He'll station a thousand extra cops in the subways, and he added Tuesday at a news conference that the city is testing new gun detection technology.
If we don't get it now, we're definitely on the pathway of coming up with some new technology that's going to help us identify weapons as well as guns.
Paul Durianzo, New York.
The previous program was Economic Update with Richard Wolff, heard Wednesdays at 6.30 p.m.
It's one minute past 7 p.m. Stay tuned for Off the Hook coming up here on WBAI, New York.
The number you have dialed is not in use at the moment.
Le numéro que vous avez composé n'est pas en service en ce moment.
Le numéro que vous avez composé n'est pas en service en ce moment.
If you'd like to make a call, please hang up and try again.
If you need help, stay on the line and a hacker will assist you shortly.
The telephone keeps ringing, so I ripped it off the wall.
I cut myself while shaving, now I can't make a call.
We couldn't get much worse, but if they could, they would.
Bundiddley Bump are the best, it's fake, the worst.
I hope that's understood.
Bundiddley Bump!
Okay, let's get started because we had a late start here.
It's Off the Hook here on WBAI.
Emmanuel Goldstein with you, joined tonight by Kyle.
Yeah, right here.
And that coffee heard in the background was Gila out in Skypeland.
Hello!
How you doing?
And Rob, who so far has been silent, also out there in Skypeland.
Good evening.
Good evening.
Robby Firefly, that is.
And we're back after two weeks.
We have all kinds of things to talk about.
We have overtime coming up at 8 o'clock on YouTube.
You can go to the 2600.com webpage and click on the link there at that time.
But we have an important announcement to share with you now because this affects the future of this particular program.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The theme should stop.
Because we, as you know, are a volunteer station.
We are completely 100% funded by listener support, listener donations.
And we have a new requirement from us, for us, actually.
If we are to continue doing this radio show as of June, we must raise a particular amount.
And it's not very much.
It's not very much at all.
It's a monthly figure.
And we could do it tonight.
We could get this taken care of tonight for the month of March.
We're talking a total of $350.
That is the minimum requirement.
It's the minimum.
Granted, we like to do things to the max.
But this is the minimum.
And we'll assure that we do not get booted in favor of somebody who does get more support.
So if you become a BAI buddy and you pledge $30 a month, we'll do the math.
30 times 12, that is $360.
That's $30 per month as a BAI buddy.
And right there, in one phone call or one click on the website, our March fulfillment has been met.
The website is give2wbai.org.
The phone number is 212-209-2950.
And I just want to emphasize the importance of us getting listener support because we don't have commercials.
We don't have any other source of funding that will keep us going.
And this is something that is very, very worthwhile.
If you feel that you've gotten anything, not only out of this particular radio show, but this particular radio station, meaning WBAI, broadcasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week with all kinds of diverse alternative material that you just can't hear anywhere else.
If you've gotten anything out of all of that, then certainly some show of support would be warranted.
And again, you know, I gave one example of one person taking care of this with one phone call or one visit to the website and having a fairly painless monthly donation automatically taken out of however it is they choose to set it up.
But this could also be met by a number of smaller pledges of people going to give to WBAI.org or calling 212-209-2950 on that website.
And through the volunteer that answers the phone, you will be able to get all kinds of gifts in return for a particular pledge, particular amount.
So feel free to peruse that and make your choice.
But the most important thing is that we meet that goal.
So we don't find ourselves, you know, putting everything in our boxes and leaving in June.
This is a requirement that will continue for each month.
And I don't think it's very much at all, you know, to ask in general, seeing the number of people who tune in and comment and basically stop us on the street on occasion to let us know that you enjoy the show.
So please show your support.
212-209-2950.
Give to WBAI.org.
And when you do, please email us as well to let us know so that we have some evidence that we are getting calls.
OTH at 2600.com is our email address here at Off The Hook.
You guys have anything else you want to add?
Gila?
As you are contemplating your gift to WBAI, a couple of things to think about.
Your employer may have a match.
If you donate to WBAI, check and see if your employer offers gift matching.
You may be able to double your gift to WBAI without working too hard for it.
Piece number two is that if you call or you go on the website or if you send in a check, whatever you do, please, please let the people know that you're calling for Off The Hook.
If they don't know you're supporting us, it goes to the station, which is great.
But if they don't know we're bringing in enough money, we could, as Emmanuel said, get booted off the airwaves.
And no one wants to see that happen.
Well, I mean, I'm sure some people do, but we don't.
Oh, there are people that want to see that happen.
There are some people who definitely want to see that happen.
But let's not make them happy.
Let's keep going.
We've been doing this since 1988 in one form or another.
And there's so much to talk about, you know, so much in the world of technology.
We're going to try and get through as much as we can tonight.
But every week there is something new.
And the hacker perspective is what makes it interesting.
And that goes for everything we get involved in.
We try to add that little flair to it.
So please show your support.
Keep us going.
It really is a shot in the arm for everybody.
But as Gila said, definitely mention when you're making the pledge that you're doing this in the name of Off The Hook.
That way we get the credit and it applies to that $350 minimum threshold for each month.
