and we're very proud to be part of that effort. i indicated to president santos that as the negotiations conclude, assuming success, assuming an embrace by the colombian people, we will continue to solicit ideas from your government and the colombian people about how else we can help and mobilize the international community to support your efforts. but the point is that because of the vision and leadership of not only the colombian people and colombian government but also democrats and republicans and members of congress and so many who invested so much in this effort many years ago, we want to make sure that we are showing that same commitment going forward. we don't consider this an end to

our friendship and our partnership but rather a new beginning. and just as we did 15 years ago, we intend to bet on colombia's success. we're united by a common vision. a future that is more just and more equitable, more prosperous for all of our people. you know, one of my most memorable experiences in colombia was when i accompanied president santos as he granted land title to two afro-colombian communities. and it was a wonderful day. not just because we were hanging out with shakira. [ laughter ] there in the plaza de san pedro we watched as the descendants of slaves laid claim to their piece of a new colombia, and it was a reminder of what peace really means in people's daily lives. what's possible when people are empowered, no matter what they look like or where they come from. and that's a vision that

president santos believes in. that's a vision that we share, that this is not just an abstract exercise at the highest levels of government. this is something that has to affect ordinary people in increasing their security and their opportunity. that's what we mean when we talk about building a truly peaceful, prosperous colombia. that's what we hope to help you realize. a place, as the great novelist gabriel garcia marquez once imagined, a place where no one will be able to decide for others how they die, where love will prove true, and happiness be possible. in this great work colombia will have no greater friend than the united states of america. muchas gracias. [ applause ]

♪ [ applause ] >> thank you very much, mr. president, and good evening to all of you. you said at the beginning that americans love and admire colombia colombians. i must say the same thing. colombians love and admire americans. and they love you very much. you are the most popular person in the colombian polls. [ laughter ] >> that's not true here in the united states.

[ laughter ] [ speaking spanish ] >> translator: today i come back to washington to thank you, to thank the people and the government of the united states for the support that they have given to colombia during the last 15 years and to project our cooperation throughout the next few years. there are many people that i would like to recognize for their support, who have participated in the creation and the administration of plan colombia over the past three years. many of them are present here today. the ex-presidents of the united states, bill clinton and george w. bush, as well as my predecessors andres pastrana and

alvaro uribe, the secretaries, ministers, ambassadors and high officials of both governments, the senators, the congressmen of the united states and of colombia, the leaders and members of the armed forces and the police of both countries, of businessmen and so many people who have contributed to this plan, thank you all very much. and thank you to you, president obama, because you've not only maintained your support for plan colombia but you have inspired us to find a better and deeper partnership between our two countries. today we can say without a doubt that the goals that we had in 2000 such as fighting the drug

war, strengthening institutions, and imposing the rule of law, and to take social programs to great parts of remote colombian territory have been -- those objectives have been met. today's colombia is much, much different from the colombia of 15 years ago. our country at that time was going through the worst recession -- economic recession of the last 70 or 80 years. we were very far from controlling our own territory. and we were very close to being declared a failed state. practically a third of our national territory was controlled by paramilitaries. another third was being controlled by the guerrillas. and both were financed by drug

trafficking. we had a very dark and uncertain future. today the outlook is completely opposite. today we see the future with hope. we've gone from the worst economic recession in our recent history to being leaders in economic growth in latin america. and not just in growth. we are also leaders in job creation, in reducing poverty, in strengthening our middle class. we have gone from the shameful international championship of being the first in murders and kidnappings to have the lowest indexes of these crimes that we've ever had in the last 40 years. and despite the increase over the last two years in coca cultivation in colombia, almost

60% of that cultivation has gone down. the number of rural families that are involved in this business of cultivating coca has been reduced by 2/3. and all of that, while we continue very vigorously and decidedly to fight against drug trafficking, so much so that last year we were able to overcome all kinds of records in the volume of cocaine seized, more than 250 tons of it. those thousands of families who entered into the legal economy thanks to your help, thanks to plan colombia, have shown us the way of what our cooperation can be over the next 15 years. in fact, we have already implement implemented a comprehensive

policy of crop substitution that contemplates every link in the chain of drug trafficking. and it will be much more important because it will attack the roots and not just the symptoms of this problem. all of these advances are due in great part fought fato the fact that 15 years ago when we were in such serious straits the colombians received a friendly hand. and that friendly hand came from here,here, from washington, froh sides of the aisle. democrats and republicans. and thus it has remained. a lot of people say that plan colombia is the bipartisan incentive that has been most successful over the last few

