Return to Transcripts main page

Next@CNN

Activist Detained Then Released in SUV Arson; Shuttles to Return to Flight; You Have Got Spam!

Aired September 27, 2003 - 15:00   ET

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

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


JUDY FORTIN, CNN COST: Good to have you along today. Welcome to NEXT@CNN for this Saturday, September 27. I'm Judy Fortin.
Coming up this hour, the case was cracked, or so the FBI thought. Authorities in southern California held a man whom they thought had vandalized an SUV dealership in the name of a radical environmental group, but they had to release him. And he'll be live on our program in just a few minutes.

Also this hour, we'll update you on the on again, off again national "do not call" list. It's not the only way to stop telemarketers from invading your dinner hour. We'll show you a couple of alternatives.

And later, we'll have a debate over whether Utah Governor Mike Leavitt is the right man to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

Our top story now. They're calling it a case of eco-terrorism in southern California. The FBI and local police freed a suspect they had in custody. Did they get the wrong man?

CNN's Thelma Gutierrez reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Josh Connole is a 25-year- old peace activist and environmentalist from Pomona, California. Just a couple weeks ago, he was in jail.

JOSH CONNOLE, POLITICAL ACTIVIST: That right there gives a great view.

GUTIERREZ: The suspect at the center of an FBI investigation into a string of eco-terrorism attacks, allegedly caught on tape vandalizing three Los Angeles SUV dealerships and fire bombing this Hummer dealership last month.

CONNOLE: Well, I thought that that was completely wrong. I mean, that person in the video is obviously not me.

GUTIERREZ: Connole spent four nights in jail. He was released because of lack of evidence.

The FBI would not comment on the case, but local authorities confirmed Connole remains a suspect. WILLIAM PAPARIAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: His reputation has been smeared. The reputations of his friends have been smeared. And law enforcement officials are continuing to assert that he's the prime suspect.

GUTIERREZ: In a strange twist, a man contacted the "Los Angeles Times," saying Josh Connole is innocent; that he takes credit for the SUV attacks. The anonymous informant claims to be a member of the Earth Liberation Front, E.L.F., the same initials spray painted on the SUVs.

ROD CORONADO, E.L.F. SPOKESMAN: What we're saying is that there's going to be an added cost. If you choose to consciously destroy the environment, then you're not only going to have to pay more for that vehicle, but hopefully higher insurance premiums, because they're going to remain a target.

GUTIERREZ: The militant environmental group also takes credit for the torching of four luxury homes under construction last week and this $50 million apartment fire in San Diego last month.

GARY PERLSTEIN, PORTLAND STATE UNVERSITY: Their tactics are increasing in violence, and they're hitting more in the areas of urban development.

GUTIERREZ: Authorities fear it's just a matter of time before someone is hurt.

CORONADO: We have yet to hurt anybody. They're destructive to property, I won't argue that. And that's a tactic that we're willing to engage in.

GUTIERREZ: As for Connole, he says those are not tactics he could endorse.

CONNOLE: I am an environmentalist and I want the earth to be clean, but I don't feel that arson is the way to accomplish that.

GUTIERREZ: Though Connole is free, he believes he's under government surveillance. His family is convinced he was targeted because of his political views.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't necessarily have my son's beliefs. However, I do have -- I do believe that he does have the right to stand on a corner and preach his beliefs as much as he wants. We all have that right.

GUTIERREZ: What Connole says he wants now is an apology from the FBI.

Thelma Gutierrez, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FORTIN: West Covina police say they still consider Josh Connole a suspect in the August 22 arson. An FBI spokesman told CNN the bureau would neither consider him a suspect nor consider him cleared. The FBI continues to hold computers and other personal belongings of Connole and his housemates for further investigation.

Joining us now live from L.A. are Josh Connole and his attorney, William Paparian.

Thank you so much for being with us today, gentlemen.

PAPARIAN: Thank you.

CONNOLE: You're welcome.

FORTIN: Josh, you're an activist with some pretty strong feelings about the environment, but the police say that you're a suspect in a pretty violent crime. How do you feel about those charges and about the use of violence, period, as a political tool?

CONNOLE: I don't think that violence should be used as a tool for any means. I disagree with violence. I'm a pacifist.

FORTIN: Well, on to your lawyer then. Mr. Paparian, your client has been released, yet he still is considered a suspect. I would imagine you're building a pretty strong case. Where some people see an eco-terrorist, you probably see a civil rights violation in progress, correct?

PAPARIAN: Well, this isn't the first time the FBI has done this, smeared a peaceful environmental activist. This happened in the case of Judy Beary (ph). She won a $4 million judgment last year precisely for the kinds of things that Josh Connole is now enduring. His reputation has been smeared, and the FBI has attempted to muzzle and silence a peaceful dissenter with government policies.

FORTIN: Well, Josh, what do you think can be done to right your good name?

CONNOLE: Well, to right my good name I would like an apology from the FBI, to tell you the truth.

FORTIN: It sounds like, though, Josh, from the way you have positioned yourself, whether it's living with folks in a coop, some whom are considered radical environmentalists, is it safe to say that it's not the typical Pomona, California home? Do you think that somehow this has made you and your housemates a target?

CONNOLE: I do think it's a typical home. I mean, we're a community. We all try and support each other. We're good kids. Most of us are going to college. I don't know that we need to be singled out by our government as possibly eco-terrorists.

FORTIN: Well, do you agree that SUVs are an environmental problem? Could they have misconstrued your feelings about that?

CONNOLE: Maybe they could have. The solution to SUVs and the pollution they give out is alternative fuel sources, not burning them.

FORTIN: Then you disagree with the torching of SUVs? You think that that's a wrong way to go about getting the message out?

CONNOLE: Well, the environmental impact of the fire on plastic and rubber of a Hummer is way worse than the environmental impact of the pollution that would come out of that Hummer in its lifespan.

FORTIN: Excellent point.

CONNOLE: So, if we were to actually try and make them less pollutant by alternative fuel sources...

FORTIN: William, you feel your client has been wrongly accused obviously, labeled a criminal suspect. Can we expect you to seek to turn the tables now?

PAPARIAN: Yes. We've already begun to do that. And as your film clip showed earlier, the reason why Josh came into the radar screen of the federal government was because of his outspoken opposition to the Bush administration policies in Iraq. And we know that police surveillance and targeting of people who are engaged in protest of government policies has resulted in them becoming labeled as suspects and people suspected of being involved in terrorism when it's been the exact opposite. They are engaged in peaceful, nonviolent protest and dissent against our government's policies, and as Americans, they are entitled to do that.

FORTIN: Josh, a final question to you. You seem pretty confident that you'll be cleared in this case. Has what you've been through changed your views on being a political activist? Do you think you'll step out of the limelight?

CONNOLE: They've changed them for the better. It makes me feel that there's much more reason for me to stand up and express my First Amendment right than there ever was before. And there was plenty of reasons before this happened to me.

FORTIN: Yes, what's the proper way to do it, in your view?

CONNOLE: In a nonviolent, peaceful way, you know, to just get your viewpoint out and use free speech.

FORTIN: Josh Connole and William Paparian, thank you so much for your time today.

PAPARIAN: Thank you.

FORTIN: Nice to hear from both of you.

CONNOLE: You're welcome.

FORTIN: When we come back, is China ready to launch its first manned mission to space?

And later, it's the toughest law of its kind in the nation. How one state is cracking down on junk e-mail.

We hope you'll stick around. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FORTIN: Sputnik, perhaps the biggest headline of 1957, space also tops our next news headline this week.

International chatter for years has suggested China is planning a manned space mission, but that launch may be imminent now. The country's official communist newspaper reported this week that a manned flight aboard a Long March rocket, much like the one you see here, could happen as early as next month. One astronaut will make the short 24-hour trip, according to the paper. China would become the third country to send a human to space.

From earth to the moon now. The European Space Agency is planning a lunar launch this weekend. The SMART-1 spacecraft is scheduled to blast off Saturday evening from French Guinea aboard an Arian 5 rocket. The long unmanned mission won't reach the moon until December, 2004. SMART-1 will investigate the origins of the moon, the existence of water and the possibility of building a lunar base.

Stateside now, NASA is working to return the shuttle to space. Atlantis is prepared at Kennedy Space Center for launch as early as March.

Here's CNN's John Zarrella.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Seven months ago, many of the men and women, who worked here, scoured thick brush and forest in Texas for wreckage of the shuttle Columbia. That was the low point. Now, they are working towards the high point, when shuttles fly again.

SCOTT THURSTON, ATLANTIS VEHICLE MANAGER: Everybody was saddened by Columbia, but these people are pulling up the boot straps and they're hitting it every day. And you don't hear anybody saying we can't. Everybody is out here working their tails off.

