03/02/2017 Newsnight

President Trump has put Iran on notice after its

missile test with limited sanctions, so who is testing who?

And is this the beginning of the unravelling of President Obama's

I'll be speaking to a former Deputy Prime Minister of Iran.

We are able to manipulate YouTube videos in real-time.

Here we demonstrate our method in a live

Is new technology, which can put the wrong words in your mouth,

a giant leap for fake news and alternative facts?

How do we sort out the truth, half-truth, and lies?

Africa is no longer the colonial subject.

President Trump today announced his first sanctions

against Iran over its ballistic missile test on Sunday.

The new president has been a long-time critic

Trump tweeted that Iran is playing with fire.

They don't appreciate how "kind" President Obama was to them.

The US National Security Advisor said the administration

was putting Iran on notice, and then the Treasury department

announced sanctions against thirteen people and a dozen "entities".

Iran's Foreign Minister responded, also on Twitter, saying "Iran

unmoved by threats as we derive security from our people.

We will never initiate war, but we can only reply

Is this a harbinger of much worse to come like a handbrake turn on Iran

policy? In a sense it is unfinished business from the last months of the

Obama administration, these missiles, over 1000 mile range, not

very accurate, the general view of intelligence experts is that they

are being tested as nuclear delivery systems, that is counter to United

Nations agreements. Another problem is that some people connected with

these, the firing of warships by rebels in recent months, another

issue is that basically apart from one counterstrike against those

batteries President Obama kicked the can down the road. So emphasis

tonight from US officials is that this doesn't mean the end of the

nuclear agreement, it is a separate issue but we have to do something.

The Trump rhetoric is heavy but these are not, as you say,

heavy-duty sanctions. Well, here's the problem which is that President

Trump and his national security adviser Mike Flynn are very hard

line on Iran. So these aspects of sanctions about these two separate

issues which you might see is business as usual for the National

Security system in Washington are coming at a time when President

Trump has said all options are on the table now for Iran, Mike Flynn

has said they are on notice. The dangers of misperception, the

Iranians have said that they will carry on testing and President Trump

feeling he has drawn a red line, remember how he criticised President

Obama for not enforcing the red line of Assyria, he may feel he has to

defend it, the scope for sliding into conflict now is considerable, I

would say. Thank you very much. Mohsen Sazegara was the Iranians

Deputy Prime Minister in his late dash in the late 80s but became

disillusioned with the resume and is now a political activist based in

Washington, DC. These 25 persons and institutions, I

expected it because of an escalation of tensions between these countries.

It started from the White House three nights ago by Flynn and Trump,

both of them. Do you sense the Iranians pushing a little, nibbling

away at Donald Trump with this test on Sunday? I think that right now,

the top officials in Iran, the leader, I mean, and the

revolutionary guard, they are very cautious and they prefer not to

escalate the tension, and more than that, I think, they are waiting for

the results of the President's trip to Moscow to see what President

Putin can do for them, because they expect that President Putin can

reduce the tensions between Washington and Iran. It is not

necessarily to the advantage of Tehran to have Putin and Trump

close, is it? It is not to the benefit of one side, and to the

other side, if there are new sanctions against Putin and Russia,

if these are passed by the Congress, it shows that Putin can't solve his

own problem. So both sides are not good signals for Iran. Let's look

separately at the sanctions and also the visa restrictions, two separate

things. Your reaction to the Visa restrictions? Visa restrictions

definitely harms a big group of Iranians who live in the USA and

their families, relatives, travel, and helps the regime of Iran for its

own propaganda and mobilises people to support the regime. But the

sanctions against the Revolutionary guard, or the leader, and the

institutions, most of them are corrupt in Iran as well, I think

this is something else that the people of Iran may like. It is

interesting what you say because there is a strong entrepreneurial

community of American Iranians who do not like what is happening with

this visa. It looks as if President Trump is prepared to put up with

that in order to pursue this heavy policy on visas. He doesn't actually

care about the impact that will have on the attitudes of American

Iranians. By the way I am definitely against such type of restrictions

for Iranian citizens, or any sanction which harms all the people

of Iran. But I support the sanctions which are targeted and are smart

against the top officials and the people who abuse and violate human

rights. Is it your sense that President Trump is ad hoc or just

sounding like a hawk. -- hawk, or just sounding like a hawk? I feel

that sometimes he is unstable and I cannot rely on his stances, but the

guys that he has picked for his administration, they are hawks.

