are watching television and their homes the traditional way according to a nielsen report there will be more than five million is zero t.v. households in the us in two thousand and thirteen zero t.v. household are homes where viewers watch a video content on other devices such as computers smartphones and tablets instead of primarily on t.v. the average american absorbs more than forty one hours per week of video content on all screens from televisions to smartphones that's almost five and a half hours a day so let's profile area is an internet subscription based company that will instant two thousand and twelve some believe it has the potential to become the netflix of the broadcast television and history you ask how does area work according to what we found on the company's website ariel has developed an unbelievably small television and ten a small enough to fit on the tip of your finger and receives t.v. reception area has taken their tiny antenna and created

a data center which allows users to connect to broadcast television via the internet without the use of cords cables or boxes for a nominal fee subscribers can stream live and delayed television programs on internet connected devices however the presence of area has not gone unnoticed by a traditional television broadcasters twentieth century fox univision p.b.s. and others have joined to file a lawsuit against the company on copyright infringement broadcasters are using aereo of launching an unlicensed service that streams television programming over the internet to paying subscribers computers mobile phones and tablets without seeking or receiving consent from the television signal owners but earlier this year a federal of appeals court ruled that area could continue to operate while the broadcasters lawsuit against them proceeded this ruling has upset. several broadcasters news

corp chief operating officer chase carey has the right end to pull ariel off the airwaves aereo when's the haze so what's the bottom line according to variety only ten percent of u.s. homes will an over the air at c.v. but aerial has the potential to change the game of broadcast television areas business model could push broadcasters like p.b.s. c.b.s. n.b.c. and fox to a subscription only channels transforming what have been afraid public service for millions of homes and change the american broadcasting and history as we know it but the legal uncertainty around areas technology it leaves the company's business model vulnerable it will be interesting to see if this small tech company can to win a case against the media conglomerates. well

the n.s.a. the saga continues with reports over the weekend that the government agency labeled thirty eight embassies as targets and they even installed bugs in the european union's building right here in d.c. now for more on the n.s.a. scandal and the impact of government spying programs we turn to mark levine a former legislative counsel ok to barney frank and host of the inside scoop thank you mark for coming here my pleasure let's talk about snowden let's do that all right so what about him what's your take my take is he didn't tell me anything i didn't already know frankly to form a congressional trannies like myself if you didn't know this was going on where were you and i'm not talking about top secret information in the bush administration that's exactly right we began it in the u.s.a. patriot act i wrote a small portion of it not the part that's controversial going on here. and i want

to get to that in a minute but yes ok but the point is that this was well known this was done on under the foreign intelligence surveillance act and we liberals actually opposed it at the time when george bush did it it was largely unauthorized but in two thousand and six in two thousand and eight in all three authorizations for both and the patriot act it's there in statute i still think it's against the constitution ok clearly statutorily authorized so you are a person who believes that if there is legislative content that is opposed to the constitution itself that it should not be enforced or would you just say that it should be overturned by the supreme court at some time i think people should take it to court one of the problems with all of this how do you get to court that's exactly the problem is the a.c.l.u. tried to take it to court but under the state secrets privilege no one could prove they were being spied against even though they were being spied against we know that now and so they can take it to court now i think they can so snowden may have done us a real service he may have been able to take this latest challenge of the constitution i love that that's so absolutely should the united states of america it is in the fourth amendment very clearly you have the right to be secure papers in effect

stuff and less you have they have probable cause to believe you've committed a crime and then they seek a warrant i believe all this warrantless spying on us i think it's unconstitutional let's talk about m.f. global which is another apparent crime and john corazon is finally being accused by the see have to see in this these are just civil charges but it's been two years the futures a new industry was shoveled into disarray because of what this guy did he took customer money he used to bet on sovereign and why is it taken this long for him to face any charges whatsoever by the c. of d.c. the problem of all of these things is that these allegations just like bear stearns just like lehman brothers they're making bad bets and stealing customer accounts apparently to do them i don't know if the allegations are true they appear to be but it takes a lot of time to unwind the transaction find out who the guilty party is the real concern that i have is not punishing courts and he should be punished and obviously everyone who did it should go to jail my concern is this is going to happen again and again and again it's going to happen every five years just as it happened every five years in the. unless we get that vocal rule out of the dodd frank bill that

