The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 7.17 Huge FaceApp Security Controversy, Baby Shark vs Homeless, & The Trump AOC Pelosi Mess

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you had a fantastic Wednesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're going to talk about today is a story connected to why you've seen so many dang old people in your timeline these past few days. And the reason, as you might be aware of, because you've seen the trending hashtag or you've actually taken part in the challenge yourself, is the FaceApp Challenge. Which, for those that don't know, FaceApp is an app that uses artificial intelligence to alter photos of people's faces. And right now, one of the popular ways to use the app is to use its aging filter, which adds a couple of decades to your face. Also in the past, we've seen popularity of their gender swap filter, which adds either traditionally female or male features, depending on which option you click. For those who follow me on Twitter, you might remember Philomena and Phil if he actually had a much stronger jaw and facial hair. You know, and this app actually goes even further back to that.

Starting point is 00:00:43 It actually came to popularity around two years ago, but it is now experiencing a resurgence. You know, you have people using the app, changing their photos, posting it to social, telling other people to use it. One of the biggest sources of fuel for this fire are celebrities taking to Instagram to share their photos. Drake showing us what promo

Starting point is 00:00:58 for his farewell tour might look like. The Jonas Brothers giving us a glimpse of the year 3000. Scooter Braun seemingly using it to make light of his recent controversy with Taylor Swift. And finally, you had Piers Morgan showing us what happens when you don't dip him in water before he's on camera. It's not even just people uploading themselves. There are whole dedicated Instagram accounts

Starting point is 00:01:14 taking photos of celebrities putting them on the app. Right, so we've seen examples of JoJo Siwa, James Charles, PewDiePie, the Dolan twins, Tana Mongeau, and more. But the reason we're talking about this isn't just, hey, look, it's a kind of cool app. There's actually a big controversy and concern around FaceApp and the access that it has

Starting point is 00:01:29 to the information on your phone. We had developer Joshua Nasi saying that he believes the app is uploading your photos. In a tweet he said, "'As soon as I granted access to my photos, "'it started listing them slowly, a row at a time, "'almost like network delays. "'I quickly hit airplane mode

Starting point is 00:01:41 "'and it instantly listed them all, "'refusing to let me select any because I'm offline. "'It all your photos others also shared concerns about the privacy policy saying face app warning do not use it Their privacy policy is purposefully vague and mentioned sharing with affiliates affiliate is nothing more than a different term for a third party in this context You're giving them your face and info to sell others have also brought up the apps Russian ownership So I'm saying to think twice you're pretty much giving Russia complete access to your phone. And looking at all this, some people's concerns are definitely valid, but there are also some rumors out there

Starting point is 00:02:08 that are just a bit of a stretch. So with that said, let's look at the privacy policy and the terms of service to see what some potential red flags are. Many have been pointing to this line in the terms of service that says, you grant FaceApp a perpetual irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide,

Starting point is 00:02:21 fully paid, transferable, sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, worldwide, fully paid, transferable, sub, licensable, licensed to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, publicly perform, and display your user content in any name, username, or likeness provided in connection with your user content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed without compensation to you.

Starting point is 00:02:40 Which essentially boils down to the app being able to take your photos and use them on their own. And many are saying this could mean content gets used for marketing purposes. Others are noting a line in the privacy policy that implies it can look at your browser history. It reads, Even though this policy says that it will not sell your data to Third parties it does say that it can quote share certain information such as cookie data with third-party Advertising partners so after all of this talk and debate about what the app can see and share we saw face app give a statement

Starting point is 00:03:16 They told tech crunch the photos are processed in the cloud But they push back against the theory that it's downloading all the photos from your camera roll say face app performs most of the photo Processing in the cloud. We only upload a photo selected by a user for editing. We never transfer any other images from the phone to the cloud. And at the bottom, they link to Josh Winozzi's tweet, which has actually now been deleted.

