still to the innocence this is a logical consequence and this is nothing bad about it mr reeve maintains that leaving the group of clean russian athletes on paper out of the winter olympics isn't a sanction also i found out that the refusal of the i.o.c. to get the dozens of russian athletes on board the olympics in some cases was a result of pure suspicion and other cases it was a result of some real evidence which however mr reeves hasn't seen after all he wasn't a member of the panel but the secretary general promised that this evidence will soon be published so let's wait for now let's have a look at the other highlights of my exclusive interview a cas has been shown something as a people here there was no review of every the sochi case was not discussed here the metro report was last discussed here it's only the review of the process so it

was not just sanctions it was an eligibility issue i understand the reaction of the public in russia because it doesn't seem logical exactly the russian side doesn't see the logic here how is stripping a person of the right to compete at the olympics not a sanction this is. a special procedure because the created a special commission so the cast by the here reviewed these criteria and said they were fair please let me get this straight the tsotsi case and the chain case your saying that there are absolutely no contradictions between the two decisions yes the fact that you cannot establish the give evidence of the deal doesn't mean that you have established the innocence of the athlete you see what i mean i'm sorry but i thought that was the exact job of cas to determine whether that suspicion is enough for that kind of bad maybe that there are suspicions which are notes.

confirmed by sufficient evidence i don't know if i'm clear because it's a little bit skopec ated that is you can have some elements which show some. suspicious actions by the athletes but they may not be sufficient to convince the panel that for sure this athlete is guilty of an anti-doping rule violation but it doesn't mean that they actually did nothing at all there may be some. some strange actions which could lead to some suspicion so you are saying there can be more transparency it's possible it's possible yes as you heard a couple of minutes ago when cas initially overturned the i.o.c. bans of the sochi athletes the international olympic committee was very critical of the court thomas back demanded reforms and i asked the secretary general if anyone returned to these ideas after the final decision of the russian athletes was made and the answer was no so it turns out when the court of arbitration for sport came

up with a verdict that fully satisfied the i.o.c. nobody wants to reform cas any more while you see that exclusive interview with the cast said for generous hard hitting. full for the day we show you on wednesday you were not international. instance the lid to committee is another situation on its hands in south korea as reports emerge the i.o.c. told the us female ice hockey team to remove the image of the statue of liberty from its elements the rules state that no political symbols can be displayed on the athletes uniforms that's why the reports that the lady liberty was being given the cold shoulder by the i.o.c. quickly sparked headlines caused outrage online so media suggesting national flags and anthems might as well be removed two interesting twitter users echoed those critical remarks some accuse the i.o.c. are biased saying it doesn't mind sponsor money and logos such as the a famous night but others questions of canada should then remove maybe the iconic

maple leaf its national symbol from its jerseys and equipment i guess you can see the argument either side the i.o.c. later backtracked saying it was a misunderstanding and it actually never asked the u.s. team to remove the image but let's talk about it anyway we're joined by professor of sports of these of sociology at his cashmore i are less you know what do you think about that than the american team's helmets fifteen miles in that the one of the most unlikely things got them in trouble the i.o.c. said it's a matter of confusion misunderstanding but i suppose they must have thought that a point to start with yes or no. yes or no if it's a very minor matter of care of it really isn't it but i do find it absolutely ridiculous that the olympics is now trying to stamp out any kind of reference to nationalism the whole point of the olympics was originally at least in the late nineteenth

century when the modern olympics started to bring nations together and it did have a political motive even though the athletes themselves were not competing as representatives of the countries they were competing as individuals on the other hand over the years what has happened is that the olympics have been hijacked. in one way or another by political interest groups sometimes whole governments and have been used for good purposes or bad i don't think you can keep politics out of the olympics any more than you can keep politics out of sport generally and i don't think you can keep nationalism out either so you know this is a storm in a teacup kevin yeah i mean i will when all the media all the cameras are focused on the event like this i suppose is going to happen that bin those south korean protests against north korea's participation have been the fishes claim in the opening ceremony was then jumping to blame russia says the new reality of the competition is going to be that way or. i think so i think we have to

