saudi arabia. liz: paul ryan. stuart: paul ryan retiring in in january. keeps his speakership. facebook stock is up 60 cents, go figure. neil cavuto. it is yours. neil: stuart, thank you very, very much. with mark zuckerberg testifying before a house committee. but there are interesting developments with all the news elements going on. if you accept the premise going into this zuckerberg was one of the world's richest, if not most celebrated high-tech billionaires, which is pretty much acknowledged without much debate and he has gotten a lot of tough questioning largely from democrats in the senate yesterday, now in the house today, is he rethinking that affinity for democrats or liberals in general? much of the tough questioning, much of the call for censoring

the company, getting a better hand on how it shares its privacy issues, is certainly not warmly endorsed by the folks at facebook and certainly not espoused by zuckerberg himself. deirdre bolton is following all of this. before we go back to the hearing, that is one of the more fascinating developments, deirdre, he is getting dinged on the left from the very people he was closely associated with over these years he has been at the held many of this company. i wonder if they risk not making a conservative out of the guy but certainly no longer a friend out of the guy? what do you think? >> neil, yesterday was preinterview with the senators, today is the real deal. the tone is different, much more intense. to your point a lot of tougher questions and more intense conversation that mark zuckerberg is having at the hand of democratic lawmakers from the state of california. this is no free ride at all

today. worth noting these representatives have four minutes total. he has wanted to explain something. he is cut off pretty quickly. i want to highlight four minutes versus five senators had yesterday. this whole thing is moving a little bit quicker. one fact that came up as well that stopped everyone in the room, neil, mark zuckerberg personal data was part of the 87 million users, that data set was shared with cambridge analytica, was a lot of surprise he openly admitted my data was shared as well through cambridge analytica. when asked about the future of his company especially in regards to regulation, here is what he said. >> the internet is growing in importance around the world in people's lives. i think that it is inevitable that there will need to be some regulation. my position is there should be no regulation but you have to be careful about what regulation you put in place. >> so he always has been talking

about, mark zuckerberg, talking about spirit of the law versus letter of the law with crafting regulation, but one theme keeps coming up, honestly he is getting hammered, whether from democrats in california or republicans or democrats in other states, it is just why is the burden on the user to keep opting out? why is it so difficult? actually representative rush asked him a very pointed question about where facebook shares data outside of the data platform, the facebook platform. here is representative rush. >> that much insolence comes with enormous social responsibility of which you have failed to act and to consider. shouldn't facebook by default take users information? why is the onus on the user to opt in privacy and security settings? >> congressman, as i said every

time that a person chooses to share something on facebook they are proactively going to the service to share they want to choose a photo, write a message to someone. >> a lot of experts saying mark zuckerberg purposely obfuscating the answer to that question. this is not about sharing foyters to. it is about when you're not on facebook what extent you're being tracked and how the data is being used. a lot of tech experts mark zuckerberg keeps going back to his talking points. one thing is clear he has to perform in a different way than he did yesterday, neil. neil: throughout, what is more interesting, if you want to step way back, deirdre, a lot of liberal friends he used to hang out with like-minded events and obama technology summits and the like are ones turning on him right now. he might remember that. i'm not saying he will become a

reagan eight after all of this, but he could be predisposed from leaning to the left. that we're not cognizant of other news developments like speaker paul ryans, as you have been hearing not opting to run for re-election or what could be going on in syria and run-up in oil prices. we'll monitor all the above. i think it is riveting and i think it is more than hearing the sound of my voice. hearing the sound of a billionaire being peppered with questions what he is doing to protect his two billion plus users worldwide, including a lot of folks in that room. it is fascinating. i think you need to hear it, non-stop, beginning now. >> but congresswoman -- >> you have a share button, facebook has the application. you patented applications to do just that, isn't that correct? >> congresswoman, i don't think any of those buttons share transaction data. >> but they track you. you're collecting medical data,

