jamie colby with "strange inheritance." member that you can't take it with you. do you have a strange inheritance for the you'd like to share the map send me an e-mail or go to our website at turn your clutter into clash. great stuff. we may never exactly understand the why, but is there a way we could have seen the how in realtime? hi everyone, i'm brenda buttner. in the wake of the tragic crash of flight 9525, investigators still looking for clues, but could the answers have already been in their hands if instead of relying on black boxes, all airlines put cameras in the cockpit and streamed live video and data from the cockpit? here we go. about to begin the debate. gary b. smith jonas max farris,

john mayfield with suzy welch. should all airlines do this even if it costs more? >> i know pilots object to it. most pilots are really good people and don't need this surveillance. with the fact that it is very costly, i think it would put peace of mind into the families of people who lost people in air disasters. on the offchance there is security violation going on, this is a way to see if two people are always in the cockpit as they need to be. frankly, in the big mysterious cases, if there had been cameras in the cockpit streaming video into the cloud, we would know where that plane was right now. >> there is a lot of arguments for it. government regulation. i know how you feel about that. >> i agree with everything suzy said but it's not the government's responsibility. unless we declare that airlines are somehow a public utility like amtrak, then it's not their

responsibility. it's the responsibility of the airlines to do this if they want. let me give you an example. until i think 2019 backup cameras are not required in automobiles. why did companies put that in? because they felt they could make more profits and it benefited their customers by making it safer. i don't run into as many things with a backup camera. that wasn't mandated by the government. that was toyota, lexus and all those other companies. the government will start saying there's a lot of auto crashes. maybe we should build cars like tanks. a bus ran off the road. maybe we should put a voice recorder in there. it's not the government's job. >> naomi, what is your take on this? >> the complications about the government and what is government's job. government's number one job is to protect citizens. you are not driving a car with 150 people in it. if you back up, you are not going to hit 350 people.

this is something that is cheap, fairly easy to provide. it might -- if this is a libertarian issue and violate a pilot's freedom of speech, that's their job, their duty. a few years ago, freakanomics you have different airlines being run different ways. there are certain regions that have more incidents than others. if we can learn how pilots are interacting with each other and become better at this, that solves a problem. >> it may create another one. the problem here was post 9/11, we had changes to the cockpits. that's part of the problem here. is this an overreaction? >> that's the problem. those doors cause more lives to

be lost than they save. that was to fix the problem where people walk in there with a box cutter and take over planes. you've got to stop the knee-jerk reactions. besides costing money, aren't going to do anything. i'm not against having cameras, but i'm not going to make pilots live under a surveillance state. it wouldn't have done anything in this case. the door, you couldn't get back through. we would have a nice video of this? i don't see -- this is cathartic at best. >> maybe if they knew they were on camera, they wouldn't try to pull stuff like this? >> perhaps. europe has the two people in the cockpit at the same time like in the united states, this problem would have been solved. jonas is right about this. you are right about something else. when you solve one problem, a lot of times you open up another one. in this case, we are talking about live streaming, put this in the cloud.

it doesn't cost that much but you are giving a solution to a problem that is nonexistent. there were 36.4 million flights in 2013 when i looked it up. out of that you had 81 crashes. that's one out of 2.4 million flights crashed. only 20% involved fatalities. now you've got to a small number. out of those 20%, no black boxes were lost. we are not having a problem here finding black boxes. the problem is 50%, 70% of crashes are pilot error. when you have something like this, this black box issue is putting a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. >> i -- again, there are those rare cases. on what it here there was a yellow light. the driver put his foot on the floor and broke and said i'm not going to do it the camera is there. there was a case of a camera stopping somebody from doing something that was unsafe.

it made me think exactly about this. in the rare instances where it would be prophylactic stopping somebody. it's rare planes crash and very rare planes crash and we don't know why. those are glancingly few cases. in those cases, again, this is where we come in very useful for peace of mind of the families left behind. >> jonas, do you want to respond? >> you can stop a lot of crime putting cameras around the city like they do in london. you can't stop crazy with cameras. that's the rational thought. i'm on camera time to look like i'm working the way i'm supposed to be working. i don't think that's the play here. i don't think surveillance in this case will do a whole lot. >> it's brought up the cost would be passed on to consumers. there was a recent poll thathe majority of airline passengers would actually like to pay $4 per ticket just to improve the airport.

