Downloaded from YTS.MX
Official YIFY movies site: YTS.MX
♪ (music) ♪
(clicking to submit)
♪ (music) ♪
(clicking to submit)
♪ (music) ♪
(gulping)
(unintelligible mumbling)
(gulping)
♪ (music) ♪
(elevator opening)
♪ (music) ♪
(ads popping sound)
(storm approaching)
(scratching)
♪ (music) ♪
(narrator) Just about every time we use the Internet,
a communication link,
or an app,
we agree to some very long terms and conditions
but, what exactly are we agreeing to?
You guys, you gotta help me!
These geeks in their casual jeans they're trying to kidnap me!
What?!
It's crazy dude! They're saying it
because I've agreed to their latest terms and conditions on iTunes!
Why? What 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 the 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-- - Right
We can't know for sure if they 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 sensor font,
- and I would set it in all caps-- - OK.
Because what happens then,
is that your have a type that becomes a texture,
rather than words and spaces.
No one -- (laughter) has read the terms and conditions!
No one in the world! (laughter) -- No one!
Even the lawyers who wrote it, wrote it like this! (laughter)
You come to a website and they have a set of rules
usually described in the terms of service,
and then you have a privacy policy,
and as soon as you start using the service,
in essence you have agreed to their terms of service and their privacy policy.
(interviewer)"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 will topple over.
And so, to the extent there have been contract decisions,
and they held that these terms and conditions are valid.
(narrator) And this concept is pretty new... for instance,
you never had to sign an user's agreement for an old fashion landline,
or to watch TV,
or to read a book.
But if you use a smart phone,
a Kindle,
or you watch Hulu,
then you do.
Violet, baby, don't you sign anything! What's this all about?
A standard form of contract.
Don't talk to me about contracts, Wonka,
I use them myself, they're strictly for suckers.
Yes, but you wouldn't begrudge me a little protection.
(narrator) In fact, if you were to read everything you agree to,
it would take one full month of 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 dollars each year
due to what's hidden in fine print.
Here's an example from LinkedIn's terms:
You grant LinkedIn a non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual,
unlimited, assignable, sublicenseable, fully paid up and royalty-free right to us
to copy, prepare derivative works of, improve, distribute, publish, retain...
(talking faster and faster)
So, LinkedIn takes pretty much everything forever.
You 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 their user agreement to say
it would have the right to sell posted photos without compensation
for use in advertising.
(narrator) And, even if you are paying,
companies have the ability to make you accept
just about whatever they please.
In 2009, Game Station, a company in the UK,
put some pretty sneaky stuff in their terms.
They didn't take money, or your first-born 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 for ever more, your immortal soul."
The contract was only alive for a day
but Game Station happen 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?
And what if your phone came with these long terms & conditions saying
if you use the phone the government can wiretap you? That would be insane.
But that's the kind of world we're living in.
(narrator) The world where the government can wiretap you
because of terms and conditions?
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?
♪ Love the stuff we're made of Pizza Hut ♪
(narrator) 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.
Ok... 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.
(narrator) It wasn't until the late 90s
that companies began voluntarily adding privacy 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 includes names, billing information, shopping preferences and family 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 their districts
people are telling them that they want some internet privacy laws,
they want some protection.
[narrator] In early 2001 over a dozen bills
were introduced in Congress to protect privacy online.
(Bush)These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation
into chaos and retreat, But they have failed.
(narrator) All of the privacy legislation was killed or abandoned,
and the Patriot Act was, of course, initiated.
(Bush) The Bill before me takes account
of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists.
This new law that I sign today
will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists,
including e-mails, 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 judges' approval, for instance,
to find out what websites someone visited,
what search terms they typed 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.
(narrator) 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 ago',
but it cannot tell us, 'This person is Joe Smith',
or even, 'This person lives in the United States'."
And here is the Privacy Policy from one year later, in December of 2001:
"Google does this by storing user preferences and cookies,
and by tracking user 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, subpoena, statute or court order."
Now, it's important to know 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 screen shot you saw of Google's oldest policy
was taken by a non-profit Internet archival service
that 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 archive, they said they got every privacy policy
that goes back to the beginning,
but what Google shows as their original privacy policies,
doesn't match that of the archive service.
Instead, they show their 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 would 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 foundation of a whole new business model,
and the foundation of the modern Internet as we know it?
Would that be something worth covering up?
Well, 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 we are free in the liberty sense when we use it.
It might feel different if Google was effectively a $500 a year service,
because that's the amount of...
that's the value of the data that you're providing.
I mean, that was a really critical find in that advertising could be targeted
based on information that people were somehow supplying about themselves.
Suddenly, you didn't have to wonder, "Was somebody watching my commercial?"
You knew if someone click on my ad that meant that they paid attention to it.
(narrator) In 2012, Google was one of the most valuable stocks in the 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.
I 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 gonna be the most valuable company ever.
(narrator) 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 say, 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. (laughter)
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.
(narrator) And plenty of companies picked up on this fact.
