asa cuter joe wind bank stating an innocent b. c. the trumps performance today will live in infamy as much as the pearl harbor attack or the kristallnacht these are just a few of the lockstep chorus of voices heard around the media today from the new york times the box news yelling treason or some variation of it and just what heinous crime against the united states did president trump commit while on stage with president putin on monday well he had the audacity the audacity to question the u.s. intelligence communities or rather the cia f.b.i. and n.s.a. is hand picked out a less assessments on alleged russian meddling and for start stating the pollo ing in the presence of one vladimir putin i hold both countries responsible i think that the united states has been foolish and i think we've been foolish we should have had this dialogue a long time ago

a long time frankly before i got to office and i think we're all to blame i think that the united states now is step forward along with russia getting together and we have a chance to do some great things so just so we're all clear what is happening right now as we speak here in the united states a majority of our elected officials both right and left along with the majority of our journalists working in the in the corporate news media are now declaring that as high crimes and treasonous if a u.s. citizen even the president of the united states admits publicly to our country's past mistakes and questions the veracity of our intelligence community. ladies and gentlemen welcome to the fascist states of america and let's start watching the hawks. you. would know what. it looks

like. it would be. as if you were the bottom. of the day like you know that i got. this. i. welcome everybody to watch the hawks i am a robot and them type of a lot of. i don't people actually understand the definition of high crimes that doesn't mean high crimes and high in seriousness it's high because it's a public office as any person a high person that's where that comes from to see about the high crimes and misdemeanors thing can literally mean anything from not not following the law i mean andrew johnson was impeached under high crimes and misdemeanors because he he got rid of his deputy director of war minister of war who had been hired by the

previous president and it didn't even know if he actually broke any laws by doing that he were placed on body and that was considered high crimes and misdemeanors so . yeah you know ted i hope people really take a moment to step back and really look what's going on today because when you when you think about this is just as i said you right now have politicians on the right on the left and our mainstream media basically saying that if you if you're you are for peace between nuclear superpowers if you're biting to say hey i'm not that i look i don't like donald trump i don't like his policies i strongly disagree with them but i do like peace and i do like two nuclear superpowers talking with each other and trying to formulate the. and so they don't blow each other up at some point not turning up the dial to eleven you know tension and animosity and if you add you cannot question that and you can't question the intelligence community i'm

sorry that's precious to me and what comes my mind to it was one when was the last time we've seen something like this were just reasons are being thrown in question and don't dare question for us in two thousand and three to run up to the iraq war you couldn't criticize bush or you were on american it was the exact same i mean they probably just dusted off the the scripts that fox and m s n b and c.n.n. and just dusted out the old scripts and just changed out for bush because that was the same thing oh my god we're doing this we're doing that you know and at that time it was saddam was in the role of putin that time and the narrative was that a foreign power iraq you know these weapons of mass destruction they were supporting terrorism that directly led to a coordinated attack on the united states none of that was true by the way you know they didn't they didn't prove that in fact everybody had to go see it last time i checked you know the thing is the. indicting someone doesn't mean they're guilty we

have a court system that makes that decision with the jury system and the legal system that decides guilt not the media not politicians none of that decides guilt if they have the case bring the case bring these drove people over from from you know roscoe and bring them to trial and present the evidence we still have seen no evidence of this whatsoever and it's pretty sad because we throw around this hacking thing all the time starts turning up where that's a pretty high horse to stand on when you start talking about some hacking and computer issues but you know we don't we can't take any criticism here in the united states americans are not good with criticism in general i am making a broad generalization not a generalization about broad broad generalization of say this is something that we as americans are known for doing we don't like to criticize ourselves and we don't we don't like to ever say that we did something that we don't want to take responsibility no no responsibility that would just be terrible and the problem is