years. but people perceive it as the exclusively military or security initiative. but it was much more than that. it's true that plan colombia helped us to have the most powerful armed forces, the most effective armed forces that colombia has ever had in its history, and they today are out there training armed forces of other countries in the region. but the reason for its success was that it was a comprehensive strategy. a strategy that also bet on social programs, on justice, on rural development, and on strengthening our democratic institutions. in the name of the residents of that forgotten colombia who are finally seeing the presence of the state, thank you. in the name of those rural dwellers who are now cultivating legal crops and have bettered

their conditions of life, thank you. in the names of millions of colombians who are starting to live without fear, thank you. but above all, in the name of new generations throughout colombian territory, in the names of those children who can see a better future now, thank you. thank you very much. >> dear president obama, if in colombia we're on the brink of a peace agreement, i can say without a doubt that colombia was crucial -- that plan colombia was crucial in helping us get there. from the very beginning you, mr. president, supported the risky and bold step of trying to achieve peace in our country. you were one of the first

persons i confided my intentions to start a peace process. back when many, the great majority, thought that it was basically a mission impossible, many people warned me that it would be political suicide. making war is so much easier than making peace. and you not only believed it was possible. you encouraged me to go ahead and gave me your full, enthusiastic support. since then you have walked by our side. and today, mr. president, you stand with the colombian people when we are on the verge of transforming this dream into reality. i believe also that i speak for all the people in latin america

and the caribbean. all the people who live south of rio grandee. when i say to you thank you. thank you, mr. president, for your audacity in re-establishing diplomatic relations with cuba. thank you for understanding that peace in colombia means peace for the entire region. peace will be the cherry on the cake of plan colombia and the start of a new chapter. a new chapter of collaboration and friendship between our two nations. a chapter that we have decided, and what a good name, to call paz colombia, peace colombia. peace will help us consolidate a new nation. a country that will be safer, more prosperous, more just and

equitable. better educated. and of course happier. we'll be a country, a confident mission that will continue to earn the trust and admiration of the entire world. and we will build this new country in cooperation shoulder to shoulder with a dear and true friend, the united states of america. thank you. [ applause ] re the

committee affairs in london. >> let's call this to order and ask everyone in present and then i welcome our witnesses today for the ongoing inquiry into counterterrorism. i was leaving she that is been in the public debate at the moment has been about your tax,

your committee is not concerned about this because -- but just as an opening question to have anything to add of anything that needs to be made public on this issue? >> no. thank you. we're here to discuss them porton counterterrorism work that we're doing. >> you have just become the largest company in the world with a bigger than norway, australia and and columbia. congratulations. >> thank you. >> was far i think it's important to talk about the global bill. >> thank you very much for inviting me to the committee. i'm aware of the news reporters

you are of the speculation in the media. unlike other companies companies we have not made a statement about this so i am unable to go further. >> any evidence? >> i would just say that like large companies we have regulations to follow about our affairs and where we operate. i have not come here to burden you. >> have you given any evidence. [inaudible] >> we had in our inquiry who is the head of counterterrorism and who is the independent of the government on counterterrorism

both expressed concerns that would have approached your company's and you can all answer the question even though it's directed to one, it would be helpful in respect to having the information i respect to counterterrorism. in particular from internet firms that would deliberately undermining counterterrorism investigation which are used to hand over were threatening to tip off the suspects or protecting. >> certainly it is fear to bring up. we we have a long history of working together with government, law-enforcement authorities to make sure they have the information they need to pursue an investigation. our cooperation is governed under u.k. and u.s. law. do our best to make sure we can

provide information in the cases of the investigations. in google's case we have long published statistics about her interactions with law enforcement and for the u.k., their involvement with the request for information from us. it is gonna from 1,202,013 to 3000 in the first half. >> is at 3000? >> what about facebook. >> it's actually a similar number for each happier, three or 4000 and u.k. just to be clear, that's just about a matter of things not just counterterrorism. an expert in the company that works in the spaces we confirmed that the inquiries in the. >> the first half of 215 we received requests. you can look at your account

without having to look at a twitter account yourself. there's there's a large amount of information available. >> unicenter concern when the head of terrorism says that it's in undermining efforts, he did not mean the company in general, he went on to -- this was published in june 2015 he said some providers will tip off the contraband that they are under surveillance unless they're persuaded not to do so typically by court order. how do you tip off your consumers that there under surveillance. >> i think this is an issue some of the media reap ports have. >> sure that's why we're here. you don't have to rely on twitter, you can actually tell us. have you tipped off customers that they are under surveillance are they under surveillance?

and then under many jurisdictions around the world their legal frameworks to provide notice to that user. we are very clear about them and when david spoke with the committee he said that he wasn't aware of any circumstances where the situation.

