the rachel maddow show, transcript 06/10/13 - how to make air cooler at home

by:HICOOL     2019-07-11
the rachel maddow show, transcript 06/10/13  -  how to make air cooler at home
Host Rachel Cherry: That's right.
You're here, ladies and gentlemen.
It just happened. All right.
Thank you for staying with us at home for this hour. Happy Monday.
We're starting tonight with this cool kid.
Her name is CyFi. C-Y-F-I.
CyFi is obviously colder than me and probably much colder than you. No offense.
CyFi founded the children of the so-called DefCon.
DefCon is the annual conference for computer hackers, for those who think they are white hat computer hackers.
Think of yourself as a good person in the hacker world.
The child part of DefCon is called DefCon kids.
CyFi is one of the founding hackers of the convention.
In 2011, CyFi found a bug in the mobile app.
She found a bug called time traveler that exists in the game you play on your phone.
She said she found the bug when she began to get tired of the game.
In figuring out how to change the time configurator in the game, she found some obvious weaknesses in the game that are said to have passed various official company types of security tests.
She found the mistake of time traveler in a game called "Smurfs Village.
She found it in the pocket frog.
She found it at Zombie Farm.
She found it and fixed it in farm story.
She did it when she was 10.
When I was 10 years old, I was losing a battle with cursive every day.
But CyFi is debugging the phone app.
On 2011, at DefCon kids, they held a contest for other young hackers trying to do the same job.
Essentially, this is a bug chase contest for computer code.
Find and fix it.
They named the game after her.
Big company AT&T awards for winning the game at DefCon kids that year because AT&T is clearly one of those companies that are smart enough to know if you have a choice, it's good that hackers try to help you.
You can see the lower case letter on this logo here and see that it is CyFi C-Y-F-
Me, CyFi zero day.
This is her game.
Last year, her logo appeared on the guy's shirt.
This guy is one of the most powerful people in the country.
His name is Keith B. Alexander.
He is often referred to as "General Alexander" because he is a general of the United States. S. Army.
People who make a living in uniforms sometimes don't wear uniforms when they suddenly appear in public, so forgive him for hiding in t-shirt.
But there he is.
General Alexander is the commander of the United States. S. Cyber Command.
He is the head of the National Security Agency, and we sometimes forget that he is part of the military.
Last year, as part of his job, he took off his uniform and put on jeans and t-
Talked to CyFi's DefCon Kids.
He also talked to adults.
Ups, white hat, nice guy growing up
Hacker of Up con.
That's him at the Hacker game. logo t-
Shirt in jeans.
Standing up at the hacking conference, he spoke to the room full of hackers because he wanted to hire them as the head of the NSA. (
Start Video Editing)GEN.
Keith Alexander, director of the NSA: I think what we really want to do is freedom of innovation.
How will we see where we will put this next.
This is not only a great opportunity for our country, but also a great opportunity for the world.
One thing you know I'm very proud to say is that when you look at the Vint Cerf and others, we are the ones who help with development.
We built this Internet.
We should be the first to protect it.
I think you can help us. (END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: General NSA at the hacking conference. The U. S.
For some time, the government has been openly trying to hire hackers, especially in terms of national security and intelligence.
Before General Alexander attended the hacking conference last year, the National Security Agency set up a special website to recruit computer hackers.
It says, quote, "If you have some, we can say, don't panic about your past indiscretion. ” Apply anyhow.
At that meeting, General Alexander personally told the hacker, "From my point of view, what you are doing to find out the holes in our system is absolutely necessary.
CNN has a reporter in the back of the room, he said, what you are doing is absolutely needed, and a hacker behind the room then yelled at the general, "Stop arresting us then!
Complicated, right?
Last week, The Washington Post and The Guardian, a few minutes later, reported the existence of a huge US scoop. S.
The NSA's surveillance system is called Prism.
The system collects information from some of the largest Internet companies in the country, such as your videos, pictures and emails
Mail, your chat
So these things are not just traveling between you and the person you correspond to, in a sense they are transferred to the data cache in the USS. government.
The stories come with classified slides, leaked from what looks like NSA training material, showing which Internet companies are said to have let the customer's private data flow into this prism, when the data flow of each company starts.
