>> this is a look at your top stories that the hour. search and rescue teams from nine countries continue to look for a missing malaysia airline liner that disappeared on friday night. the flight from kuala lumpur to beijing had 239 people on board including two americans. they still have no indication of where the plane might be. reports of debris found off vietnam do not belong to this aircraft. a meeting with president obama regarding crimea.

major testimony taking place in the trial of osama bin laden as son-in-law in new york. the trial is now in its second week. prosecutors say he acted as the al-qaeda spokesman and helped recruit and train terrorists who were at camps in afghanistan. and new details are emerging about sandy hook shooter adam lanza, peter lanza telling "the new yorker" at the time of the shooting he had not seen his son in two years. he asked to meet with adam time and time again but adam refused. saying he had been diagnosed with asperger's but did not accept the diagnosis.

is the law lagging behind technological development. tweet for a bill on how to deal with sexual assault in the military. why is the c d.c. reporting that antibiotic are making people sick. if you think your sibling rival is bad, you have nothing on snowy owls. mother nature's dark side. i'm antonio mora. here is more on what is ahead. >> senate shot down a bill that would have changed the way sexualities are prosecuted. >> a shocking ruling date day. >>..in favour of a man that took upskirt photos. >> a new report finds american hospitals and doctors have been over-prescribing antibiotics. >> they are often used as shotgun treatments. >> new voe cab words and a scaled back map section.

>> what you do on s.a.t. is not what you do in high school. >> can you take pictures up a woman's skirt. according to mass , you can, and you can text people pictures of your genitals, why? because the law doesn't prohibility it. >> friday, governor patrick illegal. as technology develops, what can we do to keep it outpacing the law. al jazeera jamie floyd is here in new york. this case in massachusetts is stunning. they basically ruled a guy who was taking pictures up women's

illegal. >> yes, there were two reasons. the pictures were taken in public, a place you don't have reasonable inspection of privacy, and the women and there are only two documented, but the women were not undoctorsed. they were not naked or partially nude. and the peeping tom law requires you be in a dressing room or a place of privacy. so the specificity of the law, violated. >> couldn't the judge have looked at the peeping judge law and said "hey, the intention of law is". >> you are asking if they could go with the spirit of the law. this happened in the state of washington, the same issue, upskirting, and the court ruled the same way. judges are not supposed to make law, but interpret it.

it's a cry out for the legislature to make a law that fits modern times and technology. this law is only 10 years old, iphones five years old. that's how quickly the world is changing. this court made it clear that they didn't like that they had to do this, they don't agree with the state of the law, but had to do what the law required. >> the georgia supreme court said the same thing and a more extreme case. a guy sent, to put it bluntly, pictures of his tattooed penis to a woman who had no interest in getting it. >> unsolicited. >> they said it was fine. >> they said it wasn't covered by what the law there covered. which was hard copy >> you could not sent pornographing pictures. >> in the mail. >> electronic pornographic imagery was not covered by the law.

and, therefore, under the letter of the law, what the man had done was not il. they were saying, "get with it legislature, let's make laws covering the new technology. >> is this a case where the court had more lee way. if you are saying you can't send it by snail-mail, what is the difference sending it by email, you are sending the pornographic material over some form of mail. >> it is fundamentally different. the means and method is different. that gets to the bigger question - how can the law keep up with technology, can it. the supreme court gets these cases every year, and we are going to have to start looking forward, instead of looking backward. the law is so reactionary. we wait until there are victims, and then we do something about it. that's the position that will judges are in, not just high court judges. this case was the supreme court

of the state of massachusetts, going all the way through the system in that state. state court judges, before you get there, are looking back after a victim complains in court. it's for the legislatures to make law looking ahead. >> shouldn't there be a most. is there nothing out there that is trying to do that, suggest technologies. >> i think let's talk to the kids. she said, "cell phones under skirts, she said what about google glass. some guy will be sitting on the sub way looking through my clothes, i won't have to worry about them looking up my skirt." young people are visionaries about the way technologies runs up 200-year-old rights.

