next on kqed "newsroom," the nsa under increasing pressure from silicon valley to capitol hill to curb its surveillance programs. pension reform in the national spotlight. and san jose mayor chuck reed on the front lines pushing for a statewide initiative. >> it's absolutely vital to cities all over the state, not just the city of san jose, we get control over skyrocketing costs. the end of an era at candlestick park and a look back at some of its iconic moments. >> then i look ed at the tv we had, auxiliary press area behind home plate, and it showed the bay bridge broken.

good evening and welcome to kqed "newsroom." what does the nsa know and how did it get that information? this week, several important developments in the story that's been unfolding all year. on monday, a federal court questioned the legality of nsa collecting phone data on americans. in a meeting at the white house, executives from top tech companies, including google, yahoo!, facebook and apple, urmed president obama to reform the nsa surveillance programs. and independent committee appointed by the president also recommended an overhaul. joining me now to guide us through the technological and political landscape are michelle quinn, "san jose mercury news"

clinicalist. cindy cohen, legal director at electronic frontier foundation. cindy, the review panel's findings, it's clearly troubled by nsa practices, it issued 46 recommendations. what are some of the key findings and what's been the reaction from the president and from intelligence agencies? >> well, the panel did a pretty comprehensive job at looking at things and i think the things that are most important is that it recommended that the nsa's telephone records collection program be ended in its current form. just stopped in its current form. that's a pretty dramatic recommendation. it also gave a very strong endorsement to the use of encryption technologies and strongly reprimanded the nsa for undermining the security of the tools all of us rely on to keep our messages safe. that was very welcome. and overall, i think what was striking about the report was that it admitted something that i think -- well, i guess the orts two things that are

striking about the report. the first is that it said that the nsa hadn't really demonstrated that its phone records program had helped keep us safe and that it hadn't actually helped solve any terrorism problems which is something the federal judge said as well, but now we've got two very strong voices saying that these programs haven't been proven to really help us. and finally, it said that you have to -- we can't entrust this much power to any agency. that we can't just say, oh, well, it's okay, the nsa will never abu their power. i think it gave -- sounded a good warning note about giving that much power to any government agency, which i think is a useful contribution to kind of thinking about this. >> and michelle, this report came just a day after top executives from silicon valley came to washington, met with president obama, aired their concerns. what was their message to the president? >> well, it's kind of funny. what happened was the meeting was billed as a healthcare.gov

meeting. bring all the tech leaders together, talk about health care reform, and i.t. procurement. but the meeting was about nsa. tech companies, apparently the founder of zinga, asked the president to pardon edward snowden, who's the consultant who leaked a lot of the documents and who's the reason why we're all here talking about it. but they really asked for reforms. and they have five things they want. including they want to be able to be a check on the system. they want to be able to say when they get asked by the government. so this is an important meeting where some tough things were said to the president about kind of the economic impact of the story. >> and what is been the economic impacts? >> we actually don't know. that's been a great question. what the companies have said is the trust. people's trust in us has gone down. they measure trust. and so trust with american consumers, but particularly international consumers.

people don't believe that their messages and their information is safe. they might not have always believed it and that's one thing i want to ask cindy. do the tech companies have an interesting dilemma here, they're out there telling the president, you're jeopardizing our business. but to the rest of us they're saying, don't worry, your stuff's safe, we're going to take care of you the best we can. >> i think wear in a funny position. because they have built business models out of trying to track us. and to know, you know, when do i want to buy that bicycle, based on watching my behavior. and, you know, the nsa is in certain levels saying, we want that information too. but i do think there are some pretty big differences. you know, first of all, the tech companies can't put you in jail. they can't take away your rights. they can't take away your passport. it's very different, the government and the tech companies aren't the same. and you can -- the government's collection of your data isn't something that you get a chance to opt out of. it's a mandatory -- it's been in

