captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: an independent government panel concluded that the n.s.a.'s mass collection of phone records is illegal and should be shuttered. good evening. i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. also ahead, the second day of negotiations to end syria's civil war. the opposing sides are talking, but only through a u.n. mediator. margaret warner has our update. >> woodruff: plus, the story behind this giant collection of towers and mirrors. part of a sprawling solar energy complex in the mojave desert. >> we need to take the carbon out of the world's largest economy and do it in a very short time frame.

large scale solar, in the best locations like the desert are going to be important parts of that. >> woodruff: those are just some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and the william and flora hewlett foundation, helping people build immeasurably better lives.

>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> ifill: a federal oversight board is recommending the national security agency stop collecting bulk phone records entirely. it was widely reported today that the board made its proposals to president obama earlier this month. last week, the president said the data collection should continue. we'll explore the oversight report in detail, right after the news summary. wall street earnings were down sharply today on worries about corporate earnings and a slowdown in china. the dow jones industrial average lost nearly 176 points to close at 16,197. the nasdaq fell 24 points to

close below 4,219. the state of virginia will no longer defend its ban on same- sex marriage. newly elected attorney general mark herring, a democrat, announced the decision today. he said he believes the ban is unconstitutional. >> the united states constitution is the law of the land. so a state law and a state constitution cannot violate the united states constitution and i swear a duty to uphold the supreme court is clear. the united states constitution is the law of the land, supreme law of the land. >> ifill: last year, the supreme court struck down the defense of marriage act and allowed gay marriages to resume in california. a united nations envoy struggled to hold the syrian peace talks together today. the assad regime and the western-backed opposition traded barbs at a distance, without saying if they will sit down for direct talks today. we'll get a full report on the day's developments, later in the

program. iran's president hassan rouhani is promising to adopt policies of "prudence and moderation", including a final nuclear deal. he told the world economic forum in davos, switzerland that his government wants "constructive engagement" with the global community. and, he insisted any nuclear efforts will be for peaceful purposes only. >> the islamic republic of iran has a strong will, a serious will. again when it comes to the nuclear program, to reach a comprehensive agreement, i do not foresee an impediment. iran has never pursued a nuclear weapon and it will never desire to have one in the future. >> ifill: rouhani also met with western and arab businessmen, telling them iran wants new investments in its economy. in ukraine, protesters stormed government offices in three cities today. but a tense standoff held in kiev as the president met with opposition leaders who oppose closer ties with russia. matt frei of independent television news is in kiev.

>> especially when the wind is on the side of the revolution. >> rate on the front lines there is a battle between the elements, the protectors are use smoke and fire and the police are using water. >> just as they were getting even more out of hands, a visitor a reached at the barricades. the tallest and certainly most most famous ukrainian. the heavyweight world champion, politician and fast emerging as a the most popular opposition leader. he had to calm to douse flames and calm nerves. "i have taken responsibility," he told the crowd. "there will be a truce until eight this evening while we resume talks with the government. supply lines continue to make its way to the

barricades. >> negotiators for south sudan government signed a seis fire with rebel souths >> ifill: negotiators for south sudan's government signed a cease-fire with rebel forces today, in ethiopia. the fighting has killed thousands of people and driven thousands more from their homes since mid-december. and a transitional president took office today in the neighboring central african republic. catherine samba-panza was sworn in as the nation's first female leader. she's asked for the muslim fighters behind last year's coup and christian militiamen who've fought them, to support peace. still to come on the newshour, a new call to end the n.s.a.'s phone-records program, margaret warner's update on the syria peace talks, recommendations to reform american elections harnessing the power of the sun in the mojave desert, the c.i.a.'s secret prison in poland and as more devices collect data, what's happening to our privacy?

>> woodruff: a government review panel warned today that the n.s.a's collection of americans' phone records is illegal and advised that the program be terminated. the recommendations by the privacy and civil liberties oversight board go further than the obama administration has been willing to accept. the panel's 234-page report includes dissents from two of the board's five members. for more on the group's work, we turn to david medine, the committee's chairman and elisabeth collins cook who was one of the board members who dissented to some of the findings of the overall committee. welcome to you both. >> thank you within happy to be here. >> woodruff: david medine, tell us, you are speak for three members of the group. what is the main reasons you think this program should be discontinued? >> i will say that ten of our 12 recommendations were unanimous but this was one where there were dissents. the reason the program should be doneaway with is

