today on r t the sting ray is on the hunt but i'm not talking about fish in an ocean this is a new technology that allows police to track mobile phones in real time coming up we'll tell you which police department here in the u.s. is using this technology. the garment that's designed to be fairly reflective which means that he balances off trying to say to avoid surveillance in new york artists has come up with a clothing line to make the wear are invisible to drones we'll take a look at his creation just ahead and washington d.c. is the home of democracy and freedom each year protesters flock to the city to voice their concerns and demands but an abortion protester is not feeling so well

come after a judge banned him from the district will question that move ahead. it's friday january twenty fifth five pm in washington d.c. i'm meghan lopez and you're watching r.t. . starting off this hour after a long and tedious trial process former cia official john kiriakou was sentenced today to two and a half years in federal prison last october the forty eight year old pled guilty to violating the intelligence identities protection act by leaking the name of a covert official's name to a reporter something the u.s. district judge lynn a grim kemah says it was not a form of whistleblowing however kiriakou is best known for being one of the first cia insiders to confirm reports that the agency used torture tactics like waterboarding in order to extract information from detainees

a claim that was later verified and went on to shape the political rhetoric in this country for years to come now at an event honoring him curiosity was quick to point out the hypocrisy of prosecuting the whistleblower and not the people who perform the enhanced tera gay sions i never tortured anybody. but i've been to prison while the tortures of the lawyers papered over it and the people who deceived you and the men who destroyed the proof of this tape will never see justice. no date has been set yet as to when john kiriakou report to the president to begin his two and a half year sentence. well we've told you before about the sting ray technology that the government and select law enforcement agencies are using to track people's locations based on their cell phones that technology was only supposed to be used to monitor people suspected of terrorist activities but it turns out the los angeles police department has started using it in criminal investigations as well

things like burglary drugs and murder investigations to name a few most importantly the l.a.p.d. does not need the court's order or the cell phone providers approval in order to use the device they don't even have to explain how the technology works or what information it is capable of gathering for more on the latest developments coming out of l.a. r.t. correspondent ramon glendower joined me earlier today i first asked him how many times the l.a.p.d. employed this device in routine criminal investigations new or newly obtained newly released records show that the l.a.p.d. has used this sting ray technology twenty one times in their investigations no when the department originally got this equipment they said that it would be used for counter terror practices in the money to get that came from the department of homeland security but the recently released documents show that it's being used in

investigations for other crimes such as the ones you mentioned where burglary and murder murder were the crimes in the terrorism ceremony is this a violation of the fourth amendment. right well. the l.a.p.d. says that any time that the ease drop or do any sort of wiretapping they need to get a search warrant however they haven't said whether or not they received a warrant in these cases pacifically where seeing where it was used but a lot of not just the l.a.p.d. but a lot of agencies around the country are able to get around this because they use laws that are dated in order to get a judge's signature to use or do a search warrant or some sort of core court order to surveil somebody but really the biggest problem is that while the law enforcement may be legitimately keeping an eye on a criminal what people don't know is that while they're keeping an eye on this

criminal sting ray is getting communication from all the mobile phone phones that are in that area so even if you're not in any way involved in a crime there is a strong possibility that the police has the ability to get information that's on your phone even if you're not talking on it. let me ask you this hour what types of processes do police go through in order to to use this device who has to sign off on it in order to legally use i or is it just right now a matter of on that they want somebody to sign off on it. right well in the case of the l.a.p.d. they did not specifically say whether or not a judge signed off on the use of sting ray and this whole issue is being debated in another case where f.b.i. has used stings sting ray surveillance to catch a suspected hacker but theoretically they are still supposed to get some sort of

warrant or court order from judge the problem is that many times law enforcement agencies are not completely forthcoming about the full capabilities of sting ray and don't let the judge know that besides being able to gather information on a specific subject they do also have the ability to get that information from people who have cell phones or other mobile devices in the other area in the information that the l.a.p.d. did provide however they said that in the investigations where they have used being re they have an ease dropped on any conversations however they didn't see what other information they were able to attain using the sting ray technology warm and i mean that's what i have to ask you there is a lot of things that we simply do not know about this device so why is the government and the l.a.p.d. and now other law enforcement officials why are they being so secretive about this device. right was we mentioned earlier many times these surveillance devices that are on the cutting edge of technology are built in order to take on terrorism

