>> senate judiciary committee is meeting this morning to hear christopher wily, that cambridge company improperly got data from facebook users. >> in reference to that data. >> it appears you tried to use some of the same market as your former company. you were going to use that data for something, right? you weren't just going to leave it idle. why did you take it with you?

>> it's not that i took the data with me. it's just that it was still in existence at the time i left. million wiley: i didn't take any ata. >> in the sense it was already with you? mr. wylie: yes. >> what type of work did you anticipate your company would perform? mr. wylie: i work mostly in data analytics, looking at different kinds of social trends. so after i left cambridge analytica, i continued working on independent projects. but to be clear, i didn't use that data on any commercial contract. senator lee: couldn't that data have proven useful in some of your work? mr. wylie: it could have. i didn't go on and sell it senator lee: you could have. had you been successful and gone

on and been successful, could you be at the receiving end? mr. wylie: yes, but it didn't happen. senator lee: understood. i want to go over some statements that you have made in ragraph 15 of your testimony you say, i quote, when i was at ncl-sca i was made aware of the firm's black ops capacity. i -- the firm referred to these operations as special intelligence services or special i.t. services. how did you learn about these black ops capacities? mr. wylie: alexander told me. senator lee: who as a practical matter was involved in these black ops? mr. wylie: my understanding was that in some of the projects that scl group had in different parts of the world,

misappropriated information was -- in elections in particular against opposition candidates. senator lee: ok. in paragraph 30, you say, quote, the russian project undertaken by dr. coringian had a -- corga 234. , had a particularly focus of the dark trades of psychopathy and others. the russian project also conducted behavior research on online trolling. how do you learn all of this? can you describe those projects in more detail? mr. wylie: at the time he told me about some of the research that he was doing, he also told the company about some of the research that was being done by that team in russia. so there's email correspondentence from the firm -- correspondent preferenced the work he was doing for the

russians. it was initially through conversations i had with dr. cogan and later through the investigative reporting being done for the past year with the guardian and others, more details have emerged. senator lee: professor hersh, the use of social media to microtarget is fairly new practice. it's my understanding that microtargeting itself is not. and sadly the use of provogive -- provocative information to divide electorate or mobilize portions of the electorate has a long history in our country's political complains. the use of social media to microtarget different than what has been done -- how it's been done in the past? dr. hersh: it often looks the same. also responding to senator kennedy, just because the campaigns spend a lot of money on a particular ad kind doesn't mean it works.

for a long time they were spending on row bow calls. countless experiments show they do nothing. in an environment where there's lots of stimuli, a lot going on in the campaign, a lot of campaign ads don't really work. probably nobody in this room, or nobody anybody in this room knows changed their mind as a result of any campaign ad in the 2016 election. for someone who is the director of research for cambridge analytica, they should be know, shocking if they didn't, an actual effect, estimate, of which campaign ads do what. part of my skepticism comes because given there's been whistle blowing there's been no presentation of any such evidence in randomized controlled environments in which someone showed, here's the effect. this ad targeting had some effect. again, very hard to sort this out as technology changes from 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016. lots of things are new. one point we come back to in a presidential election, particularly when there is so much going on. the effect of one ad, robocall

is zero. senator grassley senator whitehouse. senator whitehouse: you said cambridge analytica are effectively the same thing. and that cambridge analytica was the front company for the s.c.l. operations, is that correct? mr. wylie: yes. senator whitehouse: what is s.c.l. elections? mr. wylie: there is a group company in u.k., was, called s.c.l. group which had several different divisions. the largest division when i irst joined was defense. s.c.l. defense. elections, commercial, etc. they all handled different markets for the company. s.c.l. elections handled political. senator whitehouse: what are s.c.l. canada and aggregate i.q.? mr. wylie: those were subcontractors set up during the time i was there to build out

software infrastructure. they played a very significant think of ilding the them like a franchise. senator whitehouse: the ripon program was the one to develop the software to use the facebook data? mr. wylie: yes. once you have algorithms and a target -- set of targets, you need something that can connect those targets with an online display network. that's part of the role. senator whitehouse: global science research? mr. wylie: it was the company that was set up by dr. cogan. senator whitehouse: you said it became a company simply to serve cambridge analytica. mr. wylie: it became a company, as i understand it, it became a company so it could sign a contract with cambridge analytica, or technically s.c.l. senator whitehouse: is it fair

to describe the entities i have all just described as a coordinated network? mr. wylie: yes. senator whitehouse: what was the role of robert mercer in funding that network? mr. wylie: he was the primary funder who put tens of millions of u.s. dollars which then distributed that money to that network. senator whitehouse: did that came ridge analytica network have a recurring relationship with black cube? mr. wylie: when i was there we did not have a contract with black cube. senator whitehouse: have you since become aware of a connection between them and working together on projects? mr. wylie: i have become aware of relationships that the company had with former members security services. senator whitehouse: how about a.s.i. data science.

