[00:01.380 --> 00:02.480]  Thanks to you.
[00:02.640 --> 00:05.900]  Thank you for thinking of me.
[00:06.140 --> 00:07.800]  And I thank you.
[00:08.080 --> 00:09.200]  I thank you.
[00:09.260 --> 00:12.560]  Let's say thank you to all you people out there.
[00:13.660 --> 00:15.880]  I want to thank each and every one of you for coming by.
[00:16.140 --> 00:28.300]  And while he's thanking those folks, let me take this opportunity to thank all of you, our listeners and support staff, our contributors, our interns, the volunteers, producers, and the entire crew that works countless hours to bring WBAI into your lives.
[00:34.060 --> 00:39.480]  And let me just thank the person who made that announcement for making the announcement that needed to be made.
[00:39.720 --> 00:41.080]  It's 8 o'clock.
[00:41.080 --> 00:43.800]  You're listening to WBAI in New York.
[00:44.180 --> 00:45.440]  It's time for Off the Hook.
[00:50.800 --> 00:55.260]  The telephone keeps ringing, so I ripped it off the wall.
[00:56.260 --> 01:00.740]  I cut myself while shaving, now I can't make a call.
[01:01.400 --> 01:03.440]  We couldn't get much worry
[01:06.630 --> 01:09.050]  about, but the best is paid for the worst.
[01:09.770 --> 01:12.570]  I hope that's understood, but make me know.
[02:10.250 --> 02:11.850]  And a very good evening to everybody.
[02:11.950 --> 02:12.790]  The program is Off the Hook.
[02:12.850 --> 02:16.370]  Emmanuel Goldstein here with you on this Wednesday night, joined tonight by Rob T.
[02:16.470 --> 02:16.910]  Firefly.
[02:17.250 --> 02:17.750]  Good evening.
[02:18.290 --> 02:18.550]  Kyle.
[02:18.870 --> 02:19.630]  Hi, everyone.
[02:19.990 --> 02:20.430]  Alex.
[02:20.870 --> 02:21.350]  Good evening.
[02:21.570 --> 02:22.490]  And Voltaire joins us.
[02:22.610 --> 02:22.770]  Hello.
[02:23.230 --> 02:24.730]  Well, packed house tonight.
[02:24.870 --> 02:28.750]  We have all kinds of things to talk about, to go over, to preview.
[02:29.010 --> 02:29.370]  Well, preview.
[02:29.630 --> 02:31.410]  Tomorrow is that big press conference, City Hall.
[02:31.590 --> 02:32.050]  Be there.
[02:32.050 --> 02:41.330]  Yeah, it's going to be 100 degrees, we know, but still, it's a worthy cause, us, keeping the radio station from being torn apart by greedy...
[02:41.330 --> 02:43.570]  Well, I don't want to say those words on the air, but...
[02:43.570 --> 02:45.910]  Yeah, it's an action at 1 p.m.
[02:46.130 --> 02:49.210]  on the steps of City Hall to...
[02:49.210 --> 02:49.710]  What's a press conference?
[02:49.970 --> 02:51.110]  We're not, you know...
[02:51.110 --> 02:51.230]  Right.
[02:51.390 --> 02:52.910]  We're not going to shut down City Hall.
[02:53.090 --> 02:56.730]  Right, but there are going to be a lot of supporters there for this announcement.
[02:56.730 --> 03:05.070]  And, anyway, it's in recognition or to call attention to this billing...
[03:06.530 --> 03:06.930]  Discrepancy.
[03:07.330 --> 03:09.990]  Dispute, yeah, with the Empire State Building.
[03:10.070 --> 03:15.330]  Well, you know, somebody was billing me $53,000 a month when I should be paying $12,000 a month.
[03:15.990 --> 03:18.430]  I'd be on City Hall's front lawn, too.
[03:18.570 --> 03:19.570]  Or maybe it's a side lawn.
[03:19.670 --> 03:20.670]  I'm not sure exactly which it is.
[03:20.750 --> 03:26.170]  But, yeah, you have to speak up about that because that's the kind of thing that really puts a dent in your pocketbook.
[03:26.170 --> 03:29.650]  So, it's important to make these things clear.
[03:30.190 --> 03:33.950]  If we could snap our fingers and just move to another site, we'd do it.
[03:34.050 --> 03:35.210]  But, you know, it's...
[03:35.210 --> 03:36.090]  Have you ever moved a transmitter?
[03:36.170 --> 03:36.890]  It's not easy.
[03:37.350 --> 03:38.210]  It's not easy.
[03:38.430 --> 03:41.670]  And it'll take a lot of doing to get that happening.
[03:41.810 --> 03:43.390]  We just don't like being taken advantage of.
[03:43.530 --> 03:46.390]  And that's what's been going on here for the last few years.
[03:46.610 --> 03:51.430]  Yeah, so definitely go if you can and support that at 1 tomorrow.
[03:51.830 --> 03:53.570]  And, yeah, we need to...
[03:53.570 --> 03:54.450]  We'll get there earlier because...
[03:54.450 --> 03:54.950]  We need a fair deal.
[03:55.090 --> 03:56.030]  Yeah, get there a little early.
[03:56.170 --> 03:57.330]  Apparently, you have to go through security.
[03:57.570 --> 04:00.070]  And, yeah, so don't bring anything suspicious with you.
[04:00.150 --> 04:04.810]  Just show up and hopefully members of the media will cover this as well.
[04:04.870 --> 04:06.070]  It is a press conference, after all.
[04:06.990 --> 04:08.670]  And that's what it's all about, getting the word out.
[04:08.850 --> 04:14.670]  Speaking of getting the word out, today was the day to get the word out about supporting net neutrality.
[04:14.670 --> 04:19.250]  And, boy, I was amazed at how underwhelming it was.
[04:19.590 --> 04:20.910]  And it blew me away.
[04:21.110 --> 04:28.210]  I went to all the sites that people said were forefront in protest.
[04:28.210 --> 04:28.990]  I went to Twitter.
[04:29.270 --> 04:30.010]  I went to Google.
[04:30.250 --> 04:31.330]  I went to Facebook.
[04:33.090 --> 04:33.810]  And nobody...
[04:34.210 --> 04:35.510]  All right, I didn't go to Pornhub.
[04:35.750 --> 04:36.330]  I'm sorry.
[04:37.910 --> 04:39.230]  But maybe I should have.
[04:39.410 --> 04:40.870]  I didn't see a single mention.
[04:41.030 --> 04:42.110]  I didn't see a single mention.
[04:42.270 --> 04:43.290]  Is it the wrong day?
[04:43.370 --> 04:44.110]  Did I get it wrong?
[04:44.270 --> 04:46.430]  Am I looking in a bad place?
[04:46.430 --> 04:46.750]  What?
[04:46.910 --> 04:47.950]  I didn't see anything either.
[04:47.950 --> 04:49.130]  And I had the same reaction.
[04:49.250 --> 04:50.550]  I thought it was maybe next week.
[04:50.670 --> 04:51.850]  And I started checking.
[04:52.310 --> 04:53.110]  Did you go to Pornhub?
[04:53.670 --> 04:55.590]  Did anybody here go to Pornhub?
[04:56.290 --> 04:56.730]  Wow.
[04:56.910 --> 04:57.790]  I didn't.
[04:58.050 --> 04:59.410]  Okay, back to the drawing board.
[05:01.090 --> 05:01.790]  I didn't.
[05:01.870 --> 05:04.110]  But there was a hashtag, though, on Twitter.
[05:04.450 --> 05:06.130]  That's how people protest these things.
[05:06.370 --> 05:06.730]  Oh, okay.
[05:06.730 --> 05:08.230]  Well, that's how we're going to win the fight.
[05:08.230 --> 05:08.850]  With a hashtag.
[05:09.510 --> 05:09.810]  Come on.
[05:09.870 --> 05:10.590]  We have to put our...
[05:11.530 --> 05:12.310]  What do you call it?
[05:12.310 --> 05:13.990]  HTML code where our mouths are.
[05:14.370 --> 05:15.690]  And I didn't see enough of that.
[05:15.750 --> 05:21.170]  You know, the internet day of darkness, whatever that was, a few years ago, where everybody made their websites go black.
[05:21.530 --> 05:22.850]  That was effective.
[05:22.850 --> 05:23.890]  People remembered that.
[05:24.050 --> 05:28.610]  For this, you know, I thought we were going to have the spinning wheels like we did last week on the Hope site.
[05:29.650 --> 05:30.590]  Didn't see much.
[05:30.930 --> 05:31.750]  Didn't see much.
[05:32.230 --> 05:35.110]  Yeah, I was really overwhelmed, like...
[05:35.110 --> 05:36.410]  You were overwhelmed or underwhelmed?
[05:36.410 --> 05:36.530]  Underwhelmed.
[05:36.650 --> 05:37.210]  Okay, yeah.
[05:37.590 --> 05:37.770]  Under.
[05:38.130 --> 05:38.530]  Definitely under.
[05:38.530 --> 05:43.950]  Like, with Twitter, all they did was, if you used the net neutrality hashtag, then it would show a spinning wheel.
[05:44.030 --> 05:45.250]  So you had to go out of your way.
[05:45.310 --> 05:49.810]  Oh, so you had to do the work to get them to show you what it was you were talking about.
[05:50.050 --> 05:51.230]  It's very half-hearted.
[05:51.230 --> 05:53.150]  Right, and the same thing happened with Facebook.
[05:53.210 --> 05:54.670]  Facebook didn't even do anything for this.
[05:55.610 --> 05:57.570]  But for Pride Month, Facebook...
[05:57.570 --> 06:00.690]  Well, according to the news story, it seems like Facebook is right up there with everybody else.
[06:01.490 --> 06:02.450]  Really suppressed release.
[06:02.650 --> 06:03.470]  I didn't see anything.
[06:03.650 --> 06:05.170]  I didn't see anything on Amazon.
[06:05.170 --> 06:06.090]  They were up there, too.
[06:06.510 --> 06:07.170]  Google, either.
[06:07.390 --> 06:09.130]  It's a real who's who of who didn't do anything.
[06:10.270 --> 06:10.910]  All right, well...
[06:10.910 --> 06:11.990]  Reddit did put something up.
[06:12.190 --> 06:13.650]  I didn't go to Reddit, in all fairness.
[06:13.930 --> 06:17.270]  That was only on one specific subreddit, that r slash technology...
[06:17.270 --> 06:22.130]  So wait, if you just go to reddit.com, yeah, I mean, it's worthless if it's not on the front page.
[06:22.410 --> 06:22.990]  It was.
[06:23.210 --> 06:23.450]  Okay.
[06:23.670 --> 06:27.270]  This proves the point, though, that, like, the internet cannot be slowed down.
