 out encryption. It's just math. You can't make math illegal while you can, but have a good hard time enforcing that. I'm sure some lyrics are hard, better at math. I think Tom, I think you should do that explanation in song. I think it would be an incredible hit. Forward secrecy is really important. I think, you know, at some point we should do an entire episode in song. If they get one key, they get all the keys, encryption, the music. If we're reading off of stuff, I'm sure it would be possible. Like, let's let's try with the with the quick hits in the beginning. I'm sure it can it can work. Our Buffy musical episode. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Apple and Foxconn confirmed that Foxconn used students, workers, student workers illegally to manufacture parts for the iPhone. It is illegal for students to work over time hours in China. Foxconn says the overtime hours for voluntary and allowed by mistake. But that is the situation has been remedied. Okay, Sarah's expression, and I'm that this wouldn't be successful. I'm wondering. You've obviously put a lot of work into that. Listen, Sarah, I can I can detect the slightest hint of sarcasm in your control. I'm not saying so. Syracasm. How do we never hit on that one before? I don't know. Yes, listen, the chat room liked it, or at least the two people. Well, one wrote lol and the other wrote jazz hands. Those are really I guess we can consider those positive. Awesome. You have control now, Roger. Thank you. Thanks, Veronica. Veronica was in our slack asking me a question about security. And you know what? If we didn't have encryption, maybe that issue would have been a lot bigger. Oh, Sarah, could you start us off with the powered by you? Of course. Oh, 130. Where'd that come from? I know. Let's do this. All right, count me in. All right, here we go. Three, two. Daily Tech News Show is powered by you to find out more. Head to dailytechnewshow.com slash support. This is the Daily Tech News for Tuesday, November 21, 2017 from DTMS headquarters in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt. And from Studio Feline at the beach. I am Sarah Lane. And from the Helsinki offices in Helsinki. I'm Patrick Bejo. You know what they have in Hell's Kitchen. Offices? Helsinki. Ah, very clever, Tom. Cabinet's very clever. Let's go with that. Yeah. Also with us is producer Roger Chang. How are you, sir? I am good so far. Yeah. You still have your job as do I. But there's one person who does it. That's breaking news. And it's the first of a few tech things you should know. Right before the show and hat tip to Taxi Cab in our chat room for pointing it out to us. Hewlett Packard Enterprise announced that Antonio Neri will succeed Meg Whitman as CEO of HB Enterprise. Whitman will resign effective February 1st, 2018. She will remain on the board of directors, though. So somewhat amicable breakup. They're not kicking her off of everything. Amazon is expanding video services on the Echo show to include Vimeo and Daily Motion, as well as the return of YouTube. Google stopped Amazon from using YouTube on the show previously because it violated Google's terms of service. But now it just shows the YouTube page. It's not the video in full. The New York Times reports that Skype has been removed from several app stores in China, which, according to Apple, is because the apps don't comply with local law. Microsoft says it is working to reinstate the app as soon as possible. I'm guessing that has to do with. I'm guessing that has to do with the local story, maybe? Probably. Yeah, storage of local data, maybe. Yeah. Apple and Foxconn confirmed that Foxconn used student workers illegally to manufacture parts of the iPhone X. 10. I meant 10. I said 10. It is illegal for students to work overtime hours in China. Foxconn says the overtime hours were voluntary and allowed by mistake. But the situation has been remedied. Here's some more top stories. The US FCC published its proposal for modifying open internet guidelines. The FCC now recommends reclassifying internet services as information services again, like cable TV rather than as common carrier, like phone service. This would remove the legal justification for provisions against preferential treatment of traffic from certain sources. The new rules would include transparency requirements around network management practices. That would include having to tell your customers if you're blocking any traffic, if there's any paid prioritization going on. In a phone briefing, a senior FCC official also revealed that the FCC order finds that state and local laws must be preempted if they conflict with the US government's policy of deregulation. The proposal will be voted on at a meeting December 14th. There's been a lot of fun, a lot of confusion around this. First of all, no, they didn't publish it on Thanksgiving. They published it today. Second of all, this is not it being enacted. This is it being published so that you can all respond to it, although it's not a public comment period. December 14th is when they vote. Now granted, it is probably going to go party lines and it's going to pass three, two, so that's why you see a lot of outlets just saying, well, this is it, this is what's going to happen. But you do have a chance to lobby them for what good it will do if you have an opinion