a protests turned violent when police forces took matters into their own hands and then tried to cover up their tracks by reportedly offering to buy the incriminating cell phone video from witnesses coming up an update on the protests in anaheim. silence is golden and that may just be about the only thing journalists have these days the war on whistleblowers now targets reporters will explore the implications of a muzzled media and then later if you're planning on catching a flight in the near future don't forget to remove your shoes and belts and secure your bank account information on your smartphone why because the t.s.a. may go through your most private information when you travel we'll tell you how.

it's tuesday july twenty fourth seven pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching r.t. . topping this hour a community in california outraged and calling for an f.b.i. and the investigation into the police this after an unarmed man was shot dead by police later neighbors started to protest the police violence and authorities fired back we showed you the disturbing video yesterday but we're playing it again because the powerful pictures speak for themselves. you can see here they are shooting rubber bullets and unleashed

a dog which ran directly at a woman holding a baby among other bystanders witnesses seem to be afraid for their lives now the community is demanding answers and calling for the officers responsible to be held accountable joining me now is joanne sosa an activist with take back and i have anaheim joanne welcome so i know that you are an assistant to the city council and know the family of the victims and there are these reports that police officers try to bribe people to hand over a video of the incident video that is presumably incriminating what do you know about that. well first of all a correction i'm joanna take back the spokesperson for most of the director i was director for s.b. and that is an hour drive very used to be the shoulder so that the folks that you're talking about there are students they take our offices and we have to our lots of relationships. so i'm going to be sending those folks as well as to. me

having issues with the police department here it's going to be the city council uses to take a look at this and franchises and residents are very. ok and a lot of the controversy surrounding this incident i mean it's a lot of things but there are reports that police would went door to door and try to take to try to bribe people to hand over that video i guess a video that documents the protests going down what do you know about that well let me say i actually have received a phone call from evelyn. was one of the greatnesses was an activist share your awful label back then and she asked me where she worked which she just stood there by the department she described all members running down the streets right after this hour and some other people that also chairs and the police had shot him and he

went down in the late so i guess you went down there they came up to him and shot in the back of the horse but mr ambassador. they actually were told to get behind the trees at that point at least. to get how much they wanted to sell or. pictures and those are nonsense and i know we can. i was sorry to interrupt you there seems like there is i am hearing a lot of action behind you there i know that anaheim there's a lot of people that are outraged about the way things have gone down over there can you talk about some of the protests that are going on. they there are there are several protests here i mean a couple of them i don't approach us against the killings you have folks here from time to organizations americans here are right to occupy to our ask me if you speak communicate with parents live better than you have alone so meet those here too many organizations all the while also have a teamster swi or are striking on

a protest because they're protesting because they want jobs for one hundred fifty eight million dollars that was given away in taxes that we're technically not of the residents of and that's where all are against we believe that government should have been served for the areas there are just aren't charles with the folks. for education and programs with cheers that we've been trying to do in. the midst of this very series on the agenda to vote for but we've been trying to drowned out by . construction that are blocked no way to get in right now but the point is another forty four million was given recently and brown believes the industry folks are outraged we need an independent investigations are very happy that mayor to alter that whole gallery supported by our and our chief of police is also very open top and since we do not want to say that all police are back that's not true we have problems in this area yes with gangs yes we do we have been feeding into we have talked about them since we do like

a member that this is years and years and layers of those areas being ignored by the sort of council and by the it's and source a very sort of disney factor to all move the big businesses into the resort ariel's the money that's needed for serious if it comes and it do and what do we know about the police officers that are accused in this case. right now we don't know too much because of course it's central destination are going up there for us to swap a lot of folks out there but we know it's a stupid american wants turns bills it does want to or they don't care taker it's fair to force it once the end they're going to go to go charge of security instead of help legitimately here and this problem of police brutality a lot of it now captured because of this recent incident is this something that you say is a long running problem is that it's a myth systematic problem to what extent is this an issue over there in anaheim i

have to tell you that several killings from the beginning of the year that needed to be addressed with issues but we've also buried a lot of innocent people which is you know to do gang violence also for fortune is ordered i was in for most was murdered and most wanted so we actually want for use with those presidents to try and bring change to the system right now you know and allow another thing that protesters are trying to bring to the forefront of this is the fact that this happened in a community that is predominantly consists of menorah minorities are you saying you know beyond police brutality that racial profiling has also been a long running problem in anaheim ok what i'm going to tell you is that our current chief of police welter absolutely does not believe in profile he looks at you harry you're not so far as he looks at actions so he it's not him. general you cannot be

