(You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Be Forgotten!): TM 133
Please support us on Patreon at www.patreon.com/uktech for access to our exclusive ad-free extended version of the show, live-streaming, access to Discord member’s club, weekly columns from Nate, higher quality MP3s, and much more.
GET IN TOUCH using firstname.lastname@example.org. All messages sent will be read and considered for inclusion on a future show.
- Google loses 'right to be forgotten' case over man's past conviction
- Online political adverts to state who paid for them in crackdown
- Layman's GDPR 101 feature with Julian Saunders of PORT.im
- ‘How Could Buses Not Be As Crap As Buses Are Today?'
- Your emails and questions answered!
Patreon supporters have access to our longer version of the show, which includes the above as well as additional discussions about:
- EXTRA STORY: Android Is Still Failing Where Apple's iOS Is Winning
- Long discussion around Amazon customer service and Nate's recent experiences with it
- Extended chat around improving buses
- Outtakes and more!
Please support us on Patreon at www.patreon.com/uktech for access to our exclusive ad-free extended version of the show, live-streaming, access to Discord member’s club, weekly columns from Nate, higher quality MP3s, and much more.
AUTOMATED TRANSCRIPT (PLEASE FORGIVE THE AI'S TYPOS)
00:00 You're listening to text message, the UK focused technology podcast with me. Hello, nate, and additionally me and Maurice and it's brought to you every week by you. Thank you very much to our fantastic patrons supporting us every week through Patrion.com forward slash you kate tech. This is your extended ad free version of this show if you are one of our patrons, but if you are not to get ad free versions and our extended cuts and I live streaming and hello to everyone listening in live channel right now. Head to patriarchy.com forward slash UK tech and find out how you can support those for very low amounts and zero commitments and thank you very much to Maria who is the most recent patron and she joins us and we're very happy to have you here. Now. Later on in today's program, we've got a little bit of a special feature partly brought on by the fact that if you don't care about facebook and data privacy, then this week was actually a fairly quiet Newsweek as far as UK technology stories go. So to that end, we are going to be having a conversation with a gentleman called Julian Saunders who is a GDP our consultant to give you a bit of a primer on GDP or for those of you who have no idea what it is, we've got just a month, just over a month to go until the GDP, the general data protection regulation, it
01:23 comes into force. And so we thought would be a good time to get everyone thinking about what this might mean for them and give them a month or so to think about any action that they want to take. Obviously from the consumer perspective, because businesses should know all this already and if you haven't prepared your business for GDP all by now. Um, well good luck shall we don't our matching speedos Greece ourselves up and dive into the news. OK, so this week Google has lost a right to be forgotten case over a man's previous conviction. British judges ruled that the reputation of businessman who had complained that old news stories about that past computer hacking judges will harming their reputation, was more important than the public's need to know that those crimes happened. A second businessman failed in his bid to have links to articles taken down about a more serious crime.
02:13 Now, under the European right to be forgotten, law, people can ask for irrelevant or outdated information to be removed from search results. We've known this for awhile. It's been a case since I think 2014, but this UK decision, we think maybe the first time a major court has ruled as effectively ruled that criminal conduct is eligible for erasure. You know, so it was meant to be irrelevant information, you know, and, and I thought personally I thought that convictions and things where we're sort of a part of that, but this is the first time we've, we've had this tested in, in a cold law, but it also follows a ruling. Last month in France when a former chief financial officer who said his job prospects were being hampered by stories about a fine for some insider trading violation, I'm still being visible on Google and that was also ruled in favor of the, um, the, the claimant in France.
03:10 Now Google obviously is objected to all this. I mean Google didn't want the right to be forgotten policy being put in place in the first place because it hampers it's ability to say it's completely neutral, um, but it has to obey laws, local laws into places it's operating. And it said this case, the EU policy wasn't intended as a quote, right to rewrite history or tailor your past. This is according to Google's lawyer, um, and written up by engadget. I'm the loyal also said you may have rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean you can pretend your conviction doesn't exist.
03:40 Yeah, that's right. It's in the public. Interest is in the very, very most real sense of the way word that people are able to check the cost, conduct conduct of people who may do business within the future.
