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
I'll keep my place
but tonight
I'll stay so late
oh sleep for a while
too much conversation
too much information
I gotta turn it off
oh sleep for a while
too much conversation
too much information
I gotta turn it off
for a while
I'll keep my place
and tonight
I'll stay so late
and here we are
gotta turn it off
gotta turn it off
gotta turn it--
[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 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 sans serif font, and
I would set it in all caps.
Because 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.
[laughter]
You come to a website
and they have a set of rules
Usually described in
a terms of services,
And then they have
a privacy policy.
And as soon as you
start using the service,
In essence, you have agreed
to the 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.
[narrator] and this concept
is pretty new.
For instance, you never
had to sign a user agreement
For an old-fashioned
land line,
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 there!
What's this
all about?
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 agreed to,
It would take one full month
of work out of every year.
That's 180 hours you'd need
to spend every year.
And according to
"the wall street journal,"
Consumers lose $250 billion
Each year due to what's
hidden in fine print.
Here's an example
from linkedin's terms.
You grant linkedin
a nonexclusive,
Irrevocable, worldwide,
perpetual, unlimited,
Assignable, sublicenseable,
fully paid-up
And royalty-free right
to us to copy,
Prepare derivative works of,
improve, distribute, publish,
Remove, retain, add, process,
analyze, use and commercialize,
In any way now known or
in the future discovered,
Any information you provide,
directly or indirectly
To linkedin, including, but not
limited to, any user-generated
content,
Ideas, concepts, techniques
or data to the services,
You submit to linked in,
without any further consent,
Notice and/or compensation
to you or to any third parties.
[narrator] 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.
[narrator]
and even if you are paying,
Companies have the ability
To make you accept
just about whatever they please.
In 2009, gestation,
Company in the u.K.,
Put some pretty sneaky
stuff their terms.
They didn't take mon,
or your firstborn child.
But for one day,
their terms stated:
By pcing an order
via th website,
You agree to grant us
a non-transferable
option to claim,
Now and forer more,
your immortal soul.
The contract was
only live for a day,
But gamestation 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 and conditions
That said, well, 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] 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?
you'll 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.
Okay, there are
these things called cookies,
Where, like, if you go
to a site and buy something,
It will 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 included 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.
[man] lawmakers tell you
time and time again
That every time they
go back to their district,
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.
[george w. 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 signed 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 judge's
approval, for instance,
To find out what website
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'e'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's the privacy policy
from one year later,
In December of 2001.
"google does this by storing
user preferences in 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 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 non-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
that they've got every privacy
policy
That goes back to 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 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?
And 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's
really free,
Or that we 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,
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. Someone
clicked 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.
So 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 going to 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.
People who are willing
to give up 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.
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.
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 this technology.
When these companies are
building these systems,
they know that.
[audience member] 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,
It's a community thing,
right?
So people want to share
with just their friends,
But a lot of people
also want to share with
The community around them.
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 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.
[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 is--
Is 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 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.
Just have an 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 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, 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 did 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.
[narrator]
but in January of 2012
Google made changes
to tir privacy policy,
And they did just that.
Google combined l
of the information
Any of the services had
collected about a person
And put them into
one ngle profile.
What eric schmidt had said
was the worst-case scenao,
Gole 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's
evidence of 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 acxiom,
That claim to have about 1500
points of data on the average
american citizen,
Everything from, you know,
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 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 site b,
And then eventually to site c,
And create this detailed history
Of what sites you visit online.
[man] they don't put your name
in the cookie.
They put a unique
serial number in the cookie
That can 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.
[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
have used their card
At establishments
where you recently shopped
Have 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 teenaged 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 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 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 a
recent consumers' report study,
An estimated 7 1/2 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.
Well, senator, I just want to
say we-- 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'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.
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.
Senate bill 242 will protect
users of social networking
internet sites.
It will protect these users
from identity theft
And from 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 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 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.
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.
[laughs] I'm not surprised.
I don't think-- I don't think
the rules of law and regulation
Necessarily apply when it comes
to 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
Had fueled commerce. 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,
They eye of the pyramid,
scanning the earth with
a laser beam.
It actually looks oddly
similar to what's inside
mark zuckerberg's hoodie.
Making the world more
open and connected.
Oh my god!
It's like a secret cult!
Total information awareness
was a program designed
to connect the dots,
To link banking activities
to flight searches
to online activities.
[reporter] 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,
That 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 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.