It's the beginning of March.
So this is our first show of the month.
So we have a few more weeks to get there.
But I really I would like to get there this week.
I really would like to get there this week.
So we don't have to worry about this.
Fair enough.
Yeah, go ahead, Rob.
Absolutely.
And whether you want to make a one time donation or be what we call a BAI buddy,
which is when a small monthly amount gets donated directly from your accounts to ours,
ours as in WBAI because we here are volunteers.
But it is a small donation that you could set up for the amount of your choice and not think about it.
And you can be still supporting us automatically with from on a month to month basis.
And the BAI buddy program is very special to organizations like us because it gives us something
that is so hard to get in the nonprofit world, which is a dependable income.
We can look at our list of buddies and see here's an amount of money that we're getting next month.
And we can, you know, maybe pay some bills, maybe, you know, stock the stock the supply cabinet, buy some more paper clips,
do what we need to do to keep this radio station, this program, all the voices on WBAI and all the people in this community to you.
And this is all we have ever done for that.
We ask.
We ask for help.
We do not sell snazzy things.
We do not go out and do bake sales.
We do not accept paid commercials.
This is what we do.
This is how we have remained on the air for generations now at WBAI.
And this is how this is the only way we'll continue to remain on the air is through the generosity of you, our listeners.
So if you go to give to WBAI.org and show us some support, we are all grateful.
And the wider community out there gets to keep having what we bring out there.
I think we used to have bake sales.
Did we?
Do I have that wrong?
Books.
Okay, book sale.
That's a book fair.
We used to have a book fair.
That's what it was.
Every year we had a BAI book fair.
Why did we stop doing that?
That was a lot of fun.
Well, there are a lot of different ways to raise money at the station.
But this is the tried and true regular fundraising period.
And because of this amount we're working towards for the show, we're going to be trying to update a little bit more regularly so people know where we're at.
But it doesn't take very much from a handful of individuals, really, who can contribute right now, being in action quickly this hour, mentioning the Off the Hook radio show.
So that small act will go so far as far as keeping the operating funds up and our program thriving here on the air.
It's what keeps us independent.
And I think that's the overarching theme.
Absolutely.
And this is not a fundraising edition of the show, by the way.
We are not spending the hour doing this.
In the past, we would have a fundraising edition.
We'd make a couple of thousand dollars in an hour.
And, you know, things were different then in all sorts of different ways.
But we still have a devoted listenership.
We still have a lot of people that believe in the place, believe in the show.
So we're spending a few minutes of each show to get people to add to that number.
And hopefully we make that number by the end of the month.
It's not much.
It really is not much.
If we don't make that number, then, you know what?
We maybe are wasting our time.
And I don't think that's what anybody believes.
But I've been proven wrong before.
All right.
We've said all we're going to say on that for now.
212-209-2950 and give to WBAI.org.
The gauntlet has been thrown.
The challenge has been made.
$350 by the end of the month.
Can we do it?
We'll see.
That's seven people at the $50 level.
Yeah.
Yeah.
All you mathematicians out there can figure this out.
Hey, we have this story was sent to us about 50 times.
And it was good each time we read it.
It's a vending machine at the University of Waterloo up in Canada.
That's right.
There's a University of Waterloo up in Canada.
Bet you didn't know that.
They have a vending machine that, for some reason, has facial recognition in it.
It's true.
And the reason this was discovered was because of an error.
You ever see, you know, when you're walking by a screen in an airport, you see there's like a boot up error, Windows error, Unix, something like that.
And this one had a particular error that said, the exception unknown software, this is phrased badly, the exception unknown software exception occurred in the application.
Okay.
Well, you know what?
The line above it is where it says facial recognition.app.exe application error.
So that right away told SquidKid47, who happened to be walking by, that's what college kids are called now.
They have handles.
They were walking by and they took a picture of that.
And, yeah, SquidKid47 pondered on some online forum someplace, hey, so why do the stupid M&M machines have facial recognition?
And that has been the question of the month.
Oh, it was posted on Reddit.
That's where it was.
Okay.
The Reddit post sparked an investigation from a fourth-year student named River Stanley.
And I'm told that's a name.
That's not a handle.
Okay.
River Stanley is their actual name.
And they were writing for a university publication.
And that was called Math News.
Really?
Is a publication called Math News?
It's a publication just for math.
No, I love it.
That's great.
We need more things like that.
Math News.
Hey, I'll subscribe, especially if they print.
That's amazing.
Anyway, River Stanley sounded the alarm after consulting Inbenda sales brochures that promised the – how do you – how do you – okay, he read the brochures.
Okay.
Promised the machines are capable of sending estimated ages and genders of every person who used the machines without ever requesting their consent.
Now, this frustrated Stanley, who discovered that Canada's privacy commissioner had years ago investigated a shopping mall operator called Cadillac Fairview after discovering some of the mall's informational kiosks were secretly using facial recognition software on unsuspecting patrons.
And only because of that official investigation did Canadians.
And only because of that official investigation did Canadians learn that over 5 million non-consenting Canadians were scanned into Cadillac Fairview's database.
