just for all of us as americans thank you for having me here today and i'm ready to take your questions. i'll remind members that maybe were here when i had my old ning comments that we're operating under the five year five minute rule and that applies to. the five minute rule and that applies to those of us who are chairing the committee as well. start with you facebook handles extensive amounts of personal data for billions of users a signal a significant amount of that data is shared with third party developers who you'd have utilize your platform as of this early this year you did not actively monitor whether that data was transferred by such developers to other parties moreover your policies only prohibit transfers by developers to parties seeking to profit from such data number one besides professor cole guns transfer

and now potentially q.b. you a do you know of any instances where user data was improperly transferred to third party in breach of facebook's terms if so how many times has that happened and was facebook only made aware of that transfer by some third party. mr chairman thank you. as i mentioned we're now conducting a full investigation into every single app that had a access to a large amount of information before we locked down platform to prevent developers from accessing this information around two thousand and fourteen we believe that we're going to be investigating many apps tens of thousands of apps and if we find any suspicious activity we're going to conduct a full audit of those apps to understand how they're using their data and if they're doing anything improper if we find that they're doing anything improper will ban them from facebook and we will tell everyone affected as for past activity

i don't have all the examples of apps that we've banned here but if you'd like i can out of my team but if you'd like i can have my team follow up with you after this i mean have you ever required an audit to ensure the improperly transfer data and if so how many times mr chairman yes we have i don't have the exact figure on how many times we have but overall the way we've been for star platform policies in the past. is we have looked at patterns of how apps have have used and access to information as well as looked into reports that people have made to us about apps that might be doing sketchy things going forward we're going to take a more proactive position on this and do much more regular spot checks and other reviews of apps as well as increasing the amount of audits that we do and again i can make sure that our team follows up with you on anything about the specific past

stats that would be interesting i was going to assume that sitting here today you have no idea and if if i'm wrong on that you're able you were telling me i think that you're able to apply those figures to was as least as of this point. i'm mr chairman i i will have my team follow up with you on what information we have ok but right now you have no certainty of whether or not. much of that's going on right. ok facebook collects massive amounts of data from consumers including content networks con tact ileus device information location and the information from third parties yet your data policy is only a few pages long and provides consumers with only a few examples of what he's collected and how it might be used the examples given emphasize but nine uses such as connecting with friends but your policy does not

give any indication for more controversial issues of such data my question why doesn't facebook disclose to accusers all the ways the data might be used by facebook and other third parties and what is facebook's responsibility to inform users about that information. mr chairman i believe it's important to tell people exactly how the information that they share on facebook is going to be used that's why every single time you go to share something on facebook whether it's a photo in facebook or a message and messenger what's up every single time there's a control right there about who you're going to be sharing it with whether it's your friends or public or a specific group and you can you can change and control that in line to your broader point about the privacy policy. this gets into in an issue that i think we and others in the tech industry have found challenging which is that long privacy

policies are very confusing and if you make it long and spell out all the detail then you're probably going to reduce the percent of people who read it and make it accessible to them so one of the things that we've struggled with over time is to make something that is a simple as possible so people can understand it as well as giving them controls in line in the product in the context of when they're trying to actually use them taking into account that we don't expect that most people will want to go through and read a full legal document as senator nelson thank you mr to him. yesterday when we talked i gave a relatively harmless example. communicating with my friends on facebook and indicate that. i love the certain kind of chocolate and. all of a sudden start receiving advertisement for chocolate.

