Are you too horrified by Trump and the current administration?
Feeling hopeless and fearful for the state of the country?
Looking for ways to fight back or all of the above?
Well, we want you to know that there are plenty of ways to resist.
Join the resistance with WBAI.
Find out what's happening on WBAI's actions and event calendar at WBAI.org.
Again, for a list of upcoming actions and demonstrations, visit WBAI.org backslash calendar.php.
And you're listening to radio station WBAI New York.
It's time for Off The Hook.
I cut myself while shaving, now I can't make a cough.
We couldn't get much worse, but if they could, they would.
Bum-diddly-bum for the best, expect the worst.
I hope that's understood. Bum-diddly-bum!
I hope that's understood. Bum-diddly-bum!
I hope that's understood. Bum-diddly-bum!
And a very good evening to everybody. The program is Off The Hook. Emmanuel Goldstein here with you, joined tonight by Rob T. Firefly.
Good evening.
Kyle.
Yeah, what?
Voltaire's joining us this week.
Hi.
And from somewhere, Bernie S.
Greetings from Northeastern Pennsylvania.
All right. And of course, the big news on everyone's mind today is, as of last night, is the release finally of Donald Trump's tax return.
Well, you know, the whole buildup to this, it was unbelievable.
Everybody was talking about how at a certain time, Rachel Maddow was going to be releasing this on MSNBC.
And what do we turn out to get?
We got two pages of a 12-year-old tax return that indicates that Donald Trump actually paid some tax once on some income.
Not exactly the hack that we were expecting of somebody getting into a computer someplace and accessing this information.
This actually came from, if you look at it, it says client copy.
And that's what you get when your accountant gives you a copy of your tax return.
So there's some speculation that this might have been leaked by Trump himself because it shows him in a somewhat good light.
But, you know, we've talked about this on this show.
We've talked about this on our website and Twitter accounts, the magazine.
We basically are looking for the same thing.
But this is not something I would consider to be what we are looking for.
Yeah, it's interesting. No question about that.
But it's not a revelation of what is actually there.
It's not the kind of thing you expect to see on WikiLeaks or just something that was found someplace on some computer system someplace or given by a good Samaritan to the American public to analyze.
So, yeah, I think there's a lot of disappointment.
I'm reading stories today about how this was a buildup to virtually nothing.
Am I being too harsh?
No, I don't think I think you're being fair.
It's you know, it's it was it was trumpeted up all over.
No pun intended. It was talked about all over Twitter and built up as this big thing that was going to happen that was going to be released on Rachel Maddow show.
And, you know, Rachel Maddow does wonderful work.
I'm a big fan, but I don't think this is quite what it was being built up as.
It took her, I think, 23 minutes after the beginning of her show to even get to what was what was being revealed.
And by that time, somehow the White House had released the information before.
Now, this is what I'm curious about.
She gets a leak from some reporter that gives her two pages.
Apparently, these two pages were sent anonymously to him.
I don't see any talk about what the postmark said or how it's how it might be able to be traced based on little markings on the envelope, things like that.
But regardless, OK, so she gets these two pages that she has exclusive access to.
How does the White House know those are the two pages?
Any theories out there?
No, I have no idea.
Yeah, it's it's a mystery.
Yeah, there's no detail.
There's not enough details regarding around a verification, which is important in this stuff.
Absolutely.
Manuel?
Yes, go ahead, Bernie.
This is just one old tax return.
You know, I think the American people were promised tax returns, as in plural, as in all of them in recent years.
That's what we really need to see.
Trump promised it.
He didn't keep his promise.
And we're still waiting.
Well, that's the story.
Bernie, he didn't keep his promise because nobody cares.
You know, people who care are the reporters.
And also, excuse me, if you let me talk, I let you talk.
Also, he's under audit.
And as we all know, while you're under audit, you can't do things.
You can't do anything.
So be quiet.
Move on.
Next question.
Yes, Voltaire.
I think the reason why he was so disappointed with the tax return is because it was probably
the one year where he actually did pay a decent amount of taxes.
That is true.
I mean, he looks good.
Yeah, exactly.
Anybody that's familiar with his business failures, to put it bluntly, would realize
that most years he probably pays no taxes.
And the fact that the one year that he pays a decent amount is what gets published makes
it suspicious.
Well, you know, we don't know.
We don't know because we don't have the information.
Maybe the IRS gives him money.
Who knows?
He probably gets a huge refund.
We can only speculate until we have the information in front of us.
And as has been true for presidents for many decades now, the tax return is something you
expect to see as a transparency, a reflection of our transparency in a democratic society.
So when you don't do that, it raises questions, questions that should be asked.
So, you know, for his own benefit, releasing them or having them released would be advantageous.
Yeah, I'm just I'm a bit nonplussed by the Trump leaked them himself theory, because
I feel like the guy is all ego.
If he were going to do this, he'd be waving it around in front of everyone, tweeting it
himself, posting it himself, going, look how great a guy I am for, you know, you want to
see this.
I'll show it to you.
And it's me doing it.
It's not like something that's going to make it look like someone got the better of him
by leaking it without his knowledge.
And the other important thing is it should be taxes from a recent time frame, not something
so far back, because what's important and becoming ever more important is finding out
what kind of investments and what kind of obligations and loyalties could be gleaned
from his current dealings.
Yes, absolutely.
You know, there was a piece actually in the Washington Post today that was headline why
Trump is not the most likely source for the leaked tax returns.
But I found I found the reasoning to be a bit flawed because the things they were saying
was basically Trump is too angry at the leak for him to be the leaker.
I mean, come on.
Have you listened to this guy at all?
He's capable of talking out of both sides of his mouth and some other hours, too, I'm
pretty sure.
So, yeah, that could be part of part of whatever act this is.
If he did leak it himself.
I'm also I'm amazed at some of the media outlets that are basically focusing on the
penalties for this instead of the information that's gleaned from it, as if they don't
want this information to get out ever.
