but whenever i search for wikileaks on my computer or go visit the wikileaks site in real time, the gchqan taken my ip address am a taken what i'm searching for in real time. a number of slides showing how they can do this. we don't know how extensively the implemented a program, but that means every one of us who have ever gone to wikileaks i to look for a document could technically -- wikileaks site to look for document could technically be surveilled in our ip address taken. >> and also anonymous and pirate bay? >> anonymous, they did designate what they call a malicious foreign actor. which is what they were deciding whether to designate wikileaks as or not, and we don't know the final decision was, whether wikileaks was designated as a malicious foreign actor, but anonymous, apparently, was. it means in restrictions on government surveillance of anything -- my conversations, my e-mail -- are completely lifted. whether you are in american or whatever. any of my communications to anywhere in the world to that website come into anonymous, going on chat rooms with anonymous, tweets, tho

and that's what we did in wikileaks too. in both cases, we worked closely with "the guardian", a very small group of editors and

and that's what we did in wikileaks too. in both cases, we worked closely with "the guardian", a very small group of editors and reporters who worked together, not in the middle of the news room. but on a floor, remote from anybody else. exclusively went through the documents. and after that long process, then moved to the next phase which is trying to put them in , to start context reporting. in our case i thought, some of what we brought to the table, you know, were our reporters in silicon valley who had very good sources on all the companies that "the guardian" could see, this was a source of controversy within the companies themselves. they had been required to cooperate with the government but whether it was right to or not became a very live debate. we could add reporting fire power on that type of thing as well as inside the u.s. government and in the intelligence community. >> that's a terrific, i think almost sort of tectual kind of background. you almost file like it was like to be in those rooms. i want to bring

digital activists, as well as many others have some deep concerns, fuelled by wikileaks and others.bally protesters say the deal give industry stakeholders a seat at the tail while those who advocate for the public are left out not just in the u.s. but around the world. so why all the secrecy? and how exactly will this deal effect us every day? joining us to sort this out, we're joined by the international campaigns director for public citizens global trade watch. the author of a forthcoming book about the trans -pacific agreement. and joshua is a fellow at the brookings institution and adjunct professor. thanks everyone for joining us. so melinda what makes the trans-pacific partnership different? >> the north america free trade agreement, what we're talking about the trans-pacific is nafta on steroids. it expands trade agreements much beyond what we typically think of as a trade agreement, setting tariffs and quotas for goods, but expands it into a whole range of other issues as you mentioned earlier, of how we interact with the internet, how we -- the price of our medicines and s

>> based upon the leak of the intellectual property chapter that we saw from wikileaks.revealed it carries tons of copyright restrictions that leads to users being censored and restricted on what they can do with their technology. one being intermedia liability which compels internet service providers, such as comcast and at&t, and websites like facebook and reddit to have liability over what their users post. so they will be legally compelled to enforce copyright. they will end up blocking content and suspending users accounts, so it will lead to users being silent and restricted on law. and another provision is digital rights manager, or digital restriction measures. what drm does is it has -- there are tools that supposedly protect users security wise or, you know, protect copyright on these devices but what they do is turn our devices and content into legal blocked boxes, so we don't know what is going on in our every day devices. we can't repair it ourselves, or install our own apps. it really restricts how we interact with these things. >> we contacted the office o

and that's what we did in wikileaks too. in both cases, we worked closely with "the guardian", a very small group of editors and reporters who worked together, not in the middle of the news room. but on a floor, remote from anybody else. exclusively went through the documents. and after that long process, then moved to the next phase which is trying to put them in some kind of context, to start reporting. in our case i thought, some of what we brought to the table, you know, were our reporters in silicon valley who had very good sources on all the companies that "the guardian" could see, this was a source of controversy within the companies themselves. they had been required to cooperate with the government but whether it was right to or not became a very live debate. we could add reporting fire power on that type of thing as well as inside the u.s. government and in the intelligence community. >> that's a terrific, i think almost sort of textual kind of background. you almost file like it was like to be in those rooms. i wa