but as we see in police departments around the country a lot of times surveillance technology is used while there's a very gray line on whether it's used on criminals and whether that is going to invade the privacy of civilians who are not committing the law in this case there is a gray area and simply said there aren't a lot of laws to address this sort of surveillance and this sort of what some perceive as an invasion of privacy rights and ramon as you mentioned a little bit earlier it's not only the people that they are targeting for these drug and other robbery crimes it's also the people that are in the general area i mean one article actually equated this device to a general search warrant for anyone in the area and it's kind of like what they said as big as a big game of marco polo where they send out a signal and everyone's devices in that area kind of respond back so can you

explain how they first of all isolate the person that they're looking for that their information and also what do they do with information how can we trust that they delete the information of those innocent bystanders that just happened to be near that person right away i mean the other two hundred frontier foundation is called this sting ray technology the greatest technological threat to your cellphone privacy that nobody knows about and the thing is that the f.b.i. in the past have said that they don't keep any of this information that they get rid of it we've seen law enforcement agencies deny that they eavesdrop but not been forthcoming with the other information that they that they've been able to collect yours so that's why there are still a lot of washington's about you know why isn't the government more forthcoming about the information that they are gathering now. mentioned in the l.a.p.d. case they see that they have not each dropped any sort of conversations but from

security experts we know that this thing ray technology. has the capabilities of gathering quite a bit of information and like we said even if you have not committed a crime even if there's no suspicion that you've been involved in a crime potentially law enforcement has the capability to look through any information that's on your phone whether be text messages or voice mails that you've had on there whether you're using it or not and really quickly remember for we turn the conversation i do want to ask one more question is there any way to know if you're to buy devices being monitored with tests that with this technology you know and that's a really tricky thing because stingaree is pretty much a fake cell phone tower except that it's much smaller and usually on your cell phone you'll see a signal that says t. mobile verizon a.t.m. t. now the sting ray is able to connect to a normal cell phone towers so you don't see sting ray on your phone is still says

either horizon eighty in c. or t. mobile so you have absolutely no idea that surveillance is going on anywhere in your vicinity and stay with me ramon i want to bring in another element into this conversation well you might not be able to disguise your location from the l.a.p.d. short of taking the battery out of your cell phone but you can hide yourself from drones it's a project artist adam harvey has been working on he designed a line of clothing that will make the wearer nearly invisible to third thermal radiation and infrared scammers how well let's bring in on a staffie acheron are to correspondent in new york to explain on a stasia ramon was just telling us about how we can be surveilled by our cell phones but our bodies namely the heat our bodies in it help drones to spot us so how does this line of clothing prevent drone surveillance. well megan this is really a curious and innovative clothing line that has just been released to the public

and basically the idea is the way that drones are able to detect a human being on the ground is that any human body emits heat through thermal imaging the drones are able to kind of zoom in and focus on a particular person and this innovative new york designer adam harvey whom we caught up with was able to come up with a material that he incorporated in this new clothing line that basically shields that thermal imaging between the drones and the human being making it almost impossible for the drone to see particular body parts that are covered with the pieces from the collection for more details let's take a look at our report on this collection. keeping a close eye on civilians with a little help from drones. in a move approved by congress in seven years the u.s. will help thirty thousand domestic drones monitoring its territory from the air that opens the door for a lot of uses of privacy from not just the government but corporations and

businesses too. in a fight for privacy this new york designer came up with a counter-surveillance clothing line intended to shield people from those watchful lenses a burka a scarf and a hoodie are the key garments in the collection this is a garment that's designed to be thermally reflective which means that he bounces off it and he does with use for thermal imaging in particular this technology is used a lot on drones and he would be if there were drones harboring about manhattan anybody who is out on the streets is clearly traceable the idea of this collection is that putting on something like this. is a bit up. these parts of your body has become very hard to detect. from a potential fashion statement to a technology that could eventually be used in rescue operations or even on a battlefield i think we're addressing. a market that hasn't been addressed it's