They don't want journalists to do their work as they should be doing.
And also, you know, the possibility is that maybe somebody else in his administration
or somebody else in his in his life leaked this information because many people do have
access to this.
Yes, it said client copy.
That's a big red flag right there.
But many people, everybody in the accounting firm, for instance, people on his staff could
have access to that as well.
And people in his family, you don't know.
So, yeah, it's it's possible it wasn't him.
But one thing I think is certain, he looks good through this.
So you have to you have to really suspect the motivation.
The press releases from the administration were also speaking very much sort of in a
condemning tone about the release itself and, you know, saying that, you know, these
things are private or, you know, making the distinction to sort of increase the severity
and how people perceive it as having been done when the reality is a lot of this is
and has been becoming increasingly more vital to the public interest.
Yes, most definitely.
As you recall, this is something we brought up months ago while he was only a candidate
and not a candidate that we expected at the time to win.
And we offered at twenty six hundred ten thousand dollars to anybody that would come forward
with the tax, a tax return.
This if they came forward with this, it would not meet those qualifications because it
doesn't tell you anything.
It's only a couple of pages.
This is like a hint.
Yeah, it's from it's from way far back.
Once upon a time, taxes.
Uh huh.
Absolutely.
So we are going to have an update, though.
I I'm told we have all kinds of things on the burners.
And when when the spring issue comes out next month, there'll be more information.
That's all I can say at this point.
So stay tuned.
We'll to be continued.
Yeah, it's interesting to see in in the in the new cycle and and instructive.
As to the attitudes that are that are floating around around the subject and the public's
right to have an understanding of who their leader really is.
But, you know, it's not the only thing being revealed.
There are all kinds of other leaks out there.
And one of the biggest leaks over the last couple of weeks, because we weren't on last
week, is something called Vault 7, a series of documents that Wikileaks began to release
on March the 7th.
They detail activities of the Central Intelligence Agency, all about electronic surveillance,
cyber warfare from the years 2013 to 2016, and basically ways that everything from smart
TVs to web browsers, microwaves.
I don't know about that, Kellyanne.
But operating systems of all sorts of things are being compromised by the Central Intelligence
Agency.
OK, first of all, has anyone here really had a chance to look over the some of these
documents?
A little.
None of us?
Yeah.
Un poquito.
A bit.
It's not the actual the actual exploits themselves that have been leaked.
It's the commentary surrounding them and like an internal wiki, like user documentation.
Yeah, I was unclear on that.
So, OK, this is just documents about those utilities.
Yeah, a lot.
Does Wikileaks have or have they not told us they have?
They do.
OK, so they actually, yeah, and they're actually at least they claim that they're going to
work with the software manufacturers to responsibly disclose all the information.
So you could say that Wikileaks is being quite responsible by not releasing the actual
utilities.
That's why it's important that people, a lot of people, journalists have been describing
this as yet another Wikileaks quote unquote dump.
And I think it's important to distinguish between the two because they've been very
responsible with not releasing the exploits themselves.
Yeah, just to add to that from my cursory, just looking casually, they've changed a whole
lot about how they do it.
I know when we were releasing some of the dumps in the past for thank you gifts and
so on, it was a little bit harder or increasingly harder to get the entirety of stuff.
They would make it so that the links weren't directly downloadable and so on and so forth.
And this this they've done an even more thorough job of redacting names.
They have a user ID system, which is kind of interesting.
Anytime someone is mentioned, their name is redacted and they're given a user number that
then can correspond and be tracked throughout the leak itself, but never reveal the actual
individual and other things like that.
They're not dumping binaries of a lot of these exploits, obviously, because that can then
be immediately set free in the wild.
As they say, you would want to have those especially executable binaries to be isolated.
So they're doing a lot of things to keep this and keep this stuff from being dangerous or
from just releasing things wholesale.
But and also kind of reflects their ability to change the way they operate and sort of
be a little bit more metered in how they're interacting with journalists and kind of
helping them along the way to do the actual work of investigating it.
Now, Bernie, I want to ask you, have you had a chance to look at these documents?
Yeah, I mean, I perused it.
I didn't spend a lot of time looking at it, but I found it particularly interesting.
You were just talking, I think Kyle was just saying that Wikileaks has stated they are
sharing the binaries with companies like, you know, big, big vendors who these vulnerabilities
could affect their products.
Apple, Microsoft, Google, which TV company, Vizio, I think it was.
Well, Samsung.
Samsung's definitely.
Samsung, that's right.
Samsung, et cetera.
But I found it particularly interesting.
I read reports that Apple said, no, no, no, no, don't send us this stuff.
We don't want it.
Because frankly, it would be illegal.
This is classified information.
Well, wait a minute.
Hold on a second.
You're saying Apple is saying, don't give us information about how we're being spied
upon and how we can prevent that?
There's reports that Apple has said that they are not receptive to receiving this information.
Maybe they're saying that, oh, we already know about these vulnerabilities.
Because they read, because Apple already, see, Apple can see what the vulnerabilities
are based on the documents that were already released by Wikileaks.
They just can't see the source code if they don't, if they refuse.
Well, can they, can they assure their users that they have dealt with them and that these
are no longer issues?
So I think Apple can assure us of all kinds of things that we are not sure.
Wow.
Okay.
It's just to me, you know, if it's already out there, then I don't think you can, you
can be violating any laws by receiving it.
I don't know what their motivations were for, I don't know what Apple's motivations
were, or I don't know what, if the reports are true, I don't know what Apple's motivations
were for saying, no, don't send us the source code.
We already, we're already on this.
But, you know.
Okay.
Well, then Wikileaks, send everybody else the source code.
If Apple's already on it, it doesn't matter.
And I'm sure a lot of us would like to see it.
There.
There you go.
Problem solved.
Rob.
