there are no better predators the united states and australia and a friend in need is a friend indeed or so the saying goes if the us has intentions other than friendship though with a proposed spy base near australia so was the intended target some answers straight ahead. and here at home president obama has more than republican rivals to worry about a group of authors journalists politicians and professors has filed a lawsuit against obama administration all in an attempt to stop the new national defense authorization act in its tracks we'll show you what's at stake and how this lawsuit would affect you as a person and. you know if you can make it to me as

a journalist you can make it and i use journals things and figure out how to capitalize on our minds in the same way. times are tough but how much are you willing to do to make ends meet well introduce you to one cash structure journalist to write stories during the day and strips at night. well good evening it is friday march thirtieth seven pm here in washington d.c. i'm christine for sound and you're watching our team well if here is there are major plans for the united states to expand its military presence to the southern hemisphere this includes an expanded presence in australia and also in the long run a new air base in the cocos and killing islands this is a territory off australia located in the indian ocean kind of halfway between australia and sri lanka there's talk that the islands could replace the u.s.

this current indian ocean based on diego garcia which is leased to us by britain and at least runs out in two thousand and sixteen now while the specifics of this new base remain under wraps an in-depth report by the washington post found the location to be quote ideal for manned surveillance aircraft as well as unmanned drones also an official review conducted inside australia found that there's a big push lately to expand a naval base in perth these are just a couple of the details coming out following an announcement made back in november by president obama and the australian prime minister here's the president speaking for him at this hour there are no better friends but the united states and australia in summer darkest moments when our countries of them put what we needed from the capital we've always been there for each other. and i spoke a little bit about this with ivan eland a senior fellow at the independent institute

a short time ago i asked him plain and simple if this planet was about china. right it's one more step in containing china. that's definitely why there's still probably why all these alliances are being expanded or bases more training etc in that in that area there's been a lot of criticism from both sides of the people in australia not happy about this in people in the us as well and i want to put it on screen i know recently the former national security advisor zbigniew that for presidents he did an article interview with slate and i want to put up what he said first he said a little bit sarcastically he said i was not aware that australia was about to be invaded by papa new guinea or indonesia and he went on to talk about china's thing to define our engagement in the east in terms of china is a mistake we have to focus on asia but not in a manner that plays on everyone's exact anxieties it becomes very easy to demonize china and they will then give us in return is that what they want. i mean do you

agree that this is something that perhaps should have been considered a little more. brzezinski was always a cold war during the during the soviet period and so i think he's not a friend of any sort of communist system so this is very smart advice i think he has realized that the cold war is now over and we need to engage china what's really interesting about u.s. policy in the far east is china is loaning us money so that we can help our allies there who are all rich countries defend themselves against who china interesting it is kind of a strange system how those dots are connected you were talking about you know the cold war era certainly some of the major bases that were crucial back then military bases a large military presence in japan in south korea there's talk that that's going to sort of. be shuffled around a lot of the people the resources that were at those bases will will be shuffled

into australia we think the impact of that would be well i think it's you know it's clearly into. china in the south china sea which is a major. shipping lane and also china has been acting more assertive in that area so i think you're still going to have a policy of containment it's just kind of shifting the balls in the air a little bit but you're still juggling the containment policy and we still have those alliances with japan south korea there's also previously been some shuffling around in south korea but it really doesn't amount to a change in the policy of anything it's meeting up the presence there as president obama said that he's going to do in relation to china but the united states just can't afford this anymore and we can't afford a base in the cocoa islands and we need to we have you know a fifteen billion or fifteen trillion dollar national debt and some of these overseas bases should be contract and instead of expanding absolutely and i'm meeting with president obama and prime minister julia gillard back in november.

