we never got the show's neighborhood keep you safe get ready because you get the other freedoms. but the ordinary want to fight the railroad. buck and they alone until you know 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 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 in t.v. . you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so for lengthly you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm trying hard welcomes a big picture.

in this day and age do we need a bill of rights for the internet that senators ron wyden and ice they're proposing as they warned about the rise of a civil cyber industrial complex while they were at the personal democracy forum in new york and the thing is they want your input see isis set up the website keep the

web open dot com to crowd source ideas from internet users and the draft as it is contain some of the following principles like freedom digital citizens have a right to a free uncensored internet openness digital citizens have a right to an open unobstructed internet and a quality all digital citizen citizens are created equal on the internet now there are many more and as it said you can check out the whole thing online but you asked me if think it's unfortunate that we've gotten to this point where so many forces are trying to control our use of the web but do we actually need an internet bill of rights here to discuss it with me as julian sanchez research fellow at the cato institute joined thanks so much for joining us tonight always a pleasure what do you say i mean do we need an internet bill of rights i think that for most people right away they say yeah i want my rights protected and since the internet is such a big part of our lives these days why not well you know i think we have an internet bill of rights already you may have heard of it it's called the bill of rights if we interpret the first amendment the fourth amendment and exempt

fourteenth amendment i think in a way that's reasonable as we traditionally have done updating it with the times as we did in the sixty's for example to understand that a search doesn't just have to mean someone going into your house but as technology changes a church can mean and fact doesn't mean listening in on a wiretap even if you don't go on to someone's property i think properly understanding the bill of rights we have we would have basically all the protections we need now that said as a sort of symbolic gesture that we have a lot of people who care about the open and free internet and are distressed by all the attempts to crack down on it to make it more susceptible to censorship and surveillance whether in the name of. cyber security or fighting copyright infringement or national security or whatever that's good for people to be aware that there is a constituency is going to press back on that in terms of the specifics you know you know himself actually sad when he introduced this at the personal luckily for him the trouble is these better very general things like well i believe in freedom

of the internet you have arrived here on the internet and you know that all the people who support sopa would have told you that they believe all those things they just say oh well this so it wasn't censorship we're just blocking websites that are about copyright infringement and that's even though we're taking down these websites or blocking these websites we don't think of that is censorship but you know in all of these debates it's always sort of the details of how to balance these different interests or how to balance some of those interested in a sense sense i mean is this is a good thing if they're doing this you know on one hand i think that it's great that they're trying to get people involved there crowdsourcing they're saying ok we're paying attention to your concerns because we got it after so but you know after this mobilization that we saw against them it finally kind of clicked or is this just a little bit of a distraction technique that right because if you already have the bill of rights then these laws that you know should be interpreted properly then why can't our lawmakers just abide by that why do they have to keep pretending like we need something that you know i think it's healthy in that it starts the conversation and

i don't think it's the case that saying we believe in privacy on the internet solves any of the substantive debate people have about how to balance privacy against law enforcement or against for example a right to free speech and sometimes those two things you know bump into each other the actual debates you still need to have but it's good to start the conversation in a way more than the specific rights they're talking about i think what's important here is the approach they're taking the question sourcing you know if you think about the way internet standards get made and the way laws get made there are very different pictures you know sopa is a good example of how laws get made you have a couple of industry stakeholders and lobbyists getting together in a backroom and maybe if you're lucky you know sometime before the bill actually hits the floor and it doesn't get snuck in is a ride. it is some ten thousand page omnibus the public hears about it in time not really to change it but at least to say maybe you know you can't do this we don't like it. internet standards are very different you know the way the protocols of the internet runs on you know h.t.t.p. and f.t.p. and secure sockets for encryption there are these things called r.f.c.'s where the

standards are spelled out and that stands for requests for comment you know technologists will put out a specification that says we think this is how the web or whatever protocol it is should work and everyone in our area yeah we need to know why i went to iraq the laws are made like this though right doesn't that sound like an idea if we actually had a say in some of the legislation that's being put out there and of course you know . as with internet standards you do need expert opinion to write and a person on the street doesn't really understand why a certain protocol will or won't work but you need all that input and you need to put coming from places that aren't necessarily the table when the law is written with sopa big problem was you had a lot of computer security experts screaming their heads off saying this is really going to mess with an effort that's under way and has been underway for years to secure the domain name system and and the people who were proposing it were not programmers that technologists didn't didn't even know that there was a problem there yet needed to be discussed now that's funny to you because you know why it is that this personal democracy forum i said somebody asked me about that in

