Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Weather Helps California Firefighters; First Case of MERS Transmitted in the U.S.; "New York Times" Fires Back Over Firing

Aired May 17, 2014 - 19:00   ET

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

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN ANCHOR: You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Miguel Marquez, in for Don Lemon.

On the West Coast right now, firefighters say they finally have the advantage over a wave of ferocious wildfires.

Now, that doesn't mean the fires are out. Far from it. Thousands of acres north of San Diego are still burning. Dozens of homes and businesses are gone.

And this western wildfire season has just gotten started.

CNN's Paul Vercammen is in San Marcos, California.

Paul, this is not a good sign for the rest of the fire season. They could use some rain out there, yes?

PAUL VERCAMMEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they could. As you well know, I remember a piece you did when you were walking the Central Valley in California, extreme, exceptional or severe drought throughout California. Now, while the good news is the San Marcos fire is 70 percent contained and most of the San Diego fires in the right direction, the drought is just getting worse. And when you look at the vegetation, they use these terms and they say it's just absolutely stressed. Well, it's obvious that it's dry and you walk up here and did this, which is snapped easily.

The vegetation can come back. But you need? Rain. And we are just not getting any rain in the west. I was talking with a top federal fire official and they said, where are the areas of concern? Almost all of California, almost all of Oregon and parts of Nevada.

And, of course, if they do get any rain you look down in the canyon and there is a house that miraculously survived this fire. But if they get some precipitation, some moisture, look how exposed the hillside is and the next thing they have to think about in the winter would be mudslides, Miguel.

MARQUEZ: Yes. So, much of the west under fire threat this fire season. What is it like there? Are they essentially saying they have to treat this as though it is October/November right now?

VERCAMMEN: That's exactly it. They are looking at this at a summer or fall phenomenon. The other term you hear being thrown around, but they are not throwing it around lightly, you're hearing it on the federal, state and local level. I just talked to a PIO today, public information officer, and he said all of these conditions, these drought-like conditions, this early start, this makes for what they think could be one of the worst fire seasons ever.

As I said, they don't like to toss around that term lightly at all, Miguel.

MARQUEZ: All right. Paul Vercammen for us tonight in San Marcos, California -- thank you very much.

Over the past few days, we couldn't stop watching images like this, a fast moving wildfire and the wind twisting the flames into angry looking funnel of immense heat. Firefighters called these things fire tornadoes and they both respect and fear them and with good reason.

Here's Tom Foreman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: One of the most dangerous circumstances for wildfire fighters is the day when the weather and the winds are unstable and fires can be pushed one way very quickly or they can be pushed back the other way. But how does all this come together to create a fire whirl or some people call it a fire tornado?

Essentially, the fire burns into a very hot source of fuel, 1,500 to 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit would be typical. And then in this changing environment, a pocket of cold air appears overhead. And all of that heat starts rushing up toward it. And as it meets the cooler air, it does what they do in tornado situations, the two types of air start swirling around each other and you get that circular motion.

Meanwhile, it starts sucking in more combustible gases from the ground and as they rise up, they burst into flames. It tightens in and gets faster and there you get your fire tornado. It's not actually a true tornado in that a tornado would be hundreds of miles an hour and it would be much more powerful than this. They do occur that way but very, very rarely.

This is more like a dust devil with fire in it. But it's still dangerous. Because it can go horizontal at any moment and basically start spraying out across the ground like a blowtorch with thousands of degrees very dangerous for firefighters nearby. But even if it keeps going straight up, along with those combustible gases, it pulls in tiny bits of particulate, bits of plants and things, which can also burst into flames up there and in this rapidly swirling environment, be thrown out and carried by the wind starting other fires.

So, if you're too close to the fire whirl itself, you can be trapped between that and the other fires that are started and imagine those fires going all the way around. That's one of the reasons why these have to be treated with so much respect and kept at such a distance as fascinating as they are.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUEZ: Now, we have just learned for the first time that Middle East Respiratory Syndrome also known as MERS has been passed between two people within the United States.

