RT — America Now
20260808 040000 UTC
484 transcript segments
Google Speech-to-Text API Automatic Transcription (Chirp)
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:00] prácticamente a situaciones
[00:00:01] of ilícitas, tijuana, cualquier esquina está lleno de poster
[00:00:05] donde hay personas desaparecidas, there's a reality in
[00:00:11] in Mexico.
[00:00:18] Good evening, it's 10 p.m. on the east coast, I'm Olivia Flynn, and here are the stories we're
[00:00:22] following tonight. First, breaking tonight, the US Senate just passed
[00:00:26] a sweeping new sanctions bill targeting Russia, we'll break it all.
[00:00:31] down, plus, they're not just catching
[00:00:33] of criminals, they're tracking your every movement. Tonight, why some Americans say flot
[00:00:37] cameras have gone too far?
[00:00:41] And finally, Beijing unleashes a new wave of trade retaliation
[00:00:45] against the United States. Is this the start of much bigger economic war?
[00:00:49] We'll find out. On this show, we know that you don't need more content, you
[00:00:53] need context. Anyone can tell you what's happening in the news. Tonight we hope to help you
[00:00:56] understand why it's happening, how it's happening, and how
[00:00:59] of it affects. This is America
[00:01:01] now.
[00:01:11] We start this evening with breaking news out of Washington DC. The US senate has
[00:01:15] passed yet another round of sanctions on Russia
[00:01:18] in a vote of 86 to 11. The legislation was the pet project of
[00:01:22] recently deceased senator and known warhawk lensy Gram of South
[00:01:26] Carolina,
[00:01:27] and the legislation would punish countries which byy. and fossil fuels
[00:01:30] in an effort to deprive Russia of
[00:01:32] of revenues. President Trump would now be able to impose tariffs on countries like
[00:01:36] India or China if they continue to import Russian gas or
[00:01:40] oil, and the bill must
[00:01:41] of now pass the House of Representatives, which will reconvene after
[00:01:45] a recess at the end of August.
[00:01:49] Joining us now to discuss all this, we have former Pentagon
[00:01:52] a of official Michael Maluf. Michael, thank you for being back with us tonight.
[00:01:55] Sure. So, will these sanctions
[00:01:58] in your estimation past the house and become
[00:02:02] effective before the end
[00:02:05] en of the year? the indication is it's going to pass the house and the
[00:02:09] president said he's going to sign it. now
[00:02:11] me that just gives him the authority, whether he actually implements it
[00:02:15] me or not, it's going to be something else, but but I think
[00:02:19] it will have tendency to really really backfire. this was meant to
[00:02:23] be more of a proforma type of
[00:02:26] memorial if you will to gram, but I think uh in...
[00:02:30] reality, the the use
[00:02:33] of the of this
[00:02:34] of legislation de if if he signs it will could be could really
[00:02:38] backfire on the United States in many ways, and
[00:02:42] do you think these sanctions will alter the course
[00:02:45] of the war if it continues? oh
[00:02:48] not
[00:02:50] of at all, Vladimir Putin is well on his way
[00:02:54] to uh
[00:02:56] uh taking out taking out key, he's he's he's definitely...
[00:03:00] picked up uh the tempo uh considerably in in
[00:03:04] uh in hitting military sites and um
[00:03:07] and he becomes even more enraged every
[00:03:11] time keive decides to hit the civilian
[00:03:15] uh locations such as they just did in yalta
[00:03:19] a uh in
[00:03:21] in a beach resort totally
[00:03:24] civilian no absolutely
[00:03:28] of no um uh military. very objective
[00:03:31] there whatsoever, and I think that Keeve is is
[00:03:35] resorting to going out to Syveines now as a policy,
[00:03:39] because they know they've lost the
[00:03:42] of of war,
[00:03:42] and do you think this is the Congress's way of putting pressure on
[00:03:46] Donald Trump to continue supplying weapons to Ukraine as opposed
[00:03:50] to seeking path to peace?