But then I'm wondering what the, what the other big guys, Microsoft and whoever will
do, even if they get sent this stuff, are they going to then close those holes?
Are they going to deliberately tell the CIA, no, we're fixing the things that you're using
to, to break our stuff?
And, and, or, or are they, are they going to act like it's fixed, but then not fix it?
Or are they going to just, I don't know.
It's, it's, it's, it opens up a lot of questions about how these people are going to behave.
The question opens up for me, and I think for a lot of other people, the CIA is not
supposed to be spying on American citizens, or have they, have they said this is only
for people overseas, or does that just not matter anymore?
Anyone?
Emmanuel.
Go ahead.
Um, they have, the CIA has said, even very recently, that they are not spying on Americans.
However, um, what, um, I forgot what I was going to say.
They are not legally permitted to do domestic surveillance.
Yeah, that's Homeland Security and FBI.
Right, right.
However, that doesn't prevent, there's always workarounds.
If somebody communicates with somebody for, uh, from an international number, uh, they
can then become the purview of NSA, or CIA might have a known terrorist that they're
pursuing that's interacting with a domestic citizen.
Yeah, absolutely.
There's the whole UK-USA alliance, otherwise known as Five Eyes.
So all one would have, all the CIA would say is, uh, to, uh, TCHQ, for instance, the British
version of NSA, saying, oh, can you get us this information about this American, uh,
using these tools that we gave you?
And then you can't, then the CIA could say, well, we're not, we're not actually, uh, doing
it.
Now, what's also interesting, the CIA has been saying that they're not, they do, they
are not sitting on zero-day exploits.
Um, but these documents indicate that they have been doing so.
And that, that I found was particularly interesting.
So basically you're saying the CIA might be lying.
Who knew?
It's not in their charter.
But the thing, the thing that, um, intrigues me though, uh, if you recall, not too long
ago, there was a bit of a fight.
In fact, it's probably still ongoing between the Trump administration and the intelligence
agencies, uh, like the CIA.
This makes the CIA look rather bad.
Um, do you think maybe this is something that makes the Trump administration look good and
is in their interest to have things like this spread around?
Of course, they've been, they've been quick to say, we want to prosecute whoever it is
that, that leaked this, but I don't know, in the back rooms, I kind of think they're
happy.
I think the way WikiLeaks works is, and the amount of time they spend with, uh, major
media outlets, it just takes so many months to be able to process something like this.
I think this was well in the works before the, before Trump was even elected.
No, I, I, I agree.
They've had this for a while, but the timing of the release, I mean, you know, WikiLeaks
has been accused of some, some interesting things over the past few months, favoring
Trump over Clinton, uh, no Trump leaks to speak of.
And this comes out right in the middle of, um, a kind of contentious series of accusations
against the intelligence community makes them look rather sneaky and, and, uh, suspicious
makes the Trump administration look like, uh, they're interested in, in, in tracking
down these leaks.
I don't know.
The suspicious part of me just, uh, wanders at the timing.
Another thing to, uh, to mention about the, the techniques and the hacks that, uh, that
the CIA is apparently using is that these are not like all necessarily homegrown CIA,
uh, exploits and hacks that they've come up with internally.
Um, the, uh, one thing that's, uh, revealed in these documents is that the CIA's remote
devices branches, uh, Umbridge group, the group is called Umbridge, um, has, uh, has
this collection of basically stuff from out in the wild stuff produced by other hackers
stuff, stuff that, uh, you know, is out there.
So, um, so are these, is it now going to be suspicious if, uh, if Apple or Microsoft or
whoever start closing some of these holes that are out there and known, um, if it's,
if it's within these leaks?
All right.
Well, uh, you know, the other issue, uh, that has come out since we were last on is, uh,
the whole wiretapping thing of, uh, the Donald Trump accusing Barack Obama of actually wiretapping
him.
And I thought it was interesting because, um, if you, if you watch the, um, the daily,
uh, White House briefings with Sean Spicer, it's must see TV really.
At one point he says that, uh, that the, um, the tweets speak for themselves.
And then the next day he's saying that, uh, well, by wiretapping, he didn't mean actual
wiretapping.
And, and, and, and today, um, there was a Senate intelligence, um, committee meeting
where basically everyone pretty much agreed.
There's no evidence to support any such accusation, uh, to which Trump responds that within a
couple of weeks, you're going to see something rather interesting, uh, which I'm sure you
will, but I'm just not sure it's going to have anything to do with this.
Anyone have any theories as to what it is that's actually going on?
I mean, we know he, he read a Breitbart news story that might've planted the idea in his
head.
Is there anything beyond that, that, uh, this could possibly be?
I think he would like very much for that to be the case.
That, that, uh, he was being wiretapped.
That he could, that he could have something like that to blame on the previous president.
Um, and I think a lot of, a lot of his decisions have been based on things that he wants to
be true, however false they are.
Well, in order for, in order for a president to, um, to wiretap somebody, um, legally,
what, what kinds of hoops would they have to jump through?
Bernie, do you know this?
Well, yes, the, uh, uh, well, the president can't actually request these sorts of things.
They have to be instigated by the department of justice, which really is part of the executive
branch.
So there's background communications, but the bottom line is that the department of
justice would ask the, the relevant, um, police agency, such as, uh, FBI typically to put
together an affidavit of probable cause.
It's like a request for a warrant, uh, and provide that to a judge.
Now, if it related, it was related to national security, like foreign agents sort of thing,
which is what, what may be, what's being talked about in the press.
It would be, it might have to go before the foreign intelligence surveillance court and
be called a FISA type warrant under the foreign intelligence surveillance act.
That's a classified court.
Nobody knows what really happens there except a small number of people.
And that court almost never says no.
And it's interesting.
Trump said that the first attempt to get a warrant was turned down and I'm paraphrasing
there, but the second one went through.