what if i don't want to receive those commercial advertisements so your chief operating officer ms sandberg suggested on the in b c today show that face book users who do not want their personal information used for advertising might have to pay for that protection pay for are you actually considering having facebook users pay for you not to use that information. senator people have a control over how their information is used in ads in the product today so if you want to have an experience where your ads aren't aren't targeted using all the information that we have available you can turn off third party information what

we've found is that even though some people don't like ads people really don't like ads that aren't relevant and while there is some discomfort for sure with using information in making ads more relevant the overwhelming feedback that we get from our community is that people would rather have us so relevant content there than not so we offer this control but you they are referencing. some people use it it's not the majority of people on facebook and i think that that's that's a good level of control to offer i think what sheryl was saying was that in order to not run ads at all we would still need some sort of business model and that is your business model so i take it that and i use the harmless example of chocolate but if it got into more personal thing communicating with friends and i want to cut it all off i'm going to have to pay you. in order not to sit in

me using my personal information something that i don't want that innocence is what i understood. is that correct yes senator although to be clear we don't offer an option today for people to pay to not show ads we think offering an ad supported service is the most aligned with our mission of trying to help connect everyone in the world because we want to offer a free service that everyone can afford ok that's the only way that we can reach billions of people so therefore you consider my personally identifiable data the company's data not mine is that it right so we've been listening to facebook c.e.o. mark zuckerberg being grilled by congress there are questions in the senate following cambridge. reviews of facebook data to influence the two thousand and sixteen well u.s. election law as i come back striking a very apologetic tone senators continuing to press him on facebook's data and

privacy policies i will get back to that a little bit later on we now want to take you to new york where the united nations security council is set to vote very shortly on rival resolutions from russia and the u.s. over the suspected chemical attack in the syrian town of duma this is the scene at the u.n. right now international inspectors have accepted a syrian government invitation to visit the site of the attack so we're going to say stay across that and of course get to the meeting as the vote gets underway but our mike hanna is also that let speak to him now mike tell us a bit more about the proceedings and the sequencing of events there at the security council today. indeed yes mary and what's happening is that the u.s. has proposed that a council vote on a new investigative a mechanism you know me now this body would investigate chemical attacks and

importantly would actually apportion blame for such attacks now it would in effect replace the joint investigative mechanism or jim whose mandate to ended last november back to back russian vetoes so that body went away what the u.s. is attempting to do is get a body in place that can both investigate and also apportion responsibility for any such chemical attack now you mentioned the o.p.c. w. the organization for the prevention of chemical weapons they have the effect finding mission that will be investigating the chemical attack alleged chemical attack in go to however important to note that the fact finding mission and the o.p.c. w itself does not have the mandate to account responsibility to say who did it this is something that has always been a problem the o.p.c. w. would refer back to the security council of the security council would then take

a decision and vote on it a divided security council very difficult for the council to agree on attribute responsibility in this type of case so this is the important difference between the body that the u.s. is proposing in this coming resolution and the existing functions of the united nations and international protocols for controlling the use of chemical weapons all of that being said we are very likely to get a russian veto in this vote as there has been on numerous votes on syria in the past in fact if russia does veto this resolution it would be the twelfth such veto by russia since the war began in syria just to be absolutely clear about this without. i have two resolutions being voted on today one from the u.s. one from russia and the key difference between them is whether any forthcoming inquiry ascribes responsibility for what took place in duma.

well complicated even further for him marry him and there might actually be three solutions voted on today we've got the u.s. resolution russia has indicated that it wants to introduce a resolution that basically backs the fact finding mission of the o.p.c. w. now members are saying that well that commission is already doing its work there's no use for such a resolution russia may also introduce a resolution which it had circled the united nations a couple of months ago which actually proposes setting up an investigative body much along the lines of the us with one important difference that body would not be independent it would report back to the security council the security council would then be the body that apportions responsibility for any chemical attack that was a no starter a couple of months ago for that very reason it's unlikely to be

a start in the course of today but you do have a scenario where you hadn't this before when the united nations the u.s. introduces a resolution russia exercises its visa veto russia introduces a resolution the u.s. exercises its veto that being said though the two russian resolutions if they are introduced may not actually go to a proper vote the u.s. may not have to exercise its veto because remember that russia would still need the backing of nine of the security council members within the chamber and that is unlikely at this particular point from what we're hearing from security council members so at the end of the day we could have a situation where they have been three resolutions brought to the security council on the basis and because of the alleged chemical attack in syria and none of them up last. i thank you mike hanna watching developments there at the united nations security council as mike was saying three potentially expected all of this

