Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Permanent Representative to the OSCE Michael Carpenter; Interview with The New Yorker Staff Writer Dexter Filkins; Interview with 404 Media Co-Founder Jason Koebler. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 16, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: They despise our values, and they want to shatter our European unity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Is Europe under threat? The heads of the E.U. and NATO warn Moscow is waging a dangerous and reckless campaign. I ask former U.S.
ambassador, Michael Carpenter, what comes next.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JARED KUSHNER, DONALD TRUMP'S SON-IN-LAW: Territory's going to be the main issue, and you know, that's where the sides are still apart.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- diplomat and deal-maker. Jared Kushner has no official role in the Trump administration, but he is helping negotiate some of the
world's biggest conflicts, while pursuing billions in his own private business. New Yorker staff writer, Dexter Filkins, investigates.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JASON KOEBLER, CO-FOUNDER, 404 MEDIA: We're kind of learning the limits of the technology, as well as the ways that it can be abused.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- tracked wherever you go? A vast network of license plate cameras helps police solve crimes, but also raises alarm over privacy and
mass surveillance. Journalist Jason Koebler speaks to Hari Sreenivasan about his investigation.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Russia's war on Ukraine is raising new alarm bells across Europe. This as they come under attack. Poland is now reinforcing security along its border
with Ukraine after a weekend of heavy drone attacks, including on a Ukrainian train station near the Polish border. And NATO says it's shot
down a drone in Lithuania's airspace for the first time. The escalation has provoked strong warnings from the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: Putin knows very well that he will not be able to divide us. And we have all the response options we need when it
comes to hybrid. It will not always be visible and public what we do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says the threat goes far beyond the battlefield.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: Cyber-attack, sabotage, arson, drone incursion, they are ramping up every day. So, as the
threat level climbs, so must Europe's preparedness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: All this as President Trump pushes for de-escalation with the U.S. proposing a mutual halt to Russian and Ukrainian strikes on critical
infrastructure.
Michael Carpenter served as President Biden's senior director for Europe on the National Security Council and is a former U.S. ambassador to the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and he's joining us live from Prague. Welcome to the program, Ambassador.
MICHAEL CARPENTER, FORMER U.S. PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE OSCE: Thanks so much for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, what was -- crossed your mind first? What alarm bells sort of started to ring when there was this brazen attack on that train station,
and it was just as a separate train was passing through, known sort of colloquially as the peace train, carrying officials and carrying, you know,
think tankers who had just been on a conference in Kyiv.
CARPENTER: Well, having been on that train numerous times myself actually the thought that crossed my mind was here we are. It's only a matter of
time until we got to this incident. And here we are with Russians most likely deliberately taking strikes at trains knowing that senior Russian --
excuse me, that senior European officials are on board.
Russia has been sending a signal over the course of at least the last few months using its ballistic missile attacks to show that almost no target is
off limits. We know about their attempts to target President Zelenskyy's airplane in Moldova and now this brazen strike on a train carrying European
diplomats.
AMANPOUR: So, are you basically saying, Ambassador, that Moscow, i.e., Putin, because he makes the top decisions, has decided to try to
assassinate actual leaders or to scare them? I mean, an attempt on Zelenskyy's plane, an attempt on a train that was near this particular
train?
[13:05:00]
What message is Putin trying to give Kyiv's allies?
CARPENTER: I think the message is to try to scare everyone across Europe. And it's no secret that he's targeted Zelenskyy at multiple points during
the course of this war.
Now, European officials have been largely off limits. But I think if my intuition is correct, I think this is likely a deliberate attempt to send a
message that Europeans who are supporting Ukraine, either by traveling to keep to show their diplomatic support, or those in West European countries
who are providing material support to Ukraine.
Look, we've heard about a number of Russian attempts on the lives of those who are involved in the production of defense material. For example, the
CEO of the Russian defense company, Rheinmetall, but also sabotage operations on warehouses and other logistics nodes that are associated with
support for Ukraine.
Again, the message is crystal clear to Europeans from Putin. It is everything is a legitimate target. And this is a war between Russia and
Europe. A lot of Europeans don't like to hear that. And it is largely an unconventional war, but it is a war nonetheless.
AMANPOUR: Well, certainly the weekend train attack got a lot of think tankers and officials and analysts starting to talk about what actually
NATO's response should be. Should NATO start to take down Russian drones, you know, even before they get close to their territory, if they look like
they're headed towards them? What do you think, where -- and where do you think this particular, you know, turning point is going to lead to?
CARPENTER: Well, the prime minister of Lithuania has already indicated publicly that NATO planes have taken down drones over his territory. A
number of so-called errant drones, and I say that with quotes, have ventured into NATO territory into Poland, of course, famously, a year ago,
but then also into various other countries, including Romania, and some of the Baltic countries.