that company's c.t.o. worked on s.c.l. projects, it was a subcontractor to cambridge analytica and there was a resolving cast of data scientists between that organization and cambridge analytica? mr. wylie: yes. senator whitehouse: they are a frequent contractor? mr. wylie: when i was there i believe their role was as a supplier of -- as the company was growing there was an increased demand for more and more data scientists, and they were, i believe the contract that they had was to provide data scientists. senator whitehouse: do you consider them part of the cambridge analytica network we described? mr. wylie: if you your definition of network is anybody who has an ongoing relationship, then, sure. senator whitehouse: you said the company palentier had staff working on the data, there were meetings with them at the offices and that staff helped build the models for the ripon program, is that correct? mr. wylie: yes.

to clarify they said all of the work that was being done by staff was done in pearnl capacity. senator whitehouse: i have a minute left. take a quick look at brexit. some of the forces behind brexit were vote leave, be leave, and veterans for britain, correct? mr. wylie: yes. senator whitehouse: all of them had contracts with aggregate i.q.? mr. wylie: yes. senator whitehouse: is there any peculiar about their contracts? mr. wylie: it's highly suggestive of coordination and data sharing. but that is currently being investigated by the electoral commission in the u.k. senator whitehouse: because aggregate i.q. didn't even have a website. mr. wylie: no. senator whitehouse: do we know vote leave put money into the other two? mr. wylie: yes, we do. senator whitehouse: do we have connections between leave.e.u., and ukop and elden insurance related to a.i.q.'s brexit

efforts? mr. wylie: not to a.i.q.'s brexit efforts, but rather that side of the leave campaign engaged with cambridge analytica. senator whitehouse: my time has expired. if there is a second round, love to have one. senator grassley: senator cornyn and senator klobuchar. i'll step out for a few minutes. at the end of his five minutes you take over. mr. cornyn: what sort of data mining you have been describing and the targeting of messages has multiple applications, correct? it could be commercial, for example, buy something on amazon or movie on netflix, they can send me information about something else i might like. it can be used to persuade people in a political campaign, for or against a candidate or a particular issue. it's -- it also can be used for

covert information operations by governments, correct? mr. wylie: all that have is correct. data is like any kind of tool. you can use it for various means. some very beneficial and legal, others not. senator cornyn: did s.c.l. or came ridge analytica serve all comers? were you open for business to whoever wanted to purchase the services? was that -- mr. wylie: that was the impression that i got. alexander was quite keen on selling contracts. however, after robert mercer took his money into cambridge, i know the only restriction we had was not work with democrats. senator cornyn: for example, fusion g.p.s. is much in the news and they provided opposition research to the d.n.c. and against the trump ampaign.

the means you analyze it and use it ising a notics. you can use it for or against a political candidate, product, or for information campaign. mr. wylie: yes. senator cornyn: mr. zuckerberg when he was here the other day, he kept saying, we don't sell data. and i responded to him, well, rent it.ly rent it. i don't know if that's a fair characterization or no. how would you characterize the social media platforms like facebook use of personal data? they say they don't sell it. how would you characterize it? mr. wylie: they have create add platform that -- created a platform that encourages the use of data. so it's true that you can't go to facebook and simply buy facebook data. but they make it readily available to its customer via

its network of applications or the fact that the lateout of people's profiles on facebook makes it very conducive to scraping data, for example. although facebook would say they don't allow that, they still setup which catalyzes its misuse in my view. senator cornyn: mr. zuckerberg also said the terms of service that consumers agree to when they sign on to facebook, you said people probably don't read it. or if they read it did he they don't understand t is your impression that most of the public -- understand it. is it your impression that most of the public has no idea what they are sharing with these companies? mr. wylie: when you even talk to lawyers who read through the terms and conditions, some of it's even dense for a lawyer. i think's unreasonable to expect a regular, ordinary person to