CNN's senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen says what makes this worrisome is that for the first time, someone has been infected on U.S. soil.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: The first two of MERS, they were people who went from Saudi Arabia to the United States. But now, one of those patients, one of those people, has now spread MERS to someone else within the United States.

So, this new person, he is from Illinois. He had one 40-minute business meeting, just one 40-minute business meeting with the infected person, and now, he is also testing positive for MERS. So, it tells us a little bit more, you know -- this virus isn't incredibly easy to catch. It's not like thee common cold, but now, we know it appears that it can be spread just from a 40-minute business meeting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUEZ: Now, so far, health officials have tested 53 health care workers, six family members and an additional business associate who came into contact with the infected Indiana man.

"The New York Times" made some explosive headlines of its own this week after abruptly firing its top editor. Jill Abramson was the first female executive editor in the paper's 160-year history. Speculation has been, she was fired after confronting her bosses once learning she was earning less than her male predecessor. Tonight, "The New York Times" is firing back, telling its side of the story.

Senior media correspondent and host of "RELIABLE SOURCES", Brian Stelter, is here with us via Skype.

Brian, what's the statement?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: The statement is from Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher. On Wednesday, when he announced that Abramson had been fired from what I think as the former employee of "The New York Times" is still the most influential newspaper in the company and said it was over a management issue and wouldn't say what he was talking about and said he would not speak any more of it.

That has proven to be impossible. People close to Abramson has suggested it had to do with unequal pay and because she complained about being paid less than the man who was in her job before her, she was pushed out.

Well, here is what the statement said tonight. We will put part of it up on the screen. It says that she was fired because she lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back. The statement goes on to say it had nothing to do with pay and here's one more quote from the statement that says he dismissed incorrect reports that Jill's compensation package was not comparable with her predecessors", and basically said "The New York Times" stands up for equal pay for women. It has editorialized in favor of this and it is not being hypocritical by dismissing Jill Abramson. In fact, they say it was all about her style.

MARQUEZ: What is your sense of it, Brian? Is the paper overreacting on this point or hitting the right tone here?

STELTER: This is proven to be a PR nightmare for them. Jill Abramson's daughter has been posting to Instagram supporting her mother and saying this story is not going away. This story isn't going to be over any time soon.

That makes people wonder, what is Jill Abramson is going to say? She is one of the highest profile female journalists in the country and in the world, and here she is fired from a job after less than three years. Now, "The New York Times" publisher coming out in public, saying that she was hostile to her colleagues, saying that she had lost the support of the newsroom.

Now, this is in her camp for her to comment and I have a feeling that will happen at some point in the days to come.

MARQUEZ: She doesn't seem the type that will back down. I think this is probably going to get more interesting or worse or whatever --

STELTER: I would imagine, you have your former boss say to you that you publicly mistreated your colleagues, you made decisions arbitrarily. These are pretty testy things to say and it shows how ugly is going to become.

MARQUEZ: All right. Brian Stelter, you'll be on top of it for us. Thank you very much.

STELTER: Thanks.

MARQUEZ: Ahead, a crucial clue in the Flight for 370. It's a fierce argument over who has their hands on it and what could happen to it next.

And then, celebrities are used to this treatment. Cameras are following their every move. But now, it seems like Hollywood stars aren't the only ones getting caught in their most embarrassing moments. Is this the end of privacy?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUEZ: The hunt for Malaysia Flight 370 is turning into a battle who controls the most valuable clue. The Inmarsat data used to determine every search area off the Australian coast. The data includes so-called "handshakes" between Flight 370 and the satellite. Desperate families are pushing Malaysia to release the data so other experts can take a look.

Days ago, Malaysia's top transport official said loud and clear, his country does not have the data.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HISHAMMUDDIN HUSSEIN, MALAYSIAN ACTING TRANSPORT MINISTER: The raw data is with Inmarsat, not with Malaysia, not with Australia, not with MAS. So, if there is any request for this raw data to be made available to the public, it must be made to Inmarsat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUEZ: Now, Inmarsat says it gave all relevant data to Malaysia and it's up to Malaysia to decide about any public release.