So I do think it's interesting that, um, uh, senators on the Senate intelligence committee,
I think are requesting, um, from the relevant, from the FBI and other related agencies, any,
uh, copies of any affidavits of probable cause or warrants.
And it looks from what I'm following in the next few days, we should know if any of those
things actually exist to indicate that there's been any attempts or successful attempts to
get, um, uh, a warrant to wire, to wiretap Trump tower, which is exactly what, um, um,
Trump said in his tweets.
Now, a wiretap is a very specific legal term.
And the, and the, and Sean Spicer, the White House spokesperson is already back, backtitling
on that saying, well, it could mean all kinds of other kinds of surveillance.
No, a wiretap is a wiretap.
It's a very specific legal term of art.
But didn't Trump put it in quotes or tap my wires or something?
He put that in quotes.
Well, he said, he repeatedly said it several times.
He said, sometimes there's one word.
Sometimes there's two words.
Sometimes it's tap my wires.
And he said, wiretap.
I mean, there's no question that he said wiretap, and that is a very specific legal term.
So to your point, Bernie, that kind of rules out, or one would think, uh, if that term is
being used deliberately, that there are unofficial means that could have been used to glean information
about Trump's campaign.
Um, but by using such specific language, you're talking about something that was officially
procured and, and, uh, uh, established through, um, through the government and, and, uh, with
all of those checks and, and, um, and so on.
Yeah.
Right. And Trump even stated in one of his tweets that the first attempt was turned down
and the second one was approved.
Now he's just getting this probably from, sorry, some right wing media outlet, like
he gets a lot of his news from.
Well, and it's, go ahead.
No, that's it.
That's it.
It's interesting that he's walked it back and it's, it's become more about, well, and
those quotation marks are coming in handy that you mentioned, Emmanuel, because he's
walked it back to, well, you know, I meant that his administration, it wasn't him personally.
And that is just a perfect sidestep to strafe right into, uh, well, it was, uh, it was,
uh, some actor, uh, on their own and it wasn't officially the government.
It just makes it murky.
And that's what they love.
This is interesting because, uh, Bernie, what you're saying is that, uh, well, what Trump
is saying, uh, is that a warrant was turned down, uh, you're saying in the FISA court?
Well, I guess Trump did not specify which court, but it said that Trump, uh, basically
said that the first request was turned down.
And then, then the second, the subsequent one was approved.
And he's saying, oh, this is terrible.
And Obama's a sick man and all this kind of stuff.
So, um, but it's, it's the president spokesman, Sean Spicer, who's been backtracked, back
peddling on this and saying, well, wiretap could really mean a whole lot of other things
like, uh, looking at emails and that sort of thing.
No, but Trump is saying that, that a warrant was turned down.
So that's pretty specific.
He didn't say, he didn't say warrant.
He said the first request, but you know, but who else would you request?
You wouldn't request it of the doorman to go in and tap a phone.
Legal.
Yeah.
When you start talking about legal talk with Trump, Trump does not really understand legal
talk or the constitution stuff.
So, you know, that's beyond his.
So essentially there's an incongruence between what the spokesperson is saying and now what
you've referenced, Trump has said, uh, specifically about the quote requests, which lends more
to the fact that the use of the word wiretap was literal and not meant for the parentheses.
That kind of is what we're saying.
Well, does, does Trump have the ability to just declassify this and show us exactly what
he's talking about?
Yes.
The president has that authority.
The president could say right now to the justice department, I want all these, I want
any warrants or an affidavits of probable cause or anything related to, to wiretapping
Trump tower to be declassified right now.
And then we'd all know.
So why isn't Donald Trump doing that?
Why doesn't he back up his...
My theory is that this buys them time to find some, something that, that looks like this,
a straw man, if you will, because they, there's nothing immediately, you know?
Let's, let's just go out on a limb here and say that this turns out to be nothing.
And it all came from something, uh, that, uh, that Donald Trump misdigested or, or,
or heard wrong on Breitbart news or heard right on Breitbart news.
Um, are there any penalties for spreading blatant lies like this when you're the president?
Slander?
Civil lawsuits.
So, uh, Obama could, uh, actually take Trump to civil court.
Yeah.
But I mean, you're a public figure.
You can kind of say stuff like that, but it's not gonna, it's not gonna happen.
It'll happen in, in that he responds, which he has, I think, um, through his spokespeople
and it'll play out in the public sphere that way.
Okay.
Moving on.
Um, Russian hackers.
Yeah.
We all know they're out there someplace.
And today, uh, a little bit more was revealed, but not, uh, not so much with the presidential
election.
This is the Yahoo hack.
Remember that?
The Yahoo hack half a billion, uh, accounts, uh, that, that were accessed.
Well, today an indictment was unsealed in San Francisco federal court against two Russian
FSB security agents, FSB being the sequel to KGB, uh, and a pair of criminal hackers.
Now only one was arrested and he's a Canadian.
Uh, they say the U S government has little chance of getting the other three extradited
from Russia, but it's sending a clear message to Moscow that heightened cyber activity will
not be tolerated.
We have reason to believe.
So the acting assistant attorney general for the, uh, DOJ, uh, for the national security
division, we have reason to believe based on our evidence, they were acting in their
capacity as FSB officials.
Uh, the indictment unequivocally shows the attacks on Yahoo were state sponsored.
That's interesting.
That's interesting because it shows something that many of us already pretty much suspected
that, uh, there is some state sponsored, uh, attacking going on in, in, I hate to say it's
cyberspace.
Voltaire.
Um, the problem with this story is that Yahoo's security was so lax and, uh, like the ex privacy,
um, officers have stated this, that, um, it was, it could have been just anybody from
the Russian or any, um, country's criminal underworld that did the, like any script
critty could have done this.
And, um, the, the people that are, uh, they're responsible, like they've been linked to the
FSP, but they, they're not necessarily, they weren't necessarily acting that capacity because
the FSB works a lot with, um, like basically like run of the mill hackers in Russia are,
um, like script critties in Russia.