here we were couple years after manning and the release of documents through wikileaks, here is the most secure, what we thought most secure american intelligence agency, for snowden to be able to do that is incredible. as the intelligence chief admitted this week they'ringing as much about what snowden took, they still don't have clear sense of the entirety. >> schieffer: there has been some talk, i've heard this talk, peter king said he'd heard it, that he's been unable to substantiate it to this point that edward snowden actually decided to go to hawaii because he newsom how that the security there was not as good. now as iay, this is totally unsubstantiated, but it is one of the things that king said part of the ongoing investigation, that he knew the security wasn't as good out there. it turns out it was not merry as good. >> i've heard that as well. what we do know is that after wikileaks, nsa did try to sort of bat ton down the hatches and make things more security. they were doing it at the headquarters at fort mead and other facilities. out in hawaii where snowden was, that soft

wikileaks. -- in america, we are two-and-a-half years old. "guardian" running through us and our combined work history may be 80 years or so. in america we do not look like a 200-year-old news organization. we call ourselves g. i got a phone call from glenn greenwald who had been working for us for some months. he said, i think i have the biggest intelligence leak in a generation, if not better -- if not ever. [indiscernible] obviously your first thought -- of wikileaks and the various methods we had to take when working with wikileaks, i knew skype was not particularly safe technology. and i knew he had a skype phone. i said, are you calling me from your rio residents on your skype phone? and he said yes. very much inlk that conversation. it became very clear the first thing he was going to have to do was get on a plane. he explained he had encrypted conversations with the source. because, you know, it's funny to remember now. you did not know his name. he was "the source." for quite a long time after we did know his name, we kept referring

and that's what we did in wikileaks too. in both cases, we worked closely with "the guardian", a very small group of editors and reporters who worked together, not in the middle of the news room. but on a floor, remote from anybody else. exclusively went through the documents. and after that long process, then moved to the next phase which is trying to put them in some kind of context, to start reporting. in our case i thought, some of what we brought to the table, you know, were our reporters in silicon valley who had very good sources on all the companies that "the guardian" could see, this was a source of controversy within the companies themselves. they had been required to cooperate with the government but whether it was right to or not became a very live debate. we could add reporting fire power on that type of thing as well as inside the u.s. government and in the intelligence community. >> that's a terrific, i think almost sort of textual kind of background. you almost file like it was like to be in those rooms. i wa

goes against everything from authoritarian regimes trying to cut off the internet then like the wikileaks episode governments like the u.s. that are unhappy with transparency. so don't get on their target list is not to threaten internet freedom. but then say i have to deal with the response. nothing is specifically you make about anonymous. what you talk about not sharing information, not having records. it is not just about records for what happened but to establish a baseline to see when the anonymous -- anomalies are happening. it also applies to the external attack. . . you had an individual with wide-ranging access. you had individuals given in some causes passwords and then an anomalous amount of information being gathered. and snowden's case was using a web crawler to do it for him. these are the kind of things that, that should pop up as something to look out for, not just in a military organization but if you're running a bakery, giving an individual wide-ranging access, and then in the course of a job, of a person in this role, they typically access these files and this kind of

"the new york times" benefited from the wikileaks story. "the new york times" decided that it would send a team of reporters to another newspaper in england where the information already was, so it was no act of journalistic genius to go over there and pick up that information and then put it into the times. so what does that mean about the times and a fitting from wikileaks? is that a good thing? are they to be proud of the fact that they made that decision? >> you should really ask arthur sulzberger that. >> bill keller. he was seated here, and i did ask him. >> what did he say? >> he made an effort to answer it, which is more than you are doing. [laughter] you see, i'm trying to understand. >> the reason i am dodging this question and i am dodging it is because -- >> did you notice? >> is because it is a hugely complicated question, and i have not dealt with the raw material, the legal bit. i have not been deeply involved than i do not want to freelance on it. >> ok. then i will put it this way. [laughter] tomorrow morning, you are sitti

journalists in iraq was a tragedy, one that brought home to all of us when we saw the footage of wikileaks released, brought home the horror of modern wore and why it is dangerous. >> what you had there was apache helicopters firing on a group of people 500 metres away, a couple of kilometres away. you have the assumption that everyone in the group is of a type. you have the assumption that because interest there were weapons in the group, that everyone in the group was armed and dangerous. it became a terrible tragedy that the gunships fired on those people, and our correspondents were killed, along with others. >> we need answers to the questions about how these situations happened. we have engaged and will continue to engage accurately with the authorities because we don't take for granted that people are in the wrong place at the wrong time. >> they were walking with a group where there were arms. in 2007 in baghdad, that was common. everyone walked around with arms. it was clear in the course of investigating that that because they were walking with the group, they were assumed to be