Starting point is 00:03:33 But they link to it to specifically really hit this point home, adding, we don't do that. We upload only a photo selected for editing. You can quickly check this with any of the network sniffing tools available on the internet. And adding, we might store an uploaded photo in the cloud. The main reason for that is performance and traffic.

Starting point is 00:03:50 We want to make sure that the user doesn't upload the photo repeatedly for every edit operation. And adding, most images are deleted from our servers within 48 hours from the upload date. The statement also went on to say that they accept requests from users for removing all their data from its servers, and that the app's features are available without logging in, and that 99% of its users do not log in. Therefore, they say they don't have access to any data that could identify a person. And in their final points, they say they do not sell data

Starting point is 00:04:08 to third parties and they do not transfer information to Russia. But still with them saying all of that, many still don't think that the statement answers enough questions. For example, you had people saying that this statement did not address its right to use your data that are mentioned in the terms of service,

Starting point is 00:04:19 nor did it address other marketing concerns. But regarding that, outlets like The Independent have noted that this is actually fairly standard within such apps. Right, in general, the privacy policy, the terms of service, it's supposed to be this grandiose thing that's supposed to protect the company. But still, obviously there are concerns with the app

Starting point is 00:04:33 because of the vague privacy policy, which also many have noted has not been updated since the app came out in 2017. And of course, that statement didn't fully say what the app can actually do with the photos uploaded. Now as far as the final verdict here, as far as my opinion on this matter, I think that you should be concerned,

Starting point is 00:04:46 I think you should be skeptical, but I do believe that a lot of the accusations that are being made are overblown. Right, I look at examples like that of Will Straffick, right, he's the founder and CEO of Guardian Firewall. He tweeted out, using a network traffic analyzer, I tried to replicate the thing people are talking about with FaceApp allegedly uploading your full camera roll

Starting point is 00:05:02 to remote servers, but I did not see the reported activity occur. However, they do appear to upload single images in order to apply the filter server side. While not as egregious, this is non-obvious and I am sure many folks are not cool with that. Right, when it comes to the broad, vague language in their privacy policy,

Starting point is 00:05:15 I think you might be horrified if you look at the privacy policy of a lot of the things you already currently use. And I mean that in general and probably even more so when the company is in Russia or China. Which actually, regarding the note of Russia, one of the last updates to this story, reportedly the Democratic National Committee has warned 2020 campaigns to not use this app. And adding,

Starting point is 00:05:37 I guess there's that to be considered as well. But hey, ultimately that's where this story ends and I pass the question off to you, what are your thoughts around this? Do you think the fear and concerns around this specific app are overblown, or no, you are actually genuinely worried here? Yes, no, maybe so, and why? Let me know in those comments down below. Then for today's Quickie Award

Starting point is 00:05:54 for headline I did not expect to wake up to, we award the Associated Press who gave us City hopes Baby Shark song will drive homeless away. Reportedly, the city in question is West Palm Beach. And according to the report, officials in the city are hoping a continuous loop of children's songs played throughout the night will keep homeless people from sleeping on the patio of a city-owned

Starting point is 00:06:14 rental banquet facility. And so yeah, that's essentially it. They play Baby Shark, other songs reportedly like Raining Tacos, and I don't think that this will work. I say that because I imagine noise blocking earbuds are a lot easier for a homeless person to get than a home. Also, for those wondering if any other place has tried something like this before, yes.

Starting point is 00:06:31 Looking into it, according to CBS News, the city of Lake Worth tried using classical music to drive homeless people away from the town's cultural plaza, but they ended up liking the songs. Obviously, Baby Shark and Raining Tacos is not Bach or Beethoven, but you know. One, it's gonna be interesting to see what actually happens. Will people stop sleeping there? Baby Shark and Raining Tacos is not Bach or Beethoven, but you know.