You might say independent contractors.
Yeah, exactly.
For hire, uh, hackers.
Yes.
Organized crime.
Sure.
So we don't know if this was government capacity or if this was just like for profit,
stealing, uh, information and selling it.
Well, I mean, they're, they're, they're saying there's a direct link to FSB, to intelligence,
uh, uh, Russian agents and all that.
They're, they're, they're naming names.
Uh, you're saying it's, it's a bigger story than that.
It goes beyond just the government.
The justice department hasn't, uh, when our second tech asked them if, uh, they were saying
if they were asking out, acting on behalf of the Kremlin, they said they weren't sure
at this time.
What?
They said they weren't.
No, they, the justice department said that, that, that.
Oh, the justice department.
They've reached a conclusion that.
That they're not, they're not, they don't have enough information to say whether or
not they were acting on behalf of the Kremlin or just like stealing stuff for profit.
Well, I guess that's something, uh, we'll, um, we'll, we'll find out.
They say in one mission, hackers were instructed to compromise Google accounts,
belonging to an assistant to the deputy chairman of the Russian federation and officer of the
Russian ministry of internal affairs and a training expert for Russia's sports ministry.
Other Russian targets include journalists and politicians, critical of the government,
a board member, a senior officer of a Russian financial firm and a senior officer of a Russian
email provider.
Um, and, uh, I don't know, this seems rather specific if, um, if, if they received instructions
to target those particular people, but you know, when you're dealing with half a billion
accounts, uh, I'm sure there are lots and lots of targets, lots and lots of different
ways of approaching this, but, um, lack security certainly enters into it.
You have to, uh, take a good look at that.
And obviously Yahoo had, uh, had serious problems.
Yeah.
Interestingly, one of the people that was arrested, uh, was, uh, I was always charged
with this has already been arrested by the Russian government for collaborating with
the CIA.
So it just shows, it goes to show how like murky this criminal underground scene is.
It's been a bad week for that person.
Emmanuel?
Yes, Bernie.
I just want to point out that, um, Verizon corporation, always these, uh, hackers and
these, uh, uh, uh, KGB type guys, uh, a lot because Verizon, which is buying Yahoo got
several hundred million dollars negotiated, several hundred million dollars in discounts
from Yahoo on the price of the corporate buying out Yahoo because of, uh, you know, the brand
devaluing because of all these hacks.
So I think that, um, Verizon should just throw a few million at these defendants and say,
Hey, thanks guys.
You, we, we really appreciate what you've saved us.
All right.
Are you maybe suggesting that Verizon might be behind the Russian hackers who then subsequently
hacked into Yahoo and drove down the price?
Wow.
This is a tangled web.
Okay.
Um, it's certainly possible.
I mean, why not?
They have, they have a pretty good motivation there.
Speaking of Verizon, uh, interesting story, um, concerning, um, net neutrality and, um,
and, and how things might be changing.
In a announcement last Thursday, um, Verizon said Fios internet and TV subscribers who
have Verizon mobile service can now watch more than 140 live TV channels, recorded DVR
shows and movies, as well as on-demand titles on the, on, on the go via the app and data
used for Fios streaming will be zero rated.
That is, it won't count against a user's monthly allotment.
Customers who want to take advantage of the data-free content will need to download the
latest version of the Fios mobile app.
Uh, now according to Verizon, that shift will add value to its five gigabit, um, um, plans
by, by offering up free content for those who remain, uh, data constrained.
And it's also similar to AT&T's data-free TV feature that offers its customers the ability
to watch content on the direct TV app with no impact on their data allowance.
Uh, now this move to offer the, um, uh, the same thing as AT&T comes about a month after
the FCC closed its investigation into the aforementioned AT&T programs and sponsored
data offerings from Verizon and T-Mobile.
Uh, in a report issued just before former chairman Tom Wheeler departed in January,
the commission found that AT&T and Verizon sponsored data offers violated the FCC's open
internet order.
And that finding brought with it uncertainty for carriers as to whether their sponsored
and zero rated data offerings would be shut down.
However, now, uh, the, uh, FCC says they will not focus on denying Americans free data.
Instead, we will concentrate on expanding broadband deployment and encouraging innovative
service offerings.
So, okay, this, uh, if I'm not mistaken, is a clear example of, uh, the end of, uh, net
neutrality.
Is that right, Bernie?
Um, well, not the end of it, but it's, it's, it's certainly the first step.
The beginning of the end.
Well, just to explain this more simply to our listeners who may not really be up on
this.
I'm a Verizon wireless subscriber.
I have a Verizon wireless cell phone.
Um, but I'm not a Fios subscriber.
To use this, this, uh, service through Verizon, this news vid free video service, I would
have to be a Fios subscriber also.
If I subscribe to both Verizon Fios and Verizon wireless, then I could download this, this,
uh, Fios, uh, uh, mobile TV app, uh, on my phone and download a watch up to like 140
TV channels that Verizon is offering for free.
And it wouldn't count against my mobile data.
And I could also do this on my Verizon Fios at home.
A big waste of your time, Bernie.
You've got better things to do all day.
Exactly.
I don't even have a TV set in my house.
I don't watch TV, but here's the thing.
Why would this not be good?
It sounds great.
Like what a great deal.
I'll tell you why.
It's because it's anti-competitive.
It prevents, um, no, no other company can offer that to Verizon subscribers.
It's, it's, it's, it's basically a way of cheating.
Like it would, it's really, despite what the FCC, as it, uh, chairman's agitfy is saying,
this is not creating innovation.
This is stifling innovation because no other company can get around Verizon offering, um,
not, not counting this data against, um, against its subscribers, downloading all this video.
But Bernie, couldn't you say that AT&T service and T-Mobile was mentioned as well,
that that is the competition to Verizon?
Well, then you're stove piping everything.
