All language subtitles for Terms.And.Conditions.May.Apply.2013.1080p.BluRay.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]

Coffee and a tie rise to the occasion A
million tiny

flashlights, I gotta turn it off Coffee
and a tie rise

to the occasion A million tiny
flashlights, I gotta turn it off

Too much information I gotta turn it off
Oh, sleep for a

while Too much conversation Too much
information I gotta turn

it off

Just about every time we use the
internet, a communication link, or an

agree to some very long terms and
conditions.

But what exactly are we agreeing to?

You guys!

You gotta help me. These business casual
G -men are trying to kidnap me. What?

It's crazy, dude. They're saying it's
because I agreed to the latest terms and

conditions on iTunes.

Why? What did the terms and conditions
for the last update say?

I don't know. I didn't read them.

You didn't read them? Who the hell reads
that entire thing every time it pops

up?

I do.

Can you tell, can Apple tell how many
people actually read it?

Well, they have to say that they agree.

We can't know for sure if they've read.

We try to make it in plain English and
very short. If I were trying to make a

user agreement uninviting, I would
choose a small font, a thin serif font,

would set it in all caps.

What happens then is that you have type
that becomes a texture rather than words

and spaces.

No one has read the terms and
conditions. No one in the world.

No one, even the lawyers who wrote it,
wrote it like this.

You come to a website and they have a
set of rules, usually described in a

of services, and then they have a
privacy policy.

And as soon as you start using the
service, in essence, you have agreed to

terms of service and the privacy policy.

Do these terms and conditions that we
sign up for even apply?

They do. I think if they didn't apply, I
think the web would topple over. And so

to the extent there have been contract
decisions, they've held that these terms

and conditions are valid.

And this concept is pretty new.

For instance, you never had to sign a
user agreement for an old -fashioned

landline, or to watch TV, or to read a
book.

But if you use a smartphone, a Kindle,
or you watch Hulu, then you do.

Pilot, baby, don't you sign anything
there. What's this all about?

In fact,

if you were to read everything you
agreed to, it would take one full month

work out of every year.

That's 180 hours you would need to spend
every year.

And according to the Wall Street
Journal, consumers lose $250 billion

due to what's hidden in fine print.

Here's an example from LinkedIn's term.

So, LinkedIn takes pretty much
everything forever.

You'll find this kind of language in
Google, Pinterest, Facebook, pretty much

anything that people consider free.

Instagram is finding that pictures are
worth much more than a thousand angry

words after the company updated its user
agreement to say it would have the

right to sell posted photos without
compensation for use in advertising.

And even if you are paying, companies
have the ability to make you accept just

about whatever they please.

In 2009, GameStation, a company in the
UK, put some pretty sneaky stuff in

terms. They didn't take money or your
firstborn child.

But for one day, their terms stated, by
placing an order via this website, you

agree to grant us a non -transferable
option to claim, now and forevermore,

immortal soul.

The contract was only live for a day,
but Game Station happened to rake in the

lives of 7 ,000 immortal souls.

This was, of course, a joke. However, it
makes you wonder, what if there were

more serious consequences that might
result from not reading terms and

conditions? What if your phone came with
these long terms of conditions that

said, well, if you use the phone, the
government can wiretap you. That would

insane. But that's the kind of world
we're living in. A world where the

government can wiretap you because of
terms and conditions?

So if you look at the iPhone user
agreement, wiretapping isn't mentioned.

But in AT &T's privacy policy, they say
that they can use data to investigate,

prevent, or take action regarding
illegal activities.

Prevent?

In 1994, Pizza Hut became the first
major chain to accept a delivery online.

Suddenly, the internet needed a way to
remember who you were, where you lived,

and how you were going to pay.

My question is, what the hell?

Like, how do they know who you are?

Yeah. Okay, um, there are these things
called cookies.

Where, like, if you go to a site and buy
something, it'll remember you and then

create ads for other stuff you might
want to buy.

So it learns information about me?

Seems like an invasion of privacy.

It wasn't until the late 90s that
companies began voluntarily adding

policies to explain what was happening
with this data.

Then, in 2000, an online company called
ToySmart went bankrupt.

But they had an idea.

They tried to sell their database of 195
,000 users to another company.

This included names, billing
information, shopping preferences, and

profiles. Even though their privacy
policy said they would never share

information, people felt like they were
being duped.

Lawmakers tell you time and time again
that every time they go back to the

district, to their district, people are
telling them that they want some

internet privacy laws. They want some
protection.

In early 2001, over a dozen bills were
introduced in Congress to protect

online.

These acts of mass murder were intended
to frighten our nation into chaos and

retreat, but they have failed.

All of the privacy legislation was
killed or abandoned, and the Patriot Act

of course, initiated.

The bill before me takes account of the
new realities and dangers posed by

modern terrorists.

This new law that I signed today will
allow surveillance of all communications

used by terrorists, including emails,
the internet, and cell phones.

The Patriot Act expanded the ability of
the federal government to do

surveillance in a lot of little ways.
You don't need a judge's approval, for

instance, to find out what website
someone visited, what search terms they

into Google.

The question of your...

if you will, information being retained
by Google is not really at this point a

Google decision. It's really a political
or public policy decision enforced by

different governments in different ways.

What if privacy policies weren't about
protecting privacy at all, but rather

taking it away?

Let's take a look at Google's privacy
policy around this time to see if any

changes were made.

So here's Google's privacy policy from
December of 2000.

Google may also choose to use cookies to
store user preferences.

A cookie can tell us this is the same
computer that visited Google two days

but it cannot tell us this person is Joe
Smith or even this person lives in the

United States.

And here's the privacy policy from one
year later, in December of 2001.

Google does this by storing user
preferences in cookies and by tracking

trends and patterns of how people
search.

Google will not disclose cookies to
third parties.

except as required by a valid legal
process, such as a search warrant,

statute, or court order.

Now, it's important to note the
fundamental difference between these two

policies. One says that you're totally
anonymous.

The other says, when necessary, you're
not.

But here's what's strange.

So the first screenshot you saw of
Google's oldest policy was taken by a

-profit internet archival service.

It records what websites used to look
like by taking snapshots, and it's been

doing it since the 90s.

Now, Google also lists the history of
its privacy policies on its own official

archive page.

In their archives, they state they've
got every privacy policy that goes back

the beginning.

But what Google shows as their original
privacy policy doesn't match that of the

archive service.

Instead, they show the policy from
December of 2001, the one that says that

users are not anonymous.

Google claims this is their first
privacy policy, which it isn't. So why

Google not include its original privacy
policy on its own archives page?

the one that said you would remain
anonymous.