like where we sit when we are waiting. something as serious as this, do you think consumers would be willing to take it on? >> i don't know, brenda. people have shown they are stingy with their ticket prices. they are willing to go to the next airline one gate down if the price is $5 less. i don't know the answer. some airlines might adopt this and think they can pass it on. others might say good, now my ticket prices can be $4 lower. before we move on i want to come back to one point. nomiki said it's the government's job to protect us. what if i drove across the brooklyn bridge with a bomb on the bottom of my car and blew up the bridge and that caused a couple hundred deaths. does the government say we have to inspect all the cars that go across the brooklyn bridge? >> that's not what i'm saying. >> you said it's the government's job to protect us.

>> the reality here is we can improve conditions whether it's one situation a year or not. we have the technology, cheap technology to improve safety standards across the board. >> yes. who is going to pay for all that? who decides if that's worth it or not? >> it's not expensive. faa. maybe if we funded faa. >> we give the smart people in the faa who are still using cathoray tubes -- >> we can have more people in the faa. >> like the faa doesn't have enough funding already. >> they don't. we don't have enough people on the ground regulating air traffic. >> you're saying the faa doesn't get more money? if the fedex came in and ran the faa they would do it twice as better for half the price. >> this is an argument of more government or less government. how do you weigh in on this?

>> i've got to go with gary b. this doesn't improve safety. you have live streaming? that's not hard to do. it's not that costly. you can do it. what will do that if a pilot is driving a plane into a mountain? there is nothing you can do about that. we are talking about whether you can have live streaming compared to a black boxes. there are very few ever lost. that does nothing as a prophylactic. that does nothing from stopping this happening again. it's looking back to see what happened. we know what happened. we know what happened with all these other crashes, as well. >> last word to john. thank you, guys. cavuto on business 20 minutes from now. what have you got? >> five detainees for a deserter. the same gang working with iran on a nuke deal. you worried? >> forget illegals.

is the president about to sign an executive action for criminals? see you soon. >> you will. we can't wait. up here first, the u.s. ramping up our fight against isis over there. do we need to focus more on ruling

ends the case for good. usair strikes against isis in iraq and syria growing. isis threat in the u.s.

also growing. a u.s. national guardsman and his cousin arrested and charged for trying to join isis and plotting a terror attack on our soil. gary b. says we need to be doing more and spending more here. >> exactly, brenda. let me run a scenario by you. i'm a general in the military and i go to the commander in chief and i say i want to spend $10 million a day to fight isis overseas. any smart person would say, what's your strategy? you know what the response is? i don't have one. how do you declare victory? i don't know. that's what we have fighting isis overseas. i'm not saying it's worthwhile, but so muddling undefined, you can't figure it out. meanwhile, we have threats within our borders. as nomiki would readily agree, we need to protect our borders here and make it safe. that should be our effort. not fighting other people's wars overseas to the tune of $3 billion, $4 billion a year.

>> i have to let you respond. >> i'm so happy you want the government to do this and not a private company. >> government's job is defense. i agree with that. >> interesting. the problem, it's not an either/or situation. we have intersected globalized world where one person's border is affecting another country's border. we are connected by air, land and water. it's not like we just do things on the offensive. you are confusing situations here. we have to support obviously our allies overseas. it's very complicated. the strategy changed daily because these militias do not have plans. they are not part of the government. they are a group of rogue individuals full of crazy personalities fighting against a large army. >> suzy this is not mutually exclusive. we can spend over there. over here the threat is going. >> this is a both/and situation. you've got to be over there and

here. far be it for me to use a sports analogy. i can't help but think about the great wayne gretsky. he went where the puck was going to be if. if isis is coming here, they say they are coming here, they were coming to new york we have lone mules signing up i'll knock off two people at a shopping mall. we have to apply a ton of intelligence here in the united states. it's a both/and. now is the time to pour money into it. we can still beat them. they are still small enough we can stop them. the great tragedy would be waiting five years saying why didn't we stop them when we could? >> i agree. our emphasis needs to be here. it sounds like we are doing a good job. we found these guys. overseas our foreign policy has been an absolute disaster. you say in yemen we need some type of solution. we are trying to win hearts and minds of people. i've been to iraq many times and

