>> i think the danger is putting out information or information slipping out that should not be in the public sphere. >> such as? >> such as national s--certain kinds of national security information, but i think there needs to be--that needs to be thought out very carefully, what information is there and what's not there, the entire policy about what should be disclosed. there's a lot of information that corporations file at various regulatory agencies, not to mention the irs, that a lot of people think should be in the public sector because of the nature of government subsidies and the way the government actually treats corporations. a lot of that information should be in the public sector, but again, i am less worried about the dangers. because there's a natural proclivity for government to hold this information, what i think we are gonna see is a change in the cultural perception that public means online, that if it's public information it means it's online, and once we achieve that, then--or at the same time, we want to see this information in real time. >> let's turn to the audie

the board is moving to review that information along with additional information and come to your ownonclusion as to the accessibility of the project at this location. the project tasks that they uphold the city authorization. staff is available if you have any questions. >> any questions to planning? supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i forgot to ask a question about the workers coming within the range of the wireless facility. i wonder i knew could address that issue. that was something that was raised by the appellants. >> i will turn that over. >> i think that is a great question. the occupational parameters that is estimated in the report is 17 feet for a worker. based on the angle of the antanaes, that those wires would not be included in that zone. these reports are based on calculations. they are all theoretical at this point. it is taking measurements. my understanding is based upon the information that has been submitted that those workers would not be within that 17-foot occupational exclusion zone. >> any other questions, colleagues? at this time, why do we not hear fro

if they have pertinent information that we can take that information to the street or transfer to street units whether it's sheriff's, police or narcotics or other gang units. >> most of these guys are vulnerable here. they want to talk. they want to go home. "what can i do for you?" look at this kid talking to the officer. he wants to know his bond. what can i do to get out? guys like that, come here, what's your name? write down his name because he wants to talk. >> when was the last time you were in here? >> the last time i was here? last month, the 26th. >> for drugs? >> for a felony. >> you ever worked with the police before? you know you can get paid. you want to try to work your number? they call me sand man. i'm sandoval. i'll give you a number. i'll get a hold of you. >> give me your number. >> all right. take care, bro. >> for every new arrival, the journey begins at booking and intake. hundreds pass through this processing center, nicknamed "the bullpen," on a daily basis. >> from a guy that comes in for murder to a crackhead, to a prostitute to whatever, you're going to see i

and deceptively stole information entrusted to them.as applied to legislative activities on capitol hill, this theft of someone else's secrets concept does not fit neatly. the idea that congress or their staffs can freely step ahead of ordinary investors to period of time in information required as a result of their roles is disturbing to say the least. congress should therefore act to eliminate any doubt and state clearly both trading and tipping apply to both members and staff. an insider case against the member or powerful staff person will always be a matter of great political sensitivity, likely to be brought only to the extent of the case factually and legally is very strong. the external pressures to bring such cases or not bring them will be great when any suspicions arise leaving any ambiguity as to the question of whether and to what extent the insider trading on capitol hill is unlawful is hardly an encouragement to those matters that deserve to be courageously investigated and pursued. it would be extremely unfortunate for t

information doesn't come to you.i always bring my camera with me when i drive 'cause i like to know who is dominating you the area. if i see any kind of graffiti, i take a picture of it and i try to decipher it. that is key for me. telling you where you're entering. this is day mon'sville, damon, you just entered their area. >> as far as drugs and gangs go, they don't know any boundaries. the gangs don't stop at the city border. you can have a gang right at our doorsteps that is conducting a business out in the suburbs. >> average gang member know what is this means. average police officer doesn't. and this is a gang. if you look at it, aign, almighty imperial gangster nation, dominated from corbin. now moving out to the suburbs. >> chicago police under their former superintendent, their policy was to chase every gang member in the city of chicago out to the suburbs. >> yeah, banger. full hustle. >> is it winter out here? if you look at this we are not even in wintertime and look what he is carrying in his pocket. no

that problem is much of the information that you have been told by mr. hammett and at&t was not subject to review. the planning commission cannot. at&t does not revealed the information. and in fact you heard for example mr. hammett tell you they did a study by november 30. by november 30 it was out of the planning commission and was about to come to you. that was not part of his initial analysis. if i could with all due deference to mr. hammett, his company derives a substantial amount of money by representing at&t. you will understand that i appreciate his integrity, there is a concern that perhaps an independent party might come to a different conclusion. in fact, in the case of lookout mountain in colorado, his firm had exactly that problem. the fcc received information from his firm concerning a radio antenna. when the fcc would not to check it, the reported it was in compliance they found out it was not. at the same time as his firm producing airport, they told the city in look out exactly the opposite. it is not that they are not telling the truth

