Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The AIH Transcript for June 27, 2017

Hosts: Laura Lunch and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music]

LAURA LYNCH: Hello, I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening, I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

LL: Building a worse mouse trap. Another ransomware attack hits computers around the world -- and with their machines rendered virtually useless, victims are willing to hand over virtual cash.

JD: Site unseen. When their relatively small website all but vanished from Google's results, a British couple sued -- and today, their long battle ended in victory, and a gigantic fine for the gigantic search engine.

LL: Smoking while black. A young Quebec man drives around the corner to sneak a cigarette after a hydro breaker explodes -- and he suddenly finds himself surrounded by 9 police officers with their guns drawn.

JD: As It Happens, she made As It Happens happen. Our former host Barbara Frum is inducted into the CBC News Hall of Fame -- so we'll look back on her time with us, and hear from her son David.

LL: Truth? Or dare? Former US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey says Donald Trump's warning to Syria over chemical weapons puts the US President's reputation on the line if there's another attack.

JD: And...it can't be forgotten -- and it must be re-membered. A Norwegian rock formation that looked like a penis is nothing more than a heap of junk, after being severed by vandals -- but our guest firmly believes it can be re-mounted.
As It Happens, the Tuesday edition. Radio that gets its rocks on.

Part 1: Petya ransomware, Quebec arrest, penis rock

Petya randomware

Guest: Fabian Wosar

JEFF DOUGLAS: "If you see this text, then your files are no longer accessible."
That is the beginning of a message that has been popping up on tens of thousands of screens today. A global cyberattack has hit everyone from an American pharmaceutical giant, Merck, to the deactivated nuclear facilities at Chernobyl.
Fabian Wosar is a security researcher with the defense firm Emsisoft, which specializes in ransomware. We reached Mr. Wosar in Rostock, Germany.

LAURA LYNCH: Mr. Wosar, what is this cyber-attack doing to people's computers?

FABIAN WOSAR: Essentially it hijacks the computer and holds them for ransom by essentially encrypting all the data that is stored on the computer.

LL: So if your computer has been attacked, what do you see? What happens?

FABIAN WOSAR: When you boot up your system, you will be greeted by a nice very retro looking text message on the screen that essentially tells you that all your data has been encrypted and that you need to pay a ransom to get access to your data and your computer back.

LL: And just quickly, what is the ransom?

FW: I think it's about 300 U.S. dollars in Bitcoins at the moment.

LL: OK. Who is being targeted in this attack?

FW: Pretty much everyone. Ransomware doesn't discriminate to be honest. They just target pretty much everyone with this particular attack. Subway companies in the Ukraine that are affected, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant this actually affected as well.

LL: That sounds dangerous. Is it?

FW: They say it isn't. And I'm tempted to believe them. Essentially they have systems that automatically check like the radioactivity levels and they switch those systems off and switched over to doing all these checks manually for the time being. So I don't think it's actually dangerous but it's kind of curious that that happened to be honest.

LL: So you mentioned now subway systems, Chernobyl, what else?

FW: ATM machines, ticket machines on train stations. Of course, a whole bunch of office computers as well. It's pretty serious especially since the company that is hosting the e-mail address that the ransomware also uses to accept the ransom payments and to help get users their files back after they paid, the e-mail address has been taken down. So at the moment there's actually no way for anyone to get their files back since they can't contact the ransomware author. He is the only one who has the keys that are required to unlock the files.

LL: Do you have any idea why that is?

FW: I would think that the e-mail company that is hosting the ransomware offer’s e-mail wasn't particularly fond of the kind of attention and publicity they were getting. And my guess is they simply got like a takedown notice from either a security researcher or even from law enforcement agencies. So they took the account.

LL: Except that that leaves people in the lurch.

FW: Yeah unfortunately.

LL: To those of us who aren't as tech savvy as you may be, can you explain how the ransomware spread?

FW: So they are like two parts of it. First of all, it uses the same kind of weakness within the Windows operating system that WannaCry used before.

LL: Which was a previous ransomware attack.

FW: Yes. Which is based on and exploits that was developed by the NSA. And the other way it's kind of spreads is that once it infiltrated a network, it can spread within that network using normal Windows features that are usually intended for administration purposes but that can also be abused, and which are abused by this ransomware.

LL: Now you just mentioned that the root of this is in the National Security Agency in the United States. It's something called Eternal Blue. How did that get into the hands of hackers?

FW: Pretty much every computer system can be hacked. And the NSA systems aren’t an exception to that. So the NSA got hacked by a group called The Shadow Brokers. And the Shadow Brokers first try to sell off all the exploits that they found on the NSA servers. And after they didn't get any money for it, they just decided to publish them without any money. And they essentially just published it and it's now out in the open and it's a heavily abused by a whole bunch of criminals now.

