cameras have been for you in a particular way you know to women or to you know to gauge and some other sort of intrusive activity watch out americans can run that they cannot hide at least not from big brother will take you to the most watched city in the united states. and it's not just individual cities big brother keeps its eye on the obama administration continues to pull for the patriot act where then does freedom and government begin. it is the worst industrial accident the world has ever seen a gas leak that killed up to twenty thousand people in india an american company to

blame but to those responsible get away with murder. good afternoon it's wednesday may eleventh four pm here in washington d.c. i'm lauren lyster and your watching our t.v. now from surveillance cameras that are on every street corner in some cities we're going to bring you a story from chicago which shows just the extent that this city has been covered and canvassed by surveillance to the patriot act provisions that allowed for warrantless wiretapping continue to be passed in the name of national security for the department of justice calling for laws requiring mobile phone providers to collect and store information about their customers has privacy gone out the window in the united states is the country moved. more towards

a permanent police surveillance state well here to decide is jason berman he's a documentary filmmaker and seton motley president of less government sort of the patriot act seton osama bin laden is dead why do we need the patriot act still because he wasn't the only terrorist on the planet what is the patriot act done to combat terrorism you know it's one of those things where you can't prove a negative you know i'm not for one to include with reopening of the patriot act i'm certainly for looking at it i certainly want to sluice of you apply to terrorists all the stuff about domestic surveillance and all that is highly ridiculous and highly dubious unless and course the domestic surveillance is tied into somebody's overseas or someone who the f.b.i. is had gone and said hey we need to follow this person but it's been shown that it has been grossly misused by the f.b.i. where they have engaged in warrantless wiretapping tapping without even going through any legal proceedings or even showing that it's warranted we get this

information so i want to ask you case then if it's something that you can't prove that it's you know really an interval in the war on terror is it ok to violate the constitution. and fortunately i don't think jason can hear me so let me pose that question to seton what would justify that aisle aiding the constitution. does it doesn't necessarily violate the constitution for example if it were if you're if you're tapping foreign so much less wiretapping doesn't violate but not attack and then not if you're not if you're tapping non-citizens now because the constitution doesn't apply to nonsense that is but a wiretap citizens well that's a totally different subject so is that and that's a constitution again within the parameters of the patriot act if you're going to go to a legitimate reason. consistent information going to vote for going through a form for foreign person who's not a citizen to someone who's internal who is a citizen and it was a terror suspect again perhaps more or less i'm again for it including with it for

adjusting it but but if there's if it's non-citizen a non-citizen that you don't need a warrant this is not unconstitutional because it was applied non-citizens but it's really been shown that the patriot act has gone far beyond its parameters and misuse and what do you do about that well the first thing you do is punish the people who've gone beyond those parameters i mean there's all kinds of laws have to probe and the question is what do you do the immigration laws and serially violated we don't enforce the law the laws are broken the enforcement of the laws is broken likewise you get with the patriot act if you're if you're broke you're breaking the law they have to deal with those people as lawbreakers but let's let let's bring jason into this i think we may have and kate and i have you yes oh great ok so do you agree with with the it is the problem not the patriot act the problem is just tinkering with it a bit so that it's not me it's you. absolutely no large force in the constitution and bill of rights were completely of this aerated out in the open with the patriot act section eight zero two says that we can charge with free crime and free terror

without finding it in any way shape or form and broadly defined and with the apparatus of homeland security coming out after nine eleven with our cell phone tracking tracing and database think each one of us whether it's an i phone and android or a microsoft own civil liberties have gone by the wayside in this country and we need to take them back and prosecute large corporations that abuse their power and i think we're talking about a major problem in the united states again i don't want this applied to the cynicism the citizens have rights that non-citizens do not i don't want the government the obama administration going to cell phone companies and saying keep your records we'll be back for them later that's not what the d.o.j. is asking for a while back i want to bring up the word that sarah says that salute eric holder is way out of line on that and this is not the first time that he's a serial offender of selectively choosing what civil rights to apply selecting what color the civil rights get applied for and to and this is