have the burden of understanding dense legal text. the other thing i would say is social media is not really a choice for most people. the internet is not a choice for most people. it is very difficult to be a functioning member of the work force or society and refuse to use the internet. i don't know a job that would let you go in and refuse to use google, for example. i don't know -- most hiring requires at least in profile now. although we use this narrative of choice because someone's pushing a button, even if they had read the terms and conditions and understood t. hey substantively don't have a choice because in the modern work force you have to use social media anti-internet. senator cornyn: or other options. mr. wylie: i don't know a job where choice because in the you can't internet. senator cornyn: do you expect the social media platforms get the informed consent? there is idea in the law if you

consent to a surgical procedure by your doctor, that your consent must be informed. in other words, you have to understand what you are agreeing . to do you think that's too much to ask for in this context? mr. wylie: that's not that it's too much. too much to ask for. people absolutely should have informed consent. the analogy is not equivalent. when you go and see a doctor and you need a surgery, you need something, you consenting to have surgery is proportionate to what you are getting. when somebody consents, quote-unquote, to something online, even if they understand they are consenting to their data being harvested, if that's the only way you can get a job, it's not really genuine the same situation. the point i would make to you is that we should take a step back from this narrative of consent and look at the fact that people don't have a choice. they have to use a lot of these platforms to be functional in the work force. senator cornyn: i don't have to

use facebook, twitter. mr. wylie: all of these platforms do the same thing. they all -- as soon as you sign up to use twitter, google, as soon as you sign up to anything they all will be collecting a hugely disproportionate amount of data compared to the utility they provide to you. further, the other thing i would say is that when you are looking at technology, there is a question of, not just informed consent in the present, but reasonable expectations in the future. when i first sign up to facebook, it didn't have facial recognition. i posted all my photos, then facebook developed facial recognition algorithms that can search the internet and find other things i'm doing. it's not a question of just informed consent. is it proportionate to the benefit that the consumer is getting? is it reasonably expected in the future if there's future developments in that technology that the consumer did consent to that at that time? and more -- at the time. and more broadly this consent is slightly problematic in the

sense when people have to use these platforms, it doesn't matter whether or not they understand. if they have to use it to get a job, they will still use it. we're sort of coercing and compelling people to hand over a lot of information, which not only now could be dangerous, but you have to imagine in the future also what the development of technology, what developments we'll see moving forward and what kind of risks we'll be exposing to people 10 years from now. senator cornyn: my time is up. i would conclude by saying companies now can and do market their services and products based upon people's expectations of privacy. so if consumers are fully informed about what they are doing, what the consequences are, they can make their choices. it may create markets for other alternative platforms where people's data would be more protected. senator klobuchar: thank you

very much, mr. chairman. thank you for your succinct answers, mr. wylie. lie. month i last month i introduced a bill to protect consumers' privacy online. included in that bill giving consumers the right to control their own data by allowing people to opt out of having their data collected and requiring companies to notify consumers of a privacy violation within 72 hours. you previously expressed support for allowing users to opt out of all targeting criteria in three clicks or less. as well as rules providing the data collected be proportion at to the app's actual purpose. would cambridge analytica have been able to harvest the data if facebook users opted out of having the data tracked by facebook? mr. wylie: the problem was that facebook had set up applications that physically allowed the

collection of datea. one of the other things i would say is that in addition to giving consumers' rights, we should be putting obligations on companies themselves. so principal of privacy by decision which treats privacy as an engineering problem, safety problem, would also be incredibly beneficial because privacy is not just a governance issue or terms issue or policy issue, it's a physical engineering issue. senator klobuchar: do you think they would do that on their own? mr. wylie: no. senator klobuchar: that was opponents to one of my friends on the other side of the aisle and why senator kennedy and i proposed this bill. the bill i have done with senator mccain and senator warner, i understand you supported the idea that there should be more transparency of political ads. there is no requirements in place. in your written testimony you stated if a foreign actor dropped propaganda leaflets by airplane over florida or michigan, that would universally

be condemned as a hostile act. this is happening online. as you know, facebook, twitter, microsoft are now supporting my bill. but -- they are taking measures to disclose these ads, especially facebook. do you think that this patchwork of voluntary measures will be the answer? mr. wylie: no. i think that -- just in the same way that we require safety standards in everything else we care about, we should be requiring safety standards and transparency standards in software and online platforms. senator clow by char: at last month's hearing i asked mr. zuckerberg if the facebook users whose data was shared with cambridge analytica were concentrated in certain states. mr. zuckerberg said he would follow up with a state by state breakdown. i want to ask if you have any knowledge whether those facebook users were mostly in nick states? mr. wylie: i can't say -- in any particular states.