Now, where Cadillac Fairview was ultimately forced to delete the entire database, Stanley wrote that consequences for collecting similar sensitive facial recognition data without consent for Inbenda clients, like Mars, remain unclear.
And Stanley's report ended with a call for students to demand that the university barred facial recognition vending machines from campus.
You know, this is something incredible.
This is an Ars Technica article, by the way.
But I'm blown away.
Why on earth does a vending machine need facial recognition?
Why do they need to know the genders or the ages of people walking up to it to buy whatever junk they're peddling?
Gilly, do you have a theory?
I do, because I was just clicking around on the Inbenda website, and they are those really hideous vending machines that don't have a window.
They just have a screen so they can show you ads while you're buying something else.
And Inbenda claims that, you know, you can leverage the best of technology, reduce costs, and monetize advertising.
So the whole thing is the idea is you've got the captive eyeballs of the person who's standing in front of you buying a pack of M&Ms, for example.
And you can advertise to them.
And I don't know if you use facial recognition and think, hey, this is a 20-year-old female.
What else can we sell her?
Ooh, tampons.
Wow.
Yeah, I used to spend a lot of time in front of vending machines, but not so much anymore.
So I'm not even familiar with what you're describing here.
So you don't even see the products you're buying?
You just see advertisements?
You see advertisements.
You see pictures of what you're getting.
There's actually, this has taken over in a lot of stores.
I think like Walgreens and 7-Eleven, as an example, they put these screens in the doors of the refrigerated and frozen section.
So you don't see the bottle of water or soda or pint of ice cream you're picking up.
You see an image of them.
So you don't know how much stock there is.
You don't know if the freezer section is broken and there's ice all over the shelves.
You don't know what you're picking up because it's just a picture of the platonic ideal of the product.
So you don't get to see the product you're buying.
You just press a button and something you select shows up, but it could be covered in blue paint.
You'd have no idea.
Exactly.
Wow, what a time to be alive.
It's sort of like an automat of sorts.
Yeah, but automat, you could see.
That was the whole point.
You could see the food.
Yeah, there's like a little window.
Uh-huh.
That was the fun of it.
No window.
I miss the automat.
Anyway, a University of Waterloo spokesperson, Rebecca Elming, has responded after a time,
confirming to CTV News up in Canada that the school had asked to disable the vending machine software
until the machines could be removed.
Wait, why not just ask for the machines to be removed?
Unplug the damn things.
Yeah, I feel like the guy on war games.
Can't you just unplug it?
Yeah, I think that's what every student should do is unplug machines that are spying on you.
Students told CTV News that their confidence in the university's administration was shaken by the controversy.
Some students claimed on Reddit that they attempted to cover the vending machine cameras
while waiting for the school to respond using gum or post-it notes.
I'm in favor of gum.
Well done there.
One student pondered whether there are other places this technology could be being used on campus.
You think?
Yeah, I think it's being used all over the place.
So absolutely, get your gum out and start covering these camera holes.
Now, the conversation continues on Reddit.
Some students joked that SquidKid47's face is what crashed the machine.
That's nasty.
Others asked if any pre-law students want to start up a class action lawsuit.
One commenter summed up students' frustration by typing in all caps,
I hate these machines, I hate these machines, I hate these machines.
You know, when you quote social media in news stories,
sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I would shy away from it.
I really would.
Rob?
The funny thing about just not going up and unplugging the damn things is they might not be allowed to do that.
These vending companies arrange very lucrative and binding contracts with venues like the school
to place their machines there and have it up and running and so on and so on.
So if they were to just go up and unplug the thing, even when it's doing something terrible like this,
they might have had, and I'm going to try and fill the role of our absent colleague Alex here,
but I am not a lawyer, I'm just theorizing here,
but I think they may have been in a situation where it might have been a breach of contract
for them to walk up and unplug the thing.
Well, wait a minute.
I mean, if there's a breach of contract, that means the university had to have known
what they were doing, that they were, in fact, surreptitiously judging people's faces
and doing facial recognition.
That's very interesting, because the fact that they were doing this may have been buried somewhere
in legalese in the contract, or it may have been part of a sales brochure that they got
and they knew from the beginning.
So maybe the class action lawsuit is against the university, not the vending machines.
Go ahead, Gail.
I mean, if I were a student, I'd be mad at the university,
because who wants a just M&M's vending machine?
Let's start there.
But, okay, I have fallen down the InVenda rabbit hole,
and now I'm looking at the generic brochure for their signature product.
Hang on, hang on.
You're doing this on a computer?
I am.
Have you covered the little camera thing on your computer?
I flipped it off.
There's a switch.
You've got to cover it.
Use gum, use whatever you can.
Even if there's, like, a physical switch that slides a cover over it?
I don't trust anything anymore.
All right.
How about I just stick my thumb over it?
Anyway.
All right.
So this brochure sounds like tech magnetic poetry that someone threw against the refrigerator
and then printed what came out.
If I may quote, powered by a proprietary operating system and based on IoT, AI, and cloud technology,
our Internet of Retail platform connects all self-service points of sale,
creating an unmatched consumer experience and skyrocketing revenue.
