All In With Chris Hayes, Wednesday, June 12th, 2013

ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
June 12, 2013

Guests: Glenn Greenwald, Barbara Boxer


CHRIS HAYES, HOST: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. And
thank you for joining us.

Tonight on ALL IN:

Our first guest is a journalist who should be prosecuted for breaking
the NSA surveillance story. That at least the opinion of one prominent
U.S. congressman. Glenn Greenwald of "The Guardian" joins me in a moment.

And, later, I don`t remember agreeing to any of this when I clicked OK
to those Facebook terms of service. How do the giant tech companies at the
heart of the NSA revelations recover from this? We`ll discuss that coming
up.

Plus, during an extremely contentious House hearing today. One
Republican came this cross to going full Todd Akin. Republican male
legislators talking about rape, again. We will give you the grizzly
details.

But we begin tonight with the unfolding spy novel that continues to
play out in real life right before our eyes. Today, the battle lines over
NSA leaks are being dramatically drawn, the rhetoric on all sides is
heating up, and the stakes for everyone connected to this story are rising.

After days of complete radio silence, NSA leaker Edward Snowden
surfaced today in Hong Kong with an explosive interview with the English
language newspaper "The South China Morning Post", in which he charged the
U.S. government has been hacking Hong Kong and China for years. Telling
the paper that he believed there had been 61,000 NSA hacking operations
globally, with hundred of targets in Hong Kong and on the mainland.

He also explained why he`s in Hong Kong. Quote, "I am not here to
hide from justice. I am here to reveal criminality. I have had many
opportunities to flee Hong Kong. But I would rather stay and fight the
United States government and the courts because I have faith in Hong Kong`s
rule of law. My intention is to ask the courts and people of Hong Kong to
decide my fate."

And on the same day Edward Snowden reemerged, NSA director, Army
General Keith Alexander, just happened to be slated to testify at a
previously scheduled committee hearing on Capitol Hill.

So, of course, he got a good grilling from members of Congress eager
for their first shot at public on the record answers about the newly
exposed spying programs. Under questioning from Senator Pat Leahy of
Vermont, about how many terrorist attacks have been thwarted by the NSA`s
monitoring of telephone and Internet records, Alexander said he constant
give the exact number because that`s classified. What he did give the
committee was a ballpark figure in the dozens.

There is, of course, no way to independently confirm that number.
That is part of the problem in all this.

But I am guessing that General Alexander chose those words under oath
very, very carefully. As not to end up like his pal James Clapper, the
director of nation intelligence, whose testimony back in March under
questioning from Senator Ron Wyden looks really, really, really bad given
what we all know now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RON WYDEN (D), OREGON: Does the NSA collect any type of data at
all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

JAMES CLAPPER, DNI: No, sir.

WYDEN: It does not?

CLAPPER: Not wittingly. There are cases where they could --
inadvertently perhaps collect but not wittingly.

WYDEN: I think in poker, that`s called tell. If you just watched
that, and thought that Clapper was thinking extra hard on that answer,
well, it`s actually quite straining to come up with the least untruthful
answer to a question you don`t feel like answering truthfully.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLAPPER: In that respect, I was asked, when are you going to stop
beating your wife kind of question, which is -- meaning, not answerable
necessarily by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was
the most truthful or least untruthful manner by saying, no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Yesterday, Senator Wyden called for an investigation related
to Clapper`s March testimony, saying, quote, "This job cannot done
responsibly if senators aren`t getting straight answers to direct
questions."

But James Clapper will almost certainly not be the only person who is
going to be investigated because of the leaks and their aftermath. There
is, of course, Edward Snowden, who could very well be facing criminal
charges any day now.

And there is now a member of Congress calling for the prosecution of
journalists involved in publishing the leaks. Well, actually, let me amend
that -- a journalist, one specific journalist.

After first calling for action against journalists yesterday, last
night, Republican Congressman Peter King was asked to clarify his position
today on FOX News. And clarify he did.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS: Do you believe that? Do you stand by that?
Both Greenwald and "The Washington Post" reporter?

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: I`m talking about Greenwald.
Greenwald not only did he disclose this information, he has said that he
has names of CIA agents and assets around the world. And they`re
threatening to disclose that. That to me is a direct attack against
Americans, putting American lives at risk.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That Greenwald, Glenn Greenwald who Peter King called
responsible for a direct attack on the American people -- that Glenn
Greenwald who`s been in Hong Kong breaking the story who has sent ripples
throughout the entire American political system is, I believe, we have him
joining me now, columnist on civil liberties. And we do not have him now.

You know what? We are working out some technical issues.

