Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Trump Urges Supreme Court To Pause Ban On TikTok; Interview With Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA); Russia Potentially Misidentified Jet As A Ukrainian Drone; Schools Face A New Threat, Nudify Sites That Use AI To Create Realistic, Revealing Images Of Classmates; Those Who Won Big And Lost A Lot; Legendary Sportscaster Greg Gumbel Dies At 78. Aired: 8-9p ET
Aired December 27, 2024 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Another looks set to join the factory to the worker dormitories, now fully repaired.
DAVID ALBRIGHT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: They started to create -- we thought, drone cages over the buildings. And then as they built other buildings, it looks like they're expanding the security perimeter.
SEBASTIAN (voice over): NATO told CNN it is, "well aware of Alabuga and expects it to ramp up production even further.
This military patriotic team building event for Alabuga students, a glimpse in the high octane world behind that security fence.
Clare Sebastian CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: Wow, thanks so much for joining us. AC360 starts now.
[20:00:47]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Tonight on 360, breaking news, the president- elect tells the Supreme Court that only he has what it takes to make a deal to head off a TikTok ban before it goes into effect. The day before he's sworn into office. Also tonight, what CNN is learning about the possibility that Russian anti-aircraft fire brought down a passenger airliner and what may have triggered the deadly chain of events.
Later, with a massive lottery prize up for grabs tonight. Why winning big all too often comes at a mega million dollar price.
Good evening to you, Jim Sciutto here sitting in again for Anderson tonight.
We begin tonight with the breaking news on what appears to be another flex of sorts by President-elect Trump. Just days after pushing for the purchase of Greenland, you heard it right; the repossession of the Panama Canal and by his own suggestion, annexing the country, Canada, he inserted himself into the Supreme Court case over TikTok, which is used by scores of millions of Americans.
The court is set to hear the Chinese owned social network's challenge to a new law, which would ban operations in this country if it does not divest its ownership by January 19th. The law gives a sitting president broad power to enforce that ban, and Joe Biden is, of course, president until the 20th.
But Donald Trump, who is not yet president, wants the high court to take that power from Biden by pausing the law until he's in office. His brief saying, "President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal making expertise, the electoral mandate and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the National Security concerns expressed by the government."
Along with that mouthful, the brief also refers to the president's "commanding presence" as, "one of the most powerful, prolific and influential users of social media in history."
Joining us now is CNN's Alayna Treene, who is just down the road from Mar-a-Lago. So, Alayna, tell us more what the president's specific argument is to try to get the stay.
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN CONGRESSIONAL AND PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS REPORTER: Well, Jim, what Donald Trump is essentially asking the Supreme Court to do is put a pause on this very controversial ban on TikTok, arguing that such a delay of its implementation would allow his incoming administration to try and work out some sort of negotiation to save the app.
Now, to be clear, Donald Trump's position on this puts him at odds with the Biden administration, which in itself filed its own legal briefing on Friday urging the Supreme Court to make sure that this ban is implemented. They warned of "grave National Security concerns" if this app is allowed to continue to operate in the United States, noting, of course, China's influence on the platform.
Now, one of the key things that the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh is whether or not this ban violates First Amendment rights.
In this briefing from Donald Trump, it did not really address the First Amendment questions posed in this case. But Donald Trump did say this. He wrote -- he suggested that the court pause the ban's effective date to, "Allow his incoming administration to pursue a negotiated resolution that could prevent a nationwide shutdown of TikTok, thus preserving the First Amendment rights of tens of millions of Americans, while also addressing the government's National Security concerns."
Now, let's be clear TikTok is very popular in this country. It has 170 million monthly users. That is something that Donald Trump recognizes. It's also something that he kind of alluded to earlier this week when he spoke in Arizona and essentially said he is warming to the app because so many young voters voted for him and they used this app. Take a listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: So I'm going to have to start thinking about TikTok. I think we're going to have to say -- we're going to have to start thinking. Because, you know, we did go on TikTok and we had a great response. We had billions of views, billions and billions of views. They brought me a chart and it was a record. And it was so beautiful to see. And as I looked at it, I said, maybe we've got to keep this sucker around a little while. You know, who wants to --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:05:14]
TREENE: So, Jim, clearly, as you can hear there, Donald Trump is saying, maybe we should keep this around because it's so popular and I'm so popular with its users. But I want to argue as well that we know Donald Trump has not always believed this.
In the past he's actually been all for supporting a ban. He actually issued an executive order during his first administration that would effectively ban the app, citing its National Security concerns.
However, I will also note that just a couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump met directly with TikTok CEO at Mar-a-Lago. All to say, it's very unclear about what is going to happen here. But what it looks like is that Donald Trump wants to kind of be viewed as the savior of this app, but it's very unclear exactly how that could happen if this ban is allowed to be paused.