LL: You referred to the previous attack called, known to us WannaCry attack, but there was a kill switch for that attack that limited the damage. Is there a kill switch for this?

FW: There unfortunately isn't that kill switch. There is what you could call like a vaccine. Essentially the the ransomware checks for the presence of a certain file on the system. And if this file exists, then it doesn't infect the system it just closes. Now the problem with that is obviously there is no way to just create this file for everyone on the planet like it was possible with WannaCry. But you could just register a domain and that was available for everyone. So you can vaccinate your own system by creating that file although a much better approach would be to simply install the patch and the update from Microsoft to make your own system secure.

LL: And then that would be your advice going forward too, I take it?

FW: Yes definitely. And also create backups of all your files, all your memories. It's just incredibly important these days. Not only because of ransomware but also because hardware can fail. This Eternal Blue thing, using the NSA exploits to infect thousands upon thousands of computers worldwide will happen again and again and again.

LL: Who might want to carry out an attack like this and have the capability to do it?

FW: It's kind of hard to tell, to be honest. Like WannaCry and now this Petya thing, they don't share any code with the exception of the code that is used to actually exploit the vulnerability with the windows. The code itself isn't particularly sophisticated.

LL: So this could be anybody.

FW: This could literally be anybody. Yeah.

LL: When you mentioned before that the e-mail had been address had been taken down. Did anyone manage to pay the ransom before it was taken down?

FW: There have been a couple of payments to the bitcoin address. Yes they so far have made 3.27 Bitcoins which is around 8000 U.S. dollars so far.

LL: And that's all they're going to get out of this, isn't it.

FW: Probably yeah.

LL: A lot of damage for not a lot of pay.

FW: Well on the other hand, the malware only started spreading like 10 to 12 hours ago, so 8000 U.S. dollars for 12 hours of work probably also is quite a bit. But yeah other collateral damage is probably extremely high.

LL: Then how do you expect this attack to end?

FW: I don't expect it to end, honestly. There are still malware and viruses out there that exploit its similar vulnerabilities in the past, like 10 15 years ago that are still active. So this probably isn't going to end. It obviously will fizzle out a little bit and there will be less and less infections. But the past shows that unpatched systems that are unpatched now will probably still will be unpatched in 10 years. This will be around for a very long time.

LL: All right, Mr. Wosar, I’m going to go home and patch up my computer and back it up. Thank you.

FW: No problem.

LL: Bye-bye.

FW: Bye.

JD: JD: Fabian Wosar is a security researcher with the defense firm Emsisoft, which specializes in ransomware. We reached him in Rostock, Germany.

[Music]

For the Record: CNN Newser

JD: Today, deputy White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about a favourite topic of the Trump Administration: fake news.
As you may have heard, three journalists at CNN resigned this week, after a story they wrote about a Trump ally was retracted. The article linked the hedge fund manager who raised money for the Trump campaign to a Russian investment fund supposedly being investigated by the Senate. CNN says now that it does not stand fully by the reporting.
Ms. Sanders said there was a "constant barrage" of fake news directed at President Trump. She scolded the reporters in the press room, saying the Russia-Trump story is a "hoax." And then one reporter, Brian Keram of the Sentinel newspapers, got fed up. Here's part of that exchange, for the record:

SOUNDCLIP

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: You know, I think that we should take a really good look at what we are focused on, what we are covering, and making sure that it's actually accurate and it's honest. If we make the slightest mistake, the slightest word is off, it is just an absolute tirade from a lot of people in this room. But news outlets get to go on day after day and. Cite unnamed sources, use stories without sources. You know today you mentioned the Scaramucci story where they had to have reporters resign.

BRIAN KERAM: Come on, you’re complaining everybody right here right now with those words. This administration has done that as well. Why in the name of heavens, any one of us right, are replaceable. Any one of us, if we don't get it right, the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us. You have been elected to serve for four years at least. There's no option other than that. We're going to ask you questions. You’re here to provide the answers. And what you just think is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at this say, see once again the president is right and everybody else out here is fake media. And everybody in this room is only trying to do their job.

SHS: I just I disagree completely. First of all I think if anything has been inflamed, it's the dishonesty that often takes place by the news media. And I think it is outrageous for you to accuse me of inflaming a story when I was simply trying to respond to his question, Kevin.

JD: That was deputy White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders and reporter Brian Keram, earlier today.

[Music]

Quebec arrest

Guest: Malik Spaulding-Smith

JD: Malik Spaulding-Smith smokes. And the young Quebecker's mom didn't know that. Not until last Wednesday. That's when two things happened. A hydro breaker blew up near the family home. And, Mr Spaulding-Smith drove a couple of blocks away to sneak a cigarette. And then a third thing happened: the police showed up, guns drawn, and arrested Mr. Spaulding-Smith on weapons offences. Those charges have now been dropped. We reached Malik Spaulding-Smith in St-Constant, Quebec.