[bush] 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 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
every--
They are blindly vacuuming up
everything 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 leaks--
links to al-qaeda
And related terrorist
organizations.
It's taken less than 24 hours
after the bush presidency ended
For a former analyst
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.
Um-- it would be everything.
[narrator] 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 lets 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 that argument.
But the problem was that
the surveillance program
Is actually one that
I believe is necessary
for our national security.
So they were immune, but that
means that the programs were
still shut down, right?
The-- the programs
were shut down?
Yeah, e wiretapping
programs.
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
Anat&t would still
be fighting in court
For the lelity of it.
So barack obama has't
changed anything?
No, barack obama did not
shut those progrs down
After he took office,
Even though he had threatened
to before he became president.
[zuckerberg]
when we got started just
in my dorm room at harvard,
Um, the question that
a lot of people asked was,
Why would I want
to put any information
on the internet at all?
Like, 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
invention-- facebook!
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,
And alphabetized lists
of all their friends,
Personal email addresses,
phone numbers, hundreds
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, 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 a 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 chitchat
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.
So on the one hand,
mark zuckerberg has 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
facebook uses information
that people don't know.
[narrator] 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
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
three people that were like,
Pushing hard enough and asking
again and again and again
And going through also
the irish authority
To finally get at least like
a bigger part of our data set.
We still didn't get
everything right now.
Got it right here, just to
have an idea of how much it
actually is.
That's like, just to picture
it to see how much it is.
Can I hold it? 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
For like the last
one and a half years or so.
What's interesting as well
is that I didn't post
too much, actually.
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,
'cause it's--
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, I don't know,
psychological problems
they have,
What parties they've been to,
All these informations
are like 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 it's flagged as
deleted.
So, um, 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 means that it's
there for an indefinite time,
Um, even though you hit
the delete button
And they ask 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.
We-- think of it as we
anonymize the information
within 18 months.
It might be anonymized
within 18 months,
But all of the searches we've
ever done are still there.
The underlying data is still
there to be de-anonymized at
some point.
[narrator] 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", "'60s
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 actually looks up
"steak and cheese."
Steak and cheese!
And there were plenty
of users online
Who were quick to judge
what was going on here.
It was murder.
Rainey, easy.
Hey, old friend!
So let's take a seat and
I'm gonna show you something.
Okay.
What I'm showing you here
is a list of anonymized
search records.
Um, these records
were released by aol.
Have you-- are there actually
things on this list
That you know you've searched
for before?
Um, sure. Yeah, I've definitely
looked up "car crash photos",
I've definitely typed in
"decapitated",
I've definitely looked up
"dead people photos",
"wife killer" I've definitely
looked up "wife killer".
In fact, I've looked up
every single search term
I'm looking at here.
[narrator] you see,
jerome had been a writer
on "cold case",
A tv show where each week cops
have to solve a murder mystery.
Well, 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 gonna 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."
What?
I just wanted to confirm
that I had not murdered you
and that you are alive.
No, I am allowed to
come out of this room.
And our baby's safe.
Okay, good.
And he has a clean diaper.
Oh, thank god.
So we can rest assured
you are not a murderer.
I am not a murderer.
You're a writer.
I am a writer.
Okay.
Glad we could
clear that up.
Glad we could
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 public?
The consensus seems to be
That the retention
of this kind of information
Should be greater
than zero days.
And the reason has to do with
police actions, terrorists,
Patriot act, all those
sorts of things.
Turns out that in this
environment,
The digital environment,
There's a loophole to
the 4th 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 the consumer
Share data with a bank,
With an email provider,
With a search engine,
With any kind of technology
company,
You have basically
given up
What would have been your
4th amendment protections
over that data.
For the government to get
information from a google
or a facebook,
Is a lot easier than 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.
The law that governs
when the government
Can get electronic
communications,
Like emails and things
that are stored remotely,
Was written in 1986, and could
have effects
That allow the government to at
least claim
That 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 relating
to individuals associated
with wikileaks.
We released 400,000
classified documents.
[narrator] 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 think
that information
Should be more accessible
almost no matter what,
And obviously is a
threatening 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 d-order
and it came with a gag order.
It required that twitter
never speak publicly
About the fact that they
had received this request.
[reporter]
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 exists.
To protect unpopular people
Engaging in
unpopular speech.
[narrator]
but twitter fought back.
