Issued or the fbi issued a report of an anarchist threat because on top of the building there was some graffiti near, i guess, where some of the delegates were and a brick. And so taken alone and even though there were very few protesters there, they issued a report, the media carried it, and it continues to perpetuate negative stereotypes about individuals who are merely, in cases, exercising their First Amendment rights but are being deemed because they question the status quo and corporate or government policies, theyre now called anarchists. But the labeling is very real because, as you know, that can be used to stigmatize, alienate groups and even in the case of Animal Rights activists create federal legislation. The animal enterprise terrorism act that in many cases punishes what we traditionally called civil disobedience and other forms of protests such as leafletting or chalking a sidewalk. They imbue those with sort of evil connotations and higher fines and higher penalties. So i just want to move on to when i wrote my article for yahoo internet life on privacy, so it was just the year before 9 11, and i had all these concerns. And then 9 11, as they say, changed everything. It was suddenly on steroids. And now the argument is that for National Security to find terrorists we have to invade all the private our government has to invade all the private space. And, you know, it was George Washington in his farewell address who warned us about the imposters of pretended patriotism. Ben frankly warned us about sacrifice. I dont know if i read that in your book . Those that would sacrifice freedom deserve none or something to that effect. Yeah, for security. Right. Neither. And its, you know, i just did an article today on they discovered, it was a very good article, i thought, in the New York Times that the voluntary leaks of the government on august 2nd about the conversation between alqaeda and the head of yemen was actually did more harm to National Security than all of the pape ors you all saw that released by snowden, for example. But its, again, an example of the cynical use of National Security. That if the government does it, its legitimate. And the fact is that most of the classified information shouldnt be classified, but its routinely leaked as was the story about the success of that electronic surveillance because hay wanted to they wanted to show that what nsa does is necessary. So it was actually shut down, the communication. You know, the government, if they leak, its legitimate. If a whistleblower leaks something thats embarrassing, you know, for instance, were spying on the leader of brazil and op the leading company in brazil or something, well, then thats, you know, espionage. And, which is what snowden is accused of. And seems to me the really ominous aspect here is the use of the National Security argument to justify this vast expansion of the surveillance state. And i dont know if you want to comment on it. I think that with 9 11 as many of you know the patriot act pretty much had been written before, was quickly pushed through by people who didnt read it. But be i think because the United States felt perhaps that our country was impermeable, could not ever be attacked, it gave our leaders an opportunity really to exploit public fears and shock. I think to take advantage of a tragedy. But one that was a criminal act, one that did not warrant stigma stigmatizing an entire group of people or country. And i think one of the things that ties into the whole safety issue which im especially concerned about is what were seeing now called american exceptionalism that we as a country have a kind of pride and attitude that especially with the spying on allied nations, we feel that we can do whatever we want, and when people that we countries that weve worked with and who are considered our friends find out that weve been spying on them, i think that does a lot of damage in this terms of our credibility. I also think, as you said, the Obama Administration, quite frankly, is just embarrassed by these revelations. And, yes, obama has classified more documents, i believe, than any other administration and yet gave information for the film makers of zero dark thirty on the Osama Bin Laden nighttime raid. They do want to control information. The attacks on members of the press and on a free press is especially troubling to democracy. We saw that in the 60s where cointel pro, independent, free newspapers were targeted. The government went and got records from banks of subscribers to newspapers, and as a result, those periodicals that reported on antiwar activities and other sort of leftwing activities mostly went out of business. And the fact that the Corporate Media now really dictates what information well see, i think all factors in combined with obama threatening reporters with charges of espionage or conspiracy and going after reporters is another way that our personal liberties are gravely imperilled. How do you explain it . I mean, hes brought, what, there were three cases of espionage brought before obama, there have now been seven . Heres a constitutional law professor, i dont know, i voted for him twice. Me too. I i stupidly panicked and donated more money than i could afford at one point. How do you explain this . I mean, how do you corporations. Hes beholden to them, as most of the last few president s have been to get into office, and i think that in respects one of the facts i find very interesting is that a High Percentage of three and fourstar generals when they retire go to work in private security. Then in turn off consult with the government often consult with the government. I think thats a conflict of interest, especially if theyre lobbying to buy more drones or whatever it is the product that they make. But theres a blurring of the