secret. they're very different. but i do think it's important that the tech companies are standing up and saying, look. there is a difference between us collecting this information and the government getting access to it. and i think they're outraged -- it's not -- the government appears to have been attacking the tech companies and their data systems and treating, you know, these american companies that are a strong part of our economy as if they were targets for surveillance activity. >> but isn't there an irony here? on the one hand, the tech companies are almost saying, hey, we're the victims here. but the tech companies, some of them are also the same companies that have developed the technology that makes this kind of cyber spying possible. they've made millions off of selling the technology to the government. >> well, i think most of the tech companies that were in the room with president obama aren't the tech companies who are building surveillance technologies. but it was somewhat telling to see cisco, the company that had a very big role in building the

great firewall of china which is how the chinese government spies on its citizens, complaining in its quarterly phone report that it was going to lose money because of the nsa spying revelations. that was a bit ironic, i think. lots of silicon valleys have made money off of selling surveillance technologies to the government and making the technology they use -- most of those aren't the ones in the room with the president. they're the ones that have consumer customers and who are -- google and facebook and yahoo!, the majority of their customers are not americans. >> marissa mayer apparently talked to the president, this is from reports about her concerns about if countries start to sort of say, we want all of our citizens' data to reside inside of brazil, germany, that this is going to do something that people worry about, which is called vulcanizing the internet,

breaking the data flows. right now data travels in different ways. she was saying this was a concern, the data flows get broken, then this is going to change the internet as we know it. we were just raising these concerns. >> that's an interesting point. because there's the international data collection. then there's the domestic data collection. how much of all this activity is actually illegal? and how much of it is on shaky legal ground? i know the electronic frontier foundation has two lawsuits on this issue. >> that's correct. we have two lawsuits that are focused on the domestic collection activities. one that's focused on the phone records activities called first unitarian church versus nsa. the other one that is an omnibus case, we are using to focus on the domestic collection under what the government calls their section 702 program which is the collection of content and meta data in the united states that the government justifies on the

grounds that they're only targeting foreign people but they're doing the collection here and collecting americans' communications as well. i think that both of those programs are on very shaky legal ground at best. i think judge leon's decision in the d.c. circuit court earlier this week was right on about the fourth amendment. >> he also said -- this is almost orwellian. and likely unconstitutional was his message. >> that's correct. >> i wanted to bring up a point is that our senator, dianne feinstein, has been in -- kind of an advocate in washington for intelligence gathering and law enforcement. and she has a bill. and i would love to know what you think about it, cindy. she has a bill that purports to constrain the surveillance but a lot of critics say it really doesn't. >> it doesn't at all, it's a whitewash. the feinstein-rogers bill, it's a wolf in sheep's clothing is not even appropriate. it is just a support for the

nsa. and it plugs some of the legal holes that eff and the aclu and others are using to try to attack the programs. now, the leahy-sensenbrenner bill, sensenbrenner is important, he was the authority of the patriot act who is now saying, wait a minute. i didn't authorize bulk collection, that's not what we were doing with the patriot act. to the extent the department of justice is trying to claim that's what we did in my bill, that's crazy. that bill is trying to plug some holes in it. and i think it's a very good start. the person in congress who's done the most on this is senator widen from oregon who has just been a champion of these issues. >> given all that's happened this week, the washington federal ruling, federal court ruling, the tech leaders being in washington meeting with president obama, the review panel appointed by president obama criticizing the nsa's practices -- do you think it will actually all make a difference? can we expect some concrete

reforms to come out of this when the president comes back from his hawaiian vacation in january? >> i think so. i think people are pushing on all different fronts. and i think this is an important legacy issue for president obama. he is a constitutional lawyer and professor before he became a senator. he cares about these issues. he's got only a few more years left. he inherited these problems. >> he promised to have some kind of definitive statement on this in scan. we will see. thank you, michelle quinn and cindy cohen. well, as 2013 draws to a close, budget concerns have topped the list for cities around the country. with an eye on next year's elections, san jose mayor chuck reed is taking a crack at pension reform spearheading a ballot initiative to allow public agencies to negotiate reduced retirement benefits for

