in the solid gold. records the gold and silver investors guard. call today eight hundred to avoid serving the goal. it was once a technology only sign five movies would dream up software capable of tracking your every move by spotting your face in a crowd and storing that information in a vast database about fantasy is now scientific reality will tell you where it's going on and why. and 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 considering g.m.o. labeling will debate the economic and health impacts of labeling these three. and a federal judge in california has thrown out a lawsuit filed against the f.b.i. for spying on the muslim community meanwhile violence against muslims is spreading nearly a dozen cases of harassment and attacks in the last two weeks alone r.t.

asks what it's like to be a muslim in america. it is wednesday august fifteenth ten pm in washington d.c. i'm christine and you're watching r t well we begin this evening with a look into surveillance how it affects our daily lives most of us have heard about domestic drones and of course we all know about wiretaps but there is something else on the horizon when it comes to the ever expanding surveillance state facial recognition now this is hardly a novel concept but it's one that is gaining steam it's already being implemented in washington d.c. los angeles las vegas new york city and possibly also michigan hawaii and maryland producer adriano seto explains how the software works and how you are actually helping to build up this 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 here's where the magic happens the picture is then cross reference with other pictures in the already existing data base 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 flak 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 on a matic lee 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 a sophisticated predictive software used to predict terrorist attacks is already in place in cities such as los angeles new york los 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 point from washington a modern a set of artsy. 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 it's not just happening here in the united states it's also been proposed by governments of canada australia and the united kingdom in recent months government officials of these countries have made independent efforts in regards to the monitoring of internet communications now here's a few examples of what's being proposed first of all a mandating that social network sites and online chat providers build so-called back doors to be used by law enforcement instituting what's known as quote deep packet inspection technology that would allow the monitoring of the data there have been some negative reactions though from online privacy hawks regarding the

potentially damaging implications of these laws what's more is that telecommunications companies many of you have heard of including microsoft eighty and t. sprint time warner cable varieties in many others they've already met with government representatives to talk about how to integrate surveillance into already existing and still evolving technologies now earlier i spoke about this with rebecca bow international privacy coordinator for the electronic frontier foundation and we started off by talking about the standardization concerning these surveillance laws i asked her why it seems that other countries also seem to have taken a keen interest in this here's her take. and the i'm not really sure as much about you know we're not yet 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 there on able to capture you know our

interest and that is that a radical expansion of police surveillance powers really isn't the answer and that kind of the have to be protected and civil liberties have to be upheld. just last year or so 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 was only in canada you know basically there you would require broad and online surveillance powers for internet service providers actually left in store information about individuals communications records online. about anything and lots of canadian authorities easy access to use you know

people's mind activity in even for an internet service providers being in. there and hitting it out for it people in canada were really unhappy with this proposal and they actually mobilized and their staff and the law has been placed on hold for the so they are still concerned that it could be servicing them that very interesting and of course in the u.k. as well there's been of course 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 back i mean who looks at. this information and what do they use it for yeah so this is what we're seeing sort of happen around the world in the u.k. in canada in australia is a proposal for what we call mandatory data retention and we can either pirating internet service providers to actually maintain records of people's online activity

that is their use of social networking by e-mail voice calls over the internet this kind of thing in some cases they would be required to hold onto that information for us she's still here. let me just on australia is a two year mandatory other intention so this means that he's really going to do this there and then if the government feels like they want to lean in and have a look at what you've been up to and 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 is that essentially means that you know that the ability for. the government to sort of look within the content as meaning patients and not just sort of. moose being sent by you that actually dealing with the content of both and 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 us in terms of surveillance laws how do the laws here both that have been passed on that have been proposed back up against kind of what we're seeing in these other countries. yet you know we see actually. three estimated for eight hour and she still here in the us but of course you know that you might try frontier foundation is famous for our case against the national security agency in eighteen heat for the warrantless wiretapping which you seem kind of you know sort of dragnet on target is not there than in. we're seeing this in each other countries like u.k. . so what do you what do you think people should be concerned about and i know the f.s.a. 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 on the sprint 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 we really need to be leiria is a shift from. you know the 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 mediations this is ordinary people regardless of whether they are suspicious or not. entirely the feeling that we really need to worry about. yes certainly a lot here to talk about and you know we also hear from some of the top officials in this country and other countries the need for this as well so certainly some