We do have him? Great. Awesome.

Glenn Greenwald, columnist on civil liberties and national security
for "The Guardian" newspaper. There in your monitor staring back at us,
unblinkingly because that, of course, is a photo and we appear to have him
on the phone.

Glenn, how are you?

GLENN GREENWALD, THE GUARDIAN (via telephone): Doing great, Chris.
Thanks for having me.

HAYES: OK. First, I want to get your reaction to Peter King`s
rhetoric in the past two days about prosecution, specifically singling you
out as someone who has, quote, "direct attack on America." I think he
accused of you threatening to expose individual CIA covert agents.

I just want to get your response because he`s been given a fair amount
of air time over the last few days to attack you. He`s a sitting member of
Congress. I understand you`ve been traveling.

What is your response to Congressman King`s accusations?

GREENWALD: I don`t think there are many people who take Peter King
very seriously. I also think that most Americans find instinctively
repulsive the idea that journalists should be arrested and prosecuted for
doing what journalists are supposed to do, which is reporting on what the
United States government does in the dark.

That said, he is the chairman of the House Homeland Security
Committee. And the Obama administration has in the recent past flirted
with the idea, and even embraced some theories that would suggest you can
be held criminally liable for being a conspirator with your source if you
act as a journalist. So, it`s not something I would dismiss lightly.

But what I thought was most remarkable is that the entire framework
that he offered, the ground on which he made his call from IRS and
prosecution was an outright fabrication, really a lie. I mean, he went on
national television and accused me of having threatened to uncover and
expose and publish the identities of covert CIA agents as though I was
Lewis Libby or something.

I have never remotely suggested that I even have in my possession the
identities of CIA covert agents, I do not. Nor have I ever threatened I
would publish those, I never would.

So, it wasn`t just that it was an extremist piece of advocacy on his
part. It was that it was based in complete fiction.

HAYES: They never would -- sense you just said there, I think this is
really to me an important point in all this. I think because we have the
hangover of WikiLeaks, which was -- you`ve defended quite strenuously, and
been an advocate for both Bradley Manning and Julian Assange and protecting
the important role they played in stirring a debate.

But it was quite different in the sense that it was both disclosure,
and I think even Bradley Manning himself would say he didn`t have the
ability to read and vet every one of the 850,000 documents. These scoops
have been much more thoroughly vetted both by Edward Snowden and yourself
and other journalists at "The Guardian".

So, my question is, the PRISM slide, there were 41 slides in the PRISM
PowerPoint slide that was one of the most blockbuster revelations. "The
Guardian" put four and a fifth slide up.

What are we to make of the fact that 36 of those slides have not been
disclosed? What does that say about the way you are approaching this work,
about what secrets can and should be put before the public and which ones
shouldn`t be?

GREENWALD: I think this is the critical point, Chris, and I really
hope everybody walks away understanding -- and first of all, I would -- I
think there`s a serious question about the extent to which Bradley Manning
did read the documents he exposed. But let`s leave that to the side.

From the very first moment that I ever spoke with Edward Snowden, he
was emphatic about the fact that he was not turning over to us all of the
documents that he could get his hands on. He had very carefully spent
months looking at them, examining them, figuring out which ones the public
should see, and which ones would cause gratuitous harm and said that he
wasn`t going to turn those over, including things like the names of covert
CIA agents.

He then, when he gave it to us, said, I don`t want to you dump these
documents, I want you to engage in a rigorous standard, journalistic
assessment of what is in the public interest and what would cause harm. I
want you to be very careful and judicious about figuring out what it is
that the public should know in terms of how journalism functions, because
he didn`t want the accusation to be made validly that he was trying to harm
the United States or that we were.

And he was very clear about the fact that had he tried to -- had his
intent been to harm the United States, he could have sold the documents to
foreign adversaries, he could have covertly passed them to foreign
adversaries. He has given us all sorts of documents, the vast majority of
which we have decided not to publish, because either they`re not relevant
or they would just cause gratuitous harm without informing the public.

Everything we have revealed is in the public interest. It is things
that the U.S. government is doing that the public didn`t know but should
know. And yet none of it can even remotely or conceivably be said to harm
national security.

Terrorists already know and have known for years that the U.S. is
trying to monitor and surveil their communications. We didn`t tell
terrorists anything they didn`t know.

HAYES: Right.

GREENWALD: We told American citizens things that they didn`t know
about what their government is doing but should know.

HAYES: Glenn, let me ask you this question about Snowden. And I
understand, you know, a lot has been made of him as a character, and people
are somewhat frustrated somewhat with that because, you know, broadly
speaking, the point here is the policy and what the government is doing,
not Edward Snowden.