The internet should be a, a, a, a, a wide open thing where, where competitors are on a,
we're competing companies and service offers should be on an even playing field.
And this makes it an uneven playing field.
I hear what you're saying.
Um, but to me, uh, the, the threat of losing that neutrality has always been about, um,
things being degraded, not things not getting upgraded because it's not part of a particular
company.
I just don't know if this is the best example, uh, to get people to say, hey, we need to
preserve net neutrality because it sounds like, uh, if we win, we're basically saying,
okay, you guys can't get this to not count against your data.
And, and to those people, it would seem like a disservice.
Did you see my point?
I do.
I do.
But there's, there's bigger issues involved here.
This, this does have advantages.
If you're already a Verizon Wireless subscriber, this could have some advantages, but, but
the downside is if you're a Verizon Wireless subscriber that also subscribes to Fios and
you do this thing, you will not be seeing, you will probably not be seeing new service
offerings from other companies that you might have had it weren't even, even playing field.
Well, that's what I'm saying.
And essentially the, the person buying, uh, they already have a Verizon account.
Say they have this Fios thing, their vert, their bandwidth itself can't really physically
be, um, uh, made use of outside of their installation because it's a physical line.
But they're, they're essentially saying, well, because you're also on our wireless
network, uh, we're going to virtualize that bandwidth for you and not count it against
your, um, your wireless plan itself.
That's kind of it.
But so from the carrier's perspective, these are already customers whose bandwidth is, um,
being paid for, but not being used because when they're in a wireless, uh, mobile environment,
they can't take advantage of it.
But we will using our networks, um, uh, uh, centralization because they're a subscriber
for both.
Um, and then the people who are just a wireless subscriber at the end of their five gig cap
or 22, if it's, um, AT&T, uh, and at the end of that, you then get slowed down.
Right.
And that's, that's where the, or you, yes.
Cry.
Right, right.
You would be, uh, have additional charges, a crew, um, per meg or whatever it is, depending
on your roaming status and so on.
And, uh, where, where the experience, uh, does get degraded Emmanuel is, um, say in
this situation, I, uh, I am, I run my own little independent movie company and I make
movies and I put those movies out there for people to watch.
Um, if I put those online, I know that somebody could watch one of my movies with the same
bandwidth they could watch anyone else's movies.
But now if somebody on their device, um, has free access to a bunch of, uh, prearranged
stuff that, uh, goes through their cable provider now, basically watching my movie instead would
cost them more.
So it becomes a penalty for watching something that's not on your Fios account.
And, uh, so then I lose, uh, I lose that bit of access to potential viewers, potential
customers.
And what would you have to go through in order to get your material accessible on their service?
I would have to, uh, bow to whatever terms and conditions, um, Verizon Fios has.
And, uh, if they're even interested, because they don't have to pick my stuff up.
Uh-huh.
And they could just say they don't like you and, uh, and that, that's how you'd be
penalized.
Okay.
But here's the thing, Emmanuel, this, this is where the carriers like Verizon can, can,
can play gatekeeper now.
They can tell Rob that his, uh, Rob T. Fire, Fire, Rob T. Firefly movie company, um, all
right, we'll zero rate your movies as well.
We'll include them as 140, 40, once a channel that we'll be offering, but you have to pay
us, uh, Oh, a million dollars a month for that privilege.
And that's, and, and if you can't afford that, like as a small movie company, like Rob is
then he's out of luck.
Yeah.
And he would then to try to reach the most people have to go to other carriers, right?
You're only talking to Verizon customers at that point.
And you have to go through all of that effort just to get the distribution.
Not only that, but I would also be subject to whatever they, the, uh, providers feel
about my material.
If I have a documentary about something bad, saying something bad about Verizon, or if I
have a comedy, a comedy show where somebody tells a bad joke about AT&T, um, they might
not like that.
They might not want to show my things at all.
And once they band together and all the phone companies, uh, pretty much prohibit you from
doing any, you know, I'm beginning to think your, your, your film company is doomed, uh,
based on all this.
Well, based on this, I'm not even going to start it now.
Wow.
Okay.
Folks.
He just saw the nightmare of, of killing net neutrality.
It, the Rob T.
Firefly's dreams have been dashed right here, live on the air.
That's something AT&T can be its own bad joke.
Yeah, it can be.
And you can't say that on AT&T now.
No, I wouldn't.
Now my, my movie company wouldn't be able to say that.
You know, uh, EFF, uh, released something, um, uh, fairly recently, a pocket guide to
protecting your data at the U S border.
Uh, this is something that we're seeing increasingly, uh, brought up when people cross the
border, uh, what happens, what happens when, when, uh, you get, uh, interrogated and, uh,
and, and they demand to see, uh, your devices.
They tell you to, um, unlock them and, and share your password and let them copy things.
Um, this is, uh, what, what EFF suggests.
And I'd like to discuss this a little bit, and then we'll try to open up for some phone
calls, uh, before your trip, reduce the data you carry.
Consider using temporary devices, deleting data from your regular devices or shifting
data to the cloud.
Yes.
The cloud encrypt use strong full disc encryption, not just weak screen lock passwords.
Um, as far as passwords use software to make them long, unpredictable and memorable.
And don't encrypt that file that has your passwords or something weak, uh, backup in
case agencies, your devices back up your data.
So you don't lose the only copy and power down your devices.
Do that before you arrive at the border to block high tech attacks, which do exist, uh,
fingerprint locks.
They're weaker than passwords.
So don't rely on them unless you're willing to cut off and discard your fingers before
you cross the border, uh, apps and browsers agents use them to get from devices to cloud
content.
So consider logging out, consider logging out, get damn well, better log out, uh, remove
your save login credentials, uninstall, uh, but also be aware that unusual precautions
may make border agents suspicious.
Now at the border, uh, if border agents instruct you to unlock your devices, provide your
passwords or disclose your social media information, there's no right answer.