What if the data collection that the
Patriot Act required became the

of a whole new business model and the
foundation of the modern Internet as we

know it?

Would that be something worth covering
up?

Even though we don't write checks to
Google, and that's one of the reasons we

kind of like the company, it doesn't
mean that Google is really free or that

are free in the liberty sense when we
use it.

It might feel very different if Google
was effectively a $500 a year service

because that's the value of the data
that you're providing.

I mean, that was a really critical
finding in that advertising could be

based on information that people were
somehow supplying about themselves.

Suddenly, you didn't have to wonder, was
somebody watching my commercial?

You knew someone clicked on my ad. That
meant that they...

paid attention to it. In 2012, Google
was one of the most valuable stocks in

world. And Mark Zuckerberg, the founder
of Facebook, had become one of the

richest men in America.

My job is to help investors figure out
for themselves what this thing's worth.

look at what Facebook has as an asset,
which is 900 million people and a ton of

data on those people.

And I say, if they use 10 % of that
data, they're going to be the most

company ever. When personal data is
worth this much.

Why would Google or any free Internet
service be opposed to the data retention

that the Patriot Act required?

Anonymity wasn't profitable.

The people who are willing to give up a
little bit of information in exchange

for having access to something that's
free or something that's fun or a free

taco.

I don't think that ever changes, right?
You always want something free.

And plenty of people are willing to
provide information to get that.

And plenty of companies picked up on
this fact.

Let me give you some very practical
tips.

First of all, I want everybody here to
be careful about what you post on

Facebook.

What the default settings are on
Facebook. This is how most people use

technology. When these companies are
building these systems, they know that.

So why is it default for everything
staring, every photo?

When I start Facebook, why isn't it just
for my friends?

Why is the default for everybody?

Because it's really confusing for my mom
to figure out how to just share to her

friends. The way we've designed the site
is that it's a community thing.

So people want to share with just their
friends, but a lot of people also want

to share with the community around them.
So I want to share with everyone who

works with me at Facebook. I want to
share with everyone who went to my

everyone in the village around me.

And those people aren't just my friends.

Even Mark's explanation doesn't make any
sense.

He says he wants to share with the
school, with the quaint village next to

He doesn't say he wants to share with
the entire world.

And yet, that's the default.

The challenge with defaults is that you
get comfortable with whatever the

default is.

When the default is public, you actually
can adapt really beautifully and deal

with it. When the default is private,
you can adapt comfortably and deal with

it. When the defaults change, that's
when problems emerge.

And in fact, that's what Facebook did.

In 2009, Facebook made changes to their
privacy policy without telling anyone.

Doing a privacy change for 350 million
users is really not the type of thing

that a lot of companies would do.

We decided that these would be the
social norms now, and we just went for

You might remember the fan page with
over a million people who tried to get

policy reversed.

What was the big deal, you might ask?

Well, over the course of a night,
Facebook turned what was once private

information into totally public
information.

These platforms have an incentive to
keep as much information about you and

it as visible as possible.

It's almost the question then becomes,
what's the less forgivable sin?

Having this crazy one -night stand?

or not knowing how to use Facebook
properly.

Most relationships in your life, it's
very good that the other person doesn't

know everything you've ever said or
scribbled or thought.

When you share a photo album you go to
Facebook and you choose to put those

photos there Opt -in on every single

thing opt -in Opt -in opt -in

I'm okay with Facebook behaving like a

company

But I think we need to treat it like a
company and not treat it like some

public utility.

These are the default settings on
Facebook in 2005, divided into 12

As time passes, more and more
information is shared by default.

In 2009, Facebook began automatically
sharing personal information with the

entire Internet.

By 2010, everything was shared by
default, except for your contact info

birthday. We could, if you did a search
and a Gmail and a YouTube and so forth

yesterday, and you did it from your
home, I'll give you the worst case. You

it from your home, and you only have one
computer in your home.

In theory, we could cross -correlate
those and get all three together.

We don't do that, and we're not likely
to do that.

But in January of 2012, Google made
changes to their privacy policy, and

did just that.

Google combined all of the information
any of their services had collected

a person.

and put them into one single profile.

What Eric Schmidt had said was the worst
-case scenario, Google had actually

done.

How can you honestly sit here and tell
this committee this is not a growing

problem?

A good deal of what I was trying to say
is that I don't think there is evidence

of a market failure or consumer harm
from the legal and legitimate use of

personal information in commerce.

I don't think there's evidence of it.
There are companies that you've never

heard of, like Actium, that claim to
have about 1 ,500 points of data on the

average American citizen.

Everything from, you know, whether
you're right -handed or left -handed,

kind of dog you have, what your sort of
psychological outlook is, and all of

that can be used to inform decisions
that businesses make about us as well.

These are the types of companies that a
potential employer would go to to try

and run a background check on somebody
before they hired them.

They're able to connect the fact that
you went to site A and then later to

B and then eventually to site C and
create this detailed history of what

you visit online.

They don't put your name in the cookie.
They put a unique serial number in the

cookie that could then be linked to your
name in their database.

I don't know if you've ever seen the
picture of the ad network ecosystem that

shows all the parties in the ad network
ecosystem. It's a bit overwhelming.

The information is valuable to different
people for different reasons.

What if you buy a lot of alcohol?

You know, they might want to raise your
premiums because they think you're at

risk for alcoholism or something like
that. The company might use it in a way

that actually harms you.

For example, in 2008, thousands of
people suddenly had their credit limits

reduced, seemingly for no reason.

While on vacation, one wealthy business
owner from Atlanta thought his limit

plummeted from 10 ,800.

to just $3 ,800, ruining his vacation.

The letter he received said this.

Other customers who've used their card
at establishments where you recently

shopped have a poor repayment history
for the American Express.

This means companies like Walmart.

And in Minneapolis, a father came into a
Target outraged that they were sending

a teenage daughter pregnancy coupon.

Coupons that were addressed to her.

The man thought the Target was trying to
encourage his daughter to get pregnant.

As it turned out, thanks to her shopping
habits, Target knew that this high

schooler was pregnant before her own
father did.

The father later apologized.

And in the Netherlands, data was being
used to harm customers in a whole new

way. Now, while you're driving and using
a GPS, that GPS is sending back signals

to tell how fast you're moving.

It's really useful for helping us avoid
traffic, but that got a little company

called TomTom wondering who else might
be interested in knowing the speed of

traffic. And so in the Netherlands, the
data that people were willingly trading

to find a faster way home was being sold
to the authority to give those same

drivers tickets.

The reason we don't have any baseline
consumer privacy law because of the FBI?