when he to better cover the information -- we need to better cover the information and talk about regulatory action and grants, earmarks, contracts, shorten the time of disclosure and 90 days is way too long and we have a measure of transparency now that allowed some of the things to be written even though many things that were written were inaccurate or flour. wrong -- or flat wrong. information was available to the public because of the roles we currently have, expanding the type of securities that are covered, explicitly stating the members' duties and finally specifically laid out in legislation that members cannot give insider tips. ok, those of the five things i think we need to put in the legislation and i think we've got a significant amount of problems out there with the public right now the more quickly weaken passes legislation and demonstrate to the public that none of us -- frankly, i'm not sure i have met anyone who has gone into this line of work because they thought there going to receive a greater. the money i'm not arguing that there may have been some people that used thei

this is a good informant, i have five great informants, and he's probably my best. not only does he tell me about the drugs, he tells me about the violence, potential for shootings, the violence in the inner cities and suburbs of chicago. hey, i'm around the corner. bye-bye. see him in the black coming? you have to ease up here, there's a lot of activity in this area. and i got to provide safety for him. he's walking, he's looking around. he's looking around for his safety. i mean, because people are at him. he's looking to the left, to the right. once he makes eye contact, we'll pull into an alley. see, he's flagging me down, all right? >> what's up, buddy. >> you want to go to a location where we can debrief? sandoval, stay there, sandoval, i'm coming. i'm coming by the ballpark. 10-4? >> yeah, 10-4. >> how are you doing, buddy? how was your week? >> okay. >> you work? >> no. >> for several years now, washington has provided reliable intell about drug operations and potential gang hits. he receives a paycheck in return. and the bigger the bust, the bigger his rewa

sign you up as an informant. it's a fake name. that's what we'll use every time we use you. that's how you get paid. >> every informant signs an agreement. a source of information agreement. in that agreement, it lists all the things, you can't sell drugs. can't pretend you're the police. they sign it and abide by it. but they need to say viable as well. they need to run with the same crowd that they ran with and still see the same people, and that's the only way we're going to get the information from them. >> this is my last time up here. we're going with this, man. >> how many times have you been locked up? >> three times. >> how many times did you say -- this is it? do the game. >> i'm going home today and only stay here one day. i ain't coming back. >> three times. >> i ain't coming back. >> three times -- that's what i said. >> many of the best informants begin their careers while locked up at chicago's cook county jail. detainees here are ripe for recruitment. most are accused, not convicted of crimes, and

a lot of information we have received is information that was not properly before the planning commission. is that correct? >> yes. >> the issue for me, i know a lot has been said about the issue of radiation and some of the health implications. i have heard about property values. that is not to take anything away from those issues. those issues are not relevant to what is before us. the big issue is the issue of necessity. has the case been made to show that this is necessary and desirable? one of the things that jumps out that the planning commission decided is that this seems very conclusory. i do not see evidence or a great deal of evidence that supports that finding. i wonder if you can say to me from an evidentiary perspective what is the reasoning for a finding that this was indeed necessary? >> on this issue of necessity, when the commission considers wireless installations, they have considered a necessity to mean coverage and capacity. in this case, they found at&t's materials of a coverage gap convincing. it stated that the proposed project is necessary to build mobile phone co

>> there is certain information that in particular the information has been on budget information. that as the chairman aformulates and develops that, that it is not provided to the commission, that's been established in our commission procedures. so there are areas in which there is information not provided to the commission. if there is ever an area of doubt, the commission has the right to including those voting measures. >> i hope you understand that the commission says, each member, including the chairman, shall have equal responsibility and authority and shall have full access to all information. do you agree with that? do you think you are not bound by that? the chairman can decide what he wants to reveal to the other members and screen information going to the other members. >> as i said, the reorganization indicates that the commission is fob kept current and fully informed about the information in its functions. so there is some information within the agency that was not within a function of the commission. that information is not routinely provided to the commission. >>

i don't know why you would withhold budget information or any other information do you think you have a right to deny the other members. >> senator, if i could out when it comes to voting matters i am always providing information to the commission. as my colleagues have stated twice in front of congressional hearings, they have had all the information is needed to carry out the voting responsibilities. so where you think again there are some areas where we continue to work and better understand the situation as soon as he was not routinely within the functions of the commission and providing that information is sometimes an area of dispute or disagreement and that's where you want to continue to better have a dialogue. >> the problem with the dispute is you don't knowledge of the full duty to immediately respond to the inquiries of your commission and share with them any information you have on any matter related to the commission. if you don't acknowledge that, i think we have a real problem. i don't believe it's a personality problem. i believe it's a question about management accor