>> we would seek to give notice because in that case it is reasonable to do so. >> if the tech counterterror investigation -- is it an mp or a journalist to request information about, you would tell those people. >> depending on the investigation. >> but you. >> but you just said you would tell them. >> if it's context specific. >> it would be more reasonable, we understand and therefore we have to deal with these words all the time. i'm just asking you for facts. do. do you tell people, other than journalist and end peas that the authorities have asked for information. >> yes.

>> are you in the same position? to tip off people when information is requested and. >> we do not do that and the u.k. >> do you do it in america. >> yes, sometimes but not in every case. and it depends somewhat on the particular jurisdiction in the matter before the investigation. >> in that u.k. we don't do it. even if we could we never would in respect to counterterrorism. >> so if they say we want this information with the terrace and for investigation you would never you would just hand over the information. >> if it met our criteria, we review every case by a case-by-case that we don't tip anyone off. >> yes in twitter, it's a definite non-facebook in the in the u.k. but in america it is different. what is the situation with google. >> where in the same situation space bar.

the jurisdiction dependent. we followed the law in the jurisdiction we operate. where it is not prohibited and where disclosing is appropriate we will. now, in respect to taking down isis from the internet we have received evidence of the last few months that person-to-person radicalization has been replaced by radicalization and therefore internet companies are important in that context. there's 289 per day they've taken down or reported 2555 websites and reported 19560 twitter pages and reported 40000 suspected material in total in the internet.

do you have figures as to the number of websites that you have taken down that you deem to be websites that propagate terrace. >> i think it's probably worth going back in context and we also operate -- in the case of youtube where we are hosting materials and set community guidelines where the world is acceptable. first with flagging option for terrace content in 2008 and we have adapted our policy over time to take into account new ways people are abusing the platform to make sure they are

put into effect as well. >> so how many have you taken down in total? >> 's on the youtube site we receive about 100,000 likes per day. but that's across all types. on the u.k. in 2014 we did 14 billion videos for youtube it that's across all types. >> are you able to be more specific in the future, would you be able to look at the number of websites and the number of have terrorism content? >> we can't do it right now but were certainly open and actively thinking about ways that we can be more transparent about what we remove and what really pilots. it is worth noting that one of the reason it's difficult is because if someone is offended by something on youtube they go chart flagging procedure. and those flag over laps, could be for terrace content or they

might for speech so at present we are not able to count that way but it is something so it was pretty critical a few days ago. >> about what was the content she said she felt it had become a place where heat was being disseminated. is that right? how many pages has facebook taken down relating specifically to counterterrorism? >> so what happened we are confident -- there's weeks ago in berlin the joint commission that the u.k. -based

organization had dialogue and the institute -- and soap for violence extremism so this is initiative which will combine support for each geo that we are trying to use the internet for -- researching what work and then training around best practices. >> it was not sudden. it was something as a company we take very seriously. for a number of years and events in the world has unfolded in recent years this has become the number one public policy issue that i talk about with governments. this is just written up the

policy agenda. we want to ensure that we are learning from organizations that work from the ground but have the best academic resources and have the best support. >> are you going to publish the outcomes of the initiatives? >> absolutely. this is a three-year initiative. there'll be more to follow. >> the second part of your question, we do not provide the same level of detail as google do. we provide similar information around the request but that moment we don't provide public data on the number of pieces of content that we take down. >> they just find twitter to refusing what it considered terrorist propaganda. isis has been looking at the

pages and the tweets that they have sent out today, we asked about -- this is pretty hot stuff in support. what are you doing about those who are using twitter and what they're doing with terrorism. i think they understand that there are recruiting using twitter. >> in terms of this pages we have taken down tens of thousands of accounts. when google are thinking about how. >> is that last year? >> so those figures would be in the last 12 months. >> and is a broken down between counterterrorism and other areas? >> so that specific figure is