03:53 Precisely. Now the case highlights challenges obviously that Google has had in obeying these kind of requests. And part of the problem is that some people have complained that the requests can sometimes be a bit frivolous and I mean, it gets hundreds of thousands of these requests. Oh, has had hundreds of thousands of these requests since it has to start receiving them. And I think so, I, I couldn't find an exact up-to-date figure, but I think it's around half if not slightly, just over half are rejected. Um, and Google has to review each of these requests, uh, and make a judgment call on the eligibility because the wording in the actual law is a little bit vague. So there's, there's wiggle room there on the part of people trying to get this stuff actioned and, but, and so the people complaining about a verdict can take that complaint to the Information Commissioner's office, the ICO to ask for a review of that verdict. So it doubles the amount of time that Google is having to spend on each individual case. Um, so it's a massive pain in the ass and this ruling now applying to seemingly from what the judge said are minor white collar crimes, presumably this opens the door certainly seems to set a precedent for other people who want to get this kind of stuff erased from Google as well. But in, you seem to agree with Google on this.
05:21 I do because, um, well I think the right to be forgotten things a bit of an odd one. I'm, I'm, I'm amazed that it managed to become a law. Um, I know I can see it being useful for some people and right that you could be removed. Say for example, um, there was a lot of reporting about an alleged crime that you committed, but it turned out later, uh, when you were tried. In fact you didn't do it. Our newer a not guilty
05:49 precisely. And that is exactly why this law does exist according to the people who created it.
05:55 Yeah. I'm not on that feels to me this is an abuse of that because this person was convicted of a crime or whatever or they or whatever. I, you know, maybe not convicted of a crime, but you know, he was fine. So yeah. So then therefore I think that's a matter of public record. I don't see why anyone should have the right to have that expunged. Um, I just feel like it's just not reasonable. You can't rewrite history, like, as, as they said, I do completely agree with that. You know, you don't get to tailor your history, um, just because you feel like it's, you know, doesn't do your current job any favors.
06:31 It's interesting to chat rooms. I'm having a conversation about how history should not be allowed to be altered in any way. And John has replied. I think president trump may disagree with you there, which reminds me of all the interesting examples of where trump, uh, we don't want to go into us politics or any politics that's separate to tech on the show really. But there have been many examples where he's done or said something and then people have retweeted a tweet from four or five years ago during the Obama administration, like calling out Obama on the exact thing that he was now doing. And so, yeah, I, I get that,
07:08 but also, I mean, yes, I, well, the problem with history is it sometimes, um, I mean the whole purpose of news is that you write something in as an impartial way as possible so that it does reflect only the facts, but the reality is that most, even news writing can occasionally have a, an element of bias of the publication or the writer or whatever, and therefore it's quite, it can be quite difficult to actually ascertain the truth in the Internet age. And that sounds sort of counter intuitive really. But if, you know, if we have history books which are written and generally everyone agrees that that's what happened, then that's about as good as a, a, of a historical record as we can hope to have. But the Internet allows anyone to write any story with any amount of bias and to skew the facts if you like, to suit their narrative. So it becomes quite difficult, doesn't it? Uh, you know, having said that, I think inflammation is, should be uncensored. And I think people care enough they can look around and try and find the truth of what happened. But removing something like this doesn't feel right to me.
08:17 I remember an example where a friend of mine, um, who had an old, a very, very unusual name, I, it was a name that was, it sounded fairly, um, less than usual but, but the spelling made it very unusual. And she, when she was about 19, wrote in to a woman women's weekly sort of magazine that had asked for somebody to keep a record of what it was like to try a different sexual practice, uh, every with a boyfriend. And she, she took part in this new. It wasn't meant to be daft. It was meant to be meant to be serious, lighthearted, but, but useful. And she, she did. And she got it published and out her name and everything. But then a few years later, she became a writer for a similar sort of magazine and found that as the interest in her and her writing had increased, the very top results in Google was the online version of his story. From a few years earlier talking about the week that she practiced, I'm new and untried sexual acts with her then boyfriend, who as far as I'm aware, she wasn't still with. And so that's an example of something that wouldn't fall under the right to be forgotten a but at the same time you kind of wish it did.
09:54 Yeah. I can understand that, but I, I can understand that as a problem and that's unpleasant. But also, um, I don't, I don't know if I'd want anything just to be prohibited. It doesn't seem fair when it no one broke the law, if you see what I mean. Like she was commissioned to do something. She did it. Um, it was part of her life. Um, I don't know, maybe maybe Google should hire than it's, it's, it's impossible. I mean, as much as I criticized Google, managing its search engine is actually quite, is going to be quite tough and it's going to get tougher, but I wonder if they could do something to not remove it from the listings but to move it down the rankings, if you see what I mean. Like if she said, I don't mind that people can find this bots I'm, is that really representative of my most recent work will know it isn't an if people are trying to find me.