lines between some of the functions we traditionally think of as governmental functions with attendant oversight that we expect from them such as conducting intelligence. I think corporations need an intelligence apparatus to stay in business. The more information we can gatter, the better it is for them gather, the better it is for them. And with a trend in a conservative Supreme Court that is giving corporations the same rights, free speech rights that people have i think that all of those factors combine to really rob a lot of us of our ability to choose and to engage in the kind of activities that hold the government in check. So you have, one of the strengths of your book we havent talked about your book at all, but it as these great case studies and also a lot of documentation. Can you give some of those case studies . I was going the suggest one. Maybe you could talk about occupy a little bit and how the power of the state was used against people. In freedom of information act requests that came out at least a year after occupy kind of lost some of its steam but not all, it came out that even before the first occupy event the the president of Homeland Security was going around the country and meeting with financial officials, bank representatives, local Police Departments telling them that you better watch out, there are going to be occupiers. They may be attacking local banks, having protests. They met with the chambers of commerce, for example. What this shows is the enormous amount of coordination between federal Law Enforcement agencies and local businesses. And its also worth noting thatbe you dont know that if you dont know what Fusion Centers are, they were created a few years after the attacks of 9 11, ostensibly to help streamline intelligence gathering and sharing across the country because the 9 11 Commission Report greatly criticized how that happens in this country. They partner with businesses, so its not just Law Enforcement, but its the private sector. And in at least one report, a pretty harsh report by the government, i think, General Accounting Office found that Fusion Centers were really pools of ineptitude, enormous hi wasteful if terms of i need you to explain what Fusion Centers are. A Fusion Center is a little well, an entity. I think there are about 80 across the country where Different Levels of Law Enforcement share information with, again, local businesses to a certain extent to try to improve some level of Law Enforcement intelligence gathering and sharing. One of the ways that they took recommendations from the 9 11 commission to try to improve how we do intelligence in this country to make us safer. But theyve been ineffective, and i think there have been many examples of, you know, large surveillance networks, large computer databases that weve poured billions of dollars into that have been sloppily managed by the private sector and that have pailed. Yeah. Well, it sort of brings up Dwight Eisenhowers warning about the military industrial complex. And with the collapse of the soviet union, we didnt really have a sophisticated enemy anywhere. We tried to and with china, but china was funding us so amply, we couldnt go too far. And then this gift that doesnt stop giving of terrorism happened. And it sort of, you mentioned the 9 11 commission, and it really goes to the question of what do we have the right to know and what is classification. And ive been intrigued by this 9 11 here, okay, the whole enemy is this alqaeda and the 9 11 attack. But now as a lawyer and as a constitutional lawyer, we havent had a trial of these people. We know very little about them. We have not had any kind of public who is mohamed, you know, blah, blah, blah . Khalid sheikh mohammed. Who are these people and what was driving them. So we have this enemy that we really dont care to know too much about and the 9 11 Commission Report i used to remember the page, i dont now but theres a disclaimer box in which these people on the commission who had the highest security, right . Appointed by the president say very clearly we asked to see the key witnesses in guantanamo. We were denied that right. We then wanted to put questions to them, we were denied that right. We were even denied the right to talk to the people who questioned them. So you have a whole narrative of what happened on 9 11 based on official leaks of information from the government to the 9 11 commission. No vetting, no examination. So let me ask you about the Legal Community that you have a lot of contact with as the executive director of the National Lawyers guild and so forth. Why are these people so out to lunch . Why is there not more outrage in this community . In the community of progressive lawyers . No, lawyers. Lawyers are supposed to believe in limited government, the rights of the individual. Why are people asleep at the switch . Why do we have to lecture them about the evils of totalitarianism . I think many lawyers and others are concerned. The government, the socalled unitary executive has become so powerful that the george w. Bush administrations Legal Counsel wrote memos justifying torture. It was an immediately sort of played out on tv programs like 24. Tortures become normalized, and i blame the Corporate Media for being a part of that because they dictate the realities, what we see. Its really all about control of information. Its about secrecy by government, and that includes not letting us see dead bodies coming back from iraq, not seeing the damage and trauma that Young American men who come back and women from the battlefields. Its about covering that up. And, again, with corporations giving us a kind of propaganda, a message to make us more perfect consumers but to also vilify the act of speaking out against such things so that there may be angry voices saying that