that's always a deciding factor for a woman to divulge any information.l out in the world. they are not as ready to give up that sort of information. >> rather than risk putting their loved ones in danger, many will choose to fight their cases or serve their time in prison. >> it's easy to get in, but hard to get out. you accept what you did and you deal with it. >> i'm in here for first-degree murder and armed robbery to a police officer that i never even seen. >> i'm here for first-degree murder and a home invasion charge which was self defense. >> they changed up on me and i had a gun and the gun went off and shot the person. >> it's innocent people in here who ain't did nothing. >> i'm just waiting my time out here and that's it. >> but there some women at county who do go out on a limit and become informants, usually to return home to their children. that's exactly what this inmate who we will refer to as cleo intends to do. >> i have to do whatever i can do to get out. >> cleo landed behind bars for a drug possession. she got out on furlo and cutoff

it's a rolling implementation so that as the secretary gets additional information, that information is put into that web site. incredibly interactive. samhsa also has a web site on health reform and within that web site we talk about parity, we talk about the health homes, we talk about the grant opportunities that i just talked about and a variety of other issues as well. final thoughts, deb, in terms of what consumers need to know and what they need to do? well, the opportunity here is huge, but the challenge is how do we set it up so the law is enforceable? again, i am looking at benefit books that don't reflect the parity act yet and the aca is coming down the pike soon. well, it's already here. we have to find some way to catch all of this and put it down where the consumer opens a benefit book and there it is. patrick? and i think it actually even goes beyond that. i mean, i think in, and probably in the substance abuse community, but also in the mental health community, word of mouth is probably one of the best ways we have of getting information out. again, because we have t

the pakistanies had not shared that information, updated information with the americans. at the same time, u.s. forces, you know, while they are supposed to share information with their pakistani counterparts are very nervous doing so because of instances where they feel like the pakistani counterparts tipped often surge ents and as a result comprised this operation. so both sides don't trust each other. >> so they're both holding back and then you have this confusion. >> exactly. >> warner: now the pakistanies have been insisting o on an apology in return for, you know, reopening say the border crossings. depend-- the pentagon expressed regret today, did they consider that one, an apology. two, is there more coming? and three, did the people you talked to hope that this is enough to have the pakistanis reopen these border crossings? >> i think they were optimism-- optimistic earlier this week that having this more conciliatory report come out that the pakistanis were going to be inclined to open the border crossings as early as next week. and i think at this stage they a

this is to provide information. it is also important for it fully to provide information that the document not contain material statements or omissions. there is a preliminary statement, which is available to prospective investors before the bonds are sold and that a final statement which is complete with the pricing information. in your board packet is a preliminary statement for the bond issue. it is in your board packet for information, for your review, but not at this point for your approval. the preliminary official statement is a work in progress. you will note that there are bracketed areas where updates are needed, and the finance staff anticipates coming back to you in march and asking for your approval. at which point, it will be more complete. so what is in the official statement? the official statement contains first and foremost information on the bond. what is the purpose of the bond issue? what are the process -- projects that the proceeds of the bonds will finance? in this case, parking garage bonds

sharing that information. such that if the can u tt information in your own trading, the government could bring an action against the yen for defrauding. it establishes three non exclusive circumstances for finding a duty of trust and confidence. the third category is one appertains to family members. she would not be covered for that section of the role. she would be covered under a second section which says that anyone who has a history pattern or practice can be deemed to have duty of trust and confidence. if the history practice was to respect the confidentiality, the current law could cover that as a fraud on the communicator. >> would it change your answer? >> is there a lot more scrutiny of our financial disclosure? when we filed the financial disclosures, we include spouses and dependent children. would this be something that whatever o spouses trade. >> the answer is yes. it is currently applied to this. i think it would. i do not believe the legislation addresses that specifically. >> anybody else ha

people deserve that information the world deserves that information bob what do you think about this i mean it's interesting is that it since the release of these cables the u.s. government has said well you know the the they're not that bad they're just an embarrassment i mean no major secrets released and anyone in the press corps covering these illegal wars could have found a lot of this information out of the actually the weekly leaks just confirmed a lot of things that people already knew. right if bradley manning did what he's accused of he's definitely an american hero and this one is a certain you mentioned top secret nothing bradley manning allegedly released was classified top secret now daniel ellsberg good point during the time of the pentagon papers everything he released was top secret and yet what ok let's analyze his analyze is lesser way sees me less or less or that's lesser classification secret like it's not his fault and they're usually hundreds of thousands and it's not his call to have access to the same thing if you're a twenty one year olds now is a call to ma