a new area and it's sort of a crossover between tactical and fashion it adds a little extra coverage to the face adam harvey calls his consumer market line fashionably paranoid and if you hear to me and i can see you i'm quite alright with that but if you appear in automated systems and how to become a little more to your disadvantage because the state it can be easily mind and tracked and identified another counter-surveillance item in the collection the off pocket or phone once a mobile device is put inside there are no more signals going in and out the strength of the cell phone signal out of one. hundred goes down to zero in seconds the metalized fabric and that acts as a farraday cage to block the signals from the phone adam says this is a boston way to turn off your phone and block trotting since the introduction of the patriot act and since then there's been a large arose in the privacy i would say is not. confined to the us either

a global problem to start a conversation and make people more aware of the growing trend of surveillance through fashion is adam goal the designer admits the clothing line is not for everybody but those who want to adapt to these new realities could now be a step closer to avoiding the gaze of big brother and that he's sure going to a party. i want to bring our to correspond to honest aafia turkana and r.t. correspondent ramon glendale back into the conversation ramon i know that real estate agencies have been fighting the f.a.a. for years to get their hands on you a visa in order to have a high resolution aerial photographs of different l.a. properties and the l.a.p.d. itself has a couple of drawings that it's looking into to starting to use so could l.a. residents use these drones hoodies i guess well that would be perfect for a leno there's a lot of fashionable people in new york but here you could be a hipster inappropriate at the same time so i think it definitely speaks to the

very. big brother attitude that we're seeing in both coasts and on a software what was the what was the drone hoodie like is it a very light found bracket would it keep you dry from rain isn't multi-functional. it is very multi-functional if you could see it's not very big so it doesn't cover the entire body and the idea is the material is in fact very light it includes nylon and certain type of metals and that's exactly what makes it resistant to thermal imaging you know it's very light. it's pretty big i have to say it is multi-functional in the sense that the designer told us he intends it for it to be just a fashion statement or something to protect you from drones depending on what you're more interested in all right are to correspond on a stuffy a chair in a new york in our to correspondent ramona lindo in l.a. thanks for joining us guys. well some eight hundred thousand people crammed in front of the capitol building for president obama's inauguration on monday but one man claims he actually has the best seat in the house for five hours reis brogan

clung to a tree forty feet above ground holding nothing but an antiabortion something. despite his actions the inauguration went on as planned and he was soon arrested and charged with preventing authorities from preserving the peace and securing the capital from the defacement well magistrate judge karen howes went farther than charging grogan she actually banned him from washington d.c. until his court hearing on february twenty fifth you know banished like romeo was from verona back in shakespeare's most infamous play so is this a violation of free speech well i was joined earlier by john whitehead he's a constitutional attorney with the rutherford institute i asked him when we started banning people from our district and cities. well you know banning someone for particular city especially washington d.c. which is a center of free speech activity goes way beyond supreme court opinions framed corresponding pretty clear that you cannot restrict the right to travel lester's

been stripped due process required so as a full hearing and things like that where there was no full hearing here just a judge summarily chased him out of the capitol but you know he's been very very active around the country as well so this is a guy that if you really want to plant down and keeping them being anywhere because he's. short of a baseball games running in the field carrying signs been chased off he asked one of the house representatives january fifteenth of this year and protested the assault weapons ban abortion so he's pretty clear about what he means to do but i think this is a signal that. people are restricted in what they believe about the only way they can speak these days a lot of is a get out there and be a bit destructive basically what martin luther king was advocating shortly before he was assassinated and i have asked you how often do we kick people out of the district or out of any city in general not really not many times and i think is activity on january fifteenth when he. stood up in the gallery and by the way the