ZARRELLA: Working to prepare Atlantis for a scheduled March 11 liftoff. It will be the first to fly again.

Cocooned in scaffolding in the orbiter processing facility, a giant space plane hangar, the shuttle is barely recognizable. The engineers here are working on the wings, from the inside...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looks good.

ZARRELLA: ... to the painstaking work outside, removing for inspection all 44 of Atlantis's leading edge panels to ensure there are no defects.

RICHARD BECKWITH, ORBITER ENGINEER: What you see in here is something we haven't done before, where we completely dissect all of the hardware, look at every nut and bolt very closely. ZARRELLA: It was a leading edge panel on Columbia's left wing that was breached 81 seconds after liftoff by a piece of foam insulation that broke loose from the shuttle's giant external fuel tank. On re-entry, super-hot gases entered the hole in the wing, causing Columbia to break apart.

(on camera): The Atlantis engineering team is confident its work will be done on the vehicle in time for a March 11 liftoff, but NASA officials say there may not be enough time between now and then for them to implement all of the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

(voice-over): The board recommended NASA improve the impact resistance of panels and thermal tiles. That will take time. For now, the space agency is concentrating on eliminating the shedding of debris from the external tank that can hit the delicate tiles. NASA is also working on a method for in-orbit inspection and repair of the tiles.

Putting all of this in place could push the launch date back weeks.

John Zarrella, CNN, at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FORTIN: This week, California Governor Gray Davis signed the toughest anti-spam measure yet. Marketers in the state could be fined up to $1 million for sending unsolicited commercial e-mail.

Our technology correspondent, Daniel Sieberg, is here to explain -- Daniel.

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Judy.

That's right. It may not hurt Gray Davis' chances in the recall election as well. I'm sure he's thinking about that. And about 40 percent of all e-mail traffic in the United States is comprised of unsolicited advertisements, or so-called spam. And California's bill to curb spam talks tough, but also appears broad enough to be vulnerable to many legal challenges.

Well, joining us today to talk about this issue is Declan McCullagh of cnetnews.com.

Declan, thanks for being with us.

DECLAN MCCULLAGH, CNETNEWS.COM: My pleasure.

SIEBERG: Let's get into some nuts and bolts behind this bill. You can get, I believe it's $1,000 fine per message for somebody who is accused of sending e-mails -- unsolicited e-mails to California residents. How effective is this going to be, though, if it's so tough to track down or find the spammers themselves?

MCCULLAGH: It's a great question. It's even $1,000 per e-mail account, so if you get the same spam to two accounts, it doubles. But, yes, I mean, if every country or jurisdiction in the world had an effective anti-spam law that the police would actually enforce with strong civil and criminal penalties, then laws could work against spam, but that's not the case. None of those three assumptions are true.

And so, there's a tremendous amount of spam coming into the U.S. It comes from overseas. These countries don't care about U.S. federal laws, let alone state laws. And so, for the foreseeable future, we're still going to have to rely on technology to block spam.

SIEBERG: Let's talk about another curious aspect of this bill, the fact that they need to identify a California e-mail address. Is that possible?

MCCULLAGH: Well, that's something that, as you pointed out, makes it vulnerable in court. If you don't know that you're sending something to a California e-mail address -- and Microsoft has servers all over the country to support hotmail.com, for instance -- how can you be liable if you don't know you're breaking the law? And so, this creates some -- and it has fuzzy definitions that might create some problems for this law, because you can better believe it's going to be challenged in court.

SIEBERG: And it's expected to take effect January 1, 2004. Now, does this law, will it apply to -- we've heard about unsolicited e- mail, meaning e-mail you don't want to receive. But what about deceptive e-mail, ones that promise a false offer, does it apply to both cases?

MCCULLAGH: What I remember from reading through the law is it applies only to unsolicited commercial advertisements. It does not apply to deceptive advertisements, because those are probably already illegal under California law. They're certainly illegal under federal law. And the FTC -- the Federal Trade Commission that is here in Washington has filed a number of lawsuits and actually got civil penalties levied against folks who have been sending out deceptive spam.

And so, what the California law is trying to go after are the folks who are actually sending out legitimate messages, that is at least messages for legitimate products, but are doing it in an unsolicited way.

SIEBERG: And what about these legitimate companies who do it in a sort of legal manner, they're just advertising a particular product? They're saying a lot of the onus will be on them to prove that what they're doing is acceptable.

MCCULLAGH: Now that's right. If you look at the two decisions that have put the federal "do not call" list on hold, I mean, there's a lesson here, because the federal "do not call" list was actually an opt-out measure. In California now, or at least as of January 1, that's an opt-in measure. Only people who sign up to receive mail can get it. Well, if a federal judge thought the opt-out measure, which was far less restrictive, had constitutional First Amendment freedom of speech problems, I would tell you it's a pretty good chance that the California law is going to end up in a similar judgment, at least at the district court level.

So, January 1 may come and go without this law taking effect.

SIEBERG: All right. Well, a lot of politicians like to talk tough, whether it's spam or telemarketing. But what about the technology that's in place, you know, whether these laws work or not, or are challenged or not, what can be done at the technological level, whether at a personal level with some filtering software or in a broader Internet scale, is there something that can be done that's more effective?

MCCULLAGH: Sure. I think technology is the solution to spam, unfortunately. I doubly filter my e-mail. A few products that I have had good look with are SpamAssassin, which is free for some purposes. The latest version of Qualcomm's Eudora software 6.0 is only about $30 or $40, and that has integrated anti-spam filtering and doesn't have some of the security issues that Microsoft Outlook has.

But if you use Outlook, Cloudmark sells an Outlook plug-in that does collaborative filtering. So, if someone else has already marked this as spam by another Cloudmark user, then you won't even see it.

And so, there are better and better technologies to protect your inbox from spam.

SIEBERG: All right, well -- sorry, Declan, we're going to have to wrap you there. We're up against the clock. But thanks so much for joining us. Declan McCullagh from cnetnews.com.

Lots of options there for people, including deleting those messages if you don't want to see them.

And don't fret if you haven't had your fill of unwanted solicitations by the end of the workday. You can still get hassled by strangers after you leave the office, telemarketers calling your home phone.

I'll be back after the break with some possible solutions to that problem. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FORTIN: Welcome back, everyone.

The "do not call" list ran into another hang-up this week. This time, a judge in Colorado declared the list an infringement on telemarketers' right to free speech. The House, Senate and millions of people who signed up for the registry to stop telemarketing calls disagree.

But with enforcement of the list in limbo, what can you do to stop unwanted calls? Our tech correspondent, Daniel Sieberg, is back, as promised.

Daniel -- please, give us some options.

SIEBERG: Sure, Judy. A nice outfit, by the way.

FORTIN: Yes, we match.

SIEBERG: It was a complete accident that we match.

FORTIN: All I need is the tie.

SIEBERG: That's right.

There are a lot of options out there if you're looking for some high-tech help on stopping some of these unwanted calls, and we're talking about unwanted calls and not just telemarketing calls. So, whether this list goes through or not, there are some options out there.

The first one we can tell you about is called the TeleZapper. People may have seen it before. It works in a rather unique fashion. Rather than screening out calls by identifying the number, it sends out a particular tone that sounds like the disconnected call tone. It sounds just like this.

People are familiar with that sound, those three tones. It sends that tone out over your phone line, so that if a telemarketer is calling, it gets that tone. In fact, everybody calling gets that tone. And so, it tries to fool a telemarketer into thinking the number is disconnected. A lot of these telemarketing companies use automated or predictive dialers. So, they're just looking for all of these different random numbers, and if they come across yours by accident, you send out that tone, and it essentially takes you off their list, or tries to anyway.

Now, there are a number of other different products that are out there that try to do a similar thing. They don't use the same type of technology. You can see them here. Some of them you need to -- a caller needs to put in a particular code, a one to six-digit code that identifies them as an acceptable caller. Now the telemarketer wouldn't have that code, and so they wouldn't be able to put it in. And the call would then go either to a message box where you could pick it up later, or they would simply hang up.

In other cases, there are certain ring tones that you can put on the line, so, you know, you can identify who's calling. There are a lot of different options that some of them have. And you can think of them sort of as a mini auto-receptionist between you and whoever is calling.

And the other two, there you can see the EZ Hangup and the Phone Butler, they're a little bit different. They don't actually screen the calls in that way. They offer you sort of a -- well, a polite way of saying get lost to whoever is calling. The Phone Butler giving a British accent voice that asks the person to politely not to call back, tells them you're busy and to take them off your list.

So, there are a few ideas for people out there. FORTIN: Is this where you do your British voice?