we need to talk with them, our thought leaders of technology about how to make the law fit. talking about technology, and our constitutional rights, the state supreme court of georgia did not rule on this. it was a thing brought up. whether the guy sending the pictures by text or email. that was within his rights. >> we have to be clear about this. the first amendment, google glass, technology, it's positive. it's great, it's good. >> when used properly. >> so we are focussed on the victims in massachusetts, the ways in which the courts hands were tide and the ways we want to protect victims in the future. we don't want to focus on the fear factor. we want to work with the legislatures and technology leaders to make the technology

work, and not allow the wrong doers to have more control over technology than those of us that want to use it in positive ways. >> good to have you on the show. >> turning to the s.a.t., it's the second biggest college transexam after the act. there are major revisions, among them going back to a 1600 point system, the essay optional. critics are not sure it will help judge a student's ability to succeed. he's group. >> why so many challenges now. >> the leaders of the clem board figured out -- college board figured out that the changes failed in the market play.

the act, which had been behind, overtook the s.a.t. as the most popular standardized tests and 95 colleges dropped requirements, going test optional. advocated. >> is this a competitive thing, that they want to get people taking the s.a.t. more again. >> look at what happened. it's like when the coca-cola company introduced new coke and it flopped. they had to reformulate. the changes the college board made is to make it look more like the actment the college board will make the sa optional. just as it's been the case. they'll score the test differently so you are not penalized. they'll eliminate esoteric words. if you want to, we'll see what

the new s.a.t. will be like. take the new act right now. they'll narrow the focus of the maths section of the test. even the headlines said the changes are making the s.a.t. harder. it looks like the op sid. >> it won't make it harder or easier. they equate the scores, curbing the scores so tests are equally hard from year to year. what they'll do is make it more attractive to students and parents around the country to regain market share. >> a criticism is that the s.a.t.s open the door for all the tutors and prep courses and books that allow or give an unfair advantage to kids that have money. they are trying to counter that by providing online tute earring. will that -- tutoring.

will that help balance things? >> maybe a little bit. but the that is correct of the matter is there's free video tutoring. free s.a.t. test prep and there's hundreds of product. free or no cost. every guidance office has copies that will get you ready. this is unlikely to affect the high end test prem in which wealthy parents by the kids the equivalence of test steroids by paying students 100 or $500 or paying individual personal trainers 15,000 to 25,000 to give the kids the personalized one on one coaching that is significantly boosting scores, and give the kids who have every advantage, because their parents have money another leg up. it won't be a level playing field. rich

kids will do better on the s.a.t.s, and schools that rely on scores will continue to give an advantage to kids that need it the least. >> as you said. some schools - moving away from looking at test scores for admission purposes, but without them, doesn't it make it that much harder for college admissions people to figure out how strong a student - a kid is, especially given the big differences in the quality of schools around the country? >> not at all. a detailed research report came out two weeks ago looking at 123,000 students, plying to 33 optional institutions and found this they are making as good or better decisions without reliance on s.a.t. scores. they were admitting kids that worked just as much. test scores are not necessary.

they are not as good a predictor as high school grades are. veryone says that grades are all over the lot. there are stuff and easy stools. that's true. grades are better than prep schools that shows you how poor they are as a predictor. >> it has been shown that high school grades are more predictive. what are the biggest problems that you see the changes don't address? they don't address the predict ability of the test. they don't test the biases of the the exam. there's a relationship between a family income and test scores giving advantages to kids from well to do families. they underestimate for females and overestimate for males. for kids whose first lapping wig is not english, and for students applying at a non-traditional aids.

add to that the skews of coaching and some get tremendous advantages compared to their peers and going to clems that require s.a.t. scores. primetime news. >> i'm john seigenthaler in new york. >> stories that impact the world, affect the nation and touch your life. >> it's like a brawl here in the waters around monterey. >> only on al jazeera america.

back. >> turning to sexual assault in the military, a bill that will remove military commanders over decisions of sexual assault cases in the armed forces was defeated in the senate on thursday. the main sponsors vowed to keep fighting for victims. >> we know that the deck is stacked against victims of sexual assault in the military. today, sadly, we saw the same in the halls of congress. for two decades every secretary of defense said zero tolerance for the crime. accountability. >> the pentagon's survey found 26,000 incidents of unwanted sexual conduct in 2012.

