Return to Transcripts main page


Report: China Spying On America; Run, Hide Or Fight; Hillary's Speaking Circuit; Facebook Death Notice

Aired February 19, 2013 - 14:29   ET


CHRISTI PAUL, CNN ANCHOR: Now, this could have huge implications with not just corporate crime carried out by hackers, but also terror suspects using cyber crime to gain access to targets, of course. Want to hone in on those issues with security consultant David Kennedy. He has global experience in cyber security, has worked for the U.S. government and is known as an ethical hacker.

David, so glad to have you with us. Thank you for being here.

Let me just get this out first and foremost. China says it's being hacked. This private report out today says China is hacking American firms. So, who's the victim and who's do the hacking, do we know?

DAVID KENNEDY, CYBER SECURITY CONSULTANT: Yes, I think it's easy to put the blame game, you know, back and there's no repercussions for China to say, hey, we're not doing anything. But, you know, we all, in the security community, in the hacking community, have known that China has been a major threat for U.S. targets for a number of years. I mean, being able to steal intellectual property, you know, going after companies and stealing their secrets and then starting companies up to compete with us for cheaper products has been a known practice for a long period of time.

So I think you're seeing these high impact vulnerabilities being attacked and corporations being attacked in a number of ways through the Chinese government. There are no repercussions for them. I mean, we saw with Google, Aurora and a number of other companies as well.

PAUL: What's interesting is the group who did this study is a U.S. firm, connects the dots pointing to the Chinese military being the home base for these cyber attacks. So what types of information could be compromised first and foremost?

KENNEDY: Well, think about it. I mean, the U.S. company has an estimated multiple trillions of dollars of intellectual property. You know, if China can infiltrate, you know, the trade secrets or things that make us unique as a company, Coca-Cola, for example, and their trade secrets.

They can use that to make competing products or to help boost their economy. They are going to after it. It's never been easier with the type of technology we have today to break into these organizations. I mean, think of traditional things like fire walls or antivirus, for example, antivirus is known to be detecting maybe 3 percent of really what's out there. So it's never been easier for us to hack into companies, steal all their data and then turn it around and make a profit off of it. That's what we do regularly on a daily basis, a trust sect.

PAUL: Well, I know President Obama is beefing up cyber security. In his "State of the Union" address in fact he invoked an executive order to allow private sector to work with the government to prevent hacking.

But you know ,you look at that and you think that's not going to come easy. There's some time involved with that. So you do this for a living. What do you think can be done right now?

KENNEDY: Well, I think companies really need to invest in security. I mean, we deal with a lot of the Fortune 100 and 1000 companies out there. It's never been easier to break into them. I mean, I can't think of a time and place where I've been stopped from breaking into an organization.

So, I mean, I think companies really need to take security seriously and really focus on protecting the organizations and intellectual property because the government isn't going to be able to do it for them. I mean, focusing on fixing high impact vulnerabilities and making sure that they can protect their organizations.

Because at the end of the day, you know, those are the secrets make us strong as a U.S. economy and we're going to falter when we're getting attacked every single day. These breaches are very, very, very common. We deal with breaches on wide scales all the time and almost always originating from the Chinese government.

PAUL: Yes, it's pretty frightening. David Kennedy, thank you so much for your insight. It's good to talk to you today.

KENNEDY: Thank you for having me. Appreciate it.

PAUL: Up next, our daily topics debate including run, hide and fight? A city offers some controversial on dealing with a gunman. Plus Hillary Clinton's next career move follows in the footsteps of her husband, former President Clinton.

A mysterious message on Facebook leads a woman to news about her missing son. Details of why this woman is so furious with police. The panelists will be revealed for you next.


PAUL: I'm Christi Paul in today for Brooke Baldwin. Thanks for keeping me company here. For the next 25 minutes we're going to tackle the hot stories so many people are talking about today, starting with new advice for living a nightmare scenario. So when a shooter comes into your work or school, some law enforcement officials are pressing, if your life depends on it, fight back. Take a look at this and I do want to give you forewarning here, it's kind of hard to watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): If you're ever to find yourself in the middle of an active shooter event, your survival may depend on whether or not you have a plan. There are three things you can do that make a difference. If you can't get out safely, you need to find a place to hide.

