Le numéro composé n'est pas en service. Veuillez vérifier le numéro ou composer de nouveau.
C'était un message enregistré.
Sous-titrage ST' 501
So, you don't want to try to get more information about the problem using the channel or the means that it is contacting you.
Okay.
I mean, sure.
Right?
Like not the same band?
Well, I mean, there's many definitions of the word radio band.
That's how I took it.
You know, AM, FM, whatnot.
But, okay, whatever.
We nerds call it out of band.
I am not going to use the phone numbers they gave me.
I am not going to click their links.
I am not going to reply to their email knowing any of that could be fake.
And these are legit good suggestions.
I am going to go out on my own and I'm going to go to the Hamilton County Sheriff's website.
Well, I don't know if I'd do that.
Mainly because I have no idea where Hamilton County is.
But, yeah, my first instinct after getting a scam attempt, which happens about 50 times a day, is not to go to the cops.
It's just basically, yeah, Gila.
I think in this particular case, if you're getting a text that says, hey, we're the sheriff of the county in which you live and you have so many parking tickets, we're about to boot and impound your car unless you transfer us money right now.
I think that's the circumstance in which he's saying the sheriff's county, the county sheriff's website.
I don't think, just randomly.
But I think what he's suggesting is that scammers may pose as Walmart or they may pose as law enforcement.
Okay, fair.
Or the IRS.
Well, he says, in addition, I'm going to go to the Walmart's website.
I am going to go to the UPS website on my own.
And then I'm going to initiate whatever comes from there, whether I send an email from information I find there or I make the call.
Okay, this got really confusing.
It got confusing pretty quickly, yeah.
But I think what he's trying to say is that, you know, go to those particular sites of the entities that are supposedly contacting you and see if there's anything there to back up what they are saying.
If you have, say, a UPS account, well, maybe a package that they're trying to deliver to you would show up in your account.
Or Walmart might, you know, have something that they're trying to ship to you, but you check with the information you've already given them.
You don't call a number that just came to you in a text.
You don't go to a website that's not the official site and give them anything.
And that's just a very good rule.
Yes, Gila.
I mean, I think it's also a pretty good guideline globally.
You know, if you get years ago, a colleague of mine got an email from a constituent in our organization and this person said to me, okay, I'll be right back.
I have to go buy this person gift cards.
And I said, call the person in question.
I guarantee you they don't know what you're talking about.
So whoever calls you and says, hey, X, Y, Z, confirm it, even if it's your grandmother.
Yeah, absolutely.
These things will happen, whether you're AT&T customers or not.
If you're an AT&T customer, it definitely will happen.
But if you're not, it probably will happen.
That's the world we live in now.
Now, if you don't recognize a number, and it's sad that we live in this world now, but if you don't recognize a number, don't answer or even text back.
Do you remember the days, maybe you guys don't, but when the phone would ring and you had no idea who it was and you'd pick up the phone and it was always kind of a surprise, a mystery, an adventure.
And now we look at the phone with suspicion.
Well, first of all, we don't even look at the, we look at the phone and say, what's that thing on the floor of the garage?
But the cell phones, different creatures altogether, we expect to see identity and a picture of who exactly is calling.
And if we don't like that, we just don't engage.
So there are less spontaneous conversations and a whole lot of fear and suspicion.
So anyway, if it's, if it's really important after you don't answer or text back, if it's really important, someone will continue to try to contact you.
Yeah, but a relentless spammer will also continue to try to contact you.
But that's, again, the world we live in.
Always report this to the Internet Crime Complaint Center at, okay, all right.
I will admit right off the bat, I did not know what to, what to report this to, what, what website.
And I'd like to know if anyone here knows the website of the Internet Crime Complaint Center.
I don't see hands coming up.
So I'm going to assume, Rob, looks like you've got some wiseacre remark to make.
Well, I usually look like that.
It's my face.
But, no, we do know because we're looking at the same news report as you.
Oh, come on.
No, spoilers, man.
You're supposed to listen, not read along.
Would you have known?
Did you know?
I did not know this before reading this article, no.
Okay.
I've read and looked at their site, I think, in the past.
I think a lot of more people have looked into it than might admit or than we really imagine because the prevalence of these kinds of crimes has become so ubiquitous.