Wow.
Well, it's unmatched.
I'll give them that.
And they're like, yeah, and you have this app so you can sell things that aren't even in the vending machine
and then someone can go and show an app at a store, but they already paid for it at the vending machine.
This is, oh, what's the word I'm looking for?
Can you say it on the radio?
No, you can't say that word on the radio.
I know the word she's trying to say, but no, you can't.
Maybe on overtime.
What's the opposite of utopia?
Dystopia.
It's dystopian.
This is Black Mirror.
This is, I wonder if Charlie Brooker consults for InVenda.
That's my new theory.
Do you know how many times in the past few months I have said or has been said to me,
this is some Black Mirror, I'll leave out the next word, going on right here,
because it's happening more and more and more, and it's unsettling.
Also, that proprietary operating system they're so hot about advertising
is evidently in this photograph taken by this Reddit user, Microsoft Windows.
We all know what that error pop-up looks like.
Wow.
I hope you have permission from the operating system to take its picture,
because you don't want to do that without their consent.
Okay.
So that's an interesting story, and thank you, everybody, who sent us that one.
That definitely was interesting, something to discuss, something to be aware of.
And I feel like going out and hunting vending machines now and learning a lot more about them.
We'll see.
Okay.
This is a crazy story.
Epic Games Hackers.
This is from The Gamer, thegamer.com.
Epic Games Hackers say they faked the whole thing.
Yeah.
Earlier last week, a group claimed to have successfully hacked Epic Games,
making off with 189 gigs of data, including information on users.
However, they're now walking back on those claims, saying that they faked the entire thing
so that they could scam actual hackers.
Okay.
You know, I take great exception with the use of hackers in this particular context,
but it's a funny story anyway.
The group is known as Magalovich Online.
I'm not sure if online is part of their name or if they're just known as that online.
It says that it did this by telling would-be hackers, in their definition,
it would sell them the tech used to get into Epic Games.
Of course, if the hack didn't happen in the first place,
then the tech and data they sent on would be useless, if they sent any at all.
Magalovich says that it sold this material to eight buyers,
all without providing proof that they could hack a company like Epic.
This latest development is being reported by Cyber Daily,
and comes just days after the hack was first reported.
Magalovich claimed to have made off with emails, passwords, full names,
payment information, and source code from its attack on Epic,
and was seemingly trying to ransom the data back to the company.
But now Magalovich has completely changed its story.
It can't be verified if the group's version of events is true or not.
As is very possible, they did pull off a hack, and this is all misdirection.
However, it does line up with what Epic has said on the matter,
as it previously told The Gamer,
that there was zero evidence that a hack had taken place at all.
So, lies being thrown around left and right here,
but apparently some naive potential criminals got ripped off.
I guess that's the crux of the story right here.
Magalovich explains this process, saying that it faked the operation
so it could gain new contacts to scam.
Great business model there, guys.
Really, really classy.
The group says that in this regard,
if all went according to plan,
they say it did all go according to plan,
as would-be hackers apparently sent over tens of thousands of dollars.
We don't think of ourselves as hackers,
but rather as criminal geniuses, if you can call us that.
Well, that's half true, I think.
The statement that goes on to say they admit their aim was to gain access to new victims to scam,
although, yeah.
You know, I don't know if any of this is true,
and Epic has yet to comment on this,
and I just wonder how people take these things so seriously
and get so deeply entrenched,
but that's the world of gaming, I guess.
Thoughts, comments?
I haven't thought of the term script kitty in decades,
but it looks like that's exactly who they were trying to scam,
if this is, in fact, what happened,
because, you know, hackers aren't the ones out there buying tools
to, you know, mess with people like this.
I don't think, you know, those are criminals, cheaters,
whatever you want to call them,
but I can kind of respect the ridiculous hustle
if this is, in fact, just all a big scam to scam scammers.
Yeah, I have no problem scamming scammers,
if that is what this is, in fact.
But, wow, really, you just don't believe anything anymore.
You just don't believe it.
Well, I think the weird thing, like,
are these hacking crews,
they're, like, names and stuff?
Like, the identity,
the sort of, like, identifying with a handle?
I don't know, it kind of reminds me of graffiti,
but it's like,
people are coming into it
that have different definitions.
Like, we talk about a lot of sort of altruistic
or, like, innocent motivations,
curiosity, and so on.
That's our emphasis,
but it doesn't, like, inoculate a world of hacking,
especially in a more adversarial,
like, militarized internet environment,
and really kind of broken infrastructure
and software all around us.
But, like, there is this sort of fine line
that people are crossing
and may come off, like,
like a
similar or, like,
sort of
imitating a lot of
what we would, like,
talk about in an innocent context
as playful,
but is crossing that line.
And then, like,
when you're going after different groups and stuff,
it sort of changes.
I don't know,
the motivations seem less like that.
So, I mean,
these aren't just people
just taking on tools and stuff.
And it's just sort of strange to me
because I think we have to kind of abandon that
after it becomes
this, like, lawless sort of play.
And, I don't know,
we just, we can't really defend it.