. >> jules boykoff, could you talk about -- you wrote an article last year about wikileaks and the 2014mpics. what did the stratfor files reveal to go back to what samantha was talking about earlier, about corporate sponsorship and these particular olympics? >> well, the wikileaks documents revealed stratfor was working for a number of olympic sponsors including coca-cola -- >> explained stratfor. >> based in texas, the firm that gimmick somehow got the documents from, you know conversations they were having. it demonstrated coke was concerned with activism at the vancouver games, in particular, asking a number of questions about peta and trying to figure out in advance what they might do to undercut the games. they're definitely concerned with movement building around the olympics. just to echo something we just heard here, movements create space for the athlete activists. i think that is what helen lenskyj was saying, if you have movement on the ground, that opens up opportunities for athletes to take a courageous stand. do you think the olympics should've been boycotted? >> i do not.

iraq was a terrible tragedy and one that was brought home to all of us when we saw the footage that wikileaks released. and i think that really brought home the horror of modern war and why it is so dangerous. >> what you had there was apache helicopters firing on a group of people from at least 500 meters away, maybe a couple of kilometers away. you have the assumption that everyone in that group is of a type. you have the assumption that because there were weapons in that group, that everyone in that group was armed and somehow dangers. uh, and it became just a terrible tragedy that the uh, gunships fired on those people. our correspondents were killed, along with others. >> we need answers to the questions about how these situations happened. we've engaged, and we'll continue to engage very actively with the authorities, because we don't take for granted that people just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. >> they were walking with a group that-- where there were arms. now, in 2007 in baghdad, that was extremely common. everyone was walking around with arms. but it became

the nsa and gchq documents that came from snow den, and so i view him as i did julian assaunge and wikileaks. as a good source. >> some things were published and some weren't. how do you make those decisions? >> we make those decisions trying to apply common sense balancing test where we respectively listen to concerns of the u.s. government that publishing a story will harm international security. we balance those concerns against the importance and newsworthiness of the investigation and our primary duty, which is to keep the public informed. >> this was a big story. were you personally involved? >> i was personally involved in the snowden material, and with dean bakai, "the times" fantastic editoring manager. "the guardian" were partners in the reporting off of the nsa material. we personally went and pain-stakingly made preparations about how we would handle the material. >> is that unusual? >> unusual for the executive editor to be involved? >> yeah. >> not when something is -- >> this big? >> where the reputation of "the times" could be at stake. there aren't that many stories of that

wikileaks documents proved that there have been--that they have been in contact with the u.s. government trying to contact with the people who want to disturb or upset the venezuelan government. but in this case we're still waiting for proof of that. we know that the rhetoric has been turned up. they have been given 48 hours for the diplomats to leave and meanwhile the opposition is keeping up their fight and saying they're vowing to take to the streets for the next coming days until they see a change in government. >> all right, rachel levin with the latest. thank you. >>> coming up next on al jazeera america looking back on 50 years of work with the "mad" magazine con doorist who was just inducted into the illustrators hall of fame. >>> and the nuclear bunker that could be yours for the right price. >> badge to al jazeera america. i'm stephanie sy. here are today's headlines. a suspected high ranking al-qaeda leader was scheduled to face a military court on charges stem from the 2000 attack on the uss cole. he's charged with getting supplies and recruiting suicide-bombers fo