mixed messages coming appreciate having you on the show or back about international privacy coordinator for the electronic frontier foundation in san francisco well it's been about a week and a half since the violence shooting at that sikh temple in oak creek wisconsin and which six people were killed and several others injured and since that time there eventually some shows of support for the muslim community there but there has also been a dramatic surge of violent activity and harassment directed at places of worship since that time the american arab into dimmest discrimination committee is reporting that in total there have been nearly a dozen cases of attacks just in the last couple weeks this includes a mosque in joplin missouri burned to the ground an air rifle fired at the muslim education center in illinois where five hundred people were inside no one injured in that case a homemade bomb launched at a private islamic school and vandalism at various mosques around the country i want to talk more about the implications of this with you but legal director for the american arab into the discrimination committee he's actually in dearborn michigan

right now and i bet from what i understand you're in dearborn responding to an incident that took place in the mosque there that mosque one of the biggest if not the biggest in the country talk about what happened there and what's been the reaction. lol actually the reason i went there one is for there was an incident at the mouth of the islamic center. in those incidents involved some harassment some for the more troubling there was also an incident here in dearborn at a local church which are the predominantly arab american middle eastern congregation they did receive. some threats and there was some vandalism done to the building as well so we're starting to see the rights come to you know of that is the worship that we're americans angry and it's very troubling very alarming and as our release in the good news that we have been stating. these incidents are to be taken seriously and there is no such thing as a layer rising there are some things that should not be taken seriously so there

definitely troubling there is definitely something that's very alarming for us that why do you feel that this has been the case just this recent surge in violent activity against muslim muslim worship sites especially considering what happened. well i think the case would be made that these attacks have occurred in that the surge is continuing to occur because of the pedal political rhetoric and the culture of violence and he has been exhibited by certain politicians in this being exhibited by those seeking political gain and that is the most troubling part we have individuals such as congressman bachmann congressman joe walsh from illinois who are really the even i mean the community who are really perpetrating out there that you know muslim americans and to be trusted muslims or not to be part of this very group in their constituents they're listening when their followers are listening we're starting to see a direct impact in those are the incidences in the crimes that we have been

exhibited again over the past few weeks it's no coincidence that you know representative joe walsh made some of the week that muslims want to kill americans or try to kill americans every week and he has two incidents one near the district of his and one of the in a district of a bomb thrown at a muslim school so that's right and really quickly for our viewers who don't know we did we mention this said this incident this homemade bomb launched at a private islamic school it happened in the eighth congressional district in illinois again the same district where congressman it joe walsh is running for reelection and while seems to be not only not concerned with the violence he's more concerned about what he calls is you know a different kind of dangerous threat and really quick i that i want to play a little bit about what he said there are radical islamists right here in the united states trying to kill americans and destroy this country. so talk about statements like this. i mean those are. the good looks to me because they are those

do and should not be made politicians most of the first elected politicians those that are currently serving in congress need to have much more respect for the position they all need to understand the are representing this country the are elected by the situation they are elected by the community and they need to hold this up as to the highest respect so when they're speaking in the tone when they're speaking this dialect and doing their best to promote any informal violence in this country it's not the best for america it's not was best for america so this type of this type of rhetoric is not place internationalists or has no place in politics in the in should be completely condemned by a politician alike and by the community and society alike and i promise there are going to be more attacks there's going to be more incidences throughout the next few months as long as this rhetoric continues but again there's no place for this international discourse and there should not be coming from a politician but i should point out that you know