No. That is largely due to lobbying by
companies that have built extremely

lucrative businesses around these
business activities.

Don't want to do anything to disrupt
that.

Under Facebook's terms and conditions, a
user must be 13 or older.

Despite this, according to a recent
Consumer Reports study, an estimated 7

million users were younger than 13.

First of all, we don't allow people to
have accounts under the age of 13.

And my reaction to that is that's just
absolutely indefensible. I mean, it's

unbelievable that you would say that.

Senator, I just want to say we really
emphatically agree with your points.

say that Facebook sent an army of
lawyers with the final privacy

that emerged in 2011 was watered down
significantly in a way that wouldn't

affect Facebook's business model.

My name is Alan Davidson, and I am the
Director of Public Policy for Google in

North and South America.

My message today is simple.

As we've heard, mobile services create
enormous social and economic benefits.

Protection is the enemy of innovation.

It absolutely doesn't have to be and
isn't.

It was an expensive year of lobbying for
these big companies.

Google spent five times as much as the
year before, and Facebook spent four

times as much.

Senate Bill 242 will protect users of
social networking Internet sites.

It will protect these users from
identity theft and from unwanted

keeping their private information
private.

Of course, unless they agree to share
it. I know that many members, including

myself, do not want to negatively impact
a very important industry for the state

of California.

Individuals involved in this industry
don't want to see any regulation

whatsoever. So I think that's really
key.

And one of the most interesting things I
found in these conversations is that

many members of the legislature don't
even have network.

Social network sites because they're
concerned about their privacy.

And at the time the bill was being
heard, although lobbyists were in the

committee room for the entire hearing,
they did not come forward to speak.

So it was sort of an interesting
process, sort of a self -killing of the

without the opportunity for the public
to really see who was in opposition.

So people like Google and Facebook were
in strong opposition, Facebook in

particular.

What did Facebook have to lose?

You know, I really do not understand
their logic, and you'd have to ask

them about that. But when I analyze an
issue like this... I'd love to ask them

about that. They won't talk to me.

I'm not surprised.

I don't think the rules of law and
regulation necessarily apply when it

interacting with a company that wants to
sell you something.

Yeah. We should be worried.

But worried about what?

Sure, the data collection allowed by
privacy policies had fueled commerce.

was there something more serious we were
agreeing to?

Total Information Awareness.

A program initiated by the government in
January of 2002.

Its mission? To collect every digital
transmission imaginable.

And yes, this was their real symbol, the
Eye of the Pyramid, scanning the Earth

with a laser beam.

It actually looks oddly similar to
what's inside of Mark Zuckerberg's

Making the world more open and
connected.

Oh my God, it's like a secret vault.

Total Information Awareness was a
program designed to connect with dots,

banking activities, to flight searches,
to...

to online activities.

But the Pentagon is clearly moving to
create the largest electronic eye ever

look at any and all Americans.

You're looking for trends and
transactions that are associated with

potential terrorist act.

They believe that with enough data that
they could predict who would be engaging

in nefarious crimes.

The public was outraged. Congress was
outraged. The program was shut down.

The lesson that the government learned
after the failure of total information

awareness was that if you're going to
create a gigantic spying program, don't

give it a creepy name.

There's nothing to prevent them from
developing the same capabilities, just

smarter ways from their standpoint.

A wiretap requires a court order.

Nothing has changed, by the way.

But in reality, lots had changed.

We were told one day in late 2002 that
an NSA representative was coming to the

office. Mark Klein came to us at the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.

with data and documents that showed that
AT &T was engaged in a

wiretapping program.

The NSA is much different from the CIA.
First of all, it's about three times the

size. It costs far more. It's
tremendously more secret than the...

CIA, and what it does is very different.
It's focused on eavesdropping, on

tapping into major communications links.
They actually had a secret room in

their facilities, and they were creating
a copy of Internet traffic and sending

it to the NSA.

So in a sense, they are vacuuming up,
scooping up everything. In a sense, they

are blindly vacuuming up everything
going across those links.

And you're certain of that?

I'm certain of that. So President Bush
owned up to it.

I authorized the National Security
Agency to intercept the international

communications of people with known
links to al -Qaeda and related terrorist

organizations.

It's taken less than 24 hours after the
Bush presidency ended for former

analysts at the National Security Agency
to come forward to reveal new

allegations about how this nation was
spied on by its own government.

The National Security Agency had access
to all Americans' communications, faxes,

phone calls.

And their computer communications. Is
there a recording somewhere of every

conversation I had with my little nephew
in upstate New York? Is it like that?

It would be everything, yes.

It would be everything.

But then a beacon of hope arrived in the
White House.

Hi, Senator Obama. I appreciate your
giving us the opportunity to ask you

questions.

I'm an attorney who represents federal
whistleblowers.

And I was very disappointed when I
learned that you supported the bill that

phone companies off the hook when
they've helped the federal government

without warrant wiretap phones.

I recognize that some people feel like,
yeah, well, the phone companies still

were complicit in this. They should be
held accountable still. I understand

argument. But the problem was the
surveillance program is actually one

believe is necessary for our national
security.

So they were immune, but that means that
the programs are still shut down,

right?

The programs are shut down?

Yeah, the wiretapping programs.

I have no reason to believe that the
wiretapping programs have been shut

No, if the wiretapping programs had been
shut down, then I don't believe that

the government and AT &T would still be
fighting in court for the legality of

it.

Barack Obama hasn't changed anything.
No, Barack Obama did not shut those

programs down after he took office, even
though he had threatened to before he

became president.

When we got started just in my dorm room
at Harvard, the question that a lot of

people asked was, why would I want to
put any information on the Internet at

all? Why would I want to have a website?

And people have really gotten
comfortable not only sharing more

different kinds, but more openly and
with more people. And that social norm

just something that's evolved over time.

You may have seen the onion take on
Facebook, which was the CIA has just

announced its most recent handy
invention, Facebook.

According to Department of Homeland
Security reports, Facebook has replaced

almost every other CIA information
gathering program since it was launched

2004.

After years of secretly monitoring the
public, we were astounded. So many

would willingly publicize where they
lived, their religious and political

an alphabetized list of all their
friends, personal email addresses, phone

numbers, hundreds of photos of
themselves, and even status updates

they were doing moment to moment. It is
truly a dream come true for the CIA.

You know, the FBI's and the NSA's of the
world are appreciative of the fact that

Google and Facebook have built business
models around collecting user data

because it makes their jobs much easier.

That article in Time started with this
anecdote.

They're sitting in their transparent
cubicle in their open space in Facebook.