SCIUTTO: But Alayna, this puts him not just at odds with the Biden administration, but with a bipartisan act of Congress. He may reference the popularity of the app. He does not address the National Security concerns as identified by the US intelligence community. How does his team explain that contradiction?
TREENE: Well, I think it's -- you know, it's definitely something they're going to have to address. What I believe they are going to try to argue with this is that he is asking for a pause on the ban. He is not necessarily saying that he doesn't want the ban to go through, or that he believes that ByteDance, the Chinese owned company that owns TikTok, should be able to continue owning the app.
What he is saying is that he wants some sort of negotiation to be worked out between his administration and the company, but again, he doesn't address these concerns head on, and it's very unclear what sort of negotiation this could lead to. But for now, all he is asking for is a pause on the ban. Not necessarily, he doesn't want the ban -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: Alayna Treene, thanks so much.
Joining us now is Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Jake Auchincloss. He sits on the House Select Committee on the Chinese communist party, and is one of the many members of Congress who voted for this law, Democrats and Republicans.
So, Congressman, thanks so much for joining us this Friday night during a holiday week. I wonder what your reaction is to this. As you know, it's quite a bipartisan position that TikTok is a National Security threat. What's your answer to the president's argument here?
REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Not just bipartisan, Jim, but also tripartite -- Congress, the president and an appeals court have all said that this law is valid. And the reason that this law is valid is that its meeting and National Security imperative.
Xi Jinping has called influence operations the smokeless battlefield, and TikTok is his most important weapon. It is the dominant media and information platform for Gen Z.
They are consuming huge amounts of content on that platform, and that content is being brokered for them by an algorithm that the Chinese communist party controls. Now in China, that algorithm shows Chinese children educational content, and it limits the amount of time they can spend on the platform. In the United States, it shows American kids anti-Western, anti-American content, and it keeps them scrolling for hours on end.
This is undermining the ideological coherence of the next generation of Americans, and we have every reason to insist that while people can post whatever they want, the manner by which that content reaches eyeballs is not going to be dictated to us by a foreign adversary.
SCIUTTO: As you know as well, the IC found that TikTok interfered in the election by prioritizing content to influence or attempt to influence the outcome here. President-elect Trump is making the argument, it seems that, I alone can negotiate a better deal here. Is there a way to negotiate out of this so that TikTok is no longer a threat, but that Americans keep access to it short of requiring China to divest its ownership?
AUCHINCLOSS: No. The bill says precisely that there is not going to be a media platform as dominant as TikTok in the United States, owned and controlled by our greatest adversary. It needs to be owned by a company that answers to the United States Congress, because we need comprehensive social media regulations not just for TikTok, but also for Instagram and Meta and the rest, because we have to protect our children's sense of self and society, which has been eroding for the last decade.
What Trump is saying, Jim, about he alone can negotiate a better deal just doesn't pass the common sense test. If you were negotiating with somebody, why would you remove the greatest leverage that you have over them to accede to your position? I mean, the impending ban is the leverage that any deal maker would need to get a better deal for the American people.
SCIUTTO: So how does -- you're on -- you sit on the CCP committee, and I've interviewed you a number of times on China, as I have Republican members of the committee. And this is one of the most bipartisan issues in this country. The approach to China -- viewing China, in many respects, the Chinese government, I should say, as a threat, particularly from a National Security perspective. How does Congress -- how would Congress respond, which has passed this law if the Supreme Court were to grant this stay and in effect, saying that law you passed, forget about it, for now. How would you react to that? And how would your Republican fellow members of the committee react?
[20:10:30]
AUCHINCLOSS: I think it would be important for Congress to issue a resolution stating that we stand by the original law, and then if he tried to issue an executive order that undermine the effectuation of the law, that Congress would override that as we have the right to do. Now, whether or not my Republican colleagues have the spines to stand up to Donald Trump remains to be seen.
I would say their track record over the last decade does not inspire confidence in that regard. But I absolutely know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, with whom I helped draft this law understand that allowing Gen Z to develop their sense of American society from an algorithm dictated by the politburo in Beijing is a really bad idea. And Donald Trump himself understood that. And the fact that he's changing his mind now makes me think that his inner circle has been bought and paid for by the TikTok lobby.
SCIUTTO: We should note that President-elect Trump met with TikTok CEO this month, and we just learned, according to two people familiar with the matter, that the TikTok CEO spoke with Trump this evening after he filed this request with the Supreme Court and earlier this year, before Trump reversed his position on TikTok, he met with Republican mega-donor Jeff Yass, who has a multi-billion dollar stake in TikTok. Though Trump said the subject of TikTok did not come up. I wonder, do those meetings, do the timing of those meetings and the nature of those meetings raise any concern for you?