congressman already left in the charge him under a statute when i read the statute says any way interfering with deliberations of congress when congress is in session they were in session so i think this guy's been targeted but i think this sends a signal that if you're really going to be aggressive in your free speech as to nonviolence you're going to be ponies the fact that he was up in the tree forty c. they actually put a ladder up in the tree and it's a good chance that that was the police that broke the tree he's been charged with defacing public property which is the tree so he has a trial february twenty fifth in d.c. but i that we're going to challenge it right away i don't think that we should be banning free speech protesters from anywhere if they're doing something that's roughly arrested on the spot find them but they should be allowed to come back and protest if they want so is this fair pending that he can't violate and constitution his constitutional rights that this. banning is. well

banning somebody's harley from a city to stay in washington d.c. is a free speech forum generally there's all kinds of protestors you know going all knocking to pick on this one guy we defended number of people up there that have been what they call disruptive but setting that three i mean what the police will call me and say what do you do i said it's pretty cold. why would you drag him out of a tree when he's just making a statement he's nonviolent i mean if he was up there with a pistol or knife sure but what was the urgency of writing the tree and then banning him from the city got to be kidding me well another point that i have to bring up is the issue of security i mean luckily this man wasn't trying to hurt anyone hurt the president i'm surrounding public the capitol police knew that and they will allow him to finish his protest rather than cutting down the tree or worse however that isn't always the case the reason these the security protocols are in place is because that there are tangible safety risks so how do you suppose

authorities that make this that can make this distinction between free speech and safety with that how can they take that into account i think they had to take that . as well known by the way they know who he is he's been nonviolent history he was up there with a saw and like i say if it appeared to have a weapon or something sure but we go and we go back to the central point here the center point is they've actually banned him from the entire district of columbia because of his activities i mean if we can do that then marshal take the first amendment flush it down the toilet i mean that's to me is like crazy black i say the supreme court opinions that i've read say really clearly we have a right to travel and you can do this unless you have a trial and a full hearing some reason why this bill should be restricted i don't see why you can't do is activity it is doing so all of us that arrest the most bought him in jail are funny. a decision like this is usually made after conviction so what's the

difference in this case that requires him to be banned from the city for at least a temporary amount of time. or basically what he's been bailed out of trial i mean there's not going to hear he's not had a lawyer i mean that's what the court has said it was called due process the supreme court said you can't restrict the laws right ravelled out due process means you have a lawyer you had a hearing you had no other that so we're going to challenge that immediately if we start doing less than what we call free speech in washington d.c. it will come to an end now and as you mention mr whitehead this man is a professional protester you had mentioned a couple of the instances but i do kind of want to reiterate some he was arrested just five days before the inauguration at a house chamber session for disorderly conduct on january second he was arrested for interrupting the senate session when he yelled out that sandy hook was caused by abortion mentioned that last october he was arrested on that and i'll be playoff

game and that's where mitt romney had attended it he was also arrested in lima ohio for stopping at a campaign stop that president obama was that so he takes up a lot of the police force this time and our resources and attention does he take things too far when where do we draw the line between free speech and somebody that's. wasting city resources well us why the place you're there you know you know i'm a big hero martha king and he called for a disruption he said make the government come out and use their resources that's the way you get in the news and get action so this fellow is just practicing what a lot of dissenters of done you go back to gandhi did the same thing they were called disruptive they were implies they were terrorists or communists so. brogan fellows just a lot of call dissenters you have something to say but here's the point is we've colored clothes we have free speech zones we have instead. these were people are

pushed off into guardrails and they can't talk to their representatives and i think that's what we're seeing you have roaming free speech zones around public officials that you can't even walk up and talk to anybody a congress or whatever without getting arrested spring courts actually up the left so what you're seeing is a lot of frustration i think we should take this serious. and start providing for free speech but what i'm really concerned here is this ban i mean if we can ban somebody from a city especially washington d.c. because of what he believes to be free speech without a hearing we've moved into a new era a new paradigm which is i think very frightening now let me ask you this there's a huge demonstration today in washington d.c. a spaniel pro-life rally i mean there are thousands upon thousands of people that came out to protest to get attention and they and they did get attention on many of the mainstream networks i mean meanwhile grogan didn't really get that much attention on inauguration day i know i didn't hear about his case until