Act quickly and quietly. Try to secure your hiding place the best you can. Turn out lights. As a last resort, if your life is at risk, whether you're alone or working together as a group, fight. Act with aggression, improvise weapons, disarm him and commit to taking the shooter down.


PAUL: OK, that's an instructional video you're looking at produced by the City of Houston. While this may seem like a no nonsense idea, police have long urged possible victims not to confront attackers. This is a 180 here.

After the recent spree in mass shootings, law enforcement officials have been forced to re-evaluate their guidance on these active shooter situations. As the video said you run first, you hide, but if all else fails, you fight.

So let's bring in today's panel, Alyona Minkowski, host of the "Alyona" show, Howard Kurtz, host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES," David Sirota, a syndicated columnist and radio host, and Lauren Ashburn, editor-in-chief of the "Daily Download." Welcome everybody. I'm so glad to have you here.

Alyona, let me start with you. Is it surprising to you that's taken so long for police to urge people to confront an attacker?

ALYONA MINKOWSKI, HOST, "THE ALYONA SHOW": Let me clarify really quickly too I'm a host at "Huffpost Live," host and producer. But, you know, I would say that first of all, I did find it shocking when I first found out that this wasn't a go to, that as a last resort, an option that you can have out there is to fight back.

But I think that the timing of this is something that can definitely be questioned because now you suddenly have law enforcement echoing some of the lines we've seen coming from the NRA and this argument to arm teachers, train teachers and how they need to respond.

And so you just wonder if it begins to open the door for that. I think that in general telling students that this could be an option also could carry some dangerous repercussions. You never know whether that's something that might backfire. The way we've seen the president talk about this in the wake of the Newtown shooting and the way he honored those individuals that really did try to step up and put their lives in danger in order to protect the students was something of a human condition, a human element rising above. I think it's a dangerous line that law enforcement takes.

PAUL: Lauren, what's your take?

LAUREN ASHBURN, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, "DAILY DOWNLOAD": What was that video? Are you kidding me? It sounded like something from "Friday the 13th" or one of those awful movies about killings. I mean, that video, first of all, was designed to scary I think and not to educate.

As far as what you should do when confronted with an attacker, look, it's fight or flight. You're in this situation. You're going to do one of those two things. You can't -- you are not going to be remembering what a video says at that moment.

You also have to take into account that during the Newtown shooting, hiding those children saved their lives.

PAUL: They're not saying not to hide. They're saying if you can't hide, your last resort is, rather than to stand there and beg for your life, your last resort is to fight back.

I know you're a mom, Lauren. Howard, you're a father as well. What do you say to that? Because I'm a mom and I think is this what I want to teach my kids.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, CNN'S "RELIABLE SOURCES": Forgive me, but it seems to be awfully easy for law enforcement bureaucrats to suggest to people even as a last resort, sure, the guy has a shotgun or semi- automatic rifle, you're not armed, just tackle him. I kind of get the impression this is a conversation -- an important conversation to be sure.

But a conversation that police are having among themselves. I don't know how this message is getting out. Lauren is right. That video is going to turn a lot of people off because of the melodramatic music and everything. It almost seems divorced from real life.

PAUL: OK, David, let me ask you this. I mean, let's think back to Flight 93 on 9/11. You have to be prepared to fight for your life, risk dying, right? It's part of the greater good. What do you say to that?

DAVID SIROTA, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST, RADIO HOST: Look, I think it's a statement of the obvious that if you don't have any place to hide, this is one option. I think what happened on 9/11 is an example of that. But I think the meta-message from law enforcement is -- at least it could be interpreted to be, we don't have a comprehensive plan.

We don't have a comprehensive idea of what to do about the threat to schools. So in a desperation, we're going to say, listen, go after the shooter if you can. It kind of reminds me of the Department of Homeland Security saying when we face a terrorist threat. Basically the solution is a couple of color codes and duct tape. That send a message that was not reassuring that there's a comprehensive plan.

ASHBURN: Christi, my son's school, they did a code red where they had all of the kids line up against the lockers, they locked the doors, they locked the windows. I mean, I think schools are doing the policies that have been set forth up to this time, just not the attack -- the attacker one.

PAUL: The attack part, right. Thank you so much. They're sticking around with us because we have more to talk about with this panel, particularly Hillary Clinton. She signed on with a talent agency, barely out of the secretary of state office. She's preparing to hit the lecture circuit. She could be making as much money as her husband. How much? Wait until you hear.