specifically relating to extremist accounts is. >> you taken a 10,000 twitter pages. >> yes. they were they were trying to figure out how to be more transparent. we are having intel discussions about if there's more that we can do to provide extra data. and if we can were happy to do so. >> would you be able to publish this information on a more regular basis? we would like to have this information. >> were like a company that. >> so were sinking we have this kind of data? >> yes or no that it's the number one way that people are being groomed on the internet. >> the question is is it

internet the number one way that people are being groomed. i'm afraid i don't know how people are groomed off-line to answer. it something we take very serious. >> i'm not sure i do agree. i think you'd be better off talking about other people like the properly named international radicalization. they are the expert. we are not. we're the experts on how we can keep this content outside of off of facebook. >> i would agree. >> thank you gentlemen. also want to follow a point on that you made 14,000,000 videos videos which is next ordinary figure. to look at this manageable he, are you confident that you are removing the dangerous material

quickly enough in terms of preventing people from being radicalized? >> so typically something we think about on a regular basis. it's worth noting that 400 hours per video of video are uploaded every minute. the vast majority of that is people using the product in the way it is intended. not to abuse anyone, not radicalized. since it has started and grown we have had to think about what is the best way to do this. continuing to this day, the best ways we have a billion people on the platform every month. we found the best way to get things down quickly and to get it done reliably remains that people flagging it. and it still happens very quickly in a number of hours. >> thank you. >> the initiative on

counterterrorism has recently come into the public domain, most would argue that it's been an issue for a long time and your organizations are just now coming forward either just re- accepting some responsibility that people have been radicalized on your platforms and that you have an issue. your company seems to be hijacked by terrorists. what what would you think about that? >> i think it's not something we have only just artie thinking about. we have a policy on youtube since 2008 when we implemented the flag. we host our first summit on violent extremists in 2011. we have been working with others at the home office since 2012. we hosted a counter speech event

with the home office and then with you fairly soon after that. this is a multiyear commitment. in 2013 -- it's been something we've been doing for years. obviously obviously there's more work to be done. >> how can videos appear to enable them to support terrorism. >> so we have video uploaded every day and therefore we rely on the community to flake videos that violate our policy. people who violate that policy after multiple violation are one serious violation we will terminate the account and prevent those groups, the person from a creating the account for making another one. >> what is defined as a serious violation? >> i guidelines are clear on the different types of infraction. their different ways that people will abuse a service like youtube. to be clear we strictly prohibit

glorification of violence. we ban videos at training camps or direct recruitment. we ban incitement of hatred against people based on the gender, race, race, nationality. those are all serious violation. >> i can understand why the announcement was made, that's not the case. >> know i said the company was worried about its reputation for reese accepting responsibility. >> we absolutely know that we have responsibility to act in partnership with civil society and government. >> no responsibility that the platform is been used. >> we accept responsibility, we are not responsible for the behavior of the people who abuse

our platform. we are responsible to make sure that we have a policy in place and well-trained people who connect quickly and take action is required. most of all we have a responsibility to help organizations like connect justice who want to use our platform. so as well we assist others. we want to help and it could be a conglomerate or another religion, another belief, who want to use our platform, so that is something that we have taken to for long time. i have looked at it a few years ago to talk about this very issue. we continue to improve what we do and invest more money into it. >> are clearly prohibit terrorism. sometimes what is on our platform is a reflection of society? sometimes is very uncomfortable.

lacy is a transparency and rethink our responsibility is is the role of the company is about making sure people can use our platforms for ideas. we can remove all of the content but even if we remove the content the idea remains. a lot of this is about ideology and idea. if we don't carry the ideas then the issues will not prevail. >> i find it difficult to understand they take no responsibility whatsoever for people using that platform for other people if you have a shop and people were trying to recruit someone to be involved in a terraced sect, i hope you as an individual would try to remove them from the shop. not expect someone else to come in to do that. but you.

but you are in your platform. to monitor and remove. without any responsibility. >> if you use that example we remove them from the shelf and prevent them from becoming bullets in our community. also a little bit about how we see working with experts, one of the questions we put for this why didn't facebook sit down and say hey that's not right. actually the the work that we have done, looking at what kind of counter speech works, it's people who are more like those young people. it's people who use humor, people who use eye-catching content so you can be more effective at drowning out the negative forces. can you just tell us how many people are the places where this content is monitored and reported or taken down?

