Julian Dorey Podcast - #351 - DARPA Data Hacker: “I Tracked Elite’s Phones to Epstein Island in 2016!” | Mike Yeagley

Episode Date: November 3, 2025

SPONSORS: 1) FUM: Head to https://www.tryfum.com/JULIAN and use promo code JULIAN to get your free gift with purchase and start the Good Habit today! 2) BUBS NATURALS: Live better for longer w/ BUBS Naturals. For a limited time, get 20% Off your entire order w/ code JULIAN at https://Bubsnaturals.com WATCH THE PREVIOUS MIKE YEAGLEY EPISODE HERE: https://youtu.be/UIB2T0g8wpE PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey (***TIMESTAMPS in description below) ~ Mike Yeagley is a data strategist, defense contractor, and one of the early architects of ADINT — Advertising Intelligence. He’s known for showing U.S. intelligence how ad-tech location data, the same data used for marketing and mobile tracking, could expose troop movements, covert facilities, and even Vladimir Putin’s entourage. Yeagley’s work bridges big data, national security, and digital surveillance, redefining how modern governments harvest information in the name of protection — and control. FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/ INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP ****TIMESTAMPS**** 00:00 – Intro 01:37 – The Epstein Data Map Exposed 15:59 – Epstein Ohio Ties & Island Witnesses 25:57 – Three Presidents, One Silent DOJ 37:00 – Lost Evidence & Epstein Broken Justice 56:47 – DNA, Data & Civil Collapse 01:18:00 – The Epstein Call That Never Came 01:29:43 – Epstein Power, Secrecy & Hidden Fortunes 01:52:15 – DARPA, Bannon & Surveillance State 02:24:53 – Tech Giants & Modern Espionage 02:36:47 – Palantir, Prediction & Global Control 02:49:15 – Mike's work CREDITS: - Host, Editor & Producer: Julian Dorey - COO, Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ - In-Studio Producer: Joey Deef - https://www.instagram.com/joeydeef/ Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 351 - Mike Yeagley Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

So we know that something was going on at this island. That's my seed location when this Epstein case hit critical mass, despite these being some of the smartest people on the planet, CEOs or publishers of major newspapers, some entertainers. If you saw the Intel that I saw... What types of people are we talking about there? But this was not open access, public availability, again. People who are public figures, who would have a lot to lose.

Lots of investigative leads, a lot of witnesses, staff, cooks, maids, bartenders, and victims. You know, they carried the phones with them. What does the data tell me? As I'm developing this list, this doesn't make sense. I must be wrong. You must be wrong. Because my cognitive dissonance was he wouldn't be affiliated with this guy. But then the data starts painting a story.

You came into contact with DARPA, probably the most mysterious government organization, and did some sort of data work with them. Yeah, yeah, yeah, tech is interesting. So what's up, guys? Thank you so much, as always, for watching my channel. If you have not hit that subscribe button, can you please do me a huge favor and hit that right now? I appreciate everyone who's been watching these videos consistently. The number one analytic we need to get these videos into the algorithm

is you guys hitting the subscribe button, though, and when you do that, we get them in, and we can continue getting great guests. So thank you to everyone who's already taking the time to do that, and thank you to all of you who are going to do so now. Enjoy the episode. that'll do it so i i see you're like a one trick pony with the intensity but it works yeah so i had said at the end of the last episode that we were going to have to bring you back

very soon so here we are you're suited up this time i'm yeah i've had my grown-up clothes today so yeah and you and you still have the uh like like the ties like a little loose like you're about to Yeah, I'm done for the day, so I can, I can let it go a little bit. What were you doing up here besides? I was in the city, seeing a client. Yeah, okay. Client? Foreign State? No. No? No, I wish. Okay. All right, they pay well?

They pay well. That's good. That's good. Well, you had left us with some cliffhangers at the end of the last one. And actually, right after we recorded Tommy G., our mutual friend, put out one of the documentaries that features you, which was investigating the Epstein files in D.C. You were great in that. Tommy has always did a great job putting that together. But how did you get involved with knowing anything about those files and what was the extent there? Yeah. So in terms of the official DOJ files, I don't have, I'm not seeing those. I'm not looking at those. When this Epstein case came into, you know, you know, got real sort of hit critical mass. And there's all the speculation. Like, I'm in the, I'm a time in the thick of, you know, location data and location

intelligence and being able to have a look. I know the island. I know the penthouse. I have the seed locations. What does the data tell me? So in terms of, it's the closest, the best way to. describe it would be a probabilistic list um caveated with these are people that or these are devices that dwelled at the island now who knows what they were i don't know what they were doing

there i'm sure they were just laying on the beach like yeah yeah it was a it was a executive retreat yeah learning about leadership um and not committed This was just curiosity because I could and wanted to test some, some theories. And the, you know, the reality is despite these being some of the most, some of the smartest people in the planet who probably went through just looking at their travel patterns, they weren't, they were trying to be a little evasive. But, you know, they carried the phones with them. Same phones they carry with them to work to their kids' soccer games. And so it is a probabilistic social graph of people that were sort of in that orbit or devices that were in that orbit. When did you first decide?

No, I'll take a look at this. This is 2018. Oh, wow. early days yeah okay so is this 20 2018 are you referring to 2018 or 2019 it would have been if like when right when he first got caught or like it was before he got caught which would be 2018 whenever whenever it became critical you know the critical volume the critical mass of the story 2019 which would have piqued my interest and um you know and and it's one of those things where okay uh the feds are involved if i'm asked i want to be prepared to either say you know i can assist and i can assist in a way that um because these are u.s persons so no warrant this is this is commercial data um so i was able to sort of jump start or would have been able to jumpstart. If they wanted to start looking at names, assuming they didn't already have them,

and I don't know if they have a list of names. We're told they do. It's on the Attorney General's desk and then we're told there's nothing there to say. Yeah, there's nothing that exists. So there's, and resolving identity to those patterns of life again because we're talking about the u.s and the openness of data being able to correlate bed down location where with a with a location where a device goes to work regularly makes that really not easy but it's a it's a it's a more resolved identity resolution now how do you I'm trying to picture this because I'm not at all an expert in what you did. But for people who didn't see the last episode, obviously, you're going to fill in some blanks again today on some of the tactics you use.

But you're effectively at a 30,000 foot view using publicly available cell data to be able to track devices and then cross-reference that with other publicly available data to be able to identify people in where they are. When you're talking about identifying people, let's say, with the island, though, at the time that you were looking at it when this is a critical mass. am i understanding correctly that you're looking at you're looking at back data meaning you're looking you could be looking as far back as 2011 2012 i only went back uh i didn't go back that far i didn't need to to come up with a good dense list wow um how far back did you go like a couple years yeah uh 20 2015 okay so i was again looking at recency trying to turn to get more recency. But so the process, so we know, we know that something was going on at this island.

That's my seed location. Then I'm going to look and see what devices were at that location, and where were they before and where were they after? So that would be able to explain, for example. example, let's not use names here, but you know, Schmel Schmates, if he were somewhere else with that phone in 2015, even if he's had two phones since then, you would be able to see based on, say, cross-referencing, I'm going to make up a number, five to six different places he might have been before, that clearly that's him. Yeah. Yeah. So if we're talking about that type of, that arch type of character, I'm going to, I'm going to see a device that's, at the island and then i'm going to see devices or device patterns in and around the seattle washington area right uh there's a big foundation in downtown seattle where that device might

spend a lot of time um and start appending identity with with probability this is these are not facts because i'm not looking at this device identifier belongs to this name. I'm seeing the device sleep at this location, which through publicly available information, I can append a name. I see it. Then I further filter it and I see that device at places where it's likely, that's where they work based upon publicly available information. So I'm sharpening that hypothesis as to who this device. belongs to. Right. But that's crazy to me that you would be looking at this and you'd be like, well, I don't need to go back farther than 2015 or 2016. Six, seven years after he is

indicted and found guilty of, you know, underage, well, it ended up being soliciting a prostitute, but, you know, being a pedophile, let's call it what it is. And after there were already, without me having it in front of me, I know there were multiple lawsuits that had come up by, that time as well that had been reported in the news not as loudly as they should but had been reported wouldn't it be very very interesting that say some extremely powerful people would still have i don't know the nerve to go down to that like forget going to his townhouse to go to the island i'm not even i don't even know if they went on the guy's chat either way to go to that island at that point like how dumb do you have to be or how blackmail do you have to be so this may be the counterfactual

associated with people that are really smart is they think that they're too smart and can get away with it. I don't know. I don't know what goes into the mind. The psychology, I don't understand the draw, or maybe I do, and it's not that complex. But I think that there was, if you look at this cohort, they're people that have everything. They've got people telling them how great they are, how wonderful they are, you know, tending to their every knee, they snap their fingers. So, you know, they probably have a mindset that they can, they can, they can do this and sort of be above the accountability. And if you, if you think about it, it's the, the the my impetus to look into this was um the the notion the noise really was about the embarrassment

that it would cause some of these people like yeah embarrassment is the least of your worries um but if that is all you are worried about you know your public perception and your you know it's a public relations crisis and I need my comms team to come in and help you that's that's the wrong problem to be focused on and it was a it was kind of a neat little project to see if if I could do it with some degree of volume where you know if it comes push to shove where we need to put identity because we don't have a black book

but we need some leads some investigative leads but that call never came never came to you never came to me okay let me try to piece some of this together as you know producer of this show Joey Deaf is a long time

vape abuser yeah yeah but like many of you out there who may relate to that he doesn't want to be I don't I really don't And the truth is if you're ready to break a bad habit like vaping

The first step doesn't need to be hard or expensive You just need the right tool to start And that's exactly what Fume Zero gives you As the sponsors of this episode And Deaf's Long Road to Recovery Fume is now bringing you Their brand new Grab and Go flavored air device

The Fume Zero Here's why it's different It's affordable. At just 2499 You're going to get a sleek pre-filled device No commitment, no refills, no batteries. It's also completely clean. There's zero nicotine, zero vapor, just natural plant-based flavored air. And finally, it's the first truly easy way to try the good habit.

With six bold flavors and up to 10 days of use, fume zero makes it simple to start. Dief, what did you think when you first opened up the box and saw the fume zero? Well, I went blind for a few seconds. Blind. Yeah, because of its sleek design. It's like the light was bouncing. right off of it and it was just blasting my pupils and the kingdom come. Blondy by the eyes.

Exactly. You ever see that one, that one, a Quinten Tarantino film? What's it called? Quinten. Pulp Fiction. Yeah, great. And they open up the suitcase. That's what it was like when I opened my fume box. Any flavors that stand out to you? Any flavors that stand out? Dude, I'm inhaling that sparkling grapefruit, yo. Well, there you have it, folks. You can join D. Steve today and take zero chances with Fume Zero available for just 2499.

Just head on over to tryfume.com. That link is in my description below. That's T-R-Y-F-U-M dot com to start with zero. Once again, hit that link of my description below and start with Fume Zero today for 2499. You are working on this now at least several years after you first began doing some contracts for the government with this type of work. you laid out that story last time pretty crazy that whole thing like potentially tracking delta forest to syria and being like guys anyone can do this so now you know the government's had you

work on multiple different things you know basically all different types of stuff as it comes up where your expertise could be used and i'm i'm picturing you right now correct me if i'm wrong once again like doing this in your bedroom like you talked about yeah the the home office in between the master bedroom and my daughter's room right yeah so this whole epstein story's coming out and you're like, I'm going to get this fucker. And you go in and voluntarily say, all right, if called upon, let me see what I got. Now, you said the call never came. Did you tell, I assume, high-level people that you were working with.

People knew I had it. But it just, you know, I was in the, my folks were counter-terror, and this was not counter-terror. It wasn't. I could see how it could get tied into that. At the time, this was, again, early days. Yes. So, looking deeply into, you know, and that was one of the things I was like, what, what, why is he so involved in the limited?