The confidential slides were anonymously leaked to The Washington Post and The Guardian.
"Then, over the weekend, the person who said he leaked the slides stood up and recognized himself.
The guy, who leaked the details of this highly classified surveillance program, shocked Washington officials by saying he never graduated from high school.
Instead, they joined the Army.
He was exhausted after being injured in a training accident.
He told the Guardian, and then he found a security job at a secret National Security Agency at the University of Maryland.
He said that then he found a job in the CIA, working on computer security, which seems to be a leap from security to CIA computer personnel.
But it is reported that his computer skills, especially internet skills, have put him on the fast track in intelligence.
He then said that the CIA sent him to Switzerland in a diplomatic capacity to maintain the security of the computer network.
He then left the government's work and life in the private sector,
Pay for work for at least two different intelligence contractors who do the same work as he does for the government, but now he works for external companies and gets bank pay.
If you think about it, this guy's career track is terrible, right?
From dropping out of high school to Army cleaning to $200 a year in highly classified AmericaS.
In less than a decade, the intelligence service worked for Elite agencies.
For a long time, I have only held positions such as technical assistants.
The Washington Post quoted a former CIA official as saying that,
The description's leaker is used to describe his position in the CIA, at least not necessarily matching the internal description of the agency's description of the work.
The Guardian produced this video, introducing the world to the person who leaked the NSA documents, hiding in a hotel room in Hong Kong, dodging the world's largest superpower because of him, 29-year-
The former technical assistant has just leaked the top and most secret Internet surveillance program in the superpower.
If what is happening here is what he says is happening here, this fairly ordinary person obviously has access to something very important, from a government perspective, very secret information must not be leaked without causing great damage to the country.
If it is so secret, so I have to keep it secret, is it strange for him to know that?
How many others know about it?
Back in 2010, The Washington Post reported on the third person with top talent
The secret permission of the country does not work for the government.
They work for contractors.
In January, the director of national intelligence reported that more than 480,000 contractors had obtained top secret permits.
Another 580,000 persons have obtained confidential or secret permission.
This means that there are now more than 1 million contractors and people working for private companies can see highly confidential information.
After 9/11, the smart world has changed.
It's not just getting bigger.
It also changed according to the diagnosis, and part of the reason that 9/11 happened was because the point was not connected.
Intelligence is too scattered.
Not enough people can get enough information to see the whole picture and understand the relationship between things.
So the intelligence community has changed so that more people can see more things at the same time.
Let these changes make your average 20-
There are thousands of people with permission, there are posts
The 9/11 change makes it so simple, so there's more to the normal purring with gaps than the normal purring you could have come into contact with in the past.
Do you have to be a higher person before 9/11?
Ranking people in order to be exposed to this kind of thing that has just been leaked?
So many licensed people don't work for the government right now, do they work for the company, is there any difference?
They work for contractors?
I mean, you can illustrate your situation in any way, but the two most important leakers of this generation are this one, he worked for the contractor Booz Allen and Bradley Manning, who was working for the Army at the time.
They all leaked.
They're all low-key.
But they can all reach high.
Level information.
The two stories are most notable and most similar not to who they work directly for, but to whom these people are one of thousands of Americans.
Horizontal clearance-high-
Provide a fairly low level gap-
Give employees access to documents that are truly highly confidential.
How can a 22-year-oldyear-
Old private first class or 29-year-
The visit of the old technical assistant to the documents on the secret Disclosure Project shocked the government?
If you have so many
Level employees are looking at information that the government will not talk about in public about your large intrusion monitoring machine, how secure do you think this information is?
It is almost a natural conclusion that among thousands of people, one will decide to divulge the belief that what they do is ultimately for the benefit of the public, or at least satisfy the curiosity of the public.
And then if you're so low
Level employees have access to the so-called super that is very highly confidential
You decide to make this information public, and how do you decide what to do with it?
If you are so skilled, why not do it yourself?
You're a computer guy.
You might even be a computer geek, I mean, why not post it online yourself as a cute term?
Why through the intermediary?
Why the media?
Why go to two different media sources, as happened in this case?
Why are these journalists specially selected?
The Guardian author of these stories is Glenn Greenwald.
He has been a guest of the show many times.