mr. wylie: i can't say. but i do know there was a particular focus on states from the company's activities on swing states and states that were winnable by republicans. senator klobuchar: wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania? mr. wylie: yes. senator klobuchar: again await that information from facebook. i also asked mr. zuckerberg whether any of the other roughly 126 million people who may have been shown content from fab page associated with the rushian internet research agency were the same users whose data was shared with cambridge analytica. believe, quote, there is entirely possible there could be a connection there. what could you say about the potential for any overlap of facebook users whose cambridge analytica obtained anti-users who showed content of the internet research agency? mr. wylie: the thing i would say -- firstly i didn't ever deal with the internet agency so i

can't comment on that entity. to your point, my concern is that information either may have been shared or indeed misappropriated, again, at a second instance by russian entity from cambridge analytica. what i would say is that it's not it's not just whether or not these individual records were targeted. if they were used to build an algorithm, other users would share similar profiles and patterns in their data could have also been exposed in a way that if you simply looked at were these records targeted specifically, even if the answer is no, that doesn't mean those records weren't used to build a targeting algorithm. senator klobuchar: one last question you used the word proviling. and voter disengagement.

one of the most horrifying things from our hearings were the ads that were clearly made to suppress the votes of african-americans. do you have any knowledge about the scope of this activity and how often it occurred out of the company? mr. wylie: my knowledge relates to the tail end of my engagement with cambridge analytica. one of the things that did provoke me to leave was the beginnings of discussions about voter disengagement. i have seen documents that reference that and i recall conversations that it was intended to focus on african-americans. senator klobuchar: can we get those documents? mr. wylie: i'll discuss with my lawyers the best way to get you that. senator klobuchar lon you said it would be an -- illegal act to have an airplane come in with pamphlets, this under person law where you are specifically suppressing votes is also an

illegal act. thank you. mr. wylie: to be clear. i didn't partake myself. senator klobuchar: i understand. that's why you left. i get that. i appreciate you coming to testify very much today. >> the chair has asked me to chair the committee and also happen to be in the next order -- i'm not taking chair's prerogative, it's my turn. thank you-all for being here. i think this is a very helpful hearing. i intend to be here for the second round as well. mr. wylie, i leaned over to the ranking member and said that she was complimenting you on your technical expertise. i said i love having a witness before the stand that i can actually understand. senator tillis: i can't understand lawyers, but i can understand data analytics people because i was one. i hope that the result of this hearing is actually trying to figure out what, if anything, congress should do from a regulatory framework and compliance framework with respect to the new avenue for

data use. all of us in these committees have already used data from aggregators. we take the voter data. we know what voting propensities. propensities are. the next way, data aggregators, so you can overlay people's affiliations with associations, the magazine subscriptions. that's become passe in terms of data matching. it's been happening for 10 or 20 years. in our campaigns. i would dare say every single member here who has gone -- ran for election has had that. that is where they buy data and they aggregate t then they build their platforms around it. now with the advent of social media, we have entities to have come into play that really don't want to sell their data, they want to sell the result of that data so they can target people on certain social media platforms. would you agree with that analysis?

mr. wylie: yes. it's the agent access rather than the age of transfer. in terms of data. something -- senator tillis: do you believe that baseline is part of their intellectual capital or part of their institutional value? mr. wylie: yes. data is an incredibly powerful -- it's like the new oil. senator tillis: i would be happy for either of the other two witnesses to chime in. a part of when mr. zuckerberg was before us some weeks back, i tried to focus on what we should all be looking at as policymakers as other practices beyond the cambridge analytica. my firm engaged cambridge analytica. the day they proposed it and i saw them again on election day. i do have some questions about the focus on trying to get psych low graphic data from people on

in personal interviews. it may or may not have been captured through some of the techniques we're talking about. if we're going to do a thorough, impartial, nonpartisan review of the facts, we really should go back over the last 10 years. i don't know if you have had an opportunity to, but i would commend it to you to read technology review, they had a three-part series. the series was titled, how overwhelm bayeas team used big data to rally voters f you go through that very well written review, and through articles associated with it, there were quotes from campaign workers who said we literally took the whole social breath from facebook and able to download it through the use of an application. there is a term, i don't know the specific page, they talk apps for -a-fying the use. and the supporters would use. and the obama campaign, i think

it may have been the first, could have been the second, they actually asked whether or not if you were a facebook user if you would mind by clicking on a button be willing to share information about all your friends. in my case i have 4,900 friend. by clicking that button i was giving access to thousands of people's information without their knowledge. this is a document and practice i think also has to be looked at in the context of creating good policy that's based on various uses. contemporary uses of data on social media platforms. in my remaining time in this -- in the first round, i would just ask you do you believe that some of the technology players today, simply have grown so large so quickly that some of what you thought would have been captured