10:47 The other thing is of course, I suppose you could battle it by doing more of our own Seo and getting a page up that you know, is the most relevant and that Google sees as the most relevant. Um, and trying to beat it that way, but I don't know. I think the thing to remember is that, you know, if you're going to write things and have them publish, they will be there forever. Uh, we were just talking about some old stuff that I wrote. Why don't we, um, we were when we came on. So, you know, I, as much as I don't mind those articles, you know, there's nothing wrong with them. If I, if there was something I'd written there and I have written things that [inaudible] that I wouldn't die, don't necessarily agree with now. But I did at the time. Um, you know, say for example, when the first apple TV came out, I was pretty critical about that. Um, and you know, if apple went back and looked at that, now they'd be like, oh, well this is kind of main, um, and, but I be like, well, yeah, but that doesn't really reflect my current opinion and things change, don't they? But yeah, but I think the reason for writing a lot of this stuff
11:40 that you and I wrote when we were at scene, it was fueled by hitting certain points,
11:46 certain times your desire to fulfill traffic targets and key the advertising people in the manner of which they've become accustomed now. It's a reality. Just the reality of a publishing. Sorry,
11:57 Richard, in that, in the chat was asking about how this affects wicker peer effects wikipedia and can you request to be forgotten? And wikipedia, and I mean the right to be forgotten specifically refers to search engines. So it's not you, it doesn't apply to the removal of content from websites themselves. For that reason. You would have to individually go to that website and, and, and petition for removal. This just affects the, the, the, the, the directories, the search directories that point people towards those articles. So it's kind of like you can't get rid of the, the giant eyesore of the house in your local area, but you can get rid of all the signs that point people towards it. Um, and, and for Wikipedia then today you can, you can also change it yourself. I mean, for it to be honest, I'm kind of hoping somebody will at some point I'm going fix my wikipedia page because apart from being massively out of date, whoever has written it has built my name wrong in several places through it.
12:57 cold London says a London ended up accepting a position at Bloomberg instead.
13:04 So intentionally not calling you. I mean it's not, but you're not meant to do your own part two arrows. The, you know, the answer to then why the blazers isn't that the best source of information?
13:15 Well, may maybe, maybe a listener who knows better can go and fix this.
13:20 They asking for someone's going to slice wikipedia entry,
13:24 I suppose. I don't think it doesn't mention text message. It doesn't.
13:28 Well, the district, because I would expect them to do that.
13:32 Yeah, no, I know. I know. I, it's just, it's just weird. It's like the name is correct at the top of the page or page and massive letters and yet somehow someone's spelt it London and the lead. Anyway. Yeah. I'd be very grateful if anyone wants to go and fix it because I think it's frowned upon to do it yourself, but more broadly, anyone who has, uh, views on the right to be forgotten do let us know what they are. Have you had your right to be forgotten, exercised or not? We're very interested here. That's. Hello. At Tech podcast dot UK.
14:13 Well, we're a bit heavy with our stories this week and don't worry because in and I have come up with a great plan to lighten the balance in the second half of the show today and you'll be very amused by what that is, I believe, but in the meantime, do we want to mention this story about how online political advertising will now have to state who paid for them? This is under a in a crackdown following the various allegations of election interference over the last two, three years, so online political adverts will be legally required to state who paid for them. This is a part of a government cracked down and this was first reported by the Telegraph. This week, a change to the electoral law will require the details of publishers and promoters of election literature. These are called imprints, which I did not know. That's what they were called to be published on online election adverts.
15:03 As they are on hard copy. Leaflets always says, you know, this was paid for by such and such online. Apparently that isn't the case, at least not in the UK and not up until now. The changes will be subject to a consultation. Fair enough, and I have an idea for something that should maybe be part of that consultation and it will then become quote, an electoral offense to engage in electronic campaigning without an imprint or with a fraudulent in parenthesis. According to officials in government, anyone found not to have declared their links to political adverts will be hit by an unlimited fine under the plans. Now, here's the key bit, and this is the bit that I think needs to be entered into this consultation. This doesn't apply to commentary by experts or on social media. Now the, the, the article in the Telegraph story directly reference references, the alleged Russian election interference that was almost entirely alleged to have been conducted via social media and and in the form in many in large parts, in the form of advertising and obviously with the ongoing stuff around Cambridge analytica and user profiling and ad targeting based on data that had been improperly acquired.
