iranians u.s. lawmakers and former senior officials demanded listing secretary clinton for democracy and freedom in iran do you list any case as obama administration looks into taking an iranian opposition group off its list of terrorist organizations some are asking questions about the p.r. push to delist i mean k. so who's really behind these ads and what will this mean for you wrong in the u.s. protecting your info while online the federal government is not spying on us they're supposed to protect us from being tracked on the web one grad student says that's not happening and he can prove it we'll speak with him. they both have libertarian streaks another team enough to protect the internet we'll tell you about rand and ron paul's manifesto and what it could mean for the world wide web.

it's friday july sixth eight pm in washington d.c. i'm abbie martin and you're watching. the mujahideen elke hell or i me k. is an iranian terrorist organization that is according to the state department despite any case facilitation in multiple terrorist activities over the past couple decades including assassinating u.s. military personnel and iran participating in the u.s. iran hostage scenario and working with saddam hussein there is currently a massive lobbying campaign at the state department to remove them from the list. it is a ron's democratic opposition working for a nuclear free iran founded on human rights unjustly listed a terrorist group and u.k. is the victim of violence the radical regime in iraq and their iraqi allies europe has delisted any case and in two thousand and ten

a us court order to review iranians u.s. lawmakers and former senior officials demanded listing secretary clinton for democracy and freedom in iran d. list any k. now that i make a fiercely opposes the current regime in iran which coincides of course of american interests in the region so does the us only dealing terrorists to those who are working against its goals in the middle east to break it down i was joined earlier by jamal abdi policy director of the national iranian american council here's his take. i know i know the history of the i mean i know what they have been alleged to have conducted even in recent years as far as conducting terrorist attacks inside of iran to assassinate nuclear scientists but at the end of the day it's not up to me i don't have access to the classified information that's up to the state department and what we have right now is this political campaign to pressure the state department not based on the evidence not based on these allegations not based

on what's classified or unclassified but base purely on the political factors and this big money campaign to remove them from that list and i think that that regardless of where you sit on this debate that is a major problem to have a terrorist group actively pressuring the u.s. government inside of the u.s. to have itself removed from the terrorist list it does seem like wherever we deem as terrorists or not terrorists it happens to fall in line with of course u.s. has your moniker interests in the arab world at this point so what do you think the motives are for this retraction of them on the list well said norman hasn't made its decision yet but i do fear that the motive will ultimately be a political motive and the fact that you have not just rudy giuliani or you know john bolton who every other week is calling for military action against iran but you also have folks in other side of the aisle you have howard dean and ed rendell

you know democrats some of them are you know supposedly progressive also advocating for this group and the reason that they're advocating for them there are many different sort of motivating factors for some it's to ratchet up pressure military pressure on iran and to ratchet up the possibility that there will be military action in a potential war with iraq for other folks it's simply a matter of they have been duped by this organization into believing that it's a legitimately democratic group when the reality is it's not a democratic organization it's a cult. that has you know a base in iraq where its members are actually held hostage it has no support within iran and it has been cited as conducting numerous human rights abuses against its own supporters and then you have a group who's just in it for the money and i think that those factors have all combined into creating this massive push that hopefully the state department can withstand but we'll see if they are able to prevent politicize the sit in and

actually make a decision based on the merits of the case you mentioned a couple people who have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to actually speak on behalf of they make a i wanted to show our viewers a full screen really quickly of mentioning a couple people that you did newt gingrich rudy giuliani you know mr nine eleven the whole terrorists are yeah i mean they are pretty much the guy who ran on nine eleven for his whole campaign against terrorism and here he is you know speaking on behalf of the emmy of howard dean john bolton who you mentioned mitt romney's foreign policy adviser i mean it's just amazing you know. there are do you do you find there are actually there are several advisers to mitt romney who want. to. advocate for this group which i think you know mitt romney was actually asked on the campaign trail in some meeting in i think in iowa or new hampshire was asked about the group and he confessed that he didn't have any idea who they were and yet

michel reese john bolton two of his top advisers have both advocated for the group you mentioned. mayor of nine eleven well actually praised the attacks of nine eleven at the camp in iraq they actually they showed footage of it there's. reports that they actually they said you know wait till america sees what we have to offer we need to be organizing on the level of al qaeda even today you know the u.s. one of the. the folks at the state department who are handling the the relocation of the m e k because they're now based in iraq and were basically trying to figure out a way to get them out of there without there being some sort of clash between them and the rockies they did a press conference and he said this is one of the few groups who has actually planned terrorist attacks on u.s. soil so we can't be working with this group it's clear that. there's a problem here and that they're working with with no oversight by the authorities