three fold. one is it doesn't comply with statute 215 in a number of respects. >> woodruff: being the-- under the usa patriot act that the program supposedly authorized by but there are number of requirements under the statutes, for instance that the records go to the fbi and not the nsa but the records be relevant to investigation. and these were every record in the united states of every phone call and kept for five years so, goes way beyond. >> legal grounds, constitutional grounds, we don't say it is a violation of the constitution but we say it im-- impinges on first and fourth amendment concerns, having the government hold this much information chills people wants to call journalists and be whistle-blowers, it chills dissidents without want to call their political organizations, even if this government, information isn't used, just knowing that the information is there can have a dramatic effect on rights of association and free speech. >> so for a variety of reasons. beth cook what about you,

there were two of you on the board as we said who dissented. why do you think the program should be continued? within i think the program is fully authorized by section 215 of the patriot act which has been codified as part of the foreign intelligence surveillance act and i would note that every federal judge who considered this question also agrees the statute provides the necessary authorization. where i do agree with my colleagues on the board is that there are certain interim recommendations that we have made to impact the immediate operation of the program but i decline to join the majorities statutory analysis which i view to be flawed. but on the constitutional analysis, i believe to be unnecessary and speculative. >> i saw-- i watched some of the statement that you all made today david medine. and one of the points i think the other, the dissenters made was that there is really no evidence

that the administration here this one or the bush administration deliberately exploited or misused what they're collecting from all these phone records. that being the case, why wasn't that persuasive. >> well, that's right. we didn't see any evidence of misuse but a number of us on the board have lived through the water gaithera, the church committee era where government wasn't always so beneficial to its citizens, where sometimes there was eavesdropping and spy on citizens even though i think the president in his speech the other day talked about eaves drop on dr. martin luther king, jr.. so even though the government today is responsible and by the most part following the rules, getting this much information, sensitive personal information does run the risk in the future if a government isn't so well intentiond. >> how do you see that. >> this is one of the reasons i declined to join the constitutional analysis as the majority which was concerned with programs that do not exist. as we all concludes, some incredibly miniscule portion of the information that is

collected is actually seen by human eye as. the information that the nsa has collected is a set of numbers it is not in any way associated with the identities of the individuals chbt so the programs that have concerns for the majority and the majority found to raise first amendment implications are programs that do not exist. >> why isn't that persuasive? >> well, i think on the one hand you have the potential of serious privacy invasions and what we dids with we balanced that against the national security benefits of this program and did a careful study of when has it been effective and how has it been effective. and we conclude tad that by and large it has never thwarted a theorist plot. it they are really identified a terrorist that wasn't known in advance. >> you say by and large, you mean no evidence. >> no evidence that it thwarted a plot or that it has detected a terrorist. there are some benefits to the program, peace of mind, knowing that there is not a terrorist plot under way but

we decide given that minimal value compared to the massive potential privacy concerns, and really shifting the balance between citizens and their government, once the government knows everything about you, everyone you call, everyone you associate with, what you-- it was said on balance it was better to terminate this bulk collection program and still allow them to go to phone companies on a case-by-case basis and get information. >> do you accept their founding or conclusion that there is has never been a beneficial effect from this program? >> i also declined to join that portion of the board's report. i have looked at the efficacy of the program from a number of different angles. and my conclusion was that a program like section 215 that allowed us to connect dots about our adversaries when used it in conjunction with perhaps other programs allows us to paint a better picture of our adversaries. allows us to triage threats.

allows us to determine whether or not threats have a connection to the homeland. to me it's a valuable program. >> and again, that was not persuasive. >> right. our board was created at the recommendation of the 9/11 commission which said after 9/11 let's build up our security, let's start connecting the dots and do a better job. but let's not go too far because if we do the, we are have given up our privacy and civil liberties. and so our job as a board is to strike the right balance between the two. >> and you're saying this is going too far. >> just finally, i want to ask you both, we know the president is calling for changing the program somewhat. he doesn't want to do away with it all together but he says this information should be collected by something other than, somebody or something other than the government. to both of you quickly, how feasible is that? >> i would be open to any alternative that pose fewer privacy risks, raised fewer

privacy concerns and was equally effective. perhaps the failure of imagination on my part, i have been unable to develop that type of alternative. i think there are serious risks with counting on the telephone companies to maintain the records that are currently available today. and i think it will be i think it will lead to immense pressure to force the telephone companies to deep data that they don't currently keep today which raises a different set of privacy risks. >> how do you see the feasibility of what the president is talking about? >> well, i don't support having a third party collect the information because i think that just creates more problems in terms of privacy. i think right now again you can go to phone companies but also let's enlist american technology companies and say you do a tremendous skrb on searching and managing databases. let's figure out a better way to do this where we could target the bad guise and not collect every single american's phone records. >> well, we thank you both,