Let me give you some very practical tips (laughter)
First of all, I want everyone here to be careful about
what you post of Facebook. (laughter)
What the default settings are on Facebook...
this is how most people use this technology.
When these companies are building these systems they know that.
(interviewer) "So, why is it the default for everything sharing, 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 is a community thing,
where some people want to share with just their friends,
but a lot of people also want to share
- with the community now-- - Right, right.
I want to share with everyone who works with me at Facebook,
I want to share with everyone who went to my college,
everyone in the village around me.
And those people aren't just my friends.
(narrator) Even Mark's explanation doesn't make any sense.
He says he wants to share with the school,
with the quaint village next to him,
he doesn't say he want to share with the entire world
and yet, that's the default.
The challenge with default is that you get comfortable
with whatever the default is.
When the default is public,
you're actually going to 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.
(narrator) 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-- - Yeah--
it's a really, you know, it's, it's... not the type of thing
that a lot of companies would do, you know...
We've decided that these would be the social norms now,
and we just went for it.
(narrator) You might remember the fan page with over a million people
who tried to get the 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 make 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 choose to share a photo album
you go to Facebook and you choose to put those photos there.
How do I opt in on every single thing?
Opt in.
I'm OK with Facebook behaving like a company,
but I think we need to treat it like a company
and not treat it like some benign public utility.
[narrator] These are the default settings on Facebook in 2005
divided into 12 categories.
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 and your birthday.
We could if you did a search in Gmail, in YouTube, and so forth, yesterday,
and you did it from your home... I'll give you the worst case:
You did it from your home and you only have one computer in your home.
In theory, we can cross-correlate those and get all three together.
But we don't do that and we're not likely to do that.
(narrator) But in January 2012, Google made changes to their privacy policy
and they did just that.
Google combined all of the information
any of their services have collected about a person,
and put it 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 we've never heard of like Acxiom,
that claims to have about 1,500 points of data on the average American citizen,
everything from, whether you're right-handed or left-handed,
what 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 to run a background check on somebody before they hire them.
They're able to connect the fact that you went to site A,
and then later B, and eventually to site C,
and create this detailed history of what sites 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?
Well, they might want to raise your premiums
because they think you are at risk for alcoholism, or something like that.
The company might use it in a way that actually harms you.
(narrator) 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,
saw his limit plummet 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
had a poor repayment history with American Express."
This means companies like Wal-Mart.
And in Minneapolis,
a father came into a Target outraged
that they were sending his teenage daughter pregnancy coupons,
coupons that were addressed to her.
The man thought that 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 were 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 that tell how fast you're moving.
It's really useful for helping us to avoid traffic,
but that kind of little company called Tom Tom was 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 authorities to give those same drivers tickets.
Is 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,
and 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 recent consumers' report study,
an estimated 7.5 million users were younger than 13.
First of all, we don't allow people to have an account under the age of 13.
And my reaction to that is that that's just absolutely indefensible,
it's unbelievable that you would say that.
Senator, I just want to say we really emphatically agree with your points.
They say that Facebook sent an army of lawyers
so that the final privacy legislation that emerged in 2011
was watered down significantly
in a way that wouldn't affect Facebook business model.
My name is Alan Davidson and I'm 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.
I reject the notion that privacy protection
is the enemy of innovation.
It absolutely doesn't have to be, and isn't.
(narrator) 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.
The Senate Bill 242 will protect users of social networking Internet sites.
It will protect these users from identity theft and unwanted contact
by 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 the key.
And one of the most interesting things I've found in these conversations
is that many members of the legislature don't even have social network sites
because they're concerned about about their privacy.
At the time the Bill was being heard,
all the lobbyist were in the committee room
for the entire hearing.
They did not come forward to speak.
So, sort of an interesting process,
sort of a stealth killing of the Bill,
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.
(interviewer) "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, so...
I'm not surprised. (laughter)
I don't think the rules of law and regulation
necessarily apply when it comes to, you know, interacting with a company
that wants to sell you something.
Yeah. We should be worried.
(narrator) But worried... about what?
Sure the data collection allowed by privacy policies has fooled Congress
But was there something more serious we were agreeing to?
(narrator) 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 on the pyramid scanning the Earth with the laser beam.
It actually looks oddly similar to what's inside Mark Zuckerberg's hoodie.
(Zuckerberg) Making the world more openly connected.
Oh, my God! It's like a secret cult. (laughter)
Total Information Awareness was a program designed to connect the dots,
to link banking activities to flight searches, to online activities--
(TV) But the Pentagon is clearly moving to create the largest electronic eye ever
to look at any and all Americans.
You're looking for trends and transactions that are associated
with some potential terrorist act.
They believe that with enough data they can predict who would be engaging
in nefarious crimes.
(narrator) The public was outraged, Congress was outraged,
the program was shut down.
The lesson that the government learned
after the failure of the 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 in smarter ways from their standpoint.
A wiretap requires a court order, nothing has changed, by the way.
(narrator) But, in reality, lots had changed.
