support for planet money comes from a large bank looks like n.p.r. needs an ally a one planet money reporter seems to have found it in a big bank and his coverage seems to be shielding his investors coming up our t.v. shows you who is profiting from the positive coverage. and it working for the federal government means a surrendering certain rights to privacy that much we know but when it comes to spying on employees big brother wrote the book ahead a look at how far government is willing to go to keep staffers in line. and it's not just the federal government shelling out the big box for the chance to spy american households are actually contributing to the surveillance society with everything from g.p.s. trackers to in-house cameras so our our own actions paving the way to warrantless wiretapping.

good evening it's monday august twentieth of five pm in washington d.c. i'm christine and you're watching our t.v. we're going to begin with a closer look at one of this country's most well known media outlets national public radio for years and years n.p.r. news and programs were funded in part by the government and the bar by listeners those who called in and pledged money and of course also those who gave big donations but over recent years it's been more and more common to hear the names of sponsors on n.p.r. and it turns out there are certain programs sponsored entirely by one company that may or may not have influence over the content of the program so we're going to look today a little closer at a financial program called planet money hosted by adam davidson when you click on to listen you're likely to hear this. support for planet money comes from ally bank

and p.r. keeps people in the know soto's ally customers can talk to a real person any time of day or night learn more at ally bank dot com well as it turns out ally bank has among other things spend quite a bit of money lobbying against the creation of what is now the consumer financial protection bureau so perhaps it would be no surprise then that when planet money host adam davidson had the head of the consumer financial protection bureau elizabeth warren on for an interview things got heated take a listen this crisis will not be over until the american family begins to recover this crisis does not exist and if you're on the right that's the no it is not my crisis that is america's crisis if people cannot pay their credit card bills if you're not paying their mortgages use on this issue and this of course is a snippet from the fifteen plus minute interview and to delve deeper into the questionable practices of adam davidson and the planet money team i was joined

earlier by marc ams and yasha levine founders of the web site shame which stands for shame the hacks that abused media folks and i started out by asking mark why this could just be another example of adam davidson being a journalist and asking tough questions. people were shocked nobody understood because you assume adam davidson is sort of this gee whiz dweeb you know guy just trying to discover what's going on just as much as the next person nobody knew that the sole funder of his soul fund or the guy who was paying him his money was allied bank which is g.-mac which was one of the poster child banks of of fraud subprime fraud foreclosure fraud it was. over seventeen billion dollars in bailout money and it had just arranged to deal with planet money to be their souls and exclusive sponsor and this wasn't disclosed and at the same time that davidson attacked. elizabeth warren our bank was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and you

know here in washington lobbying to kill what warren was trying to set up which is akin to consumer protection agency and as we know it's not just sort of the sponsor of this program gosh i want to go to you now and have you talk about some of the paid speaking engagements david sent. you know who are they for and what's the big deal. well we don't know the full story but just some of the permission that could be gleaned from. public information he's done a handful of speaking engagements over the past two years speaking at. conferences and events sponsored and funded by the some of the biggest banks in the world i'm talking about you know j.p. morgan bank of america. of course goldman sachs and in particular the most recent ones were about micro lending and micro finance but it doesn't really matter because you know. these are this is

a corporate speaking gigs usually they're paid pretty well paid we don't know how much he was paid for them because he davidson refuses to disclose that information and so does n.p.r. and won't provide it but we do know that he has appeared at multiple events sponsored by the wall street in the banking industry and he was presumably paid for them but now i mean we didn't we didn't mention by adam davidson also contributes to the new york times magazine at times and both the new york times and n.p.r. have very strict policies about accepting paid speaking engagements and i know both have been questioned about this i believe by the observer and both have responded that he is not going against any company policies so why then should people be concerned. well i just we don't know what standard they used to make to arrive at that conclusion you know just from the information that we that we were able to gather and find the evidence is pretty pretty damning and shows that there is some

conflict of interest there now they they but they won't release any information at all about the nature of the speaking engagements that davidson did how much was he paid what were you know what were the terms and so we they're not being transparent about the information about the process that they you know that they used to arrive at that conclusion that everything is ok we're supposed to trust them but you know to be honest there's not much trust you can really have much trust in them when they they've shown to be not engaging in good faith michaela and i just wanted to add to what you said on top it's not just that he's taking this money but it's also that he is promoting their positions he's promoting the extreme right wing neo liberal agenda over and over he's he writes that you know we need to squeeze the middle class he writes that. we should basically warship wall street that everything that has made us happy in this world came from walter he literally wrote