I have known Glen for a long time.
He is a longtime national security blogger who has been critical of monitoring and secrecy.
He is an absolute civil libertarian and one of the most convincing people we have. Mr.
Greenwald has been vocal in supporting the report.
Blow generally.
He was particularly outspoken about Bradley Manning.
The author of the "Washington post" in these articles is Barton Galman.
He has a great reputation for national intelligence.
This history, I think, may be important, has led him to be attacked as a journalist.
He is not attacked as a leaker, but as a person who publishes information that the government may not want to release. (
Start Video Editing)]
Unidentified men: we have a special word for the people who provide information to the enemies of their country.
Man: What is that word?
Man: What words do we use? Traitor. Traitor.
Washington Post Barton gaelman: I really hate that someone has accused us of not being a patriot, or that if we publish the secrets that the government has said, we are indifferent to the security of the United States.
I think everything I do is as patriotic as what soldiers or intelligence officers do. (END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: if you're looking for a safe journalist for your story to post information that the government doesn't want to post, you can see the appeal of talking to that reporter, right?
I should mention this from the film's "secret" clip, in which the man who called Barton Gelman a traitor was the former head of information security at the NSA.
Barton Gelman, a Washington Post reporter, must defend himself to prevent the NSA from accusing him of being a traitor, 2008, he won the Pulitzer Prize for covering Dick Cheney's impact on national security policy.
He won the Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for reporting that the war on terrorism began in 2009.
Prior to the Iraq war, nonsense about aluminum tubes that Saddam could only use for his nuclear program, Barton Gellman broke the news that the White House knew that these aluminum tubes were not necessarily nuclear at all, even if they publicly said the opposite.
Librarians in Connecticut have received messages from those who are national security letters ordering them to hand over the people who use the library, the exclusive news of Bart Gellman.
The strategic support department, a secret CIA
Just like the agency within the Pentagon directly responding to Donald Ramsey, this is Patton gaelman's exclusive news.
Barton Gellman revealed that bin Laden had appeared in Tora Bora, and the Bush administration concluded that he had fought from there.
On March 2002, six months after the 9/11 incident, Bart Gellman broke the news that the Bush administration had senior officials and senior federal officials carry out the bunker mission and let them live and work secretly outside Washington, to ensure continuity in the government's attacks in Washington.
9/11 of the news is Vice President Cheney, not President Bush.
Bart Gellman broke the record of the hijacked civilian aircraft.
Now he has this new one.
Now we are joined by Barton Galman.
He is currently on the Washington Post mission and is also a special editor of The Washington Post. at-
He is a big figure in Time magazine and a senior researcher at the Century Foundation.
Thank you for being here, Barton.
German: Thank you.
MADDOW: Let me ask you first, is there a place where your story has been widely reported wrong or bad in all the extensive coverage of your story?
GELLMAN: Well, there is a problem with this response, because there are a lot of people around you who say it's no different from any other type of warrant, it's a normal subpoena, they found the possible reason and went to the court.
It was not until then that the government entered the servers of Facebook, Google or Microsoft to extract information.
Something that I miss very much, and a big point is that there are secret opinions in the surveillance court that only meet in secret and post only confidential opinions, that is, instead of having to specify a phone number or email
These emails are defined as facilities under FISA law.
Now, you can define that the facility that allows the search is the entire server, the entire network switch, and all the congressional libraries pass the fiber optic cable every 14 seconds.
This is the facility you can search.
Each year the judge reproves this based on evidence and findings that others do not see.
So, the problem here is that this kind of surveillance is systematic on a large scale and we have to trust the United States. S.
When the government says we are very careful to make sure that we are not targeting Americans and that we are not using their information properly.
No check.
MADDOW: in terms of the way companies are named in a particular slide, the way those companies respond.
Their response appears to be very carefully worded and very strongly denies that they deliberately have nothing to do with it.
What do you think of the way they respond, and are their descriptions of their actions consistent with your understanding of the project?
GELLMAN: they have good lawyers, they are very well drafted, these statements, or they are for something that is not very relevant.
For example, Apple has said that we have never heard of PRISM. OK.
So you don't know the code name.
You know that the gentleman from the NSA and the FBI came to your door and asked you to make some arrangements.