on it between now and December 14th. Do you have an opinion on it, Tom? You know, we've talked about this to death on the show, so I don't want to get too far into what those opinions are again. My opinion, as I've said before, and I apologize to those who are tired of hearing it, is that neither of these is right. It's not an information service or a telecommunications service. And we need something new that applies to the internet if we're going to have sensible regulation about it and this back and forth ping-pong game of, oh, it's a telecom service. No, no, it's not doing anybody any good. I will say that I do think that this classification is less of a positive thing for consumers than the other one, but that's just me. Well, you wouldn't be the only one to think that. Google has discovered that Android sends cell tower location data to Google servers, even if the user disables location services for apps. Now, this happens in devices with no SIM card installed as well. So Google told Quartz, cell location, cell tower location, rather, was tested to manage push notifications and messages, not immediately discarded, and the collection would stop by the end of November. Yeah, I think this is another one of those examples where Google has a lot of people working for it and they have a lot of reasons to do things and there's things they can get away with because they're big and they control so much stuff. And this is one of those situations where I read situations where I really don't believe Google was trying to spy on people, but they thought, oh, well, hey, we can find out the location of all these devices. And so let's use that. And it's incredibly poorly implemented to do a test like this and log people's locations without telling them, even if you are immediately discarding it because we want to know, are you immediately discarding it? Can you prove that? And Google usually goes to good transparency requirements. So it's upsetting to see that they didn't in this case. Yeah, yeah, we always wonder if there's some kind of malicious intent in all of those. I think most of the time it's just, well, let's do something. And not everyone thinks about all of the consequences of the thing they're doing. I mean, I don't know that it's the case here specifically, but it wouldn't be that surprising if it was. Not necessarily Google, you know, rubbing their hands and going like, haha, we have found a way to finally spy on them without their knowledge. Well, and there's always the, you know, we talk about this sometimes too. There's always the possibility that somebody who could raise an objection doesn't because they're like, oh, well, actually that would help my department. So I just won't say anything, even though the person implementing it isn't. You remember, it's multiple people here. It's not one monolithic person named Google with a top hat and a monocle. Oh, I believe that person is named the Google Tom. Sergei and Larry Google. Shares of Tencent reached Hong Kong dollars four hundred and eighteen point eighty dollars, Hong Kong dollars per share Monday, making it the first Chinese company to reach a market cap equivalent to five hundred billion US dollars. Alibaba is valued four hundred and seventy four billion dollars. Tencent joins Apple, Alphabet, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon in the half a trillion club. Tencent's highest profile product is a messaging app. We is the messaging app we chat, but it makes the bulk of its revenue from PC and mobile games. Tencent own stakes in Tesla, Snap, Inc, Flipkart, Prachto and Ola. Is that the new club, the half a trillion club? The half a trillion club. Yeah. Unicorns. Yeah, now if unicorn, whatever, unicorns want to grow up to be whatever animal represents the half a trillion club. Narwhal, I don't know. Something like that. Yeah, it's a I mean, it's a really interesting thing because obviously it's the first Chinese company to reach that height. It's I think it's made its its its fortune mostly on the Chinese market, but not only, especially on the the games portion. They're very popular and that's the most interesting thing to me. The huge part of their revenue is games and it's entering its games and it's free to play and mobile games, which are often one in the same. And it's entering entering that incredible, you know, half a trillion club. Now, again, it's not only games, but it's a big part of it. So that's the one thing that caught my attention. And of course, you know, Tencent, the first Chinese one is a milestone. Probably not the last one, though. And it's going to be interesting to watch these companies, especially Tencent and Alibaba, sort of on the leading edge, to see, OK, you have an advantage in China being a Chinese company, because regulations there are so thick, some regulations even absolutely require a local company to do things. Amazon Web Services, for instance, has to partner up with somebody there. So it's going to be interesting to watch these companies as they expand onto the world stage to see if that's an advantage, like, oh, it gave us the protection we needed before we burst out globally, or if it's a disadvantage where they never learned how to compete in these different kinds of markets. And Tencent is definitely putting its fingers in a lot of places, as we heard, like Tesla