[00:03:54] there's some element of that, sure, but uh, it it also
[00:03:58] is to, it's also meant to say: Iran
[00:04:01] too, and again these countries have
[00:04:04] become so sanctioned that there's nothing to
[00:04:08] sanction, the legislation also sanctions Vladimir
[00:04:12] Putin himself and is and and the upper echelon, but
[00:04:15] they've also also all been sanctioned, so again the
[00:04:19] en effectiveness of what
[00:04:20] en is being passed
[00:04:22] of is more proforma
[00:04:23] I think than substantive,
[00:04:25] and and if he wants
[00:04:29] to... put up to 100%
[00:04:32] tariffs on countries such as India and China as you point
[00:04:36] out,
[00:04:36] you know China and
[00:04:37] lo all the other countries can reciprocate very very
[00:04:39] of easily. We we have a multiolar world here now, we don't have a
[00:04:43] of unipolar world and we're not in full control of things any
[00:04:47] longer, and these countries have have become sanction
[00:04:51] proof for the most part because of all the years of
[00:04:54] weaponization
[00:04:55] of the dollar and and the sanctions that we've that have been imposed on them, and
[00:04:59] that's... why you see the rise of bricks, you're seeing the
[00:05:03] SCO, the Shanghai cooperation organization now
[00:05:07] becoming much much larger
[00:05:09] of and more influential through. the
[00:05:12] world and when you consider their collective gdp, it's greater
[00:05:16] than uh the G20, which is
[00:05:19] astounding, and they and they represent more than half the
[00:05:23] world population, so we in effect are isolating
[00:05:27] ourselves by by our actions and and these countries
[00:05:31] are going to go, steam ahead, they don't care, they
[00:05:35] can, we can launch all kinds of sanctions, but they can do
[00:05:39] the same thing, and and deprive us of some very,
[00:05:42] very critical uh, mineral rights, for example, rare earths
[00:05:46] and and and politically, it could be very,
[00:05:50] very detrimental if you want to get anything done. well, Michael Molove,
[00:05:54] that's all the time we have tonight, but thank you for kicking off for 8 p.m. we'll talk to you soon, thank
[00:05:58] you. my pleasure, thank
[00:06:00] you. there are cameras watching you
[00:06:04] drive all across America, you probably don't notice them, you probably never agreed
[00:06:08] to them, and you don't have to be suspected of a crime for them to photograph.
[00:06:12] car, they're called flot cameras, automatic license plate readers used by
[00:06:16] police departments and communities across the country, and right
[00:06:20] now, they are at the center of a growing fight over just how much surveillance
[00:06:24] Americans are willing to accept in the name of public safety, because
[00:06:27] these cameras don't just look for a stolen car, they can create
[00:06:31] searchable record of where cars have been and when, and some
[00:06:35] recent cases are raising much bigger question: what happens when
[00:06:38] technology, designed to find criminals, starts being used to track people. who
[00:06:42] aren't criminals at all? flock safety sells automated license flate
[00:06:46] recognition cameras that capture information about vehicles traveling
[00:06:50] past them. the company says its technology helps law enforcement, solve
[00:06:53] crimes, recover stolen vehicles and find missing or endangered people.
[00:06:57] but unlike a traditional police investigation, where officers might begin with
[00:07:01] suspect and then track that person's movements, flot cameras can collect
[00:07:05] information about vehicles passing them first, creating a
[00:07:08] database that can potentially be searched later, and then that...
[00:07:12] distinction is fueling controversy, because critics say we're moving from we
[00:07:16] have suspect, let's find the car, to we have millions of cars, let's
[00:07:20] search the database. it's almost like you're creating a suspect. and look at
[00:07:24] what's happening right now. this week, 404 media reported a
[00:07:27] Wisconsin case involving a man who traveled across state lines to Michigan,
[00:07:31] where recreational marijuana is legal. according to the report, police used flock
[00:07:35] data showing his vehicle had repeatedly traveled to Michigan while
[00:07:39] developing the justification to stop and search. his
[00:07:42] car, think about that, it's almost like they're building case about the president
[00:07:46] critics are worried about here, you legally drive from one state into
[00:07:50] another, your license plate gets photographed along the way, you legally
[00:07:54] visit somewhere, you drive home, and now that travel history can
[00:07:57] potentially become information law enforcement uses to investigate you,
[00:08:01] and Wisconsin isn't the only case drawing attention. civil liberties
[00:08:05] advocates have also raised alarms over a Texas
[00:08:08] investigation in which flock data was reportedly used to identify
[00:08:12] and track vehicle connected to woman suspected of obtaining a
[00:08:15] self-administered abortion, and that case became especially
[00:08:19] controversial, because abortion laws can change dramatically the moment you cross a
[00:08:23] state line, so can marijuana laws, gun laws, and potentially a whole list
[00:08:27] of other activities, and that creates a problem that didn't really
[00:08:31] exist on this scale before. something can be completely legal where you
[00:08:35] go, while technology creates a permanent trail that follows you home,
[00:08:39] and then there's another part the story that really got attention, listen to how