future work while preserving pensions already earned. critics of the proposal see it as an attack on the retirement security of police, firefighters, and other public workers. earlier today i spoke with san jose mayor chuck reed, thank you for being on the program. >> thanes for having me on. >> because of term limits you have to leave office next year. instead of going quietly you've decided to immerse yourself in this very public pension fight. why take this on now? >> cities all over the state of california are being squeezed by skyrocketing pension costs. having to cut services. in san jose we cut services for a decade. and we've just reached the end of what we can do without getting control over the costs. it's absolutely vital to cities all over the state, not just the city of san jose, that we get control over these skyrocketing costs and that's why i'm taking it on. >> in fact, the state controller came out with a study that said public employee pensions in

california reported $158 billion eepas of june 2011. liabilities i want to ask you this. other cities have enacted pension reform as well. and -- but it's primarily for new hires. what you're proposing as part of the initiative would affect the benefits for current workers as well. now, these were workers that were promised a certain number of benefits when they were hired. is it fair to take those benefits away from them or to reduce them? >> the solution that i'm proposing is a reasonably fair solution to a complex problem for which there is no perfect solution. the alternative of laying people off, cutting their pay, or making their pay more is also not fair. and being able to adjust expectations about future benefits is a lot more fair than turning to retirees and cutting their pay, their benefits, like we've seen in vallejo and stockton and detroit. so there's a range of thins that could be done.

but unfortunately the things that we have had available to us are not effective at controlling the costs. dealing with new employees doesn't save a lot of money. the current employees is where the big expenses are and that's where we need to control the costs and that's why i'm proposing this change about future benefits. while protecting what people have earned. it's really important to make sure that people get the benefits that they've earned. we want to talk about negotiating changes to future benefits for future years at work as the most fair. >> how much of this problem, though, lies with pensions? the california labor federation has said that public employees are being scapegoated here. that the fiscal problems so many cities are facing have to do more with city administrators not managing their funds very well. is it a case of fiscal mismanagement as well by cities? >> there's certainly been fiscal mismanagement. part of that is promising people

things they can't deliver, thins that can't be paid for, thins that have to be paid for by future generations. that's part of the fiscal mismanagement. i'm trying to give cities all over the state and the state of california itself the ability to sit down at the bargaining table and make changes to future expectations in order to save cities, in order to be able to make sure that employees get what they've earned. we're trying to protect the employees. and to do that we need to control these future cost increases. >> a number of mayors have come out in opposition to your proposed ballot initiative. in fact, 19 mayors have signed a letter urging you to drop it, including oakland's mayor jean quan and sunnyvale's mayor sp spit spittileri. calpers along with other unions are saying they will sue if this initiative passes. what makes you think you'll succeed in court, especially since the unions are contending that past court decisions have suggested that once employees are hired, you cannot take their benefits away. not even in the future.

>> it's these past court decisions that we're changing with an amendment to the california constitution. so we will change the playing field by amending the constitution. and that's necessary so that we can negotiate with our bargaining units the changes to future benefits. right now that's virtually impossible to do. and so cities are plagued with these skyrocketing costs that are forcing services to be cut all over the state. but we're talking about changing the constitution to make it possible to solve this problem. >> so what happens next? will you start collecting signatures come january? >> we're currently waiting for the title and summary to be issued by the attorney general. after we receive that we'll do some polling to see what the voters think about the title and summary. shortly thereafter we'll decide whether or not to start collecting signatures now or to wait for 2016. there are a lot of variables in whether 2016 is a better year than 2014. we have to make that assessment