LL: Mr. Spaulding's Smith, you had driven a few blocks away from your house so that your your mother wouldn't catch you smoking and then something happened. How did you know that there was something strange going on?

MALIK SPAULDING SMITH: I knew something strange was going when a man came out of his house to come talk to me. And when he walked away he looked at my license plate. So basically what happened was I had went out to smoke a cigarette, as you said. My parents had left and a man came out of his house and approached me and asked me if I knew Julianne, which is I think it was his neighbor. And I told him “No I don't know Julianne, who is that?” And he just completely ignored me and when I said no, his face changed and he just grilled me and he had had this look on his face of disgust.

LL: He grilled you?

MSS: Grilling, like he give me a dirty look. That's it. A dirty look.

LL: Were you at all aggressive toward him?

MSS: No, I was in my car, with my cigarette on my phone. He went to go to get his garbage and put it in his front and when he did you see me in my car just there chilling and he just approached me and said “Do you know this person.” And I said “No I don't know who Julianne is.” So he walks away and as he's walking away I see him look at my license plate. Some I’m like, OK that's funny. I stayed for like maybe a minute longer and then I went home.

LL: Why would he have given you a dirty look?

MSS: The only thing I could say is because I'm black because I don't feel like he'd be given that look to anybody else. You know there was I wasn't doing anything for him to be looking at me like that.

LL: And was he white, black? What was he?

MSS: He was a Caucasian male.

LL: He didn't say anything to you about your race though.

MSS: He didn't know he didn't say anything to me about my race but I said on the face that he didn't like the fact that I was on his street I guess.

LL: And what did you do after he left.

MSS: After he left, I stayed there for like not even a minute longer and then I went to my house. And apparently while I was there that's when the bang went off. And so I went to my house. I played a game of NBA 2K 17.

LL: Which is a video game?

MSS: Yes. And so I did that. I've and then I had school at eleven o'clock that morning. So I left my house at 10:45. So where I come outside, open my door. I took about three or four steps and all is “Freeze.” And I look up, I looked to my left and to my right. There’s about 12 or 13 different squad cars and nine police officers were pistols pointed at me and another one across the street holding an assault rifle.

LL: What went through your mind?

MSS: I was I was in shock. I didn't know what was happening and I was I was honestly in shock and I just told myself, I've seen everything they do in America, just listen to what they tell you, and that's what, that's what I did. I just complied with what they told me. They told me put your hands in the air, walk towards me, and turn around and walk backwards. Get on the ground, put your hands behind your my back again. And then they cuffed me up, searched me up and that was my number one thing was just to listen to them because they're the ones with the gun and they are have nine pointed at you right now so just do as told.

LL: You must have been terrified.

MSS: I was I was. I've never been I've never been held at gunpoint. So it was it was an experience for me and especially that there was nine plus an assault rifle, it was a different experience.

LL: Have you ever had any experience with the police before?

MSS: I have. It's very common to being racially profiled over here in St-Constant, in my area. We call it DWB, driving while black, because I could just be driving around and a police would be parked somewhere and would see me with a black passenger with me and he would literally get out from what he's doing, he'll stop drop everything just to come punching my plate or pull me over for something.

LL: But you had never been formally arrested.

MSS: No.

LL: So they took you into custody. What were you charged with?

MSS: They told me I'm being charged with intimidation and possession of a firearm.

LL: And did you have a firearm.

MSS: I did not have a firearm and I did not speak to anybody to intimidate them.

LL: So. So what happened next how long were you held in custody?

MSS: I was held in custody for about nine hours.

LL: What did they tell you why they arrested you on weapons charges?

MSS: They said that a man called stating that I went on his street shooting and I let off a shot in the air.

LL: And that was not true.

MSS: No, it was a hydro Hydro Quebec box that had exploded.

LL: And what did the police do when they realized their mistake?

MSS: They didn't do anything. I didn't an apology, I just got, “Do you want to ride home?”

LL: What did they say?

MSS: They said that we had just got new information that gave us a new lead. So it confirms that it has nothing to do with you. Do you know why they didn't want to tell me what they knew lead was because it's confidential.

LL: But you know now what that was.

MSS: I know now that it was a hydro bus that exploded, yes.

LL: So how do you explain how this could possibly have happened, that this had nothing to do with you and you end up with surrounded by police officers just outside your house.

MSS: Most likely it was racial profiling. You know you hear a bang. You see a black kid outside of your house, and you know and I guess you didn't like the fact that I was just there on the street. So I really do think he tried to set me up.

LL What makes you so certain that it was this man though who contacted the police?