which would be preventing terrorist groups from being able to organize the it really does raise the question of you know the underlying premise of this whole war on terror that we seem to be fighting globally i mean when you hear things like this the advocate was actually facilitating or or speaking you know praising the attacks of nine eleven and you have us going around doing all these stars activities and then you have you know we the u.s. doesn't recognize hamas the democratically elected leadership of palestine and at the same time russia does it just seems like the war on terror as a whole is very subjective what is terror really is terror dropping bombs on people or is it just low level suicide bombing i mean just the whole concept is just an interesting one to take on what do you think about i think a lot of the advocates for the would argue that you know first they would say and what they've been saying is the terror then it came out that administration officials acknowledge that the m.k. was actually working with. you know israeli intelligence to conduct these

assassinations inside of iran you know driving up to cars and sticking bombs on them to kill scientists and officials associated with the iranian nuclear program a lot of what these folks who support the group would say is ok well if they haven't renounce terror the types of activities are conducting are actually freedom fighter activities so they're the good kind of terrorists they're fighting the iranian regime and so the enemy of the of our enemy is our friend but the problem with this is in. it's beyond just the you know dismissing sort of the values that are supposed to inform the way that the u.s. conducts its foreign policy the lack of strategic. foresight on this and what we're really doing here is we're saying it's either a choice between the m.e. k. or the iranian regime and we're leaving out the fact that the people in iran don't support this group the people in iran actually embrace

a nonviolent peaceful democratic movement back in two thousand and nine and for the u.s. to be lining up behind a group like me kay that is despised in iran because of its you know fighting alongside saddam hussein because of its terrorist attacks were really were throwing the people of iran under the bus and were throwing our long term strategic interests under the bus because we're going to be stuck with this group that has no credibility and really is not working towards any any kind of aim as far as iran is concerned that i think anybody wants to see achieved is a solid hating you know fighting the war on terror by facilitating terrorism and our own right and newt gingrich actually during his speech wanted to play a clip a quick clip of him speaking to the enemy care about how it's our moral obligation to do this. we bury moral responsibility. we gave a commitment is the united states people believed in our. people protected us our officers who were they are. told the truth again and again.

and i believe united states congress should overrule the state department and should insist in our intervening. so really you know are we just using these groups to just go after our goal you know obviously isn't working in line with the interests of the u.s. and are we just you know is it really our moral obligation to be doing things that they're doing you know it's our moral obligation to. support peaceful. support the iranian people deciding their own future and deciding their own aspirations and not siding with a group that wants to impose its own form of democracy on iran however quixotic this vision may be that is somehow going to take over iran but really we're throwing those values under the bus or throwing the iranian people under the bus and i think you know newt gingrich was quite taken with this group he actually he

went to france and there's a video of him bowing to maryam rajavi who is the leader of the group who is considered by the u.s. government a terrorist bowed to her and then criticize the u.s. government on you know on french soil which newt gingrich himself was criticizing president obama for going overseas and supposedly vowing to get to foreign leaders and then he himself is taking money to bow to terrorist leaders so i think that any sort of moral credibility or consistency is probably lost when you have examples like this coming from officials like newt gingrich and he also compared them to george washington during the american revolution and it is interesting that one of the instances that we cite them as terrorists working with saddam hussein when obviously infamously we did as well that george bush sided them when we when we when we went into iraq he cited any case work with saddam hussein as one of the examples of saddam supporting terrorists goes circus circular logic thanks so much

for coming in from all of the policy director for the national iranian american council. now almost every day we hear news of privacy invasions as companies become better and better at compiling data about anyone with a smartphone laptop or bank account as data mining companies becomes more prevalent in the internet age your online privacy is constantly being threatened in fact one young computer scientist uncovered one of the biggest privacy scandals of the past year he found that google was secretly planting snippets of tracking codes called cookies on a vast number of i phone browsers and putting the government body that says post uncover such privacy violations to shame for more details i was joined by the computer scientist himself jonathan mayer a fellow at the stanford center for internet and society take a listen we thought ads of our and we targeted those ads to to our users. apple's safari web browser and we looked at

which which advertising companies seem to be placing cookies in those browsers we know some outliers in theory. very few companies should have had cookies in safari web browser. and we found. some we didn't expect to see one of those was go that suggested that they'd been circumventing this protection built into safari we followed up with the manual so some manual inspection on what what it looked like google was doing and found out they were in fact circumventing this protection it's just interesting that google's whole motto don't be evil and not necessarily this is evil but it's certainly a violation of privacy or do you explain how exactly i mean for people who are just like what are cookies what does this really mean talk a little bit about what that means for people. so if you if you've used a web browser you may recall there's that menu you can you can look at that allows you to see the list of websites you've been to and when and there are