Unfortunately, taking out a drone using either an F-16 aircraft or some other means is, of course, justified. And I would also think that taking
down drones before they reach NATO territory is also justified. But alone, that is not enough to deter Putin from pursuing this hybrid or
unconventional warfare, because Putin looks very carefully at the costs and benefits. And if it's just simply taking out a drone that is being fired
into NATO territory, that's no cost to Russia.
He would have to see that there was a cost imposition strategy that was coordinated from European allies, that was causing more damage to his
assets and his capabilities than what he is currently prosecuting with his hybrid campaign against Europe. But NATO lacks that strategy, Christiane,
unfortunately. There is no coordinated NATO strategy of taking all these various incidents in the aggregate and responding to them collectively
rather than as one-offs.
Right now, we have a situation where every European NATO ally is essentially forced to confront Russia's hybrid warfare on their own,
responding either in kind or through asymmetric means, but on their own.
AMANPOUR: So, what are you suggesting? What does a coordinated action look like? And the head of NATO, Mark Rutte, said that there will be a response,
and it might even be covert, he said, in ways seen and unseen. Obviously, Putin is trying to test NATO resolve, provoking NATO. What should they do
now after, as you rightly say, these past four-plus years of piecemeal responses?
CARPENTER: Well, you know, I think Mark Rutte is right. There are some responses that we don't see, for example, in the cyber domain or in other
domains where what NATO or what individual allies do is not necessarily public.
However, I think the totality of NATO responses to Russia's unconventional campaign is highly underwhelming. I don't think, empirically speaking,
Putin has not been deterred. My organization, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, has been tracking hybrid incidents across Europe and
has found a threefold increase from 2022 to 2025. And that also does not even encapsulate the increase in the scale and scope of the types of
incidents that we're seeing coming from Russia.
[13:10:00]
So, NATO has been -- and Rutte gets credit for this, has been building a common operational picture, so allies are aware of what's happening on each
other's territory, and they're sharing information a little bit more than they were a few years ago. But again, the cost imposition piece is the
critical piece that's missing from the NATO strategy. We're not seeing significant costs being borne by Russia, and frankly, those don't have to
be in kind.
If Russia's firing drones, I wouldn't suggest that NATO fire drones back, but NATO has a lot of economic statecraft tools beyond sanctions and
tariffs that it could deploy, and it should meaningfully signal that Russia is going to pay a cost for its actions.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And the question always is, what cost? What -- I mean, you've imposed global sanctions, there's, you know, Russian isolation, all
the rest of it, but it doesn't seem to, as you say, have deterred Putin.
Can I just ask you, since you did work under the Biden administration on the National Security Council, do you think that administration should have
taken much stronger moves, in other words, laid down the set of responses and the red lines for NATO, for the United States, if Putin were to do what
he's doing now?
CARPENTER: Yes, it's a good question, Christiane. We were in the midst of setting up a coordination cell with our European allies. You'll recall the
DHL incendiary package plot back in 2024 really captured our attention, and we devoted a lot of resources to speaking with allies about this plot.
You know, it had the potential to produce a mass casualty event because a lot of these packages that were being sent by private carriers like DHL
are, in fact, carried on civilian aircraft with passengers, and so if one of those planes had gone down, we would be talking about a mass casualty
event, and then the escalation would be off to the races.
So, in the previous administration, we had convened on at least one occasion in London and then several more virtual conversations, a group of
core allies to talk about how we devise a strategy to track these incidents, deny Russia the space and the manpower to be able to carry them
out because there's still an awful lot of Russian operatives that are able to move fairly freely between European countries. But then, as I said, also
the cost imposition piece.
We were discussing it. There are -- there's plenty of headroom as far as sanctions are concerned, but there's also effects that can be had through
assistance to Ukraine that would definitely get Russia's attention, and so we were in the process of implementing a strategy or trying to craft one
but never quite got to the finish line on it, and it's desperately needed today.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And so is more assistance to Ukraine, apparently. You can see that President Trump has not been so forthcoming, and now they're
running out, apparently, of the kind of defensive missiles that Ukraine needs and other equipment.
And just now, I just want to run this by you because CNN's doing an investigation on Russian satellites. Apparently, 14 Russian spy satellites
swept over a U.S. airbase in Saudi Arabia in March, so many months ago, just before an Iranian missile and drone strike, which wounded American
service members, destroyed two critical assets, including an AWACS plane. In other words, Russia is not just fighting Ukraine or, you know, poking
Europe, but it's actually helping America's enemies in this new war, too.