[06:27.270 --> 06:35.890]  It's just people don't want it to be slowed down, so they won't even participate in this because it's so important that it works the right way.
[06:36.130 --> 06:36.310]  Right.
[06:36.810 --> 06:37.110]  Right.
[06:37.530 --> 06:43.430]  Well, I think this whole issue over net neutrality, it's been going on for so long, number one.
[06:43.430 --> 06:49.750]  Number two, it's sort of a complicated issue that's difficult to understand and really get behind as well.
[06:49.830 --> 06:58.090]  I mean, we're talking about regulation of broadband providers as common carriers under Title II, and it gets even more boring.
[06:58.250 --> 07:00.010]  Well, yeah, it can be boring.
[07:00.130 --> 07:03.710]  Anything can be boring if you describe it in a boring way.
[07:03.870 --> 07:08.410]  The Palestinian conflict can put you to sleep if it's explained by the wrong person.
[07:08.410 --> 07:18.210]  Or it can be really, really exciting, not in a positive way, but it can really get you standing up and shouting if the right person is saying something.
[07:18.250 --> 07:20.990]  And I don't think we had the right people saying things about this.
[07:21.190 --> 07:22.430]  At least not in my eyes.
[07:22.570 --> 07:24.110]  I entirely agree with that.
[07:24.390 --> 07:29.850]  On the other hand, there's some arguments that net neutrality is a bad thing.
[07:30.210 --> 07:33.330]  Well, yeah, I expect those people wouldn't be part of the protest.
[07:33.510 --> 07:34.090]  No, they wouldn't be part of the protest.
[07:34.090 --> 07:36.130]  So I'm not expecting them to say anything on a day like that.
[07:36.130 --> 07:37.430]  I completely agree with that as well.
[07:37.430 --> 07:41.490]  But, you know, there is some merit to some of these arguments as well.
[07:41.630 --> 07:52.830]  You know, for instance, the ability of a communications company like an ISP to be able to recoup some of their investments in infrastructure by charging websites for particular, you know, tracks of access.
[07:53.090 --> 07:54.390]  Oh, are you taking the pro...
[07:54.390 --> 07:55.490]  the anti-net neutrality?
[07:55.610 --> 07:56.690]  Because we can have an argument about this.
[07:56.790 --> 07:56.910]  We can.
[07:56.970 --> 07:57.790]  We can have an argument about it.
[07:57.870 --> 07:58.270]  Okay, let's do that.
[07:58.330 --> 07:58.930]  I'm happy to do it.
[07:59.090 --> 08:00.190]  Yeah, I mean, someone's got to do it.
[08:00.190 --> 08:01.010]  I'm not owning this as an argument.
[08:01.030 --> 08:02.210]  Somebody has to do this.
[08:02.230 --> 08:04.110]  I'm happy to be the devil.
[08:04.310 --> 08:05.650]  Voltaire's going to take a piece out of you right now.
[08:05.670 --> 08:05.990]  Go ahead.
[08:05.990 --> 08:07.130]  I'll be the angel's advocate.
[08:07.930 --> 08:13.410]  If you look at the investment rates of these telecos, they're not investing and they're refusing to invest.
[08:13.590 --> 08:20.970]  And they have monopolies, so they have like profit margins that would make any company like super happy and yet they're doing nothing to invest.
[08:21.770 --> 08:28.730]  But I was surprised to see a big statement from AT&T today talking about how much they love net neutrality and they're in favor of all this stuff.
[08:29.150 --> 08:33.510]  They declined to mention that they're one of the companies trying to kill it with a lot of money right now.
[08:33.510 --> 08:39.970]  They said we agree that no company should be allowed to block content or throttle the download speed of content in a discriminatory manner.
[08:40.030 --> 08:52.630]  So we are joining this effort because it's consistent with AT&T's proud history of championing our customers' rights to an open internet and access to the internet content, applications, and devices of their choosing.
[08:53.510 --> 09:01.910]  Well, Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, said AT&T are lying when they say they support net neutrality while actively opposing it.
[09:02.450 --> 09:07.090]  And I think that's indicative of the response they got from much of the community today.
[09:07.730 --> 09:07.990]  Voltaire.
[09:08.190 --> 09:12.050]  I have a prediction in line with why AT&T claims to support this.
[09:12.490 --> 09:21.810]  My theory is that after it's repealed, they're going to assume that Trump is hopefully a one-term president, so they're not going to want to do anything to just violate net neutrality.
[09:21.950 --> 09:27.150]  And then when the Democrats get back in, they'll say, look, we haven't violated it, so you don't have to reinstate net neutrality.
[09:27.150 --> 09:32.870]  And then they'll basically do the frog boiling slowly thing and ramp up violations slowly.
[09:33.450 --> 09:35.790]  Well, yeah, frog boiling slowly.
[09:35.790 --> 09:37.890]  I can see that happening, definitely.
[09:38.070 --> 09:38.270]  Alex?
[09:38.290 --> 09:48.950]  You know, on the other hand, to play the devil's advocate here, I think, to go back to Voltaire's point about investment, up until 2015, there was no regulation under Title II of ISPs.
[09:49.010 --> 09:52.370]  And there was a tremendous amount of investment, and we saw the internet flourish.
[09:52.730 --> 10:00.350]  In fact, we saw a huge amount of industry being created without any Title II regulation.
[10:00.350 --> 10:13.970]  We had behemoths like Google come into play in the 90s that are obviously the flagship of American economics, the power being yielded around the world.
[10:14.330 --> 10:19.190]  We saw these wonderful things, all this wonderful innovation without Title II regulation.
[10:19.770 --> 10:24.150]  And net neutrality, you know, let's say that this is repealed.
[10:24.770 --> 10:32.150]  All of these arguments in favor of net neutrality are all premised on the assumption that ISPs are going to do bad things to its customers.
[10:32.190 --> 10:35.730]  They're going to act in an anti-consumer way.
[10:36.130 --> 10:38.050]  And why would they do that?
[10:38.130 --> 10:40.290]  Have you had an ISP ever?
[10:40.590 --> 10:49.210]  I think that, you know, ISPs, the people that run them, they're smart enough to have a company and to have these positions and to build this infrastructure.
[10:49.510 --> 10:51.150]  Don't they know what's best for us?
[10:51.150 --> 10:52.870]  They know what's best for them.
[10:53.110 --> 10:58.190]  They know how to make their profit margins as positive for them as possible.
[10:58.430 --> 10:59.550]  If it wasn't for them...
[10:59.550 --> 11:00.470]  They know how to streamline.
[11:00.490 --> 11:03.250]  They know how to get the most bang for their buck.
[11:03.510 --> 11:04.090]  You think so?
[11:04.090 --> 11:07.730]  I don't really think our interests are up on the top 10 for them.
[11:07.910 --> 11:08.210]  Okay.
[11:08.430 --> 11:17.230]  Well, if ISPs weren't the omnipresent and beneficent organizations that they are, then how would we...
[11:17.230 --> 11:22.790]  This radio show is being broadcast live now, but it also goes out to lots of people through podcasts.
[11:23.550 --> 11:26.510]  How would it get out there if it wasn't for their beneficence?
[11:27.070 --> 11:29.230]  That's the second time you've used that word and it's annoying me.
[11:29.570 --> 11:29.950]  Beneficence?
[11:30.110 --> 11:30.270]  Really?
[11:30.510 --> 11:30.730]  Beneficence.
[11:31.030 --> 11:31.410]  Absolutely.
[11:31.810 --> 11:35.470]  I'm trying to use the three properties of God as relating them to ISPs.
[11:35.990 --> 11:37.270]  That's more of a theological term.
[11:37.290 --> 11:37.690]  Go ahead, Kyle.
[11:37.690 --> 11:42.990]  It gets out there because the actual infrastructure itself doesn't discriminate.
[11:43.230 --> 11:49.230]  It gets out there because we have a neutral internet to some degree or another at the moment.
[11:49.800 --> 12:00.450]  If we did have these kinds of controls in place, it would be ripe for the kind of throttling that we're concerned about.
[12:00.630 --> 12:07.970]  And just to Voltaire's point, the frog in this case is our freedom or privacy or freedom to have privacy.
[12:08.110 --> 12:08.470]  Freedom frogs, yes.
[12:08.710 --> 12:08.890]  Yeah.
[12:09.190 --> 12:10.570]  But, you know, it's not...
[12:10.570 --> 12:15.350]  Or all of the consumers of broadband services.
[12:15.470 --> 12:18.990]  Let's say our podcast was an anti-ISP podcast.
[12:19.350 --> 12:25.710]  Now, what could the ISP do to make it harder for us to get our anti-ISP message out there?
[12:25.770 --> 12:28.510]  Are you saying this isn't an anti-ISP radio show slash podcast?
[12:28.510 --> 12:29.670]  Well, it's turning into one.
[12:29.850 --> 12:30.710]  I mean, come on.
[12:31.110 --> 12:32.730]  Since its inception, it has been.
[12:32.890 --> 12:38.610]  And speaking about inception, this has always been a show that's been distributed, I think.
[12:38.870 --> 12:46.110]  Let's go back a couple of years ago when there was a patent troll trying to enforce a copyright for podcasts.
[12:46.110 --> 12:46.710]  You know...
[12:46.710 --> 12:52.110]  And Off the Hook was one of the first shows to be able to be downloaded through the internet.
[12:52.370 --> 12:52.490]  Right.
[12:52.530 --> 12:56.730]  And that happened way before there was any Title II regulation of ISPs as common carriers.
[12:57.030 --> 13:00.310]  So, you know, I think that cuts against Kyle's point here.
[13:00.950 --> 13:03.130]  I'm trying to be an effective devil's advocate.
[13:03.130 --> 13:16.630]  Now, another point I'd like to make is, you know, if we're talking about the investment that ISPs make into their infrastructure, they have the right to make money just like anybody else has the right to make money.
[13:17.570 --> 13:23.290]  They've already had the broadband privacy rules rolled back so that they can monetize our browsing history and things.
[13:23.430 --> 13:34.550]  If they were able to make a little bit more cash off people like Google and Facebook paying for a fast-track lane, don't you think they'd have less incentive then to sell our private data to data brokers?
[13:35.850 --> 13:42.950]  No, because they're publicly traded so they have a fiduciary responsibility to make as much profit as they can so if they're as well just go ahead and make more profit.
[13:43.130 --> 13:44.210]  Okay, but what about the little guy?
[13:44.390 --> 13:46.910]  What about these little ISPs that are then going to be...
[13:46.910 --> 13:51.570]  That don't exist because they're pushed out of the market because of monopolistic business practices?
[13:51.570 --> 13:52.470]  Yeah, the Starbucks effect.
[13:52.470 --> 13:54.910]  They're pushed out of the market because of regulation.
[13:55.110 --> 13:55.570]  That reminds me.