16:20 It seems to me to be a striking omission to not include social media. What are your thoughts in.
16:30 Yeah, absolutely. I mean I, as I said, the facebook did that investigation didn't. They didn't say exactly how much a Russian interference had been detectable through the brexit vote and they were and they said, well, only two adverts ran or something like that. Which is obviously not the truth at all. It's not. It's part of the truth, but it ignores the, the possibility that, um, various political companies we used, for example, Cambridge Analytica or may or may not have been one and there may be others. Um, and I think that, you know, what, people would be better served by this, this would work from this perspective and I know that facebook is investigating, doing because they'll be very similar to this, is to say this advert has been paid for by X. um, and we talked, I believe we talked about facebook changing the rules, didn't worry that they're going to be requiring that all political lab, but say on them this was paid for by X. and so they're doing that separately anyway.
17:31 No to John in the chat room has just said, can't believe it. Perhaps that hoping after the facebook scandal that hoping that the onus will be on the social networks to solve this problem, which I think is what you're saying as well.
17:42 And that it will be. And I, and I can see that there's some value in that. Um, what I think the problem, what I think it really the issue here is that we did not perhaps realize quite what was going on and how it was working and as we spoke about before, um, I'm aware of the fact that, um, it wasn't so much adverts specifically saying vote yes to Brexit or vote for trump or anything else. It was a sentiment that was used to play on the fears that people have, which are perfectly reasonable. Fairs, you know, if you hear enough times that the EU doesn't like curved bananas and we're all going to have to buy bananas and they're going to cost more because they've got to be careful also. I don't know, whatever, you know, you hear those stories and overtime that accumulates in your brain and you might, it might change your outlook.
18:33 I remember having read those stories for so long. Um, but when it came to vote in the referendum, I did have to re look at everything. So what I'm concerned about more than anything else is that there are companies that are using facebook and twitter and other media and adverts in general. And they are subtly manipulating people's opinions over the course of a period of time and we don't know, but having it putting on each advert. This advert was paid for by x and it was run by this company might help because if we keep seeing this is that Cambridge analytica or advil or whatever, then we may sort of think there was something going on here. I'm seeing a pattern or whatever. It might help people is what I'm saying. In a very long winded way,
19:20 you know, the banana issue was never really a massive actual issues.
19:24 No indeed. And that's actually a whole a page on the website that debunks always all of the myths related to the again, you know, I, I feel somewhat shamed in a way because I, I bought like anyone did you read these headlines about Eu to ban x, Y, and zed because why or whatever, you know, the Tyson vacuum cleaner thing is, is a, is a good enough example. Like you know that if the rules are sensible and, but you know, you hear it enough times that we're going to have all of our vacuum cleaner is going to be band. We have to give our buy vacuum cleaners back and somehow people still buy it and they think, well why am I being my life being interfered with? But of course the reality of it is not true. W W, W we're going for is trying to save the Goddamn planet, you know, and we're not going to do that if we legislate because frankly business isn't going to bother as we've seen. So anyway,
20:20 if you would like to bother sending us an email so that we can see what you think, uh, do, of course it lets us know you can do so by emailing hello at tech podcast or as so many of these stories and explosions of opinion tend to happen and reverberate around the social media echo chamber. Why not twitter's your thoughts on APP to text message?
20:53 OK, so we are now about one month away from something that I think is best described as the most important thing. That is also the most boring thing to come out of your repin effect internet users, possibly ever. It's called the general data protection regulation. You probably have heard about it. It's quite possible you don't know much about it because it's so impenetrably dull, so we thought with a month ago we'd go back to basics and give everybody a really digestible, very easy to understand primer about what GDP is, how it will affect you as a person, not as a business, and what does it do for you. Because these are questions that some people don't seem to actually know. So to do this, I met up with a gentleman called Julian Saunders. He is the CEO and founder of personal data governments company port dot. I am. He seems to know everything about GDP as far as I can tell. Didn't bring any notes into our meeting and he started by asking him why governments have decided GDP or is needed in the first place.