SIEBERG: That's right, Judy. That's correct.

FORTIN: The very polite one.

SIEBERG: Yes.

FORTIN: Now, it won't be long before people can transfer their home phone numbers to their cell phone number.

SIEBERG: Right.

FORTIN: But along with that convenience, do the telemarketers come, too?

SIEBERG: It does, Judy, as a matter of fact, because as part of the November 24 FCC regulations, you can not only take your cell phone from one cell phone company to another, you can also take your home phone number and use that on your cell phone. So, what does this give you? Well, some pros and cons.

You can go wireless with this one number, so you've just got this one number for people to remember. But any telemarketing calls you've been getting on your home number will then be transferred over to your cell phone number, which is obviously frustrating to people because they have to pay for it.

So, there are some options out there for people, but it's sort of an one-upping battle. And phone companies also have some ideas for people, too.

FORTIN: Something to think about, all of that convenience and all of that frustration, too.

SIEBERG: Right, exactly.

FORTIN: All right, Daniel, we'll see you later on.

SIEBERG: You bet.

FORTIN: Thanks.

Well, tune in tomorrow morning for CNN for a live interview of the chairman of the FTC for his take on the "do not call" list.

And coming up in our next half-hour, first it was total information awareness, then terrorism information awareness. And now Congress has cut off funding for the government's controversial computerized surveillance program. But is TIA really DOA? That story when we come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK) FORTIN: After the terrorist attacks of September 11, U.S. Government agencies like the FBI and Immigration Service took a lot of heat for not sharing information on possible terrorists. Since then, however, some data-sharing schemes have been blasted for trampling on the privacy of law abiding citizens. So, where's the balance? Technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg is back with details on that dilemma -- Daniel.

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Judy. Yeah, names like "Terror Information Awareness" and the "Matrix" describes some of the programs to use technology to track down terrorists. But, those efforts sometimes create as many questions as they answer. Joining me now, from our Washington bureau is John Monroe, the editor of "Federal Computer Week," it's an independent publication that covers technology issues in the federal government.

John, thanks for being with us.

JOHN MONROE, "FEDERAL COMPUTER WEEK": Thank you.

SIEBERG: The news this week that the Terror Information Network is being dismantled, does some of that -- is some of the motivation behind that, between taking apart that network, is it because after September 11 there was sort of a rush to try and use the technology that was out there and now a couple of years later people are stepping back a little bit?

MONROE: Yeah, I think that's exactly what's going on. After September 11, the government began looking around for options for information sharing, and what they discovered was there's plenty of options. There was a lot of technology to help them share information to analyze data, but what congress and others have become concerned about is that privacy safeguards weren't in place, though, to deal with that kind of technology.

SIEBERG: Now, we also talked at the beginning about the Matrix now, the one we're going to be talking about here, in a second, is not the Keanu Reeves version, this is a combination of private and government efforts, as I understand, to help law enforcement share and gather information. What can you tell me about the Matrix?

MONROE: Well, the Matrix is like a number of initiatives out there. There's a lot of people who have a lot of different data, that in the past they -- they've had only access to their own data. What they're trying to do is get access to data that other people have. You begin to kind of pair that data up and you find out all sorts of information you never could have otherwise.

SIEBERG: And, we're seeing here a statement from the company, what they're saying they're doing is making it easier for law enforcement to coordinate and to make it quicker. Should we be worried about something like that? I mean, is that a privacy threat if they're just simply to go after terrorists or criminals?

MONROE: Well, they will tell you that they are working with existing data, data that they have legal access to. But, the question becomes how much can they do with that data and again, are there limits to what they can do with it? Because the technology makes it so easy to share information, it's really hard to put a stop to it.

SIEBERG: Let's talk a little bit too, about -- if we can go from the Matrix to the CAPPS -- the CAPPS II project. Now, this is going to be affecting airline passengers, potentially, coming under the Department of Homeland Security. Red, green, and yellow levels to -- mark different passengers for potential security threats. How is this going to be working?

MONROE: Well, this one in some ways is more tame than the others. They're working with a much -- more limited set of data. And yet they are looking at personal data. And they're vary a much a sense of screening and there is concerns that, one, you screen people, you identify someone as red, but what if that's a case of mistaken identity? What sort of recourse do they have to get off that list? And right now congress is concerned that there is no recourse. And that TSA needs to take the time and get that in place before they start using such a program.

SIEBERG: Right, we should say the general accounting office, GAO, has decided to review this so it will not be coming into effect for at least, I believe, about five months. Whether that does takes effect or not, and including the Matrix, what are some of the challenges faced by any of these organizations in terms of balancing, as we set off the beginning -- balancing a person's privacy with these efforts to go after terrorists or criminals?

MONROE: Well, I think one of the most important thing that needs to be done, and I think that TSA is doing, is there needs to be public review. The public needs to be given a chance to look at what they're doing and to comment on it. TSA, which is running CAPPS II, initially caught some heat because it seemed like they were trying to shroud this in secrecy and that simply wasn't acceptable, and so, there needs to be a lot of give and take to make sure that, basically, all the safeguards are there that everything has been thought of.

SIEBERG: All right, well John Monroe, editor at "Federal Computer Week." thanks so much for joining us to talk about all these different monitoring methods that are out there, some people may not even be aware that they're being watched while they're out there.

John Monroe, thanks so much for joining us.

MONROE: Thank you.

SIEBERG: Judy, that's going to do it for me, so -- some things to think about whether you're traveling or just going day-to-day, but again, they're saying that these are efforts in place to try and stop terrorists and criminals, so a balance needed for sure.

FORTIN: You're right, Daniel. Thank you.

Some technology stories now, in our "NEXT New" headlines. In hope of reducing the amount of toxic electronics dumped in developing nations, California has enacted America's strictest law for recycling computer and television monitors. Effective next July, the law will impose a six to $10 fee on the sale of new monitors to pay for recycling. The law also bans the shipment of monitors to countries that don't fallow U.S. environmental standards. TV and computer monitors contain hazardous chemicals such as, mercury and lead which can contaminate soil and groundwater when dumped in landfills.

German authorities have broken up a huge child porn network, seizing tens of thousands of CDs, diskettes, videos, and computers. It's being called the most significant action of its kind. The investigation involves more than 26,000 internet users in 166 countries. Suspects are accused of swapping child porn. It's not clear whether they're involved producing it, though. Suspects include teachers, police officers, and even a Protestant minister.

And, the government is recalling the Segway; it seems the nearly untippable scooter may actually be prone to tipping when the battery runs low. Three people have been hurt. The Segway Company will install a free software upgrade to correct that problem.

When we come back, we'll have a debate over whether Mike Leavitt is the right man to head up the EPA. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FORTIN: That ought to get you going on a Saturday afternoon. Hi, everyone.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a vacancy at the top. This week President Bush's choice to head the EPA, Utah Governor Mike Leavitt faced questions on Capitol Hill. We've got a couple people who've watched the governor range, for years. Brad Barber was the governor's planning chief and still serves as a consultant to Leavitt. And Zach Frankel is the executive director of the Utah Rivers Council. He and other Utah environmentalists went to D.C. for Leavitt's hearings.

Zach, let me start with you -- why do you think Mike Leavitt is not the right guy for this job?

ZACH FRANKEL, UTAH RIVERS COUNCIL: Governor Leavitt's environmental record in Utah, over the last 10 years, has really been one of ignoring violations of environmental laws, weakening environmental statutes, weakening environmental regulatory agencies, stifling public involvement, stifling public debate. Basically Governor Leavitt has been working against the EPA and many of its standards over the last 10 years, so many of us were very shocked to see his nomination to be the head of the EPA.

FORTIN: Brad, you could very well end up serving under Governor Leavitt, if he is confirmed with the EPA. What does he bring to a post like that?

BRAD BARBER, CONSULTANT TO GOV. LEAVITT: What does he bring? I think he brings some incredible experience, here in Utah. He is an experienced politician who really knows how to get things done. He knows how to bring people together to try to solve problems. FORTIN: But what about his environmental achievements?

BARBER: His environmental achievements, I think most Utahans would agree, are very good. I think Utah is, in many ways, in much better shape than when he took office. There has been much accomplished. He has a great vision for the future, there's been a lot of long-term planning done in this state. Some of the best recognized planning in America, a group called Envision Utah that has been receiving accolades all across the country, Governor Glen Denning from Maryland has shown -- has talked about the accolades from this effort and many others...

FORTIN: Zach, you're shaking your head, does the governor not deserve credit here?