through just good corporate governance and code of conduct, having somebody from a social media platform who either leans conservative orleans liberal kind of putting their thumb on the scale and giving them information they shouldn't if they were good stewards of data and the social media platform. i leave that as an open question and reserve my remainder for the next round. >> i don't hold a view that facebook is necessary for our lives. as an instructor of political science, i encourage my students never to share information about politics or ads or news online because they are not professional. they should direct their attention to source that is have editors. dr. hersh: the idea you must contact your friends and family and upload pictures and there is no alternative is something that doesn't strike me as an ordinary citizen that's true. i think in answer to your question, facebook has a lot of

data. i think it's acted inappropriately in terms of how it's conveyed news, sold ads to just about anyone who wants to. target hate groups, fine. bringing it in. we have an algorithms yism, we don't pay too much attention to it. i think it's a terrible way they have conducted business. i would encourage people to use facebook. but i am surprised by people's continuing interest in the company. dr. jamison: i concur a lot in what he was saying. it's difficult to argue that facebook per se is necessary for people's lives when about half the internet users aren't on it. there are lots of other types of social media. to your point about would someone with a particular ideological political view tilt the scales one way or another, i don't know if people would deliberately do it, they might. but by the nature, they will. because what i view as true is influenced by how i think ideologically.

so things i might screen out say well this is bad, disruptive to the community would be influenced by how i think. >> senator coons. >> thank you, senator tillis. thank you for the panel to be with you today. i think the reason this matters is we're talking about the intersection of several important developments that are difficult for the average american to understand. big data and social media. and foreign interference in our 2016 election. we're trying to tease out what actually happened or didn't happen. mr. wylie, start with you. cambridge university professor michael cue zin i ask studied the use of facebook data and found based on average of 68 facebook likes by a users, these were just likes, what you like or disliked, you could predict sexual orientation, political party affiliation, race with 85% acuracy. further factors like religious affiliation, alcohol or drug

use, even whether your parents were divorced could be deduced. is that your understanding of that analysis? do you think cape bridge analytica and the -- cambridge analytica and the work of the professor used that predictive power to develop algorithms that weaponized differences between americans for electoral gain? mr. wylie: the basis of the research that we were doing at cambridge analytica was from the papers that you are citing from from the doctor. the firm replicated his approach and thought to improve it. senator coons: did i correctly high summarize the knowledge of knowing the facebook user if you have had access to their likes and friends. mr. wylie: it increases -- the particular paper you are citing,

the number of likes once you surpass 100 and 200, you can get the same level of accuracy at predicting, for example, personality traits, as your spouse would if they were answering questions about you. in comparison to how you would -- senator coons: all of us who stood for election, struggled with the difficulty of targeting our voters effectively. because the data sets we have had access to, mostly publicly available data, are very thin, narrow. there is very little we have. the data sets that facebook has access to, that's why it's a multibillion dollar company. are unbelievably deep and rich. it's unlike anything we have had to confront before, correct? mr. wylie: yeah. i don't contest what professor herish -- hersh was saying in the fact is through persuading somebody compared to motivating them to turn out.

the data sets that traditionally were used are often very sparse nd not necessarily reliable. senator coons: available through facebook. mr. wylie: yes. that's why cambridge analytica ended up pursuing that path because it found in comparison to traditional marketing data sets, the data that you could procure from social networking sites was much more dense and actually much more reliable to create a precise algorithms yism. senator coons: a billionaire megadonor in support of the trump campaign, fund add shell corporation, cambridge analytica, still run by foreign nationals,er to take advantage of this research, this understanding, and gained access to 87 million americans, facebook information, and developed some of the algorithms that came out of that. i want to ask you in the time remaining about your experience working with steve ban none, one

of president trump's senior -- bannon, one of president trump's enior campaign advisors. was voter suppression a service that u.s. clients could request in their contracts with cambridge analytica while bannon was vice president? mr. wylie: yes. senator coons: steve bannon is running an organization where you could as a client request in contracts voter suppression using this remarkable data set? mr. wylie: i don't know if it was referenced in contracts. i have seen documents that make reference to it in relation to client requests and services provided. senator coons: last question. you testified back in 2014 cambridge analytica set up focus groups, message testing, and polling on americans' views on the leadership of vladimir putin and russia's expansionism in eastern europe. you also testified it's entirely