[13:55.570 --> 14:02.630]  At the same time as our press conference there's a demonstration against the Starbucks that's opening in the East Village in the corner of St. Mark's and Avenue 8.
[14:02.710 --> 14:03.570]  Just letting people know that.
[14:03.670 --> 14:04.870]  I don't know what time.
[14:05.390 --> 14:06.050]  Look it up.
[14:06.190 --> 14:08.770]  I think it's the same exact time where it's very close to that.
[14:09.190 --> 14:10.430]  But yeah, the Starbucks effect.
[14:10.610 --> 14:17.770]  You know, a big corporate entity moves into a place nobody else can afford because the rent has been jacked up by the landlord.
[14:17.890 --> 14:18.370]  Sound familiar?
[14:19.550 --> 14:22.630]  And the independents are out of luck.
[14:22.630 --> 14:24.350]  Okay, so think about this then.
[14:24.450 --> 14:25.570]  What about the flip side of that?
[14:25.830 --> 14:27.110]  That ISPs will...
[14:27.110 --> 14:33.090]  Smaller ISPs, independent ISPs, perhaps ISPs that aren't beholden to shareholders as Voltaire rightly points out.
[14:33.970 --> 14:44.550]  They'll never have the opportunity to get off the ground if they are burdened by these ridiculous compliance requirements that, you know, create paperwork and rules that people have to follow.
[14:44.930 --> 14:47.430]  Voltaire, end this quickly because we have to move on.
[14:47.570 --> 14:52.550]  Actually, a consortium of small ISPs including Sonic.net has all come out in favor.
[14:52.630 --> 14:53.230]  of net neutrality.
[14:53.410 --> 14:54.590]  So I think that speaks against your point.
[14:55.150 --> 15:06.230]  And oftentimes they have arrangements with municipalities that ISPs do so they can prevent other competitors from using shared infrastructure, for example.
[15:06.370 --> 15:10.530]  That happened with Seattle Broadband's attempts for municipal internet.
[15:10.530 --> 15:14.470]  I meant to say they came out in favor of net neutrality, the small ISPs.
[15:15.470 --> 15:16.270]  Yeah, that's right.
[15:16.430 --> 15:17.230]  Okay, can we end this?
[15:17.390 --> 15:22.130]  Well, I just want you to be defeated and, you know, I want a death blow.
[15:22.370 --> 15:22.870]  Oh, okay.
[15:22.970 --> 15:24.050]  That sounded like it.
[15:24.150 --> 15:26.470]  I guess I'm just trying to be an effective devil's advocate.
[15:26.470 --> 15:27.330]  We need better arguments.
[15:27.530 --> 15:29.110]  I do think we need better arguments.
[15:29.130 --> 15:29.630]  I agree.
[15:29.790 --> 15:30.050]  I disagree.
[15:30.430 --> 15:31.410]  You disagree with that?
[15:31.530 --> 15:32.330]  I completely disagree.
[15:32.890 --> 15:34.550]  Okay, we've got a long way to go, folks.
[15:34.550 --> 15:39.430]  But the important thing is to not yield, not let things be taken away from us.
[15:39.510 --> 15:42.110]  For the record, I'm in favor of net neutrality.
[15:42.310 --> 15:43.610]  I just want everybody to be clear.
[15:43.710 --> 15:45.050]  I don't know who you are anymore.
[15:45.270 --> 15:46.410]  I don't know what to believe.
[15:46.630 --> 15:47.990]  Well, that's the whole point.
[15:48.310 --> 15:49.490]  The Donald Trump effect.
[15:49.630 --> 16:06.650]  The one part of this exercise I think that's worth pointing out is also the challenge this is in challenging us, the challenge of thinking about future uses once you do or do not have this kind of control.
[16:06.650 --> 16:17.750]  Whether it is control that is wielded in, as you said, a bureaucratic way or the companies themselves feeling empowered to create another revenue stream.
[16:18.250 --> 16:35.750]  We have to think not necessarily just in how these service providers and how these means of getting online, how they're used now, but also how they'll be used in the future in the wake of this or without this kind of legislation.
[16:36.050 --> 16:46.150]  Well, let's also go back and look at previous decades and ask ourselves would something have been possible were net neutrality not enforced then?
[16:46.150 --> 16:57.110]  Would there be a possibility for bad example Facebook or Twitter or Google to come out from nothing and become huge corporate monsters?
[16:57.370 --> 16:57.790]  Okay, fine.
[16:57.950 --> 17:12.130]  But, you know, there's many, many other companies that came about too that would not have had the ability to do this if they could have been discriminated against based on how much they are paying or who they are or what they represent.
[17:12.230 --> 17:12.450]  Voltaire?
[17:12.750 --> 17:14.150]  One of our listeners, G.I.
[17:14.170 --> 17:34.230]  Joe, tweeted at us and they made an important point which is that another reason why these ISPs are trying to violate net neutrality is because they have content delivery businesses like cable TV and voice and they're using that as a black competing website.
[17:34.890 --> 17:36.330]  Yeah, that's the fear.
[17:36.530 --> 17:36.770]  Alex?
[17:36.950 --> 17:39.270]  One further point before the TKO here.
[17:39.450 --> 17:45.910]  If net neutrality is rolled back then that means that the FCC will no longer have authority to regulate these ISPs.
[17:46.250 --> 17:54.210]  The authority to regulate these ISPs and this I think actually is a fairly decent argument against net neutrality would then devolve over to the FTC.
[17:54.210 --> 18:11.850]  The FTC already has a fairly robust enforcement program to detect and deter against unfair and deceptive trade practices and they are the federal agency that is charged with protecting privacy across the United States.
[18:12.010 --> 18:32.810]  So wouldn't it make more sense from a user perspective to have ISPs regulated by an organization like the FTC that is well suited and designed to regulate things like privacy as opposed to the FCC under a law that was passed in 1934 with respect to the monopolies of communications carriers back then?
[18:33.050 --> 18:39.030]  Yeah, I don't think they really saw the future that much back in 1934 so I don't really have an issue with that.
[18:39.190 --> 18:40.690]  I think it might make more sense.
[18:40.810 --> 18:49.190]  I think the right answer to that question is that the Communications Act of 1996 amended the Act of 1934 and actually updated a whole bunch of these regulations.
[18:49.430 --> 18:53.150]  But was it sufficient for what we're talking about today?
[18:53.150 --> 18:54.510]  Yeah, that's in favor of net neutrality.
[18:54.670 --> 18:56.050]  Yeah, I mean, it updated things.
[18:56.210 --> 19:03.170]  It's not like the 1934 law is so completely antiquated that it has no applicability whatsoever to common carriers today.
[19:03.430 --> 19:10.250]  Yeah, I mean, Kyle mentioned thinking about the future uses for things when you're putting together these regulations and that's really important.
[19:10.370 --> 19:13.070]  That's something that we've seen the ill effects of so many times.
[19:13.070 --> 19:23.930]  you go back to the early history of this program and all sorts of strange things were being done regarding technology because the laws were written for previous generations of technology.
[19:23.930 --> 19:28.990]  No one had any idea how to regulate things like computer networks and the internet itself.
[19:29.570 --> 19:38.050]  And so now I think we have the opportunity to maybe be a little more forward-thinking when we enact these laws than maybe they were in the 1930s.
[19:38.050 --> 19:42.830]  I think a common theme that people seem to come back to is they just want to be left alone.
[19:42.830 --> 19:45.210]  They want to be free to do what they want to do.
[19:45.310 --> 19:47.470]  And that's fine on an individual level.
[19:47.470 --> 20:01.310]  But when you say this applies to this particular megacore ISP that just wants to be left alone, they just want to be left alone in not being told not to inconvenience or hassle you, the individual.
[20:01.670 --> 20:03.850]  So that freedom is different from your freedom.
[20:03.950 --> 20:05.670]  That freedom is in conflict with your freedom.
[20:05.790 --> 20:07.850]  That freedom suppresses your freedom.
[20:08.050 --> 20:12.330]  And I think the one that we need to look out for more than anything is that individual freedom.
[20:12.550 --> 20:18.870]  And if that is in danger, then whatever it is that is being permitted is wrong.
[20:18.930 --> 20:21.270]  That endangers that individual freedom.
[20:21.450 --> 20:23.610]  I think that's the best way I can describe it.
[20:23.730 --> 20:26.930]  I agree with that entirely, almost.
[20:27.290 --> 20:36.410]  But, you know, there's also the freedom of corporations to negotiate with other corporations and the freedom to strike deals.
[20:36.410 --> 20:50.170]  And, you know, with net neutrality being rolled back, part of what we may see are companies like Google and Facebook having to engage in negotiations with particular ISPs to be in the fast track type lane.
[20:51.210 --> 20:59.990]  That's going to... I think a lot of these big corporations, these big technology giants are in favor of net neutrality because they don't want to have to deal with this.
[21:00.090 --> 21:01.690]  They don't want to have to deal with contracts.
[21:01.810 --> 21:02.950]  But they can afford it, though.
[21:03.090 --> 21:04.590]  They can afford to be in the fast lane.
[21:04.590 --> 21:05.110]  Absolutely.
[21:05.110 --> 21:07.390]  They can afford it, but it creates a compliance issue.
[21:07.570 --> 21:12.270]  It creates a huge amount of work and hassle, and it's something that they have to pay for.
[21:12.590 --> 21:14.010]  So, of course, they're going to be against it.
[21:14.290 --> 21:17.450]  One final point here, and we really have to move on because we have a bunch of other stories.
[21:18.290 --> 21:20.430]  This is something for the United States, net neutrality.
[21:20.650 --> 21:21.570]  So, what about in Canada?
[21:21.710 --> 21:22.330]  What happens there?
[21:22.510 --> 21:30.210]  You know, if net neutrality is killed in this country, how does it affect the rest of the world and companies there and individuals there?
[21:30.210 --> 21:34.710]  Can people find what they're looking for just by going to a different location?
[21:35.310 --> 21:35.330]  Walter?
[21:35.570 --> 21:42.730]  Well, we'll have less innovative startups and nonprofits like Wikipedia that are coming out of the United States and they benefit the whole world.
[21:42.890 --> 21:45.030]  So, they'll suffer from that.
[21:45.170 --> 21:45.750]  Well, yeah.
[21:45.990 --> 21:47.570]  I mean, they will suffer from that, true.
[21:47.810 --> 21:49.150]  Our economy will suffer.
[21:49.690 --> 21:57.570]  We've heard this before with various policies that are put in place, not believing in climate change, Brexit, what have you.
[21:58.290 --> 22:03.670]  These ill-fated decisions will make the domestic economy suffer.
[22:03.890 --> 22:15.910]  So, is this just another one of those cases where, okay, we kill net neutrality and all of a sudden Canada or Western Europe has a boom in Google-type companies that would have existed in the United States otherwise?