"the new york times" benefited from the wikileaks story. "the new york times" decided that it would send a team of reporters to another newspaper in england where the information already was, so it was no act of journalistic genius to go over there and pick up that information and then put it into the times. so what does that mean about the times and a fitting from -- "the times" benefiting from wikileaks? is that a good thing? are they to be proud of the fact that they made that decision? >> you should really ask arthur sulzberger that. >> bill keller. he was seated here, and i did ask him. >> what did he say? >> he made an effort to answer it, which is more than you are doing. [laughter] you see, i'm trying to understand. >> the reason i am dodging this question and i am dodging it is because -- >> did you notice? >> is because it is a hugely complicated question, and i have not dealt with the raw material, the legal bit. i have not been deeply involved than i do not want to freelance on it. >> ok. then i will put it this way. [laughter]

alan grayson and wikileaks. wikileaks got a hold of this and expose the public to this.erwise secrecy would have worked. how this takes away sovereignty. sovereignty will be controlled either the corporations as opposed to the countries themselves. host: lori wallach. guest: something i wanted to reference. a look at yesterday's "the new york times," there was a report that quoted all kinds of folks who support free trade. guest: including me. guest: who have concerns about the secrecy. if you want to see the list, go to our website, expose thetpp.org. that is a real list of corporate advisors who have security clearance. sovereigntye with --conservative folks like ron paul are also against these agreements.one of the things wikileaks exposed with a chapter in the tpp that would set off that iftra tribunals we u.s. got into the tpp, would be submitted to the jurisdiction of tribunals where the u.s. government could get directly suit any foreign investor or corporation to properly enforce a private treaty with the right to demand payment from our treasury for any u.s. dom

wikileaks came out that the united states was involved with groups in venezuela, that were hostile to the government. the united states has had a long history of being involved in latin america, and supporting movements that they felt were contrary to the interest of the united states. so on one hand it would be easy to dismiss this as a paranoia, but there was basis for the fact that the venezuelans might be worried of u.s. involvement. we have to stress there has been no proof that any of the students were involved with trying to actually overthrow the government or connected to the u.s. embassy, but it is something the venezuelan government is sensitive about. >> the protest started because inflation is among the highest in the world. violent crime rates, and the central bank in venezuela said that about a quarter of the time you can't get basic goods in the stores, anything from toilet paper to milk. how bad have things gotten in an oil-rich country? >> inflation has been a problem or as long as i have been covering it, for the past several years. venezuela now has the highest inf

the secrecy is that we're going to have more, you know, information bongs like snow den and the wikileakse going to rebel against this back fire for one thing with events like like that overall it cuts journalists out of the day-to-day conversations we need to have with people in the administration. people at the pentagon. people who can fill us in on what's going on and information is not going to be out there for people to be informed about. >> michael, you know, the "new york times" which is, you know, if they have sort have been passive six years into this and just discovered that there is no transparency. they are just discovering that? they are just discovering that he are not giving access and thing it's horrifying. where have they been? >> they have been there. they are paying the lawyer's fees for own reporters who have been paying subpoenas. a lot of this goes back to the war on terror. >> they haven't been speaking out. this is a big thing for the executive editor. >> that is true. have you heard from the press for years now as you have all these prosecutions come down the pike

basically a play on wikileaks but named for the deposed president. they're uploading and cataloguing trying to an over tate these so the public can scroll through and see what their president did. they're post noug as quick as they can the ideas is to post first and then launch investigations later. almost 1,600 documents have been posted online and more are expected soon. this is far from over. the work continues. may not while there is a question of whether or not the president who fled the capital and left all this stuff in the moat behind him, whether he is technically out of power ask what he will do next. after a few days when nobody said they knew where he was, the president/former president of ukraine is reportedly safe and sound in russia. the russian government said they've offered him protection. from russia today he released a statement arguing that he is still the legitimate president of ukraine. the protesters that filled the camden last week would disagree with that as would the ukrainian parliament which has a new acting president to

the new york times benefit from the wikileaks story. new york times decided that it would send a team of reporters to another newspaper in england where the intermission already was so it was no act of journalistic genius to go over there and pick up that information and then put it into the times. so what does that mean about the times benefiting from wikileaks? is that a good thing? is the time still be proud of the fact that it made that decision? i would like to know your judgment. [inaudible conversations] >> joe was not there at the time. he was seated here. i did ask him. he made an effort to answer, which is more than you're doing. [laughter] you see where -- i am trying to understand. you have given us -- >> the reason i and dodging the question, and i am dodging it -- [inaudible conversations] >> it is a hugely complicated question, and i am not dealing with the of raw material, the legal bit. have not been deeply involved in and do not want to freelance on it. >> okay. then i will put it this way. tomorrow morning you're sitt