responsible we don't know what you saw officers did we only know from the witnesses so those officers are two to three committed their crime they need to be held accountable to the extent of the law like anybody else the other part is what i'm saying and lastly quickly just want to ask you what exactly are your demands what do you hope to happen next. as these protests carry out. their. vision of the bonds or the killings of the exactions want to change the system and so they want to just do you suppose you are screaming for it and you know you hear that it's four percent spanish. it's also part of the people here and we're also asking for the vote right now we are joined at stupid to work for the heart of. our. people all. these

issues and vote on any kind of billion dollar deals that are done at the bar. in stone thirty four are removed. joanne thanks so much for coming on the show that was your when sosa and activist with take it back anaheim. full looks like the case is moving forward for a former cia official turned whistleblower a judge has ruled in the prosecution prosecutions favor and the case against john kerry aku he is the man that made the practice of waterboarding in secret prisons public he's now accused of leaking the names of covert operatives to journalists but the defense says the charges serve as a punishment for kerry who published publicly embarrassing the agency meanwhile congress is on a mission to silence a journalist from ever publishing classified information they want to make doing so a crime under the espionage act so what does this all mean about freedom of the press in the us and our first amendment rights to discuss this earlier i was joined

by jasmine radek director for national security and human rights and the government accountability project as one is also the author of the book you see there traitor the whistleblower and the american taliban i first asked her about john kerry and if this is an attempt by the government to retaliate against him for embarrassing them take a look. he was the first cia agent to reveal that that torture was occurring and the cia was conducting it and that it was an actual program not mere and proposition and that waterboarding is torture so i think that's what's really behind this and he didn't lose three motions basically on the bill of particulars to get more information about the indictment they told him it was without prejudice and he could come back if he didn't get enough information and discovery and the motion for a selective and indictive prosecution was denied but i think it serves the purpose

of the judge said she found it provocative and informative and the motion to dismiss about the unconstitutionality of the statute she didn't rule on yet in fact she said she could have telegraphed that she would be denying it but said she wanted to write an opinion which is really significant because the seminal already on the espionage act comes from the eastern district of virginia where kiriakou is being tried. really is just one of many whistle blowers that are kind have been kind coming under fire recently and i guess members of congress are kind of taking notice because recently they have decided that or at least some of some lawmakers are on this mission to prosecute journalists that publish classified information this is the wake of a leak an article in the new york times where they publish that kill list a lot of information getting out about u.s.

attacks against iran and so now they're saying all this it's becoming public and they are not liking it they want to silence these journalists that make these things public i mean what do you make about this i mean aren't journalists protected under the first amendment to publish doesn't really i mean the freedom of the. fundamental part of that first and then and i've been saying for years that the war on whistleblowers which most of these people charged with espionage under the espionage act with mishandling classified information are whistleblowers this is really a war on journalists and no one seemed to believe that until the last couple of days congress about a month ago kind of caught on to the fact that there's a huge hypocrisy between the government leaking tippy top level high level

classified information including sources and methods with abandon while cracking down on people like thomas drake and john kiriakou who were trying to expose fraud waste it bewsher illegality now some in congress are taking that next step on the slippery slope that i keep morning about of saying we should go after the journalists to under the espionage act and they've suggested that for everyone from julian of songe to the new york times and yes the first amendment supposedly protects freedom of the press that would be the defense to raise but using the espionage act has been a very heavy handed. tool in the government's arsenal against whistleblowers and. to wrap the press up and that is it's just taking even further crazy step but now we should mention that congress has said that they want to

prosecute journalists that release information that would compromise national security and on the surface there i mean that seems like something that makes sense because you know why would people want to put information out there that would you know compromise national security or what people would put people's lives in danger but i mean. could this i mean you had mentioned a slippery slope earlier on i mean how how is that even defined and could ultimately be used as an excuse to go after journalists yeah i think i think. part of the problem is that everything these days is defined as into a girl to national security and they made that accusation against drake that his disclosures had harmed soldiers in the field when it turned out that he had disclosed nothing classified at all. so that's the danger and then another thing i mean really journalists if anything give a lot of deference to the government including veto power over

a number of their article of if they really think that there is some national security interest in danger and only this week as far as i know mcclatchy i believe . they're only a couple of papers came out and said they're not going to give pre-approval or veto authority to the government anymore. but they've given a lot of deference i mean they sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for a year and a half which was one of the biggest scandals the bush administration. so i find this all to be a lot of a lot of hype and photo worry and false worries and fear mongering and again such a broad you could argue anything is going to be detrimental to national security but if it can it contributes to the public debate and public discourse in our country and the public's right to know in conversations we have about drones or where we have about. actions we're taking in other countries and most people would

