled
paper which almost looked like a magic carpet, making eyes
at you, and every so often a little cartoon text
bubble would appear and ask if you needed any help.
This happened over and over and over constantly throughout the
(29:52):
day when using Microsoft Office Suite. And this might shock you,
but Clippy isn't his real name. It's clip It. I
think we all just decided he needed to be cuter,
perhaps because he was so annoying. I don't know the
psychology behind it, but we all mind melded and decided
Clippy was Clippy and that he was a he. And
this actually came up during the preliminary focus groups. During testing,
(30:16):
women in particular didn't like Clippy's appearance because they found
his stare unsettling, and by unsettling, I mean unsettling. There
was a story in The Verge a couple of years
ago under the headline Microsoft ignored focus group feedback about
leering Clippy. Women did not like leering Clippy, according to
focus groups, but in the nineties, the guy's green lighting,
(30:38):
the bouncing paper clip didn't care. They were willing to
throw away the negative focus group data to get Clippy
onto people's computer screens, and they did so. Clippy was
included in Microsoft Office for Windows ninety seven, and like Gemini,
Clippy was supposed to be helpful. For example, if you
type the word dea into a word document, Clippy would say,
(30:58):
it looks like you're writing a letter. Would you like help?
And you could either opt to get help or say no,
I'd like to type out this letter without help. But
if you took Clippy up on his offer, he points
you towards introducing yourself in the letter and giving you
pointers about how to phrase sentences. The problem was most
people didn't actually need or want help writing letters or
with the other basic tasks that Clippy was offering to
(31:20):
assist with, at least not more than once. So people
got really really frustrated with this smiling, bouncing, possibly creepy
paper clip in the corner of their word documents, and
the vitriol did finally get to Microsoft, with Clippy put
to rest in two thousand and seven. He certainly was annoying,
but I do understand why there's so much Clippy fan
art out there to this day. Clippy truly was a
(31:43):
touchstone of my youth. But why we're talking about Clippy
today and why it's relevant is that Clippy was an
early example of consumer facing AI. And while Gemini is
much smarter than Clippy and less creepy, at least visually,
there is the same sense of intrusion the way Jen
Womini shows up and asks me if I want my
emails to be summarized, is giving me flashbacks help me write?
(32:05):
May as well be it looks like you're writing an email,
would you like help? People have tried to find ways
to opt out of Gemini's presence on Gmail, citing concerns
about privacy. I mean, if you let your emails be
summarized by Gemini, where does that data go? Google has
a set of privacy commitments online that says, quote, your
data is your data. The content that you put into
(32:27):
Google workspace services, emails, documents, etc. Is yours. We never
sell your data, and you can delete your content or
export it, but it's still being processed on Google servers. Now. Sure,
all my emails are there anyway, but there's another layer
of unease which comes with them being read over by
a machine and interpreted by a machine without my request
(32:48):
or consent. And Google just can't sume to get the
optics quite right. During the twenty twenty four Olympics, Google
ran an ad for Gemini where a dad used AI
to help his daughter write a letter to the American
track star and the idea of using a chatbot to
help write a fan letter. This kind of innocent form
of human connection between a kid and how idol was
(33:10):
off putting to a lot of people. Google ended up
pulling that ad much like Apple did its ad, which
crushed a whole bunch of musical instruments and paint pots
and other artifacts of human creativity into a sleek iPad.
This also calls up raw because it revealed a deep
dissonance between how engineers think about their creations and how
(33:30):
real people think about their lives. Take a look through
the r slash Google community on Reddit and you'll see
what real people think. There are users calling Gemini quote
absolutely worthless, and others said quote mostly nonsense, but occasionally
it gets lucky and says something correct. Maybe Redd it's
being a bit too hard on Gemini here. I mean,
(33:51):
looking back at the Clippy error, so many people in nostalgic.
I mean, no one actually wants Clippy back in their
word documents, but there's a kind of yearning for a
simple time, and I do wonder how we'll look back
at the Gemini era. I mean, after all, it's still
a time when we sit in front of our computers,
typing on our keys, telling the computer what we want.