Starting point is 00:06:45 One, it's gonna be interesting to see what actually happens. Will people stop sleeping there? Because even in the AP article, someone was like, I'm gonna still sleep there. I just hear the songs over and over. And two, it's gonna be interesting to see what the public reaction to all of this is now that it's getting bigger and bigger, right?

Starting point is 00:06:58 Are you gonna have people saying that this is cruel and unusual for people already in a horrible place, right? I mean, I've already seen some people saying, you know, in the past we've used loud music as a kind of a torture device. Although the potential argument against that is we don't know how loud the music is in this instance. Also, people can escape the music by leaving.

Starting point is 00:07:13 So actually around this story, do you think this is kind of a silly whatever story or does this bother you or what are your thoughts around this? Also, actually while we're at it, I know that I started this as kind of a quickie throwaway story. What are your thoughts around sonic devices in general?

Starting point is 00:07:24 I don't know if you saw, but there was this recent report out of Philadelphia. According to NPR, in Philadelphia, 30 parks and recreation centers are outfitted with a small speaker called the Mosquito. It blares a constant high-pitched ringing noise all night long, but one that only teenagers and young adults can hear. And they say that because anyone over age 25 is supposed to be immune because basically their ear cells have started to die off. Right, and the defense for this is it's supposed to prevent loitering, it's supposed to prevent vandalism. But of course, as you'd expect, there's also pushback there. With reportedly Philadelphia City Council member Helen Jim referring to the devices as sonic weapons, and so she's fighting to try to get rid of them.

Starting point is 00:07:56 So a little bit different, a little bit of the same, still though, I'm fascinated to know your thoughts on this. And the last thing we're gonna talk about today are updates around a story that we initially covered on Monday. And for some quick context here, if you haven't seen our previous coverage, I want to know your thoughts on this. And the last thing we're gonna talk about today are updates around a story that we initially covered on Monday. And for some quick context here, if you haven't seen our previous coverage, or if you haven't seen the news in the last few days, on Sunday, President Trump tweeted, "'Progressive Democrat Congresswomen

Starting point is 00:08:12 "'who originally came from countries "'whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, "'now loudly and viciously telling the people "'of the United States how our government is to be run.'" And continued, "'Why don't they go back and help fix "'the totally broken and crime-inf infested places from which they came, then come back and show us how it is done.

Starting point is 00:08:28 And those tweets got a lot of backlash largely because they seem to be about a group of freshmen representatives who are known as the squad. And that group includes representatives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley. And we saw a ton of people criticizing these tweets, some calling it xenophobic,

Starting point is 00:08:43 some just calling it outright racist, especially because all of these elected officials who are women of color were actually born in the United States with the exception of Omar, who was a Somali war refugee as a child, and she became a US citizen as a teenager. And while most of the people who condemned Trump were Democrats, we also saw a number of Republicans,

Starting point is 00:08:58 both in the House and Senate, speak out against the tweets as well. Now if you want a more detailed breakdown of all of this part, I'll link down to our previous coverage. With that said, it brings us to the updates where last night the House voted in favor of a resolution condemning Trump's remarks.

Starting point is 00:09:10 Among other things, the text of the resolution says that the House quote, strongly condemns President Donald Trump's racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants and those who may look to the president like immigrants should go back to other countries.

Starting point is 00:09:26 And that resolution was passed 240 to 187, mostly along party lines with only four Republicans and one independent voting in favor. Now, of course, one of the big notes here is this measure is a non-binding resolution, which means that there is no policy action or law connected to it. But even though the resolution is entirely symbolic,

Starting point is 00:09:41 it's still being seen as significant, largely because condemning a sitting president is just something the House doesn't do. And in fact, according to the New York Times, it was the first House rebuke of a president in more than 100 years. But that was not the only update here, and as you can see from the 240 to 187 vote,

Starting point is 00:09:55 the decision to condemn the president was nowhere near unanimous. You had many members feeling strongly about their support or opposition to the resolution, and what resulted was an incredibly polarizing floor debate. One of the most contentious and unusual things that happened during this debate came after a statement from Nancy Pelosi. These comments from the White House are disgraceful and disgusting and these comments are racist.