a variety of technologies that can use the most prevalent and are tracking cookies that allow companies to collect their sizable share of that browsing history that stuff you might see in your browser history menu. so so so there are a bunch of companies that might collect this some browsers include technologies to protect users from companies collecting that browsing history apple's includes this feature and it's turned on by default and of course it turned out google was working around the feature so even if you have the tracking cookies turned off it still follows you from one web site to another kind of data mining everything that you do. well so in this case google circumvented apple's privacy protection for the purpose of enabling social features and advertising they have a competitor facebook social network google plus. google plus offers a feature that's integrated into google's advertising on other websites to enable

them to personalize that social content they worked around this apple this apple safari privacy feature. and in the process undermined the protection against collecting users' browsing history across websites where google places advertising . and you also said in the wired article and i read you said that you had a hunch that the online advertisers were watching what made you have that hunch. so a lot of our research proceeds from paying close attention to the types of software tricks that might allow an advertiser or other third party websites to more effectively follow user around the web and then we do research looking into which companies are taking advantage of those technical tricks some of them are tricks that allow for tracking using technologies other than cookies some of those tricks are for ways those asking questions directly about the web from the web browser about where users been on the web and some of those tricks are for working around

privacy protection so this was just another study in that series. that was jonathan mayer a fellow at the stanford center for internet and society so had on our team father and son duo of congress want to protect internet freedom but congressman ron paul and senator rand paul are planning on your term. decline of american power continues. things are so bad might actually be time for a revolution. and it turns out that a killer drink of starbucks says it's surprising to hear. 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. with the global

machinery see where we had a state controlled capitalism it's called session when nobody dares to ask we do our question more. mr. well the paul family is that it again this time decrying government regulation on internet freedom around and father ron paul have created a libertarian manifesto for the internet called the technology revolution and it

outlines questions to be addressed to an internet rules are being delegated the government it urges the government to stay out of the governing process and let private sectors shape the future of the world wide web so what does it all mean and what will best protect our internet freedom why would someone be against net neutrality to answer those questions and more i was joined earlier by our two web producer andrew blake take a look. because the internet was made to share information and so if you're going to put these kind of restrictions on it well first we should say that it shouldn't be a surprise that ron paul and rand paul are against government regulations of anything so they've actually been going they've been speaking for internet freedoms for a really long time is there is earlier this year during super tuesday ron paul made a great speech talking about how the internet was crucial for delivering the message of the libertarian party for his campaign and just for the entire generation generations to come and if you're going to take this conduit for

everything not just knowledge but intertainment and media you're going to take all of this and start putting restrictions on it that's terrible that how are you going to transfer things exactly getting to the point i know they're saying with the next couple years are going to be able to transfer wirelessly the equivalent of like four or five different d.v.d.'s worth of data like terabytes in a second wirelessly and it's just going to happen is that is going to give you something and bam you've got it. there's as the internet has become more and more mainstream especially the united states there have been attempts to censor it too regulated you know as recently as this year that rick santorum was campaigning to to end pornography on the internet leaves it was my god it was a thing you never going to have you actually said like that's bad and like you know the day that i can't go find a photo of a dead body or a naked body on the internet i don't know what i'm going to know if i can live in this country and if i can't. think this is

a manifesto i'm very serious so this manifesto has a lot of great ideas it's not put together the most eloquent of ways it was a couple things in here that don't make a whole lot of sense when you put it in the grand scheme of things but doesn't have a lot of talk about it what are you that it outlines some some basic things that the government should address yeah i mean one is talking about regulations it's just we have a little a little chichi here thank you. senator congressman paul so when faced with internet regulation we should ask ourselves these key questions there are eight of them is a record function is this a core function of the federal government so should the government be doing this is a government need to do is it in the constitution is actually the second one is it constitutionally defined does a protect constitutionally defined rights doesn't protect property rights does a protect individual rights in this kind of goes with everything ron paul rand paul will ever say it but they make sense it should it should be put in context of the internet it really should and is protect individual rights is the federal

government does not do this will others will this policy of regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will distort the market for political ends and is this policy regulation clear and specific with the fine metrics and limitations and here's my question yeah we've where we get into those specifically it is interesting though because they of course are against you know vocal opponents of. rand paul pretty vocal about that but at the same time these these bills are being backed massively by the corporate industry defense corporations with this same manifesto they are saying do we really want the government to be regulating the internet if we're going to have anyone overseeing what happens on the internet it should be the corporations but then you have comcast you know throttling user data which is starting all of the major a lot of people don't realize this but major i a speed internet service providers in the united states starting some of them already started by july twelfth they will be implementing a policy where if they think you've done something bad on the internet they will slow your internet they will do that very thing that you're sharing copyright