They released the information
to 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]
while president bush might
think it's disloyal,
Thanks to twitter standing up
for the rights 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 United States,
Australia, canada,
south africa, and others
To develop spying systems
that affect all of us.
[narrator]
the spy files show
the massive industry
That surrounds selling
to the us government
And governments
around the world.
Instead of having something
called the total information
awareness act,
With this big symbol
with the eye of the pyramid,
Looking at everybody,
Scanning the world
with its sinister laser beams,
Instead they just have a bunch
of companies that exist
That are providing bits
of those capabilities,
And they're provided under
different contracts
But you 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 that.
It's interesting,
in your article,
That you really talk
about the secretive nature
of the business.
Right.
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
to the representative
from one of these companies,
A firm called cellebrite.
They were included
in the spy files.
They're a company that sells
cell-phone extraction tools
To every major government
sector in the us.
So my name's christopher shin.
I'm the vice president of
engineering for cellebrite usa.
Today I'm presenting to you
the cellebrite u-fed system,
To my right here.
It is a device used to extract
countless information
From mobile devices,
so text messages,
Pictures, video, 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 normal 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 years.
So 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,
so...
We think of ourselves as
basically a tool manufacturer.
Just like, you know,
glock or beretta
is producing a firearm,
We're producing a tool
that does a certain task,
And we're marketing
that tool 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 conceivably
sell it, or are there
laws against it?
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, I guess,
The liberal side
of my privacy being exposed.
I mean,
other people, of course,
That's a completely different--
That's a 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 so target
internet service provirs
And tecommunications carriers
Who are tasked with
the responsibili
Of spying on
their own customers.
[narrator]
for ample,
There was a little
piece of software
That h been installed
on every phone in america.
This software
was called carrier iq.
And thankso 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.
[electronic voice]
five fifty-three,
and so on and so forth.
[narrator]
according to carrier iq's
chief marketer,
They're aware that his
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 preinstalled 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--
if you're specifying the use
Of the carrier iq
software in--
By a 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 carriers.
Right.
We may obtain information
That in some way carrier iq
may have been involved with.
[narrator]
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 ims, twitter,
emails, facebook,
blogs and forums,
All while analyzing huge volumes
of information in real time.
Or finfisher,
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.
Who has
this kind of equipment?
Massive interception
equipment
Is sold by surveillance
vendors around the world.
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 two to four people
For the low, low price
of about eleven 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 key words
and phrases.
Everything that happens
on facebook,
And it shows the frequency
of conversations
Between one person and another
and all that kind of thing.
That allows 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 up
the question
Of how can government
and corporations
Work with that data
in order to look for anomalies
And predict when
you're gonna do something
So they can stop you
from doing it?
[narrator]
and the government isn't even
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 activity.
Examples for surveillance
include but are not limited to
Fox news, cnn, msnbc,
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 this surveillance
we agreed to
Actually prevent?
Basically,
January the third,
20 days
before I go on holiday,
I tweet,
"are you free this week
for a gossip / prep
Before I go
destroy america?"
Ended the tweet with a kiss,
As threatening as that is.
Um, 20 days later,
I get on a flight,
Go to lax, we had a hotel
on hollywood boulevard,
We were just going
to party around for a week,
Just looking around,
just be tourists.
Get off the plane, went through
the passport control,
Swiped my passport through
and they were like,
Can you come this way?
And I was like,
It's 'cause I've got an irish
passport, I thought maybe,
Irish people, it's like
stereotype, ira bombers.
So they went through my
suitcase, and I was like, ugh,
What are you doing,
and then when they pulled
me into the holding room,
I was questioned for
five hours about whether
I had a twitter account.
And it 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, get drunk?
Any moron that could read that
tweet
Could see what it's meant as,
like it ends with a kiss.
I'm sure, like, hitler
doesn't end his memoirs with
a kiss or whatever he did.
So 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,
And then took us to a downtown
prison detention center.
Innocent people shouldn't be
treated like absolute dirt,
And they were dragging us round,
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 down for graffiti
as well, wouldn't they?
When I go to other countries,
this is gonna show up that
I got refused from america,
So more than likely I'm now
gonna get dragged off at every
airport
And questioned about
what happened,
And then I'll have to explain
to them that it was a tweet.
I'm italian, irish, french,
portuguese, native american--
Plant-- I'm even like
one-eighteenth avatar.
[narrator]
this is joe lipari.