what happens when russia and china and iran start naming and they dating u.s. officials who are hacking their systems and computers and somebody and all that's what a bioterrorism and you're not a do that the u.s. national security administration or at agency tapped phone tapped the german chancellor angela merkel's and her closest ally or closest advisers for years and spied on the staff of her predecessors they tapped her cell phone. you know who are we to stand on the side of horse and say oh attacking and how dare people how close at the end of the day have we seen anyone trying to stop these cyber intrusion have the laws been passed has anyone you know when after spearfishing and said hey let's let's roll this back and don't know this is all political and i'm sorry it's shameful to be an american today to see this kind of like uniformed attack not because it's donald trump but because any time you throw treason and you throw in these words it's shameful because we don't even know what treason truly yours is

country. it's been almost a year since that fateful sunday in october when a gunman firing from two hotel room windows on the thirty second floor of the mandalay bay hotel in las vegas murdered fifty eight souls and injured over eight hundred in the chaos that followed and now as the united states still grapples with the issues and questions that still surround the horror of that evening corporate america in the form of the m.g.m. resorts international has filed lawsuits not against the usual suspects in a mass shooting like the gun manufacturers or any suspected accomplices to the crime no m.g.m. resorts international is suing the victims of the crime according to the las vegas review journal m.g.m. which owns the mandalay bay hotel casino and the venue of the route ninety one harvest music festival quote has filed federal lawsuits against more than one thousand las vegas mass shooting victims in an effort to avoid liability so to two

thousand and two federal act that extends liability protection to any company that uses anti-terrorism technology or services and g.m. hopes that a federal judge will rule that their use of department of homeland security certified security company at the time of the shooting will make and the future civil lawsuits against the company not viable due to the protections granted in the act it appears that our litigious nature here in the united states truly knows no bounds. oh this is brutal this is group is like of sorry like you know democrats and republicans on capitol hill parade corporations out of this kind of like you know capitalism corporate thing out it's like oh they're brilliant they're wonderful we love corporations especially when they apparently so victims yeah i guess the new rule like that's what the new thing now i know we've got to protect the corporate entity so let's sue the victims now granted they are suing them for money they're not like suing these people for damages but you know suing them to protect themselves from being sued is just boggles my mind and totally unnecessary

oh my gosh i mean i want i was worried that if homeland security and our politicians were like you know why what we should make first of all what a ridiculous law you know what an absolutely nonsense corporate baby i've ever heard all of you are from this list of security people that are superior to terrorism they're going to do that by the way the f.b.i. terrorism experts didn't stop the terrorist from shooting fifty eight people right but they don't want to be held responsible for that because they hired the right company i'm sorry no it's really i mean m.g.m. states that your love this m.g.m. states that the lawsuits is for the good of the victims yes that's the one we poisoned you or whatever else excuse corporate comes it was always for the good of the victims the good of the people say for the losses for the good of a victims according to debra deshong a spokes woman for m.g.m. resorts in a statement she says your drawn out litigations and hearings are not in the best

interest of victims of the community and those still healing yes don't don't raise questions about whether or not we harder on here that i did we have enough security that night did we respond in time in the best way that we did we do everything to protect you so you could have a good time and i don't ask those questions yet because the answer would be no you know it's an do something and even if you didn't do something to sit there and jump up with those who were looking out of the victims it's like an abusive partner. being i hate you because you don't listen well what's amazing too is i give credit the victims are standing up against this too when they're speaking you know brian claypool who is a survivor of the mass shooting said that they called the m.g.m. blasted a stunt he said that it won't survive the court challenge probably because it's so unseemly that he actually told usa today that i'm still in therapy once a week and this is a very as and this is their way of trying to solve the problem of shifting responsibility and minimizing their blame so he went on to say that m.g.m. should be spending money on safety consultants not lawyers in an effort to avoid

responsibilities so yeah i think if you're going to sit there and say well we don't want to be responsible because we just did what the guy we did the bare minimum by hiring some people but we did nothing when we watch one person and a whole sweep by itself bringing out boxes and boxes and cases of things that nobody noticed nobody did anything and it took how long before the shot stopped i mean i don't know who had to sign are like anti-terrorism specialists but they were terrible all that sort of johnny gave them a thumbs up homeland security said that this group was it was given to them sometimes not saying that they didn't try it's not saying that nobody tried it it's just saying that like you shouldn't be stepping forward to sue victims at the end of the day but they haven't been through enough and if you're worried about them bringing lawsuits against you well guess what that's part of the job of doing business not the end of the day out there absolutely ridiculous absolutely ridiculous well as we go to break court watchers don't forget to let us know what