[22:16.410 --> 22:16.970]  Rob?
[22:16.970 --> 22:27.070]  Well, also, we like to look at other countries such as China with the Great Firewall or, you know, places like that where the populace have a very filtered look at the Internet and say, oh, what a shame.
[22:27.190 --> 22:31.170]  They can't just look at the complete Internet on a level playing field like the rest of us.
[22:31.730 --> 22:38.170]  If net neutrality in this country is killed, we'll be the ones that places like Canada can look at and go, look what they just screwed up.
[22:38.270 --> 22:41.190]  Well, I think they're saying that already quite a bit, actually.
[22:41.190 --> 22:43.430]  But it'll just be another example of that.
[22:43.550 --> 22:43.690]  Okay.
[22:43.850 --> 22:48.010]  So, that's it for net neutrality, the day of outrage, whatever it was today.
[22:48.370 --> 22:52.490]  Hopefully, we'll see some better statements in the future.
[22:53.390 --> 22:55.650]  This is a story that I just saw on the way in.
[22:55.710 --> 23:02.990]  Up to 14 million Verizon subscribers may have had their sensitive data exposed by a company called Nice Systems.
[23:02.990 --> 23:05.630]  Yes, a partner of Verizon.
[23:06.010 --> 23:08.350]  This is according to a story in ZDNet.
[23:08.490 --> 23:20.150]  Subscriber records from users who called customer service over the past six months were located on an unprotected Amazon S3 storage server controlled by Verizon partner Nice Systems.
[23:20.270 --> 23:26.430]  Now, that data includes customer names, phone numbers, home addresses, email addresses, account PIN numbers.
[23:26.430 --> 23:33.990]  And it was accessible basically to anyone who found what ZDNet says was an easy-to-guess web address.
[23:34.950 --> 23:36.010]  So, wow.
[23:36.910 --> 23:38.130]  Way to go, Verizon.
[23:38.410 --> 23:40.690]  And nice systems there.
[23:41.310 --> 23:42.530]  Nice systems, indeed.
[23:42.650 --> 23:46.910]  Another example of how we don't protect our data.
[23:47.430 --> 23:54.690]  Moving on, we have a whole bunch of other things to get to, including some of the Russian paranoia that's out there.
[23:54.690 --> 23:56.150]  We're hearing so much of that lately.
[23:56.430 --> 23:58.590]  And some of it's paranoia, some of it is not.
[23:58.810 --> 24:08.570]  But this, more than 500 sites across the United Kingdom are believed to have fallen victim to Russian hacking.
[24:08.990 --> 24:19.110]  The everyday lives of hundreds of Brits are being streamed online because Russian hackers have accessed their TVs, phones, and even baby monitors.
[24:19.450 --> 24:24.190]  Yes, even baby monitors are being monitored by Russian hackers.
[24:24.190 --> 24:28.330]  See, this is an example, I think, of the media gone hysterical.
[24:28.770 --> 24:31.810]  Because this is something that can be done by anyone.
[24:32.130 --> 24:33.750]  It can be done by us right here.
[24:33.870 --> 24:35.250]  It can be done by people in California.
[24:35.530 --> 24:36.530]  It can be done by people in China.
[24:36.590 --> 24:38.050]  And yes, it can be done by people in Russia.
[24:38.050 --> 24:42.130]  The fact that it can be done by people in Russia doesn't mean it's a Russian plot.
[24:42.250 --> 24:45.570]  And that it's yet another example of how evil they are.
[24:46.350 --> 24:54.290]  More than 500 sites across the UK are believed to have fallen victim to this voyeuristic ploy, including homes, businesses, even churches.
[24:54.290 --> 25:04.450]  I like how they always throw in even, even children's teddies, even baby monitors, even churches, as if that's the one thing that nobody would dare touch in the past.
[25:04.550 --> 25:06.190]  And now all bets are off.
[25:06.330 --> 25:08.810]  Yeah, we're going to look at your baby through a camera.
[25:08.810 --> 25:17.390]  So, Simon Rice, ICO group manager for technology, told the Daily Express over in the UK...
[25:18.230 --> 25:20.250]  Actually, technology for what?
[25:20.250 --> 25:22.510]  I'm not exactly sure what the company is here.
[25:23.830 --> 25:36.690]  But basically, he said the website that we're talking about here, based in Russia, accesses the information by using default login credentials, which are freely available online for thousands of cameras.
[25:36.690 --> 25:47.330]  So, basically, there's a website in Russia that is publishing this information and linking to various devices that are using default passwords.
[25:47.470 --> 25:54.510]  Now, if you use a default password on something like a router, baby monitor, whatever, I consider that an invitation.
[25:54.770 --> 25:57.470]  I consider that you saying, yeah, you know what?
[25:57.570 --> 25:58.030]  It doesn't matter.
[25:58.150 --> 25:59.350]  Security doesn't matter to me.
[25:59.670 --> 26:01.990]  This is wide open for anybody to get in.
[26:01.990 --> 26:08.270]  Now, if you don't want Russian hackers watching your damn baby through a camera, change your password.
[26:08.510 --> 26:09.590]  How hard is that?
[26:09.790 --> 26:16.330]  Or, you know, if you don't know where the password is on your baby monitor or didn't know that you had one, ask somebody.
[26:16.630 --> 26:17.990]  Ask the person who sold it to you.
[26:18.330 --> 26:28.410]  Now, one perverse example of the threat saw a hacker speak to a nanny through a baby monitor's microphone as she was changing the Texas Tots nappy.
[26:28.590 --> 26:29.890]  This is a British newspaper.
[26:29.890 --> 26:30.390]  I'm sorry.
[26:30.390 --> 26:33.710]  She said, he kept telling me it was a cute baby.
[26:33.870 --> 26:35.130]  What's wrong with that?
[26:35.270 --> 26:35.610]  Come on.
[26:35.690 --> 26:36.550]  You're watching a baby.
[26:36.730 --> 26:42.230]  It's only polite to say something nice, you know, when you have the open microphone there.
[26:43.230 --> 26:45.210]  Look, it's a wake-up call, okay?
[26:45.490 --> 26:49.490]  It's letting people know that, yeah, people can watch.
[26:49.490 --> 26:55.430]  And by broadcasting your voice, you're demonstrating that, educating people.
[26:55.570 --> 26:57.690]  I don't really see anything nefarious here.
[26:58.050 --> 26:58.590]  Rob?
[26:59.170 --> 27:03.570]  And this is, if this is a wake-up call, it's a very, very delayed one because this is nothing new.
[27:03.790 --> 27:03.930]  No.
[27:04.150 --> 27:10.830]  I'm pretty sure I downloaded text files full of default passwords for things back in the early 1990s and off of BBSes somewhere.
[27:10.830 --> 27:12.530]  And it was nothing to do with Russia.
[27:12.530 --> 27:14.330]  It was just stuff that's out there.
[27:14.330 --> 27:15.150]  Even baby monitors?
[27:15.350 --> 27:16.770]  Even teddy bears?
[27:17.410 --> 27:21.490]  There might have been frequencies that you could have listened to on the old analog scanners of the day.
[27:21.730 --> 27:22.310]  Alex and Walter.
[27:22.570 --> 27:28.850]  Well, speaking of baby monitors, to build off what Rob is saying is that this really is nothing new.
[27:28.990 --> 27:32.490]  Remember the 90s when baby monitors were broadcast on radio frequencies?
[27:32.770 --> 27:32.910]  Yes.
[27:32.910 --> 27:38.470]  And a regular radio frequency scanner that, you know, it's also the same frequency range for cordless phones.
[27:38.650 --> 27:43.630]  But if you had it on loop between 40 and 50 megahertz, you would pick up your neighborhood baby monitors.
[27:44.290 --> 27:47.090]  You'd also pick up your neighborhood cordless phones.
[27:47.110 --> 27:48.010]  Yeah, that's what I was saying.
[27:48.090 --> 27:48.270]  Yeah.
[27:48.450 --> 27:48.790]  Same bag.
[27:48.790 --> 27:50.350]  Why wouldn't that be a bigger deal?
[27:51.190 --> 27:52.450]  It arguably is.
[27:52.630 --> 27:53.030]  Absolutely.
[27:54.170 --> 28:00.450]  But, you know, having a baby monitor home has always been sort of like, you know, just self-installing a listening device for the neighborhood.
[28:00.870 --> 28:02.990]  But now it's for Russian hackers as well.
[28:03.110 --> 28:06.070]  And, you know, I see no reason why practices should change.
[28:06.250 --> 28:07.350]  It's always been that way in this country.
[28:07.490 --> 28:09.510]  First of all, you have more people watching your baby.
[28:09.670 --> 28:13.530]  So if something goes wrong, you know, everyone is going to be alerted to it.
[28:13.530 --> 28:13.890]  Very good point.
[28:13.970 --> 28:14.190]  Right.
[28:14.350 --> 28:17.790]  So it's kind of, it's a free babysitting service in a sense.
[28:17.790 --> 28:20.770]  Russian nannies are fantastic, especially Russian hacker nannies.
[28:20.790 --> 28:21.490]  Well, okay, fine.
[28:21.690 --> 28:22.710]  You know, I don't want to generalize.
[28:22.790 --> 28:27.410]  But the thing that got me about this story was that it had this Russian angle to it.
[28:27.470 --> 28:34.330]  And because, you know, Russian hacking is in the news for a particular story, it's being demonized in all different ways.
[28:34.330 --> 28:37.430]  And Russian hackers are no different than hackers from all over the world.
[28:38.690 --> 28:42.450]  So we need to get off the hysteria here and focus on the real issue.
[28:42.530 --> 28:42.770]  Voltaire.
[28:42.970 --> 28:46.150]  I think it's important to note that it probably wasn't even Russian hackers that did it.
[28:47.010 --> 28:59.270]  A real thumb for media literacy is 90% of the time when you hear a story that says, like, oh, attacks coming from Russia or from China, those are just compromised computers in those countries that are being run through a botnet.
[28:59.470 --> 29:03.530]  And the control of that botnet, there's no attribution of where they're actually coming from.
[29:03.530 --> 29:05.190]  But they could be coming from Russia or China, too.
[29:05.470 --> 29:06.290]  Or Venezuela.
[29:06.890 --> 29:07.690]  That's possible.
[29:07.850 --> 29:09.010]  Yeah, but they're kind of busy right now.
[29:09.010 --> 29:10.210]  So I'm not sure they have time to hack.
[29:10.370 --> 29:12.470]  But yeah, it's true.
[29:12.670 --> 29:17.470]  On the Internet, you can't really tell anything as far as where things are coming from.
[29:17.790 --> 29:25.150]  So you need those direct contacts, emails with Russian people to know that you're actually working with Russians.
[29:25.210 --> 29:29.210]  But no real examples of that to show right now.