Others on Facebook made a very interesting statement.
I know Joe Sullivan, chief security officer there.
He is a good man.
He wrote that when the government comes to us to ask about a person's information, we will review it carefully and make sure the possible reasons and so on.
He didn't say that they didn't come to us and sometimes asked the whole thing. MADDOW: Right.
GELLMAN: he just talked about it when they came to someone.
So they are basically designed to escape from reality.
One reason we know this isS.
The government has confirmed the outline of the project in the process of commenting on the project, or in the process of asking us to refuse to publish something.
MADDOW: will these companies say no?
Is it very important that Twitter is not on the list of companies described as participating in this project?
GELLMAN: I found it very interesting that twitter is not on the list.
Now, it's a young company, so in the early days of the project, it's not as big or important as it is now.
But Twitter also has a reputation for struggling for user privacy, especially in one case, twitter is the recipient of a national security letter you shouldn't have received-and there are some sealed orders for Twitter.
Twitter sought permission in court to notify users so they could oppose the summons before the judge ruled.
This is very unusual for a company.
I don't know that's why Twitter is not in this project, but you can look at it this way-the attorney general has the right under the law to force a company to participate in this project, if the company is holding back, it can go to judge FISA, secretly monitor the court, and get orders enforced.
However, no one is willing to do so.
I mean, when you have a giant like this-you have a huge secret project, you have very big, powerful, but there are also highly regulated companies, neither of them wants to fight.
So, there is a long-term negotiation.
These companies have a lot of room for maneuver.
So there are five.
The year gap between Microsoft's time to join and Apple's time to join, Apple is their last time to join.
Obviously, it is said that the Dropbox on these slides will appear soon.
So it is clear that they have to address some of the technical issues, but there are ways in which companies can negotiate access and conditions.
MADDOW: do you think disclosure of the outline of this project will interfere with the ability of this project to proceed, or will it help anyone who wants to escape this form of monitoring to escape it?
GELLMAN: The United States is already a matter of public record. S.
The government demands the United StatesS.
When companies collect information about foreign threats and foreign communications, they cooperate. The U. S.
The government has always said so.
One of the most confidential things in this briefing, in terms of the draft briefing, he said three times that these companies are very important to us and we can't do anything that hurts them.
He means: the reputation is damaged, the market is damaged, and the public image is damaged.
For me, when something is classified as something the company is doing that the public strongly disapproves of, it is precisely the wrong reason to categorize something.
This is a strong reason to think that this is what we should reveal.
MADDOW: Barton Gelman, a special editor of Time magazine, is currently working for The Washington Post and is also a researcher at the Century Foundation and a very, very busy
Thank you for helping us understand this.
Will you keep in touch with us as things go?
German: I will.
You know the guy who called me a traitor, I asked him to come to the Princeton confidential class I taught, and we had a great time.
Did he resign?
Perhaps traitors are not all bad people, he said.
Very good.
Then he killed you. All right.
We will be back soon. (
Business break)
MADDOW: President Obama attended the summit of the Americas last year.
In preparation for the trip, two days before the president arrived in Colombia, 55 members of the Secret Service were sent to Colombia to prepare for his visit safely.
They live here. Lovely place.
Nice swimming pool.
There is a green garden. Fountains. Balconies. Lots to see. Lots to do.
Spend some time in this magical Caribbean wonderland.
What happened before the president's trip to Colombia was one of the things in the movie hangover, except for not including Zach gallifianakis, Bradley Cooper or the baby.
Including the president's secret service.
Learn about the relevant settings of the evening course including a luxury local strip club called Hard Rock Cafe, as well as a pop music club, a luxurious local strip club, Hard Rock Cafe, there is also a popular disco bar called Tu Candela.
Then the situation of the prostitute.
Having returned to the luxury hotel after consultation on terms and services, apparently there was a dispute between the two of the Secret Service and the young lady they brought back to the hotel.
She finally complained to the local police.
The police finally got in touch with the US police. S.
Embassy, the result is not just them, but other agents have also been exposed for bringing paid female friends back to the hotel and some pretty epic drunkenness.
So, the president's trip to the American summit is basically completely covered up, and now people think of the Secret Service's drunken carnival, maybe it's cheap crime, when it comes to paying and on official business.