Joe lipari 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, still a little irritated,
Smoke a little dope,
put on fight club,
Just trying to relax,
go on facebook.
[ed norton in fight club]
and this buttoned-down,
oxford-cloth psycho
Might just snap and then
stalk from office to office
with an armalite ar-10--
"semi-automatic weapon,"
and I said the same thing,
but except the apple store.
[norton]
pumping round after round...
And, you know, basically word
for word except for where.
Hangin' out on facebook,
getting' ready to go
to yoga class,
And there's a
"shave and a haircut, two bits"
knock on my door.
So I was like, hey,
maybe somebody's here
to watch fight club with me.
[chuckles]
Open it up, boom, nypd
s.W.A.T., bulletproof vests on,
Their guns drawn, and
they tear the place apart,
You know, they really
go through everything.
The one cop finds
the box that has all my,
like, military awards.
He comes bringing it down,
he says oh, you were
in the military?
And we start talking
army talk, he sees that
I speak the language.
And that's when
he asks me, do you know
what an armalite ar-10 is?
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
brought s.W.A.T. To your house.
They told me not to like,
you know, go far from new york
'cause I'll 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.
So they come back and say,
oh, turns out it wasn't
someone who 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'd you get my address?
I'd lived there
for like 10 days.
You know, like, I didn't
update my mailing address yet,
Like, all my banking
stuff is still going
to my old apartment--
There was nothing
saying I lived there except
for a verbal agreement.
[boy] 'three minutes after
being done with my lunch,
I was told to go up
to the office,
And then I was sat down inside
the vice principal's office,
And I wasn't told what
was going on until maybe
ten minutes later.
[woman] my phone rings, and
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 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 it was
because of a post that I made,
And it indicated as a threat
toward 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's 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 on a series of words,
Vito was a potential threat.
Pre-crime, the belief in this
potential breach of the peace,
Their belief that
you might cause a crime.
There's those pre-crime
arrests in minority report.
[tom cruise 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 marks,
Due to take place today,
April 22nd,
At zero eight hundred hours
and four minutes.
No! I didn't do anything.
This arrest happened
on the royal wedding day
When I attended a zombie
flash mob wedding picnic--
- Great.
- And myself
and four other zombies
Were arrested preemptively for
a potential breach of the peace.
Even if you dress up
as a zombie, it seems to me
That the crime isn't
really committed until
you've eaten some brains.
Yeah. 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?
Could it have been emails,
or anything really?
It could have been.
It's hard to know, yeah.
- I think that's
the toughest thing, right?
- That's the scary thing, 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 they were asking
about climbing gear,
Which they must have 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 posting 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,
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
before they even happen.
And this was of course
the royal wedding.
We'd all helped pay for
the royal wedding, it wasn't
just a private wedding.
[from tv]
you're arresting
a professor of anthropology
That runs
a street theater group.
One o' kings, one o' kings,
one o' kings--
We couldn't believe
this was happening.
It was just--
we werso obviously
a street-theater troupe.
Some of us hadctually
gotten costume on, you know?
So we were locked away in
lewishamolice 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 untry,
A number of us-- something
like fifty 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-- 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 gonna like it,
and it'll hurt.
[narrator] the activists
didn't need to commit any crime.
They just needed to text and
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.
Well, I know this argument,
And it is not very new.
It's old-fashioned, saying,
"we are complying with rules
and so what happens?"
Between leading my--
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 privacy
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 they're probably
hiding something from someone.
We all do.
You have nothing
to hide till you do.
And you are not necessarily
going to know
What you have to hide or not.
[narrator] you might
remember the case of milly,
A teenaged girl in britain
who disappeared in 2002.
[announcer]
police in surrey say they're
growing increasingly concerned
About the safety of
a thirteen-year-old girl
Who hasn't been seen
since Thursday afternoon.
[narrator] before the police
found her body, her parents
were holding on to hopes
That she might still be alive.
I'd say if someone has taken
milly and is holding her,
Then please, please,
give her back to us.
[narrator]
why is that, you might ask?
Well, because according
to phone records,
Milly had checked
and deleted her voicemail.
We were sitting
downstairs in reception
and I rang her phone.
- Yes.
- And it clicked through
onto her voicemail,
- 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
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 that
a very tight-knit circle
Of very senior politicians
Linked up very closely,
intimately, with the police
And with the media mogul
rupert murdoch.