possible, would have been relatively easy, for russian intelligence to put a key logger on professor cogan's computer and get access to this full data set. why do you think cambridge analytica was testing putin's aggressive actions? what threat would it pose to our 2018 elections if this entire data set, all the algorithms that can with it, are currently in the hands of russian intelligence? mr. wylie: i don't have a clear answer as to why the company wanted -- was so engaged russian expansionism and the leadership of putin. that's a question better put to steve bannon. in terms of the dangers for not just american democracy but other democracies around the world, this -- data is powerful. if it's put into the wrong hands, it becomes a weapon. and we have to understand that companies like facebook and twitter are not just social

networking sites, they are opportunities for information warfare. not just by state actors, but nonstate actors. we do have to look at protecting cyberspace as a national security issue. just in the same way that we have agencies to protect our borders, land, sea, and air. senator coons: than you very much. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to each of the witnesses. thank you for being here. i think americans are rightly concerned about privacy and the security of our data. and we're also concerned about the power that is being collected in silicon valley by a handful of companies having enormous troves of data that they are able to use and employ with very few rules governing what they do with that information. senator cruz: much of the media attention in recent weeks and months has focused on the data operation of the trump campaign. but the trump campaign was

hardly the first to employ data in a very significant way in a political campaign. dr. jamison, your written testimony, you talked about the obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. and their data operations. can you share with this committee what the obama campaign did regarding data in 2008 and 2012? dr. jamison: during the 2008 campaign what they did is they had, as an advisor, co-founder of facebook, who helped them understand how they could use facebook and obtain data from facebook. a lot of that work was done by consultants, but that was the center of it. in 2012, the campaign changed its strategy. it pulled all that in-house and made it more effective. they were able to combine their facebook data, more cleverly, more carefully with other sources of data, and do a much better job of understanding what individual voters were like, who was connecting with whom, and how they could understand those conversations.

senator cruz: has facebook on a hed access to data fair and evenhanded manner, allowing candidates from which ever party the same access to data? or have they been more political and partisan players in that regard? dr. jamison: i have no knowledge of that. senator cruz: i will note that carol davidson, the director of data integration and media anta litics for obama america 2012. she said, quote, facebook was surprised that we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized that was what we were doing. she also said that facebook, quote, came to office in the days following election recruiting, and they were very candid that they allowed us to do things that they wouldn't have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.

so that's the head of data analytics for the obama campaign saying facebook is giving preferential treatment to the obama campaign because that's he political side they are on. did they give the romney campaign the same access to that data? dr. jamison: not to my knowledge. senator cruz: all right. how about in 2016? there's been a lot of discussion of what the trump campaign did with data. did the hillary clinton campaign have a state operation? dr. jamison: i presume so. i'm not familiar -- a lot -- there wasn't very much written about her campaign on any of this. senator cruz: does anyone on the panel know what the hillary clinton campaign did on the data side? does anyone on the panel think that there is a chance in a million years that hillary clinton campaign didn't have a substantial investment in data

analytics? mr. wylie? mr. wylie: campaigns across the spectrum in the united states use data. and just to your point, when we look at -- a lot of people are concerned about, for example, the ability of big government to inhibit our liberties and choice. ig data can engineer a situation that limits our choice and free trade agreement and not -- freedom and not part of the issue. to the point of other parties access on of facebook, i actually agree with you in the sense that there is a substantial risk of distorting the electoral process if a company like facebook decides to pick a side. whether that is democrat or republican. and so the thing that i would hope that this committee and others really internalize is that this is -- we're talking

about came -- cambridge analytica. it's not a partisan issue. we're talking about the future of how the technology companies operate and the risks to ordinary american citizens and the risks to the integrity of our democratic processes. here in the united states and the world. that's not a partisan issue. senator cruz: i very much agree with that. i would note there is an overlay on top of that that facebook and other social media companies are now the vehicle through which some 70% of americans get their political news. so the specter of censorship i think is a profound threat to liberty. i appreciate this panel being here. hank you for your testimony. senator tillis: senator blumenthal. senator blumenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to you-all. thank you for being here. mr. wylie, are you aware of

conversations between cambridge analytica executives and any representatives of the russian government or people associated with the russian government? mr. wylie: i'm aware of meetings that the company had with luke oil which has close connection was the russian government. senator blumenthal: those conversations documented anywhere in any letters or emails or any other kinds of evidence? mr. wylie: there are documents pertaining to the conversations and presentations made to luke oil. and i have passed on those documents to the authorities. senator blumenthal: to this committee? mr. wylie: no. senator blumenthal: would you be willing to provide them to this committee? mr. wylie: i will consult my lawyers the best way to get you that information. senator blumenthal: thank you. during your time at cambridge