that in the new york times you know he's been promoting sweatshop labor he's been promoting like all kinds of crazy schemes and at the same time taking money from these guys so the real problem is when you're taking money from these people covertly and then you know and then promoting their agenda on n.p.r. you're sensually a product spokesman and davidson is a product spokesman but we don't we haven't been disclosed that fact and i should also add that chicago public media which is the public corporation that. that is a party is a partner in this has a specific policy that journalists should not take money from the subjects that they report on and he takes money from the subjects he reports on any reports positively on them and he promotes their agenda so it is a vial. asian they didn't say it's not a violation they just basically said no comment they took the fifth let me ask you i mean let let's take this a little broader you know as much as we like to think of journalism i certainly do

as sort of a higher calling a fourth estate in many cases it is still a business and that requires advertisers so how do you propose there be a better balance between keeping a journalistic outlet afloat and keeping it on a well this is not about even advertisers i mean you know having advertisers and hopefully have a diverse set of advertisers so you know you're not to conflicted on any issue or and if there is conflict you disclose that fact to your readers openly and you release information about how much you know your publication or the you know the person or the show is receiving from them the sponsors are going to be reporting on the same a thing on issues that affect that sponsors bottom line but you know but this is you know the problem of davidson and a lot of other journalists who are engaged in similar sort of. have a similar business plan i guess for their journalism career it's not about

advertisers it's really about covert payments for that you receive from. the industries that you report on and you know this is just some talking about speaking fees and then the other aspect is planet money ally bank is not just a an advertiser it is its sole exclusive sponsor so meaning that all the all the funding that that ally bank gets to do or most of it to stay on the air and to produce it shows comes from this one bank and it's we should say that that money is not the only place that this goes on but i know that you guys have recently written about this market talk about the same project how do you guys decide who to focus on. you know we have discussions between ourselves and with other journalists that work with sort of. provide help to us and when say there's you know there's not like

a strict objective standard it's sort of would you say this is because we're trying more and more common that this guy was no there's no doubt i mean look at columbia journalism school that is that a study that the ratio of p.r. people to journalists in one thousand nine hundred about one to one and now it's about four to one actually now it's probably a lot worse because forty one was in two thousand and eight and you know journalism profession and that doesn't include all the mountain gladwell than adam davidson and all these basically covert products spokesmen that are fronting as as journalists so you know look this makes it hard for us to do our jobs when we're trying to do real journalism because these these people act as trolls just like adam davidson when you listen to what he did to elizabeth warren nobody know if everybody knew that he was being paid by ally bank that would have ended it there had been no question and he isn't really that great that was from two thousand and nine thousand two thousand and that was great and this is sort of just coming out

exactly it's just coming out now three years later now there were a few people that complained at the time and as usual the ombudsman said. the ombudsman called these people cynical. they basically have no argument it's obviously corrupt there is no excuse for it whatsoever so you just impugn the you know the intentions of the accused so we're almost out of time let me just and let me just and really quick with you and for journalists i mean is making money off a story you think it's the ultimate ethical issue. making money no. of course everyone has to make a living but no it's not the ultimate goal you know you don't go into journalism to make a fortune that's different but yeah absolutely certainly an issue though as you go into journalism dislike power right and not get into bed i'm. alright well really good to talk to both of you shane website founders mark ames and yasha levine thanks so much for coming on the show today. so i had on our team it's no big

secret that big brother likes to pry but not just unsuspecting and enemies of the state the u.s. government is spending billions to monitor its own employees up next we'll show you how far it's willing to go to protect state secrets.

a client of american power continues. things in our country. might actually be time for a revolution. and it turns out that a popular drink of starbucks has a surprising in radio. put a picture of me when i was like nine years old on the. she told the truth.

i am a total get a friend that i would probably get caught is that the entrance. was kind of a. very. old with a split. what i want to talk now about surveillance on the government level on the ways in which it's increasing despite calls for more transparency last month we told you how several employees at the food and drug administration were the targets of a major surveillance program by their employer after it got out that they were reporting concerns they had to lawmakers and other officials well it turns out the f.d.a. is not alone and i want to put this in perspective here in total there are four

point four four three million federal government employees according to account made in two thousand and ten last year non intelligence agencies spent five point six billion dollars to quote safeguard classified information. and the f.d.a. was one of the first to establish the total surveillance on employees including personal emails the program used by federal agencies is called a specter three sixty and it can read comments posted on social networking sites and gain full access to hard disk data just one rate aca director of national security and human rights is the director of the government accountability project says here she's also the author of the book traitor the whistleblower and the american taliban just one good to see you again i know that we sort of really talked about this when the information came out about the f.d.a. let me just ask you quickly what do you know about this specter three sixty just that it can really drill down on everything you're doing including keystrokes including facebook posts including screenshot everything now from what i understand