you think of the topics we've covered on the facebook and twitter zero four shows that are still dot com coming up so i'm still brings us some good news for a change on the privacy fraud does it discuss a surprising recent supreme court decision with universe or something else or new law professor bart cosco to. when lawmakers manufactured sentenced to public wealth. when the ruling classes protect themselves. with the final

merry go round. the one percent. we can all middle of the room say. the real news is. the new global economic war is unfolding in the realm of education the right to education being supplanted by the right to access education loans higher education is becoming just another product that can be bullish and sold but it's not just about education anymore it's also about running a business where you could also version. the following couldn't be. more it is the place of students in this business model before college i was born now and i'm extremely more higher education the new global economic

wall. these days it's pretty joyless job being a privacy advocate of the united states of america social media companies have ramped up their censorship efforts the intelligence community is leveraging russia gate to excuse any and all domestic spying on potential traders or as they're called outside of the beltway trump voters and we've seen countless incidents of police planting evidence on unsuspecting so civilians sending undercover agents to infiltrate grassroots activist groups and even using controversial listening devices to trick our cellphones into thinking police surveillance fans or just your

friendly verizon cell tower well this summer has yielded at least one relatively unnoticed victory for privacy and that's the supreme court decision in carpenter versus the united states to parse the far reaching implications for how the government is allowed to interact with cell phones we use and abuse every day university of southern california law professor bart cosco earlier joined our very own. all right as acosta thank you so much for joining me i want to start by asking you about this recent supreme court decision in the carpenter case now it's been heralded as a victory for privacy all those a slim margin of victory how can we read this case is this really solidifying privacy of the individual against the increasing totalitarian state that has more and more access to our personal information in our location at all moments you're right on it is a victory for privacy the five four decision that says that the government now needs a search warrant to look at the cell site locations of your cell phone so when your

cell phones in use are not in use sending signals all the time back to your carrier and to radio antenna stations those are time stamped in accumulated and in order to get at least more than six days worth of that you know need a search warrant the police the police and the government to. before that all you needed was something much lower called a court order which the government could simply assert that this is the need for the doubt it was relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation so they raised the proof standard on that somewhat so that is important we've already known for the last four years at the listen to your cell phone conversation the government needs a search warrant but what's more interesting about the carpenter case it really is the dissents and the principles upon which it rests the fifty year old doctrine that's come out of the supreme court now have a congress. called the doctrine of the reason the expectation of privacy and it isn't clear what that means it's still not clear after fifty years with that

means and you see that in the dissent especially the scent of of the news justice justice course which. now why do you say that we. you know how does this allow this obviously doesn't elucidate this issue of the problem of privacy because obviously the mess the constitution we have certain protections against searches and seizures and expectations of privacy that have been talked about but as you say no never been elucidated what is being asked in the dissent i mean is that the dissent of the justice is basically saying listen we want from the government some real clarity legal clarity from the congress on what can be expected from privacy from the individual with the senate passes what we all ask what is a search and since one nine hundred sixty seven a famous case called cats a search has become in the eyes of the supreme court. an intrusion by the government on a reasonable expectation of privacy but what does that mean and after fifty years we don't really know there's been examples you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy the argument goes and anything that you bottle

interiorly give to third parties and is known as the third party doctrine and it's been the basis for example for metadata search and many other things one example of this many years ago was your bank statements any kind of business record that you give away the bank has that information and the supreme court. that's the equivalent to you taking your bank statement and throwing in the trash and setting out on the doorstep that you don't have a reason expectation of privacy and that's been expanded in a variety of ways including what's called trap and trace to the telephone numbers that you type in on your cell phone and other things in the subject line the so-called metadata and it's continued if you take that doctrine to third party doctrine and you have no reason expectation of privacy in it to its logical conclusion then it's an easy decision as as the government argued here that you don't have a reason expectation of privacy in the cell site locations and that's exactly what the government argued in the case of mr carpenter that is so they got the government got one hundred twenty seven days worth of still cite locations on