How we were told one day in late 2002,
that an NSA representative was coming to the office...
Mark Klein came to us, the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
with data and documents that show 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, it's very different.
It's focused on eavesdropping, on tapping into major communication links.
It 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're vacuuming up, scooping up...
Everything is blatantly vacuuming up, everything's going across those links.
- And you're certain of that? - I'm certain of that.
(narrator) 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 a former analyst of the NSA to come forward to reveal new allegations
about how this nation was spied on by its own government.
The National Security Agency has access to all Americans' communications
-- faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications.
So, there's 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.
(narrator) But, then a beacon of hope arrived in the White House.
Hi Senator Obama, I appreciate you giving us the opportunity
to ask you questions.
I'm an attorney who represents federal whistle-blowers,
and I was very disappointed when I learned that you supported the Bill
that lets phone companies off the hook
when they've helped the Federal Government without warrant--
wiretap phones. (applause)
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 that argument.
But the problem was the surveillance program
is actually one that I believe is necessary for our national security.
(interviewer) "So they were immune,
but that means that the programs were still shut down, right?"
The programs are shut down?
(interviewer) "Yeah, the wiretapping program."
I have no reason to believe that the wiretapping programs
have been shut down.
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.
(interviewer) "So, 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 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 information and different kinds,
but more openly and with more people.
And that social norm is 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 convention: Facebook
(anchorwoman) According to Department of Homeland Security reports,
Facebook has replaced almost every other CIA information gathering program
since it was launched in 2004.
After years of secretly monitoring the public,
we were astounded so many people would willingly publicize
where they lived, their religious and political views,
an alphabetized list of all their friends,
personal e-mail addresses, phone numbers,
hundred of photos of themselves,
and even status updates about what they were doing moment to moment.
It is truly a dream come true for the CIA
You know, the FBIs and the NSAs of the world
are appreciative of the fact that Google and Facebook, you know,
had built business models around collecting user's data,
because it makes their jobs much easier.
There's an article in the Times that 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 a suit,
and he comes in and 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 everyone was saying: "What the hell was that?".
Now, nobody asked the question: "Why was Mueller in the building?".
He's the head of the FBI.
So, in the one hand, Mark Zuckerberg has said he wants to create
a more open society
and Facebook is a way to do that.
And, on the other hand, you know,
there's a lot about the way Facebook uses information
that people don't know.
(narrator) If only there's a way of knowing how much information
these companies are storing about us.
Well, in the case of Facebook, we learned some pretty interesting things
thanks to one student in Austria.
And, unlike the US, 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're like the only 3 people that were like, pushing hard enough,
and like asking again, again and again,
and going through also the Irish authorities to finally get
at least a bigger part of our data set, we still didn't get everything right now.
Got it right there. Just to have an idea of how much it is. (laughter)
- That's like... just to picture it -- - Can I hold 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 3 years
but I was using it more intensely like, for the last 1.5 year or so.
What's interesting is, well, that I didn't post too much, actually.
Like, I'm a person that posts something like once a week or so.
With this giant ream of information in front of me,
is it hard to go through and actually find specific details about a person?
No, that's super easy because...
I mean, we just use the search function of the PDF files.
So, you just type in one word, let's say,
"demonstration", or "sex", or "political party", or something...
- Yeah. - and within a second
you find the right information.
So, within a couple of minutes you can figure out what people voted for,
what psychological problems they have, what parties they've been to...
all these information are like really easy to find actually.
While using that service for such a short time,
you still have 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, deleted.
So, you hide it actually from yourself, but anyone
like Facebook or any government agency that wants to look at it later,
can still retrieve it and get it back.
And that being said, it's there for indefinite time,
even though you hit the delete button
and they asked you three times if you really, really want to delete it.
(interviewer) "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 of the searches that we've ever done are still there,
the underlying data is still there to be de-anonymized at some point.
(narrator) 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 short few hours for a reporter to quote
who user No. 4417749 was.
Between search for things like "numb fingers",
"60's single men"
and "dog who urinates on everything",
the reporter uncover 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",
but then, in the middle, the user actually looked up "steak and cheese"...
...steak and cheese?
And there were plenty of users online who were quick to judge
what was going on here.
Yeap, it was murder.
- Winnie, easy, easy -- - Hey, old friend!
Take a sit down in here, I'm going to show you something.
Ok.
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 searched for before?
Awww... sure, yeah, I've definitely... I definitely looked up car crash photos,
I've definitely typed in "decapitated",
I've definitely looked up dead people photos...
Awww... "wife killer", I've definitely looked up "wife killer", yeah.
In fact, I've looked up every single search term
we're looking at here.
[narrator] You see, Jerome has been a writer on "Cold Case",
a TV show where each week cops have to solve a murder mystery.
That's always what scared me when I was entering those search terms
was if there's some kind of automated system
that just red-flags you based on search terms
they're not going to look and say,
"Oh, yeah, you're probably working on a TV show,
and that's why he was just Googling "how to murder my cheating wife".
(wife) What?