PAUL: So fresh off her stint as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has finally revealed her next career move. She's hitting the speaking circuit. Clinton is expected to be one of the most sought after in the highly lucrative field her husband, former President Bill Clinton racked up some $89 million in speaking fees since leaving office.

So certainly details on her asking price for speech are a little sketchy. Most expect it to be in the six-figure range, maybe $200,000 for domestics up to $750 internationally. Not too bad.

So let's bring our panel back into this. Hillary Clinton hasn't told CNN she's not interested in running for office. We'll be completely candid about that. The speaking circuit is obviously going to keep her in the spotlight. Is it a way to give her wiggle room should she want to run for president? David Sirota, you first.

SIROTA: I think this is one of the invisible forms of corruption in our politics right now. I think that when you see a former president, President Bill Clinton, go out there, after a career in public service and make $89 million speaking in front of major corporations that had business with his administration, you ask the question that in reverse, what kind of favors did those corporations get when he was in office?

I think the same thing applies to Hillary Clinton just like it applies to other politicians. When there is a promise of riches to corporate-compliant politicians after they leave office, the question becomes what are they doing in office that are favors to those corporations?

PAUL: Howard Kurtz, what do you think?

KURTZ: What would be corrupt would be for Hillary Clinton to become a lobbyist or advise a big lobbying firm, which is using her influence by selling her name, to join corporate boards or to become a cable TV commentator, which is beneath her, although I'm sure CNN would be happy to put her on. She doesn't get $200,000 for a speech unless people want to see her and are willing to pay for it, at least it's an honest form of labor.

PAUL: OK, let me ask you --

SIROTA: Let me make the point, very quickly, if you're promised money, if there's an implied promise of making hundreds of thousands of dollars --

KURTZ: You have no evidence that anybody is implying such a promise.

SIROTA: We're going to find out. There's absolutely an implied promise. Just look at her husband. There's an implied promise to all politicians that when they get out of office, if they play the game correctly, they'll make hundreds of thousands of dollars from the companies that they are supposed to be overseeing while in office.

PAUL: OK, but let me ask you this, and Lauren I want bring you into this. What do you think people will want to hear from her, her experience as secretary of state or first lady?

ASHBURN: Of course -- well, I think it's a broad range. But I also have to go back to what David and Howie were arguing over because everybody has done this. I mean, Ronald Reagan was paid $12 million for a speech in Japan.

I mean, OK, so if there is a problem with this and the government has a problem with this, then we should address that. At this point to say Hillary shouldn't be allowed to do it because it's wrong, I think she's --

SIROTA: No one says she shouldn't be allowed.

PAUL: One more thing I need to bring into here, speaking of first ladies. Hold on a second if you would, please, Alyona, because Michelle Obama is making some news today. I know it's kind of a latter subject, but everybody is talking about her new bangs. She says this is actually the result of a mid life crisis, her bangs. Here she is explaining it on Rachel Ray.


MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADY: This is my mid life crisis, the bangs. I couldn't get a sports car. They won't let me bungee jump, instead I cut my bangs.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're the boss of your hair.

OBAMA: I can do this. This is all mine.


PAUL: So Alyona, what do you say to that? I mean, she's clearly talking about the scrutiny she is under as first lady, which Hillary Clinton can speak to. MINKOWSKI: Sure, of course, there's a lot of scrutiny there. I personally like Michelle Obama's bangs. I'd like to go back to talking about Hillary Clinton for a minute. I just think that it's entirely typical.

It just shows you that public service is an incredibly lucrative business these days. Nobody is saying that it's illegal and nobody is saying that she shouldn't be able to do this, but this is the way it is.

So I think that if you can point to the fact that she's going to give some speeches for free to favorable organizations, then you really have to start asking why she's goings to take money from others and if she end up running for office again in 2016, what that will make her be accountable for.

PAUL: Thank you so much. We're going to move on to the next topic. A woman's son -- I know this hits all of us. A woman's son disappears. She receives a mysterious message on Facebook. Up next, why this mom is so furious with police.


PAUL: One Georgia woman is furious with police after she says she was notified of her son's death over Facebook. Anna Lamb-Creasy told our affiliate WSB, her son had been missing since January 25th. She called hospitals, jails, even posted on his Facebook wall in hopes to finding him. Then Lamb discovered a message from someone named Misty Hancock on Facebook saying they were the local police and to call them.