terms of where we talk about this are these lawmakers just don't quite get it they're not exactly sure of how some of this technology works and should they really be legislating on it and he said he could have better things to do than run for office. so that's why we don't have any that are in congress at the moment but there are possibly this month some big votes coming up in terms of this but in terms of some of the other cybersecurity legislation that's out there and so what's the latest you're hearing are we ever going to see some more revisions are we going to see more debate or what you know i mean something is probably. going to move sometime probably near the end of the month i've been hearing that some republicans who have been anxious about it in particular about some regulation that would set up standards. for so-called critical infrastructure are wavering they've been opposed because republicans don't like regulating business and burdening business with extra government rules on the privacy stuff you don't see the same kind of pushback you saw because for the most part this isn't burdening the big tech industries that were such a part of the pushback against so you've got in part some of the industries that we

regulate and you don't like it very much you've got all the privacy people going what exactly is. this information flow going to look like but again it's a case where you really have a sense that what's going on is you get people coming in saying cyber security are scary you know dams blowing up you know big explosions. and then when it comes down to the real specifics of well all right what kind of information specifically do they need to share with the government that can't be shared under the law now and how could you fix those specific laws so that particular kind of information could be shared without sharing a whole lot of other personal and sensitive information and the problem is that it can't really answer that hard out of care and they that's a conversation that requires at least a moderate understanding of the networks themselves and of the security questions and congress as you know understandable that i would hear some of that before the votes happen that i watch is the day i'm glowing i've got to wrap it up but thanks

for joining us tonight ok thanks. guys it's time for show and tell on tonight's program now during last week's financial checkup we told you about testimony on capitol hill where he called on congress to do some of the economic heavy lifting by acting on the spending cuts and tax hikes but we want to know if you thought the congress should take some of the financial burden that it's got a pretty simple truth in a sense to find out what you had to say. on the streets of d.c. to tell people the nation's capital what our viewers how to say on twitter facebook and you tube and see what's comments we should keep or delete them. do you think that congress should take some of the burden off the fed whatever viewers don said as usual congress will probably do nothing until the last possible minute before disaster strikes to lobby them even harder before it's too late what do you think i think the talk he shrugged. congress waste of the last minute i

need to take action on of the spending they're doing some of this giveaway programs cut some of them out but when they get to work look ahead to williams said congress doesn't seem to function and i think possibly other than serving corporate lobbyist they will likely represent them before they represent their constituents so given what bernanke told congress do you think that they will move to help the fed on their own or will they need a push from corporate interests i mean it seems like they're they say two way corporations one and not the people probably corporate interests just play a lot of. into the politics of this but i don't know if congress has been acting on a lot of things recently so we'll see if they're on this one of our viewers tam told us this is twiddle dee pointing the finger at a little dumb when you think about that. well i don't i don't think that's wrong but i think we should help in any way they can because. it would all to merely help the global economy most people give congress a d. for driving this recovery eddie for deficits and debt now bernanke he said while

heading for that cliff the question is will anyone up on that hill take control and turn that wheel before it's too late for them to give themselves. well as always thank you for your responses and here's our next question for you we just finished discussing the possibility of an internet bill of rights while the crowdsourcing is a good way to get people involved remind members of congress that we the people do care as our guest suggested should a lot of this stuff already be covered in the original bill of rights in the constitution so we want to know what you think do we need an internet bill of rights let us know you think on facebook twitter and you tube and who knows your response just might make it on air. well it's time for a last break but when we come back our tool time winner thinks that we should just blindly follow our leaders like sheep and are happy our the cia seems to have lost their declassification procedures. of american power.

by the time. we were told. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry welcome to the big picture. here is what i. like and they alone are so they'll get the real headline with none

of them are the problem with the mainstream media today is that they're completely disconnected from the viewers and 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 in t.v. . welcome to the capital account i'm lauren lyster.

all right guys it's time for tonight's tool time award and tonight we're handing it to one of those brilliant minds who writes for the new york times that it's rare when this segment is filled with so much anger but after reading david brooks piece today titled the follower problem i just had to give the piece of my mind it was opinion was along he did manage to fill those fifteen paragraphs or so with so much elitist but kissing that it makes the notion that the new york times is a left leaning and even more obvious joke now throughout the article he suggested america has changed and when he talks about our leadership he says of these days our country carries an attitude of opposing authority and apparently that's new according to brooks as well as a problem it is the in his world it's not the world's of our leaders is the issues but it's you and yes i'm serious about that take a look at what he wrote he said i don't know if america has a leadership problem it certainly has a followership problem vast majorities of americans don't trust their institutions