And you know, fast forward twenty five years, when perhaps
(34:14):
I'll be chiogenically frozen and my brain will be uploaded
to the cloud, and that mind will wistfully think back
to sitting in front of my computer in my apartment,
thinking I remember Gemini. That's it for this week for
tech Stuff, I'm oz Vloshin and this episode was produced
(34:35):
by Eliza Dennis, Victoria Domingez, and Lizzie Jacobs. It was
executive produced by me Kara Price and Kate Osborne for
Kaleidoscope and Katrina Norvel for iHeart Podcast. But He'd Fraser
is our engineer. Kyle Murdoch mixed this episode and he
also wrote our theme song. Join us next Wednesday for
tech Stuff the story when we have a very special
(34:57):
conversation with the Godfather of AI and the twenty twenty
four Nobel Laureate Jeffrey Hinton about his remarkable life and
how it intersects with building AI. Please rate, review, and
reach out to us at tech Stuff Podcast at gmail
dot com. We want to hear from you.
Thanks for tunion to techt Stuff. If you don't recognize
my voice, my name is Ozvoloshan, and I'm here because
the inimitable Jonathan Strickland has passed the baton to Kara
Price and myself to host tech Stuff. The show will
remain your home for all things tech, and all the
old episodes will remain available in this feed. Thanks for listening.
(00:21):
Welcome to tech Stuff, a production of iHeart Podcasts and Kaleidoscope.
I'm Osvoloshan. Today will bring you the headlines, including supersonic planes,
a conversation with four or four Media's Joseph Cox about
the aftermath of quote the largest sting operation ever on
Today's Tech Support. Then we're back with another When did
this become a thing? This time we're looking into Google's
(00:43):
new assistant Gemini. All of that on the Weekend Tech.
It's Friday, February seventh, So this week I'm hosting solo again.
Kara Price is out for a few weeks, but our
producer Eliza Dennis is here to help me through the headlines. Eliza,
welcome back.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Thanks, happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
We've got an exciting potpourri. We've got planes, fridges, and
Roman Catholicism.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
This list is giving me jeopardy vibes.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Let's start with fridges, but we're going to do all three.
But we'll start with fridges. These aren't ordinary fridges. They're
smart fridges. And I read a story in Bloomberg by
Austin Carr under the headline Walgreens replaced fridge doors with
smart screens. It's now a two hundred million dollar fiasco.
It all started a few years ago when Walgreens began
(01:32):
installing smart refrigerators in some of their stores.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
I don't think I ever saw one of these in
the many, many Wilgreens I've been in. How about you, os.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
I haven't actually seen them in person either, but the
Bloomberg article was very well written and visually described. Most
of these fridges are actually in Chicago, and they're not
really smart fridges, they're actually smart doors. Picture a door
size computer screen, and the screen mimics exactly what you'd
see through at last door into the space, so basically
(02:04):
rows of gatorade or energy drinks. But instead of the
actual product, you're now looking at a digital image of
the product that's inside the fridge. And that means digital prices,
no more sticker price tags.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Okay, so is this just trying to make sure that
employees don't have to walk around with those guns and
re stick prices every time there's a sale.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Probably a bit of that. And also dynamic pricing, so
the ability to change in real time.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Kara talked about this a few weeks ago, This dynamic
pricing where prices can fluctuate at a moment's notice. And
it's also a side effect of the smart shopping carts
that she talked about, you know, those being piloted by Instacart.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Yes, the screens, both on the caper cuts and on
these fridges can do smart pricing, but they also play ads,
and per Bloomberg, this is called quote unquote retail media advertising,
which is a gold rush right now. So you know,
the fridges are interesting, but there's a legal aspect here too.
So Walgreens signed a ten year contract with the startup
(03:03):
behind the screens, Cooler Screens, Inc. After an early pilot
showed that the screens could boost sales about to five percent. However,
early gains turned into a month's long contentious legal slog.
Here's the overview. So Walgreens installed ten thousand smart doors
and planned to install thirty five thousand more, but back
in twenty twenty three, things started to go a little wrong.
(03:27):
The screens started advertising the wrong items, They flickered, they
went blank, some even called on fire. Yeah, and they
weren't popular with the higher ups at Walgreens. According to Bloomberg,
the CEO of Walgreens at the time asked her team,
why do our stores look like an effing casino? And
(03:49):
not only that, maybe a casino would have been tolerable
if it also boosted sales hugely, but Walgreens claimed there
was practically no boost in sales.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Okay, so ugly and ineffective, you know, that's that's the take.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
And so Walgreens had enough and started this legal process
to try and get out of the contract. Early Cooler
Screens didn't like this, and back in June twenty three,
they sued Walgreens for a breach of contract. Walgreens then
counter sued for monetary damages.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
This is the.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Baldoni Lively of smart fridges. But Cooler Screens then found
another way to fight back. According to Bloomberg, they secretly
cut the data fees to these smart screen doors. In
over one hundred Walgreens locations in Chicago.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
How did that affect Walgreens?