and the ongoing problem was driven home with the suspension of the top army prosecutor, accused of groping a colleague at a sexual assault legal conference. one of the highest ranking officers on thursday admitted to an affair, pressuring female officers to send nude photos of themselves. a trial will proceed on more serious charges. for more we are joined by an attorney who spearheaded nation-wide lawsuits designed to transform the matters in which the military prosecutes rape and sexual assault. thanks for joining us. senator jilly brand came close to getting what she needed for her bill. as we heard, for two decades every

secretary of defence said there's zero tolerance for scult. is there any doubt that the system is broken. >> there's no doubt. the sad reality is we as a nation sat by and let the infers members bear the brunt of this judicial system. everyone has been on notice that the system is broking. >> the senator said she was disappointed by the lack of support from the white house. would that have helped? >> it would have helped. >> obviously the president is the commander in chief. he should have the same impatience and unwillingness to tolerate more rapes or sexuality assaults. we know it's time for a change your, there has to be reform. her main change, the main demonstrate of her bill was to

take the prosecution of sexual assault cases outside the chain of military command, that if it stayed as it is now, people cases. >> it's an important structural reform. the by it is set up you have the people in charge, the commanders serving as judges, in an ajudic atory function, but we know the best justice is blind justice. that's why, for example, if you sit on a jury, you are excused. the way the military system is structured, is that the commanders, whoever is the boss about the accused they get to decide the legal steps that are taken. they are the ones who are being given this judicial power. >> the argument, of course, is that

the commanders need to command, and taking them out of the command would undermine the whole hierarchy of the military. senator mcas kill's bill doesn't go as far, but events those accused of using the good shoulder defense. they use the military conduct. they will not be able to. and a commander's decision not to move forward would be reviewed by a support and by a legal individual. is that not enough. at this point, it's not just one commander making a decision. if he decides not to move forward, a lawyer has to look at it too. >> no, sadly it's not enough. everyone has been supportive of senator mcas kill's bill. this is a question as to whether the military and the nation and

congress step up and fix a broken judicial system. the changes are tweaks, but the underlying structure remains flawed. the problem is you have a system with year in and year out failed to incarcerate predators. as a result you see the numbers of rapes continue to rise and climb. it's an epidemic. so you have to fix the judicial system. you have to look at why we are not getting enough reporting and when we are getting reporting, why we are never getting convictions. the glaring for is the commanders are tinkering. other nations modernized uniformed codes of justice. they realised it's an anabbing ronism for the commanders to have the judicial power.

they stepped forward into the same. >> we saw this situation this week. we saw it with the head prosecutor sfoor sexual assault himself. >> well, the reality of any system of justice is when you have prosecutorial discretion, some cases will be brought and some will not. what we know is that our american system its emphasis on im -- impartiality. they know that people making the decisions do not have a personal bias or skin in the game. here for the servicemembers. we let people hold decision-making power that have

their career interest, their promote ability interest at stake. >> it's a straight ford public policy. there's no way around the fact that it's broken. >> we saw a video of him, one of the highest ranking officers pleading guilty to sexual cases today.

>> the use of ivf is exploding in the united states is leading to ethical questions. is it leading to designer

babies, is it a bad thing. this week, a controversial version of ivf that could lead to something that parents are calling 3-parent babies. as medical technology advance, where do we join the line on what is acceptable and what is not. joining us is the captain of university medical center. ivf is growing, more than 60,000 of the babies born in 2012 were babies. >> it's well own 200,000 worldwide. routine. >> how much of it is personalities with fertility issues, and how much is parents who are doing this because they want to d genetic screening for a disease that they might be transmitting with their genes. >> it's a great question.

if we went back five, seven years we'd have 95% of people infertile. today i bet fertile people saying, "i want to avoid disease", "i don't want a child with a problem." >> the reality is doctors can test the embryos for all sorts of issues. >> we have been able to pull a cell off an embryo, it is replaced, not hurt it. you take the d.n.a. out of the cell, you run the tests that you reason on you or me. >> one case that is getting attention is a woman having gss. i won't try to pronounce the disoos. it leads to a painful death. she had invitro and basically looked at the embryos that were in the dish, and they figured

out which ones did not have the gss gene, and they discarded those embryos, and she went on to have healthy babies who would not have the disease. >> it's morally controversial to destroy an embryo, when you pick up the one that is will have a horrible disease or live a shortened life span, it seems to be the ethical thing to do to avoid creating that burden. that type of screening embryos, that use of ivf i support that. >> we have other things, breast cancer genes, increasing the likelihood of severe breast cancer. where do you draw the line? that's the big question. i'd say in? ? when you talk about a certainty of disease, you see flawed genes, you have a