following the chemical weapons attack in the town of duma just on the edge of damascus but disagreements between them on the terms if you like terms and conditions around any potential investigation into what took place let's take you back to washington when manzarek a bug is still on the string as the senate questions this following revelations that cambridge analytical utilize facebook data or to sway the u.s. election we could share with you wanted and then if someone in the community found it to be offensive or against our policies they'd fly good for us and we look at it reactively now increasingly we're developing ai tools that can identify certain classes of bad activity proactively and flag it for our team at facebook by the end of this year by the way we're going to have more than twenty thousand people working on security and content review working across all these things so when when

content gets flagged to us we have those those people look at it and to violate our policies then we take it down. some problems lend themselves more usefully to solutions than others so heat speech is one of the hardest because determining if something is hate speech is very linguistically nuanced right it's you need to understand you know what is a slur and what. whether something is hateful not just in english but the majority of people on facebook use it in languages that are different across the world. can trust that for example with an area like finding terrorist propaganda which we've actually been very successful at deploying ai tools on already today as we sit here ninety nine percent of the isis and al qaeda content that we take down on facebook are ai systems flag before any human sees it so that's a success in terms of rolling out ai tools that can that can proactively police in and for safety across the community hate speech i am optimistic that over

a five to ten year period we will have ai tools that can. get into some of the nuances the linguistic nuances of of of different types of content to be more accurate and flagging things for our systems but today we're just not there on that so a lot of this is still reactive people flag it to us we we have people look at it we have policies to try to make it as not subjective as possible but until we get it more automated there's a higher error rate that i'm happy with and he senator feinstein. thank you chairman. this is not what is facebook doing to prevent flooring marketers from interfering in selections. thank you senator this is one of my top priorities and twenty eighteen i was to get this right i one of my greatest regrets in running the company is that we were slow in identifying the russian information operations in two thousand and sixteen and we expected them to

do a number of more traditional cyber attacks which we did identify and notify the campaigns that they were trying to hack into them but we were slow to identifying the type of new information operations when did you identify new operations it was right around the time of the two thousand and sixteen election itself so since then we twenty a team this is an incredibly important year for elections not just in the u.s. midterms but around the world there are important elections in india and brazil and mexico and pakistan and hungary that we want to make sure that we do everything we can to protect the integrity of those elections now i have more confidence that we're going to get this right because since the twenty sixteen election there have been several important elections around the world where we've had a better record there's the french presidential election there's the german election there was the u.s. senate alabama's special election last year explain what is better about the record so we've deployed new ai tools that do a better job of identifying fake accounts that may be trying to interfere in

elections or spread misinformation and between those three elections we were able to proactively remove tens of thousands of accounts that before they they could contribute significant harm and the nature of these attacks though is that you know there are people in russia whose job it is to try to exploit our systems then other internet systems and other systems as well so this is an arms race but i mean they're going to keep on getting better at this and we need to invest in keeping on getting better at this too which is why one of the things i mentioned before is we're going to have more than twenty thousand people by the end of the year working on security and content review across the company speak for a moment about automated that spread disinformation what are you doing to punish those who exploit your platform in that regard. well you are not allowed to have a fake account on facebook your content has to be authentic so we build technical

tools to try to identify when people are creating fake accounts especially large networks of fake accounts like the russians have in order to remove all of that content after the twenty sixteen election our top priority was protecting the integrity of other elections around the world but at the same time we had a parallel effort to trace back to russia the ira activity internet research agency activity that was the part of the russian government that that did this activity in two thousand and sixteen and just last week we were able to determine that a number of russian media organizations that were sanctioned by the russian regulator were operated and controlled by this internet research agency so we took the step last week it was a pretty big step for us of taking down sanction to news organizations in russia as part of an operation to remove two hundred seventy fake accounts and page is part of the broader network in russia there was that was the action not targeted