22:06 It's a fundamental trust issue around data channels and, uh, and the way that we live our lives in the future. If you think about the way that your landline telephone is being used at the moment, it's probably left in the corner somewhere barely ever used, and when you pick it up, it's some kind of cold call trying to sell you double glazing or accident claim insurance. It's incredibly important that digital channels remain trusted and have integrity, and so to underpin that at this early stage of our digital evolution, it's necessary to have regulations that ensure security and privacy of personal data whilst at the same time making that data open and transparent to the individual so that we remove this fear of what's happening with our data behind the scenes. What does a company have to have in place then in order to comply with this new regulation?
22:57 It's a complex piece of regulation. It's a Rifton in principles rather than a prescriptive regulation and therefore it's open. It's open to a lot of interpretation, but it falls into two main categories. Firstly, on the security side, every business should be thinking about how secure that data or is that they, they manage where they keep it and then of course they should be looking at how that data is used and how open and transparent they are in terms of gaining that data in the first instance, using it, sharing it with other organizations and enabling consumers with their, their rights and those rights are to see that data, to edit the data, to potentially delete the data and surf meets, again, a copy of that place. So what kind of organizations are covered by GDP and which, uh, which are exempt.
23:45 I'm thinking about the average person in the street. What sort of companies and businesses can they go to and say, I want to see everything you have on me a lot. Then I want you to delete it. Who Do we go to and who call me go to.
23:56 So if you think about the businesses that manage personal data, it's almost every business in our lives, a pretty much every organization has to employ individuals. That's all personal data. The only businesses that you can't go and exercise your GDP, our rights with are generally government agencies and uh, for obvious reasons other than that, pretty much every organization.
24:19 What kind of data should I expect to be able to get from a company, you know, there's been a lot of hypothetical thrown around around things like transport companies and retail businesses and even our own employees potentially. So, you know, what, what, what can be the average individual expect to be able to get
24:37 it does depend on the legal basis that, that company is using to hold that personal data. So if you're talking to a marketing company that, uh, you've never had a contractual relationship with, uh, they are probably holding data about you on the basis of consent. If they are using consent, then you can go and request all of those rights. You can request to delete it, you can request to edit your data. Uh, you can request a copy of it if it's an organization that you have a contractual relationship with. So for instance, your energy provider or maybe your car leasing company, then you have a right to go. And see the data that they have about you, uh, to request that data in machine-readable format to edit that data, to see it, et Cetera, to, to, to potentially delete it. Certainly from their marketing capabilities.
25:24 The challenge comes with organizations that are using legitimate interests. If, uh, if an organization is using legitimate interest to store your data, then you're right. So severely hampered. And unfortunately this is the great loophole that is available to organizations, but it is one that can be tested by US consumers if we feel it's been incorrectly applied. If you're, for instance, thinking about, uh, security cameras, CCD cameras, it's not realistic to expect a surveillance organization that's looking at maybe a railway station to make video available to individuals about that individual. Because of course, you know, there's thousands of people pass through. They can't be expected to know who's who. And yes, of course facial information is biometric data. So this is considered to be for personal information, but it's unreasonable. And of course the purposes CTV coverage is being carried out for are primarily for our own security and therefore they're for the greater good. So it would be typical that the CCT is surveillance organization would be using legitimate interest for holding personal data. So what you is
26:30 to us, other than peace of mind, if an average person sent out a bunch of GDP, our requests, and I've got a lot of machine readable data back, what can we actually expect to do with it
26:40 at the moment? There's a great lack things that they can do with it except a look at their past histories and wonder how much they spent, but it won't be very long before many organizations start to realize the value of this new data source and we as individuals be able to become data brokers effectively have our own data. We'll be able to request it from organizations that we've had relationships with and share it with organizations that we either hope to have a relationship or want to have a relationship or can benefit from providing that data to. So as an example, a, wouldn't it be great to be able to get detailed a usage all of your energy, for example. You could then share that with another energy provider. Maybe they could do some kind of analysis for you and tell you how much you could save by implementing a solar energy panels.
27:31 A whole world of opportunity can can open up that's specifically geared around your life and the benefits that you can personally gain by sharing a whole range of data points with them. So it's really about putting a value on our data as well as a new element of control in a way that can benefit us financially as well as just, you know. So of course we all understand financial value very easily and in fact there's a considerable theory going around now that we're at a turning point because our historic method of evaluating office in our lives has been to look at price well, it may well be that in the future we start to look at the data value to ourselves and we start to judge businesses or what kinds of data they can provide back to us that we can reuse in our lives elsewhere.
