here comes "the willis report" next. ♪ ♪ >> children. >> you save. john: in 1984 has come to america. >> this big brother has done a lot greedier than george orwell thought it would never get. >> when you call grandma in nebraska the nsa knows. john: the president says you have nothing to worry about. >> nobody is listeningo your tephone calls. john: government officials do like. >> does the nsa collect any type of data at all? >> no. john: my fellow libertarians are mad at me. they say, i am not ang enough. >> you know, i don't think this is john stossel. i think it is an impostor. john: i'm angrier than she is. >> i don't mind. it's not like it will be on tmz. john: big brother and privacy.

that's our show tonight. -7♪ >> and now john stossel. ♪ john: 65 years ago, that novel struck a crd. people feared the futurwould bring government spying on us through telescreens that were everywhere, even in our bedrooms. big brother was watching. when computers became popular people feared that the internet would becom government's way of controlling s. we libertarians said, no, the opposite is true. the internet and personal computer revolution is have freed us from all nds of government ntrol. it did, but lately we learn about several orwellian like intrusions on our privacy. most recently that the national security agency tracks our phone calls andome e-mails. this is a terrible threat to american liberties, ss coressman justin amash.

congressman, why? they are just mindinghe debt. they're not listening to our phon calls. >> well, it violates the constitution. the fourth amendment protections againsunreasonable searches and seizures, and islearly violates theourth amendment. the problem we have is that the government is gathering information ung what is essentially a genal warrant, which was outlawed by the constitution. they're going after people, not -n the basis of any suspicion, not on the basis of a probable cause, but just because they're people, just because the information is useful to t government. th is what our founders expressly prohibited with the constitution. hn: it is useful to need to if it keeps me from being blown up by a terrorist. the fact that they are just standing everybody in some ways makes it seem like less of an invasion of privacy. >> well, theeason the founders believed it s wrong is because we did not want the government collecting this kind of affirmation. that put the constitution i place to prevent the government om injecting itself into our

personal affairs. and you can't do away with a lot of the constitution and argue that maybe that makes us safer. you could also do away with t first amendment, second amendment, third amendment, fifth, sixth, seventh. john: i don't want to do that. >> well, someone could argue and say, look, now the government can control everything, preventing crime. i doubt it would work very well, but that is what they could argue. of course we would have a police state which is eressly prohibited by the constitution. @%e reason we have a constitution is to prohibit the government from doing this. john: believing t constitutional argument for a moment, can you make is live from the more? i don't see how my privacy is beingnvaded by these massive scans? >> well, that's fe if you completely trust the government. john: i don't. >> the government can use the information, for example, to blackmail corporate executives. they cld use the information

to persuade members of congress to vote a certain light, and they can use the information against the public. we do not want a culture in our country of distrust, of yea my parents came from the middle east. they came from regimes that were tyrannical and in those countries people were afraid to talk on the phone, they're free to talk to their neighbors because they're afraid everyone is spy. we don't want that kind of culture. it has a damaging effect on our culture. john: you can i see it here. i made up this list of 100 things i hate more than the -- or as much as the nsa spine. and where do we write this? coming, yobelieve in liberty. is iworse that they do this data mining and the fact that they employ 22 million people? where our kids must go to school, a $ trillion deficit, that they passed dddd-frank, that there are bailouts.

how much can we be angry aut? >> i think it is all bad, but when you haveirect violations of the constitution, wn you have someone trying to infringe upon the fourth amenent or the first amendment of the second amendment, those are serious threats against liberty, and more serious in many ways than the kind of financial exploitation that theovernment is involved in. it is true that the government is bloated. there has been no better advocate for balanng the budget and getting our debt under control than me, but at the same time, we have to look at this, our civil liberties. that is why we had a revolution back in the 1700's, because of vil liberties violations he. john: in the 1700's we get the fourth amendment partly because british soldie were going in people's homes and taking stuff an searching your most private space. hal is looking for patterns in a billion phone cls anywhere li that? well, the problem is the legal theory they're using

the legal theory they're using is that any time you use of third-party provider to sto any of your documents, and most pape to there are eleronic, digital. some most of the paps that we have in modernimes are digital papers. the government is using the false and flawed logic and argument that that is all available to the public. once you put it out on a third-party server, the %-obtain it because it is no lolonger private. that is ridiculous. john:hat do you say to the claim that maybe 50 terrori incidents re stopped? >> we don't even know if that number is accurate. most of the information is classified. we cannot get to the bottom of -t. frankly a lot of the court opinions that deal with these cases are classified in a way where members of congress cannot get the opinions. part of a we areoing with our bill is trying to make sure that these cases are available to members of congress. right now i actually can not read the court opinions that are