CARPENTER: No, that's absolutely right, and none of your listeners should be surprised by this, that Russia would be providing intelligence to an
adversary like Iran in order to target U.S. facilities and U.S. service members. As chilling as it is, we've seen this repeatedly over the course
of many years. Russia views its relationship with the United States in zero-sum terms, and they want to hurt the United States. And so, we need to
be cognizant of the fact that that is where Russia is.
And, you know, it worries me that I hear talk of win-win solutions coming from the administration with regards to Ukraine, but also with regards to
the Middle East, but that is not Vladimir Putin's intention. He is not looking for a win-win.
AMANPOUR: Well, not only that, there's been a plethora of articles written and, you know, facts on the ground, so to speak, or in the air. The amount
of surge in Russian attacks on Ukraine is unbelievable, and, you know, round-the-clock, supercharged weapons systems, unlike what they had before,
as we've seen, daring attacks on Europeans and others.
[13:15:00]
So, the question is, Mark Rutte says that Putin is acting out of desperation. Others say that, actually, it shows that he is more confident
and that no amount of is going to stop him from fighting.
So, let me just run this by you. You've recently said that Russia was in a position of, quote, "historic weakness." Last month, the chief economist at
the Russian State Development Corporation, who was fired, after saying the following. We are falling behind. We're losing both the technological and
economic competition in the world. We're not only losing it to China and the United States. In some respects, we're losing it to Ukraine.
First of all, is that an up-to-date assessment from inside Russia? And is this kind of, you know, warning reaching the Kremlin? I mean, the guy was
fired, so it must be reaching the Kremlin. But are people taking it in?
CARPENTER: Well, two things can be true at the same time. One is that Russia faces a series of overlapping vulnerabilities that are starting to
reinforce one another. Certainly, its economy, the civilian economy, has been cannibalized almost completely by the military-industrial complex. So,
as Russia has grown that military-industrial base, the civilian economy has suffered a fairly deep recession, and there's any number of proxy variables
that testify to that.
Socially, Russia is also in a period of sort of deep malaise, I would say, if you read some of the sharper ethnographic accounts that come out of
Russia today. They show that while there may not yet be overt criticism of Vladimir Putin, there is a lot of critique of the situation that Russia
finds itself in today. So, yes, Russia is historically weak. Unfortunately, the West is not really using the tools at its disposal to make Russia even
weaker, for example, using those frozen Russian assets that lie in Western jurisdictions.
But at the same time, Christiane, Putin does sense blood in the water when it comes to Ukraine because Ukraine has run out of anti-ballistic missile
interceptors. These are a key capability that allow them to defend their cities against these horrific ballistic missile attacks. They've been
pretty good at defending against drones, and God knows that Russia fires hundreds of drones at Ukraine daily. But the ballistic missiles are now the
problem, and as we head into winter, I think Putin is going to really double down on attacking the energy infrastructure, trying to plunge
Ukrainian cities into darkness and cold, and forcing Ukrainians to leave the country, essentially, this winter.
AMANPOUR: Yes, indeed. This winter is going to be potentially make or break for both sides. And as you say, Putin shows no sign of wanting to end
this, despite the pressures that are on him now, which is not enough, even with more pressures, according to a lot of analysts.
But I want to ask you something that, frankly, shocks me, and I'm sure -- well, a lot of people. But there was an article in The New York Times, an
investigation into corruption and defense procurement and the kind of money that they're trying to raise in Ukraine to actually get the right weapons
to help their forces in the field and to save their country.
And it was pretty awful to see the chapter and verse of how certain Ukrainians involved in this procurement effort were just pocketing it. And
now, the E.U., which has earlier finalized a massive loan, is being asked for more by Zelenskyy himself, some $27 billion. What does this say to
everybody? I mean, people -- where is this going to lead?
CARPENTER: Well, look, Christiane, I mean, this has been -- Ukraine has been fighting a two-front war since at least 2014, an external war of
aggression waged by Russia, but then also an internal war against these forces of corruption that have plagued Ukraine for so many decades, and
frankly, that are often lubricated by Russian agents, at least in the past, if not today. So, it's very disappointing when we hear about some of these
procurement scams and graft and corruption coming from inside Ukraine, even from senior officials in the cabinet, such as the prosecutor general who
has just fled the country. It's very disappointing.
By the same token, I think Ukraine's survival as a democratic, independent, sovereign state has to be the strategic goal, both for the United States
and for our European partners. And it means helping Ukraine to fight this corruption, even as we help them to prosecute the war. And, you know, the
West helped Ukraine stand up these tremendous anti-corruption institutions, including the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, which has been investigating
a lot of these key cases. It actually works, believe it or not.
