president trump has warned the syrian government and its allies that they will be making a grave humanitarian mistake if they attack the last rebel—held region of the country, idlib. the syrian government forces are thought to be preparing to launch a huge offensive, supported by iran and russia. there has been condemnation of the myanmar authorities after two journalists from the reuters news agency were sentenced to seven years in prison for breaking state secrecy laws. the american ambassador to myanmar said the case was deeply troubling. the eu has called for the two men's immediate release. officials at brazil's national museum say almost 90% of its collection was destroyed in a devastating fire on sunday. president michel temer announced that the government was seeking money from banks, the un and other institutions to help rebuild it. staff had long complained of deep funding cuts. now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk,

i'm stephen sackur. most of us have embedded the internet and smart technology in our lives. we might like to believe we're autonomous digital citizens. but what if our behaviours are now being monitored and modified by private and state actors over which we have no control? how alarmed should we be? well, my guest is michael chertoff, director of homeland security in the bush administration, and now a leading thinker on cyber security. has the internet left every one of us dangerously exposed? michael chertoff, welcome to hardtalk.

good to be on. i am tempted to begin by checking to see if you are the same michael chertoff who a decade oi’ same michael chertoff who a decade or more ago was an arch advocate of enhanced electronic surveillance of citizens in pursuit of national security. are you that same guy? well, i was the secretary of homeland security, but it wasn't really su rveilla nce homeland security, but it wasn't really surveillance in the sense that we're thinking about it now. it was about taking data that was readily available, and a fairly modest amount of data, and beginning to analyse it so we could find connections between travellers, for example, coming from overseas and known terrorists in the middle east

and elsewhere. it was a lot of data, because it was telecommunications, but also it was the internet, because we were then, talking about the patriot act, of which you were one of the key architect, it was a period when the us government was preoccupied with electronic counterterror measures. and you personally seemed to be a great supporter of expanding the role of state surveillance. actually, it was a fairly modest amount of data, surprisingly modest. for example we looked to collect on international travellers things like their credit ca rd travellers things like their credit card used to pay for the ticket, the contacting address and contact telephone number, something about their itinerary, and a couple of other fairly modest data points. and what we found was if you collect that in bulk you will be able to determine whether someone travelling, for example, had been financed by an al qaeda financier, which actually happened on 9/11 with some of the hijackers. so it was comparatively little data, but...

but it was the beginning of something. absolutely. and here is what many people will see as a damascene conversion, or you have spent time over the past years, since you left government, that national security, obviously thinking a great deal and very hard about the relationship between the citizen and both state and private tech giants that now dominate our lives. and it seems you have become increasingly concerned about surveillance. i think that's correct, and one of the interesting things, stephen, and one of the moments that caused me to write the book, was to see criticism of government surveillance after the snowden episode coming from people in the tech community. when i knew they were collecting far more information than in its wildest dreams the us government imagined it would collect. and they won't collecting it and order to protect people from being blown up. they we re people from being blown up. they were collecting it to sell you things, or as we have seen more recently with cambridge analytica, to try and induce you to politically

go in to try and induce you to politically goina to try and induce you to politically go in a certain direction, and while iam not go in a certain direction, and while i am not saying the government doesn't have things to be corrected and adjustment and i do think that the government needed to make some adjustments, it was remarkable to me that we spent a lot of time agonising over the government and very little over the private sector, which was collecting 20 times as much data. are you saying to me that you think we as citizens should be more concerned about the power vested in the huge tech corporations? and we can name perhaps the biggest of all is being facebook, google, amazon, apple, microsoft. i think some call them the big five. are you saying we should be more concerned about their pa rt should be more concerned about their part in state power? —— their power? i wouldn't say more concerned. what i wouldn't say more concerned. what i would say is we have spent a lot of time over the last 20 or 30 years trying to adjust the way the government supervises government surveillance, the way the courts supervise it, so that actually now, what the government does, at least in the us and i think probably here

in britain as well, is really operate under a very strict set of rules, but thejudges operate under a very strict set of rules, but the judges supervised and in force. what we have not done is anything remotely, alter that in the private sector. and i am not saying that we ought to eliminate the private sector's ability to collect and use data, because there are beneficial things. at what i am saying is we have left largely unsupervised until relatively recently. we had on this show not long ago a tech europe, a guy called lanier, who for years worked in silicon valley with start—ups, and writes a great deal about the tech sector. he has just writes a great deal about the tech sector. he hasjust written writes a great deal about the tech sector. he has just written a writes a great deal about the tech sector. he hasjust written a book about why we should all delete a social media accounts. he thinks they are fundamentally dangerous. do you? well, i don't actually have social media. you don't? no twitter, facebook, nothing? correct. why? partly because i am not sure i want to put the data in these platforms,