They suggest be safe, stay calm and respectful.
Do not lie to agents, which can be a crime.
Do not tell them to have a nice day.
If you don't mean it, they can get you on that.
If you comply, agents may scrutinize and copy your sensitive data.
That's worth saying twice.
If you comply, agents may scrutinize and copy your sensitive data.
I will say, I'll step outside this.
Do not comply.
Don't do that.
Don't let your sensitive data be copied.
If you refuse, agents may seize your devices.
They may also escalate the encounter, for example, by detaining you for more time.
But if you're a US citizen, they have to let you into the country.
Uh, if you're a lawful permanent resident, they may raise complicated questions about
your continued status as a resident.
And if you're a foreign visitor, they can deny you entry altogether.
These are the sad facts.
You know, reading this, I'm, I'm happy they printed this guide, but I'm not satisfied.
I, I feel like there should be more of a fight, uh, being waged against this where, uh, we
tell them a no on certain terms.
No, you may not have access to sensitive data.
You may not compel me to unlock my computer or phone or risk losing it permanently to
you while you try for the next 20 years to do that.
Doesn't seem right.
Bernie, do you agree?
I completely agree.
If I'm an American citizen and I'm on US soil, which I would be if I was flying into, into
the US from a foreign country, um, and I have constitutional rights, I should not have to
provide access to my info, period.
Um, it's, it's, and they shouldn't be able to force me to cause I have fourth amendment
rights.
Well, yeah, but you do.
But, but the thing I keep hearing over and over again is that at the border, those rights
don't apply nearly as much.
That's what I have a problem with.
I'm an American on American soil.
Why should it matter if I happen to be, you know, on this side of a, of a desk or on the
other side of a desk on American soil?
I'm still on American soil.
I'm American.
I have fourth amendment rights and other constitutional rights.
And as far as I'm concerned, that's the way it should be.
But apparently they're working around this.
I agree with you, Emmanuel, that this is something that we should be politically fighting against
and organizing, but it's unfair to put the burden on the individual to, to not unlock
their devices because people that have tried doing that have been detained for up to two
days.
I mean, technically they eventually have to let you in, but like every time you travel,
you don't want to be detained that much.
So basically, yeah.
But do you, would you rather give up all your private information?
I mean, yeah, that sucks, but do you really want that to be the price you pay?
That's why the least bad option is to minimize the amount of information you carry with you,
like the EFF guys suggest.
And I think instead of, instead of fighting this as an individual and saying, no, I'm
not going to unlock, we should be like, uh, organizing as a group and like, um, or, uh,
lobbying for law.
But you see the problem with that, the problem with that is that if, um, if you don't have
a lot of data on your computer and you say, yeah, I have nothing to hide here, I'm going
to unlock my device.
Kind of makes it okay for them to keep asking you to unlock their, your device.
And for people who do have more information, it becomes the norm.
And this should not be normal.
This would be if everybody fought this, if a thousand people a day said, no way, I'm
not unlocking this.
And they were all detained.
It would gum up the work, something fierce.
And I think you'd see a change in policy.
Kyle.
I just wanted to speak to the point that Bernie said.
I agree with what you said, um, and that the fourth amendment and I'm paraphrasing
describes American citizens as being secure in their papers.
And I think whether I'm on one side or the other of the border, I'm still American.
I should still be secure in my papers.
And I believe, um, no, no one will dispute that, uh, digital or I'm sorry, data on an
electronic device that you own is, um, the modern equivalent of pay of your, your papers.
And, and I really, I, I would challenge that at the border being an, being an American
citizen with, with, um, no outstanding, uh, warrants and all of that.
I mean, there's no cause there.
So why would you be denied those?
Uh, when, um, after, um, going through the appropriate customs process, you're let in
because as you said, you cannot be denied entry.
And you're good at, uh, at challenging things because, uh, you, um, you bring film through,
uh, and, and, and you insist on it not being x-rayed.
You, you, you don't submit to, uh, the full body scan.
So you have a, you have experience at, at saying, yeah, I don't want to do it that way.
Let's do it a different way.
I've never been in a millimeter wave scanner and, um.
Oh, you have to go.
It's, it's really awesome.
No, I don't like that.
Um, now I want to give out the phone number three, four, seven, three, three, five, zero,
is our telephone number for our listeners to call in and, and, and be a part of the discussion.
I do want to say though, I've been stopped many times at the border and Kyle, you've
witnessed it a few times.
Yes.
And I have to say, I've never had anybody ask me to unlock a device or had my devices,
uh, seized or examined.
So I think that's, um, that's indicative of, uh, how, how rare this at least was.
And I don't know how common it's going to become,
but I do know if we just submit and, and, and don't cause a ruckus,
just like with anything else, it will become normal.
So yeah, it'll be inconvenient.
I'm, I'd be willing to be detained for two days.
I, I think they'd be much more eager to let me go at the end of those two days than,
than, uh, than, than the inconvenience I would go through.
But I feel like it would be, uh, you know, a blow against this kind of oppressiveness.
Uh, Voltaire.
Just in terms of what's most tactically useful, um, the people that would be
defending you aren't the people that are making the policies.
So I think if you want, if you're willing to sacrifice getting arrested for two days to do
this, it'd be better to protest outside the lawmaker's house in front of the border guards
who don't control.
Definitely do that as well.
Definitely.
Let's give a phone number one more time.
Cause I don't know if our phone's not working or if we're not getting calls.
Three, four, seven, three, three, five, zero, eight, one, eight.
That's when I make sure, uh, calls are going through and, uh, we can only take one at a
time, but, uh, we haven't been able to, um, take phone calls in a number of weeks because
of the fundraiser.
So this is your chance in the next five minutes or so to, uh, uh, to be a part of the discussion.
Go ahead.
