it was once a technology only sign find these were able to dream dream up software capable of tracking your every move by spotting your face in a crowd then storing that information in a vast government database that fantasy is now a scientific reality will tell you where and how. was a small world after all and it's about to get a whole lot smaller in the near future from the us to the u.k. canada to australia lawmakers around the world are proposing similar cyber legislation is it just a coincidence or a full scale assault on the internet the question more. end of the saying holds true that you are what you eat what you want to know exactly what's in your food california residents are debating g.m.o.

labeling will debate the economic and health impacts of labeling because. it's wednesday august fifteenth of four pm in washington d.c. i'm christine freeze out and you are watching our t.v. we begin today with a look into surveillance and how it affects our daily lives we all know about domestic drones and we know about wiretaps but there's something else on the horizon when it comes to the ever expanding surveillance state facial recognition it's hardly a novel concept but it's one that is gaining steam and it's already implemented in washington d.c. l.a. last vegas new york city and texas possibly also michigan hawaii and maryland are two producer adriano seto explains how the software works and how you were actually helping to build that database. every minute of every day whether you're out on the

street working in the office or sneaking into the kitchen chances are someone's watching facial recognition technology was once something only side five flicks could dream up but now it's beginning to look a lot stranger than fiction the f.b.i. is planning on having a collection of over twelve million searchable frontal photos so here's how the process works you take a camera like this one then you take a picture like this and then it's uploaded onto a database and here's where the magic happens the picture is then cross referenced with other pictures in the already existing database pairing up you know your features like cheeks eyes what have you every facial recognition software has different methods algorithms if you will but you get the point. facebook for instance is already employing similar technology and getting

a lot of flack for it if you have a facebook account chances are you've already used it without even knowing about it when you upload pictures facebook automatically picks out similar looking people and cross references the pictures with others that have been uploaded to the site it's not completely accurate but arguably getting there and it's not just social media companies either the government is getting into the mix as well paying private companies to follow you around you may have heard a lot about a certain company as of late called trap wire though not much has been confirmed about the program we do know this that the quote sophisticated predictive software used to predict terrorist attacks is already in place in cities such as los angeles new york las vegas and d.c. with a limitless data bank with who knows what or who well there you have it it seems the days of anonymity are long gone and it's not just the camera but the data bank

you should also be afraid of so is a picture really worth a thousand words well as we found out today it might be worth much much more a point from washington imagine a set of artsy. so as with most programs involving high tech cameras on an f.b.i. database the need for the programs is often said to stem from the need for greater safety and security on the f.b.i.'s own website it says the mission of the n.g.i. is to reduce terrorist and criminal activities by improving and expanding biometric identification and criminal history information services through research evaluation and implementation of advanced technology within the i.a.f. i asked environment so i want to talk about what this actually means with the woman who just did that report for us adriano said actually doing only now does delve a little. some interesting things there and you really put it into perspective with the surveillance cameras that we even have all over are going to want to yeah do

you think this is the trend of the future i mean it looks like it definitely i mean we're seeing this just as technology is moving forward i mean even right now private companies are trying to track your every move and even anticipate where you're going to do next so it really comes down to yes. all points else signs point to that and i know that it was really interesting that you use the example of facebook in your report yes anyone who is on facebook i remember the first time i saw that feature when faced with a new which ones of my friends were actually in the pictures before i even tagged them of course once in a while getting it wrong but for the most part kind of being did i write on i mean if that's what's being used on a regular person's facebook then you know what the f.b.i. and what some of these governments are using my absolutely not a little bit money is to create it much more sophisticated do you think that we're going to see pushback from the public i mean honestly i mean we already are in some

cases like there are some privacy advocacy groups you know are friends and electronic. frontier foundation. so on and so forth have already come out against you know these types of software is and also on the hill funny enough probably less than a month ago senator al franken himself was grilling facebook and you know facebook's lawyers over the use of this technology especially the fact that it's not really disclosed to any of the users so in other words as i mentioned before hand you are already submitting to all of this without really knowing the extent plus that what you should really be worried is that data bank because without anything to cross-reference there you go there's nothing so you've seen a little bit but at the end of the day you know does safety trump your privacy that's sort of the question there and that's one thing you know when you go on facebook especially if you don't have the most secure of settings you're choosing

to give up that privacy and for a lot of people in younger generations i mean this is just what they have always known they have always known a world with status updates and facebook you know uploading cell phone pictures of the energetic union to where you are at all of these things and you know we make choices to do this because we want our friends to know but to what extent do you think you know if you're a fourteen year old uploading all your pictures and you know ten years later you're in a store when an armed robbery happened i mean what's to prevent you know the wrong associations from being. i mean really that really depends i mean taking an example like the fourteen year old you know uploading pictures obviously you have to you are making that choice and obviously of course you you have to be smart about what you do on the internet that's there's no question about that but the question really isn't that the argument is when it's happening without your knowledge or