FRANKEL: No, he's doesn't -- he has done so little in Utah to protect the environment, in fact there's facility after facility, Envirocare, Kennecott, MagCorp, there's a number of facilities where the EPA -- that Leavitt's administration has ignored violations of environmental law year after year after year, and only through citizen pressure has the EPA come in, done studies and levied huge fines to these commercial facilities because Leavitt's environmental agencies have done nothing under his helm so...

FORTIN: And Zach, some environmentalists are charging that governor Leavitt has been pro-business at the expense of environment. Does his record bear that out?

BARBER: I don't really think it does. We meet all the federal air quality standards. And our water quality is in very good shape, too.

FRANKEL: Actually, that's not true. The EPA has found that Utah ties for dead last among all 50 states for six different contaminants for water quality and in fact, most of Utah's streams and rivers aren't even monitored to see if they're ensuring compliance with the clean water act, so to say that somehow the governor has improved our water quality or our air quality is a farce. Utah is the second highest emitter of toxins, according to the EPA, in the entire U.S. and MagCorp is the largest industrial contaminator in the entire United States. So, I think that to say that Leavitt has actually done something to protect Utah's environment is really unsupported.

FORTIN: Brad, let me ask you this question: some EPA insiders dealing with Governor Leavitt, say they've had a difficult time dealing with him during his term. What do you say to those folks?

BARBER: Well, I -- I know Governor Leavitt is good at working with other agencies, at trying to bring people together to solve problems. He listens to his staff, he listens to the professionals around him. He will do that with the professionals at EPA. He will listen to their advice and try to work with them to try to bring the solutions forward. That's

FORTIN: Zach, are you convinced?

BARBER: ...the kind of governor he is. I've worked with him, I know.

FRANKEL: I think the governor is a very charismatic person, he's very good with people and he builds a professional rapport with a lot of people, but I think those qualifications are completely unrelated to how he's going to do at EPA. I mean, he has fought the EPA on standard after standard in Utah. Arsenic's a classic example. He opposed setting standards, lower standards for arsenic when the EPA, in 2000, sought to lower the threshold that it considered to be dangerous to human health. That's one small example of Leavitt's working to oppose environmental regulations that protect public health. And so, we're kind of shocked to see him be nominated to EPA and we're definitely concerned about the public health of all Americans if he gets in there.

FORTIN: Well Brad, then, let me ask you, then: what kind of EPA do you think we'd seen under Governor Leavitt?

BARBER: I think we'll see a very productive EPA. If you think about it -- what we need to get to make progress, do we need someone just to dig in the trenches and be cut off at the knees? We need someone that can work with the republican administration to make some progress. That's the kind of man Mike Leavitt is. He will not be satisfied with the status quo. He will not be satisfied with not making progress, he will work...

FORTIN: Zach, I'll give you the final word. What are your ultimate concerns, here?

FRANKEL: I think it's just a question of how you define progress. If progress is creating back doors for industry to walk through at the expense of public health, that's exactly what the governor's going to do. He's basically a vampire being appointed to run the blood bank. And his idea of progress is taking us back decades and decades of conservation work.

FORTIN: Well, I'm sure that this debate will continue for a while to come. Brad Barber and Zach Frankel, thanks for your time, today.

BARBER: Thank you.

FRANKEL: Thank you.

FORTIN: When we come right back: And the current hole in the ozone layer is the second largest ever, but the news isn't all that bad.

And later on, doggy DNA is today's "Cool Science." Scientists have a whole new understanding of man's best friend.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FORTIN: Perfect song for our NEXT segment. New data out this week suggests this year's ozone hole over the Antarctic is the second largest on record, but the news is not as bad as it might seem. Scientists say the international effort to mend the ozone hole is on track for success. Joining us now with more on that is Richard Stolarski research scientist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and an expert on the ozone layer.

Rich, thanks so much for joining us, today.

RICHARD STOLARSKI, GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER: Thank you, good afternoon, it's good to be here.

FORTIN: Thank you. We probably should start with the bad news first. Tell us what's happening this year with the Antarctic ozone layer and how big it is, the hole.

STOLARSKI: Well, the hole is bigger then the size of North America, which has happened several times before. It is not a record, but very near a record. And, we expect this to probably go on for as much as the next decade, depending on whether it's cold or warm in the Antarctic stratosphere.

FORTIN: You're the expert on this, were you surprised?

STOLARSKI: No, I'm not surprised at all this year. The level of chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons is approximately constant, now. And -- you know, last year we were surprised by a very warm winter. We're not surprised if it keeps going on with fairly cold winters like this.

FORTIN: What created the ozone hole in the first place and what are we going to do to fix it?

STOLARSKI: Well, what created it in the first place is ozone destroying compounds from compounds like chlorofluorocarbons. The Montreal protocol has been put in place, a hundred and some countries have signed up to this and we're already seeing decline in those -- in those original chlorofluorocarbons and we're seeing a leveling off in the ozone destroying chemicals in the stratosphere.

FORTIN: Is there something that each one of us can do to make a difference?

STOLARSKI: The -- of course you need to protect yourself, of course from ultraviolet rays, and I think it's basically being supportive of this type of international accords that come up and the people who are trying to make good environmental policy.

FORTIN: I said when we started there was some bad news. Now let's get to the good news. You say the ozone hole is as big as North America, it's going to start closing up. What does that due to -- how does that happen, now?

STOLARSKI: Well, the chemicals that are causing the ozone depletion are slowing being removed from the atmosphere. It'll take as much as 50 years for them to be completely removed, but I would expect in the next 10 years, or so, to see some definite evidence that the ozone hole is starting to diminish in size.

FORTIN: Sounds like we're on the right track. How do you monitor the size of a hole that big? STOLARSKI: Well, actually we monitor it from our satellite instruments. We have a number of satellite instruments that NASA, Noah, and also the Naval research lab have put into space that look down every time they pass over the Antarctic and they measure the ultraviolet light coming back out and you can estimate -- you can measure how much ozone is there.

FORTIN: Well Rich, we've heard so much over the past year or so about NASA's financial troubles. Has that affected you and your research on the ozone layer? Do you have enough money to do what you need to do?

STOLARSKI: We have been pretty much on track over -- over quite a few decades, now. I mean, everybody is feeling budget crunches these days, and things you would like to do you can't do but pretty much it's on track for being able to continue to do this for the next 10 to 15 years. There are plans in place for a combined polar orbiting satellite series that'll start in 2010. So, I think things are pretty well on track. Although we can always do a better job if we had more funding.

FORTIN: Rich Stolarski thank you so much for joining us today.

STOLARSKI: Thank you.

FORTIN: He's a NASA -- scientists with NASA's Goddard space flight center. Appreciate your insight, interesting topic.

And finally, we have a science story for you that's gone to the dogs. Here's Ann Kellan with today's "Cool Science."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANN KELLAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We now have a "ruff" draft of the dog's genetic code. The DNA blueprint that determines everything from the wag of their tail, to the size of their ears, to their loving nature as man's best friend. The Institute for Genomic Research released a draft of the genetic code, they say it's about 80 percent complete and thorough enough for a detailed analysis. Published in the "Journal of Science," that code may one day help us know more about the difference between guard dogs and guide dogs, between show dogs and mutts. Already, researchers found canines have more sniffing genes than humans, accounting for their better sense of smell. The DNA used in this project belongs to a Standard Poodle, named Shadow. His owner, Craig Venter, who heads up the institute that funded this dog genome project, also brought us one version of the human genome.

"Genetically speaking," Venter says, "all mammals are a lot a like, with about 75 percent of human genes similar to a dog's."

Should we be surprised? We've always joked owners look like their pups, why? It's still a mystery. But, knowing the genetic code will help researchers better understand and treat diseases in both humans and dogs, since we share more than 300 ailments from narcolepsy to the blinding retinitis pigmentosa. And, while there's not much separating the code of an Irishman from an Irish Wolfhound, there's even less separating the Irish Wolfhound from a Chihuahua. Finding their subtle, yet obvious genetic differences could take years.

Ann Kellan, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FORTIN: And, that's all we have time for today, but NEXT will be back tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. Among the stories we'll be covering: The largest ice shelf in the Arctic is breaking up. Is it the result of man-made climate change or a natural warming trend? We'll tell you what the thinning ice might mean for the Arctic and the rest of the world. That story and more coming up tomorrow. Hope you'll be able to watch us, and thanks so much for joining us today.

Ahead on "CNN live Saturday" coming up at the top of the hour in the "Dollar Signs" segment we'll take your phone and e-mail questions on scams and how to protect your financial information. That's followed by "People in the News" at 5:00 Eastern with profiles of actors Tom Hanks and Michael Kane. And, CNN Saturday at 6:00 Eastern, we'll talk to a doctor about how you can try to prevent a bout of the flu, this year.