Something funny, Rob?
What's going on over there?
Yes, but I'll wait until after you reveal the name of this site.
Okay.
Well, Kyle, I don't want to put you on the spot.
You said you visited the site.
Does that mean you know the site?
Well, I don't know.
I mean, I've never heard of this before.
IC3.gov.
IC3.gov.
And I wonder, you know, reading the story, is that a scam?
Am I being directed to go to this?
It would be the best scam of all.
You put out a news story.
I read it on the radio.
Give the advice to everybody.
I'm just leading them into a trap.
So, I don't know.
What does IC3 mean?
What's the three for?
And what government agency is this?
Is this for everybody or just Americans?
A lot of questions.
Okay, the three, Crime Complaint Center, it's like Chaos Computer Camp.
Okay, first of all, it's Chaos Computer, wait, Chaos Communication Camp and Chaos Communication Congress.
But you don't need the three if you have the three C's already.
Right.
But you think of it, I didn't know what all the C's stood for because I just knew it was C3.
Okay.
So, same thing, and now we've clicked on it, and apparently this is an arm of the FBI.
Oh, how nice.
Okay, well, that's wonderful.
All right, so, yeah, I get it now.
Internet Crime Complaint Center, ICCC, IC3.
Okay, yeah, yeah, that's kind of cute.
But, again, it doesn't help Canada, does it?
Because they don't report to the FBI, so, and we've got a .gov, not a .gov.us, it's .gov, so it should be for everybody, but it's not.
Anyway, if you report it, they can warn others, and also that website has statistics and warnings on common and current scams that you can reference if you think somebody contacting you is suspicious.
So, that means every time I call somebody, this is going to get triggered.
Yes, Rob?
So, talking of going out of band, I'm looking at this article by WKRC, and they talk about report this to the Internet Crime Complaint Center at IC3.gov, and that is linked to the site, or so it appears.
But, if you click this link, whoever is editing this article messed up a little, because the link goes to ICE.gov.
Oh, my goodness.
Which is what may be left before, and that, of course, is U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, which is a whole other bag.
So, you have to go out of band and type in IC3.gov if you're reading this article, because the link will not take you there.
That's interesting.
Say it right, WKRC in Cincinnati.
That's how you say that particular station.
Yes, go ahead, Gila.
Also, the reason it's not ICCC.gov is because that URL was already taken.
By who?
The Independent Consumer and Competition Commission.
Uh-huh.
You know, it's such fun to explore .gov sites.
I don't think we can explore .mil sites anymore.
That was a load of fun.
Wait a sec.
Who's, of course, I have this question on the night when Alex isn't here, .pg?
.pg.
.pg.
Yeah, that's a good one.
I don't know off the top of my mind.
It's probably one of those islands.
Nothing is coming to mind .pg.
You're right.
Am I right?
Wait, you knew this all along?
No.
Rob looked it up.
It's Papua New Guinea.
Okay.
All right.
So, ICCC.gov.
ICCC.gov.pg is the Independent Consumer and Competition Commission.
All right.
Well, this could go on all night.
Let's move on.
We had a letter from a listener named Gila, actually.
Did anyone other than me get the official, your information may be out there letter in the mail from Ticketmaster?
And, oh, Gila, this is you, actually, isn't it?
I thought we had many listeners named Gila, but I guess it's kind of a small world here.
But, look, I have the letter.
I got the letter.
And it's a notice of data breach addressed to me saying, we are writing to notify you of a data security incident that may have involved your personal information.
We take the protection of your personal information very seriously now and are sending this correspondence to tell you what happened, what information was involved, what we have done, and what you can do to address this situation.
Now, Ticketmaster recently discovered that an unauthorized third party obtained information from a cloud database hosted by a third-party data services provider.
Based on our investigation, we determined that the unauthorized activity occurred between April 2nd, 2024, and May 18th, 2024.
On May 23rd, 2024, we determined that some of your personal information may have been affected by the incident.
Now, this is interesting.
It's curious.
I've never used Ticketmaster.
I shouldn't be in their database.
If I am, it's because somebody else gave them my info.
And maybe I used Ticketmaster 20 years ago for something.
I don't know.
But I have no idea why I'm getting this letter.
I'm not, you know, really big into the concert scene.
I don't buy sports tickets.