and Snap and Flipkart. This is recent, though, right? Yeah, yeah, and I think this is a way for it to say, OK, let's let's put some investments and watch how these companies work. Maybe we can learn something. The Sonos One Speaker, which uses Amazon Voice Services for voice control, has added Spotify to the applications that users can control by voice. Wish I used Spotify or I'd try it out. Meanwhile, sources have given Bloomberg a little bit more context on the evolution of the HomePod. That's Apple's own smart speaker that looks delayed until 2018 at this point. Reportedly started as a side project five years ago, group of Mac audio engineers wanted to focus on superior audio, but were blindsided by the Amazon Echo's release in 2014. Again, this is sources talking to Bloomberg, but it's still pretty interesting. The project was canceled and then resurrected several times and sources say at one point the speaker design was three feet tall. So it seems like they've gone back and forth quite a bit internally. Yeah, that's more than half my height. So that's, I mean, you can't see where the floor is, but that's really tall, three feet tall. You expect it, right? They iterate on design. They try things. They, I think it's probably a good thing that they didn't just, you know, do one thing and rushed it out to market because, all right, we did it. And yeah, and those kinds of things, you know, the speaker was three feet tall. You're going to try different, different designs and see which ones work. I think it's, I'm sorry, Tom, go ahead. Oh, no, you go ahead. It's interesting to me that it's like, yeah, three foot tall speaker. I mean, I have three foot tall speakers in my living room that look really cool, you know, because they're supposed to be fancy. And that's, you know, Apple does stuff like that. It was designed to be some sort of superior audio device that was just a speaker. Then of course, Amazon comes out with the Echo. You probably have a lot of conversation inside Apple being like, well, the quality is very good, but it sells like hotcakes and then all of a sudden they have to kind of like redesign the whole idea to compete in the market. And they're obviously in super catch up mode at this point. The Echo has proved to be the next form factor hit. Right. Like we were all wondering like, oh, what comes after smartphones? Smart speakers kind of, I mean, you know, at least as big as tablets anyway, they may not be as big as smartphones, hardly anything is, including laptops, but, but the Amazon kind of blindsided people because I remember when the Echo came out and a lot of folks were dismissing it saying, this is stupid. Who would want it? And I was fascinated because I wasn't sure what the answers to were, but I definitely wanted to try it out. And obviously enough other people did that it's now an entire product category. It was definitely one of those products where at first I was like, don't want it. I'm not talking to the air in my house. And then I kind of like saw other people doing it at their house and I was like, oh, that's cool. How you can get the weather or the news or it's not that weird after all. So yeah, it was, it was one of those things that it was almost like a peer pressure thing where eventually I was like, I need to have this as well. Looking glass, a hologram viewing device called the hollow player one, one version of the hollow player one uses HDMI. You connect that one to a PC. It'll cost you 750 bucks. Another version has a whole PC inside it, including an Intel Core i7 processor. That one cost you 3000 bucks. The device reflects content from a 2560 by 1600 LCD display and uses a depth sensing camera for interactivity. The process yields an effectively blurry 267 by 480 image for your 3D images. But hollow player is thinking this is going to are looking glass, I guess I should say is thinking this is going to be the developers kit that will get people to try it out and come up with uses and then they can iterate and come up with better versions of it. So an SDK is out there for folks who want to play around with it and try to figure out what it's good for. It's an interesting product. It's exactly the issue is we're not sure what it's good for yet. For those who aren't aware, this isn't like the HoloLens where you put a headset on your head and see holograms everywhere. It's kind of like a screen that you put on a table and it's got a slanted panel of glass and you see the hologram without a headset hovering above that panel of glass. So it's a very different type of product and I could see it in offices or like almost a novel almost like a lava lamp. I think this is at this stage. It's kind of the 2020s lava lamp equivalent. It's kind of weird and fun and you could see little things moving on it. Yeah, I mean, and you could actually interact with it. It's low res, but you can you can reach in and move things around. It's, you know, it's not a touch screen, but it's it's got interactivity where it can respond to your gestures and your hand motions. So I I love this idea because not having to wear glasses would be the entire solution to AR and VR, right? This is definitely not the solution to that yet. But this is one of those early steps where you can point to and say, oh, remember when it was just this small resolution and confined to this