MSS: Because the police told us told us that someone gave them my license plate. And he was the only person who looked at my license plate. It was just him and me.

LL: And what makes you so certain he was motivated by racism?

MSS: Because the look on his face when I told him I told him I didn't know what that person was. And then his face changed. The bang could have literally been anything but you're going to think it’s a shot. I guarantee if a black kid was not standing outside of his house, he would never have thought oh a shot went off.

LL: How has all of this left you feeling?

MSS: I'm scarred. I'm scarred for life. I haven't been able to eat properly for the past couple of days. I don't go outside to see friends anymore because I don't feel good about going or outside anymore. Every time I walk out of my house I just have the image of all those police cars in front of my house and then pointing the pistols at me. Day by day I have to go with it.

LL: How old are you?

MSS: I'm 20 years old.

LL: And you have younger brothers do you?

MSS: Yes I have a younger brother.

LL: A younger brother, and what have you told him?

MSS: I can't even look at him in the eyes right now. I can't tell him anything. The most I could tell him is just to be safe because when he's the one who's going to be my age, even at the age of 16, 17 they're going to start harassing him. Like the look on his face apparently when he got off the bus he's seen all the tape around my house that they had put around the perimeter and he said that he thought somebody died.

LL: In light of all of this are you considering legal action?

MSS: Oh we're taking precautions. Yes we’re planning on sueing the man who accused me of all this because it's not right.

LL: What about the police?

MSS: We want to bring them to court also.

LL: Can I ask you at the end of all of this, Mr. Spalding Smith, what did your mom do when she found out that all of this began when you wanted to have a cigarette but you didn't want her to know about it.

MSS: She couldn't single out that because I just had 10 guns pointed at me.

LL: That made smoking secretly smoking seemed like nothing at all I guess.

MSS: Exactly. Really. If there was a time where I wanted to tell her that this was probably I wouldn't say that the best way, but the most way she wouldn't be mad I guess.

LL: Mr. Spalding Smith, thank you.

MSS: Thank you guys.

LL: Bye-bye.

MSS: Bye.

JD: Malik Spaulding-Smith is a student. We reached him in St-Constant, Quebec.

[Music]

Penis rock

Guest: Kjetil Torgeirsen

JD: It is a rock formation shaped like a penis. Or, at least it was. And if a group of Norwegians has its way, it will be once again.
On the weekend, the rock known as Trollpikken -- near the southern city of Egersund in Norway -- was literally amputated, badly vandalized.
Kjetil Torgeirsen is a local paramedic, and one of the people leading the effort to repair and re-attach Trollpikken. We reached him in Egersund, Norway.

LL: Mr. Torgeirsen, for those who haven't seen it in person or in a photograph. Describe for me what what Trollpikken looks like.

KJETIL TORGEIRSEN: Well it's kind of iconic. It looks like an erect penis actually.

LL: Well what does it feel like to sit on the rock?

KT: It's quite spectacular actually because you have a view over the local area and you are about eight to 12 meters down to the ground and the rock itself is a massive rock weighing approximately 10 metric tons.

LL: That's what it looked like before. What does it look like now after this act of vandalism on the weekend?

KT: It looks not so proud anymore. Luckily the rock itself seems to have gotten just minor injuries from the fall. So the local contractors told us after inspections today that they could have it reattached by late summer.

LL: So in other words it actually, the whole piece of it fell down onto the ground and is detached from what it used to be attached to.

KT: Yes that's correct.

LL: What other damage was done to the rock.

KT: They used to pneumatic drills and tools to destroy it, but the cuts are very clean so it should be, the contractor told us that it should be 99.5 the original.

LL: You say “they”. I gather you mean vandals. Why do you think someone would do this?

KT: We had no idea what all or we speculate but the police are handling the situation and they are starting interrogations to today actually. So we hope that we will know more during the week. Police are optimistic we have found part of the tools that they used. There are also some witness observations so we are pretty sure that we will know more about who did this and why they did it in a short time.

LL: You're now raising money to have it fixed and you're feeling pretty positive about that. The response has been really good so far. Was it already popular before this act of vandalism?

KT: It was gaining popularity. We have known about this formation for several years but it's just a couple of weeks ago that we started to promote it. And we started planning the preparation of the area for tourists.

LL: And maybe that's that was his downfall was you letting drawing people's attention to it.

KT: Yes. Most probably that that's the case. But vandalism has also had a huge impact on the interest for the formation.

LL: Even with all of the money that you've been trying to raise, it seems like that's going to be a lot to try to repair it. It's going to be a lot of money and a lot of technical planning. What is the plan?

KT: We had the local contractor who was willing to take the job up for inspection today. And they estimated one week of work for two or four persons to have it reattached.

LL: I thought I had read somewhere that they were planning to use blue bolts which seemed like an all, just maybe too much of a reference to little blue pills that help others in the area of trying to have things remounted.