correct on people on the internet whether they're facebook users or not, right. >> congresswoman, yes we collect some data for -- >> you watch where we go? senator durbin had a funny question about where you're staying you didn't want to share that, but facebook also gathers that data about where we father, isn't that correct? >> congresswoman, everyone has control over how that works. >> i will get to that but yes would you are, yes, facebook is, that is the business you're in, gathering data and aggregating that data? >> congresswoman i disagree with that character significance. >> are you saying you do not gather data on where people travel based upon their internet and the ways they sign in and things like that? >> congresswoman, the primary way facebook works, that people choose to share data. >> primary way but the other way that facebook gathers data you buy data from data brokers

outside of the platform, correct? >> congresswoman, we just announced two weeks ago we were going to stop interacting with data brokers and even though that is an industry norm, to make it so the advertising can be more relevant -- >> i think in the end, see it is practically impossible these days to remain untracked in america, for all the benefits facebook has brought and internet. that is not part of the bargain. current laws have not evolved and congress has not adopted laws to address the digital surveillance and congress should act. i do not believe the controls, opaque agreement, consent agreement, the settings are adequate substitute for fundamental privacy protections for consumers. >> gentlelady's time. >> thank you, i yield back my time. let that stand. i would like to ask unanimous that i put my constituents questions in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> chair now recognizes the gentleman from kentucky,

mr. guthrie for -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for being here. when i first got off in public office internet was kicking off, people complained about ads inconvenience of ad, i remember telling someone some time, being kentucky basketball fan, nothing i hate worse than four minute tv timeout. because of the four minute timeout i get to watch the game for free. that is something i accept for watching free. you're not willing to accept your data is out there being used but being used in the right way. funny was going to ask this question anyway. i was planning a family trip to florida and searched a town in florida. all of sudden i started getting ads of brand of hotel i typically stay in, great hotel, price available to the public on internet, willing to pay and stay there. i thought it was convenient, instead of getting an ad to someplace i never will go, i got

an ad looking to a place i thought it was convenient. it wasn't facebook. my wife used facebook to my mother-in-law, meeting up, do that for free, because consumer model relies on driven. they used consumer driven ad to but you're not unique in silicon valley and internet word doing that type of ads, are you? >> no, congressman. you're right. this is, ad based business models have been a common way people have been able it offer free services for a long time. our social mission of trying to help connect everyone in the world relies on having a service that can be affordable to everyone, that everyone can use. that is why the ads business model is in service of the social mission that we have and i think sometimes that gets lost but that is a really important point. >> but you're activity instead of getting, when i'm watching the hilltoppers on basketball

the person advertising me doesn't know everything about me. i'm just watching the ads. there is no data, no agreement, or no risk i guess there but with you there is consumer-driven data but if we were to greatly reduce or stop or greatly reduce legislation of use of consumer-driven data for targeting ads, what do you think that would do to the internet, when i say interfet not i mean everything not just facebook. >> less -- it would have people using services it would make ads less relevant to them. like small businesses that use advertising it, would make advertising more expensive, because now they with have to reach, they would have to pay more to reach more people and more efficiently because targeting helps small businesses be able to afford and reach people as effectively as big companies have typically have the ability to do for a long time. would affect our revenue some amount too, but i think, there

are a couple of points here that are lost. one, we already give people the control to not use the data in ads if they want. most people don't do this i think part of the reason for that is that people get that they are going to see ads, they want them to be relevant but the other thing is that a lot of what our business what makes the ads work or the business good people are very engaged with facebook. we have more than a billion people who spend almost an hour aday across all our service. >> i have 30 seconds. so i appreciate the answer to that so i did knocked out, this doesn't work for me. you told congressman rush you can delete, what happens to the data? it is there, been used, cambridge analytics may have it. when i say, facebook, take my data off your platform? >> if you delete your account we immediately make it so that your account is to longer available once you're done deleting it.