i've been advocating before on your show that's great let's talk about the volcker rule what about it ok i happen to agree that if you're going to have a federally subsidized banking industry the way we have with the banks ok there's should be limitations on that i don't think we should have been the first place but tell me what's your view on the volcker rule we need the poker world basically local rules and it's not because you want to gamble gamble on your own money don't gamble using taxpayer subsidized money don't gamble on customer accounts that's the problem but of course i did it cause i just bet his own funds he's a multimillionaire if he just. maybe not that would have been ok the problem is when he took the segregated customer accounts which are protected by institutions like the f.b.i. cia or in this case. itself well ok let me switch to another earlier today former white house chief of staff erskine bowles talked about reforming the tax code and here is what happened. we can bring down the corporate tax rate the corporations will have more money available to invest and invest in this

country to create jobs over here it will make us more competitive it will keep companies headquartered here in the us rather than see them going out countries we need to ok what do you think well you and i had this discussion about apple what about a few weeks ago but the problem is not that the corporate tax rates too high the problem is that if you too few corporations are paying their taxes we have let about maybe a third at best corporations paying their taxes i'll call slowing the rate and you do long as they make that apple is actually playing by the rules here it is the law that they're playing but it is the law but if you're going to change the law and you lower corporate tax rates we need to make sure that every corporation pays them i'm all for lowering it to obama's rate of twenty eight percent or something like that as long as we make ninety percent of corporations pay taxes and thirty percent more money comes into the government it's fair to corporations what could be the problem what could be the problem is that the government actually does not spend money very wisely it doesn't have price incentives so i guess if you're

a central planner and you believe that the government can spend money wisely yes they should have more money but if you're somebody that believes that the government actually is not a capable wizard you know spending all this money then maybe it's not such a good thing well with some church i once said that democracy is the worst system in the world except for all the others use the government and if the government if you like the way the government spending your money then by all means vote for somebody else i'm not a big fan of congress right now in particular not a big fan of the house of representatives remember the majority of americans voted for the democrats it's only because they drew the district lines in funny ways that the republicans are in power at all ok so we have a little bit of gerrymandering going on but a lot of bit of ok well let's look at the nature of democracy itself majority rules is this inherently something that's that can protect people's rights well that's why we have the constitution that's why i carry around in my pocket i mean we do have certain protections under the fore. for example to protect us from being spied on and be relied on if you don't think government spending is wise i don't think

you have a constitutional remedy you haven't used to vote the bums out let's let's talk about the constitution and the supreme court ruling doma the defense of marriage act what's your take on this well defense of marriage act was clearly unconstitutional it is clear unconstitutional in the past and the reason is simple no one in this document say anything about the federal government defining marriage that has always been something that's been the province of the states it should actually probably be a private matter of people why should the states be involved at all and in the marriage the civil contract it would be really hard to undo hundreds of years of law in the united states and i think every single country on the globe where the government sanctioned marriage marriage provides about two thousand civil benefits and one thousand state level of thousand at the federal level and i don't know of a single country on earth that just allows marriages to be private there may be one somewhere but the government you know whether it's taxes or security or medicare or frankly who raises children marriage laws help order society ok financial implications of doma are there any i mean a lot actually one thing i gave couples can now file joint income tax returns sure

they they're going to lower tax receipts for the government you know it's interesting it actually will increase tax receipts in some circumstance in certain states right well and also if you have for example a couple where one one the husband is high earning and his has been is lowering your put their funds together it's like the marriage penalty and it actually pay more in taxes and also when it comes to benefits for example to single people get different medicaid benefits or medicare benefits that are married couple might bring more money in that way but it reduces money in things like estate taxes and otherwise so in that it is a beneficial for thing for our financial system you know i don't know in that the it's a very large impact one way or the other the main impact of course is treating couples fairly well i think the main impact is that it's just it's civil rights for people and that's what we need i like this document that you keep how i can be very afraid all the time really all the time all the time about not swimming in the shower but otherwise i do keep my conversation with me ok stay tuned because we'll be right back with mark levine and he is the host of the inside scoop. well there