[13:20:00]
But -- you know, but this is something that they struggle with, you know, month after month, unfortunately.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Ambassador Carpenter, thank you so much for your insights. And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, to the man President Trump has dispatched to help negotiate some of the world's biggest conflicts. Jared Kushner has no official role
in the administration, but the president's son-in-law has emerged as a key player from Ukraine to Iran and Gaza, all while maintaining a vast network
of private business interests.
The New Yorker's Dexter Filkins has investigated how Kushner's diplomacy and deal making intersect and the potential conflicts that it raises. He's
joining us now from New York. Dexter, welcome back to our program.
DEXTER FILKINS, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: Hey, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, let me just read the title because it's pretty provocative. "Jared Kushner's Dollar Diplomacy." And you write that he represents a new
kind of Washington figure for whom public office serves as a means to extraordinary wealth. Defend that statement.
FILKINS: Well, look, it's Jared Kushner is wearing two hats. He's effectively -- he and Steve Witkoff are effectively secretaries of state.
They fly all over the world to kind of make peace and to do diplomacy, which is fine. But what's disturbing here, and it's the contradiction that
I tried to explore in the story, is that at the very same time he's flying around the world to do diplomatic missions, he's flying around the world to
manage his investments. And so, he's negotiating the same countries where he has investments. And so, that creates -- you know, it's like which hat
are you wearing today? That creates potential really, really serious conflicts of interest.
Like just to give you an example, he goes to Israel pretty often. He has gone to Israel to try to solve the Gaza, the Gaza war and to make a cease
fire and get the hostages released at the very same time he's managing investments there. And so, you can see you can see potentially the
conflicts that that that that raises. And there's a couple of really serious ones, which are -- potentially serious ones that I explore in the
piece, for example, in Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: And, Dexter, you know, he would say and he has said it publicly and I'm going to read it right. He says basically that that that these he's
looking for inventive solutions to problems that are ordinarily handled by, quote, "unimaginative bureaucrats." He said that on a TV program. And this
is what he had said to 60 Minutes last October, actually around the Gaza deal that we're going to talk about in a minute, quote, "Focus on interests
over values sometimes and figure out what are and what where do we have joint interests with other countries and pursue those joint interests and
then where you have differences on interests or values, discuss those privately and try to find ways to get it to the best place possible."
[13:25:00]
How does that sound to you? It's kind of the pragmatic role that he's trying to describe versus the traditional diplomatic role.
FILKINS: Well, I mean, it sounds great, but I think the reality is a little bit different than that. And I think in I think in Gaza, he and
Witkoff, they got the ceasefire. They got the ceasefire. They got the last of the hostages out. I think there were 28 that were still left. Those are
all good things.
But if you take, for instance, the negotiations with Iran in Geneva right before the war started, those were the last negotiations we had, and they
failed. And it's not clear to me, I think increasingly it's clear to me that neither Witkoff nor Kushner fully understood what was being put on the
table in front of them by the Iranians.
And the Iranian regime, you know, we all know about them. They're not always trustworthy. They can be quite conniving and backstabbing. But they
were pretty clearly, I think, putting proposals on the table that were serious. And their nuclear negotiations are very technical. It's pretty
clear to me talking to people who were in the room that Kushner and Witkoff didn't really understand what was being put in front of them.
And so, you know, you can disparage the diplomats and say, oh, they're a bunch of clowns, and they get bogged down in these details and all the
history. But this stuff is hard. And if it weren't hard, it would have been solved by now. And so, I think that's the trouble. It's a kind of hubris
that they're bringing into these negotiations, which is like, we're really smart guys. We're just real estate guys. But hey, we're pragmatists. We can
do it. And it's not entirely clear from the record that that's true.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let us stick with what you were just saying about that last negotiation, which was happening in Switzerland. And, you know, it
broke down. And a day later or two days later, the war started. So, you write, Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, offered concessions.
Iranians were offering to suspend nuclear enrichment entirely, which they had not done before.
FILKINS: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And indeed, I've spoken to others who are around that place. And they also say that they were surprised by the concessions the Iranians were
offering there, concessions that they hadn't before. And a day before the war, Oman's foreign minister, he was a key mediator. He flew to Washington
after the talks broke down to make a last-minute plea for peace. Here's what he said to CBS. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BADR BIN HAMAD AL BUSAIDI, OMANI FOREIGN MINISTER: I am confident, and in my assessment of the way the talks are going, I think there is really, I
can see that the peace deal is within our reach.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A peace deal?