a degree just abuse of citizens of and the constitution and where do we draw the line and what really needs to happen when you think of them with the greatest example of that then how can you well that's a question for saying i want to how you can not leave and the patriot act and not but i want to know what you see and i think greta situation. well that we're not running evidence that this is going on for a long time it's not just the obama administration is the previous one in the one before that that we had had in versus a t.n.t. which openly exposed that norris inside system in conjunction with a t.n.t. and the other large telecommunication companies out there had a secret room where they were literally doubling up all the information and sharing it with our national security apparatus whether that the f.b.i. the cia the n.s.a. or now homeland security we need to can. use issues now and not act like this is a new day theme which is about that you think it's going to elect well first of all couldn't of the administration for that would go to the patriarch because you

ministration. that was clinton and there was no patriot act in the clinton administration before that in crime in the bush admin is when he said that and then he said and in the administration before that but the important point to make here is if they're going case by case and going to a telecommunications company saying we have the records of this person and they say sure of that then they can say sure but that's it's light years away from what eric holder's justice department is doing which is keep records of everybody and will be back for the waiter that's a little different than case by case going we need this guy tracked ok now we need this guy to act vs the obama administration which is a keep everybody keep everybody's records for us will be back for him later do you think that attention gates energy think it's a slippery slope. well i think we have warrants for a reason and if a warrant is brought to a judge in which you're able to tap into somebody's cellular communications their e-mails their internet activity that's fine but when these agencies go beyond the

law and just openly do it again in the case of norris there is no distinction it's everybody on the web it's and it's non-citizens and this abuse has been going on for the better part of a decade now and i don't see it ending the corporations a little bit days and i want to know you know we thought microsoft i got for eight point five billion dollars something that some are skeptical as to the valuation of skype and why microsoft and want to pay so much money for it when there really isn't a clear way that that can be monetized to that extent do you find anything suspicious and that's why you. see the large extent especially with the launch of their connector earlier this year putting a spy device in everybody's that is literally hooked up to the internet twenty four seven three sixty five and less you pull out the cable or unplugged it and if you read the article at m s n b c connect controls the future a game controller and everything the makers of it brag that they get daily phone calls from large corporations and members in the military industrial complex both

the military and the government and how they can use this information and they want to basically bring this into a holodeck experience and it's the first video game system and person to person video conferencing in the quality we're now seeing over broadband so it makes sense for them to buy it because they have a built in audience they won't have a problem monetizing but you think that there's i think this is suspicious about it that this essentially i mean you're accusing microsoft of buying these they don't extend that are openly trying to openly say that they want to be able to read somebodies future and if they're a giants fan then advertise them through their x. box live giants this is beyond just categorizing people as terrorists they want to know how to make a buck off you as well so. this again is the track tree that it be this dome where they're trying to predetermine your activities your like so you can be a better consumer and a better slave in this police state being what do you think you think this is a problem because you know what you have point i have friends in fact and this is

happening right now i do now and i'm in the text well first and so what do you think of this divide and far less overstepping i'm far less concerned with corporations giving me what i want the advertising that i am the government getting what they want from the telecommunications companies that the constitution is written to protect us from the government not from microsoft and not from a.t.m. to but here's what i don't get that line has been so glorious we've got two of those where the government has been able to get this information but not really bomb i think barack obama's entire online campaign in two thousand and eight was google with the facebook chaser so there's quite those crony capitalism in this administration to be sure and that's highly problematic what we need is the is the government not being so big that it holds so much sway over the private sector that none of this would have this problem would not exist way that the government would from the slave or the private sector but it goes the other way who do you think is the tail wag the dog or you know who's buying the dogs ear of the government at the end of the day if they don't like what the go corporations doing they're going to

slam with regulations as barack obama has done it again and again and again kate and i think i see you nodding your head you disagree or saying disagree that helps him versus a case with over eighty seven facts coming out publicly saying they were sharing this information with the government was thrown out of court twice they were not prosecuted these corporations never get prosecuted especially when they're working with our government look at google google went out with their google earth campaign and openly collected people's wireless data no prosecution they had a little trial and all the sudden oh everything's ok they're allowed to take that information was there that's a prosecution has a totally separate issue i'm concerned with the regulatory hammer that the. carries which i think is for more destructive and far more frightening to these corporations give us what we want or we're going to amarillo big corporations what regulatory aren't strong aren't they and i only seen situations they can again work corporations and come out on when i saw i just gave you that industry as i'll just

