i know it's twenty. four and. if you value liberty to privacy and the constitution then you will vote no on this. i love it they hate it the internet security bill known as phased a tongue lashing and the house of representatives love it or hate it the proposal passed and is now moving on to the senate are you the latest in this cybersecurity saga. to offer the police are putting themselves in situations where violence speak more likely. armed and dangerous it seems some us police officers are taking their promise to protect and serve a little too far these days with the shoot first ask questions later mentality so is our police force getting a little too trigger happy. plus calling in the loan sharks wealthy u.s. lawmakers are debating the fate of chords of indebted college students the house of

representatives approved a measure to keep interest rates low so now it's up to the senate will they follow suit. it is friday april twenty seventh four pm in washington d.c. my name's christine you're watching our teeth. well a surprise though yesterday in the house of representatives by a vote of two hundred forty eight to one hundred sixty eight the house passed the cyber intelligence sharing and protection act for cispa now the vote was supposed to be taken today and in addition to passing with flying colors several more amendments were added to the bill and the purpose of this legislation is to expand information sharing capabilities between the federal government and private companies and in addition to allowing the government to access online information for the purposes of national security and cybersecurity it now also allows the

reasons of investigation and prosecution of cyber security problem crime to be used so any hacking or network disruptions you might be suspected of and the government can access your information essentially the house of the u.s. house of representatives is saying in no uncertain terms that the unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited by the fourth amendment those are in fact allowed when it comes to the internet despite such a large show of support in the form of votes though there were plenty of critics of the bill as well but this bill had a privacy policy it would read you have no privacy the reality is the sister represents a massive government overreach in the name of security i know it's twenty twelve but it sure feels like a foreign news host if you value liberty to privacy and the constitution then you will vote no on cispa could the government use personal information to spy on

americans you know so what's next for says if i am for this country a system becomes law let's go to journalist david seaman host of the d.l. so now david we should mention. next this has to the senate next and the president has said he plans to veto it but what do you think the chances of this or some form of this becoming the law of the land. well it already passed the house so it's a major threat it stands a major possibility of becoming law christine and i honestly would not trust what the white house is saying right now given this veto threat they did exactly the same thing with the national defense authorization act and then they withdrew that veto threat and he signed it into law on new year's eve so the white house does issue these threats and then they remove them we cannot count on the white house we cannot count on one man with the power and to reverse this we need to speak out now

before it does go to a senate vote later this week the implications are just i mean they're flat out terrifying the implications of this all well let me put one of those amendments that was added on the screen for our viewers basically this outlines all the reason the government could access and share information cyber security investigation and prosecution of cyber security crimes protection of individuals from the danger or of death or physical injury protection of minors from physical or psychological harm protection of the national security of the united states. here's the deal david i mean it seems to me a lot of these are terms that would be interpreted very differently depending on who you ask. yeah it's to make movie comparisons but it's kind of like minority report and investigating pre-crime you're going after people before they've even committed anything that's illegal. in the case that they added to that moment where they added that now they can do this to protect children to protect minors this

could be something is vague as you know somebody who is seventeen years old if you have a cousin and he or she is seventeen. that's enough for the government to read through all of your e-mails potentially all of your facebook messages every web site you visit and do all of these things without telling you and b. without obtaining a warrant or getting any kind of court involvement for before hand they can just go on this fishing expedition and see everything you've ever done online and then take it from there it's just profoundly scary and the cyber security threat can be something is vague as being on the same network or website where some kind of intellectual property infringement has occurred so if you use a big website like i don't know facebook or you tube chances are there is some infringement occurring somewhere on that network and this opens you up to the threat of the government and even random private security companies sifting through all of your e-mails you're not told that this is happening there's no warrant that's why huge issue i don't have a problem with spying on bad guys i have a problem on spying on people who done nothing wrong and doing it in the name of

protecting children and protecting us from cyber security threats that i'm not convinced are even real i know it's a fine line here david i mean but i want to know i mean what do you think is the answer clearly privacy concerns are the biggest ones launched by critics of this legislation but how else does the government deal with the threat of hacking and cyber threats from other countries without well knowing who's doing what online. the best way is that they obtain a warrant so if basing that you're involved in something they go to a judge and they get a warrant then you know the p's and internet services will give them all the information they need all of your activities all of your e-mails they can even send out a national security letter some of some people have been hundreds of thousands of those issued for american citizens and with the net as well if you're not informed about it they just do it so there are already a lot of mechanisms for the government to see what bad actors are up to online this

is just a gross invasion of the everyday person's privacy and for what i don't understand what the tradeoff is here i don't understand what we gain as individuals in exchange for giving the government this free pass look through all of our activities and when you go online it's extremely difficult to find anybody who is in favor of cispa but when you do find somebody their argument is basically well you have no expectation of privacy when you do something online anyways and i disagree with that obviously the internet the variety of ways that your information can be compromised but when you send an e-mail on g. mail to your girlfriend or your spouse or when you check your bank account to see your balance in your current investments there is some reasonable expectation of privacy there and cisco takes that away well it seems to me that you know two hundred forty eight elective elected officials seem to be saying first of all that this is a good thing because they voted in favor of it and second of all that you know in a way yes before you needed to get a warrant these people seem to be saying they need to sort of monitor what's going

on so they knew so they know who to give a warrant to and i think another thing that a lot of people are not talking about like the n.d.a. i mean we've interviewed chris hedges several times he's a journalist he's concerned how some of the n.d.a. provisions will affect journalists same with says by mean we go on websites all the time that you know. people the government doesn't like our on we're doing research and some of that guilt by association stuff is a little scary sure it's very scary as a journalist myself i get a lot of crazy emails i get some scary e-mails from people and you know i have no part in that i'm just receiving the e-mail i'm not the one sending it but under cispa they could basically come after me and they could use that connection to read through all of my online activity this destroys the internet there are so many businesses that are no longer going to thrive as a result of this book so that's the other thing i don't understand is not only is this bad for our privacy it's actually bad for big internet businesses kind of

embarrassing or supporting it i was just going to a good kind of interesting too that so many people are voted in favor of this law so much more government overreach are the same ones saying you know the government shouldn't be involved in in so many thing it's very interesting how it varies from issue to issue david seaman journalist and host of the d.l. show they do. well this weekend will mark twenty years since a wave of violence crashed down on the city of los angeles the result more than fifty people killed three thousand injured and a billion dollars in property damage to the city itself it all started following the acquittal of four los angeles police department officers by a california jury those officers were videotaped beating a black man named rodney king at a traffic stop now we can't show you that video itself for copyright reasons but we do have pictures show officers beating king with their baton as he lay on the ground now they're also said to have kicked him in tase dim as well this whole

beating resulting in severe injuries to his face as you see right there. here's of the pictures of what ensued when those officers were acquitted now part of the violence was directed at a white truck driver who was stopped at a stop light then dragged out of his truck and brutally beaten but really just so much unrestrained anger at a way of life many people said had been going on for years so what lessons were learned from these riots and in what ways have city police forces from across the country changed our decors want to marina portnoy it takes a look at the police force today and finds that at least in some cities many things have not changed. if you were a two thousand and twelve shooting death of teenager trayvon martin well marli graham was shot and killed inside his home two on armed african-american teenagers in two separate states succumb to the same fate in florida trayvon martin was carrying candy when he was gunned down by neighborhood watch volunteer george

zimmerman is a bronze teenager bam pursued by police moments before he was killed in new york city where marley graham was standing in his bathroom when he was shot in the chest by a plainclothes narcotics officer who forced himself into the home without a warrant the eighteen year old was not in possession of a gun or drugs and according to n.y.p.d. officials the thirty year old cop who pulled the trigger lacked the proper training to work in his assigned unit two months have passed and there have been no charges in connection with the killing it's a lack of training in the situation is in a lack of respect for the community so you're patrolling that allows an officer to sort of act in a unauthorized undisciplined outside the guidelines manner which in essence is acting like a cowboy you know we're not in the wild west in a fatal police shooting of a sixty eight year old ex marine kenneth chamberlain sr was the u.s. war veteran who fell victim to unnecessary deadly police force last november but

the sixty eight year old was tasered and shot by officers who responded to a false alarm from a medical alert pendant chamberlain reportedly instructed the officers to leave before they broke his door down an investigation into his killing remains on going to off the police are putting themselves in situations where violence becomes a more likely outcome and this is the result often of overly aggressive policing policies the exact number of americans killed by overly aggressive policing remains unknown because the u.s. department of justice does not require police departments to report fatal shooting statistics meanwhile. the new york city police department the world's largest has refused to release internal reports on police shootings from one thousand nine hundred six through two thousand and six until you begin holding those officers accountable until when they commit certain acts they actually go to jail or they lose their pensions you're going to have

a resistance because they feel sometimes that they can commit these acts with impunity meaning that they know that other than a few headaches or hiccups nothing is really going to happen to them which is why we bring cases and actions against the officers. persistent use of police tasers is also being blamed for the death of five hundred people in the u.s. since two thousand and one around here have according to amnesty international dozens of deaths can be traced to unnecessary force oh no policies for taser use vary from state to state. experts say it's time for washington to create strict national guidelines to protect the public really. from police growing trigger happy with electric shock devices this would help clarify things both for police departments and also frankly would strengthen the hands of people who want to bring litigation against the police for civil rights violations

because it would show it would provide a standard that they could use for challenging these local police practices critics claim justice is where lee served when those who kill turn out to be police officers in many instances leaving the very people intrusted with enforcing the law well protected when they violated marina porton i.r.t. new york. all right well even rodney king says the l.a.p.d. has learned from the riots that went on there twenty years ago that you won't see something like that again even just taking a look at the police force what it looks like back then twenty years ago sixty percent white today minorities make up sixty percent of l.a.'s police force but what about the other cities like issues we just saw are they simply cases of a few bad apples or is there a larger trend here of police officers going too far to galvanise managing editor for reason dot com tim it wasn't that long ago that we were showing people there were police taking extreme measures to deal with those occupy wall street

protesters we're talking now about police using weapons in many cases on unarmed people often times what do you think is going on here. i think we need better data certainly we've we've had this amnesty international report recently citing five hundred deaths at the hands of tasers taser international more or less maintains that nobody has died from tasers any time something happens with you know a non-lethal it's always chalked up to some other thing previous heart condition or the person's drunkenness or he fell you know down the stairs or he banged his head sixteen times so we need better way of looking at these things there is no doubt that a taser is less deadly than a lot of other ways you could use to subdue a person but there are questions about are situations that in the past might have

been resolved by you know let's hang back and wait till this person comes down let's. pick them up at the next block after runs out of breath or something like that become situations where officers clearly move in and just try and take you know possession of a person in a way that they wouldn't have in the past we have a lot of video of that and certainly if you look at many of the occupy examples as you mentioned you have many cases where a person who was clearly not a threat was somebody that did not meet maybe we maybe should have been arrested for something or you know depending on how you feel about the law but it was not somebody who needed to be restrained as violently as they were and i think that's really most of the videos we have yes sorry no i think it's a really good point and just staying on the amnesty international report that you mentioned i think was just released a couple months ago showing that more than five hundred people here in this country in the u.s. have actually died after police official officers use tasers on them another thing

in that report and ninety percent of those people were on armed suspects i think most people would argue that you know stun guns are better than real guns but i'm going to i guess i'm just wondering at what point did they start being used as the first line of off. that is the real question in o.e. you want to be clear deaths in custody are more or less down and it's you know their head there are fewer people dying at the hands of the police as part of a rest and there were twenty years ago you know the number goes up and down and it's also as i said it's not always clear because a lot of times the death in custody sort of gets attributed to something in that. you know excuses or whatever methods were used against restrain the person but that is the big question i mean we why do we have to have this kind of force against people who are not only of the one of the people i was happy to see in the c.n.n.

national mentioned was a guy that we did a lot of coverage of reason dot com a reason t.v. he's a guy in san bernardino county named alan kept part this gentle guy that you know the whole community knew him as you know almost like a forest gump figure he was tasered to death he was tasered nineteen times by. you know there were probes in his flesh to prove it there's a civil case going on the officers were all excused all he is accused of apparently and the police reports are so opaque that it's been very hard to figure it out but apparently all he did was honk at a sheriff who may or may not have cut him off in traffic and he died for a while and i think you just mentioned this but i think it's a really important point to bring up in so many of these cases officers are either cleared or they're put on paid administrative leave i think it's fair to say that incidents like this in the long run make police officers jobs more difficult i know

you know in my local news experience so many people when there was a crime committed people could have helped with investigations people could have told you who shot so and so but they never did because they said they didn't trust the police i wonder if you think there's a discussion about some of the messages the police department send when they continually time and time again and let these officers off put them on paid leave you know let them stay home and get a paycheck. yeah you know there are many opinions opinions as there are police officers you'll find some who you know believe that good police work is the key to getting what you want and it's not necessarily brute force or any of the other things unfortunately all of the you know the departments themselves or government agencies and the first purpose of a government agency is to perpetuate itself and to excuse itself and to absolve itself of any responsibility for its failures in the other big organizations in volved in this are the police unions and their job is is just to make life easier

for cops regardless of whether the cops are doing their job properly or not so just for them at that time i mean what's the answer here because certainly it stands to reason that police officers want to have you know violent offenders afraid of them so where is that line between you know using a stun gun and doing nothing at all. yes well having violent offenders afraid of them is fine i don't know that all of the population should necessarily be afraid of the police as you mentioned that's one of the things that keeps people from cooperating one thing that is working in our favor is that everybody has a camera and there's a lot there are a lot of cases out there in that you can read reasons coverage again a great story we have called the war on cameras everybody's got a phone everybody's got a camera a lot more stuff gets picked up rodney king you know it was unusual twenty years ago for somebody to get video of something like this happening at the hands of police and you know it's quite possible that you will not see stuff like that

nowadays you're not going to see six or four officers you know all beating a guy who's down on the ground so you know in a way where we may be moving forward i want to emphasize that there are reasons to believe that we may have fewer violent episodes going on i think that the issue is do non-lethal zx really you know lead to a lot more confrontational violent resolutions than you would have seen in the past yeah i think it's a really good friends are to believe that the case i mention is a perfect example no matter i think we can all agree you should be allowed to honk at a police officer or even to mouth off to a police officer without paying for it with your life totally agreed ten cavanagh managing editor for reason dot com in our studios in los angeles thanks so much thank you. well for so many americans student debt is a financial ball and chain they drag it around for decades when it comes to getting a college education in this country it's becoming more and more expensive well take

a look at some of the stats torching cars have risen about six hundred percent over the last thirty years average in-state tuition has risen by eight percent just in the last year and those who graduated in two thousand and ten had an average of twenty five thousand two hundred fifty dollars in student debt now in july the interest rate on student debt is scheduled to double from three point four percent to six point eight percent president obama has brought this issue front and center and now a vote in the half in the house of representatives happened today to try to prevent that increase from happening so both republicans and democrats agree that interest rates on student loans should not double but the two sides disagree on how to pay for it republicans want to offset cost by taking money from a program within the new health care law democrats say oil companies and wealthy americans should be taxed at a higher rate to offset those costs while today in the house just a few hours ago actually they passed the republican version which is sure to be

vetoed by the president let's talk now about the student loan issue itself with an larsen an activist with the occupy student debt campaign hey there and you know on one hand this move to stop interest rates from rising is a step but it seems to me there's a lot bigger problem here talk a little bit about that. the current discussion going on between the president in their public ends about student loan interest rates is really just a distraction from the larger issue which is the growing cost of higher education the exploding cost of tuition and the fact that on wednesday of this week we surpassed one trillion dollars in total student debt so neither the republicans or the democrats are talking about really the fundamental problems that we're facing yes some people are even likening it to putting you know a band-aid on a tumor and sending the patient home it's really just something very small here we put up some numbers before if you look at the timeline though of what's going on

here and you've got state funding decreasing which means schools then raise tuition and in many cases the federal government has stepped in to fill the holes with loan money so when students come out they face not just a much tougher job market they also have the loans piled on talk a little bit about the effects of this cycle. well i think it's important to know that this is a complicated issue and what happens is the states reduce funding to higher education but the other part of the story is that oftentimes college administrators are already running their colleges like corporations and like like financial entities and so what they do is they they pledge students to wish and to wall street banks in order to secure better bond ratings and capital markets so what you'll see is for example in places like the university of california california's facing a fiscal crisis many many problems going on there with higher ed reduced funding for higher ed but there's still plenty of construction projects going on campus and

that's because student debt has been pledged to wall street in essence college administrators are promising moody's and the bond traders that they will raise student tuition in the indefinite future in order to secure loans for capital projects and the revenue streams of those project our projects are going to be controlled by the one percent so this is a complicated issue it has to do with reduced state funding but it also has to do with the collusion frankly between college administrators and the government and wall street i think it's an important point i think a lot of people just don't know the extent most people don't know the extent we talk about for profit colleges places like university of phoenix and kaplan university the fact is a lot of regular colleges even state schools. do a lot of profit making i guess you could say but and i want to switch gears for a second you are with the occupy student debt campaign which is different from the group occupy student debt that group wants to make some changes to current legislation for student loans what steps is your group calling for. well we differ

somewhat with occupy student debt we are working group of occupy wall street and we have a slightly different take occupy student debt and some other groups are working more with a reformist strategy they're working through the legislature and through congressional bills. lobbying the government things like that and in the spirit of occupy wall street occupy student debt campaign we believe that number one student debts are illegitimate from the beginning and it makes no sense to reform the current system . and number two the time for petitioning the government is long past as i've just described the government has been colluding with higher education officials and with wall street to raise the price of tuitions for decades and so the idea that we would now go to these same people and ask for their help or put ourselves in the position of supplicant seeking help from the same people who got us into this mess mess frankly is a little bit ridiculous so the occupy student debt campaign are the centerpiece of

our campaign is a pledge of student debt refusal and everyone can read about that on our website occupy student debt campaign dot org and what we are proposing is rather than concede power to the one percent that we were we have a pledge on our web site that people can sign to stop paying their student loans once one million others have also signed the pledge and so that's our strategy and larson activist with the occupy student debt campaign we appreciate you coming on the show lots to talk about there and for us here that's going to do it but for more of the stories we covered go to youtube dot com slash america or check out our web site r t v dot com plus usa now you should can also follow me on twitter at christine for coming up next is the capital account with lauren lester.

question is that so much about the taxpayers' money mandating it is a show me the bottom people have been hearing are they on the brink of war this is how the situation appears to be developing between the recently independent state of south sudan and its worth. there hasn't been anything yet on t.v. . it is to get the maximum political impact possible. before source material which is what helps keep journalism honest when. we want to present. something else. if you.

feed the fish feed. you just totally. sucks.