AL BUSAIDI: Yes, is within our reach if we just allow diplomacy the space it needs to get there. Because I don't think any alternative to diplomacy
is going to solve this problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Dexter, I'm fascinated by -- you know, by two issues there. One, he says, if we would allow diplomacy to reach its natural conclusion. And
the other is a comment that you have in your article, where you talk to a friend of Jared Kushner's, who says he's a lovely guy, but he's way out of
-- you know, out of his depth.
So, which is it? Does Jared disparage the idea of traditional diplomacy, or does he not know what it actually takes?
FILKINS: Well, I think both of those things are true in this case, unfortunately. And so, again, I'll give you an example in the Iran
negotiations. Typically, historically, again, these things are hard. They're really hard. It's like the Iranians propose something. It's like,
what on earth does this mean? Is it good? Is it bad? Are they trying to trick us?
You've got a team of technical advisers with you, like physicists and guys who do nuclear negotiations from the State Department, from the Department
of Energy, from the CIA. Witkoff and Kushner, who were doing the negotiations, they didn't bring any technical advisers. They didn't have
any.
And so, as I was told, you know, they literally just were looking at the Iranian proposal and saying, huh. And at one point, they turned to the head
of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, and said, can you be our technical adviser? And Grossi apparently said, that's not my role.
[13:30:00]
But that's -- I think that's the danger here, is that in disparaging diplomacy, which is, you know, easy enough to do, you're discounting the
value, and how hard it is, because it's hard stuff. And again, if it were easy, like it would have been -- you know, we would solve it by now.
AMANPOUR: And do you think there were no technical advisers because of the complete evisceration of those technical -- the technical bench, so to
speak, in the diplomatic process, whether the State Department and elsewhere, or just because they didn't feel the necessity? Did anybody
speak to you about that?
FILKINS: Yes, I think it's more that there are technical advisers. They were available. And in fact, when we spoke to Jared and to Wikoff, they
said, oh, no, we had people in the room. And -- but everybody else who was in that room told me that they had no one. And there were people who were
assigned to those negotiations who were prepared to help. And they didn't bring them.
And so, that -- you know, that's indicative, I think, of the attitude that Jared and Steve Witkoff have brought to diplomacy, which is like, look,
this stuff isn't that hard. It's really about, you know, being pragmatic. And it's like a real estate deal, you know. Unfortunately, it's not like a
real estate deal. It's a lot tougher than that.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And certainly, nor is Russia-Ukraine like a real estate deal. And I think I'm correct in saying that Jared Kushner and Steve
Witkoff, the president's emissaries, have visited Putin several times. It's like eight or something, maybe a little more. And only once, and that was
just recently, have they been to Kyiv.
And you have said, and actually, Witkoff, I think, has sort of said the same thing at the beginning of the administration after his first visit
there, that they believe Vladimir Putin is, quote, "a good guy." They greeted Putin on a recent trip like an old friend. They rode in a Russian
limousine rather than a U.S. embassy vehicle. And then they headed to Kyiv. And hours after they left, Putin resumed bombing.
So, what about the big picture, then? What about American interests? Western interests, the value of democracy, and basically the Western world
order, which the U.S. has done so much to lead?
FILKINS: Well, I think, you know, that's the most important question of all. I think it starts at the top, which is President Trump. And, you know,
he's made it pretty clear he doesn't care about all that stuff. He does say that he wants to end the war in Ukraine. He does. And I think he's sincere
about that. But I think the approach that they've taken, as you pointed out, has been pretty strange, I think.
And I say that charitably. They've gone -- I think it was mostly Witkoff, almost entirely Witkoff, doing the negotiations in the beginning. But he
went to Putin again and again and again and again. You know, how can we help you? And on one occasion, at least, he came back. And basically, and
I'm quoting Marco Rubio, a member of the Trump White House, who said, "It was Putin's wish list." I mean, that's what they came home with.
And so, their approach to the negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war have been strange. And they -- and to answer your question, I think the
last thing that seems to be on their mind is that Ukraine is a Western democracy and a friend --
AMANPOUR: OK. Last question --
FILKINS: -- their values and -- yes.
AMANPOUR: Right. Last question. We've only got about a minute left. Again, it's called, you know, "The Dollar Diplomacy." You report that in Ukraine,
a classified intelligence report from the European Intelligence Agency says that Trump and people around him have discussed several potential contracts
in Russia, ready to go once peace is agreed in the Middle East. Kushner's raised billions of dollars from sovereign wealth funds on the Arab states
who've invested in Affinity, which is his venture capitalist.
You talk to a former White House counsel, an ethics lawyer, who tells you Kushner is plagued with conflicts of interest, supposed to be working for
the American people, but in fact has tremendous financial incentives to further the interests of his investors.
