Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a quotation record.
00:00:00accounts for nothing. R$5000 is obvious, it stinks bad. The bank doesn't block it,
00:00:03and who owes the guy the money? So these
00:00:07applications made it easy, you can overturn this. So there is, but you have to
00:00:12Then suddenly the file a lawsuit, that's why I say they have to. Because if he called the
00:00:15bank and said it wasn't me, and the bank looked and said, let's see the IP. Oh, it really is
00:00:19the IP from Rio de Janeiro. The user is from
00:00:24content that immediately generates Curitiba. Many strange things. The bank made a mistake. Oh, let's pay, we'll return the amount or not
00:00:27charge you. Solution. You have to file a
00:00:30lawsuit in 90% of cases. And
00:00:33what changes today in the relationship
00:00:37between offices, especially
00:00:41due to the advancement, especially
00:00:45of AIs, right?
00:00:47Because today you take a contract, you put it in
00:00:51GPT, it gives you the main
00:00:53information, it helps you
00:00:57write contracts. What changes?
00:01:00What changes in offices? What changes in the legal process
00:01:03and is it taking away jobs? Not yet, not yet. I
00:01:07think it will take away part of the, it will replace labor. I
00:01:11am very, I
00:01:13and her husband's. The husband started I strongly believe in this thesis, in fact I have a lecture that
00:01:16worries me. I think that labor will partly be, who
00:01:20will lose? A large part of human
00:01:24functions will be replaced by generative AI.
00:01:27to unlock it. It's like he took a locked phone, and So many people will lose, especially... those who do not
00:01:30depend on, for example, right away,
00:01:34voice actors, screenwriters,
00:01:36uh, who, who makes, you're going to make, you're going to
00:01:40make people here start crying. No, but it's, videomakers, we
00:01:44are a TV, there are, there are all these people you're talking about, uh, but did you see
00:01:48that Disney screenwriters were on strike, Hollywood screenwriters were on
00:01:51strike, because they know that many movies are being written by AI
00:01:55that is good, book authors. So for the people here
00:01:59in the production not to worry too much or not to like me, I have another
00:02:02thesis: today the story of handmade is more expensive, you want a
00:02:06handmade shoe, it's the luxury of luxury, I think the future will be that
00:02:10handmade will be the luxury, so ah there's the script made by AI and there's the one
00:02:16and you know that here you can trust in that will be by the screenwriter who is a man who is a human being, I say not that it's a person, ah so let's do it with a
00:02:20person, he has more human
00:02:23sense, right? More sense, so I think maybe the future will be this handmade story,
00:02:27but regarding offices, do we have time? for me to tell you or will it be
00:02:31next? We have time. Regarding offices, uh, for
00:02:34now it is not, it is not replacing
00:02:38it in law and it is hindering, hindering,
00:02:41why? Because the client relies on the AI's
00:02:45answer as if it were a legal consultation. The AI makes
00:02:49many mistakes for Brazilian law. The
00:02:52ChatGPT has indexed content in Portuguese close
00:02:56to 1 to 5% only. ChatGPT is a platform
00:03:00that indexes content in English 95%, so it is much
00:03:03better for issues related to
00:03:06literature, American law,
00:03:10English law, in English. So much so that for medicine it is much
00:03:13better than for Brazilian law.
00:03:17In our, in our area it makes many mistakes
00:03:19and when it makes mistakes, who is to blame? The office
00:03:23no, when it makes a mistake, the problem is the AI's problem, because it doesn't
00:03:27have, it doesn't have responsibility for the content. So much so that
00:03:31if you petition something made by an AI, the responsibility is yours. And
00:03:35why does it hinder? Because the client comes with a ready
00:03:38answer and when you contest the AI, he starts to doubt your
00:03:42opinion. Then the legal opinion becomes
00:03:45just a confirmation that the AI was right, but when the AI is
00:03:49wrong he has difficulty swallowing that he is wrong
00:03:53the platforms and placing the because he wanted it. It's the story of the confirmation bias of fake news, he
00:03:56is doing that with AI, including he manipulates the AI with prompts.