i mean the current policy as a federal employee i know tons of people here in washington who work for the government when you log on to your computer as you see something that lets you know a banner saying you have no reasonable expectation of privacy you know your personal e-mail account can be monitored especially when you're at work it can be accessed through a government computer so i mean isn't this just par for the course if you work for the government should you expect that you're monitored well i think all government employees in today's climate realize that they have a limited expectation of privacy at work the problem is when you start drilling down specifically in targeting certain people especially whistleblowers who are supposed to be protected. you end up putting them in a in a lose lose kind of situation it seems to me in the case of the f.d.a. at least i mean this system worked exactly right employees who work for the

organization work concerned about the products they were concerned for people's safety so they told lawmakers that seems to me an example of things working right how. bring their employers and come crack down harder on them seems to be a system gone wrong well yeah and in this case the f.d.a. was monitoring their communications with congress and their communications with the office of special counsel and you ever first amendment right to communicate with congress that the lose lose proposition is that a whistleblower now can either remove incriminating information from his or her agency and be charged with the espionage act or they can go ahead and complain to congress or the inspector general or the office of special counsel via their work computer and risk being monitored and fired and retaliated against and it numerous kinds of ways for that from what i'm hearing just went on

and i'm wondering if you're hearing the same that in a lot of federal agencies that employees are sort of freaking out about all this is that they're learning more and more that this goes on and it's making them less apt to come forward for fear of retaliation are you hearing that you know the same and what do you think the impact of this could be i think what's having a bigger chilling effect is the fact that we have a crackdown an unprecedented crack it down on whistleblowers for allegedly mishandling allegedly classified information in these are really people trying to expose fraud waste abuse and crime and i think these very public prosecutions of people under the espionage act is what's having the real the real chilling message and we've been hearing of the espionage act talked about pretty recently in regards to when he leaks founder julian assange and i know he has been sort of you know in

the ecuadorian embassy for the last few months he's been told he is welcome to have asylum there. and he says his concern as far as being extradited to sweden for questioning is that sweden will then be able to have him extradited to the united states he says he fears he'll be tried under the u.s. espionage act and he did speak to the public over the weekend i want to play just a little bit about what he said. the united states must renounce its which arms against wiki leaks. the united say must dissolve if their investigation. the united states moscow that it will not seek to prosecute. or else supporters. the united states must play before the world that it will not pursue journalists for siding shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful. so julian assange is calling for some

pretty serious changes to be made what are the what's the likelihood that some of these things will be you know some of these wishes will be heeded the likelihood right now is not high but my clients three of whom he personally called out thomas drake and william binney and john kiriakou stream grateful that a songe in his very brief speech saw fit to mention them i think there's an accusation out there that joined us on just only about joanna songe and clearly he cares about the plight of whistleblowers who like him are being criminally pursued under the espionage act and there are persistent rumors that there is an indictment against julian assange chair in the us and they want to try to that has been made public yet and he has not been charged yet so so you know a lot of people are saying you know what's the what's the big hoopla he has been

charged why is he why is he so concerned well the big hoopla is that neither of the united states nor sweden promised not to extradite him if they got their hands on him so it's very much seems to imply that the sexual assault allegations are there have been no charges filed but there those are pretext to get him to a country that has a history of expediting people to the u.s. . to be tortured. let's kind of get back to sort of what what we're seeing though within federal agencies i know that the five people involved in the surveillance operation at the f.d.a. have filed a lawsuit but what course of action do people in the federal government have when it comes to defending themselves from being prosecuted in persecuted for their actions. well whistleblowers under the whistleblower protection act can make claims

of fraud waste abuse and dangerous to public health and safety to the u.s. office of special counsel one of the big loopholes is that that does not cover intelligence employees or national security whistleblowers who are arguably the ones you would most want to hear from yeah it's really interesting so often when we do hear about surveillance operations most people think we're talking about you know defense and military and cia and it's really not just that there's a whole lot of other things going on that people need to be aware of great to have you on giving us your insight jesselyn radack director of national security and human rights with the government accountability project thank you. and it's not just billions of dollars for the growing surveillance needs for u.s. government purposes and something else is going on as well the household video surveillance market is now estimated by some to reach around twenty five billion dollars by two thousand and sixteen on an individual basis the value of