28:22 If somebody wanting to get started making an [inaudible] request and anyone who's listening to this who's a EU citizen can do this. There's nothing to stop them. What do they have to do? Is there a process or a user journey that's expected at this point, or at least from May 25th when this stuff comes into force? There's no expected user journey, but of course you'd expect to contact the company. You would expect to look for the, uh, the contact point that they publish and make available to you. Many businesses will have automated systems and processes for providing you with the information or for enabling you to exercise your rights. And that's the first point of call where we need to prove our identity. I mean, is there anything to stop somebody who doesn't like me pretending to be me in order to delete records that I might otherwise be able to sell or do something with?
29:10 There are a lot of companies working on digital identities and associating that digital identity with your personal data. So we're likely to see those organizations emerging quite rapidly in a post GDP world. And finally, it's going to be any kind of dispute procedure for anyone who feels they haven't got what they should have got from a GDP request, the ICO, the Information Commissioner's office is always available and very, very amenable to listening to concerns. They have an excellent form their site. Uh, you can, you can make a complaint about any aspect of personal data mismanagement and you will generally gets a very positive and quick response from them.
29:52 This has been incredibly interesting. If anybody is looking to follow up or find out more about what you do at port and obviously about GDP or more broadly, how do they find out more about you? Where do they get in touch with you?
30:05 You just get so into port stock. I am. Um, so you're going to see most of what we do with our service layer or feel free to make contact with us via twitter at port says.
30:17 Yeah. OK, well it's been a heavy show so far. It's been heavy. Is a bus. You might say. We've talked about politics, we've talked about [inaudible], we've talked about political advertising. I think it's time to inject a little bit of helium into the bit of lights. Uh, and I'm not sure where I'm going with that. However, the reason we thought we'd do this right now is because Ian was late early because he, he was stuck on a bus. I won't read the exact text of the messages he was sending me as to his feelings about it, but those of you who are aware of ins a enjoyment of cursing and being angry in general, you can sort of hazard a guess as to some of the language used. And so we thought buses a terrible, we don't like buses. The service might be fine, but buses as a, as an entity have lacked the kind of technological forward stepping that we have come to expect from our industry at large.
31:20 So we thought it might be a bit of fun to lighten the mood and bat around some ideas of how we could make buses better. I'm calling this section, how could buses not be as crappy as buses? All today. We'll take some suggestions from the chat room as we're going through this as well. So I'm going to go through a few ideas that I had just to kickstart things. My wife in the chat room has just suggested a single word. Lasers. Um, Yep. Johnny Ray might have anything better to the illness. Yeah. So here's some of mine. So number one, bus to bus chat service in your seat. You can have a little console that allows you to chat with other buses nearby and your vicinity. The bus knows where it is because they will have gps at least here in London. So you can chat with another bus, use a nearby and, and, and, you know, see if you agree on the thing that's happening to your left or. So.
32:14 This is just making buses worse because I've already don't want to communicate with the people on the bus. I'm on, let alone the people on other buses.
32:22 OK, well, and one vote for this feature. My next one is one that was also modified by my wife after hearing it because she thought she'd improved on my idea and I'm inclined to agree with my suggestion was going to be a pay to go faster option where you can effectively push cash into a little safety deposit box type thing on the back of your seat to temporarily increase the speed the bus can travel. Ideally, legislation could evolve with this in order to permit this to actually happen, but I think about how this is a games you can sort of get a temporary like nitro boosts and it will go faster, but then kate suggestion was to advance this even further, which is the ability to pay to skip the next stop and have it like a bidding war. So if someone really, really needs to get to their origin, lunch and appointment, they can bid to skip the next stop or the next set of stops and then other people have to bid in order to actually have it remain a less. They go in a circle and the entire route to get to where they want to go. I can imagine, and the chat room is very much in agreement here that uh, this would be wonderful chaos. I agree, but wouldn't that be fun on April fool's Day?
33:29 I love it. I think the idea that, you know, a bus could be, you know, you'd start off with your boss and it would have, you know, what the profitability of the bus would be because you know, roughly how many people are going to get on and how much they're paying to get on. And then you know, suddenly you've, you turn a normal bus service into someone's desperate to get off and they're paying, you know, a hundred quid to do. So it would be quite funny. Buses would become the playground of the rich.