00:04:00Because let's say he's thinking about separating from his wife then he's there
00:04:04asking and he manipulates it because he asks several questions and then she answers, and by the
00:04:08end she answers more or less what he wanted, which often ChatGPT and
00:04:11AIs do that, they give you what you want even if it's wrong. Then he goes
00:04:15for legal consultation, the lawyer says you have no right, he goes crazy, saying how can I not
00:04:19have it, I asked her and she said I have the right. And then you know what he
00:04:23will do? Look for another one until someone confirms his thesis. But sometimes
00:04:27none will confirm. So today it is hindering. I received many
00:04:30emails because I disclose my private email on
00:04:35a company, except for environmental crimes, which is websites and so on. I receive emails that clearly look like ChatGPT made them. The client already
00:04:38sends them ready, the script is badly made because the AI does not
00:04:42work well with chat with Brazilian law. And another thing, it's not
00:04:45a market reserve, do a test, take
00:04:4930 lines of values, I did this with, for example, a credit card
00:04:53statement and ask it to
00:04:57where does add them up. For me, every time I did this, ChatGPT made a mistake. It gave the wrong
00:05:00calculation. Then I say, my account showed so much, she said, ah, I really checked here,
00:05:04you're right. The other day I asked a question
00:05:08about a client we wanted to do a survey, and so on. He said
00:05:11that his mother... he gave the name of the client's mother as his sister, he made a mistake.
00:05:15Then I say, but this person is not his mother. Ah, I saw here that I really looked
00:05:18better. For me, ChatGPT or AI today is the lazy
00:05:22intern, does everything carelessly, makes too many mistakes, you can't
00:05:25trust it. But people give it much more credibility than
00:05:29it should have. You mentioned LGPD, right? It
00:05:32changed the way people protect data, people,
00:05:36but there are companies that still treat it in a
00:05:40bureaucratic way. How
00:05:43come, because every
00:05:45now and then
00:05:48there are data breaches, right? Many,
00:05:51many from companies that
00:05:54have a certain protection, invest in protection, but there are many companies
00:05:58that we end up registering that you see that it leaked
00:06:02and the guy didn't care about your data. How do you fight
00:06:06that? Just to make a caveat for the people, in my opinion,
00:06:09it's not because I defined that AI is a
00:06:12lazy intern that it doesn't do some things very well. So, for
00:06:16example, as an accessory, it's excellent, I use it a lot for my car, it broke down, I
00:06:20send it to ChatGPT there, help me. So there is a good side, okay? It's important to
00:06:23record that. Speaking about LGPD, in the end, the
00:06:26fault was that the law was good, the law brings
00:06:30an interesting legal basis, brought legal certainty, it's good for everyone,
00:06:34it's like a consumer protection code, even companies liked it to have legal
00:06:37certainty, but as the national authority today, the national
00:06:41data protection agency has never
00:06:45properly supervised, so much so that it has applied three fines in its history, there are 5 years of LGPD, there are
00:06:49three fines in its history. You still see leaks almost every day, people didn't pay much
00:06:52attention, especially small and medium entrepreneurs. Large
00:06:56entrepreneurs are very much charged, right? They end up, another
00:07:00thing, large entrepreneurs realized that
00:07:03investing in data protection was marketing, not
00:07:07an expense. So, for example, I have a story, I
00:07:10arrived, I went to New York, I was in Times Square, I was looking at the
00:07:13advertisements, three consecutive advertisements were about data
00:07:17protection. One was from Meta saying ah, in our,
00:07:20in your WhatsApp conversation, it's secure here and so on. The
00:07:24other was from Apple. Apple talked so much about data security that
00:07:28they transformed an apple into a padlock, I don't know if you saw the advertisement where it turns into a
00:07:31padlock, a little apple. Why? My phone is secure, my
00:07:35phone doesn't let your data leak, data protection is today a marketing
00:07:39topic more than consumer protection. Of the data
00:07:43subject. Those companies that saw this surfed a little
00:07:46on this wave, invested as uh a
00:07:50situation in which it brings security, but it sells this, it has a return, it's
00:07:53worth it. But there are many people who don't see it, they say this is bureaucratic, this is an expense
00:07:57and so on, screw the consumer, until there's a leak and they lose the consumer, right? But we're
00:08:01talking about billion-dollar companies, right? But there are small offices,
00:08:04there are small companies that often don't have
00:08:08money to invest in security, right?