so no one can find you on the service. we wouldn't be able to recreate your account from that we do have data centers and systems that are redundant. we have backups in case something bad happens. over a number of days we'll go through and make sure we flush all the content out of the system but as soon as you delete your account, effectively that content is dismantled and we wouldn't be able to put your account back together. >> gentleman's time. >> i appreciate it. >> recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, for 4:00 four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. zuckerberg. i want to get something in the record before i move to questions. you suggested in your testimony that the facebook notified the trump and clinton campaigns of attempts to hack into those campaigns but representatives of both campaigns in the last 24 hours have said that didn't happen. so we're going to need to follow up on that and find out what the real story is. >> you want me --

>> i would like to move on. you can provide a response to that in writing if you would. let me ask you, is it true that facebook offered to provide what, i guess you referred to as dedicated campaign inbeds to both of the presidential campaigns? >> congressman i can quickly respond to the first point too. >> yes or no. i don't have time. were there inbeds in the two campaigns, were there offers of inbeds? >> congressman -- >> yes or no. were there inbeds offered to the trump campaign and clinton campaign. >> we offer sales support to every campaign. >> sales report, i will refer to that as inbeds. i gather in mr. trump's campaign ultimately accepted that offer? is that correct? yes or no. >> the trump campaign had sales sport -- >> so they had inbeds. i will refer to those as inbeds.

what i would like you to do if you could, we'll not have time for you to do this now, but if you could provide to the committee both the initial offer terms and any subsequent terms that were presented to each candidate in terms of what the inbed services would be, that would be would be helpful embed. do you know how ads were available for display on facebook for each of the presidential candidates by facebook? >> congressman, i do not sitting here off the top of my head. >> let me tell you what they were, because i do. president trump campaign had 5.9 ads approved and secretary clinton 66,000 ads. so that is delta of about 90 times as much on the trump campaign, which raises some questions about whether the ad approval processes were maybe not processed correctly or inappropriately bypassed in the final months and weeks of the election by the trump campaign. what i'm worried about is that

the embeds may have helped to facilitate that. can you say with absolute certainty that facebook or any of the facebook employees working as campaign inbeds did not grant any special approve rights to the trump campaign to allow them to up load a very large number of facebook ads in the final stretch. >> congressman, we apply the same standard to all campaigns. >> can you say there were not special approval rights, granted? is that what you're saying? there were not special approval rights granted by any of the inbeds or support folks as you call them in the trump campaign, yes or no. >> yes. what i'm saying -- >> if you're saying yes, then i will take you at your word. the reason this is important, to the bottom of it could be a seriously problem if these kinds of services provided beyond what is offered in the normal course

because that could be violation of campaign law because that could be construed as a

. >> mr. zuckerberg, we wish both we had different set of circumstances. the story broke, i started facebook. i run it. i am responsible for what happens here, end quote. you said those same words, in your opening statement hour 1/2 ago. i know you believe that in your heart. it is not just some talking points, some canned speech. because my four years, i'm sorry five years in the navy, i know best navy officers, best skippers, best ceos, have that exact same attitude.

if facebook was a navy ship, your privacy has taken a direct hit. your trust is severely damaged. you're taking on water. your future may be fine with the number of "the washington post" with four comments today, billion dollars of fines come your way. as you know, you have to reinforce your words with actions. a few questions about anomalies that happened in the past. first of all, back in 2012 apparently facebook did an experiment on 689,000 facebook users. you reduced positive posts from users friends and limited so-called data posts from other friends. they see that positive rates one group, other group, negative information. the goal was to see how the tone of these posts would affect

behavior. i will give this "forbes" article, "l.a. times," illegal human experimentation, i won't talk about that. this is affecting people. in stack contrast to your mission to connect people. explain to us how you guys thought this was a good idea. to experiment with people, give them more negative information, positive information. >> well, congressman, i view our responsibility as not just building a services that people like to use but making sure that those services are also good for people and good for society overall. at the time, there were a number of questions about whether people seeing content that was either positive or negative on social networks was affecting their mood. and we felt like we had a responsibility to understand whether that was the case because we don't want to have that effect. we don't want to have it, so that use of social media and our product could be good for people's well being.