give you a broad based example in two thousand and ten for the first time in the u.s. chamber of commerce endorsed a party in force candidates against barack obama because of his abuse of the private sector his abuse of free market businesses now he's got some friends who was a friend facebook's a friend but that's crony capitalism he had views as large swaths of the private sector and can do so with impunity unfortunately because the media is complicit and the private companies going to do so much he's not think about that. i would disagree and i mean the private companies seem to be able to be an extension of government activities they don't get prosecuted show me one large corporation that has recently been prosecuted. i didn't say prosecute i sort of used by the way i was one example where a corporation has really been at use by the regulatory regime like they're saying. look at the oil industry they can't drill they can't be expected to get drilling

look at an oil a no no. and too late he's already abused the process most of the big oil derricks have already left the gulf to go drill elsewhere because they were tired of waiting for the obama administration to give the green light that b.p. is expecting to drill again this. very smartly that one like ok how it will cause it and there's there are other leases that are that are now all he's been he's been stonewalling police process he's a been abusing the oil industry from the beginning as he said during the campaign if his implant is implemented and energy prices will necessarily start rocket and now we see what's happening well there's also an arrest in the middle east which is factored well so we have to rely on where fill in the gulf at a time when regulations have really changed let me just really quickly i want to ask you jason just real quick we see china the united states wants to break down and invest millions in breaking down the internet firewalls why does the united states feel that not only it can possibly hurt civil liberties in the united states and even break the laws of other countries this is a problem i think it's

a huge problem basically what they're trying to do is regulate speech on the internet what you can and can't see and if something is unpopular and it may harm their person or they're going to pull it off we've seen other large nations do this they have the kill switch they've run drills in previous months trying to kill the internet within their military system and i do think this is a problem we have to have an open and free internet and we have to protect the speech that is most unpopular i've said some pretty unpopular things out there that have turned out to be true i may not agree with what this man is say but i just. then his right to say it and if the government has their way they're going to get to decide who gets to save. lives so you're against neutrality. i'm against internet too and i'm against the government being able to have a kill switch on the internet absolutely i'm against them trying to regulate what google search is trying to sham information wars were trying to get the info out of the people that it doesn't matter if this is barack obama's administration or

george bush's administration or the next administration they are run by the corporatists by the globalists by the elitist look at facebook who just infused hundreds of millions of dollars into them well it's pretty simple it was goldman sachs look who's on your bomb administration people like geithner and bernanke you who they work for goldman sachs these are the true power brokers of this world and in this is what i want to ask you with when a situation which he's kind of things i'm completely different and this is not about the united states wanting to kind of infringe on china as laws to allow a free middle and it's not the united states getting to have control over the internet so that you have a way that well that's why i'm totally against neutrality when the f.c.c. and in december a power grab the internet without authority from congress three unregulated elected bureaucrats democrats alike to themselves internet overlords i'm totally against that i'm totally against the kill switch as he is the i don't want the government

involved the internet has become a free speech free market zanna do in america precisely because there has been zero government involvement none so when the f.c.c. comes along and says we're going to just close now to try to we don't have authority from congress the chair of the f.c.c. julius genachowski admits i don't have authority tells the washington post but he does it anyway they've already been thrown out in court once they don't try to do it they've done it again to get sued again the kill switch is a terrible idea i don't know if the government involved as he points out egypt saudi arabia china iran government time after time it's not corporations that preventing are. from speaking it's governments that are keeping people from speaking why does the united states feel like it can go into china though and essentially break chinese laws and create technology that would directly contradict what those called was china sovereignty i would i would certainly if those companies are doing that i would certainly want to punish them in the way that we should punish the united government investing millions of dollars in this technology this is the brock obama administration please for the lawyer for the

life of me don't ask me to defend what barack obama's administration is doing your defending the patriot act he's pushing for that well he's he's partially right on that he even approaching the clock is right twice a day right well jason i'm going to give you the final word what do you think the united states needs to do as far as getting us under control that we need to take another look at the liberties and also the laws we're breaking of other countries. we need to get rid of the patriot act and or take away department of homeland security we need to revamp our intelligence apparatus to actually work for the people and not just declare national security whenever they do something unpopular . i think we agree saying if you agree with that. i want the government out of the communications business i want them out of the information business all right we're going to leave it at that so many issues to cover i want to thank jason burma's documentary filmmaker and seton motley president of less government for weighing in on those issues now as i mentioned before looking at chicago is the u.s.

