That Tech Pod
Welcome to That Tech Pod, a podcast co-hosted by Laura Milstein, Gabi Schulte and Kevin Albert. Each Tuesday, That Tech Pod will feature in depth discussions about data privacy, cybersecurity, eDiscovery, and tech innovations with heavy hitters in the industry. Subscribe so you don't miss an episode! Visit thattechpod.com for more information.
That Tech Pod
Innocent Until the Algorithm Says Otherwise. Trusting Tech When AI Gets It Wrong with Evan J. Schwartz
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this week's episode, Laura and Kevin sit down with Evan J. Schwartz, Chief Innovation Officer at AMCS Group, to explore where AI is actually making a difference and where it’s doing real harm. From logistics and sustainability to law enforcement and digital identity, we dig into how AI is being used (and misused) in ways that affect millions of lives.
We talk about a real-world case Evan worked on involving predictive analytics in law enforcement, and the dangers of trusting databases more than people. If someone hacks your digital footprint or plants fake records, how do you prove you're not the person your data says you are? We dive into the Karen Read case, the ethics of “precrime” models like in Minority Report, and a story where AI helped thieves trick a bank into wiring $40 million. The common thread? We’ve put a lot of faith in data... sometimes more than it deserves.
With the EU AI Act now passed and other countries tightening regulation, Evan offers advice on how U.S.-based companies should prepare for a future where AI governance isn’t optional. He also breaks down “dark AI” and whether we’re getting close to machines making life-altering decisions without humans in the loop. Whether you're in tech, law, policy, or just trying to understand how AI might impact your own rights and identity, this conversation pulls back the curtain on how fast things are moving and what we might be missing.
Evan J. Schwartz brings over 35 years of experience in enterprise tech and digital transformation. At AMCS Group, he leads innovation efforts focused on AI, data science, and sustainability in the logistics and resource recovery industries. He’s held executive roles in operations, architecture, and M&A, and also teaches graduate courses in AI, cybersecurity, and project management. Evan serves on the Forbes Tech Council and advises at Jacksonville University. He’s also the author of People, Places, and Things, an Amazon best-seller on ERP implementation. His work blends technical depth with a sharp focus on ethics and real-world impact.
Hello and welcome to that tech pod where we discuss all things e-discovery, data privacy, cybersecurity, and tech innovation. I'm Kevin Albert.
SPEAKER_00And I'm Laura Melstein.
SPEAKER_01And each week we are talking to heavy hitters in their industry to help us break down these topics. Laura, who are we talking to today?
SPEAKER_00Today we are talking to Evan J. Schwartz, a seasoned technology executive with over 35 years of experience leading digital transformation across global enterprises. As Chief Innovation Officer at AMCS Group, he focuses on applying AI, data science, and platform modernization to solve real-world challenges in logistics, sustainability, and resource energy. Evan has held multiple executive roles at AMCS, including Chief Operations Officer and Chief Enterprise Architect, where he drove revenue growth, led MA integrations, and unified technical operations across regions. He's also the author of People, Places, and Things, an Amazon bestseller on ERP implementation. Beyond his corporate work, Evan teaches graduate courses in AI, cybersecurity, and project management as an adjunct professor and serves as a board advisor in Jacksonville University. He's a member of the Forbes Tech Council and frequently contributes articles on innovation and leadership. With advanced degrees in business and computer science, Evan blends strategic thinking with hands-on expertise, always aiming to build tech that's both effective and ethical. Evan, welcome to the show.
SPEAKER_02Glad to be here.
SPEAKER_00I'm glad that you're here too. Before we get started today, uh I just mentioned this and now it's on my head, and I really want to talk about it. This is to you and you, Kevin. Have any of you been following the Karen Reed story?
SPEAKER_02I have not.
SPEAKER_01I have not either.
SPEAKER_00Are you guys serious? Okay, um, Evan, where do you live?
SPEAKER_02I live in Florida.