I don't know.
Gila, did you get the same letter?
I did get the same exact letter.
And then I opened up my Ticketmaster account to see what.
And I realized I have made four Ticketmaster purchases in the last 10 years.
Wow.
And two comedy shows, one concert.
No, two comedy shows and two concerts.
And it is, frankly, mind-blowing to me.
But you know what I did notice, Emmanuel?
Is, you know what it does not suggest you do anywhere here?
Report them to the FTC, maybe?
No.
Although, also true.
And it says, you know, what you can do.
And one thing it does not suggest that you do is change your Ticketmaster password.
Of course.
Why would you do that?
That's, well, you know, actually, okay, to be fair, though, it wasn't your password that
was compromised.
It was them that was compromised.
So it doesn't make a bit of difference what your password was.
That data is still going to be compromised.
So true.
If I understand correctly.
And maybe that's why they're not suggesting it, because they know it's not going to do
any good.
Don't these things usually just suggest you change your password anyway, just so you feel
like you're doing something?
I assume that's on the template in general.
The other thing I found more annoying than interesting, and this is, I think, just a weird
quirk of the world in which we live, because I remember when we first learned about this
data breach, we were talking about this on the show, and saying that because Ticketmaster
and Live Nation own live entertainment in this country, if you have seen any form of live
entertainment in the past long, several, many years, Ticketmaster has your information.
And as I said to a friend of mine, if everybody's data is breached, is anybody's data breached?
But they say that they will provide credit monitoring for one single bureau.
And the thing is...
For a year.
For one year, right?
That's it.
For one year, if you sign up within 90 days.
But there are three credit bureaus.
And if you want to freeze your credit or whatever, you have to go to each...
Right?
Ticketmaster is one monolith.
Credit monitor...
Credit is three different bureaus.
But they're not going to help you get all three.
They're just going to do one, as far as I understand.
Yeah, but there's only one compromise.
If they were compromised three different times, then it would make sense to give you three
different credit bureaus.
You're absolutely correct.
You have to look at it from their point of view, all right?
I know, Emanuel, you're absolutely right.
What I wonder, this so-called free credit monitoring, does it auto-renew when the year
is over and you get kind of sucked into that?
Because I bet you have to give information, more information to them, you know, in order
to take advantage of this amazing deal.
Probably.
And actually, Emanuel, I'm curious, and we can discuss this when we're not on the air,
but I do wonder if my unique code and your unique code are, in fact, the same.
Where is that unique code?
Bottom of...
It's the second little paragraph under what you can do.
It says, to enroll in credit monitoring services at no charge, right?
When prompted, please provide the following unique code to receive services, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Well, the first letter of my unique code is F.
Mine, too.
Oh, okay, all right, well, let's just keep going, because if all the letters are the
same, it doesn't matter, we're not giving out anything.
The second, well, now it's your turn.
What's your second letter?
My second letter is K.
So is mine.
Oh, my goodness.
All right, here we go.
My third letter is also F.
So is mine.
And my fourth letter is also F.
Okay, my fourth letter is C.
Okay.
All right, so that's where it begins.
So FKF is how they sort this, and you can only imagine what that stands for.
Okay.
And I'm actually curious, and I would ask that if we have other listeners who have received
this letter, I'm wondering if FKF is just what they gave to people in our general geographic
area.
Okay.
So if people would email us at the show and just let us know if their codes start with
also FKF or something different, I would love to know.
Yeah, fair enough.
We have another story.
You might have remembered this from a few weeks ago about the voter registrar, I guess, in
Britain that had been compromised as well.
Now, here, they're not blaming hackers.
They're blaming China, because you always have to blame somebody scary for a security
hole that was taken advantage of.
So they say China was able to hack into Britain's voter register because the Electoral Commission
failed to take basic steps, such as changing default passwords on its system.
I don't know if it's China.
I don't think China's the issue here.
I think people without any understanding of security, that's the issue.
The Commission has been reprimanded by the data watchdog for a series of blunders that
allowed the state-sponsored hackers into its systems in 2021.
In March, the government blamed the cyber attack on Beijing, which it said was targeting
Britain's democratic institutions.
But honestly, if they could get in then, pretty much anyone else could get in as well.
Default passwords?
Come on.
That's so 1980s.