[29:29.210 --> 29:29.830]  But here...
[29:29.830 --> 29:31.110]  Okay, actually, here is something.
[29:31.830 --> 29:36.310]  This is another Russian hysteria story about Donald Trump Jr.'s attorney.
[29:36.750 --> 29:39.050]  He previously defended a Russian hacker.
[29:39.250 --> 29:40.030]  How do you like that?
[29:40.750 --> 29:41.130]  Wow.
[29:41.610 --> 29:55.030]  Okay, a lawyer representing Donald Trump Jr. in matters related to Russia's involvement in last year's White House election, previously defended a Moscow cyber criminal, convicted of developing malware responsible for infecting over a million computers in the U.S.
[29:55.110 --> 29:55.630]  and abroad.
[29:56.050 --> 29:56.650]  Big deal.
[29:56.650 --> 29:57.330]  He's a lawyer.
[29:57.650 --> 29:59.210]  Lawyers represent people from all over...
[29:59.210 --> 30:00.490]  Am I right, Alex?
[30:00.630 --> 30:01.030]  You're a lawyer.
[30:01.150 --> 30:01.230]  Absolutely.
[30:01.230 --> 30:03.390]  You represent people from all different worlds.
[30:03.630 --> 30:07.790]  I would hate it if I was judged by my clients, even though most of them are wonderful people.
[30:09.110 --> 30:17.110]  You know, and I can't stand stories like that as well, because as attorneys, we have an ethical obligation to take on unpopular clients.
[30:17.350 --> 30:22.290]  I would say this should be a feather in this guy's cap, you know, as opposed to something that detracts from him.
[30:22.850 --> 30:26.810]  I think more lawyers should represent very unpopular clients.
[30:26.970 --> 30:28.790]  I doubt, however, that this was a pro bono matter.
[30:28.950 --> 30:29.990]  I don't know if it mentioned that.
[30:30.330 --> 30:36.850]  If it was, I would say kudos for this guy for representing somebody who desperately probably needed representation.
[30:37.850 --> 30:41.510]  But no, we should not ever be judged by the actions of our clients.
[30:41.550 --> 30:45.450]  Look, he's representing different people from different places.
[30:45.650 --> 30:51.790]  I mean, right now, he's representing an Israeli man accused of participating a massive pump-and-dump scheme.
[30:52.170 --> 30:53.290]  I don't know what that even means.
[30:53.390 --> 30:56.270]  Prosecutors have described a security fraud on cyber steroids.
[30:56.630 --> 30:59.790]  You know, so this is the kind of thing that lawyers get involved in.
[31:00.250 --> 31:03.650]  And it's, yeah, there are Russians all over the place.
[31:03.650 --> 31:09.250]  You can point to Russians and scare yourself, but that doesn't really indicate anything.
[31:09.410 --> 31:09.790]  Well, that's true.
[31:10.030 --> 31:12.230]  And, you know, Mother Teresa doesn't really need a lawyer.
[31:12.410 --> 31:14.130]  Well, she definitely doesn't need one now.
[31:14.310 --> 31:17.010]  But, you know, she probably didn't very frequently need a lawyer.
[31:17.210 --> 31:21.550]  Lawyers get involved when things go haywire, when things are messy, when people do bad things.
[31:21.770 --> 31:24.570]  We should never discount a lawyer by his clients.
[31:25.270 --> 31:27.630]  You know, well, maybe there's some exceptions.
[31:27.990 --> 31:28.210]  Yes.
[31:29.810 --> 31:34.290]  Okay, who got a message warning you not to make friends with Jaden K.
[31:34.490 --> 31:35.270]  Smith this week?
[31:35.430 --> 31:35.890]  I did.
[31:36.030 --> 31:37.710]  I didn't, because I don't check Facebook.
[31:37.950 --> 31:43.170]  But apparently, everybody in Facebook was getting this message basically saying not to...
[31:43.170 --> 31:45.570]  Okay, I have the whole message here.
[31:45.670 --> 31:47.330]  This is what you might have seen.
[31:47.330 --> 31:52.010]  Please tell all the contacts in your messenger list not to accept Jaden K.
[31:52.170 --> 31:53.250]  Smith friendship request.
[31:53.490 --> 31:57.470]  He is a hacker and has the system connected to your Facebook account.
[31:57.770 --> 31:59.730]  Has the system connected to your Facebook account?
[31:59.770 --> 31:59.870]  Okay.
[32:00.050 --> 32:03.790]  If one of your contacts accepts it, you will also be hacked.
[32:03.790 --> 32:06.170]  So make sure that all your friends know it.
[32:06.410 --> 32:06.630]  Thanks.
[32:06.930 --> 32:08.130]  Forward it as received.
[32:08.450 --> 32:10.430]  Hold your finger down on the message.
[32:10.430 --> 32:13.130]  At the bottom, in the middle, it will say forward.
[32:13.410 --> 32:16.910]  Hit that, then click on the names of those in your list and it will send to them.
[32:17.110 --> 32:21.350]  Boy, this is worse than anything that Jaden K.
[32:21.470 --> 32:22.130]  Smith could have done.
[32:23.090 --> 32:38.770]  The mere thought that simply friending somebody on Facebook would result in your computer being taken over makes you realize the massive gap between what is true and what is perceived by people who use these systems.
[32:39.210 --> 32:41.310]  So there's nothing to it at all.
[32:41.910 --> 32:49.150]  But the message is being spread all over the world and it's causing no end of mayhem, especially for people named Jaden K.
[32:49.290 --> 32:49.430]  Smith.
[32:49.610 --> 32:52.990]  Oh boy, can you imagine how much of a pain it must be?
[32:53.850 --> 32:55.470]  What was the origin of this?
[32:55.570 --> 32:57.090]  I mean, I don't really understand.
[32:57.350 --> 32:57.870]  I'd like to know.
[32:58.170 --> 32:58.650]  I'd like to know.
[32:58.930 --> 33:01.290]  I mean, it's great mischief, a lot of fun.
[33:01.290 --> 33:05.210]  But did somebody have a real beef with Jaden K.
[33:05.350 --> 33:05.450]  Smith?
[33:06.150 --> 33:11.530]  Maybe somebody won all of Bill Gates' millions and then had a lot of time on their hand and did this.
[33:12.290 --> 33:12.710]  Maybe.
[33:13.050 --> 33:13.910]  Isn't Jaden K.
[33:14.030 --> 33:16.670]  Smith Will Smith, the actor and rapper's son?
[33:17.830 --> 33:20.070]  I think it's Jaden Smith, something like that.
[33:20.170 --> 33:21.490]  But I don't know if there's a K in the middle.
[33:21.550 --> 33:22.690]  I thought the same thing.
[33:23.110 --> 33:25.190]  How can Facebook be real when computers aren't real?
[33:25.190 --> 33:27.110]  I don't think any of us know.
[33:27.790 --> 33:32.130]  But yeah, that's another reason to stay away from Facebook as far as I'm concerned.
[33:33.050 --> 33:35.610]  Okay, but then you have Twitter.
[33:35.850 --> 33:39.650]  This story from the Hindustan Times.
[33:39.730 --> 33:56.970]  And this is just fun to read because it's just a really funny story about someone named Kamiya Panjabi who extended her support to Ekta Kapoor's Lipstick Under My Burka on social media.
[33:57.230 --> 34:02.870]  She posted a bareback picture, a picture of her bare back, and captioned it.
[34:03.190 --> 34:08.450]  They said, don't be that woman, that other woman, the divorced woman, the single mother's woman, but I am that woman.
[34:08.570 --> 34:11.790]  Every time I put my lipstick on, I smile because I am being true to myself.
[34:11.790 --> 34:15.070]  Whether the world agrees or not, I have made my own, et cetera.
[34:17.110 --> 34:21.330]  And basically what happened was the picture was deleted from her account.
[34:21.710 --> 34:28.110]  That led to speculation that she backed out from that campaign and that she changed her mind about the bold photo.
[34:28.770 --> 34:34.850]  Well, to end all doubt, Kamiya took to Twitter to reveal that her account was hacked and the hacker deleted the photo.
[34:35.990 --> 34:39.910]  And she said, up to this date, I have not removed any post from my account.
[34:40.790 --> 34:43.350]  And she's gone to the police to find out.
[34:43.470 --> 34:44.070]  This is ridiculous.
[34:44.270 --> 34:47.630]  She's gone to the police to find out who deleted her picture from her account.
[34:47.950 --> 34:50.210]  Now, she gave out details about what happened.
[34:50.430 --> 34:51.810]  And this is verbatim.
[34:52.270 --> 34:52.910]  Open the app.
[34:53.090 --> 34:54.430]  Picture has been removed.
[34:54.890 --> 35:00.550]  News articles claiming my unsure mind led to impulsive upload of nudity and hence took it off.
[35:00.730 --> 35:02.890]  Never posted something I never believed in.
[35:03.030 --> 35:04.930]  Never took off something I once posted.
[35:05.230 --> 35:09.910]  Wore my heart and scars on my sleeves with pride.
[35:10.510 --> 35:12.230]  Happy hacking, happy hating.
[35:14.350 --> 35:15.690]  Let's not equate the two here.
[35:15.910 --> 35:18.530]  She even put a hashtag, which is not a hashtag.
[35:18.750 --> 35:19.950]  I know you know my password.
[35:20.110 --> 35:20.950]  That's a sentence.
[35:21.110 --> 35:21.690]  It's not a hashtag.
[35:22.710 --> 35:28.710]  When contacted, the actor said that she has already given out all the details on Twitter and doesn't want to talk more about this.
[35:28.790 --> 35:33.190]  Well, that's fine because I don't want to hear any more about it, but change your damn password for God's sake.
[35:33.370 --> 35:34.230]  You know, this is...
[35:34.230 --> 35:39.990]  How many times have we heard this story where somebody just uses the same password and gets hacked over and over again?
[35:40.270 --> 35:42.970]  I mean, I think it's pretty obvious what happened here.
[35:43.450 --> 35:44.890]  You know, it was Jaden K.
[35:45.010 --> 35:45.170]  Smith.
[35:45.390 --> 35:46.330]  He got in there.
[35:46.330 --> 35:46.710]  Oh, yeah.
[35:46.710 --> 35:47.570]  And he deleted this.
[35:47.610 --> 35:50.570]  And he's in favor of censorship and all kinds of things.
[35:50.730 --> 35:52.530]  He's anti-net neutrality.
[35:52.750 --> 35:53.870]  He's a bad guy.
[35:54.030 --> 35:54.910]  You need to block him.
[35:55.670 --> 35:56.230]  Yeah, okay.
[35:56.250 --> 35:56.710]  Let's do that.
[35:56.870 --> 35:59.250]  Let's not forget the Smith family are Scientologists.
[35:59.670 --> 36:00.070]  True fact.