>> more than a hundred. how many accounts worldwide to have. >> there's 320 million people using it we have a variety of tools. one of the issues is we have people coming back on the platform. that another technical challenges. >> we had operations team we do not have a public number for that but it does number in the thousands of employees. the vast majority of whom do not focus on counterterrorism. we have an expert theme. >> how many on that. >> i'm afraid i cannot review a number that we provide. i be happy for you to come and meet them.

you can come to our dublin office. you can come and meet the team and understand more about their expertise and where they work. >> thank you for the invitation. >> much like facebook i'm not able to share number. it is a significant number. >> do you have such? >> we do. >> we have some people based in dublin but there staffed it 24 hours a a day so it is a global team. speemac's how many accounts worldwide. >> worldwide. >> so 1.59 billion accounts. we are not monitoring them. but we are handling reports every day. most are not not about the issue you're talking about. >> you believe in corporate, social -- and google. >> is still is actually an you

must accept the largest company on the internet, you accept that gladly. the internet plays a vital role in extremism. from the perspective of extremists and terrorists. >> certainly. this would not exist if the internet did not exist. the problem it carries -- >> when you would except terrorism historically, now that it's easier for extremists and terrorists to speak to each other than it was years ago. >> and just to keep an eye on it, as it also.

>> our company is on the forefront of trying to combat the. >> criminals use the internet just as everyone else does. so i did none of your company choose to attend the joint committee which is scrutinizing the draft invest a great powers that's in the house at the moment? >> there's a joint statement made that is the conference of statement of issues with the bill. secondly in the committee is working on an accelerated timescale. was in a refusal it was the fact that trying to get companies from people across the world in the same room at the same time with just a few weeks noticed. it was just difficult to get everyone in the room. i figure submission will evidence the fact that how

seriously we have looked at the bill and indeed how the seriousness of which we take the bill was the fact that five global companies came together to make a unified statement. it demonstrates how seriously we are taking it. >> i should declare that i'm on the committee, this meeting today was organized very shortly like last week or two weeks ago. we have managed to get the three of you in the room. the joint committee made significant effort to sit in with your company timetables and yet you still decline. why are you afraid to come to the committee to give about your views of one of the most important pieces of legislation. >> i think there's been a discussion with the committee for some time.

i know i've made several comments about when i was free over plot. of time. secondly, we are very clear, our joint statements and i gave evidence to the previous joint committee on communications. i think the substance of the submission you saw from industry and the spill more than surpasses the counter discussion that happened last time. i don't accept the premise of the question, i i think we've taken very seriously. >> i would say that i reject any suggestion that it implies our company doesn't care about the issue. we care about it and we care about the issues and we particular dress in our submission. nor does it mean that we don't take our responsibility seriously. >> there's logistical challenge outside my area of expertise,

but i would simply repeat that we are committed to working with the british government to making sure. >> i should add that we heard evidence from a judge in new zealand, 5:00 o'clock our time, but we'll leave it there. i want to hear your praise about when twitter chooses to support people in law-enforcement has made inquiries about with you. i think you said it may be you tell users where they may be subject. >> what is the interpretation according to twitter? >> is the same that the u.s. court reviews or any court.

it's useful opportunity for me to clarify and i apologize if i wasn't clear. and we would not seek to provide user notification on terrorists. >> you said you did tip them off and i said you didn't. >> i said for some specific cases but in the case of a counterterrorist using data, that is the case that would follow the exception. in a counterproductive circumstance. >> another example of where we would not seek is because of an ongoing investigation. >> so certain crimes? >> who makes the decision. >> we have a legal team working on these issues. let's worth pointing out in terms of the number of requests in a year, we see hundreds,

320,000,000 hundred and 20 million people globally, more than 15 million in the u.k. and that was in the first half of 2015 we had had 299 requests. so to put this in the context, it we also work with the police. we help the police. >> i just want to get to the bottom of it. is it a balancing act that the joint commission, is the balance of civil liberty against national security and keeping our country safe. i just want to get a sense of who decides in your legal team if a request is on reasonable, request made by law enforcement. who or why of the appeals? >> tomorrow morning will have a

conversation with u.k. law-enforcement to discuss these issues to help them understand her policies. also one of the reasons why in our submission in the u.s. for an example there is a time. that police can can request data for investigate. that time. can either allow that information to happen or get an extension. one thing we have asked us to make the framework so that it's clear to everyone. >> i don't have anything to add. >> find it very interesting that a tech company should be telling parliament how fast to police law-enforcement and security service inquiries. i suspect that maybe one of the reasons your company would decide it was best not to come before the committee. >> the other question is the investigative powers, that is

the mechanism by which the secretary you are to be precaution is in them that was a true by a judiciary. my question to is why twitter thinks it's your legal team supersedes the whole secretary in the judicial commissioner in the definition? >> i'd if you look at the decisions made, one of the questions we have is what happens when a request has gone through that process. or maybe the request for information which would not be in compliance with u.s. law.