The Information Commissioner's Office has revealed that the Commission failed to update
its security software and passwords, leaving its systems exposed and vulnerable.
Stephen Bonner, the Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said if the Electoral Commission had
taken basic steps to protect its systems, such as effective security patching and password
management, it is highly likely that this data breach would not have happened.
By not installing the latest security updates promptly, its systems were left exposed and vulnerable
to hackers.
So this hack gave the attackers access to 40 million names and addresses of people who
were registered to vote between 2014 and 2022, and also email addresses and various things
like that.
But in this country, you know, a lot of that information is public.
You can request that information many times through state electoral commissions.
Some states are different, but it's not necessarily information that is private.
But I think in this case, they sure didn't want it to get leaked out.
Okay, those of you thinking you were going to make a real estate purchase, Britney Spears'
home popped up on the market Monday.
And yeah, actually, that is not the case.
Her house is not for sale.
Somebody hacked into the MLS, not Major League Soccer, the multiple listing service, and posted
a fake listing.
Imagine that.
Other real estate sites like Realtor.com and Zillow then picked it up, and the fake listing
spread like wildfire.
So I'm just wondering, what does it take to put in a listing for somebody's house?
If you have an address, do you have to prove you own the address?
Or can you just say, hey, this house is for sale now?
Something tells me this is ridiculously simple and that people just haven't thought to do
it yet.
Rob?
Yeah, this reminds me a lot of way back in the day, one thing people used to do to, and
I'm not condoning doing this or anything like this, but it was a known thing that you could
put classified ads in the paper just in anybody's name for anything.
And if you go back far enough, you could pay for these things with cash, and so they wouldn't
be able to trace it back to who put the ad in.
And so you could say, you know, this neighbor you don't like is selling their house, and
just come on up and start looking in the windows, see if you like it, or things like that.
And, you know, much chaos ensued.
And, of course, this is irresponsible activity, but I guess this is the modern equivalent of
it.
And if you've looked at online real estate listings at all, you might get the sense that
all these sites basically copy ads from each other, and it's all very, like, self-sustaining
as a cyclical system.
So I imagine if you put one fake ad out there, like, it would get picked up by everything
else in this field and spread like wildfire.
Not only ads, like letters to the editor of various newspapers, you know, you can write
a letter, and this has been true, and it's probably true now, write a letter to a publication
and sign it as somebody, and that's the name that will be printed.
Now, maybe they'll make a phone call to verify that, in fact, you sent a letter, but you pick
up the phone and say, yes, I did, and that's the extent of the checking that I believe would
ever happen.
So, yeah, there are many ways of fooling the system.
So, you know, you might want to think about installing security in other places as well.
Now, we're going to take a bit of a lighter turn, because we've been way too serious so
far, I think.
Let's go to Starbucks.
We get emails sent to us whenever the word hack, hacker, hacked, is mentioned, and that's
how we get a lot of our news items, and sometimes we get hacks of different sorts, some of them
very unpleasant, involving violence, but some of them are basically involving nothing more
than tricks.
So, this is from a newspaper in England.
So, it refers to this mother as a mum, and her Starbucks hack to get free treats, and it
sparked controversy.
Yeah, after this person shared a cheeky hack to get their hands on a free treat for kids.
So, again, this is going to be controversial.
Like most retailers and shops, the coffee giant Starbucks has upped its prices to keep up with
the costs, but savvy mum Lauren Clare recently revealed how to get goodies for children without
spending a thing.
The move has sparked a fierce debate, as some reckon this teaches dishonesty.
Sharing the trick on Instagram, the foodie said, yes, the foodie said, if you can't afford
Starbucks for two, order your toddler a pup cup.
A pup cup.
Does anybody here know what a pup cup is?
Okay, I don't.
I didn't know anything about this.
It's free, and will make them just as happy as a $5 cake pop.
Does anybody know what a cake pop is?
Okay, clearly I don't spend enough time at Starbucks.
Increasingly popular, the so-called pup cup is an espresso-sized cup containing a generous
dollop of whipped cream, which people can order for free to give to their dogs.
I don't know why you'd want to give your dog a cup of whipped cream, but apparently that's
what people do.
Now, the mother from Philadelphia, yeah, this is an American story, even though she's being
referred to as a British mum.