AUCHINCLOSS: Absolutely, and we know that members of his inner circle have strong ties to TikTok in particular, and China more generally. And with Donald Trump, it's always some combination of two things, Jim, it's, one flattery and inflating his ego. Hey, you're so popular on TikTok and you're a dominant social media presence, and the young people love you.
And then number two, is the soft corruption and sycophancy of his inner circle. Those two threads can intertwine and they can change American policy. And it's up to Congress and in particular, Republicans in Congress, to put the well-being of the country ahead of Donald Trump's ego on this issue.
SCIUTTO: We'll see how they stand up to that test. Congressman Auchincloss, thanks so much for joining.
AUCHINCLOSS: Hey, Happy New Year, Jim.
SCIUTTO: You too. All right, so, more on the law. Joining us for that is trial attorney Misty Marris.
So let's begin with the focus of Trumps argument here. I mean, there's a lot in here. He's a trailblazer in social media. Therefore, he knows more. He's a great negotiator, which is something that he says about really virtually every issue on the planet, he could find a better way forward. He sets aside the First Amendment arguments for now, arguing for this delay here. What's your review of the legal arguments he makes?
MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE AND TRIAL ATTORNEY: Well, Jim, very unusual legal arguments, to say the least. And let's talk about what the legal standard is to seek a stay. The legal standard is irreparable harm. That's one aspect, that's one prong. There, you can talk about the First Amendment issue. That is a very valid concern and something the Supreme Court can take up as this case works its way through the appellate courts.
The second is likelihood of success on the merits. We see him actually in writing, put that aside and say, we're not really going to comment on whether or not this is violative of First Amendment, whether or not National Security concerns actually overcome that burden of strict scrutiny. We're not even going to talk about it. That prong that's required.
Instead, we hear about his negotiating skills. Instead, we hear about how he had great success using TikTok during the election. So to me, and from the legal perspective, that is not sufficient to fulfill that second prong, seeking a stay. And again, this doesn't mean that there isn't an inquiry by the Supreme Court as this case works its way through the courts, the appellate system as to whether or not there's an issue with that First Amendment concern. It's just about whether or not it's actually put on pause against the will of Congress and the most recent decision at the appellate division.
SCIUTTO: The president has a role -- the sitting president has a role in enforcement in this. Is that, in effect, the president-elect's best argument here, that this goes into effect on January 19th. And guess who's president on January 20th?
MARRIS: Well, certainly that would be of a practical concern because the DOJ is going to be very different as soon as the Trump administration takes over. And will there be a directive to say, okay, this law is on the books. Congress has passed it. It's signed into law, but don't enforce it, because enforcement is left up to the branch to the Department of Justice in this instance.
SCIUTTO: I'm not a lawyer, but I've watched this court a lot in recent years because this court has been involved in a lot of stories.
MARRIS: We've covered quite a few, yes.
SCIUTTO: And I've seen this court regularly say it wants congressional action, right. When they don't want things decided in the courts, they want congressional action. They tend to have deference to that. They allow deference as well to executive power, we've seen that as well. Here you have a case where this was bipartisan congressional action. Are they going to be swayed in that direction, or are they going to be swayed in the president-elect's direction?
[20:15:33]
MARRIS: Yes, certainly. Separation of powers issues, right, that we've covered many times. And deference to those congressional acts. And Jim, especially when you talk about issues of National Security, that's even a heightened level of deference to the president and to Congress to act under those issues and those concerns.
So, what will they do here? I think we've seen some interesting decisions come out of this court. But if they're following what we believe these prior decisions are and what the law is on a stay, I would say it's denied, but I can't make any guarantees on that.
SCIUTTO: And we should note that the National Security basis of this has not changed. The intelligence community has not changed its assessment of TikTok's threat. All that has changed is the president- elect's view. Misty Marris, thanks so much.
MARRIS: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Coming up next, new signs of what may have downed a passenger jet as one survivor speaks about what it was like inside the plane when it was hit.
Later, with more than a billion dollars at stake, in tonight's Mega Millions drawing, why winning it all is sometimes not the ticket.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:20:15]
SCIUTTO: New details tonight about what may have brought down an airliner with 67 people on board. A US official now tells CNN that Russia's air defenses may have misidentified the passenger jet as Ukrainian drone during a Ukrainian attack on the South Russian city of Grozny. This official also says that holes peppering parts of the aircrafts fuselage are consistent with shrapnel damage from an exterior explosion.