Speaker 1 (04:33):
So, I mean these stores had dozens of doors that
look kind of glazed over, and customers obviously couldn't see
what was inside anymore, so employees had to physically and
valiantly but vaguely describe what was behind each door, like
there would be hand pasted signs saying assorted sports, drinks
and coffee. This went on for about a week until
(04:56):
Walgreens got a judge to issue a temporary restraining order
against Cooler Screen, and this forced the company to restore
the data feeds. So Walgreen's got their unwanted smart doors back,
but the screens were still not performing as hoped, so
Walgreens started physically removing them in early twenty twenty four,
and uninstallation was completed in August last year.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
What's your takeaway as well?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
You know, it's always these tech fails are always amusing.
There was a great little side in the Bloomberg article
about a Reddit post which went viral showing a customer
joking if only there was some other technology that would
let us see what's inside there lah exactly. So for me,
the takeaway here is that, you know, the latest consumer
(05:38):
technology can be exciting, specific can boost sales for corporations,
exciting for corporations, But sometimes the best tech is centuries old,
and in this case, the good old last display case
still does the job.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Okay, I love that story. Let's hear about planes.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Yeah, so this one was. I heard about this last
week and I personally spend way too much time on play,
so I was very intrigued to read about a team
who've just had a breakthrough in potentially making flying much
much faster.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
How fast are we talking?
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Well, take flying from San Francisco to Tokyo usually an
eleven hour flight. What if I told you there was
a way to make that flight only six hours.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
I mean, I still wouldn't be able to afford it,
but I would want to go all the time. Fair.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
So this is an aviation startup called Boom, and what
they're trying to do is to create a modern commercial
supersonic flight, as in a plane that flies so fast
it breaks a sound barrier quote, displacing sound waves so
quickly that they can press into a single thunderous lap,
forming the so called sonic boom. That's the name Boom.
(06:46):
And this is according to an article this week in
the San Francisco Standard.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
So how far are we from Boom? Kind of like
you know, taking me to London.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Well, Boom had its first successful test flight that broke
the sound barrier just last week, flying high over California's
Mojave Desert. This XB one prototype broke the sound barrier.
But to be clear, the XP one is just a prototype,
and it is a scale model. In fact, it's a
single seater, whereas the planned aircraft called the Overture, which
(07:18):
has yet to be built, is going to be eighty seats. Now,
of course, military jets break the sound barrier all day,
every day, and this isn't that new in this sense,
has a history of supersonic passenger aircrafts in commercial use.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
So this is the Concord as.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
The Concord exactly, and I think one of the most
iconic planes in history. The Concord was first put into
flight in the sixties. It was a supersonic jet that
shuttler likes of Michael Jackson, Phil Collins, Paul McCartney, the
Pope and even the Queen back and forth across the Atlantic.
But per the San Francisco Standard, it costs twenty thousand
(07:52):
dollars per round trip adjusted for inflation, So yeah, not
for us. They're also environmental concerns. I think it consumed
I read, four times as much fuel as a seven
four seven and carried only a quarter of the people,
So that's sixteen times less efficient for any mental math nerds,
(08:12):
they would be able to get much quicker than me.
And then there are also some crashes and fires. Okay,
so all of this meant that the Concord flew its
last flight more than twenty years ago, in two thousand
and three. But now there's Overture gunning to take its place.
And what they're trying to do over at Boom is
to build a supersonic plane that would be accessible to
regular people. And they're trying to do this by using
(08:32):
modern tech that will cost less than the concords of
yester year, and also using more sustainable fuel. So this,
perhaps unsurprisingly, has caught the eye of Silicon Valley luminaries,
people like Sam Altman, Read Hoffmann, Mike Morritz have all invested,
and if things go to plan, Boom says that Overture
could begin commercial flights in five years.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Oh wow, okay, how is that going to happen?
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Well, they're not going to operate the planes themselves. They're
doing deals with the airline industry, and according to the standard,
they've actually made deals with three airlines, including American Airlines,
who have put down a nonrefundable deposit on twenty overtures,
which is I guess a bold move given that one
hasn't been built yet. Yes, and of course there's a
(09:16):
big question about the boom, with the clue being in
the name flying over Land, whether or not that will
be allowed.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Yeah, I'm not ready for that. Sound. Let's move on
to the next thing. You already mentioned the Pope, but
you have something else to tell me.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Yes, So it was actually John Paul the Second May
He Rest in Peace, who was the Concord passenger, but
actually said, this story is about the current Pope Francis.