So, just to -- you know, just to conclude, where does this path lead in trying to resolve the forever wars, including now the Iran one and the
Israel one that doesn't seem to end with the Palestinians or the neighboring states? In 30 seconds, Dexter.
FILKINS: Well, look, we got to end those wars, but I'd say in the case of Jared Kushner, I'd say, OK, fine, good, but who are you working for? You
trying to make money or are you a diplomat? And it's very, very difficult to separate those.
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: Well, thank you very much. And definitely I'm going to try to get him on to talk about this because he does have his own views as we've
put to you. And I think they believe that they can get stuff done, but it's so interesting to hear you lay things out the way you have. Thank you,
Dexter Filkins.
And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, 1.6 million. That is the number of images a singular flock surveillance camera captured in just 21 days. This company is well-known in
the United States and has become a source of considerable controversy.
According to an investigation by the independent American news publication, 404 Media, the outlet, in association with a group of hackers, breached the
flock system by simply ripping down the camera from above the roadway and they gained access to vast amounts of sensitive information like that. They
uncovered something far more sinister, they say, about what the cameras can be used for.
404 Media co-founder and journalist Jason Koebler joins Hari Sreenivasan to explain the risks of this technology and how people are fighting back now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Jason Koebler, thanks so much for joining us.
You and 404 Media have been reporting on flock cameras aggressively for months and months now, really now technically years. Most people are not
going to be familiar with flock cameras, even if they've been driving by them or living in communities with them. Just give us a breakdown of what
they actually do.
JASON KOEBLER, CO-FOUNDER, 404 MEDIA: Yes. So, Flock is a surveillance company that sells several different types of cameras. They are most famous
for automated license plate reader cameras, which are called ALPRs in the business. And what these ALPR cameras do is they take a photo of cars as
they drive by.
Flock was founded in Georgia and started in a few dozen towns, but over the last few years, it's expanded to be in 40 percent of towns in the United
States, so more than 10,000 cities. And what makes Flock different is they have created this network of automated license plate reader cameras. So,
this is a technology that's been around for a long time, but what Flock has done is they've networked them together. So, whereas if a cop had access to
this type of camera in the past, they may be able to search for a stolen car or a missing child by searching the five or seven cameras that they
have in their town.
What Flock has done has allowed them to search for tens of thousands of cameras across the entire country. They can search one town over, they can
search across an entire state, or they can search the entire national network. And so, right now, the big debate is sort of, do we want this
technology in our towns? And if so, what guardrails should there be?
SREENIVASAN: OK. I want to get into some of those cases in a little bit here. You know, I can see the rationale for how the company started. I
mean, it was started by an engineer named Garrett Langley, and he couldn't get the police to act after break-ins in his neighborhood, right? And one
of the pitches that Flock often makes to local municipalities and law enforcement is what happens when you want to put out an amber alert or a
silver alert?
So, we can't just limit it to one particular jurisdiction. If that car crosses a municipality or a state line, you still want to be able to track
that car.
[13:40:00]
And what you're pointing out is, is that that very capability is being abused.
KOEBLER: Yes. I think the tricky thing is that we are a very diverse country politically and also a very large country. And this technology is
being sold to local police and there are very few guardrails on it. There's no requirement to get a warrant to search the system.
And so, you have essentially tens of thousands of police officers who can log into this search engine for vehicles and they are using it to find
missing children. That is true. But then you also have cops who are thinking, oh, well, my wife, what was she up to yesterday? And they are
typing their license plate in and searching that. And there's been instances of cops who have done this hundreds of times over the course of
months, just sort of following the same person over and over again with no law enforcement purpose whatsoever. You have cities that signed up for this
thinking it was going to primarily be used for to find missing children, learning that it has been used to surveil protesters by, you know, people
several towns away.
And so, I think like throughout much of my reporting, what I've learned is when there are these abuses, I call up some of the police departments that
have had their cameras searched. And a lot of them sort of didn't understand that this was happening at all. They didn't understand the
network effects like they understood that they could search other jurisdictions cameras, but they didn't understand that their own cameras
were being searched. And a lot of cities signed up for this technology, maybe not fully understanding that.
And so, these cases of abuse have come out. And you have a lot of people living in these towns saying, is this something that we actually want?
SREENIVASAN: So, give me a range or an understanding of how narrow or how broad a search term can be. How good is the technology and how searchable
is this database?
KOEBLER: Yes, I mean, the main types of searches are for a specific license plate. So, that is how Flock started. It is an automatic license
plate reader. And so, you type in a specific license plate and it can show a cop, you know, where that person has been either over the last 30 or last
seven days. Anytime that vehicle has driven past one of these cameras, which are on light, either light poles or on individual poles at
intersections.