Clearly, someone is not being completely truthful but who should we believe, Malaysia or Inmarsat?

I spoke to forensic audio expert Paul Ginsburg who's worked with the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security Department about the controversy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL GINSBERG, FORENSIC AUDIO EXPERT: It turns out that the Malaysian government has a very, very poor history. They changed what they reported as the aircraft's altitude direction, the transcript. Remember, they first said that the last transmission was, "all right, good night" -- where clearly it wasn't. The release of the transcripts was first withheld, then it was -- then they were released. Then the actual communications were released.

And, in fact, I looked at those transmissions, and what they released was edited. In fact, there's even a very low voice. Neither pilot nor tower in that released audio that they gave us. As far as who has the permission or the authority to withhold or release the information, really, whoever -- I don't care who it comes from, we need the data. And as far as I'm concerned with respect to the Malaysian government, I would not buy a used car from them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUEZ: Right now, officials are determining the next search phase based on Inmarsat satellite data.

The incredible California Chrome is two-thirds of the way to horse racing's Triple Crown. Within the last hour or so, the horse added to its dominant victory in the Kentucky Derby with a win at the Preakness stakes. California Chrome becomes the 13th horse to win the first two legs of the Triple Crown since affirmed, the last Triple Crown winner back in 1978. All that is standing between California Chrome and history is one little victory in the Belmont Stakes, coming up on June 7th.

You can call this newly discovered dinosaur the littlest of the giants. Argentinian paleontologists say they have found the fossilized remains of a sorrow pod. It's a unique, long-neck, four legged, plant-munching dinosaur, one of the largest land creatures in earth's history. It lived in North America for about 140 million years ago but is the first of its kind to be found in South America.

Sixty years ago today, the Supreme Court changed the country with a unanimous ruling in the case of Brown versus the Board of Education, striking down racial segregation in public schools. And yesterday evening, Michelle Obama delivered a high school commencement address in the city where the case started, Topeka, Kansas.

CNN'S Erin McPike is at the White House.

Erin, a lot of buzz the first lady is getting here. What does she have to say?

ERIN MCPIKE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Miguel, part of the reason why this speech is getting so much attention is because Michelle Obama described how Brown v. Board impacted her own life but she also was relatively outspoken in asserting that segregation still exists. Listen to her describe that here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADY: Many young people in America are going to school, largely, with kids who look just like them. And too often, those schools aren't equal, especially ones attended by students of color which too often lag behind. With crumbling classrooms and less experienced teachers appear and even in schools that seem integrated according to the numbers. When you look a little closer, you see students from different backgrounds sitting at separate lunch tables or tracked into different classes or separated into different clubs or activities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCPIKE: Now, the first lady didn't exactly have a policy prescription. She just said there needs to be some cultural change. Well, as it turns out, Attorney General Eric Holder was also giving a commencement today at Morgan State University and he sounded some similar themes. Let me read part of that to you now. He said, "Chief Justice John Roberts has argued that the path to ending racial discrimination is to give less consideration to the issue of race altogether. This predisposes that racial discrimination is at sufficient low ebb that it doesn't need to be actively confronted."

Now, this, of course, is all interesting in light of the L.A. Clippers fiasco with Donald sterling, Miguel.

MARQUEZ: All right. Erin McPike in Washington, thank you very much.

If you're fighting with your sister-in-law, maybe you would think an elevator is a safe place to do it. If that's what Jay-Z and Beyonce thought, they were dead wrong. It's the video that brought the Internet to a screeching halt and made us wonder, is this more proof that privacy for Jay-Z, Beyonce, and the rest of us -- is it really dead?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MARQUEZ: The elevator security view that spawned tweets around the world. What was really going on with Jay-Z, Beyonce and Beyonce's sister Solange? We may never know for sure, but the famous family members have issued this statement. "Jay and Solange each assume their share of responsibility for what has occurred. They both acknowledge their role in this private matter that has played out in the public. They both have apologized to each other and we have moved forward as a united family."

Moving forward or not, CNN's Jeanne Moos has some theories of her own and a rundown of online chatter.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It started as such a nice night, Beyonce and Jay-Z arriving at the Met Gala, Beyonce dropped her ring.