average more than one hundred locations per day it was easy to see in the data mr carpenter had been there for stores that had been robbed and that was a key factor if not the main factor in his conviction. but what does that mean a reason expectation of privacy supreme court here and a five four decision with justice roberts joined by the four liberals say the third party doctrine doesn't apply and it wasn't really clear why but he just argued that this was more like a g.p.s. search versus a beeper search and he expressed lee said that this troubling third party doctrine still stands and so the third party doctrine that you know people may may or may not understand what that means but basically whenever you go into a contract with the a private entity whether a bank or a cell phone provider whatnot you're basically giving away certain privacy even with google and essentially we're allowing them with our whenever you have those terms and conditions you sign except right that you give them certain information

so essentially the government is arguing that because we allowed that information to be given to private private corporation private party they can use that information for prosecution or conviction or whatnot do you think that this study their production is dangerous and needs to be reassessed yes i do. very dangerous and the supreme court seemed to think so here as well it's a doctrine in a marriage long before the modern digital world and certainly the revolution in digital communications the last fifteen or twenty years pre-incarnate kind of world so it does say that if you voluntarily give information to a third party you lose all rights and it well what we melbourne and terry to the court here look at that word wasn't quite convinced of it unlike the prosecution which simply argued in the lower courts it argued that sure you've given enough and you've been giving this kind of information up for years so anyway it is a very dangerous doctrine it has to be rethought the supreme court has taken this about as far as they can i think given the dissents which were all over the place

each of the conservative justices four justices not in the majority wrote a separate dissent in their contradicting one of them to some extent after fifty years we do not have a coherent definition of what a search is in terms of a reasonable expectation of privacy just as gorsuch and some of the other justices suggested moving back to the traditional definition from the fourth amendment of property when there is a trespass and that's indeed what happened four years ago when justice scalia argued that a g.p.s. device attached to your car was in fact an intrusion that warranted a search warrant so his argument will different so because in the fourth amendment it says it's protected from unreasonable search and your person your house your fax and the like while a car is in effect it was the argument here and that's hard to argue though in the case of the cell phone search so we use this president the supreme court did the

case four years ago the riley case that said we need a search warrant to govern the search warrant in order to search. your location to put a g.p.s. tracker on you we use that here in the case of the cell tower location. so what do we do after this many years on fifty year to try to figure this out and again a doctrine. from one thousand nine hundred seventy that occurred long before there was any sense of the digital society and spring court haven't done it it's appropriate here for congress to step in as it has many times did recently did this in the patent world not revisit it patents about fifty years or more actually and it updated to some extent the pat law for the digital age even back in sixty seven after this happened in sixty eight congress stepped in with the us crime act to update privacy laws at the time in light of this new and fairly radical idea of the supreme court of

a reasonable expectation of privacy that's why for example employers in general can't listen to your phone calls that was done so what congress can do now although it has a lot of other things on its plate it can try to extend fourth amendment privacy rights to the private sector which is inevitable not just a case of your employer but to quasi government actors like your cell phone carrier like google like facebook and many other entities these entities are going to be extremely powerful they have a lot of influence over your digital speech and a deep nexus with the government many cases there's a lot of basis in the law to see them therefore as quasi state actors and thereby regulate them as we do the government so that's your argument relief in terms of the danger of the third party agreements in contracts that essentially were making contact with with entities as disclosed by snowden and other revelations basically that the varieties ins and other companies are basically giving out information to