and you don't want to miss my duel with political commentator sam sachs and we're going to talk to him about the seventy fifth anniversary of wage price fixing that would be the minimum wage. here is mitt romney trying to figure out the name of that thing that we americans

call a dollar. i'm sorry i'm just a guy who cares an awful lot but you sir are a fool you know what that is my other terror cells you know want to give us a feature is on the on the ball the crystal ball because your beliefs about the. you know the corporate media distracts us from what you and i should care about because there are profit driven industry that sells a sensationalistic garbage because that breaking news i'm not me martin and we're going to break that.

i would rather as questions for people in positions of power instead of speak on their behalf and that's why you can find my show larry king now right here on our t.v. question more. is it possible to navigate the economy with all the details of his text message information and media hype will he do you up to date by decoding the mainstream status if in your mind.

we're. all right we're back with mark levine now you actually are one of the only authors of the patriot act that have ever had the privilege to talk to so why don't you tell me a little bit about why don't overstate my role after about five pages of a two hundred page bill and in fact the part that i draft is no longer in the bill so i don't want to overstate it but what i wrote was called the frank amendment barney frank my bottom sponsored it and it was something that should protect people civil liberties if you were spied on you could take an action to court and get a nominal damages and this is no longer in the patriot act that's one part that you wrote it's no longer a true civil liberties that's true but that's the part that let me let me know

what's in the actor had just. the entire act and actually my boss constant frank opposed the bill when it came to the floor of congress interesting thing about the patriot act that most people don't know is that republicans and democrats worked together to have a very careful compromise that protected civil liberties and still gave the f.b.i. the cia the tools they need to go after terrorism why did we end up with the bill that we got what happened is we worked on it for about three weeks and george bush was threatening tom daschle the senate majority leader at the time saying if there's another terrorist attack it's your fault i'm going to blame you and what happened is even though the republicans democrats worked together we actually at that hearing of the judiciary committee we gave ourselves a standing ovation now this is the committee that includes maxine waters and lamar smith who just applauded and so far some of the far left in the far right ok i have never seen throughout much of greenman in congress on a really difficult bill i mean maybe for naming post offices this was a difficult bill it was carefully negotiated carefully crafted over several weeks i got to give both republicans and democrats really a lot of praise for this what happened george bush rolled over tom daschle they

they took it through the senate ninety nine to one and what happened is the senate bill then was introduced in the house was given an hour for people to read and lo and behold that became the usa patriot act not the one we drafted it sounds kind of like tarp because paulson hank paulson had drafted some or he was selling congress something and then he pulled a bait and switch i mean he said he was going to help mortgage holders instead what did he do he gave the money to the big banks i mean are there parallels are there any broad pearl is that we can draw between these two events unfortunate it happens all the time in this case and i was there in congress when it happened they ended the legislative day at nine am and what they do is you have to take one day to read a bill they said is that the day it was it was before the day was introduced went all through the night ended at nine am the next day began at ten am so they had one hour twenty four hours became one hour and lo and behold they didn't have to read the bill that's part of interest to the vast majority members of congress have not did not read the patriot act before it was passed unfortunately i don't think they

read a lot of legislation before it's past i'm. that's true and we can talk about that. if you have to ok your opinion of big coins i know what it is but stated for the viewers is a farce it's a ponzi scheme and if i could go and see skate i could short it coins see that's the question i want to go short on big points i want to buy a put option i think we're going to go down to zero and so i what i want to do is i want to bet against them let me say don't let me do that you know that's i don't hold it i would say that's why it's a legitimate financial product if you can shorted that means j.p. morgan cannot be in the market for it so which is why it will fail which is ok because it doesn't have the support of the big bankers it doesn't exist unfortunately doesn't exist don't buy that coins they do exist and i have one in my pocket very good yeah it's a cyber coin ok what's the future with snowden what's going to happen with this guy well right now he's apparently no where he's technically lim brush but he's not in russia because we took away his passport so he's sitting i guess i imagine sort of crawled across the kind of like this movie yeah you know kind of strike trying to

