three. three. three. three. video for your media. free media john karr chief tom. campbell said the point of being used in a particular way you know to women or to you know in gauging in some other sort of intrusive activity. americans can run but 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 kids it's i on and the obama administration continuing to call for the patriot act where the end is freedom and and government begins. and it's the worst industrial accident the world has ever seen a gas leak they killed up to twenty thousand people in india an american company to

blame but did those responsible get away with murder. evening it's wednesday may eleventh i'm lauren lyster here in washington d.c. and your watching our t.v. well is the u.s. channeling one nine hundred eighty four not as in a literal year but is in george orwell's just hope you envision a society constantly watched by did rather well to chicago first as the 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 chief anastasio going to 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 spooled blue light cameras to cameras with state of the art technical capabilities watchful lenses fill 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 in to a text of a book or even a text message this is the year of age a thirty seven page report from a renowned civil rights group the a.c.l.u. calls the network pervasive and then regulated things like cameras have shown up on the internet you know the cameras have been pointed being used in a particular way you know to women or to you know engage in some other sort of

intrusive activity they wrote to many today's watch over chicago is reminiscent of a very dark chapter in its history on the red squad special police units spied on citizens and rescue workers. hundreds of thousands are going to. direct. the memo 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 just shaffner socialist both victims of the units back in the sixty's. by. high schools not much has changed says j. just the chicken excuse are different in the one nine hundred sixty. undercover f.b.i. . agent provocateur or not just by. political movements.

today with the use of technology you can. do the same thing with our could direct involvement but wonder cover police operatives i believe the whole framework has a role to journalists killed the concept of privacy in the us is long gone you become inured to this sort of surveillance attitude bad law enforcement has taken so many says chicago increasingly resembles the chilling and tell you to be i described in george orwell's legendary novel one nine hundred eighty four. where every word action and even thought was monitored by big brother the sabean state. and. the only thing that's missing. advise us on how to live our lives while the stretch of surveillance grows so do the fears of americans it puts me out 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 or 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 family one step below 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 hold these things up and are able to follow people all around the city and at the same time they're telling us that we can't even gather the information we need to go to court where represents a thorough and complete police state another worry it's how brutal and questioning surveillance methods post nine eleven. orientation.

and a terrorist concerns. trumped any other value so there's not even a discussion leaving many wondering if the means designed to fight external terrorism 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 doesn't make us safer caught in the cameras i consider beginning to question its real focus and wonder how the shutter their privacy is those who are to chicago illinois. and it's not just a cog or with thousands of surveillance cameras new york city has thousands downtown baltimore has them san francisco has cameras for more about what cost this surveillance state has the privacy and americans rights that they hold dear dear earlier i spoke with jacob sullum senior editor of reason magazine here's what he had to say. 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 bring together in addition chicago ten thousand cameras and they're quite sophisticated and they have the ability to recognize stations and 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 would reveal a lot about your personal life even if it is all of the topic and i think it raises issues that are quite similar to those raised by g.p.s. systems this is a constitutional issue with the federal 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 word is back in just a moment are worth that or not and the courts have come down on both sides of that first and i think this. pervasive cameras raise similar issues because they can be so revealing by looking at adam's 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 is been misused there bank on playing by people that that the cameras with us but it just ended up on the and her net 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 the only reason that we don't have a cop on every corner this is 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 feeling different in different people's behavior and possibly chilled their participation in protests and other controversial activity people may be worried if they're going to be seen as they go into this i post office or into an expert abortion or you know there are certain parts of public property that the public secondly you tend to think of their private parts benches and that sort of and people worry about who we are meeting

who they are testing our best and what they're reading i think once you get used to the idea that constantly under the new government whenever you're out in public it tends to happen everything effect is not a good one so i can't tell whether you are for it or against it do you think these are ok or do you think i don't like not unless. it's something that we that we need to be aware of and i think that we need to question one of the benefits of this that that outweigh its impact on people's expressive activity and on their privacy . the studies that have been done to the deterrent effect on crime don't find much of an effect almost no statistically significant effect on violent crime there are some studies we find minor effects on property crime generally in places like our garage was so what are we getting in exchange for setting up this kind of your basis for balance and what are we giving up i don't think that 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 led in london