i continually make changes to that effect. including just recently, this year, we did a number of research projects that showed that when social media is used for building relationships, that when you're interacting with people, it is associated with a lot of positive effects of well-being that you would expect, makes you feel more connected, less lonely, correlates with long term measures of happy know and health. if you're using the social media and internet to passively consume content that doesn't have the same positive effects but could even be negative. we tried to shift the product to help more people interact with friend and family. that is the kind of work that we do. >> one last question. i believe i heard you employ 27,000 people, thereabouts, that correct. >> yes. >> i've also been told 20,000 of those people including contractors do work on data security, is that correct? >> yes the 27,000 number is

full-time employees and the security and content review includes contractors of which there are tens of thousands. >> okay. >> there will be by the time -- >> your employees are dedicated to security practices how can cambridge analytica happen with so much workforce dedicated to these causes? how did that happen? >> well, congressman, the issue of cambridge analytica and alexander kogan before we ramped those programs up dramatically. but one thing i think is important to understand overall the sheer volume of content on facebook makes us, no amount of people that we can hire will be enough to review all of the content. we need to rely on and build sophisticated ai tools that can help us flag certain content. we're getting god -- good in certain areas. one of the areas i mentioned earlier terrorist content where we have ai systems that can identify and take down 99% of the al cade and isis-related

content in our system before someone, a human flags it for us. i think we need it do more of that. >> the gentleman's time expired. the chair recognizes gentleman from california, mr. mcinerney. >> thank you for sevenning before the house and senate committees. i know it as long and grueling process. i appreciate your cooperation. i'm a mathematician spent 20 years in government on technology including algorithms. i'm deeply committed and invested here. i'm going to follow up on a earlier question. is there currently a place that i can download all of the facebook information about me including websites that i have visited. >> yes, congressman. we have a download your information tool. we had it for years. you can go to it in your settings and download all the content you have on facebook. >> my staff just this morning downloaded information and their browsing history is not in there. are you saying that facebook does not have browsing history?

>> congressman, that would be correct. if we don't have content in there, then that means that you don't have it on facebook. you haven't put it there. >> so, i'm not quite on board with this. is there any other information that facebook has obtained about me whether facebook collected it or obtained it from a third party that would not be included in thedownload? >> congressman my understanding that all of your information is included in download your information. >> i will follow up with this afterwards. mr. zuckerberg, you indicated that european users will have gpr protections on may 25th and american users will have those similar protections. when will the american users have those protections? >> congressman we're working on doing that as quickly as possible. i don't have the exact date yet. >> so it will not be on may 25th? >> we're working on it. >> thank you. your company and many companies with an online presence have a staggering amount of personal

information. the customer is not really in the driver's seat how their information is used or monetized. the data collectors are in the driver's seat. today facebook is governed by weak federal privacy protections. i used legislation that would help address this issue. my data act would give the ftc rule-making authority to provide consumers with strong data privacy and security protections. without this kind of legislation how can we be sure that facebook won't continue to be careless with users information? >> well, congressman, let me first just set aside that my position isn't that there should be no regulation. >> correct. >> but regardless of what the laws are that are in place we have very strong incentive to protect people's information. this is the core thing that facebook is, about 100 billion times a day people come to our service, to share a photo or share a message or -- >> i hear you saying this but, the history isn't there. so, i think we need to make sure

that there is regulations in place to give you the proper motivation to stay in line with data protection. one of the props here in my mind is that facebook's history, the privacy, user privacy and security have not been given high priority as corporate growth. you admitted as much. is facebook considering changing its management structure to insure privacy and security have sufficient priority to prevent these problems in the future? >> congressman, this is incredibly high priority for us. what i was saying before that the core use of the product every day, about 100 billion times is that people come and try to share something with a specific set of people, that works because people have confidence that if they send a message it will go to the person they want f they want to share a photo with their friend it goes to the people they want. that is incredibly important. we built a robust privacy program. >> that is little bit off track from what i'm trying to get at. the privacy protections clearly

failed in a couple of cases that are high-profile right now. part of the blame that seems to be out there that the management structure for privacy and security don't have the right level of profile in facebook to get your attention, to make sure they get the proper resource the. >> gentleman's time expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, for four minutes. >> thank you for coming, mr. zuckerberg. i have a yes or no question. did facebook enable illegal online pharmacies to sell drugs such as oxycontin, percocet and vicodin without a prescription? >> congressman -- >> is that yes or no? do you think you should be able to do that? >> of course not. >> and, there are 35,000 online pharmacies operating.