so that is why all our companies are encouraged, the british government in the united states government to work closely on building a legal framework. actually we don't want to have to make those decisions. we would like the courts like a course to make those decisions. >> i asked you what gives your legal team and twitter the right to override the secretary of state and the judicial commissioner? >> there doing it, but their different legal frameworks that play. >> i'm talking about the warrants been issued in the united kingdom to stop a terrorist attack. what gives twitter a right to override the judicial commissioner? >> in the case of an emergency we would provide information and have consistently done so. this is one of the very reasons why an international framework is so important. >> i think you made that for clear, thank you. >> before we move on i want to follow up on a question. >> mr. pickle has provided which was in relation to the number of

people working removing content. mr. pickle has provided us with a rough figure against a user group of 320 million people what i don't understand is why the other two will not provide those details to the committee. you do not just say you can't. you said your company won't provide those figures. why? >> in regard to it i will check again with my colleagues and my understanding is that we've been asked that question it is not information we make public. but i will ask again. >> were in a similar situation. >> okay. my point is one is twitter and one was with all of you, i would check one thing that is being reported in april of last year,

this was in the daily mail which is why want to check. is it true more than 10000 link to isis militants were suspended and 24 hour period in a crackdown, is that correct? >> today we have definitely vetted more than tens of thousands of accounts. as a specific content i'm not sure. we have suspended more than that figure of accounts. >> would you be able to write the committee and let us know if that was an accurate report or not. if it is, explain why if it is the case that this is done in a 24 hour period, 10,000 or thousand or more were done in a 24 hour period and they were not suspended before hand.

>> my question is, question that the chair and others oppose have been based around when you receive a request of information from a law-enforcement agency. i want to ask you a question about the threshold that is in each of your companies before you proactively notified law-enforcement of epping terrace material that was being identified by your company or by users. what is the threshold beyond which you decide in each of your companies that you must proactively notified the law-enforcement agency? >> we do not define an outfit it

has been seen already. so law-enforcement have established criteria to request information. >> suggests i got got it right. twitter has no proactive approach to notify law-enforcement of potential terrorist potential on twitter. one of the things that is important that was discussed in congress recently was discussions about legal requirement. the fbi director was asked what he support such a proposal and he did not. one of the reasons is because they're taking down tens of thousands of accounts. they have a huge amount of information. were not in the position to judge credibility of those threats. actually you may and up in that situation. >> notwithstanding whatever the fbi felt was appropriate to the knighted states. with three guards to the united kingdom,, do you think it was right that you are the one who to determine the threshold in those circumstances, or do you

believe that actually the better approach would be for that to be a legal framework that others can judicially defined when you should proactively provide information of potential terrorists on your platform. >> the problem we have in this area is from different countries around the world and they have a different definition sometimes of terrorists. a legal framework would be good. >> yes you have said that before. >> have come to the question of the secretary wants which is from my colleague. first of all, to accept the dissatisfaction, genuinely, not only in parliament but among the public as to where in which you

wish to engage terrorist use of social media and continue to do so. to accept those? >> absolutely, we would prefer no one used our platform for terrorists. >> i think the public describes about extremism, terrorism or radicalization and of course people are writing and concerned about including online. >> use if you take your example one of the two which took place, he puts he puts his face on facebook, i understand that

facebook would be aware of what's occurred however the intelligence community here when they discover that facebook had previously shut down this person's account, but so they remain so concerns for the security. would that be right? >> the committee and what you speak to that report cannot name a company. i am unable to talk about individual cases. i hope you would understand. i can reassure you that when our company comes across information in which there is an immediate threat to life we provide that to the authority. any requests associated with terrorists or would be terrorists we take extremely seriously.