[00:08:43] flock CEO, Garret Langley has talked about surveillance and human
[00:08:47] behavior. If we look at our kids as a
[00:08:51] proxy, like the level of punishment other and time out for five
[00:08:54] minutes or an hour doesn't matter to five-year-old, they they they do something buse they
[00:08:58] think they're going to get away with it, and as soon as they find out that as a parent you you know
[00:09:02] have all seeing eyes, they stop doing bad things
[00:09:05] and the
[00:09:07] the punishment has nothing to do with it, and maybe it's unfair
[00:09:10] to to call adult a five-year-old, but that's generally. our brain works, we operate a booleion
[00:09:14] equation of like, I get away with this, so I do it, if I don't think I get away with it, I
[00:09:18] don't do it. Okay, now that is where this becomes
[00:09:21] bigger than license plates, because there's an enormous difference between using
[00:09:25] surveillance to catch someone who committed a crime and using surveillance
[00:09:29] because the knowledge that you're being watched might change how you
[00:09:32] behave. One is investigation, and the other starts getting into
[00:09:36] deterents, and critics would argue social control, and the
[00:09:40] backlash is growing. According to Washington and... examiner since the beginning of
[00:09:43] 2026, roughly 23 city councils have voted to
[00:09:47] cancel, reject, deactivate or not renew flock license
[00:09:51] plate-reader programs. residents and privacy advocates have raised concerns
[00:09:55] about mass surveillance, fourth amendment protections and information being
[00:09:59] shared between law enforcement and agencies and another investigation from
[00:10:03] 404 media added fuel to the fire. the outler reported
[00:10:07] obtaining police guidance, instructing officers. according to the
[00:10:10] report, officers were advised in certain circumstances, not to
[00:10:14] tell drivers that automatic license plate reader information contributed to the
[00:10:18] stop, and to avoid explicitly mentioning the
[00:10:21] technology on reports in less necessary. so now
[00:10:25] the controversy isn't only who's being tracked, it's also do people
[00:10:29] even know how they're being tracked, because when
[00:10:33] i went down another rabbit hole, while everyone is talking
[00:10:37] about the cameras themselves, take a look at who's investing in this
[00:10:40] industry. one of flock's biggest investors is venture capital firm
[00:10:44] Anderson Horowittz, better known as A16Z. The firm led
[00:10:47] a major funding round for Flock, but Flock isn't the only
[00:10:51] surveillance-related technology company Anderson Horwitz has backed.
[00:10:55] They've also invested in a company called Toka, and this technology is
[00:10:59] very different. Toca is an Israeli cyber intelligence company,
[00:11:03] and according to reporting about the company's technology, Toca has
[00:11:06] developed tools designed to infiltrate internet-connected devices,
[00:11:10] including security cameras. Reported capabilities have included
[00:11:14] locating vulnerable cameras, accessing their feeds and
[00:11:17] manipulating video, and that can reportedly include altering live feeds
[00:11:21] and modifying or deleting previous recorded footage. Some
[00:11:25] reporting has also described tools designed to operate without leaving the
[00:11:29] kinds of obvious digital traces normally associated with
[00:11:32] unauthorized access, so in other words, in basic English,
[00:11:36] Flock is building technology capable of helping authorities find and
[00:11:40] track vehicles. Toca has reportedly developed technology capable
[00:11:44] of accessing and manipulating cameras, and the same major
[00:11:48] venture capital firm has invested in both companies. Now I want to be very
[00:11:52] clear here because this distinction matters, there's no evidence. Toka is hacking
[00:11:56] flock cameras. There is no evidence that flock footage is being secretly altered
[00:12:00] by Toka, and sharing investor does not mean these two companies are
[00:12:03] working together, but the connection is worth understanding because it shows you
[00:12:07] where surveillance technology itself is going. We're moving into
[00:12:11] a world where one set of technology can
[00:12:15] potentially reconstruct where you've traveled, another can identify
[00:12:18] vehicles automatically. Another can access cameras remotely and another
[00:12:22] can manipulate what those cameras see. Individually, if we look at
[00:12:26] it that way, each tool may have legitimate law enforcement or national
[00:12:30] security purpose, but connect enough of those capabilities
[00:12:34] together, and suddenly the question isn't whether technology can track nearly everything we
[00:12:37] do, it's who gets access to that power and what rules
[00:12:41] stop them from abusing it, and that's ultimately why this
[00:12:45] fight over flock matters. Nobody's arguing that police shouldn't be able
[00:12:49] to find a kidnapped child or locate a stolen vehicle or identify a
[00:12:52] dangerous suspect, it probably be amazing to... those scenarios. Those are
[00:12:56] exactly the kinds of cases that make this technology incredibly
[00:13:00] powerful. The debate is about what happens after the cameras are already
[00:13:03] everywhere. Who can search the database? What qualifies as legitimate
[00:13:07] search? How long is that information stored? Can another police
[00:13:11] department access it? There's all these questions, and can your movements be
[00:13:15] searched even when you were never suspected of committing a
[00:13:19] crime? And perhaps the most important one, do you even know what's happening?