It's not my all time favorite papal Ai story. Do
you remember the deep fake Pope Eliza.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
In the Yes, absolutely wearing the.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Coat, wearing the white Montclair puffer jacket in the mountains,
the papal puffer.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
What a fashion easter.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
But this is a more serious one because right now
it seems like there's a throwdown brewing between God and
God in the Machine Akai. Pote Francis has raised concerns
previously about the ethical and moral implications of AI and
its effect on relationships and education, and warfare and work.
According to a story in The New York Times with
the fabulous headline citing shadow of Evil, Vatican warns about
(10:20):
the risks of AI. Those statements have now been synthesized
into a document called Antiqua et Nova Ancient and New,
and it's meant to warn those of the Catholic Faith
that AI is both a source of tremendous opportunities but
also profound risks.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Okay, so kind of threading the needle there, What else
did it say? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (10:40):
I mean, the paper pointed out that there is potential
for misinformation, eroded trust, harm in the social development of children,
the replacement of human work, and the development of autonomous weapons,
all of which, you know, franklier themes of this show.
But the Papal warning tried to bring into focus what
it means to be human and the ethical considerations we
(11:01):
should bear in mind when using AI. For example, the
document says, quote in all areas where humans are called
to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here.
So what this kind of says to me is that
the paper is as much about how we choose to
use AI than about AI itself. And you know what's
interesting was the Vatican of your you know, may have
(11:24):
tried to ban this, like the Catholic Church banning the
printing press and burning the people who try to print stuff. Happily,
five hundred years later we've you know, the Church has
moved on and they're not trying to say, you know,
don't use AI. They're trying to say, think about what
makes you human when you're using this.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Yeah, it's actually a really nice reminder that we can
all decide how we want to move through the world
and also how we interact with both human and machine.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
I think that's well put. Well, thanks for joining me, Eliza.
I'm missing Cara, but I'm enjoying chatting to you each week.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
That's my pleasure.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Us Coming up, we hear from our friends at four
or four Media about a plea deal in one of
the largest sting operations ever. That's next on tech support.
Stay with us today for our tech support segment, We're
(12:20):
turning to four or four Media's Joseph Cox to discuss
a story he's been reporting on for years. It's about
a sting operation with ripple effects throughout some of the
biggest criminal organizations globally, and a raid made possible by
the tech that we just can't live without our phones.
But this isn't about your iPhone, Pixel or Galaxy. It's
(12:42):
about encrypted phones. Joseph wrote a book called Dark Wire
about the Encrypted Device Company a NOM, it's unique relationship
with the FBI, and the biggest criminal raid in recorded history.
And now some of the people arrested in that sting
operation are pleading guilty, which calls into question if there'll
be a trial. Joseph is great to see.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
You, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
So if you don't mind, let's start at the beginning.
What is a non.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Yes, So, a NOOM was part of the encryptis phone industry.
And as you say, it's not like the normal apply
I phones or Google androids that we all use. These
are very special phones that have sometimes a microphone removed,
the camera taken out, sometimes even the GPS removed, because
basically they're marketed to serious drug traffickers and criminals.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
And do they look like old you know, like plip
phones or nockia old phones, or what's the physical appearance
of these phones.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Yeah, that's the funny thing. They do look like ordinary phones.
Back in the day when there was a company called
Phantom Secure that was a sort of BlackBerry with a
quirity keyboard. Nowadays they will look like a Google Pixel,
but they will operate very differently.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
And a non was basically a handset manufacturer.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
It's hard to describe. It was almost like a software developer,
a tech startup, a hackefon as well. But basically what
they would do is that they would make their own software,
which is sending encrypto messages, wiping data from the phone,
redacting parts of photos you may take and send across
the device, and then installing that onto Android's phones. So
(14:20):
they're almost like an operating system developer and app developer
as well. But I would say it's mostly on the
software side.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
And you mentioned that these were very popular with criminals.
These are non phones. What was the advantage of them?
Why did you want these phones?