Last night on the program, we showed you footage of a man saying what he believed to be at the time his final prayer. Tonight, were happy to report that this man you see there was among the 29 survivors and here he is recounting the moment of the crash.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SOBHONKUL RAKHIMOV, CRASH SURVIVOR (through translator): I was conscious when I felt the impact. I was thrown up, hit down, thrown up again. I was strapped in. I was being thrown back and forth. It all lasted a few seconds and then everything went quiet and silence. Everything was quiet, calm. And I realized that was it. We had landed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: In a moment, a veteran air safety expert and crash investigator will join us. First, CNN Pentagon correspondent, Oren Liebermann. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The Christmas day catastrophe on this Azerbaijan Airlines flight may have come from confusion.
In the hours before the crash, Russia's air defenses in the region were active, trying to repel a long range Ukrainian drone attack.
A US official says Russian air defense units potentially misidentified the commercial airliner, believing it was an attack drone instead of a passenger jet. Whatever the cause, it proved deadly.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: In this case, the aircraft had what we call a missed approach, which means it would have had a deviation from the norm, and so the aircraft would have been in a place that they would not have expected it. And in a hair trigger environment that could have led to what you saw.
LIEBERMANN (voice over): From the fiery wreckage, a key piece of the puzzle emerges. The second black box recovered from the crash of Azerbaijan Airlines J2 8243. Authorities now have two key pieces of information the instrument readings and the cockpit voice recording.
MAJ. MIKE LYONS, US ARMY (RET): I do think that will show that the pilots will say that they were hit with something that came out of nowhere. Likely air defense systems and the pilots miraculously were able to save some of the passengers there.
RAKHIMOV: (Chanting a prayer to Allah)
LIEBERMANN (voice over): On board the doomed jet. This passenger prayed for that miracle. Recording this video in the flight's final moments. At least 38 of the 67 people on board the flight died in the crash. This man was one of the survivors.
RAKHIMOV (through translator): I started saying words. I started to remember the Almighty. I thought that those were probably my last words. So, I thought, I need to get ready for a meeting with the Almighty.
LIEBERMANN (voice over): The airline says an early investigation shows the jet that crashed on Christmas Day experienced what they called physical and technical external interference. Though the cause of the crash has not been confirmed. Potential evidence of that interference visible even after the crash, holes peppering the remains of the fuselage, early indications of what the US says were the result of a Russian air defense system.
LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING (RET), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: The amount of holes in the side of the airplane in the aft part of the airplane tells me that this was an air defense system, and certainly not a bird strike.
LIEBERMANN (voice over): The debris from the crash littered a field. The blue cloths each covering a body. The search for evidence now running together with the hunt for answers.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LIEBERMANN (on camera): There is already a multinational investigation underway into the cause of this crash from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The US has said it is ready and willing to assist in that investigation, although so far it doesn't look like they've been taken up on that offer. It is certainly worth watching this space because the Russians fairly quickly put out what has been a quickly dismissed explanation of bird strikes as to the cause of this crash.
So it'll be interesting to see if they update that explanation or are willing to accept any responsibility if there is further evidence that this was a Russian anti-aircraft system that downed the Azerbaijan Airlines jet -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: Thanks to Oren Liebermann there. Perspective now from David Soucie, he's a CNN safety analyst and former FAA safety inspector, author of several books, most recently "Safer Skies: An Accident Investigator on Why Planes Crash and the State of Aviation Safety." Also, with us is William Taylor, he's former ambassador to Ukraine, certainly knows Russia's operations well.
First, Ambassador Taylor, I want to start with you, because it's impossible to look at these images of the fuselage, those puncture holes, bending inward indicating an exterior event. And you see there on the left side of the screen, the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 14 over Ukraine by a Russian missile.,
As you know from your own time in Ukraine and testifying following, do you see a similar scenario here? Russian missile strikes a passenger jet.
[20:25:10]
WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER US AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Jim, the similarities are that the Russians deny it. The Russians deny it every time. They, as you've reported, they come up with these odd explanations, incredible explanations.
The bird strike, in this case, there were some really wild ones in the one in 2014, as you said. They blamed it on the CIA. They blamed -- just amazing.
And then to this day, continue to deny their responsibility. What normal civilized nations do is accept responsibility and try to remedy, but not the Russians.
SCIUTTO: Yes, I mean, they're also saying now that Ukraine may have shot down this jet, which is in with MH17 in 2014, they said Ukraine tried to take this down. Of course, the evidence pointed very much in the opposite direction.
David, I wonder, based on what we know now, how much control do you think the pilots maintained over this plane when it diverted from Grozny all the way across the Caspian Sea to land in Kazakhstan? And is there any reason why aircraft controllers in and around Chechnya, Grozny where this hit took place, wouldn't have prioritized getting that plane on the ground quickly?
DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: Well, you're right, you would have thought they would have. Now, what I've heard the explanation for that is that the first alternate airport that they had selected was closed that day, but if it was closed that day, they wouldn't have had it as an alternate. So the fact that it went over to where it went, there is no real explanation for why they didn't allow it to go where it was, except as the Ambassador was just saying a moment ago that they were just -- there are bad stories, wild stories about why this happened or that happened.