Starting point is 00:10:15 There's no excuse for any response to those words but a swift and strong unified condemnation. Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets. To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people. It's Truck Month at GMC. Tackle the open road with added confidence in the 2025 Sierra 1500 Pro Graphite at 0% financing for up to 72 months. With an available 5.3 liter V8 engine,

Starting point is 00:10:56 20 inch high gloss black painted aluminum wheels, off-road suspension with available two inch factory installed lift kit, plus a towing capacity of up to 13,200 pounds. You'll be ready for anything this Truck Month. Truck Month is on now. 2-inch factory-installed lift kit, plus a towing capacity of up to 13,200 pounds, you'll be ready for anything this Truck Month. Truck Month is on now. Ask your GMC dealer for details. What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool.

Starting point is 00:11:27 Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. And immediately after that statement, we saw Republican Representative Doug Collins ask Pelosi if she wanted to rephrase that comment.

Starting point is 00:11:48 To which Pelosi responded that she had cleared her remarks in advance and that is when things went off the rails 1800 style. And the reason I say that style is because Collins went on to ask the Pelosi statement be removed from the record because they violated a rule outlined in an 1801 text by Thomas Jefferson. That text known as the Jefferson Manual sets the rules

Starting point is 00:12:04 and precedents for house procedures on the floor. And under a longstanding precedent set by that text, Congress members can't make disparaging comments about the president. So in other words, they cannot call the president or even his words racist while speaking on the House floor. After that, the members debated for a full hour if Pelosi's words should be struck.

Starting point is 00:12:19 And that debate got so heated that Representative Emanuel Cleaver, who was presiding over the House, banged his gavel and walked out of the chambers in anger, saying, "'We don't ever, ever want to pass up, it seems, "'an opportunity to escalate, and that's what this is. "'We want to just fight. "'I abandoned the chair.'"

Starting point is 00:12:33 A little later, it was announced that members decided that Pelosi's comments were not in order, which meant she was banned from making comments for the rest of the day. But then the Democrats voted to overrule, striking her remarks from the record, and Pelosi was once again allowed to speak. Now, this whole ordeal took about two hours.

Starting point is 00:12:46 Eventually the resolution was passed, and afterward Pelosi told reporters, "'I stand by my statement. "'I'm proud of the attention that's being called to it "'because what the president said "'was completely inappropriate against our colleagues, "'but not just against them, "'against so many people in our country.'"

Starting point is 00:12:59 Also yesterday we saw Trump on Twitter responding to the vote. Before the House approved the resolution, Trump tweeted, "'Those tweets were not racist I don't have a racist bone in my body The so-called vote to be taken is a Democrat con game Republicans should not show weakness and fall into their trap This should be a vote on the filthy language statements and lies told by the Democrat Congress women

Starting point is 00:13:15 What truly believe based on their actions hate our country also saying that Omar is polling at 8% Cortez at 21% also for those wondering where the heck he got those numbers It appears that he may have gotten those numbers from a poll that was reported on by Axios and very notably there if that is The source of where he's getting those numbers. It is a huge Misrepresentation that poll was reportedly very specific in that it reportedly only included 1003 likely general election voters who are white and have two years or less of college education and the numbers among this specific group was Cortez favorable 22%, Omar favorable 9%. But also even with all that said,

Starting point is 00:13:49 a thing to keep in mind is that Axios also didn't release the poll source or any other information, which has led to experts questioning the methodology and the validity. It's just something I wanted to fact check. We also saw AOC respond to that, tweeting, you're right, Mr. President, you don't have a racist bone in your body,