sleep there in the intercontinental snowden i think. i don't think it's as bad as a lot of people are saying i know george w. bush called him a traitor i consider dick cheney a traitor because dick cheney what he did is he took a real life spy valerie plame wilson he exposed her to me that's a traitor sack exposing an operative he says the american way of life is non-negotiable is that. you know i'm going to defend him i'm just cliches like that don't matter to me what matters to me is exposed frankly what i and many others already knew it was taking place so i'm glad we're having this discussion because i think it should be challenge and they should be challenged why don't we have this discussion before why is this so new to this discussion we staffers did back when the usa patriot act was formed there was a little bit of discussion in two thousand and six and two thousand and eight but it time the republicans all supported president bush and it was we liberals who were fighting against this surveillance oh now you go down and you find that president obama is doing the exact same thing that president bush has done and now the republicans are complaining maybe now we'll have both sides complaining and

actually protect this under the fourth amendment because democracy works very you know it's imperfect but the best system that that we have according to winston churchill in fact and what about google is google you know what's interesting is that stone expose the government is once all this information about us everyone we have recalled how long our calls lasted and so forth and i think to myself tino's who i called google knows who i'm e-mailing yahoo i mean all these companies know much more about me than the government and like the government they don't have a fourth amendment to restrict them from snooping and doing whatever they want i can tell you that i don't trust the government but i trust google even less because they don't have oversight i think the problem is when you don't have oversight of we have these public private partnerships and a lot of times there are there are no bid contracts or i think it's disingenuous to say that we have a march towards a free market when we have like prisons being outsource i mean what would you say about the i am against outsourcing i mean i look at actually the war in iraq you find that the people who had the military were doing an excellent job

a lot of times it was our contractors are getting us in trouble i wonder exactly right i mean we because for blackwater people were not where they were supposed to be they're paid far more than our military they do a much worse job let's stick to the government employees that do a better job than the people they outsource it interesting comments this is been mark levine thank you so much for joining me here in a pleasure. welcome to the daily dool joining me as political commentator sam sachs let's talk about corporate taxes i mean this week wholefoods co c.e.o. john mackey defended apple's tax strategy and he said that we would use tax havens

if you could so what about that if he could well unfortunately i guess he doesn't have much more foreign profits he's making i suppose the deal he wants to be more like apple which can stash most of its profits all over the world and it's fun with what's wrong with it is that you have no allegiance to any sort of country you want to call home i mean the fact that apple is an american company no that's not the case anymore apple has made international is an international company yeah that's right i mean we live in an international world these companies pay no allegiances or to any sovereign governments any country they might call home they only have allegiance to profit and that's it but let's look at the hurdles that apple faces in the u.s. ok we have osho we have incredible settlements to profitability all those hurdles those are things that you need to have in place so it will end up like bangladesh you have to deal with factory closures are not of bangladesh is poor ok when people in a civilization ok in a country when they're developing the poverty level rises above

a certain amount and the country becomes economically viable that solves the poverty problem in and of it in and of itself well then we people are making more money when workers are making more money they can join in form unions they can take risks with their jobs and they can demand better working conditions and that's what's happened in the united states with the ladder of wages whether or not they do not need to you learn to use them that from the 1930's the ninety's now. it's being rolled back and we want to we want to repeal all these things that working people have got together like ocean and everything which is paid for in part by tax dollars that companies don't want to pay in the united states all right well let's get to minimum wage that's last week the federal minimum wage celebrated its seventy fifth birthday or a birthday reigniting the age old arguments over how effective these policies have been what's your i know your take on the minimum wage is just offended look ok this goes back this goes back to what we were talking about bangladesh i mean we could have a race to the bottom in wages we can try to compete with look at how people are out of metal currently i don't know about what you don't switch this up on currency. we