those are often not the critical information. for example, in the central subway, the fdta as a number of points, and one of the critical criteria for how well the project is doing is to examine a contingency that is left. you would think this is something that the board would be particularly interested me -- would particularly be interested in. so those are the of three points that concern us most. another point, which is related, is there is a great deal up confusing financial information around the mta. -- great deal of confusing financial information around the mta. i will draw your attention to two or three of them. the first one is this body, this board, march 30, 2010 authorized were passed a resolution authorizing 1.57 8 billion for the central subway project. this is on a number of conditions. one of the conditions was the stick to the 1.57 8 billion budget. -- 1.578 billion budget. the report shows the estimated cost was 50 billion above that. this did not attract comments from the board members, nor was unnoticed by th

if we have the time we'll go search for information. there's a certain way we talk to people do find out if they have anything to offer us. >> the bottom line is we don't lie to them. we don't tell them we can do something for them when we can't. >> remember our motto. come again and bring a friend. >> but finding and grooming good informants isn't easy. not when the average candidate is either a drug addict or career criminal. and female inmatescan be the toughest to recruit for very different reasons. >> women have a different set of circumstances. than men. yes, murder is murder. possession is possession. >> hey! >> but when you deal with people that take care of children, you know, when you deal with a mother, a grandmother, it's a little bit different. they are less likely to talk than the men. because i think women have more to lose. they have children. that's always a deciding factor for a woman to divulge any information. their families are still out in the world. they're not as ready to give up the information. >> rather than r

given that you have received the information, would it be a problem to be a budget that information prior to a tuesday board meeting? >> no, we could do that. i just would advise you that, based on our preliminary analysis, we are going to have recommendations to change the numbers. supervisor chu: right. potentially -- potentially lower? >> yes. >> if we were to amend that at the full board to a lower amount, that would

>> based on the information i have at this point, no. now, there are resignations that have occurred. do not think nothing has happened here since fast and furious was exposed. resignations have occurred. as i indicated in one of my responses, the personal actions i have ordered our initial ones, and i will be monitoring the situation to see if there are other things i can be doing. >> thank you. the gentleman from arkansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, attorney general holder, for being here today. i want to talk a little bit about ms. adams' point that she was making. i worked at main justice, i worked in the criminal division with assistant attorney general chertoff. i am stan the paper that comes across your desk and that time -- i understand the paper that comes across your desk and that time is limited and you have to do the best you can to process information. but i think ms. adams raises a good point, and that is, at what point do you believe the assistant attorney general or someone else had it or has an obligation to,

the pakistanies had not shared that information, updated information with the americans. at the same time, u.s. forces, you know, while they are supposed to share information with their pakistani counterparts are very nervous doing so because of instances where they feel like the pakistani counterparts tipped often surge ents and as a result comprised this operation. so both sides don't trust each other. >> so they're both holding back and then you have this confusion. >> exactly. >> warner: now the pakistanies have been insisting o on an apology in return for, you know, reopening say the border crossings. depend-- the pentagon expressed regret today, did they consider that one, an apology. two, is there more coming? and three, did the people you talked to hope that this is enough to have the pakistanis reopen these border crossings? >> i think they were optimism-- optimistic earlier this week that having this more conciliatory report come out that the pakistanis were going to be inclined to open the border crossings as early as next week. and i think at this stage they a

so financial information, litigation. so what we would like you to do in reviewing the official statement is to the extent that you have knowledge in your capacity as board members about a particular area, per ruse that area and make sure it comports with your understanding of events. so if it is always in trouble about whether you have to read the whole document, the document will be 100 or so pages, and, no, our guidance is you only have to read the relevant portions of that document, so we can -- we will walk you through -- when we approved a bond issue, we will walk you through the official statement, pointing out to the areas where we think board members might have a particular expertise. said the basic increase that should be laid out in your staff report and that you should be able to answer for yourself after reviewing the staff report and the official statement is -- what is the purpose of the bond issue? what is the source payment of the bonds? what are the risks that the source of payment may be insufficient? a

a whistleblower from within the sea and he went over to congress in july and he presented this information to them right where chuck grassley said well i just don't understand why an investigative body you know would want to do something like this why they would want to get rid of potential evidence and then we hadn't heard anything else from congress and only after this piece broke today now it's senator grassley once again start bringing it up so do they just play dumb even though it's on public record this is been presented to them. you know i always wonder about the two and i don't have a good answer to that when i see grasses rationally that i think you see thinking like snickering after is going to like old golly gee will or girls i didn't see that. we all get paid by these same guys what a joke this is and he's just you know more sophisticated actor or are they purposefully ignorant they don't want to know so they don't know so they tell their staff to look into things like that so that when things that are obvious happened they go oh golly gee wooders nobody could have seen it comi