to for comparison in july two thousand and five minutes had to be found with those cameras of course in london they have four million cameras does you know being able to catch them from suspects and a major case by them. it can be used it can be a school in an investigation that's one one example of it but i think there needs to be control over how it's used and it shouldn't be. that stories coming out of england there was a story in your time magazine a few years ago about right jeffrey rosen where he went and the control room where they look at the images on these cameras and now the police are often opening women looking at things just out of idle curiosity should not be. the question should not be used in that sort of idle way there needs to be a strong justification in the case of terrorist investigation obviously you do have enough probable cause to be looking at people and asking them for this bomb. so i

don't really have a problem with that but i think we shouldn't treat it casually that should be treated as an investigative tool that has to be justified. can you really though i'd 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 that predilection there for misuse. but the a.c.l.u. has suggested is that there be strict guidelines maybe enforced by supervisors. or misusing the images you store person or time unless there is some investigation and then and then limited 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 to controlling them really not just saying it's ok to cry but you know really quickly just yes or no answer has anything really changed as we saw the red flag comparison you know is this really gone anywhere after this the same as always in the united states well i mean i think that history in chicago is less reason to worry about official refused

to be invited by compiling. so has anything changed things have changed certainly but you don't want to assume that the people who are in charge of the systems are always going to have the best intentions because that's not always the case and they're certainly not in power that's right that safeguards. so nothing question everything that's our motto at least that was jacob sullum senior editor for reason magazine now from surveillance cameras on every street corner to the patriot act provisions that allowed for warrantless wiretapping but continue to b.p. to be passed they're up for renewal again this month to 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 moving more towards a permanent police permanent surveillance state joining me from more from boston massachusetts is aaron swartz founder and executive director of demand progress thanks so much for being with us air and the patriot act today there was a hearing on reauthorization this month that up for renewal the obama

administration pushes for it says it's important for national security but not politically fit a real reversal from the obama administration but i mean this is a guy who during the campaign talked about how he wanted to repeal the bush administration. now once he's in office he's reversed his position to continue it so i think he should stick with his original promise you know it's funny that you bring up i want to go ahead and play a little bit of sound something that obama said back when he was campaigning when he was senator barack obama and he was doing exactly as you said he said that the patriot act needed to be repealed needed to and here was his criticism about that can we roll that. you know i talked all solution along for ten years i think the constitution very seriously the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with george bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through congress at all and that's what i and several of the one

above the united states of america. and you see signed into law extensions to the patriot act so do you think that perhaps you know to play devil's advocate this shows that he got into office and realized hey we really need this this is fighting terror this is important for our national security and therefore would justify extending it. i don't think so i mean you know they just had a huge national security survey extrajudicial killing of bin laden where they haven't been able to show a single example of how the patriot act was used and in fact they provided no evidence of the patriot act secretly being used because any turn this and most of it's positions that are used for this sort of domestic people we saw in the clip earlier people who are just trying to express political speech a major political activity and instead gets abused he is against that and so i think what really happened is not change his mind based on the evidence but he likes having it when you can charge not when someone else is in charge which is why it's so certain for people outside the executive branch to really keep the pressure

on his rights and about the people it's a demand progress toward and find our petition to make sure you have a little plug in there but i want to go back to this so if it is essential to national security as the administration has said and you know you sitting in your chair just don't know because it has affected your life would you be ok with ending the patriot act and having perhaps the national security affected maybe having it affect you maybe you know that there's an attack that could've been stopped that event would you be ok with that in the name of feeling better about your civil liberties. you know the bipartisan nine eleven commission fairly conservative group looked into the question of the patriot act and they said they couldn't find any evidence because they did i had ever been used to stop a terrorist attack and they couldn't even imagine how it couldn't and they said if the government wanted to renew the patriot act the burden should be on them to show how they were using it effectively the government has not done so even the