First a quick break and then we'll tell you what's happening at this hour.

END

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.





Return to Flight; You Have Got Spam!>


Aired September 27, 2003 - 15:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY FORTIN, CNN COST: Good to have you along today. Welcome to NEXT@CNN for this Saturday, September 27. I'm Judy Fortin.
Coming up this hour, the case was cracked, or so the FBI thought. Authorities in southern California held a man whom they thought had vandalized an SUV dealership in the name of a radical environmental group, but they had to release him. And he'll be live on our program in just a few minutes.

Also this hour, we'll update you on the on again, off again national "do not call" list. It's not the only way to stop telemarketers from invading your dinner hour. We'll show you a couple of alternatives.

And later, we'll have a debate over whether Utah Governor Mike Leavitt is the right man to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

Our top story now. They're calling it a case of eco-terrorism in southern California. The FBI and local police freed a suspect they had in custody. Did they get the wrong man?

CNN's Thelma Gutierrez reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Josh Connole is a 25-year- old peace activist and environmentalist from Pomona, California. Just a couple weeks ago, he was in jail.

JOSH CONNOLE, POLITICAL ACTIVIST: That right there gives a great view.

GUTIERREZ: The suspect at the center of an FBI investigation into a string of eco-terrorism attacks, allegedly caught on tape vandalizing three Los Angeles SUV dealerships and fire bombing this Hummer dealership last month.

CONNOLE: Well, I thought that that was completely wrong. I mean, that person in the video is obviously not me.

GUTIERREZ: Connole spent four nights in jail. He was released because of lack of evidence.

The FBI would not comment on the case, but local authorities confirmed Connole remains a suspect. WILLIAM PAPARIAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: His reputation has been smeared. The reputations of his friends have been smeared. And law enforcement officials are continuing to assert that he's the prime suspect.

GUTIERREZ: In a strange twist, a man contacted the "Los Angeles Times," saying Josh Connole is innocent; that he takes credit for the SUV attacks. The anonymous informant claims to be a member of the Earth Liberation Front, E.L.F., the same initials spray painted on the SUVs.

ROD CORONADO, E.L.F. SPOKESMAN: What we're saying is that there's going to be an added cost. If you choose to consciously destroy the environment, then you're not only going to have to pay more for that vehicle, but hopefully higher insurance premiums, because they're going to remain a target.

GUTIERREZ: The militant environmental group also takes credit for the torching of four luxury homes under construction last week and this $50 million apartment fire in San Diego last month.

GARY PERLSTEIN, PORTLAND STATE UNVERSITY: Their tactics are increasing in violence, and they're hitting more in the areas of urban development.

GUTIERREZ: Authorities fear it's just a matter of time before someone is hurt.

CORONADO: We have yet to hurt anybody. They're destructive to property, I won't argue that. And that's a tactic that we're willing to engage in.

GUTIERREZ: As for Connole, he says those are not tactics he could endorse.

CONNOLE: I am an environmentalist and I want the earth to be clean, but I don't feel that arson is the way to accomplish that.

GUTIERREZ: Though Connole is free, he believes he's under government surveillance. His family is convinced he was targeted because of his political views.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't necessarily have my son's beliefs. However, I do have -- I do believe that he does have the right to stand on a corner and preach his beliefs as much as he wants. We all have that right.

GUTIERREZ: What Connole says he wants now is an apology from the FBI.

Thelma Gutierrez, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FORTIN: West Covina police say they still consider Josh Connole a suspect in the August 22 arson. An FBI spokesman told CNN the bureau would neither consider him a suspect nor consider him cleared. The FBI continues to hold computers and other personal belongings of Connole and his housemates for further investigation.

Joining us now live from L.A. are Josh Connole and his attorney, William Paparian.

Thank you so much for being with us today, gentlemen.

PAPARIAN: Thank you.

CONNOLE: You're welcome.

FORTIN: Josh, you're an activist with some pretty strong feelings about the environment, but the police say that you're a suspect in a pretty violent crime. How do you feel about those charges and about the use of violence, period, as a political tool?

CONNOLE: I don't think that violence should be used as a tool for any means. I disagree with violence. I'm a pacifist.

FORTIN: Well, on to your lawyer then. Mr. Paparian, your client has been released, yet he still is considered a suspect. I would imagine you're building a pretty strong case. Where some people see an eco-terrorist, you probably see a civil rights violation in progress, correct?

PAPARIAN: Well, this isn't the first time the FBI has done this, smeared a peaceful environmental activist. This happened in the case of Judy Beary (ph). She won a $4 million judgment last year precisely for the kinds of things that Josh Connole is now enduring. His reputation has been smeared, and the FBI has attempted to muzzle and silence a peaceful dissenter with government policies.

FORTIN: Well, Josh, what do you think can be done to right your good name?

CONNOLE: Well, to right my good name I would like an apology from the FBI, to tell you the truth.

FORTIN: It sounds like, though, Josh, from the way you have positioned yourself, whether it's living with folks in a coop, some whom are considered radical environmentalists, is it safe to say that it's not the typical Pomona, California home? Do you think that somehow this has made you and your housemates a target?

CONNOLE: I do think it's a typical home. I mean, we're a community. We all try and support each other. We're good kids. Most of us are going to college. I don't know that we need to be singled out by our government as possibly eco-terrorists.

FORTIN: Well, do you agree that SUVs are an environmental problem? Could they have misconstrued your feelings about that?

CONNOLE: Maybe they could have. The solution to SUVs and the pollution they give out is alternative fuel sources, not burning them.

FORTIN: Then you disagree with the torching of SUVs? You think that that's a wrong way to go about getting the message out?

CONNOLE: Well, the environmental impact of the fire on plastic and rubber of a Hummer is way worse than the environmental impact of the pollution that would come out of that Hummer in its lifespan.

FORTIN: Excellent point.

CONNOLE: So, if we were to actually try and make them less pollutant by alternative fuel sources...

FORTIN: William, you feel your client has been wrongly accused obviously, labeled a criminal suspect. Can we expect you to seek to turn the tables now?

PAPARIAN: Yes. We've already begun to do that. And as your film clip showed earlier, the reason why Josh came into the radar screen of the federal government was because of his outspoken opposition to the Bush administration policies in Iraq. And we know that police surveillance and targeting of people who are engaged in protest of government policies has resulted in them becoming labeled as suspects and people suspected of being involved in terrorism when it's been the exact opposite. They are engaged in peaceful, nonviolent protest and dissent against our government's policies, and as Americans, they are entitled to do that.

FORTIN: Josh, a final question to you. You seem pretty confident that you'll be cleared in this case. Has what you've been through changed your views on being a political activist? Do you think you'll step out of the limelight?

CONNOLE: They've changed them for the better. It makes me feel that there's much more reason for me to stand up and express my First Amendment right than there ever was before. And there was plenty of reasons before this happened to me.

FORTIN: Yes, what's the proper way to do it, in your view?

CONNOLE: In a nonviolent, peaceful way, you know, to just get your viewpoint out and use free speech.

FORTIN: Josh Connole and William Paparian, thank you so much for your time today.

PAPARIAN: Thank you.

FORTIN: Nice to hear from both of you.

CONNOLE: You're welcome.

FORTIN: When we come back, is China ready to launch its first manned mission to space?

And later, it's the toughest law of its kind in the nation. How one state is cracking down on junk e-mail.

We hope you'll stick around. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FORTIN: Sputnik, perhaps the biggest headline of 1957, space also tops our next news headline this week.

International chatter for years has suggested China is planning a manned space mission, but that launch may be imminent now. The country's official communist newspaper reported this week that a manned flight aboard a Long March rocket, much like the one you see here, could happen as early as next month. One astronaut will make the short 24-hour trip, according to the paper. China would become the third country to send a human to space.

From earth to the moon now. The European Space Agency is planning a lunar launch this weekend. The SMART-1 spacecraft is scheduled to blast off Saturday evening from French Guinea aboard an Arian 5 rocket. The long unmanned mission won't reach the moon until December, 2004. SMART-1 will investigate the origins of the moon, the existence of water and the possibility of building a lunar base.

Stateside now, NASA is working to return the shuttle to space. Atlantis is prepared at Kennedy Space Center for launch as early as March.

Here's CNN's John Zarrella.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Seven months ago, many of the men and women, who worked here, scoured thick brush and forest in Texas for wreckage of the shuttle Columbia. That was the low point. Now, they are working towards the high point, when shuttles fly again.

SCOTT THURSTON, ATLANTIS VEHICLE MANAGER: Everybody was saddened by Columbia, but these people are pulling up the boot straps and they're hitting it every day. And you don't hear anybody saying we can't. Everybody is out here working their tails off.