ANNA LAMB-CREASEY, MOTHER OF RICKIE LAMB: Misty Hancock. I'm like who is the Misty Hancock?


PAUL: Well, the strange name and profile picture of rapper T.I. was enough for Lamb to dismiss the message, but after weeks of searching, she called the number that it contained and it actually was the police.

That's when she learned her son had died, 20 days earlier, after being hit by a car while crossing the road. Now, for their part, Clayton County Police said they made every effort to contact the family in a more conventional way.

But I want to bring our panel back into this. Lauren, you're a mom, what's your first reaction?

ASHBURN: My first reaction is bull. You can find criminals, you're the FBI. You can bring in the CIA. You can find this woman. I'm sorry. They have ways of doing this. How reprehensible for the person who sent the message not to send it from an official account. They should be fired. PAUL: Howard, you agree?

KURTZ: This is just heart rending, this poor woman going a month without knowing the fate of her sons. The list of mistakes that the police made here, contacting by Facebook, not sending from official police account and on and on and on. Lauren is so right.

What did the police departments do before Facebook? They went out in squad cars, knocked on people's doors and went and found the surviving member of a family. I really feel for this woman. What a terrible ordeal made worse by police bungling.

PAUL: No doubt that everybody feels for this woman. I mean, she lost her son. She found in a very insensitive way. David, do you think somebody's job should be on the line for it?

SIROTA: Well, look, I think it's a general commentary on how technology separates us from humanity and how it's easy to think a text message or a Facebook post or an e-mail is a humane way to contact. I'm not excusing it.

But what I am saying is this is a micro cosmic example of how technology separates us from each other in ways that come with unintended and really awful consequences.

PAUL: OK, let me ask you, Lauren, what do you say to that? We talk a lot about being on social media and how you can put things out there and not be accountable for them. Is this taking this to the nth degree?

ASHBURN: I think it most definitely is. We cover social media at and we see all the time how social media becomes the vehicle that drives conversations, journalists, entertainers.

And we do lose that person-to-person touch, especially because the bloggers and commenter don't use their real names, like in the example of this woman. She didn't put her real picture up there. She put a rapper's picture up there. It is not just not as effective a way of communicating as we think it is.

KURTZ: I have found people on Twitter and on Facebook, but I'm a journalist, I'm not a police officer. To send out a message under the name Misty, you would think it was some kind of come-on.

PAUL: I think that's probably what was really confusing. Alyona, certainly there could have been a better way to handle this. We'd like to believe police are doing everything they can through the correct channels. What is your take?

MINKOWSKI: I think this is ridiculous. I missed part of the conversation that was going on there. We lost connection. I think it raises a lot of question in the ways police are conducting their business, whether is complete negligence or incompetence. But you think about it, you and I as normal average citizens, we're not allowed to set up a fake Facebook profile under a pseudo name and yet authorities are allowed to do this to conduct their investigations. Here what they've gone and done is reach a woman without telling what their true intentions are.

It postponed her finding out the truth about what happened to her son. I think it's an embarrassing issue that had detrimental effects for this woman's life. It really raises a lot of questions as to how law enforcement is starting to use this technology, whether they know what they're doing with it.

PAUL: That's a good question, Howard, what kind of training do we know they have for law enforcement when it comes to social media?

KURTZ: My 8-year-old could use Facebook better than the training these police apparently have. Social media can be an incredibly effective tool. It's not appropriate in this kind of situation where somebody is essentially trying to give the word of a death to the next of kin. How much common sense does it take to send it from an official police account if you want to get a response and not with the picture of a rapper?

ASHBURN: Howie, I have to interrupt you.

PAUL: Last word, Lauren. Go ahead.

ASHBURN: As I usually development I have to say there are positives to Facebook and finding people in criminal investigations and putting out hotlines. For us to dump on police use of social media as a whole is also short sighted. Not as a whole. We're saying they need to do it well.

PAUL: Alyona Minkowski, Lauren Ashburn, Howard Kurtz, and David Sirota, thank you all so much for sharing your thoughts with us. It's good to have you with us today.

Just ahead, new information about Adam Lanza's possible motive in the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school shooting. Hear how Lanza's obsession could have driven him to attack.