KT: Yes I think that that is kind of the plan. I guess the contractors used the commercial value of taking on this job.

LL: But they're also going to employ helicopters, is that correct?

KT: Yes they will use helicopters to fly in the tools and mount the crane on site.

LL: This is such an operation. It seems quite incredible. You're a health care worker and a paramedic. Did you ever foresee campaigning for Trollpikken and then seeing this enormous response?

KT: No I didn't see that coming.

LL: What do you think it says though that people are coming to its rescue so to speak.

KT: I think it's wonderful to see how big the potential for the attraction really is. The media coverage has been enormous. I guess there are no attractions in the area besides the [unintelligible] rock who can compete with this media coverage internationally.

LL: So perhaps the vandals helped you in a sense.

KT: I guess they did.

LL: What have you heard about why people seem to care so much about Trollpikken?

KT: That was one of the of the Norwegian journalists today who thinks that it in a very good way. He said that whenever I read about the Trollpikken and or hear about, it makes me smile. So I think I think the concept makes people happy.

LL: It seems to be making you happy.

KT: Yes.

LL: Well perhaps we can check back with you later on in the summer to see how the, ;et's see what should we call it, operation to reattach goes.

KT: Yes you're welcome to do that. And if everything goes as planned, we will have the area prepared for taking a lot of tourists next summer.

LL: All right. Mr. Torgeirsen, thank you.

KT: OK. Thank you.

LL: Bye-bye.

KT: Bye.

JD: Kjetil Torgeirsen is a local paramedic and one of the people leading the effort to rescue and repair Trollpikken, also known as the "penis rock". We reached him in Egersund, Norway.
You can find more on this story on our website – including, and you know you want to see them, photographs of Trollpikken. That's at cbc.ca/aih.

Part 2: Google fine, Syria warning

Google fine

Guest: Shivaun Raff

JEFF DOUGLAS: It is the largest fine ever handed out by the European Commission: a penalty of 2-point-4 billion euros for Google -- which amounts to more than 3-point-5 billion Canadian dollars.
This week, E.U. antitrust officials ruled that when online shoppers go to search for products on Google's search engine, the company unfairly favours its own shopping services, rather than websites of its rivals. And the fine is a blow to a company seen as the Goliath of the tech world.
And if Google is Goliath, Shivaun and Adam Raff are David. The Raffs are the founders of a UK comparison shopping site called Foundem. They were the first company to launch an antitrust complaint against Google back in 2010. The Raffs are from Reading, U.K., incidentally. But we reached Shivaun Raff today in Brussels.

LAURA LYNCH: Does this feel like vindication, for a tiny website like yours to win over Google?

SHIVAUN RAFF: Yes vindication, but I do think this is a really important decision and we are really pleased at the European Commission’s guilty verdict from today. It's really important not just for our company but also for all of the ecosystem on the Internet. And it's a really important decision for consumers.

LL: Can you explain exactly what Google was doing that was illegal?

SR: So today's prohibition decision has found Google to be illegally manipulating its search results in two ways. Google is artificially promoting its own specialized services. So for example, its comparison shopping service, its travel search service, its local search service. At the top of any query which might be relevant, irrespective of that Google service is the best or most relevant results of that query. And simultaneously, Google is artificially demoting or excluding all the competitors.

LL: In your case, your company, which is called Foundem, was the first to complain formally about this to the EU. First of all, tell us about the website found them and why you started it.

SR: We launched a vertical search service way back in 2006. So we did product comparison and within weeks of launching our service, we were struck by a Google search penalty that excluded us from Google search results and unfortunately that means we were effectively disappeared from the Internet because of course Google is the gatekeeper to the Internet and plays a decisive role in determining what practically everyone reads, uses and purchases online. All Internet companies have an uncomfortable but unavoidable reliance on being found and discovered in search engines. Because Google is so dominant, when we say search engines, we actually mean Google.
And simultaneously Google started to promote its competing service to ours, so that whenever a user puts a product price comparison related queries, so for example “cheap Fitbit” or “best price for the Apple iPod Touch”, you get Google's own service very comprehensive, naturally at the top. And today's decision has said that Google search manipulation practices are illegal and has given Google 90 days to cease and desist those practices.

LL: Why did you, as the founders of a small website this small company and the U.K. feel that it was so important to challenge one of the biggest companies in the world?

SR: The outcome of this case is going to determine the future of competition, innovation, and consumer choice across the Internet. That is worth fighting for. That even though we were a small company, it was essential to restore that level playing field that allows us as a small innovative company and indeed all innovation on the Internet to thrive. It was worth the effort.

LL: But these kinds of legal battles, as evidenced by this case, take years and they cost a lot of money. Where did you get the money from to keep fighting.