That was last year.
This is the Secret Service scandal in Colombia.
Today, a new chapter.
Today, CBS News released an excerpt from a draft inspector general's report.
This is also about prostitutes traveling abroad.
But in this case, the customer of the prostitute is not the secret service that protects the president.
It is said to be a security detail protecting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
CBS quoted eight recent investigations, one of which accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of security details of citing the claim that "engage a prostitute while traveling on official business in a foreign country.
The report says the problem is widespread.
"Oh, wait, there's more.
Another example of the US State Department's internal negotiations is "negotiations between the United States and the United States. S.
An ambassador who served in a diplomatic position and was suspected of visiting prostitutes in a public park.
"The Memorandum of the Inspector General of the State Council referred to the 2011 investigation of an ambassador, who quoted the words" frequently discarded his security details ", and the inspectors suspected that it was to ask prostitutes for sexual favors.
The ambassador was reportedly summoned to Washington, D. C. C.
He was reportedly scolded there by a deputy minister and then allowed to return to work.
There was no news as to how much the deputy minister's scolding had left him back.
The general situation here, the memo or draft report was leaked here because the investigators of the diplomatic security agency said that an investigation like this was blocked or revoked by a superior --
Ups of the State Council.
In addition to the ambassador's alleged prostitute problem and the so-called prostitute problem in Hillary Clinton's security details, it is reported that, A State Council security official in Beirut "sexually assaulted foreign nationals employed as embassy guards" has also been investigated.
I know that "sexual assault" is a strange language, but it is a reference in this so called report.
Another investigation was reportedly directed at an underground drug cartel allegedly operating near the United States. S.
US Embassy in Baghdad supplies drugs to US State Department security contractors
So far, the Office of the Inspector General has indicated that it will not comment on the draft report.
The State Council said today that we take the allegations of misconduct seriously and conduct a thorough investigation.
A ministry spokesman said, "in any case, it is absurd that we will not vigorously pursue the concept of criminal misconduct in the case.
The ambassadors are no exception.
The State Department says all the cases that CBS mentioned today have been thoroughly investigated, or are still under investigation, but to be honest, this greedy behavior is basically not spreading now
It is certainly not the last time you have heard the news, rebuttal said.
Look at this space. (
Business break)
The Iranian president was killed in a helicopter crash. He`s fine. He survived it.
Britain's Sun tabloids seized the chance of the accident, calling him "pints-sized tyrant.
The sun is always elegant.
But in addition to the tabloids, it's a bit strange to report the way the helicopter crashed.
Maybe a little important.
In addition to the crazy Republican ticket that Virginia is running, there is only one very strange thing that happens in the world's most strange elections.
So this is coming.
Helicopter crash, etc. (
Business break)(
Start Video Editing)REP. MIKE ROGERS (R)
Michigan: take a very sensitive classification plan, target foreigners on the outer land, put enough things there is dangerous for us, it is dangerous for our national security(END VIDEO CLIP)
The disclosure of this information is dangerous to our national security.
That's Mike Rogers, a Republican congressman from Michigan, a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, proving that disclosure of these surveillance programs in the past week alone basically endangers the effectiveness of future programs.
If you say these things, we can't do that anymore.
This particular argument is now made on the basis of both parties.
Republicans, like Democrats, don't necessarily express anger at the program, and some of them also express anger, but most don't.
Most of them are angry that we are talking about these projects. (
Start Video Editing)
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence: It's true to me to see this happen, not symbolically, because it does a huge amount of damage to our intelligence capabilities.
The damage caused by these revelations is enormous. REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK (via telephone)
This person is very dangerous to the country.
In fact, it is extremely dangerous for him to allow our enemies to let our sources and methods. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R)
Arizona: we should be careful not--
We are not discussing what we have done to help the enemy escape our investigation and arrest.
US President Barack Obama: There is a reason why these projects are classified.
If every step we try to stop terrorist acts is on the front page of a newspaper or TV, then presumably those who are trying to hurt us are able to bypass our precautions.
That's why these things are confidential. (End Video Clip)
President Obama and Senator McCain rarely agree on any issue, especially on national security.
But they agreed on that.