analytica, my understanding is the you are aware of founders or funders, including obert mercer, providing moneys so that they would not be, quote, necessarily considered declareable campaign contributions. are you aware of conversations to that effect by mr. mercer or anyone else? mr. wylie: what i'm referencing is what was explained to me after i inquired as to the relatively convoluted setup that was happening in the united states. with respect to the setup of cambridge analytica. what was explained to me is there was -- this is the primary reason. so it could be an ancillary benefit. when you vin -- invest money as an investor into a company you own, it doesn't necessarily

constitute an electoral contribution, which -- senator blumenthal: let me cut to the intent of my question. was there specific explanation to you that the purpose of structuring these funds as investments was to, in effect, avoid the reporting requirements or other provisions of united states election laws? mr. wylie: it was explain to me as a benefit of the setup. senator blumenthal: were there any firewalls during the time you worked at cambridge analytica that separated work on different campaigns? or were the funds, in effect, could he mingled -- co-mingled in all the campaigns? mr. wylie: while i was there i did not see fire wails being set up -- firewalls being set up or -- or any sort of barriers between people or computations.

senator blumenthal: there was no recognition of the legal responsibility to separate campaigns? mr. wylie: i am aware of memos from the company's lawyers to some of the executives of the company that outlined the responsibilities in the united states to separate contact between staff and activities that relate to different campaigns or pacs. senator blumenthal: they were instructions. mr. wylie: instructions. when i was there i did not see -- senator blumenthal: in practice those instructions were not followed? mr. wylie: no. senator blumenthal: can you provide some specific examples f your direct knowledge of either focus groups or other efforts to suppress voting? mr. wylie: so, in terms of specifics, i'm happy to work

with the committee to give them more full explanation. i understand there's limits on time. i am aware of research that was being looked at about what motivates and what dehe motivates different types of people. if you focus on messaging that demote vates certain people, you crease -- demote vates otivate -- demotivates people. senator blumenthal: you worked in the transition for federal communications commission for president trump, correct? mr. wylie: yes. senator blumenthal: at any time did you have any contact with michael cohen about s.e.c. policy? dr. jamison: no. not to my knowledge. senator tillis: senator harris. senator harris: thank you.

we're here today to talk about how cambridge analytica obtained sensitive data that millions of americans on facebook without user knowledge or consent and used that data to target voters and influence our elections. there are broader issues of privacy highlighted by this instance. i think it's worth stepping back to pull all this in context for the american public. to put it plainly most americans have entered into a bargain with facebook and other web service providers in which users unknowingly give those companies huge amounts of personal data in exchange for the free service of social networking. in turn, facebook uses this data to show its users carefully targeted ads which are the source of 98% of facebook's revenue. interestingly enough this business model makes the facebook user the product and makes the advertisers the customer. but let's be clear, this arrangement is not always

working in the best interests of the american people. first, users have little to no idea just how facebook collects their data. including tracking the user's location, the device they are using, their i.p. address, and activities on other websites. to be clear, this occurs whether or not they are logged into facebook and whether or not they even use facebook. let me put this in perspective, in the real world this would be like someone following you every single day as you walk down the street watching what you do, where you go, for how long, and with whom you are with. for most people it would feel like an invasion of privacy. and they would call the cops. and yet social network sites technically lay all this out in their terms of service. let's be honest, few americans

can decipher or understand what this contract means. second, as this hearing illustrates, americans do not have real control over the data collected on them. and there's almost nothing that users can do once data is shared with third parties. i believe it is therefore government's responsibility to help create rules that yield a better and more fair bargain for the american people. one that respects their rights as consumers and their privacy. in the meantime, i have a few questions i ask of the witnesses today. mr. wylie, in particular you mentioned a lot of discussion how cambridge analytica targeted african-american voters and discouraged them from participating in elections when steve bannon was the vice president. what specifically did steve bannon or anyone else decide motivates or demote vates african-americans to vote? mr. wylie: so it's not just focusing on racial

characteristics of people. actually when you pull a random sample of african-americans, they are not all the same people. oftentimes they are very different, very different lives and motivators. when you are looking at any program, whether it is motivating or demotivating someone, understanding their internal characteristics is very powerful because you don't treat them as a black person. you treat them as who they are. that can be used to encourage people to vote or discourage people to vote. senator harris: how specifically did they target african-american voters? understanding you do that the african-american population is not a monolith. how did they decipher and determine who was african-american so they would target them and their intent to suppress the vote? mr. wylie: racial characteristics can be modeled the m not sure about

