>> host: issie lapowsky is a senior writer with "wired" magazinein joining us to talk about how the date on some 50 million facebook users ended up in the hands of the data analytics firm connected to the trump campaign. issie lapowsky the controversy revolves around a company called cambridge analytica. who are they? >> guest: cambridge analytica is a u.s. company that was spun out of a british company and they are basically an ad marketing firm but their big marketing kick to the clients as we do something called psychographics. that's the difference in demographics targeting based on gender where you live age range and things like that. the company says we understand people psychology, their personality and the big question for so long has been how did they understand back? they have said they do personality surveys and they buy commercially available data but

we are also learning that a lot of these personality profiles were acquired from a third-party researcher that they started partnering with that in 2014. cambridge analytica did work with the trump campaign and embedded staff inside the trump campaign and prior to that they worked with the ted cruz campaign so there are a lot of ways this facebook data could have made it into ad targeting during the 2016 election. >> host: why were they interested in facebook they than what did they do with it? >> guest: in order to create personality profiles you need a lot of information about how people feel about hot budget issues so they partnered with his researcher from the eyuniversity of cambridge and in 2014 he developed an app called this is your digital life and it looks like a fun app for facebook users. it said it could predict your personality based on your answer so if you have 7000 days book users downloading the app in

doing so they were handing over to this researcher their own personal data and also the date of their entire friend network so this is information about how people are connected, the things that they like and that researcher took these 50 million user profiles from facebook and pass it on to general analytica what we are learning from reporting in "the news york times" and the guardian in the story over the weekend as that 30 million of those profiles received enough information to cambridge could start to come up with these personality profiles of the last. that was integral to their development of the company really, all of the facebook data. what is left ears whether the data was used in the trump campaign. according to the trump campaign they were relying on the republican national committee's data but the cambridge status scientists were crunching that data and carving it up into audiences so the trump campaign

could target advertising. >> host: issie lapowsky of "wired" has been writing about cambridge analytica for well over a yearyt now and has severl stories in "wired" according to thee u.s. but she's here to answer questions for about the next 25 minutes on the "washington journal." democrats (202)748-8000 republicans (202)748-8001. was any of this illegal that we have talked about so far? >> guest: that's a really goodd question. it is not illegal in the united states. up until 2016 facebook allowed any at developer to do this. they basically change their roles in 2015 to say that now add developers are allowed toly take data from people who download these apps but they cut off what they called the facebook social graph which is that network of information from

friends. this was all done in compliance with facebook's own terms at the time. the problem is it in 2015 facebook became alerted to the fact that this third-partyrt researcher who developed the app had passed the data onto cambridge and that's in violation of facebook terms. facebook had cambridge analytica and cambridge analytica company spl signed legally binding document saying they had deleted this data. we are now finding outin from reporting in "the news york times" the guardian and my own reporting that they may not have actually deleted the data not me of remains visible to cambridge employees. facebook is interested in auditing. they broke into the spl headquarters yesterday. they were shut down by the information commissioner who wants to conduct their own investigation. a lot of regulators are hoping

this is done through channels and not between facebook and the companies behind closed doors. obviously that hasn't worked on the pass. >> host: one example of issie lapowsky's reports in "wired" both companies owe answers. what answers to members of congress want from facebook? >> guest: they want to see mark zuckerberg come to washington andnd testified to in the fall facebook google in twitter all sent their lawyers to congress to talk about russian influence on their platforms during the 2016 election and i think a lot of members of congress were dissatisfied with the fact that they were seeing these lawyers and not the companies in the powerful ceos. markto zuckerberg has been calld to the senate judiciary. think you'll see interest with new pay regulators as well. they want an explanation as to why such a process is ever possible that you can scoop up all of this data from people's friend networks and they want to

know what facebook is going to put in place to make sure this such a thing doesn't happen again. >> host: henry is up first in michigan on the line for democrats. good morning, henry. >> caller: good morning. i would like to ask the lady if she could verify whether the individual who came up with the app as sheet referred to for the personality quiz or test or whatever it is was a russian professor and also if she could enlighten us a little bit more on the russian connection with cambridge analytica and how they kept asking cambridge analytica for their data and the trump administration obviously, i mean the trump campaign obviously had dealings with cambridge analytica as well and whether

the two coincided which would probably make a pretty good case for collusion and the 2016 election. >> host: issie lapowsky. >> guest: the professor you are referencing was a professor at the university of cambridge and it's my understanding he is russian-american but doesn't necessarily have ties to thean russian government. he is still working at cambridge as far as i understand. there has been some reporting in fact that cambridge did work with the rushing company lukoil. they do work for government, they do work for commercial enterprises and politicians than they are arguing that there was nothing political about the nature of those conversations. of course that's the subject of a further investigation i am sure as that comes in the spotlight. >> host: harrisburg