one little device, I don't know. I don't know if this ends up being an entirely different thing than AR because it can't really follow your eyes around. I but but I do like the idea of being able to just look at something and it's 3D, right? Yeah, it's basically if you, you know, you don't necessarily think about the hologram name. It's just a 3D image hovering, you know, above a screen so you can actually see it in 3D and that's an interesting prospect. We don't know what it's going to be good for at this point, but it's an interesting thing. Menus at restaurants. I think we're going to need to if that takes off, if you're if this takes off, we're going to have to redo all of the movies, you know, futuristic panels where they move things around in the air because it's just flat things. Now it's going to look so outdated. We're going to need the 3D versions. Hey, folks, if you want to get all the tech headlines each day in about five minutes, be sure to subscribe to Daily Tech Headlines at DailyTechHeadlines.com. That's where you get the podcast and the RSS feed. You can also get it on your Amazon Echo as a flash briefing. We were the number one most requested flash briefing last month. Look at us and on the Google Home and on the Anchor app. It's all there. Go to DailyTechHeadlines.com to find out more. All right, so Friday, we had a great conversation with Annalie Newitz about why encryption is a debate. And we presumed in that conversation a lot of previous viewing in the audience where we have talked about encryption and sort of got to the point where we said, look, there's really not a good reason to have a backdoor from a security standpoint. And some people rightly wrote in with like, I haven't seen those episodes. It sounds like you're just jumping to conclusions. So today, I wanted to go through some of the reasons that I who always when there's two sides to an argument, when it's down to opinion, I'm always willing to entertain all those sides. But I don't think there's two sides to this argument. First of all, I want to really push people if they want to understand this to go do the reading themselves. This is one of those complex situations where you if you really want to know, you have to look at it yourself and maybe you'll come up with a with a another reason why you think this is weak. But I don't think so if you read the primary documents. First, I recommend keys under dormants, mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data and communications, which is written by every luminary in cryptography, Diffie, Hellman, the RSNA in RSA, Bruce Schneier. They all got together two years ago and they wrote this definitive work on the problems with backdoors. They talk about the history of it. Also read the bipartisan congressional encryption working groups 2016 year end report just came out a year ago in December, which concluded that any measure that weakens encryption works against the national interests. Also keep in mind, this is not a new argument. This is not a new debate. It actually goes back to the 70s, but it was very fiercely debated in modern terms around the clipper chip in 1997. The going dark argument that you hear, well, if we allow encryption, then we won't be able to see what the bad guys are doing. That has been used as early as 1992. That is not a new argument either. And what has turned out to be true up until now is that rather than going dark, new technologies have enabled more surveillance even while they have provided more privacy. Now, what are the risks if you are a law abiding citizen of a backdoor? If someone wants to put in a way for law enforcement under warrant, let's just assume for this, we're talking about legal access to information in pursuit of criminal activity. What are the risks in putting in a backdoor that only the government has access to? Well, number one, and this is the this is the one that really convinces me, backdoors undermine forward secrecy. There's something called forward secrecy, which makes it so that if you do have a key compromised, it doesn't compromise everything you've ever encrypted in your life. Forward secrecy ensures the communication sessions are secured by randomly generated ephemeral public keys. It's a strategy that prevents an attacker from later using a stolen private key to decrypt recorded encrypted sessions. All known methods of achieving what's called third party escrow. That's when you let the government have a key. So there's two keys. There's your key. And then there's one that's kept safe by the government to only be used in emergency. All systems of that kind of third party escrow are incompatible with forward secrecy. You can't have ephemeral keys and then save a key for somebody else to use later. And that is a big problem. If you can't have forward secrecy, suddenly you are compromising the system for everyone. Number two, backdoors increase system complexity. Complexity is the enemy of security. So said the NSA. More complexity means more opportunities for attack. You know that these systems are vulnerable because we're always seeing white hackers getting bug bounties and black hat hackers finding vulnerabilities. And if you make the system more complex, you increase the surface area for attack. The need for backdoor access to be confidential makes security testing more