interpreting laws like the patriot act. john: it certainly is a problem when they say it's secret, trust us. congressman justin amash, thank you. >> thanks. john: the other side to what congressman mike pompeo pporting the nsa spine. congressman,hy? you heard what yr fellow republicans said. >> thank you for having me on the show. the good news in this case is that we don't have to give up any constitutial rights. we can keep america safe. these programs that the nsa are conducng despite what representative justin amash said , are wholly onstitutional and there is incredible oversight from allhree branches ofovernment, exactly how the founders intded it, article one oversight, folks like me who sit on the house intelligence committee. the program that is run bb article to an article three cous. confirmed. bees are programs that have been

conducted lawfully and constitutionally. representative justin amash has kept a lot of americans say for a long time. john: you have up record of being skeptical of government. what you trust them on this? >> i don't trust individuals. there is no one who brings a deeper distressed to the federal governmento washington d.c. then me, b i have seen this process. the concerns that representative justin amash has about this data, he talks about them listeninto calls and data mining. that just isn't happening. even mr. snowden has not done a single thing that i unlawful. he is not uncovered a singge task that there has been an unlawful action. john: is it ok for them to just lie tos? %-intelligence says this when asked about government surveillance. >> does the nsa collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of mlions of americans?

>> no, sir. john: what are the rules? >> the rules are you tell the truth. in that case, i've heard his story. is totally unacceptable. that is not how he shoul have answered the question. he should have been more careful or given probably the most appropriate answer. these are classified programs and i cannot talk abo it in this setting. i am happy to share that with you in an appropriate setting. john: down the bad guys already assumed that we're doing this? is this reay a revolution? >> i'm sure th assume a lot of things. it is important to these programs remain secret and classified in many cases. i can tell you this, already after mr. edward swden release of this information through the guardian natnal security agency information indicates that terrorists are behaving differently. they might well have suspected that some of this was going on, but they learned a couple of things. not only what was going on, but they also learned the legal limits of the program. having shared that is very

dangerous and allows thenemy at insight and things reviewing. coquette's the really bad guys, the terrorists who stl want to kill us. john: are rare time when you are in full agreement with our commander-in-chief. >> you cannot have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and its zero inconvenience. john: you agree, i take i >> well, i sort of agree with the president commanded would be a rare time when i agreed with this president. i don't view this issue as partisan in any fdamental way. john: it is not clear how crucialinancial security data mining is. the senator points so we already have so much stated that the fbi misses. >> we can't seem to keep up with the people we have been told about.

the underwear bomber. hihis dad tned demand. we cannot keep up with them. he got on a plane. they think somehow there will go through billions of bits of information every day. john: was your answer to that? >> here i a glorious thing. we're not going through these billions of things every day. the collection of phone records that edward snowden has talked about is not being used for data mining. ere being used when they're is a specific terrorist case that we can identify and say, we think we have information that leads us to want to get checked these phone records. it is not the case that we're constantly data minin. very specific uses of information with approval by the fisa court. i guess my last thought is this, no program is going to catch them all. there is no way you can ever create a perfect system and cash every single incidents of terrorism, but thess programs have been important and effective and are absutely critical to rounding out our nation'sntelligence collection

apparatus. john: thank you, congressman mike pompeo. >> thank you, john. john: coming up, as i said before, libertarians are mad at me. some call me dgusting. a libertarian in name only. our response to that later. next, a government intrusion i really am angry about. the irs abuse of people who have the wrong ideaa it. >> why are they in my kitchen? why are they looking to buy

♪ >> conservatives have ivate confidential tax information leaked and conservative gups were systematically targeted by the irs. john: that is a scandal that is clearly worth getting angry about. congress in its wisd has decided that if you are runng to and advocacy groups you don't get that tax deduction if they spend more than 50 percent of the money on political activity. we learn that the irs selected 500 conservative and tea party groups for extra scrutiny. agents were told to be on the lookout for words like liberty compatriot, constitution. irs bureaucrats denied tax deductions to t party groups for