pennsylvania and independent, go ahead. >> caller:en i want to personally say before he asked my question it's amazing that data to prevent the hillary clinton campaign from campaigning in wisconsin campaigning in michigan campaigning in-- [inaudible] my question is first we are told james comey last election for hillary and then we are told--os laws that campaign for hillary now we are told that cambridge analytica lost the campaign for hillary. when will we finally say that hillary lost the campaign for hillary? >> host: do you have a question for issieie lapowsky? unless there's anything you want to pick up on issie lapowsky. >> guest: i think it would be the wrong way tooo look at it to say the cambridge analytica lost the campaign for hillary. a big scandal here is how freely our data as americans were traded by companies without any regulation. i think that people are--

if you visit a clothing store in that piece of clothing you lingered on shows up on your facebook page and it doesn't really body but now you realize that technology can be used to influence your choice of the president or his influence democracy in some way i think that should botherin people. this information is just being freely bought and sold and in some cases being passed on to entities that were never supposed to be part of the agreement. i don't think this is the conversation necessarily about the election. i thinker it's a conversation about data privacy and security. >> host: good morning. >> caller: good morning. hyde yale i just wanted to ask they both need these people and

clinton's campaign tried to use the information that obama had gotten and i don't think they .anted to give it to them >> host: issie lapowsky? >> guest: i think what you're getting at is every campaign uses data. the hillary clinton campaign was working with facebookth and gooe and twitter as was the trump campaign. this was a part of modern campaigning. they have been doing television advertising for years and are realizing digital campaigns are much more effective and much more depth. gathering obama f data and the campaign was using the same loophole that allowed them to data on people's friend network on facebook, that is a question we have to ask ourselves, are we okay with that? side is doing it more, which side is behaving badly,

are the american people okay this as a new process in political campaigning? facebook, this of from the front page of the "wall treet journal," business and finance, facebook shares posted largest decline in four years dropping $12.53 or wiping out 36.4 billion in market value news about cambridge stories came out. in the editorial section, lead editorial in "new york times" is facebook saying facebook annot police itself the editorial board calling on congress to strengthen privacy aws in the wake of this incident. issie lapowsky, who is leading he charge in congress on that front? guest: well, i would say senator and clobeshar have

critics front and been of the companies, not just in regard with the cambridge tolytica news, but in regard ads sold to internet research propaganda ssian group. those senators, along with senator john mccain introduced honest ads act, require ads, werency for digital are used to seeing t.v. ads that donald trump or paid for by hillary clinton, no uch regulation exist for digital. the companies are trying to promising lagsz by to do that themselves, a lot of doubting whether facebook can police itself. the e.u. are ahead of the united states in terms of privacy protection. the data can be asked to be erased or corrected to be more

accurate and new regulation in the e.u, as well. the u.s. is definitely following on our regulators across the water. alex stamos? a name that has come up in the ast couple days and gotten a lot of attention. guest: sure. securityos was head of for facebook. he was previously yahoo, oversaw major data breach at yahoo. news broken yesterday that he people at facebook he's leaving the company. twitter and ook to said that is not exactly true, he's moving into a different election ing on security. we'll have to see in the doesning months whether he stay on at the company or the "new york times" reporting was accurate on that. a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. two things. of all, my lack of interest of all things computers

amazing. second of all, i was taught passing e i got caught a note in school that never write down what you don't want whole world to read. amazed at the fact that even what i don't want people to down in a diary on the computer can be known to one.body, number my second question is about last election.he i read an article that i didn't saying that they were looking at package of being sent from theia to the bank server in trump tower that was, you know, being sent to computers at amway. i don't know if you heard anything about that or, i mean,

technically so tupid that i can't explain it, but you hit a connection and it article that n some technical geek says, you you do it and ow the package and information can be saddled on to regular bank transitions. host: i think we got the question, mark. issie lapowsky, something you cover? not exactly sure what story you're referring to, as far as cambridge analytica and connection to russia, as i said, as far as we know, there meetings between the company and the russian oil is something they explain away by saying, yes, we do business around the world, look into the article you were mentioning. host: another mark in lakeville, connecticut, a republican, go ahead. curious, es, sir, i'm you know, when it came to things arab he russian, the

pring and it was lauded really as positive thing social media as used to enact changes that appened and as far as the last administration, when they ran their campaign, it was seen as that they used social media to organize. i just want to know how can we a different reaction to basically the trump used bannon to secure the same resources and utilize them? you, that's all i got. guest: you are absolutely right. is a new way of looking at a process that is not exactly new. obama used during the campaign. used media was certainly during the arab spring. divisiveness uring the 2016 election,

polarization, that people started to see the ugly side of what tech can accomplish. it all when it was new, seemed great and you weren't necessarily seeing the trolls with e bots like we did the 2016 election. i would also say it has grown substantially since 2008, 2009 and 2012, even. users.on use percent age is higher. sales of advertising to russian propaganda groups, we according to the mueller indictment, intentional efforts pit americans o against each other. in some cases they even on facebook were real-life events that they were trying to get eople to, you know, go out in the streets and protest each other. they would plan protests on both issue to get americans to fight each other. when you see the same tools used