studies that my colleague here was referencing, but we were able to get an a.e.c. score way to measuring accuracy for waste. senator harris: what? mr. wylie: area under receiving operations characteristics. a way of measuring precision. which means it's very high to be ear, i didn't participate on -- which means it's very high. to be here i didn't participate on them. i can comment on my understanding of what they were doing. but those questions are better placed to steve bannon. senator harris: i join in the request of any documents you could share with us. on a different note, what should facebook have done to verify either you or cambridge analytica had deleted the unauthorized data? mr. wylie: so, i can't speak for

cambridge analytica. i can speak for myself. in 2016, they sent me a letter that said we're aware you may still have data from this harvesting program. it informed me that dr. cogan didn't have permission to use the application he was using for commercial purposes and only cac democratic purposes. that was actually new information to me. i did not know that ahead of time. then it requested that i -- if i still had the data to delete it. and then sign a certification of that -- that i no longer had the data. senator harris: did it require to you sign that under -- provision of a notearry or just sign it and send it back? mr. wylie: it did not require a notearry or any sort of legal -- notary or any sort of legal procedure. i signed the certification and sent it back. they accepted it. >> senator harris, just as a

housekeeping, we will have a vote called around noon. that means we need to be there within about 25 minutes. i think we'll be able to get the first round. we have senators durbin, hirono, and booker, i'm happy to stick around to the vote. if we can agree to three-minute rounds. senator durbin: initially, senator harris, i thought your presentation on the issue of privacy was spot on. it really described what we're about, at least one of the things we should be about. i asked a question of mr. zuckerberg whether he felt comfortable telling me the name of the hotel he stayed in last night, and after a couple minutes or seconds of hesitation he said no. i have asked a lot of questions in the senate. that didn't get a lot of attention. i think because it really got to the heart of the issue in terms of mr. zuckerberg and his own

feeling about personal privacy and where he would draw the line. we know, of course, from what senator harris has said and what we know from life experience is, the last hotel i stayed in is probably a matter of some record with my name attached to it somewhere, who knows. but privacy is a critical issue here. and the right of facebook or any entity to use my information without my express permission is over the line. i said to start coburn, senator cornyn, my friend, i when he said he thought consumers were aware when information was being gathered on him, but i'm sure he's wrong. we have now put a little piece of electric tape over the camera on my laptop. most people do now because they are being watched and they may not even know it. but there are two other issues here thade' like to -- spend a moment addressing.

one of them relates to mr. knicks, a british national? mr. wylie: yes. senator durbin: he was clearly involved in some of the campaign activities of cambridge analytica. mr. wylie: he was the c.e.o. of the company. so he was the point person for all of the clients. he often made the presentations and recommendations to those clients. senator durbin: federal election commission says expressly that regulations prohibit foreign nationals from directing, dictating, control, or directly or indirectly participating in the decisionmaking process of any person with regard to any election related activities in the united states. so there is a red flag or red union jack whatever you want to call it. that should make it clear that we're in a territory here that may be, may be a violation of law. you have said that the involvement of cambridge and

successor organizations and russia came after you left, is that correct? mr. wylie: can you clair phi at you mean by -- my experience directly as it relates to luke oil, as relates to understanding the research that was being done in terms of the focus groups and all that. it senator durbin: the use of information by the russians in the election campaign -- mr. wylie: sorry. i misunderstood. yes. senator durbin: that happened some other place or after you left? mr. wylie: yes. i was not aware at the time that there was activities in russia to influence the united states elections. senator durbin: i would add that to the second cat gorery. first question, privacy. the second question is the involvement of foreign nationals in the united states campaign. whether mr. knicks personally or russia as a country tried to

influence the impact. the third has been brought up by my colleagues and gets to the heart of another very important issue. that is the issue of the secrecy of this activity. the fact that we know mr. mers he was engaged in this is -- mercer was engaged in this because of something called open secrets and other source that is weren't disclosed in the ordinary course of business in this. did you have any guidance from cambridge when you were there in terms of the secrecy of the clients that you were working for? mr. wylie: so, to your first point about non-u.s. nationals working in u.s. elections, cambridge analytica received formal legal advice, which i disclosed to the media. and that legal advice did make clear that the company should not be sending nonu.s. nationals to -- on american elections. >> this hearing on cambridge analytica's improper use of

personal data from facebook will continue online at c-span.org. going to leave it here to go live to the u.s. house. today members considering bills dealing with assaults on police officers, veterans health care, and farm bill. live now to the floor of the u.s. house here on c-span.