(door opening])
I just wanted to confirm that I had not murdered you
and that you're alive.
(wife) No, I'm allowed to come out of this room. (laughter])
- And our baby's safe. - Ok, good.
- He has a clean diaper. - Awww... thank God.
So, we can rest assured you are not a murderer.
I'm not a murderer.
You're a writer.
I'm a writer.
- Ok. - Glad we can clear that up.
Glad we can clear that up.
(narrator) 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 pubic?
Consensus seems to be that retention of this kind of information
should be greater than zero days,
and the reason is it has to do with police actions, terrorists,
Patriot Act, all of these sort of things.
It turns out that in this environment, the digital environment,
there is 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,
that's called the Third-Party Doctrine.
The Third-Party Doctrine means
that when you as a consumer share your data with a bank,
with an e-mail provider,
with a search engine,
with any kind of technology company,
you have basically given up what would have been
your Fourth Amendment protections over that data.
For the government to get information from a Google or a Facebook,
it's a lot easier than the government doing it itself,
by 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
the secret search of e-mails by the government seems to be commonplace.
Law that governs when the government can get electronic communications,
like e-mails and things that are stored remotely,
was written in 1986.
And can have effects that allow the government
to at least claim they should 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 opened.
Well, in the spring of 2011,
the Department of Justice and, in particular, the FBI,
made several requests
to Internet companies
as part of an investigation leading to individuals associated with WikiLeaks.
We released 400,000 classified documents.
(narrator) For those of you who didn'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 obviously a positive development
for those of us who think that information
should be more accessible, almost no matter what.
You know, obviously, it's a threatening development
for 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 whistle-blower 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've received this request.
(TV) Denouncing the move, Assange said he believes
other American Internet companies, such as Facebook and Google,
may also have been ordered to disclose information.
Companies like Amazon, Yahoo, Dropbox...
even Facebook, will be capable of handing data to the government
without first informing users.
Even if you think what the people are doing is wrong,
that's why the First Amendment exist:
to protect unpopular people engaging in unpopular speech.
(narrator) But Twitter fought back.
They released the information of the users and let them know ahead of time,
and 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 it's disloyal, in this case, to the country.
(narrator) Well, 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 the USA,
Australia, Canada, South Africa and others
to develop spying systems that affect all of us.
(narrator) The Spy Files shows the massive industry
that surrounds selling to US government
and governments around the world.
Instead of having something called the Information Awareness Act,
which depicts a symbol with the eye of the pyramid looking everybody,
and scanning the world with this sinister laser beam...
Instead, let's just have a bunch of companies that exist
that are providing bits of those capabilities,
and they are provided under the contracts,
that you got for the same agencies, the same people.
One of the most popular is called the 'massive intercept',
and basically, what governments are trying to do with this
is to get as much information as possible from our communications,
so they can analyze that, and detect patterns in that.
It's interesting, you know, in your article you talk about
- the secretive nature of the business-- - Right.
that they sell through trade shows which are not open to the media...
(narrator) But we actually went to one of these conventions. It was pretty easy,
we just called and asked for a pass.
So, we talked with a representative for one of these companies,
a firm called Cellebrite.
They were included in the Spy Files.
They're a company that sells cellphone extraction tools
to every major government sector in the US.
So, my name is Christopher Shin,
I'm the Vice-President of Engineering for Cellebrite USA.
Today, I'm presenting to you
the Cellebrite UFED System, to my right here.
It is a device used to extract countless information from mobile devices
so, text messages, pictures, video, audio, call log, that kind of things...
it's used by agencies across the United States and the world.
Yes, the iPhone, specifically, stores a lot of information,
more than your normal handset.
It really is a digital store of your personal and business life...
This is why the field has actually been growing exponentially
over the last couple of years.
As the devices get more complex, they can hold more information,
this is 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, you know, Glock or Beretta producing firearms,
we're producing a tool that does a certain task,
and we're marketing that tool only towards...
just like you can't buy... you go out and buy a hand gun without credentials,
we're not just selling it to everybody.
(interviewer) "But... could you conceivably sell it
or, are there laws against it?"
There are no laws against selling this
to someone who is not in law enforcement, the government, or something like that.
Someone who wants to dump my phone tomorrow
they might get a laugh at the content in it,
but I don't think I'll be put in jail.
So, I think it really depends on how you look at it.
I mean, there are privacy concerns but I'm a little bit more, I guess,
the liberal side of my privacy being exposed.
I mean, other people, of course... that's a completely personal view.
My phone itself, I mean, I... I actually take that back,
I have a lot of work-related information on my Blackberry
so, if this information did get out, probably I would be pretty concerned.
The surveillance vendors target two types of customers.
They target governments directly,
and they also target Internet service providers
and telecommunications carriers,
who are tasked with the responsibility of spying on their own customers.
(narrator) For example, it was a little piece of software
that has been installed in every phone in America.
This software is called Carrier IQ.
And thanks to a little video the system's administrators
from Connecticut posted on YouTube,
the world now knows that this software has been monitoring our every key stroke.