Her husband put it back on her finger, but on the way out after an after-party, fingers gave way to fists.

Round one: Beyonce's sister, Solange, started hitting Jay-Z. The bodyguard pulls her off. Beyonce mostly stays out of it.

Round two: Solange tries to kick Jay-Z. He grabs her leg in defense.

Round three: a somewhat half-hearted assault.

Round four: with the door open, Solange hauls off and whacks Jay-Z with her bag.

Online commentators had a field day captioning the after picture. "Did that just happen? Smile through it." "Bring it," says Solange.

(on camera): Something Jay-Z says really pushed Solange's buttons.

(voice-over): But since the surveillance video has no audio, #whatJayZSaidtoSolange encouraged guessing. This elevator music better than any song you ever made, a reference to Solange's singing career.

Solange Knowles attacks Jay-Z, the first hit she's had in years.

Everyone had a theory.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Solange heard Jay-Z say something to her sister that she didn't like.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

MOOS: One online analyst even quoted Dickens.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is melancholy truth that even great men have their poor relations.

MOOS: Years ago, Solange seemed to be putting distance between herself and Jay-Z.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Solange, good morning. And thanks a lot for joining us.

SOLANGE KNOWLES: Good morning. I have to say that was not a very professional introduction before. Please don't tie me into family and my brother-in-law's establishment.

MOOS: Someone put the elevator fight to Jay-Z's own song.

(MUSIC)

MOOS: Jay-Z's 100th problem is what they're now calling Solange. Jokesters are dressing up and re-creating the fight, making fun of everything from the late grab, to the handbag turned weapon.

One day, you're grabbing your sister-in-law's leg in self defense, then you're caught on camera caressing your wife's leg -- just a week in a life of a rapper. Ground floor, lady's bags.

Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUEZ: It's not just Jay-Z and Beyonce losing their privacy. It's you, it's me, it's our kids, all of us. Can it be stopped? Or are we moving into a sometimes terrifying world where nothing is secret and people like hackers or the government can find out anything they want about us.

Coming up, we'll ask if your private life is going public, whether you like it or not.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUEZ: We all have secrets, I know I do. Things we don't want anyone to know. Maybe a password or your e-mail account or pictures of that night that you would like to forget. Maybe it's something more scandalous than that. But these days, it's harder to keep things private. Is this the end of privacy?

Celebrities know they can't go outside without facing the paparazzi, but now, it seems like getting caught on camera is a risk we all face. And not just on camera. Donald Sterling's words on audiotape cost him a lot more than his reputation. It could lead him to lose his billion dollar sports team.

Our Don Lemon talked to the man who taped some of those conversations, his so-called pimp, and he had no reservations about taping something that was supposedly private.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MASERATI, TAPED CONVERSATIONS WITH DONALD STERLING: No, I didn't feel like sit him up. I really don't. When I first called him, it wasn't recorded and when he started dwelling, just drilling me, I hit the record button. I don't know. I hit the record button and I didn't care at the time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUEZ: So, is this a sign of the end of privacy for all of us?

In the next 30 minutes, we are going to figure that out. First, Jean Casarez looks at why some think privacy is already over.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): From a private conversation.

DONALD STERLING: Well, then, if you don't feel it, don't come to my games. Don't bring black people and don't come.

CASAREZ: To an alleged elevator brawl. Is nothing private anymore?

ALLAN MAYER, 42 WEST PR FIRM: There may be a right to privacy, but there's certainly no reality to privacy anymore.

CASAREZ: Donald Sterling says he had no idea his conversation with V. Stiviano was being recorded.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Did you know you were being recorded?

STERLING: No, of course, not. Of course, not. No. I just wish I could ask her why and if she was just setting me up? I think that people say she was taping me for two years.

CASAREZ (voice-over): Sterling's fellow NBA owner Mark Cuban who has never shied away from the limelight says the red light of the camera is always on no matter where you are.