00:08:11Uh and sometimes... you don't even need much money,
00:08:13right? What is the guidance for
00:08:17these, for these small businesses to reduce the risk of
00:08:21precisely data breaches in cyber
00:08:25attacks? Micro small business, depending on the size, it
00:08:28even has the exemption from LGPD, it doesn't even need to
00:08:31comply, because for example, LGPD requires you to have
00:08:34a DPO, right? Which is the data protection officer. You,
00:08:38you are a bakery, you have a computer that records bread sales, you don't need to have a
00:08:41DPO. So there are several uh several
00:08:45exceptions, there are layers, there are layers. Now, if you are already a
00:08:48company that needs to adapt, I would say
00:08:51it's worth thinking about applying LGPD in an
00:08:55initial and conservative way, without, of course, spending a truckload of money, because it's
00:08:59good for everyone, it's good, but you need a specific person for that. Ah,
00:09:02do you need to? Yes, you do, because equipment is... imagine this: if
00:09:06you were a lawyer, if I were to set up a small company,
00:09:09what kind of equipment would I need? It depends. It
00:09:12depends, it depends on the amount of data you're going to process. If
00:09:16you're a small credit card company, you need a huge
00:09:20backup, huge. Imagine that every credit card operator
00:09:24can never let information get lost, otherwise you will
00:09:28lose the information of the sale, of the installments of a purchase
00:09:31and so on. So it has to be inviolable, almost, right? It has to be very secure. That's why the Brazilian
00:09:35banking system is a model for the world. But if you're a small company, you're
00:09:38just starting out, you have to have at least an IT person. The
00:09:42guy says, "Look, install antivirus, don't leave a computer so vulnerable,
00:09:46let's make access layers." We've already had problems, big company. Look, I'll
00:09:50give you an example, we had
00:09:52uh during the
00:09:55pandemic a very serious leak of a
00:09:58prescription of
00:10:02medication from Dr. David Wiip. He
00:10:05was head of the
00:10:09combat team, I worked with him, he's a friend.
00:10:12A great friend, he was head of the combat team
00:10:16there at João's. That's where the story came from, he was Secretary of
00:10:20State, Secretary of Health and coordinated the group
00:10:23of doctors. He, Jean
00:10:25Gorins.
00:10:28Then they said, look, he prescribed chloroquine or ivermectin, one
00:10:32of the medicines being debated at the time, I think it was chloroquine, chloroquine.