It isn't,
but they might still identify as hackers
or be hacking,
especially if they have, like,
handles and, like, crew names.
How can you say that's, like, not,
is that, like, a criminal gang?
Or is that, like,
I mean,
if it's increasingly becoming
technological crime,
I don't know,
I don't know that
some of the older
characterizations we might have,
I don't know if they apply as much.
Well, I mean, you know,
we can't say simply having a handle
is indicative of being a criminal.
What we can do is
we can point to our definition,
our ideals of what hacking is
and say this doesn't match that.
They can still call themselves hackers
and people can still believe in the media
that that's what hacking is.
There's little we can do about that,
but I think we can hold on to
what we believe to be the ideals
that we've always stood by.
And, you know, I guess time will tell
if we're proven right or wrong on that.
But, you know,
as soon as you introduce
ripping people off,
as soon as you introduce
financial elements to it,
I think that's when you sort of
start separating a little bit
from what the hacker world is
and you're moving into,
I mean, even they said
that we're criminal geniuses.
Okay, you know what?
Go in that world.
That's a different world.
Different values, different people.
And you might use hacking skills.
That's certainly possible.
But there's many different interpretations.
Maybe they're e-criminals.
You know, there's so many different words.
Go ahead, Rob.
I'm just talking of
handles and gangs and stuff.
If anyone's curious about the name Mogilevich,
apparently that's the family name
of a big Russian crime family.
Oh, see, it's great to just get
involved in that as well.
It's just, oh boy.
All right, moving on, moving on.
Let's go back to some good
old American crime here.
Here, the 41-year-old man
out in Oklahoma put in bids
for vehicles and thousands of dollars,
but when it came time to pay,
he altered the site
to show a sale price of $1.
And they're calling this hacking too.
Deals on vehicles and jewelry
through a U.S. government auction website
were a steal in more ways than one.
An Oklahoma man pleaded guilty
to hacking a website
to buy the items for $1 each,
according to federal prosecutors
last Wednesday.
Evan James Coker bought vehicles
and jewelry in 2019
through web auctions
held by the General Service Administration.
The sales were intended
to help get rid of surplus materials
or items seized by authorities.
Well, I guess he helped with that,
didn't he?
He certainly helped get rid
of surplus materials.
His bids were not unusual amounts
in the thousands of dollars,
but when it came time to pay,
Coker breached the pay.gov website
and falsified the true auction price
to $1, the U.S. attorney's office said.
Coker was indicted
on three counts of wire fraud
in March 2023
and pleaded guilty
to one count last Wednesday.
He defrauded the government
out of more than $150,000
between January 31st
and March 21st, 2019,
the indictment alleges,
included in the $1 buys
were a 2010 Ford Escape Hybrid
for which Coker submitted
a bid of $8,327,
a Ford F-50 pickup
with a bid of $9,000,
and a Chevrolet C-4500 box truck
bid $22,700.
He tried to sell some of them later,
and I don't think for a dollar.
A sentencing date
has not been set.
19 items in all
were bought through the auctions.
According to prosecutors,
Coker used eight accounts
and prepaid debit cards
with very little balances
to make the purchases.
Yeah, okay, you know,
I have some mixed feelings
about this.
Clearly, yeah,
it's stealing.
There's no question about that.
You're doing something wrong.
But come on already.
How hard was this?
All he had to do
was change the price
on checkout,
and you're charging him
with a crime?
I mean,
whoever set up that website,
that's the true criminal here
because they don't know
what they're doing
and who knows how much money
they've lost.
Does anyone have any theories
as to how easy this is
and if that website still works?
On a normal sort of
public sector website
that was selling things
with these type of dollar amounts
flying around,
I would say this is very weird.
But for a .gov site
and whoever wins
the lowest bidder contract
for that sort of thing,
it's actually not so surprising
when things go this wrong.
Well, I mean,
it's 2024, Rob.
I mean,
I expected this kind of thing
back in the 80s or 90s
when we were still figuring out,
you know,
things like checkout carts
and all that.
But today, you know,
just to be able to change the price
to whatever you want to pay,
unless that is an advertised feature
of the site you're on,
that really should not be possible.
And I guess nobody disagrees
with me on that.
Well, I just want to know
how he found out, right?
If it was widely known
that this was vulnerable
or he found out on some forum,
then perhaps their security team
should have been,
or other, you know,
key actors that were responsible
may have also been monitoring
and been aware
that so many people
were figuring this out.
Otherwise,
was there some affordable way
to, like, bribe somebody
or get the information
that he needed?
Or was it just so glaringly obvious
the way it was set up
and this person had expertise?
Just,
I have so many questions.
Yeah,
he can't have been the mastermind.
There had to have been
other people involved in this.
It's like a forum or something.
And I want more details.
I think these news stories
should give us more details.
I mean,
I assume the website
has been taken down.
So tell us exactly how it worked
because there's precious little
in the way of information
as to what was misconfigured
because there really is no excuse
for that,
you know,
in this particular time.
And,
you know,
you're going to send the guy
to prison for this?
How about you just don't give him
the items?