Speaker 3 (14:34):
So criminals are of course always trying to stay one
step ahead of law enforcement. Back in the day, that
would have been something like the TV series The Wire
right where they're using payphones or they're using pages, but
of course cops got wind of that, so then criminals
turned to encryption, And to me, it's the biggest technological
(14:55):
leapf criminals since the inventure of the mobile phone. If
you are a serious criminal, you're only going to be
taken seriously if you have one of these phones. It's
almost essential to be a cocaine or a heroine or
a methamphetamine trafficka today.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Wow, obviously it's not just criminals who rely on encryption.
We had Mariuth Whittaker on the podcast, and you know,
she made the case for the benefits of encryption.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Yeah. Absolutely, And I think that's the important thing in
that encryption is beneficial to everybody. I use it every
single day. Ironically, I use Signal and other encrypted messaging
apps to talk to criminals who are using these encryptive
phones as well. It's a messy for the issue, but
I think we can all agree that, you know, there
(15:38):
is a net positive and overwhelming net positive for us
being able to use encryption. That being said, law enforcement
are not just going to sit by and let that happen.
They're going to think of new ways to sort of
penetrate the secret system.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
So you mentioned that, you know, the old mafia techniques
of payphones and pages. Basically law enforcement got ahead of them.
How did the FBI find out about a NOM?
Speaker 3 (16:03):
So what happened first was the FBI shut down Phantom Secure,
this other encryptive phone company very very popular with the
Similarer drug cartel, Australian bikers, that sort of thing, and
they wanted to get a backdoor into it which would
have allowed them to read all of the messages. That
didn't happen. But then what did basically fall into their
(16:23):
lap was that someone who was selling phones for Phantom
Secure and some other companies, they were making their own
next generation of encryptive phone called a NOOM, and they
offered it to the FBI, and they said, look, would
you like to take this and use it for your
own investigations. Of course, in return, I would like not
to be prosecuted. Ideally I would also like to get
(16:45):
some money for it. But I can't overstate how exciting
that was to the FBI. Rather than trying to put
a backdoor into an existing app or into an existing company,
they could just make their own encryptive phone company and
then read the messages.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Of criminals incredible drinking directly from the fire hoods, so
to speak. Do you know exactly how how the deal
was struck.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
So their pseudonym is AFGU AFG double Low, And my
understanding is that the deal came around fairly quickly and
the main thing for the FBI and the Australian Federal
Police that were also part of this investigation, they just
wanted to make sure that it worked. Basically, it's one
(17:27):
thing for AFGU to promise, oh, sure you can backdoor
this phone, It'll all be okay. It's another for it
to actually, you know, work out in practice in the
real world. I go into this in much more detail
in the book. There's a series of events where they
do verify it is working. There's a scene where someone
from AFP is laying down on their sofa at home
and they're seeing messages flash up on their laptop screen
(17:50):
when they're being intercepted in real time. So this wasn't
just a pipe dream anymore. It was going to become
a reality, you know, if the criminals bought the phones.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
At least on the cover of your book, which is
called Darkwoir, this is described as quote the largest sting
operation ever which makes you wonder just how large was
it and how ubiquitous were a NON phones in the underworld.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
I mean, a non grew to the same size, if
not bigger than some of the actual encryptive phone companies
for criminals. They got to something like twelve thousand devices,
which doesn't sound like that much to us ordinary people,
but Phantom Secure was only something between seven and ten thousand,
So the FBI was almost better than some of the
(18:33):
criminal organizations at this At this as well as for
why I called it the largest thing operation ever, it's
not just sort of the audacity of it, but when
law enforcement around the world eventually acted on this information,
they did sort of a worldwide relay race of raids
all across the planet. Something like nine thousand law enforcement
(18:54):
officers acted in one single day, which is almost difficult
to put into words. And now there's a challenge because
you can't even imagine law enforcement activity on that scale.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
No, what an incredible scene. How did it rise to prominence?
I mean, did the FBI have other people who were
kind of promoting in the criminal underworld? Was it entirely organic? Like,
how did this become the encryption phone of choice.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
With a norm you can only speak to other and
NOM users in the same way, if you're on a
phantom secure phone, you can only speak to phantom secure
users as well. That's especially interesting when it comes to
the world of drug trafficking because if you get somebody
who's really really big in the world of cocaine trafficking,
or maybe one of these kingpins who's hiding out in Dubai,
(19:41):
if they switch over to a NORM, then everybody underneath
them needs to switch as well, and you basically have
this multi level marketing scheme essentially, where it's the people
at the top who dictate what everybody else underneath has
to use as well. And then that's how they did it.