. >> well, it kind of reminds me of wikileaks, you know, some of these cables and calls and stuff were leaked. they were embarrassing but they got over it. but it does make you wonder, it seems as this was done over maybe a cell phone and why. there wasn't any classified information in it really but why diplomats are using cell phones for sensitive calls of this nature and that's certainly something the state department needs to answer for. >> at least so far they're staying mum. do you think there might be an apology or hope this thing goes away a little bit? >> well, nuland did apologize to her counterparts and i think they'll probably kind of eat it and ready to move on because they have important stuff. but i think it does reflect a little bit of a frustration on the part of the u.s. sometimes. they're looking for the u.n./eu to be much tougher on ukraine, threaten kind of sanctions against the president if the government doesn't form this larger national unity government. so, i think that's the issue they're going to try to get ahold of and move past this embarrassing incident. >>

at the time of the wikileaks , losers -- disclosures hen one asked how they were dealing with the security people involved in the case, his reply ask the ll have to security people. when i got back to my office i friend in security who quickly told me that the problem was the counter intelligence eople were messing around in what was clearly a security case. this was clearly a self-inflicted wound. i sat through a briefing even recently just before the nowden article started to appear in which the briefers said that one of the problems in counter and intelligence was dealing with of the interface intelligence.ty name blurted out if you all those throw in information assurance i was thanked. thanked.want to be i wanted some recognition these old structures were getting in of getting it done that on e was so much turf going between these various functions ta they talk to each other. this over those last few months. mike caden onor of who is not here. i've always thought of this as former mike e shanahan -- well he's still mike shanahan but the former coach -- saying i don't have a problem wi

just as private manning never should've been able to do the wikileaks to the extent that he not knowtill do everything he has and we are so worried about what it may involve. it is a parcel of information, it is something we really need to fix. two items, one is talk a lot little bit about cyber security, and government trying to do with it, but also the corporate world, and, secondly, these do the jimmy carter, please. [laughter] >> [as jimmy carter] i have always said that our country would be better off if we had people like peter kelly serving our country. [applause] [as himself] is very threatening. let mem a let -- look, give you a little data on this. are cyber system was designed to enable -- our cyber system was designed to enable and convey and allow people to enter it. it was not set up for security. every minute there are 3 million google searches in the world. llion internetbi users in the world. e-mails daily going round the world. this was not meant for security. it was meant for open can vacation. the evildoers, both nationstate and hackers, and get inside such compromise

we also have the wikileaks documents describing how ecretary rice instructed our ambassador in beijingo protest strongly to the chinese government over aircraft from teheran and pee pyongyang unloading people and apparently weapons in beijing's airport and efforts whichhese apparently bore no fruit. so i'm going to ask you, mr. siler if you can tell us koreang about this north iranian relationship. and what is the substance of it? if you can say anything about that, how much of a problem is this going to be at any future diplomatic intercourse with north korea on the nuclear issue. >> thank you. larry, those are excellent questions. they're difficult questions as you mentioned because they do touch very directly and very really on some of our sensitive intelligence as well as the rest of the activities and our efforts to try to halt, prevent, roll back north korea's outward proliferation as well as the proliferation of technologies into north korea. this is a central purpose actually of the entire range of the united nations security council resolution derived sanctions that we put on

we also have wikileaks documents describing our secretary rice instructed our ambassador in beijing to protest strongly to the chinese government over aircraft from tehran and pyongyang, unloading people and apparently weapons in beijing's airport, and transferring these between these aircraft from iran and from pyongyang. a diplomatic effort which apparently bore no fruit. so i'm going to ask you, mr. seiler, if you can tell us anything about this north korea-iranian relationship, and what is the substance of it, if you can say anything about that? and i know there are intelligence sensitivities here, but how much of a problem is this going to be in any future telematic intercourse with north korea on the nuclear issue? >> i think those are actually question. difficult questions as you mentioned because they do touch very directly and very really on some of our more sensitive intelligence as was her more sensitive diplomatic activities in our efforts to try to halt, prevent, rollback north korea's outward proliferation, as well as, not surprisingly, the proliferation of technologies i