SR: We actually interacted with the commission ourselves, so it's not an adversarial process, the European Commission's investigation. It's sort of a mediated process where the European Commission sits in the middle, asks us of lots of questions, we respond and then asks Google lots of questions and Google responds. It was a case of devoting time, effort, and intellectual effort.

LL: But your business, did it founder?

SR: Sadly yes. We have had to suspend our service but we look forward to relaunching our service once the commission's interventions have restored a level playing field that would allow our service and other competitors to thrive.

LL: Now Google is disputing the E.U.’s claims. It says it's actually boosted Europe's digital economy and that there is significant online competition in Europe from Amazon and eBay. What do you say to that?

SR: One of the unusual things about this particular case is that Google was given the specific charge sheet two years ago and has had two years to provide any arguments or defenses that it would like to put up in order to dispute the charges. So this is now a guilty verdict. This is not the beginning of a conversation.
The other thing I highlighted, that Amazon and E-bay of course, are not comparison shopping services. So Amazon and eBay doing quite well is actually a red herring in the context of this case. It has no incentive to anti-competitively demote or exclude Amazon or E-bay in its such results.

LL: In reality though, Google is worth nearly $500 million. So a fine like this is pretty much peanuts. Do you think the decision actually will change anything?

SR: Absolutely because the decision is calling for the restoration of a level playing field. Search manipulation is very insidious, It's incredibly hard for a normal user to be able to tell that the most innovative or relevant services are being excluded from the user's search results. And it's very hard to even spot that Google is referencing its own, is giving its own services a massive leg up. So while the outcome of this case won’t immediately change search results in a way that will be massively noticeable to your users, over time, your users are going to end up finding far more relevant results. So yes, I think this is going to change a lot.

LL: Although just to be clear that the ruling today does not affect anything that Google does here in North America.

SR: No this ruling is only binding on Google within Europe. But that leaves North American consumers less well protected and there’s going to be therefore an imperative on Americas and Canada's competition regulators to also intervene so that their consumers are as well protected as Europe's consumers.

LL: Let's bring it back to you and this fight that began for you so many years ago. How are you and your partner going to celebrate this today?

SR: At some point soon I'm hoping that we're going to stop doing interviews and go and have supper.

LL: Ms. Raff, thank you for your time.

SR: It was a pleasure, Laura. Have a great evening.

JD: Shivaun Raff is the co-founder of Foundem, a UK comparison shopping site. They were the first company to formally complain to the European Union about Google. We reached Ms. Raff in Brussels -- which is 444 kilometres east of her hometown, a place called "Reeding"? I’m joking, Reading.

[Music]

Barbara and Earl

SOUNDCLIP

BARBARA FRUM: Hello, Earl?

EARL OF CARNARVON: That’s a very lovely way of addressing me. You are sweet. Am I talking to beloved Barbara?

BF: That's lovely too.

EOC: Good.

BR: Thank you. Is that correct though? What do I call you?

JD: That was former As It Happens host Barbara Frum, wondering how to address the 6th Earl of Carnarvon, in an interview from 1978.
He was telling her about a curse that had afflicted his family since his father opened the Tomb of King Tut. And the interview got a bit tense. But here's how it ended.

SOUNDCLIP

BF: Is that story true about your involvement?

EOF: Every word that I've written in that book is true and please don't think that I tell lies because I never do.

BF: [laughs] Is entire British aristocracy as perky and fresh as you?

EOF: That honey, you will have to find out on your own. [laughs]. I'm not a bad old boy of 78 am I?

BF: I’ll say.

EOF: I only wish you were here in the flesh.

BF: Well thank you very much.

EOF: A big kiss and thanks for calling.

BF: Bye.

EOF: Bye dear.

JD: That was Barbara Frum, navigating her way 'round a perky British Earl on As It Happens in 1978. She would go on to navigate her way through a lot of memorable interviews. There's the famous, hard-of-hearing cabbage farmer. Her take-down of Toronto Maple Leafs owner Harold Ballard. And later, her extraordinary 1990 conversation with Nelson Mandela.
Today, CBC inducted Barbara Frum into its News Hall of Fame for her work on As It Happens, and later The Journal. Here's what Barbara's son, David Frum, had to say at the ceremony in Toronto.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID FRUM: Barbara described in an interview years ago how she approached the work of journalism. She said it was like being a drip of water trying to penetrate a great rock and the drip is very small and the rock is very big. But in time, that water can carve a track through the rock. And I think, what is remarkable about the career of Barbara Frum is that even after she has left us, she continues to carve that track.
One of the things that if you that all of us who have been bereaved, and I don't know that a human being has been spared that experience, understands that when we lose someone, we do not cease to speak to them. All we lose is that they cease to speak to us. And so what we find ourselves doing is having a one way conversation in replacement of a two-way conversation, trying to capture at every moment what she would have said. The one we've lost would have said had she been here to speak to us.
When we lost Barbara Frum, there was no Internet, no social media, and cable news was still just an afterthought. People in media could be excused for thinking of Barbara Frum as a person from another time, whose accomplishments huge as they were did not apply to the challenges of a very different era in media and in public affairs.
I think we are all here to say, standing here together today because we understand that nothing could be more wrong than this view. The defining challenge of media in our time, as in all times, is the problem not of technology, but of truth. The new media environment offers a congenial welcome to bias, to disinformation, and to outright propaganda, in the service sometimes of market share, sometimes of ideology, and sometimes of state power. It's an environment in which we find ourselves mourning more and more the loss of Barbara Frum’s distinctive voice. She often said “Above all things, I hate a lie.”
How much we miss, how keenly we miss that keen integrity. How grateful we are even for the too short time in which we knew it and how intensely do we continue to be inspired by it.

JD: David Frum, son of Barbara Frum, speaking about his mother at a ceremony today in Toronto -- where the former As It Happens host was inducted into the CBC News Hall of Fame.
This summer, you can hear many of Barbara Frum’s memorable interviews on As It Happened, our special archive show. It’s going to be here, on CBC Radio One, every Friday at 7:30.

[Music]

Syria Warning

Guest: James Jeffrey

JD: Syria and its allies are showing little patience for Donald Trump's warning about the use of chemical weapons.
Yesterday, the White House accused Damascus of preparing a chemical attack -- and promised that there would be a price to pay if they did. Then Mr. Trump's UN Ambassador said that Syria's Russian and Iranian allies would also be held to account.
This however, isn't the first time a U.S. President has issued a stern warning to Damascus. James Jeffrey is a former United States Ambassador to Turkey and Iraq, and served as deputy national security advisor to George W. Bush. We reached Ambassador Jeffrey in Washington.

LL: Ambassador Jeffrey, what is at stake now that the White House has issued this warning not just to Bashar al Assad but also to Russia and Iran?

JAMES JEFFREY: Well the warning from the White House was to Assad and then our U.N. ambassador added in vague terms Russia and Iran, but the focus is on Syria and on Assad. And what's at stake immediately is the credibility of the United States having drawn the red line against chemical weapon use in 2013. Then the Trump administration striking Iranian targets in a show of force mission without a major strategic impact a couple of months ago. And now if Assad is ready to do it again, which American intelligence indicates, this would be a direct challenge that Washington feels it has to respond to very strongly. But the back story is we’re engaging ever more in a confrontation with Iran backed to some degree by Assad and Russia in this whole area between Iraq and the Mediterranean.

LL: So this is a bit of a proxy battle then.

JJ: Exactly. I mean there's more to it than just Assad wanting to drop some more chemical weapons on his own population.

LL: Well and Iran seems to be picking up on that. It's calling this a dangerous escalation on the part of the White House. How do you respond?

JJ: I would have been surprised if Iran had said anything other. The question is what will Iran do about it?

LL: And what do you say to your own question then?

JJ: Well Iran's modus operandi since 1979 has been to strike out at American diplomatic establishments, military bases, targets in the United States and elsewhere civilian targets, or individual Americans to take hostages through their vessels, through their surrogates. So if Iran is really serious, then it will begin counterattacking against the United States.

LL: Counter-attacking how?

JJ: Well they could attack embassies, they could attack U.S. ships or boats in the Gulf as they did a year ago. They could have surrogates fire rockets into American bases in Iraq where they're in close proximity to American forces, or they could unleash Hezbollah in Syria against these enclaves that the United States and its allies have in the south and in the north.

LL: Now you've worked in diplomatic circles, what do you make of the fact that this warning seemed to come as a surprise to both the U.S. State Department and the military?

JJ: Well the White House pushed back and said Tillerson and Mattis, the two secretaries knew, and I wouldn't be surprised about that. The problem is who's saying that they were surprised. It's unnamed officials who were called. And that indicates either people wanted to keep the discussions close hold or the internal dissemination of information is not working well. That's at least as likely an explanation as some idea that Trump came up with this thing without checking with Mattis and Tillerson. He certainly wouldn't have done it without checking with it Tillerson.

LL: And perhaps is also a reflection of the fact that Trump and his top advisers don't have a bureaucracy that they feel that they can go to and trust.

JJ: It's not that they don't trust the bureaucracy because the decision having worked at all levels in this bureaucracy, the decision to disseminate is one that General Mattis and Secretary Tillerson would make. But if they don't have the people in place yet to circulate this information to all of the people who need to know about it, and that's hundreds for something like that, then people are going to be in the dark below that level. That's not the end of the world. It would be far worse if we thought that Tillerson and Mattis had been left out.