The FBI wasn't sending out agents itself to sell the phones.
(20:02):
They let the phones organically spread among serious drug traffickers.
And one of the most important people for that was
a guy called hak An Aik. He was Australia's most
wanted man and he's a top tier drug trafficker, I mean,
getting billions of dollars worth of product into Australia. And
when he switched over to a NORM and started using
(20:23):
the phones and selling the phones as well, I mean
what better ambassador for your phone company than one of
the most wanted traffickers.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
In the world.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
The raids were in twenty twenty one, and there are
arrests made, But you publish a story just this week.
What's happened since twenty twenty one, and what was the
story from this week?
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Yes, So, in a sort of cruel twist, the FBI
and the US and the lover authorities didn't just charge
the criminal users of a norm as in the drug traffickers,
the hit men, the money launders, that sort of thing.
US authorities also charged the people who sold a Noom
phones the hest of the FBI. And the reason was
(21:02):
in the FBI eyes that, well, a Noon became a
criminal entity in its own rights, so we're going to
charge you as well. So there was almost a double
whammy there. And we were all getting ready for this
big trial coming up in March where a few of
them were going to go on the stand essentially and
try to defend themselves. But now they are pleading guilty essentially,
(21:25):
And that is really important because at the trial, the
US authorities were preparing to name Afku, They were going
to name their informant, which to me is crazy but
that was something that we're going to have to do,
and now Afgu's identity will probably remain secret.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
I'm fascinated by this story, Joseph, been grateful for you
and for coming on to Day to talk about it.
I'm also interested in it because it's this kind of
sort of there's this ironic element to it, right where
the very thing which is supposed to keep these criminals
safe ended up getting them caught. It makes me think
about the Hezbollah exploding Pages story, where Israeli intelligence had
(22:03):
understood that Hezbollah were using pages because they thought they
were safer than mobile phones, and then Israel essentially inserted
themselves into the production of these pages and inserted explosives
and in so doing killed Hezbela operatives with collateral damage
as well. These two stories have an interesting connection, which
is about how the tech we use and how the
(22:26):
tech we trust can be turned against us. And I'm curious,
if you're not a Hezbollah operative or a drug dealer,
what should you be thinking about when you read this story.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
I mean, in the case of a NOOM, it was
drug traffickers. In the case of the Pages, it was
a designated terrorist group. It can for us though, I
think make people ordinary people suspicious of software they should
be able to trust. I want people to still have
that trust. I don't want people to feel like, well,
who do I know who's actually running this? Maybe it's
(22:57):
a whole honeypot or something like that. And I think
these operations where authorities attack the supply chain could so doubt.
And I mean from the drug traffickers I've spoke to
and the people who sell these phones to criminals. More
and more of the drug traffickers are moving to ordinary
apps that we all use because they don't trust the
encryptophones anymore. There's been so many operations where even the
(23:19):
drug traffickers are saying, well, I'm just going to move
the signal or something. And what does that mean for
us now? Because I don't think law enforcements are just
going to put themselves in the back and go home.
They will be looking for the next thing to compromise
or investigate.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
Joseph, thank you, thank you so much. Coming up and
look at the uses of Gemini in your Gmail and
its similarities to a polarizing office assistant from decades past.
That's on when did this become a thing? Stay with us?
(23:59):
It's time for our next segment, When did this become
a thing? Where we bring you a story or observation
from our lives and try to figure it out. In
other words, ask the question when did this become a thing?
And if you've got an email account with Google, which,
according to Google, around one point eight billion people do,
you might have noticed something pop up on your screen recently,
(24:21):
a sparkly little feature called Gemini. Now Gemini isn't new,
per se, It's a new name for Google's a I tool.
You may remember Barred, which was Gemini's predecessor, But about
a year ago Google gave their chatbot a glow up.