Especially with respect to Iran, they are too tough. Mohsen Sazegara,

thank you for joining us tonight. Should we trust our leaders to tell

the truth, and is there something materially different about truth

in the technological age? How do we gauge what's true,

half true, or false? In the past month, new phrases have

entered the political lexicon, in particular, "fake news"

and "alternative facts". But what if there's another,

explosive ingredient in this febrile mix - the ability,

literally, to manipulate the words Here's our technology

editor, David Grossman. How do we know that

something happened? That we are not being

fooled by fakes? Some TV trickery is

pretty familiar to us. This technology, green screen

or colour separation overlay, has been around in some

form for decades. It allows us to convincingly give

real people backdrops of virtual However, we are about to cross

the threshold into a new world where it is possible to convincingly

recreate known real people - famous people like politicians -

and have them say or do more We're a few years, but not many

years, away from a situation now where we can not only create

a pretty sort of realistic environment for people,

but we can also do things like manipulate their voices

and manipulate their facial expressions and modulate

their speech in real-time. Here we demonstrate our

method in a live setup. This is the Face 2 Face

Project, a collaboration between Stanford University,

the Max Planck Institute and the University

of Erlangen-Nuremberg. As we can see, we are able

to generate a realistic They can take the facial expressions

of one person and match them onto the features

of another in real-time. The results are already

amazing and only going It seems like they are being

developed out with a specific ethical framework that helped them

to actually assess before technologies are developed,

the actual implications The perfect environments for fake

news, for a widespread This hugely damaging image

of John Kerry supposedly sharing a stage with Vietnam protester

Jane Fonda was actually Now the company that

invented Photoshop, Adobe, has unveiled a new,

potentially game changing At this event in November,

Adobe demonstrated Voco, which, loaded with 20 minutes

of real sample voice, can then make someone

say anything just by typing it in. Adobe said the auyo audio will be

watermarked so that fakes are easy to spot but that may not

stop them spreading. Often the things we see as fake news

or false stories are actually very easily debunked

in a matter of seconds. But it doesn't necessarily stop

them from spreading, partly because I think

the mechanisms now are so quick in terms of how virality is created

online but also because people But is there a flip side

to this technology? If it makes the fake seem real,

what does it do to our perception Will it allow those

intent on deceiving us to dismiss cold, solid, hard video

evidence as mere trickery? It becomes a term that can be used

by anyone who wants to call out something that they don't

like, and spread doubt And when you have a high level

of distrust in stories, and you have a high level

of distrust in institutions, which we do at the moment,

then a term like fake news becomes almost meaningless, because it's

deployed in so many ways which actually describe

things that are perfectly We've grown more sophisticated

in our ability to discern However, accelerating technological

change means we'll need to quickly refine how we weigh the evidence

of our senses. We're joined now by Claire Wardle,

Research Director at First Draft News, which aims

to improve the standard of online reporting and the philosopher,

Simon Blackburn, who wrote Truth - Good evening to you both in London

and New York. Simon, is truth just about the most important thing? It

is very important in our day-to-day lives, our sensors are adapted to

telling us how the world around us is and if we don't know how the

world around us is we will not behave well in it. Give an example

of how senses are adapted. I'm pretty good at knowing of the bus is

bearing down on me and pretty good at not crossing the road if I can

see one bearing down on me. I would be much worse in life if I could not

see that was a bus bearing down on me so I need the truth about that

kind of thing and that is true of all kinds of ways I behave in my

environment. I need to know whether the food I am looking at is

poisonous, I need to be able to rely on various deliveries of sense,

sound, and of course trust in things that people tell me. But it was ever

thus. Is there a difference now as technology change things?