Robert Mueller was the one man in the
room with a tie on, and he was older, in

suit. And he comes in and he says, I was
just in the building and I wanted to

say hello to Mark Zuckerberg. So he says
hello to Mark Zuckerberg, a little chit

-chat, and then he leaves. And
everybody's saying...

What the hell was that?

Now, nobody asks the question, why was
Mueller in the building?

He's the head of the FBI.

On the one hand, Mark Zuckerberg said he
wants to create a more open society,

and Facebook is a way to do that.

On the other hand, you know, there's a
lot about the way that Facebook uses

information that people don't know.

If only there was a way of knowing how
much information these companies were

storing about us.

Well, in the case of Facebook, we
learned some pretty interesting things

to one student in Austria.

And unlike the U .S., Europe has a law
that requires a company to tell a

customer what data they have stored on
them if that customer wants to know.

And Facebook, unlike most major Internet
companies, had actually built a

headquarters in Europe.

Apparently we were like the only three
people that were like... pushing hard

enough and like asking again and again
and again and going through also the

Irish authority to finally where you get
at least like a bigger part of our data

set. We still didn't get everything
right now.

Got it right there. Just to have like an
idea how much it actually is.

That's like just to picture it and to
see how much it is.

Wow, this is more than a baby.

Yeah, that's 1 ,222 pages.

I'm a member of Facebook for three
years, but I was using it more intense

like, the last one and a half years or
so. What's interesting as well is that I

didn't post too much, actually. Like,
I'm a person who posts something, like,

once a week or so.

With this giant ream of information in
front of me, is it hard to go through it

and actually find specific details about
a person?

No, that's super easy because it's PDF.
I mean, we just used the search function

in the PDF file.

So you just type in one word, let's say
demonstration or sex or political party

or something, and within a second you
find the right information.

So within a couple of minutes you can
figure out what people voted for, what,

don't know, psychological problems they
have, what parties they've been to.

All these information are really easy to
find, actually. While using that

service for such a short time, you still
had a data file that's bigger than

anything that any CIA, FBI, or, I don't
know, Stasi ever had about an average

person. If you hit the remove button, it
just means that it's flagged as

deleted. So you hide it actually from
yourself.

But anyone like Facebook or any
government agency that wants to look at

can still retrieve it and get it back.

And that means that it's there for an
indefinite time.

Even though you hit the delete button,
it asks you three times if you really,

really want to delete it.

It's not actually gone.

It's not actually gone. It's still
there.

So we've ultimately adopted roughly the
following rule.

Think of it as we anonymize the
information within 18 months.

It might be anonymized after 18 months,
but all the searches that we've ever

done are still there. The underlying
data is still there to be de -anonymized

some point.

And de -anonymizing search records turns
out to be shockingly easy.

That is, taking private searches and
finding out whose records they are.

In 2006, AOL turned over a bunch of
these anonymized search records of their

users to the public, and it only took a
few short hours for a reporter to decode

who user number 4417749 was.

Between searches for things like numb
fingers, 60 single men, and dog that

urinates on everything, the reporter
uncovered a woman named Thelma Arnold.

She was age 62.

But then there's user 17556639, who
looked up how to kill your wife multiple

times. along with decapitated photos,
and then in the middle, the user

looks up steak and cheese.

Steak and cheese.

And there were plenty of users online
who were quick to judge what was going

here. It was murder.

Hey, old friend.

Let's take a seat, and I'm going to show
you something.

What I'm showing you here...

is a list of anonymized search records.

These records were released by AOL.

Are there actually things on this list
that you know you've searched for

Sure, yeah. I have definitely looked up
car crash photos. I've definitely typed

in decapitated.

I've definitely looked up dead people
photos.

I've definitely looked up white killer,
yeah. In fact, I've looked up every

single search term I'm looking at here.

You see, Jerome had been a writer on
Cold Kick, a TV show where each week

have to solve a murder mystery.

That's always what scared me when I was
entering those search terms, was if

there's some sort of automated system
that just red flags you based on the

search term, they're not going to look
and say, oh, yeah, he was probably

working on a TV show, and that's why he
was just Googling how to murder my

cheating wife.

I just wanted to confirm that I had not
murdered you and that you were alive.

No, I am allowed to come out of this
room.

Okay,

good.

Oh, thank God. So we can rest assured
you are not a murderer.

I am not a murderer.

You're a writer. I'm a writer.

Okay.

Glad we can clear that up. Glad we could
clear that up.

So what would happen if that red flag
system did exist?

If a dad like Jerome might someday have
his door knocked on because his search

records became public?

The consensus seems to be that the
retention of this kind of information

be greater than zero days.

And the reason it has to do with police
action, terrorists, Patriot Act, all

those sorts of things.

It turns out that in this environment,
the digital environment, there's a

loophole to the Fourth Amendment, which
is if a third party collects a lot of

this information, the government doesn't
have to go through those same hoops.

It's called the third party doctrine.

The third party doctrine means that when
you...

If consumers share your data with a
bank, with an email provider, with a

engine, with any kind of technology
company, you have basically given up

what would have been your fourth -rate
protections over that data. For the

government to get information from a
Google or a Facebook is a lot easier

the government doing it itself and
putting a wiretap on our phones.

Large companies like Google and Facebook
receive thousands of requests a year.

from government agencies.

Facebook has 25 employees doing nothing
but surveillance.

And these companies routinely receive
requests.

They process the requests.

You may be surprised to hear that secret
searches of email by the government

seem to be commonplace.

A law that governs when the government
can get electronic communications,

like emails and things that are stored
remotely, was written in 1986.

It can have effects that allow the
government to at least claim that they

be able to get location data without a
warrant. Or at one point the government

was claiming that it doesn't need a
warrant to get emails that you've

Well, in the spring of 2011, the
Department of Justice, and in particular

FBI, made several requests.

to Internet companies as part of an
investigation relating to individuals

associated with WikiLeaks.

We released 400 ,000 classified
documents.

For those of you who don't know who
Julian Assange is, he started WikiLeaks.

Now, in the past, WikiLeaks has released
secret documents related to the Iraq

War, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan.

And that's, you know, obviously a
positive development for those of us who

that information...

should be more accessible almost no
matter what, and obviously is a

development to those institutions like
corporations, in many cases, that depend

on secrecy.

I condemn the action that WikiLeaks has
taken. It puts at risk...

our national security.

Twitter received an order that requested
data regarding certain Twitter users.

These were all users that were related
to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks.

However, it wasn't just an order. It was
actually a de -order, and it came with

a gag order. It required that Twitter
never speak publicly about the fact that

they had received this request.