SPEAKER_00Okay, well, this is like a Boston thing. You all should check it out. There's on I I always want to say HBO, even though they rebranded to Max, I'm like, I think they're gonna rebrand back to HBO. Like, who wants to say Max? I don't know why, I just don't like it. But there's a documentary there, and this is a real case. And essentially, this woman is accused of murdering her boyfriend. And I will get into the relevance to why I'm bringing this up, but roll with me here. So she's accused of m murdering her boyfriend, and I'm gonna spoil a little bit of my thoughts, but not of if you still watch it. I don't think she murdered him. I really don't think she murdered him. So he was a police officer and he's dead. She's accused of murdering him, and it was basically like all of these other police officers and all of this this stuff, and I'm pretty sure they murdered him, and they covered it up and we're like, well, she fucking sucks. Let's blame her. She's terrible. She did it, and it's like a whole thing. Anyway, I'm not gonna tell you the outcome because if you're listening and since you two don't know, like watch the documentary and then like it'll tell you. But it's actually a crazy story and it's infuriating. And the biggest thing I realized in this is this woman is accused of murder, and regardless if she murdered him or not, she has to pay these legal fees. So I was like, in my opinion, she didn't murder him. I have a strong opinion on it, and I I don't care about her, I don't know her, no disrespect, or either way, but I'm just saying, like, I don't think she murdered him. Anyway, the legal fees are over like five million dollars. Imagine if you're accused of murdering someone and you didn't murder them. Oh my god.
SPEAKER_01I'm like, so if did she if she won, why does she have to pay legal fees? Or did she or did she not win?
SPEAKER_00Well, one, I'm not gonna tell you, but let's talk about this. So let's say she didn't, let's say they were like, you know what, we don't think you murdered it. Who pays the legal fees? Why wouldn't she have to pay it? Because she's it's against like the state. So wouldn't she still owe them? I honestly don't know. Great question, but I assume she would still owe those fees. So my whole thought is in something like this, you're accused of murdering someone, and you have to sit there and be like, I didn't murder them, and you're also grieving. Like, let's say someone's like, Hey, you know, Evan murdered his dad. Evan, I don't know if you have a dad, sorry to put you on the spot here, but let's say that you're accused of murdering your dad. If you have a dad, if you don't, sorry, you murdered him. Anyway, so you're accused of murdering your dad, and you're like, your dad just died, and you didn't murder him, and now it's like instead of trying to find who murdered your dad and figure this out, you have to defend why you didn't. You're now in debt and nobody knows who else it could be. It was you, Evan. Like, what? Isn't that insane?
SPEAKER_02It is insane. So if you think about it a little bit deeper, because I actually have a real life experience long ago, young lady, got in a relationship with a police officer, it went bad, and it went real bad because in this world that we live in today, this was about 10, 15 years ago. In today's world, what is said about you in a database is more real than what the reality is. And I want to qualify that statement. There's nothing you carry on your person today that is a stronger credential than your data footprint as describing you in a database somewhere. How do you prove who you are? You prove who you are through a strong credential, you prove who you are with some ID that was given to you out of a database that says things about you, you prove who you are what other way? Maybe a birth certificate that's in a database somewhere. At the end of the day, a police officer will pull you over because the computer in his car says something about you, your license, a record, and they will treat you accordingly. In today's world, the virtual digital version of you is far more real than reality. And in fact, it's flipped so far you would be almost hard-pressed to prove otherwise. The database is assumed to be correct. You have to prove otherwise. That's terrifying.
SPEAKER_00Oh my god, it is. I'm I'm so glad. And earlier when I was talking about Karen Reed, and I was like, you guys will figure out why about today's episode. This is why. This is today's episode. It's literally prove yourself. As Evan says, like, you have to prove yourself. And the whole time you were saying that, I was thinking of that movie, the face movie. Uh, does anyone know what I'm talking about? With Nicolas Cage, where he like Yeah, they swap faces with him and John. Oh, yeah, that tracks. That tracks, and it's like, you're it's like, it's me, no, it's not like and it kind of goes back to the whole conspiracy of like, if you're a twin and your twin murders someone, how do you prove which twin did and you're both like no, I didn't, no one did it. Like, like all of these things are insane to me, but you're absolutely correct. You don't even have to have a twin or switch faces, and you're already identified as this is who you are. Yeah.
SPEAKER_02If I if someone had loaded a police database with a wrap sheet that goes back 10 years, how do you prove none of that happened? All right, I'm an I'm gonna be able to do that.
SPEAKER_01Also, a piece of this that I'm kind of curious about is how do you adjust for like biases, right? I would assume the problem is all the things that you're gonna be loading in there are gonna be like pro-police and pro the criminal defense side of it. And so I feel like it's gonna be even harder to like get on the other side of that and like you know, there's gonna be like a lot of lack of transparency when the AI is basically leaning towards the prosecution side.