according to the fda they think there may be 96% of them are operating illegally. on november of last year, cnbc had an article saying that you were surprised by the breadth of this opioid crisis and as you can see from these photographs opioids are still available on your site. without a prescription on your site. so contradicts just what you just said a minute ago. and went on last week, fda commissioner scott gottlieb has testified before our office said that the internet firms simply are not taking practical steps to find and remove these illegal opioid listings. he specifically mentioned facebook. are you aware of that, his quote? >> congressman -- >> yes or no. >> i'm not aware of his quote

but i heard he said something. let me just speak to this -- >> we are, in your opening statement, i appreciated your remark, you said it is not enough to give people a voice. we have to make sure people are not using it facebook, to hurt people. america is in the midst of one of worst drug epidemics it is all across the country, not just in west virginia but your platform is being used to circumvent the law to allow people to buy highly addictive drugs without a prescription. with all due respect, facebook is actually enabling an illegal activity and in so doing, you are hurting people. would you agree with that statement? >> congressman i think that there are a number of areas of content that we need to do a better job policing on our service. today the primary way that

content regulation works here and review is that people can share what they want openly on the service and then if someone sees an issue they can flag it to us and then we will review it. over time we're shifting -- >> you can find out, mr. zuckerberg. you know which pharmacies are operating legally and illegally but you're still continuing it take that, allow that to be posted on facebook and allow people to get this scourge, this ravaging this country as being enabled because of facebook. so my question to you as we close on this, you said before you were going to take down those ads but you didn't do it. we've got statement after statement about things, you will take them down within days, they haven't gone down. that was up from yesterday. it is still up. my question to you, is, when are you going to take down these

posts with illegal digital pharmacies? when are you going to take them down? >> congressman, right now when people report the post to us, we will take them down and have people -- >> why do they have to, if you have 20,000 people, you know they're up there. where is your requirement? where is your accountability to allow this to be occurring, this ravaging this country? >> congressman, i agree that this is a terrible issue and respectfully when there are tens of billions or 100 billion pieces of content shared every day, even 20,000 people reviewing it can't look at everything. what we need to do is build more ai tools that can proactively find that content. >> you said before you with take them down and you haven't. >> gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes gentleman from mr. welch from vermont. >> mr. zuckerberg you acknowledged candidly facebook made a mistake. you took analysis how it

happened and promised to action. we're at point the action will speak much louder than words. mr. chairman, this congress has made a mistake. this event that happened, whether it was facebook or some other platform, was foreseeable and inevitable and we did nothing about it. congresswoman blackburn and i had a group, a privacy working group, six meetings with many of the industry players. there was an acknowledgement on both sides that privacy was not being protected. there was no reasonable safeguard for americans privacy but there was inability to come to conclusion. so we also have an obligation. in an effort to move forward, mr. zuckerberg, i framed some questions hopefully will allow a reasonable yes or no answer to see if there is some common ground to achieve the goal you assert we have, and we certainly have the obligation to protect the privacy of american consumers. first, do you believe that consumers have a right to know

and control what personal data companies collect from them? >> yes. >> do you believe that consumers have a right to control how and with whom their personal information is shared with third parties? >> congressman, yes, of course. >> and do you believe that consumers have a right to secure and responsible handling of personal date? >> yes, congressman. >> and do you believe that consumers should be able to easily place limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain? >> congressman, that seems like a reasonable principle to me. >> okay. do you believe that consumers should be able to correct or delete inaccurate personal data that companies have obtained? >> congressman, that one might be more interesting to debate. >> let, you get back to us with specifics on that. i think they do have that right. do you believe consumers should have their data deleted immediately from facebook when