00:10:37prescription appeared publicly, this prescription signed by him and so on leaked from
00:10:40a large pharmaceutical company, right? From a large
00:10:43pharmacy, uh, a compounding pharmacy, no,
00:10:46not a chain pharmacy, ah, it wasn't
00:10:49a compounding pharmacy, no, no. So much so that we handled this case, we opened an
00:10:53inquiry, we found out who leaked it, who it was for, the manager of the
00:10:56pharmacy. Damn, the guy who
00:10:59puts this information in the system cannot leak it, so much so
00:11:03that ah, many people said it's good that it leaked, but that's a crime, he answered for the crime,
00:11:07the manager, it can't leak, that's, that's
00:11:10data protection, because we think of data protection as name, ID, no,
00:11:14sometimes it's an exam you're taking, sometimes it's an exam of a
00:11:17pregnant mother who doesn't want to tell her husband to make a
00:11:21surprise, the father receives an email offering diapers already,
00:11:25there have been data breach processes because the mother
00:11:28started buying pregnancy tests,
00:11:32she put it on her CPF, right? For the cancer, then the CPFs were linked, hers
00:11:38receiving a lot of advertisements for diapers, pacifiers,
00:11:41bottles and so on, to the point that he started to suspect that something was wrong and
00:11:44later he found out that he would be a father, and this affects reputation,
00:11:48the survival of a company, is there any example of a
00:11:52leak that somehow harmed the company's image
00:11:55and it lost uh lost revenue? But
00:11:59we're going to a short break and you'll answer:
00:12:25"Trust comes from dialogue, from the search for
00:12:29truth, from data journalism,
00:12:32exclusive data obtained via the Access to Information Law by
00:12:36Record News, from investigation,
00:12:41agility, in updated
00:12:43information, with context and analysis. If war is
00:12:46declared, if laws change, if the mosquito kills, if a sting
00:12:50saves, we show it. If the economy advances, if Congress
00:12:54splits, the forest burns, if artificial
00:12:57intelligence threatens or helps, we discuss
00:13:00and you participate. Send us your suggestions.
00:13:03Ecor News, you
00:13:07trust."
00:13:15Returning, Durso, in the previous block, we were talking about
00:13:18data breaches and treating them legally, but they
00:13:22can also somehow affect the image of
00:13:25companies. Do you know, does it affect the image?
00:13:29I think in Brazil, uh,
00:13:32it affects, but not to the point of bankrupting the company. I've
00:13:36never, I've never seen it happen here, perhaps because we are so
00:13:39used to leaks and impunity that people
00:13:42have kind of swallowed it already, but for example, in the United States
00:13:46there is research that when there is a large data breach at a
00:13:49company, 40% of consumers do not re-enter
00:13:52their data or do business with that company. So a very big blow,
00:13:56imagine losing 40% of your consumers, almost
00:13:59half. Here in Brazil I am sure that this number does not reach this
00:14:03level, but I think people are bothered, people sometimes even
00:14:07think about suing, so much so that this topic reached the STJ
00:14:11in the end, the STJ's decision was favorable to companies, because just
00:14:14leaking data does not immediately generate an obligation to pay
00:14:18compensation. So you received a message from the phone operator saying:
00:14:22your data leaked through here, if you file a lawsuit you
00:14:25don't win the case. Now, if because of this leak
00:14:29it fell into the hands of a criminal and a criminal committed fraud, then the company has
00:14:33to pay. The problem is proving that your leak generated the fraud, in this
00:14:36causal link, which is complex. So it's not that
00:14:40easy, so this discouraged many lawsuits. So today in Brazil, in the
00:14:43end, because of an ineffective NPD,
00:14:46we have a weak LGPD. The law as a whole is, as
00:14:50a theory, great, but in practice it's weak, and companies that are not
00:14:53very concerned. Was it worth applying the law? Yes, because many companies
00:14:57adapted, especially big techs, especially
00:15:00billion-dollar companies, as we said, but
00:15:04small and medium ones are not very concerned. Where
00:15:07does, where does freedom begin? Because
00:15:10often they always treat information
00:15:14when it is canceled as censorship.
00:15:17Where does freedom of expression begin and
00:15:22legal responsibility begin? That's a good question, isn't it? Today
00:15:25today people, because people say silly things, somehow
00:15:29confuse people and then they go
00:15:32and get legally burned. Ah, I'm being censored, that's the
00:15:36justification today. It's "I'm being censored," right?