and make a decision in the relatively near future. >> what would be a variable that would make 2016 a better choice? >> there's likely to be more bankruptcies. new rules are going to kick in from the governor accounting standards board highlighting unfunded liabilities in ways they haven't been dealt with before. there are things that are going to happen that will make the public more receptive. whether 2014 is good enough or 2016 is better is something that we have to decide. >> all right. we will wait to see what happens on that. mayor chuck reed, thank you for being with us and happy holidays to your family. >> thank you. well, monday night's football game between the san francisco 49ers and the atlanta falcons at candlestick park will mark the end of an era. it's the 49ers' last home game of the regular season and the last hurrah for candlestick which will close after 53 years. next year the niners will leave for a brand new stadium in santa clara. scott shaffer takes a look at a san francisco landmark affectionately known as the

stick. >> reporter: candlestick park opened in 1960. vice president richard nixon threw out the first pitch. now candlestick is one of the oldest pro sports stadiums in the country. and its days are almost over. this week i joined a gag delve journalists for a sentimental tour and a few last photos. >> we have 56 lockers in here. enough lockers for all the players. >> reporter: candlestick is best known as a sports venue but it's hosted other events including the beatles' last concert in 1966, a visit from pope john paul ii. phil ginsburg is general manager. >> it's sad to lose an iconic part of san francisco's history. i mean, there's been so many things, wonderful think thats that have happened here and san francisco families have been coming here for generations and we've welcomed people from all over the bay area, obviously. >> reporter: all agree that the stadium is well past its prime.

hardly state of the art. it's cramped and not very comfortable. these showers resemble a high school locker room from the eisenhower era. and on the field and in the stands, cold and windy. >> quarterbacks and stadiums have a shelf life. candlestick has had some very proud history. you know, we're going to say good-bye to it in style. >> reporter: while the 49ers organization looks forward to their new $1.3 billion home in santa clara, they acknowledge things they might actually miss. bob malamo manages the locker room. >> it probably won't hit me until i start driving home in the car by myself. i'll break down. >> yeah, this is -- >> reporter: to remember some of the stick's iconic moments i sat down with columnist glen dickey who's covered sports for the "san francisco chronicle" and "the examiner" for four decades. candlestick park's days are numbered. but at one time it was state of the art. bring us back to those earliest

years of candlestick. what was the reputation of the stick? >> well, you know, when it first began, 1960, it was the first modern baseball stadium to have been built, you know, since the '20s or so. they made a lot of mistakes with it. one of them was the wind. you know, they thought if you put up a solid wall you could block off the wind. and what actually happens is just the opposite. it hits, comes up over the top. >> swirls. >> yeah, yeah. it gives an added energy, you know. >> there are stories of the wind being so bad that pitchers got knocked off the mound. one pitcher in particular. is that apocryphal? >> apocryphal is exactly the word. i talked to willie mays when i did the history book on the giants. he said the first time he took batting practice at candlestick, he realized he'd have to change his swing because he couldn't hit -- the wind was so strong in left field, he couldn't hit it

out. so he adjusted. he would hit center field, figuring the wind would blow it out to right center. so it worked for a while. 52 home runs at candlestick so it worked for mays. >> one of the big moments, probably the biggest moment in candlestick history, was the catch. dwight clark catching a ball against the dallas cowboys in the final minute of the nfc championship game in 1982. take us back to that moment. what do you remember? >> well, i must say it was the most thrilling game i've ever seen. and it wasn't just the catch. the whole game was that way. it was back and forth. 49ers made a lot of the -- they had five turnovers. montana had three interceptions. they were beating themselves. they were really outplaying the cowboys but they got the game -- the ball with about five minutes to go. just m%fo 11e moved down the field. and then, you know, made the catch. too tall jones thought montana was throwing the ball away.

because he had to loft it over too tall, who was aptly named, 6'8". and, you know. it was a play that they had practiced, the first play that they practiced in training camp every year. so it was not an impromptu play at all. >> another big moment at cand candlestick was 1989. game three of the world series. the bay bridge series against the oakland a's and a little bit after 5:00, the international media is in town to cover the game, and there's an earthquake. what do you remember about that? >> well, my first thought was, just one of these small things, you know, that hits us regularly. a little jolt, then you go back to what you're doing. and then, you know, my first concern was the power was out. and how was i going to get my column in? you know? and then i looked at the tv we had in the auxiliary press area right behind home plate. and it showed the bay bridge broken.