(dialing) (automatic operator speaking) "Dial 63, and so on, and so forth..."
(narrator) According to Carrier IQ Chief Marketer, they're aware
this information is 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 smart phones
with a pre-installed software signed by a company called Carrier IQ.
Recent research has shown that it captures a broad range of sensitive information...
Let me start up by saying that we had neither sought nor obtained
any information from Carrier IQ in anyone of our investigations.
Not directly from Carrier, but what about from the wireless carriers?
No, I don't believe so.
If you're specifying use
of the Carrier IQ software by another wireless carrier...
... have we sought that?
I do not know,
and the information we seek from wireless carriers, or what have you--
and I'm not talking about Carrier IQ, I'm talking about wireless carrier...
- Right. - that we may have obtained information
that in some way Carrier IQ may have been involved with.
(narrator) Why would the FBI need Carrier IQ 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 & Target,
which claims that it can search through the SMSs, the IMs,
Twitter, e-mails, Facebook, blogs and forums,
or analyze huge volumes of information in real time.
Or FinFisher, which demonstrate
how the police can infiltrate anyone's systems,
through a variety of videos that used to be available
on their website.
They even showed an agent hacking into Google and Facebook in their demo.
(interviewer) "Who has this kind of equipment?"
Massive interception equipment is sold by surveillance vendors around the world.
So, it's really up for grabs for anyone who wants it and can pay the price.
(narrator) The FinFisher system was sold to Egypt to monitor people
who opposed their leader.
These are the actual documents.
It even includes training for 2 - 4 people for the low, low price of about $11,000.
Or the Hacking Team Project,
which advertises that it can track hundred of thousands of cell phones,
all in one system.
Or software, like Kapow, that analyzes all social networks,
and features the ability to search out key words and phrases.
Everything that happens on Facebook,
and it shows the frequency of the conversation
between one person to another, that kind of things.
$That allows us for a lot of profiling,
it creates massive databases for law enforcement to exploit,
and often misread.
(narrator) With hundreds of companies offering these services,
why would the FBI need to use Carrier IQ?
Everything coming from a cell phone, everything coming from a computer,
anything that's going over the Internet
out of the country, or even internal within the country,
can 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 at the question of
how can governments and corporations work with 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.
(narrator) And the government isn't that 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 activities.
Examples of surveillance include, but are not limited to:
Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Which brings us back to that word that you find in any user's agreement.
It's the word that sent us down this whole path in the first place:
"Prevent."
So, this might make you wonder,
what potential threat would all of this surveillance we agreed to
actually prevent?
Basically, January 3rd, 20 days before I go on holiday, I tweet:
"Are you free this week for a quick gossip/prep
before I go and destroy America?"
Ended the twit with a kiss -- as threatening as that is,
and 20 days later, got on a flight to go to LAX,
we had a hotel in Hollywood Boulevard,
where we were going to park around for a week,
just looking around, just being tourists.
Got off the plane, went through the passport control,
swiped my passport through, and they said, "Can you come this way?".
And I was like, I just got an Irish passport, so I thought
maybe Irish people are stereotyped, IRA bombers...
They went through my suitcase and, I was like... Awww, what are you doing?
And then, when they put me in the holding room,
they were questioning me for 5 hours 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... to party... it means, to go wild, to get drunk...
Any moron that can read that tweet can see what it meant to us.
It ends with a kiss.
I'm sure Hitler doesn't end his memoirs with a kiss... or whatever he did.
(laughter)
So, then they moved us to a holding room,
then at midnight the staff changed over,
and they weren't aware of why we were there for,
so the handcuffed us, stuck us in the back of a police van,
and they took us to downtown, like a prison detention center...
Innocent people shouldn't be treated like absolute dirt,
and they were dragging us around, pushing us into walls...
- It sounds like a horrible vacation-- - Awww...
Is the government refunding you at least?
No, they wouldn't comment on what happened.
Well, if I could I was going to paint the town red,
they'd have me down 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 every airport
and questioned about what happened,
and I'll have to explain to them that it was a tweet.
My Italian, Irish, French, Portuguese,
Native American, Black... I'm even 1/18 Avatar (laughter)
(narrator) This is Joe Lipari.
Joe Lipari had had a rough day at the Apple store.
He's been forced to wait in line for 4 hours before finally leaving.
So, I get home from the Apple store, still a little bit irritated...
smoked a little dope, put on Fight Club, just trying to relax, go on Facebook...
(TV) And this button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho might just snap,
and then stalk from office to office...
(Joe and TV) ...with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon...
And I said the same thing but except, for the Apple store.
And, you know, basically word for word except for where.
Hanging out on Facebook, getting ready to go to yoga class,
there's a 'Shave and a Haircut' 'Two bits' knock on my door.
So, I was like, maybe somebody is here to watch Fight Club with me.
Opened it up, boom!
NYPD SWAT have their bulletproof vests on, their guns drawn,
and they tear the place apart!
They really go through everything.