Denouncing the move, Assange said he
believes other American Internet

such as Facebook and Google may also
have been ordered to disclose

Companies like Amazon, Yahoo, Dropbox,
even Facebook will

be capable of handing data to the
government without first informing

Even if you think what the people are
doing is wrong, that's why the First

Amendment exists, to protect.

Unpopular people engaging in unpopular
speech.

But Twitter fought back.

They released the information to the
users and let them know ahead of time,

they were successful in getting the gag
order overturned.

Meanwhile, Amazon, PayPal, MasterCard,
and Visa, they all gave in to the

pressure regarding their users.

You know, a culture of loyalty to not
you, but a greater cause is important to

be successful, it seems like to me, and
is disloyal, in this case, to the

country. While President Bush might
think it's disloyal, thanks to Twitter

standing up for the privacy of activists
like Julian Assange, you can now be

shown this.

Today, we released over 287 files
documenting

the reality of the international mass
surveillance industry.

An industry which now sells equipment to
dictators and democracies alike

in order to intercept...

entire populations.

9 -11 has provided a license for
European countries, for

United States, Australia, Canada, South
Africa, and others

to develop spying systems that affect
all of us.

The spy files show the massive industry
that's around selling to the U .S.

government. and governments around the
world.

Instead of having something called the
Total Information Awareness Act with

big symbol with the eye of the pyramid
looking at everybody and scanning the

world with its sinister laser beams,
instead they just have a bunch of

that exist that are providing bits of
those capabilities that are provided

different contracts that go up to the
same agency, the same people.

One of the most popular is called
Massive Intercept, and basically what

governments are trying to do with this
is get as much information as possible

from our communications so they can
analyze that and detect patterns in

It's interesting, you know, in your
article you really talk about the

nature of the business, that they sell
through trade shows which are not open

the media.

But we actually went to one of these
conventions.

It was pretty easy.

called and asked for a pass.

So we talked to the representative from
one of these companies, a firm called

Celebrite. They were included in the spy
files.

They're a company that sells cell phone
extraction tools to every major

government sector in the U .S.

So my name is Christopher Shin. I'm the
vice president of engineering for

Celebrite USA.

Today I'm presenting to you the
Celebrite UFED system. It's my right

It is a device used to extract...

Countless information from mobile
devices, so text messages, pictures,

audio, call logs, that kind of thing.
It's used by agencies across the United

States and the world.

Yeah, the iPhone specifically stores a
lot of information, more than your

handset. It really is a digital store of
your personal life, your business life,

and this is why the field is actually,
it's been growing exponentially over the

last couple of years. So as the devices
get more complex, they can hold more

information.

one of the most personal devices to you
today, even more than your laptop.

We think of ourselves as basically a
tool manufacturer, just like Glock or

Beretta is producing a firearm.

We're producing a tool that does a
certain task, and we're marketing that

only towards, just like you can't go out
and just buy a handgun without

credentials, we're not just selling it
to everybody.

But could you possibly sell it, or is it
a lockout?

There are no laws against selling this
to someone that's not in law enforcement

or government, something like that. If
someone was to dump my phone tomorrow,

they might get a good laugh out of the
content in it, but I don't think I'd be

put in jail.

So I think that it really depends on how
you look at it. I mean, there are

privacy concerns, but I'm a little bit
more on the, I guess, the liberal side

my privacy being exposed. I mean, other
people, of course, that's a completely

different, completely personal view.

My phone itself, I mean, I actually take
that back. I have a lot of work

-related information on my BlackBerry.
So if this information did get out, I

probably would be pretty concerned.

The surveillance vendors target two
types of customers.

They target governments directly, and
then they also target Internet service

providers and telecommunications
carriers who are tasked with the

of spying on their own customers.

For example.

there was a little piece of software
that had been installed on every phone

America. This software was called
Carrier IQ.

And thanks to a little video that a
systems administrator from Connecticut

posted on YouTube, the world now knows
that this software had been monitoring

our every keystroke.

553, and so on and so forth.

According to Carrier IQ's chief
marketer, they're aware this information

sensitive and call it a treasure trove.

It became big enough of a deal that Al
Franken decided to take this issue to

Congress.

Mr. Director, millions of Americans have
smartphones with pre -installed

software designed by a company called
Carrier IQ.

Recent research has shown that it
captures a broad range of sensitive

information. Let me start off by saying
we have neither sought nor obtained any

information from Carrier IQ in any one
of our investigations.

Not directly from Carrier, but what
about from the wireless carriers?

No, I don't believe so. If you're
specifying the use of the Carrier IQ

in a wireless carrier, have we?

I sought that. I do not know any
information we seek from wireless

what have you.

And I'm not talking about carrier IQ.
I'm talking about wireless carriers that

may obtain information that in some way
carrier IQ may have been involved with.

Why would the FBI need carrier IQ to
send them all of this information?

After all, they could be using any of
these services that were included in the

spy files.

Take this product, for instance, Scan
and Target.

which claims that it can search through
the SMS, the IM, Twitter, emails,

Facebook, blogs and forums, all while
analyzing huge volumes of information in

real time.

Or Finn Fisher, which demonstrates how
police can infiltrate anyone's system

through a variety of videos that used to
be available on their website.

They even show the agent hacking into
Google and Facebook in their demo.

Massive interception equipment is sold
by surveillance vendors around the

So it's really up for grabs for anyone
who wants it and can pay the price.

The Thin Fisher system was sold to Egypt
to monitor people who oppose their

leader. These are the actual documents.

It even includes training for two to
four people for the low, low price of

11 grand.

Or the Hacking Teams project, which
advertises that it can track hundreds of

thousands of cell phones all on one
system.

Or software like Kapow that analyzes all
social networks with features like the

ability to search out keywords and
phrases.

Everything happens on Facebook, and it
shows the frequency of conversations

between one person and another and that
kind of thing. That allows for a lot of

profiling. It creates massive databases
for law enforcement to exploit and often

misread. With hundreds of companies
offering these services, why would the

need to use Carrier IQ?

Everything coming from a cell phone,
everything coming from a computer,

that's going over the Internet out of
the country or even internal within the

country. and be monitored using this
kind of equipment.

If you look at news stories now about
what they call big data, big data is

really looking up the question of how
can government and corporations work

that data in order to look for anomalies
and predict when you're going to do

something so they can stop you from
doing it. And the government isn't even

secretive about it.

If you visit their business website,
there's an application there looking for

developers to create better tools for
mass surveillance for online activity.

Examples for surveillance include, but
are not limited to, Fox News, CNN,

Twitter, Facebook, etc.

Which brings us back to that word you'll
find in many user agreements.