That being said, it`s a remarkable compelling story, just from a human
drama level. And as someone who sat down with him, has talked to him, in
light of the interview he gave today to the English language paper in Hong
Kong. Do you have a sense of what the game plan here is?

Because it just -- what he has done is either depending on your point
of view, remarkably foolish or remarkably courageous, but he is really out
on a limb right now.

GREENWALD: You know, Chris, honestly meeting him and talking to him
and the first thing I did was I spent -- on the first day I m him, I spent
five straight hours questioning him as relentlessly as I could, to have an
understanding of what he`s thinking, who he is, what he was really doing.

It was one of those extraordinary experiences in my life, one of the
most formative, because it was really remarkable to look at somebody who
had so rationally assessed the choice they had made. One that they knew
was likely to result in their imprisonment for decades if not life, and yet
who genuinely concluded that his conscience compelled him to step forward
and disclose that the NSA has been systematically lying to Congress. That
they`ve been deceiving the American people, they`re building this worldwide
spying apparatus, that he felt the need to do that outweighed his own
personal self-interest.

That said, he also knows that the U.S. government is the most powerful
entity on Earth, that it considers him to be the number one most wanted
individual. That they intend to, if they get their hands on him, basically
destroy his life. And although I haven`t discussed specifically with him
what his plans are, he knows that he is holding some cards given that he
had access to very top secret information on the part of the most secretive
agency in the world, and intends to figure out how best he can protect
himself.

That`s my guess as to what it is he`s doing.

HAYES: In terms of the revelations that we`ve gotten so far, and they
fall into a number of different categories, but I do want to ask you,
before I let you go, there has been some pushback on the reporting,
particularly about the PRISM program, and there`s another program codename
BLARNEY, that comes from those PowerPoint slides that use the phrase
directly from the servers, direct access.

And there was pushback by the tech companies who are listed in those
slides saying we didn`t give any direct access. There`s some question I
think about what that phrase means or could mean.

And I just want you to clarify your best understanding of what the
reality is about the nexus between how the NSA is working with these
private tech companies.

GREENWALD: Sure. We`ve published four stories so far. The only one
about which there has been any question raised is the one that the -- the
only one "The Washington Post" also published is the PRISM story.

Our story was written differently than the way "The Post" wrote
theirs, which is why they had to walk back theirs.

Our story was the following: we have documents, a document from the
NSA that very clearly claims that they are collecting directly from the
servers of these Internet giants. That`s the exact language that this
document used.

We went to those Internet companies before publishing and asked them
and they denied it. We put into the story prominently that they denied it.
Our story is that there is a discrepancy between the relationship, the
private sector and the government has in terms of what the NSA claims and
what the technology company claims.

What is definitely true, and follow-up reporting by "The Times" has
proven this, there have been all kinds of negotiations about back-door
access. They have agreements in all sorts of ways to share data with the
government.

I don`t think anyone knows at this point exactly what the nature of
those arrangements are, and the reason we published our story and the
reason we presented it as this discrepancy, is precisely because whatever
the tech companies and companies are doing in terms of turning over the
data of the government, should be done in public. We should know what
agreements they`ve reached. We should know what the government has asked
for and what they`re negotiating with now in terms of access.

What we do know for sure, is that the government has a program that
targets the communication over these companies, that huge numbers of people
around the world used to communicate with one another. We think there
should be accountability and transparency for whatever those exact
agreements are.

HAYES: Glenn Greenwald, columnist for "The Guardian" newspaper, thank
you for joining us tonight.

GREENWALD: Thank you for having me, Chris.

HAYES: Democrats, military sexual assault bill has been struck down
in the Senate by a Democrat. More on that with co-sponsor of the bill,
Senator Barbara Boxer, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: When striking down the military sexual assault bill, Senator
Carl Levin said, quote, "It`s people within that institution that have to
fix the problem." I will tell you why that`s exactly the wrong way to
approach this.

And later, the evolving drama in Silicon Valley where tech giants like
Google and Facebook are panicking over the reputations in the wake of the
NSA revelations.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: The picture you see is the new head of the Air Force`s sexual
assault prevention effort. Notably a woman, two star Major General
Margaret Woodward. She will lead a newly elevated office, and will
essentially be replacing this man, Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Krusinski,
arrested last month and charged with sexual battery.

The problem on sexual assault in the military is at epidemic levels,
with the Pentagon study estimating that 26,000 people in the armed forces
were sexually assaulted last year. And it has spurred a kind of remarkable
legislative movement to fundamentally reform the institutional structure of
how justice is administered inside the armed forces.