they stop using the service? >> yes, congressman, they have that ability. >> good. and do you believe that the federal trade commission or another properly-resourced governmental agency with rule-making authority should be able to determine on a regular basis what is considered personal information to provide certainty for consumers and companies, what information need to be protected most tightly? >> congressman, i certainly think that's an area where we should discuss some sort of oversight. >> there is not a big discussion here. who fetes the final say? is it the private market, companies likes yours, or is there a governmental function here that define what is privacy is? >> congressman, i think this is an area where some regulation makes sense. you proposed a very specific thing. i think details are -- >> let me ask you this. the appreciated your testimony. will you work with this committee to help put us, to help the u.s. put in place our

own privacy regulation that prioritizes consumer's right to privacy, just as the eu is done? >> congressman, yes, i will make sure we work with you to flesh this out. >> all right. you indicated facebook has not always protected the privacy of their users throughout the company's history. it seems from your answers, that consumers, you agree that consumers do have a fundamental right to privacy. that empowers them to control the collection, the use, the sharing of their personal information online. and mr. chairman, thank you. mr. chairman, privacy can not be based just on company policies whether it is facebook or any other company. there has to be a willingness on the part of this congress to step up and provide policy protections to the privacy rights of every american consumer. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back.

the chair recognizes gentleman from illinois. mr. kinzinger. >> i would like to know policies and with information sharing with foreign governments if you don't mind. what personal data does facebook make available from facebook, instagram, whatsapp, to russian security agency including intel agencies. >> congressman. the way we approach data and law enforcement, if we have knowledge of imminent harm, physical harm might happen to someone we try to reach out to local law enforcement in order to help prevent that i think that is less built out around the world. it is more built out in the u.s. for example, on that example, we buildout specific programs in the u.s. 3,000 people that are focused on making sure that if, we detect someone is at risk of harming themselves we can get them the appropriate help. >> what about russian intel agencies? >> the second category of

information when there is a valid legal process served to us. in general, if a government puts something out overly broad we'll fight back on it. we review your duty as protecting people's information. if there is valid service especially in the u.s. we will work with law enforcement. in general we're not in the business of providing a lot of information to the russian government. >> is this data only located from accounts in or operated from these individual countries or does it include facebook's global data. >> sorry, can you repeat? >> that data only from the accounts located and operated in those countries in term of russia or anything or does it include facebook's global date it? >> well, congressman in general countries do not have jurisdiction to have any valid legal reason to request data of someone outside of their country. >> where is it stored? do they have access -- >> woe wouldn't story data in russia. >> it the global data.

>> yeah. >> we mentioned a few times we're in a facebook, facebook, giving opposition everything it need in terms of storing its data. >> sorry, congressman could you reap pete that. >> you mentioned a few times we're in arms race with russia. >> yes. >> if you're giving russian intelligence service agencies even with valid request, global data an advantage to them and to us. >> let me be more precise in my testimony. i have no specific knowledge of any data we've given to russia. in general we work with valid law enforcement requests from sifter countries. we'll get back to you what that means specifically with russia. but i have no knowledge here sitting here that we give them any information. >> i want to bring up, i was just today, i'm not saying this as a woe is me but i think this happens to a lot of people, there have been my pictures have been stolen and used in fake

accounts all around and many cases people have been extorted for money. we report it when we can but we'll tail chase. in fact today i just googled or put on your website, and drew kinzinger looks a lot me, from london lives in l.a. and went to locke high school which isn't anything like me at all. these accounts pop up a lot. again using my pictures but extorting people for money. we hear about it from people that call and say, hey, i was duped or whatever. i know you can control everything. you have a huge platform but can you talk about maybe some movements into the future to try to prevent that maybe recognizing somebody's picture if it is fake? >> yes, congressman. this is important issue. fake accounts overall are big issue, that are a lot of issues we see around fake news and foreign election interference are happening as well. so long term the solution here is to build more ai tools that find patterns of people using