33:55 Well, funnily enough, one of my other suggestion was premium seats for the wealthy, wealthy and taking a bus. Chances are you don't want to be on a bus, but some, you know, horrible necessity is, has made it a, you know,
34:10 well and available for examples. The day they canceled all of the trains, every single one of them.
34:16 Yeah. I mean, nobody wants to be on a bus, a kate says this and the chat room, um, so that could just be a, you know, that could be an interesting one. Maybe just have one seat. So for just the very wealthy individual sitting, the everyone knows that person has paid you 10 quid for his or her seat. So that's, that's an idea. Um, I don't like any of my id, my other ideas. And in retrospect I think I was rushing with them. Uh, I don't know what I meant really by that interrupted like they have on planes. That's actually not a bad idea,
34:49 but it's not going to make getting on a bus suddenly enjoyable. Is it? Like, it's none of these, none of these ideas, but it'll make us remaining all this enjoyable. So I was so excited when you were talking about, oh, I'm going to skip the next stop or I'm making it go faster because one of them, because I was. So it was always rail replacement bus. Now the problem with that is that, um, they're obviously trying to hit the same time to have it as a train would. So what you get is they, they know that traffic is not too bad, so they have to sort of drive along slowly because they know that if I go too quickly, then there'll be, then they will arrive to quickly and blahdy blahdy Blah and throw the whole schedule out. Um, so from that perspective, I'd been like, Oh, I'll give you 10 quid if you go the speed limit kind of thing. Um, and you know, that would have been pretty good. But also of course with the rail replacement, you can't,
35:38 um, you can't get off unless it's a scheduled stop on that so that you have a thing where you pay. Maybe an it guy would let you off my job. I could have just asked because it's siloed. Pass my house. I was like, well, this is depressing. Well, nick may have an excellent suggestion for you here. Uh, here in the chat room suggests ejector seats vote Yes for the most annoying passenger. I'm liking this, Nick, I'm liking this a lot. I think this is the best comment I've ever had. This has been a lot of fun. I've enjoyed this greatly. Um, your ideas for how to make buses into airplanes? Yes, exactly. If you have a way to improve your local bus service, we'd love to hear about it. You can send that to hello at tech podcast dot UK. Maybe we'll come up with a prize for the most entertaining suggestion for buses and maybe you can vote for this feature to make a return on a future episode.
36:37 What else is bad that we can come up with ways as a team, as a group, as a single units to make better. Ah, hello at tech podcast dot UK, sending those thoughts. Let's check in with Mr Tom merits over a daily tech news show. Tom, your magnificent beast. What's been going on elsewhere in the world this week in global tech this week on daily Tech News show, we follow the trials and travails of Mark Zuckerberg, his trip to Washington. Our great hope is for clear terms of service and opt in privacy controls. We might get one of those. We also talked about how Sweden is almost cashless and whether even that country will go all the way to eliminating cash, discuss the rights developers have to. Another company's continued API support, talked about the increase in mining of old batteries for metal and speculated on how the gray lock iphone cracking box used by police forces might actually work all that much more.
37:30 A daily tech news show. [inaudible]. Thank you very much Mr Marat in. We are. We are complete here that the final piece of the Jigsaw has been put in place. Excellent. No pieces have been lost. It's a beautiful picture of your face, which leaves me feeling very excited. Unrewarded. That's a, that seems nice. A thank you to everyone who's joined us this week in the live session. A live recording. Um, I'd noticed we do have a new face in our, in our children this week. A individually called just to French. Oh, just a Frenchy. I see. That's very good. Uh, if you read here this before I finished the sentence, I didn't know what you thought to your first live show experience. Um, because be great to get more of you joining in with our live show and listening to what extended ad free versions every week, which you can get by supporting as directly at paypal. Nope, not paypal. That was a bit of a slip. Patrion Dot Com forward slash U K tech. Um, uh, he says it's Jacob from the US. Really enjoyed listening. Well, that's been fantastic. So a very, very pleased
38:36 to have you here and hopefully we'll get another person to join us by this time next week. But uh, no matter how you're supporting is whether it's through patriotism or whether it's through leaving his reviews and telling your friends, telling your friends about is all your co workers. That is just as valuable because every single word of mouth instance helps us maybe spread like a virus or a bacteria. So hopefully we'll see more of you
39:03 with us.