SPEAKER_02Well, it's even worse than that, Kevin, because I'm not sure if you're aware, this was about six years ago. They did a pre-crime experiment out in California where they were loading in data using algorithms to predict the outcome of potential crimes in the future and positioning police officers at key points to basically interrupt a crime that hadn't happened yet. It's like the movie Minority Report. It is very based off of predictive algorithms. And the the worst part is the algorithm was spitting out that there would be an armed robbery at this location at 3 p.m. And it had a 40% hit rate almost to that level of detail in the first six months. Now, what I don't know, this was the publicly announced version of this, and this part I can't talk deeply about, but I was part of a consulting project that was feeding data into that algorithm by aggregated. There was a joint action here across a lot of the the naval, Coast Guard, feds, particularly around importing of contraband drugs, things of that nature. And they were loading those algorithms in and it was starting to tip up, and they were deciding what if you were a police officer, what your schedule is gonna be. Are you gonna work the night shift or you're gonna work the day shift? And they were swapping police officers in and out of various night and and day schedules to try to get a different feel in the environment, and that became a parameter to the algorithm that caused an outcome. They were creating a cause of relationship on future crimes. Then all of a sudden, three years into the program, all dark. Now no one hears anything about it.
SPEAKER_00Oh, where did it go? I love a conspiracy.
SPEAKER_02I don't think I don't think they cut it down, not with a success rate. So it's somewhere.
SPEAKER_00It's definitely somewhere. I think it's also one of those things where you think about like a lot of these cases, and there's 12 people, 12 strangers that are in charge of deciding what happens to your life. And I wonder when they're gonna be like, actually, now, you know, bot A is the decision maker. We have put all the data for both sides into this, and the bot chooses what happens to you. And I I hope it never gets to that because I do think there's some level of facts and emotion that you kind of have to play on like a human level to relate to these things. But I want to ask that. So I'm gonna tell a different story. This is a real one, and I want to hear, Evan, from your side. What do you make of this? Do you think if there was 12 juries making a decision versus if you put this into an algorithm and you had a AI out there making the decision, would they come to the same determination? Okay, here's the story. This is a real situation that happened. There's this guy to his friends and family. He's nice, he's a really nice guy. He's a police officer, since we're staying on theme. And he's like a really cool, nice police officer. He's married, he has a lovely little wife, and he uh they have a baby. And I know I'm all over the map. Like, uh, Kevin's giving me this look. Like, what are we talking about today? But it's important. How to solve crimes in today's age is important. Okay, so he's a lovely guy, nice friends would all say, like, if you were doing character witnesses, he's great. His wife loves him, everything is good. But his wife starts to think something's weird. Like, is he cheating on me? He's doing a lot of like weird things. So she sneaks onto his computer and starts seeing some stuff. And I'm I'm actually, I'm not sure if it was his wife that did this or like someone else, but someone was like something weird is and starts looking. And they start seeing that he's been having these conversations on the dark web with people where he's like, Hey, if I want to eat someone, like if I I have a list of women that I'm friends with that I'd like to put in an oven, I'd like to cook them and eat them. And they're talking about like if they were to like eat these people, how they would kidnap them, like what they would do. And and they're having these conversations about like eating these women. He has a list of women that are real women. They're like friends of his that he has put in this list and uploaded it to these dark web people, and they're like, these are the women, this is who I would want to eat first, whatever. And we're talking about like eating a human, to be clear. Anyway, so one of the women on the list he gets lunch with, catches up with, has, and he's like, I met up with her today, we got lunch in his car, he has some supplies, right? He has some gloves, some rope, some some things in his car. Uh, not necessarily when he met her, just in general, they're in his car. When he gets arrested, he gets arrested and he goes to trial, and they're basically saying, like, you're you're here because you're a cannibal and you're gonna eat these people. Now, there's a few arguments to this. One, it did was he gonna eat these people, or is this like a weird sexual fetish? Is this like a fantasy? And so he was like not actually gonna eat them. He's just like enjoying this idea of talking about it, or is he a fucking psycho that if they didn't arrest him, he was gonna stick a woman in an oven? Like he was talking about like how would they fit, all these things? Like, was it was it a matter of time before he cooked someone? So, my question to you is if you're on trial here as people or as a bot, are you scan what are you convicting him of? Are you convicting him of like attempted kidnap and murder, conspiracy to kill? Or are you saying, hey, that's an emotional approach, and we just think that sounds psycho, but the bot might think, hey, this is a fantasy.