afghanistan. this hearts and minds garbage does not work. we don't need to build governments. we don't need to help foster new regimes over there. we need to kill the enemy. long as we are going over there, we are paying for 80% of this bombing against isis right now. i have no problem with that as long as we know exactly what our goals are like gary b. said. we need to define goals kill isis and put emphasis on the intelligence here to take care of our home people. >> jonas john is very clear. what do you think? >> the assumption a dollar spent here on defense is somehow well executed money that does something, but foreign money is wasteful, i'm sure it's all equally wasteful. the homeland security department was created when hundreds of bills have been spent. you are still going to get the occasional story creeping. we don't need to spend more money on it. it doesn't mean we are doing a bad job. we don't empower people, if we

are merely caught trying to do a threat, what if we increased the bunt $5 billion because of that? how awesome that would be for terrorists. any time we cook up the most hair-brained scam that costs $5 billion. >> everybody wants to argue with you, but that's got to be the last word. thanks, guys. cashin' in over an hour from now. what do you have coming up? >> psychological testing for pilots. would passengers be willing to pay extra for it if that's how to keep pilots from taking down planes? the white house still negotiating with iran even after reports of iranians chanting, "death to america." really? we'll be watching. up here fictitious ever write a negative review about something online? it's landing more and

get ready to pay up for posting a negative review online. more businesses suing customers for saying something nasty about them. should customers have the right to say whatever they want? >> absolutely. how about we post these idiot businesses online that are suing people that came there and their customers? how about you cook the steak? how about you have decent service? there are idiot trolls on social media. they say bad things. people think i don't do that good a job on "bulls and bears." they should have their social

media accounts deleted. >> if it is vindictive and not true, do you have the right to sue? >> yes, you do. if you read through any of the chat boards -- look, i'm all in favor of free speech, obviously. if you read through chat boards and things like that, people can be corrosive. if i went to a restaurant and i was overcharged for something and i wrote, you know what? i think they are using dog food to make their hamburgers. that is probably going to lose that restaurant -- that is bordering on libel. businesses have a right to defend themselves from that. >> businesses have a right to defend themselves when competitors put up negative reviews to undermine your business. you've got to go after that. otherwise, the customer is always right. it's especially true in the time of social media. i got a watch it broke. they wouldn't fix it. i said i was going to tweet

about your service. they said they would fix it. i'm all for it. >> don't mess with suzy. >> maybe this is why i'm not that successful. i think the customer is not always right. there are a lot of cranks out there. if you run a bad business and customers are annoyed, you'll go out of business and that's great. a couple of cranks shouldn't be able to destroy your business. they have power and use it to shake down a business for refunds they don't deserve. i think it's an unfair balance of power with small businesses. i don't think it's great all the restaurant reviews in the papers are out of business. all these clowns complaining portions aren't big enough or not salty enough, whatever. i don't think it's all good consumers can decree what's good. >> if the real offenders are other companies or one offender doing multiple posts, i think the providers, yelp angie's

list or twire cracking down on trolls. this is a serious problem. what's the best way to lose customers? suing your customers. >> you guys are all great on "bulls and bears." i will write that review. thanks for joining us. catching up with mac and cheese? a match made that could have you eating up profits.

predictions. >> i have to admit i'm a little concerned zain is leaving one direction. i found out by twitter which is how i find out about everything. you can't live without it. stock up 50% the year. >> john your prediction? >> that just blew me away. wrestlemania is this weekend. wwe is the leader in over the top streaming networks. i think comcast is up 20% in the year. >> jonas? >> this whole heinz kraft thing smells like two wrongs trying to make a right. i think whole foods will do better than the giant mega junk food companies. >> you're the skiniest guy and you talk about it. >> if you don't know what

meerkat and periscope, 2 these are two technologies that will blow up the internet space. >> good luck with your book the real-life mba. cost of freedom is sometimes the cost of keeping americans in the dark. the secret deal to bring bergdahl home cost us a bundle. now they say he is a deserter and the five taliban we swapped could make us sitting ducks. now they are secretly negotiating another one with the iranians. what could possibly go wrong? in golf they call it a mulligan. another shot if you screw up. this isn't about playing through. after the president's disastrous