[00:13:23] Because America has had surveillance. cameras for decades, what's changing now isn't
[00:13:27] necessarily the camera, it's the database behind it, camera a street corner
[00:13:31] sees one moment, a network of cameras connected to searchable software
[00:13:35] can potentially tell story about where you went, when you
[00:13:39] went there and when you went next, and once that infrastructure
[00:13:43] exits, we're not just deciding how it should be used, we're
[00:13:46] deciding how much power we're comfortable giving whoever has access to
[00:13:50] it tomorrow, because the real privacy question may no longer be, are you doing
[00:13:54] anything wrong? It may be should the government be able to know
[00:13:58] everywhere you've been and when you
[00:14:00] haven't? joining us now we have Conor Boyak
[00:14:04] joining us on the show, he is the president the libertas Institute. Conor thank you
[00:14:08] so much for joining us tonight. Thanks for having me. So let's talk
[00:14:12] about Flock. For people who have never heard of flock cameras, what
[00:14:15] exactly are they, what are they collecting, and how is that different from
[00:14:19] a traditional license plate reader? Yeah, so
[00:14:23] license plate readers have been around. for years uh observing the as
[00:14:27] they're called the license plates of cars as they pass by, they're used for
[00:14:31] traffic control, finding cars that have been stolen and so forth.
[00:14:35] what flock cameras are are a sort of new evolution beyond
[00:14:39] those that uh can capture not only the license plate, but also what
[00:14:43] bumper stickers are there, are there decals, what is the make and
[00:14:47] model the car, what color is it, and they're attempting to create more of
[00:14:50] fingerprint of a car beyond just the license plate, because license plates can be
[00:14:54] switched. out or moved or blurred, and so this is giving law enforcement new
[00:14:58] capabilities to track people as they're moving throughout
[00:15:02] town compared to the traditional models the past. more
[00:15:05] worrisome, they're creating massive databases the movements
[00:15:09] of American people where law enforcement officers without a warrant
[00:15:13] can go effectively a fishing expedition to find out any time, where has
[00:15:17] connor ben or where has Olivia been and tracking our movements and our
[00:15:20] cars, that new power that the government has is what's worrying so many people
[00:15:24] lately. And right off that point, I want to talk about like where the line is
[00:15:28] crossed here, because supporters say these cameras help police find stolen
[00:15:32] cars, wanted suspects and missing people, but at what point does a
[00:15:35] public safety tool like this one? cross the line into mass
[00:15:38] surveillance? well, there's no question that empowering the law
[00:15:42] enforcement with surveillance capabilities can help them solve crimes, like we
[00:15:46] can concede that argument at the outset, living a total surveillance state,
[00:15:50] yes we would solve more crimes, but obviously there's a trade-off to be
[00:15:54] had, and the question is to what extent is surveillance appropriate.