But not only did they ignore, Jim, I wanted to point out that they not only are ignoring and making things up at the end, they're not responsible for what happened in the first place. The same thing with MH17, when they did not put out any kind of notice to air missions, that this area was a dangerous area. So, airplanes continue to fly.
SCIUTTO: Yes and listen, Ukraine has closed its airspace to passenger air traffic because of this very risk. Russia has not.
Ambassador Taylor, when MH17 was shot down, you called for the United States and other Western countries to increase pressure on Vladimir Putin to end his aggressive actions against Ukraine. What actions do you think the United States should take now, if it hardens up this assessment that this was a Russian missile?
TAYLOR: You're right, Jim, the 2014 event did galvanize serious sanctions, which had not been imposed really by at least by the Europeans prior to that, but it did that. And now, it's a good question.
The Azerbaijanis understandably outraged. And that will lead to a broader expectation of some accountability. And so, there are sanctions that we still have to put on.
Some have gone on this week on the oil coming out of Russia, and those need to be tightened up further. What we need to do is put maximum pressure on Putin so that he finally realizes that he cannot win this war.
SCIUTTO: We will see if that follows.
David, Kazakhstan has possession of the two black boxes. This crash took place on Kazakhstan's soil, but it was an Azerbaijani Airline. It's a Brazilian air frame, Embraer and of course, Russia involved because it was coming out of Russian territory. It was on its way there. Who runs this investigation?
SOUCIE: Kazakhstan will run the investigation. Everyone else will be present. They'll be part of it. But the control of the box and what happens there is the point of impact. That's what's the most important place to start. And there's a lot of information there. And we'll see how much gets out about it.
SCIUTTO: Can we expect Kazakhstan to run a fair, free, fair, honest investigation without pressure from Russia?
SOUCIE: You know, I was really impressed with the first meeting that they had and what came out and what they were very staunch about the fact that all that information is going to be available, all of its going to be investigated down to the original cause. The Azerbaijani lead on this was very firm about what it is that he wants them to do, to report to him and all the other authorities.
So, I'm pretty confident were going to get a good investigation here.
SCIUTTO: Certainly, those passengers and those families of those who died deserve answers.
David Soucie, Ambassador Taylor, thanks so much and we wish you both a Happy New Year.
SOUCIE: Thank you, Jim, and you.
SCIUTTO: Coming up next, how artificial intelligence is being used to generate fake nude photos of real people, including minors. Anderson's "60 Minutes" report on so-called Nudify apps and websites. That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:34:03]
SCIUTTO: In October last year, a 14-year-old girl named Francesca Mani was sitting in her high school history class when she heard a rumor that some boys had naked photos of female classmates. She soon learned her picture was among them, but the images were doctored, created with artificial intelligence using what's known as a nudify website or app, which turns real photos of someone fully clothed into real looking nudes.
Anderson and his 60 Minutes team found nearly 30 similar incidents in schools in the U.S. over the last 20 months and plenty more around the world. We do want to warn you that some of what you'll hear in this report and see is disturbing. But we think unveiling these nudify websites is important, in part, because they're not hidden on the dark web.
They are openly advertised, easy to use, and as Francesca Mani found, out there isn't much that's been done to stop them.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: When you first heard the rumor, you didn't know that there were photos or a photo of you.
[20:35:02]
FRANCESCA MANI, WESTFIELD HIGH SCHOOL, NEW JERSEY: No, we didn't know. I think that was like the most chaotic day I've ever witnessed.
COOPER: In a school, somebody gets an inkling of something and it just spreads.
F. MANI: It's like rapid fire. It just goes through everyone. And so then when someone hears this, it's like, wait, like AI? Like no one thinks that could like happen to you.
COOPER (voice-over): Francesca Mani knew nothing about nudify websites when she discovered she and several of the girls at Westfield High School in New Jersey had been targeted. According to a lawsuit later filed by one of the other girls through her parents, a boy at the school uploaded photos from Instagram to a site called Clothoff, renaming the site to raise awareness of its potential dangers.
There are more than a hundred of these nudify websites. A quick search is all it takes to find them. Clothoff is one of the most popular, with more than 3 million visits last month, according to Graphica, a company that analyzes social networks.
It now offers to nudify males as well, but female nudes are far more popular. Have someone to undress, Clothoff's website asks. You can upload a photo or get a free demonstration in which an image of a woman appears with clothes on. Then a few seconds later, her clothes are gone. We're blurring it out, but the results look very real.