a pattern that i've seen and you mentioned congresswoman bachmann has a she has done this congressman walz homeland security committee committees you know in congress here in washington dealing with the safety and security of the united states people on this community that the lawmakers on this computer committee are privy to information that the general public is not and it's something that people like to throw out that well we have information that the american people you know we can't tell you the details but we have information that says that there is you know a dangerous muslim community here talk a little bit about why you see this as a pattern. is it certainly a pattern for the simple fact that they are gaining political advantage in a political gain from this that when you look at individual searches bachmann was from florida representative joe walsh there live in it's run about the county and they're going to rival the politics of fear in a and they always need a bad guy deal with the. the other is politics of fear in this culture of violence

in haiti which is. helping them. move forward with their political careers and it is very unfortunate in the media it's interesting you even hear anyone talking about the need to crack down on white supremacists even though that was what was found that was who was found to be behind the shooting in the sikh temple real quick i will have you want to switch gears yesterday a federal judge threw out a lawsuit against the f.b.i. over the spying on muslims while attending prayer in orange county california the judge said allowing the suit to go forward would risk divulging sensitive state secrets and many of the people we've spoken to in orange county say they almost feel betrayed by their own government as a result what do you think is going on here. i think many of those families of those individuals of feelings of betrayal are absolutely accurate there are many of the tuning they do feel betrayed in the government this is news and law enforcement

agencies are there to protect us in time after time over the past few years we've seen many example where the contrary has happened we've seen many examples and heard many examples of illegal surveillance we've heard of infiltration of the mouse and the use of aged provided source so we need the facts we need the details we need to know what's going on and we had faith in the court system that these details in the sec could be provided in still valid national security so using the excuse of national security there's nothing like there are ways around this security measures and there are ways to ensure that the nation is protected without losing our civil rights and losing our protection and we would have hoped that the order in the order to effect we just look forward to how this is perceived and whether or not there's an appeal ah that you have said you fear there will be more attacks as you mentioned there are already a dozen you fear there will be more. what what do you do what does your organization do and regular people do moving forward. and terms of being cautious

in terms of trying to deal with this and prevent it. well i think there are these that is very important that is to say fashion is to be aware of your surroundings make sure that the model for the people who worship does their protection reach out to local law enforcement whether the literature department the local police department to a productive conversation particular on a friday critically or on the where large volumes and large are expected as far from our end as easy for a number of services we can we're going to do and provide mass with steps to take to ensure the reception we can also provide contacts with the law enforcement to make sure their protection is employees in general advice where there are for general boykin general a number of resources for the community in the incident something doesn't happen or something does occur we are also there help move forward in representing situation

and ensuring those that the community a family or are represented in. this little role is and we will we don't have to exercise our practice but you know right now the way things are looking we do fear that there will be more attacks. right on that i have legal director for the american arab anti-discrimination committee joining us from dearborn michigan thanks so much and you that's what scares now california voters this november was the option to choose whether or not to require genetically engineered foods to be labeled as such proposition thirty seven as 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 about 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 at g.e. ingredients and the cost of regulate. 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 well 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 a 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 it's not about facts. 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. dr 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 way. the reason they wanted 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 the 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 by a particular thing and i want to stress that what i was looking at with this is whether or not the people who were in favor of the proposition were 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 are 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 behind the yes on prop thirty seven that these that there's evidence that genetically modified crops can cause human harm or harm to 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 pretty some sort of consensus behind is that somehow to think about it like crops were 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 want 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 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 in his occasional 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 if 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 the second case 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 are going 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 every modified

crops that would be bad for the environment and 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 the fact of the matter is because of that labeling there are very few products that actually contains and clean modified ingredients and them in those countries and in other words the scare campaigns have succeeded in europe japan australia and other countries and now the attempt is to do the same thing here is again an anti scientific campaign and they know that because it worked in europe it will work here and that's what i'm afraid

of i'm wondering on 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 using different numbers though 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 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 are no grounds the way we think about it 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 and 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 are right ronald bailey science correspondent for reason magazine thanks so much for joining us thank you very much and for us here this evening that's going to do it but if you missed anything today go to our stories that we post at youtube dot com slash our team america has also got a few stories that we didn't get a chance to do today but they're still very important and you can find those on our web site and that address is r t dot com slash usa of course you can always follow me on twitter.