material they will throttle your service they could eventually terminate your service they said that they're not going to but they haven't ruled it out and you know these things have been happening for years will some people that are saying oh we're going to cancel your internet because you downloaded that movie that one time and it's actually come to a point where yes they are canceling and then we have to really grateful thing here that we really have to keep our fingers crossed that it's going to stay this way is that you know for the last. several years the technology has always outpaced the bad guys in this case i'm going to say that the bad guys are you know the government regulators are trying to find a way to censor and regulate the web and it's always been that we've had a way around it like i have right now i can download anything really didn't like a minute and it's really easy they say oh no you can't access torrents in the pirate bay we're going to shut down mega upload you can find anything right away and the second that they shut something down you will be able to get it the next second it's really not that hard as long as it keeps up that way we're fine as long

as you know the fallen rebellious pirates are sailing their ships through the internet seas. not faster than the government is a terrible. thing but i mean just in the grand scheme of things i mean yes comcast the f.c.c. if you know told congress you can't do this when it was slowing down and people but i mean net neutrality as a concept it always was really confusing because of the language i think people can't really grasp what it means but really it's the internet companies and i remember looking into this originally and there was a big campaign called hands off the internet it was all backed by the telecom industry and if you look at the you know the senators and congressmen i mean a lot of them are heavily lobbied by the telecoms here yeah but when you're looking at the concert and then your child i mean you have to look at you know i agree with what the senator and congressman a lot and the deregulation and keeping the government out of

a lot of things but i mean looking at a situation like cars i mean if nader didn't really go through and try to you know demand a federal mandate that cars get airbags i mean i kind of look at the internet and i'm just like are internet telecom companies going to just run amok and try to destroy all the little guys when they have like preferential agreements with certain movie websites or you know comcast has connected sure yeah. yes they will the thing they salute we will they're already doing it we're just saying leo you are putting these big corporations to have now this really they're not in charge of the internet they're not censoring stuff yet but it's getting there they are going to slow down your internet if they don't like the law that they think you're breaking or they like that lot other they can do this like there's already people in the united states right now who are using special crazy state of the art software to encrypt information that they're sending on the

internet like innocent harmless information from one person in america to another person you know we're on the show the other day and i had an application just came out called wicker and it's for texting you can text and said let's just to other people's phones it gets encrypted through their servers like millions of times and that millions but a couple times and that's actually the point that's necessary in america because people are getting scared they really are it's kind of said but yeah. so in this manifesto they say that people you know free press just came out with this suggestion is also last week saying you know we advocate on your child we think this is really good and you know the polls kind of replied to saying that openness there hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to actually work against freedom and liberty on the internet i guess it just comes of the question can we really trust governments to regulate themselves i think those issues are to the kind of sorry i was a dumb question i think we need to take the the government needs to treat this like

a really bad relationship that just so here's a guy in the government ok and let's say we're dating ok. you're the internet ok and i'm sick of you the better the well it is now yes and i'm sick of you and i'm just going to walk away i'm going to leave it when you do whatever you want you'll be fine on your own you're an adult you've been around for a while you view. graduated from your a.o.l. chat rooms all the way to your torrent doing. so i heard snuff films. that's all you see to walk away just walk walk away guess you're advocating to implement these like this manifesto strategy i don't know does it make that much sense coming from from ron paul and rand paul too like there's one part in here where the hell is this where they start saying. that. the foundation of technology is be able to protect your ego protect your own private

property understand that private property is the foundation of prosperity and freedom itself yes sure that's what the forefathers said absolutely however these are the same guys who were also railing against sopa and which they were saying that you know you should be able to share things on line you know they want more lax copyright laws and now they're saying that personal property is the key to innovation which it is but this thing it's. not the it's not the best thing but it's a try and it's not going to be implemented but if you don't know a lot about what's happening right now in washington and on the internet and you need someone to put it together for you it's not the best thing but you can download it and it's three pages and it makes sense you go oh yeah that that's ok that's fair they do thank you mr paul's you know it's fine well definitely an interesting debate definitely on the need to be had as the internet is facing a lot of infringement on freedom as it stands that was our two web producer andrew

blake that's going to do it for the news for this week but be sure to tune in next week for a brand new lineup. how would you like to send text messages pictures and video without an electronic paper trail well there's an app for that how military grade encryptions may be coming to an i pad near you plus call it a necessary evil but states across the country are expanding the sales of booze and promoting gambling and desperate attempts to stay afloat so it can bottoms up protect our country's bottom line and although a last minute temporary deal was made a halting interest rate hikes for college students could the mountain of debt for coeds become the growing gap between the poor and the wealthy those are just the few of the stories we have in store for you next week along with of course more in-depth news and interviews so keep it tuned right here to our team and that does it for now for more on the stories we covered go to youtube dot com slash r.t.

america or check out our website r g dot com slash usa and also follow me on twitter at abby martin that's it for now have a great night and great weekend we'll see you next week. we just put a picture of me when i was like nine years old on what you call the truth. because as in i am a total get of friends that i was grabbing hip hop music video and pretty sure. that it was kind of the gangster. i'm very proud of the world with its place.