difficult. You can't have a bug bounty program on a third party escrow system because you want to keep that system private. You want to keep it secret. Also, these escrow keys could be used to impersonate a sender since the keys are also used for authentication. So if someone does get a hold of it, they can pretend that they're you and that could be someone in the government could decide, well, you know what we're going to pretend we're this person in order to lure a criminal out. That's that's a side note. And then it's a concentrated target. A breach of the keys means access for all encrypted devices by the thief. If they get into the key vault, they get all the keys. Now, this could be from a malicious insider, someone like an Edward Stoten, or it could be an unwitting accomplishment accomplice, someone who got fished. But you know that this happens. It happens in secure environments like the NSA. So law enforcement has stated the need for rapid access. So if you're thinking, well, what if we just keep them offline? That's not going to be good enough for what law enforcement has said split storage is impractical. And there are examples of telecommunications getting breached because they were doing escrow keys 2004 and 2005. 100 Greek government members were wiretapped through a vulnerability in a back door in a telephone switch from Vodafone. And in 2010, an IBM researcher discovered a way into IP networks through lawful intercept that was built into switches by Cisco. So when you give exceptional access like this, you open up all these vulnerabilities. Now, we're just talking about one country here, the United States. As soon as a company says, okay, we'll give exceptional access to the United States, one key for you will take the risk. I guess it's worth it. Now China wants it. Now Russia wants it. Now the UK wants it. Now France wants it. Now Finland wants it. Now Australia wants it. Now New Zealand wants it and they don't want to share their keys. Maybe the five eyes countries will maybe they won't. But suddenly now now imagine the surface area you've created when you have every one of these countries wants their own backdoor and some of these countries the companies may be like, well, wait a minute, I don't want to give you a backdoor and the country says, well, you already built it. Why not give it to us? If you want to operate in our country, you have to give us that backdoor. You've already built it. It's there. Mirror encouragement of the use of weaker encryption internationally has led to the later freak and log jam vulnerabilities. These were problems with TLS and SSL. And they are a result of export controls in the 90s, just kind of sticking around in browsers for years. So even the weak bit of export control and encryption that we did has come back to bite us. Now, all of that said, if it means a really, really good crackdown on criminals, maybe it's worth it, right? Sophisticated actors are not going to use the encryption that's mandated by the law. They will not use the weakened encryption. Maybe maybe some criminals will because they're not very good. And we'll catch some fraudsters. And that's good. But math can't be made illegal. And if you make math illegal, the criminals won't respect it anyway. And there are plenty of ways to create encryption. In fact, Bruce Schneier did a survey and found that anyone who wants to avoid US surveillance would have 546 competing products to choose from that are not under the control of the United States should the US mandate encryption backdoors on all US software products. So you're not going to be able to get into a lot of the systems that the criminals use. This, okay, gets us to the point where someone's like, okay, great, Tom, you're, you're, you're making it sound like it's impossible. What are we supposed to do? Just let the criminals run rampant from this congressional report that I mentioned earlier, accessing information from private companies is an option. Law enforcement having the ability to leverage metadata is something they already have and something that continue to be pursued. And there could be ways to help law enforcement agencies exploit existing flaws in digital products like the FBI did. All of these carry their own privacy implications and have their own debates. But these are debates. These are matters of opinion. Whereas encryption is, is, is in my opinion, very almost not debatable. When you weaken a backdoor, when you put a backdoor and when you weaken encryption, you weaken it for everyone. Also, while backdoors have been advocated, no actual technical specifications, specifications for a system have been put forward. So we can't even evaluate what law enforcement, law enforcement, FBI, NSA, whoever is talking that day, what they actually want. They say they want a backdoor, they say they don't want that one that reduces security, but they haven't described that in technical measures that these experts, these folks who know cryptography could look at and more precisely evaluate. So I know I went on long there with a monologue, but that's what is behind my reasoning. What's that? I said, very good info. I don't know. In a very high level sense, I guess the government has to weigh, you know, who's a sophisticated actor, right? If you can get a lot of like less sophisticated actors by weakening