00:15:39But it's something that often confuses people, leads
00:15:43people to make mistakes. The guy says it's not censorship, he has
00:15:47the right, it's legal, that's a good question, because in Brazil we
00:15:51have to enter this debate looking at two scenarios, the scenario of an abuse
00:15:54of the judiciary, especially the supreme court, and a scenario of
00:15:58user abuse. So on the one hand, we often have a supreme court
00:16:01that silenced people who shouldn't have been silenced, an example is Monark. I have
00:16:05all my reservations about talking about Monark. But the supreme court ruling that he cannot
00:16:09create any channel ever again in his life, if Monark
00:16:13wants to have a channel today to comment on fashion shows, he cannot
00:16:17have it due to a decision by the supreme court, by Minister Alexandre de Moraes, this is censorship,
00:16:20prior censorship, why? Because if he said something silly
00:16:24there on the podcast about Nazism and so on, he should
00:16:28be punished, he could even have a sanction of not
00:16:31being able to have a podcast anymore. Now, if he wants to have a gaming channel, a fashion
00:16:35channel, a political commentary channel,
00:16:37whatever it is, he cannot, this is censorship and people are reading this, they say,
00:16:41gosh, there's abuse here. On the other hand, people think they can
00:16:45say whatever they want, they cannot have the content excluded,
00:16:48which is also a mistake. Where is the limit of freedom of expression? Does freedom of expression
00:16:52have limits? Yes, the limit is in the
00:16:55law itself. The limit of freedom of expression is provided in
00:16:59law, which is from the moment you use this constitutional
00:17:02guarantee to commit a crime, you are exceeding
00:17:06the limit, so ah... "I'm being prejudiced,
00:17:10but it's my freedom of expression," no it's not, so much so that by law
00:17:13you cannot be prejudiced, so you are committing a crime, you abused your freedom of
00:17:17expression and will answer for it. What is the limit? The limit is the right of others, which
00:17:21is provided in law in crimes, especially in crimes.
00:17:25From the moment the user made a publication, it is criminal, it needs
00:17:28to be removed, it needs to be either by the platform,
00:17:32through the algorithm or by a judicial decision. If a judicial
00:17:35decision comes to remove that publication, it must be
00:17:39removed, yes, and it is right to be removed. Is he being
00:17:43censored? No,
00:17:45no, the judge has this power, this prerogative to, upon seeing a crime,
00:17:49eliminate it, prevent it, and that is not
00:17:53censorship, it is merely the application of what is provided in law. We talked a lot
00:17:57about deepfakes and AI in
00:18:00content production in electoral campaigns and in
00:18:04changes in electoral campaigns, but
00:18:07the world is not just electoral campaigns, we are in an election
00:18:10moment, is there a legal
00:18:14instrument to combat this? Because, right, we often
00:18:17see artists being
00:18:21right, uh, somehow violated
00:18:24by artificial intelligence videos, is the legal
00:18:28world prepared for this? Is there a tool that we talked about elections, but that's
00:18:32fine, but the world, the
00:18:35world in general, the legal world is prepared to
00:18:38defend? In Brazil, no, so much so that no law related to
00:18:42AI has been approved, we have nothing related to
00:18:46AI approved, we have a law, a bill for
00:18:49artificial intelligence that did not pass in congress,
00:18:53it's stalled. So in Brazil no, but I see
00:18:56ways to combat it, right? It's possible to combat it, yes. I think three
00:19:00pillars of combat. First pillar against the user
00:19:03author, he must answer for the crime committed with the use of AI.