something or we're somewhat surprised by these announcements this announcement of a bigger terry partnership there was also an interesting reaction by china they basically said that this is a bad decision on the part of the u.s. and that australia critic actually be caught in the crossfire talking about what australia has to gain from sort of playing host to the u.s. well i think. the only populated country and it's very wealthy by world standards but it's. by china's potential power because china has a lot of people their economy is growing rapidly and that sort of thing and so i think australia has like south korea japan taiwan philippines thailand even communist vietnam they're all trying to get shelter going to the u.s. when because they fear a rising china when actually i think the united states should be the only the balancer of last resort and let these countries do more but of course they're not

going to do more for their own defense of the united states keeps doing it for them so you know you don't pay your rent of somebody paying for. you know that's what amounts to and that was ivan eland senior fellow for the independent institute. all right let's talk about the new technologies that are being developed and expanded and used across this country college spying big brother and extended reality show they're all a part of these technologies are here to stay and they're only getting more intricate and more developed so to find out what this means on a broader scale i spoke earlier to chris to go in a graduate fellow at the center for applied a cybersecurity research and we started talking about some of the things already there use face or facial recognition and it's increasing presence everywhere including facebook so i asked you know should people even be surprised with this new feature on the so popular social networking site here's his response you know i think you should be surprised that facebook is using the data that you give it to help you i think the surprising thing here is how much data has it in the hands of

the government and unfortunately the way the law is in the united states once you hand over your data to a third party whether it's a library or an email provider or a telephone company or a credit card company once it's in their possession the government can come and ask for it and there's really nothing that the company can do to stop or to to stop the government from getting the information if they have the right kind of court order the government gets gets the data and the database and then who knows where it where it ends up from there i mean how hard is it to get one of these court orders . it depends on what kind of data the government's after the court order that allows the government to get information the selling who you've called where you've been that kind of information can be obtained with with what's called a relevancy standard so the information is relevant to an ongoing investigation which is a very low standard if the government wants the contents of your inbox you know the contents of your e-mail or your facebook messages then that's a higher threshold and then the highest one of all is if the governor wants to

wiretap you in real time and then they have to really show a higher a very high threshold but so much of the data that we create is transactional data about where we are what we're purchasing who we've been near and that information can be taken very very easily by the government it is true and i think just about anyone who's ever bought anything online whether it's shoes or make up after you even look at those that sort of comes in all of your searches whether it's on google or something totally unrelated all of a sudden the shoes that you thought about buying yesterday are you know there for you to see the next day i mean i think it is interesting but certainly one of the most common arguments say in favor of these types of technologies is hey well if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have to worry i guess chris what's your case against an argument. right so i think the first thing to note here is that everyone has something to worry about everyone has a secret everyone has a few secrets whether it's the prescription drugs that you use whether it's the you

know the person that you happen to love or what their gender is or what your sexuality is or your religion or your political beliefs everyone has something that they don't want to broadcast the entire world i mean the fact that we have curtains in our windows and clothes on our on our persons mean we have something that we don't wish to be broadcast to every single person but there's also some conceptuality to this which is that we share information with other people whether it's you know on one on one conversations whether it's on facebook we share information with the people that we expect to have it our friends the businesses we interact with but we don't expect that information that is being out there for everyone to see right so i know the bookstore knows which books i read because the car is scanning them as i'm purchasing them but i don't expect someone walking down the street two days later to say oh hey chris i saw that you you've been reading that book recently the same thing happens for the clothes or buying the prescription drugs or purchasing the movies and books or reading these things are private outside of the context in which we initially engage in the activity with

the merchant and what's happening now is is that data is sort of bleeding out it's ending up in databases by large firms run by large firms like google and amazon and so we're losing our context for privacy but this data is being shared with people that we don't think should have it and certainly is being used in situations in which we might not realize upon the point at which the data is captured and certainly for a business perspective it makes sense why some of these businesses why it might want to know what you're reading for example what kind of shoes i'm buying but what about it the whole government aspect of this what do you suppose is the reasoning behind this i know a lot of people say you know with the chinese they have a lot of these technologies but a lot of times they're sort of less concerned with for example what u.s. lawmakers say behind closed doors and more concerned or interested in what maybe steve jobs was talking about it's business as far as the government is concerned here is there a financial gain here or is it something else. i mean i think that you have to