the services that no real person would do and we've been able to do that in order to take down tens of thousands of accounts especially related to election interference leading up to the french election, the german election, last year the u.s. alabama senate state election, senate election, special election. and that's an area where we should be able to extend that work and dell more "ai" tools to do that more responsibly. >> the gentleman's time expired. mr. luhan from new mexico for four minutes. >> i want to bring up where mr. kinzinger dropped off here. mr. zuckerberg, a search feature allowing malicious actors to scrape data on virtually all of facebook's 2 billion users. in 3030, brandon cop lip of ceo of gift nix demonstrated this feature could be used to gather information at scale? >> well the answer to that question is yes. >> yes or no, this issue of

scraping data was again raised in 2015 by a cybersecurity researcher, correct? >> congressman, i'm not specifically familiar with that. the feature that we identified i think a few weeks ago or couple weeks ago at this point was a search feature that allowed people to look up some information that people had publicly shared on their profile. names, profile pick source. >> mr. zuckerberg i will recognize facebook turned feature off. the reason i'm asking this question about 2013 and 2015 and facebook knew about this in 2013 and 2015, but you didn't turn the feature off until wednesday of last week. the same feature mr. kinzinger talked about this is essentially a tool for malicious actors to go steal someone's identity and put finishing touches on it. one of your mentors, roger mcnamee said your business is based on truth and you're losing trust this is a trust question, why did it take so long especially we're talking about

some of the other pieces we need to get to the bottom of? your failure to act on this issue made billions of people potentially vulnerable to from harmful actors. majority of information is from people signed up on facebook, yes or no? >> congressman in general we collect data for people not signed up on facebook for security purposes to prevent thescaping you're referring to. >> these are shadow profiles. is that what they're referred to by some. >> congressman, i'm not familiar with that. >> i will refer to them as shadow profiles for today's hearing. on average how many data points does facebook have on each user? >> i do not know off the top of my head. >> the average for for non-facebook platforms is 1500. it has been reported that facebook has as many as 29,000 data points for average facebook user. do you know how many points of data has on the average

non-facebook user? >> congressman, i do not off the top of my head but i can have our team get back to you afterwards. >> i appreciate that. it has been admitted by facebook that you do collect data points on non-average users. so my question is, can someone who does not have a facebook account opt out of facebook's involuntary data collection? >> congressman, anyone can turn off and opt out of any data collection for ads, whether they use our services or not. but in order to prevent people from scraping public information, which again the search feature that you brought up only showed public information, people's names and profiles, things they made public nonetheless we don't want people aggregating public information so we block that we need to know when someone is trying to repeatedly access our service. >> if i may mr. zuckerberg, i'm about out of time. may surprise you we have not talked a lot about this, you said everyone controls your data but you're collecting data on people not even facebook users

never signed a consent or privacy agreement and you are collecting their data. may sure is prize you, i don't have a facebook account and like my personal data stored by facebook, takes you a form go to your facebook page, on account settings you can download your data. you're directing people that don't even have a facebook page to sign up for a page to reach their data. we have to fix that the last question that i have you disclosed to this committee or anyone all information facebook uncovered by russian interference on your platform? >> congressman, we are working with the right authorities on that. i'm happy to answer specific questions here as well. >> gentleman's time expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith for four minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. appreciate you being here. let me state up front i share the privacy concerns you heard from a lot of us. i appreciate your statements and willingness to help us figure out a solution that is food for the american people.

so i appreciate that. secondly, i have to say that it is my understanding that yesterday senator shelley moore capito, my friend in my neighboring state of west virginia asked you about facebook plans with rural broadband and you agreed to share that information with her at some point in tile, get her up-to-date and up to speed. i was excited to hear you were excited about that and passionate about it. my district is very similar to west virginia as it borders it. we have a lot of rural areas. can you also agree, yes or no to update me on that when the information is available. >> yes, congressman. we will certainly follow up with you on this. part of the mission of connecting everyone around the world means that everyone needs it be able to be on the internet. unfortunately too much of the internet infrastructure today is too expensive for the current business models of carriers that sport a lot of rural communities with the quality of service they deserve. so we are building a number of specific technologies from planes that can beam down