Communication has exploded so we get communications from very different

parts of the world, not just from our neighbours, our parents. Big

communications from media outlets, fake media outlets and so one.

Sifting what we are told, whether it is trustworthy, becomes much harder.

We cannot go behind the scenes. I cannot see what the truth is about

what Bush is saying if someone else shows me some bizarre things. In a

way, you make it your mission not to be a single sister but to find a way

in which we can engage the truth. Do you think the technology that has

just been explained in that film will make a huge difference? People

look at people's bases and think they can trust their eyes, trust

what they see, and it is false. Absolutely. In the same way that

photo editing software and video editing software is on a laptop,

anyone in the world can create visuals. Because of technology they

move at huge speed across the world. Our brains are adapted to trust

visuals more. As technology becomes easier and cheaper that is why we

have at this explosion of false information. I suppose the more

people there are checking to find out it is false. How do you get at

the truth? We are having lots of people talking about news literacy

projects and educating people to stop and check. We're looking at our

phones and scrolling quickly. Although we might know to be

critical, sometimes things that are too good to be true, it is very easy

to click share. We do not stop and check when we should do. Politicians

particularly through the centuries have all tried to manipulate the

truth one way or another at different times. In a sense, is it

not easy because you can sift through and make decisions yourself?

Is it not easier to get information to the access? As human beings, we

want information to make us feel better. We are in a polarised world.

You sit in groups of people you'd think are the same as you and you

want information to make you feel better. It is easier to double check

and Google something that does not necessarily mean we are doing that.

What will it do to us? I find it destabilising sometimes if I do not

know what is true and what is false. It is difficult to predict. If

technologies do proliferate in the way described and they become very

popular and everyone is using them, I should have thought one possible

reaction, my own reaction for example, would be in a sense to

retreat. That is very bad for democracy. If I say I am not going

to believe anything about President Trump, I do not believe anything

about Theresa May, that means I am retreating from my historic duties

as a citizen, which is to inform myself about policy and what these

people are offering. The advent of global communication could actually

signal a retreat. It could indeed. It is a rational response to a world

in which nothing is trustworthy. If you cannot trust anything, do not

believe anything. Do not act. That basis for action, does that come

from early education? Had you get a basis for action? Our senses tell us

how the world is. We are very good at using them put up relying on

other people, that is something you learn when they are trustworthy and

when they are not. Unless you can get some experience in both sides of

it, you're not going to be a fully performing, fully active adult. Does

that fill you with dread? I have to say, it is a pretty troubling time

over here in the US. We are seeing people retreat and say they are not

looking at the news. People are already starting to say I am

confused, worried and scared and I do worry about what that means. Is

this now about the loss of control? There are so much of people's lives

which are not in their control. It is another worrying aspect of modern

life. I think certainly people feel overwhelmed by technology does it

comes to them even when they are not ready for it. You see an update on

your phone about something you did not expect. People feel out of

control and overwhelmed. There is a huge proliferation. There used to be

big blocks of media you could do to four different things. You knew what

they did. There is a preferential of all sorts of websites. A lot of them

are in high resolution, high technology sites. They look very

ill. How you meant to know if they are real or false? You're not meant

to know. That is the point. There are very systematic campaign is now

to ensure people see the same messages. Over time we are seeing

networks of information and systematic campaign to try to

persuade people. It is very sophisticated. As much as we try to

teach people to be critical, a lot of these things are really easy to

fullback on. The people who benefit are dictators, people who manipulate

the news for their own ends. Absolutely. We can see, even within

Europe and the elections that are coming up with France, Germany and

the Netherlands without huge concerns about systematic campaigns

quit using social networks to change public opinion. That is definitely

what is on the cards. How do you counter that? Thank God for the BBC.

You looked at gold standard. Touch wood, we have the Times, the BBC.