Or did he already,
oh,
he already had the items.
Well,
make him give it back.
It was an auction anyway.
They were used.
There was something wrong
with them,
right?
So I don't know.
It's just,
we can learn from this.
We can do better.
All right.
Here's a kind of a similar story,
but kind of different.
And it's got a bizarre headline.
And it's from a Florida media outlet,
which I don't know the name of
because they don't put it
on their web page here.
Next Star Media.
Okay.
That's what this is.
Florida official's husband
indicted on charges
connected to alleged Fox News hack.
Now,
I don't know why somebody
has to be identified
as Florida official's husband.
You could just say Florida man.
I mean,
why not?
But yeah,
charges connected to alleged Fox News hack.
Well,
I'm interested in that.
Tim Burke,
a,
oh,
it came from WFLA.
I see that now,
the credit.
That's obviously a media outlet.
Tim Burke,
a Florida journalist
and husband
of Tampa City Council member
Lynn Hertak
was arrested on Thursday
in a case connected
to alleged computer hacks
at Fox News.
We're not talking about
people of Fox News.
We're talking about actions
against Fox News.
He was indicted
on several federal charges
alleging he participated
in a conspiracy
to hack multiple
computer systems
and steal information.
Now,
Tim Burke owns
the media company
Burke Communications
and an alleged
unnamed co-conspirator
along with him
are accused
of unlawfully
accessing servers
belonging to multiple companies
and transferring
their protected information.
That's according
to a federal indictment
which was unsealed
last week.
Now,
this comes after
the FBI raided
Burke and Lynn Hertak's
home in Seminole Heights,
Florida in May of 2023.
Hertak said in a statement
at the time
that it was related
to Burke's work
as a journalist.
She did not provide
additional details.
Now,
an appeal filed
by Burke's attorney
in December
said the case
apparently originated
with a complaint
by Fox News
after unaired footage
of a Tucker Carlson
interview with Kanye West
leaked to multiple
news sites.
Now,
the clips
posted to Media Matters
and Vice News
included West
making anti-Semitic
statements
and peddling
various conspiracy theories.
Vice also
published a video
of Tucker Carlson
making a series
of sexist
and misogynistic
remarks
to members
of his staff
according to
the appeal
filed in the
U.S.
Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit.
Now,
in May,
the Department
of Justice
informed Media Matters
and Fox News
that it was
opening an investigation
into their broadcast
but said they are
not the targets
of that investigation.
The DOJ
alleged that Burke
obtained the raw
footage of the
interview being recorded
as it was transmitted
on the server
and saved it
to his devices
according to
court documents.
Let me just
step in here
and say
you know,
if that's
what you did
you intercepted
these racist
remarks
and things
that were not
aired
bravo.
I mean,
we deserve
to hear about
these things.
We need to know
and the fact
that what
they're investigating
is how you
got access to it
that's not really
the important thing
here.
The important thing
here is
what a major
network
is allowing
to go on.
A major network
that influences
political outcomes
in this country.
We need to know
more about that.
And yeah,
sometimes
you've got to
straddle regulations
a little bit
to get information
but if this was
a movie
we'd be cheering
this guy on.
Right?
We definitely would be.
Anyway,
the appeal stated
that he merely
found something
newsworthy
on a publicly
accessible site.
Now I'm interested.
How did he get
access to this?
Burke is charged
in federal court
with one count
of conspiracy,
six counts
of accessing
a protected computer
without authorization
and seven counts
of intercepting
or disclosing
wire,
oral,
or electronic
communications.
So,
you know,
that latter part
and I wish Alex
were here for this
but that latter part
could be something
as simple
as simply
showing
that Kanye West
is anti-Semitic
as hell
with his own words
without getting
his permission
to do so.
You know,
and Florida
is a crazy enough
state where
I think you would
need his permission
before you could
reveal that.
According to the
indictment,
the affected companies
include New York One
which,
it's funny,
in this story
they say it's a
broadcast television
station in New York City.
Actually,
they're only on cable
so the one thing
they don't do
is broadcast.
But whatever,
I'll let that go.
National Sports League,
never heard of them.
Such a generic name
but I never heard of them.
That's a New York-based
professional sports league.
Okay,
but they apparently
don't have a sport
picked out.
And Streamco,
really generic names here,
a U.S.-based
online media,
guess what,
streaming company.
Streamco,
wow.
Burke and the
alleged co-conspirator,
for some reason
isn't named,
are accused of
accessing the networks
of two companies
that were using
Streamco devices.
Now,
the conspiracy
which began
in February of 2022
and continued
until the FBI raid
was coordinated
through Twitter,
direct messages,
and Google accounts.
Oh,
God.
People,
you've got to listen
to the show.
Do not trust
these things.
These are the tools
of criminal masterminds.
I want everyone
to know
these are hacking tools.
This is how crimes
go down.
Federal prosecutors
alleged the pair
illegally acquired
sign-in credentials
and re-recorded
the intercepted media
onto another device
and altered
its metadata.
The Fox News
interview clips
posted to Media Matters
and Vice
appeared to have
been recorded
off a monitor
using a camera.