[36:00.470 --> 36:01.890]  Why are we talking about this?
[36:02.090 --> 36:02.890]  Who cares?
[36:03.350 --> 36:04.290]  Well, you brought it up.
[36:04.430 --> 36:05.710]  I didn't bring that up.
[36:05.810 --> 36:06.470]  You did.
[36:06.470 --> 36:11.410]  All right, one thing to add to your recommendations to change your password to be two-factor authentication.
[36:11.550 --> 36:14.250]  That would have prevented this entire thing unless Jaden K.
[36:14.410 --> 36:16.970]  Smith was able to get into her phone or her email address.
[36:17.130 --> 36:23.010]  In layman's terms, Alex, can you explain two-factor authentication just so people can realize they can do it too?
[36:23.410 --> 36:23.710]  Sure.
[36:23.990 --> 36:29.570]  Two-factor authentication or also known as 2FA is basically exactly what it says.
[36:29.670 --> 36:51.770]  In addition to having a password, there's another method of authentication to access your account which would include something like a text message being sent to your phone with a series of letters or numbers or an email being sent to your account or using an app on your phone that would generate a code that would then match the server on the other side so that you can authenticate yourself using
[36:51.770 --> 36:56.130]  one other mean aside from a password that only you should have access to.
[36:56.730 --> 36:57.870]  Yes, but what if you don't?
[36:57.930 --> 36:58.890]  What if you lose your phone?
[36:59.170 --> 37:01.150]  What if your email address gets hacked?
[37:01.390 --> 37:02.030]  You know, what if...
[37:02.030 --> 37:02.630]  I don't know.
[37:02.710 --> 37:05.070]  I'm just trying to think of ways that this could be defeated.
[37:05.570 --> 37:10.250]  A lot of services have fallback options like you can text your significant other if you lose your phone.
[37:10.550 --> 37:11.670]  See, one thing...
[37:11.670 --> 37:18.970]  Actually, I want to read this other piece that somebody posted because they had their Twitter account hacked and I've never had this happen.
[37:19.310 --> 37:28.650]  It must be the worst experience in the world and I really do sympathize and I'm not making air quotes and I might sound sarcastic but I'm really not.
[37:29.890 --> 37:30.810]  Hey, everybody.
[37:30.810 --> 37:31.970]  I was hacked on Twitter.
[37:32.930 --> 37:34.650]  Sounds like a line from The Simpsons.
[37:35.170 --> 37:39.930]  This is my account which I controlled until Thursday night around 9.45 p.m.
[37:39.930 --> 37:45.710]  At that point, I received an email from Twitter that somebody in Switzerland had attempted to log in.
[37:45.910 --> 37:49.610]  If this seems suspicious, they said I should probably change my password.
[37:49.850 --> 37:51.030]  It did seem suspicious.
[37:51.170 --> 37:59.930]  Unfortunately, I wasn't on my email at the time and less than 20 minutes later the password and email address associated with my account had been changed effectively locking me out.
[38:00.070 --> 38:01.770]  I have no idea why this happened.
[38:02.070 --> 38:08.310]  I write a lot of political stuff and it may have been retaliation for something negative I wrote about Trump but I have no evidence of that.
[38:08.450 --> 38:09.670]  All I have is speculation.
[38:09.970 --> 38:11.690]  I also have no idea how it happened.
[38:12.030 --> 38:13.510]  I didn't get Podesta'd.
[38:13.570 --> 38:17.410]  There was no phishing email to which I stupidly gave away my password.
[38:17.670 --> 38:20.170]  I didn't download any weird software that I'm aware of.
[38:20.170 --> 38:23.590]  I have no clue how the hacker successfully got into my account.
[38:24.150 --> 38:27.250]  I mean, I used a strong password called Password, right?
[38:27.390 --> 38:29.630]  No, I don't know either how they got in.
[38:29.770 --> 38:32.250]  All I know is it's been three days.
[38:32.250 --> 38:33.530]  I still have no access.
[38:35.250 --> 38:55.930]  When you try to navigate Twitter support, this is the nightmare this person went through, and finally find the section titled My Account Has Been Hacked and you basically discover their main piece of advice is to request a password reset which you can't do because that requires still having control over the account via an email address which is kind of tough when you've been hacked.
[38:56.710 --> 39:02.490]  And when you finally navigate the alternate options and submit a report detailing your problem, you get this reassuring message.
[39:03.150 --> 39:05.670]  Thanks, your request has been submitted to Twitter.
[39:05.850 --> 39:11.510]  We're usually able to respond within a few days but some issues may take longer.
[39:13.910 --> 39:15.830]  So, basically, yeah, okay, so cool.
[39:15.910 --> 39:20.450]  Somebody has access to my account but Twitter will probably get to it within a week or so, maybe longer.
[39:20.870 --> 39:21.650]  Who knows?
[39:22.530 --> 39:23.250]  Great system.
[39:23.450 --> 39:29.250]  Perhaps the hacker will also wait several days to tweet, write nationalist propaganda for my name in which case everything is just perfect.
[39:29.910 --> 39:43.250]  Okay, so when you realize Twitter will be of absolutely no help and you anxiously wait to see whether the hacker will start tweeting horrible things from your account or possibly do something worse, what can you do that's worse than that from a Twitter account?
[39:43.270 --> 39:44.150]  I don't know.
[39:44.690 --> 39:46.910]  Never gotten into somebody's Twitter account.
[39:47.050 --> 39:49.030]  You could post a picture of your naked back, apparently.
[39:49.650 --> 39:50.310]  Yeah, that's true.
[39:50.610 --> 39:52.410]  I don't know how that would be worse, but okay.
[39:52.590 --> 39:53.250]  They could delete your account.
[39:53.530 --> 39:54.670]  They could delete your account?
[39:54.710 --> 39:55.790]  Okay, I guess that is worse.
[39:56.130 --> 40:00.170]  Although, if they delete your account, then they can't post white nationalist propaganda anymore.
[40:00.550 --> 40:01.610]  So, there's that.
[40:01.750 --> 40:03.510]  Some people would view that as worse.
[40:04.370 --> 40:06.090]  Well, yeah, white nationalists might.
[40:07.450 --> 40:18.270]  Okay, so in this period of anxiety, you'll also wonder if they've hacked any other part of your internet life and whether you're about to be blackmailed, even though you're pretty sure there's nothing too offensive anywhere, you hope.
[40:19.390 --> 40:23.990]  And you also hope they don't just delete your account, which would suck, as Kyle said.
[40:23.990 --> 40:42.030]  But when you have to email everyone you know in a professional capacity to tell them that your Twitter has been hacked, just in case the hacker starts tweeting out racial slurs or something, I'd like to think that the people who follow you on Twitter would know something was up if you started acting in such a manner.
[40:42.110 --> 40:49.470]  And you wouldn't have to contact everybody to say, by the way, in case I start saying anything crazy, it's because I don't have control of my account anymore.
[40:49.470 --> 40:51.110]  This is a fact of life.
[40:51.430 --> 40:56.890]  People's accounts get taken over many, many times because of various reasons.
[40:57.090 --> 41:01.670]  I don't think that would work, because Twitter is a medium for people saying crazy stuff.
[41:01.850 --> 41:02.230]  That's true.
[41:02.570 --> 41:03.570]  That's absolutely true.
[41:03.710 --> 41:09.990]  But, you know, we all have our boundaries as to the kinds of crazy stuff we say.
[41:09.990 --> 41:14.930]  So if you said something that was kind of off your radar, I don't know, I just hope people would notice.
[41:16.350 --> 41:28.630]  Anyway, when in your desperation to talk to an actual human being, you find a phone number for Twitter, only to discover that after you press one for customer support, that, quote, unfortunately, Twitter does not support user... does not provide user support over the telephone.
[41:28.970 --> 41:33.490]  To find information and answers to your questions, please visit support.twitter.com.
[41:33.730 --> 41:39.050]  If you're unable to find what you're looking for, our help center contains information about contacting our team via email.
[41:39.250 --> 41:39.510]  Okay.
[41:39.870 --> 41:41.710]  I can see being driven crazy by this.
[41:42.590 --> 42:00.890]  When you brainstorm ways to alert Twitter to your problem and ask some friends to sound off on your behalf, and the only person who responds is your alleged hacker who retweets all these messages, because to him or her, it's hilarious, it's extra cool when the hacker also tweets out a Mighty Morphin's Power Rangers taunt at you,
[42:00.930 --> 42:03.650]  as if you haven't been owned enough already.
[42:04.470 --> 42:04.910]  Okay.
[42:05.210 --> 42:08.310]  So, uh, basically, um, this went on for quite some time.
[42:08.510 --> 42:15.050]  Uh, Twitter finally reached out via an email robot and, uh, said they restored your account to its original email.
[42:15.470 --> 42:23.610]  Uh, he felt a momentary sense of relief before attempting to reset the password, and Twitter basically at that point says, your email cannot be found.
[42:23.830 --> 42:25.770]  Then you try a different email, which also cannot be found.
[42:25.870 --> 42:30.450]  Finally, you try a phone number, and Twitter tells you, please try again later, you've exceeded the number of attempts.
[42:32.290 --> 42:32.690]  Yeah.
[42:32.950 --> 42:44.410]  So then when you decide, maybe you should use the platform available to you to write an article about the whole thing, and maybe this will spur some action or at least help somebody else after, uh, the hacker does more embarrassing things that I'm not going to get into here.
[42:45.070 --> 42:51.150]  Um, well, basically, I think that worked because, uh, they got the, uh, the account back after all that.
[42:51.270 --> 43:00.470]  But again, at the end, uh, the two-factor authentication is a solution to this, uh, in this article that is listed as, you know, if I had done that, this never would have happened in the first place.
[43:00.690 --> 43:05.310]  I, I completely agree with that, that, that I can, you know, unconditionally agree with.
[43:05.670 --> 43:08.650]  Um, but, you know, it raises a really big issue too.
[43:08.910 --> 43:10.390]  Well, actually two really big issues.
[43:10.430 --> 43:14.230]  I think this person was so confused and mystified how this happened.
[43:14.630 --> 43:16.290]  This happens all the time.
[43:16.570 --> 43:19.450]  I mean, it's this sort of rudimentary point, I think, for a lot of our listeners.
[43:19.670 --> 43:39.770]  But if you recycle passwords or if you even, uh, engage in changing your password, but it's a variation on a common theme, and let's say you had a LinkedIn account with a similar password that was a variation on your current password, they can access that data dump fairly easily and figure out what your password is very likely.
[43:39.990 --> 43:43.950]  We could spend the whole rest of the hour theorizing on ways to guess somebody's passwords.
[43:44.130 --> 43:57.330]  Anything from shoulder surfing, seeing what, how, what you typed in while you're sitting in an internet cafe, or, uh, as you said, similar to a LinkedIn password, brute forcing, simply guessing it, it being a common word, it being something, uh, that if you know the person,
[43:57.570 --> 43:59.550]  uh, you, you might be able to figure out what their password is.
[43:59.850 --> 44:03.370]  It's almost unlimited number of ways that you can guess somebody's password.
[44:03.530 --> 44:05.070]  So it's, it's, it's quite easy.
[44:05.170 --> 44:05.570]  That's true.
[44:05.730 --> 44:10.430]  But reclaiming accounts is a real big problem when you've been hacked.
[44:10.450 --> 44:14.810]  When somebody's compromised your accounts and changed your contact information, it's a really big problem.
[44:14.990 --> 44:16.130]  Well, okay, here's my idea then.
[44:16.330 --> 44:18.530]  Um, yeah, and that, that's a, that's a valid point.
[44:18.530 --> 44:22.410]  That's what happened to this person here, uh, because the, the email address was changed.
[44:22.590 --> 44:24.650]  So any change would go to the new email address.
[44:24.870 --> 44:29.090]  How about, uh, you, you, you have an option where you revert back a week.
[44:29.390 --> 44:36.350]  So the email address that you used a week ago is the one that they try to contact, not the new one that just got changed by the person who hacked your account.
[44:36.970 --> 44:38.310]  Wouldn't that, wouldn't that be a lot simpler?
[44:38.450 --> 44:44.870]  I guess possibly, or you could have some kind of additional method of authentication, like another two factor authentication.
[44:44.870 --> 44:47.730]  If you want to change the original contact information for an account.
[44:47.910 --> 44:51.990]  And this kind of thing makes a lot of sense in the domain name space as well.
[44:52.230 --> 45:01.870]  For instance, we have a lot of clients who get domain names hijacked by somebody compromising their registrar, like GoDaddy or 101 domain, changing the registrant information on domain.
[45:02.110 --> 45:09.690]  And then it's the registrant that's listed in the who is information in the database of who owns the domain, who has complete control over the domain.
[45:09.690 --> 45:12.590]  And then they transfer it out to somebody else.
[45:12.790 --> 45:19.070]  And then there's this ridiculous process called the transfer undo request form that ICANN mandates.
[45:19.110 --> 45:26.390]  And it takes at least a month to get a hijacked domain name back, like in this particular situation.
[45:27.050 --> 45:31.550]  So this is a general problem that we have with electronic media.
[45:31.750 --> 45:36.930]  A problem that can be fixed with some more attentive to security on our part.
[45:36.930 --> 45:37.470]  Sure.
[45:37.610 --> 45:39.890]  Or just a customer service answering a phone.
[45:40.110 --> 45:40.810]  Well, that too.
[45:40.890 --> 45:44.170]  But you have to understand with Twitter, you know, they don't consider us customers.
[45:44.810 --> 45:50.610]  You know, we're the product, you know, we're their means of selling advertising and you don't pay anything for the service.
[45:50.750 --> 45:52.050]  So they don't feel any obligation.
[45:52.330 --> 45:53.630]  But they're our friends though.
[45:53.770 --> 45:55.390]  They're in favor of net neutrality.
[45:55.630 --> 45:57.130]  They know what's best for us.
[45:57.950 --> 45:59.590]  Customer service isn't coming back though.
[45:59.910 --> 46:01.830]  I mean, they're not picking up phones.
[46:01.830 --> 46:12.410]  Those, like, those jobs running a call center at a web 2.0, like an app company, it's just not something they're spending money on.
[46:12.470 --> 46:13.710]  You can't even get the operator anymore.
[46:13.850 --> 46:15.130]  Dial zero, see what happens.
[46:15.470 --> 46:15.710]  Yeah.
[46:15.830 --> 46:16.610]  It's not pleasant.
[46:17.170 --> 46:17.370]  All right.
[46:17.410 --> 46:23.130]  You know, a couple of months ago, actually back in May, the University of Wisconsin at Madison lost their Twitter account.
[46:23.490 --> 46:32.150]  They had to wrestle back control after a hacker posted a series of bizarre and profane tweets to the university's 160,000 followers.
[46:32.850 --> 46:37.770]  One of those tweets, LOL, why go to university when he could just sit at home and fail at life and stuff?
[46:39.970 --> 46:45.970]  Now, okay, if you knew the University of Wisconsin at Madison, you'd know that wasn't them, right?
[46:46.070 --> 46:48.070]  You wouldn't think, oh yeah, they're in a bad mood today.
[46:48.250 --> 46:49.550]  It's a little too cheesy.
[46:49.750 --> 46:50.330]  You'd know.
[46:50.490 --> 46:52.230]  You'd know something where they wouldn't have to tell you.
[46:52.230 --> 46:53.230]  All right.
[46:53.350 --> 47:01.050]  Well, someone accessed the UW Madison account, tweeted four times between 631 AM and 636 AM.
[47:01.210 --> 47:02.670]  What, this happened only within five minutes?
[47:02.950 --> 47:07.390]  Posting a YouTube link and a message that appeared to credit another Twitter user for the account.
[47:08.510 --> 47:18.690]  It was, needless to say, a sharp turn from the tweets typically posted by the social media savvy university's communication staff, which often focuses on campus life, faculty research, and athletics.
[47:18.810 --> 47:20.090]  I don't know about 630 in the morning though.
[47:20.610 --> 47:26.430]  The tweets stayed up for about three hours as UW officials worked with Twitter to restore the account.
[47:26.810 --> 47:35.770]  A university statement said officials did not know how the account was compromised, but said UW will undertake a review of its social media account security in the wake of the disruption.
[47:35.770 --> 47:38.850]  And that is the right way to reply to this.
[47:39.010 --> 47:43.810]  You know, not calling the cops, making a big investigation out of it, realizing they can do better.
[47:44.030 --> 47:47.630]  They can fix this by looking at themselves and looking at their security.
[47:47.950 --> 47:49.990]  And they got their account back pretty quickly.
[47:50.010 --> 47:52.390]  I guess the bigger you are, the more power you have on Twitter.
[47:52.650 --> 47:53.230]  That's how it works.
[47:53.410 --> 47:55.890]  Leave it to academia to always know the right answer.
[47:56.130 --> 47:56.490]  Yes.
[47:57.610 --> 47:57.990]  Absolutely.
[47:58.190 --> 48:02.390]  And of course, you also have the case of Twitter users who are suing President Trump for being blocked.
[48:02.770 --> 48:09.430]  Apparently, again, it only happens if you have a lot of followers and a lot or a lot of retweeters.
[48:09.610 --> 48:15.010]  Because here's an example of the things that got people blocked by President Trump.
[48:15.810 --> 48:28.130]  One plaintiff, Holly Figueroa, replied to the president in a series of tweets, including one that contained an image of Pope Francis looking incredulously at President Trump, along with the statement, this is pretty much how the whole world sees you.
[48:28.530 --> 48:32.610]  Her reply received nearly 15,000 likes and 5,300 retweets.
[48:32.750 --> 48:34.790]  Later that night, she discovered she had been blocked by Trump.
[48:35.550 --> 48:48.550]  After Trump tweeted, sorry, folks, but if I would have relied on the fake news of CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, washpost, or Nye Times, New York Times, I would have had zero chance winning WH White House.
[48:49.330 --> 48:53.870]  Rebecca Buckwalter replied, to be fair, you didn't win the White House.
[48:54.030 --> 48:55.130]  Russia won it for you.
[48:55.470 --> 49:02.110]  Her reply drew 9,100 likes, 3,400 retweets, and a block by President Trump.
[49:02.250 --> 49:09.950]  And also after Trump retweeted the new Rasmussen poll, one of the most accurate in the 2016 election, just out with a Trump 50% approval rating.
[49:10.090 --> 49:12.910]  That's higher than O's, Obama's.
[49:13.510 --> 49:16.910]  Another plaintiff, Eugene Doe, replied, Covfefe.
[49:17.890 --> 49:23.550]  The same guy who doesn't proofread his Twitter handles the nuclear button.
[49:23.850 --> 49:28.170]  His reply drew 2,900 likes, 300 retweets, and he got blocked as well.
[49:28.270 --> 49:31.750]  So these people are suing Donald Trump.
[49:31.750 --> 49:35.850]  They're suing Sean Spicer, the White House director of social media.
[49:36.950 --> 49:42.470]  Because when you're blocked from President Trump's Twitter account, you can't see what he's saying.
[49:42.890 --> 49:46.770]  And they're basically saying this violates their constitutional rights in a number of ways.
[49:46.830 --> 49:57.630]  They argue the president has restricted their participation in what is basically a public forum, their ability to access official public statements made by him, their capacity to petition the government to air their grievances.
[49:57.710 --> 49:58.970]  And I think they've got a very good point.
[49:59.170 --> 50:00.650]  What do you think as a lawyer, Alex?
[50:01.110 --> 50:08.890]  Yeah, I think the lawyer that took that case should just be, you know, strung up and hung and drawn and quartered for taking something.
[50:09.130 --> 50:12.050]  No, I mean, actually, there's a really valid point here.
[50:12.190 --> 50:18.570]  I think, on the one hand, Twitter is a medium that is not controlled by the government.
[50:18.570 --> 50:27.490]  And I presume that this was the at real Donald Trump account and not the POTUS account, is what we're probably talking about, but that seems to be... I think it was real Donald Trump.
[50:27.530 --> 50:30.030]  The real Donald Trump account is... They're interchangeable, though.
[50:30.210 --> 50:30.750]  They are.
[50:31.230 --> 50:32.270]  Yeah, that's true.
[50:32.650 --> 50:44.030]  But, you know, Twitter not being owned or operated by the government, it becomes a very tricky issue because are we talking about who's regulating the speech here?
[50:44.570 --> 50:46.970]  And to whom should you complain about being blocked?
[50:46.970 --> 50:48.370]  Well, Twitter didn't block them.
[50:48.510 --> 50:49.010]  He blocked them.
[50:49.010 --> 50:49.070]  No, I know.
[50:49.070 --> 50:50.590]  I know Donald Trump blocked them.
[50:50.590 --> 51:01.050]  It's like, okay, I mean, this probably isn't a good analogy legally, but imagine you're critical of CBS, and CBS tells your cable company, all right, don't let them watch CBS anymore.
[51:01.810 --> 51:04.010]  You would say, CBS, that's not right.
[51:04.010 --> 51:04.850]  You can't do that to me.
[51:05.070 --> 51:06.190]  I completely agree.
[51:06.330 --> 51:11.670]  Now, I think this is partly a problem with Twitter's policies, where if you're blocked, you can't see the person.
[51:11.770 --> 51:13.850]  It's not just that you can't post onto their timeline.
[51:13.850 --> 51:15.830]  That becomes a bit of an issue.