It's the word that sent us down this
whole path in the first place.

Prevent. So this might make you wonder,
what potential threats would all of the

surveillance we agreed to actually
prevent?

Basically, January the 3rd, 20 days
before I go on holiday, I tweet, are you

free this week for a gossip slash prep
before I go destroy America?

Ended the tweet with a kiss.

As threatening as that is.

20 days later, I get on a flight, go to
LAX. We had a hotel in Hollywood

Boulevard. We were just going to party
around for a week, just looking around,

just being tourists.

Got off the plane, went through the
passport control, fight my passport

and they're like, can you come this way?
And I was like... Because I got an

Irish passport, I thought maybe Irish
people would stereotype IRA bombers.

They went through my suitcase and I was
like, what are you doing?

And then when they pulled me into the
holding room, I was questioning me for

five hours about whether I had a Twitter
account.

And I was like, are you being serious?

Are you actually holding me because of a
tweet?

And they were like, what do you mean by
destroy America?

And I was like, it's a party. It means
go wild, get drunk.

Any moron that could read that tweet can
see what it's meant as. It ends with a

kiss. I'm sure, like, Hitler doesn't end
his memoirs with a kiss or whatever he

did. And then they moved us to a holding
room.

But then at midnight, the staff changed
over, and they weren't aware of what we

were there for, so they handcuffed us,
stuck us in the back of a police van,

then took us to a downtown, like, prison
detention center.

Innocent people shouldn't be treated
like absolute dirt. And they were

us around, pushing us into walls.

Sounds like a horrible vacation.

Is the government refunding you at
least?

No, they won't comment on what happened.

Well, if I'd put I was going to paint
the town red, they'd have me done for

graffiti as well, wouldn't they?

When I go to other countries, this is
going to show up that I got refused from

America, so more than likely I'm now
going to get dragged off at every

and questioned about what happened, and
I have to explain to them that it was a

tweet.

I'm Italian, Irish, French.

Portuguese, Native American, Black, I'm
leaving my 118th avatar.

This is Joe Lopari.

Joe Lopari had had a rough day at the
Apple Store.

He had been forced to wait in line for
four hours before finally leaving.

So I get home from the Apple Store, feel
a little irritated, smoke a little

dope, turn on Fight Club, just trying to
relax, go on Facebook.

And this button down, Oxford Clock, I
go, Mike, Joe, now.

and then saw from office to office with
an arm of light, AR -10, and I said the

same thing, but except the apple.
Pumping round after round. And, you

basically word for word except for
where.

Hanging out on Facebook, getting ready
to go to yoga class, and there's a shave

and a haircut.

Two -bit knock on my door.

So I was like, hey, maybe somebody's
here to watch Fight Club with me.

Open it up.

Boom.

NYPD slot.

their bulletproof vests on, their guns
drawn, and they tear the place apart.

You know, they really go through
everything.

When the one cop, you know, finds the
box that has all my, like, military

awards, he comes bringing it down. He's
like, oh, you were in the military?

And we start talking, like, you know,
Army talk. He sees that I speak the

language. And that's when he asked me,
he's like, so do you know what an

AR -10?

And I was like, that's why you're here,
guys. You're here because I made a bad

joke on Facebook.

Like, I, you know.

It blew my mind.

It's the ultimate buzzkill, really. Your
Facebook page has brought SWAT to your

house. They told me not to go far from
New York because I'm going to be needed

for all these court cases for a year.
They claim one of my Facebook friends

called 911, which is another thing I
think is bogus.

So I asked for the 911 tape, which they
keep on file. They have to.

And it's my right, it's my stuff. They
have to give me my mug shots if I want

it. So they come back and say, oh, it
turns out it wasn't someone that called

911. It was someone that just walked
into the police station, and that's

something we don't keep a record of.

And how did you get my address? I lived
there for like 10 days.

I didn't update my mailing address yet.
All my banking stuff was still going to

my old apartment.

There was nothing saying I lived there
except for a verbal agreement.

Three minutes after being done with my
lunch, I was told to go up to the

And then I would sit down inside the
vice principal's office, and I wasn't

told what was going on until maybe ten
minutes later. My phone rings, I look at

it, and it was the number to his school,
and I answer it, and it's the school

security guard just giving me a FYI.

You know, for your information, just to
give you a heads up, the Secret Service

is here with the Tacoma Police
Department, and they have veto, and

talking to him. A man walked in in a
suit and left, and he said

that he was part of the Secret Service,
and he told me it was because of a post

that I made, and it indicated as a
threat towards the president.

Yes, a 7th grade boy was visited by our
FBI because of a red flag that came up.

in their spy system.

I was saying how Osama's dead and for
Obama to be careful because there might

suicide bombers.

It didn't consider his age or that his
comments about Obama needing to watch

was one of concern.

The machine simply determined that based
on a series of words, veto was a

potential threat.

Pre -crime, their belief, this potential
breach of the peace, their

belief that you might cause a crime.

There's pre -crime arrests in minority
reports.

Mr. Marks, I mandated the District of
Columbia Pre -Crime Division.

I'm placing you under arrest for future
murder of Sarah Mark and Donald Dubin.

It must take place today, April 22nd,
0800 hours, 4 minutes. I didn't do

anything. The arrest that happened on
the royal wedding day when I attended a

zombie flash mob wedding picnic.

Right. And myself and four other zombies
were arrested preemptively for

potential breach of the peace.

Even if you dressed up as a zombie, it
seems to me that the crime isn't really

committed until you eat some brain.

Yep. To be fair, we did have some brain
cake.

Oh. So there's that.

How did they know that you were going to
be dressing up as a zombie this day?

There couldn't have been emails or
anything, really? There could have been.

hard to know. Yeah.

I think that's the tough thing, right?
That's the scary thing, yeah. Yeah.

The indication that they were monitoring
private social networks came in the way

they were reacting to certain things and
asking about certain things. So they

were asking about maggots and asking
about climbing gear, which they must

heard about through some exchanges on
the internet, neither of which was true.

Nobody had maggots or climbing gear.

And not something that was itself posing
a hazard to the royal wedding

celebrations. We were nowhere near the
royal wedding celebrations, and we had

plan of going near the royal wedding
celebrations.

Anything that wasn't part of the
official, ostentatious, joyous,

celebrations of this wedding of two
strangers was prevented from happening.

And that seems deeply disturbing.

You can see that surveillance measures
are being used to silence protests

they even happen.

This was, of course, the royal wedding.

We'd all help pay for the royal wedding.
It wasn't just a private wedding.

You're arresting a professor of
anthropology that runs a street theatre

We couldn't believe this was happening.