david medine and elisabeth colins cook with the privacy and civil lib rerts oversite board thank you it >> ifill: as the syrian peace talks in switzerland took a break today to move from montreux to geneva, the surrounding drama continued with more heated rhetoric from the opposition and government representatives. and as hari sreenivasan reports, some are wondering whether the two sides will even keep their plans to meet tomorrow. >> sreenivasan: u.n. envoy lakhdar brahimi met separately today with the syrian government's delegation and the opposition in the wake of yesterday's tense, formal opening session. he declined to comment on his conversations or about prospects for face-to-face talks that the two sides are supposed to hold tomorrow. ahmad al-jarba, head of the western-backed syrian national coalition, reiterated again today that syrian president

bashar-al assad must go. that idea indeed, many of the civilian opposition groups refused to come and none of the fighting forces-- secular or islamist-- sent representatives. instead, they've been fighting among themselves and against the more extreme al qaeda linked jihadi groups. today, al-qaeda leader ayman al- zawahri released an audio message urging the islamists to unite. meanwhile, the president of iran called for elections to decide syria's future. hassan rouhani addressed the world economic forum in davos,

switzerland after his country was barred from yesterday's peace talks. >> we must all respect whatever the people vote for. >> iran's support has helped president assad's forces make important military gains in recent months perhaps with that in mind, secretary of state john kerry said today it's "obvious" that, for now, assad is not ready to step down. chief foreign affairs margaret warner is in geneva. i spoke to her earlier. given all that happened yesterday are these two sides lickly to meet face-to-face tomorrow? >> they are, hari, and we've been told that ryu hinei had meetings with both sides and they have agreed on an mo for tomorrow. they will meet at the palace denational right here and they will start in the same room. and he will proposed to them

what he is thinking of. they will speak through each person, each side's representative too him. great care has been taken to make sure nothing eck plodes. you don't have a situation like yesterday. then once that's happened they will each retire to different rooms. and from there then, the question is will that then amount to turning to shuttle diplomacy going from room to room or will they return and again in this very structured way exchange ideas through brahimi. >> even though they are in the same room they will speak through brahimi. how much from what happened yesterday impact the conversation. >> well, interestingly, hari, the opposition which had to really be pressured to even come here by the west and its brackers-- backers, comes out of the with wind in its sails and the belief is among apparently syrians in syria and certainly among

many of the world powers that the 4r50eder of the syrian opposition who is really a neophyte to the international stage did better than foreign minister. just in terms of style. as we discussed the foreign minister was very histrionic, very aggressive in his language, very sort of bloody and violent in his terminology and never talked about the future that they see. and the j a arva while he also had a litany of grievances did actually speak to the syrian people about the kind of inclusive syria he hopes to see. so that said, the western backers of the opposition have said to him all right, you don't represent all of the syrian people as you well know, now is the time to try to capitalize on this little bit of a boost you've given yourself, by not rising to the bait of the foreign minister's comments yesterday and try to expand your circle. >> what about that reservation that we've talked about that not all the people who were fighting

on the ground and the opposition are actually represented in the room? >> in fact, none of those really fighting on the ground or even in the room. and that has to do with a lot of the complicated politics of the fighting forces at the moment whereas we explauned in the settup, they're fighting a two front war, so they have no fighting forces here, some of the civilian groups declined to come. and so that is an achilles heel for the syrian opposition coalition, absolutely. and there is why it is very, very important not to prove for them not to prove the syrian government right. and to actually be able to in a month or two claim to speak for a broader representation, all the factions that are contending there. >> what about if the foreign minister of syria says this is only to talk about fighting terrorism, not about bash ar al-assad stepping down, what if that is the limit of what he wants to talk about?