You are absolutely right, Voltaire, in that we really ought to put pressure and have this,
uh, be a unifying issue for all people, uh, considering the importance of data and, and,
um, and, and how easily privacy can be compromised, uh, through these devices.
Um, but, uh, it, it, it should also be that, um, in the moment you, you must draw upon
and know your own power.
And for instance, uh, as a, a photographer and a journalist, I would consider all of
my negatives and all of, um, all of my files, uh, uh, video or otherwise, uh, photographic
stills.
I would consider those all sources and, um, the, uh, the equivalent of, uh, uh, someone
I've been, uh, reporting on, uh, anonymously.
I mean, I don't want to reveal that or have that be some in someone else's possession,
um, because it's important to me as a practitioner of, uh, journalism.
We have a listener phone call at 347-335-0818.
Good evening, listener.
You're on the air.
Go ahead.
Good evening, Emmanuel.
Is that Bobson from Bulgaria?
Yes, sir.
Wow.
That's amazing.
How, how have you been?
Well, not entirely to hell, but you were talking earlier about the leak that the White House
did on the two pages that were on an NBC show yesterday, did you not?
Oh, so word got all the way to Bulgaria about this.
Yes.
Two pages or about a million more to come.
So, uh, on today's, uh, Democracy Now program, the journalist who got the two pages in the
mail was talking how it all happened and how the White House managed to make it in time
for his publishing and in whatever way he chose to do so.
Yeah, I heard that interview.
Oh, okay.
Because you didn't mention it and you were wondering how the White page, White House
knew what pages to release.
Oh, actually, I might not have heard that part.
So how, how did the White House know exactly what pages they were?
Well, when, after the journalist got the two pages, he sent them to the White House for
them to confirm the documents as he has been doing for, for dozens of years now in various
cases.
And when they did, he went to publish them and, uh, on a website of business or some
such and on NBC.
And then he was informed that other media, media, um, organizations have gotten it.
The pages leaked from.
Well, you see, I would have done it differently.
Um, I would have implied that there were more pages.
I would have said, here's two of the five pages that I have.
And that way you see if, do they release just those two pages or do they release five pages?
It seems like he gave them, he, he showed his entire hand to them, making it easy for
them to simply, uh, duplicate whatever it is that he had.
And we don't know how they got it.
If they already had it, if they just used his copies, uh, or if they just knew they
could only, they should only release what he was about to release.
Uh, the, the, the idea when you're reporting on something like this is to learn as much
as you can about what they know, what they're, what they're holding back on.
So, um, that might've been a lost opportunity.
I'm not going to argue about the journalism of it, but he's been working with the White
House, uh, over 10 years and a few administrations and he needed them to confirm the documents
that he had and he only had two pages.
So two out of 50 would be good, but he didn't have 50 pages.
He only had the two that he got.
Well, yeah, I'm just saying he should have bluffed.
He should have bluffed that he had more.
Uh, but Bobson, great hearing from you.
Hopefully we'll see you soon.
We're going to open up the phone line for, for another call.
347-335-0818 is our telephone number.
And we're taking phone calls for about another minute and a half or so.
Um, any, uh, any other, oh, we have a phone call.
That's, uh, that was quick.
Let's take this one.
Good evening.
You're on off the hook.
Go ahead.
Uh, speak up, please.
You're on the air.
This is your last chance.
Hey, Emanuel, this is Lynn.
How are you?
Let me get the volume down.
Lynn, is this, um, what state are you in?
Yes.
Right now, physically in New Jersey, but normally in Georgia.
Okay.
You're the Lynn I know then.
Okay.
How are you doing?
I am.
How have you been?
I've been, I've been very good.
Very good.
Wow.
Uh, Bernie's on the line as well.
Hey, Bernie.
Hey, are you guys going to make it to, uh, Dayton revisited in a new location?
Oh, they moved.
No longer at the Harrah arena?
Yeah, they moved.
Yeah, no, the, our, our, our crappy facility, uh, went bankrupt.
Well, the facility went bankrupt.
It's about time.
I'm sorry, but that place really was falling apart.
Uh, where are they meeting now?
Uh, I think it's in senior or something like that.
I'm not exactly sure.
You can go to hamvention.org and find out.
It's not even in Dayton anymore.
No, it's technically it's not.
No, it's not.
It's not even a date in any, it's, it's West or East.
I mean, but anyway, I was going to say, so what I was calling about was that, so I'm
a Verizon subscriber, but I do not have access to Fios.
So what this means is I do not, even though I'm a Verizon subscriber, Verizon does not
provide Fios cable services at all in Georgia, anywhere.
So therefore I would have to be forced to switch to AT&T to get this service.
I see.
Even though I'm a DirecTV customer as well.
Okay.
Yeah.
I mean, basically I would have to ditch Verizon to get the other, the other service.
So it, you know, that's another problem with the net neutrality issue is services may not
be provided everywhere.
Now with AT&T it's through, I think it's DirecTV only.
I'm not sure if it's through the other provider.
So, you know, there you go.
I mean, you know, you're, you're kind of, you're kind of stuck either way you go there.
You're, you're, you know, they're offering it as a piece of candy to get you to switch
to them as the deal.
But at the same time, you know, they're not everywhere.
I mean, if you're in a, if you're in a Manhattan apartment, you might not be able to get DirecTV.
Right.
Right.
It's a different mode.
That's a satellite based for their television and content delivery.
Whereas the Fios is a fiber optic cable.
Lynn, I wish we could have you on longer, call earlier next time and we can discuss
this more in depth, but good hearing your voice again.
Hopefully, hopefully we'll make it out to Dayton or Xenia or wherever that is at some
point.
All right.
Cheers.
Have a good one guys.
Bye.
And thanks everybody else who attempted and failed to call in and to, of course, all those
of you who are listening right to us, oth at 2600.com.
Off the hook.
We'll be back again next week.
Same time, same station.
That station being WBAI, New York.
Good night.