that's not mostly because our institutions perform much worse than they did in one nine hundred twenty five in one nine hundred fifty five when they were widely trusted it's mostly because more people are cynical and like to pretend that they are better than everything else around that vanity has more to do with rising distrust than anything else so brooks is basically saying that we're bad at playing follow the leader well forgive me for saying so but isn't that the whole point to challenge us already with their overstepping their bounds to not allow the government to roam free trample on your rates no questions asked well no apparently brooks wants us to welcome us or it's harry and as i'm with the red carpet treatment and you know he is right a lot of americans do not trust their institutions take for example a recent poll showing disdain for supreme court justices proves that point only forty four percent approval and we all know that congressional approval is at an all time low but with skoda specifically i just wonder why the trust is lacking

maybe it has something to do with their refusal to hear certain cases involving get the detainees or wire. warrantless wiretapping or extraordinary rendition or how about the ruling that they did give for citizens united let's face it the supreme court these days is a partisan club it's not an unbiased judicial body but according to david we're all just too full of ourselves to respect their authority and at a time when more power is concentrated in the hands of fewer people when you have individual donors buying elections others pushing legislation without having to put their name on it and let's not forget that the top one percent is doubled their share of the national income in recent years and is crying class warfare well i think it is pretty fair to say that the majority of americans aren't the vain ones but sadly brooks actually keeps beating the i heartily this and will be their champion drum he goes on to write the old adversary culture of the intellectuals has turned into a mass adversarial cynicism the common assumption is the elites are always hiding something public servants are in it for themselves those people at the top are

nowhere near as smart or as wonderful as peer and all knowing as me. this boy now only do i feel like he's scolding me for having the balls to think for myself but he actually acts like the common assumption that elites are always hiding something is up for debate why do you think so much of our country's negotiating process happens behind closed doors without cameras without a paper trail what about our national security state where everything down to the most minute detail is considered classified wiki leaks prove very well how just not true that is if anything the powers that be keep things secret because they don't want to be embarrassed and if public servants really were doing all of these things like running for office solely for us then why do they flip flop on their positions break their promises they make to us all the time. mr nixon did you know about the burglary of our democratic national headquarters at the water people have got to know whether or not their presidents are corrupt well i'm not

a crook i burn everything i got i'm going to say this again. i did not have sexual relations with that woman in september two thousand and eight with the dow jones industrial average still above ten thousand treasury secretary hank paulson and federal reserve chairman ben bernanke were holding closed door briefings with congressional leaders and privately warning them that a global financial meltdown could occur within a few days our intelligence officials estimate that saddam hussein had the materials to produce as much as five hundred tons of syrian mustard and v.x. nerve agent. in such quantities these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands the main reason we went into iraq it's a time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction turns out he didn't i did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of you know fat cat bankers on wall street. now the saucepans that for

decades through several presidents through the founding of this country hundreds of years this lack of trust in a leaf is nothing new mr brooks now while you might argue these are just a handful of examples just think of the fall of the went along with watergate with the false w m d claims the congressional insider trading trading even obama's failure to follow through on taking down those fat cat bankers americans got screwed their own government their own elected leaders turned their backs on the public and why do politicians usually do things like this i don't know maybe to get reelected pretty self-serving if you ask me so of course there's going to be an air of skepticism but i think that it's easy to say that it's no longer just an assumption that corruption has been proven time and time again which is get one last rabid brooks also pokes protest movements writing the following you end up with movements like occupy wall street and the tea parties that try to disperse with author already all together they reject hierarchies and leaders because they

don't believe in the concepts the whole world should be like the internet a dispersed semi anarchy in which all thora the suspect in each individual is king . now considering that the tea party has worked within the political system and elected candidates one really say if they try to dispense with off laurie i want to come to the occupy movement can you believe the audacity of these fools who believe the individual isn't afraid of an equal playing field or important i mean it's almost as though they bought into this idea that we're supposed to be a democracy or something now i could go on for days but i think that you guys get the point because the league still enough don't have enough power and influence in our world and their voices just aren't heard over the described masses david brooks has come to their rescue the champion of the powerful the savior of authoritarianism and corruption the profits of the privileged class and so for that new york times columnist david brooks who's exposed the root of our problems the dirty followership well he's tonight's tool time winner.