>> well, you are right shall he has repeated that again today. and of course the substantive answer is what secretary kerrey said yesterday that the only reason there are all these in there is because assad's brutality created this kai otic situation. today a new argument was made and the opposition made it before but this time we heard it from seasoned western diplomats that actually the assad regime is in cahoots with the al qaeda linked groups. and their proof is that in areas that-- isie the regime does not bomb. they'll bomb the town next door and they don't bomb raca the city that isis has taken control of. and further more, this western diplomat alleged isis is financing itself through oil revenues out of oil wells that essentially the regime is allowedding them to have control over and operate.

so if that is demonstrated to be true, essentially what they're saying is you want to talk about terrorism, let's talk about terrorism. and the charge is that the assad government is deliberately encouraging these al qaeda foreign fighters, some of whom used to get half then syria long ago during the occupation of iraq, that they're using that to demonstrate to the west that, in fact, the choice is what this diplomat called the big lie. it's assad oral quitea. >> margaret warner joining us from geneva, thanks so much. >> thank you, hari. >> they have released a series of recommendations designed to improve the way america votes. among the steps outlined in the report, expanding yen line voter registration and early ballotting. increasing the number of schools used as polling

places, and updating electronic voting machines. the president welcomed the proposed reforms at the white house yesterday. >> no american should have to wait more than half an hour to vote. and they should know, they should be confident that their vote is being properly counted and is secure. a lot of the recommendations they have made are common sense. they are ones that can be embraced by all of us. >> we explore the ideas raised by the commission with its co-chairs democrat robert baur served as the chief lawyer for president obama's 2012 re-election campaign and for a time as his white house counsel. and benjamin ginsburgberg was mitt romney's top campaign lawyer. they also represented opposite sides in the 2000 bush-gore election recount. so you both come from op sides of the red blue divide. so let's start by asking as you are doing this investigation and putting together this report, what did you agree on mr. baur.

>> well, we wound up with a report that was unanimous and bipartisan. and we did it by basically adopting a few methoddological guides. we looked at the evidence, we took testimony from state and local election officials. we heed the advice of experts and looked at the most recent social science. and we looked at the evolving trends in the administration of elections and particularly at the interest in evolve expectations of voters. and in that way i think we were able to reach agreements that democrats and republicans alike can support. >> what are those agreements. >> well, there are a number of things that go to helping the voter experience. and the way that they vote. an issue that both republicans and democrats agree on. it includes things like being able to have on-line registration to be able to make that easier. includes providing more opportunities in terms of days for voters to cast their ballots.

it includes a plea that country as a whole and its elected officials look at voting technology which is going to face a crisis within the next decade. it includes a plea for schools and communities to be used as polling places with an accommodation for the safety concerns involved. and a whole panoply of other recommendations and best interests that we think will be good for voters. >> ifill: but as you both know better than i do, there is always been this basic disagreement about what the question is when it comes to voting. is it about access to the polls, is it about what happens at the polls after people get there. did you settle, what is the priority in this case? >> no, sometimess that-- that opposes a false choice, most americans agree that ballotting should be secure, double voting shouldn't be permitted. they also agree that access shouldn't be unnecessarily hindered. we have recommendations about, for example,

populations of voters that deserve special attention like military voters, disabled voters, language minority voters. but all americans should n find it exceptionally difficult to vote. and is we have adopted a way what voters should be treated, expect to be treated the way customers in our best run businesses. >> ifill: except i know that if the republicans, a lot of democrats would say that voter i.d. issues are a beforier to voingt. a and that is something you touch only lightly on in this report. >> we do touch lightly on it. the reality is that bob and i have been on opposite sides of issues for a lot of years and will be on the opposite side of issues going forward. but in looking at elections and especially in doing recounts we came to recognize that there are problems in the administration of elections that impact all voters and that we could solve and come up with bipartisan recommendations for those problems that are sort of

built in to 9 way we vote and the way ballots are casts. and counted. to come up with fixes to those important parts of our electoral system, we looked for the areas where we could agree, without abandoning our principleses, as opposed to the areas where we knew we would end up disagreeing. >> how about technology in terms of on-line registration are even on-line reg trees or advanced early voting. is that something that is the key to fixing the fix we're in. >> well, i think all of those have to have attention paid to them, for example, as ben pointed out f we don't pay attention to technology we're going to have trouble in the years ahead. we have to certify and set standards for generation of voting technology. >> ifill: why couldn't people vote on-lineness. >> there are some significant issues of security about voting yen line but there are other on-line support for the registration process, frankly, we provide ballots through the internet to our

military voters. i mean there are all sorts of other vehicles on-line for facilitating the voting prowess is. and to put it this way, we believe that the voting process has to evolve in accordance with the way americans currently live. and they currently live in a world they are connected. they're connected to the internet and they expect a certain level of service and support. but obviously you have to work through the security issues. >> did you-- gathering there information you talked to local officials and there is some debate about whether this is essentially a state responsibility or a local responsibility. what do local officials say. >> local officials and we really did concentrate on state and local officials because the elections are administered in 89,000 separate jurisdictions so you really need to concentrate on state and local official. they said first of all there is not europity in the problems we face nor the