Okay,
well,
that's not a crime,
right?
Re-recording something.
Burke appeared
at federal court
in Tampa
on Thursday,
accompanied by
council member
Hertog and
his attorney
Michael Maddox.
Hertog provided
the following statement
when reached for comment.
I am confident
in my husband's innocence
and I support him
completely.
I will not be making
additional statements
regarding this matter.
Speaking to
NextStars WFLA,
okay,
they're related.
Outside the courthouse,
Maddox strongly denied
the charges against Burke
and maintained
that the case is about
journalism rather than
computer hacking.
If convicted on all charges,
he faces up to 62 years
in federal prison.
I don't care what he did.
That is not something
that should even be
hinted at.
That is insane.
The DOJ is also
seeking a ruling
that would require
Burke to forfeit
a website domain
and 20 computer-related
devices involved
in the alleged hacking,
as well as $1,500,
which is equal to
the profit that
federal prosecutors
claim Burke made
through his offenses.
Okay, you know,
if we're talking about
numbers that low,
we're talking about
having to give up
a website
and some computer-related
devices,
this doesn't sound
like a very big
criminal story here.
It does sound like
something that's
very much of interest
as far as finding out
what these people
are up to
in Fox News,
the kinds of things
that are going on there.
And, you know,
if you have a whistleblower
or a leaker
of one sort or another,
you pay close attention
to what is revealed.
And I think
that's what the story is here.
I'd like to know more
about that.
And I'd also like to know
how it was done.
Just like,
we always want to know
how things are done.
Yeah, you were saying
about like how would
Kanye feel
if these words of his
got out there
and maybe he wouldn't
approve of that.
But he,
from his point of view,
I think there shouldn't
be any problem.
He was sat
in front of a news crew,
you know,
in front of a TV crew
talking to a professional
TV interviewer.
Stuff he says
should be fair game
for public dissemination.
I think what's really
interesting about this
is not what it says
about Kanye West
because he's intensely boring,
but it's about
what it says
about Fox.
They had this footage,
they chose not to air it.
They had this figure
that they were interviewing
and they had this information
about him
and they decided
let's not show
the viewers
that bit of him.
We don't want to,
you know,
we would hate to think
that, you know,
our viewers know
that we're interviewing
a huge anti-Semite nutcase.
It's, you know,
it's their editorial decisions
that I think
are the big embarrassment
of this.
What's crazy about this story
is that we're talking
about a guy
being interviewed
by an on-air personality
with a camera,
with a microphone,
inside a room,
with all the buttons pushed
and all the power applied
and the crime is
that what was recorded
was seen.
Yeah,
what was recorded
and was embarrassing
to them
is something
that we found out about.
It's not like,
you know,
somebody was spying
on somebody else,
following them around,
going into their car,
into their house,
whatever.
They were filming this.
They filmed this deliberately
and they didn't like
the way it turned out
and we're all supposed
to take part
in the conspiracy
to keep quiet.
Uh-uh.
It doesn't work that way.
Yeah,
I don't really have
any sympathy for that.
producers of these things
own the material.
They've entered
into these interviews
and otherwise seek out
this publicity
and intention deliberately
and are assumed
to have some kind of training
to interact
with these media practitioners.
So it's not like
they're unwilling participants
and that there's
an expectation,
there's any expectation
of privacy
in many regards.
I mean,
legally,
but just like
from a,
just a common understanding
of what they're doing,
it's publicity
and something
they trade in.
I just don't,
I don't see why
the practitioners,
the people that are doing
the recording
have to apologize
or feel any way
about the,
the subject
of the recording's
feelings.
It's just,
it's so,
um,
backwards to me.
You're describing
an honest journalist,
uh,
but it was Tarka Kallson
who was doing the recording
and he's as bad
as,
as Kanye West.
They both didn't want
this to get out.
Both the interviewer
and the interviewee
both wanted it to be,
um,
um,
right,
but I mean,
the actual recordings
are managed to other,
well,
I'm just saying
that the production
side of it
isn't necessarily
even the interviewer.
Right.
They're just,
um,
uh,
uh,
on-screen talent
that is interacting
with the interviewee.
It's,
it's the station,
the TV station
ultimately,
I think.
I don't know,
as far as ownership
and who should be,
uh,
uh,
feeling any way
about the material.
Somebody within Fox
could have leaked this.
Sure,
easily.
apparently somebody
was able to figure out
how to gain access to it
apparently through,
uh,
publicly accessible parts
of,
of the net.
I'd like to know more
about that.
Hopefully we'll find out more.
Well,
a lot of them use
cloud platforms
and so on,
so that's plausible.
Only have time
for one more story
and,
um,
that's about the,
uh,
okay,
uh,
OpenAI is,
uh,
accusing the New York Times
of hacking chat GPT.
Yeah,
this is true.
OpenAI has asked a judge
to dismiss parts
of the New York Times
as a lawsuit against it,
alleging that the media company
paid someone
to hack OpenAI's products
such as chat GPT
to generate the 100 examples
of copyright infringement
for its case.
This is a bizarre story.