If you talk about this project, if you reveal the details of the monitoring project like this, basically you will make these projects invalid.
The bad guys know what we're doing, so it doesn't work anymore. Is that true?
The Bush administration was in a dilemma in 2001.
After 9/11.
They have technical knowledge.
How to conduct extensive monitoring of telephone and email
But they think something is blocking their way.
A law from 1970 says that if you want to know something about it, wholesale this information and you have to go to the Special Court for approval.
The Bush administration decided not to do so because it was possible to expose the plan.
The Pulitzer Prize-
Award-winning journalist Ron Suskind revealed in his book 1% doctrine that the idea is that going to court or trying to change Bill 1978 would somehow expose the holes, or just expose the questions we have to answer for our system capabilities.
So we did it.
The Bush administration continues the program and forgets the court. In the end, the program is disclosed to the New York Times and USA Today through various leaks, even though they skipped the extra dangerous steps of trying to make it all look legal.
But guess what happened after it was exposed.
Guess what happened after the news in these newspapers about what the government was doing came out.
The show just continued.
They just do it all the time.
Public disclosure does not undermine the effectiveness of the project forever.
They went home without closing the shop.
Now we're all told we're doing this.
They continued the project.
There may be more negligence, but they did not stop.
Would it hurt them to describe such a program?
Have things like this been leaking over the past decade?
Now we're joined by the Pulitzer Prize, Ron Suskind.
Award-winning reporter, senior researcher at Harvard moral center, many excellent writers
Sales of books including the above "1% principles.
"Ron, thank you very much for being here.
Reporter Ron susking: It's a pleasure to be here.
MADDOW: do we know if it hurts them to disclose the details of this project?
Of course.
We have a lot of experience here.
As early as 01, 02, 03, there are some examples of disclosure of certain things.
It probably did some damage.
But in general, the fact is that the terrorists, the people we pursue, know this very well.
Many of their troops, many of their soldiers were caught by it, this connection of email, telecom and financial data, this tripartite relationship.
So when they say, my God, we give the weapons to the terrorists.
We tell them how the terrorists we do know very well that anyone interested in this area of terrorism understands exactly how the process works, because it has been in many places, in my books, in other books, in the newspapers
This is of course a major concern for them.
How are we caught?
How do we escape them?
So, again and again, they say, oh my God, now that we have given the weapons to the terrorists, now that they know how we do it, I think they do.
It seems we have two reasons.
First, by discussing the details of the project, the project has suffered irreparable harm.
Second, the project is very, very effective and we just can't tell you how to do it.
It looks like these are all great-neither of them is a reason why we should do so.
We now, as a nation, have a debate about whether we should do so, because we didn't know the debate before, because we weren't sure if it would happen.
We all doubt.
Do you think we have a reason to debate? informed?
Suskind: Well, I think what's happening now is that people are walking around again and again.
So it will take a while.
I think it took a while for the American people to adjust their eyes, and if you understand what I mean, say, wait, that's how it works.
No matter where I go, I will leave traces of data.
They didn't really care about me because I didn't do anything that was problematic, but I left them a way to decide if they thought I was a problem, it's a problem for the United States. S. government.
Dick Cheney says you have nothing to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong.
Well, this is a reversal of the way our legal system works, innocent before proven guilty.
In the end, the plaintiff here is not so much an individual as a computer algorithm, it says that you make a call, or a call seems to be attached to your server, a telephone community in which you are involved.
So it's like, you know, you start with a subset of lottery tickets and next you know you're in 7-
11 where they bought tickets
Well, you're on the 7 th.
11 bought the lottery there, you may be in that group, and you never knew you were the last of the 20 people in the United StatesS.
The government is interested.
All of this is invisible.
The FISA court now has a role to play.
We already talked.
But in general, this is mostly operated by a huge activation matrix, which can be said to be interesting for us, whether it's keyword search, what did you say on the phone, whether it's a phone call.
Whether it's a link between a charge, an American Express charge, make a phone call in a specific place.
Or overseas, with the United States.
However, I think it's interesting that people don't care as much as I think most people think. MADDOW: Right. Yes.
MADDOW: I think we're starting to realize that I mean, this argument is actually made by someone who says he's a leak with some eloquence, you know, the Internet is a TV watching you.