understand that government isn't one huge piece treasure the different components and seeds and they each do different things so law enforcement agencies in the united states are primarily concerned with enforcing the laws and so they are going to be interested in you know finding out who is breaking the law who might be there breaking the law and so that's going to be you know looking into crimes of some kind the intelligence agencies are going to be investigating terrorism they're also going to be investigating espionage and themselves engaging in espionage and so for their interests and for the cia and n.s.a. then the e-mails the politicians and the e-mails of foreign business leaders are going to be up for grabs i mean you have to understand that there's no you know there's no one person who's calling the shots in either wiretapping leak in the u.s. it's sort of happens in a distributed way what can be done about us. well we can ask the companies who give us the tools that we use to try to protect our privacy better so as you noted earlier google is now using some corruption by default the problem is is that

many of the services and tools that we use are provided to us for free google famously doesn't charge for its e-mail so does facebook so does yahoo microsoft or not the other firms because they're not charging us for the services that we use oftentimes their incentives are and are not aligned with ours and in essence we're providing the data that then they use to sell ads and so it's very difficult to get them to really protect our privacy when you know not keeping our data in the first place or using really strong encryption technologies would limit their ability to show us ads so i think one of the most important things we can start doing is having a debate around you know should we be paying five dollars a month or five dollars a year for facebook so that suddenly the company has an incentive to really protect our privacy kristie going graduate fellow at the center for applied at fiber security we said we start to appreciate your in fact on this topic. well a group of high profile journalists and activists made their first round of statements this week at a u.s.

district court in new york city against the national defense authorization act also known as n.d.a. they filed a lawsuit against the obama administration determined to overturn n.d.a. or at least certain aspects of it provisions in the bill give the united states military the power to legally detain suspects indefinitely and without charge or trial and that could include american citizens as long as they're suspected in some way shape or form of being associated with terrorists plaintiffs in the case include pentagon papers whistleblower daniel ellsberg writer and linguist noam chomsky and journalist chris hedges the lawsuit is named hedges v obama and i spoke with chris hedges earlier this month about it removes due process for anybody who is deemed not not just a terrorist to have could be associated forces that's not a term that's to be a list it's quite a frightening piece of legislation because that there's nothing that gives exceptions to journalists and since he has done several interviews with groups

deemed terrorists this could impact him and others like him are trying to get a deeper understanding of people whose perspective perhaps the u.s. government doesn't necessarily want out there rather well isn't is an attorney with the law and security program and human rights first and he stopped by our studios just a little earlier today to talk about some of the legal implications of the bill and the suit against it it says take. well i think your introduction to this segment really kind of got at the core issues in this case basically what the law says is that if you are determined to be a member or a substantial supporter of al qaida the taliban or a quote unquote associated force the military can hold you indefinitely without charge or trial with this lawsuit is seeking to challenge is the notion that individuals who may just have a very tenuous connection to terrorist organizations journalists in this case our activists. seeking to challenge the law to ensure that it cannot be applied in an

overbroad way certainly part of the piece a lot of these people have is the language as read through this action and action ten twenty one and ten twenty two and you know there is words and phrases like associated forces well you know i could be associated with anyone and not even know about it or do it but not for the same purpose as. you know how do you get around this or why was this language do you think included in the first well i think is a sense that you know something needs to be done about terrorism ten years after nine eleven and so congress came through and passed what i certainly think is an overbroad bill it's unfortunate that the president signed it into law and got into law by the way on new year's eve december thirty first and twenty eleven so i think a lot of people weren't really aware that it was even going on certainly weren't aware when he actually signed the bill and made it into law that's right and so you know we're faced now with these ill defined terms that are but they're very broad the government says that these are only individuals who are fighting alongside al

qaeda well it's unclear quite frankly how broad or how narrow this this bill is i think you know the responsible thing for congress to do would have been to to god not of the business of indefinite detention when we have a court system that works very well it's separating you know those who've actually committed crimes from those who were innocent. so yes it's troubling and i think that's why you're seeing all this. you know post and a activity out there trying to really challenge these overbroad claims so one of the. in the fossil obama the how does the obama. how does it work i mean big issue their statement that the court yesterday or what's going to take to actually get sort of a full fledged trial here well it's going to be an uphill battle for this case one of the problems is that none of these individuals have actually been detained by the military so there's what's called a standing issue where these plaintiffs are going to have to show that there is