resign ourselves to the fact that the olympic games winter and summer are both inherently political and it's not just the two weeks of the games themselves but the whole build up to them we've seen over the past two or three years this whole russian doping business has just escalated and escalated to the point where russians have been eliminated disqualified from competition that is in itself a political decision and we've seen this whole narrative that's been gone for a very long time. about doping and you know i've been on the program before several times talking about this whole issue of how people are burying their heads in the sand saying this is not political it's about well of course it's political we know all about that we can look at the history of the olympic games you know kevin and see that it is political i mean it's been used for bad purposes we can remember it some of us at least now he's seventy two in the massacre in munich and any rational

person would this is one of the most hideous events if. only because at the time i want to make a list only because of time just to take you on just sort of the russian doping thing going to begin to feed coming out tomorrow we did with the c.s.i. going to general he said explanations should be given to the russian athletes that were denied competing in south korea the big news a couple of days ago do you think that will ever be forthcoming though that explanation why hasn't counsel ready given enough reasons. no the terrific interview we saw a few moments ago and i think it it perfectly illustrated the the tangle that the court of arbitration seem to have got themselves into first make flip flopping basically the first they made a decision that flew in the face of the i.o.c. position and then later said but that doesn't mean to say russians are completely off the hook this won't be a sanction but we're still disqualifying them from coming to the olympics you know

. how can that not be his and should not be a punishment it's going to be interesting to her the last of this year is going to be interesting to see what what he says unfold from our other big interview it's a hard hitting what he's saying coming up tomorrow with our correspondent. talking to the boss there for now i've got to leave it at this catch more thanks professor of sport studies in sociology always love to see you it's eighteen minutes past six moscow time coming up a lot more busy news tonight we take a look at the virus that covertly uses your computer to illegally mind cryptocurrency another scary one outs make it waves because it's infected sites and groups meant to protect us. manufacture consent to public wealth. when the ruling class is protect themselves.

we can all middle of the room sick. to be. able to watch saw you on the idea that dropping bombs brings us to the chicken hawks forcing you to fight the battles. so you start by the tell you that the gas of the fabric. of our citizens have. been out. of office for a week along the border with what. i

guess we're going next until a virus that can access your computer of mine cryptocurrency back to hack is reportedly infected thousands of government websites kicked off over the weekend this is even affecting the u.k.'s data protection watchdog you can see the irony there the malware uses a technique known as crypto jacking now here's why here's how it works effectively hijacked computers that visit infected websites so then covertly mines cryptocurrency using the laptop or desktop capabilities stay with me and finally it then sends the mind coins back to the hacker and then on to the online wallet or i scott helms the mother exposed all this obscure the expletive broken the government websites had been infected along with thousands of others in this crypto jacking virus you're a hero scott bartley either thanks for being with us but i don't understand it what

does this mean i don't know if you are so currency so why should what why should i why should a lot of us worry about this. like us the worst thing is that you have inadvertently finance their criminal gang your device has been taken over your mind cryptocurrency and has been sent to the criminals that masterminded this attack. right got to these viruses don't steal data how do they work it later in layman's terms for us. yes so once you're on one of the infected websites which include some government websites here in the u.k. over the weekend what happens is your device is temporarily borrowed by the bad guys and they use not to do these complex mathematical operations and that results in you being rewarded with crypto currency which is you know can be converted into real money and then the bad guys make away with that and you have been used your computer your power home has been used to generate funds for the these these