00:19:08Second pillar, through blocking on
00:19:11AIs,
00:19:13so for example, the individual registers on chat GPT, sends a photo of himself and says, "Make a
00:19:17video of Hilsinho asking for votes for such a candidate," it has to say no, I can't, I won't
00:19:20produce it. If it doesn't produce it, it's harder for the user to
00:19:23viralize. So against the user, against
00:19:27uh by placing blocks directly on
00:19:31responsibility on social media where the content takes shape
00:19:34and is found by other users. If the content is
00:19:38illicit, there was a complaint and it is clearly illegal, you can see that it
00:19:42is an AI or whatever, it should be removed with more celerity, it should
00:19:45be taken down faster. But are you one of those who think that social
00:19:49media should be punished in some way for what
00:19:53users publish? I am one of those people, but I am not one of those
00:19:57who applauded what the supreme court did, because what did the supreme court do? When the supreme court
00:20:00ruled on platform responsibility, it stated that the platform today must
00:20:04pay for any illicit act, it only removed crimes against honor
00:20:08but everything else, I even said many times in an interview
00:20:11there with Emílio on Pânico and so on, I said the supreme court
00:20:15abused, went too far, why? Because
00:20:18do you know where the supreme court should have protected itself? For content
00:20:22that is manifestly legal. What is manifestly legal? That
00:20:25any human being, upon seeing that content, would say: this should never be
00:20:29online, for example,
00:20:31child pornography, uh, violence against
00:20:35animals, someone killing a dog. This content is criminal, it's
00:20:39obvious, it has to come down, incitement to suicide, to terrorism,
00:20:42etc. You look at it, you see that it's criminal,
00:20:45it has to come down. This should generate responsibility for the platform if it receives a
00:20:49complaint. What do I think the supreme court got wrong that went
00:20:53further? It included all crimes, then there's
00:20:56assault on the democratic state of law. What is assault on the state? Anything?
00:21:00That's subjective. I think subjectivity is
00:21:04dangerous, so for me, the subjective should have stayed online and become
00:21:07a judicial process so that someone could then decide whether to remove it or not, and not as the supreme court
00:21:11did, to put it as if it were
00:21:14responsibility. And because this, just to conclude, why was I against including
00:21:18everything? Because subjectivity creates the risk of censorship. Because I see your
00:21:21content there speaking ill of me, I say, "Ah, I didn't like what Som
00:21:25said, I'm going to say he's persecuting me," there's a crime of persecution. We must moderate so it doesn't
00:21:28become censorship. In my thesis, it's very easy: if it's
00:21:32manifestly legal, the platform has to moderate; if it's subjective,
00:21:36it goes to the judiciary. So, for example, you spoke ill of me, it's
00:21:39subjective, right? I said the crime of persecution, is it or isn't it? It goes to the
00:21:43judiciary, the platform doesn't have to remove it. Now, you come and say, "Ah, I
00:21:46think Durso should be killed," it's obvious that you want that, this should have... if
00:21:50the platform should not be held responsible, that's my thesis. Is it in force?
00:21:54No, what the supreme court put is all illicit acts with the exception
00:21:58of crimes against honor and this will generate censorship, I also spoke of the elderly
00:22:02too, but I
00:22:04wanted so that it doesn't seem like only the elderly,
00:22:07how can people in general
00:22:10protect themselves
00:22:13from digital crimes, right? We talked about the elderly, but let's
00:22:16go, people in general, because many... it's what you
00:22:20said, the voice is very similar, right?
00:22:24And I'll give you an example, my mother, about
00:22:28it must have been about good
00:22:31it wasn't digital, it was by phone, about 25 years ago,
00:22:35no, they called her, "Look, auntie," and she
00:22:39said the person's name, Eduardo, then the guy said, "Yes, it's me,
00:22:42auntie, look, I crashed the car, I need money,"
00:22:46and there was no Pix, nothing, the guy went to my house, my mother...
00:22:54to get the money. Then I found out because one day I was doing a postgraduate course at
00:22:57GV in environmental
00:23:00law, I was a sub-prefect more than 20 years ago
00:23:03and then a friend called me, "Hey, your mom's calling
00:23:07me asking for money here, but I
00:23:09didn't lend her money, she's saying, 'Oh, don't do this to me,' "
00:23:13and so on. I called my mom, "Mom," then she, she started telling me and
00:23:16I said, "Of course, you called the name..." of the person, right?