That movement hit a huge roadblock today in this person -- in the
person of this man, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin who
introduced a measure to replace Senator Kirsten Gillibrand`s proposal to
remove sexual assault cases from the military chain of command. Chairman
Levin`s measure prevailed.

The battle lines have been drawn in this issue, and as we have told
you from the beginning is not Republican versus Democrat, but rather those
on the side of the Pentagon who don`t want fundamental reform and do not
want to take this outside of the chain of command, versus an insurgent
group of senators, led by Senator Gillibrand, who do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D), NEW YORK: The victims tell us they do
not report because of chain of command. It`s not that their decision`s
wrong. It`s that they are the decider, and the victims have said, I`m not
reporting because it`s within the chain of command.

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: It is harder to hold someone
accountable for failure to act if you reduce their power to act.

SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: We also have heard no data that
would indicate that by removing the command completely from any role here,
that that is going to have a positive impact on retaliation.

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D), NEW HAMPSHIRE: The fact is, if we don`t have
a fundamental complaining in how we address this issue, are we going to be
back here in two more decades having this same conversation?

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

HAYES: Joining me now is Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat from
California. She`s a co sponsor of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand`s bill.

And, Senator, my first question to you is, what is your reaction to
the fact that essentially this was killed today in committee?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: It was a bad day for the
opportunity that we have to finally get things right here. You know, for
20 long years, various secretaries of defense have said these words: we
have zero tolerance for this kind of activity in the military. And we`re
not going to allow it, and every single secretary of defense never made the
changes.

We have to make the changes, just like Australia did, Great Britain
did, Canada did, Israel did. And what did they do? They took these
vicious crimes outside of the chain of command. They have an interest
prosecutor.

You know what Carl Levin and his friends did, it`s very disappointing.
He`s my friend but I have to tell you, what they did today is embrace the
status quo instead of embracing the victims and using this as an
opportunity to bring needed change. They kept the commanders in charge.
The commander not only decides whether there will be a prosecution, the
commander also decides when and where the court martial will be if it goes
forward. And they even pick the jury.

Chris, this is a nightmare, and it has to change, and I predict we`re
going to have a real donnybrook on the Senate floor, because we`re not
going to let this go by easily, gently into the night.

HAYES: What do you mean by that?

BOXER: What I mean is we`re going to offer the
Gillibrand/Boxer/Collins language again and we`re going to fight to get it
done, and we are going to get our day on the full Senate floor. It was
interesting. We did get Republicans and Democrats for our proposal, but
just not enough.

But I believe the time has come for change. I am extremely
disappointed in what happened. I have to say I`m not shocked, because
change is hard. We know it is difficult.

We saw how gays were treated in the military for decades and decades.
We saw how women had been treated in terms of their equality. We saw how
there was no integration in the military until finally President Truman
made it happen.

So, all these are civil rights battles, these are -- these are human
rights and civil rights, and, you know, people forget that half of the
victims are men.

HAYES: Yes.

BOXER: It`s not a women`s issue. It is a violence issue.

HAYES: Senator, could I --

BOXER: It`s a criminal issue. Yes?

HAYES: Senator, I want to play a little bit of sound from one of your
colleagues who voted against your amendment today in committee.

Tim Kaine basically making the argument, look, if you`re going to take
this out of the chain of command, why not take all these other horrible
crimes that happened outside of the chain of command? The chain of command
is how crimes are processed inside the military.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TIM KAINE (D), VIRGINIA: Murder, larceny, robbery, forgery, bad
checks, arson, extortion, burglary, house breaking, perjury, fraud against
the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That seems like a -- at least at face value a somewhat
persuasive argument that there`s a lot of crimes and all those crimes are
serious. Why make a special exception to the way the system works for this
specific crime?

BOXER: Well, we don`t. If you read our bill -- and he obviously
didn`t read our bill. What we said is, crimes that are unique to the
military will stay within the chain of command. But serious felonies will
come outside just like they do in Great Britain, just as they do in Israel,
just as they do in Canada, and Australia.

So it sounds great, but we took care of it in our bill.

HAYES: Senator Barbara Boxer, who is pledging to continue to battle
this on the floor as this goes to the floor, and offer amendments and
expressing her disappointment tonight. Thank you very much for joining us.
I really appreciate it.

BOXER: Sure.