Under one cup, you know, the guy finds a box that has all my military awards,
he comes and brings it and says, "Oh, you were in the military?"
Then we started talking army talk, he sees that I speak the language,
and then is when he asks me, "Do you know what's an Armalite AR-10?",
and I was like, "It's that why you're here, guys?
You are here because I made a bad joke on Facebook?",
like I... you know, it blew my mind.
It's the ultimate buzz kill, really!
Those Facebook pages brought a SWAT team to your house!
They told me not to go far from New York
because I'm gonna be needed for all these court cases for a year.
They claimed 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, my stuff, they have to give me my mug shot if I want it.
So they came back and said, "Oh, turned out it wasn't someone who called 911,
it was just someone who walked-in to the police station
and that's something we don't keep a record of."
And how did you get my address? I've lived there for just 10 days.
(laughter) I didn't update my mailing address yet,
like all my banking stuff is still going to my old apartment,
like there's 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 office,
then I would sit down inside the Vice-Principal office,
and I wasn't told what was going on until, maybe, 10 minutes later.
(Timi Robertson) My phone rang and I looked at it,
and it was the number of his school,
and I answered it, and it was the school security guard
just to giving me an FYI, you know...
"For your information just to give you a heads up,
the Secret Service is here with the Town Police Department,
and they have Vito, and they're talking to him."
(Vito) A man walked-in in a suit and glasses,
and he said that he was part of the Secret Service,
and he told me that it was because of a post that I'd made,
and it's indicated as a threat towards the President.
(narrator) Yes, a seventh-grade boy was visited by our FBI
because of a red flag that came up in their spy system.
I was saying how Osama is dead, and for Obama to be careful
because there might be suicide bombers.
(narrator) It didn't consider his age,
or that his comment about Obama needing to 'Watch out!' was one of concern
The machine simply determined that based in a series of words...
Vito was a potential threat.
Pre-crime, they believe, is potential breach to the peace.
They believe that you might cause a crime.
There are pre-crime arrests in minority report.
Mr. Marks, by mandate of the District of Columbia
Pre-crime Division,
I'm placing you under arrest for the future murder of [Sarah Mars]
that is known to be taking place today, April 22nd, 0800 hours and 4 minutes.
No! I didn't do anything!
There's an arrest that happened on the Royal Wedding day
when I attended a Zombie Flashmob Wedding Picnic.
Myself and 4 other zombies were arrested preemptively
for potential breach to the peace.
Even if you dress up as a zombie,
it seems to me that the crime isn't really committed,
- until you eat some brains-- - Yeap.
To be fair, we did have some "brain cake", so there's that...?
How did they know that you were going to be dressing up as a zombie this day?
There could have been e-mails, or anything...
There could have been, it's hard to know, yeah.
I think that-- - That's a scary thing, yeah.
The indication that they were monitoring private social networks
came in the way we were reacting to certain things,
and asking us certain things.
They were asking about "maggots" and asking about "climbing gear",
which they might have heard about through some exchanges on the Internet.
Neither of which is true, nobody had maggots or climbing gear.
Not something that was itself posing a hazard to the Royal Wedding celebrations
we were nowhere near the Royal Wedding celebrations,
and we had no plan of going near the Royal Wedding celebrations.
Anything that wasn't part of the official, ostentatious, joyous expensive celebration
of this wedding of two strangers, was prevented from happening.
And that seems deeply disturbing.
You can see the surveillance measures are being used to silence protests
before they even happen.
Yes, this was of course the Royal Wedding...
We'd all helped pay for the Royal Wedding, you know, it wasn't just a private wedding
You're arresting a professor of anthropology
that runs a street theater group...
[people talking and shouting]
We couldn't believe this was happening,
we were so obviously a street theater troupe.
Some of us, had actually gotten a 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 street theater.
A lot of life is based upon trust...
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,
so it's preempted from acting because somebody inside your company has talked,
you aren't going to like it, and it'll hurt.
(narrator) The activists didn't need to commit any crime.
They just needed to text, to e-mail, 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 action of citizens and keeping a record of it,
the solution is to make sure that we elect better governments.
(interviewer) "So, one of the things I hear a lot is,
who cares if they're collecting all this information about me,
I don't have anything to hide so, why does it matter?"
Well, I know this argument and it is not very new,
it's old-fashion saying we are complying with rules so, what happens?
Between leading the sinful life that I would like to lead,
and hoping that the government will protect my privacy
or, assuming that no one is going to protect my privacy
and leading a less sinful life,
I'd go with the latter... simply, just the odds of success seem higher to me.
I congratulate the people that say they have nothing to hide.
I don't believe them, and I'd also say
that they're probably hiding something from someone. We all do.
You have nothing to hide till you do.
And you're not necessarily going to know what you have to hide or not.
(narrator) You might remember the case of Milly,
a teenage girl in Britain who disappeared in 2002.
(TV) "Police in Surrey say they're growing increasingly concerned
about the safety of the 13-year-old girl who hasn't been seen
since Thursday afternoon."