MARK CUBAN, OWNER, DALLAS MAVERICKS: First of all, you have no privacy. You know, from the little things like the license plate cameras and walking down the street, there are sensors everywhere, there's cameras everywhere.

CASAREZ: Case in point. What seemed to be a private elevator ride in New York's Standard Hotel turns out to be anything but when TMZ post the security video purportedly showing Beyonce's sister, Solange, attacking Jay-Z, kicking him multiple times.

Entertainment attorney Jeff Beiderman says expectation of privacy in a elevator may not be warranted.

JEFF BIEDERMAN, ENTERTAINMENT ATTORNEY: You raise the question of being in someone's home. That's a different level of privacy you'd expect in, let's say an elevator which is a public place, anybody can enter that. Of course, many elevators in modern buildings do have cameras.

CASAREZ: Security cameras are ubiquitous capturing our every move. Yet most people never feel their privacy violated because the pictures never go public but when the famous and the powerful are involved, the right to privacy is often trumped by the public's appetite for the tape.

But Mark Cuban says celebrities have learned to expect this kind of exposure and now you should too.

CUBAN: I'll give you another perfect example that should terrify you, right? If you tweet, if you post on Pinterest, if you have public postings on Facebook, all that information and your footprint will know more about you than you know more about you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Jean Casarez joins me now. First question. Is Mark Cuban right? Do we really have no more privacy?

CASAREZ: We really don't have too much privacy. Yes, you have the expectation of privacy but because of the iPhone, digital is forever. And you know, it's not only the invasion of privacy because on a celebrity level but also on a very simplistic level. There could be blackmail, right? Somebody records something of you or anybody and then they decide to put it on the internet and it's there forever.

MARQUEZ: Celebrities should be used to this. The paparazzi isn't new but is it getting worse for them as well?

CASAREZ: I think it is. I think it is. Because the paparazzi, you know, any type of iPhone technological advice can record and that is why the responsibility is on the celebrity. I mean, how they lead their life is demonstrative of how the public and the internet is going to record it.

MARQUEZ: Well, and certainly everybody has a phone, everybody has a camera. Are we all just sort of paparazzi in waiting these days.

CASAREZ: You know, it's got to be personal responsibility. Which may be is a good thing at this point, right? How you lead your life because the experts that I spoke to said the people they represent, they tell them assume somebody is recording you every single time you're in public and, remember, who you invite in your home can also be suspect because Donald Sterling, he says he didn't think he was being recorded and that was someone he apparently trusted.

MARQUEZ: Yes, there are laws against recording somebody if they don't know in some states.

CASAREZ: That is another thing. Because if you sue, if you begin to go into the court system, that fuels the fire and it becomes even bigger.

MARQUEZ: The documents and everything comes out.

CASAREZ: Then it looks like you're in the wrong.

MARQUEZ: Stay right there.

CASAREZ: OK.

MARQUEZ: Don't leave. We're going to have you back in a second. Coming up, think you can update your password and keep your account safe and secure? It might not be that easy. Is it too late (INAUDIBLE) who wants to steal your secrets?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUEZ: Well, maybe you're watching this and thinking I've got to do something. How can I protect my privacy or is it already too late?

Every day, we got more drones in our skies, more hackers trying to steal our passwords to get into our computers and more people with smartphones shooting videos, catching possibly every intimate moment on camera! What can we do?

Well, Julia Angwin is author of "Dragnet Nation, A Quest for Privacy, Security and Freedom in a World of Relentless Surveillance." She's also a senior reporter for ProPublica. Julia, is it too late to protect our privacy if I shutdown my e-mail account, my Facebook account, go off line completely? Does it even matter any more?

Oh, dear Julia! We're going to try to get you back. Your Skype seems to be breaking down.

Jean, I'm going - Jean Casarez, fortunately, stuck with us here. Can I just ask you that same question? Is it really too late? Can you wipe out your social media, you know, persona completely but it's still there?

CASAREZ: But isn't it true that it's not you? It's the other guy? In many respects, it's the person that takes the picture of you. It's the person that puts the video on the internet that they've shot? So you can do everything but what about the other guy? Just sort of like when you're driving, you know, you can drive defensively. What about the other guy?