child with terrible conditions, rarer but dead for the baby, i think there you can screen. we get requests to say, "hey, how about boy or girl?", we don't do it at my schools, a lot of others they don't. >> some do. in india it has a big business. if it's a clear cut disease state or the rfb of a clear cut disease, you can screen morally. when it's a difference, a taste, i start to have reservations. it's not just the sex. >> there are plenty of things soon to be put on the table. in many states, there is albanism. not a big deal, you put on your sunglasses. in many parts, they don't want

someone without pigment. i think there were two nobel prize winners. >> that's one thing disability advocates will say. a lot of people with incredible existed. >> let me give you an example. i had a request from a deaf coup, herred tarial deaf, and they wanted deaf. they wanted to create a child that was deaf like them. there's a separate question, can you use genetic testing if it makes the child worse off or less than it might have been. my answer is no. so many questions being raised, none more than this without news of people in britain, looking into the possibility of parents being 3-parent. >> remember your high school textbook where the cells are dividing.

it takes power. you need energy. there's a mitochondria, the battery park, the energy factory. when they are not right, the battery doesn't work. you get diseases if it's not right. we can take the mitochondria from a normal egg and put them into an egg from the woman who has the condition. fertilise that. you have prepared - thing of it like an organ transplant. we transplant the mitochondria. to me just because you have a power pack doesn't make parent? >> opponents are up in arms. one of the things they are raising is there's no way of knowing what the consequences have been. could this be something that creates problems. >> there are too concerns. one is is it safe. you have to do it.

you want to do if in the cells. i think we have seen enough evidence to say we are close to being sure you can make a healthy child. were you 100%. is medicine 100% sure. until you try it in humans, you don't know. i'm ready to say even how horrible these diseases are you probably cross the line. the other issue, you head down the road to designer babies. i'm not willing to hold these babies hostage to the future. i'm happy to have the fight about perfection or designer babies. i'm not saying to the mum "you can't get that fixed because 15 years from now we'll be freaking out about cryogenics. >> plenty more to talk about down the road. >> just a topic, with the latest on a story. >> the overuse of prescription

antibiotics. the drugs are life savers for millions. where antibiotics are concerned, less is more. a study for centers for disease control show some hospitals over-tribe anti- -- over-prescribe antibiotics. those that prescribed fewer saw fewer cases. for more i'm joined on the set by dr abdul al-saeed, an assistant professor at the mailman school of public health. the head of the c.b.c. said a modest eduction in unnecessary or inappropriate prescribing has major developments. antibiotics are the best or have

gotten us through a period of time where millions have been killed. the over use of anything good is bad. antibiotics is a go-to drug, even in situations where it's a close call. doctors will oversee the drugs. maybe not following through the workup of the patient. to make sure they have infection, streeting them with antibiotics. when you over treat, what you do is select out versions, bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics of the future. >> this study. a striking thing about it found that some hospitals - doctors at whole hospitals prescribed antibiotics three times than at other hospitals. how can that discrepancy - it makes no sense statistically. how does it happen.

>> there's different cultures at different hospitals. >> as the culture may treat before infection, is picks up and becomes the culture of the hospital, the way people are trained. some hospitals are more likely to treat patients that may have infectious diseases. most of that is likely just a matter of culture. and the c d.c. is trying to change the culture by coming up with a checklist of things. when hospitals look at how to treat or prescribe antibiotics. it leads doctors and hospitals to be accountable. why did we wait until now. it's not as if the super bowl problem is new. we have to remember it's part of an arms race between bacteria and antibiotics. research, develop.

what is happening is increasingly we are being pressed and seeing people with infections with bacteria that are not as easy to treat. you need to use two, three four. the c d.c., recognising the situation saw the opportunity on the back of a recent study that you just discussed to put in stop a set of guidelines. they are nonsense call. when put into institutional policy can decrease the unnecessary use of antibiotics pushing the resistance. >> we had 2 million sick because of super-bugs and 23 die. the president and his budget is asking to double the amount spent for detecting and enough? >> it's never enough.