>> the female who had gone with a young child to syria and the returned, during the course of the proceedings in court and also the judging coming up the person was found guilty by a jury. it appears she had use social media to advertise her intentions. the whole point, was what i start at the beginning of my question, the concern of what could possibly happen in any way in ordinary print material happens on social media because of the very nature of the company in which -- >> i would draw a strong between sin the pages of the daily mail

online and facebook. facebook is a a community of almost 1.6 billion people. billions of things get posted every day. just like the u.k. which is the preparation of 60,000,000, there are some bad people. there are people who want to's or service with ill intent. including with ill intent. including the most serious crime of terrorism. we absolutely want to root them out and do have thing we to stop them from doing that. believe me we are committing more resources by this month by month in learning as we go and working closely with our authorities. we would much prefer there were not people trying to radicalized young people and communities across the uk. we would love to be able to press a button to get rid of them. it's not as easy as that. it takes takes a lot of effort, resources, intelligence. we are applying our best endeavors to this and will continue to do so.

we are very serious about the. >> i think one of the points of follow-up is yes social media brings out things of discomfort of the highlight issues of theirs researcher northern ireland community relations council that said while the challenges there there is also an opportunity and the opportunity for using social media to engage across cultural boundaries, cross social social boundaries. what it didn't say previously is how people will meet people -- they talk very movingly into his becoming involved in a few weeks about how engaging social media was how she really humanized in her mind. this other person that she'd been told she should hate. that. that person led her leaving the baptist church. i think it's a golden

opportunity. >> while there is different opinion in parliament every effort should be made to avoid social media being used by those who want to carry out terrorism atrocities like was on paris, london and others. therefore. [inaudible] >> do you recognize however much dividing opinion about the public and truly parliament and what the secretary is changing to ask parliament to approve? >> absolutely we acknowledge that and it is not a federal decision in the u.k. one of the things to notice u.k. government is taking the lead in

modernizing surveillance laws for the 21st century. like most other countries, surveillance was here have not been updated since most people have had access to the internet as their were walking around. some modernization laws need to be looked at. >> i would say that the responsibility for facebook in the middle east, israel, turkey, i really hope the u.k. gets this right. i think if it does it could set an important benchmark for many other countries that they operate inches i'm always asked about what is happening in the u.k.? people are looking for these resources. it's actually ramifications across the world. >> i think the international press has been very grateful

that we do look forward to hearing the committee's work. [inaudible] [inaudible] some are very concerned about your tax position, however as i said i would like to see a report in the newspaper that you very much on the defenses about the tax affairs it is going to be said if you, some sweet deal, like the host secretary is saying many of us, in order to minimize, indeed the chair of

this committee as i made do so said that you'd be very wise to work very closely with the government on the power she wants. note he will speak on behalf of this committee when reaching a decision but because of the embarrassment with which your company and the tax issues you will make some sort of deals with government. [inaudible] >> i would simply save each of these policy matters is serious and at least in my mind and in the mind of the team i work with at google, we need to have all of these conversations. >> i think what is a matter policy and that is not yet set, what is a matter matter of

application a policy of legislation. completely different teams deal with that in our company and there's no discussion between those. >> the joint committee is glad that we have ambitions. >> i think we have the answer. just on the issue of instant messaging acts as one of the concerns microsoft? the legislation that is currently written could banned the use of these instant messaging services, because of their encryption, is that one of the concerns that is been raised? >> it's an issue around clarity or what the bill entails. but i would not suggest we are concerned certain things will be banned. as with all matters of legislation you know much better than we do, having certainty about what this actually means is instrumental.

>> thank you, chairman. >> i want to ask you one question and your colic. we've heard a lot in the press about the islamic state one social media. yet they pledged not to be a tech savvy organization, how much of that to attribute to the use of social media? >> i'm afraid the successor of the rise is in some state outside the use of our platform is beyond my level of expertise. i'd say we are extremely effective in removing those videos and accounts that are created by foreign terrorist groups. we are extremely effective at removing re- uploads of those videos says they were really taken down. >> to believe that some of the

success that the service has had was based on their use of the platform and how much would you say is your platform venues to poor? >> it's a constant cat and mouse game. it is one that we are well-equipped to meet. >> so are you working with the government or any you face organization to provide an online alternative? >> absolutely. that's something something we haven't talked about today. we talked several times about there's. [inaudible] >> people are able to find good information. when they are feeling isolated they go online and feel a of hope not a community of harm. so we have worked and that has been with our work that's around the world.

>> i think one of the primary examples is abdul x which is a video series we lost with the european union in 2013. that was a formally radicalized man who appeared in cartoon form using humor the types of language that the people being radicalized connect with. use that to draw them away from the other one. >> comedy people did that reach? >> ..