00:23:20"You are a lady, everyone calls you 'auntie', right? You fell
00:23:24for a scam. And how do you deal with it in the digital world, right? Man,
00:23:28it wasn't even digital. How do you do it for the general public,
00:23:31let's leave out the elderly so as not to seem prejudiced, to
00:23:35defend themselves, because that's it, today
00:23:37AI imitates the voice of the person,
00:23:41right? Brad Pitt is dating
00:23:44a 70-year-old Brazilian lady here, right? But it's his
00:23:48face, it's his video. it's his, right? It's
00:23:52fine that an older person comes back, but how do people protect
00:23:55themselves? Oh, look, there's a
00:23:59suggestion for scams in general involving financial values
00:24:03when someone pretends to be a known person that works very well and
00:24:06will probably work for a long time, which is like this:
00:24:09you get home, you call your family, let's say, let's agree on a
00:24:13keyword, so let's say we move a lot of money among
00:24:17ourselves, Wilson said, we're going to agree with... our keyword is
00:24:21Corinthians, then someone pretends to be you,
00:24:24"Oh, I need money, blah blah blah", you don't know "Tio Ká", what's the keyword?
00:24:28The criminal will never know, never, even using your voice, even using your
00:24:32image, even making a video call, so
00:24:35for family members, the keyword is very efficient because it will
00:24:38inhibit all use of AI, and since it was
00:24:42agreed upon in person, there's no way for it to leak, so the
00:24:46use of a keyword is quite interesting, of course it's not
00:24:49perfect because the criminal can pretend to be the mother
00:24:53first, call the family member, check the keyword, then apply the
00:24:57scam, so it's not immune, you have to be careful before giving away the keyword,
00:25:01but it still works very well, you know, something I do on my
00:25:04phone that I stopped doing, I moved, my mother's name
00:25:08is her name, it doesn't say mother, oh that's right, that's also good, I won't
00:25:12say the name because then someone might want to get into my phone and know my mother's name, but
00:25:16I put my mother's name, I put my brothers' names, father-in-law... I put
00:25:20my wife, I don't put wife, I put nothing because if the guy invades, it's
00:25:24easy to know it's a son, then he takes the phone and sends it to
00:25:28the guy who fell for it,
00:25:30he fell for it because it also said "dad" on your
00:25:33son's phone, right? It said "dad", so then the guy
00:25:37came in and said "dad, lend me money, there's a bill
00:25:40here," you know, that also
00:25:44helps, and that's what helps, right? Everything that
00:25:48makes the criminal's life bureaucratic helps. I'll tell you what I do with my phone, look how crazy
00:25:51it is, the staff, I think if they want and are interested, even on my Instagram, Luiz
00:25:55Augusto Durso, I made a video teaching how to do this. On my phone,
00:25:59like this, every time someone tries to put
00:26:03my phone in airplane mode, which is an operating mode when someone steals
00:26:07or robs a cell phone, they immediately put it in airplane mode. If they take it unlocked, they
00:26:10put it in airplane mode, and if they ask for your password in a robbery, they put it in airplane
00:26:14mode. My phone blocks the screen and reactivates the line.
00:26:18It never enters airplane mode. It's a shortcut I made for iPhone, and it
00:26:21will never enter airplane mode. Second thing, if I send a text message
00:26:25from any number to my phone saying "block," it will block
00:26:29the screen because I made a shortcut that every time it receives a message saying
00:26:32"block," it blocks the screen. So let's say I'm here, where do you send the message? In
00:26:36a text message. If I take your phone and send a text message to my phone saying "block," it will
00:26:40block my phone screen, just that day of putting the password on the screen.