ZARRELLA: Working to prepare Atlantis for a scheduled March 11 liftoff. It will be the first to fly again.

Cocooned in scaffolding in the orbiter processing facility, a giant space plane hangar, the shuttle is barely recognizable. The engineers here are working on the wings, from the inside...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looks good.

ZARRELLA: ... to the painstaking work outside, removing for inspection all 44 of Atlantis's leading edge panels to ensure there are no defects.

RICHARD BECKWITH, ORBITER ENGINEER: What you see in here is something we haven't done before, where we completely dissect all of the hardware, look at every nut and bolt very closely. ZARRELLA: It was a leading edge panel on Columbia's left wing that was breached 81 seconds after liftoff by a piece of foam insulation that broke loose from the shuttle's giant external fuel tank. On re-entry, super-hot gases entered the hole in the wing, causing Columbia to break apart.

(on camera): The Atlantis engineering team is confident its work will be done on the vehicle in time for a March 11 liftoff, but NASA officials say there may not be enough time between now and then for them to implement all of the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

(voice-over): The board recommended NASA improve the impact resistance of panels and thermal tiles. That will take time. For now, the space agency is concentrating on eliminating the shedding of debris from the external tank that can hit the delicate tiles. NASA is also working on a method for in-orbit inspection and repair of the tiles.

Putting all of this in place could push the launch date back weeks.

John Zarrella, CNN, at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FORTIN: This week, California Governor Gray Davis signed the toughest anti-spam measure yet. Marketers in the state could be fined up to $1 million for sending unsolicited commercial e-mail.

Our technology correspondent, Daniel Sieberg, is here to explain -- Daniel.

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Judy.

That's right. It may not hurt Gray Davis' chances in the recall election as well. I'm sure he's thinking about that. And about 40 percent of all e-mail traffic in the United States is comprised of unsolicited advertisements, or so-called spam. And California's bill to curb spam talks tough, but also appears broad enough to be vulnerable to many legal challenges.

Well, joining us today to talk about this issue is Declan McCullagh of cnetnews.com.

Declan, thanks for being with us.

DECLAN MCCULLAGH, CNETNEWS.COM: My pleasure.

SIEBERG: Let's get into some nuts and bolts behind this bill. You can get, I believe it's $1,000 fine per message for somebody who is accused of sending e-mails -- unsolicited e-mails to California residents. How effective is this going to be, though, if it's so tough to track down or find the spammers themselves?

MCCULLAGH: It's a great question. It's even $1,000 per e-mail account, so if you get the same spam to two accounts, it doubles. But, yes, I mean, if every country or jurisdiction in the world had an effective anti-spam law that the police would actually enforce with strong civil and criminal penalties, then laws could work against spam, but that's not the case. None of those three assumptions are true.

And so, there's a tremendous amount of spam coming into the U.S. It comes from overseas. These countries don't care about U.S. federal laws, let alone state laws. And so, for the foreseeable future, we're still going to have to rely on technology to block spam.

SIEBERG: Let's talk about another curious aspect of this bill, the fact that they need to identify a California e-mail address. Is that possible?

MCCULLAGH: Well, that's something that, as you pointed out, makes it vulnerable in court. If you don't know that you're sending something to a California e-mail address -- and Microsoft has servers all over the country to support hotmail.com, for instance -- how can you be liable if you don't know you're breaking the law? And so, this creates some -- and it has fuzzy definitions that might create some problems for this law, because you can better believe it's going to be challenged in court.

SIEBERG: And it's expected to take effect January 1, 2004. Now, does this law, will it apply to -- we've heard about unsolicited e- mail, meaning e-mail you don't want to receive. But what about deceptive e-mail, ones that promise a false offer, does it apply to both cases?

MCCULLAGH: What I remember from reading through the law is it applies only to unsolicited commercial advertisements. It does not apply to deceptive advertisements, because those are probably already illegal under California law. They're certainly illegal under federal law. And the FTC -- the Federal Trade Commission that is here in Washington has filed a number of lawsuits and actually got civil penalties levied against folks who have been sending out deceptive spam.

And so, what the California law is trying to go after are the folks who are actually sending out legitimate messages, that is at least messages for legitimate products, but are doing it in an unsolicited way.

SIEBERG: And what about these legitimate companies who do it in a sort of legal manner, they're just advertising a particular product? They're saying a lot of the onus will be on them to prove that what they're doing is acceptable.

MCCULLAGH: Now that's right. If you look at the two decisions that have put the federal "do not call" list on hold, I mean, there's a lesson here, because the federal "do not call" list was actually an opt-out measure. In California now, or at least as of January 1, that's an opt-in measure. Only people who sign up to receive mail can get it. Well, if a federal judge thought the opt-out measure, which was far less restrictive, had constitutional First Amendment freedom of speech problems, I would tell you it's a pretty good chance that the California law is going to end up in a similar judgment, at least at the district court level.

So, January 1 may come and go without this law taking effect.

SIEBERG: All right. Well, a lot of politicians like to talk tough, whether it's spam or telemarketing. But what about the technology that's in place, you know, whether these laws work or not, or are challenged or not, what can be done at the technological level, whether at a personal level with some filtering software or in a broader Internet scale, is there something that can be done that's more effective?

MCCULLAGH: Sure. I think technology is the solution to spam, unfortunately. I doubly filter my e-mail. A few products that I have had good look with are SpamAssassin, which is free for some purposes. The latest version of Qualcomm's Eudora software 6.0 is only about $30 or $40, and that has integrated anti-spam filtering and doesn't have some of the security issues that Microsoft Outlook has.

But if you use Outlook, Cloudmark sells an Outlook plug-in that does collaborative filtering. So, if someone else has already marked this as spam by another Cloudmark user, then you won't even see it.

And so, there are better and better technologies to protect your inbox from spam.

SIEBERG: All right, well -- sorry, Declan, we're going to have to wrap you there. We're up against the clock. But thanks so much for joining us. Declan McCullagh from cnetnews.com.

Lots of options there for people, including deleting those messages if you don't want to see them.

And don't fret if you haven't had your fill of unwanted solicitations by the end of the workday. You can still get hassled by strangers after you leave the office, telemarketers calling your home phone.

I'll be back after the break with some possible solutions to that problem. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FORTIN: Welcome back, everyone.

The "do not call" list ran into another hang-up this week. This time, a judge in Colorado declared the list an infringement on telemarketers' right to free speech. The House, Senate and millions of people who signed up for the registry to stop telemarketing calls disagree.

But with enforcement of the list in limbo, what can you do to stop unwanted calls? Our tech correspondent, Daniel Sieberg, is back, as promised.

Daniel -- please, give us some options.

SIEBERG: Sure, Judy. A nice outfit, by the way.

FORTIN: Yes, we match.

SIEBERG: It was a complete accident that we match.

FORTIN: All I need is the tie.

SIEBERG: That's right.

There are a lot of options out there if you're looking for some high-tech help on stopping some of these unwanted calls, and we're talking about unwanted calls and not just telemarketing calls. So, whether this list goes through or not, there are some options out there.

The first one we can tell you about is called the TeleZapper. People may have seen it before. It works in a rather unique fashion. Rather than screening out calls by identifying the number, it sends out a particular tone that sounds like the disconnected call tone. It sounds just like this.

People are familiar with that sound, those three tones. It sends that tone out over your phone line, so that if a telemarketer is calling, it gets that tone. In fact, everybody calling gets that tone. And so, it tries to fool a telemarketer into thinking the number is disconnected. A lot of these telemarketing companies use automated or predictive dialers. So, they're just looking for all of these different random numbers, and if they come across yours by accident, you send out that tone, and it essentially takes you off their list, or tries to anyway.

Now, there are a number of other different products that are out there that try to do a similar thing. They don't use the same type of technology. You can see them here. Some of them you need to -- a caller needs to put in a particular code, a one to six-digit code that identifies them as an acceptable caller. Now the telemarketer wouldn't have that code, and so they wouldn't be able to put it in. And the call would then go either to a message box where you could pick it up later, or they would simply hang up.

In other cases, there are certain ring tones that you can put on the line, so, you know, you can identify who's calling. There are a lot of different options that some of them have. And you can think of them sort of as a mini auto-receptionist between you and whoever is calling.

And the other two, there you can see the EZ Hangup and the Phone Butler, they're a little bit different. They don't actually screen the calls in that way. They offer you sort of a -- well, a polite way of saying get lost to whoever is calling. The Phone Butler giving a British accent voice that asks the person to politely not to call back, tells them you're busy and to take them off your list.

So, there are a few ideas for people out there. FORTIN: Is this where you do your British voice?

SIEBERG: That's right, Judy. That's correct.

FORTIN: The very polite one.