(narrator) Before the police found her body,
her parents were holding onto hopes that she might still be alive.
I want to say if someone has taken Milly and is holding her,
then please, please, giver her back to us...
(narrator) Why is that, you might ask.
Well, because according to phone records,
Milly has checked and deleted her voicemail.
We were sitting downstairs in reception and I rang her phone...
- Yes. - and it clicked through onto her voice message,
- so I heard her voice-- - Yes.
and I was... it was just like I jumped,
"She's picked up her voicemails, Bob, she's alive!", and I was just...
it was then, really.
(narrator) As it turned out, members of the Rupert Murdoch's Corporation
had been hacking into Milly'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 newspaper's methods were.
This was a murdered schoolgirl,
and the thought of a very tight-knit circle of very senior politicians,
linked up very closely, intimately, with the police
and with the media mogul, Rupert Murdoch.
(TV) 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 whose press...
(narrator) For years, celebrities and individuals like Milly,
had their voicemail, they thought was hidden in private,
accessed by Rupert Murdoch Corporation,
at the expense of people like Milly'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 so many friends
that we didn't know before, (laughter)
but all these friends are connected,
gives the state, an absolutely unparalleled in the history of humanity,
ability to know what's going on with its citizens,
to find out who the dissenters are...
The government is making whistle-blowing a crime.
They are making dissent a crime,
especially when it embarrasses the government
and calls the government into account.
Sources are going to get discovered,
and if whistle-blowers cannot securely and anonymously
provide their 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.
(laughter)
If you look at the technical perspective,
the technologies of maintaining privacy
are actually running ahead of the technologiess that break it.
For example, encryption, which can maintain your privacy,
is running ahead of decryption.
(narrator) But what if there's a way to store information
until it can be decrypted?
Intelligence officials will soon be allowed
to keep information on US citizens much longer than they used to,
even if those citizens have not known ties to terrorism.
Under new rules, the government can store data it's gathered for 5 years,
that's up from the current limit of 6 months.
General Alexander, if Dick Cheney were elected President
and wanted to detain and incessantly waterboard every American
who's sent an e-mail 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 e-mails.
In the United States, we would have to go through
an FBI process of warrant to get that,
and serve it to somebody to actually get it.
- But you do have capability of doing it?-- - Not in the United States.
New questions about the National Security Agency's
massive spy center under construction in the desert of Utah.
Once finished, it'll be five times the size of the US Capitol building.
The NSA is not allowed to spy on Americans,
but now a whistle-blower has come forward saying that the agency is doing it anyway.
This massive agency that is collecting a tremendous amount of information
every day by satellites, and tapping the cell phones,
and data links, and your computer e-mail links, and so forth.
And then it has to store it someplace and that's why they'll build Bluffdale.
So, it's going to cost 2 billion dollars
and it's being built in this area,
on a military base outside of Salt Lake City, in Bluffdale.
As I said, they had to actually extend the boundaries of the town,
so that it would fit into it.
And the whole purpose of this is the centerpiece
of this massive eavesdropping complex, this network created after 9/11.
The reality of information technology is that it progresses exponentially
--only information technology.
Exponential grow starts out very slow, looks like nothing is happening,
is doubling in time in little numbers,
and suddenly, it takes off...
and you've seen that with paradigm after paradigm,
like social networks in recent times.
(narrator) In 1984, to sort 1 GB of data cost $85,000.
By 2012, it cost about 5 cents.
In the city of Chongqing, there are about 500,000 cameras.
In 2012, the cost of permanently recording at high resolution feed was $300 million.
By year 2020, the projected cost is less than $3 million.
The UK is one of the cultures that introduced cameras
most ubiquitously and most quickly.
So far, the population seems fine with it.
If they weren't, they know who to call.
(narrator) 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 scanning people's faces,
then checking that information against a criminal database.
When we're at war, when you're protecting your society
against people who want come 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.
(narrator) According to the Brookings Institution,
"this kind of pervasive monitoring provides what amounts to a time machine
allowing authoritarian governments to perform retrospective surveillance."
For example, if an anti-regime demonstrator
previously unknown to security services is arrested,
it'll be possible to go back in time
to scrutinize the demonstrator's phone conversations,
automobile travels, and the people he or she 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 know live in.
The messages are free to use, and most importantly, they're encrypted,
so the police can't actually get in there to uncrypt what happened.
That prompted calls to shut down the entire network.
(narrator) 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 e-mails, text messages, phone calls, search history,
to track our movement and limit our free speech?
What crime did that 7th grade boy really commit?
Is having zombies to the Royal Wedding really so bad?
What about Milly's parents?
And what happen when these technologies are used to watch peaceful protesters,
like all the people who occupy Wall Street or the Tea Party folks?
What happens if the government doesn't like tents being set up?
(people shouting) Stop beating students! Stop beating students!
(narrator) 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.
(interviewer) "Do you think privacy is dead?"
It means it's certainly dying... whether or not it...