SPEAKER_02I think I'm not a lawyer, but I think there's some tactical problems with the narrative because we wouldn't be able to charge him with anything he hasn't done yet. There would have to be something culpable in there. Having multi-use items in the glove compartment, if she wasn't missing, there's there's no perceived crime. So there would be no charge at that point. Now, if you flip the narrative a little bit and say one of the twelve women are missing, and now I'm lining up all this circumstantial evidence, I think it would still go to jurors. I don't think it'll ever go to a bot. And the reason I say that is because even today, the least uh viable evidence by every measure is eyewitness testimony, and yet it is the strongest. We've known forever it is the weakest uh type of evidence because people can't recall things in much detail, and yet we still consider it some of the best evidence you can get is someone having witnessed it and said it. Any reasonable person would have thrown out eyewitness testimony decades ago once we ran all the numbers, did the math, and realized how bad it was.
SPEAKER_01For me, a lot of this then comes down to even like to a degree, the absolute trust in data, right? Even with like, you know, you're talking about like today's AI and like the learning models. Do you think we rely too much on the outputs without even understanding how we got here?
SPEAKER_02I would say the average person does because uh I look, I have a slight advantage because I teach this at a university level, and I understand that baked in the the LLMs is a stochastic nature of the models, it's how they produce output that tricks usually believing it's human because there's randomness built in, right? It's built into the algorithm. That threshold that you change being on the the LLM to say how much hallucinations you want to, it's it's designed that way to give it a more humanistic output. So you're never gonna get rid of that. You just never will. But the reality is, is that also is why I don't think that you could ever use it in anything that would adjudge or impact someone's life. If you look at what the EU is doing with AI and what they call dark AI, is an AI decision that is directly or materially impacting someone's life because of the stochastic nature of it. What I try to seek to do is to find use cases where AI is not perfect. If you're trying to solve a solution where it's perfect, you've already gone off rails. I'm trying to do just better than what a human could do or equal to, right? Because we make mistakes too. So as long as I can tolerate that level of mistakes, we're good. If I can't, then I have a bad use case for AI. It's terrible. So I I think we're already seeing the lashback from all these lawyers that were using it to prop up their cases. You're gonna get a recoil where it's it's gonna be very difficult to leverage AI anything within a court of a law just because of the mistakes.
SPEAKER_01So for me, I think a big part of that is though that it the you know Europe is smaller, right? And there's a lot more like-mindedness. I think in the US now, we're so divisive. Do you think we'll ever get to the point where the US has uh a very similar thing to the EU AI Act in the US?
SPEAKER_02I would say our capitalistic nature won't allow it. I mean, there's so much money to be had that we're we're gonna blind ourselves to ethical use of AI in an effort to get there first. It's not gonna come from the government, let me say that. It's gonna have to come from the operational layer, the businesses are gonna have to self-police this tech. Because the the siren's call for wealth is too great. So I don't I don't see us throttling ourselves back.
SPEAKER_00Do you think cybersecurity is helping or hurting criminals right now? And I'm talking like if you look back at the 70s, right? Before we had such advancements in in technology, you had a lot of of murderers and kidnappers, like a lot of kids were kidnapped in their own neighborhood, and people had no idea. Would you think about and you're like, that's insane. Like, okay, Timmy was literally taken from Bill down the street, and we never knew, like, it's insane. They would go to like a baseball game and be like, never saw Susie again. No one knows anything. And now you try to kidnap Timmy down the street. I mean, we're gonna catch you on the street cameras, we're gonna see you from the sky, Google Maps has found you, like you know, you can't you left any DNA on the site. Yep, phones. Yeah, done. So as a criminal, I have to assume if I'm trying to do any kind of crime like that, it's significantly harder now. But I guess my question to you is actually more of could it be easier in some ways? Because you can use technology to trick people. So you could say, I know if I place my cell phone on Kevin, or I take Kevin's phone and not you, whatever. Like, what are your thoughts on that?
SPEAKER_02So it changes the nature of the criminal, has to, right? So if you're the thug, the monster that goes and steals children and you don't have the technical background, you're nailed, right? We waved bye-bye to privacy decades ago. We just 1984 is alive and well, and we're all fine with it. I carry this tracking device with me and to a to almost an anxiety stress level. If I walk out of the house and have forgotten it, I have to go back and get my tracker.
SPEAKER_00He's holding a cell phone for everyone who's listening and also I should tell people like, don't kidnap kids or or anyone, but like if you're gonna kidnap it.