Francesca Mani never saw what had been done to her photo. But according to that lawsuit, at least one girl's AI nude was shared on Snapchat and seen by several kids at school. What made it worse, Francesca says, is that she and the other girls found out they were the victims when they were called by name to the principal's office over the school's public address system.
F. MANI: I feel like that was a major violation of our privacy while, like, the bad actors were taken out of their classes privately. When I left the principal's office, I was walking through a hallway, and I saw these group of boys laughing at these group of girls crying. And that's when I realized I should stop crying and be mad, because this is unacceptable.
COOPER (voice-over): That afternoon, Westfield's principal sent this email to all high school parents, informing them "some of our students had used Artificial Intelligence to create pornographic images from original photos." The principal also said the school was investigating and "at this time, we believe that any created images have been deleted and are not being circulated."
Francesca's mom Dorota, who's also an educator, was not convinced.
COOPER: Do you think they did enough?
DOROTA MANI, MOTHER OF FRANCESCA: Well, I don't know, Anderson. You work in television. Is anything deleted in the digital world?
COOPER: You feel like even if somebody deletes something somewhere, who knows where these images may be?
D. MANI: Who printed? Who screenshotted? Who downloaded? You can't really wipe it out. COOPER (voice-over): Dorota says she filed a police report, but no charges have been brought. She was shocked by the school's handling of the whole incident.
D. MANI: The principal informed me that one boy receives one-day suspension, and that was it. So I ask her if this is all. Are there going to be any other consequences? And she said, "No, that's -- for now, this is all that is going to happen."
COOPER (voice-over): The school district wouldn't confirm details about the photos, the students involved, or any disciplinary action. In a statement to 60 Minutes, the school superintendent said the district revised its Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying policy to incorporate AI -- something the Manis said they spent months urging school officials to do.
COOPER: You feel like the girls paid a bigger cost in the end --
F. MANI: Yes, they did.
COOPER: -- than the boy or boys --
F. MANI: Yes.
COOPER: -- who were involved in this did?
F. MANI: Because they just have to live with knowing that maybe an image is floating, their image is floating around the internet. And they just have to deal with what the boys did.
COOPER (voice-over): Kolina Koltai has been looking into Clothoff and other "nudify" sites for more than a year. She's a senior researcher who specializes in the misuse of AI at Bellingcat, an international investigative group.
COOPER: This site, as soon as you get there, it says, you have to be 18 or over to use the website. You can't use others' photos without their permission. You can't use pictures of people who are under 18. Is there any way for them to actually check if you're --
KOLINA KOLTAI, SENIOR RESEARCHER, BELLINGCAT: No.
COOPER: -- under 18 or over 18?
KOLTAI: You'll see, as we click accept, that there's no verification. And now we're already here.
COOPER: And immediately, you're getting very explicit photos.
KOLTAI: And then they have the poses feature, which is one of their new settings, which is the different sex poses, which is the premium feature.
COOPER: Wow. So, wow.
KOLTAI: And that -- this is the preview. We haven't -- COOPER (voice-over): Clothoff and other "nudify" sites encourage
customers to promote their services on social media, and users often show off their favorite before and after AI nudes.
KOLTAI: I've even seen on social media platforms people showing before and after photos of what are clearly, like, high school girls. And I've, like, reverse image searched the original photo. And they're, like, a high school girl's, like, swim meet.
You'll see these are very clearly, these are minors, and adult content is being made of them nonconsensually, then also being posted on social media.
[20:40:03]
COOPER: I think a lot of parents would be surprised to learn that you post a picture of your child on your Instagram account, your child could end up -- a naked photo of your child out there.
KOLTAI: Yes. And so you have a registration --
COOPER (voice-over): To nudify a photo on Clothoff is free, the first time. After that, it costs from $2 to $40. The payment options often change, but there are always plenty to choose from.
KOLTAI: It's giving me everything from crypto to using a credit card for a variety of different credit cards. We got PayPal here, Google Pay.
COOPER: I would imagine, some of these companies are not thrilled that their services are being used by these websites.
KOLTAI: Yes. And in many of these cases, it directly violates their policies.
COOPER (voice-over): To trick online payment services, Kolina Koltai says, Clothoff and other nudify sites, redirect their customers' payments through phony websites like these pretending to sell flowers and photography lessons.
KOLTAI: Say, for example, you want to pay through PayPal. So we click this, and it'll take a second. So it's now redirecting you.
COOPER: It's redirecting through a dummy --
KOLTAI: A dummy website.
COOPER: --website.
KOLTAI: So that way, on PayPal's end, it looks like you may be purchasing anything from motorcycles or bee-keeping lessons or Rollerblade lessons. And so now we got to a PayPal screen. But we can see down here it says, "Cancel and return to innernookdesigns.motorcycles."
COOPER: So that's what PayPal is being told is the website that's asking for the charge.