The mother from Philadelphia said she normally doesn't buy anything from the coffee chain
because she finds the prices expensive, but had some money left on a voucher.
And according to the mum, she was in the car ordering a Starbucks beverage when her little
one woke up from a nap and knew she would want something.
I knew Addie was going to want something, so I asked, do you guys charge for pup cups?
And the woman taking my order was like, oh my God, no.
What's your dog's name?
Lauren claimed that the barista knew the pup cup wasn't for a furry friend, but allegedly
didn't seem to care about the cheeky customer.
She was totally fine with it, Lauren says.
While the cash-savvy mother was chuffed, her trick, I don't even know what I'm saying,
she has since received huge backlash from people online who slammed her for taking advantage.
One user said, they told me it was only for dogs.
That's finessing the system.
She's not a pup, another person said.
It also teaches dishonesty.
I don't know if the kid's going to even know what's going on.
However, there are also plenty of those who don't mind the cheeky trick, while with others
chiming in with their own hacks to keeping kids happy at cafes.
My daughter thinks coffee shops sell fruit snacks because I give her a pack from my purse when
I'm handed my drink.
What they don't know won't hurt.
Thoughts?
So, she is basically feeding her child something intended for dogs.
That's not a good habit to get into, I don't think.
Well, what is a dog?
I mean, let's define our terms here.
I mean, you know, you have this creature in the back seat that, you know, occasionally
wakes up and makes noise.
Or you have a, you know, a furry creature that does basically the same thing.
Okay, I have a lot of questions and a lot of issues, and I've heard about this in a lot
of different places.
So, let me begin by saying that I understand the concept of a pop cup.
Now, I'm not a pet person.
I'm not a dog person.
We don't have a pet.
But, okay, occasionally you get your dog a cup of whipped cream to lap up.
Great.
That's fine.
But if you're going to be a mommy blogger who, and I don't know if this is true, but
a lot of sometimes mommy bloggers will judge people who refer to themselves as pet parents,
and they'll say, that's not parenting.
I have a human child.
But then you can't play that one both ways if you're going to get what's called a dog treat
for your human child.
So, I want to posit that.
I think this is dumb.
Oh, no, we've crossed that line.
I'm pretty sure we're way in the dumb territory.
But I honestly think that the better thing is to have something healthy already, like the
other example, the fruit snacks.
Fruit cup or something, yeah.
Some kind of treat that is in line with like some kind of nutritious diet or whatever you
approximate that to be as a parent.
And or waiting or you just having something like a cup of coffee and them not being a part
of that necessarily just because they're throwing a tantrum or something like that.
I really, I don't think you're benefiting the child by giving them whipped cream intended for an animal.
And I just, like, how cheap are you?
Like, how expensive?
Are you supposed to buy the kid an espresso?
What's the right thing to do?
I just don't understand.
And I guess that's the world we're living in and we need to get every calorie we can.
But I just don't think it's actually the hack that they're saying it is.
It's like, yeah, there's other ways of handling nutrition when you're a parent and it's OK if
you have your progeny with you while you get something for yourself.
God forbid they're not part of every transaction you make.
Yeah, but are you not doing Starbucks a favor by quieting your kid?
Because that kid's going to throw a mega tantrum if it doesn't get something and you do.
Starbucks is a Thunderdome as is.
And they're just going to turn up the grinders and steam and get it noisy anyway and play some loud music.
I mean, I don't think kids are the worst thing in Starbucks, really.
They can handle being in line with you while you get your coffee and get the heck out of there.
Gila.
I would also point out that Starbucks does have things like apple juice.
And if you'd rather hand your child a cup of whipped cream than a box of like apple juice.
I don't even know where to go with that.
But the other thing I was going to say is, Emmanuel, if you're not familiar with cake pops, you are missing out.
I'm happy to miss out.
And am I the only one that's concerned over giving dogs whipped cream?
You know?
They're not exclusively a Starbucks thing, though.
They're like, they're global.
But Starbucks, it's a ball of cake that's mushed up with frosting and then dipped in chocolate.
They're delicious.
Yeah, but, okay.
We're talking about dogs, talking about kids.
I think neither one belongs in Starbucks.
And I don't know if I belong in Starbucks.
Rob, go ahead.