conservative nine eleven commission report doesn't think it's necessary to extend it to protect us against terrorists you don't exactly answer my question so would you be ok with that if it was in fact a helping actual security and would be a threat if it was gone would you be ok with that if that made you feel like you had your civil liberties that are your constitutional right as a citizen of this country i definitely would i think the whole comus of our constitutional rights and for their freedoms that are so important to us that yes we take risks and from physical risks to protect them i mean you know we have a whole system of trials involving would we be safer if we could just throw people in jail randomness i think we a little bit but that's not the kind of country i would want to live there but that's a good answer i want to ask you you know the fact that this this is up for renewal the fact that it has continued to be renewed it's a very little fanfare and the passageway sions that we've seen do you think that signifies that americans just don't care i mean in general you know you're right it has been reversed but i think we have a real opportunity this year which is why we're trying so hard to organize after

the murder of the patriot act usually comes up with rubber stamp for another year but this time congress has said there's going to be a real debate about its merits we're going to look at fixes and suggestions for changes and so i think there's a real opening right now to try and hold the public and get them involved in actually improving for the time you don't really necessarily see that so i'm curious why you think that is if americans are so up in arms about civil liberties and we see the government going into other areas like the department of justice saying that they want cell phone companies to store all the information on users of the patriot act is in fact in fact repealed are there just many other ways that the government can infringe on civil liberties and that they're putting that into law. well you know the public opinion is missed by the subject at the same time we saw. the asking for more rights and so for location we saw a huge public outcry about awful stories people felt the locations there was for the duration of the other day trying to get them to stop so i think when people see it in their daily lives when they feel the abuse is concretely their own rage when

they want to do something that's often the problem most of the government abuses have been done behind closed doors and we only find out about them years later if you read a real information act requests so you think that if more people knew about how the patriot act was being misused which there is proof that i mean the d.o.j. found that members of the f.b.i. routinely request information without filing the necessary paperwork do you think if more people were aware of that they would be more outraged or you think people are kind of asleep on the road i would expect to be in the name of the war on terror i think if people saw the concrete stories of how it's being produced and so that we see in occasionally these numbers and statistics but those great details are quiet or hushed up or covered up if people saw how this is really affecting our rich americans and how their own privacy was at stake i think they'll be much more of a we will have to see as people do catch on to what's really going on and what happened with the patriot act as a result of that was aaron swartz founder and executive director of demand progress . now been speaking a lot about nine hundred eighty four as oh excuse me and in reality back coming up

we're going to have more on the disaster so sorry that ended up falling india at the largest industrial disaster telling us an estimated twenty thousand people we'll have more on that in a moment. you know sometimes you see a story in the scene so. you think you understand it and then you give them something else you hear see some other part of it and realized everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry welcome to the big picture. what drives the world the fear mongering used by politicians who make decisions. made who can you cross no one. feel. like where are we heading state controlled capitalism is horrid that when nobody dares to

ask we do our t. question more. new website which is twenty four seven live streaming news times what to do about

it ongoing financial hardship unlimited free high quality videos for download. and stories you never find our names through news. that will sell me the political. posts in more than our two dogs trust. and yes. i.

live . lead. internally with the mechanisms to do the work to bring justice for example if. i have every right to know what my government's doing you want to know why i think taxes. or i would characterize obama as a charismatic. american exceptionalism.

woman speaking about nine hundred eighty four as in the orwellian version of the year but in reality back in one thousand nine hundred four what really happened was the largest industrial disaster ever if el india it killed up to an estimated twenty thousand people responsible was a huge gas leak at a u.s. companies plant was a chemical firm owned then by union carbide now by dow chemicals fast forward to today victims say justice has not been started for the survivors the us refused to extradite the chair of union carbide and to face charges and india's talk of court turned down a plea to reopen the case for seven indian officials that were held responsible parties pre-history the reports on this case from new delhi. they actually were convicted back in june almost twenty five years later there were only for two years but they were actually released on bail none of them served a day in jail and their fine they were only sentenced to