your consent that's the problem so if something's happening for example if you're just walking down the street you know there's a camera it takes your picture and then it cross references with something with a database from you know from i don't know if you were in l.a. for example and then you want to new york there's someone tracking your move why i mean there are there arguments to be made on both sides but it comes down to are you consenting to that that is the big issue a lot i think largely across the board the answer to that question is no the majority of people whose faces are put into the database not only are not consenting to it they have no idea it's going on and yet this program has been in the works in some of these cities that you mentioned for more than a year now is that right absolutely it absolutely has but i mean going back to something you said before hand i mean there is something to be said would be remiss if i don't mention security there is something to be said about being smart being

able to identify those threats and being able to secure the homestead that's absolutely a valid point how ever the very big issue isn't what i've seen and talked about with other people here in this office and you know that i've interviewed before and the problem is what to what extent are you giving up your privacy in order to be safe so that is a meeting that's the million dollar question exactly what i dream i want to get to something else you talked about in your package and that is truck wire. wire is something that we kind of laid out. the groundwork for kind of explains to our viewers just a few days ago we were the first ones to i mean if you go online right now not to sort of half. shall wait i mean room first ones to really cover that in depth and this is a program that was really sort of released in some documents on wiki leaks yes. talk a little bit about truck wire for those people who don't know and the concept also

of sort of outsourcing this activity i mean it's pretty much what we know for certain is that it's it's a private company that has its own software its own cameras all of this that is in d.c. in new york in l.a. and i think i'm missing in las vegas so what we do know is that it just keeps tabs and on a security so in theory it is supposed to keep you and i safe so if we're in new york and there's some suspicious activity that should be the first thing to raise a red flag however the problem comes with it's a private company so it's not the government doing this it's a private company so they're taking all that information and storing it somewhere where what's happening with it you know what's interesting is you have a private company is made up a largely of former you know f.b.i. yeah i don't know but i'll absolutely certainly a lot to talk about a really neat way that you laid it out in your report i've read it with you so much

. and while we're on the subject of surveillance and technology let's talk now about plans for a controversial new laws regarding increased internet surveillance and it's not just going on here with the u.s. government it's also been proposed by other countries canada australia the united kingdom and in recent months the governments of these countries have made independent efforts in regards to the monitoring of internet communications some examples of what's being proposed include mandating that social network sites like we just talked about and online chat providers build so-called back doors that would allow law enforcement to get in and instituting what's known as deep packet inspection technology it would allow the monitoring of the data that is posted on some of those social networking sites and there have been negative reactions from online privacy hawks regarding the potentially damaging implications of such laws what's more is that telecommunications companies are involved as well many of them you've heard of microsoft a t. and t.

sprint time warner horizon and they've already met with government representatives to discuss how to integrate surveillance into already existing and still evolving technologies so i want to break this down and to help us do that let's go now to privacy coordinator for the electronic frontier foundation rebecca bow rebecca thanks for being on the show so much for having me absolutely first tell us why is it of interest for these other countries to be involved and to sort of work together to standardize surveillance laws. yeah i mean i'm not really sure as much about you know we're not we haven't really looked into so much the sort of collaboration between countries but i do know that we heard governments saying that you know they want to be able to capture sort of all of the different online communications that are out there and that there so much happening they're unable to capture you know our users and that is that a radical expansion of police surveillance powers really isn't the answer and that

privacy has to be protected and civil liberties have to be upheld. just last year officer for a second rebecca. but it is really interesting and we can call it a so-called coincidence just that a lot of these these countries are working back we've got you back now i want to ask you about a proposed surveillance bill in canada this is called the c thirty just talk a little bit about what this bill entailed and what the public reaction in canada was like yeah you know and this is a really unpopular who's only in canada you know basically there you would require broad and online surveillance powers for internet service providers actually slept in store information about individuals communications records online. about media and law canadian authorities easy access to you know people's mind activity and it was even for an internet service provider to hand

over. any hidden without a warrant people in canada were really unhappy with this assemble and they actually mobilized and sat and that was all has been placed on hold for aerially so they are still concerned that it could be servicing them that it's very interesting and of course in the u.k. as well there's been a push to require internet service providers to keep records of these of the records of internet data from a wide range of interests in a vigils i guess we're. i mean who looks at this information and what do they use it for yeah so this is what we're seeing sort of happening around the world you know in the u.k. in canada in australia is a proposal for what we call mandatory data retention and we can use requiring internet service providers to actually maintain records of people on line i see that is their use of social networking sites e-mail voice calls or the internet is