SPEAKER_01Nice qualifier to throw it at.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I was like, I should just say that, like, kidnap no one. Yeah.
SPEAKER_02You now you wrap that around to someone that has technical sabbat and understands how the systems work. Well, now I can change the narrative. I can erase myself with AI almost in real time off of a live video feed. I'm sure you've heard of the bank robbery that occurred in Australia, where they called the bank manager and wanted a wire of $40 million, and the the bank manager is like, okay, well, I need to get approval. And he goes, Yep, yep, go ahead and send an email or an invite out to these three people, let's set up a teams call, let's have a conversation. They all got on a call, they all said, Yep, we understand that. Gave them the wire instructions. Every single one of the people that had he had recommended to get on the call, the thief had already compromised, stole their images, built AI avatars, and every person on that call that the bank manager was talking to was real-time AI interacting with his voice, and he just wired $40 million into account. The only thing that saved that bank manager is the fact that he recorded the call. So he could prove that to him he did everything in their governance correct, and then turn around and gave $40 million away. So at the end of the day, this goes back to where we started. The database is more real than reality.
SPEAKER_00That's insane. That is like actually crazy.
SPEAKER_02You want to go to the imagine they not not only did he steal the kid, he erased all records of the kid existing. So now the mother and the father are having to prove that the child even exists. You go to the hospital, there's no record of ever being born. You go to the school, there's no record of him being in the school. There was no record, no medical records, no nothing. All of that craziness. The kid's gone, and the only thing is any real physical and physical. The hacker could get on my phone and erase and just take the you got the photograph, there's just no kid in it.
SPEAKER_00Okay, I want to jump on this. There was a story, and this is like in 1947. Like we're talking, it's been a while. So there's a family who lost their kid. Somebody stole their kid. No clue what happened to him. I don't remember his name. Let's call him Timmy, because that's kind of my thing of stealing Timmy's now. So Timmy was taken, and then one day the that family sees another random family, and they see their kid, and they're like, That's my son, Timmy. So they're like, That's my son. The police are like, they go to that family, and that family's like, um, this is our kid. His name is Bob. This is our son. This is not Timmy, and they didn't have a lot of money, and they could not fight like fight this in court, and the police. were like it's not your kid they took the kid gave it to the other family and so that family raised their Timmy as their own Timmy it's their son they got their kid back while this family lost the their child that they quote stole anyway years later DNA tested that was not their son Timmy so they lost their son and they raised someone else's son that they stole from this other family this other family literally didn't have to go through life please to do it lit yeah literally was like wait a minute and like imagine you're just like your kid is like seven and gets stolen from you is told that you you stole them and you have to live life knowing like what first of all I'd be murdering people so I don't know why they were just like okay that's the lots make everybody should be murdering people no I I would be steal my kid I can say that I don't have any children go for it if you're stealing my kid I am murdering because it doesn't exist. But yeah crazy and nobody knows and that kid just wasn't there and and the first Timmy who the hell knows what happened to that kid crazy.
SPEAKER_02I mean look I don't know about you guys just because maybe the the level of exposure I have I have attacks on my phone calls voicemails emails hundreds a day that are very convincing it used to be they didn't use the words good in things when they were telling you that they wanted you to send you $10,000 to do whatever there would be misspelling. Now it's perfect. They're mining data off of your social media crafting a scheme and sending it to you convincingly by pulling all public information. I'm sure you've seen some of the reels where some of these very high tech savvy guys are taking a single image looking at the stuff in the image and telling you exactly where you were at that time in the world that the level of tech and exposure is far outpacing our ability to defend against it.
SPEAKER_01For sure. And for me I think a big thing for me is the other side of that right the deep fake side right like for me I feel like now the tools are so sophisticated to fool even the experts. Like do you think we're at the point where the courts shouldn't even treat video evidence as real or should we just have a degree of skepticism with everything at this point?
SPEAKER_02Well that's going to be the knee jerk is for the public it's going to be nothing's real. Therefore I don't believe anything. So what's going to have to it's the same thing that we have had to do in the past where you're going to have to sign and have a digital certificate you know the SSL certificate for my website so that you can trust that I'm me because someone's done their due diligence to validate me. Videos are going to have to evolve that come with that certificate of authenticity in it. That hasn't kept up no one's doing it. I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet right and even that's going to give away a little bit more freedom because now I'm going to have to go to an authority and give them enough information about me to prove I'm me. And then I'm going to have to register my content with my certificate that other people can validate my certificate. Now in the interest of what are you going to believe if I'm out there pumping my own videos without that certificate of authenticity now that authority has an incredible amount of power.