some kind of concrete risk that the government is actually going to come forward and and detain them so that is going to be i think the hardest. hurdle that these plaintiffs are going to have to overcome in showing that this law is in fact overbroad but i think that that process is ongoing we're going to see you know additional legal filings where the government and the plaintiffs will basically spar over what this what this law means and we'll have to go from there and it's really interesting because we're starting to hear even though a lot of people voted for that so we are starting to hear just in the last few days last week even a lot of republicans on capitol hill hellinger in washington are starting to say hey you know maybe we should look at some of these provisions on what's going on in congress i mean how is this happening after the bill with already signed well i think we saw some of that during the debate over the bill i agree it's a growing opposition and i think part of it is that folks are actually sitting down

and thinking about this issue and the real threats to individual liberty that this bill could could pose and you're right there are the republicans on the hill there are democrats on the hill that are proposing legislation right now and we didn't see before and i should mention before the bill right was signed mark udall came forward with proposed legislation to sort of rework and help you dollar management . to try to take some of the more controversial things out that's correct and you'd all have republican co-sponsors on his bill in the house and you're seeing an effort by ranking member smith who who's who was the democrat on the house armed services committee who is trying to roll back some of these provisions utah has a companion bill in the senate so i do think we're going to see some challenges legislative challenges to these provisions as we move forward and just real quick yesterday after the court period at the court hearing there was a press conference outside a lot of people talking about the severity of the m.t.a. i want to play something really quick that jennifer bowlen said she's one of the plaintiffs and executive director of revolution truth i don't know if you. were.

there in. the area. so if you can get going to be difficult to prove that they are in fact in danger it's unclear it's like i had said before it's an uphill battle certainly the more that the plaintiffs can show that the military does intend to detain them in some way shape or form the better they're all the success in this lawsuit but i think that you know last this lawsuit aside there are broader legislative proposals out there to really kind of challenge the n.b.a. and its detention provisions and we should watch those as well certainly good to know at least that more people are talking about this both in the general public sphere and even those lawmakers haven't forgotten about it right hala advocacy council for human rights for the appreciate it thank you. well let's switch gears now it is no secret the newspaper industry has been dying down in the u.s. over the last several years and sales have been plummeting advertisers moving

online so how have print journalists been keeping afloat and what appears some of them are taking the sexy we're dealing approach reporter sarah tracker for example she was a society reporter for the houston chronicle during the day and a staffer at nights and as you can imagine she didn't tell her bosses about this other job but a reporter for a rival newspaper did writing an exposé on trust or and she was fired and she's not the only one doing this on a saucer turk and i found another woman there was something very similar and she says she doesn't regret it one bit a blue color shirt a knee length skirt and conservative flats if you must working on a newspaper article by day six inch heels a few strips of clothing if any and to pull a stripper by night. taking her clothes off is her secret main source of income the journalist for a new york newspaper just doesn't know it's

a real problem in journalism and. take essentially in america because you know journalism is kind of seen as the fourth branch of government it's just going to pay for the twenty six year old who wants to remain anonymous started stripping in college to pay for her education and rent she now has her own home and has paid off all of her college debt to say. you know what you're making me as a journalist making the night he is journalist and to figure out how to capitalize on our minds in the same way the exotic dancer says the only way to have complete job security in the u.s. these days is to strip since demand is booming irony is all the work mark you hear far from regular job it might be six months here two years of free if this guy was my job i will go to the competitor down the street and be like they hire me and they'll hire me a sex worker cammy parker echoes this she used to study journalism at new york university the chances of getting

a job tonight in yes limbs you know i'm not to mention the fact that there is no money out and i probably made more money now the monkey letter making i. mean and. of your own work i've been getting laid off right and we're going according to we're going forward remember i've been doing better than ever before which interest groups good big thirty to fifty thousand dollars it was she said. you know as a stripper. once but he could make that in one book while most journalists would remain skeptical about taking on a sexier job to make an extra book i don't know if you know everyone's going to be a stripper but i definitely do think that people will have to try to find other means of making. this journalist sense for calls a life like hers the new american dream is this is our t. new jersey. ok so this is not the norm just an option that

