Computers will soon be hacking people.

If they aren't already ... Episode 361 of the Cyberlaw Podcast.


Bruce Schneier joins us to talk about AI hacking in all its forms. He's particularly interested in ways AI will hack humans, essentially preying on the rough rules of thumb programmed into our wetware – that big-eyed, big-headed little beings are cute and need to have their demands met or that intimate confidences should be reciprocated. AI may not even know what it's doing, since machines are famous for doing what works unless there's a rule against it.  Bruce is particularly interested in law-hacking – finding and exploiting unintended consequences buried in the rules in the U.S. Code. If any part of that code will lend itself to AI hacking, Bruce thinks, it's the tax code (insert your favorite tax lawyer joke here). It's a bracing view of a possible near-term future.

In the news, Nick Weaver and I dig into the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack and what it could mean for more aggressive cybersecurity measures than the Biden administration was contemplating just last week as it was pulling together an executive order that focused heavily on regulating government contractors.

Nate Jones and Nick examine the stalking flap that is casting a cloud over Apple's introduction of AirTags.

Michael Weiner takes us on a quick tour of all the pending U.S. government antitrust lawsuits and investigations against Big Tech. What's striking to me is how much difference there is in the stakes (and perhaps the prospects for success) depending on the company in the dock. Facebook faces a serious challenge but has a lot of defenses. Amazon and Apple are being attacked on profitable but essentially peripheral business lines. And Google is staring at existential threats aimed squarely at its core business.

Nate and I mull over the Russian proposal for a UN cybercrime proposal. It's bound to be a bad idea. The good news is that stopping progress in the UN is usually even easier than stopping progress in Washington.

Nate and I also puzzle over ambiguous leaks about what DHS wants to do with private firms as it tries to monitor extremist chatter online. My guess: This is mostly about wanting the benefit of anonymity or a fake persona while monitoring public speech.

Next, Michael takes us into the battle between Apple and Fortnite over whether Fortnite can access to the app store without paying the 30% cut demanded by Apple. Michael thinks we've mostly seen the equivalent of trash talk at the weigh-in so far, and the real heavyweight fight will begin with the economists' testimony this week.

Nick indulges a little trash talk of his own about the claim that Apple's app review process provides a serious benefit to users, citing among other things the litigation-driven disclosure that Apple never sent emails to users of the 125 million buggered apps it discovered a few years back.

Nick and I try to make sense of stories that federal prosecutors in 2020 sought phone records for three Washington Post journalists—as part of an investigation into the publication of classified information that occurred in 2017.

I touch quickly on the Facebook Oversight Board's review of the suspension of President Trump's account.  To my mind, a telling (and discrediting) portion of the opinion reveals that some board members thought that international human rights law required more limits on Trump's speech – and they chose to base that on the silly notion that it's racist to call the coronavirus a Chinese virus. Put aside all the "British" and "South African" and "Indian" variants that no one is apologizing for, anyone who has read Nicholas Wade's careful article knows that there's lots of evidence the virus leaked from the Wuhan virology lab. Which means that if any virus in the last hundred years deserves to be named for its point of origin, this is it. Nick disagrees.

Nate previews an ambitious task force plan on tackling ransomware. We'll be having the authors on the podcast soon to dig deeper into its nearly 50 recommendations.

Signal is emerging a Corporate Troll of the Year, if not the decade. Nick explains how, fresh from trolling Cellebrite, Signal took on Facebook by creating a bevy of personalized Instagram ads that take personalization to the Next Level.

Years after the fact, the New York Attorney General has caught up with the three firms that generated fake comments supporting the FCC's net neutrality rollback. They'll be paying fines. But I can't help wondering why anyone ever though it was useful to evaluate proposed rules by counting the number of postcards and emails that shout "yes" or "no" but offer no analysis.

Download the 361st Episode (mp3)

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

NEXT: Bust a Deal, Face the Wheel, Here for Colleges and Settlements for Lawsuits Over Expulsions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. (insert your favorite tax lawyer joke here)

    There is nothing funny about tax lawyers.

  2. The legislature should write an algorithm, and conduct trials. It should be liable to victims for errors, the falsely accused, and the falsely released who hurt others.

    Machines are 100 times better, always. They will be the perfect boyfriend, “Don’t dare touch those dishes.” All tasks requiring intelligence and judgement will go to them.

    That leaves only talent for humans. Talent comes out of nowhere, and cannot be predicted, or explained. All humans will need to be to be CRISPR’ed for a talent.

  3. The “link” to the Nicolas Wade article actually goes to a World Socialist web story that absolves the Chinese of any blame. What gives?

  4. The remedy to ransomware is an app. It traces the location of the authors. A drone is sent to launch a missile into the location. It repeats that task for the oligarchic sponsors of thr ransomware. If one is Putin or Xi, so be it. Sick of the coddling of criminals by the utterly failed US lawyer profession. It is worthless after taking our $trillion.

  5. I started to listen. These big govt jerks want to destroy crypto. Very libertarian of them. Why is a Reason populated by these type of people from the editor on down?

    1. I would like to hear more about crypto. Outside of its link to real money, what is it? It is an internet fiction, no? I want to learn more.

  6. Nate Jones says “if you’re a researcher, you can use your real name or you can use a fake name and either way it’s not a violation of any policy or law.”

    The US Department of Justice disagrees. Testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee in 2011, Richard Downing, then deputy chief of DOJ’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section held that any violation of a platform’s terms of service (such as those requiring using a true identity) is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

  7. A new report says that not only did China unleash Covid on the west as a deliberate act of war — but that Dr. Fauci deliberately got them the funding to do it.

    Mr. Baker, if this is bogus then please debunk it, but if it’s true then we the people will have to deal with it ourselves, because the fake president is a Quisling.

    1. And fwiw, dismissing something with a handwave because you don’t like the channel it came from does not debunk it.

    2. “A new report says that not only did China unleash Covid on the west as a deliberate act of war — but that Dr. Fauci deliberately got them the funding to do it. . . . Mr. Baker, if this is bogus then please debunk it, but if it’s true then we the people will have to deal with it ourselves, because the fake president is a Quisling.because the fake president is a Quisling”

      These are your peeps, Volokh Conspirators. You came to a culture war empty-handed, and you continue to get precisely what you and your bigoted, backward thinking deserve from modern America.

  8. Oversight Board – Speech that is obviously false leads to violence.

    So how many journalists were suspended from Facebook over the whole “Russians hacked our 2016 election” false narrative?

  9. “anyone who has read Nicholas Wade’s careful article knows that there’s lots of evidence the virus leaked from the Wuhan virology lab. ”

    Indeed, it is a good article.

    The virus was most likely created in the Wuhan lab. Just as many have been saying all along, including the director of the CDC.

    What’s troubling from a US policy perspective is that the gain of function research being conducted at Wuhan — which involved modifying bat coronaviruses with the ability to be transmitted among humans — this research was funded by the US. Fauci was the one who directed it. This was after such research was banned in the US, being seen as dangerous, but a loophole was baked into the ban which allowed Fauci to do it if it was urgently necessary to protect public health. Apparently some have different ideas of public health than others.


    1. We sue the Chinese in our federal courts for the damage they inflicted. Then put a lien on their $2 trillion debt. Pay it to ourselves.

Please to post comments