HAYES: Arizona Republican Trent Franks has a lot more name
recognition tonight after a comment about rape and pregnancy. It`s a
glimpse as to what your Republican Congress was up to today. More on that,
next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TRENT FRANKS (R), ARIZONA: Before when my friends on the left
side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject because
you -- you know, the incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That was Republican Trent Franks, Republican from Arizona,
making a variation of an argument you may have heard somewhere before. And
just in case you weren`t exactly sure if you heard him correctly, Franks
repeated the claim when NBC cameras caught up with him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRANKS: The incidences where pregnancy from rape that result in
abortion after the beginning of the sixth month are very rare.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Very rare. Does that sound familiar to you?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. REP. TODD AKIN (R), MISSOURI: First of all, from what I
understand from doctors, that`s really rare. If it`s a legitimate rape,
the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Now, in some ways, what we saw today was progress. I mean,
this is what progress looks like. Trent Franks stopped himself from going
the full Todd Akin here, cutting himself off before he started him on any
offensive, nonsense notions of the magic of female biology. Franks had no
comments on shutting that whole thing down.

But what he failed to do was heed the simple urge and advice of GOP
pollsters who told House Republican Caucus members to flat out stop talking
about rape earlier this year. "Rape is a four letter word," they were
told. "Don`t say it."

But here`s Congressman Franks today putting the spotlight on a
Republican Party with an earned reputation for lacking sensitivity on
women`s issues.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPRESENTATIVE ZOE LOFGREN (D), CALIFORNIA: I just find it
astonishing to hear a phrase repeated that the incidence of pregnancy from
rape is low. That`s not -- I mean, there`s no scientific basis for that.
The idea that the Republican men on this committee think they can tell the
women of America that they have to carry to term the product of a rape is
outrageous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: So who put Trent Franks in a position and forced him to talk
about this stuff, the answer, Trent Franks because this is Trent Franks`
crusade. Franks was speaking about a bill he introduced to the House
Judiciary Committee, a bill that has literally zero political future, but
allows Trent Franks to make on the record statements like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPRESENTATIVE TRENT FRANKS (R), ARIZONA: I don`t think any of us
would argue that a child should be killed because of the sins of an evil
rapist. What we need to do is be hard on the rapist. I wonder how many of
my colleagues on the other side say we should suggest death penalty for the
rapist, but they certainly do for the child.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Frank`s bill bans abortions nationwide after 20 weeks. Now
this is a reintroduction and expansion of a bill that Franks previously
drafted to apply only to Washington, D.C. Similar statewide laws like the
one in Arizona, for instance, have been struck down by federal appeals
courts. And the constitutionality of the Franks Bill is at best highly
dubious.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPRESENTATIVE JERROLD HADLER (D), NEW YORK: This legislation is
especially dangerous because it is a direct challenge to the Supreme
Court`s ruling in Roe versus Wade. It contains a total ban on abortions
prior to viability, which the Supreme Court says violates women`s rights
under the constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: So it is a bill with no chance of passing the Senate and no
chance really of being upheld by the courts. This is what the House
Republican caucus does day in and day out. They use their staff`s energy
and the scarce legislative resources of a body of Congress that is
stretched thin to put on a show.

And under House Speaker John Boehner, they rarely even work. The
113th Congress has only 126 planned days in a session, a whopping 34.5
percent of the year. So -- and I noticed this because we come in the
morning and we write on the board what`s going on. It`s amazing how rarely
something`s happening in the House.

But on that rare day that they`re actually working with the limited
resources at their disposal to tackle the nation`s problems, this is what
the House Republican caucus is doing, debating a bill that is profoundly
unconstitutional as an act of pure theatre. It`s the same thing they`re
doing when they go to repeal Obamacare 39 times. They are essentially a
bunch of really ideologically zealous teenagers.

Teenagers who have just discovered politics and view politics as a
means of self expression, politics of symbolism, not of lawmaking, might as
well fire up the performance art engine, destroy some art class project in
effigy or make some elaborate puppetry. Please let me be clear. There`s
nothing wrong with any of this when you`re powerless.

Expressing dissidents and frustration and rage at the status quo when
you`re 16 years old or 26 or 36 and you`re powerless, that`s an important
part of engagement of politics. I`ve done that and those of you outside
the political process, who want the people in power to hear your voices, I
say right on.

You elected members the House of Representatives are part of the
government running the country. We pay you to do the very difficult and
important work of governing. There`s a budget that needs to be passed.
There are 12 million unemployed people, 11 million people who could be
deported at a moment`s notice. There are 66,000 troops in Afghanistan.