criminal gangs know this the way that this guardian apparently was through something called brows allowed yeah that's something the deaf and hard of hearing and. sight people use that's a lot of people as has gotten and that's how they got in that's the crux of the problem is it. yeah so a lot of the web sites that were impacted were kind of official or government websites a lot of local councils and departments here in the county because they all load the software for visually impaired visitors to their website to have their website read out loud to them rather than having to read the website and the attackers have compromised this third party and because all of these different government websites load the compromised software into their web pages they are by extension compromised as well so the bad guys target one company and they end up compromising in this case thousands of web sites as well at least one wakeup call after another isn't there i mean a lot of these sites these government sites are highly protected the highly

guarding themselves you would think to get this kind of attack but it hasn't worked yet again it's going to be constant constant chasing your tail zero isn't it to try and stay above the hackers say one step in front of them. yeah i think especially with this one one of the the things that i'm hoping is this will be kind of a wake up call that the technologies do exist to defend against this topic and there are ways that we can ensure this doesn't happen again unfortunately it seems that they were in place in many examples over the weekend and i'm hoping that this we actually go away quite mildly with krypto jacking it could have been a lot worse and what i'm hoping is that this will serve as a wake up call going forward and we may see organizations start to protect against attacks like this but more and more people use crypto currencies the more and more this we're going to see a way. yes i think so i think certainly the rise of crypto jacking is related to the value of crypto currency so as a crypto currency increases in value if you can steal it or obtain it

illegitimately then then your proceeds increase and they're worth more so i think yes that we will see the rise of more crypto jocking attacks like this partially motivated by the increase in the value of crypto currency is and partially motivated right now by the ease with which these attacks can be carried out and i suppose unless someone pulls a finger right on this it's going to deter a lot of people from try in their hand with crypto currency to buy in this stuff for the hard and soft somewhere that could just disappear. i hope not yeah i mean it doesn't it doesn't go a great when headlines are made about crypto currencies and they're being used by by criminals are being up tamed illegitimately in mind illegitimately like we saw with this attack over the weekend book criminals of use cash for hundreds of years and criminals will move to the next form of currency which is crypto currency so i hope that doesn't deter people but if you just know all the usual it wasn't just big web sites this is personal people's websites were hacked as well just norden

reuse you know how on the board you need to be these days you need to be looking at your. software to save god's daily weekly was an apple user and we had that great big load the other day you know that you don't notice the knocked off my printers or the truck in the bin. if you're not really big cryptocurrency but you might like to try it. it is really off putting in and if you know so into your computer safeguards that is the normal human being what should you be doing i think there's a few common things of fortune with this attack here because it was government sites that were here you as a user would quite legitimately go to one of those websites and not expect to become a victim of an attack like this. fortunately this was as i said earlier quiet mild example of what the attackers could have done but i think common advice still applying is you know make sure that you keep your device up to date if it's an i phone do the i phone update if it's windows do windows update make sure you're

getting the latest versions of maybe you have antivirus programs on your computers all of the standard kind of advice still applies here. and you know that the why diminish it just needs to react to this and start getting on top of these kinds of attacks scott out there emergency service a curing expert here as we say i think you've been on the program much appreciated thank you for watching as well this is art international i'm kevin though in more just over thirty minutes. what politicians do something to. put themselves on the line to get accepted or rejected. so when you want to be president or injury. or somehow want to be rich. to go on to be prosperous like the hopeful tree in the morning can't be good. i'm

interested always in the waters of our. question. joining me every thursday on the all excitement show and i'll be speaking to a guest of the world of politics sport that's less i'm show business i'll see you than. in america a college degree requires a great deal. paying a decade's long debt. studying so hard it requires trust to. go through humiliation to enter an elite society. and parching to death sometimes quite literally. wants of the true colors of universities in the us.