solutions for the different locales. they have concerns about a number of areas. we did not talk to a single election official who said i love the equipment our voters vote on. in fact, there was europity that there are real problems with the machines they have now which are going to end up sort of being warn out-- worn out within the next decade. they are not happy with the choices that are available on the marketplace today. that in part is because of a federal certification process that is simply not working. >> let me ask you both if you sit side-by-side having worked together on this report, is there a way to close the part of the divide in this discussion about how we vote and who gets to vote and how well it is administered depending on where you happen to live? is there a way to close that? >> we think there is. i mean if there are going to be disagreements and they're going to remain, on some issues.

some of them which now caught newspaper litigation and in the federal legislative process. but beyond that, there is a whole fundamental question of how we treat our eligible voters, the facility with which we provide them access to the poles. the-- poll approximates. the respect frankly we show them in that process, that i think democrats and republicans can agree on. we've conducted-- we traveled around the country, did a lot of fact finding and we found that the bipartisan consensus we reached on the commission, we also found mirrored in that body of opinion. >> ifill: except these are suggestion, not binding. how do you implement them within the implementation really does have to occur by and large on the state and local level. i think bob and i have become convinced that it is a subject we're spending a lot mohr time on, talking to state and local officials. the proper legislative arena for this is legislatures in local and we're happy to go out and numbers of the

commission and we had an outstanding group of people working with us on the commission, we're all happy to do that. and i think the report itself is kind of a self-help manual for jurisdictions where there have been problems. >> ben ginsburg, bob baur, thank you both very much within thank you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: now the challenges of combating climate change. this week, the european union announced it was loosening its strict environmental regulations in the face of economic setbacks. in the u.s., renewable sources of energy like wind and solar have struggled to take hold on a large scale. as gabriela quinos of k.q.e.d in san francisco reports, one major effort to harness the power of the desert sun shows promise, but has its own affect on the land. >> what's that sort of shiny

object off in the distance there, over a sea of mirrors? that's the irs thing you see are the towers from over the pound takens and as you get a little closer you begin to see a sen of a scale of how it is designed. >> three giant towers and three 300,000 mirrors have gone up in california's mojave desert one hour south of las vegas. the 2.2 billion dollar ivan pod solar project is the largest of it's kind in the world. it will be able to rao as much electricity as a medium sized natural gas plant. but without the carbon emissions. >> we selected the site because this good sun. the better the sun, the more cost-effective the energy is delivered because you can produce more. >> within 200 miles or less ofs will and less, we have one of the very finest solar resources on the planet. you know, we need to take the carbon out of the world's largest economy and do it in a very short time frame. large scale solar in the

best locations like the desert are going to be important parts of that. >> ivan paw is one of seven new big solar plants in the state that will be finished by 2014. and solar energy from plants and rooftops will continue to grow. california utilities are rushing to fulfill a state law that requires them to produce one-third of their electricity from renewable energy by 2020. california was among the very first states to adopt a policy that required utilities to buy a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable energy sources. now 34 states have adopted similar policies. >> unlike the if the owe voltaic solar panels on rooftops and in some solar plants, ivan paw uses a technology called concentrating solar thermal. mirrors reflect sunlight and concentrate it on to boilers

filled with water. on top of three towers each as tall as a 45 story building. the taller the towers, the more mirrors fit on the field. the boiler produces high pressure steam that powers a turbine at the base of the power. just as at any traditional power plant, the turbine produces electricity. >> the project itself will on an annual basis serve the equivalent of about 140,000 homes. >> one of the short comings of solar energy is that it's only available when the sun is shining. but systems in place at some solar plants similar to this one get around this by storing heat in moten salt for later use. >> when you add storage you're essentially making this a power plant just like a natural gas plant. meaning it has the ability to be flexible, controllable and deliver power when it's most valued and most needed on to the grid. >> it doesn't include storage but the first u.s. solar plant with storage

started delivering electricity in 2013 in arizona. >> despite the advantages of these large solar plants in the desert, it ran into challenges. >> from the get-go we knew that the ivanpaw project was located in an area that had fairly high density of desert tortoise in it. >> worried about habitat disruption, the center nor biological diversity out of los angeles testified against the project. but construction began in 2010. desert tortoises are protected under the endangered species act so the project's developer bright source based in octoberland-- oakland, california asked for a permit to move any tortoises it found on the federal lant where it was building the plant. >> the initial surveys did the not show that there were a lot of desert tortoises. >> surveys conducted during dry years led bright source to believe they would find close to 30 tortoises.