channeling one nine hundred eighty four not as in a literal year but is and george orwell's dystopian vision of society constantly being watched by big brother we went over a few things the patriot act earlier now let's head to chicago it's a city most americans associate with barack obama's hometown and those tears of victory three years ago but these days the city is also becoming known as the absolute record holder of surveillance cameras in the u.s. our kids anastasio churkin a travels under the lens to discover what this watch means for the future of privacy in america. welcome to chicago the most watched city in the u.s. from all school blue light cameras to cameras with state of the art technical capabilities watchful lenses through the streets in what has been dubbed operation virtual shield thousands of public and privately owned security cameras have been put in place and linked together creating a capsule of surveillance over the entire city more extensive than anywhere else in

the united states the number is estimated at up to ten thousand the networks cost around sixty million dollars officials say it's worth the price of privacy concerns are at a peak for twelve hundred security cameras located throughout the city are said to be powerful enough to be able to zoom into the text of a book or even inside. message this is the of age a thirty seven page report from a renowned civil rights group the e.c.l. you calls the network pervasive and regulated things i care most have shown up on the internet you know the cameras have been pointed being used in a particular way you know to google women or to you know engage in some other sort of intrusive everybody. to many today's watch over chicago is reminiscent of a very dark chapter in its history and the red squad special police units spied on citizens and rescue. hundreds of thousands of individuals and kinds of

exemptions and direct. person amendment to the united states constitution from the one nine hundred twenty s. to the one nine hundred seventy s. communists civil rights groups anti-war movements and many more were tracked g. shaffner socialist both victims of the units back in the sixty's i was around by the reds as a high school student not much has changed says j. just the techniques used are different in the one nine hundred sixty. undercover f.b.i. agents read scribe jones act as agent provocateur or not just spying participants. political movements. today with the use of technology you can. do the same thing with out the direct. undercover police operatives i believe the whole framework has a role to journalists why kill the concept of privacy in the us is long gone and

new into this surveillance attitude that law enforcement has taken so many says chicago increasingly resembles the chilling and tell you told me i described in george orwell's legendary novel one nine hundred eighty four. where every word action and even thought was monetary tightening rather disobey own state. and. the only thing that's missing. is that it buys us on how to live our lives while the stretch of surveillance grows so do the fears of americans if. they don't like it when you fully appreciate the scale of what is being put in place in chicago and then imagine a. more repressive city government and more oppressive regime it could be incredibly interesting if christian was an artist arrested for selling one dollar prints on the streets he filmed his arrest and as

a result class one for only one step below or attempted murder. and that's fifteen years that's up to fifteen years in the state prison this is totally crazy as officials power to record people's movements expands the power of the people to do the same is being squashed when they hook all these things up and are able to follow people all around the city and at the same calendar telling us that we can't even gather the information we need to go to court well that represents a thorough and complete police state another worry it's how one questioning surveillance methods post nine eleven. orientation. and a terrorist concerns. any other value sir there's not even a discussion leaving many wondering if the means designed to fight external terrorists could end up terrorizing the people at home but the notion that you are comprised city by police presence is flawed as it is globally with

a military presence it's not the problem and it doesn't address the problem that doesn't make us safer caught in the cameras i really consider beginning to question its real focus and wonder how to shutter their privacy is those who are to chicago illinois. and it's not just chicago with thousands of surveillance cameras new york city has thousands downtown baltimore has them san francisco to talk about what cost all of this surveillance has to privacy among other issues is jacob sullum he's senior editor for the magazine jason should these surveillance cameras be allowed all over cities or is this a breach of privacy. well i think the government's position is that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy and so there is no constitutional issue when you look at what these systems actually do when they link together in the case in chicago ten thousand cameras and they're quite sophisticated and they have the ability to recognize space is going to track people from one camera to another what