[newscaster] 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--
[narrator]
for years, celebrities,
and individuals like milly,
Had the voicemails they thought
were hidden and private
Accessed by rupert murdoch's
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, you know,
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 state an absolutely
unparalleled in the history of
humanity
Ability to know what's going on
in 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 to account.
If sources are gonna 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.
[audience laughing]
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.
[narrator] but what if there
was a way to store information
until it could be decrypted?
U.S. Intelligence officials
will soon be allowed to keep
information on u.S. 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.
That's up from the current
limit of six months.
General alexander,
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?
The-- 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 that.
Not in the United States.
There are 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 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 of
cell phones and data links
On your computer or
email links and so forth.
And then it has to store
it someplace,
And that's why
they built bluffdale.
It's gonna cost
two billion dollars.
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 boundary of the town
So it would fit into it.
And the whole purpose
of this is the centerpiece
Of this massive
eavesdropping complex,
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 that with
paradigm after paradigm,
Like social networks
in recent times.
[narrator] in 1984, to store one
gigabyte of data cost $85,000.
By 2012,
it cost about five cents.
In the city of chungking,
there are about 500,000 cameras.
In 2012, the cost of permanently
recording a high-resolution
feed was $300 million.
By the year 2020, the projected
cost is less than $3 million.
[man] the u.K. Being
one of the cultures
that's introduced cameras
Most ubiquitously
and most quickly,
So far the population
seems fine with it.
If they weren't,
they know who to call.
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
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 hands.
[narrator] 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
security services is arrested,
It will 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.
[chris soghoian]
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 decrypt what happened.
So that's 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 emails,
Text messages, phone calls,
search history...
To track our movements and
limit our free speech?
What crime did that
seventh-grade boy really commit?
Is having zombies at
a royal wedding really so bad?
What about milly'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?
[yelling, screaming]
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.
I mean, it's certainly dying.
Whether or not it--
For privacy to--
I mean, privacy's
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 really effective
response is to monitor and
to change the behavior,
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 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 on our parade.
And we have woken up
to the privacy concerns...
In my view,
at least four years too late.
I mean, is privacy dead?
Yeah, without question.
Without question, yeah,
it's dead.
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
the size of a blood cell,
And I can just
send them into my brain
And my body
through the bloodstream,
This'll become
quite ubiquitous,
And it really will be
part of who we are.
People say, well, okay,
That's gonna 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 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 up the heat,
The frog'll 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' prerey 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--
it takes someone
who is in charge of laws
Having what is being done
to american citizens
Done to their email account
or to their facebook profile.
Right, if it's personal,
they're gonna pay attention
to it.
All of these powerful
institutions,
They're not subject
to the same invasions of privacy
as the rest of us are.
Eric schmidt,
the ceo of google, once said,
"if you have something that
you don't 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.
[mouse clicking]
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's" 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,
They're going
to engage in it.
[mouse clicks]
We're going by the facebook
campus right now.
Really have no idea
what to expect.
Have not had breakfast.
Um...
Zuckerberg.
He'll know that I checked in
here, too, so that's good.
He knows that I'm
right next to his house.
Let's see, we have a--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 knock-up
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, ben.
He might actually
have a tunnel.
There's some definite
motion in the yard.
Is it the dog?
- Here we go.
- That's him.
Mr. Zuckerberg?
Hey, I'm working on
a documentary.
Got a little blog here,
But wondering if I could just
ask you a couple questions?
No, I-- sorry.
Really?
I have to be at work.
Can I ask,
do you still think
privacy is dead?
What are your
real thoughts on privacy?
Are you guys recording?
Um-- we are.
Could you please not?
Um-- I can stop, yeah.
All right.
[narrator]
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 been deleted,
this only seemed fair.
Can you please not?
Um-- I can stop, yeah.
All right.
Can I come by
your front desk, though,
And ask about setting up
an interview?
Yeah, I mean--
we have a department
Where you can talk
to people about that.
Yeah, I know, 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've 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 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 yopleau 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
That 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 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 an issue
of freedom of the press,
Or it's an issue
of warrantless 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?
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 awhile,
I'll keep my place
but tonight,
I'll stay so late
Washington is caught
in its very own episode
of spy versus spy.
The tactics once employed
By top intelligence-gathering
teams at the cia,
Sifting through ip addresses,
emails, and fake dropboxes,
Have now been turned against
the intelligence community's
top official.
oh sleep for a while
too much conversation
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
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 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 emails,
In many cases
they wrote them as 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 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.