kind of seeing in some cases they would be required to hold onto that information for us she's still here that such differences that we just saw in australia is a two year mandatory battery engine so this means that it's easily going to sit there and then if the government feels like they want to lean in and have a look at what you've been up to than be there for them. and i want to go back to a term that we sort of introduced in the introduction to the segment on the term is a deep packet inspection zz top itself a little bit about what this means and you know why people who are against these proposed surveillance laws are concerned about this yeah i mean that essentially means that you know there's the ability for. the government to sort of look within the content of meta haitians and not just sort of you know with moose being sent by you that actually dealing with the content of the nation so we talked about canada and we've talked about some of the laws in the u.k. let's talk now about what's going on here in the u.s.

in terms of surveillance laws how does a was here both that have been passed on that have been proposed to back up against kind of what we're seeing in these other countries. yes you know we we actually had three s. in the initial rate at her and she believe here in the u.s. but of course you know the electronic frontier foundation is famous for our teeth against national security and even eighteen heat for the warrantless wiretapping which you seem kind of. dragnet an target is not there and that we're seeing are supposed to meet other countries like you say the fanatics so what do you what do you think people should be concerned about and i know the fs has not focused so much on the role of some of these companies that we mentioned some of these large corporations but what do you think are some of the major concerns when you have you know the rise in on the comcast in the sprints you know basically that the major providers of both cell phone and cable when you have them kind of collaborating

with governments what should we be wary of any you know i think this is the only really be easly area is a shift from sort of you know this system where government will listen you know people communication because they have probable cause and because they have an actual mission of wrongdoing and moving to a world in which they're listening you know everyone communications this is ordinary people regardless of whether they're suspicious or not. you know you know and on target is your feeling that you really need to worry about. certainly a lot here to talk about and we also hear from from some of the top officials in this country and other countries the need for this as well so certainly it's a mixed messages coming appreciate having you on the show or back about international privacy coordinator for the electronic frontier foundation in san

francisco thanks so much. but switch gears now california voters this november will have the option to choose whether or not to require genetically engineered foods to be labeled as such proposition thirty seven is drawing quite a bit of support with a recent poll taken by pepperdine university showing sixty nine percent of respondents in favor of this labeling but we should mention that genetically engineered foods are not some sort of rare commodity according to the california legislative analysis office in two thousand and eleven eighty eight percent of all corn and ninety four percent of all soybeans produced in the u.s. were grown from genetically engineered seeds and between forty and seventy percent of food products sold in california grocery stores also can contain some of g.e. ingredients and the cost of regulating the labeling of genetically engineered foods between a few hundred thousand and more than a million dollars every year and speaking of money as with most political issues there's another powerful force behind prop thirty seven

a whole lot of money yes on thirty seven has raised two point four million dollars no on thirty seven has raised nine point nine million dollars so what's this proposition all about and why should it matter to those in and out of california i'm joined now by ronald bailey science correspondent for reason magazine who also wrote the book liberation biology the scientific and moral case for the biotech revolution hey there ronald i know that you have written that prop thirty seven is an anti science campaign that flies in the face of an overwhelming scientific consensus that genetically modified foods are safe and healthy. first question i mean what's anti science about having consumers know the facts of their food. well the interesting thing about labeling in the united states is about facts of the united states as a rule that basically we put labels on food for two reasons traditional information or safety or warning information in either case where that applies to the modified

crops or ingredients using. juniper crops they are completely safe every independent scientific body anywhere in the entire world has ever evaluated the current crop and evaluated them and said that they are perfectly safe for humans to eat and that they are no different nutritionally from conventional or organic crops so there's no reason to do so why do these people want the labeling the reason they want it is because they know that americans would change the labels a warning label and therefore would steer away from these types of crops from conventional crops even and move in the direction of the organic crops that they're from they're promoting to their profit but i guess when you look at especially the money that's involved and of course you know as we know every single proposition on a california resident grew up there and everything every prop has a whole lot of money backers on both sides who have something to gain and something

to lose but what i'm curious about is why not put that money into convincing people and educating people on what you just said to me which is that you know science quite a few scientists have shown that genetically engineered foods are in fact safe to eat why not educate the people instead of trying to prevent it from appearing on labels. well i believe that they do educate people in that regard my particular thing and i want to stress that what i was looking at. is whether or not the people who are in favor of the proposition we're making anti-scientific arguments i don't want to get necessarily into the labeling education argument i just want to make sure that people understand that the folks that are saying yes to proposition thirty seven doing it for less than honorable reasons they are actually misleading california voters about where the science stands on the safety of these products they're claiming in their materials the thirty seven that these