need there's no reason to have working people making a penny wages who can't make enough money to provide for their families to to for health care to ford education and they have to they have to leave it all to go to their stuff but a rising tide lifts all boats i mean if we have a successful economy that means you don't arise in tide lifts all boats it means that if you have a successful economy everybody participates in it even the poorest so it is a successful economy look like an economy where wealth is in the hands of very few and working people don't have enough money to spend that money well i agree there is a tremendous amount of wealth disparity but that's because of the government policies right now despite it you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that you need rates of decline the fact that the minimum wage doesn't have anywhere close to the same purchasing power as it had in the one nine hundred sixty s. that it should be upwards of fifteen dollars if you count for worker productivity should be upwards of twenty dollars that's the reason why our economy so my central planning friend what is the ideal minimum wage rate because obviously you have it all figured out twenty two dollars ok one hundred million dollars well that's

a little absurd i'm not going to tell you certainly i think i think with corporate profits higher than they've ever been as a percentage of g.d.p. and workers' wages are lower than they ever been as a percentage of g.d.p. i think twenty twenty dollars is good ok my central solar unfriend but my point is if it's not going to be a million dollars and it's not going to be twenty two or. twenty three how does the government determine what the right amount is without sapping productivity there is no the problem with setting the minimum wage is you don't know what the ideal level is i don't think we're stopping productivity productivity is higher than it's ever been it keeps climbing steadily workers you can american workers are very productive they're just not getting paid or in the late seventy's they're became a divergence between wages and productivity and it's a never close you need to close that gap in the reason why some are close all the corporate executives have all the money that's what's with the wealth inequality we can get some of that i want is a tied up in the hands of people will never spend all their lifetimes and get it funneled back down to the hands of working people who will spend it that's how you

get a better economy there is too much money in the corporate executives when it comes to the financial sector but when it comes to companies like apple and google and i don't necessarily agree with everything they're doing right now and especially don't appreciate the the snooping business but that is a much more free market sector than the financial sector and i think you would have to agree that it isn't necessarily wrong that a google executive makes four hundred million dollars a year versus jamie dimon who makes thirty million dollars a year. well i mean i don't i don't know comparing executive to executives i don't know that there's a problem that actor will sector sector look i want to compare c.e.o. talk to workers you know when it used to be thirty to one now it's over four hundred you are screwed if you want to live in those who hold your scrooge and you can't pay the workers anything tiny tim. thank you so much for that that's lovely that's perfect well it's a nice hat if you want to weigh on the today show be sure to like us on facebook at facebook dot com slash interest and don't forget to follow sam on twitter at saks

you can follow me on english so sam thank you so much for thinking about the do all this i. i . it was a surreptitious day here at prime interest more snowden stuff ok all under the table we know but how about that john cordes and story were the all the headlines on the quads i banker who might actually have had to answer for his crimes we're still waiting for the m.s.m. on that one mark levine was not afraid to weigh in on the patriot act and corporate taxes and. all the guys know short of opinions we all know that but sam sachs brought the wage issue come out of its minimal cover and that's just the kind of

issue we like to cover here at prime interest so thank you for watching to make sure to come back tomorrow from everyone here a prime interest have a great night. little . technology innovation all the developments from around rush hour we'll go to the future of coverage. wealthy british style some time to. market why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy

with max kaiser for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to cause a report on our. iraq. comes from a. prime. coming out.

breaking news here on a russian rocket with three satellites crashes at the baikonur cosmodrome in kazakhstan just seconds after the blast off of toxic contamination could lead to an evacuation of the entire area. files twenty one asylum request on behalf of edward snowden a surveillance whistleblower whose month long odyssey of leaks has left many nations either fearful overlooked and to get involved. and president obama deals with european outrage over america's on the e.u.'s politicians and citizens obama saying well the topic is nothing new and everybody's doing. the president mohamed morsi takes all.