[00:15:58] now, in our estimation, the the conversation has been had, we've
[00:16:02] already found that balance, and it's the fourth amendment. the founders who drafted
[00:16:05] that were very concerned with what the british were doing with what were called rits
[00:16:09] of assistance or general warrants where they could empower themselves to go
[00:16:13] search through your home any time, for no reason, without any
[00:16:17] oversight, and so when they enacted the fourth amendment they said, look, we want there to
[00:16:21] be particularity, in other words, we need to individually suspect
[00:16:25] Olivia of a crime if we're going to invade Olivia's privacy or monitor her
[00:16:28] whereabouts, rather than a general suspicion of maybe there's crime somewhere
[00:16:32] out there, we need to individually suspect uh criminal
[00:16:36] conduct on the part the... person whose privacy we are going to
[00:16:39] invade, we need to have probable cause, in other words, we need to suspect
[00:16:43] that there and have reason to believe there is a crime being conducted, and most
[00:16:47] importantly, we need to have judicial review, we need to have a
[00:16:51] warrant that a dispassionate judge can review and say is this
[00:16:55] appropriate, but that's not what's happening with flock, it's a huge database, cops are
[00:16:59] searching through it without any warrant, without any judicial review and without
[00:17:02] any particularity of suspecting anyone of actually committing a
[00:17:06] crime, well let's not... suspect Olivia of a crime, but on the topic of
[00:17:09] allegations though, one the most controversial allegations is that officers
[00:17:13] are being instructed not to mention flock or ALPR use
[00:17:17] to drivers, and sometimes not even in police reports unless it's necessary, they
[00:17:21] say, so why is that such serious transparency
[00:17:24] issue? well, that's an issue because criminal defense attorneys
[00:17:28] who on behalf their clients want to help challenge these cases may not know where
[00:17:32] the data is originating from, and and so what's happening is
[00:17:36] law enforcement agent. Who take this road, they don't want this challenged in court,
[00:17:40] they don't want things uh to be transparently
[00:17:44] seen, because if they are, then city counselors, mayors,
[00:17:47] legislators, judges and juries might begin to overturn this use, they
[00:17:51] prefer to quietly use it as they have been for a long time, and we should note here that
[00:17:55] this is not new with flock, law enforcement officers generally across the
[00:17:58] country tend to adopt new tools and new technologies
[00:18:02] far faster than legislatures and courts can keep up
[00:18:06] and are even aware of... them or can put policies around them. Floc is just the
[00:18:10] latest and a long line of new technologies that law enforcement officers adopt
[00:18:14] because they say this can help us uh with our jobs. The reality is the way
[00:18:18] the founders set up law enforcement under the fourth amendment,
[00:18:21] it is not to make law enforcement easy, it is to make law enforcement difficult
[00:18:25] because the balancing test has to weigh in favor the individual rights of
[00:18:29] innocent Americans. And I want to talk about that interference part of it, because
[00:18:32] if police use a flock alert to identify a vehicle, but then describe
[00:18:36] that stop. is coming from another source, could that make it harder
[00:18:40] for say defendants and their attorneys to then challenge how the
[00:18:44] evidence was obtained in that scenario?
[00:18:48] i think the short answer is yes, we're definitely going to see many court
[00:18:52] battles arising from this, i think people, law enforcement and prosecutors
[00:18:55] who are trying to bury where their information is come from and not
[00:18:59] forthrightly disclose that is coming from flock, they're going to make this a little bit
[00:19:03] more complicated, but the long term of this is that this is absolutely going to be a court b'.
[00:19:07] and fortunately the Supreme Court in the past few years has had at least a
[00:19:11] couple cases in which they have significantly cited with uh
[00:19:15] privacy rights of innocent Americans most recently with the geofence
[00:19:19] case that also involved monitoring American citizens in this case
[00:19:23] through their cell phones not their cars so it's likely that on appeal whatever
[00:19:27] court cases emerge from this uh we would anticipate the Supreme Court
[00:19:30] consistent with those recent rulings is eventually going to get around to restricting how
[00:19:34] cameras like Flock or use are used in the... time, however, there's a
[00:19:38] massive gray area in which law enforcement is just going ahead and using this, and
[00:19:42] then you've got the vigilantes out there taking matters into their own hands trying to cut these
[00:19:46] down and and push back. Connor, that's all the time we have tonight, but thank you so
[00:19:50] much for your time on this and lot to be seen here. Thank
[00:19:52] you. Beijing has
[00:19:56] activated one of its largest packages of trade counter measures
[00:19:59] against Washington, in response to sanctions imposed by Trump on
[00:20:03] Chinese companies. The new sanctions target multiple American enterprises.
[00:20:07] restrict robot imports and curb exports of drones and their
[00:20:11] components. Our corresponding Constantine Rajov has
[00:20:14] more. The Trade in Tech war between
[00:20:18] China and the United States has heated up sharply over the
[00:20:21] past few days. China has now unveiled one of its
[00:20:25] largest packages of retaliatory measures yet. The move
[00:20:29] drawing the most attention is Beijing's decision to tighten
[00:20:33] controls on exports of drone-related components
[00:20:36] and technology. to the United States. Here's what the official
[00:20:40] statement from China's Ministry of Commerce says: drone
[00:20:44] exports to the United States and the export their key components and
[00:20:48] related technologies listed in the... port control list of dual use items
[00:20:51] the people's republic of China shall be subject to strict case by case
[00:20:55] review, expedited licensing procedures and other licensing
[00:20:59] facilitation measures shall not apply. anyone who has ever
[00:21:02] flown or even held a DJI drone knows just
[00:21:06] how dominant China is in the global commercial drone market,
[00:21:10] though this isn't an outride export ban, it does
[00:21:14] mean that the Chinese government will now closely
[00:21:17] scrutinize every drone related. shipment bound
[00:21:21] for the United States, as part the same package, Beijing
[00:21:25] has also barred Chinese companies from doing business
[00:21:29] with seven US firms and launched investigation
[00:21:32] into U.S. cyber security company, Poloalto
[00:21:36] networks and the products it sells in China. All
[00:21:40] of that sends a clear political message. If you hit
[00:21:44] us, we're going to head back. And just few days ago, the
[00:21:47] United States announced a new round. their own trade
[00:21:51] restrictions on China, most notably it banned
[00:21:54] imports of newly manufactured foreign made
[00:21:58] humanoid robots and quadriped robots, better known
[00:22:02] as robot dogs, a market dominated by
[00:22:06] Chinese manufacturers. The US also dramatically
[00:22:09] expanded its sanctions list adding 43 Chinese
[00:22:13] companies over allegations of weager force labor
[00:22:17] and impose new tariffs of 10. to
[00:22:20] 12.5% on imports from 60
[00:22:23] trading partners, including China, of course, but the
[00:22:27] tech and trade fight is only one part
[00:22:31] the broader tensions that have been simmering between
[00:22:35] Beijing and Washington over the past few weeks. law makers
[00:22:39] in the US congress are now anticipating
[00:22:42] record 4 billion military aid package for
[00:22:46] Taiwan. Here's what senior Republican Congressman.
[00:22:50] Michael McColl said during his recent visit to
[00:22:53] Taip, a trip that was itself bound to
[00:22:57] irritate Beijing. Last December, Congress signed off on the
[00:23:01] largest foreign military sales package in history at $11 billion
[00:23:05] US dollars and we aren't stopping there. I am confident the president
[00:23:09] will forward soon another package to Congress with additional $14
[00:23:13] billion in critical military defense articles.
[00:23:16] Taiwan also has launched major weeklong military.
[00:23:20] exercises rehearsing a possible conflict with
[00:23:23] Beijing. One the scenarios involves
[00:23:26] evacuating the island's leadership in the event of what military
[00:23:30] planners sometimes call decapitation strike
[00:23:33] designed to knock out Taiwan's political command.
[00:23:37] And what a difference few months can make really. I remember
[00:23:41] covering Donald Trump's visit to Beijing when he and Shijing
[00:23:45] Ping shook hands
[00:23:47] uh smiled for the cameras and gave the impression. that both sides
[00:23:51] were trying to cool tensions and work through their
[00:23:55] differences, not create new ones. the two leaders are expected
[00:23:59] to meet again at the end of September, but if tensions
[00:24:02] keep rising at this pace, both Donald Trump and Xi Jin
[00:24:06] Ping will have lot of fires to put out when they
[00:24:10] finally sit down face to
[00:24:13] face. that's America now, I'm Olivia Flynn, for more stories,
[00:24:17] visit our website at R2.com and join us every night at 7 8 9 and
[00:24:21] 10. Thank you for watching and have a good night and remember, question
[00:24:24] everything.
[00:25:26] "Ja sam htio da dam krv za ranjenike
[00:25:30] iz razloga pod broj jedan što su ruska i srpska krv jedna
[00:25:34] krv za donbas, jednostavno hoću
[00:25:38] da da pokažem ljubav kao što su i Rusi pokazivali ljubav kad je nama bilo
[00:25:42] teško u Republici Srpskoj na Kosovu koji su ja sam htio
[00:25:46] da vidim kako ovaj narod ovde živi, ja sam hteo da dođem ovde zato..."
[00:26:03] biovu, htio da vidim 100% dešavanja koja se ovde dešavaju i kako
[00:26:07] ovde narod
[00:26:10] živi, ja sam htio da se sretnem sa
[00:26:14] ruskim borcima, da vidim i mogu vam reći da su to sve heroji,
[00:26:17] da ruski srpski grb,
[00:26:21] pravoslavna braća ja bil bojico vojske
[00:26:25] republike srpske, srpski i ruski narod je kroz
[00:26:29] čitavu istoriju nikad nikog nije napadao. srpski i
[00:26:33] ruski narod se uvek
[00:26:34] branio,
[00:26:44] i'll look forward to talking to you all, that
[00:26:48] technology should work for people, robot
[00:26:51] must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders with
[00:26:55] conflict with the first law, show your identification, we should be very careful about
[00:26:59] artificial intelligence, the point obviously is to create
[00:27:03] uh trust uh rather than fear.
[00:27:07] I would like to take on various jobs and with artificial intelligence we are
[00:27:11] summoning the
[00:27:12] demon.
[00:27:19] A robot must protect its own existence is
[00:27:22] own existence.
[00:27:32] the deporte asked to hide his face and change his voice
[00:27:36] because he fears reprisals from the cartel he was forced to
[00:27:40] join after being deported to
[00:27:42] mexico.
[00:27:46] llegó una persona y me ofreció el cruce que iban a cruzar varias
[00:27:50] personas ah me la cantó muy bonito me dijo que iba
[00:27:54] haber muchos dinero que ya tenemos trabajo segurado nos
[00:27:57] fuimos por el desierto 3
[00:28:01] días. dos noches y llegamos
[00:28:04] allá, ahí me agarraron en en san diego la home deep, yo
[00:28:08] estaba trabajando delbañil, me confié un día, estaba en el
[00:28:12] estacionamiento, pues agarró bord
[00:28:15] patrol, ah agarraron y
[00:28:18] pum para tijuana, mi vida se quedó ya, allá tengo mi
[00:28:22] esposa, dejé mi carro igual no estaba
[00:28:26] mi nombre, igual pues no me lo pude traer, dejé
[00:28:28] dinero, y pues...
[00:28:33] Después la deportación, pues aquí estoy en
[00:28:36] Tijuana, qué más me queda, más que aferrarme la vida
[00:28:39] eh, me tuve que meter prácticamente a
[00:28:43] situaciones ilícitas donde me podrían palar más
[00:28:45] rápido.
[00:28:51] Me metí la droga, ah, empecé a
[00:28:54] consumir marihuana, eh, de ahí me fui al
[00:28:58] cristal, me empecé a ser dueño de mis tienditas,
[00:29:02] empecé. distribuírle a las demás personas, si yo,
[00:29:06] yo no puedo dejar este trabajo, porque si yo dejo este trabajo,
[00:29:10] las personas que están conmigo me pueden buscar
[00:29:13] y me matan a mí a la parte de familia
[00:29:17] que tengo aquí, si van andar esto,
[00:29:21] asegúrense de que el único camino que les
[00:29:24] espera o es muerte o es la cárcel, yo no conozco
[00:29:28] a una persona vieja que haya trabajado en el... esté
[00:29:32] trabajando en el narco, tal vez los cabecillas, la
[00:29:36] gente de mero arriba, pero todos los que somos
[00:29:39] trabajadores, the
[00:29:42] cartels has the control the borders and now the
[00:29:46] migration is the uh good business for them,
[00:29:50] when they discover that they decide to have the border
[00:29:54] of not only Tijuana, another borders, not only for
[00:29:58] the cost or maybe um to cross
[00:30:02] because
[00:30:13] Precisamente ah, yo crucé al otro
[00:30:17] lado cargado de droga, pero hubo gente que no cruzaba, que la
[00:30:21] agarraban la línea, no la línea la agarraban en el desierto a
[00:30:24] esa gente que agarraron en el desierto eh pues
[00:30:28] usan los narcos se lo llevan, ya sea para trabajar o para.
[00:30:37] Ya estando dentro del negocio, tienes que hacerle que sea, si el patrón te
[00:30:41] dice
[00:30:42] mata ese, tienes que matarlo, nosotros no
[00:30:44] investigamos, no investigamos quien sea, si
[00:30:48] estorba el patrón tenemos que hacer el trabajo, si no lo
[00:30:52] hacemos nosotros le estaríamos estorbando al patrón, no le serviríamos para
[00:30:56] nada.