But Flock also has a system called free form search that allows police to type, use it essentially as a Google like system. So, you can type black
SUV. You can type woman with hoodie. You can type man walking dog. And the system and its artificial intelligence will pull up those search results.
And some of these cases of abuse have happened because of essentially faulty searches.
There is a woman in Florida who is driving a black SUV. There was a hit and run accident that killed three people in an area that she was driving.
There was a black SUV reported. The cop showed up at this woman's house and arrested her. She spent 13 days in prison. There was not a scratch on her
car. It was the wrong vehicle. But because the Flock system detected her being near the site of this accident, cops assumed that it was her vehicle
involved. And only later did they figure out it was a different black SUV.
SREENIVASAN: So, the technology led her to be guilty until proven innocent.
KOEBLER: Well, Flock has been saying is that these types of mistakes are a result of cops not using the system correctly. Los Angeles, for example,
ended its contract with Flock, the LAPD, because they found that they were regularly pulling over cars that were reported stolen, but they were
essentially pulling over innocent people.
And what was happening there was a car was reported stolen. It would be recovered. But then in some police database, because you have like various
databases talking to each other in some database, that case would never be cleared. And so, the car would still be shown as stolen. Months or weeks
later, a cop would pull over that person and expect to find a criminal who's stolen a car and they found the owner of the vehicle. This has
happened hundreds of times, according to an inspector's general report in Los Angeles.
So, I mean, this is a technology that I do think holds promise, but it's something that's been deployed in a huge way all across the United States.
And we're kind of learning the limits of the technology, as well as the ways that it can be abused.
SREENIVASAN: You know, your reporting is based on reading hundreds of audit logs, right? So, that every time one of these things happens, there
is a public record of it. And you were able to search through you and your colleagues at 404. We will search through all these.
[13:45:00]
How many of these audit reports are generated? And, you know, were you able to -- are you able to see all of them at the same time, or are you just
basing your reporting on the batches that you see?
KOEBLER: Yes, this has been a really exciting and interesting reporting project for us because of the way that Flock works. We're essentially
learning what the entire country is using Flock for, because each time any police officer in the entire country searches the system, it very often
will hit thousands of cameras across the country.
And so, we were able to learn from police departments in Illinois that police officers in South Carolina were searching their cameras for
undocumented immigrants. We were able to learn from those same police departments that police officers in California were surveilling the No
King's protesters.
To give a sense of the scale, there are tens of thousands of searches a day. You know, one of these audit logs is essentially an Excel spreadsheet
that just goes on forever, like it feels like an endless scroll. And the information contained in it is the time of the search, the number of
networks searched, meaning the number of towns that were searched, the overall number of cameras that were searched, which in many cases is
80,000, 100,000.
And then crucially, the police need to put in a reason for performing the search. And very often that reason tab will say stolen vehicle or drug
trafficking investigation or missing person report. But very often it will just say something like investigation or test or example. And then we have
found these cases where it says something like loitering or protest or in one case in Texas, we found one where they were searching for a woman who
had an abortion. Like that was specifically sort of spelled out.
SREENIVASAN: So, how have ICE officers been using this system?
KOEBLER: Yes, this one's a little bit complicated because ICE does not have a formal contract with Flock. The way that they have access Flock data
is through a program called 287G, which allows local police to do immigration enforcement.
And so, what has happened is these local police departments will search for an undocumented immigrant as part of this partnership. And so, then on the
Flock audit reports, it will show that a town or city in Texas or Tennessee or South Carolina has searched for undocumented immigrant or ICE
investigation or HSI Homeland Security Investigations investigation. And it will say immigration. But then when you talk to the police there, they will
say, oh, this was part of our 287G program. This was part of our task force with ICE.
And so, Flock is not working directly with ICE. But through our reporting, through these audit logs, we were able to show that there have been
hundreds of searches for undocumented immigrants. Flock has not really put a stop to this. There's been quite a bit of backlash. But, you know, these
types of searches have continued.
SREENIVASAN: You know, Flock put out a statement about this saying, Flock does not work with U.S. immigration and customs enforcement. Communities
control federal data access. ICE does not have direct access to Flock camera systems or data unless the agencies that control their data
expressly and deliberately allow it.
So, I wonder, is this a problem with technology or is this a problem with kind of generically people and how we use and abuse technology?