a two thousand dollars fine and so they the supreme court said that the central bureau of investigation didn't present them any explanation for why these men should serve longer sentences so far later they felt that this petition was just too too far away from what was the one the event actually happened and i think it's important to remember how big of a deal this is in india this is the worst industrial accident in the entire world three thousand five hundred people the indian government has died as a result of that gas leak and in the years following that accident anywhere from fifteen to twenty five thousand people were died not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people who were really injured and caused great cygnus by being supposed to these chemicals it's also important to note by the way that the union carbide corporation was an american company weren't anderson the c.e.o. of the company at the time was actually arrested released on bail and left back to the united states he never came back to india to stand trial at all for any of this

incident so many people here in india feel that he literally got away with murder he said that his company was not under indian jurisdiction and to this day no american official has ever stood trial for this union carbide company did agree to give four hundred seventy million dollars in a settlement back in one thousand nine hundred eighty nine and that actually amounts it's only about two thousand dollars for every family who lost a loved one in this tragedy as of right now it looks like a word anderson to many people got away with murder and they really feel that there was enough evidence to prove that his company really did drop the ball when it came to this gas leak the indian government has actually. asked for more money from union carbide corp they're asking for one point one billion dollars to almost doubling that four hundred fifty seventy million dollars settlement that was agreed to back in one thousand nine hundred ninety we looked through the fukushima nuclear

accident that just happened in japan where again an american company general a larger it was actually the owner of that nuclear plant and they're actually planning on building several nuclear plants here in india so this is really a sore subject for many indians if you can see the relevance today that was our two correspondent preassure there on the ground there in india with the latest now as we mentioned the original compensation package from union carbide paid the indian government four hundred seventy million dollars in damages for the vote pulses after but compare that to the twenty billion dollars fund president obama went after with b.p. for victims of the gulf oil spill that killed eleven members believe that the bhopal disaster killed up to twenty thousand so does the u.s. show it value human life in the united states more than the lives of people in india but earlier i asked a question to shana bluestone ortman she's an environmental activist for

international campaign for justice in bhopal here's what she had to say. but b.p. oil spill in the twenty billion dollars but the government demanded from b.p. in response so that definitely showed a very clear just happened between what the u.s. government would expect for compensation for environmental victims in the united states and what the you know the sort of justice they were. not not providing for the people of bhopal. the american government has been claiming that the case that doubt doesn't need to be a part of the going to sessions with that they don't need to be a part of it when in reality they're still criminal charges against union carbide and they're officials first outcome of a company now owns union carbide there's still civil cases which pending in the new york case in new york were well in the in court for the cleanup and the u.s. government needs to play a bigger role in providing justice and making sure that those that are in the hole

part of the those trials and that human cargo and for special showed up for criminal charges and then show that you know the price causing the veyron a disaster in the u.s. isn't any higher than causing an apartment with a doctor in india what do you think is behind that though is it that the united states doesn't value the lives of innocent in developing countries like they do those in their own country is that politically motivated obviously the citizens of india are not electing u.s. officials to to their spot in government so what do you really blame that on. you know i would hope to say you know that but the u.s. government. doesn't undervalue the lives of indians but that is kind of the message that coming across with these sort of decisions not to get involved with the cleanup. so you know it's you know i can't speak for the government as to why there's such a back seat role but. now the winners in it seem to be american corporations who

appear to bear no big penalties when we see b.p. for example again expected to be drilling in the gulf of mexico as you mentioned dow has been able to say this is a closed case a new study shows fracking which is shale gas exploration to lead to dangerous levels of methane in drinking water that's something that the industry has denied and not really had to be held accountable for who do you blame for this is this corporate greed is this government regulators failing is this you know just a larger sign of the problems with the global dependence on energy you know it isn't it's all of those it's really. you know the the root of it is corporation being allowed but profit and environmental and human being concerns and safety that's the root of it and then the fact that the government is the indian government and the u.s. government are allowing this to happen and that the courts are allowed.