Yeah, the last Wexner's. Yeah. Because, you know, like, I just, it wasn't, it wasn't the, the headline narrative at the time. And I'm, you know, and so unraveling that. that was was fascinating so you unraveled the L brand's connection can you please yeah I mean he just he's so he spent a lot of well he spent time at the headquarters of of of Victoria Secret the limited brand the parent company that owns I got you okay what let me just Google limited brands uh u.s i was trying it was so there was a lot of dwell in ohio yeah that was

in so their their primary headquarters is in columbus right and then there's a neighborhood outside there whose name is eludingly right now abstein ohio neighborhood let me just get what it's called so i i came into this with without any a priori knowledge about him right so So, again, it was like, that's interesting. What is the Ohio connection? Yeah. And so that became clear. And the people that were, that he was associating with here in the States, again,

as another filter would also dwell with him on the island. What types of people are we talking about there? So these are CEOs, CEOs of studios, or CEOs or publishers of major newspapers, media outlets, some entertainers, some religious folks. religious folks oh that's interesting I don't know if I've really heard I mean there's so much on this case some goes in one ear out the other

but again they may have just been there to you know well they wouldn't have been doing mass but I was going to say did he find Christ or something I must have missed that but this this was not open access public availability

you know, these were, again, people who are public figures, who would have a lot to lose. And it was, it's compelling enough where I was kind of like, yeah, this, they'll get this. This is too easy to make public, you know, to even just issue press. like we're investigating yeah these people we're not accusing them of anything but they were at the island so maybe they should explain themselves yeah um had a guy sitting in that seat it was at the island yeah um the other thing um is the um the what do we want to call them um the victims segmenting the people on the island so a lot of staff cooks maids bartenders and the victims and understanding how that cohort segmented both on the island and back in the state what do you mean by that just the number of people who in addition to the victims who were employed got uh groundskeepers etc so separating them from the victims themselves got and and from the client clients

for whatever they are yeah yeah clients um certainly a good word so lots of investigative leads a lot of witnesses um you know what did you see and when did you see it and who did you see yeah um and and um lots of people to be able to to um to interview you know what's funny in all the years of looking at this case i don't think i've ever heard when it comes to the island about you know people reporting on it referring to say bartenders waitresses or maids or stuff like that now guys i have heard are you know guys working on the power lines groundskeepers normal stuff that, you know, would be on any property, let alone a private island. But like, that's interesting

because you think of like a bartender or a maid. These are, you know, they're covering the most personal interactions and stuff, meaning they're seeing everyone and they have to have, at some point they have to have some idea that, you know, something's not right. Something's not right here. So you were also, as you pointed out, you're segmenting those people to kind of put them in their You know, like the bartender, so again, I should say probabilistic, but, you know, I see that device working at clubs at other islands or other resorts, doing, exhibiting a pattern of behavior, a pattern of life that's typical of somebody who's working late night, you know, not during the day, but dwelling at resort. properties and then club-like facilities where they would be working as a bartender. The people who are coming onto the island working there, let's separate the groundskeepers and stuff like that, who I assume are from one of the very local places right there.

But when we're talking bartenders, when we're talking even maids or management of any kind, were these people also from the Caribbean area right there nearby? Or were they were, you know, they would work, they would have, you know, I'm working this place tonight. I'm here on this job for a week. Okay. But they would have their sort of regular job, but they would spend time on the island, again, correlated with visitors. Right. Okay. So they weren't just hanging out when we didn't have any of our high profile people there. They, they were off doing their other, other jobs. Point being, it's not someone sketchy. You're not seen a lot of sketchy people from flying in from eastern Europe for this or flying in from

New York for this or okay no all right so that part it seems like it would be you know sort of the professional house staff yes he had the part a little bit more yep I guess covered for the window dressing in that department where he wanted to you know he wanted to have proper you know somebody who knows how to make a drink right or yeah but they're not spies right okay all right There's a lot, a lot, I have so many questions on this. And the, you know, it's, it's kind of, so there's a lot to, there's a lot to unpack with this, but it's, you know, my, I think about it today. And it's, we've got two administrations, two administrations, three administrations, if you count Trump's administration twice. The Department of Justice is responsible for prosecuting.

We've had three administrations. All three have sort of exhibited the same outlook about it. I don't know what the, I don't know what to read into that. Other than there isn't anything for us to prosecute against. So we've moved on. It's like where does that, where does the investigation go from here? because you don't have a U.S. attorney, you don't have the attorney general, you don't have a prosecutor pursuing a case investigating. I don't know where to go with it.

It's obviously a cover-up, and I will say the thing, you know, the 500-pound elephant in the room is Trump because he's in office and he knew this guy. Now, the first thing in his defense is that this guy unfortunately knew fucking everyone in New York. He just did. It's a fact of the matter. And we've said it a million times in different contexts on this show when it comes up. But all he had to do and all Gieland had to do was take a picture with you. You know, there's that famous picture of Elon Musk walking by where clearly he's walking with his drink and the photographer goes, sir, and he like kind of turns like this and Gieland just finds her way right here. It's probably completely innocent. Yep. But there's that point zero zero one percent.

that for the rest of his life, he's going to have to answer a question about that. You know, some of the academics who, you know, the guy I had sitting in that chair who was down at the island was Lawrence Krause, who's an academic. And all these guys are going to have to answer those questions forever. When I will say this about Lawrence,

he was as blunt about it as you will ever get. He's like, I'm a scientist. We need funding. The guy brought funding at the time. We thought he was good. And he brought funding. And that's what it was. And I'd like to believe him.

You know what I mean? But there's always going to be that small question. whether it's him or Stephen Pinker or any of these guys just because of how he would get into proximity to people. So I have to give Trump the same, I guess, understanding with that. However, you know what's interesting about that? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, go ahead. So the character that you referred to that may be in the, maybe resident in the Seattle area, who has a big foundation.

Yeah. That foundation has a intelligence arm, a security arm, mostly to vet grant seekers. Are they a charlatan? Are they full of shit? But they do vetting that's pretty exhaustive, pretty extensive. And they're also responsible for protecting the individual. And another really rich guy that lives in. in Omaha, Nebraska.

Uh-huh. Warren Buffett. Oh, yeah. No, no. I thought you were. You can say, you can say Schmary and Buffett, but yeah. But so in terms of, you know, the foundation would have vetted Epstein's file and would have been, would have had been, would have had been,

advised their principle to avoid him based upon the whole the whole portfolio, the whole envelope of everything that he had been involved with, but that didn't matter. Do you know the name of that company? Which company? The security company? It's part of it is, they are part of the foundation. Okay. So it's completely internal.

Yeah. mean, it's under the umbrella. It's not, it's not part of the foundation hired on a contract basis. Yep. No, this is, this is one of their entities that does due diligence on, mostly due diligence on people who are applying for funding. Got it. What's their origin? Are these like US former Intel guys? Some. Yeah, some. I mean, and it's mostly open source type, type research. And they do a lot of his physical security. So if he, if there's a threat against him, you get somebody who's going crazy on social media that, you know, he needs to go. He's the devil.

He's vaccinating. He's doing all of this stuff. They're, they're watching those voices on social media. and informing his protective detail like the secret service watch as a president precisely okay yeah same same methods same a lot of the same tools yeah um you know any package that uh would arrive at the at the foundation uh and they get some he gets some crazy stuff i'm sure um but um so i interrupted you because you were talking about um Trump how these how these there's no way that any of these guys who have these public profiles

who have security people somebody would have said right I can't tell you what to do boss but understand that this is what we know about yeah this guy yeah all right well I I I always do my best to give the full picture, and I think you have to do the same thing with Trump for sure. But there's multiple things going on here. In his defense that you still have to say is it is pretty verified six ways to Sunday that at least since like 2004-ish, 05-ish, he ceased all contact with Jeffrey Epstein and didn't deal with him. Now, there's been rumors that that was because Epstein came onto a 15-year-old towel hand at Mar-a-Lago, which it does appear that that is true that he did do that. The other thing that was reported, though, and I believe it was Tara Palmeri

in her podcast she did on this back in 2020, I want to say. The other thing that was reported through, I think it was Brad Edwards who said this, the lawyer for a lot of the victims, is that Trump and Epstein both wanted the same piece of real estate or something. in Palm Beach. I think it was, yeah, they were, yeah, there was some, he was making a run at some property or something. Right. And Trump won, and they're both kind of egomaniac, so they just didn't talk after that

and didn't like each other. I don't care why you don't talk to the guy. Like, if you're not talking to the guy, I appreciate that, you know, fucking talk to the guy. Yeah. But Trump, one of the things Brad Edwards said is that all of the powerful people that he reached out to in 08, 07, 08, and he reached out to all of them, all of them told me. him the fuck off except Donald Trump. And he went and interviewed Donald Trump by the pool, I think at Marlago or something, and Trump talked about this guy for a long time, which is very, very

interesting. And I sailed out because we know he was friends with him for a lot of years. We know that people like Maria Farmer have been ignored when she talked about working the front desk at Epstein's office in the 90s and Trump coming in there fucking three, four times a week. People don't like when she gives that testimony. They love it when she gives the Clinton testimony and all the other testimonies, but not that one. And, you know, there's definitely some creepy videos and some creepy things going on. The part that has really, really stuck something in my crawl, though, is the developments this year under his Justice Department and his reaction to it.

One thing we know about Donald Trump is that when it comes to polls on issues, the guy knows every fucking poll. He knows where the pulse of the people is on certain things. That's, I think, a large reason why he's been so effective over the last 11 years at winning elections and and winning on issues because he's like, okay, 54% of Americans are pissed about this. That's my issue. Let's dig into it. Yet when it comes to the Epstein thing, it is the one thing that he appears to be as blind as a fucking bat on. And he goes out of his way to, you know, he started trying to say it was like a Democrat hoax or something. And mind you, this is a guy

who had like Bill Clinton in his back pocket. So that's definitely not the case. You know, and so like what do you make of all that considering the fact that he did have an extricable, links to him, considering the fact that his original AG when Epstein died was, you know, the son of the man who gave Epstein his first start. When you consider the fact that there's all these weird connections pointing back to him, Alex Acosta, the whole bit, what do you make of Donald Trump's reaction this year trying to say that like, oh, there are no Epstein files? This is pure conjecture. I think that let's look at it. Let's say there's content there. And because the behavior of the FBI director and the attorney general, it was like a 360, 180, right, from where they were to where they ended up.

So what happened in that intervening period of time? Did they see something where, and it spans across this arch type of influencers, shakers, movers in the United States that, would tear at the fabric of our society. And they're doing us, they're protecting us. Which I think is insulting. Yeah. So that's one scenario. The other scenario is there's not enough, there's nothing there to prosecute.

My boy, Brett, was telling me in the gym yesterday about how much he has to stretch before and after a workout more than he did five years ago, because that's what happens when you get a little bit older. When you age, you start to wake up with sticks. joints but you also see things like your nails breaking and even your skin starts lacking that same smooth glow it's always had naturally it sucks but it doesn't have to that's where bubs natural's collagen peptides come in starting in your mid 20s your body naturally produces less collagen every year and collagen is the protein that holds everything together it's literally the glue of the body with bubs you can help restore your collagen levels closer to what your body naturally had in your youth. That means stronger joints, healthier hair and nails, smoother skin,

and faster recovery. And it's super easy to use. Just mix bubs into your coffee, smoothie, or juice every morning. Me personally, I like to take it right at lunch. It's tasteless, odorless, dissolves instantly, and doesn't have clumps or weird aftertaste. But here's what makes Bub's truly different, though. The brand is a tribute to former Navy SEAL Glenn Bub Doherty, a national hero who gave his life to saving Americans in Benghazi Libya. Glenn's call sign was Bub, and he was the kind of guy who always pushed for self-improvement and helped everyone around him. That DNA is woven into the Bubbs brand. To honor him, Bubbs donates 10% of all their profits to charity, starting with the Glenn Doherty Memorial Foundation. On top of that, Bubbs is

built to the highest standard. No junk, zero sweeteners or fillers. It's third-party tested, NSF certified for sport, Whole 30 approved, and sustainably sourced from grass-fed, pasture-raised cattle. It's trusted by over 100,000 customers and was named Best Collagen of 2024 by Health.com. So live better for longer with Bubbs. For a limited time only, our listeners are going to get 20% off at Bubbs Naturals by using code Julian at checkout. Just head to BUBSNatrals.com. That link is in my description below. Use code Julian and you're all set. After you purchase, they're going to ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them I sent you. How would that, how would there be nothing to prosecute?

especially, especially when there's someone like you, for example, who can use open source intelligence, meaning you don't need a warrant. It is available to the public to be able to say, there's a victim, there's a bartender, there's a dude down there, there's a victim and a dude down there going to a bedroom. That victim's 14 years old. Here's the time, Sam, and date. Yeah. So my analysis would be impeached and attacked, and defense counsel would, you know, say this isn't a certified sworn law enforcement officer.

you know this is not uh uh evidence it's clues and leads they would have to go and take my tips and develop prosecutorial evidence prosecutable evidence um because location data is again it's a probabilistic assessment so yes so i could point them in the right direction assuming that they needed me to to do that but you also have victim statements yes that have been deposed yes in a by prosecutors so I don't your your question was what do I make of it I don't there's one or two scenarios and that's they're protecting us from what we can't handle or everybody's looked at it and said there there's nothing that we can we can't secure indictments on

what we have i don't know did you see cash betel on joe rogan back in june was that his uh was that was that his mea culpa or was that yeah so that was when he talked about epstein yeah yeah yeah so that was quintessential bro trust me like literally like that was quintessential from if you just if you do a semantic analysis of cash when he was, I don't know if he had been nominated. I think he had been nominated and he went on Rogan with his big cash. It would have been, it would have been so much. He probably went on Sean Ryan shortly before being nominated. Rogan was when he was already in.

Okay. So there was Rogan when he went to basically go do the, here's what we have on Epstein as the FBI director. And then he was on Rogan. I think it was only on there once. It was in June. Okay. You do a semantic analysis of the cash before and the cash after.

I'm going to bury the Hoover building and turn it into a museum. It's the guy is on his back foot. Uh-huh. And what do you make of that? And the Attorney General is on her back foot too. I think that they are trying to manage a narrative that they don't believe. Yeah. And I don't know if that's true, but I suspect that is true.