No, there is a great idea to be had here, though.
And, you know, if we're going to get into hacks you can do to, you know, nourish your children while you go to Starbucks.
I mean, a lot of walk-up restaurants and cafes and stuff in the city, especially in the summer, will have a little dog dish out front that they'll put water in.
That's for water.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I think if your child gets thirsty, what you should do is train your child to run up to these things, drink out of the water bowl.
There you go.
And then you won't have to, you know, trouble them with going to a water fountain or something.
That's a hack.
A feral child you'll have in the city, and everybody's happy.
I mean, a lot of them are on leashes anyway, so.
That's true.
That's true.
All right.
I think we've spent enough time on this.
Okay.
Now, Rob, you posted a story this week about something that Logitech is introducing.
And I got to admit, after reading the story, I was more confused than when I started.
But I'll read the opening, and we can take it from there.
Logitech CEO Hanukkah Farber recently discussed the possibility of one day selling a mouse that customers can use forever.
That sounds kind of ominous, actually.
The executive said such a mouse isn't necessarily super far away and will rely on software updates likely delivered through a subscription model.
Yeah.
Speaking on a July 29th episode of the Verge's Decoder podcast, Farber, who Logitech appointed as CEO in October, said that members of a Logitech Innovation Center showed her a forever mouse and compared it to a nice but not super expensive watch.
She said, I'm not planning to throw that watch away ever.
So why would I be throwing my mouse or my keyboard away if it's a fantastic quality, well-designed, software-enabled mouse?
The forever mouse is one of the things that we'd like to get to.
I don't know about this.
I've never felt compelled to keep my mouse for the rest of my life.
You know, there's mice, mouses?
I don't even know the proper way to say plur.
But whatever it is, it's something that, yeah, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not.
You experience new ones.
You have, you know, track balls.
You have all kinds of different ways of doing the same thing.
A watch is something that is attached to you, physically attached to you.
It's part of your look, you know, who you feel you are.
And I can see people, there's a history.
You know, I don't think there are many people who have a mouse that's been handed down to them from their grandfather who smuggled it out during a war.
I don't think there's many stories like that involving a computer mouse.
I might be wrong.
I had a question.
And maybe this is just my lack of understanding.
But every time I've ever gotten a new mouse, it's either you plug it in the mouse port at the back or you plug it in the USB or you plug your dongle into the USB.
Could someone please enable, explain to me the concept of a software-enabled mouse?
Yes, Kyle.
So, I think what they're trying to say is that the mouse will work on any system, current or future.
And I guess if they want to be really, like, snazzy, they could say even all the way back in time, it'll work on the earliest of machines.
I challenge that.
I bet I can break it immediately.
If you pay a higher subscription fee, they will make it work somehow.
But the key is that they want to make it a service and something that you pay for.
And I think that should be the red flag in this from the perspective of what Gil was talking about,
which is our traditional understanding of these things being compatible with an operating system or a wide variety of platforms for a certain period or era, so to speak.
Like, lots of them now being wireless, so they're depending on wireless protocols or Bluetooth.
So, this then would be able to persist over time on systems that those mice might not be able to adjust to,
assuming there's different wireless or different, I guess, drivers in the future.
This would update along with the different generations of technology is, I think, their point.
Well, right now, a typical mouse costs about $26, and they would like to charge around $200.
So, that, I think, is their business model right there.
They're also envisioning something known as a subscription mouse.
And, you know, that would offer you things like apps, 24-7 support.
You know, if I have to call a help desk because of a mouse, I've clearly done something wrong.
I've made a bad decision somewhere.
Mouse is something, you know, it's just a basic component that should always work.
Go ahead, Rob.
Yeah, I mean, this whole thing came from the person from Logitech being interviewed somewhere.
And it seems kind of spitballing ideas for something that I'm sure every hardware maker on the planet really wants to figure this out
because we've seen so many software companies over the years go to software as a service
rather than something they can sell you once and then you're finished paying for.
People want you to subscribe to things because they want you to keep giving them money.
And if someone magicked out a way to convince people to keep paying for an item of hardware that they have on their desk
that they own, ostensibly, but should, for some reason, keep giving someone else money for the privilege of still having,
that is wild and evil in spectacular ways.