MARQUEZ: Right.

It's a good point. I want to raise this now with Julia Angwin who is now on the phone with us. The old school phone. Sorry. The internet let us down there. Julia, I don't know if you heard my question. Even if you erase your public persona online completely, is it too late?

JULIA ANGWIN, AUTHOR (via telephone): You know, I think that it's never too late to try to protect your privacy. I mean, yes, you can't really erase your past but you can quickly make it obsolete, right? The longer that it is out there, but isn't being used and you're living a private life, you will eventually you'll it will become less useful to people.

MARQUEZ: I want to run some quick poll numbers for our views. Fifty five percent of internet users say, yes, they have taken steps to avoid online detection by specific people, organizations or governments. Clearly, most people want to control their digital footprints. Is online control, though, just a myth?

ANGWIN: Well, you know, the thing is I try in my book to opt out as many services as I possibly could just to see if we really have any control. The truth is we don't have as much control we would like.

You can try to get out of some of the online ad tracking, those ads that follow you around and it's easy to get out of, but things like - data brokers, buy and sell your name and address, I was unable to get out of most of those.

MARQUEZ: A lot was made of the NSA spying scandal. Should Americans be more worried about the NSA than they are about hackers? I mean look, if you're not doing anything wrong, why worry?

ANGWIN: Well, I think it's worth pointing out that NSA is actually using a lot of techniques that we really only thought criminal hackers were using. In fact, you know, the defense against hackers is actually the same as the defense against the NSA. The one thing, for instance, that we found in the Snowden documents was that they were intercepting sort of unencrypted communications on the internet.

Previous to this we basically thought that if you were in a coffee shop and you used your computer and you logged in and you weren't encrypted, you should worry about hackers getting your information. What we didn't realize and we should also worry about the NSA getting your information.

MARQUEZ: Yes, there are various degrees that we are talking about here. Jean, I take a lot of this comes down to us and what we personally put on these sites. I am sometimes shocked what you see friends posting on the sites. Is this part of the problem?

CASAREZ: I think it's amazing. I think the key, one of the keys is personal responsibility. You know, what you put on and the trust you have in others that are close to you. And this is the age of internet. It's just easier, right, to put something online. Maybe just going back to the old fashioned ways gives us more privacy than more security?

MARQUEZ: Julia, is there any agency, is there any groups, I guess, ProPublica certainly is, who is out there looking out for the little guys and for privacy?

ANGWIN: Well, you know, the thing is there are some companies starting up in the wake of Snowden. There has been more and more companies starting to offer privacy protecting services and I'm hopeful that maybe there will be a market for services in the future that we can actually buy privacy protecting services, but it's also worth putting out that some things can you do to protect yourself cost nothing.

For instance, I agree, people post stupid things online. But my point of view is you can't prevent people from writing things stupidly but you could actually create a fake name. For my kids, I have them have a fake identity online so if they write something down, they don't have to worry about it later because it's not under their name.

MARQUEZ: Right. And you've written that passwords are - your passwords are 30 to 40 characters long. I'd forget that in an instant. Is that what it takes simply things like that to stay safe? ANGWIN: It's true. Yes, passwords is another thing that we can all do to stay safe. I know 30 or 40 characters seems really daunting. The danger only for e-mail. So if you're going to make one password strong, make it your e-mail password and then I actually use an automated program to come up with all of the rest of my passwords. So there is a bunch of software out there. A lot of it is is free actually, (INAUDIBLE) key pass, onepassword that will make all of the passwords for you and store it on your computer for you.

MARQUEZ: It is amazing. As the first generation, the first time we have gone all gone through this and it feels like it's been around forever but really it's just been a few years. Julia Angwin, Jean Casarez, thank you very much both of you for sticking around and please do stick around because we will be talking to you more in in a few minutes.

But first if you've had an accident or an account hacked or an embarrassing pictures posted on the internet, you might act a little differently in the future. So how is the end of privacy changing us? And can the laws get ahead of the hackers? Or will we always be playing catch up?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUEZ: Well, if you ever had your identity stolen you know how hard it can be to bounce back. The thieves can just vanish stealing hundreds or thousands of dollars and it can leave you shaken and a little more cautious the next time someone at a cash register asks for your address or phone number.