but the rains came and 173 tortoises showed up instead. >> we stopped construction in one area of the project. what they did was have us take a pause in the area in which they had located the additional tortoises. >> the company transferred the tortoises to pens and later moved them back on to wild land. 53 additional tortoises have been born in captivity. >> if you take into account the care and monitoring of all the tortoises involved in the program t works out to be about 55,000 per tortoise. i think early on it was a big rush to get projects on the ground. there hadn't been any planning. there hadn't been any large scale evaluation of the landscape. >> in response, more research is taking place and new policies are being adopted. by-- from the u.s. geological survey are trying to better understand how

developments might impact animals like desert tortoises. >> each tortoise has its own channel and we plug that channel in. >> you have tortoises up here somewhere. >> the u.s. interior department has identified solar energy zones on public land in six southwestern states. these 300,000 acres are close to transmission lines and have fewer threatened species. in california, government agencies and environmental groups are working to identify large tracks in the mojave desert suitable for wind and solar plants. this plan would also set aside land for desert species. >> we're engaged in that process and very much looking forward to help crafting a good plan that allows for renewable energy development as well as allowing for good strong, conservation to occur. >> so this one here is a new burro work. we just put an address here

so we can see not only how many times does he use this same exact place but which other tortoises are using this place. >> i got a position, here we go, 665 -- >> around the country developers, policymakers and environmentalists are faced with the delicate task of balancing the need for clean energy with the need to protect well loved landscapes. >> woodruff: next, new information has come to light over a secret c.i.a prison in poland. "the washington post" reported today that as part of this country's war on terrorists in 2003, a clandestine so-called black operations site was established with the help of poland's intelligence service. it was used to house interrogations of high value detainees. one of them was reportedly khalid sheikh mohammed, the self

declared mastermind of the september 11th attacks. adam goldman of "the washington post" joins me now. welcome back to the program, so why was this a significant place? >> well, this was the black site, the first of a trio that was opened in europe. the other tooth in lith wantia and romania, but this is the first one that khalid sheikh mohammed was taken and interrogated. >> and tell us a little bit about the story of how it came to be. >> well, the cia was look for a place to put detainees before poland they had found a site outside bangkok, an hour, hour and a half outside of bangkok where they had two detainees, individual-- but it was really not built for the long-term. so they started to put the foundation out for other places where they could put their detainees, cia reached out to the liaison service in poland and they said yeah, hey, we're happy to take them. >> woodruff: and they had to go to a place, obviously

where the government was okay with this, was accepting the idea. >> right, right. and the poles initially asked them can you help pay for security cameras around the base t is a very large base it was about $280,000, nearly $300,000 that the cia initially gave them. >> woodruff: and so adam whack is known about what took place at this location? >> well, a fair amount is known. that khalid sheikh mohammed was water boarded there 180 times by two cia contractors. what hasn't been known and what we reported today was how the deal was made. and the money that traded hands. and some of the other details about the interactions. >> woodruff: explain some of that. >> well, i think people, we never knew the story of how the prison came to be and what, in fact, the poles got in exchange for t as i reported today in great detail we gave the poles 15 million in early 2 o 003 which really wasn't a lot of

money. i say later in the story we gave more october ans 20 million for a prison that they were building for us. >> and why did it have to work that way? i mean why was it so-- remind us again why was it so important that these alleged ferr rests, people who were being interrogated had to be put in places so remote and the places kept secret. >> well, the cia wanted to keep them outside of the u.s. legal system, right where. they wouldn't have a right to an attorney. or habeas. and they found that if they could put them, stash them away on these sites in europe and other places, they could question them for years. >> but in this case, this place as i read your story today was only in existence what, a little more than a year, is that right. >> maybe a little less. i think for about ten months it actually opened december 5th. 2002. and it closed in late september of 2003. you know, talking to people involved in the program, the sites were never meant to be opened more than a year, maybe, 18 months.