And I am furious about this, but I'm also kind of impressed that they even had the stones to suggest this idea in open debate.
We were talking about this, and I guess the thing that it made me think of the most was when was it BMW a few months ago
who announced that you needed to subscribe to keep your seat heaters?
Yes.
And so I said, okay, if you forget to update your credit card in the subscription,
are they going to lock one of your mouse buttons?
Like, how on earth are they going to keep people subscribed to a mouse?
And, I'm sorry, mouse apps?
Like, are they going to put a little screen on?
I have so many questions and none of them are good.
Yeah, and I think the answer really is because they can.
I mean, we might even be tempted to call these, like, smart mice, I guess.
And if you think about it, it's because the cost to have circuitry or microcontrollers that run an operating system
instead of just being a device on an operating system, they can implement stuff like this
because they're controlling how the device interacts in a much more granular way,
and it doesn't cost them much more, incidentally, because the capability is so cheap.
They have the ability to add features like this with relatively, I mean, it doesn't hurt them.
And, in fact, it creates a billing system.
Like, anything with enough processing power to implement a billing system
that a C-suite can get away with putting into something, they will try.
I mean, that's the point of what's going on as far as people resisting this
and supporting devices that are based on different standards.
Go ahead, Rob.
I don't know if I'm coining a phrase here.
Someone has to have come up with this already.
But I think if somebody puts out a mouse that the company who sold it to you
still retains control over and still continues to charge you for,
I think that's not a mouse, that's a rat.
And I don't want a rat on my desk.
Wow.
Okay.
Shots fired.
I will say, also, if you're really serious about using a device like this,
I think trackball's the way to go, definitely.
You swear by trackball.
I did not like them at all, or I thought they were, like,
kind of a legacy thing of, like, the 90s or something.
But if you're really moving around on a graphic operating system
and have a lot of different things to do in your workspace,
it's really nice ergonomically, I think.
And that's something people already invest hundreds of dollars in,
or more than $26, I would say.
So if they're going to put out some kind of ergonomic or, I mean,
which some of them get ridiculous looking,
but if it's simple and elegant and they want people to invest money in it
and it's, you know, made out of kryptonite or something,
I'm sure people will be interested.
I mean, there's a market for that kind of stuff in certain areas.
Yes, Rob.
I agree.
Sorry.
I would also suggest that if your workspace is in a public area
that a lot of people are around,
a trackball is really, really, really a good choice
because if people come up to you and try to use your computer
when you're not there and you have a trackball,
a lot of people don't know how to use it.
When I was teaching, I got a trackball for my desk
because students would try to use my computer,
and they said, what is this thing?
And they would pick it up and try to move it around the desk,
and they said, Gila, your computer's broken.
And I said, no, you just don't know how to use my mouse.
Please get out.
Please get away from my computer.
So trackball is an excellent trick
if people are trying to use your workstation without authorization.
What about trackpoint?
Does anybody know what that is?
Yeah?
No?
It's what ThinkPads have, the little red button in the middle.
It's like a little nib.
Yeah.
Nub, I think is the right word.
A nub or a nib.
People always made fun of it.
I don't know why exactly.
Yeah.
It's always there.
That's the one thing about that.
Always there.
It's always there.
If and when you need it, it will respond.
And when you don't.
Yeah, and especially that, too.
Okay, we have a letter from a listener.
I was recently in Europe on a trip.
I used an application called Flipboard to check news.
I found it interesting that while in Europe, if I tried to access an article slash story, I would get the accept the cookies notice, like in the U.S., but the notices would actually say how many organizations each site wanted to share my information with.
And I've noticed, I've never seen this information about how many companies are being provided my information by agreeing.
I typically reject all, but it was interesting and terrifying how much the companies are trying to profit off my eyeballs.
So I love every one of the sites says we value your privacy.
Yeah, they see the value.
They want to make as much as possible off of it.
And this listener forwarded a few screenshots here, and it really is something.
Looking at a new scientist article, for instance, you get the notice of ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors.
483 partners can use this purpose.
Deliver and present advertising and content.
476 partners can use this.
It's basically over and over again all of these different numbers, big numbers.
We care about your privacy.
If you consent, we and our 845 partners can – if you have 845 partners, you have a problem.
845 partners can store and access personal information on your device to provide a more personalized browsing experience.