international interfere but then i leave laws like a baggs testimony before congress there in washington taking the united nations security council and the going to hear more about an investigation into the chemical attack in duma. in accordance with rule thirty seven of the council's provisional rules of procedure i invite the representatives of canada. the syrian arab republic and the key to participate in this meeting it is so you decided. the security council will now begin its consideration of item two of the agenda all the members of the council have before them documents s. slash two thousand and eighteen slash one hundred seventy five. s. slash two thousand and eighteen slash three hundred twenty one and slash two thousand and eighteen slash three hundred twenty two which contain the texts of

three draft resolutions respectively. the council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution contained in document s. slash two thousand and eighteen slash three two one submitted by canada france the netherlands peru poland the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland sweden turkey and the united states of america. i will now give the floor to those members of the council who wish to make statements before the vote. i give the floor to the representative of france. president. the need for many years now this security council as part of its responsibilities to maintain international peace and

security. has been attentive to the issue of chemical weapons after the chemical attacks in guten two thousand and thirteen this acuity council adopted resolution twenty one eighteen which provided for the complete dismantling of the syrian regime's chemical arsenal russia as a co author of said resolution stood as a guarantor of its implementation despite that guarantee the damascus regime has never abided by the obligations under resolution twenty one eighteen and it is never given up and we saw proof of that once again on the seventh of april this year the use of chemical weapons targeting its own people five years after this council adopted resolution twenty one eighteen we note that the issue of chemical weapons generally speaking is still scientific very topical and the pending vote

will be our fourth meeting in less than a week on this same issue them yesterday we convened an urgent urgent meeting of the council following a fresh massacre using chemical weapons in duma in syria the horrifying and i burned images have left us all sucked under pulled last month we meant to address the issue of the unacceptable attack that took place in souls very last year we had successive meetings day after day following the terrible attack in qana all of that to illustrate how the situation has evolved and how it has deteriorated but it also serves to underscore how serious this issue is for our common security. presidents and the use of chemical weapons is so abhorrent that it is been prohibited for almost. a century now and many years ago the international community agreed to eliminate these horrific and barbaric weapons on the chemical nonproliferation

regime that we put together so painstakingly together and that we strengthened together is one of the bedrocks of the system of collective security that we have established which is at the very heart in turn of our own broader security system and today a threatening to large over it we are faced with this cynical barbaric and unrestrained use of chemical weapons targeting a civilian population the attacks in dumas illustrated once again the abject brutality of the unwavering military strategy of the syrian regime and the determination to pursue the military option at all costs such acts constitute war crimes they could even constitute crimes against humanity they did. open the door to potential trivialization of the use of chemical weapons tolerating the return of these agents of death and of fear is would be to give a blank check to all those who seek to use them. allowing people to use chemical

weapons allows the genie of weapons of mass destruction out of the bottle and weapons of mass destruction pose a nexus tangible threat to was. allowing this to go on it has done and reacted to would be a major threats to the international system that as i said we painstakingly work together to forge in terms of nonproliferation the consequences would be horrendous and we would all pay the price and that is why we cannot accept that sitting idly by france will do all to prevent impunity when it comes to the use of chemical weapons and it is in that understanding that we launched an international partnership last january the death of the gym last november following a russian veto wielded to protect the assad regime cindy danger. signal of impunity we have been deprived does of an essential determines tool it left

a vacuum which the syrian regime has rushed to fill and the atrocities of yesterday tragically remind us of the truth the american initiative which seeks to reestablish an independent mechanism based on a balanced approach and taking into account the concerns as each member of this council would allow us to plug that vacuum it would underpin the inquiry which has already been launched by the o.p.c. w. the american initiative would also respect the essential criteria of independence it would provide for no mental end of any kind it would also underpin the requirement of impartiality a principle to get all members of this council could have said they're so attached it would provide a mandate for the mechanism it creates to attribute responsibility for the attacks only the twinning of these two criteria are independent and an attribute of responsibility mandate would make the mechanism actually operational and viable and