more than a yearnd harassed them with queion after questionin a few cases they lead to their donor list, sometimes to left-wing groups. that is despicable. this is just a raw political abuse. brooke rollins runs one of business that was abused, the texas lic policy foundation. >> what happened to us in the spring of last year, 2012, our donor list and as a charitable ganization, which is why we are, we have to file with the irs the list of our of larger donors. but, as you know, that list is supposed to remain anonymous and the irs in return promises to blackout every name before it releases that information about the organization. john: why should it be anonymous? people see if you give to a political cause it ought to be known this goes back to the founding o our country in my opinion. the right to associate and to engage is inherent in a

democracy. john: you have a right to associate. you just have to be public. >> let's go back to t civil rights movement. alabama versus naacp, the state of alabama tried to force the naacp during the civil rights era to disclose their donors. as we all know, why would they? it would because they think that they could threaten those people not to give money anymore or %-to back down.r of the naacp they knew that the current state of affairs in alabama would change unless they we able to undercut or dilute the naacp power and what they were trying to do. the u.s. supreme court said absolutely not. we have rights as americans to remain anonymous when we support this is ideas we believe in. john: likewise your donors know that if my name is publicized media will be harassed the way that others have bee. >> that is exactly right. noturprisingly, on our list as well as many of the great americanand entrepreneurs.

when the left seize control of this list and wrote about it in their magazines, blocks, websites, that harassment started to come about absolutely. john: then there is that targeting. this did not happen to you. you already have a tax exempt status. this happens to others. at first the irs commissioner sa there is no targeting. a year later the truth was revealed in response to a question that was planted. an irs commissioner said mistakes were made by people trying to be more efficient. if you say tea partier patriot that's an advocacy group. >> what is amazing and the news stors today or yesterday, wa, wait. we have progressive and art list. john: this just happened. >> w weren't really targeting conservative spirit retarding everybody. but have you seen one progressive group step forward?

wait a minute, you delayed us for two years, made us put in 23,000 pages of documents. there questo become isc4. we have not seen any of that. that begins o country. that is the crossroads where are. john: and when government is so big and you want a tax deduction , you have to give them of disinformation. and it does not end until you mentioned the 23 pages of documents. >> 23,000 pages. that's right. hn: the coalition for life was asked to explain in detail the activity at prayer meetings. provide the percentage of time your group spends on prayer groups compared to other activities.

one group, the american patots against government excess -- i like that name -- was required to provide a synopsis of every book read. the president of the group said i don't have timeo provide a book report. you can read them for it yourself. john: -- >> augusta the bger point it was haening must top. this is why we have to stand up and say no. john: some on the left don't see any problem with what the s did. the former head of the tax division. >> i could not find anything that suggested the irs had acted inappropriately. perhaps ineffectively, but not inappropriately. >> i have not seen what they did wrong. they are supposed to evaluate how much political activity a lot 501(c)3 wants to engage in.

hn: no problem. >> no problem. it is all just fine. the fact that those guys can stand up and say thato me is astonishing. it also, in my opinion, gives such a great opportunity for the people of this country to stand up and say no more lahood. john: we hope that will happen. coming up, more ways you privacy is invaded. back to the nsa data mining. i don't mind it that much. we will try to get educated. a libertarian i am n. >> i don't think this is john stossel.

♪ john: i'm curious that my government all the tim on my web page i posd this list of 100 things that enrage me about governments over reached. the irs bias against tea party groups is disgusting. farm subsidies, benghazi,

corporate welfare, minimum-wage. it is all disgusting. i could go on 100 times. in fact, couldrobably get to 200. government compurs scanning everybody's phone records to see patterns that might lead to terrorists? i'm conflicted about that. judge anewapolitano says i should not be. i should be furious. educate me. >> i think you should be furious becaus you believe that we have natural rights that come from our humanity,mong which is the right to be left alone, to preserve the right to be left alone, the right to privacy. john: left alone by terrists. >> you also want to be left alone by the government because of the government does not leave you alone you will have no privacy. people do not behave normally, naturally, or to their full extent when they're bein watched by the government and then made it -- be the government's permission. when the government knows every phone call we make from where we make the call, to limit the call, how long the call was, where they were, and can plug

that into there out rthmshey can predict all kinds of behavi about us and they are not entitled to any of it under the constitution without a search warrant. john: i still just don't personally feel the threat. i give up a of this private information and much more to facebook. >>ut you do so willingly and decide not to. john: government is force. >> now y'r coming around. you cannot avoid the government. john: and facebook cannot lock me up or assassinate me. but my information is out there. so you say that they can look at all f this intercepting it in the air. >> your information is not out there. john: it is flying through the air. these electronic waves. don't you assume the are hacking your information. >> they do not protect me from the government. the fourth amendment does. media matters, just like fox news, just like facebook, are free to do things that the