a few people seem to be choosing to pursue but it is an interesting topic especially on a friday so let's delve into this begin farside is a comedian in new york city and she joins us now from our new york studio making thanks so much for being on the show let me just ask you your reaction when you first heard about this story. my reaction when i first heard about this story was sort of like why is this a story don't remember that whole diablo cody thing she was a screenwriter she was a journalist she was a stripper all rolled into one sassy. and we got over it as a country in fact we gave her accolades for her work and then we moved on so i was kind of surprised that this was a story at all i don't i think it's a good point that was my first reaction this is a free country and we're not talking about you know a catholic school girl teacher we're talking about a journalist working in an industry that let's be honest doesn't always pay top notch you know people want people to pay their bills so why not really it's not

it's not the first time either i mean there's been an on line you you can look and find many many examples of journalists who have also done stripping in fact there was a journalist from the guardian who when this when the strickland found out that she was a journalist and they decided to fire her because they didn't want to stripper doing it tads three professions such as journalism and on the side so if you take cuts both ways interesting you know and it's true i mean stripping is not prostitution there are plenty of high cost for clubs out there especially in new york for example do you think thinking we're going to get to a time when we're stripping is actually viewed as what it is which is dancing as opposed to always having it connected to sex and prostitution. the more journalists and academics go into stripping i think the better it's going to be for stripping is reputation because the way it was i mean let's not forget chester is also a professor at the university of houston so the the large people like her are in

the field i think the better it is for how that field is going to be seen i mean i would join their ranks but i don't think i mean is going to do anything to improve their reputation. let me ask you this i guess like if there is a serious angle about this story it's the economy it's the fact that there's a lot of jobs that you can get even with a great degree a master's degree a ph d. even there are going to pay you what you need to sort of get all those bills paid especially if you're paying student loans there's a story about an arizona state student she was awarded a thirty two thousand dollars scholarship and apparently she was making videos and even flash her student i.d. on the camera to prove that she was over the age of eighteen and there was talk that she might lose got scholarship and she didn't end up losing it but a whole lot of people thought she should have let's talk about the economic aspect of bets. no i mean it's actually really sad i mean the scene you can see the scene for so many different profession even some teachers out there can't make enough

money in a year to make ends meet i mean this is and you lead with this journalism has is one of the worst problems newspapers are closing even the twenty four hour news channels are consolidating some positions and laying people off it's just hard out there for journalists and so money that used to go into hardcore journalism researching the facts putting people on the ground is now going into paste. just the sad economic reality and i feel like there was a time when we actually treasured these kinds of professions and paid them a fair wage and we're not doing that anymore and i think that's a really good point let's talk about sort of where some of these stories took place when you talk about the houston chronicle reporter houston this is a pretty prestigious newspaper texas of course most of the girls i know from texas you know how debutante balls and. texas is not new york city even houston it's not a way do you think you know it depends on which part of the country you live in how

this profession will be viewed. yeah definitely think of the story was coming out of new york that would get like maybe a young followed by a kos but it didn't i think you know there's still a little bit of that aspect of like the ladies who lunch in the society folks who don't look kindly upon that for fashion but you know you also has a really diverse population it's the fourth largest city in the country and also they have an openly lesbian mayor that's not very common so i think even i think even for houston the story kind of like for a lot of people in houston was a nonstarter so what do you think i mean where should the line be drawn obviously certain professions and businesses that have their rules about working any other jobs i asked my boss just for the heck of it what he would do if you found out you know one of us was tripping on the side and he said it would be fine if you were doing it for charity you just can't be earning money because that's you know. what

do you what do you think i mean where for these long lines drawn as far as what's except if it. you're talking to a comedian i don't think there should be very many lines but i think look sarah tressler is hot it would have been wrong for her not to strip ok this being but i might turn first sarah tressler if that's all i'm saying here sorry ladies that's. ok don't line up just yet but you know. what's the harm literally she's just saying there might be a pole involved who cares i i definitely think the line shouldn't be drawn there that's ridiculous certainly and the story that we did with the girl on her own house i mean that you're not going to be able to do that on a journalist salary in a lot of big cities appreciate you being on the show did a great job making our son come back and things again i would love.