be completely appalled about. we should be having that conversation and we should also mention that we tried to obtain a statement from carry on but unfortunately we were told that he is not allowed to speak because he is under this gag order. so we're. it's there's no gag order so much as the fact that when you're a criminal defendant anything you say could inadvertently create impeachable information were used against you basically and so most criminal defendants are well advised not to talk while they're proceeding is underway. radek the nash director for national security and human rights and director of the government accountability project. well you better watch what you tweet because big brother could be watching it turns out that most requests for

user data made to the social media giant are from the government what's more government officials are actually acknowledging the fact that they engage in the survey alliance of americans in a letter addressed to senator wyden ron wyden the director of legislative affairs of the n.s.a. he wrote quote the response states quote it is also true that on at least one occasion the foreign intelligence surveillance court held that some collection carried out in pursuant to section seven hundred two minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the fourth amendment of the letter did not specify who was spied on what the reasons were or even when it happens so just what does this mean for your online privacy are to correspond or unimportant as the story. in the land of social media users tweet. friend upload and share information at any given moment in the land of the free

what americans post online can and will be used against them. according to twitter of the nearly twelve hundred government requests for user data filed in the first half of this year nearly eighty percent came from the u.s. government the micro message company says it complied with seventy five percent. of user data washington requested social media in general twitter and facebook being prime examples of that are a part of an ever increasingly invasive police state in the united states it's not just about surveillance and about tracking and monitoring this is the way in which they're consolidating control in the past year u.s. judges have forced twitter to turn over private or deleted data on users as part of investigations related to wiki leaks war occupy wall street. the ruling according to reports allows prosecutors access to tweets and additional

information stored by twitter including the e-mail and ip address of a user it's more about more than just invasion of privacy it's about destroying the concept of privacy online at a recent conference called hackers on planet earth former national security agent william binney detailed the demise of u.s. privacy protection which he says had been carried out by washington for more than a decade it must have been right for. more than a week after. they decided to if we find you with this company binney spent thirty seven years working for the n.s.a. before resigning to blow the whistle on what he calls the creation of an orwellian state your vote for kerry is. that we start rethinking. the next. turn. at the height of his career binney served as the technical director for n.s.a. as m. group

a branch that was reportedly responsible for eavesdropping on the world today he estimates that the n.s.a. has secretly compiled and stored more than twenty trillion files of e-mails phone calls and other data belonging to u.s. citizens when it comes to social media he says even users with the strictest security settings. are not protected the reality of that is that that's not private at all. if the companies don't have the government doesn't have it so either of them have it where they share with the unobstructed sharing of information is what's made half of billion people flock to social media sites like twitter but missing from the terms of agreement is the monitoring that can be taking place as citizens are bursting their short messages into the virtual world marine important new york well from online to the airport it looks like privacy is more and more becoming a thing of the past the t.s.a. has come under fire lately over hands on searches that some say just go too far and

body search beyond body searches homeland security now says they have a right to search your smartphones this is all coming to light after a man by the name of john corbett filed a lawsuit against the t.s.a. he says they detained him for refusing to be groped and then rummage through his belongings and read through his personal items so where should the t.s.a. draw the line i asked our two web producer andrew blake. yes sin no really depends on which way you want to look at it in that which way you want to look at it which way the government wants to look at it because we all know in the end if the t.s.a. says something that means department homeland security is saying something and that needs to be really hard to fight a lot of people like mr just mentioned are trying to fight it but the way it breaks down is like this if you are crossing it through a t.s.a. checkpoint for a domestic flight t.s.a. cannot explicitly take your phone and check through your phone what they can do those what they are supposed to do is just to check you for any sort of like

terrorism related memorabilia believe you can go through there or paraphernalia that i'm sorry they can go through and try to find where devices are explosives nothing that they can do in the reason that they're trying to dismiss mr corbett's lawsuit is they say that they can look for things that prove that you're trying to be someone else different ways of presenting yourself false identification false driver's license passports and stuff like that so if they can do that yes they can use the argument that they will go ahead and they will check your phone to see oh is this really you who are these e-mails you're sending to are these addressed from yourself is this your e-mail address linked in there are these your contacts he could do that is that's what's being brought up right now the legality or for that now whether if you're flying in or out of the united states and you go through a checkpoint at a port of entry not just the t.s.a. but the department of homeland security they can and they will take anything that you have any sort of electronic device they can take it with without asking for your consent the fourth amendment does not apply here they can take it they can