And now we're being aided by Gemini, which is a
constellation of stars, of course, and many people's least favorite
(24:42):
sign of the zodiac. I went to Google's own blog
called the Keyword to learn more, and I found out
that once again, studying Latin pays dividends. I wish I had,
Gemini is actually Latin for twins. And then, to my amazement,
the blog made reference to a stronger quote. A key
characteristic of the Gemini zodiac sign is a dual natured
(25:04):
personality capable of adapting quickly connecting to a wide range
of people and seeing things from multiple perspectives. Apparently, earlier
versions of the name for this product included Titan, which
is the name of Saturn's largest moon, but also a
rather more intimidating name. Remember this AI is your friend
and partner.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Kids.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
If you haven't seen Gemini in your inbox yet, you've
definitely seen it on Google dot Com. Whenever that aioverview
pops up after performing at Google Search, that's Gemini doing
its thing. When I first saw those AI overviews, they
kind of shocked me. I do find them pretty useful
when I want to know how to do something like
(25:46):
I'm having trouble getting audio output from my microphone into
my recorder. What should I do? But if I'm researching
in a more open ended way, I don't find it
very useful at all. However, recently, Gemini actually entered my
work email inbox and it felt a little intrusive. When
I would go to write or apply to an email,
(26:07):
next to my cursor, a little message appeared saying help
me write. I've actually never tried it before, but I
thought today would be a good day to give it
a whirl. So I'm pulling up my work email, clicking compose,
and there's a little little thing saying help me write,
which I'm going to click on, and I'm going to
(26:27):
say I would like to interview the Pope about his
views his views on AI for the Tech Stuff Podcast.
Please write an email to the Vatican Communications Office asking
for an interview and making the most compelling case as
(26:50):
to why he should do it. Let's see what happens
create just thinking. Okay, Dear Vatican Communications, my name is
os Voloshian and I am reaching out from the Tech
Stuff Podcast. We will be honored to have the opportunity
to interview His Holiness, Pope Francis about his views on AI.
We believe that His Holiness's perspective on AI would be
(27:11):
incredibly valuable to our audience. As a global leader and
voice of moral authority, his insights on the ethical and
societal implications of AI will be particularly impactful. The Tech
Stuff Podcast reaches a wide audience of tech enthusiasts, industry professionals,
and policymakers. An interview with His Holiness undoubtedly generates significant
interest and spark important conversations around AI. We will be
(27:34):
happy to accommodate His Holiness's schedule and preferences for the
interview format. We're also open to discussing any specific topics
or themes that he would like to address. Thank you
for your timing consideration. We eagerly await your response. Sincerely,
oz Well, I do like I wouldn't have thought about
referring to him as his Holiness, but I like the
use of his correct title. I'm not sure that that
(27:57):
email quite do the trick. The tone is so obsequious,
I don't know how many his Holinesses you can fit
into one email, but also so grandiose. I mean, I
love hosting text stuff, but the idea that tech stuff
could be the perfect platform for the Pope to start
a global conversation is also kind of absurd. So there's
this kind of mismatch of tones and a demonstration of
(28:20):
a fundamental misunderstanding of the task at hand. Now, Gemini
doesn't just write emails. It's supposed to be a kind
of full suite virtual office assistant. And don't get me wrong,
I would love it if it really helped me be
more productive. But either I'm not using it right or
it's just not there yet. Because in all of these capacities.
It's a little meh, But why did Gemini just show
(28:41):
up in my work email one day? And the answer
to that is that Google had originally hoped that businesses
would pay twenty dollars per month on top of their
Google Workspace enterprise price, but the adoption of that was
very low, so instead Google decided to increase workspace costs
by two dollars per month for all users and into
great Gemini everywhere, a case of the good old maxim
(29:04):
if you build it, make them come. All of this
made me think about my best friend growing up. Clippy.
For those too young to remember, Clippy was an anthropomorphized
paper clip that was introduced into Microsoft Office in nineteen
ninety six as part of a project spearheaded by Melinda Frenchgates,
Bill Gates's wife at the time. And by an anthropomorphized
(29:28):
paper clip, I mean he was an animated cartoon paper
clip with large, shifty eyes and bushy floating eyebrows, and
Clippy would be there, bouncing on a piece of ruled
paper which almost looked like a magic carpet, making eyes
at you, and every so often a little cartoon text
bubble would appear and ask if you needed any help.
This happened over and over and over constantly throughout the
(29:52):
day when using Microsoft Office Suite. And this might shock you,
but Clippy isn't his real name. It's clip It. I
think we all just decided he needed to be cuter,
perhaps because he was so annoying. I don't know the
psychology behind it, but we all mind melded and decided
Clippy was Clippy and that he was a he. And
this actually came up during the preliminary focus groups. During testing,
(30:16):
women in particular didn't like Clippy's appearance because they found
his stare unsettling, and by unsettling, I mean unsettling. There
was a story in The Verge a couple of years
ago under the headline Microsoft ignored focus group feedback about
leering Clippy. Women did not like leering Clippy, according to
focus groups, but in the nineties, the guy's green lighting,
(30:38):
the bouncing paper clip didn't care. They were willing to
throw away the negative focus group data to get Clippy
onto people's computer screens, and they did so. Clippy was
included in Microsoft Office for Windows ninety seven, and like Gemini,
Clippy was supposed to be helpful. For example, if you
type the word dea into a word document, Clippy would say,
(30:58):
it looks like you're writing a letter. Would you like help?