. >> our whole case is based off of two informants. we could probably work up there for the next two or three years. with new targets. that's how many people are coming up there on a daily basis to sell narcotics. word is spreading they're jumping on the opportunity. >> the mannheim strip frustrated him even then. >> the residents of the area would complain to me about the issues on mannheim. i can only do so much. i can do traffic stops. there are times i would have binoculars and watch certain houses and certain hotels. doing my own personal investigation. this year i was fortunate. they've given us the opportunity to branch out and to do something different. >> something has to be done. we have good hard working people in these communities up there. their kids are working down the street past prostitution drug dealers every day. >> whatever he can do to get out, he's down with that. >> today criminal intelligence unit are meeting a man tied to the mannheim strip. he admits to selling crack there. >> you have shackles? why don't you

the information is limited and is biased. if you or i is not that big of deal but if it's a politician making decisions, it can matter a lot. >> mentally, what information are relating out of our decisions are not aware that we're making a decision based on? >> so in the context of legislative decision-makin

we know what it is, we have all of the information. i do not think it is unreasonable to ask for staff to do it in a timely way, that makes us able to respond. i support it. i think we have to do this, in order to deal with the issues the commissioners have brought up. quick response to records requests, accurate data on all our requests. quick response to the public about information on the buildings they are interested in. i think it is a product that needs to happen. i think we need to find a way to prioritize and effectively staff this and get the rfp done. commissioner hechanova: commissioner lee? commissioner lee: digitizing these records, it is it for the benefit of the public, commission, both? >> it is totally for the public. commissioner lee: why can we just do something and let the public research it? we do not need to go through a 100% process where we can punch a button and say these are the records. we can provide a process where they can look through it. wouldn't that simplify the digitizing? commissioner hechanova: is i

it seems that get this this kind of information you know its or like the marketing information that was the whole big thing about cookies you know a decade ago when people figured out about cookies hey they're keeping track of where i go and and then it's like oh it's kind of nice amazon now tells me what you know and you know what i want and some people are like very happy about it other people are creeped out by it and have privacy in your browser but. was this like this company came with a software phone companies and said let us gather some information that we can sell for marketing purposes and you know we'll pay you to put the software the phone or to the phone companies go to them and say we need this diagnostic software so we can figure out of our problem systems or go fluey. any idea whose business relationship came about with this what we don't know how the business relationship came about we do know that there are many companies out there who do the diagnostic work the carrier he was supposed to do on phones all have this on their services for instance earlier this year when

old information is generally not useful in managing projects. finally, our recommendations are that management of the improvement projects themselves needs to be sharpened. we believe the cpcs is slipping, and ultimately will take longer than originally estimated. we also think there are areas that need attention, and finally come out we have also set out principles for the design and implementation, which need to be adhered to to see you do get value from the system. >> any questions or comments? supervisor mirkarimi: i very much appreciate the detailed information you have. this is the first time that this information is being presented to the transportation authority, and i think there were so many useful nuggets of this information that the time that it might take to really appreciate some of this information may not be afforded perhaps in this body, so i will suggest to this chair of plans and programs that this not be the last conversation based on the details that are being presented today, and that this be carried over into committee, bu

information out there. so when you're upset about president ahmadinejad in iran and you're shooting protests, you know, you can look at that imagery and you can say, "ok, there are 5 people there. i'm not really sure that was real." but if you see 3,000 people, you know, getting shot at, there's a kind of honesty in this. so you sort of have to vet that. it's a very difficult dilemma we're in. i think that's a very good question. >> i think it's a great question because i share some of your reservations about blogging. and i think--ann, you said, "i hate that word." i think those of us who've worked for our careers trying to get it right as journalists, when you hear a citizen saying, "i can just wing it," you know, our backs go up. and i think they should because i--i have always thought of our bloggers, our correspondents who are blogging--we call it a reporter's notebook. it's one of the great traditions of whena newspaper, you'd come back from a journey somewhere--to iran or to afghanistan or to whereve