SIEBERG: Yes.

FORTIN: Now, it won't be long before people can transfer their home phone numbers to their cell phone number.

SIEBERG: Right.

FORTIN: But along with that convenience, do the telemarketers come, too?

SIEBERG: It does, Judy, as a matter of fact, because as part of the November 24 FCC regulations, you can not only take your cell phone from one cell phone company to another, you can also take your home phone number and use that on your cell phone. So, what does this give you? Well, some pros and cons.

You can go wireless with this one number, so you've just got this one number for people to remember. But any telemarketing calls you've been getting on your home number will then be transferred over to your cell phone number, which is obviously frustrating to people because they have to pay for it.

So, there are some options out there for people, but it's sort of an one-upping battle. And phone companies also have some ideas for people, too.

FORTIN: Something to think about, all of that convenience and all of that frustration, too.

SIEBERG: Right, exactly.

FORTIN: All right, Daniel, we'll see you later on.

SIEBERG: You bet.

FORTIN: Thanks.

Well, tune in tomorrow morning for CNN for a live interview of the chairman of the FTC for his take on the "do not call" list.

And coming up in our next half-hour, first it was total information awareness, then terrorism information awareness. And now Congress has cut off funding for the government's controversial computerized surveillance program. But is TIA really DOA? That story when we come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK) FORTIN: After the terrorist attacks of September 11, U.S. Government agencies like the FBI and Immigration Service took a lot of heat for not sharing information on possible terrorists. Since then, however, some data-sharing schemes have been blasted for trampling on the privacy of law abiding citizens. So, where's the balance? Technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg is back with details on that dilemma -- Daniel.

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Judy. Yeah, names like "Terror Information Awareness" and the "Matrix" describes some of the programs to use technology to track down terrorists. But, those efforts sometimes create as many questions as they answer. Joining me now, from our Washington bureau is John Monroe, the editor of "Federal Computer Week," it's an independent publication that covers technology issues in the federal government.

John, thanks for being with us.

JOHN MONROE, "FEDERAL COMPUTER WEEK": Thank you.

SIEBERG: The news this week that the Terror Information Network is being dismantled, does some of that -- is some of the motivation behind that, between taking apart that network, is it because after September 11 there was sort of a rush to try and use the technology that was out there and now a couple of years later people are stepping back a little bit?

MONROE: Yeah, I think that's exactly what's going on. After September 11, the government began looking around for options for information sharing, and what they discovered was there's plenty of options. There was a lot of technology to help them share information to analyze data, but what congress and others have become concerned about is that privacy safeguards weren't in place, though, to deal with that kind of technology.

SIEBERG: Now, we also talked at the beginning about the Matrix now, the one we're going to be talking about here, in a second, is not the Keanu Reeves version, this is a combination of private and government efforts, as I understand, to help law enforcement share and gather information. What can you tell me about the Matrix?

MONROE: Well, the Matrix is like a number of initiatives out there. There's a lot of people who have a lot of different data, that in the past they -- they've had only access to their own data. What they're trying to do is get access to data that other people have. You begin to kind of pair that data up and you find out all sorts of information you never could have otherwise.

SIEBERG: And, we're seeing here a statement from the company, what they're saying they're doing is making it easier for law enforcement to coordinate and to make it quicker. Should we be worried about something like that? I mean, is that a privacy threat if they're just simply to go after terrorists or criminals?

MONROE: Well, they will tell you that they are working with existing data, data that they have legal access to. But, the question becomes how much can they do with that data and again, are there limits to what they can do with it? Because the technology makes it so easy to share information, it's really hard to put a stop to it.

SIEBERG: Let's talk a little bit too, about -- if we can go from the Matrix to the CAPPS -- the CAPPS II project. Now, this is going to be affecting airline passengers, potentially, coming under the Department of Homeland Security. Red, green, and yellow levels to -- mark different passengers for potential security threats. How is this going to be working?

MONROE: Well, this one in some ways is more tame than the others. They're working with a much -- more limited set of data. And yet they are looking at personal data. And they're vary a much a sense of screening and there is concerns that, one, you screen people, you identify someone as red, but what if that's a case of mistaken identity? What sort of recourse do they have to get off that list? And right now congress is concerned that there is no recourse. And that TSA needs to take the time and get that in place before they start using such a program.

SIEBERG: Right, we should say the general accounting office, GAO, has decided to review this so it will not be coming into effect for at least, I believe, about five months. Whether that does takes effect or not, and including the Matrix, what are some of the challenges faced by any of these organizations in terms of balancing, as we set off the beginning -- balancing a person's privacy with these efforts to go after terrorists or criminals?

MONROE: Well, I think one of the most important thing that needs to be done, and I think that TSA is doing, is there needs to be public review. The public needs to be given a chance to look at what they're doing and to comment on it. TSA, which is running CAPPS II, initially caught some heat because it seemed like they were trying to shroud this in secrecy and that simply wasn't acceptable, and so, there needs to be a lot of give and take to make sure that, basically, all the safeguards are there that everything has been thought of.

SIEBERG: All right, well John Monroe, editor at "Federal Computer Week." thanks so much for joining us to talk about all these different monitoring methods that are out there, some people may not even be aware that they're being watched while they're out there.

John Monroe, thanks so much for joining us.

MONROE: Thank you.

SIEBERG: Judy, that's going to do it for me, so -- some things to think about whether you're traveling or just going day-to-day, but again, they're saying that these are efforts in place to try and stop terrorists and criminals, so a balance needed for sure.

FORTIN: You're right, Daniel. Thank you.

Some technology stories now, in our "NEXT New" headlines. In hope of reducing the amount of toxic electronics dumped in developing nations, California has enacted America's strictest law for recycling computer and television monitors. Effective next July, the law will impose a six to $10 fee on the sale of new monitors to pay for recycling. The law also bans the shipment of monitors to countries that don't fallow U.S. environmental standards. TV and computer monitors contain hazardous chemicals such as, mercury and lead which can contaminate soil and groundwater when dumped in landfills.

German authorities have broken up a huge child porn network, seizing tens of thousands of CDs, diskettes, videos, and computers. It's being called the most significant action of its kind. The investigation involves more than 26,000 internet users in 166 countries. Suspects are accused of swapping child porn. It's not clear whether they're involved producing it, though. Suspects include teachers, police officers, and even a Protestant minister.

And, the government is recalling the Segway; it seems the nearly untippable scooter may actually be prone to tipping when the battery runs low. Three people have been hurt. The Segway Company will install a free software upgrade to correct that problem.

When we come back, we'll have a debate over whether Mike Leavitt is the right man to head up the EPA. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FORTIN: That ought to get you going on a Saturday afternoon. Hi, everyone.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a vacancy at the top. This week President Bush's choice to head the EPA, Utah Governor Mike Leavitt faced questions on Capitol Hill. We've got a couple people who've watched the governor range, for years. Brad Barber was the governor's planning chief and still serves as a consultant to Leavitt. And Zach Frankel is the executive director of the Utah Rivers Council. He and other Utah environmentalists went to D.C. for Leavitt's hearings.

Zach, let me start with you -- why do you think Mike Leavitt is not the right guy for this job?

ZACH FRANKEL, UTAH RIVERS COUNCIL: Governor Leavitt's environmental record in Utah, over the last 10 years, has really been one of ignoring violations of environmental laws, weakening environmental statutes, weakening environmental regulatory agencies, stifling public involvement, stifling public debate. Basically Governor Leavitt has been working against the EPA and many of its standards over the last 10 years, so many of us were very shocked to see his nomination to be the head of the EPA.

FORTIN: Brad, you could very well end up serving under Governor Leavitt, if he is confirmed with the EPA. What does he bring to a post like that?

BRAD BARBER, CONSULTANT TO GOV. LEAVITT: What does he bring? I think he brings some incredible experience, here in Utah. He is an experienced politician who really knows how to get things done. He knows how to bring people together to try to solve problems. FORTIN: But what about his environmental achievements?

BARBER: His environmental achievements, I think most Utahans would agree, are very good. I think Utah is, in many ways, in much better shape than when he took office. There has been much accomplished. He has a great vision for the future, there's been a lot of long-term planning done in this state. Some of the best recognized planning in America, a group called Envision Utah that has been receiving accolades all across the country, Governor Glen Denning from Maryland has shown -- has talked about the accolades from this effort and many others...

FORTIN: Zach, you're shaking your head, does the governor not deserve credit here?

FRANKEL: No, he's doesn't -- he has done so little in Utah to protect the environment, in fact there's facility after facility, Envirocare, Kennecott, MagCorp, there's a number of facilities where the EPA -- that Leavitt's administration has ignored violations of environmental law year after year after year, and only through citizen pressure has the EPA come in, done studies and levied huge fines to these commercial facilities because Leavitt's environmental agencies have done nothing under his helm so...