a home surveillance system is easy to spot when we think about certain things like catching burglars by letting local t.v. stations help police in posting surveillance videos so that the public can then give input about suspects but we're reaching a point in our society where we're allowing more and more of our daily lives to be watched through the eyes of a camera lens from you know those red light traffic cameras to the security cameras in our office buildings and elevators to home nanny cams for our children and our pets the private surveillance industry continues to grow as a result our own cell phones these days have become more than just a way to communicate but a useful tool for law enforcement to weed out criminals the u.s. circuit court of appeals recently ruled that americans now have no reasonable expectation of privacy when carrying cell phones allowing police to track g.p.s. signals without a warrant or probable cause so why keep paying to keep spying on ourselves if we know law enforcement can do it for free to help talk more about this i was joined

a little earlier by our two producer injured blake and i first asked him just how common this surveillance businesses. well you said it would you say by two thousand and sixteen we're expecting twenty six billion dollars this industry alone in within the last decade or more specific of last two or three years we saw this huge transition where telecom companies places where you're talking like horizon yeah places we're going to get a cell phone contract landline contracts broadband cable internet all that stuff those companies have also in the last couple of years entered the home surveillance market which is great because that's one you know have everything streamlined to one bill you don't have to worry about paying you know eighty one thing in time warner another no you can have the same company that sends information over telephone wires in over a fiver optic cables those same people can see exactly what's happening in your house and they realize that they can make a ton of money by doing that and they have men and so the sales market really has

been picking up in the last couple of years but it's just. about to get to it you know if we go to this case of the six court of appeals it's kind of terrifying what we know now oh yeah i mean talk a little bit about this this court case and you know how much they can get away well did the one argument that has existed since the bill of rights at the fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure and that the government or anyone can just you know stick their hands in your pockets and put a big magnifying glass over your house and see exactly what it is that you're doing but last week the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit said well maybe there's a little maybe we have it leeway here anyway when you see the word on reasonable. they said well if you're committing a crime in this case distributing marijuana across state lines you shouldn't. apply to you because you're not being reasonable yourself they said that if you are i can i can put up to you the ruling says that there is no fourth amendment

violation because the suspect in this case did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the dead and given off by his. interiorly procured pay as you go cell phones are saying that so if you have a cell phone and you carry it on you and you transmit data across that you your transmitting data in a public place you should not think that it's unreasonable that we're just going to go ahead and watch you so g.p.s. tracking on cell phones is somehow reasonable as of last week yes absolutely these officials now there is a difference though i mean certainly on one hand we can talk about cell phone tracking and i think a lot of people would find it pretty surprising but when it comes to our actions out on a public street a lot of people are wondering if this is even legal but i want to show a little in a part of an interview with private investigator steve rambam. you have no expectation of privacy. walking driving meeting with people talking. at this point right now given moment i think. that it.

was. at this point at this point if you weren't from approximately fifty million street all the way down to the battery you are there is no location that you can go to on the public street under most buildings where you're not being good. so that was a really short part of an interview about a little bit about. you know basically steve rambam private investigator says this is totally legal oh it is i mean if you are in a public space like if you watch the rest of the interview i know it's on the archie you tube channel mr random says that in new york city from battery all the way up to fifty first street you can walk anywhere on the street in manhattan without being i don't want to say spied because this kind of has a negative connotation i mean sure it's not really that friendly but it's very true when you are out in public you can do whatever you want you can follow someone is long as you're not assaulting them you can take photographs you can talk to someone

you can do anything that's the same reasons that why there's been a big of a bit of uproar in d.c. in recent weeks and that's paulton police captain actually had to make a statement saying that when police are acting in their official capacity in the public they can be videotaped because there is no expectation of privacy in the public if you are doing your job in the public we're going to go ahead and people can watch you and which is great for you know bring some accountability to law enforcement but it's you know can work on the other way around too if you're doing anything in the streets anyone can be watching you and that information whether it's willingly collected by law enforcement agencies or volunteer it over it's totally legit to be handed over and the case that we're seeing with this cheap p.s. tracking actually i believe it goes back to one thousand nine hundred sixty electronic communications privacy act and we've talked about it a couple of times before on our t.v. and one. the e.c.p.a. does is it says that if you just get a court order you can go ahead and try to monitor someone's. digital communications so we know whatever it's going to be but the thing about a court order so it's not

a subpoena and it's not a warrant you just have a judge say sure stamps of paper and you can track someone and with that believe a magistrate judge ruled earlier this year that there's around thirty thousand americans have been surveyed by the united states government in the us you know you there's nothing you can do private on your cell phone there's nothing you private you can do on your streets we should tell our viewers that now there's a the latest push is by law enforcement to be able to surveil people in their vehicles so stay tuned for the next we are out of time and everything yeah are you really well that's going to do it for us here for now but for more on the stories that we cover today and on other days go to youtube dot com slash r t america and of course intervention our website it's our team dot com slash usa and you should also follow me on twitter you can find me at christine for is out we're going to be back right here at six o'clock.