For the love of God, work on that stuff. You are not sent to the
highest halls of power so you can spend all of your time staging the
equivalent of those campus conservative clown shows that sponsor
affirmative action bake sales. Get it together and grow up. We`ll be
right back with Click 3.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: The super awkward PR dance that Google, Facebook, Yahoo and
Microsoft are doing with the federal government in the wake of the NSA
spying scandal that`s coming up.

But first I want to share the three awesomest things on the internet
today beginning with the evolution of an invention, the Emoticon, a simple
pictorial message that helps us express how we feel when it`s too much
effort to type actual words conveying human emotion. A simple frowning
face will suffice.

Well now, the inventor of the Emoticon, Scott Fallman, tells the
"Wall Street Journal" he does not like what his invention has morphed into,
I`m talking about the Emoticon`s more aggressive Japanese cousin, the
Emoji. Why settle for a smiley face when you can send your friends a
picture of a pizza or this pile of (inaudible). Scott for one is not
impressed. Sometimes I feel like Dr. Frankenstein. My creature started
benign, but it`s gone places I don`t approve of. I couldn`t agree more.
Old school smiley face times infinity.

The second awesomest thing on the internet today, a late night legend
and his many increase about one musical instrument in particular. The
folks at CBS News have created this amazing two and a half minute super cut
of David Letterman asking the same question over and over and over again to
bands appearing on his late night show. And it`s really kind of weird.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Beautiful. Are these your drums? They`re
fantastic. Are these your drums? Great. Nice drums. How are you? Good
looking drums. Thank you very much. I love these. Nice job. These are
beautiful drums too, by the way. Nice job. Those are great. Those are
beautiful. Nice job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The man has a thing for drums. I`m not here to judge David
Letterman. Get help. And the third awesomest thing on the internet today,
a beloved children`s icon meets a new medium. Officially, a Vine is a 6-
second looping video like the one shown here. Unofficially, a Vine is kind
of terrifying.

Want to immortalize your kid`s piano recital at 6-seconds of sheer
horror, just create a Vine out of it. So it did strike some as a bit odd
when the White House chose to commemorate a visit from Cookie Monster with
a Vine. Brace yourself as I unleashed the horror. Kid, want to have
nightmares for the rest of your life, look, it`s Cookie Monster working
just yards away from where the president lives.

"New York" magazine got right to the point with this headline, "C is
for creepy." Now, the reason why Cookie Monster was at the White House to
begin with is actually amazing. He was there to publicize a Sesame
Workshop program that helps children whose parents are in jail, a really
noble and important call.

But the way to turn noble things into creepy things is with Vine,
although while it`s slightly terrifying to see a White House Cookie Monster
popping up from behind the lamppost. It`s nowhere as creepy as seeing a
Times Square Elmo popping up from behind a liquor store.

You can find our creepy Vine pleasures and crusades and all the links
for tonight`s Click 3 on our web site, allinwithchris.com. We`ll be right
back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: When the government wanted to know how to better keep an eye
on information on the web it went straight to Silicon Valley. More than a
decade ago, CIA Director Michael Hayden began enlisting the private sector
to build the NSA`s data ops. Hayden knew at the time that the companies in
Silicon Valley had the knowledge and skill required to make this happen.

In an interview with the "National Journal," Hayden is quoted as
saying, "we made them part of the team because" -- and again I`m quoting
here, "why would we not turn the most powerful telecommunications and
computing management structure on the planet to our use."

It`s that interview given by Michael Hayden, who is the director of
the NSA from 1999 to 2005, gets to the core of the revelations that have
rocked the political and tech world over the past week. Which is the fact
that the same electronic architecture that brings us everything that is
amazing about social media and also makes a lot of money is to use Edward
Snowden`s catchy phrase, "an architecture of oppression."

And all this has been super embarrassing for the tech industry. The
NSA has said to have tapped into the servers of nine of their biggest
companies. Still the heads of two of those companies have put up a rather
curious, but united front by issuing nearly identical and very carefully
parsed statements denying any knowledge of NSA`s prison program.

Mark Zuckerberg said Facebook has never been part of any program to
give the U.S. or any other government direct access to our servers. We
haven`t even heard of prism before yesterday. While Google`s Larry Page
claimed, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government
or any other government direct access to our servers. We have not heard of
a program called prism until yesterday.

Now, in what appears be an attempt to show it has nothing to hide,
Google has sent a letter to the Justice Department requesting permission to
publicly disclose how many foreign intelligence surveillance acts requests
it gets. These tech companies, the ones implicated in the prism monitoring
program track people`s habits and interest and whereabouts as a mechanism
for producing profits.