partly because i do know what happens with that data, and partly because i have alternative ways of communicating with the people i want to talk to. but you want to reduce your digital footprint. exactly, to talk to. but you want to reduce your digitalfootprint. exactly, and iam not your digitalfootprint. exactly, and i am not off the grid, i am not a luddite who wants to go back to the 19th century, but i do try to think carefully when i engage in the internet, is invaluable to me, what is the risk, the downside risk? and then i balance those in what i call a mind full engagement with the internet. and i understand some people with far—flung families like to be able to use these platforms. but you need to understand what you are giving and what you are getting. and do you think most people do? i mean, there is a fascinating quote from the sort of anthropologist harari, who wrote the book about human evolution but now is focused on tech and he says we have given away our personal data in exchange for free away our personal data in exchange forfree e—mail away our personal data in exchange for free e—mail and funny cat ears. it's a bit like african and native

american tribes who unwittingly sold entire countries to the european imperialist in exchange for beads and trinket. do you think we so undervalue the value of our own data? i think there are two problems. one is i do agree that we have often undervalued the significance of our data, which some people describe as the new gold. but there is another factor. people describe as the new gold. but there is anotherfactor. we people describe as the new gold. but there is another factor. we don't understand that in addition to the data that we knowingly put out there, there is an awful lot of data about us that others put out there. you go to the grocery store, you get a discount card, and you buy things. they are recording what you buy. you wear a sports watch or something that records your exercise. that's being recorded and uploaded, that may be sold to somebody. the way you drive may be recorded on a device thatis drive may be recorded on a device that is implanted in your car, and that is implanted in your car, and that may be sold as well. and then someone may that may be sold as well. and then someone may collect all of the data and they will get now quite an accurate picture of what you eat, how you sleep, what your exercise is, where you go, what you read, as

well as to your friends are. now, in china, they are taking all of this data and they are talking about a social credit score, where the government will decide whether you are, quote, a good citizen. and if you are, you will get benefits, and if you are a bad citizen, you won't. and frankly they are going to have access to more data than big brother in 1984 could ever have imagined. and could that come the western democracies as well? i think we're beginning to see that. you start to see for example insurance companies talking about, well, maybe we will adjust your premium rates depending on whether you are driving in a safeway or not, or using healthy things or not. and i could see us moving to the point, and i talk about it in the book, where pretty much everything you do is scripted one way or another by that monitoring. but in a way yours is a counsel of despair. because in this book of yours, which is subtitled reclaiming our cyber security in the digital age, you actually say privacy, but wonderful and important concept that has been with us for

ever, we have tojettison it. it's too late. privacy in the traditional sense we no longer have. that seems to bea sense we no longer have. that seems to be a counsel of despair. i'm actually saying we need to move on from protection, from keeping things hidden and confidential into a larger question, which is giving us the right to control our data, even when it's been collected by somebody else. in other words, we are moving away from trying to hide things the same, 0k, away from trying to hide things the same, ok, you may be able to collect my data, it may be unavoidable. but i have a right to say what you do with it and what you use it for. but thatis with it and what you use it for. but that is fantasy. that is neither true of the way our data is used by the state, nor is it true of the way our data is used by the private sector. actually, though, the europeans now have passed the general data protection legislation, and what that does is, and there are some things about it which i disagree with, but in the main what it does is say to anybody who has our data, if you want to use it, you

must ask for position the permission to use it. and i have been getting e—mails now from various providers asking me if it is ok if they use my data to sell me things, and sometimes i say yes, most often i say no. of course, as you say, the data protection laws are enhanced in europe. not in the united states. is it time, and you are a former government man, is it time to the us government man, is it time to the us government to take on the biggest tech companies, perhaps to regard them as monopoly that need to be undone, certainly to regulate them ina way undone, certainly to regulate them in a way that they've never been regulated before. i think that's coming. if you look in california, for example, the state of california passed a law on managing data that is very similar to the european rule. and of course, california is where many of these committees are located. and i think even now you see the companies in the wake of cambridge analytica and the russian information operations beginning to realise they have a much greater responsibility to manage the data