a few days later so are there are happy better ways to have your message hard than climbing a forty foot tree. i was thinking would be a better way than clive tree i agree with that but that's not the point i mean he's like a safe been banned for what he perceived to be his way to speak out. so sure i wouldn't do that but for what james madison say if you wrote the first amendment he said the first amendment was written to protect the minority against the majority the minority he was talking about or people like rogan who the people consider are extremists and generally that's what the first members there for done protect you and me we wouldn't do such a thing so let me ask you what the next step in his trial process is where we go from here we're looking to file a motion to make sure he can travel into the city before february if he can and then that we're moving forward and then there will be a trial on the merits of this case basically whether or not what he did was really free speech in terms of the court or disrupt the balance to that i mean as i look

at the given the law that he was charged under in the house of representatives gallery they were already out session the law flies the congress in session so. again i'm worried i mean i've been in this area for forty years fighting for free speech and i don't like the bans not a good idea or free speech. now and robin says the most the time when he is arrested he gets usually he gets off with either no charges are really just a slap on the wrist or one of christ's to a slap on the west but i'm not sure that be the norm are is that the type president precedent that that the authorities want to set out in or would it be encouraging others to actually follow his behavior i don't know that i think that what it shows is they don't they don't believe this is a serious offense that's number one it may courage others but again i don't see many people doing these kind of things that this guy's a rare bird. he takes it very seriously believes in it he makes no money off of it he willing to get offering get arrested i thought america we protected the ship and

i think it's very important we try to do that but he is a rare bird. there's no doubt about that so one final question what drew you to this case so adamantly other than that is there anything other than the fact the plain and simple fact that he has been banned from a city and then that is violating his constitutional rights shocked me yes that he would be banned from the district of columbia where if you look back and you talk about the pro-life rally today and then the great civil rights movement that all took place in washington d.c. i have a dream speech if these kind of walls were put in force in birmingham alabama there might not have been a civil rights movement so we don't want to stand for this kind of thing you should have a right to travel where he was as long as he's receiving a law i mean he can drive into washington d.c. and eat a restaurant what to the country is enforce those kind of laws while the good point that john w. whitehead constitutional attorney for the rutherford institute i appreciate your

time sir thank you earlier this week we told you about ken dotcoms new venture known as mega by using the salmon service dot com says users are taking a stand against governments trying to control the internet so are you ready to go mega well laura hardness of the resident dot net took that question to the streets of the big apple. kim dotcom just launched his new file sharing service mag he says by using it you're saying yes to internet freedom is file sharing the future of the internet this week let's talk about that have you ever stolen a movie or music off the internet i plead the fifth i'll take that as a yes. if you think that anything wrong with that you know why do people get very

angry about it and send people to jail that are not the problem is that they're being wrong is that people who need to make money don't make their money. should they just figure out a new way is it up to them or is that up to us to stop taking it. have you never stolen anything off the web for moral reasons or just because you never have never . known how to if it were easy and you did know how to would you do it more often yeah if i knew how to do it i mean. bad things. you know should it be for a should music in movies be free. because by you but. i don't think people take it as serious as the government. should we should we take it more seriously hard to ease up on you know it's music but it's not money coming out of your pocket like it has out of the artists or directors or studios i don't know i don't know mobile size of the firm so i think it's been. a real issue it is

what it was how do we stop people from stealing though if it's so easy i think they need to appreciate the arts and they need and they will appreciate and steal music yeah i think it's better to give a dollar to the arts than you know a politician or your government yeah of course or cigarettes but maybe if some of it will go to some kind of the nation maybe it will inspire people to do so do you think though that you know the future is going to have a whole different landscape for intellectual property that will view it differently like it's kind of everyone's. i don't know i haven't really thought about it i mean i guess if you write a song you'd still yours so you should still have get credit for it at least ninety nine cents and you had so much that. you should get something whether or not you think file sharing is the future of the internet the bottom line is enough people do it to pose a serious threat to current business models.