It`s probably the most powerful tool in human history for finding out
things about people. So it seems only a matter of time until the state
moves them into service to locate its enemies. Joining me now is Bruce
Schneider, security expert, author and also the chief security technologist
for BT Group, a communications service provider and Colleen Taylor,
reporter for "Tech Crunch" and "Tech Crunch TV."

All right, I want to start on this point that I talked to Glenn
Greenwald at the beginning because I think part of what`s surprising about
these revelations and was true about the wireless tapping under the Bush
administration is the nexus of private industry and the government, right?

This idea of direct access to servers, Colleen, Silicon Valley, the
companies have pushed back quite hard, although in very measured language.
What is your understanding right now of what we know about who`s telling
the truth, and what approach these big entities like Google, Facebook,
Apple and others are taking in responding to this.

COLLEEN TAYLOR, REPORTER, "TECH CRUNCH": Yes. I think that all of
these companies, Facebook, Google and Microsoft especially over the past
couple of days, they have come out and released updated statements,
essentially encouraging the government to allow them to be more transparent
about what the extent of the involvement is here.

There`s a sense that their hands are tied because under the foreign
intelligence surveillance act, FISA, you`re not allowed to disclose any
time that you receive a request. And so it`s kind of this catch 22 Cycle
here where they can`t say everything that`s going on. They`re prohibited
from doing so.

HAYES: I read somewhere the other day talking about these companies
is being essentially like hostile witnesses for the prosecution that
they`re compelled by law to do this. They talk in their statements about
complying with the law. But then they talk about this no direct access to
servers. And then "The Guardian" put up this slide in which we have the
NSA saying in their own slide, collection directly from the servers of
these U.S. service providers, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Paltalk,
AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple. Bruce as someone who knows network
architecture pretty well, what do you make of that?

BRUCE SCHNEIDER, SECURITY TECHNOLOGIST: You know, it`s hard to tell.
There`s a lot of ways you can parse these words. What does direct access
mean? Does it mean I have a wire in that can type my own queries or does
it mean that I`m going to ask for this bulk data from everybody and get it
shipped to me? You can call one direct access. You can call one indirect
access. I`m afraid that we`re really just parsing this to try to save
face. And I think this is why the companies want to go public. It looks
really bad, and they`re going to lose public trust.

HAYES: And there`s obviously been a long conversation about these --
I mean, the irony here is, all these companies function, profit,
specifically the way they make money is by knowing a lot about their users
and selling that information to advertisers. Facebook does. I remember
when there was a big freak out about Gmail because Gmail was going to read,
was going to have an algorithm that was going to read your e-mail and give
you targeted ads to it. Now I just don`t even notice the targeted ads,
right? So Colleen, do you think that there`s -- they feel that there`s
actually a business threat to them and their reputations in terms of these
revelations?

TAYLOR: Absolutely especially here in Silicon Valley and the tech
industry. You mentioned that, of course, we know that our data is being
used to display ads against it and people are even a little uncomfortable
with things like that. But when something is happening secretly with your
data and you really trusted these companies, and it sounds silly to say you
trust a company.

But I think, you know, there is feeling about Google, Facebook,
Microsoft, AOL, all these companies, that they`re different. I think that
people are jaded when it came out that maybe Verizon was complying with the
NSA and years ago that AT&T may have been doing a similar thing. You know,
that`s hugely offensive, but it doesn`t really strike you to the heart and
make you feel quite as betrayed as when you hear that these other companies
are --

HAYES: Right, Facebook is also so much more intimate. Facebook and
Gmail they`re very intimate parts of your day and your life.

TAYLOR: It`s important to talk about the culture as well here. I
mean, the idea is that Facebook as a company is so open and transparent and
everything that happens within the company is on the up and up, and the way
that they respect their users is different from these normal corporations.
That`s been the image.

HAYES: That`s been the image. That`s what they want to make people
believe about them.

TAYLOR: Exactly.

SCHNEIDER: It`s more important than that. These companies really
have a business getting people to trust them with their data, with their
files, their e-mail, their friends, their photos. So they --

HAYES: That is what the profit is. The profit is trust us enough to
give us everything about yourself.

SCHNEIDER: And it turns out they have this side business betraying
that trust to the government.

HAYES: Not a side business, they weren`t selling them to the NSA
presumably.

SCHNEIDER: In some cases, companies seemed to be allowed to recover
fees. So we`ve seen prices for wiretapping. We don`t know if there`s
money changing hands, there could be. In exchange for doing this, they
might be given some recompense. But in a sense, they are losing their
trust. For the first time I think we have companies that are saying, wait
a second. All of this government snooping is making us look bad.