if not now. i'm in my. eyes. ratings salutation. who doesn't love a good spy story arc watchers and boy oh boy oh boy oh boy did we get a doozy this week both the intercept and the new york times released competing

stories featuring one hundred thousand dollars cash drops shady intelligence agency middleman the promise of trump russian compromise that and the danger of stolen n.s.a. hacking tools you know tom clancy couldn't write any better. ian fleming could but i digress writing for the intercept james risin outlines how the n.s.a. was desperate to recover documents that intelligence officials believe russia had obtained through a mysterious group known as the shadow brokers but once the communications channel opened the russians on the other side offered to sell documents related to trump along with these stolen and they say documents rising goes on to write how the cia was wary of accepting the trump documents initially worried about not only the motives behind the offer but the potential political blowback as well meanwhile over at the new york times matthew rosenberg reported that after months of secret

negotiations a shadowy russian built american spies out of one hundred thousand dollars last year and that the episode ended this year with american spies chasing the russian out of western europe a spy story told well rising the story didn't mention the hundred grand both stories ultimately concluded that the russia russian go between offering all the info could not be relied upon or trusted but i guess that didn't stop us from handing over a hundred thousand grand to him in the process the cia has come out firing telling a fee that this is a fictional story that the cia was bilked out of a hundred grand is patently false the people swindled here were james rising and mad rosenberg. journalist versus the cia the cia versus credibility the n.s.a. still left wondering where their hacking tools under the up and the russia gaiters all of the russia gaiters once again disappointed that reality just does not reflect their fantasy i guess it's time to start watching the hawks.

to. get the. real thing it's like. at the bottom if you. like you know that i got. three. weeks. welcome on the watching the hawks i am i robot and i'm taffeta well that's. a lot of spies this weekend to have big spy was spying novel big here going on and yet somehow we don't seem to get more information about this by that suppose the reason we're investigating spying and the first. it's too hard to keep eyes too hard to keep up now that was

a fascinating think as you saw like the intercept story came out like earlier on friday and then suddenly out came the new york times and i had first to think like oh we were negotiating for information to get like these hacking tools then we got like russia gate to trump russian collusion that russians themselves wanted to sell to us and then suddenly the new york times story comes out undercuts all of that and says no they were built out of a hundred grand and that like all these people seem to be kind of ponies and not really who they say they were and not really representing what they said they represented which is begs the question said we believe the cia when they come out today you know saying that they never paid the russians off for they are in. asian or anything we didn't pay anybody but the cia literally has a policy of not confirming or denying so them saying it's not is odd to me it is because they wouldn't normally speak on this sort of stuff they wouldn't have any

they would say there's nothing i mean that you would mean the guy from the gong show so they still haven't confirmed that he that's true is or isn't and wasn't a cia or was a spies so how do you know. it's very bizarre is a very strange story this idea they wanted to pay for information that was theirs but it got stolen but they want it back yes. yes it is an odd one it isn't because of that it begs the question of why would the you know n.s.a. pay for mation right now compromise hacking tools you know when when the question would be you know it's not like you could just make a copy of it right it's all a photocopy right because we don't know they have an answer to that but there was an answer to that right one of the things that they did say about that was rise and reported that the shadow brokers theft of these u.s. but the fact that u.s. officials wanted to see how deep it went how much they actually have but then my question is again what you're doing is relying on stolen information from people

who stole information from you and you're you're paying one hundred thousand dollars it wasn't going to just be a hundred thousand dollars apparently what they would have kept going it was a million well you sort of already know you started at ten million immediately drawn to him and then you got this weird hundred thousand dollars that no one wants to take responsibility for that apparently there they were using the whole negotiations where they were using like an american businessman to like act as a proxy of the sort of go she ations and the other guy was supposedly acting as proxy for like you know russian intelligence services i mean to me it really at the end of the day tab it really does the this question because they're trying to say well what was it like a. but it hang out where they try to like get us to buy bad information that's easily disprovable of like trump russia meddling so that way the intelligence agencies look bad so the question now is was the bad trump and so designed by russians to make the us agencies look bad or was it just really just like