these things are wrong, but they dont get reported on in the media. Who the police led on the roadway, took them through stoplights, leading the protesters feel they were allowed to go there but then they arrested him all. I think that we have such a sort of singular one way message from government and Corporate Place through the media. And i tried to include some stories of little resisters, be at School Children being refuse, upon scan in their lunch. We dont about that story. We are faced with an overwhelming amount of propaganda guys in the form of marketing, and as i mentioned earlier, brand loyalty to big business. As they say on tv, the book is spying on democracy. Let me ask you about the take away from this because generally, okay, privacy, so what . My exwife, exhusband one of us. I can say its shopping and using a credit card, using my fingerprint. What really youre talking about is the end of the democratic experiment. We are playing it down now. I dont know why this discussion but this is a very depressing book. I hate to say it. Its an informative book but you are really talking about not, any, giving up some personal case, freedom and some will know this about me. We are talking about the totalitarian states, right . Right. We are talking about the totalitarian state. Basically the assumption of this book is that this thing protected in the fourth amendment, a space thats your own where you can regroup or you can meet with others, you can exchange letters. As brandeis pointed out, and others, it wasnt just in the home. It was in your communication. Its personal space. And without that personal space of the individual this whole idea of democracy, the notion, doesnt mean anything. Your observation of the moment. You have no time to thank. You have no freedom to thank. So the real message of your book is that this is a war on democracy. And yet its done in the name of protecting democracy. Thats always the case. You know, what stalin, what have you, as always to protect the rights and the values of the people. So again i get back to the question, why is this not more alarming . Why do we sound like some oddball characters worried about this thing . Knowing probably full well what we get out of this mean well probably give what you more of our privacy, right . I will probably look for some restaurant and give the information. Ill send an email that anyone can see, right . Make this phone call that can be tracked. Local and take a picture of my house, right . And everything about it. Why isnt this more alarming . Usage as what i think, i cant believe its true but maybe its true, that we trust the state . No, i mean but that is sure the assumption. It will only be done to the other. This isnt done now as i said at the very beginning of the whole assumption of our society which is a Constitutional Society of restraint on the state. A restraint on power, built on suspicion of power, built on the needs to protect individual rights. And yet as a culture, and maybe because of the dominance of, you would think about freedom as consumer sovereignty and freedom and the free to consumers, that weve lost that notion. Do we think its only going to be muslims that are going to be persecuted and we dont have to worry about it . You are out there, youre dealing with people. What is the resistance the . I do think that children raised on the kind of technology that we have, and i mentioned in the book at disney world they have magic bands that you can wear on your hand to get through those long waiting lines if you give your personal identifying information, cinderella will greet your child on his or her birthday, just after they go over the magic reader, has a different name, but its all made to be fun and friendly. I think with the government not come as i said, doing its job in protecting the most Vulnerable People in our society, children who are raised now with advertisements as i understand it in some classrooms, you know, cocacola sponsorship in the cafeteria, one of the issues i was always interested when i was in graduate school was advertising to children during saturday mornings. Because they would have a cartoon and then a Television Ad that was animated so the kids couldnt tell the difference. And children develop the ability to use computers far earlier than they develop the ability to discern between reality and fantasy. And i think although computers and technology has opened of our lives, ma id like to liken it to the internet, the creators of which wanted this to be, to foster more democratic communications, but in many ways were seeing how its been turned again to gather our personal data to watch us, to control it. So think that were any difficulty because so many people have been born along with the rise of technology to give us this enormous burst, and the internet has changed the world in ways that we couldnt have foreseen. So i do think consumerism and corporate control has made this more difficult. I do think it is a depressing scenario but i dont think its beyond hope with awareness comes the possibility of change. I think the snowden disclosures were the most important revelation that weve had in decades. Daniel from the pentagon said i think that we have a window of opportunity to recognize where we are, that we have choice. Its not going to be easy, but its our job to teach everyone else that, you know, i me, i came to berkeley. Ive only been there a few times but i see people wearing jewelry and sort of feel like im back in the 60s a little bit. That was a period when it was great to protest or to be an individual. And now weve been taught to sort of dont shake the boat, dont be a creative freethinking person. We have to reclaim our autonomy and our sense of personal creativity. One very Frightening Development in the Obama Administration