HAYES: I think we may have reached a turning point there. And the
thing to me, Colleen, and what I want to get to here is the reaction to
this is so much predicated about the way that we have all been habituated
to turn over information about ourselves to just assume we are being
monitored, to know that every -- there`s a record of everything from the E-
Z pass we drove through. There`s an incredible riff on this. I want to
play it for you and also I want to read from this incredible piece, Bruce,
you wrote before these revelations called the internet is a surveillance
state, very true words, all that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Our discussion on the fallout from the NSA`s spying program in
Silicon Valley continues in a moment. First, a quick and important
correction, on last night`s program, we played a sound bite of former
Alabama Governor George Wallace. The graphic at the bottom of the screen
depicted Wallace as a Republican when in fact he was quite famously a
Democrat. We regret the error and we`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOUIS CK: People are almost like begging the government to take over
-- and the corporations to take over your life. People are excited that
when you take a picture of yourself on your phone and put it online it says
where the picture was taken. I remember when E-Z pass first happened
people like, I don`t want anyone to know when I go flew the Lincoln Tunnel.
But now, every single conversation I`ve ever had is a public record in the
Library of Congress. Yes! Cool!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Louis CK cutting to the heart of the matter as he often does.
I`m here with security technologist, Bruce Schneider, and Colleen Taylor,
reporter for "Tech Crunch." We`re talking about privacy and Silicon
Valley`s response to the NSA revelations.

Bruce, I want to read this excerpt from a piece you wrote March 17th
called the internet is a surveillance state. Maintaining privacy on the
internet is nearly impossible. If you forget even once to enable your
protections or click on the wrong link or type the wrong thing and you
permanently attach your name to whatever anonymous servers you`re using,
governments and corporations are working together to keep it that way.

What this means to me is that part of the way we`re receiving this
news is in the context of already having given up the ghost on the notion
of privacy.

SCHNEIDER: And we have. We do it willingly. We go on to Gmail. We
go on to Facebook, and these services are selling our privacy, and that`s
how they make money. And this is the normal part of doing business, normal
part of living our lives. Like the cameras with location. It is
everything. And yes there are things can you do. Asked a lot this week,
what can we do? There`s stuff around the edges, but for most of us, this
is hard. We cannot live our lives.

HAYES: OK, so does that mean, Colleen, that we just -- I mean, don`t
want to just embrace the idea that privacy is gone, and so none of this all
makes a difference, which is an argument I`ve heard. They have my records
about everything, and everything I`ve done, so throw up your hands.

TAYLOR: No. Yes, I don`t think that that`s the case, but a lot of
people have been asking that this week. I have heard here in Silicon
Valley, a lot of engineers saying, well, it`s time for me to fire up my own
server, run my own e-mail client like I did in the `90s. Do it all myself.
That`s going to be expensive, though. That`s going to be hard to do.

There`s a reason why Hotmail became so popular and Yahoo Mail and
Gmail, but at this moment with how little we really know, there`s still so
much more information that needs to come out. These companies` hands are
tied in a lot of ways. We don`t know yet, and there is a small number of
people at least that are thinking about going back and doing it all
themselves and pulling their data off the internet.

HAYES: Here`s a thought experiment that Matt Yglesias said, Google
Glass plus prism is going to be a lot of fun, right. Like think about
that, think about the amount of information that`s going to be streaming
through people`s Google Glasses that is going to be sucked up somewhere and
stored somewhere. That is the library of data that just -- it boggles the
mind of just how much sheer information there is out there about any one of
us all together.

SCHNEIDER: It`s everything together. It`s not just Google Glass.
It`s Google Glass plus location, plus tagging, facial recognition, the
ability to search for people, connect them and connect that to your
financial records, and your phone records. It`s everything together.
We`re talking about drones, we add drones to that.

So you look at one thing it might not be that bad, but it`s
everything put together. The way to think of this, to me, data is the
pollution problem of the information age. All processes produce it, so
natural by product. It stays around. We`re talking here about secondary
use. And really if you think about pollution or we look back 100 years ago
and are amazed that the titans of industry could ignore as they built the
industrial age.

HAYES: It`s not mine to deal with I need to make the energy that that
coal produces.

SCHNEIDER: I think our great grandchildren the same thing. How could
you ignore all of this data as you built the information age? Just because
there`s no technical solution, a lot of cases there isn`t, doesn`t mean
there`s no answer. This is why we have laws to step in. This is how we
deal with problems.

HAYES: Security technologist Bruce Schneider, Colleen Taylor,
reporter for "Tech Crunch," thank you both, that was great. That is ALL IN
for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW" show starts right now. Good
evening, Rachel.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>