encryption, is that somehow worth it? I mean, I don't have the answer, but I know that's a debate that is part of this. Yeah, no. And that's the thing. It's like, okay, is it worth breaking encryption for everyone? Is it worth getting rid of forward secrecy? Is it worse worth creating a much larger surface area for targets when we have had the breaches that we've had at government agencies with a lower surface area? Is that all worth it to get those less sophisticated actors? I will say one thing. I could answer all of those at length. But the thing I will say, which I hope will speak to our audience is Tom is kind of legendary for keeping both sides very equally and not putting his own thought process as, you know, kind of coming to a final decision on things. So if someone like Tom who knows the field and is very reluctant to say this is how it is, is saying this is how it is on this, I think listeners of this show should pay attention. Yeah. And I'll add to that. If someone who really knows encryption comes forward and says like, actually, we figured out a way, totally willing to evaluate. But no one who knows this side of things has been able to say that yet. And the people saying we need to have it haven't given technical specifications to show what it would look like. Well, thanks to everybody who participates in our subreddit, you can submit stories and vote on them at dailytechnewshow.reddit.com and facebook.com slash groups slash daily tech news show. Let's get out of the encryption and into the mailbag, Sarah. All right, Daniel from Cincinnati wrote in I am paraphrasing a little bit just for time, but good story. About five years ago says Daniel, I received a small box with a random used Motorola razor in it. Paperwork in the box said it was a free lifeline phone from the government with a free one hour of talk time. Not something I wanted, not something I asked for. Did some research online turns out I was on some sort of list that said I was an economic need. No other real info. He says, well, the only thing I can think of is that I was unemployed for the prior two years and we applied for my kids to have reduced lunch payments at school. So maybe it was related to that, but I'm appalled that the government or somebody gave out this list to a to a for-profit organization without my consent and not even a current one of that. He goes on to say, I didn't really need the phone, but this is concerning to me. Yeah, it's it. This isn't even fraud. This is this is just what is it? Waste, I guess. Like, yeah, he's he's not. He wasn't trying to get the phone and he even tried to do the right thing. He says and said it back and they're like, I don't know. You're on a list, man. What am I supposed to do? That's it's just not a. It's not a very efficiently run program. He's not. It's not a fraud for him, but the organization that was getting money from the government might have been pushing him to just keep it. It's fine. Don't worry about it. You know, so that the fraud might be happening there. Got another email from Ron Lad, a veteran of the broadcast industry who wanted to point out that the current ATSC signal being used requires both the transmitter and receiver to be stationary. You can't receive the signal in a moving car, boat, bus, train, et cetera. So one of the cool upgrades with ATSC 3, ATSC 3, which we talked about yesterday, overcomes that issue. So it would be possible to include a TV tuner in a smartphone, just like there's FM radio built into a lot of the chipsets and smartphones. Watching TV on your phone would work the same way. You would not need to use a cell tower signal to watch TV. The phone would tune into the signal directly from the broadcast station and not use the cell providers tower or bandwidth. I kind of said getting your TV over LTE, which implied that it was coming on the LTE signal yesterday and Ron was like, that's not that's not exactly right. That's not a good way to phrase that. So thank you, Ron, for the clarification there. And that's it for this show. We're encrypted. Can't understand anything we're saying if that's the case. Unless they have the key. Yeah. Thank you, Patrick Beja, for joining us as always. What do you have going on? I guess a couple of things. First, the DTNS Labs games for the big games of 2017 was released over the weekend. So if you haven't listened to that, you can get a lot of information about what those games are, what games are interesting, you know, for if you want to buy games for your for your kids or if you're interested in getting back into gaming, you're going to know everything there is to know about the big games of the year. And another thing is the Phileus Club, which I often mention on this show. The latest episode we did was with a group of lovely women who came on the show and let us know how it what it's like to be in their shoes every day. And I've gotten I was super nervous about that show. And it it got a lot of very, very positive feedback. And I would encourage anyone who's curious about the strange condition of women in our Western societies to go and listen because I learned a lot. And I think many of us in the audience might as well. So that's available at Frenchspin.com. Hey, folks, we don't take ads. We only take direct support from you, the listeners, whether it's by PayPal or in our store or on Patreon, even just a dollar means the world to us and helps us do more and do it better. Check out the great rewards like exclusive columns. I'm going to write up all this encryption stuff into a column this week for the associate producer backers and up. There's special RSS feeds for any backer at any level, Slack access where you can chat with other listeners. All the details at Patreon.com slash DTNS. Our email address is feedback at DailyTechNewShow.com. We are live Monday through Friday at 4 30 p.m. Eastern twenty one thirty UTC at ElphateekRadio.com and DiamondClub.tv. And our website is DailyTechNewShow.com. Tomorrow we'll be back with John Scottson. That's an encrypted version of his name. Talk to you tomorrow. This show is part of the Frogpants Network. Get more at frogpants.com DiamondClub hopes you have enjoyed this program. Granted, that's very weak encryption of Scottson. Good encryption talk, Tom. Really? Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I was I was like, I'm just going to let you go. You got that. Yeah, sorry. It was so monologuey today, but it's kind of like all those topics. That's good. It's good to to do that once in a while. So yeah, every so often. Titles at showbot.tv. It's like a lava lamp. iPhone 10. I mean, oh, iPhone X. I mean, 10. The half a trillion club was wrong with front doors. Tom is legendary. Every step you take androids watching you. Unicorns aren't cool. You know what's cool. Was it good for how do we lock the doors? Encrypt them. Let's see. Encryption talk in Leet speak. Tom, your opinion is a lot once in a while. Be warned. Encryption opinions ahead. The front doors are checked. The back door encrypt that neutrality when encryption is outlawed. Only outlaws will encrypt. Unless it's a government that encrypt the title. Hollow play. One's hollow process of 3D. What was the hollow panos? I'll go back to my menu idea. No. No, nobody. It's like a lava lamp. I don't know. What do you think? Anyone? Anyone? I like the police reference. Every step you take, androids watching you. It's one of the most knowing songs because they used to play it all the time on the radio. We didn't really talk about it that much, though. I like encryption talk in Leet speak. I like this one down here that I just submitted. Which is UB7 CTNL6 HXPNLB FUQXO CO4 ANU DBI. That's a encryption. That's a good title. The encryption show encrypted with the daily show. I would say even for us, this is a bit too nerdy, but it's your show. You're probably right. It's our show. Good talk. How about just good talk? Well, encryption talk is number one and your submission. Magic, he's zoomed to number two. I didn't do it. I don't know. What was the place when you like show the TV open source? Tom, can we make sure you don't have some kind of a backdoor can't do the voting process? You can look. Yeah, you can look at the code. All right, good then. Audit, I dare you. What was the one you liked, Sarah? Every step you take, androids watching you because I like the song. Every step you take, someone's watching you. Kind of applies to more than just the Android story, actually. Be warned, except it's not encryption opinions. Encrypt net neutrality. Mash up. I don't know. You guys. Every step you take. Every step you take, androids watching you. Encrypt net neutrality. We're encrypted. No, no, nobody. Be be warned. It seems like it should be the title should have encryption in it. Encryption update 2017. How about why a backdoor won't work? Cool. How about no, I will not be your backdoor man. Shut the backdoor. Shut the backdoor. Just don't open it in the first place. I dare you. Any other ideas? Nothing. Unfortunately, no. You don't like any of these? Oh, no, I'm just I'm waiting for you guys. I'm about to I'm I'm doing the stuff here. So I'm waiting for the consensus to build. But well, I don't want to, you know, I don't want to. I don't want to. But there's one that has 11 votes and all of the others have six. So just saying. So you're saying be democratic. How friends. I don't know. I think you guys are pretty democratic yourselves. Well, I'm going to use I'm going to use this because I don't want to lose my head to guillotine. Now, I think that's fine. Encryption talk with the special characters. I like it. It gets to where I was going with that silly, fully encrypted one without being quite so obtuse. I think I'm going to run. You're going to go for you should just take you should go to sleep. It's late. Too cold to run. It is actually it's snowing now. Is it really? Wow. It was snowing in in October. Sorry, Roger. You'll be like Rocky and Rocky for one word. It fights Ivan Drago. I like that. I'm going to go punch some some carcasses. Was Rocky three? The Rocky three. That's so many Rockies, right? Bridget Nielsen. Yeah. So I'm going to go punch some carcasses and actually next week I'm off. So I'll talk to you next week. OK, off next week. But you're on. Yeah. I'm on the week after. Yeah. All right. Yeah. Yeah. If then you're staying just staying around after that one's done to for results prediction. So for the one the week after. Yes, absolutely. Yeah. All right, cool. All right. Thanks, Patrick. You all have a great run. All right. Thanks. Bye. Yeah, I know it was net neutrality day and we did encryption. Ha, Uber discloses data breach in 2016. Oh, boy. See, see. I know. I wish we had this news a little earlier, but talk about it tomorrow. And data breaches, though. I mean, is there a dime a dozen? I hate to say this, but is there anything significant about it? Is it just emails or like it might be might be huge. I get that. Concealed cyber attacks as Bloomberg. Mmm. That's that's newsy. Hackers stole personal data. Customers and drivers concealed for more than a year. Compromised data from the October 2016 attack included names, email addresses and phone numbers of writers. Personal information of about 7 million drivers was accessed as well. No social security numbers, no payment information, no trip location details. So yeah, I mean, the story here is well, why'd you hide this? Like it's a pretty run of the mill data breach. It's not great, obviously. Nobody I mean, trip location would have been a big deal. You know, like, I know, absolutely. You know, names and emails and all that stuff. But it's like, if it was trip location, I'd be like, well, this is a really big deal. You know, because yeah, you learn a lot about somebody. Totally. And phone number is not great. But honestly, phone numbers and emails. They're not that protected out there anyway. So I wouldn't, you know, it's changed. I mean, you can't just yeah, yeah. Whereas it's it's it's annoying, but like most people have had their email address exposed at some other breach already, right? That's not a big deal. Phone number may be less likely, but possibly. Yeah, exactly. W. Scott is one and Ethan Kane both like after Equifax, like we're pretty much everything about you got out. Uh, so depressing sometimes. Makes you want to crawl up into a compound with the intranet. Yeah, you could just download a version of the wet worldwide web from archive.org circa 1997, put it on a two terabyte drive. You ever see that Eric Tim and Eric thing where the internet's on an old CD? You'll never expose yourself. It's just like, yeah, you shop at the same shop at the same store with only three styles of pants and three colors. And if you want to order it, you print out at order four, but you wonder how big of a hard drive you would need to replicate the 1996 internet. 1996. Yeah. That's when I really started using the web before that. I was using that guy and you meant and you mean everything that was online? Yeah. And when you say everything, it starts to go down a rabbit hole. But the major, you know, the sites that were easily accessed. The largest one. Like a copy of GeoCities, Angel Fire, Tripod. And all the associated content, right? Yeah. And then the company accounts are out there. I would say maybe like eight terabytes. Eight, ten terabytes. Yeah, I have no way. I have no way of calibrating it. I have no way of. Really, the biggest things that took up space in the early web were JPEGs, GIFs, and bitmaps, just all those image files. Yeah, things didn't take up a lot of space. Archive.org didn't even store those images back then. Well, you know, when you're working at a resolution of 800 by 600, a large image on a monitor that size didn't take a lot of resolution pixels. None of the online ordering would work, though. I couldn't get my books to really come from Amazon or my pizza from Papa John's. Well, my idea is that you would basically have a robot, a physical robot that's in between, that accesses another computer that's actually connected to the web from your internet. So there's a physical disconnect. But there's your vulnerability. There's your weakness. That's how they get you through your robot. If my robot clicks on robot porn sites. Something, some way. It's your surface attack. That's your attack surface, I mean. Attack vector. Hey, so I this reminded me, we were talking about 1996 Internet. I think it was 96 or 97 that I did all my Christmas shopping online. Most people got books. I only started deliberately do that. Or it was just I wanted to be like, can I do this? Can I actually go use my 366 modem and buy all of my Christmas presents online? And I did a bunch on Amazon, which hasn't really changed over the years. I bought some wine for my sister on wine.com. And I think I bought steaks for my dad on Omaha Steaks. So everybody got the gifts that were available in 1996. Yeah. I didn't buy any. I didn't really buy anything online until there was like stuff I wanted to buy. Like there's a lot of just questionable items. I was in two over the moon on. I just wanted to see if it would work. I'm trying to imagine the first thing I bought on. I think the first thing I bought online was from Dell. I bought a Dell MP3 player. The first thing I bought was a book from Amazon. I'm almost certain. And that, again, was probably just to see how it worked. Oh, no, the first thing I bought was a DVD. That's what I bought about a DVD. Yeah, I wanted it four dollars cheaper than I could get it at borders. You know, I said it was wine.com. It was not wine.com. It was virtual vineyards, which wine.com later bought. Oh, was that the is that the noise the website makes? Yeah, as it as their drones deliver your food, do you? Oh, key dokey. Tom McLeod. I think I got everything up. Yeah, we just need to discuss what dates we want to put the other two episodes to record. Yes, we do. All right. Thanks, everybody, for watching. Bye. Thank you. Good. Where's my window? OK, goodbye.