We were so obviously a street theatre
troupe.

Some of us had actually got the costume
on, you know.

So we were locked away in Lewisham
Police Station for 25 hours.

Once the whole wedding was safely over,
we were let out.

For the first time, as far as I'm aware
in this country, a number of us,

something like 50 of us, were arrested
and in most cases incarcerated for

thinking about protest, for thinking
about, in this case, some streets yet.

A lot of life is based upon trust.

I mean, if you have a conversation with
your inner circle on a key strategic

decision that is vital to your company,
and you read about it in the newspaper

before the decision is implemented, in
other words, you get preempted from

acting because somebody inside your
company has talked, you're not going to

it, and it'll hurt.

The activist didn't need to commit any
crime.

They just needed to text, to email, and
to call each other about potentially

protesting.

But I think that the answer is not to
take away the capacity of looking at the

public actions of citizens and keeping a
record of them.

The solution is to make sure that we
elect better governments.

So one of the things I hear a lot is,
who cares if they're collecting all of

this information about me? I don't have
anything to hide, so why does it matter?

I know this argument, and it is not very
new.

It's old -fashioned, saying we are a...

complying with rules, and so what
happens?

Between leading the sinful life I would
like to lead and hoping that governments

will protect my privacy, or assuming
that no one's going to protect my

and leading a less sinful life, I'll go
with the latter. It's simply just the

odds of success seem higher to me.

I congratulate the people who say they
have nothing to hide. I don't believe

them. And I also say that they're
probably hiding something from someone.

do. You have nothing to hide till you
do.

And you are not necessarily going to
know what you have to hide or not.

You might remember the case of Millie, a
teenage girl in Britain who disappeared

in 2002.

Police in Surrey say they're growing
increasingly concerned about the safety

a 13 year old girl who hasn't been seen
since Thursday afternoon.

Before the police found her body, her
parents were holding on to hopes that

might still be alive.

Why is that, you might ask?

Well, because according to phone
records, Millie had checked and deleted

voicemail.

As it turned out, members of Rupert
Murdoch's corporation had been hacking

Millie's phone, trying to be the first
to reveal details of this national news

story.

I think this is the watershed moment
when finally the public start to see and

feel, above all, just how low and how
disgusting this particular...

newspapers methods were this was a
murdered school girl and the thought

very tight -knit circle of very senior
politicians linked up very closely

intimately with the police and with the
media mogul rupert murdoch

for 30 years as british prime ministers
came and most certainly went a constant

character in their worlds was rupert
murdoch

The billionaire media mogul who's... For
years, celebrities and individuals like

Millie had the voicemails they thought
were hidden and private, accessed by

Rupert Murdoch's corporation, at the
expense of people like Millie's parents.

And it took nearly a decade to expose
the misuse of this highly personal data.

Transparency, which bonds us together
and gives us all so many friends that we

didn't know before, but all these
friends that are connected, gives the

absolutely unparalleled in the history
of humanity ability to know what's going

on in the citizens, to find out who the
dissenters are.

The government is making whistleblowing
a crime.

They are making dissent a crime.

especially when it embarrasses the
government and calls the government to

account. If sources are going to get
discovered, and if whistleblowers cannot

securely and anonymously provide that
information to journalists, we as a

society won't know when our rights are
being silently violated.

Of course, the president has defended
his administration.

The only way he knows how.

If we can root out folks who have
leaked, they will suffer consequences.

If you

look at a

technical perspective, the technologies
of maintaining privacy are actually

running ahead.

of the technologies that break it. For
example, encryption, which can maintain

your privacy, is running ahead of
decryption.

But what if there was a way to store
information until it could be decrypted?

US intelligence officials will soon be
allowed to keep information on US

citizens much longer than they used to,
even if those citizens have no known

ties to terrorism.

Under new rules, the government can
store data it gathers for five years.

up from the current limit of six months.

If Dick Cheney were elected president
and wanted to detain and incessantly

waterboard every American who sent an
email making fun of his well -known

hunting mishaps, what I'd like to know
is does the NSA have the technological

capacity to identify those Cheney
bashers based upon the

content of their emails?

In the United States, we would have to
go through an FBI process, a warrant, to

get that and serve it to somebody to
actually get it.

But you do have the capability of doing
it. But not in the United States.

There are new questions about the
National Security Agency's massive spy

under construction in the desert of
Utah.

Once finished, it'll be five times the
size of the U .S. Capitol building. The

NSA is not allowed to spy on Americans,
but now a whistleblower has come forward

saying that the agency is doing it
anyway.

This massive agency that's collecting a
tremendous amount of information every

day by satellites and tapping the cell
phones and data links and your computer

email links and so forth.

Then it has to store it someplace, and
that's why they built Bluffdale. It's

going to cost $2 billion.

It's being built in this area on a
military base outside of Salt Lake City

Bluffdale. As I said, they had to
actually extend the boundary of the town

would fit into it.

And the whole purpose of this is the
centerpiece of this massive

this network that was created after 9
-11.

The reality of information technology is
it progresses exponentially, only

information technology.

Exponential growth starts out very slow,
looks like nothing's happening, you're

doubling tiny little numbers, and
suddenly it takes off. And we've seen

with paradigm after paradigm, like
social networks in recent times.

In 1984, to store one gigabyte of data,
cost $85 ,000.

By 2012, it cost about $0 .05.

In the city of Chongqing, there are
about 500 ,000 cameras.

In 2012, the cost of permanently
recording a high -resolution feed was

million. By the year 2020, the projected
cost is less than $3 million.

The UK, being one of the cultures that
introduced cameras most ubiquitously and

most quickly, so far the population
seems fine with it.

If they weren't, I...

They know who to call.

There are 2 ,000 cameras, and soon there
will be 3 ,000, all of which feed into

this control center housed in a secret
location.

And I can call up in real time all
instances where a camera caught someone

wearing a red shirt. This is the shape
and the size of a potentially suspicious

unattended package.

Many police departments set to use
controversial new devices capable of

people's faces, then checking that
information against a criminal database.

When we're at war, when you're
protecting your society against people

to come in and kill civilians, you have
to be able to defend what we're doing.

You have to be able to defend our way of
life, and you have to put these powers

into somebody's hand. According to the
Brookings Institution, This kind of

pervasive monitoring will provide what
amounts to a time machine, allowing

authoritarian governments to perform
retrospective surveillance.

For example, if an anti -regime
demonstrator previously unknown to

services is arrested, it will be
possible to go back in time to

demonstrator's phone conversations,
automobile travels, and the people he or

met in the months and even years leading
up to the arrest.