LL: Now the warning comes as ISIS is losing control of big parts of Syria and other parties are moving into the vacuum trying to replace them. Describe to me what U.S. interests are in that fight?

JJ: The interest in defeating ISIS is obvious and I won't go into that. Tremendous domestic support for it, international support. In terms of the great game afterwards, that involves Iranian expansion. That was the main subject of Trump's visit to the region last month when he met with the Saudis and other Arab leaders in Riyadh. And then he met previously with Turkey's president, Erdogan, and then he went on to Israel. Everybody is very very unhappy with Iran. They think Iran is expanding in Yemen, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria. All countries that are Sunni states, and with the exception of Afghanistan, Arab States. Where Iran is seen to be taking advantage of the absence of American power and now the vacuum with the end of ISIS.

LL: So which party do you back then? The United States went into this backing to a degree, Syrian rebel forces. Who’s their pony now?

JJ: The United States is not yet sure how it is going to contain Iran. It has the top line mission of doing so, it committed itself to that Riyadh. But how to do this as somebody who was involved in this at several points, how to deal with Iran is very very complicated because a Iran is powerful, it is determined it has a very very hard core leadership, and it has lots of ways to make you hurt. So they're still working their way through this. The problem is, the series of confrontations generated by the Syrians, which means ultimately the Iranians against U.S. interests in Syria in the last month culminating in this apparent readiness to launch chemical weapons, is an indication that the Syrians and the Iranians are going on the offensive. They want to drive the United States and the anti-ISIS coalition out of Syria, out of Iraq and out of the region.

LL: Given all of that then, if we do see another chemical weapons attack in Syria, what are you going to be looking for a president to do?

JJ: Well President Trump will strike. That's not the question. The issue is what will he do? Will he do it in such a way that the Syrians will never contemplate that again? That requires more than hitting 10 or 12 obsolescent airplanes. That requires going after key strategic targets in Damascus. We'll see if he's ready to do that. I think the reason for the very unusual oral warning is to put Assad and put the world on notice that this time it’s going to be really harsh.

LL: Ambassador Jeffrey thank you.

JJ: Thank you.

LL: Bye-bye.

JD: James Jeffrey is a former United States Ambassador to Turkey and Iraq. He served as deputy national security advisor to President George W. Bush. We reached him in Washington.

Trudeau combat

JD: Prime Minister Trudeau sees no contradiction between his promise to keep Canada out of combat in Iraq and last week's news that a special forces sniper had killed an ISIS fighter from almost 3-and-a-half kilomtres away. It was a record-setting kill-shot made headlines around the world. But this morning, it had reporters asking Mr. Trudeau why he didn't just admit that our soldiers are sometimes taking part in combat. Here is part of the prime minister's response.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: The advise and assist mission that our Canadian forces are engaged in in northern Iraq has always had an element of defense, of obviously Canadian troops and of our coalition partners. That is something that is integral to this mission, and that is something that has always been followed. Defense of our coalition partners is something that is expected of Canada and quite frankly, Canadians expect of themselves, in an advise, even in an advise and assist capacity. And what happened there is, first of all, something to be celebrated for the excellence of the Canadian forces in their training and their performance of their duties. But also something to be understood as being entirely consistent with what Canada is expected and Canadians expect our forces to be doing as part of the coalition against Daesh.

JD: That was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaking to reporters this morning in Ottawa.

[Music]

Marital satisfaction

JD: Your spouse is talking to you about...something. You know it's a subject, but you kind of tuned out at the part where your beloved partner said "The reality is..."
But this time its different. This time you didn't tune out because of mild to severe irritation. This time you tuned out because what you hear coming out of your spouse's mouth sounds like this:

[Sound: Puppy sounds]

JD: Puppies. Yes. Nature's marriage counsellors, puppies.
But you ask “Jeff,” as your spouse yammers on about whatever in the background, "how can cute animals improve my enjoyment of my marriage?" I’m glad you asked. Allow me to refer you to a study by researchers from Florida State University.
These researchers gathered 144 couples, all married less than five years. The researchers showed some of their subjects pictures of their spouses -- alongside pictures of puppies, and kittens, and rabbits, and positive words. And they found that the people who'd gone through that exercise felt better about their partners, felt better about their marriages, as the experiment progressed. Much more so than the people who hadn't.
Even James McNulty, the head researcher, said, "I was actually a little surprised that it worked." But since it did, he's hoping to apply the work to help people in long-distance relationships -- soldiers on deployment and their partners, in particular -- to be happier together, even if they’re apart.
So maybe try an experiment: the next time your partner starts rabbiting on, imagine actual rabbits. Or any other baby animal. And see if it brings back the puppy love.

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

June 27, 2017 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode