i know it's twenty twelve but it sure. made for a nice house but if you throw you liberty privacy in the constitution then you will vote no on this but they love it they love it not the internet security bill known as face to tongue lashing in the house of representatives by love it or hate it the proposal passed is now moving to the senate will bring you the latest in this cybersecurity saga. to watch the police are putting themselves in situations where violent speakerphones are 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 but the shoot first ask questions later mentality so is our police force getting a little too trigger happy. plus you know the saying you are what you eat while americans better hope people won't take that saying too literally because the

majority of the u.s. would be a mash of genetically modified d.n.a. from a range of exotic gene pools the last people on the streets of the big apple to weigh in on this issue of g.m.o. . it's friday april twenty seventh five pm in washington d.c. i'm christine frizz out here watching our team. well as a prize vote 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 or suspect now the law was supposed to be taken today and in addition to passing with flying colors several more amendments were added to the bill for 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 cyber security it now also allows the reasons of investigation and prosecution of cyber security crime to be used so any hacking or network disruptions that you might be suspected of and the government can access your information now essentially the u.s. house of representatives is saying in no uncertain terms that unreasonable search and searches and seizures prohibited by the fourth amendment are in fact allowed when it comes to the internet despite such a large show of support in the form of votes there were also plenty of criticisms 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 you need a foreign news host to do if you value liberty to privacy in the constitution then you will vote no on cispa could the government use personal information to spy on

americans yes so what's next vs phone and for this country as if this bill becomes law well just a little bit earlier i was joined by journalist david seaman he's host of the d.l. show i asked him what he thinks the odds of cispa or similar legislation are of 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 withdrew that veto threat in the side of the 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 a pen 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 of 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 the adage that a 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 as big 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 they think that you're involved in something they go to a judge and they get a warrant and then you know the. 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 to 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 cisco 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 things it's just very interesting how it varies from issue to issue david seaman journalist and host of the d.l. show well this weekend will mark twenty years since a wave of violent crass to crash down on the city of los angeles the result more than fifty people killed three thousand injured and one billion dollars in property damage to the city itself it all started following the acquittal of four l.a.p.d. officers by a california jury those officers were videotaped beating a black man named rodney came at a traffic stop and we can show you that video itself for copyright reasons but we do have some pictures pictures show officers beating king with their batons you see there as rodney king lays on the ground they're also said to have kicked him and tase him as well and this whole beating resulted in as you can see there some major

injuries to his face. we also have some of the pictures of what ensued when those officers were acquitted and part of the violence was directed at a white truck driver who was not guilty he was just stopped at a stop light he was then dragged out of his truck and brutally beaten but really so much of this unrestrained anger that we saw twenty years ago was anger at a way of life that people said had been going on for years so what lessons were learned from these riots and in what ways of city police forces from across the country changed article as one of more important it takes a look at law enforcement today and finds that at least in some cases many things haven't 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 it's 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 killings there's a lack of training in the situation as in a lack of respect for the communities that 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 nine hundred ninety 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 with your head 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 if you want to talk more about this and certainly we've seen just in the last year incident after incident of police using violent force on nonviolent offenders we've also seen the music stream force pepper spray for example directly in people's eyes on protesters in california who were sitting down in a line we've seen more deaths come about from people who are taste and it begs the question why what's going on here so far as he is an associate professor at texas wesleyan university school of law and a legal fellow at the institute for social policy and understanding that she wrote an article recently called from the oppressed to the terrorists that can be found

on. these laws dot com she joins me now from chicago hey there let's talk first about some of the underlying issues here it's often race often african-americans but people are targeted how far has this country come though in the last twenty years. well i think there's certainly been progress. with regard to police brutality i think it was much more prevalent maybe three four six or five decades ago however unfortunately and if your statistics show it has not decreased the position and what happened in the chip did from murder or shots being fired my son to link to tasers that can kill people or put them in a coma or temporarily. unconscious and oftentimes excessive use of force and i think many police officers think well i'm not using a gun so therefore i think more free means

a taser or other forms such as pepper spray but they use it excessively and that can cause while it may not cause that it certainly can cause injury well it doesn't it doesn't usually cause death but i know that amnesty international came out with a report just earlier this year that showed that more than five hundred people in the u.s. have actually died after police officers used tasers on them and ninety percent of those people were on armed suspects i think most people would argue that stun guns are better than real guns but at what point did tasers and stun guns start being used as the first line of offense. well i think it was a response to the litigation and so i think this was a way for the police department to try to decrease the violence and certainly decrease it just except those who were who die in arrest related activity however as i stated it in a have some one problem of creating another one that could potentially be worse because the volume maybe higher so even though the injury mean obviously we're in

again people have died from tasers but the volume may be higher so i think that part of it is cultural is that they feel more free to be able to do that would be to use the wow at least we were shooting which i think is an unacceptable response i think also part of it is that this aversion in this aggression towards protests and this is part of a post nine eleven trend where in the name of national security in the name of keeping society safer the police are given free reign to do things that i think are going overboard such as this except the pain during any sprang to protesters these are people that are supposed to be protected by the first amendment these are not people who should be subjected to court i think it's a really important point i mean it wasn't that long ago that we were showing police taking extreme measures to deal with the occupy wall street protesters right here in the u.s. we're talking about police using issued weapon issued weapons and many cases when i

was people were talking about them using pepper spray and you know less than twelve inches from their faces why is this i mean i think you have you're on to something here it's suppose nine eleven mentality new laws being formulated to basically stop people from protesting except in designated free speech zones and a lot of cases but do you think i mean especially after the occupy wall street stuff i mean do you think this is something that will continue to see. well i think it's really up to the citizenry i think that those who are injured should file suit and i think they should hold the police department's accountable nations all their public officials accountable and make sure that they are not excessively using them for the i think they also need to hold those government officials accountable or the chilling effect that's being cause is if you feel that you're going to go protest street and get a's or to get pepper sprayed and possibly die from it you may think twice about going on good testing so there is certainly a political dimension to it and i think we have to talk about the racial dimension

for example in the new york police department united frisk program six hundred eighty four thousand people just in two thousand and eleven question in france eighty percent of them were african-american and then fifty eight percent of those near tasered in new york are blacks and latinos so part of it and this is actually been going on for a while so a lot of latinos are getting tasered as part of equal teachin. but the occupy movement many of those who were tasered were anglo and so that brought it to the forefront in the media and so i think now it's time for all of these different communities to come together and hold the police departments and the public saying you know i sense a violence is unacceptable should be an exception not the norm it's really interesting too when you look at so many of these cases officers are either cleared or put on paid administrative leave and i think it's fair to say that incidents like this at least in the long run will make police officers jobs more difficult

not less i know you know when i work in local news so often police would be investigating a crime but no one in these neighborhoods where a lot of these crimes are committed would talk to them because you know sometimes a loyalty is to people involved but other times they just simply didn't trust the police why don't they trust the police well so often police you know commit these kind of crimes and perform this kind of brutality and never are held accountable i guess i'm wondering i mean do you think those are the larger discussion that needs to be had here about the message that these departments are sending. well i asked what we do i think again part of it is part of the post nine eleven mentality on dying loyalty to the least i'm not saying well gee for law enforcement and trying what's been happening is many agencies local state and federal are trying to use the national security paradigm in order to expand their expression and restore these and tell the public just trust us trust us and then when someone does get hurt if it's a minority oftentimes racial minority then that falls under the stereotype well he

was a he was not an american a bank your. document arab or muslim probably a terrorist and so all of these stereotypes are huge do essentially excuse the government and excuse the police from. being held accountable so i think we have to make a connection between them but i think all americans have to realize that when you have excessive force particularly in political context political protests the first amendment is under attack and we have to hold them accountable it is not always the race of the person isn't it doesn't matter what the gender is no one deserves to be . violated in that way so what's your response to some of these police officers and these police chiefs who say you know what we've got to watch out for the safety of our communities we have to know that our officers feel safe doing their jobs you hear this same excuse being used in war zones that you know soldiers and marines

they need to know that they're not going to get in trouble for shooting somebody if they feel like their lives or their safety is in jeopardy and so often that's the excuse that's given even though you know studies with police forces here show otherwise you know what's the answer to to dealing with that to police officer saying we need to know that we're going to we can do our job well without being punished. well i think one and i and i agree that we we all benefit from public thank you we all benefit from the police doing their job right operative term right and doing gorman's with the constitution but one thing that has come up or one technology interesting which is the recording of a rock so whenever i police officer uses sirens or sirens recording start and often times with many of these cases of excessive violence on death as a result are the less they claim that the person was armed or that the person was

fighting back in a combative way and so they had little choice but to shoot or taser pepper spray and then it turns out when they look at the surveillance and recording that in fact none of that was true so in some ways the technology is i think a positive development and so then if the police feel that they need to use. horse the recording will defend them but at the same time if they abuse their authority and they lie order to save their own skins then they'll get caught in it so i think of it that it's a really good point with everyone having cameras and even video cameras on their phones now it's much more difficult for police to be able to give those arguments without the evidence being put forth there so far as he's an associate professor at texas was leaving university school of law also a legal fellow at the institute for social policy and understanding. so i had an r t do you know what's in your food the truth of the matter is that most americans have no clue but pink slime is only the beginning last people on the

streets of the big apple if g.m. knows are the way to go back in a minute. but in the alone or so you'll get the real headlines with none of them are the problem with the mainstream media today is that they're completely disconnected from the viewers and for what actually matters to those viewers and so that's why young people just don't watch t.v. anymore if they want news they go online and read it but we're trying to take those stories that people actually care about and transfer them back to t.v. . what drives the world the fear mongering used by politicians who makes decisions to break through it's already been made who can you trust no one who is you view with a global reach where we had a state controlled capitalism it's called fashion when nobody dares to

ask we do r t question more. current let's talk now about genetically modified food food made or grown with the addition of engineered organisms often these are used to enhance the size shape and the traditional value of certain crops and chances are you've ingested many of these into your body just today but there's no way for you to know this since at least for now you won't see g.m.o. on the labels of foods in the united states has because producers well they don't have to tell you because believe it or not the federal government has declared it's their choice to determine what's good for you these companies they get to say which foods are safe for your consumption or not but you do have lots of choices in the store at least it feels that way when you're in the grocery store with these infinite choices on the shelves on the aisles. it turns out this choice is actually fall under the umbrella of just ten companies just ten texas ventured out all those

seemingly distinct brands of candy and food and laundry detergent often brands that compete with one another are actually owned by the same corporation a lot of people are unaware of this and also unaware of just what's in their food but the question is do they care for her finesse with the resident don asked that question to several different people she met in new york city. are you concerned about genetically modified or enhanced foods or is it just an overblown issue this week let's talk about that do you care if you eat them but obviously not. well i think it's less processed foods in europe that's for sure yeah i do think a lot of it is corporate driven here and it is related to money unfortunately modifying genetically food is totally. then controlling they want to pick food sources over mankind so they can basically push up on us so why are americans ok

with that i think is the knowledge they want to get information from regular t.v. . just being intertainment did you know that coca-cola is made with high fructose corn syrup in the united states but everywhere else it's made with pure cane sugar i didn't know that but he just surprised me. so what is up with that why don't americans demand better things in their food. they don't want to pay more money for the food. they used to what they're eating when i don't care as long as they're comfortable it doesn't matter that would be my guess i think our country is run by greed and money and there's a lot of issues here so. we that say when the greed is so strong that it messes with what people eat. i think i think you just answer the question with your question do you think that because the population is growing and growing and growing that we're bound to eat things like made in petri dishes and those kinds of

extremes probably yes there's this website i don't remember the name of it but supposedly you put what you we in a week. and told you how many earths we would need for everyone in the world the same amount you know. and it turns out. there really need to be six earths for me and you know these in size to say the least but you've got a year's for is that it's american stopped by gently modified food rather you think that they've stopped making at all that's one hundred percent yes the plane the man with the demand dries up the supply dries up to they need to start putting that on labels that everything that's in there right absolutely more people are getting wise to labels now i think when they're in the supermarkets in the shopping they'll see the signs in the start to read more than to get off the shelf and put in a basket i think this slowly get the idea through media but i think these two go further whether or not you're concerned about genetically modified foods the bottom

line is if you live in the united states you're probably eating a lot more of them than you realize. we're not going to do it for the news this hour but stick around the a lot of show is coming up at the top of the hour this this weekend the first ever international drone summit will be held right here in washington d.c. n.g.o.s human rights advocates and activists from all walks of life are coming together to discuss the role of drones in modern surveillance and warfare not along we'll find out exactly what's on the agenda for this conference with clive stanford the director of the british legal group will preview that represents. now for more on the stories that we covered go to you tube dot com slash r.t. america also check out our web site however address is our team dot com slash usa and we're going to course follow me on twitter i'm at christine for.