And there's a part of me that says, well, first, I'd love to be a fly on the wall to see the people that have talked to them and what the nature of those conversations is to see how bad it is. And secondly, a part of me does go, what power do they really have, which is a sad, low bar. But, you know, when he went on there with Joe, though, this was the part that I don't think is defensive. right? It's one thing if you're being forced through very dark forces to not be able to say what you want to say because worse things are going to happen because of those dark forces. It's a whole other thing when you don't know the fucking case. And there was about a 12 minute segment there with Joe Rogan that was just quintessential classic Joe Rogan like why he's the goat where he just buried cash or let cash bury himself like a childhood dead hamster. I mean,

And it was like horrible in the sense that Cash revealed multiple times in there that he didn't even know some of the basics of the case. And it's like you're the head of the FBI. You went in there screaming that everything in there is a conspiracy or whatever and you're going to get to the bottom of it. It doesn't help that you got one eye hunting and one eye fishing. I'm already not like inclined to trust you, just looking at that, no offense. Yeah.

But like, then you go in there and you don't even know where the cameras were on or how long they were allegedly on or where the or the whole background of detail on the staff at the prison when he allegedly killed himself in the whole bit it's like dude you got you got to give me more than that you know either that or he he knows and it's it's easier to claim you know to be ignorant i i guess but it you know i guess the um if you are being if you've sworn to take an oath and you're being pressured coerced Isn't that when you resign and say, I can't, in good faith, execute? Yeah.

Yeah, no, it's a fair point. And this, I'm not being polyanish about it. Like, you have to make decisions all the time that are hard. But for something like this, if we do have a situation where a group of people got around a table and said, here's how we need to manage this story. and control it, and you two are going to have to go out and take the arrows. Within six months, you're asking me to violate my oath. If there is, you're the FBI director, if there's information that is, gives you probable cause to investigate a crime, you don't get to decide.

whether you should do it or not now not to get really dark here but to get really dark what if they come to you and say you like your mom you like your girlfriend that's why like your brother you want them to live a long healthy life i mean i hate to be that guy but that shit does happen sometimes yeah absolutely um which is why i haven't rushed out you know a substack post with pictures and graphics and you know because this is not this is a this is a law enforcement this is a real thing it's not a marketing some somebody did did do that where they they got a data set um and they they wrote a story um it was pretty inconclusive and there wasn't there were no names named but to your point um it's this is this is a matter

for people that have badges to seek warrants and investigate right not you know not citizen sleuths to hold them accountable and do their job for them and so um and it whether it's dark forces uh you know you start naming names and you expose yourself to all sorts of yeah legal legal that it's not my it's the responsibility of law enforcement to hold people accountable to the law if they're not going to do it you're sitting on a it's a it's it's it's on the you're sitting on this device you know they're not sticking anything up your it's only uh they're they're up your ass no doubt uh metaphorically yeah you got to watch your words around there um but yeah you're um there's a there's a i don't know how it's configured but it's basically

you know monitoring your your reactions by virtue of you know tightening your ass i know but like what if what if you had like beans for lunch or something you just got to take a shit they like you're lying yeah you might or you have to you have to tell them but uh yeah and you're sitting there as they're, you know, looking at you through the, through the glass. And you're like, okay, do I look, do I look like I'm evading? Do I look cool, calm? You would look like you're evading all the time just because you look pissed off like you're ready to get to your next project and whoever's in front of you is wasting

your time. Like, I feel like that wouldn't change if you went into a polygraph. You'd be like, oh, God damn it. Fuck. It's, it's one of the most, I mean, it's designed to be that way because they need to elicit. it um but uh i in my first one i got into it with the guy to the point where you know he's like you're not in control um you're like i'm not passing and uh and i'm like i'm not i didn't like apply. I was asked to be here. I'm doing you a favor. So, you know, I'm not here because I

filled out an application anyway. Well, let's let's get back into where we left off with the Epstein stuff. So come a little bit this way. If you were, perfect. So the part about you be, I want to go back to the part about you being able to track where a phone goes or something like that. And, you know, like the example I gave, okay, person, bartender, person looks like victim. Here's how you track that with all this back data. Person looks like, you know, person that's going to take advantage of the victim. Here's how you backed all that data. Victim and person leave, go to what's clearly a bedroom unit, stay there both on top of

each other for, you know, two hours. One can assume. When you then would mix that with depositions taken from victims, I would imagine that is quite a compelling case if a prosecutor wanted to give it so if you have that type of information i don't understand how they could ignore that yeah i think it's um so the the rules of this goes into rules of evidence and um is that location data evidence of anything can you sort of can you can you can you prove that you know the the location of that device is is actually the device of the person you are claiming it to belong to um and this this gets into a lot of the um you know there are

a lot of commercial companies that do really good things that can do a lot of good things um and in in in a lot of cases you know they they develop you know information and they're looking for somebody to be able to action it who is who can conduct inherently governmental functions and go knock on somebody's door they do an inherently you know the job the the the the tasks that we want somebody who is who has a badge who knows how to do these things um when you have freelance o centers open source and the freelancers are really good because they're clever that breaks down in the rules of evidence because it wasn't conducted on a government computer by a certified investigator were the rights

you know did the rights of the accused were they violated because how would they be violated if it's open Well, this gets into a lot of the confusion within the government, particularly within law enforcement, about where does the Fourth Amendment apply when it's commercially available, open sources, different story, commercially available where you had to go and purchase or acquire, you know, specific data sets. Carpenter sort of resolved those issues, but it's still very easy for defense to attack the providence of the information. How did you get this lead? How did you know to go knock on this person's door? If it's not following that chain of custody, that rule of evidence, it's difficult to keep that from being suppressed. couldn't it be redone though that's the thing yeah data's there so let's say you were imperfect let's say you might put it to you this way the the federal law enforcement agencies have have these tools

these systems these data sets they could do it they could do it on there yeah yeah 100% because it's all there the day their phones were already there yeah the data's available so the historical take is there so they so if a convicted felon was the one who gathered it from their bedroom or something, they're like, well, that's not going to play well in court. Then agent so-and-so could do it. And again, I want to make the distinction here. Like, if you look, one case I'm thinking about, for example, is the Silk Road case with Ross Oldbrick, who obviously was now had as, was pardoned and is no longer in prison after giving a double life sentence, which that whole thing's crazy. But the way they even got to him was

actually illegal. The FBI hacked into a server in Iceland, completely illegally, and broke the, and broke the Fourth Amendment, and that was just conveniently ignored. I get that. But, like, what's not illegal, for example, is you'll see the FBI or police departments solve cold cases by, there was one example I'm thinking of. They followed a guy to the Philadelphia International Airport two years ago and waited for him to have a coffee, finish it, and throw it out, and went into the trash, which is publicly available, took it out, DNA tested it, and they solved a 30-year-old murder.

I'm sure they had a warrant to do that. They did not. They did not. Let's double check that. It was the case in PA, Dave Spalachra, Dave Cold Case, PA Airport. Yeah, it was Dave Sinopoli. I'm going to read this straight from CBS News so that people understand the context. But Lancaster police arrested 68-year-old David Sinopoli.

for the alleged 1975 murder of a 19-year-old woman. On Sunday morning, he had been identified through a DNA sample obtained from a coffee cup at the Philadelphia International Airport. Let me skip down to where they got. On February 11, 2022, investigators obtained DNA from Sinopoli from a coffee cup he used and threw it into a trash can before traveling at the Philadelphia International Airport. The coffee cup was then submitted to DNA Labs International for testing.

It was determined that the DNA on the coffee cup contained a mixture of DNA with one male contributor, additional blood samples from the 1975 crime scene further mats the DNA sample from the coffee cup now it doesn't say it explicitly right there but i'm 99% sure they did not have a warrant for this yeah so if i i suppose um i'd be interesting case file if they wanted a DNA sample and they were um they would have brought them in and asked him to submit to a DNA sample so uh it'd be interesting to see what the uh what the logic was behind surreptitiously acquiring the DNA sample because it's once he here's the thing trash is is is public once he throws it into a public

trash can and if that's how they if that's how they argued it and didn't have that evidence suppressed because right we just went dumpster diving and right um you use public this is what i'm saying and this is also what's scary about this stuff in this case it's a good context because we're trying to solve a horrible thing but you could see where this gets a little scary just because people don't realize the data they're giving up. But when I press, except on something, I am now putting myself in a position to where things like that could get tracked and later used publicly and openly by someone else in their bedroom because I said yes.

Or through about a month ago, it was revealed to members of Congress that the Durham investigation had subpoenaed cell phone data relating to, um, uh, relating to, um, uh, the special the special counsel yeah and uh lindsay graham big supporter of the patriot act josh holly big supporter of the patriot act um a bunch of others were their their records their cell phone data was collected through the intercept methodologies and the fisa court that they all support and when they found out their righteous indignation

that how dare you rules for thee not for me yeah I'd love to see Lindsay Graham's and these are particularly Lindsay Graham is the big you've got nothing to hide what are you worried about you're not a terrorist what are you worried about you know he every camera

he rushed to to support the, you know, the Patriot Act was bolstered with this. We're looking for terrorists. You're not a terrorist. You have nothing to worry about. Yeah. Okay. So fast forward, you know, in to a period of time in 10 years where things have gone really high and right. And there's an administration that wants to understand all of the cohorts that are freedom,

you know, Second Amendment, pick your political bent. And we want to start tracking them because we have the historical data and we can couch it under all sorts of righteous means

or we don't even need to. We have the capability so we can do it. So, you know, senators, you telling us that we should accept all of these surveillance capabilities and methods because we've got nothing to hide. It's not about we've got nothing to hide. You don't have the right even if I have nothing to hide.

Yeah, the road to hell is paved with alleged good intentions. Yeah, it's the counterfactual. All those that are, you know, delivering something through the guise of kindness and virtue Yes. Are most susceptible to evil. Yeah. And so it was an interesting interesting to see them really losing, losing their minds with Dan Bongino, who was, who was informing

them of this and they had hearings about it. And these are the same guys who told us, hey, if you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about? No, that's the guy I'm watching, Dan Bonjino. Because he, you know, he was, he was this very partisan, conservative firebrand commentator, had all these big opinions on stuff, always looked like the vein in his full. forehead was going to pop and cause an aneurysm. Yeah.

And I would say that now the vein looks even bigger for an entirely different reason. Every time I see that guy talk, it is like he is holding in all the trauma of a nation's history. And that dam wants to break, but isn't breaking. I do not see the same, that same type of, like, damn on cash or on, what's her face? the Pam Bondi. Pam Bondi. I do not see that same thing.

Bongino looks like he is in pain when he is doing some of these appearances and whatever. So I am very much interested to see if at some point that will break. That said, I have had, I believe now it's four different people, but three prior to last April, meaning like in the year before this past April, stand out there from different content, totally different walks of life, but people who are in the know on certain things and assure me that we would never see the Epstein files, which, you know, I wasn't surprised,

but, you know, what they said to me was off record, but they all gave the same answer as to why. And when I see, you know, it was a very broad answer, but I was like, yep, and now when I see the way that the backtracking has happened, to bring some of this back into English, so that people can at least understand without me saying specifically anything that they said, when you're talking about a situation where people who are currently in a government

fear that something this deep and this widespread would crash the entire system, forget just the government, because once people had literal confirmation of everything that they're totally suspicious about, but once it was there on the page and literally confirmed, there could be some sort of enormous, uprising and you know and now we're getting to really big terms here and stuff but stuff in the country that would be quite unpopular and I want to know I'm a citizen I have a right to know when I look at that though and I and I listen to some of these people who all also want to know as well and want the public to know I see where the conundrum is at least for something like this so I bring this back to you because you're looking at it from the outside and you were at least

able to you know paint on a page like whoa whoa look at that look at that look at that when you first heard about this case obviously it was very dark and you're like oh my god and you're like wow this guy knew a lot of people but then when you first start actually working on it and you start to see the data popping up and you're seeing it's in years after he's convicted and you're seeing the types of people it is did you like have a moment yeah where you were just like didn't see that coming or a hundred percent and and that's I think the risk is there needs to be this faith or fundamental foundational belief or belief in our systems that we have good people who do the right thing and don't need you know they they know what the

right thing is. As I'm sort of developing this list, there were moments where I was like, this is, this doesn't make sense. I must be wrong. You must be wrong. Yeah. Because my cognitive dissonance was he wouldn't do something like that. He wouldn't be affiliated with this guy.

he's I have this this pre this bias that was running contrary to what the data was saying but then the data starts painting a story you know I'm I'm back testing it and I got to make sure use other data sets is it the same you know is it this am I seeing the same thing um in the data a a multidimals latitudinal and longitudinal coordinate does not lie yeah did you get mad i think that that was one of them that's that's one of those inflection points where you start listening to people and you're like you're full of shit yeah um But what's, I think, the more troubling aspect of this is, I don't think they're really afraid of going to jail. I think they're more concerned about their public image.

Which, you know, what does that say? about someone's character i think there's also a lot of people who enjoy forget just their public image what what's the underlying cause there that's tied to they enjoy the power they have going into rooms sure anywhere yeah and they know that if they lose the public in image they will lose too goes power right and so it comes back to basic human you know does desire, greed, the whole bit. I don't mean to oversimplify it, but I think there's a lot of that. And also, you know, the number in a first world country like America, this would not be true in some other countries around the world, sadly.

But in a country like this, I'm happy to see it true that if there's one thing, there's no coming back from, it's fucking a kid or doing, you know, being pedophile. It's like the lowest thing you can possibly be. There's no Charlie Sheen. you know, uh, rehab, uh, rehab, uh, rehab tour. Right. Um, yeah. Well, just, so just look at the amount, the number of people who told us for years that President Biden has never been sharper, never been more on top of the game, uh, who clearly,

you know, you know that you're not, you know that that's not the case. You see it every day. But to call it, call, call, call. it out uh put your put your put your put your place in the west wing in in jeopardy so you're going to you're going to perpetuate that narrative and tow the line yeah and i also think when you have threats behind the scenes that has to be taken into account for sure you know with this guy hard for me to not see him being tied to massage because there are just what it's like how many touch points do you need before it's like okay this is just kind of what it is that said i also think

that at some point along the way of course and if you were my educated guess would be this probably was the late 90s i think that our intelligence services figured out who he was for sure and realized that because of some of the, you know, compliment that he had built up, they were not as crazy as this sounds. Just hear me out on those people. They were not in a position to full stop it, which is bizarre. But I could see where that argument comes in from an intelligence perspective. And I think what they probably did is said, you're going to pay a tax, pal. I think they probably went to him and said, we know who you are. We know what you're doing. Fuck you. This is horrible. you know that we know that we can't stop it because there's some other things and some things that

you've done. So that being said, it's like when a bunch of people are holding the gun to each other in a standoff. It's like you're going to pay a 10% tax now. You're getting this information. We want to know some of it. And I think that that also is a part of the reason. And again, this is all hypothesis, educated guests. I don't know any of this. But I think that's also some of the reason that there is a covering of tracks because at some point, it's not like he was a guy that CIA had cultivated, but he was probably a guy that they got some intelligence from. And it's like, well, are you going to admit that a dude who was sex trafficking at the darkest, worst, highest levels on your own fucking property was someone that you went to and technically allowed

for this to happen? Yep. Yeah. There are some of, if you're working the field you are going to have to be able to work with people that you find despicable yes it's just you're not there to make friends you are there to extract intelligence and some of the people that have actionable valuable intelligence are terrible yes it's so there's some some reality to the business um but i think that this is this is where maybe they thought they could control it control him keep the narrative yeah tight um and he goes and gets himself arrested and then you have a u.s attorney uh saying there's nothing here he's linked to intelligence and we're not we're not pressing the issue yeah and you're referring to a Alex Acosta yeah who did who where

where did that come from that's I think he would know which by the way did you hear about the other prosecutor this week and this this story maybe you could use your little cell phone powers on this one I'd be going back a big ways though but it was this guy Matthew menthol who was prosecuting him down in Florida and left the prosecution shortly before the deal went through. They found records of him socializing with Epstein like in Aspen in the years before that and then in the years after his conviction, 2011, 2013, 2015, when this guy was now in the private sector, having dinners with him, the whole bit. And it's like, are you fucking, so you knew what he was about.

I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say, when you were in Aspen or wherever you were in 01 with him, you didn't know. I think you knew, but you didn't know. Yeah. But then you worked the case. You had access to everything and you go to dinners with this guy. Like, what are you doing in your personal life that he's got on video? That's what I want to know.

Yep. It's like Harvey Weinstein. Everybody knew he was a pig. Yeah. But yet, you know, oh, that's just Harvey. It's just Harvey. Yeah, I had, I had Sarmann Gallus in here who wasn't even Hollywood or anything. And she had, she even had a story because she was in.

the New York scene. She didn't know Harvey at all, but she knew who he was. And one day, just walking down the street, just she's like, now you're like, oh, my God, he just assumed he could do anything. He said, are you an actress? Like, like, she's a good looking woman. And she was like, no. Yeah. Like, that, that, he went right to it. That's what he wanted. He's like, I can get you a role. I have a trade here. How about? I have something to trade. Yeah. Now, there was a story I was just getting, because we don't have Dief in here today, but he gave me the link just now. That's what I was looking for while you were answering that last question. So thank you for your patience here. But there was a story that the Washington Post put out

in May 23 called, and I'll put it up here for at least you want me to look at, called Bill Gates, Leon Black, Thomas Pritzker one day in the life of Jeffrey Epstein. And what they did is they got access to his calendar on September 8th, 2014, and tracked all these meetings. And they were able to track where the meetings took place. So I'm remembering this from when I read this a couple years ago. It's a long article, so I'm not going through it right now, but people go through and you can check this on archive.is by copying the link in to get around the paywall for this.

That's the Mike Ben's trick. But he met with Bill Gates. I believe one of the meetings, if I remember correctly, was in the morning at his East 71st Street apartment. And then the next meeting was in Midtown that they walked to together or something. Imagine just like going back in time. and seeing Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein walking down the street together. It's like Prince Andrew at Jeffrey Epstein, but it's absolutely crazy. But question being, if you looked at something like

this, could you go back and buy data and show me everywhere they want that day? 24-2, sure. Yeah. Yeah. I want you to do that. Yeah. And if you get good information, I want you to put a sub-stack out. Because this is already publicly available. You wouldn't be breaking it. Do these, do these, so, uh, so Pritzker, that's, um, that's, that's a name. Yeah. Um, these are all names, man. Yeah. Leon Black's on there.

Yep. So, uh, yeah, so I might already have this because, um, Mortimer Zuckerman. He's a big media mogul. Yep. Leon Botstein, Barnaby Marsh, Ramsey, L. Coley, Catherine Rumler. I believe Catherine was J.P. Morgan, if I remember correctly. Let me see if I get that right. Yeah, so, I mean, this is, the executive assistants were good about telling their principal exactly where they needed to be and when.

Yes. And, you know, the whole, the Leon Black thing is very dark. because he he financed Jeffrey Epstein in the last seven five to seven years of his life to the tune of 257 million dollars. Yeah. This is a guy who he and his wife were the chair of MoMA, you know, he was the founder of Apollo Global, which also I do have to give a shout out to Josh Harris who gets shit all the time as a shitty sports owner.

I know I don't like him as Sixers owner, but Josh Harris was a co-founder of Apollo and he was the guy who was going to take over Apollo was always known. And then he was pushed out because he wanted black out of the company because he said this is bullshit and put his foot down. And you don't see enough guys like standing up and doing that. But for Josh, I know that was like his lifelong dream to be able to have complete control of the company. He found it and he had to make a choice. Yes. And he made the right choice.

I do appreciate that a lot. So my, I think I already have this built out. this one i mean i have obviously more but the the three specific um yeah i mean i got a date for you yeah addresses i got a lot for you to work with right here the wall street journal i should say has a lot for you to work with but wouldn't be too difficult i would love to see that because the call never came but you made out outbound calls to people yeah absolutely and what was the nature without revealing who you called or maybe some specifics that could be off record.

What was the nature of the reaction there? Like, this is too dark, stay the fuck out of this, or something else? Um, yeah, the, the reaction was, I will push this where I can, but I'm not going to push it. with a with an agenda what do you mean with an agenda i'm not going to die on this hill i will i will let people know who are attached to the case that we have a data set and if they want to call you they will call you and they never did okay so there was another one and this one always stuck in my

crawl. And this was right around, this was right around the time because I was in that building a lot telling them about their grinder problem. Their grinder problem? Their grinder problem. Like the app grinder? The app grinder. Oh, please fill me in on this. Yeah. So everybody knows what grind the the the cohort and the the audience that grinder serves um i got involved because a private equity firm with ties to the cp was acquiring grinder okay and that struck me as odd because why would what's china up to uh just was not wasn't like i wasn't like i they see, you know, adding to their portfolio of Hotels.com and, you know, their other online dating OkCupid or whatever their apps are. And, you know, in that in that data set, because Grindr is not really anybody that wanted to bid, place, and add, there was a lot of Grindr data in these commercial data sets.

And so one of the questions was, why are we seeing so much grinder? And then the second question is why is China interested in grinder? And so I did some analysis in my, you know, national security home office and was seeing the wells of devices originating at sensitive government locations. going to various places in and around the D.C. area for about a dwell time of 20 minutes or so, dwelling with another device that wasn't necessarily, it wasn't a meeting, an off-site meeting between two government employees. Although we did have, we did, we did see a hookup between two government employees who probably didn't know they were. That's nice. And so, you know, meanwhile, we're seeing this proliferation of people in national security positions, their patterns of life.

I can see them where they start, where they meet, where they go home to other buildings. This is not an app that should be owned by the CCP. And Sipheus, the Committee on Foreign Investment, that analyzes acquisitions of national, companies of national prominence or national security prominence. They intervened and forced the repatriation of Grind her back to U.S. ownership. but um spending time explaining to the senior the senior cadre at the FBI what grinder is that was that took a lot of creativity in how I was communicating and it was you know and and your folks will appreciate this my the inflection of my voice probably dropped, uh, to the point that irritates the shit out of them.

Yeah. Because I'm like, sir, uh, uh, uh, grinder is not an app you find your, the love of your life on. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Uh, well, what are you doing with it? Um, sir. Uh, this is, uh, this is aggregation of immediate, uh, immediate gratification and, uh, you know, sensitive sight exploitation. Yeah, would it kill these guys going Ashley Madison or something? Yeah. I mean, you know, it's more normal, I guess, for like blackmail purposes. Yeah. It's less, it's more like, ah, you got to go him up.

But it's like, oh, you got a wife at home. Right. You're seeing a dude. But I was, you're going to work for us now. I was working the halls with this type of information, you know, these types of data sets and what one could with high probability infer about patterns of life people. and we weren't we weren't it wasn't a witch hunt uh to out anybody it was you know this is uh this is this is high valuable large language model training data uh Mike's like if you're gay we're

going to find you boy yeah yeah yeah but you'd see you know it's it's you don't want that in CCP hands I completely understand I don't think so so you you were you assisted in stopping that i think so for you yeah okay now not not to let a great american company that's right you know got to keep these great american companies right here america but with all the data that you're getting you're tracking location stuff obviously you're tracking patterns of life and all that every great investigator i've ever talked with you know from any level of anything whether it be a detective or a guy at fbi or you know, someone who's tracking stuff for intelligence, they'll always say the phrase follow the money, right?

That's what they're looking for. The money is always going to be the end all be all answer. I mean, you solve murder cases following the money. How much of that, I mean, I don't even know if that incorporates into anything you do, but how much of that, if it does, incorporates into what you do for you to be able to put like two and two together where you're like, ooh, I can track that he's moving money to this? Can you even track, like, if they're moving money to this bank account or something with the data you look at? No, that's, that is, that's an interceptor.

That's accessing. And I've been asked. to look at you know can you detect money laundering or can you detect money layering and you know things that are financial in nature you're not necessarily looking at flow of funds but you know is somebody visiting an ATM machine you know seven different ATM machines in the period of an hour because they're layering withdraws or deposits and that's that's hard it's hard to do Because it's like, I need to detect you at this ATM, at this millisecond that you're there. And but flow financial analysis, that's a harder, it's a harder beast because you need to get into the systems.

And you remember, like, I didn't hack engineer intercept or steal. So I'm not hacking into these systems to understand these patterns of life. which you know from a from a cost perspective it's like if i if i if i don't have to hack to detect the flow of funds but i can understand patterns of life that give me other avenues um is that a more cost effective faster way of of getting to what i'm getting what getting to what i need in order to to build a to write an affidavit or a request for a warrant gotcha Yeah, because one of the threads I've never seen someone pull on is the 1992 thread with Robert Maxwell. So when Tara Palmeri did that podcast, she did two.

One was called like the Maxwell's. The other one was called like Epstein. And they were both eight parts. It was basically a documentary where they just didn't have cameras. She's going around interviewing people. She had Virginia, Jafre coming around with her, who's now deceased, you know, who was a victim of Epstein. But one of the most surreal interviews I've ever heard was she got Juan Alessi, the housekeeper for Epstein. He agreed to go on tape.

And so this was one of those situations where she and Virginia showed up to his house that had a gate outside of it and introduced who it was. And Virginia just said, oh, my God, Juan, he goes, oh, my God, yeah, come in. And they come in and they ask, like, hey, we're doing an investigation. Would you agree to be recorded? To his credit, he said yes. And it's one of the most painful things to listen to. Because you simultaneously are like, how the fuck could you let this happen? And you also feel bad for the guy at the same time.

It's a very strange dynamic. But to his credit, he was very forthcoming about a lot of things. And one of the things he laid out that stuck with me is he goes, you know, he worked for Jeffrey in like the late 80s. And he's like, he had wealth. Nothing crazy. That's right. I saw this. Yeah.

Yeah. And all of a sudden, it's like, yeah. Right. He said, in 1992, something crazy happened, man. Like, you know, he suddenly he had the plane. He got, he got the apartment in the Macy's apartment. Yeah. Sorry.

But first you get the power, then you get the money. But anyway, so he was like he, and, you know, he started, he was bawling. Like hundreds of millions of dollars seemingly came through the door. And the connection here, I'm bringing this up because of some of the L brand's work you did. But Leslie Wexner signed over that apartment on his 71st street to him effectively for free. It's the number one townhouse. It signed over power of attorney. Yes.

Oh, yeah, more than that. But I'm saying like literally his dwelling and gave it to him. At the end of 1991, November 1991, Robert Maxwell died off the coast of Africa and on his yacht. Now, they say he killed himself. I don't think he did. I think Robert Maxwell was a raging narcissist who, You know, we also know was a prolific spy. He was most likely approached by his people, kind of like Frank Pentangeli and Godfather, too,

and said, listen, it's over, got to do the right thing. Like the Roman army used to do. And he couldn't do it. And so they probably, I am speculating, but they probably did it for him. And ironically, Robert Maxwell left behind like a $450 million pension scam in his estate destitute. What's interesting about that is you have a wealthy sion. leaving behind a fraud that's not exactly looked upon well by society, and yet his two sons who were put on trial for it after he died were found not guilty in British courts. It's pretty

hard to do. Secondly, whether you like the guy or not, and I see no reason to like him, but he was put in a position to be a very effective businessman. He had major companies that made a lot of money, and the idea that suddenly he was worth nothing and needed to bilk his pension for his employees at the Daily Mail is the second largest publication in the world makes up this is when princess diana was alive too like they're printing money left and right no way the fact then that geoffrey epstein gets all this money funneled to him in the immediate aftermath of that and we know by estimations is worth somewhere you know he was worth at that point somewhere in the neighborhood of four hundred four hundred fifty million dollars and no one knows how this guy ever made any money besides

that given financial advice as a uh whoever he worked for you which no one ever saw him do that was another thing one unless he said he's like i never really saw him work yeah never saw him give advice the guy who's like you know the guy who is really good at hiding money that's that's a that's a skill that you don't just you know watch a youtube video that's right how to um you're an accountant right and you know how to you know how to do this that's what i'm saying so no one's ever pulled on that thread. And the problem is it's before we got iPhones and stuff like that. So I don't think you could do it. But there has to be someone who's good who could find a way to pull on that thread and find something there because I have no proof to be able to say definitively

this is what it is. But there is a lot of circumstantial evidence when you look at the players involved and who they were involved with that says somehow that got from point A to point B. you know the money trail's got to be there this isn't you know we're not funneling 888 to avoid a suspicious activity report so i think i think a lot this is how i look at all of this like all right i have a sort of common sense informed by experience um Occam's Razor when you try to assign some complex explanation to something when in reality, it's like what you're seeing is what it is. Yeah.

There's no, you don't need to build all of this complexity into understanding. Um, so what is, what is all of this? Yeah. Experience and common sense is telling me there's more to it than just a guy who got lucky, uh, And whether it was Mossad or there was definitely an influence operation underway, because what's the point of all of this? Right. Who Ben, you know, Kibona, who benefits? I don't know.

But there are too many, too many facts that just don't make sense in trying to assign them logical explanations. Correct. Yeah, he was, you know, really good or why. And if you look at, like, why Epstein? Because he was probably controllable and he could be told what to do. But, you know, I think that there's more to it than common sense. sense, there's more. There's something here. If we have, you know, I think from a,

from a government perspective, I think we lean, we over classify. You know, the 25-year-old OSEN analyst, you know, reads an article in the New York Times and thinks there's something there that should be looked at, you know, that becomes a, you know, top secret thing artifact that's right um you know when when when we're dealing with you know human intelligence and operations where people could get killed because they're working with us classify that shit like americans do not need to know but when we start overclassifying then you know the the the the the bias is to do something that, you know, maybe you wouldn't normally do, but I can classify it and keep it out of, keep it from transparency. Right.

And I just, I think we've gone so far, so far, you know, in classifying everything that we don't know how to unravel something. Like, we got ahead of ourselves. Yes. There's good intentions. But, you know, this was, this was an operation that went bad. And we need to shed daylight on that if there was involvement. Well, that's the thing. It's like, it's like a bad gambler.

You get so deep in the hand that you just have to keep doubling down. And it feels like they've had to be dishonest so many times about this. That they believe, that they believe, you know, whatever they. whatever they're telling themselves. Yes. I don't know. But again, what I do know is that any common sense person

is going to look at this. Of course. And say, what? Yeah, it's a unifying issue. So, yeah. And I think that, I think the administration would be surprised by the public's reaction

if there was something to be transparent about that might hurt the fabric or, I think, I think they'd be surprised by the reasonableness of Americans to say, okay, we, the transparency. Really? Yeah. You believe that. Yeah.

If people violated laws, broke laws, we need prosecutions, not special count. We need people to get prosecuted. We don't have enough of that. But I think that the American. American people would be able to say, okay, we're not, we're not, you're going to, somebody's going to be accountable, but this notion that we need to be protected by people who know better, I think is how we get ourselves into these predicaments, Patriot Act. Well, if you saw the intel that I, no, tell me the, show me, Senator, tell me

the intel. Show me the intel that you're seeing that necessitates bulk data collection on every American. And don't tell me it's pedophilia and al-Qaeda. Yep. Show me, tell me, tell us.

And you might just find public opinion saying, okay, we agree. Yeah, but they would never want that. They don't want to put power in the hands of the people. Because it's so powerful to say If you saw the Intel that I saw, if you knew what I knew, I was read in. I went into the skiff.

Okay. Yeah. All right. And you see that, you know, one minute they are the proponent of civil rights and privacy. And they get the read on. And now they are all in. Yes. They are.

This was cool. You know, I got a classified brief. This is cool. I'm all in. And I think that that's, you know, power is seductive. You know, I was watching last weekend, Dark Night Rises, the third Batman from Christopher Nolan, hadn't watched that one in years, which, by the way, underrated movie. Like, it's a fucking banger of a movie all the way through. That one got some shit because, like, the Dark Night was a perfect movie. So people are like, how can you follow that up and everything? But

Dark Night Rises is an incredible movie. But watching it now, came out in 2012. It was probably written in like 2010, the underlying themes socially in that script. This is pre like this whole era and everything. Yeah. Man, did they really nail it. When you're talking about like the fact that it's elites versus everybody else and there's a growing anger underpinning that that can lead to chaos, I see so whole many parallels there. And you look at history, this is how society's fall.

like when you get a too concentrated elite that says we know best and this is everyone whether it be government or the people that pay them right and the circle of life that exists there there is almost no better example than this case than the Epstein case when you are looking at that thematically in society and when you see the clear very public cover up that's occurring to protect all of these people whether it be people in government but frankly in more cases in fact people that are just powerful figures in banking or entertainment or what you insert blank here you know these these very ultra wealthy people it's like you're going to disintegrate public trust more and more especially when people are seeing less and less opportunity yeah or or

there's a there are there are two sets of laws yes uh i can tell you if i if i was where you were in the proximity of a known sexual exploitation ring, you wouldn't be able to keep cops out of your house. Right. And so I think that that's what is being projected here is that there are two sets of standards. And if the narrative is, you know, the fabric of society. would be torn to pieces if I don't I don't I think that that's a theory I think they've convinced themselves of that I don't buy it because I think there would be overwhelming

support to see people who know better being held accountable yes notwithstanding their importance to the financial infrastructure of the United States and projecting you know doing the work of the Treasury overseas under the mantle of a rock that may be black. I see what he did there. That's good. Yeah. Now, the financial terrorism.

Yeah. Internal financial terrorism is a very, very real thing. Absolutely. And it puts the government in a very precarious situation, especially when it's a lot of the people they rely on for funding. Yep. You know what another good movie is that projected or was prescient in, in, in, in, in, where we are today, fight club.

Ah, that's an outside-the-box one, yeah. Was like, you know, a consumerism and, um, yes, you know, the, the haves versus the have-nots and the, you know, sort of the fight back, um, or the push back by the, you know, the working class, um, privacy, he hit a lot of those in, was that 99? Yeah, yeah, it was like that. Something like that. That's interesting. Yep.

Yeah, I agree. too fat another another example i want to know if you ever looked at this but this was always fascinating to me so back in 2021 or 22 steve bannon former advisor of the president former head of bright bart runs that show the war room now prominent you know i guess like right wing activists if that's what you want to call him who's also coming the crosshairs of the government which is interesting steve banon released a 30 second-ish video in a trailer, some sort of trailer, of Jeffrey Epstein, talking with him on camera. And the only 30 seconds he showed is actually hilarious, where Bannon's, like, actually

pressing me, goes, you've been accused of doing some horrific, despicable things to women, you know, and all this and that. Like, what do you have to say for yourself? It's hard not to laugh. But, like, Epstein was like, I actually believe the future is women. I'm a big times up guy. I'm a feminist. Like with the Brooklyn accent, it's almost just cruel in your face, right?

So you're just looking at this like, okay, the most prolific sex trafficker in modern history or just history that we know of is saying something that comical and thinking we're going to believe it is crazy. But Bannon pressed this as a forthcoming documentary that includes a sit-downs with Epstein. The timing of when those sit-downs happened, though, is quite fascinating to me. Bannon was fired as advisor to the president in August 2017 and I actually will never forget this day because I remember it was a cloudy Friday and I worked near Morristown Airport where Trump flies into in the summers and so when he would go there on the weekends a lot of times on a Friday afternoon they would shut down fucking 40 roads around there so I had to go drop off something to a client and then I was coming up on these roads I'm like God damn he's flying in. I'm like, you know, it's like this big story that Bannon had been fired. But Steve Bannon got in, I mean, maybe you could find this out, got in a car or a train or something and went straight up to New York City and spent the weekend with Jeffrey Epstein and interviewed him

according to Steve himself for 18 hours on camera. Epstein later talked about this with people. And then Bannon teased that this would come out and then never put it out. now you have 18 hours of footage with the most prolific trafficker at the middle of the biggest conspiracy that I can remember in my lifetime and you're not putting that out I would love to know where else they were that weekend just just right there I mean it sounds like they spent a lot time in time on camera but like where else did they go who did they talk to yeah you know and why has that never been released I bring that up because I think it'd be very interesting to get Mike Yagley on that just to like track the cell phone data from that weekend and the week

afterwards to see where Epstein won and we're bad and went. I'll put that on the list. I did not. I'm not, I was not tracking his, his expose on, on, on Jeffrey, but. Okay. Well, now it's on your list. Yeah. Absolutely. We'll leave that one there. There's a lot here with Epstein, and I'm sure I'll talk to you off camera, but I am biased here. I would very much like you to release some of your data because I think I think that would be in the public's best interest I'm sure people in the comments are going to be challenging you to do that I know you read those things I'm I it's having the mirror held up to one's face so you know it's you never knew you never knew what what you needed to know about about your about your demeanor I don't do cocaine by the way I didn't think you did cocaine I look like a monster's guy I mean I'm nicotine yes but cocaine has not Not even back in the days A hockey player? Never.

Never. Good for you. That's hard to do. I've never smoked dope. Smoke marijuana. Good for you. It's just never appealed to me. Yeah.

But so nicotine, caffeine. All right. Nothing wrong with that. That's fine. Anyway. But there were other things we didn't talk about last time that I want to get to. We're going to talk about Palantir. We're going to talk about AI.

But I think to kind of get into that even before we go there, your background long before the whole Syria thing is something we didn't discuss. So you just kind of dump this one on me towards the end of the last one. Yeah. And after 9-11, in the years after that at some point, you came into contact with DARPA, which is probably the most mysterious government organization in existence, and did some sort of, as you put it, data work with them. Would you care to explain how you got into contact with them?

Yeah, so post 9-11, there was a concerted effort to fix the gaps in systems that would have picked, would have been able to detect the plot happening right underneath our noses. It really wasn't a systems problem because we knew about the country, the agencies knew about these guys long before they got here. But, you know, there's this, there was this rush to be able to aggregate all sorts of commercial data that would reveal anomalies in anomalies against the baseline of typical behavior. So did somebody pay with cash when everybody pays with a credit card, that kind of anomaly? Or did somebody fly into an airport and then go rent a car at a different airport? You know, just those types of things that are not obvious indicators of anything,

but they are outliers. And this was before we had the language of large language. which models or AI as a as a system that could that could do all of these things. So DARPA stood up a program called Total Information Awareness to you. Okay. And DARPA is, you know, I was, my last pitch to DARPA went down in flames. And I've been, and like I think I'm right about the, about the premise, but It's one of those, you know, they were throwing questions and it's like, you know, I'm not quite there yet.

So, but DARPA is not that mysterious. It's basically a bunch of projects that are either looking, you know, 20 years down the horizon as to what the future of warfare looks like or they're solving, you know, the immediate problem today. It's got departments. It's got departments, yep. You know, they're in downtown Arlington, so, you know, you can walk by the building. It's not, you know, there's not a big stand. Well, that's a campus we know about. Yeah.

And so the program was really one of the, was characterize it as the first attempt at building a large language model around these data. sets that would provide early indicators and warnings of something unusual or suspicious. And this is like 0.506? Yep. Yep. Wow. The program got shut down because of privacy, privacy sensitivities. If you can believe it, because it was, you know, total information.

information awareness and the logo was like an eye and a panopticon. It just, you know, it looked. Very third degree, not good optics, but, you know, back at the time, it was, all right, so what are these data sets, how do we get them? Who, what are we even talking about as, you know, a data set that we would put into this machine, build algorithms or rules to flag. these anomalistic characteristics of transactions those systems that is how we are configured

that was the precursor to kind of how we configure systems today you talk about Palantir you know what's better than the one big thing two big things exactly the new iPhone 17 Pro on TELUS's five year rate plan price lock yep it's the most powerful iPhone ever

plus more peace of mind with your bill over five years this is big get the new iPhone 17 pro at tellus.com slash iPhone 17 pro on select plans conditions and exclusions apply it was the precursor to a system like Palantir where you've got all of the data and a common operating picture why did they pluck you to work on this and you know approximately ballpark like how many other people might be working on something like this There was some right place, right time. But I had been doing this integration of external data sets into operational commercial systems. Okay.

Fuse in these data sets with your point of sale system to give better predictive capability for running your retail operations or supply chain. So I had been doing this before commercial data became, you know, this thing that everybody's focused on. And I could talk about it. I could explain it in a way that made it easy for people to understand what we were talking about. You mentioned you work with like John Poindexter in there. So John Poindexter was the National Security Advisor to Reagan, a longtime Navy guy. think like a lot of different things yeah yeah so he was he was the he was the program manager so he activated himself i believe after 9-11 he he had already retired uh had already

been acquitted uh so he was acquitted for the iran contra yeah yeah um so he was looking to to get back into the fight after 9-11 um and he he he was was he's a really smart guy he talks about you know yeah dr teller called me and we had this fight about thermodynamics and i told him he's all wrong dr teller yeah like the yeah that that guy exactly um so he activated himself um because he he comes from a a system's background. He's got a PhD in physics. So kind of the right guy to start developing this system of systems to be an answer to the gaps in intelligence post 9-11. Okay. So when you like what's it what's it like though to be pulled into a place that has access

to you know the brightest minds from the private sector all coming together to like work for the government to solve the most complex problems like what is that like the first day you walk in there and realize you're in the middle of this yeah you this is this is the advice that I give to like kids you know you don't have talking you not learning anything so it's okay to be you know to let the grown-ups at the table talk and learn, building a system like, I'd not done a government system of that proportion with that level of ambition. And I'm just sort of jotting down notes like, okay, how are we going to go? How do we approach American Airlines and ask them for data related to ticket purchases, passenger

manifests without hacking their system yeah we're violating yeah we're not we weren't trying to do that it's like hey all hands on deck this is a counter terror thing will you participate voluntarily will you participate voluntarily exactly yeah that's that's about how you did it right not not not not not quite like that a little bit yeah um before it could go operational congress got work of it and fun pulled funding for it huh

was that the end of your work with DARPA uh for that for that point yeah yep you later did work with them once you got pulled in after the serious stuff though

so you know it's interesting DARPA I know has been sort of tangential or adjacently looking at ad tech as a you know as a as a defensive data set, but for the work that I was doing for J-Soc, DARPA was not involved in that. So when did you come back to them then?

In what context? I pitch ideas that. Oh, got it. Yeah. Okay. So it's like an ongoing, like you have that door to go knock on as you're working on things that you think would be relevant, but you haven't necessarily going in and run a project. there since then no no no okay no i don't i don't know that i've got the academic credentials

to be a be on staff at darpa i mean i've heard you listen to annie jacobson they were fucking trying to telepathically talk with dolphins in 1991 yeah so like i want to know like you mentioned it you're like oh they can work on stuff 20 years ahead i've heard as much as 30 to 50 yeah and it makes you wonder like what they got and way you know you said you were working on an lLM I'm just being pulled in there the first time in 0506. It's like how minute is like an open AI to what they have. And therefore, can we even track what they have if they were using that in the real world right now? Would we even know about it?

So I think this is the, there's been a bit of inversion where the advances, like the moonshot advances that, I think the moonshot advances are coming out. of the commercial sector. I don't think they can keep pace. You don't think DARPA can keep... I think they're tracking and and, but they're not, they're not inventing the internet. They're not.

What makes you so comfortable that they're not in, that they're not at the forefront of that? Because there are some weird ties. Yeah. Between some of the founders of these companies. And I'm not even, by the way, that doesn't have to be negative. Yep.

But like, it doesn't look awesome. So I think it's just it's the pace of innovation. And DARPA is a government organization. The pace of innovation coming out of Open AI or any of these other companies compared to their pace of innovation, particularly when we're talking about like things that I can implement today. That's a hard thing to scale as a competitor, as a government competitor. I think, you know, there's a. there should be a lot of cooperation between the R&D and the S&T branches of government because by the time they developed their own version of OpenAI,

like they'll be, you know, version 10, be on GPT, you know, 12 by the time we were able to catch up or the government would be able to catch up. So I think there just needs to be this. there needs to be more openness to commercial innovation because it's the pace is it's too fast because well also in like fairness to you mike you're compartmentalized as well it's not like when you're brought on there brought in there to DARPA they take you to a big room and say here's everything we're working here's our portfolio do you have anything on hypersonics no they say here's a problem we have we've brought you in to help solve this this is the place you have actually

access to you don't have access to other shit that's not that doesn't involve you just focus on this thing for all you know you could be being used as a guinea pig to see if like all right let's bring in some people from the private sector see if they could even figure out what we have right here and see you know what I mean hypothetically I suppose it could be that because I got to assume and again this might not be positive there's a lot of ways this could be very negative but I got to assume the government is hand in hand on things like that especially when you look at the power and some of the talent that they bring in to some of these places, you know, like the NSA hacking teams viewed as like the strongest hacking team in the world right there. So why wouldn't

we have or one of them? Why wouldn't we have, you know, guys who are like the strongest AI guys in the world or why wouldn't we have guys who are placed at the top of these companies that look like public figures. I'm not accusing people, but like as an example, what if like Sam Altman were like a guy working for NSA? It's possible. His board is pretty extensive, you know. A lot of That's what I'm saying. A lot of connections. And I think that it's a natural vertical for OpenAI to have threads into national security programs.

It's been, like I said last time, if I had the language in 0506 to describe large language models instead of talking about solving the associative memory scaling problem, I probably wouldn't be sitting here right now. Right. But, and that wasn't that long ago, and all of the same things, in 2005, we're talking about looking at these large unstructured data sets and doing pattern analysis of what's in the text to do, you know, predictive capability and everything that when you are using chat GPT, all of the things that you are using that application for. we were looking at trying to build into the systems almost 20 years ago you were this a lot of people were looking at this wow yep when you went in there in 0506 and they start presenting you the problem that they're looking for you to solve And then also, I would imagine presenting where it's relevant to you, various pieces of evidence or solutions that they've already come up with or ideas that they've mapped out that they think are possible. Did you ever have a moment where you were like, oh, fuck, we are entering a brave new world here? Yeah, definitely.

Especially when the conversation is about, all right, do we need to call the CEO of, pick your Fortune 500 company does the White House need to broker that relationship or make that ask it's like okay this got serious so

but that was those types of those types of projects are the incremental steps to moving the national security enterprise to thinking about data in ways in which you can ask questions, tag, categorize data sets for your special purpose or whatever you're looking for. You know, we probably needed to have those sort of incremental, I would call it a failure, but

we move the ship in assigning a potential capability to a deal or address a known threat in ways that probably hadn't done before. Do you think that the... There was, there needed to be a leap and I think, I think the, it started where the data that we need and the data that we're looking at isn't necessarily something that we've generated. The government is generated. It's not a proprietary data set, it's external. that was that was the big leap with the the commercial location data it's like so we're not generating this this isn't some special access program this is commercially available so we need to be able to adjust our perceptions of value of data based upon just because we didn't generate it just because we didn't go out and collect it doesn't mean it's not

valuable. I take it from my conversations on and off camera with you, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. I take it that you're a guy who does value the Constitution and the rights within it. 100%. Okay. Not that it's your fault, you're running into these worlds, but you are constantly finding yourself in very weird at best gray areas of coming on, and you've said it yourself to your credit coming on to the edge of things where it's like okay where does this become the slippery slope that you can't climb back up again yeah just because you can doesn't mean you should just because you can collect against americans and even though nobody's getting hurt because nobody has anything to hide doesn't mean you should be doing it doesn't mean the government

should give itself that permission under the guise of the Patriot Act or counterterrorism. So I take it you've had plenty of moments where you're like where something comes across your desk in these various contexts, whether it be no-5 or 06 with DARPA or in your years after uncovering the whole Syria operation getting pulled into a bunch of stuff. I take it you've had some moments where you're like, fuck this. This is wrong. Yeah. So this is the question.

This is the issue of surveillance, right? A surveillance state where we accept these logical fallacies. More surveillance makes us safer. Okay. Who's going to argue that point? It's not necessarily true because surveillance is a good tool for post-event, you know, apprehension, but it doesn't necessarily make us. safer yes um and so yeah there have been instances in which i've been asked to do things

and i'm and my my reaction is what's the authority to do this just because we can uh and you're asking a you're asking me to do it if If there is an authority, you will do that type of work in a classified government building where you have an authority to go and do this. Do you have some fights with people? I didn't pick fights. I would just say, I don't think I can, I don't think I can help you. I don't think there's anything there. did you experience blowback retribution or consequences in any situations of you losing access to projects you wanted to be involved on as a result of some of those conversations no and i attribute that to the people that i was working with who were as equally skilled and schooled and committed to uh the fourth amendment um the first amendment and um following the law right so

So, but again, you know, keep, when, when all of this started, there was a very limited number of people who were, um, aware. So it was like, yeah, we have this tool, you know, you want to have a look at it. But the more, uh, the more, the more, yep, the more it got proliferated, it just sort of became a de facto like, yeah, let's have a look and see what we can see. about a U.S. person. Right. U.S. person. U.S. person. So if we're talking about anything related to someone who is not from this country,

especially when they're outside this country physically as well, in that case, there's no real question. They don't have any constitutional rights. So it's like this is espionage. If we can do it, we do it. 100%. Right. Yep.

Yeah, that makes a ton of sense to me. It gets weird with the American thing because also like, and this is, this, is where there have been so many overstuts by the intelligence agencies and they should be crushed for it. But there are also sometimes where I'm like, I see how they got into that situation. They should not have done that. But like when your job, for example, is to do like counter terrorism and protect, you know, the homeland from something and then someone on the homeland gets involved, it gets really weird. It's like, are you just going to give that to the FBI then to do it? And then does that violate constitutional rights? If you found out that information through

espionage act it gets very very weird there are other examples where it's like they clearly are violating constitutional yeah um you know at every level of it but there's somewhere i see how it gets to a point where the conundrum comes up and it's and it's not necessarily the worst intentions it's just you get cynical when you see stuff like the patriot act yeah and things that are sold to the american people with nice and fancy names that in reality are just signing away all their rights the who's going to vote against the u.s. Patriot Act yeah like save the puppies act really yeah who's against you know saving saving puppies and this is you know so something that sounds good or or seems reasonable at the time again how long have we been debating the Patriot Act

and just the what we talked about in a minute ago we had we have senators who are the biggest cheerleaders for the Patriot Act until that light is shined on them. And now they have the benefit of hauling the fucking FBI director into a hearing to question him on it. Can you do that? Can you hold the FBI accountable? Even if they've, you know, swept up your data, they're not looking at it. You have nothing to worry about. What's your what's your right of challenge? How do you how do you challenge the FBI? violating right even hey there's there's been no harm you know and and that slips into that slips into the the normalization of deviance where hey there's been no

harm so there shall be no harm until until there's harm right and now you know everybody has the right to you know leave their past behind and reinvent and I get all of that, but if there is a portrait of you as a somebody who was, was a dissenter or an opponent of a potentially hostile regime, and your intent is, well, you know, I'll just ride this one out, but they want to, you know, they want to target their, their political opponents. They can roll back that tape. And I think that that's where we don't focus on, you know, this normalization of deviance where just because nothing, we haven't had that massive, you know, people haven't been rounded up and thrown in prison because they voted for one party or the other. Just because we haven't had that, not saying it's going to happen, but, you know, what is the, what's a, what's a, you know, a similar metaphor or similar analogy to, you know, we're not going to hire you because, you know, we've done a, we've done a deep dive on, you know, your, your patterns of life. That is where, that's where I look at all of the surveillance stuff, stuff that I've built and sold. um and it's in in the proper use case i'm all for it but when it's the shortcut to coercion persuasion yes um influence by a commercial entity or the government i'm 100% opposed to

any system that allows that and um you know there's this uh the consumer finance protection board is under the Biden administration they came up or they they are implementing a rule the 1033 rule okay 1033 obligates every financial institution you know how you if you have your bank account you want to you want to integrate like quick books or some other third party you can make that happen right they want to this this rule is would require all financial institutions to make all of that data available to any authorized entity through a standard API application program. Yeah, yeah. So where we have a system now where you've got typical traditional banks and emerging FinTech or other service providers, and there's a little bit of friction in that space to protect your privacy and your data, this rule seeks to make.

make all of that far, far easier. And this is how the surveillance state emerges because something that's promised is convenience, open banking, you know, the counterfactual to open banking is, yeah, it's open banking. Open banking. It's a global movement to make, you know, it's almost like if you want to port your phone number from one carrier to the next. Yeah.

This is, this, this, this rule 1033 is meant to, to make that far easier for the consumer to bolt on additional services, remove from one account to the next. And it's, it's a standard government enforced API that opens the door to far more surveillance because it's easier. And it's convenient. It's convenient. Yes. Citizens don't, we don't, we don't, did you know that you needed an open API for global? banking? Have you been feeling that pain? Because the consumer finance protection bureau is on the case. Yes. And so, you know, I talk about this like surveillance just doesn't pop up one day. It's

iterative. It's slow. It capitalizes on all of these systems are integrated. There are no fire breaks between your bank and potentially Google. Amazon is a big proponent. of this rule 1033. But I'll bet they are. The Retail Federation, the National Association of Convenience Stores, are backing this rule. What's the intent there? And it won't be long before an open API makes it very easy for the Patriot Act to say, we're just going to, there's an open API. It's easy.

We're just going to tap into that. Surveillance just doesn't pop up one day. It's slow, iterative, and sort of built into these obscure administrative rules that, you know, people aren't, people aren't tracking. And the good news, though, is that the Trump administration has filed, has asked court to terminate it. That's good. Yep. Somebody's paying attention. Because that's another problem where you see there are all.

also loophole, legal loopholes that the government will go around to avoid having to put things through Congress or to, in some ways, I don't even know how this is possible, but, you know, you get really smart lawyers on it, you figure it out, like, to usurp the process of having to create laws. I mean, there's famous ones that were in the Patriot Act era related to it, not the Patriot Act itself, where, you know, Dick Cheney and Rich Armit... Dick Armitage, Dick Armitage and all these people were coming up with these ways to have to surveil United States citizens and get these waivers, like from the AG. And there's a famous story, John Ashcroft, I believe, was the, was the Attorney General at the time. Maybe this is like 03-ish, something like that. Fucking guy had maybe his pancreas exploded or something. They had to go get him to sign the waiver. Yeah. So they go to the hospital.

He's like comatose. Dick Cheney's there, a couple lawyers are there, and they go to get the guy to sign the waiver. I think it was for enhanced interrogation. Something, I don't remember what it was, but something to basically have to go around Congress, and it was a continuation for something illegal that they were allowing to happen. Ironically, I guess a broken clock's right twice a day, but the hero was Jim Comey. Jim Comey came in and stopped it from happening. I guess, you know, in that situation, it was righteous and correct, but, you know, it's, yeah, I don't know about him either, but it's, it's very, it's interesting, like, that that's how it went down. But it's scary that people, even if it's people you elect, which, you know, Dick Cheney was elected, he was on the ticket, at least, you know, they can just be like, yeah, you know, I know the legislative branches for creating laws, but we're going to do that today.

The War Powers Act. Yes. Yeah. I mean, you're talking about the administrative state, right? Where you've got, you know, they're not cabinet level aid, like the EPA or the CFPB that I just talked about, where they have the authority to issue rules that their subject entities have to follow. There's no vote. There's no legislative process. They might have, you know, kind of a review process.

and but you know they can they can implement rules that are not that aren't laws but you can't not follow the follow the rules and i think that that and that's you know when when trump was canceling a bunch of these rules i think that that was sort of attacking this administrative state that just can can rule with impunity and fiat And they don't have any, there's no accountability. There's no pushback. And I think this is one of those types of rules where it sounds good. You know, it speaks to, you know, consumer rights and all these things.

But when you peel it back and look at what's it going to be like in 10 years, if there is a, like an open, an API is what, you know, that there, this is just, this creates too much ability. For bad actors, for the government to access, like, you know, the ledger of human behavior, your financial data. So surveillance just doesn't happen over it's, it chips away and seeds itself into the society. So you're, you know, your original question, yeah, a lot of what I exposed was absolutely for, righteousness you know but quickly can become sort of a go-to quick easy let's just have a look we're not going to do anything with it but we don't worry about don't worry about it um and i and i

think uh i think the way our senators reacted to their uh you know to the very systems that they have supported and funded is is very telling for sure yeah and and that's it's what you're pointing to is the worst example ever of of hypocrisy when you know you're you're in an elite position you're trying to feed the plebs something that just take your medicine yeah and then you tell what do you have what do you have what do you have what's why are you so acutely in that's i mean it's it's even hidden at this point i everyone knows i don't know yeah there's been so many whistleblowers on that it's like No, no pun intended.

Yeah. Yeah, he was not in my grinder data set. That I'm willing to discuss. I forgot to ask you if you check the RNC for that, because apparently there's a real hotspot when the RNC happens for grinder data. Wouldn't surprise me. Wouldn't surprise me. So I think this is the kind of thing that normal people, when they hear surveillance,

they need to be educated. They need to know what that means. I think, you know, privacy goes beyond just trying to defeat annoying ads. Even if you're not, you know, you're not necessarily trying to hide anything or keep secrets. Your privacy is like foundational. Yeah. Privacy enables you to think freely. And from a geopolitical perspective, Influencing is all about data and without privacy, it's very easy for adversaries to start doing, you know, a cohort analysis, we're going to influence target this group. We've seen it. This is how it happens. That's what I would do. Did you come across programs or have access to information at any point during any of your work over the years that discussed the ability to. to use technology to spy on people. And specifically what I mean, of course, you came across technology where people are spying. But like, for example, this camera. Yeah, this camera right now on my laptop that's looking at us right now

with the production screen. But there is an open camera right there. And even my phone that's on airplane mode, is there someone on the other end that at any given moment can be looking at me right now? No, they would have to, there would, if they're if they're doing that you have bigger problems than the fact that they've activated your cameras what do you mean by that if they're if they are if they have activated your cameras and attacked your devices then you're already in the crosshairs but for the average person they're not

necessarily doing that but they have the power to yeah they the the capability is there um and it's not necessarily a government limited to a government who can tap into an IP camera or any any of your peripherals meaning the private corporations can do it yeah i i have not come across a situation in which a decision was taken to activate one's camera without you knowing because they don't need to do that yeah you have a in your house, I own, Amazon owns that, I don't need your permission to tap into everything that's going on. I don't have an Alexa, but yeah.

Or any of these other, you know, smart, smart devices. And that's, yeah, I love that I say that is like, a look at me, but then I own like fucking 40 of these other things. Yeah, yeah. And, you know, at the, at the end of the day, like 99.9% of everybody that works in government is trying to do the right thing. Um, there isn't, 99.9.

I mean, I'm most, maybe it's 96. Yeah. Um, but I, I think that it's far easier for a commercial enterprise to offer you something that promises convenience. That is a welcomed, invited, you pay for it. surveillance apparatus now let's paint an example of that this is an apple product right so

if apple you know because they have the power to and i hit agree on a bunch of shit that i didn't read if they were recording us right now we're just talking on a podcast but they decide oh we're going to use a i to like change do you have do you have uh do you have uh syri activated on this i don't have Syria on that. So it'd be interesting, and we can do this if you want to look at your logs to see when that laptop woke up and started firing off data, diagnostic information to Apple, which you've agreed to as part of your upgrade terms of service, and what is the data that it is examining for diagnostic use purposes. And what other data, what other data, what other data, is contained in that. Now streaming on Paramount Plus, it's the epic return of Mayor of Kingstown. Warden? You know who I am.

Starring Academy Award nominee Jeremy Renner. I swear in these walls. Emmy Award winner Edie Falco. You're an ex-con who ran this place for years. And now, now you can't do that. And Bafta Award winner Lenny James. You're about to have a plague of outsiders descend on your town. Let me tell you this.

It's going to be consequences. Mayor of Kingstown, new season now. streaming on Paramount Plus in that flow of information identifiable data about device ownership you've named the device you know the meta fields that would enable them to determine or append an identity to that device even though they they probably have it already because you yeah but um take a take a third take an app um that is going to do the same thing where your device is going to wake up at the middle of the night and start exfilling data under the guise of performance diagnostics, you know, all this stuff. Even if you have your phone in airplane mode, you know, it is still sensing.

And then once you go back online, those files will will be sent. Even on airport, wow. Yep. So let me continue that example to build this out one more layer where it gets weird. Apple, therefore, let's say the data is firing and they're collecting. Yep. And so they get, let's say instead of having to change AI, let's say you and I both talked right now and we said some really horrible stuff for some reason, not what we're talking about right now, but just use your imagination. We say something horrible.

Like if we're Republican bros and talk to you. I don't know. Insert whatever. Have you heard about that? No. Yeah, they were some kids, the Republican. Oh, wait, I did hear about this. Some Republican.

Yes, yes. Who was doing that? Who were they doing that to again? They sent like, where did I just read this the other day? Who did they send that shit to? They were, it was like a group text. Yes, it was a mass blast or something. Yeah.

Like saying a bunch of shit. Yeah. That felt like an op, but whatever. Yeah. So, all right. They needed to, they needed to distract people from the attorney general in Virginia right the candidate for attorney general right so something like that happens they were saying like all just like racist stuff and things like that so if you and i were doing that right now we're

like oh well we can't ever release that but then you know they captured this at apple now they don't do anything with it yeah they have it back there but they capture it just because they can however later on you've backed up chats to iCloud no that not even that but let's play with that in a minute later on someone comes in here that i'm unaware of maybe it's let's use an example like an author or something like that who unbeknownst to me is some sort of wanted person from another country or something like that CIA or NSA gets a hold of that and they realize oh shit they went into this guy julian dory's studio and they know i have an apple device and now for national security purposes they may hack apple for counterterrorism to

try to get in there and now they have you and me saying all this shit as well for in that case they they would subpoena apple for all of your they would just issue a subpoena even the intelligence agencies well uh if it's if it's happening here it would be yeah it would be FBI the intelligence community should not be but it's a foreign person in here that's what I'm saying that's why I use that example if it's an American that's a different story but a foreign person that they've tracked to America out from outside the border that becomes that's that gray area or it becomes their jurisdiction and if it's if it if it if it if it if it's the agency that's tracking that person and he's their guy or somebody that they're interested in

that's the that's where they have to and and he's interfacing with all these Americans this is where they they need they need to immediately bring in FBI and not try to run this but hypothetically they might not do that and hypothetically they could go get access that day because hypothetically that is recording us yeah it's not reassuring because you're making the assumption and there's nothing wrong with this you're playing with the example as you should but you're operating under the assumption that everyone is doing shit by the book and not doing things for what they believe are the right intentions but breaking the laws in the process or exposing the gray area to try to match what they're doing even

if it's not perfect. They're going to be to maintain that firewall between the bureau and something happening in the states that that gets that's pretty high level. Now what were you going to say? What was the other example you were given about the chats or whatever a minute ago? Where I went to I took it in the other direction, but you were like and then they get access to your Apple chats or something? Yeah. I mean, if you you're backing everything up to iCloud yeah you know and that's that's retained you know they issue a warrant for iCloud and whatever is there your calendar chats anything that's backed up to iCloud your pictures photos um you know that would be stipulated in the warrant

um and apple would review it they get they get a lot of them every day uh google gets a lot of those every day. And if it's, if it's correct and their legal team, you know, yep, this is a proper warrant, they comply. Yeah, I had a friend of mine get an email recently, not about him, but related to discovery for some random person who had emailed him once. And I, Google went to him and said, hey, doesn't involve you at all, but just letting you know. Yeah. that you were on the on the discovery because you're one of like a million people this person email and so when we pull when we pull that email we're giving it to fbi but it has nothing to do with you and there's no action fee to take and you're not going to hear from fbii but i was like

that's kind of a spooky email to get you know like fuck yeah that's yeah do you get a criminal defense lawyer when you get that kind of yeah that's what he was saying and then and then he talked to someone and they're like no you're fine but that's an example of like the thing they get every day where some of them they're like yep that makes sense we can end that over yeah so the other one we haven't really talked about we didn't get into it last time made a couple jokes about it was was palanteer they're obviously quite in the crosshairs of a lot of things you got one co-founder given speeches on the antichrist people yeah and then you got another co-founder who has so much tism mixed with i don't know sociopathy that it scares the shit out of it

me when he talks the carp guy and you have a company that essentially was invested in by coin what is it coin tell pro or incutel sorry yeah incutel which is like the CIA's VC branch and they utilize drones and surveillance and AI on top of those things to you know assist in war zones and it seems to be dragging even beyond that at this point to the point that we are now certainly questioning some of the constitutionality of the tactics that they use. So first question, like, have you had any overlap in anything you've done where Palantir is involved? Sure. So I think, you know, there's collection where you're collecting data, whether it's, you know, through drones or intercepts. And that data goes into a government server and Palantir basically sits on top of that and is the dashboard, the front end to that data.

I am not aware of Palantir doing collection. But they are, you know, their AI product is, you know, a product that requires training and that gets into. to the question of, you know, human in the loop and what is it deciding to do? And, you know, is it, is the AI launching drone strikes? And I don't, there's, I don't know of any situation in which AI went haywire and launched a strike without a human pushing the button. It may do optimal target selection. Optimal target selection, meaning like, here's five different options. this is the best one based on the data?

Yeah, yeah. Okay. You know, this is, and when I say optimal target selection, it's not, you know, let's pick the guy we want to engage, it's, you know, this is the optimal conditions by which we can engage because it's open area. We have access, you know, it has, it's optimized for maximum effects. Do you worry about the reach that they have? So I think we talked about this last time.

And I know a lot of people shit on them. And I've never worked for them and I don't own stock. But they arrived and became a force because they didn't come up with fancy sales presentations. They solved the commander's problem like in a day or two. The commander's problem was, I have all of this data that we're collecting, ISR data, cell phone data. I have all this data, but I have to go to 10 different systems in order to see what is happening in my theater of operations. Palantir solved that by integrating all of those various data sets into a language that could then be rendered. in this common operating picture, this dashboard visualization of all of the data that a commander

could look and see, I've got this going on, I've got that going on, I have this common place to understand all of these data sets and it's a, you know, a data fusion capability. And they solved that. They solved that where, you know, nobody else was solving that. And they solved it very, and they solved it very elegantly with engineers interfacing with the customer first as opposed to, you know, a salesperson giving a fancy presentation, promising that we could do all this. They were like, yeah, we can do this. That part doesn't surprise me because it's birthed by people who came from the venture capital and tech world and Silicon Valley.

They totally disrupted, you know, and that's why one day there wasn't Palantir. Yes. And the next day, it's like program of record, program of record, program of record. But when you have a company that is effectively literally financially tied to the government, one of the people running it is a dude who funds a lot of campaigns and is highly politically active in Peter Thiel. And they have the power that they do and then even start openly discussing it in relation to like flying it over. protests and inside the United States to collect data. You know, and by the way, I'm not even defending people that go to those types of

things, but they are, the ones that are not violent are practicing their First Amendment rights. Like, it gets really weird when a tool like that that's supposed to be used to solve commanders' issues on the battlefield around the world, which would make sense, is now being used to you. A node for ISR. And, yeah. I, you know, I wonder about the.

that if there's if that's because they are they're not newly publicly traded but you know whether that's part of their you know they're publicly traded companies so you know they need to they need to they need to they need to move that needle every day um but if if if law enforcement makes the decision that we're going to fly drones over a protest um and the the the way in which which we're viewing that data is through Palantir. It's not, Palantir isn't the privacy issue or the violation of your, of your, of your, of your rights. It's the decision to surveil this protest. Yes.

That's, um, I see what you're saying. And everything, you know, around surveillance, like there are the tools to do it and there will be vendors who will enable that. It's the decision to, to implement these solutions, these, these technologies. And I'm sure when you have a protest and there are going to be 50,000 people, yeah, you're going to want to have some some overwatch. You're going to want to have some airborne ISR keeping an eye on things because you don't have enough cops to put out there. But what is with the line on what it keeps access on? But if by virtue, if you are guilty by being at that protest and let's say, for example, you does. decide to attend a protest that might involve trying to stop the steal of an election.

And he didn't violate any laws, but you were on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. Law enforcement has been very aggressive in identifying. everybody who most were peaceful we had a handful of knuckleheads who you know sort of trespassed yes if that if you you know I don't even know if those charges stuck because the capital I know what you're saying yeah but uh you're talking about everyone else is special everybody else the family that was visiting Washington that happened to be in proximity to the capital during that event um Who didn't go to the event, but their bank, you know, their credit card purchases were examined to determine whether there's proof of presence that they were there and do we need to investigate? That I think you start getting into that gray area of just because you were at a protest and you should have the right to protest. But the minute you start burning shit and destroying property, then you've crossed a line. sure um but by virtue of being at that protest should not be used against you for future in the future or should not you should not be you should not be concerned that the government is

using your right you know invoking your constitutional right that they're going to that they're going to use it against you because they can but i think people have now seen the precedents where on on certain scales, they do. So when they hear about an even more powerful outfit like Palantir, they righteously go, this is what maybe 1984 looks like. You can see where people are getting that from, right? Absolutely. Absolutely. What was that Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report? Yes. Where, you know, people are getting hauled away because of what they are likely to do based upon the predictive algorithm that says well you you know you've invoked these behaviors you're of this certain character so we're just going to take you off the street before you even do it

you know predictive policing has been you know a term that's been around for years and that's designed to you know place officers in high high crime areas but i don't think we should put anything we shouldn't take any of this surveillance for granted that somebody isn't going to look at this and say well i could use it for this because it's in the public public interest i'm preventing crime right um i think that's where i think that's where privacy is beyond you know a terms of service guarantee it's we have privacy for a reason founders didn't describe it as privacy, but, you know, there was a reason why they, they wrote the Fourth Amendment into the, into the Constitution. That's right.

Where does that line stop? And the more our systems are all integrated for, you know, frictionless commerce, that becomes a gray area for authorities because it's like I can access this. It's open. It's an open banking portal. We don't have those friction points. to make it harder for us to be secure in our in our papers but good luck trying to put that back in the bottle that's that's the thing and that's where you know i'm an optimist yep i've there's certain things i'm cynical on because it's like ah you know but when i look at the long term i look at the data ironically and i'm like you know we are living in the best time in human history

There's some things that got to change. There's some poor trends we have right now. But I think when you look at all the times when things are going really shit wrong from a geopolitical, economic, sociological, and cultural standpoint, especially in the history, our short history of our country in America, like we've always found a way. And I think we can find a way. But when I see people concerned, and I see people concerned about this all the time,

about some life-imitating art aspects of society that look a little, say, 1984-ish and Brave New World-ish. It's impossible for me to shut it down and completely and say, no, no, no, like, there's none of that. There are some things that point towards that. What I would like to believe is that there are enough great, benevolent people who are maybe of a more elite status, more power and more wealth.

Who will say no. Who will say no. Yeah. In addition to the people who aren't so good. You know what I mean? Like the people who are good can kind of cancel that out. Right. You know?

And so who knows? Maybe the guys that run Palantir will all turn out to be wrong about them and they'll actually have the right intentions. I'm rooting for that outcome. It just doesn't, when you listen to them talk, I mean, as much as Teal scares me with some things, that carp guy scares the shit out of me. I mean, he is a strange bird, really strange bird. It's like, I hope it's just that he's strange. And, you know, there's a governor on these mechanisms. But there's no doubt that the mechanisms that they're starting to form and come up with have immense power now and can grow into exponential forms of power beyond that.

Yeah. And that's, they may have the capability, you know, foundry is their, um, uh is their AI engine and maybe they have the ability to do predictive things that are a violation of a constitutional right somebody in government needs to say i'm not buying that you know i'm not going to fund that yes um but you know predictive you know in an overseas capacity okay and then you see how it sort of becomes it blends into a monolithic government capability, you know, and keep in mind, you know, like I was saying before, surveillance sort of chips away. It doesn't just show up. Yes. And so surveillance, it's almost like nefarious. It's almost like, you know, evil. It speaks to you in ways that or seductive and doesn't feel like it's wrong or feels good. It feels, you know, open-minded and progressive and all these things.

But the third order of effects, when things are frictionless, that's when the Orwellian state of society becomes like, no, it's just the way it is. I don't have to pay for my train ticket because the transit authority recognized my face and knows that I have a certain amount of money on my account. Convenience. Convenience. Isn't this cool? Aren't we a progressive advanced society?

Okay. So your proof of presence, every time you have to use an app to buy a $2 cup of coffee, well, that's proof of presence that your credit card company now knows that you we're at this coffee shop or this restaurant to buy a two dollar cup of coffee your proof of presence is now irrefutable yeah is that supposed to be we're supposed to embrace that as luxury i don't know i don't know i think i think a little bit of friction in the system is what keeps us autonomous from the big state. But the privacy is, I don't view it being where I've, coming from where I've come from and seen, you know, privacy to me is like, okay, this isn't just a consumer feature

that I'm going to depend on Google or Apple to provide for me. Right. It's like Americans need to view, to value their privacy because private is, you know, is a more dignified way to live. Yes. So, I don't think that there's, I don't think that there's anybody in government gangster enough to, like, push the button to make the deistopian state activated tomorrow. But it, but the technologies are there. That's what I'm saying.

I don't think it's a one person kind of deal. I think it's a, I think it's a road to hell of group think and conformity. It's like we talk about the deep state. So these things metastasized throughout government, not because there's some committee that makes that decision. It's like starts here, kind of moves over here, gets wind over here. Next thing you know, you've got a cabal, a cartel. Yep. And nobody knows quite what the central authority, there is no centralization.

It's just, it just, it's like cancer. And it spreads. And that's, and that is a function of all of these consumer capabilities that make life easier. We haven't even like, talk about sort of adversarial machine learning and training data as a way of influencing a society where it's not, you're not hacking chat GPT. you are creating data that ChatGPT trains off of. Yes. That fulfills a narrative that you seek. Seen that already?

China's answer to ChatGPT has been trained to give glowing feedback on China. China is exporting that technology no differently than they try to export. Huawei. They cede it into emerging, developing economies. Yep. And next thing, you know, they have created a society that is all in on the China narrative because that's how they've engaged with technology. You hack the library, you control the readers. So when the large language model is dirty, it doesn't, you know, the AI is just,

the AI is a rule engine it's just responding but if it's if it's if it's been schooled and learned you know we talk about you know my learning is you know i come from a perspective its perspective is that large language model um that is one of those easy buttons for influence i'm going to you know we're going to do this belt and road deal and i'm going to throw in deep seek yeah and all of that data all of the you know the the prompts and this is the other thing you know people are concerned that their privacy is being violated because of the um the engagement it's the prompts like you're you will in chat gpt you know your your privacy in terms of what you're chatting about is locked down but the questions

you ask and the interactions, that is proprietary. And that's the metadata that, you know, this is what you were asking about. So that almost provides this meta layer of, you think Google knows what you're interested in. You know, what they did with their model. Even, but even more. Of course. Because now, like, they saw that you're interested in purchasing a car. Yep.

They can see that transaction through. It's almost like you go to a car dealer and, you know, the car salesman wants to be your friend and is like trying to cozy up to you. And you don't want it. You're just like, no, I, you don't care about my family. Let's just, you know, let's just put it on the table. But you've been having this interaction with an LLM or a GPT in which it knows you're looking for a car. It knows whether you liked the car because now you're chatting with it about, you know,

how do I get out of this lease or how do I unwind this or what are the aftermarket, you know, what's the aftermarket for this? So now it knows how you feel about the car. But it's like your friend. So you're revealing things that you wouldn't talk to the salesman about why you want to buy this car, but the GPT knows. It gets weird. It gets weird.

What drives you to do what you do? Um, so this thing that everybody is, is very interested in is kind of like, it's like a lagging indicator. I did that. I did that, you know, what's next or am I, am I one trick pony? Mm. So. You love what you do? Um, I think that I have crafted what I do in a way that allows me to pick and choose what I want to do.

Mm. Um, I don't walk. into an office and like what's on what's what's what's on the queue for today i get to say no to what i want to say no to um and i think that that's i think that that's sort of the the career of the future because AI is going to automate a lot of these white collar jobs so until you can find a lane in which there is a very special skill set in which you are uniquely qualified to fulfill and figuring what that out, figuring what that is out early. I think that's, I think that's the, what, what people need to think about in terms of, what do I do?

What am I going to do with myself? What, where do I find meaning? You're not going to find meaning, meaning in a job, job, pays the bills, it's paycheck. Leave it at that. But this was, this was an evolution. like i took a lot of shit too yeah where can your skills make a difference yeah and and where to where is this going to take me in a direction where i'm just going to get frustrated um so i think it's uh i think that um tech is interesting um but i think we need to look at it from uh we need to be able to

question what is its value um and be able to have those conversations um without having to apologize for it i like that you know um we're entitled to privacy we need to get serious about it well i think you explaining how it works a little better certainly helps people so i'm glad we could do this again and fill in on some of the things we didn't get to last time an episode 243 but thanks for coming back so soon my my pleasure i hope the 1033 discussion and didn't i'm like wow people that's good that's a real show sticker right there the 1033 talking about a oh right yeah yeah like okay i'm gonna listen to something else no i i think uh that i wasn't aware of that but that's one of those like nobody knows about it and it's boring but that's how it

starts i don't think it's boring i think people are like what is that yeah what the fuck yeah so i appreciate you sharing stuff like that we'll do it again sometime right sir all right everybody else you know what it is give it a thought get back to me peace thank you guys for watching the episode if you haven't already please hit that subscribe button and smash that like button on the video they're both a huge huge help and if you would like to follow me on instagram and x those links are in my description below