KOEBLER: Yes. I mean, it is a human problem. The technology enables this type of abuse or makes it a lot easier to do. The technology also makes it
a bit easier to catch. I mean, Flock, to its credit, has these auditing systems that allows a police department to go in and see an officer's
search history, for example, in response to our reporting and reporting by The Washington Post and other journalists Flock has sort of done some
proactive flagging of anomalous searches, meaning if its system detects the cops searching the same license plate over and over and over again, you
know, it will automatically flag that and say, is this legitimate investigation or is this a police officer abusing the system? And, you
know, a supervisor needs to then go in and sort of investigate what's going on there.
I do think that the backlash to Flock is based on some of the abuses that we've seen. But I also think it's part of a broader anxiety about
artificial intelligence and about surveillance in general.
SREENIVASAN: So, there are some legal challenges in different communities as well. What are the plaintiffs basically arguing?
KOEBLER: So, plaintiffs are basically arguing that this is a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. There is a case in Norfolk, Virginia, where
essentially this man is arguing that he can't leave his home without driving by one of these cameras.
[13:50:00]
And then, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the city of San Jose on much the same grounds,
arguing that this technology violates the Fourth Amendment.
So, far, courts have argued that, you know, you don't have a right to privacy in public. Most of these cameras are on, you know, public
intersections, that sort of thing. But the argument that's being made is that the networking together of all of these cameras violates the Fourth
Amendment rights to privacy. That it is true that, you know, a police officer can sit on a street corner and take a photograph of your license
plate and there's no problem there.
But should a company be able to do this persistently over time, have a database of it, and should cops be able to query that database any time
that they want without a warrant?
SREENIVASAN: On the Flock site, the CEO has a statement, part of it is that the goal isn't to maximize safety at the expense of privacy. The goal
is to maximize both and that it should help investigators solve crimes faster while creating audit trails that make misuse easier to detect.
I wonder, you know, considering that you were one of the first outlets really to be finding this information and doing this set of stories. What's
the response from Flock been like to your reporting?
KOEBLER: I would say it's been a bit adversarial. You know, Garrett Langley, the CEO, did a video interview last year with Forbes, for example,
and he called us activist journalists. He at the time called the De-Flock movement, which is the movement to get rid of Flock, called them
terrorists. He's since apologized for those remarks.
I think Flock is a company that expanded very rapidly. And it's a company that, you know, a lot of the cities and towns that bought this technology
didn't understand what they're buying. We know that's the case because dozens of towns have since canceled their contracts with Flock, saying, you
know, this is not what we bargained for.
I think that Flock has made some reforms in response to our reporting, and I think that it's good that they've made those reforms. But I think a lot
of the abuses we've seen have been a result of this company expanding so rapidly without predicting the types of ways that it's been abused. And I
think that probably you'd like to see a bit more care and maybe forethought into how a network like this could be abused so that the protections are
more proactive rather than reactive.
SREENIVASAN: Co-founder of 404 Media, Jason Koebler, thanks so much for your time.
KOEBLER: Thank you so much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, today marks four years since the death of Mahsa Amini, who was just 22 when she died in custody after being detained by
Iran's morality police. Her alleged crime, not abiding by the country's mandatory hijab law. Her name became a rallying cry for women across Iran,
with thousands gathering to take part in the Women, Life, Freedom protest movement.
Despite the government's brutal crackdown on those demonstrations, defiance still lives on four years later. More Iranian women are pushing back
against the restrictions that have been forced upon them, singing, dancing and wearing what they want. Everyday acts of defiance by women determined
to be free.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi is one of the global symbols of the Iranian women's movement. For her campaigning, she has paid a heavy
price, including brutal jail terms. But today, in conversation with correspondent Jomana Karadsheh, she paid tribute to everything the brave
women of Iran have achieved.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARGES MOHAMMADI, IRANIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: (through translator): Some of our greatest and the most enduring achievements have come from the
Women, Life, Freedom movement. Although right now people are not taking to the streets in the name of the Women, Life, Freedom movement and chanting
slogans, in my view, people have in fact taken over the streets through the achievement of Women, Life, Freedom.
If you look at the streets of Tehran, and even in the cities across the country, you can see how courageously women are standing tall in the
streets. Despite the fact that the government is repressing them by every possible means in order to push them back and impose compulsory hijab, they
resist. I think through the Women, Life, Freedom movement, we were able to create the power to the protester and present it to the world.
That is someone who had come out into the streets to protests would be beaten, killed, imprisoners and executed.
[13:55:00]
But they had a sense of power, a sense of legitimacy, which forced the government to retreat. In my view, women had agency in this movement. The
Women, Life, Freedom movement originated with people, with the people's awareness. And this is precisely the path that is moving toward democracy.
And I'm extremely hopeful about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Women seizing their own history. Mohammadi is currently out of prison on medical furlough. And her memoir is due out this month, too. It
is bound to be riveting.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