This is a device and tool that you will get more from when you give it more information about you.
So we decided to give them everything.
In essence, so that we can get more from this tool that we use every day. SUSKIND: Yes.
MADDOW: Does that mean that we are used to the idea that anything we do online, any numbers associated with it, should be treated as something that we personally have?
Suskind: I think people understand rationally that they are leaving data leads.
I think we still feel that we are independent without anyone paying attention to us.
In general, it's true, but what's created is a huge digital network in which you can be identified, and I think these two things, I am part of this huge digital matrix, I am an anonymous independent, and there is a conflict between these two things.
I think now, you see a moment where most of what has been reported is reported again and people are going, no, wait, let me think about this.
I don't know if it will change behavior.
I think we're waiting now.
But it's certainly not something that the community that wants to hurt us doesn't know.
MADDOW: That's right.
For me, the intellectual-oriented thing is, if we were asked to make a decision about it before we did it, would we decide to do it?
Because it happened when we didn't decide, at least a lot of us knew we were deciding, and that's the condition that these debates should happen.
Suskind: Well, maybe the question will come up in some other way.
As they move forward, because I will definitely come to the next chapter of monitoring activities for the next generation.
Ron susking. Pulitzer Prize-
The award-winning author of "1% doctrine.
"And other books-it's always good to have you here.
My pleasure.
We will be back soon. (
Business break)
MADDOW: the youngest member of the U. S. Senate is this man, Jeffrey chisar.
Senator Chiesa has been a senator for about five hours.
Vice President Joe Biden was sworn in this afternoon.
Chris Christie, his old friend and Governor of New Jersey, appointed him president.
The Senate seat was previously held by Frank Lautenberg, who died last week at the age of 89.
A special election will be held on October to permanently fill the seat that Senator Chiesa is currently heating up.
Wednesday, October, not 20 days later, is the election day scheduled for Tuesday, November in New Jersey.
The special election date is because Governor Chris Christie wants November to be his Election Day and his only election day.
No energetic Democrats are needed to vote for him in the election.
The deadline for entering the primary election for Senate seats is 4: 00 eastern time today.
Congressman Frank Palon from New Jersey filed a petition today to get his name in a democratic vote.
Congressman Rush Holt is also wearing a hat on the Democratic side.
Sheila Oliver, Speaker of the New Jersey parliament.
In addition, the state's largest city, Newark Mayor Corey bookers, is also very popular.
This is the field of democracy.
This is official so far, and no one else can enter.
It was Frank Palon, Rush Holt, Sheila Oliver and Corrie Booker.
It's interesting on the Republican side.
You have the former mayor of Bogota, New Jersey, who is a member of the Tea Party, a continuous activist named Steve Lonigan.
He entered the Republican primary twice and lost both times.
His Republican rival is a woman named Alieta Ecks.
She's a self too.
Tea Party candidate.
So if you want to know who will be the next senator of the great New Jersey after this placeholder, we still don't know, but the Republican Party is not a bunch of political stars.
The Democratic primary should be a good fight.
Between four people.
The minded Democrats, who are all very respected, have real jobs in politics.
It was a great fight from the Democratic side.
It was a great paper fight until you saw another part of the voting number on the paper.
Kunnipiac's poll today shows that in the Democratic field, Mayor Corey Booker leads, wow-he is 44 points ahead of Frank Palon and 43 points ahead of Rush Holt.
Sheila Oliver just took part in the contest last night and it was too late to take part in the vote.
So, once they start voting on her, we have to see that too.
But 53% to 9% and 10%?
The game began with a blowout.
We have to see if it will tighten. (
Business break)
MADDOW: Iran's current president has been in the job for the past eight years.
Ahmadinejad, who is known for defending Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, denying the Holocaust, and embracing Hugo Chavez's mother-has in dispute embraced Hugo Chavez's mother.
The embrace of the domestic tough party is not satisfactory.
Last time Ahmadinejad again
The election has generated massive protests over the past few months, and it is widely believed that Ahmadinejad is the only way to re-elect.
Elected by vote manipulation.
But with or without manipulation, Ahmadinejad continues to be president.
For the past eight years, he has angered the West as President of Iran.
But we have a new one this week.