SPEAKER_01I was going to say that piece of it that I hate is the privacy versus public good argument, right? Like I'm on the other side of that I hate that answer like the thing we just said drives me nuts.
SPEAKER_02But other the the the alternative is you can believe nothing. So we just killed all social media all news all everything. Nothing is now believable. Because you're right I can within 50 minutes I can create a video which looks convincing to anybody I mean I'm I'm seeing millennials and young people on the internet showing videos and then telling everyone it's fake and then saying you need to go to your boomer family members and warn them thinking that you know look I'm I'm 60 so I'm in that that crossover gin and it's going to be do I believe what I'm seeing on these feeds you know can I believe what I see on TV? I don't know. I mean and it's already polarized. I don't care which side of the fence you sit on, depending on which news network you you watch, you hear a completely different narrative we're not no one's just reporting the facts anymore. We have opinions it's it's dangerous. Opinions are dangerous and uh we all have them but the problem is is now we can all have them in a very convincing way it's very difficult to suss it out. Very it's only getting worse.
SPEAKER_00This has been a really traumatizing episode but I I loved it this has been one of my favorite episodes we've had in a while because I think we talk so much about very generic topics and I don't mean generic as in like not everyone knows but it's like cybersecurity e-discovery whatever they're important and I think that that's great but we're not talking enough about murders you know we're not talking enough about kidnapping and I know what a weird thing to talk about but tech is involved in these things and kind of hearing what's going on and how they can be prevented you know if you're a kidnapper like what you could do better. It's important and we should be talking about a lot more and I really liked today's conversation and just to throw a little twist in this at the end remember when I was asking you about the um cannibal cop well fun twist he was actually my brother's college roommate and I was not even on the list to be eaten isn't that fucked like I'm sorry but like are you kidding I'm tiny like I would have been an easy like and are you kidding like sucks I mean I I guess I should be happy about it but I'm kind of offended. I'm like are you serious?
SPEAKER_02Sucks I get it I get it look I think I think the last thing I'd like to just point out as a wrap up around this is there is a lot of talk about protecting your data protecting the perimeter cyber attacks stealing your information there isn't enough discussion around what they can put in putting in fake data putting in a new narrative being able to create stuff at mass volume that changes reality and the way it's perceived. I think we have to look at it both ways not just what people can take but what people can leave behind.
SPEAKER_00That is truly beautiful anyway what we're leaving behind is this episode so thank you so much Evan for being on today's show. Thank you Laura So Kevin we just talked to Evan J. Schwartz the chief innovation officer at AMCS group what are your uh tech takeaways I thought it was really interesting.
SPEAKER_01Obviously we were all over the map on this I mean you know we talked about a lot of different things I thought the Karen Reed case was pretty interesting and you know it talks about how the technology is basically outpacing the justice system. We're relying on digital evidence without fully understanding it or even questioning it. And we're trusting basically the algorithms more than the people forgetting that these systems can be biased or even manipulated. We basically are saying like if you rely solely on the the DNA or the location systems you can basically frame the wrong person. And so I thought it was interesting. I thought his take that basically the tech and the AI doesn't just necessarily make it better by default and we have to rely on a level of like skepticism and accountability was interesting. So I really liked it. I thought his take was really interesting I thought it was an all-around good pot. I I had no idea where it was going but I liked where we ended.
SPEAKER_00I completely agree. I mean I think it's fun and I I really think people need to get up on this Karen Reed case because it's just it's fascinating. It's fascinating I really do I'm really into it right now clearly but 10 out of 10 guest I really liked him. I'd bring Evan back for sure. If you are interested in learning more about Evan uh murders kid killings cases stealing children which you shouldn't do anything really or our main topic of technology we'd love to hear from you. So please reach out to us at contactthattechpod.com head on over to www.thattechpod.com enter your email to subscribe check us out on LinkedIn slash that tech pod or anywhere else social media may exist for us that we might be on who knows Kevin anything else our listeners can do yep go to wherebear pods apple podcasts spotify or what have you and leave us a review leave us a rating let us know how we're doing all that stuff helps with the algorithms and gets us out there which is much appreciated. Thanks everybody thanks everyone