thus in turn ensure that it acted as a deterrent i would like to be crystal clear in light of the seriousness of the attack that took place on the seventh of april france will not accept any smokescreen it will not accept any. mechanism where there is no real independence or impartiality we will not accept any window dressing. having a genuine mechanism is something the security council owed to the syrian victims of the chemical attacks it is also our responsibility before the entire international community for the entire international family security is threatened by the persistent use of chemical weapons by the bashar assad regime dilemma not president given that this is an existential threat for each and every one of the fight against the proliferate proliferation of weapons of mass destruction of must be more than it has been in the recent past at the very heart of the action and intention of the security council if there is one area where the security council

has moral and political responsibility to come together as one and to act it is on this issue the nonproliferation of w m d's if there is one area where the credibility of the security council is at stake and where we cannot engage in tactical games of one upmanship it is on this issue that this is an essential issue at stake we cannot sit on our hands we must act we must cannot allow the nom comical nonproliferation regime and with it our entire nonproliferation architecture as well as the principles and values that underpin our action to collapse and to dissolve before our eyes this is a critical juncture this is a moment of truth of the vote that we are faced with today and so i would call upon each of members of the security council speak on behalf of france to take proper stock of what is at stake here and to live up to their responsibilities and to vote in favor of the american draft resolution i think you are but i thank the representative of france for his statement i now give the floor to the representative of the united states. thank you mr president we have reached

a decisive moment as the security council on saturday the first haunting images of peered from duma in syria we gathered around this table yesterday to express our collective outrage. we then collectively agreed that this council must take steps to determine exactly what happened in duma and to put an end to these barbaric attacks the united states has put forward a resolution that accomplishes these shared goals for weeks we have been working with every single delegation on this council to develop a new attribution mechanism for chemical weapons attacks in syria we held open and transparent negotiations so every delegation could provide their input and we went the extra mile for one council member we adopted paragraph after paragraph of

russia's proposed resolution we tried to take every russian proposal that did not compromise the impartiality independence or professionalism of a new attribution mechanism after the duma attack we updated our resolution with commonsense changes our proposal condemns the attack it demands unhindered humanitarian access for the people in duma it calls on the parties to give maximum cooperation to the investigation and it creates the attribution mechanism that we've worked so hard with each of you to develop. this resolution is the bare minimum that the council can do to respond to the attack the united states did everything possible to work toward security council unity on this text. again we accepted every recommendation that did not compromise the impartiality and independence of the proposed attribution mechanism. i want to say

a brief word about rush's resolution which is also before us for a vote. our resolutions are similar but there are important differences. the key point is our resolution guarantees that any investigations will truly be independent russia's resolution gives russia itself the chance to choose the investigators and then to assess the outcome there is nothing independent about that the united states is not asking to choose the investigators and neither should russia the united states is not asking to review the findings of any investigation before they are final and neither should russia all of us say we want an independent investigation our resolution achieves that goal russia's does not this is not an issue that more time or more consultations could have resolved at

a certain point you're either for an independent and impartial investigation or you're not and now that the duma tack is happened this is not a decision that we can delay any longer. the united states calls on all security council members to vote in favor of our resolution and to abstain or vote against the russian draft the syrian people are counting on us thank you. a lot of those who know or who are not as it states for as they build up a lot of the fuel to the representative of the russian federation. mr president. there's a question of the united states today is once again trying to mislead the international community and is making yet one more step towards confrontation. but by putting to a vote a draft resolution which does not have unanimous support of security council

members that it is not true is that almost all requirements are taken in there of the. text here is nothing else other than attempting to recreate unchanged the former joint investigative mechanism of the in the cases of chemical weapons use in syria the gym. and russia has underscored all was that this approach will not be supported by us as a muslim with jim became a puppet in the hands of anti damascus forces the covered itself with shame when it came up with. proof of guilty verdict to a sovereign state a state without. a credit credit will evidence. the american draft. identically reproducing all of the flawed working methods of the

form a mechanism of the new mechanism who would to be carrying out the investigation the way it sees fit.