and they figured they were always going to be on the run whether it was going to be the journalies or human rights activists they were going to be chasing this. >> but the ci arc folks who were involved in setting this up and who were behind some the interrogations ended up leaving the program and then a couple of instances left the cia. >> yeah, that's true. that's truchlt and now in fact as part of the polish investigation as we reported that had not been reported before, they had issued arrest warrants for some the cia officers who actually visited that poland black site. >> and what is the status now, the polish government, this is has become a big issue for them. >> this is a huge issue for them. it has done to the european court for human rights. there-- the open institute has petitioned the court on behalf of the two detainees that were held there. and they want to try to make the european union hold poland liable for its

activities. >> and what is the u.s. posture in all of that? >> silence. >> they're not saying anything. >> nothing. >> not even confirming that this happened. so have you look back on this, what is-- what is the significance of the fact that this has taken so long to come out? >> well, a that the cia is pretty good at keeping secrets but the other significance is here we are more than 10 years, a decade after this prison closed and we're still reporting on it. we're still talking about it. it is dogging this country. and it dauingd the cia. and you know, it's become a real part of this country's legacy. and we can't get-- we can't seem to get beyond it. >> and just quickly, is there a sense that there is still more, so-called black sites out there that have not yet been disclosed? >> no, because in 2009 president bush took away the cia's authority to detain terrorism suspects, anybody. so you know f there are

sites out there, they're not being run by the u.s. we would be working in conjunction with, you know, a foreign government. >> woodruff: adam goldman "washington post", thank you. >> thank you. >> ifill: finally tonight, a different take on some very big questions surrounding privacy focused on private companies and the technology you buy. jeffrey brown has our conversation, starting with some background. >> brown: computers, smart phones or even accessories, tech products tied to the internet are becoming more and more pervasive. and they're giving rise to growing concerns about the ability of companies to gather, store and track personal information. the kinect camera on its new x- box one gaming system. the camera is always on, but the

company insists personal data is not transmitted in any form without permission. auto-maker ford caused a stir at the consumer electronics show in las vegas this month. a top marketing executive was discussing new tracking technology, when he said this: >> by the way, we know everyone who breaks the law, we know exactly when you do it because we have a gps sensor in your car, we know where you are and we know how fast you're driving. but, um, but seriously-- uh oh. we don't supply that data to other people either. >> brown: later, ford insisted it does not track or transmit data from vehicles without a customer's consent. new a larms went off last week when google announced it is buying nest labs for $3.2 billion, nest makes smart thermostats and other appliances that collect data in the home and connect to phones. in a post on the company's website, nest co-founder matt

rogers said: the company says that means it will not share the data with its new owner, google. so how do we weigh the appeal of these devices against their potential to intrude into our lives? we're joined by jules polonetsky, executive director of the "future of privacy forum," a think tank that promotes responsible data practices and adam theer, senior research fellow with the technology policy program at george mason university. welcome to both of you. >> thank you within let me start with you, in ray car on our person, in your home, do you think people understand how much of our lives are being collected, what else do we not know. >> clearly most of us are excited about the latest feature. we're excited about the idea that cars could be safer if they're aware of other cars on the road. we like the idea of having more power over our home environment and being able to automatically save money.

but clearly every one of these new devices is powered by data. and it's there for us to scrutinize and hold the companies to a real strict standard as you check our data to try to serve us better, how do we make sure that what you're doing is for us and not something that is going to leave us discriminated against or narrowed in. >> all right, adam, how do you think about all this information because clearly it has benefits for the people, who perceive the benefits but -- >> well, big data is the fuel that powers the information economy. all of the wonderful sites and services and content that we enjoy today, much of it free of charge is powered by data that's collected often to better advertise but sometimes just to better taylor services to it. the classic example would be amazon's ability to taylor what we might like based on past searches or wireless technologies in our phones which enable various types of mapping services or traffic services to better give us a feel for what's happening out there in the world. these are services or

conveniences that we now take for granted. but that are only possible because data is collected. of course it could be true that some of that data can be misused and some consumers might not be aware of how it used and we need to do a better job of educating them about this. >> brown: so where do they go too far? what worries you in the night? >> i'm worried about the security of some of these things when you've got everything connected. your refrigerator. we heard about a refrigerant their was spamming, i now need an anti-virus program for my refrigeranter? when we do connect everything to the internet and other devices we need to make sure we do the work to lock these things down so that these devices talk to us or to each other and not to strangers. but in addition to security, i think it's fair to say great, you're helping us live a better life, in the u.k. right now there is a huge debate almost as big as the nsa debate here as to whether or not the entire country's health database can be used by researchers to try to come up with new cures and diseases, on one

hand that is exciting. who knows what great breakthroughs. >> on the other hand. >> entire country's health information is citying in one health database what kind of risk is that. >> yeah. >> so how much are companies aware of their-- i mean are there differences among companies or among gadgets in therms of their awareness of the responsibility and what they do with the information? >> i think right now there are differences, big are companies are starting to realize because of the public pressure and pressure from regulators that they have to be better stewarts of the data they collect the federal trade commission in the united states has slapped a number of large dig tall companies like google, facebook, twirt, apple and others with fines and requirements about better taking care of their data so there are reputational affects associated with misuse of data. and we do need to do a better job of making sure companies live up to the programses they make consumers but at the end of the day we should make clear that we don't want to have a sort of regulatory approach that stops these technologies and slows this ability to innovate with data.