It comes from the New York Times.
Uh,
actually,
no,
I'm sorry,
this comes from,
uh,
Bloomberg.
Um,
and a filing on Monday
in Manhattan,
federal court,
uh,
Manhattan federal court,
OpenAI alleged
it took the Times
tens of thousands
of attempts
to generate
the highly anomalous results
and that the company
did so
using deceptive prompts
that blatantly violate
OpenAI's terms of use.
Deceptive prompts.
That means basically
saying something
to chat GPT
over and over again
in different ways
to get a particular result.
They're saying
that's hacking.
Isn't that how you use it?
That is how you use it.
Now,
the hacking that OpenAI
alleges in the filing
could also be called
prompt engineering
or red teaming,
which is a common way
for artificial intelligence,
trust and safety teams,
ethicists,
uh,
academics and tech companies
to stress test
AI systems
for vulnerabilities.
It's a common practice
in the AI industry
and a popular way
to alert companies
to issues
within their systems
similar to how
cybersecurity professionals
stress test companies'
websites
for weaknesses.
In this filing,
OpenAI doesn't dispute
nor can they
that they copied
millions of the Times' works
to build and power
its commercial products
without our permission.
That's according
to Ian Crosby,
who is lead counsel
for the Times.
He added,
what OpenAI
bizarrely mischaracterizes
as hacking
is simply using
OpenAI's products
to look for evidence
that they stole
and reproduced
the Times'
copyrighted works.
And that is exactly
what we found.
In fact,
the scale of OpenAI's
copying is much larger
than the 100-plus examples
set forth
in the complaint.
Wow.
This is getting
really interesting.
This is getting
really good.
So,
the Times
is suing
OpenAI
for basically
using its material
without permission.
And what OpenAI
is accusing
the Times of
is hacking them
by trying
over and over again
to get the evidence
from ChatGPT
that it did
precisely that.
In my eyes,
that is not hacking.
That is using.
They're using
the technology.
Sure,
they're using it
a lot.
But it's designed
for that.
It's absolutely
designed for that.
Show me where
the breaking in.
Show me where
something was
violated.
To say that
they somehow
violated a contract
by saying
the wrong words
to artificial intelligence,
that in itself
is really bizarre.
Rob,
did you have a comment?
Go ahead.
It's great
that we're
in a legal
environment
where a journalist
can blow up
a story about
an entity
and that entity
can then sue
the journalist
for getting
the evidence
that that entity
is doing
something shady.
Yeah,
we live in that work.
Rob,
did you have
anything else
for this story?
Well,
I just find it,
I mean,
the use of this,
it's funny,
it's because
they're sort of
interrogating
this robot
so it will
reveal
its transgressions
against
the benevolent
journalists,
which is,
I don't know,
I mean,
that's discovery.
Isn't that right,
Robot Alex?
He's nodding,
yes.
He's not here.
And,
yeah,
it's like
just silly,
I think,
grandstanding
and there's
certainly
other ways
they could
compel
OpenAI
to
garner
insight
into these
decision-making
algorithms
and how
it's
been trained
or when
and,
you know,
what that timeline is.
This is something
that is very much
both
of concern
to the times
it's
livelihood,
it's business
model,
but in
things,
in what
their expertise
is,
is looking
into
and understanding
business models
like this
and technologies
and asking
questions.
So I think
they're taking
it very,
very seriously
and there
could be
all this
legal back
and forth,
but the
real
detail of it
is actually
going to be
quite revealing
and the
more they
clamp down
and try
to
eliminate
their
ability
to
figure
out
how
their
properties
were used,
then the
more they
might actually
trip themselves
up.
We are out of
time.
Please write
to us
oth at 2600.com.
Join us
on Overtime
at 8 o'clock.
Go to the
link at
the 2600.com
webpage and
please don't
forget to
support WBAI
by going to
give to
WBAI.org
or calling
212-209-2950
and we
will see you
next week.
Good night.
What's that I
hear now
ringing in
my ears?
I've heard
that sound
before.
What's that
I hear now
ringing in
my ears?
I hear it
more and
more.
It's the
sound of
freedom
calling,
ringing up
to the
sky.
it's the
sound of
the old
ways of
falling.
You can
hear it
if you
try.
You can
hear it
if you
try.
Oh,
what's that
I see
now
shining in
my eyes?
I've seen
that light
before.
Hey,
what's that
I see
now
shining in
my eyes?
I see
it more
and more.
it's the
light of
freedom
calling,
shining up
to the
sky.
It's the
light of
the old
ways of
falling.
You can
see it
if you
try.
You can
see it
if you
try.
Hey,
what's that
I feel
now
beating
in my
heart?
I've
felt that
beat
before.
Hey,
what's that
I feel
now
beating
in my
heart?
I feel
it
more
and
more.
It's
the
rumble
of
freedom
calling,
climbing
up to
the
sky.
It's
the
rumble
of
the
old
ways
of
falling.
You
can
feel
it
if
you
try.
You
can
feel
it
if
you
try.
You
can
feel it
your
tune
to
listener
sponsor
WBAI
New York.