Joining me now clinical forensic psychologist Jeff Gardere and criminal defense attorney Holly Hughes. Holly, are the laws keeping up with the privacy threats or things just changing too darn fast?

HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, they are changing too darn fast, Miguel. The reason is the technological companies, they're businesses. They're private individuals so they are out there creating this latest, greatest technology, flooding the marketplace with it and then, of course, the brilliant people who are thieves and have nefarious motives get to work on how can I use the latest technology to victimize someone else.

What you're then looking at is the legislature is forever playing catch-up. You know how long it takes to get a law passed, we got to write a bill, then we've got to put it up for committee and then it's got to get voted on. So, no, the law is always going to be running behind the technology. Unfortunately.

MARQUEZ: Yes. Jeff, there's so many people have had their identities stolen. Let's take a look a few numbers here. Twenty one percent of internet users say they have had an e-mail account or social networking account taken over without their permission. Jeff, are we changing our behavior because of this, becoming more paranoid, just coming to accept that nothing is private?

JEFF GARDERE, CLINICAL AND FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: I think we are becoming much, much more paranoid but it's a healthy paranoia. Just because someone is after us doesn't mean that we imagine it. It is happening. I think what people are doing, Miguel, more than anything else, they are being much, much more careful as to who they are talking to, what it is that they are saying, what they are saying on the telephone, what they're putting on the internet and what they are posting. You said you had some friends put some shocking things there.

But I think people are getting much, much smarter about this because they know whatever is on the internet, whatever they say on the telephone, it may be bugged. People have access to it. You just have to be careful. And people are angry when they are victimized in this way just as if they are robbed at gunpoint. They are very, very angry. They're very rageful. Because they feel that the government has not caught up yet as far as passing the laws.

MARQUEZ: Well, it's extraordinarily personal when this happens and you feel like you've been violated on a very basic level.

GARDERE: And it is an emotional violation.

MARQUEZ: Holly, when we're hacked or identities stolen, how hard is it to go after the crooks?

HUGHES: It's very hard. But the first thing you need to advise people to do, Miguel, is file a police report. People when they get hacked don't think to call the police because they think well, it's sort of out there in the ethernet, we don't know who to go after.

But you absolutely have to call, make a police - call the non- emergency number, don't call 911, when you get hacked but call that non-emergency number, put it in writing, get a police report. The other thing we're seeing that's a huge violation. People are going into the IRS online and filing with your social security number and getting your tax return back. Because it can now be loaded on a debit card. So they don't even have to mail a physical check to an address.

What you need to do when that happens is call your local police department, make the report, notify the credit card company, the mortgage company, the loan company, whoever it is that is being fraudulently, you know, connected and saying it's you getting it and start that paper trail. These people know what they're doing. It is the anonymity. You know, we talked about this a lot in the law. The anonymity of when you're getting stalked on Twitter or on Facebook. Somebody will make up a fake name. We see it all the time.

Today, Miguel, I had a friend call me and say, somebody's impersonating my husband and befriended you on Facebook. I swear to God. True story. She said it's not us, it's somebody who is trying to get at us, so please unfriend them. So yes, it happens all the time. In this particular instance, we knew who it was, but it's very hard to find that person.

MARQUEZ: Jeff, we are a security conscious nation to begin with. You talk about good paranoia. Doesn't this just make us more distant, make us less trustful of each other? Doesn't that sort of tear away at the bonds of the society itself? GARDERE: Well, it's very interesting. When the NSA scandal first broke out, we said Snowden was not a patriot, he's a bad guy and so on. I think a lot of people's opinions are starting to change and they're realizing now that yes, this is the march into the future, that, to have ironically some sort of security in our lives, that we have to open up our lives in this way and allow ourselves to be bugged, to have all this information coming in.

But I'm more concerned and I think Holly would agree with this, I'm more concerned in the commercial people, you know, actually coming after your information. And that, to me, is a real violation. The government, I can understand. The commercial people -

MARQUEZ: I always think of minority reports.