This is accomplished through processing personal data collected from browsing data stored in cookies, et cetera, et cetera.
You can click on a button and get a list of partners, which I imagine is pretty scary and way too big for an email.
It just goes on and on, and it really is an eye-opener.
So thank you for sending that.
I want to know, I think, in this what we're hearing collectively because I'm kind of thinking to myself that we're sort of at a – I feel like I'm at a saturation point with how much irresponsibility is going on in terms of privacy.
And I think it ought to be that we live in a world where there's a real reckoning unless these corporations and the people brokering and building business models around this clean up their act.
Because I just – I can't imagine, like, how long you can put consumers last and profit off of it and rub it in their face with more consumption and disparity between the people that are –
bosses of these bosses of these institutions making these calls and influencing even – I just don't think – after a while, like, consumers really – they get really sick of this stuff.
And I don't know anyone that's, like, a fan of any of the things we've covered tonight.
Well, you know, it's interesting because I want to close with this story that was actually from last week from Forbes.
Google confirms bad news for 3 billion Chrome users.
And I don't know what it is.
Whenever Google does something bad, the articles about it somehow wind up praising them.
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and burned.
The company was struggling to agree to an approach with regulators that balanced its own interests with those of the wider marketing industry.
But no one expected this.
Coming just days after Apple warned that Chrome was always watching, the timing could not be worse.
We are proposing an updated approach that elevates user choice, the company said.
Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing.
So they make it sound like you're getting something good when actually they're not getting rid of what they said they were going to get rid of.
This is bad news for Chrome's 3 billion users.
Most of them will never change their settings and will be much better served by a browser that's more private by default.
And that was, of course, the focus of Apple's attack ad on Chrome.
So the Pro Safari thing.
Yeah, it's just like, how long are they to get away with it before there's just a huge crackdown on this?
Like, beyond what any of these companies can forecast.
Like, they don't have enough pages in their 10K to talk about these risks.
The consumer coming for them.
Like, with legislation.
Because it's fine for as long as it isn't touched, you know.
But then when it is, it, like, completely undercuts how they're staying fat cats, you know.
Yeah.
Well, we are going to have to leave it there.
I'm sure we will have more to report on that and many other stories.
Please write to us, OTH at 2600.com.
We're going to close tonight on a somewhat sad note.
Actually, two sad notes.
First of all, here at the radio station.
You know, I remember Matthew Finch from many, many years ago, my early days at WBAI,
as one of those people who just was always welcoming, had a sense of humor, was great on the radio.
So, you know, every reason why you'd want to walk into a community radio station and become a part of it.
Matthew Finch died this past week over in New Mexico, where he was the music director of KUNM.
They write, Matthew has been a strong, compassionate, and vital presence on and off the air at KUNM for over 20 years.
We send our heartfelt sympathy and support to his partner, Cynthia, family, and extended circle of friends.
We will miss him immensely for a long time to come.
And for so many people at WBAI to remember someone who has been away for so long in such a fond light,
that says something about who they are.
So, quite sad to hear of Matthew's passing.
And also, even more personal, is our colleague Alex, who lost his mother, Diane, this morning.
And we wish him the best.
We want to celebrate her life and the amazing person that she helped bring into this world.
She certainly did something right in creating somebody like Alex.
So, Alex, we're thinking of you, and we'll connect again.
You know, it's a sad time, and sadness passes, and we celebrate.
We celebrate the people who we spend time with while we're here.
So, hopefully, that's what we do.
All right.
We'll be back next week.
Thank you, everybody, for listening.
Have a good night.
Goodbye, sadness.
Goodbye, goodbye.
I don't need you anymore.
I wreck my pillow every night.
But now, I show the light.
Goodbye, goodbye, sadness.
I don't need you anymore.
Goodbye, goodbye, sadness.
I can't take it anymore.
Goodbye, sadness.
Goodbye, goodbye, I don't need you anymore.
I lived in fear every day.
But now, I'm going my way.
But now, I'm going my way.
Goodbye, goodbye, sadness.
Goodbye, goodbye, sadness.
I don't need you anymore.
Goodbye, goodbye, sadness.
I can't take it anymore.
I can't take it anymore.
You can't take it.
You have, I know, that you're degenerated.
You, you have.