ITV and our colleagues. Now, of course, how long that will remain

and whether indeed the BBC will, for example, remain Independent in the

way that Donald Trump has ensured virtually no State Department can be

Independent in the USA. That kind of dictatorship, that kind of change in

Democratic politics is very worrying. Then we really do lose our

morals. She told EU leaders she wanted

to build a "strong partnership" with the EU and pledged the UK

would be a "good friend This went down well

with Chancellor Merkel. Better than her relationship

with Donald Trump, After publishing the Brexit White

Paper this week, we have a decent idea of what the government wants

to get out if its negotiation. But what about those

on the other side? Or policy editor, Chris Cook, has

been speaking to the EU Competition Trying to find out why we still know

so little. I think it is important

that we leave some things for the people who will be

in the room. The EU negotiator, the UK,

and negotiating team because they will have to put

together a new puzzle because some of the obvious signals from the UK

Government is that they want a new relationship, not

the Norwegian, not the Swiss, Therefore I am very careful not

to prejudge things because I think the people in the room,

they will have a task which is sufficiently difficult

without the rest of us trying to... You have an insight

into what Britain is planning which lots of people don't have

because you've actually seen the undertakings they gave

to Nissan and you've judged Well, of course we stay in touch

with the UK Government on issues of this kind,

just as well with a number The letter in itself,

we don't have concerns of state You don't think that while we're EU

members at the British Government is committing funds to Nissan

which wouldn't be available That would be a very

broad thing to answer. In the letter and the debates

we have no concerns. Is there any public

spending involved in this? Well, I think, eventually,

probably you will know. But, for us, having seen

the letter, we have no concern That is as well as we stay in touch

with the number of other Is your understanding

still that the commission's intention is that we'll have

like the divorce proceeding and then in Brexit terms and then

a trade negotiation? That is the most simple approach.

The figure out where you stand and how you move on foot of it is a

complex thing to be divorced and having some kind of partnership at

the same time. Isn't part of the problem with this that the two

things are not going to lie one to the other? Nothing will be decided

until everything is decided. There will be things we want in the

subsequent relationship but you might want to serve early. It seems

very hard to disentangle these two things. These negotiations will be

extremely complicated. Maybe you get something in between. To some

degree, you can say this will happen to be solved also in a future

relationship. This is definitely something where we will have a clean

divide commits this can be done now. I think all of these details, they

will have to be solved in the room. Not because discussions around the

room. But because the responsibility of getting it right is exactly for

the people who will be asked to do the deal.

Time now for Viewsnight, a new feature of Newsnight.

All week we've been bringing you new thoughts

and ideas from a range of opinionated people.

You might agree with them, disagree, or think again.

Tonight, the British Senegalese activist and business

The widely respected head of the American organisation

Human Rights Watch, Ken Roth, expressed his surprise this

week at the appointment of the new deputy head of the CIA.

As you might have noticed, we follow Trump's moves closely on this

programme, and at the risk of breaking BBC rules on bias, we can

Mr Roth was concerned that the new deputy had previously

been connected to running a CIA black site for torture.

We were more concerned at the double identity of those

Emily has issued a kind of denial, but whatever

the truth of the allegations, we here at Newsnight fully support

Before we go, you may have read in the papers

Storms in the Med have left us without fancy foreign

imports like lettuce, broccoli and aubergines.

This sceptred isle has weathered fiercer storms than this.

There was once even a time when, yes, we had no bananas.

We've ransacked the archive to find some advice

So, here are some useful pointers when attempting

to cook that decent, honest, British vegetable that never

goes out of season or fashion - the humble cabbage.

Sally's cabbage has been cooked in little water with the lid on,

retaining the full value of the vegetable.

Sally carefully pours the water into a cup.

Jane, on the other hand, has drowned her cabbage in water and

apart from losing the goodness, that cabbage is a wet soggy mess with no

Now, never put so much water in the cabbage again, it makes it

But you'll do it quite all right tomorrow.

Good evening. Still some unpleasant weather out there if you are

travelling. It could well be icy ones rain, sleet and snow meanders

northwards. More rain in the South later. Let's take a