00:26:44But how do you do that when you're rich, when you have an iPhone? I have
00:26:47a Samsung. No, Android also has these shortcuts. They are
00:26:51applications that you configure for some kind of action, logically some
00:26:55will have other options and so on, but it's worth researching. At
00:26:59least for iPhone, you can do it, I did it. So
00:27:02why? What is this for? Imagine
00:27:06I'm here at the studio door
00:27:10requesting a ride-sharing app, a kid passes by on a
00:27:12bicycle, my phone is unlocked, he doesn't know my
00:27:15password, he took the phone. If he puts
00:27:19it in airplane mode, the screen will lock. So if he puts it in airplane mode, it's
00:27:22already solved. If he doesn't put it, I'll send a text message
00:27:26and it will lock the screen, and he doesn't have a password
00:27:30taking a locked phone, then it's a problem? It locked the screen
00:27:33like that, right? If you get it back, you put your screen password and you
00:27:37won't lose anything, you won't lose anything unless you go to Find My Android -
00:27:41Find My iPhone, then you erase the data, which is also important. Many people call
00:27:44me, this is important, people call and say, "Durso, my phone was stolen
00:27:48or pilfered," and I say, "Okay, go to Find My iPhone
00:27:52or Find My Android and block the phone, then erase the data." They say, "Ah, but I
00:27:56never configured that." This has to be configured, they must have
00:27:59configured it but don't even remember the password, that's a problem. So I'm giving you a friendly
00:28:03suggestion here: when you get home, do a password restore
00:28:06and write it down at home, why? Because if your phone is stolen, you'll be able
00:28:10to erase the data manually from your computer. This is for any
00:28:14iPad, any phone you log into, you go to Find My Android if it's
00:28:17Android, it's it's
00:28:19android.com/find. For iPhone, it's www
00:28:23icloud.com, you'll log in with your username and password and you'll
00:28:27be able to locate the device, so it's good because you can know where it is and you
00:28:31can block it if he puts it in airplane mode, you create shortcuts to
00:28:34block it and so on. So I did that, you pull it up, it's crazy, yeah, but
00:28:38I have it on my screen, that's cool, I'll show you when we finish. In the
00:28:42phone apps, there's a bank app. If you click
00:28:46on it, it locks the phone, it's fake, it's just to lock the phone, because if the
00:28:50guy takes it and somehow has signal, he'll click to open the bank and it will
00:28:54lock. So I create these things, I keep researching, I use my Instagram
00:28:57to share this information, so everything
00:29:01you make bureaucratic for the criminal's life is better. What
00:29:05is the biggest challenge the legal world will face with
00:29:09technology and cybercrimes in the next 10 years?
00:29:11It could be crime or artificial intelligence.
00:29:15Artificial intelligence, by far. Why? Because it's not just what we're
00:29:18seeing about the use of AI, but
00:29:20AI committing crimes. So, for example, soon autonomous cars will be
00:29:24running over people, and an autonomous car can
00:29:28have milli-microseconds and milliseconds to decide.
00:29:32Then someone will have to program a car so that if it's
00:29:36on a road and has to kill an old lady or a baby, it will have to
00:29:39decide. Humans act on impulse. Impulse
00:29:42is not usually criminalized because we
00:29:46understand that this is natural for human beings. Then, "Oh no," then
00:29:49it has a much faster decision response
00:29:52and it should run over. I ask you, this will be a legal
00:29:56dilemma: this autonomous car that has no driver, should it run over the old lady
00:30:00or the baby?
00:30:03There's no right answer. Right, there isn't, but someone will have to
00:30:06program it. So, these AIs, tomorrow AI will hallucinate
00:30:10and it will be working in a company, it will throw an employee against the wall
00:30:13and commit bodily injury, which has already happened, right? Today, there was an AI
00:30:17that was playing chess with a boy and broke the boy's finger. It hallucinated, broke
00:30:21the boy's finger playing chess, bodily injury
00:30:24committed by an AI. It's not that someone programmed it to do that, it's not that it's an
00:30:27instrument for crime, it automatically committed a crime because it wanted
00:30:31to. And then how does it respond? Who will respond? The company, because there's no
00:30:34criminal liability for
00:30:38the criminal liability of the legal entity. So it's not just the use of AI for
00:30:41crime, it's the use of AI committing
00:30:44crime. Also, there's a general challenge out there, which is
00:30:48quantum computing with regard to cryptography. I
00:30:52think in 10 years we will have evolved a...