government is n. that is whwe have this fourth endment to mike -- to keep the government out of our bankbook and bedrooms d frankly off of our back. which is wor? a renegade former spy divulged the truth about government lawbreaking, or thhat government officials lie about what he exposed? john: and picking up on your which is worse theme for something else, i have anger fatigue. is this worse than our $17 trilli debt, therug war, what we have done to t american indians and so one? >> i don't know ift is worse than that, but it could lead to something that is. john: could lead? >> yes, of course. the slippery slope. i mean, a single phone call in the computer of a single spine is innocuous. all of our phone calls revealing everything about ourselves, exposing our innermost thoughts and behavior to the governmt will

don't knhat is. think of it this way. the government powers derive from the consent of the government. john: did you consent tohis? the terrorism fears overblown.

people were frightened consent to this. they can consents. >> not for the rt of us. thank you. john: here is what the president said in response to criticism. >> and the people cannot t trust not only the executive branch, but also don't trust congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we are abiding by the constitution and to process unblock then we will have some problems here >> absolute canard after benghazi, the associatedre, the rose an affair in the irs, nobody trusts this administration. who would trust congress when they, like the senator whose heart is in the right place, were t what the nsa was doing but took an oath not to reveal it. who would trust these federal judgeso granted 99. 5 percent of every application sought bore. john: who else do we have for oversight but congress and federal judges? john: transparency. when the government knows was governed -- going on they will

be afraid to trample our rights. they have created a bizarre syem of secret courts, secret information to the congress..3 congressman cannot tell anybody or vote. john: it is based on secrecy. >> they can spy on foreigners all they want. i did not authorize the government to spy on the comnd you did not authorize the government to spy on you. john: know, i did not. i wonder if there is not some justification in nsa spine. thank you, judge. i will keep trying to learn from you and others. up next, often big brother onne more than our records. it wants our pictures. more and more surveillance cameras watch us. i have gotte used to that too. am i a complacent dope? we debate that next. ♪

the trai, it all comes down to this. to be a winng team, you ve to work like a winning team. we have a job to dout here today. some people think it's about mcle, but it's really about heart, a lot of heart.

my team depends on me. and team? is 50,000 strong. ♪ hey! looks like a lot of work's going into this. ♪ hey! ♪ hey! all right. let's go. hawkins: this is what it feels like to be part of a team. kimbrel: a winning team. the action tea are you in? action team! action team! get in on the action at actionteam.org. are you in? ♪ >> new colors to put more security cameras all across america to save us from another

attack. >> to you as okay wit more surveillance? >> i want to get bombed. john: i don't want to get on either. and if cameras might discourage that or catch bombers, help stop other crime, too, murders and robberies, i would say that' good. but the cameras are also a form of big brother watching all the time. sheriff russ martin says the loss of privacy is worth it. we are safer because ofamas. no, we are not says ginger mccall. cameras do not even wor. she is with the electronic privacy of permission center. so what do you mean they don't wo? i assume that they catch bad guys. >> well, historically we have seen that cameras are neither effective at preventing crime, nor solving crime, particularl. john: what you mean? they are. this is how we found the boston marathon bombers. >> aually, it is not necessarily a w found the there were a lot of things going on.

eyewitness identification, surveillance cameras that were privately owned, not governmental surveillance cameras. eventually there were the fingerprints of the older brother. and we're in boston, there are government on surveillance cameras, it did nothing prevent the bombing and we have seen two attempted bombings in britain which is one of the most heavily surveiled in london, which one of the most heavily surveiled cities in the world. john: yet london is remarkable theory of 500,000 government cameras in london. they cled it the ring of steel, the closest comparison in the united states is chicago. 10,000 camer versus 500. but, and london they had a they had an attempted bombing that did not work. and from that pictures are what caught the bombers before they could do the third time. i would call that a success. >> not necessarily. again, if the cameras are really successful there would be no crime in london, no bombings in london. there it certainly not

successful at preventing. john: that is a high standard. what is the hrt? >> these cameras reveal very prate information. a reveal very private information about where you go, who you go there with, associational information, you're speding your time with. if a record audio, they can recordour conversations. they just record video, it can record you going in to a gay the number of places that you would probably not want other people to know you're going. john: shares martin, what about that? >> well, i think she is missing the point here, john. as a matter of fact, i think the boston bombers were prevented from committing other offenses in their own city. so that video of surveillance helped identify t suspects. and although perhaps it did not prevent that itial oense, your preventing offenses down the road. i think it is an effective tool for law enforcement. >> i want to point out here that in the instance of boston, it was not government-round cameras

that ended up helping to identify the suspect puld. private individuals and companies. >> law enforcement, we are less concerned whether the arab public or privately held. the fact tha there are capturing an image in helping law enforcent, it is an effective piece of technology in 2013. john: share of martin, i should disclose, i have a nepotism connection here. he is the father of might sistanto is here in the studio. but that od not affect the content. just thought you would be a good spokesman. what do you say about the amples of abuse, the san francisco police officer use surveillance cameras to a women. nnw york cops were caut looming at couples embracing and fondli on rooftops. in alabama the cameras zoomed in on breasts and buttocks of several young women. >> of a police officeis involved in an automobile crash, do we take all the police cars and light? absolutely not.

those are individual incidents, and those officers need to be disciplined through the administrative process. so you don't take away the technology because of a single incident of abuse. john: thank you, sheriff and gingee. coming up to now when it comes to government spying, some people say you have nothing to hidehat you worry about? there is plenty. government, like everyone, makes mistakes. government mistakes are more serious because government can take away your freedom. this oregon man and his daughter will tell us the terrible thi that happe

♪ john: one reason i am not that upset t about the nsa tracking my phone calls is that i have already given up much of my privacy. facebook has access to all kinds of private informational tommy. but they're is a big difference between facebook, youtube, and the government. fabook cannot tell me or assassinate me. the government might. if you're not doing athing wrong you have nothing to worry about say some people, but brandon mayfield and his daughter did nothing wrong. they live in oregon and never been to spain. after terrorist's bomb trains in

spainhe fbi became convinced that bndon's fingerprint was onhe bag of detonators down at th scene. what flowed was a nightma. >> i was in school on that day, may 6, 2004. qaeda picked up by my older brother, called into the office. he told me in a grim voice, let's go outside right now. i , what's g on? he said, let's just go outside. i walked outside and looked at me and said, dad was arrested by th fbi. i was in total shock. i thought it was a joke. i said, good one. he kept walking. when we reached the dinner m mother was, she was crying. john: and you stayed in jail for two weeks. >> yes. i gotta knock on the door and there was a big, burly invidual, shortair, creut,

diminutive, female sang along the talk to me. originly at that mib solicitors and said. and then they said they identified that they were from the fbi. they show their badges. and as they haholsters with guns i wasn't particularly surprised at that point to be questioned by the fbi. i had just moved to the portland community, and i was hearing ories fromther people that they were being asked to talk to the fbi, being questioned, even followed. john: even before that, you thought something weird was going on in your house. @% i had a creeping suspicion that peoplwere watching as before this event occurred, potentially even year or more before. and especially in the months after the attacks. john: why?

>> one of the biggest giveaways for me was a hard drive that was taken out of my computer desktop my bedroom and not put back in pperly. i don't know how comters work very well and did not know back then, but i was aware that someone had been tampering with my computer hard drive. th screws are not put back in properly on the desktop monitor. >> we learned later that the had almost 300 photographs of items in documents and our house. they had perris to our house when we were not there on more than one occasion and at dawn and and looked through our hard drives, taken finr now clpings, dna samples. john: how did they get their fingerprint? your never been to spain. your passport had exped. why you? >> i enlisted in the military in 1984. i went back in as an officer

through the rotc scholarship program called the gre to gold program. invariably i was fingerprinted. i was even -- i had secret cleance at one time. i worked for military intelligence.. i had an application it is ironic. and apparentlyhey had, you know, allegedly found aatent fingerprint --tas called latent print number 17 on a blue bag that contained detonator is in a wte man outside of the train station whe the madrid train bombing occurred. that played and was then photographed and was sent to various agencies around the world, including the fbi fingerprint examination unit. john: to fbi examiners agree that the fingerprint match yours

>> i think it was actually three. john: an independent expert also agreed. so you must of been the bomber. points of comparison, which is a pretty strong match, but unbeknownst to us -- and we did not learn until later -- the spanish police were diligently doing their criminal investigation and were lking at the print. they said it was not a match. john: my experience is when the police make a mistake they almost never even say sorry. in this case at least the fbi apologize toou. they wrote a letter. the fbi apologizes to mr. brann mayfield and h family for the hardships that this matter cost and have paid you to million dollars. >> that counts for something. i grew up in the midwest. a handshake in someone's word goes a long way. i appreciate that, but one of the things that people forget

is, we were nonot going to agree to anything. we discussed it. there are not going to agree unless who were able to challenge provisions of the patriot act which amended the foreign intelligence surillance act which made it possible for the government to do what they did. not only did they have a warrant for my arrest and search on the day was arrested, they also had secret warrants from a secret court that allowed them to g in and do all of the snooping and spying that they did, eve though they did not have probable cause to arrest me. as you said earlier in yo segment, facebook, you just as some peopllooking at your data, but you don't think it will come after you. the government does. john: you could say, given the happy ending, that people worried about the t for spying, look, this is the worst case we cou find. they apologized. and give you $2 million. maybe we should not fear the

government. >> i would likto cme in there. my biggest concern after my dad was released and continuing until today is that these polies are continuing to exist it's not so much that my dad was a victim of the government's policies, but i would like to say that he was symptomatic of the sort of policies that we have now. if itan happen to him, it can happen to others, and it may very well be it and we don't know about it. intel of fourth amendment right is restored and wi be fully satisfie with just an apology i have to see actions taken to show tt this will never happen again to anyone. hn: thank-you. we're out of time for this. coming up, says i am being hammered by libertarians, i will try to better explain why i am less bothered by the nsa than i am about other things on this horrible list, my list of 100 nasty things government does. ♪

in the small town of elmira, new york, a boy was born into an all-american family. the os of him opening his own clothing store at the age of 18? 1 in 138,000. excited to be a part of pop culture, he packed for the big city. the odds of finding someone to invest in his vision? 1 in 45 million.

the odds of him achieving his dream in the fashion industry? 1 in 23 million. the odds of having a child diagnosed with autism? 1 in 88. i am tommy hilfiger, and my family is afcted by autism. learn more at autismspeaks.org/signs. early diagnosis can make a lifetime of difference. john: when the nsa data mining was revealed, i felt threatened. my government,hining and been secretly backing up data. i know what my government to know everythinn about me. something's got to be private. the government says that the data help them prevent 15 terrorist incidents from the 50? i don't believe it.

bureaucrats always exaggerate the value of their work. it is the homeland security state. people keepinn secrets are more pronto embellish. a spy says what they do is constitutial, federal judges approve everything. they will not abuse h power. i don't trust them. they always abuse power. as one libertarian blogger put it, we will all suffer from the power of the nsa if we do not check in now. another libertarian weighed in defending the spyin pointing out national security as an area where government is still desperately needed. in the wall street journal editorial at, data mining is less intrusive on individuals and routine airport security. that is certainly true. whenni started to think about other thgs my government does that i really hate or feel threatened by, i quickly had this list of 100 things. i encourage you to start your own list. it is revealing how easy it i to get to 0 well beyond.

some of these of less invasive than data mining, but all are horrible . these do did you worked up. the fact that government grew so much that it n now employs 202 million americans. outreous. i'm curious about our debt and continued deficit spending for things like $100 million presidential trips, and dubious pork, aad progams that don't work. the drug war causes crime and imprisons millions of americans diiproportionately minorities. that's hrible. so is corporate welfare and farm subsidiesnd the flood insurance that helps people like me. theovernment keeping american indians poor by smothering them with social central plaing. that is evil. so is too big to fail. and just having 170,000 pages of federal law that we are all supposed to obey.

i am infuriated by more than this list of 100 things that the government does. but data mining compared to all these other abuses. i need to learn more about that. and for saying that libertarians now call me disgusting and a libertarian in name only. some agree with my list, but th also agree with the blogger who wrote, the existence of worse violations is not a reason to dismiss pretty damn bad ones. that's true. i do not dismiss the danger in data mining. i don't. but keep in perspective. why is a newly discovered threat immediately dlared much more outrageous than all of these old ones? it is not. the nsa argument at least as two sides. rrorists want to kill us. if any terrorism is prevented by something as impersonal as data mining, the end may ustify the means. i say the jury is out. government has plenty of other

things that free people are right toe furious about. we will keep reeorting on them. that's our show. thank you for watching. ♪ ♪ gerri: hello, everybody, i'm gerri willis, right to the top story. the woman at the center of the irs scandal may be forced to come out and speak. lois lerner rfuse to answer question about the targeting of conservative groups declaring she did nothing wrong. the house oversight committee today ruling she waived t 5th amendment rights and can take her to federal court if se refuses to answer for her actions. joining me, director for public notice. gretchen, welcome to the show. great to have you here. did