For privacy to... I mean, privacy is going to remain dead
unless there's a fundamental shift in the dynamic by which our society is,
by which I mean the only really effective response
is to monitor, and to change the behavior
of the tendencies of the intelligence industry,
and law enforcement and all that,
and even companies.
And that's very, very unlikely.
I don't know exactly who the us is, but I'm very critical of us.
I think 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 on our parade.
And we've woken up to the privacy concerns in my view, at least 4 years too late.
(interviewer) "I mean, is really privacy dead?"
Yes, without question.
Without question... Yes, it's dead.
It's safe to work under the assumption that nothing is private.
Anything that's been digitized is not private, and that...
is terrifying.
So, when this become the size of a blood cell,
then I can just send them into my brain in my body, through the blood stream...
this will become quite ubiquitous...
And it really will be part of who we are, and people will say,
well, OK, that's really going to be a threshold to move beyond...
But I don't think so, it's a very smooth continuum from...
you know, when I was student and I had to take my bicycle
to get to the computer, to 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 on the heat,
the frog will just die because it doesn't realize that it's...
boiling.
And I think that's 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, you sort of wonder how you got where you were.
I think that's true.
It's just completely out of control.
I mean, the sky is the limit, you know.
They know everything about us now.
It's like, take someone who's in charge of laws,
having what's being done to American citizens,
done to their e-mail account,
- to their Facebook profile-- - Right, so that they pay attention to it.
All of these powerful institutions,
they are not subject to the same invasions of privacy
as of the rest of us are.
Eric Schmidt the CEO of Google once said:
If you have something that you don't want anybody 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.
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 doesn't want to implement it.
Unless someone comes and makes it no longer practical
for them to engage in that kind of activity,
pressure is put upon CEOs of the companies that are going to engage in it.
(typing sound)
It's dawn.
We're going by the Facebook campus right now.
Really, I have no idea about what to expect.
We'll now have breakfast.
[touching screen sound]
Zuckerberg...
They know that I checked in here too, so that's good,
he knows that I'm right next to his house.
See we have... here is the exact quote from Mark:
"Having two identities for yourself is an example of lack of integrity."
Lack of integrity.
They just did a knock up on his door so...
seems very likely that we might get a Mark Zuckerberg sighting today.
[clock ticking]
I mean you might be wrong, I don't see how it might actually happen.
Then, they might actually have a tunnel...
I see definite motion in the yard... ♪ [slow piano music] ♪
Is it a dog?
Here we go! [inaudible]
(tire screeching)
(interviewer) Mr. Zuckerberg...
Hey, I'm working on a documentary...
Doing a little vlog here but...
wondering if I can ask you a couple of questions.
(Zuckerberg) No, I'm sorry, I have to go to work...
(interviewer) Just let me ask: Do you still think privacy is dead?
And, what are your real thoughts on privacy?
(Zuckerberg) Are you guys recording?
(interviewer) We are.
(Zuckerberg) Can you please not?
(interviewer) I can stop, yeah. All right.
(narrator) Mark Zuckerberg could ask 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 been deleted,
this only seemed fair.
(Zuckerberg) Can you please stop?
(interviewer) I can stop, yeah. All right.
Can I come by the front desk and ask about setting up an interview?
(Zuckerberg) Yeah. We have a department that you can talk to people about that
(interviewer) I've tried going through it a few times, and I never hear back.
(narrator) There's a major difference here
Mark loosens up after he thinks we'd stopped recording.
And you see that? That right there...
That's a smile.
Mark Zuckerberg smiled at me, and you know why?
Because he thought I'd stopped recording, and he was relieved.
Imagine what a relief it would be,
if all these companies and the government stop 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 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 the 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 us, 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 the issue of freedom of the press,
or it's an issue of wireless wiretaps,
that simple principle is one that we can't give up,
and we don't have to give up.
(narrator) Well, Mr. President, we are watching,
and I guess we have to ask ourselves one simple question:
Do we agree?
♪ (music) ♪
Washington is caught in its very own episode of Spy vs. Spy.
The tactics once employed by top intelligence gathering teams like the CIA,
sifting through IP addresses, e-mails and fake dropboxes,
had now been turned against the intelligence community's top official.
(anchorman) The FBI uncovered evidence of an affair
between Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell.
That's right. Petraeus had an affair with the author of his falling biography
"All In".
These did not implicate criminal activities,
these did not implicate national security,
these were not a threat to David Petraeus the person,
or to General Petraeus, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Those are not my words, those are the FBI's words.
But instead of actually sending those e-mails, in many cases,
they wrote them as drafts in a Gmail account they both had access to,
and that way, they can both log on and check the draft folder,
never actually having to hit 'Send.'
It was very embarrassing for the Obama's administration
and for its National Security Command.
It's troubling because there are laws that the FBI has to follow,
and he has the right to be protected from an unwarranted,
unjustified investigation by the FBI or anyone.
People don't really know how they're being monitored,
and they think, "Hey, if it's working,
if we keep stopping another 9/11, then it's... then it's, quote, worth it."
The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America
of these disclosures is that nothing will change.