[51:16.290 --> 51:33.570]  But Donald Trump blocking them does seem like it would not only be some sort of abridgment of their right to speech, because if this is being used as an official channel of communications, then every individual should have a right to comment on whatever the president is saying.
[51:33.790 --> 51:43.750]  On the other hand, is it really some sort of official government action that's being taken on a personal Twitter account to abridge those rights?
[51:43.790 --> 51:54.250]  Because the Bill of Rights, our constitutional rights only apply to the government, the states, through the doctrine of incorporation, and the federal government.
[51:54.350 --> 51:56.370]  They were designed specifically for the federal government.
[51:56.370 --> 52:01.950]  So we need some sort of government action to abridge a constitutional right in order for it to be actionable.
[52:02.190 --> 52:04.190]  I think this is an incredibly interesting case.
[52:04.270 --> 52:07.050]  I'd love to follow it more closely.
[52:07.210 --> 52:09.530]  And we should report back on this in the weeks ahead.
[52:09.770 --> 52:11.630]  I'm very curious to see how it'll turn out.
[52:11.930 --> 52:12.970]  Me too, definitely.
[52:13.510 --> 52:18.190]  Also, we are definitely interested in hearing what our listeners have to say.
[52:18.410 --> 52:20.990]  OTH at 2600.com is our email address.
[52:21.270 --> 52:29.030]  Here's a couple of letters that we got over the past week following our discussion of the media and the administration.
[52:29.690 --> 52:33.810]  Last week, in the early days of the Iraqi invasion, when George W.
[52:33.990 --> 52:39.690]  Bush blamed Saddam Hussein for 9-11, when it was really Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi Ministry of Defense held a press conference.
[52:40.390 --> 52:41.890]  CNN decided to cover it.
[52:41.970 --> 52:53.790]  Within the first few minutes, when the Iraqi spokesman said some highly questionable things, a female announcer interrupted the press conference and said, we are going to break away from this press conference because the United States would not like what they are saying.
[52:55.630 --> 52:56.890]  I would like to see that.
[52:57.130 --> 52:58.390]  I, you know, okay, but fine.
[52:58.490 --> 52:59.290]  Let me continue with the letter here.
[52:59.450 --> 53:00.610]  I couldn't believe what I heard.
[53:00.730 --> 53:01.510]  This is not reporting.
[53:01.630 --> 53:02.130]  It's censorship.
[53:02.550 --> 53:04.910]  CNN and all the others are hyper-nationalists.
[53:05.010 --> 53:06.750]  That's why WBAI is a step above.
[53:07.090 --> 53:08.710]  Don't consider them fellow journalists.
[53:08.870 --> 53:09.570]  They are not.
[53:09.930 --> 53:10.730]  Signed Donnelly.
[53:11.110 --> 53:13.350]  Well, Donnelly, you know, I have to disagree here.
[53:13.750 --> 53:23.770]  Yes, you can point to any journalistic outlet and find things that they did wrong that are... and we're no exception here at WBAI.
[53:23.890 --> 53:24.670]  I'd probably hear it off the hook.
[53:25.450 --> 53:28.930]  But first of all, I question whether that exact phrase was uttered.
[53:29.030 --> 53:31.910]  That sounds like something that would have gotten a hell of a lot more attention.
[53:32.330 --> 53:37.870]  But even if they had done something like that, even if they had been completely shamed... and they have.
[53:37.930 --> 53:40.530]  They have been ultra-nationalist in the past.
[53:41.830 --> 53:43.250]  That's a different time.
[53:43.350 --> 53:44.170]  Those are different reporters.
[53:44.410 --> 53:45.890]  We're focused on the now.
[53:46.050 --> 53:48.110]  We're focused on what they are doing at the moment.
[53:48.390 --> 53:51.070]  And do we come to their defense?
[53:51.070 --> 53:52.990]  Or do we say they are wrong?
[53:53.110 --> 53:53.970]  It's as simple as that.
[53:54.790 --> 53:56.710]  And journalists have to stick together.
[53:56.890 --> 54:00.170]  Media has to stick together in many ways, especially when they are all being threatened.
[54:00.270 --> 54:01.470]  And that is what's happening today.
[54:01.750 --> 54:04.670]  That's why, yeah, you know, we defend the New York Times.
[54:04.830 --> 54:05.850]  We defend the Washington Post.
[54:06.030 --> 54:07.910]  We defend CNN when they're right.
[54:07.910 --> 54:09.730]  We criticize them when they're wrong.
[54:10.050 --> 54:18.710]  But the importance of a free and open media, free and open newspapers, and broadcasting entities, that is vital.
[54:18.850 --> 54:19.850]  That is vital to our freedom.
[54:19.890 --> 54:23.550]  And if we simply start judging and saying, well, you know, you're worthless.
[54:23.550 --> 54:26.730]  I'm not going to come to your defense because I don't like what you said five years ago.
[54:27.350 --> 54:34.070]  That is how it all falls apart, because we become fractured, we become weaker, and we're not there for each other.
[54:34.230 --> 54:39.230]  And the whole thing will be smashed into little pieces, which, believe me, is what Donald Trump wants.
[54:40.690 --> 54:45.290]  I think we should be able to have solidarity with CNN, but at the same time criticize them.
[54:45.490 --> 54:46.190]  Yeah, they're not there.
[54:46.350 --> 54:56.390]  They're chauvinism is not something of the past that when Trump attacked the Assad base, they were calling saying like, oh, this is the first president time he's active presidential.
[54:56.670 --> 54:57.970]  So let's not sugarcoat how good.
[54:58.330 --> 54:58.750]  No, no, no, no, no.
[54:58.790 --> 55:04.150]  Van Jones said that he one person said that he was roundly criticized on CNN for saying that.
[55:04.450 --> 55:08.130]  But CNN is a very national, like nationalistic pro war.
[55:08.650 --> 55:09.610]  No, they're not.
[55:09.750 --> 55:10.110]  They're not.
[55:10.210 --> 55:10.730]  That's ridiculous.
[55:11.070 --> 55:14.370]  I know, no more so than any other mainstream US news outlet.
[55:14.550 --> 55:18.250]  But we should, but that's not to say that they're... They have pro war people.
[55:18.430 --> 55:19.610]  They say nationalistic things.
[55:19.730 --> 55:21.330]  It's not, it's not part of their doctrine.
[55:21.650 --> 55:26.490]  I mean, Fox News, you can say that about, because I don't know how, how you can say it about Fox News.
[55:26.490 --> 55:33.490]  But, but, um, most media outlets that, that I respect at least attempt to be somewhat fair and neutral.
[55:33.670 --> 55:41.610]  All of these news outlets and their editorial lines were pro Iraq war and pro, uh, and pro, uh, war in Libya.
[55:41.890 --> 55:44.310]  And unfortunately, most people were pro Iraq war too.
[55:44.890 --> 55:46.770]  That's, that's a tragedy and that's a mistake.
[55:46.770 --> 55:48.690]  And I think they realize that now as well.
[55:48.790 --> 55:50.950]  But we have higher standards for media outlets then.
[55:51.230 --> 55:51.930]  That's true.
[55:52.090 --> 55:54.810]  But the thing is, you know, do you, do you hold on to that forever?
[55:54.810 --> 55:55.930]  No, of course not.
[55:56.050 --> 55:58.790]  You need to have solidarity with them when you're being attacked by a common enemy.
[55:58.810 --> 56:00.130]  And that is what's happening right now.
[56:00.270 --> 56:01.030]  No, I agree with you on that.
[56:01.030 --> 56:06.430]  And we need to, we need to be getting together a lot more than, than judging each other and, and purging and all that.
[56:06.790 --> 56:07.610]  Yeah, that's time for that.
[56:07.730 --> 56:11.970]  Later, after we've won something, but right now we're losing time and time again.
[56:12.590 --> 56:14.030]  And we need more friends.
[56:14.230 --> 56:18.490]  We need more, uh, more of a united front against the, uh, the dangers we're facing.
[56:19.650 --> 56:28.370]  I think that it's so important to listen to all different types of media outlets that we shouldn't shun anyone in particular, that we should be listening to Al Jazeera.
[56:28.490 --> 56:32.150]  We should be listening to, for Christ's sakes, you know, Russia today.
[56:32.530 --> 56:41.550]  Sometimes we should be looking at all the various sources because if we shun any individual viewpoint, just because we may not have agreed with something they've done.
[56:41.670 --> 56:48.990]  For instance, think about the op editorial in the New York Times that was pro-climate change a couple of months ago and people started canceling their subscriptions.
[56:49.310 --> 56:54.430]  I think that is the absolute wrong way to go about disagreeing with the media.
[56:54.590 --> 56:54.830]  Right, right.
[56:54.870 --> 57:00.570]  For Christ's sakes, we are supposed to be smart people who can objectively look at the facts.
[57:00.730 --> 57:04.950]  We don't just tout the position of NPR or the New York Times or Fox News.
[57:05.170 --> 57:17.430]  We need to look at things objectively because the political process these days is less about rationality and logic and argument and more about mobilization of the lowest common denominator.
[57:17.650 --> 57:30.930]  And that is facilitated when we refuse to look at things objectively, when we begin to fracture the media, and when we forget that there are differing viewpoints out there that may, in fact, actually be valid and inform our own viewpoints.
[57:31.110 --> 57:31.410]  Yes.
[57:31.830 --> 57:40.610]  Criticize by all means, dissect, but don't shut out because when you do that, you're losing as well and it just makes us all weaker.
[57:41.250 --> 57:42.690]  We'll continue this discussion.
[57:42.690 --> 57:50.630]  Next week begins the two-week fundraiser for the summer, and we will, of course, be here for that as well.
[57:51.130 --> 57:57.570]  One thing concerning the spring fundraiser, we had a slight issue with the hacker grab bag.
[57:58.030 --> 58:04.670]  If you pledge for the hacker grab bag, apparently we have one too many people who pledged for that, and we only had a certain number.
[58:05.150 --> 58:07.730]  It's a whole counting issue that we have here.
[58:07.790 --> 58:11.730]  If you're one of the people who have pledged for that, email us, OTH at 2600.com.
[58:12.250 --> 58:18.610]  And if you're willing to consider getting something else instead, we're trying to make everybody happy here.
[58:18.690 --> 58:21.230]  And if we can sort that out, that would make things a lot easier.
[58:21.370 --> 58:28.790]  So if you're one of the people who emailed us, or who pledged for the hacker grab bag a few weeks back, email us, OTH at 2600.com.
[58:28.930 --> 58:30.030]  We'll try to work something out.
[58:30.190 --> 58:31.370]  We only need one person to do that.
[58:32.090 --> 58:33.490]  Again, we'll be back again next week.
[58:33.670 --> 58:34.510]  Emanuel for Off The Hook.
[58:34.610 --> 58:35.030]  Have a good night.