KOLTAI: Yes.
COOPER (voice-over): PayPal told us it banned Clothoff from its platforms a year ago and shuts down the accounts for these redirect sites when it finds them. The problem is Clothoff often just creates new ones.
KOLTAI: On this log in screen here --
COOPER (voice-over): And that's not the only deception it relies on. Its website lists a name, Grupo Digital, with an address in Buenos Aires, Argentina, implying that's where Clothoff is based. But when we sent our cameras, there was no Grupo Digital there. It turned out to be the office of a YouTube channel that covers politics.
And when we knocked on the door --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can we see your web (INAUDIBLE) Clothoff?
COOPER (voice-over): -- the employee who answered said she never heard of Clothoff.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, no, no, no (foreign language)
COOPER (voice-over): Clothoff also made up a fake CEO, according to Kolina Koltai, complete with what she says is an AI-generated headshot.
KOLTAI: There is a really inherent shadiness that's happening. They're not being transparent about who owns it. They're obviously trying to mask their payments. But you look at the sophistication of these really large sites, it's completely different than say some guy in a basement that set up a site that he's trying to do it on his own.
When these sites launched, and the way that they've been developing and going this past year, it is not someone's first rodeo. It's not the first time they set up a complex network.
COOPER (voice-over): Clothoff claims on its website that "processing of minors is impossible." We emailed what the site says is a press contact, asking for any evidence of that and to respond to a number of other questions. We didn't hear back.
YIOTA SOURAS, CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN: A lot of people might say, "Well, these images are fake." But we know victims will suffer, humiliation. They'll suffer, you know, mental health distress and reputational harm. In a school setting it's really amplified, because one of their peers has created this imagery. So there's a loss of confidence. A loss of trust.
COOPER (voice-over): Yiota Souras is chief legal officer at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Her organization regularly works with tech companies to flag inappropriate content on their sites. COOPER: In at least three cases Snapchat was reportedly used to circulate these photos. In one instance a parent told us that it took more than eight months to get the accounts that had shared the images taken down.
SOURAS: Their responsiveness to victims, that is a recurring problem that we see across tech companies.
COOPER: So it's not as -- it's not as easy as a parent --
SOURAS: No.
COOPER: --sending a note through Snapchat, "Hey, this is happening.
SOURAS: No.
COOPER: My child has been exploited."
SOURAS: It's entirely unclear why it is not a faster process. We can actually notify tech companies as well and ask them to take that content down.
COOPER: And in your experience do they?
SOURAS: Much faster than when an individual calls. Yes. That isn't the way it should be, right? I mean a parent whose child has exploitative or child pornography images online should not have to rely on reaching out to a third party, and having them call the tech company. The tech company should be assuming responsibility immediately to remove that content.
COOPER: Why are they not doing that?
SOURAS: Because I do not think there are ramifications to them not doing so.
COOPER (voice-over): Social media companies are shielded from lawsuits involving photos someone posts online due to what Yiota Souras considers an outdated law.
SOURAS: Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law from 1996, so very different world back then. Online platforms have near complete immunity for any liability arising from content that a user puts on their system.
The Section 230 protection is really what allows this very loose ecosystem to exist in terms of nudify apps and websites that cause harm to children.
[20:45:09]
COOPER (voice-over): We asked Snapchat about that parent who told us the company didn't respond to her for eight months. A Snapchat spokesperson told us they've been unable to locate her request and said in part, "We have efficient mechanisms for reporting this kind of content," and added, "We have a zero-tolerance policy for such content" and "act quickly to address it once reported."
AI nudes of minors are illegal under federal child pornography laws, according to the Department of Justice, if they depict what's defined as sexually explicit conduct. But Souras is concerned some images created by nudify sites may not meet that definition.
SOURAS: There is this gap in the law around a nudify app that desperately needs to be shut.
COOPER: What are the gaps in the law?
SOURAS: Currently a nude image of a child that does not include sexually explicit conduct is not illegal. And that is a serious gap that exists for real children and that exists certainly for images of nude children that are created by a nudify app.
F. MANI: Send a clear message that what the boys had done --
COOPER (voice-over): In the year since Francesca Mani found out she was targeted, she and her mom have urged schools to implement policies around AI and worked with members of Congress to try and pass a number of federal bills.
SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: The Take It Down Act does two things.
COOPER (voice-over): The Take It Down Act co-sponsored by Sens. Ted Cruz and Amy Klobuchar, made it through the Senate this month and is now awaiting a vote in the House. It would create criminal penalties for sharing AI nudes and require social media companies to take photos down within 48 hours of getting a request.
COOPER: Schools don't really know how to address this. Police in many cases don't do much at this stage. And the sites are making, I presume, millions of dollars off this. So can it be fixed?