the government when it when ordered to do so so essentially there is no it's not a third party an actor anymore essentially because it's it can be fed right to the government is that the essential argument as to why you are it's a fuzzy argument to some degree. sprint and google and facebook are government actors and obviously to some degree that they are not but they're only getting bigger over time and this argument i think will ripen again it was an unforeseen development of a lot of the advance of digital technology that these companies would have so much influence in an old auction a paper based auction of a third party with somehow apply and allow these companies to keep this information they themselves may have some requirements in the future and then be able to give it to the government freely the government doesn't need a search warrant because there are third parties and you abandon the property idea . but how would we how could we reassess that conclusion about a third party doctrine i mean how could it be worded in

a sense or phrase for people to understand that. especially since there is a privacy that exists between you and the corporation because you and i are contracting privately the government does not have the right just because i'm contracting with you a corporation to then access that information that's my private contract with you. one sentence could say that when you give information to your digital carrier you have not relinquished your fourth amendment rights you think that might be the first things in the bill but congress can work that kind of thing out let me say also what's happening here is a development of smart techniques artificial intelligence techniques which are only going to increase in time which are very much data based and it allows your carrier know a lot more about you and thereby the government to know a lot more about you and so over time what has happened is the police. pursuing the legitimate tasks the police have become increasingly more powerful not because the law has changed much with simply because we have this earlier law that's

unclear and the technology is changing increasingly making it increasingly easy for the police to search you or to get access to what you're doing there needs to be a balance here and that's really hard for the courts to work out those for the the political process to work out of the congress. but with exciting and sometimes inexplicable innovations happening in science every day it leaves many wondering why we still have problems such as world food storage or just plaguing our society with this site with scientists around the world trying to solve these trying to solve these problems the latest project by the ocean reef group in italy six to tackle world hunger by proposing underwater farming yeah you heard that correctly the group of researchers and scientists believe that underwater agriculture may be the cure to foods future according to the food and agriculture organization only about eleven percent of the world's land is used for crop production using underwater agriculture could help expand that number enormously this is why the

ocean reef group created an entire underwater farm known as the memos gart in two thousand and thirteen to prove that it is indeed possible to grow herbs vegetables and other plants for human consumption. this. is a little movie about a little mermaid by a good reference our entire area. is good read that's cool yeah i love science but it's really me i mean you could have you see these sort of floating islands that people could live on also they could have communities balconies because ball on the ocean and then under growing your food underneath that completely sort of self-contained sustainable life out on the ocean are i meant going up so that i'm grim both feet in the water all right i'm out of our shop here today remember everyone in this world we are not told real love enough so i tell you all i love i am tyrone butter and i have a lot keep on watching those hawks never a great day and everybody.

has been saying the numbers mean something they matter the us is over twenty trillion dollars in debt more than ten dollars timestamping each day. eighty five percent of global wealth you long for the old firm bridge eight point six percent market saw a thirty percent rise last year some with four hundred to five hundred three per second per second and bitcoin rose to twenty thousand dollars. china's building two point one billion dollars a i industrial park but don't let the numbers overwhelm. the only numbers you need to remember is one one does not show you can afford to miss the one and only move by. the very idea of a trump who he summoned was controversial from the start they met in helsinki and

essentially agreed the u.s. and russia should at least mediation dialogue to start a process of mending a very damaged relationship much of the media in the foreign policy swamp reacted with an apocalyptic meltdown as the established six months. it's hard to imagine after the war a nazi doctor was still active. in the nineteen seventies current intel had as the chair of its board a man convicted of mass murder and slavery was a german company develops a little mite a drug that was promoted as completely safe even during pregnancy and it turned out to have terrible side effects what has happened to my baby is anything ball you know she said is just good choice minix a little mind victims i have to this day received no compensation and never apologized for the suffering that not only want the money i want the revenge.

from dream from a syndrome that's what the u.s. president says critics are suffering from after huge backlash by mainstream media and democrats for the whole thing peace summit with russian president. and investigation revealed that facebook moderators did not move the page every far right after this as it generated. the top u.s. commander in afghanistan walks back on his word hours after suggesting washington is willing to engage in peace talks with the taliban even though they're considered a terrorist group.