search it they can scan it they can keep it to they can transfer all the files they can give it to someone else and they can do that for as long as they deem necessary and also they won't even let you if they feel like it's a threat to national security you don't even get to watch them do this but yeah they they they can do a hell of a lot of stuff right now and this is particular elegance these days because i mean with smartphones i mean you have like your whole life there your e-mail your apps you know where you. everything is this wealth of information so in this modern day of our gadgets i mean this has wider implications you know if we were just hearing today that are going to go earlier today governor romney was saying that to these terrible leaks coming out of all these whistleblowers they're all leaks that are coming out of the white house and he's blaming the obama administration what's stopping someone from the executive branch of flying out having their phone scanned and then the t.s.a. leaking out that that information i'm not saying that's the case that seems even

farfetched for me however that it's entirely possible they can go through there and they can take all of your stuff there is actually a. really serious part of this is that they don't need to have necessarily a suspicion that you're doing anything wrong there was a case they started passing this to two thousand and nine they said that they don't need to suspicion do this two thousand and ten mr david house of the bradley manning support network he was flying back from mexico and he was stopped by the t.s.a. they let him go crossed in spoke with v.h.s. and part of homeland security said hold on a second would ask you some questions they didn't ask him anything about terrorism or blowing up buildings and stuff like that they wanted to know about the bradley manning support network and they want to know about wiki leaks nothing to do with you know what you would expect would endanger an entire airplane full of people they took him and they took his phone they took his u.s.b. drives they went through his computer they did all that and they did not need to have any suspicion if you're going into

a port of entry from an international crossing they can do that right and i mean especially in the wake of all these incidents with the t.s.a. i mean that guy that basically stripped down live you know to show his freedom of speech and fight against him which isn't what it was an area that legally as has i guess there is a you know a glimmer of hope there apparently if that's legal then you know he's kind of paving the way for it for a change at least that religion. is like that. is trying to day oh. for those that don't really want to go that route i mean where does it end i mean if you don't want to you know strip down naked and and response in opposition i mean do you just comply and let these things stand back and happen or where does it end all you know we just go take the bus that's how i do most of my travelling that's nothing more relaxing just. doesn't really know if you want to travel across seas no i don't know but one thing that you should do that if you actually nervous about not nervous but if you're concerned about someone that you don't want going through

your personal information and you can encrypt it you can go and you can put a password in every major operating system let you encrypt the information you have on a computer or a phone to encrypt it you are forced to give them a password does that mean you're not going to get your stuff back maybe but it's. going about it in but i mean really the big thing here is i mean i don't want to be banned from traveling i love traveling. especially on the bus but it's it's always best to just just play it safe if they're already already put in their hands god knows where you know you don't really want them taking your computer to know i hear that so you had mentioned earlier that this all kind of goes down without any specific suspicion of ties to terrorism comes as long as you're going to get international borders if you can just be done just if any suspicion are doesn't seem like you know the barbies that you know i didn't know any of these so there is there is no bar whatever if they want to do it i guess they can do it and that's

what you're saying i mean doesn't this raise questions about our constitutional rights and me and all the actually representing david house in a trial that the government tried to dismiss and it's as of last month it will go ahead and proceed they're trying to go against the h.s. saying that they broke his first and fourth amendment rights by you know questioning him about his own personal habits his own participation. bradley manning support network and then also legal research into stuff so they want to go after him for the go after the first and fourth amendment but. it's something that's going to keep progressing and luckily there's been cases where they're starting to at least listen to people that are filing these complaints one thing it is actually of relevance is the proposal that was passed in two thousand and nine that allows them to search anything without suspicion that is being up for review in august so it's been three years now next month lawmakers going to go back

over it decide is this stand do you know is this work you know what do you think about this you know that sense that was passed between two thousand and two thousand and ten something like six thousand five hundred people actually had their devices scanned reviewed by d h s while crossing over so if enough people make an outrage and actually complain some things might change but the d h s is a very very adamant about how this is all just for the sake of security and i do want to take a man we don't have too much time left i want to switch gears a little bit i know you were an article about this recently on our web site. skype calls are not safe from our from the eyes and ears of the fads apparently this is another volume out there where we just don't know for sure yet last month microsoft could be bought skype last year something like eight billion dollars which is you know just a fraction of what bill gates has but they bought skype last month microsoft was

granted a to develop technology that they could implement in skype and other voice over ip platforms that pretty much says we're going to install something that will let us record anything happening over skype not just taking their chat logs actual video audio they can take that and they can give it to law enforcement and you don't ever have to know it's completely silent and they receive the rights to do this and when they've been questioned about it this week and last week microsoft and skype. the p.r. people are just dismissing these questions entirely so ferrigno we know that they can do it we know that they probably will do it but are they actually doing every know they're not going out and seeing it but it's good are. you really because it was updated there are get out column slash usa you gotta read all of andrew blake's literary masterpieces are always keeping us up to date if you don't always have time to. hear the web producer and your blade. that's going to wrap it up for this hour we'll see you right back here at.