FORTIN: And Zach, some environmentalists are charging that governor Leavitt has been pro-business at the expense of environment. Does his record bear that out?

BARBER: I don't really think it does. We meet all the federal air quality standards. And our water quality is in very good shape, too.

FRANKEL: Actually, that's not true. The EPA has found that Utah ties for dead last among all 50 states for six different contaminants for water quality and in fact, most of Utah's streams and rivers aren't even monitored to see if they're ensuring compliance with the clean water act, so to say that somehow the governor has improved our water quality or our air quality is a farce. Utah is the second highest emitter of toxins, according to the EPA, in the entire U.S. and MagCorp is the largest industrial contaminator in the entire United States. So, I think that to say that Leavitt has actually done something to protect Utah's environment is really unsupported.

FORTIN: Brad, let me ask you this question: some EPA insiders dealing with Governor Leavitt, say they've had a difficult time dealing with him during his term. What do you say to those folks?

BARBER: Well, I -- I know Governor Leavitt is good at working with other agencies, at trying to bring people together to solve problems. He listens to his staff, he listens to the professionals around him. He will do that with the professionals at EPA. He will listen to their advice and try to work with them to try to bring the solutions forward. That's

FORTIN: Zach, are you convinced?

BARBER: ...the kind of governor he is. I've worked with him, I know.

FRANKEL: I think the governor is a very charismatic person, he's very good with people and he builds a professional rapport with a lot of people, but I think those qualifications are completely unrelated to how he's going to do at EPA. I mean, he has fought the EPA on standard after standard in Utah. Arsenic's a classic example. He opposed setting standards, lower standards for arsenic when the EPA, in 2000, sought to lower the threshold that it considered to be dangerous to human health. That's one small example of Leavitt's working to oppose environmental regulations that protect public health. And so, we're kind of shocked to see him be nominated to EPA and we're definitely concerned about the public health of all Americans if he gets in there.

FORTIN: Well Brad, then, let me ask you, then: what kind of EPA do you think we'd seen under Governor Leavitt?

BARBER: I think we'll see a very productive EPA. If you think about it -- what we need to get to make progress, do we need someone just to dig in the trenches and be cut off at the knees? We need someone that can work with the republican administration to make some progress. That's the kind of man Mike Leavitt is. He will not be satisfied with the status quo. He will not be satisfied with not making progress, he will work...

FORTIN: Zach, I'll give you the final word. What are your ultimate concerns, here?

FRANKEL: I think it's just a question of how you define progress. If progress is creating back doors for industry to walk through at the expense of public health, that's exactly what the governor's going to do. He's basically a vampire being appointed to run the blood bank. And his idea of progress is taking us back decades and decades of conservation work.

FORTIN: Well, I'm sure that this debate will continue for a while to come. Brad Barber and Zach Frankel, thanks for your time, today.

BARBER: Thank you.

FRANKEL: Thank you.

FORTIN: When we come right back: And the current hole in the ozone layer is the second largest ever, but the news isn't all that bad.

And later on, doggy DNA is today's "Cool Science." Scientists have a whole new understanding of man's best friend.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FORTIN: Perfect song for our NEXT segment. New data out this week suggests this year's ozone hole over the Antarctic is the second largest on record, but the news is not as bad as it might seem. Scientists say the international effort to mend the ozone hole is on track for success. Joining us now with more on that is Richard Stolarski research scientist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and an expert on the ozone layer.

Rich, thanks so much for joining us, today.

RICHARD STOLARSKI, GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER: Thank you, good afternoon, it's good to be here.

FORTIN: Thank you. We probably should start with the bad news first. Tell us what's happening this year with the Antarctic ozone layer and how big it is, the hole.

STOLARSKI: Well, the hole is bigger then the size of North America, which has happened several times before. It is not a record, but very near a record. And, we expect this to probably go on for as much as the next decade, depending on whether it's cold or warm in the Antarctic stratosphere.

FORTIN: You're the expert on this, were you surprised?

STOLARSKI: No, I'm not surprised at all this year. The level of chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons is approximately constant, now. And -- you know, last year we were surprised by a very warm winter. We're not surprised if it keeps going on with fairly cold winters like this.

FORTIN: What created the ozone hole in the first place and what are we going to do to fix it?

STOLARSKI: Well, what created it in the first place is ozone destroying compounds from compounds like chlorofluorocarbons. The Montreal protocol has been put in place, a hundred and some countries have signed up to this and we're already seeing decline in those -- in those original chlorofluorocarbons and we're seeing a leveling off in the ozone destroying chemicals in the stratosphere.

FORTIN: Is there something that each one of us can do to make a difference?

STOLARSKI: The -- of course you need to protect yourself, of course from ultraviolet rays, and I think it's basically being supportive of this type of international accords that come up and the people who are trying to make good environmental policy.

FORTIN: I said when we started there was some bad news. Now let's get to the good news. You say the ozone hole is as big as North America, it's going to start closing up. What does that due to -- how does that happen, now?

STOLARSKI: Well, the chemicals that are causing the ozone depletion are slowing being removed from the atmosphere. It'll take as much as 50 years for them to be completely removed, but I would expect in the next 10 years, or so, to see some definite evidence that the ozone hole is starting to diminish in size.

FORTIN: Sounds like we're on the right track. How do you monitor the size of a hole that big? STOLARSKI: Well, actually we monitor it from our satellite instruments. We have a number of satellite instruments that NASA, Noah, and also the Naval research lab have put into space that look down every time they pass over the Antarctic and they measure the ultraviolet light coming back out and you can estimate -- you can measure how much ozone is there.

FORTIN: Well Rich, we've heard so much over the past year or so about NASA's financial troubles. Has that affected you and your research on the ozone layer? Do you have enough money to do what you need to do?

STOLARSKI: We have been pretty much on track over -- over quite a few decades, now. I mean, everybody is feeling budget crunches these days, and things you would like to do you can't do but pretty much it's on track for being able to continue to do this for the next 10 to 15 years. There are plans in place for a combined polar orbiting satellite series that'll start in 2010. So, I think things are pretty well on track. Although we can always do a better job if we had more funding.

FORTIN: Rich Stolarski thank you so much for joining us today.

STOLARSKI: Thank you.

FORTIN: He's a NASA -- scientists with NASA's Goddard space flight center. Appreciate your insight, interesting topic.

And finally, we have a science story for you that's gone to the dogs. Here's Ann Kellan with today's "Cool Science."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANN KELLAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We now have a "ruff" draft of the dog's genetic code. The DNA blueprint that determines everything from the wag of their tail, to the size of their ears, to their loving nature as man's best friend. The Institute for Genomic Research released a draft of the genetic code, they say it's about 80 percent complete and thorough enough for a detailed analysis. Published in the "Journal of Science," that code may one day help us know more about the difference between guard dogs and guide dogs, between show dogs and mutts. Already, researchers found canines have more sniffing genes than humans, accounting for their better sense of smell. The DNA used in this project belongs to a Standard Poodle, named Shadow. His owner, Craig Venter, who heads up the institute that funded this dog genome project, also brought us one version of the human genome.

"Genetically speaking," Venter says, "all mammals are a lot a like, with about 75 percent of human genes similar to a dog's."

Should we be surprised? We've always joked owners look like their pups, why? It's still a mystery. But, knowing the genetic code will help researchers better understand and treat diseases in both humans and dogs, since we share more than 300 ailments from narcolepsy to the blinding retinitis pigmentosa. And, while there's not much separating the code of an Irishman from an Irish Wolfhound, there's even less separating the Irish Wolfhound from a Chihuahua. Finding their subtle, yet obvious genetic differences could take years.

Ann Kellan, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FORTIN: And, that's all we have time for today, but NEXT will be back tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. Among the stories we'll be covering: The largest ice shelf in the Arctic is breaking up. Is it the result of man-made climate change or a natural warming trend? We'll tell you what the thinning ice might mean for the Arctic and the rest of the world. That story and more coming up tomorrow. Hope you'll be able to watch us, and thanks so much for joining us today.

Ahead on "CNN live Saturday" coming up at the top of the hour in the "Dollar Signs" segment we'll take your phone and e-mail questions on scams and how to protect your financial information. That's followed by "People in the News" at 5:00 Eastern with profiles of actors Tom Hanks and Michael Kane. And, CNN Saturday at 6:00 Eastern, we'll talk to a doctor about how you can try to prevent a bout of the flu, this year.

First a quick break and then we'll tell you what's happening at this hour.

END

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.





Return to Flight; You Have Got Spam!>