in the past, maybe celebrated in the past, can be for bad.ed people are turning a critical platforms now. host: bring in comments from cambridge analytica twitter responding ave been to various stories about their company and what they did and didn't do. we are eted yesterday, not alone in using data from social media site to extract lots of rmation, companies from researchers to data in ies use marketing. -- if success breeds envy and scrutiny, so be companies have used our tactics. in thebook data was used 2016 presidential election. issie lapowsky. that is a little bit of a weak response because not only are we seeing that they on to the data when they promised to get rid of

it, although they deny that. lot of data forms that work in u.s.-based cs are companies. cambridge does work all around the world. posed as an -- reporter infixer for a wealthy client the c.e.o. ou have of cambridge analytica talking penly about tactics like extortion, like bribery, paying people off and filming it. know, said the news they spread doesn't have to be true, believable.be another executive said it is wrong to win elections on facts, is all about emotion. i think people have concerns u.s., even in the though data mining and targeting

practice, this bragging ompany on -- host: cambridge analytica responded to that report, which been subject of plenty of stories in today's papers. editied, the report is scripted and grossly misrepresents the nature of the and how the company conducts its business. out idge analytica putting various statement necessary response to the stories. issie lapowsky is with wired few more ith us for a minutes to answer your questions about the story. wales, new south york, a democrat, go ahead. democrat, i'mi'm a a motorcyclist and i'm very autonomous bout vehicles. oing forward i see these vehicles collecting a lot of that data users

could be misused and i'm wonder that ng your views on would be moving forward? thank you. yeah, that's a smart question and not just autonomous vehicle, internet of things, from your microwave to your connected.n be you are right, it is collecting information on the people who know , you have no way to where that information ends up. i don't think a lot of people realize there are firms who sell information on what you buy because they have partnerships with major credit card companies everything you buy can be purchased by political campaign advertiser for a brand, so attention to ur data privacy should be much broader than how it influence it should apply to all of the companies whether it is autonomous vehicles or

interpet-connected refrigerator. host: forney, texas, cindy, an go ahead.t, caller: yes, a lot of people use ads put for ads, but out by russia makes the american people look very stupid. i have seen some of the ads, my phone, ad them on her talking about michelle being a man and had a sex change, that stupid. look they need to expose the ads put ut there because a lot of people says, a lot of people used them, the things put out by i think they need to let he ads be out there and make their own decision. host: issie lapowsky. guest: yeah, i think you're ads and content prgan propaganda groups putting out there were bringing out the worst in us.

would choose issue, refugees or black lives matter nd set up pages that took the most extreme view on both of those issues and then they would to fight with le each other. that is why people have said they and again that maybe had the intention of trying to their onald trump, but main goal was to sew ivisiveness in the american electorate to breed distrust in each other, frankly. feel it has cebook its arms around how many ads ande were that were created paid for outside the united tates and were spread on their social media platform and does congress have access to all the this point? guest: facebook turned over the idea of as fairly good how many ads were purchased on facebook and instagram. have been more cagey about, how many people exposed to the ads and how many people

the accounts. emember, the research agency, propaganda group, purchased ads much broader part of strategy facebook account or create facebook page, phony accounts, phony pages, they had followers. and so just recently i realized out facebook had never come and said how many followers the ussian instagram accounts had and they still haven't. they say they have not run those numbers my last reporting. i think there is a lot we're going to continue to find out people were ply enmeshed in all of this propaganda. host: last call, michigan, republican, go ahead. caller: yes. just decided almost hilarious how it was democrats in charge everything during the election, so security of the internet and stuff, they were in charge of. they were fine with all that was going on as long as hillary was

winning. once hillary started to lose and now they lost, they are all it seems change. host: issie lapowsky. the final minute or so. the guest: sure. would say, it wasn't until last fall that facebook really had sold ads hey twitter e and acknowledged it, too, and many other tech companies, this was during the obama administration, you are right, valley ng time silicon had been the darlings of the business world, they were not they were still seen as innovative ntrepreneurs, start-ups that scaled so fast and i think the public perception of companies turned quite sharply in part because of the fact they really much of thes on for 2016 election about how their being manipulated and insisted after the election

think pretty crazy to fake news had anything to do with election results, now i coming to terms with the role they play, the power they have, but it might be late.tle too host: issie lapowsky, senior writer with wired magazine, find er davidwitter at

cameron testifies about global security. unfoldsn, where history daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events aroundington, d.c., and the country. c-span next hearing on the drug enforcement agency's role in combating the opiate epidemic. the head of the dea robert patterson testified in ways his department could expedite the investigation process against distributors involved in suspicious opioid orders. we'll tell you about allegations in west virginia. his hearing of the