Starting point is 00:14:01 you have a racist mind in your head and a racist heart in your chest. That's why you violate the rights of children and tell the congresswoman who represents your home borough to go back to my country Also of note here Trump isn't the only one that's arguing that the house should condemn the things that AOC and the other women in The squad have said you had some Republicans defending Trump's tweets saying that they are in fact not racist like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy also Republican Representative Sean Duffy who said in those tweets I see nothing that references anybody's race, not a thing. I don't see anyone's name being referenced in the tweets, but the president's referring to people,

Starting point is 00:14:29 congresswomen, who are anti-American. And a lot of the Republicans who spoke on the floor last night argued that it should be the women of the squad who should be condemned for their comments. But that was very much a Republican thing because the Democrats at least seemed unified in defending the squad. But that unity could also be short-lived because obviously there was an issue between AOC, the squad, and Pelosi before all of this. There's also still a disagreement among Democrats regarding impeaching the president. And ultimately, you know,

Starting point is 00:14:51 that's kind of where we are right now. Right, on Twitter, we've also seen Trump quoting Louisiana Senator John Kennedy, calling the squad the four horsewomen of the apocalypse, calling them whack jobs. Right, and as time goes on, the further we get away from the initial posting of a tweet that read,

Starting point is 00:15:03 why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came, the further we get away from the initial posting of a tweet that read, "'Why don't they go back and help fix "'the totally broken and crime-infested places "'from which they came?' The more defenders of the president minimize and dilute that initial statement. And the thing is, there are very few reasons that have popped up for him to act any other way. In fact, according to a new Reuters Ipsos poll, support among Republicans for the president

Starting point is 00:15:19 went up after this statement. Reportedly, his net approval among the Republican Party went up five points. And sure, that same poll showed that he dropped among independents and Democrats. Although the polling note that I've hit on constantly, I will continue to do it up to the 2020 election, is really the only polls that matter are the swing states.

Starting point is 00:15:35 Right, specifically those states that Obama had won in the past and then Trump won in 2016. But as I said on Monday, this is not a slip, this is not anything else, this is part of the Trump strategy. Trump and his people know that his core will not abandon him for anything. Right, and this confidence goes all the way back

Starting point is 00:15:49 to when he first said, where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? And these years later, it doesn't appear that that confidence has been misplaced. And so with Trump and his people knowing that there's this base that he cannot lose, all he has to do is really get them riled up

Starting point is 00:16:03 so that they go out and vote in mass. Right, and how do you do that? How do you motivate people outside of just, they love you, they support you, you give them an enemy. You give them fear and hate of an enemy. And AOC and the Squad are the perfect enemy. One of my favorite descriptions of AOC that I've ever seen is that she's Fox News catnip.

Starting point is 00:16:19 Right, and AOC and that group, they're polarizing individuals. There's a lot of love for them, there's a lot of hate for them. And the more Donald Trump and the rest of the Republicans can attach the full Democrat party to these four people, I believe the better they think they will do in the upcoming election.

Starting point is 00:16:32 And I say all of this because if I was to guess anything, I think it's just going to escalate from here. With a split Congress and the base that doesn't move, what's to hurt him? Granted, there are arguments and reports that his words now could be used against him in court. As the Washington Post reported, in conjunction with other factors, they could help persuade judges to block court. As the Washington Post reported, in conjunction with other factors,

Starting point is 00:16:45 they could help persuade judges to block policies. As far as electability, I don't know. And that's where we're going to end today's show. And hey, if you liked this video, let us know. Take that second to hit that like button. Also, if you're new here, you want more of these dives into the news, be sure to hit that subscribe button.

Starting point is 00:16:58 Definitely ring that bell for all notifications. Also, if you're not 100% filled in, you wanna learn some more about the world, you can watch the brand new rogue rocket video You can watch yesterday's film to Franco show if you missed it box with that said of course as always my name is Philip DeFranco you've just been filled in I love yo faces, and I'll see you tomorrow

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 7.17 Huge FaceApp Security Controversy, Baby Shark vs Homeless, & The Trump AOC Pelosi Mess

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.