>> that leads to, would you like to see more -- is there more that could be done by regulators? >> i don't want to see congressman editing algorithms or privacy subject to the next budget sequester but i do think that government and advocates and media can give some real scrutiny to make sure that companies are putting the smart thinking that needs to happen in place so it might be a little too early to think about that yous that could restrict data innovation but it is fair to ask companies as they go about things, let's not be creepy. >> the internet of things is referring to all these damage ets. >> everything being conducted. >> but to ask them to not be creepy, what does that mean? >> the president on friday after he announced his nsa changes said you know what, we need to look at big data. and we need to look at the private sector and so over the next 90 days the white house is going to be leading an effort to really provide some challenges. what are the benefits, what are the risks, how do we

decide what risk we want to take for what benefits. i'm optimistic that shining a light on this, some real transparency at the end of the day is going to show us and make us face some hard decisions. >> and on the other side what are you afraid of in terms of regulation. what would be lost if we start looking more closely at these, this data collection and transfer? >> if we spend all our time living in fear of hypothetical worst case case scenarios then best-case scenarios will never come about. we have to face that there is a certain need for social and changing expectations about new devices in our lives because all these devices will be interconnected, have sensors, cameras and will be part of our lives at a young age. we need to talk to people and developers both about understanding good data practices, good data hygiene, if you will, and proper and improper uses of these technologies. that is a conversation we need to continue to have. >> how much do you sense, consumer awareness or even a backlash now, fueled in part

by some of the nsa revelations. we heard at the beginning of the program. how much dow sense that there is a backlash of concern over privacy? >> well, certainly targets sales were down over the holiday because of the big public awareness over their data breach. clearly people have some sense of unease sometimes when they are on the internet. should they clear cookies who is tracking them we don't want that unease when it comes to driving a car, when it comes to your house. i think we need to do better in things at making sure people feel empowered by the way that data is being used, that they are sure it is being used for them as opposed to companies doing things too them. i don't think we have seen a backlash yet. i think the nsa revelations have forced a lot of people to think harder. we've seen the increase in the number of people who use privacy tools or private search engines but i think the big questions are still in front of us and if companies want to be intimate with us they need to be transparent with us. >> we need to understand privacy is very subjective

value and that some people will be very sensitive about it others not some of. what we need to do is provide diverse tools to a diverse citizenly. we need to make sure people who are highly privacy sensitive have tools at their disposal and they have many today that can block certain types of tracking technologies or location awareness technologies or whatever else. and that other people are willing, if they are willing to can trade off their privacy in exchange for more convenience, better services, cheaper goods, whatever. >> some of that will put more on the consumer though, right. >> it will but it needs to be developers thinking about this and we need to talk to them about this. >> continuing discussion, adam, julies, thank you both very much. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day. an oversight board found the national security agency's mass collection of phone records is illegal and should be halted for good. and prospects for progress at the syrian peace talks dimmed further, as the two sides traded barbs at a distance.

>> ifill: on the newshour online right now: is the u.s. an underdog destined to be overtaken by china and japan? hardly, says author joel kurtzman. america's manufacturing might, creativity and access to energy resources and capital have put the u.s. on top, even on the verge of an economic growth spurt. read an adaptation from kurtzman's forthcoming book, "unleashing the second american century," on our making sense page. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. on friday, we'll look at a new study that shows americans' ability to move up or down the economic ladder has not changed in 50 years. i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with mark shields and david brooks, among others. for all of us here at the pbs newshour, thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs

newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> charles schwab, proud supporter of the pbs "newshour." >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations.

and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

♪ >> this is "bbc world news america." >> funding of this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation, newman's own foundation, giving all profits to charity and pursuing the common good for over 30 years, and union bank. >> for nearly 150 years, we believe that commercial banks owes its client strength, it's ability, security. we believe in keeping lending standards