hi guys it is a happy hour this evening and joining me tonight r.t. correspondent christine for is out and comedian. hey guys though we're joining me. are i this is just ridiculous we almost did the story yesterday when we ran a time we had to do it again because it's just so absurd we know that the cia likes to classify things obviously right and they don't necessarily like to put it all out but so this happened from the national security council as they filed a freedom of information act request and they want to see the declassification procedures at the cia had and so the cia basically just gave them a response to their freedom information act that said did not locate any records responsive to your request for published cia regulations about you classification

so that's says we did not locate any records responsive to your request although our searches were thorough and diligent and it is highly unlikely that repeating those searches would change the result so they can even find their declassification procedures within any of their documents really i mean that looks like a form letter to me about looks like something that they probably use and anyone who sends a request there the cia so they get to use that you know national security as a as an excuse for anything probably but it's your own goddamn procedures you guys killed find it's got to be written somewhere your employees have to read a handbook or something i don't know i kind of feel like there's a government agency that kind of regularly stands accused of being at least involved with torture and assassinations included taus and things like that i don't really think will be too bothered by somebody accusing them of out of their paperwork in order i mean on the other hand though that would have been something you're right there's a lot of stuff that they probably really can't talk about but finding the

procedures for dick. that should be something that they that they can locate yeah it's just proves to you again how ridiculous and overly classified everything is when you can't even declassify or find the classification procedures. let's move on to this next one this is kind of similar it's a couple weeks ago we did a story where a lady had written a bad review about a church online and so the church then went after her tried to sue and now this is happening to a guy over a review take a look. he posted this feedback did not receive item needs to provide it or refund he knows it's true that's what happened that's what exactly would happen but in this lawsuit filed in boston the company accused her of posting malicious feedback that her business. the saddest thing too is this was a six dollar purchase that they're suing him over and he did have a t.v. reviews damaged you that much i mean i see so i would never buy anything off e-bay that had bad customer reviews people saying they didn't get the product or it was

broken i mean i would i could see that that seller had a lot fewer bids on their products but i can't even believe i mean this is happening i don't know if you saw in new york some state legislators or there are trying to make it so you can't put in anything negative online without posting your name in your home address yeah we cover that yeah i mean it's just crazy you know the extent but you know i don't know if you about you but when i try to book a hotel or you know go to a restaurant i first look online for the comments absolutely you know i mean i do that and oftentimes they're very right especially if you have a bunch of comments on something so i mean i can see why people would believe e-bay comments i cannot see why this person has any grounds to sue it's ridiculous sort of shocking to me for that reason particularly considering i don't know i think most of the internet is basically some kind of libel and some in some form and i don't know i just don't know you to comment boards or a gold mine that hasn't been tapped yet so. we're moving on just because we get to

talk about my favorite thing it's time for. i can't help. at all i have hate me for making them talk about space but you know what deal with it. so couple of months ago there was everybody was making fun of newt gingrich i mean there are obviously many reasons you can make fun of him for but it was specifically over some plans that he had in terms of mining on the moon . we can start with this idea to have a recall of the that would minerals from the moon i'm not in favor of spending that kind of money to do that. well guess what two private companies are actually exploring the possibility they want to explore mining opportunities on the moon and close in asteroids and so they're competing for google's lunar x.

prize and that offers you a thirty million dollars bounty to be the first private company to successfully send a robot to the moon to explore gather data and send it back to earth i mean i think that's pretty cool although immediately when i think asteroids i think armageddon and i just think everything goes wrong you know from a p.r. perspective concerning the coming out with this stuff like the weekend after a movie about a corporate led space expedition planet where they find a bunch of space monsters that want to destroy humanity just couldn't come at a better time for them i think yeah i would they were they were our makers they weren't just space monsters and you see yeah i did and i don't know it just kind of seems like they weren't the most benevolent beings to discover out there so you know the whole movie was i could go on and on about promethea what are your thoughts i mean i didn't see from atheist but i mean i think it's so we're in a new age where you know our former agency that did everything space related nasa doesn't have the funds isn't really around anymore so i think we're going to see

a lot of private companies doing space related things i think it's kind of cool i think it's great that google is investing in this and not only would that company successfully does it have thirty million dollars they would have the notoriety of knowing that they did something no one's ever done before kind of cool we'll see if it happens absolutely i'm i'm i'm not a problem here are but i think that you know the prometheus was on point in that sense that obviously would only be a private corporation that could actually get the money together to go explore something like that but other than that if you want my quick review of the movie a lot of really really stupid moments poor writing in the last twenty minutes which is the. chris i could have done without him but i like michael fassbender and the other guy was really high ok. i got to say on the right to be honest i wasn't larry going to thanks for joining me tonight but that is it better night thanks for tuning in they could be come back make sure that you come back tomorrow greg rob social commentator for man on the street d.c. dot com is going to be joining us for happy hour and in the meantime don't forget

you like the a lot of show on facebook follow us on twitter and subscribe to our you tube channel and don't forget you can also watch us now on hulu coming up next is the new. there hasn't been anything good on t.v. . it is to get the maximum political impact. before source material is what helps keep journalism honest we. we want to present. something else.