The government is using the existence of
terms of service.

to justify the surveillance state that
we now live in.

The messages are free to use, and most
importantly, they're encrypted, so the

police can't actually get in there to
encrypt what's happened. So that's

prompted calls to shut down the entire
network.

It's easy to justify using these
technologies to stop a riot.

But shouldn't we be concerned when the
government is able to read our emails,

text messages, phone calls, search
history, to track our movements and

free speech?

What crime did that 7th grade boy really
commit?

Is having zombies at a row wedding
really so bad?

What about Millie's parents?

And what happens when these technologies
are used to watch peaceful protesters,

like all of the people that occupy Wall
Street or the Tea Party folks?

What happens if the government doesn't
like tents being set up?

Despite all of this,

it was starting to seem like, so what?

So what if the government can acquire
all of this information?

Maybe it's good they can keep the peace
when riots are happening.

And besides, maybe it was already too
late.

Do you think privacy is dead?

I mean, it's certainly dying.

Whether or not it...

Privacy is going to remain dead unless
there's a really fundamental shift in

the dynamics by which that's decided, by
which I mean the only real effective

response is to monitor and to change the
behavior, the tendencies of the

intelligence industry and law
enforcement and all that, and even

And that's very, very unlikely.

I don't know exactly who the us is, but
I'm very critical of us.

I think that this is an area in which we
have allowed ourselves to be smitten.

We want this technology to grow and
grow, and we don't want anything to rain

our parade.

And we have woken up to the privacy
concerns, in

my view, at least four years too late.

Yeah,

without question.

Without question private, yeah.

It's safe to work under the assumption
that nothing's private.

You know, anything that's been digitized
is not private.

And that is terrifying.

When this becomes a sign of a blood
cell, and I can just send them into my

and my body through the bloodstream,
this will become quite ubiquitous, and

really will be part of who we are. And
people say, well, okay, that's going to

be a real threshold.

to move beyond, but I don't think so.
It's a very smooth continuum from, you

know, when I was a student and had to
take my bicycle to get to the computer

having it in my pocket to having it in
my body.

It's a convenient place to put it. I
won't lose it that way.

But they say if you put a frog in a pot
of water and slowly turn up the heat,

the frog will just die because it
doesn't realize it's boiling.

And I think that...

Like anything else, I think we're opting
in a centimeter at a time.

And, you know, pretty soon you're pretty
far down the road. You look behind you

and you sort of wonder how you got where
you were.

I think that's true.

It's just completely out of control. I
mean, it's just sky's the limit, you

know. They know everything about us now.

It takes someone who's in charge of laws
having what is being done to American

citizens done to their email account,
done to their Facebook profile.

All these powerful institutions, they're
not subject to the same evasions of

privacy as the rest of us are.

Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, once
said, If you have something that you

want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't
be doing it in the first place.

Then he got very angry.

when CNET, which is owned by CBS,
published a picture of his house?

Well, when you ask Google about Do Not
Track, they claim we have to understand

how to define that before we can
implement any technology.

Do Not Track is pretty simple. It means
we don't want to be tracked.

The only reason Google doesn't
understand it... is because Google

to implement it.

Someone comes and makes it no longer
practical for them to engage in that

of activity.

Pressure is put upon CEOs of the
companies.

They're going to engage in it.

Dawn.

We're going by the Facebook campus right
now.

Really have no idea what to expect.

We've not had breakfast.

He'll know that I checked in here, too.
That's good. He'll know that I'm right

next to his house.

Here's the exact quote from Mark.

So, having two identities for yourself
is an example of a lack of integrity.

Lack of integrity.

They just did a knockup on his door, so
it seems very likely that we might get a

Mark Zuckerberg sighting today.

I mean, you might not be wrong, Vince.
You might actually have... Ben might

actually have a tunnel.

Mr.

Zuckerberg?

Hey, I'm working on a documentary.

I have a little blog here, but I'm
wondering if I could just ask you a

questions.

Sorry.

Really?

Mark Zuckerberg had asked me to please
not record him, so we shut off the main

camera.

But since Mark doesn't seem to mind
storing our data after we think it's

deleted, this... only seemed fair.

There's a major difference here.

Mark loosens up after he thinks we've
stopped recording.

And do you see that? That right there.

That's a smile.

Mark Zuckerberg smiled at me.

And you know why?

because he thought I had stopped
recording, and he was relieved.

Imagine what a relief it would be if all
of these companies and the government

stopped recording everything we do, if
we could just make a simple request to

them, something that Mark Zuckerberg
knows how to ask for.

Can you please not?

Can you please not record us, monitor
us, and share our information, unless we

ask first?

We need terms and conditions that are
reasonable.

And we need privacy policies to promote
the most basic principles of our

democracy, rather than taking them away.

Or, as a young senator once said, back
before he became president, We need to

find a way forward to make sure that we
can stop terrorists while protecting

privacy and liberty of innocent
Americans.

We have to find a way to give the
president the power he needs to protect

while making sure that he doesn't abuse
that power.

And that simple principle that...

There's somebody watching the watcher,
whether that's on an issue of freedom

of the press or it's an issue of
warrantless wiretaps. That simple

one that we can't give up, and we don't
have to give up.

Well, Mr. President, we are watching.

And I guess we have to ask ourselves one
simple question.

Do we agree?

Cold feet and a tie rise to the occasion
A million tiny

flashlights, I gotta turn it off Cold
feet and a tie rise

to the occasion A million tiny
flashlights, I gotta turn it off

For a while

Washington is caught in its very own
episode of spy versus spy. The tactics

employed by top intelligence gathering
teams at the CIA, sifting through IP

addresses, emails, and fake drop boxes,
have now been turned against the

intelligence community's top officials.

The FBI uncovered evidence

of an affair between Petraeus and his
biographer Paula Broadwood. That's

Petraeus had an affair with the author
of his fawning biography, All In.

These did not implicate criminal
activity.

These did not implicate national
security.

These were not a threat to David
Petraeus, the person, or to General

the director of the Central Intelligence
Agency.

Those are not my words. Those are the
FBI's words.

But instead of actually sending those
emails, in many cases, they wrote them

drafts in a Gmail account they both had
access to. And that way they could both

log on and check the draft folder, never
having to actually hit send.

It's very embarrassing for the Obama
administration and for its national

security command.

It's troubling because there are laws
that the FBI has to follow and he has

right to be protected from an
unwarranted, unjustified investigation

or anyone. People don't really know how
they're being monitored and they think,

well, hey, if it's working, if we keep
stopping another 9 -11, then it's,

worth it.

The greatest fear that I have regarding
the outcome for

America of these disclosures is that
nothing will change.