just as private manning never should've been able to do the wikileaks to the extent that he did, we still do not know everything he has and we are so worried about what it may involve. it is a parcel of information, it is something we really need to fix. >> two items, one is -- talk a little bit about cyber security, and government trying to deal with it, but also the corporate world, and, secondly, please do the jimmy carter, please. [laughter] >> [as jimmy carter] i have always said that our country would be better off if we had more people like peter kelly serving our country. [applause] [as himself] cyber is very threatening. look, let me give you a little data on this. our cyber system was designed to enable and convey and allow people to enter it. it was not set up for security. every minute there are 3 million google searches in the world. there are 2.5 billion internet users in the world. there are 168 billion e-mails daily going round the world. this was not meant for security. it was meant for open communication. the evildoers, both nationstate and hackers, can get inside such t

at the time of the manning wikileaks disclosure, the committee hosted at one of our meetings a d.o.d. counter intelligence official. when one of our members asked how d.o.d. counter intelligence was dealing with the security people involved in the case, his reply was you'll have to ask the security people. when i got back to my office i called a friend in d.o.d. security who quickly told me that the problem was the counter intelligence people were messing around in what was clearly a security case. this was clearly a self- inflicted wound. i sat through a briefing recently just before the snowden article started to appear in which the briefers said that one of the problems in security and counter intelligence was dealing with the structures of the interface between security counter intelligence and information technology security. when i blurted out if you are going to name all of those, throw in information assurance, i was thanked. i didn't want to be thanked. i wanted some recognition that these old structures were getting in the way of getting it done, that there was so much turf

"the new york times" benefited from the wikileaks story."the new york times" decided that it would send a team of reporters to another newspaper in england where the information already was, so it was no act of journalistic genius to go over there and pick up that information and then put it into the times. so what does that mean about the times and a fitting from wikileaks? is that a good thing? are they to be proud of the fact that they made that decision? >> you should really ask arthur sulzberger that. >> bill keller. he was seated here, and i did ask him. >> what did he say? >> he made an effort to answer it, which is more than you are doing. [laughter] you see, i'm trying to understand. >> the reason i am dodging this question and i am dodging it is because -- >> did you notice? >> is because it is a hugely complicated question, and i have not dealt with the raw material, the legal bit. i have not been deeply involved than i do not want to freelance on it. >> ok. then i will put it this way. [laughter] tomorrow morning, you are sittin

guardian from the equation, we spent some time saying to them, do you not member what happened to wikileaks? once you remove the news organization with the 200-year tradition, history, values, concerned about public interest, the fine-grained judgment, if you remove them, the information will find its way out in a way that you cannot engage with, that we have talked to administrations and agencies into confidence on every single story we have done. we have engaged with them and ask them questions, talk about material we intend to publish and listened to their concerns. we do not do everything they say, of course, and we know earnestly together, in partnership, the idea that by restraining us, we could be the subject of a legal order and they could somehow contain the problem. you only make it worse. at one point, we were saying -- we were best friends in this endeavor. >> in the back and then down here. >> i have two questions and i guess mostly for jill and janine. the first one for janine is could you talk about how the discussion in britain has been versus the discussion in the u.s.? it

also tim scott and julian assange of wikileaks.is abc's "this week come to with representative paul ryan. at 2 p.m., fox news sunday with roger to dell, denver broncos executive john elway, and former nfl quarterback archie manning peter state of the union follows at three with louisiana republican governor bobby jindal. denis mcdonough, once again, and former new york city mayor rudy giuliani. as aare brought to you public service by the networks and c-span. we broadcast of the show begin at noon eastern with nbc's meet the press, 1:00 with abc's this week, at 2 p.m. fox news sunday, at 3 p.m. state of the union, and therefore clock is "face the nation" from cbs. you can hear them all on radio across the country on xm satellite radio, find us on channel 120. you can download your free app for your smart phone or listen online at c-span.org. you --he let's hear from let's hear from you. should the nfl be tax-exempt? this story focusing on jason shave its, who propose legislation that would strip the his annualtus and revenues have