well, i don't think i'll have to worry about getting my column in. >> i was there as well in line for a hot dog. i also thought it was a relatively minor quake. but people i think were in -- maybe up in the stands, really felt it shaking, i think. >> i think they were. and actually it turned out candlestick was very solid. they thought at first they were going to have to play games elsewhere. and it turned out that they could play at candlestick. it held up very well. >> minor damage. >> yeah. >> last question. how much of a difference will it make to san francisco to have its team, the 49ers, not playing in the city? does it matter? >> i don't think it matters anywhere near as much as some people do. because for one thing, the fan base, the original fan base, an awful lot of them have moved on the peninsula already. so in a sense they're moving closer to their fan base. i don't think it's that important, really. >> all right. glen dickey, thanks for sharing

your memories with us. >> thank you. >> be sure to check out our additional reporting on candlestick, including a video featuring 49ers fans at kqednews.org. monday is the deadline to sign up for health insurance under the affordable care act for korng that would start january 1st. our state's version of the system is known as covered california. earlier i spoke with lisa aliferes, editor of "state of health" blog, to get a status check. lisa, thanks for joining us. >> good to be here. >> california's version of this health care mandate is covered california and they released updated figures how many people have enrolled. >> earlier this week, the first three days of this week, more than 50,000 people have signed up. and that's a dramatic -- it just keeps increasing, increasing. on average the first week of december, 7,000 people a day were signing up. last week was climbing to 15 thousand and escalating from there. >> dramatic increase, then.

>> more than 150,000 people signed up now. >> it seems that covered california is going fairly smoothly. a not as smooth for the national program. late thursday, the obama administration unveiled yet another policy shift regarding people who have had their policies canceled. what can they do now? >> so the administration ruled that people with canceled policies were no longer required to fulfill the individual mandate and that they are eligible to purchase catastrophic plans. now, previously, those plans had only been available to people in their 20s. these catastrophic plans have a higher deductible. $6,300. they cover three doctor visits only. and certain preventive services. but people have to be careful. because that may be close in price to a bronze plan. in addition, we aren't sure yet if the new regulation from washington applies in california. covered california executives have been meeting all day friday and they are trying to determine if they must comply with this new regulation.

>> again, this is another example of how confusing this has been. the constant changes. i would imagine it erodes public confidence and is rather confusing for insurers. >> the california association of health plans released a statement today saying that -- this could potentially damage, could undermine the coverage. and the state's insurance commissioner, dave jones, who was critical of covered california because they refused to let people renew their canceled policies for the next year, he too criticized -- is criticizing covered california and telling them to let people -- to comply with this regulation. >> real quickly, if you want to enroll this weekend there's time. monday is the deadline. what do you need to do? >> if you think you qualify for subsidy, find out on coveredca.c coveredca.com. for everyone in your household, date of birth, social security number, zip code, if you're an immigrant you need numbers from your visa.

you should be sure and allow time. because it takes some time to enter all this information and get through the process. if you do not qualify for a subsidy, you do not have to shop on coveredca.com, you can go to ehealthinsurance.com or other private exchanges or direct to a plan and you can enroll that way. >> all right. lisa, thanks as always for that explainer. >> good to be here, thank you. and that's it for tonight. thanks so much for joining us. we wish all of you a wonderful holiday season. good night.

thank you very much. you're welcome. hello, james. how are you? a bit nervous. so you should be. you look fantastic. thank you. well, i might have exaggerated slightly. slightly? ha ha! well, we haven't seen him since. i've been thinking a lot about the past lately. mm-hmm? how does it look? well, it's not all funny stories. a fair few regrets-- you being most of them.