there's evidence that genetically modified crops can cause human harm or harbor human health and that's simply not true and that was the main thing that i was focusing on in my particular article i do not want people to think that there's some some sort of consensus behind is that somehow. a danger to people they flatly are not and the people who are promoting this proposition are lying to the voters in california and that's what i wanted to focus on but when you look at who is promoting this proposition and you specially look at where the money comes from the majority who are in favor are organic farmers their owners of organic restaurants their consumer interest groups and thirty five percent of the money that's been raised has been from inside of the state now let's look at the nine point nine million significantly more money that is coming from the large corporations corporations like monsanto coca-cola del monte nestle and just nine point six percent of the money raised coming from inside of california so how do you convince

california voters that these large corporations are the ones with their best interests at heart. well first of all i'm very puzzled i kept looking for any money from monsanto and in this initiative and i think could find and if you have some please let me know because i'd like to find it but what's interesting about it is that in a certain way this initiative process process is going to be an educational process basically what both sides are trying to spend money to convince voters that they are right and i think that this this way will help educate california voters and i'm hoping that everybody will stick to the scientific arguments now with regard to money coming from outside the states one of the problems is that the leading companies are worried about this is because what would happen is you have this labeling in california all the sudden that would apply since it's the entire country we're not going to start segregating food just for california and not for the rest of the country and this will cost a lot of money possibly and there are studies that said you know i've seen that

legislative office study here but basically earlier stages said if you tried to segregate organic conventional and genetically modified crops one from the other it would cost literally billions of dollars and that would of course go to the bottom line for consumers they would have to take more for this so the idea that and i think that this is the bad intent on the part of the people who are in favor of the proposition their intent is to scare consumers into voting against you in voting in favor of this kind of labeling so that ultimately what would happen is that large companies would say simply we can't take in each and actually modified crops that would be bad for the environment and would be bad for farmers that we've had for consumers if that would succeed but you know perhaps that's the case here in the u.s. but let's look at where else as this goes on genetically engineered foods are already labeled in several european countries the european union japan australia and china

so why you know don't they have a problem with putting you know about. what the ingredients essentially on on their labels and why do we i understand and if you look at it as a fact of the matter is because of that labeling there are very few products that actually contain genetically modified ingredients in them in those countries and other words the scare campaigns have succeeded in europe japan australia know the countries and the attempts to do the same thing here is again a scientific campaign and then because it works in europe it will work here and that's what i'm afraid of i'm wondering why you think that this particular proposition has gained so much attention from around the country so much national attention what's the big deal here that others should care about again as i say what will happen is that if it happens in california it is likely then to be rolled out across the country i think that's why we're getting that kind of attention.

what are the polls showing that you're seeing i talked in the earlier part of the show about the pepperdine poll that shows sixty nine percent are in favor are you saying different numbers no actually i'm seeing higher numbers a.b.c. news did a poll even earlier this year i think it was in july and found it was ninety three percent of americans would like it to be labeled and the problem with that as i say is that we label united states on scientific grounds and not on consumer rights or no grounds when the way you think about it is i believe that people should be able to voluntarily label their products they would like to do it but they should not require the rest of us to pay for their particular kinds of tiers as you want for example labeling is the way it works now i was voluntary you have to go into the factories and production and they look at make sure that the rules are followed and therefore they can label their food as the same thing with organic and i see no reason why we can't do that voluntarily across the country but my objection is

requiring the rest of us consumers to pay for the few years of this you write ronald bailey science correspondent for reason magazine thanks so much for joining us thank you very much. coming up next on our team the capital account let's check in with laura lister to see what's on the agenda today hey there lauren what's good what's going on over there hi there christine i know i don't have a lot of time so i will make it very simple the new depression are we headed towards it how are we going to avoid it our guest says hey everybody talking about fixing capitalism is looking at the wrong problem we don't live in capitalism anymore we have credit to them so you have to keep that in mind when you're thinking about how to avoid this we'll talk to him he's richard and he'll be on in just a few minutes christine all right thanks so much lauren for us here that's going to do it for now but for more on the stories we covered go to youtube dot com slash r t america or check out our website dot com slash usa can always follow me on

twitter at christine will be back right here and a half hour. 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 realized everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry welcome to the big picture.

news today violence is once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. giant corporations rule the day. stop and look at the current a bit unemployment the national debt. bailing governments ask yourself does it really matter who with. with billions created you can gamble with your money or turn it into.