but it's a good step in the right distrctirection. what we need to do is step back. like the park bench, we need to sit on it, but no one wants to pay for it. if you are a doctor and you have a patient and your patient is sick, you want to throe the biggest gun you have. when the doctors do that, it's a matter of time when we treat people for the wrong antibiotics, we are giving too much, too little and all lead to the selection of bacteria that become like super-bugs. always. >> time to see what is trending on al jazeera's website. >> you were just talking about the growing concern over drug resistant bacteria. our digital story stays in the medical round. >> a virus

that was locked away was found in a block of soil. once dug up scientists thawed the virus and watched it replicate and infected an organism. it's the largest virus to be discovered but poses little effect to people. it only effects single-celled creatures. it may sort of that viruses could be revived. now to your reaction: >> you can read more at the website aljazeera.com.

>> it's a modern day story of edward snowden, who is he, and more important, who was he before he was a household name. joining us is luke harding. the author of a new book: >> you did incredible research, finding all sorts of postings that edward snowden made when he was younger. and it paints a picture of a different guy to what you think? >> yes, he's the classic geek. spends most of his life online, someone of the right, not the left. that's the key thing. he's a conservative lib tarian, and a patriot. >> you found a series of things

that he talks about. he supports guns. he seems to be mostly a lib tarian. >> yes, he's a lib tarian, e didn't think much of president barack obama, and basically was waiting for pam oresident obamato role back the surveillance state. and he took things in his hands when it didn't happen. >> and he was against whistleblowers, and called some traitors. we have some quotes here: he was ranting against noorms leaks and said: then this expletive:

>> a special woman's story received attention on oscar night "the lady in number six",

at 110 this woman was believed to be the oldest auschwitz civilor. the nazis moved her into a camp that was used for propaganda purposes. alice passed away, but the film got the award for "best short documentary film." >> a lot of journalists want to know, speak to me. before they enter my room, they ask are we allowed to enter her room. so my answer is i never hate. never hate. hate red breeds only hatred. >> we are pleased to bridge back the winning film makers, malcolm clark and producer nick reed, joining us from los angeles.

"the lady of number six", is playing theatrically and debuts on netflix. >> you gave a wonderful tribute to alice and talked about her attitude. what made her so remarkable? >> she was - she was a woman who always managed somehow miraculously given what she had gone through, to see the bright side of life. her son died and she managed, through her grief, to be happy that he died without knowing that he was going to die. quickly, without pain and suffering. when that can look at the dark experiences that we human being remarkable. >> she talked about the attitude

and expressed gratitude. let's take a look at that. >> sometimes it happens that i am thankful to have been there, because this - i'm richer than other people. my reaction on life is all complain "in is terrible", it's not so terrible. >> how do you plan on bringing alice's story to more people? >> we are trying to figure out how to put an educational plan together, and have young people in their formative years listen to their lady and understand a different perspective on how to live life, it's breath taking. i want to talk about you guys. malcolm, what is the response since you won the oscar, to her story. >> the count at this point is

800 and something emails - i've forgotten - in the last 24 hours. he was winning. i kale up in the backstraight. we are neck and neck. it was the tsunami of attention. from people that i forgot that i knew, and a lot of attention fantastic. >> have you let your oscars go at all. when you won, malcolm gave a beautiful speech, you were about to talk and the music played. words. >> i think he wanted to thank me. >> i don't know. sometimes people realise how many get involved in making a fim. i want to give a shout-out to the guys. it was literally a labour of love.

everyone started the journey, to bring alice's story to everyone. i want to thank our composer, which, considering he's up against some of the best ever, and has to put his music in between, i imagine he was crazy. >> can you do a bit of filler. fredrik bow bot, the producer. chris brown. phil, malcolm's co-writer and editor. tim marr low. grant, ryan, kevin... >> me. >> and malcolm clerk and nick read. >> i think the statute et cetera are there. and congratulate for the achievement and this marvellous win. i said to someone when we talking about having you on the show, if anyone is having a bad

day, we shall see the lady in number six. >> this show my be over, you can continue the conversation on >> welcome to al jazeera america. i'm del walters. these are the stories we're following for you. tensions on the rise in ukraine as russia ignores warnings from u.s. and tightens it's grip on crimea. more leads on the missing malaysia plane coming up short as families wait word on their loved ones. and more on the trial of osama bin laden's son-in-law.