than they used to think they did. yes, the problem is that one of the many things that came as a revelation out of the facebook cambridge analytica farrago was the stunning lack of knowledge from many senior politicians of the way the tech sector works. there was that extraordinary moment in the interrogation of mark zuckerberg by politicians on capitol hill where it became plain that several of them had no idea how facebook, which is free to use, actually made any money. and zuckerberg had, with a straight face, a post he is, had to say we run ads. —— po—face. if there is that level of ignorance, how can lawmakers even begin to think they can construct the right kind of legal framework to protect citizens from these tech giants? well, the good news is that people have now woken up that they better learn about this. and there are members of congress who are well educated and informed about what goes on here. also interesting is to watch the courts. 0ver also interesting is to watch the courts. over the last several years,

the us supreme court has begun to look at some of the issues involving data, and actually has begun to evolve some of the rules about requiring search warrants and similar kinds of permission, in a recognition that the volume of data thatis recognition that the volume of data that is being collected by the government is transformative, and therefore we have to have a measure of supervision greater than we used to have. should companies like google and facebook, which are very close to old—fashioned monopolies in this sort of information world of ours, should they be broken up? it's ha rd to ours, should they be broken up? it's hard to break them up, because there's something called a effects. the network effect basically says at some point the value of the network is directly equivalent to what its scale is. if you break it up, you reduce the actual value to people. but there are things you can do. think about a utility or a common carrier like a train. you can put some regulation in place. so i argue in the book, for example, that if you want to use facebook, but you don't want to give them a right to

use your data willy—nilly, they should be able to charge you a fee, but there shouldn't be able to make you sacrifice your privacy as a condition of dissipation. you have talked about different solutions to what you see as the looming, you know, potential threat of the pervasiveness of the internet and the explosion in big data, and you talk about the need for international treaties, so that across national borders, governments can come together with a collective sort of agreed view on what the relationship between the citizen and the state should be. in the context of donald trump's america, but in's russia, shejin of donald trump's america, but in's russia, she jin ping's of donald trump's america, but in's russia, shejin ping's china, there is no way on earth that the biggest powers on earth are going to come together on an international treaty together on an international treaty to control the relationship between the citizen and the state, in terms of big data —— xijinping's china. stephen, i agree with you that the idea of some master at mecca

agreement is not realistic. i think there are some areas that we can do some things internationally. for example, on the issue of what do you do when the data about the citizen is held in another country, what court has the authority to order the data to be turned over? what you wind up with now is often a conflict among the countries. but now we have, for example, a law passed in the us, and a treaty or agreement with reach with the uk that is going to streamline this. so things like that, i think, to streamline this. so things like that, ithink, we to streamline this. so things like that, i think, we can make progress in. but we can't be naive that we are going to solve everything. with respect, i am quitting in our. international agreements that protect the right of the data subject. i do think that sounds frankly, fantastical. what it is meant to say is this. if you are in —— an american citizen. this is a real case, we had data in ireland, what laws apply? we have now reached an agreement in the uk where, depending on the citizenship, that

depends on what law applies. will that work with russia? no. could we reach estimates of agreements with europe and countries in south asia and south america? yes. that will be progressed. we are also talking about whether it would be off—limits in conflict. we cannot do it with arms, a violation, should we do that, you cannot use cyber weapons to destroy hospitals or to knock civilian airliners out of the sky. i think we might be able to reach some agreements on that. as long as you have reasonable expectations, there is an opportunity for progress. the perceived wisdom in washington ran out is that the states with the most effective cyber security operations within their, sort of, national—security programmes are china, russia, north korea, iran. at a cne of those countries. —— i don't see any of those countries, even

though you have said there would be a mutually agreeable form of words, idid see a mutually agreeable form of words, i did see any of them countries being interested in beginning a dialogue. china i would put in a slightly different category, there are some things, like big global financial system, where they have a vested interest to keep that functioning with integrity and availability, they might see it in their interest to look at an area of not doing anything destructive. we are talking about the context of a ongoing, long winded scandal in washington or that the degree of russian meddling and interference, much of it cyber —based, in the 2016 elections. get real. i am not under the illusion that i think russia would lay off our elections. but even there, the financial sector, i have spoken to russian officials who said look, maybe the financial system should be off—limits. i have modest expectations, i don't think we will solve all the problems but

we will solve all the problems but we did at the start to create some dialogue that might solve some problems. when we start talking russia, into election meddling and everything that has gone around the whole robert mueller investigation, i cannot help asking you about the climate in washington, dc today, in particular, your view of what donald trump is doing to the us presidency. 0ther trump is doing to the us presidency. other members of your national security community, if i could put it like that, in washington, dc, had described him as being corrosive, fundamentally damaging to an america's long—term national security interest. do you feel that way? i think something -- some things he does, such as the tough sanctions, will do more. they did respond to chemical weapons used in syria. those things are good. i obviously do not agree with the attacks on the press... before the

election he signed that collective letter from the national—security elite, warning america about what you saw as the dangers of trump. we now havejohn you saw as the dangers of trump. we now have john brennan you saw as the dangers of trump. we now havejohn brennan saying this, i see no delight in seeing the steady colla pse see no delight in seeing the steady collapse of us presidency. all i can do is take comfort in that the rule of law and our great government institutions are prevailing. do you see the trump presidency as a state of collapse? i don't. ithink see the trump presidency as a state of collapse? i don't. i think the rule of law and our institutions continue to work. i don't think attacking the press or attacking the rule of law is an appropriate thing to do. i have a lot of faith, with people who move —— work in the government. includingjudges, members of congress, members of the executive ranch. are you treading carefully, because whenjohn brennan said he saw his security clearance is completely removed and he no longer got the confidential information that he had had a four?

what about you ? information that he had had a four? what about you? —— before. currently argue still on that list of former national security people who get the clea ra nce ? national security people who get the clearance? let me explain. clea ra nces clearance? let me explain. clearances are given not to give you things, but when the government wa nts you things, but when the government wants you to help you can come in and help. correct. i don't discuss clea ra nces and help. correct. i don't discuss clearances but what i will tell you... the former director of homeland security, you are on that list. one of the things i will say is that i do think whatever your views or policies are, as a former official in security or military domain, you cannot be personal. i do like it when former generals get up —— don't like it. and as it happened on both sides of the campaign, argued political things. on both sides of the campaign, argued politicalthings. he simply ca res argued politicalthings. he simply cares about the national security of the united states of america and he thinks donald trump is reckoning it. 0thers, thinks donald trump is reckoning it.

others, including a former navy admiral, william mcgregor will, who oversaw the attack on 0sama bin london, he requested as a symbol, if you take away from john brennan, ta ke you take away from john brennan, take it away from me too. you take away from john brennan, take it away from me tool you take away from john brennan, take it away from me too. i think it was wrong to take the clearance away, to pay somebody back, like what they said. i think i also have to say that i thinkjohn brennan, describing someone he didn't like as treasonous, was over the top. i would like to see both sides calm the temperature down. there are legitimate areas of serious disagreement. we can talk about those areas of. when we encouraged what we called the food fight, throwing names at each other, are not doing anybody say this. america is very polarised nap —— right now. at the heart of it seems to be an notion that donald trump has, there isa notion that donald trump has, there is a deep state, the elite, including the national—security establishment, gentlemen such as

yourself, who are determined to bring him down. he is telling an america that these people don't want me to succeed because i am your guy, working for the little guy and they wa nt to working for the little guy and they want to stop me. how worried are you? want to stop me. how worried are you ? perhaps want to stop me. how worried are you? perhaps it was symbolised at thejohn mccain you? perhaps it was symbolised at the john mccain funeral were you? perhaps it was symbolised at thejohn mccain funeral were all of thejohn mccain funeral were all of the people were talking about honour, service, duty, the message was clear, these are values donald trump does not have. you worry about that polarisation? i do worry. i see it not only in the us, i have been travelling in the europe, i have watched what is going on in germany, in sweden, i see it here in great britain. i think we have a serious social problem now in the fact that we cannot seem to have a legitimate disagreement about policy without immediately turning it into a very personal and angry fight. it is almost like we are football fans and we wa nt almost like we are football fans and we want our team to win the matter

what. i take your point. there are nationalist, populist movements in many parts of the world donald trump is doing special. he's questioning people like yourself, people in the national security establishment, saying you are part of the elite who works against the interest of ordinary americans. how dangerous is that? it is dangerous if people ultimately buy it. if we get so polarised that a significant number of people accept that. i don't think we are there yet. i understand there are people who do buy it. you can find people who buy extra in views in any country in the world. i still think, by and large, most americans may view it as hyper bowl —— hyperbole, but they are not quite there yet. but i will agree with you that it there yet. but i will agree with you thatitis there yet. but i will agree with you that it is a very bad thing to have leaders talking about those with whom he or she disagree as bad people, as enemies of the state. that is a classic thing you hear from somebody who is an

authoritarian. not just in from somebody who is an authoritarian. notjust in the us, around the western world are about to ta ke around the western world are about to take a serious look at why we have reached a point that we have this level of social fracture. even bearing in mind the russians are doing their best to pour fuel to the fire. you are a national security quy: fire. you are a national security guy, have you ever been more worried about the state of america's national security? that is a really interesting question. i would say to you is this, in my adult life i have never been more worried about our national security. if i go back to when i was a child, the height of the cold war, and i was alive although as a little kid during the cuban missile crisis, that was worrisome too. i would have to say in the last 50 years, particular since the fall of the soviet union, i have not seen this much sense of foreboding and i think this will be with us for a while. but a billion —— do think people have to get

engaged. is not enough to complain. you to vote, you got —— you got to get out there and be heard on issues that matter. but you also to be tolera nt that matter. but you also to be tolerant and friendly to people who disagree with. we have to end at there. michael chertoff, ithank disagree with. we have to end at there. michael chertoff, i thank you for being on hardtalk. hello there. yesterday we had quite a mixture of weather. some warm, humid sunshine across parts of eastern england, but further west, we had this weather front bringing cloudy skies and outbreaks of rain. i'm showing you this weather picture from yesterday because that front is going to be with us for much of today as well. it's barely moving at all, so it's going to be quite cloudy over the next few hours across a good part of england and wales too, with the cloud thick enough for an occasional spot of drizzle, perhaps misty over

the hills for a time as well. but for the most part across england and wales, it's going to be a mild night. you can see the yellows here. temperatures way up into the double figures. whereas further north and west, we've got the cooler air for scotland and northern ireland. and across sheltered parts of northern scotland, it could well be cold enough for ice touch of frost for early risers tuesday morning. tuesday, though, will dawn on a bright note for most parts of scotland with some morning sunshine. should be a bright enough start too for northern ireland. different story for most of england and wales, where it's going to be a great start to the day and the cloud will be thick enough for a few spots of rain or drizzle, perhaps across parts of north—west england, the midlands and eastern parts of wales too. for one or two, a damp start to the morning, but as we go through the day, that weather front will tend to ease and the cloud will thin a little bit, so we'll get a few brighter spells coming through. there will be a bit of sunshine for east anglia and south—east england.

perhaps not quite as much as we had on monday. we'll still have some sunshine for scotland and northern ireland, although the cloud will tend to bubble up a bit here a little bit as we head into the afternoon. it's going to be another quite quiet day really weatherwise on wednesday. a lot of dry weather with some bright or sunny spells coming and going. but a change in the weather to the north—west where we see a weather front moving. that's going to be bringing more general rain into western scotland and northern ireland. that rain heavy at times. things cooler there across the far north—west of scotland. further changes towards the end of the week as the jet stream gets more wriggly, more amplified. we're on the downward stretch, the downward limb of the jet stream, and that means we'll have an area of low pressure form as we head towards the end of the week. here is the low. now, uncertainty about the exact position. it might actually be a little bit further westwards, which will bring more general rain in across the uk. either way, i think we're looking at an unsettled end to the weak. rain at times probably best sums up the forecast on thursday, particularly across the northern half of the country, but nowhere is immune from seeing some wet weather. it will be quite breezy and cool, and some of the rain could turn heavy and thundery too.

temperatures ranging from 13 in eastern scotland to 18 degrees in london. i suspect it will stay pretty unsettled on friday and into the weekend with rain or showers in the forecast. that's your weather. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: president trump warns of a humanitarian crisis and a tragedy as syrian government forces prepare to storm the last rebel—held province. western countries condemn myanmar‘s jailing of journalists, but there is silence from china and the rest of asia. a nation's heritage up in flames. a lack of funding is blamed for the disaster at brazil's national museum. and japan's much—praised efforts to recycle plastics are not exactly what they seem. industrial plastic has value. it can be recycled and turned into new products.

but the same cannot be said of household plastic waste. it is dirty, it is difficult, and it has virtually no value.