a shady character in europe who figured out a way to build goble us intelligence agencies for some money because then when they're like you know dude we don't trust the information the guy just took a drink walked away you know he's like oh ok i'm out you know you were saying like which is it those is which was somebody who was trying just trying to make you know shady russian making a off of idiotic americans. or he was an idiotic americans. i say yes to both i think it's a little of both honestly i think it's odd that we would be spending resources and time and not realize that this is how this works you send out bad information in order to make them look bad and truth believe it's worked there even if it was just so you know. national who wanted to just build some people and make americans look bad either way it just looks ridiculous so our stuff getting stolen all the time we can't even keep our hacking tools safe i won't we get our hacking tools stolen we

use lots of money and resources to get them back even though now they've already got them and all that stuff is out because it's been leaked so why are we and it's not a secret anymore than it is before we accepted one good note is that n.s.a. was communicating like there heard like the guy you want to know if the u.s. government is truly doing this to the n.s.a. it was using their tweets from over the summer about like morse code as code to this guy to let them know that it really was the u.s. government you know interested in what he had to say so what does this tell us more we're don't trust what the n.s.a. tweets that's probably code for something. lisa lucas a lifelong resident of west virginia is planning to run for the state's house of delegates and one of the reason she's running as her discussed with big money buying power that belongs to the people at a recent public hearing for west virginia bill age before two six eight an oil and gas industry sponsored bill that would allow companies to drill on land without the

owner's permission lucas pointed out the hypocrisy of the public airing. to keep it short simply because the public only gets a minute forty five while lobbyist can throw a gala at the myriad with whiskey and wine and talk for hours to the delegates. but when locust begins reading off the donations members of the committee had received from the very corporations who would benefit from the legislation those members felt she was making a personal attack eventually silencing with lisa lucas first stating those facts. in the. third place. but. what's even worse she wasn't just being comical when she mentioned whiskey and wine the shale

energy alliance literally how loud a whiskey wine and policy winter legislative reception at the charleston marriott hotel two days before the public hearing lukas attended the purpose was according to them for legislators suppliers and other supporters will attend the event to network a discussion energy alliances legislative priorities so if she is simply spokes facts why were these little legislating snowflakes feeling so darn attacked well as lisa lucas put it quote if they feel attacked by mentioning their donors to me they shouldn't be taking that money and quote true facts are. true fact this is this is great because what this points out is exactly what everybody is harped on government across the land for doing especially here in the states on loans national bedroll the whole bit because here you have achieved a great point you guys can go of one cigars and hang out and talk about shale

energies legislative priorities for hours on end but citizens get about a minute forty five in the morning each to get up there and just say with their yeah may i like this bill or not yet and if the facts are a little too like uncomfortable for them they know and lets her know attack telling people where i get my money from this guy who was sitting up there said that she was doing personal attacks that's why the drug or where they said well you're down there you're getting personal you make mistakes which of course i would say that person should just go up and say oh this dude you know. i don't like him but she was a she was no not at all saying frat she was some what love to use these guys campaign she wasn't stating like this guy's a jerk face i don't like it was you say well there's oil company gave x. amount of money to this guy's campaign this company gave x. more with it that it's public record it's no there's no i'll do something that's not known these things are facts and the legislation she's talking about benefits

they business you know not the little guy and that's this this whole thing in west virginia is the keep pushing this like well if we could just get coal back because you know black lung hasn't been popular in the last couple of decades you know it was a bill that they were trying to vote on that sparked all this so this was a bill forty two sixty eight so what it what it says is that a majority of seventy five percent of the owners of shares of a single piece of property could determine whether the property could develop for ass for oil or gas extraction so it'll be the someone might have sold or at least off their mineral rights and they own like one percentage or seven eighths of a show. air which if you have minerals underneath your land that could be a huge amount of money to a farmer some unknowns land the problem was before if that person with even the tiniest share said no you couldn't do it and now what they're saying is we don't care about what that minority person who may be living on that land if the corporation owns the bigger.