GARDERE: That's right. With Tom Cruise.

MARQUEZ: You two are not dismissed. Stay with me. After the break, do you think you have any privacy in the future? No one can say for sure, but that's what we'll talk about, coming right up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUEZ: So where do we go from here? If you're online, you probably want to stay online, we certainly can't cancel our e-mail addresses, Facebook, or Twitter accounts. Some of us don't have a choice, we use them every day for work. So here's the question.

Is it just the beginning? Whatever privacy we have left, is that going away too? Jean Casarez, Julia Angwin are back along with Holly, Jeff. So four's up, five's up.

Julia, let me start with you. Is it going to get worse? What are we looking at in the future?

ANGWIN: Well, I wish I could be optimistic, but I think it's going to get worse. I'm very worried about facial recognition technology. Because right now it's not quite good enough, but pretty soon, everyone's going to be able to hold up their iPhone on the street and identify you and you'll be identifying them. I think it's going to bring surveillance to a very visceral level.

MARQUEZ: Jean Casarez, any upside to all these concerns?

CASAREZ: There is. Videotaping can help solve a crime. Videotaping can be exhibit A in the courtroom. So the right person is prosecuted, the right person is charged. Eyewitness identification can be very faulty. When you have it on videotape, a jury can see it and it can solve many things. So it can be a positive thing. And by the way, there's no expectation of privacy in public.

MARQUEZ: And police agencies around the world say it deters criminals as well.

GARDERE: It does deter crime.

MARQUEZ: But are we opening ourselves up to just sort of accepting, giving away so much of our privacy every day?

HUGHES: Well, remember, what Jean just said, you don't have an expectation of privacy on a public street. I was just in court this Monday arguing that because someone was trying to take a restraining order against my client because she stood in her own front yard and took a picture of the street. And they literally said she's stalking me.

No, under the law, that's not stalking. When you're out on a public street, you don't have that right, that expectation. And Jean hit the nail on the head. I' have been a prosecutor. I'm a defense attorney and I also do family law. And the first thing you're going to hear a divorce lawyer say, when they go in and say I want to file for divorce, take down your Facebook page, get off the Twitter account. Because guess what? That is exhibit A in the courtroom.

What do you think prosecutors use, when a guy gets on the stand and goes, I'm not a member of a gang? I swear, members of the injury, I've never been in a gang in my life. Exhibit A is the Facebook photo of you flashing gang signs, wearing the colors and holding that AK. So it has positive uses. You just need to be smart about what you put out there.

GARDERE: And let's also be aware that as the technology gets better, yes, it's going to get worse, but there are also benefits. Technology does cut both ways. So, yes, there will be less privacy, but we will have more rewards, as far as our lives and making things easier. But unfortunately, it also makes things easier for the thieves too.

CASAREZ: Well, it's how you lead your life.

MARQUEZ: It doesn't mean - how much of it is us putting ourselves out there and how much is this sort of our own doing?

CASAREZ: Well, I think that's a very good point. I think it's an excellent point. Some of it is beyond your control, right? But it's the company you keep also, I keep reiterating that because if your friends post what you never thought couldn't be publicized in public, you have a problem. Digital is forever.

MARQUEZ: Julia, are there ways to carve out sort of private spaces for ourselves online, or should the expectation always be that there is nothing private online?

ANGWIN: I think the most prudent approach is to assume that even if you think you're protecting your privacy, that you're probably not being completely successful. And so try to act as if you don't have privacy. That said, I do think some very simple measures can make a difference. Using a different identity - if you want to write stupid things on Facebook, put it under another name. If you don't want Google to know what you're doing, use a different search engine. You know, I switched to what we called duck, duck go, it doesn't keep any logs and those little things make me feel better.

MARQUEZ: OK. Jean Casarez, Julia Angwin, Holly Hughes, Jeff Gardere, thank you all for joining us today. I'm Miguel Marquez in New York. Anthony Bourdain finds out the true meaning of food in Lyon, France. Coming up, now.