SOURAS: Absolutely. If we have the appropriate laws, we will have the criminal consequences, first of all to deter offenders, and then they'll be held liable if they are still using these apps. We would have civil remedies for victims.
Schools would have protocols. Investigators and law enforcement would have roadmaps on how to investigate. What charges to bring. But we're a long way from that. We just need the laws in place. All the rest will come from that.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
SCIUTTO: A final footnote. You just heard Anderson mentioned the Take It Down Act. The bipartisan legislation would make it a federal crime when sharing fake nudes created by AI and require social media companies to remove photos within 48 hours of a request.
The bill was attached to a bipartisan government funding deal earlier this month. But that agreement, as you may recall, fell apart. And the version that eventually passed did not include that new law. Still to come, Lotto fever is hitting the nation, with tonight's Mega Millions jackpot reaching a massive $1.2 billion. But beware, when some win, the so-called Lotto curse can strike. We're going to dive into that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:52:26]
SCIUTTO: With the drawing just over two hours away, tonight's Mega Millions jackpot has now climbed to a whopping estimated $1.22 billion. The lump sum cash option is nearly $550 million, making it the fifth richest prize in the game's history.
Only three Mega Millions jackpots have been won this year, the fewest in any year since the game started. No one has won the grand prize in more than 100 days. So could that change tonight? And keep in mind, for some, winning leads to new trouble.
With that, here's Randi Kaye.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We want to present to you this check.
RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): His name was Jack Whittaker, and he is the poster boy for problems often faced by lottery winners.
JACK WHITTAKER, LOTTERY WINNER: I just want to thank God for letting me pick the right numbers.
KAYE (voice-over): On Christmas 2002, Whittaker won a whopping $314 million. The 55-year-old West Virginia grandfather took the lump sum payout of $113 million. He had plans to buy a helicopter and start a charitable foundation.
WHITTAKER: My biggest problem is going to be keep my granddaughter and daughter from spending all their money in one week.
KAYE (voice-over): Whittaker, who died in 2020, was proof money doesn't buy happiness.
In the years following his big Powerball win, Whittaker was charged with drunk driving and allegedly threatened to kill a bar manager. He was sued for alleged sexual assault, had half a million bucks stolen from his car, and lost his granddaughter to drugs. His marriage also ended.
In 2006, Abraham Shakespeare won $17 million in a Florida jackpot. But the newfound wealth for this on-again, off-again sanitation worker from Florida was short-lived. Less than three years later, he was murdered by a woman who claimed to be his friend.
Dorice "Dee Dee" Moore shot Shakespeare twice in the chest and stole his money. His body was found buried under concrete in her backyard. She was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.
In 2001, David Lee Edwards and his future wife, Shawna, won a quarter share of a Powerball jackpot. After taxes, they walked away with $27 million.
DAVID EDWARDS, LOTTERY WINNER: I was sincere when I asked God to help me because I was desperate.
KAYE (voice-over): In the end, he lost it all and the pair divorced. Edwards later died in hospice.
In 2012, 46-year-old Arooj Khan (ph) won $1 million in an Illinois lottery scratch-off game. But before he could collect it, he was dead. The night he died, Khan's wife said she made him dinner at home, then later woke to him screaming in pain.
[20:55:04]
First, doctors said Khan died of natural causes, but new information led to his body being exhumed. The Cook County medical examiner found a deadly poison in his blood, cyanide.
DR. STEPHEN CINA, COOK COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER: Arooj Khan (ph) died of cyanide toxicity. A lethal level of cyanide was detected in the peripheral blood.
KAYE (voice-over): A homicide investigation is still underway, but more than a decade later, nobody has been charged in Khan's death. His wife and family denied any wrongdoing.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
KAYE (on-camera): Given how lottery winnings turn out for so many, experts suggest keeping your winnings private. But that's not so easy because of state law. Many states require you to go public, but we did check, and at least 18 states do allow you to remain anonymous.
Still, experts suggest if you do win, the best way to avoid trouble, or even worse, is to seek out reputable legal and financial advice. Jim?
SCIUTTO: Randi Kaye, thanks so much.
Coming up next, remembering a sports broadcasting legend.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Sad news tonight, the legendary sportscaster Greg Gumbel has died. His family, in a statement tonight, said he died peacefully after a courageous battle with cancer. Over five decades, Gumbel was a play-by-play announcer and studio host at CBS Sports and at NBC. He covered the NFL, including several Super Bowls, also the NBA, college basketball, and the Olympic Games.
David Berson, the president and CEO of CBS Sports, said in a statement that Gumbel was, quote, "beloved and respected by those of us who had the honor to call him a friend and colleague". Greg Gumbel was 78 years old. His family is certainly in our thoughts tonight.
And the news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.