And you could either opt to get help or say no,
I'd like to type out this letter without help. But
if you took Clippy up on his offer, he points
you towards introducing yourself in the letter and giving you
pointers about how to phrase sentences. The problem was most
people didn't actually need or want help writing letters or
with the other basic tasks that Clippy was offering to
(31:20):
assist with, at least not more than once. So people
got really really frustrated with this smiling, bouncing, possibly creepy
paper clip in the corner of their word documents, and
the vitriol did finally get to Microsoft, with Clippy put
to rest in two thousand and seven. He certainly was annoying,
but I do understand why there's so much Clippy fan
art out there to this day. Clippy truly was a
(31:43):
touchstone of my youth. But why we're talking about Clippy
today and why it's relevant is that Clippy was an
early example of consumer facing AI. And while Gemini is
much smarter than Clippy and less creepy, at least visually,
there is the same sense of intrusion the way Jen
Womini shows up and asks me if I want my
emails to be summarized, is giving me flashbacks help me write?
(32:05):
May as well be it looks like you're writing an email,
would you like help? People have tried to find ways
to opt out of Gemini's presence on Gmail, citing concerns
about privacy. I mean, if you let your emails be
summarized by Gemini, where does that data go? Google has
a set of privacy commitments online that says, quote, your
data is your data. The content that you put into
(32:27):
Google workspace services, emails, documents, etc. Is yours. We never
sell your data, and you can delete your content or
export it, but it's still being processed on Google servers. Now. Sure,
all my emails are there anyway, but there's another layer
of unease which comes with them being read over by
a machine and interpreted by a machine without my request
(32:48):
or consent. And Google just can't sume to get the
optics quite right. During the twenty twenty four Olympics, Google
ran an ad for Gemini where a dad used AI
to help his daughter write a letter to the American
track star and the idea of using a chatbot to
help write a fan letter. This kind of innocent form
of human connection between a kid and how idol was
(33:10):
off putting to a lot of people. Google ended up
pulling that ad much like Apple did its ad, which
crushed a whole bunch of musical instruments and paint pots
and other artifacts of human creativity into a sleek iPad.
This also calls up raw because it revealed a deep
dissonance between how engineers think about their creations and how
(33:30):
real people think about their lives. Take a look through
the r slash Google community on Reddit and you'll see
what real people think. There are users calling Gemini quote
absolutely worthless, and others said quote mostly nonsense, but occasionally
it gets lucky and says something correct. Maybe Redd it's
being a bit too hard on Gemini here. I mean,
(33:51):
looking back at the Clippy error, so many people in nostalgic.
I mean, no one actually wants Clippy back in their
word documents, but there's a kind of yearning for a
simple time, and I do wonder how we'll look back
at the Gemini era. I mean, after all, it's still
a time when we sit in front of our computers,
typing on our keys, telling the computer what we want.
And you know, fast forward twenty five years, when perhaps
(34:14):
I'll be chiogenically frozen and my brain will be uploaded
to the cloud, and that mind will wistfully think back
to sitting in front of my computer in my apartment,
thinking I remember Gemini. That's it for this week for
tech Stuff, I'm oz Vloshin and this episode was produced
(34:35):
by Eliza Dennis, Victoria Domingez, and Lizzie Jacobs. It was
executive produced by me Kara Price and Kate Osborne for
Kaleidoscope and Katrina Norvel for iHeart Podcast. But He'd Fraser
is our engineer. Kyle Murdoch mixed this episode and he
also wrote our theme song. Join us next Wednesday for
tech Stuff the story when we have a very special
(34:57):
conversation with the Godfather of AI and the twenty twenty
four Nobel Laureate Jeffrey Hinton about his remarkable life and
how it intersects with building AI. Please rate, review, and
reach out to us at tech Stuff Podcast at gmail
dot com. We want to hear from you.
TechStuff News
Hosts And Creators
Oz Woloshyn
Karah Preiss
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.