that means is they can actually figure out where you're going all day long. and that reveals a lot about your personal life is all in public property and i think it raises issues that are quite similar to those raised by g.p.s. systems this is a constitutional issue that are old bills courts are considering now and they're divided on the question of whether it's ok to track a person's car as it goes from one public place to another you know throughout the course of a week or two weeks without a warrant is that is the for the moment our work that or not and the courts have come down on both sides of that question and i think this. basic cameras raise similar issues because they can be so revealing by looking at patterns of behavior well what do you think do you think that this is ok or do you think that this is an issue do you think that you know this has been misused there bank complaints by people that that these cameras this but it ended up on the internet that sort of thing is this what do you think or do you stand. well you can analogize it to

having a cop on every corner which is presumably expensive right it's not the only reason that we don't have a cop on every corner mayor daley has talked about having a camera on every corner in chicago but what does that mean for how you live your life in public spaces i think it and to include it in different people's behavior and possibly chills their produce a patient in protest and other controversial activity people make it really difficult to change as we go into this i press office or in your clinic for an abortion or you know there are certain parts of public property that the public technically you tend to think that they're private like park benches and that sort of and people worry about who they're meeting who they are testing out or testing what they are i think once you get used to the idea that you are constantly under the new government whenever you're out in public it has to have an inhibiting effect not a good one with so i can't tell whether you are for or against it do you think these are ok or do you think i don't like that but it's something that we that we

need to be aware of and i think that we need to question what are the benefits of this that that outweigh its impact on people's expressive activity and on their privacy. studies have been done on the surface back on crime don't find much of an effect almost by no statistically significant effect on violent crime there are some studies i monitor facts on property crime generally in places like our garage so what are we getting in exchange for setting up this kind of probation surveillance and what are we doing i don't think there's much evidence that we're getting enough. to justify the intrusion ok i got it i hear where you stand on it now what about you know video footage famously left in london to four conspirators in the july two thousand five thousand by bombing attempts to be found with those cameras of course in london they have four million cam rights does you know being able to catch some suspects and a major case testified them. it can be used it can be useful in an investigation

that's one one example of it but i think there needs to be control over how it's used and shouldn't be. stories coming out of. it was destroyed in your magazine a few years ago about jeffrey rosen where he went and the color of the day was a look at the images on the stand recently found that police were often opening women looking at things just out of i don't carry off today it's not the. question should not be used in that sort of idle way there needs to be a strong justification in the case of a terrorist investigation obviously you do have enough probable cause to be looking at people and asking them to despommier on them so i don't really have a problem with that but i think we shouldn't treat it casually should be treated as an investigative tool that has to be justified into can you really. really impact what you need to in order to ensure that when it's something that you know people are human and there is the. predilection there for misuse. but the a.c.l.u.

has suggested is that there are strict guidelines are they being watched by supervisors. are misusing the equipment and the images need to be stored procedure time unless there is some investigation and then ruminated you know you have to you have to think about what you're setting out to do what the risks are and set up rules and controlling them really not just saying it's ok to cry putting up really quickly just yes or no answer as anything really changed as we saw the red spot comparison you know has this really gotten any worse for the same as always in the united states well i think that history in chicago gives us reason to worry about opposition reduced that we invited bilingual nation so has anything changed. yes things are true certainly but what you don't want to assume if the people who are in charge of these systems are always going to have the best intentions because that's not always the case and there's really not in us why you don't see. that but i thank you so much for your insight that was jacob saw and i'm so sorry i think

earlier called you jason's jacob senior editor for reason magazine and that is going to do it for now for more on the stories we cover go to our t.v. dot com slash usa check out our youtube channel it's youtube dot com slash r t america i apologize we will bring you more on the bhopal disaster in india and what is happening today and how those survivors do not feel like they have had justice and what this means for corporations american corporations and their power in the world we'll have more on that in our later show so be sure to tune in and in the meantime follow me on twitter at lauren mr and i'll see you right back here for more news and a half hour. with the low in. the free world about islam and nothing people are saying just speak she's older you know she says she's a star.