Iran will hold elections this weekend to elect a new president.
Yes, everything about Iran is geographical.
Strategically important, very serious, it is important who they choose.
But to be honest, the politics of their election was fantastic.
So far, the three debates are not surprising in themselves.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney also had three debates.
But every debate in Iran lasted more than four hours.
One of these four people.
In the second half of the four hours that are coming to an end, when the host decides to change things a little, the one-hour marathon debate.
We will try something new, the Lightning Wheel.
After 4 hours, the host decided to switch to the yes or no issue. One-
Only word answers.
It will be great. Who`s with me?
Who am I talking about with me?
No one is with him.
The candidate rejected him completely and refused to accept this part of the debate. (
Start Video Editing)AREF: Really? Passing a test?
What kind of tests do you want us to pass?
Host: not a test.
Yes, yes.
Out of respect for the dear people of this country, I will still be here.
But I don't answer any of your questions.
You know I am a patient person and I can afford a lot.
From the beginning, I have been thinking about where this debate is going.
You're hurting people watching at home and you're insulting eight of us. (END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: talk about the role of the host, right?
Ignoring the question that all candidates have rejected the whole "yes" or "no", the host still insists on the question of "yes" or "no" and tries to force them into it.
What's going on with this. (
Video clips)
VELAYATI: This question cannot be answered with or without JALILI: This question is incomplete.
I have no opinion.
Host: You insist (ph)
Is our problem wrong? REZAEI: Yes. GHALDAFI (ph)
The problem is wrong.
It seems to me that the problem is wrong.
Host: Doctor?
In your opinion, the problem is also wrong? Dr. Haddad?
I don't think this is a good question. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Bad problem. Wrong. Bad.
So we're in the third or fourth hour of this debate.
The candidate is obviously very dissatisfied with this form.
If you're the host here, obviously you know all you have to do now is give them a roxia test.
The moderator switches from Yes or No to picture ".
He took eight different photos and the candidates had to talk about how they felt about them.
There is a farm, a boat, a picture of the traffic, a hospital.
One candidate replied that the pictures of the farm reminded him of the farm.
He also said the hospital photos reminded him of the obesity epidemic in Iran.
Obesity is prevalent in Iran.
Iran is the same as us.
Iran is the same as John Boehner.
As Republican House Speaker John Boehner and other American politicians have spoken out in public, even loved by political critics, it turns out that in this election, iranian politicians have also cried a lot.
It was one of the presidential candidates who was suffocated in a television interview and the television station had to suddenly turn to business.
Another candidate decided to make a long campaign video, mostly just a picture of him crying.
His own campaign video was the one he sat alone in the theater watching the things that made him sad and then cry, and then they shot the video of him crying and in the campaign ad he voted for me
It should also be noted that open crying already has an attempt and real appeal in Iranian politics.
Ahmadinejad himself, a greedy man in the West, likes to be seen as a frequent critic for domestic audiences.
Most importantly, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad crashed in a helicopter before voting this week.
Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose election sparked all the protests a few years ago, has caused a lot of controversy in the country, last week, some members of the current Iranian government were dissatisfied with him after a helicopter crash in northern Iran. He`s fine. Nobody died.
But media reports of Ahmadinejad's helicopter crash have quoted the word "accident" in the air.
Just as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad survived a helicopter crash.
It is reported that this is an accident.
Nudge, nudge, blink, blink, yes, yes.
He's fine, though.
The media apparently thought he was framed.
The debate lasted four hours.
The candidate sometimes changes to the moderator, and the candidate will take the Luo Xia exam. There are many false voices demanding positive political effects, including
A long campaign video has been produced, and these videos are great.
The results of the Iranian election were amazing, even before we found out if the election would be rigged again.
Vote on Friday.
Look at this space.
That's what it is for us tonight.
Thank you for being with us on this clear Monday night.
Now, it's time to say the last word to Lawrence O'Donnell.
"Thank you for being with us.
This is a report card in a hurry.
This copy may not be in final form and may be updated.
Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc.
All materials herein are protected by US copyright law and may not be copied, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call.
You may not change or delete any trademark, copyright or other notice in a copy of the content.
Custom message
Chat Online
Chat Online
Leave Your Message inputting...
Sign in with: