Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The Current Transcript for December 5, 2018

Host: Michelle Shephard

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Chau writes that a tribesmen shot at him with an arrow piercing his waterproof bible. "You guys might think I'm crazy in all this", he wrote in his last message to family, "but I think it's worthwhile to declare Jesus to these people".

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Some people do think John Allen Chau was crazy. Others are calling him a martyr. The 26 year old missionary was killed last month when he tried to preach to one of the world's most isolated tribes. And his death has sparked a fierce debate about preaching to the unconverted. That story is up first. Also:

SOUNDCLIP

On behalf of every single of the 15 million children in Yemen there is only one message for those who are gathering today in Sweden, that is the message of peace.

MS: Peace has been elusive in Yemen for years now and the toll of the war on the country's population is staggering. In half an hour, we talk about this week's negotiations in Sweden. Who's at the table who isn't. And what is the cost if these talks fail. And then:.

SOUNDCLIP

To enter into our smart home, we have our Bluetooth pin genie smart law here.

MS: I hate to tell you this but your home may be smarter than you think. That's what Canada's new Cyber Security Center is warning us. From baby monitors to refrigerators just what devices are watching and listening? And do we care? Or does convenience trumps security? Listen to us in an hour and I'll tell you who's listening to you. I'm Michelle Shephard and this is the Friday edition of The Current.

Back To Top »

A martyr, or misguided? Death of missionary sparks debate over evangelical work

Guest: Mathew Staver, Corey Pigg

[clip] 1391550531799[/clip]

SOUNDCLIP

In John 14:15, Jesus tells us, "If you love me, you will obey what I command". And one of the commands that he gave us was in hew 28--19 through 20, when he says, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptize them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit".

MS: Go and make disciples of all nations. Those were words that John Allen Chau lived and died by. The 26 year old American missionary was killed last month after he ventured onto a remote island in the Indian Ocean. North Sentinel Island is home to an isolated indigenous tribe, and travel there is forbidden by the Indian government because the tribe rejects contact with the outside world and often reacts with violence. That's what happened to Mr. Chau when he and his message were met with a hail of arrows. John Allen Chau is one of an estimated 440,000 Christian missionaries working in the world today. And that old tape of him reading the Bible when he was in college helps explain why missionary work is considered so important by Christians. But his death has led to a rift in the evangelical community. Some see him as a martyr and an inspiration but to others his trip to North Sentinel Island seems misguided, to say the least. Staver is a lawyer and the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. That's an international non-profit dedicated to advancing religious freedom. We've reached him in Orlando Florida. Hi Mat.

MATHEW STAVER: Good morning. Good to be with you.

MS: Thanks for joining us. I understand you knew John Allen Chau. What did you think when you first heard about his death?

MATHEW STAVER: Well I was stunned when I heard about it. I got word from his mother who called me just a day after she found out about it and she wanted to let me know. I met John Chau in August of 2015, as part of the organization that I founded called Covenant Journey which takes Christian college age students with demonstrated leadership potential to Israel, and this whole purpose is to strengthen the Christian faith, to connect them with the roots of their faith in Israel. And John was certainly one of the many leaders on the trip. We have about 45 to 50 every time we go and take many trips a year, and he is one of those college age students who was a leader not in the future but he was a current leader in every community. He was a wonderful individual. He loved life. He was very congenial. He was very enthusiastic. People loved to talk to him and he loved Jesus and he was very athletic and he ultimately had a plan to go into the medical field. I think he ultimately wanted to go into the medical missions.

MS: How are people in the evangelical community viewing his death now? I understand that it's caused quite a rift.

MATHEW STAVER: In the evangelical committee, there's basically three different kinds of responses. There's some kind of response from the pro-indigenous 'Leave the Group Alone' people and also people who just really are contrary hate Christianity and Jesus and they express that. And it's very vile, and that is very hateful, and we've had to delete many posts that have been gleeful over his death. And then within the Christian community there's two different kinds of reactions. The majority of the people in the Christian community believe he is a martyr. There are some people in the Christian community though that raise questions about whether or not he was prepared enough. Should he have gone with additional people? But part of that I think is they don't know the facts. And in fact John Chau prepared for this for ten years ever since high school. He had a real desire to go to the North Sentinel Island and the reason he did is because it was the last reached people group if you will on the planet. It was the most isolated, still is the most isolated group of people in the world and he wanted to go there to share Jesus with them. And he prepared in terms of his abilities. He went on mission trips to South Africa twice, to India, by the time we met him in 2015. He went to India again in 2016. He then prepared extensively with All Nations Mission Organization in 2017. He became an EMT. He was experienced in outdoors. He was a guide that did overnight and camping hikes in the Pacific Northwest and very inclement areas of the country. So he had prepared for this moment and I think you know he was not someone who had just haphazardly wanted to journey to this island. He knew the consequences. He knew the risk. But his desire to ultimately and his love for Jesus. To share Jesus with the people on Northern Island was his motivating driving factor for at least a decade of his life.

MS: And what was he hoping to achieve if he had stayed there and spoken with them?

MATHEW STAVER: He wanted to become friends with the North Sentinelese people there. He wanted to befriend them and he just wanted to share with them the love of Jesus that he has experienced himself. He had no other motive. He had gone through a lot of inoculations. He had gone in isolation to be away from individuals. So he was very sensitive to that in terms of bringing sickness or illness on the island. And so what he did was he ended up contacting six fishermen. He paid them to take him from Port Blair near the island and there he departed from the boat on a kayak and he went there and we have his journal that he penned from November 14, 15 and 16 the last day that we have anything from him. And it's on that day that he penned a letter to his mom and dad and to his brother and sister. It's a very close knit family and it's a very moving letter. It's in the last words we have from John Chau.

MS: What was his ultimate goal in going there? Was he hoping to convert them to Christianity?

MATHEW STAVER: That was his ultimate goal. He wanted to-- and he's never been someone who's been pushy with his religion. He just wants to share Jesus and he wants to give someone the opportunity to know Jesus as he knows Jesus. He's not going to push people. He's been someone who has worked with a lot of young people. He taught soccer to young boys all around the world. And just by being an example to them, share with them the hope that he has in Jesus Christ and the changed life that he has experienced. And that's really what he wanted to do. He was someone who was very passionate about his relationship with Jesus and he wanted to share it with them and he meant no harm to them. Obviously he had their best interest in mind in every respect, and he wanted to take the gospel there, because, the reason why he chose this island is again this island has been really isolated from population and part of that is the Indian government. And part of it is people, those that are on the Indigenous side of things where you want to leave them alone. And the Indian government part of it is we just don't know anything about this tribe. We don't know what their desires are. We don't know what their life expectancy is. We don't know what their nutrition is like. We don't know anything about this tribe. And it's been very very infrequent contact over the years. And we don't know whether the people that killed John represent the rest of the people on the island. John could not find any elderly people there. He wondered where they were. We don't know if they're in another place. We don't know if they're alive we don't know if their life expectancy has a very short time.

MS: We just have a few seconds left here but what do you think about those who say he should have just left those people alone? And we say that we don't know much about them, but even after tsunamis and earthquakes they've resisted accepting medicine and food in these dire times. What makes you think in this time of peace that they wanted his preachings?

MATHEW STAVER: You know that's the same thing that happened in India when a missionary Carey went there. People wanted to be left alone. And yet he went there to share Jesus with them. And back then women, wives of men who died, were burned alive on open pyres. And the gospel of Jesus Christ ultimately brought to an end. So we can say that for any group of people. But I think at least we need to give them an opportunity to make that choice, rather than us making the choice for them.

MS: And lastly he was 26 when he died. He's been preparing this for ten years you said. Is there any responsibility for putting young people into this position, those who say this is putting them in danger?

MATHEW STAVER: Well no one was putting him in danger. That was John Chau. He was an adult. He very well knew what he was doing. He knew the dangers of it. In fact even in his journal he knew that he could be killed. Obviously on the day before he was killed, he was shot in the arrow penetrated the Bible and saved his life. So he knew and he actually pinned in his journal. In fact he even told his parents if I die and if they kill me don't be mad at God and don't be mad at them. Just live your life and your relationship with Jesus Christ. So he knew the dangers and it was John Chau's choice.

MS: We'll have to leave it there. Thanks for joining me today Matt.

MATHEW STAVER: Thank you.

MS: Staver is a lawyer and the founder and chairman of Liberty Council an international nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom. Staver is in Orlando, Florida. Not everybody in the evangelical community agrees with our first guest. For his thoughts on missionary work I'm joined now by Corey Pigg. He's a former youth missionary himself and now hosts a podcast called Failed Missionary. We've reached him in Sanibel, Florida. Hi Corey.

COREY PIGG: Hi. Good morning thanks for having me.

MS: Thanks for coming on. What have you been thinking about in the days since his death?

COREY PIGG: You know it's really unfortunate. I first want to say like anything that I can contribute to, I want to try to remove him from the equation of the topic that we're talking about. Because I think that the death is very unfortunate but it opens up a conversation that we've been trying to have for a long time and now and it's been quiet and silenced and now is the time that we can actually step back and examine the practical side of this, and why this happened and examine why this needs to go forward, or examine why we do this going forward. So yes I've been thinking like now is the time that we can have these conversations and talk about the hard things behind it.

MS: Well and you heard our first guest call him a martyr. What do you think of this concept and using this term for missionary work?

COREY PIGG: Yes. To me it's really sad. I think of like a 26 year old. When I was 26 years old, I didn't fully know what I was doing on the mission field. Like I thought I did because I thought I knew what I was doing when I went on the mission field at like 21 and when I was in rural China. And you know I'm 30 today. And so when I look back and think about when I was 21, like I had no idea what I was doing then. And I had no idea about the dangerous places I was allowing myself to go or the things that I was allowing myself to do. And you know I think when I was at that age I wanted to do things that I was programmed to think were noble and my family tried talking me out of it several times. I sadly didn't listen to that. But you know I think he probably had really great intentions. I mean I had really good intentions and at that age if somebody were to tell me that my intentions were selfish or bad I would have reacted poorly.

MS: Well as you said you wanted to get involved because you believed it was noble and your family was against it. You mentioned that you went to dangerous countries. Tell me a little bit about your experience and what happened.

COREY PIGG: Yeah well I mean so I was based in Germany and like we predominated outraged with the 10-40 Window and this is a region of the world where it's unreached. It's while it's termed as being unreached by Christianity.

MS: Can you just explain that term for people, 10-40? What is it?

COREY PIGG: Yes. It's a region of northern Africa, Middle East, Southeast Asia where they would say like the population is not so Christian. I mean this is a fly over definition of it. So they want to go there to spread the gospel to try to convert this region of the world. And there's also there's poverty there in some places. So you know poverty is an element of that as well. So that you can swing it from that perspective. But we are programmed to think that going to these countries was noble. So like we were always shunned and away from the idea of going to Iceland or to go to France. And you know it's like go to China, go to go to Russia, go to Turkey, go to Lebanon where it's war torn. Go to these places. Go to northern Africa where there's a refugee crisis or you know, that kind of thing. So I honestly, me and my team, we would go to these places because we thought it was noble because we thought that that was more of a need than going to our own neighbor hoods or our neighboring countries you know.

MS: Well tell me a little bit about what training is like. Because I know that you use the word programmed. I listen to your podcast cast and other interviews you've given. I'm struck by how many military life terms you use to describe the training as well.

COREY PIGG: Well I want the programming aspect of it as like you know in Western Christianity we are so fixed on like the word discipleship. Like you know the Bible verse like "go make disciples of all men". Well what does disciple mean? And then you go to these trainings and it's really pseudo based therapy. Like how can we make your personality what we think the Bible says it should be. And so that the first week could be like the father heart of God. And they want to talk to you about God being this father and then giving you everything, according to his will. And they train utter ultimate dependence on this father god. And that's not inherently bad but where it goes sideways is when you're depending on Father God to take you to dangerous countries, to impose on other people's property, to give them something that you think that they have no access to. When reality what you're trying to give them as a westernized concept of an ancient tradition. And so that's where I find a lot of flaw and it is that a lot of the time the message that we're taking to these people around the world is not an ancient message. It's a recent message of the American gospel and it's just not fair.

MS: How did you eventually get out?

COREY PIGG: Well I so my case was a little extreme and I would admit that. I mean a lot of people don't share my extreme-- But if you look at the situation with John. His was also extreme you know. So I was in a lot of traumatic situations. My leaders had a lot of malpractice in their oversight and I'm not trying to play the blame game or ship that but I was put in a lot of logistical binds within China. I was leading a team in China and there were so much chaos going on and upheaval. And we were trying our best to just survive every single day because we were pretty much put against a wall as far as like not planning properly or not being trained how to plan properly.

MS: Like in terms of were being targeted by the government or what?

COREY PIGG: Well yes I mean that was one thing. Like I had to make a plea agreement with the Chinese government that I would not proselytize with faith. I had all of my students sign that. And there were a couple times when the Chinese police would show up at the apartment to see if I was home late at night. I mean weird hours of the night too. I would say with the Chinese family. And I always called her my Chinese mom. It was a joke but she would come and say, hey the police are here. And I would have to come. I'm here. I'm in my room. I'm not doing anything.

MS: And what was it like once you did leave? Did you have to go through a counseling period? Or was it like the light went off and you were you were done with it?

COREY PIGG: No it wasn't really. It was not a beautiful exit. I left. And truth be told like I didn't even feel safe telling my leaders that I was leaving at the time, because I had tried getting out five times and I have it on e-mail, like documentation. Like because I wanted to go home. I had a lot of stuff going on at home as well. And they would always say like you're families of the world. They don't get it. And if you go home you're going to waste your life's potential and only we know how to steward this calling that God has given you. But after the stint in China when things went crazy I went home and I actually had to go through about three and a half years of cold trauma therapy. And again I want to preface at this point but I don't think all missions work is cultish or I think again my case was very extreme. And I don't think that's applicable across the board. But in evangelical Christianity in America I do think there is a link to needing to deprogram from some of these ideologies that we've created. And so it was a three and a half year process of learning to trust myself, my own agency, my own ability to think and realizing like my family-- was actually very loving and caring the whole time. Whereas before for seven years almost by different groups I was trained to think that they were not in their right mind because they didn't believe the gospel that I had been taught.

MS: But they welcomed you back in once you left.

COREY PIGG: Oh yes. I'm with them right now on vacation.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Right. All right well we really appreciate you speaking to us on your vacation.

COREY PIGG: Thanks you.

MS: Thanks for coming on today.

COREY PIGG: Thank you.

MS: Corey Pigg is a former youth missionary and host of the podcast Failed Missionary. He's in Sanibel, Florida. And the CBC News is next. Then how the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi may have created an opportunity for a peace deal in the brutal war in Yemen. And we asked whether a deal is about to be struck. I'm Michelle Shepherd and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current. [Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

'Fighting is easier than peace': Ending war in Yemen will require global effort, says expert

Guest: Stephen Anderson, Radhya Almutawakel, Gregory Johnsen

MS: Hi I'm Michelle Shephard and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme].

Still to come our homes are getting smarter every year. More of our appliances are connected to the Internet and we're welcoming new voice controlled speakers into our homes. But a new report from Canada's Cyber Security Agency is warning us of something, which we probably already knew: The more connected our homes get the more susceptible they become to cybercrime. More on that in 30 minutes. But first calls to seize the day and the opportunity for peace in Yemen.

[Music: Theme]

MS: There is a ray of hope amid the deepening crisis in Yemen. For only the second time, since civil war broke out in the country in 2015, the warring parties are meeting for peace talks. But just as meetings commence observers are laying bare the devastating toll of the conflict beyond the bombs and bullets.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Noise]

MS: That toll is obvious in this Yamane hospital crowded with malnourished children on the verge of starvation. Children such as 8 year old Saleem, whose mother spoke with the BBC.

SOUNDCLIP

I never imagined I would ever see a child like this in Yemen. This boy is starving. It scares me that it may be the beginning of a famine.

MS: It looks as though her worst fears are being realized. For months we've been seeing images of emaciated children, civil war and starving families in Yemen., a picture of a country on the brink of famine. Now the United Nations is putting some numbers to the problem. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification is a global scale for measuring food insecurity and its new report says that a quarter of a million people are living in famine like conditions, and over 60 percent of the population is living in emergency or crisis levels of food insecurity. And to date, 85,000 children have already died of starvation in Yemen. My next guest has seen firsthand what it's like on the ground in Yemen. Stephen Anderson is The World Food Program's Yemen Country Director and we've reached him in Amman, Jordan. Hi Stephen.

STEPHEN ANDERSON: Hi Michelle.

MS: The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification report that I just mentioned which was released yesterday says that people in parts of Yemen are facing famine like conditions. Can you explain to me what that means?

STEPHEN ANDERSON: Well what this means is that this is probably the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Now we've had a situation where more than three and a half years of conflict in Yemen has devastated the economy. It's devastated people's ability to get income. Most of the civil servants have not received their salaries, in the last two years, more than two years. And year on year, we have seen that the number of people facing hunger and actually requiring assistance has been increasing. And of course unfortunately the first people on the face the worst consequences are the children as you mentioned earlier in the program. And this is what we're seeing across Yemen. World Food Program has been, particularly in the last two years, has urgently scaled up its assistance to try to address this situation. And we've been trying to help between six and seven and now up to eight million people every month and providing food assistance, also providing nutrition assistance to women malnourished children and. And this is actually only been possible with support from donors including Canada. I think we've received about 28.5 And million Canadian dollars in the last two years. But the issue is that the scale of the problem has been getting worse and actually over the last six weeks or two months we've been seeing worsening indicators and the Yemeni rial, the currency, has depreciated significantly. And because 90 percent of the food that comes into Yemen is imported and this depends on foreign exchange. And so when the rial gets weaker significantly this is translating into soaring food prices.

MS: I want to go back to that issue in a moment because there is the issue that this isn't necessarily a food shortage. It's about getting the food to the people and people being able to afford it. But before we go there this must be, I can imagine, frustrating for you, as someone who's on the ground, trying to really give a sense of the scope of what's happening there. What are some of the images or what's a story that has really stuck with you? Because I know we are very hands on and you're in the country often.

STEPHEN ANDERSON: Well that's right. I'm actually based in the country I'm going back in tomorrow and we have 500 staff across the country as World Food Program. And I often go to the field. I mean I was just a couple of weeks ago in the city of Hodeida which is a critical port city on the Red Sea and that city has been affected since June by conflict. Speaking with people there on the ground there, there is a sense of desperation that creeps in because they have fled, many of them have fled from their homes and those who actually have more resources they fled. They've gone to the capital and other parts of the country but the people who've remained in Hodeida are the poorest. And you know many of them were fishermen and because of the conflict they've lost their ability to go out and fish. And the conflict has actually come into the city. It's kind of been circling the city. You don't see many shops open. And people are trying to keep carry on their lives. But there is fear and of course people are afraid not only for themselves but really for their children. And Yemeni people are very warm, very modest, very decent people. And somehow the fact that they are struggling and finding it extremely difficult to cope in this environment and not knowing what the next few weeks may mean for them, it's very tough for me. I mean I've spent 29 years working in the World Food Program, but this is the most horrific conditions I've ever encountered.

MS: And just briefly before we go I know this isn't a brief question but we mentioned we mentioned earlier that the food was actually available. This is not a natural disaster, this famine. Can you just briefly explain why it is manmade?

STEPHEN ANDERSON: Well Yemen was poor even before the conflict. It was the poorest country in the Middle East. But really the people, as I mentioned earlier, 90 percent of the food is actually imported. The private sector functions quite well under normal conditions and even in the conflict and they are able to bring in food. But this depends on on the issues of the port situation, making sure that actually the ports are functioning and one of the ports is the key critical port of Hodeida is threatened by conflict. Another port another critical port, Aden in the south, is doing its best. But there's a fair amount of congestion there. And at the same time the people of Yemen have increasingly lost their purchasing power. And so the salaries, the livelihood opportunities that used to be there are less. The pensions have not been paid. And the remittances from Yemenis living abroad have also substantially decreased. So people's ability to cope as has slid down. And so effectively, even if there is food in the market - and the markets are actually shrinking - what we're seeing is that people are struggling to cope in this situation. And it's really the children who face the brunt of this.

MS: Stephen, we're going to have to leave it there. Thanks so much for joining us today.

STEPHEN ANDERSON: Thank you Michelle for your interest in Yemen.

MS: Steven Anderson is The World Food Program's Yemen Country Director. He was in Amman, Jordan. These new warnings about the risk of starvation in Yemen come as the two main parties in the war are meeting for peace talks at a castle in Sweden. As the talks began yesterday, UN Special Envoy Martin Griffiths talked about his expectations.

SOUNDCLIP

We're now here. That's an achievement but it's by no means enough. It is an achievement because it's difficult to get parties who are warring to sit down opposite each other as we have just seen them do. They are here but we have ambitions of course beyond that. We have ambitions to discuss with them the outlines of what might constitute an eventual settlement. The outlines of it it's for them to tell us if we're going the right direction or not.

MS: As you can hear the UN's special envoy is talking about a starting point and the end point still seems far off in the distance. And we've been in this position before in 2016, a hundred days of peace talks failed to end the conflict. But many activists say we're at a key moment right now, a window of opportunity for their country. That's partly because of the pressure that's being put on Saudi Arabia which backs the Yemeni government in the conflict. Right now the U.S. Senate is considering a bill that would withdraw U.S. military support for the Saudis. And that's happening in a large part because of the outrage over the Saudi government's role in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. My next guest has been in the United States for the past month, trying to convince American lawmakers to act on this issue. Radhya Almutawakel is one of the cofounders of Montana a Yemeni human rights organization. And we've reached her in New York. Hi Radhya.

RADHYA ELMUTAWAKEL: Hi Michelle.

MS: First I want to ask you what your reaction was to what we've just heard from the World Food Program?

RADHYA ELMUTAWAKEL: Yes I want to start from answering the last question you asked Stephen, regarding what led to this disaster in Yemen. So it is directly the violations by all parties to the conflict. Because as you say it's a manmade disaster. It's a conflict disaster. So because all parties to the conflict in Yemen they just act like they have immunity so there are many preventable violations, many preventable disasters but they don't care to do anything for the favor civilians. That's why it just that such disaster.

MS: Can you tell me a little bit more about the work your organization has been doing in tracking these human rights violations or the situation in Yemen?

RADHYA ELMUTAWAKEL: Mwatana is a team of 70 people and one of the main thing that we are doing is documenting the violations by all parties to the conflict. We are covering 20 governorates in Yemen and we follow an investigative research methodology, and then we issued statements reports and documentary films, beside a lot of legal support we do for those who are detained or so disappeared, and the advocacy work that we are doing trying to do all over the world. So we consider that information like a power and the first step toward any accountability or advocacy to stop the war in Yemen.

MS: I can imagine how difficult that would be on the ground. As a journalist I've reported from Yemen at a time of greater peace than we have now and I know how hard that was. How did the warring parties in the conflict see your work?

RADHYA ELMUTAWAKEL: They hate us and they are very angry from our work. But at the end they know that we are independent and we protect ourselves by being very neutral, independent and professional. But still not easy to be independent. Human Rights NGO in the middle of armed groups and your neighbor is Saudi Arabia. But we succeed to dig our existence in the ground until now, and try to do it like a responsibility at least what we can do with this horrible situation.

MS: Radhya how much hope do you place in the peace talks going on in Sweden right now?

RADHYA ELMUTAWAKEL: I would just say that is a very big chance. It's the most serious chance that happened to stop the war in Yemen since the beginning of the war. Although the situation now in that and the ground is worse, but this is the most important chance. It should be taken seriously, not only from parties to the conflict, but from the international community. We just came to this point because of the pressure from the international community on parties to the conflict. And if the pressure didn't continue, we would just go to zero again. And if we lost this moment, we will never know when it is going to happen again in Yemen. So it is very important but it needs a lot of pressure to continue.

MS: And you've been focusing your work in the United States talking to politicians about that. What impact do you think the Khashoggi killing has had on them and their view of the Yemen conflict?

RADHYA ELMUTAWAKEL: It's a turning point. So since the beginning of the war human rights and humanitarian NGOs they worked a lot to shed light on the situation in Yemen. So they made Yemen ready; like facts, like disaster, like information. But Yemen was ignored until the hostage case happened. So it was a very big chance to shed more light on this disaster in Yemen. And because of the pressure that Saudi Arabia has faced because of the Khashoggi, it just doesn't happen that Yemen has a place on this and it just like a miracle. So this was not even-- it was very difficult to start the conversation, just because there was no any kind of pressure. Then when the international community decided to do a lot of pressure to make this happen, they just made it happen. So peace in Yemen is always possible. It is just ignored. And when the Khashoggi's case opened the window to have a lot of pressure in Yemen, so a very important step happened until now.

MS: It's kind of amazing that it has actually even gone on this long in the way that the media and political cycle works these days. He was killed in October and we're talking about it. Are you worried though that some of this newfound determination in Washington is only temporary?

RADHYA ELMUTAWAKEL: I'm not worried I'm scared. And if it's temporary then what happened in Sweden will be nothing. If it continued then Yemen can be a success story to prove that international mechanisms can stop a conflict and have a positive impact in the grounds. Yemen is a chance for all of us to prove that peaceful tools and international mechanisms can play a real role and people they need to get trust again and these mechanisms. So yes, if the pressure stop, then everything is [unintelligible]. The situation in Yemen is going to be even worse if this didn't happen, because it's very difficult to bring back the conflict again to the table, and to have the same pressure that happened this last months, regarding the war in Yemen.

MS: So you're scared but you are still optimistic.

RADHYA ELMUTAWAKEL: Very optimistic and I think there are some urgent actions that can happen directly like releasing the detainees, solving the problem of salaries and also opening some airports and have a discussion about the framework of peace talks. It's very possible.

MS: Well that's great and those are some of the issues we're going to address now with our next guest. But I want to thank you for joining us today.

RADHYA ELMUTAWAKEL: Thank you Michelle.

MS: Radhya Almutawakel is a co-founder of Mwatana, a Yemeni human rights organization and we reached her in New York. The Yemen peace talks underway in Sweden began with one positive development. Both sides have agreed to swap thousands of prisoners. And the U.N. envoy who's running the talks says he's hoping for more of such confidence building measures. For his thoughts on whether there's a cause for optimism in Yemen, we've reached Gregory Johnsen. He's a former member of the U.N. panel of experts on Yemen and the author of The Last Refuge: Yemen, al-Qaeda and America's War in Arabia. And we reached him in Washington. Hi Greg.

GREGORY D JOHNSEN: Hi.

MS: How significant do you think it is Greg that these two main factions are at the table?

GREGORY D JOHNSEN: As the special envoy said it's important just to get them in the same room. The special envoy tried to do this back in September. The Huthis didn't even leave Sanaa. But one of the things that hasn't been said is that this is a complex battle, a complex war. So the Saudis, the Emiratis they are involved. Iran is involved to some degree. But at the peace talks right now it's only the Huthis and the Yemeni government. So it's not even all the actors who are fighting on the ground in Yemen.

MS: I think I read that on your Twitter feed that that was one of the reasons why you are perhaps not too optimistic, because there's just not all the players at the table

GREGORY D JOHNSEN: Right, You know it's so sad because Yemen - as we've heard from your previous two guests - is in such bad shape. But unfortunately I'm incredibly pessimistic that these, even as lower bars, as the special envoy has said. Just talking about beginning to set a framework. I'm incredibly pessimistic that even if the fighting is to end between the Saudis and Emiratis, the local Yemeni civil war between the Huthis, the Yemeni government, between the various militia groups and criminal gangs on the ground in Yemen is likely to continue for some time to come. I think Yemen has a Humpty Dumpty problem. It's broken and I don't think anybody is going to be able to put the country back together again.

MS: We talked with our previous guest about what's being called sort of the Khashoggi factor. And I want to play a clip from earlier this week, after U.S. senators received a briefing about his killing. The briefing was from the director of the CIA. The comment that we're going to hear is from Senator Lindsey Graham.

SOUNDCLIP

You have to be willfully blind not to come to the conclusion that this was orchestrated and organized by people under the command of, MBS, the crown prince, is a wrecking ball and he is complicit in the murder of Mr. Kashoggi to the highest level possible. If the Saudi government is going to. Be in the hands of this man for a long time to come up, I find it very difficult to be able to do business because I think he's crazy. I think he is dangerous. And he has put the relationship at risk.

MS: So let's remember that that's Lindsey Graham talking. And I know you're pessimistic about what's happening in Sweden. Are you optimistic that U.S. Congress will take decisive action against the Saudi government?

GREGORY D JOHNSEN: I wish I was but unfortunately I'm not. So the U.S. last week passed a resolution which basically calls for the U.S. to withdraw all American troops who are fighting with the Saudi coalition. So the position of both the Obama administration, under which this war started, as was the Trump administration is that U.S. troops aren't actually in combat in Yemen, with regards to the Saudi led coalition in their war against that Huthis. So last week's vote is basically a political statement that will have no real legal weight. It won't do much to actually change anything when it comes to U.S. involvement in the war. The other reason that I'm a little pessimistic is that this Congress is about to end. It's going to come to an end at the end of this year and a new Congress will come in, which means that they'll have to restart this. And as you just mentioned with your previous guest, how long sort of the Khashoggi effect continues to to bear impact on Congress. I think it's stretching it to imagine that this will go on into January and into the new Congress.

MS: And just before we go, Iran of course is the other piece in this the puzzle. And the U.S. and the Saudis accuse them of providing support to the duties. What's their position on these peace talks do you think?

GREGORY D JOHNSEN: Well Iran has been very clear that it wants a seat at peace negotiations. It wants a seat at the table. What the U.S. has basically said is, look Iran is responsible for supplying the Huthis with these ballistic missiles. Iran is supporting the Huthis. But at the same time the U.S. doesn't want Iran in the room when it comes to negotiations on Yemen. So the U.S. has put itself in a very difficult position. They're blaming Iran but they'll not be willing to talk or negotiate with Iran when it comes to settling the problem in Yemen.

MS: And you heard our previous guest Radhya say that she feels there's a small window of opportunity to help at least alleviate the suffering of her people. Is there optimism there?

GREGORY D JOHNSEN: There might be some. So I think the sad truth of the Emilee war is that, right now, from the various sides, fighting is easier than making peace. When you have to make peace you have to make some very difficult compromises. The Saudi leadership, the Huthi leadership, despite this war, they are not paying the price. It's the Yemeni civilians who are paying the price. And the only way that we're going to see peace or at least a cease fire is if there sustained and concentrated international pressure on the Saudis and the Huthis that make fighting more difficult than peace. And we haven't seen that so far, but hopefully that's going to be changing.

MS: Greg we'll leave it there. Thank you so much for joining me this morning.

GREGORY D JOHNSEN: Thanks a lot.

MS: Greg Johnsen is a former member of the UN panel of experts on Yemen and the author of The Last Refuge: Yemen, al-Qaeda and America's War in Arabia. We reached him in Washington. Coming up: What so smart about making our homes more susceptible to cybercrime? The smart home conundrum in our next half hour. I'm Michelle Shephard and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

Back To Top »

'Crazy' to expect consumers to guard against smart device hacks: cybersecurity expert

Guests: Scott Jones, Christopher Parsons

SOUNDCLIP

To enter into our Smart home we have our Bluetooth pin genie Smart Lock here. So my favorite feature about the Smart Lock is that so if you touch it you can see the...

MS: The Future has arrived. Smart locks, lights, blinds, security cameras, ovens, refrigerators, thermostats. If it's electronic, it can probably be controlled by your smartphone. Business is like Home Automation X which is giving this tour have popped up to help homeowners get connected.

SOUNDCLIP

So it's dark in here. Turn on for your light.

Okay.

Awesome. So now I can show you clearly that we have...

MS: But all that convenience comes at a potential cost: our security. Experts are warning about hackers breaking into our internet connected worlds. Hollywood of course has taken that risk and ran with it.

SOUNDCLIP

Hack them all.

[Music]

MS: What you're listening to is sound from the movie Fate of the Furious. The super hacker villain hacked into what appears to be almost every vehicle, empty or occupied, in downtown New York, turning them into an army of zombie cars ready to do her bidding.

SOUNDCLIP

I'd buckle up if I were you.

[Scound: Screeches]

MS: While the real dangers of computer hacking haven't quite hit that level yet,l you still might be surprised and disturbed at what hackers can do. What you're listening to now is a baby monitor. There's not much to hear. The toddler's sleeping, until a hacker breaks into the monitors audio system, fires up an old 90's pop song.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Song]

MS: And sends the terrified child scurrying for his parents.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Baby crying]

MS: The Federal Government's new Canadian Center for Cyber Security yesterday released its National Cyber Threat Assessment for 2018, warning that cyber criminals are now focusing more on Internet controlled devices over traditional computers. Our television colleagues at Marketplace dedicated a segment to this issue earlier this fall. Host Makda Ghebreslassie visited a home owner in southern Ontario. She was able to track him down online because the security cameras outside his home were broadcasting live on the Internet. He had no idea.

SOUNDCLIP

MAKDA GHEBRESLASSIE: Hi.

HOMEOWNER: Hello.

MAKDA GHEBRESLASSIE: How are you?

HOMEOWNER: Good thanks.

MAKDA GHEBRESLASSIE: Are you the homeowner.

HOMEOWNER: I am.

MAKDA GHEBRESLASSIE: My name is Makda. I'm with the CBC. We're kind of here for a strange reason. It has to do with your security cameras. I don't know if you realize this but those cameras are actually broadcasting on the Internet.

HOMEOWNER: Really?

MAKDA GHEBRESLASSIE: Yes. We can show you what's happening right now.

HOMEOWNER: Wow. Okay.

MAKDA GHEBRESLASSIE: You see that right there?

HOMEOWNER: And you could just get that?

MAKDA GHEBRESLASSIE: That's right yes. This is what's going on right now. What do you think about that?

HOMEOWNER: I don't like it at all.

MAKDA GHEBRESLASSIE: You had no idea that this was possible?

HOMEOWNER: No.

MS: Well it turns out that our increasingly connected homes can make all sorts of new digital intrusions possible. For more on the downside to smart homes I'm joined now by Christopher Parsons. He's a research associate with the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto's Munk School for Global Affairs and Public Policy which studies the intersection of Information and Communication Technologies, Human Rights and Global Security. And he's with me in our Toronto studio. Hi Christopher.

CHRISTOPHER PARSONS: Hi. Thanks For having me.

MS: So this new report says cyber criminals and hackers are targeting smart home devices such as their thermostats and security cameras. Who is doing this and why?

CHRISTOPHER PARSONS: So it's a range of different actors. So some of it is simply people who are curious and trying to see what is vulnerable on the internet and searching and intruding upon it. Some of it is criminal actors who are taking control of these devices either to gain entry point into a home or a business and conduct espionage or criminal activity. And there's also nation states who use this both to mask their activities as well as to launch their own activities from those devices.

MS: And of course this all sounds terrifying like an upset a black mirror. What are the real world implications of these kind of attacks? Is it theoretical at this point or is this actually happening?

CHRISTOPHER PARSONS: So some of the things are are more theoretical. So the idea that you know all of the cars in New York are taken over still fortunately remains a theory, although there is some truth to what you can do. But what we are seeing cases where things like CCTV cameras that are connected to the Internet were poorly secured, were captured into a massive botnet, one of the largest that we've seen, couple of years ago. And then all of those security cameras were used to generate fake traffic and send it to a key internet resource a DNS provider. And the result of that was anything it was connecting to that provider was no longer able to operate properly. And so people who had their smart thermostats as an example couldn't increase or decrease the temperature, because they couldn't send commands to their thermostats from wherever they happened to be. So there is some theoretical examples that Hollywood really likes to play up, but there are some very real world ones that now are a couple years old.

MS: And I guess saying that you could see some of the problems that would come out in its national security sense. Can you talk a little bit more about that what the fear is that could happen?

CHRISTOPHER PARSONS: Yes so the center's assessment which I just want to say is really well done. It does a really good job of giving an overview of many of the most concerning threats as experts in the space see. So what they identified was both criminal actors could be involved in it. So they could, it's probably not too likely they're going to take over your security camera to blackmail you - though it's certainly possible, depending on what it's capturing and what their intentions are - but more likely they'll use that to either extract information from you and try and ransom that back to you or to take control of the devices in your home and then generate these large floods of traffic. And then what they're going to do then is go to whomever they're targeting say, hey we can make the hurt stop if you pay us. A national security context gets a little bit more elaborate. So it could be that sort of instance where you just want to cause mayhem and havoc for whatever reasons you want to have that kind of an operation, but it could also potentially be more targeted. So that could be a situation where you're someone of significance or importance to that actor and then they want to gain information about you. When are you home? When do you travel? Do you have a spouse? Do you have kids? How old are they? And that all of them used for other kinds of attacks such that are mentioned in this report, such as something called wailing which is when they target CEOs with phishing attacks. It's a very very highly targeted and specified and the more information you can get both financial and business related to the organization the individual works and is helpful. But also if you can personalize it with; when they were leaving to go to the office, or when they got home, or the kids, or something like that.

MS: So part of the problem is that these smart devices just make our lives way more convenient. And you know I confess I downloaded the parking app and it felt like a game changer to me. How do you convince people that these security concerns should outweigh convenience?

CHRISTOPHER PARSONS: So I think that one of the challenges we have right now is this is not a well regulated space. I think that expecting consumers to do full on security audits is crazy. It's not possible. It will never be done. And even security experts I mean I don't have the time or competency to go through devices and analyze the code. So I think expecting consumers to do that is unreasonable and frankly quite silly. This is an area where government needs to step in. There needs to be some sort of regulation or corresponding punishment where a security violation or security breaches realized and the company doesn't have a system in place to rapidly fix it. So one of the problems we have with smart devices in particular is they flood the market. They're very fast. Security is not considered until well months later if ever quite often. And even when a vulnerability is discovered often these are devices that are rebadged, and so whoever sold it to you didn't actually produce that. They have no way of updating it. And so they don't really have a relationship with the consumer. There's a handful of companies where you see like a subscription model. So it'll cost you X dollars a month or a year, where you have that ongoing revenue relationship with the company and they have the money to pay for security engineers. They have an inclination to update and so forth but sort of one off purchases the security properties tend to be a little bit less robust.

MS: So it's sort of overwhelming for the consumer and companies are interested in bottom-line are probably not going to install these safety measures. So you think the buck stops with the government then.

CHRISTOPHER PARSONS: I think that you know it would be great if industry all got together and sing a good Kumbaya and then we got security. You know if that happens then great. Until that improbable event, I think that this really is an area where the need to be regulation either economic punishments or encouragements. And there's a variety of ways to do this. Experts have been thinking about the economic models that make sense but that's really where I think it has to start.

MS: And the other big cyber security threat that we've been talking about this week in Canada involves Chinese mobile phone manufacturer Huawei and the development of 5G. Are the concerns about spying and espionage being raised about Huawei justified, do you think?

CHRISTOPHER PARSONS: So in my assessment they are. So Huawei makes both mobile phones which you know you can go into a Bell, TELUS or Rogers store and probably pick up. But they also sell the infrastructure and that's probably the greatest fear for most security properties. So with the shift towards 5G that's really what's going to enable the next generation, the true generation of the narrative things. And so you know this is where it sounds sort of sci fi, but it's one of those situations where you know theoretically five 10 years from now like the floorboards could have sensors in them. The walls could have sensors in them. Everything would have a sensor. And the purpose of that will be multivariate. So depending on the manufacturer. So you want to fight your power bill. You know if you know when you're walking you're walking in your home that it can activate the heat in smart ways and so forth. So 5G has a potential to be really transformative. And so when Huawei is coming into the country, as they have for many years, the concern is that they would then - potentially under compulsion from the Chinese government or another foreign actor - be able to modify the telecommunications infrastructure that our contemporary economy would be very dependent upon. And under Chinese law, there is possible provision that they could use to exploit that kind of activity. And we know from Australian reports earlier this year that Huawei had been compelled to disclose a password information, a network information so that activities could be taken against some party. We don't know who did the compulsion we don't know who the target was but we know that at least in the past this is an allegation.

MS: And Australia you mentioned has actually been pretty proactive in in 5G and looking at these threats. What do you think the Canadian government should do in terms of that?

CHRISTOPHER PARSONS: I think the Canadian government is in a really awkward tough space to be frank. So we've had some irregularities with our Southern trading partner and as a result Canada is very aggressively trying to expand and diversify its trading portfolio. One of those parties is of course China. And so there's an economic motivation to encourage Chinese investment and be able to invest into China. And so establishing blocks to gain some of their leading technology companies could be very difficult. There's also a security question and you know these are two things that are potentially in tension. So currently the Canadian government suggested they'll follow what the UK does, which is the UK government sort of has a system whereby they inspect Huawei equipment to validate that it's safe and appropriate, that it moves into the telecommunications networks. Unfortunately earlier this year one of the UK bodies that was examining this identified that there are now security vulnerabilities within the UK network that are systemic and they can't necessarily ameliorate. And even just this week, BT British Telecom, one of the largest telecommunication providers in the UK, announced that they were going to be removing some Huawei equipment from their 3G and 4G networks. So that indicates that even amongst the partners who had thought that they could sort of have a managed integration, they're reconsidering or re-evaluating how useful that approach was.

MS: I can imagine working at the Citizen Lab, which does just incredible work that is recognized pretty much around the world, you must be rather paranoid at times. How much do you personally use smart devices?

CHRISTOPHER PARSONS: Like most of the people in North America I have a smartphone. No smart locks. Nothing of that right now. I'm mindful that we're at the infancy of the Internet of Things. So what we purchase now it's likely not going to be quite fit for purpose in a couple of years. And the security properties are going to be a little bit questionable in a couple of years from now. There's a few companies that are trying to do good work but unfortunately those are pretty far and few between and they're often quite hard to pin down and find out if they're there. And even a few do, you buy a fridge or something like that, you're probably going on your fridge for 10 or 15 years and you've got to evaluate. Is that company going to be there for new offering cool smart things?

MS: And we just have couple seconds left. What's your one tip for people to try to be safe?

CHRISTOPHER PARSONS: So for most regular consumers Citizen Lab runs a project called Security Planner. You can get a security planner dot com or dot org, but it can also go to a Web site and find it. And what it is you can go there. It'll take you a couple of seconds. One thing you want to do for the day is to walk you through, and one click and you're finished.

MS: That's great. Thanks for joining me, Chris.

CHRISTOPHER PARSONS: Thank you so much.

MS: Christopher Parsons is a research associate with the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto Munk School for Global Affairs and Public Policy which studies the intersection of Information and Communication Technologies, Human Rights and Global Security. He was in our Toronto studio. Joining me to talk about these cyber security threats. Scott Jones he's the head of the Canadian Center for Cyber Security which released the National Cyber Threat Assessment for 2018. Scott Jones is in our Ottawa studio. Hi Scott.

SCOTT JONES: Hello. Were you surprised by the extent of the security threats you found for home smart devices?

SCOTT JONES: Well no. We frankly follow the trends and where the threats are moving on a daily basis. That's our job. The key thing for us is that we wanted to make sure the Canadians knew the threat they faced so that they can take some action. I think a lot of the a lot of the talk is about trying to scare people. What we're trying to do is give people the information so they can make informed decisions, so they can take some action to protect themselves.

MS: And I asked this of Chris, I'll ask you as well, when you say you don't want to scare people but you want to give information. A lot of what's in your report is rather frightening. Is it real or hypothetical at this stage to have these concerns?

SCOTT JONES: Well it's real but the fact is it's you need to understand what you face so you can make an informed decision. And sugar-coating things is not the approach we want to take, but the fact is what we're really focusing on next is now what are the little things we can each do to increase our security just a little bit. And that's what's critical.

MS: And what Christopher said, and I think others say that, that there are small measures you can take but it's pretty overwhelming for people. And many have said you know there's a responsibility of the government to step in here. What do you think the federal government is doing now or should be doing about it?

SCOTT JONES: Well I think what we're doing now is we're trying to help inform people. Give an independent assessment of what the threats they face and some information on decisions they can take. And sometimes that decision is to choose not to use something or to buy a better product that has some security features built in. One of the things we always say is make sure you apply your patches update, your software. Update the systems you're using. It's very critical to continually look at how do you keep your security up to date.

MS: But that's putting the responsibility on the consumer. Do you feel that the government has a responsibility here as well?

SCOTT JONES: Well the responsibility we have is to make sure that we're informing that we're providing that information clearly so that Canadians can understand what they're facing. And then providing them tips that they can do to make a better informed decision. So an example for me is there are some things that I just don't connect to the internet because I choose not to. I don't have a smart television with a camera pointed in certain parts. In my house I cover the camera up. I don't need the camera. That's a choice I've made. I did. I bought the device. But I chose to cover it up or protect something because I wanted to protect my privacy.

MS: Some are suggesting, however, that Canada should have done more to regulate these connected devices before they even got to the market. What do you think about that?

SCOTT JONES: Well one of the things that - I would leave the kind of the regulation and the policy things in the hands of our political leaders - but the key issue we face here is that this is a global marketplace and we need a global movement to fix this. And part of it is how do we now encourage people to value security. For these companies that are coming out. People value features. They don't they don't value security. They don't care. I think we should. I think we should be asking questions: does this company invest in security engineering? Does this company build a device that's better for me? And the point about the subscription model, the fact that this isn't just a buy once and then hopefully you'll throw it away and buy a new device in a year that there's some sort of ongoing relationship. We need to value that piece of it not the lowest cost.

MS: And I know you have to tiptoe around the political issues here of what Canada may or may not do, but theoretically, how big a challenge would it be to regulate this effectively? Is it a is a policy issue? Is it is it a technological issue?

SCOTT JONES: Well I think the key thing is what do we need to build in from a security perspective. And then how can we make sure that people are valuing that. The one thing having a good enough security field for a number of years and having over the top for developers that do a lot of secure software development. It costs money. It takes time. And when we value first to market and cheapest those are actually completely contrary to most of the security engineering. So what we have to do is we have to start to place a value on ensuring that there's good security in these products.

MS: And I was talking to Christopher Parsons about some of the other cyber security threats. And this week of course we've been talking about the concerns raised by the Chinese telecom company Huawei. How does that conversation intersect with these concerns we're talking about, about hacking of individual smart devices?

SCOTT JONES: Well the key thing for us is that it's about taking the systemic-- really looking at the whole system because security isn't one thing. You can't just buy one great device that's going to secure your life. It's about making good decisions but that they layer. It starts from when you build your system all the way to when you're deployed, so you can defend when something's happening especially if you're looking at a large network. And the key thing for us is how do you look at all of the threats that you could be facing. And then what's the right way to mitigate.

MS: But again, back to the government, a number of countries including Australia and the U.S. and I believe just Japan this morning, New Zealand. They've blocked Huawei technology on their 5G networks. Why does Canada continue to use this equipment?

SCOTT JONES: Well Canada is doing a full security evaluation of our 5G, a full evaluation of our approach to 5G across the government to support the decision. And that's part of how we're looking at how do we make the right decision for Canada, moving forward, and how do we inform the right decision moving forward. In the past in the current network that we have today, we have a long standing program to work with our telecommunications providers to build in those systemic cyber protections. And that's been ongoing for over the last five years.

MS: And I mentioned Australia, US, New Zealand. Those are tremendously what we call the Five Eyes partners and there's a tight security relationship between these countries. Canada is lagging behind in this. Yes it's being research but there's calls, especially from the US, to take action. How do you respond when people say that Canada has been too slow on this?

SCOTT JONES: Well Canada is looking at how do we protect the overall system of 5G networks and that's the security [unintelligible] that's ongoing and that's what we're focusing on is how do we make sure that the Canadian telecommunications infrastructure we need over the next 10 years is secure from the start that we build in those protections and that we think this through at the beginning.

MS: Now given the range of what we've been talking about - and I know it is overwhelming for people to think about smart technology - what is the one risk? The one thing that perhaps is keeping you up at night once this report went out and something that really startled you?

SCOTT JONES: I think the thing that if we don't do something about that worries me is that we're just installing more and more and more of these devices. They're cheap and they're living for a long time. And if we don't start to look at them and say, well how does this device get an update? The security problem is only going to get worse. And so just thinking before we buy something, look and see if they talk about security at all. It's a simple step that we can all take and then change the default passwords. If there's a default password set it to something really hard. That alone will make it safer.

MS: Scott thanks so much for joining us this morning.

SCOTT JONES: Thanks very much.

MS: Scott Jones is the head of the Canadian Center for Cyber Security. He was in our Ottawa studio.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Friday December 7, 2018 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This