internet access to repeaters and mesh networks to make it to that, all these communities can be served and we would be happy to follow up with you on this. >> appreciate that. we've got a lot of drone activity going on in our district, whether university of virginia and or virginia tech. we would be happy to help out there. let me switch gears. you talked about trying to ferret out misinformation. the question becomes what is misinformation. when some of my political opponents put on facebook they think morgan griffith is a bum. i think that is misinformation. what say you? >> congressman, without weighing in on that specific piece of content, let me outline the way that we approach fighting fake news in general. there are three categories of fake news that we fight. one are basically spammers. they are economic actors like the macedonia trolls we all

heard about. basically folks who don't have idealogical goal. they are just trying to write the most sensational thing they can in order to people click on it to make money on ads, it is all economics. the way to fight back they can't run their ads and make less money and show it less in news feed when they stop making money. when they stop making money they do something else because they're economically inclined. the second category are state actors. what we found with russian interference. those people are setting up fake accounts. for that we need to build ai systems that can identify a number of their fake account networks. just last week we traced back russian activity to to specific fake account network that russia had in russia to influence russian culture and other russian-speaking countries around them. we took down a number of their

fake accounts and pages including a news organization that was sanctioned by the russian government as a russian state news organization. so that is a pretty big action but we're removing fake accounts is other way we can stop the spread of false information. >> i appreciate that. my time is running out. i do want to point this out as part of that who will decide what is misinformation. we have heard about the catholic university and the cross. we heard about a candidate. we heard about the conservative ladies, a firearms shop, lawful in my district had a similar problem. it has also been corrected. and so i wonder if the industry has thought about not only are we looking at it, but has the industry thought about doing something like underwriters laboratories which was set up when lech tivity was new to determine whether or not devices were safe? have you all thought about doing something like that, not facebook alone, wait a minute industry saying this is misinformation setting up

guidelines that people can agree are fair. >> yes, congressman that was the third category i was getting to after economic spammers and fake news accounts. one of the things we're doing working with a number of third parties so if people flag things as false news or incorrect, we run them by third party fact-checkers, who are all accredited by the pointer institute of journalism. there are, first of all leanings around this who do this work. that is an important part of the effort. >> gentleman's time expired. chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, for four minutes. >> mr. zuckerberg, i want to follow up a question asked by mr. mcnerney when he talked about visiting websites and the fact that facebook can track you and, as you visit those websites you can have that deleted. i'm informed that there is not a way to do that or are you telling us that you're

announcing a new policy? >> congressman, my understanding is that if there is, if we have information from you visiting other places then you have a way of getting access to that and deleting it, making sure we don't store it anymore. in the specific question the other congressman asked, it we didn't have the information in the first place and that is why it wasn't there. >> 3 billion accounts breached at yahoo! and 145 million at ebay. in 2017, 17 million at anthem. 76 million at jpmorgan chase, and list goes on and on. security of all the private data gone, likely sold many times over to the highest bidder on the dark web. we live in an information age. data breaches and privacy hacks are not a question of if, they are a question of when. the case with facebook is slightly different.

the 87 million accounts extracted by cambridge analytica are just the beginning with likely dozens of other third parties that have accessed this information. as far as we know, the dam is still broken. as you noted mr. zuckerberg, facebook's business model is based on capitalizing on the private personal information of your users. data security should be a central pillar of this model. with your latest, vast breach of privacy, and the widespread political manipulation that followed it, the question this committee must ask itself is, what role the federal government should play in protecting the american people and democratic institutions that your platform and others likes it have put at risk. in this case you gave permission to mind the data of some 87 million users, based on the deceptive consent of just a fraction of that number. when they filed out i was going to be speaking with you today. my constituents asked me to share some of their concerns in person. how can they protect themselves on your platform?

why should they trust you again with their likes, their loves, their lives? users trusted facebook to prioritize user privacy and data security and that trust has been shattered. i'm encouraged that facebook is committed to making changes but i am indeed wary that you are only acting now out of concern for your brand and only making changes that should have been made a long time ago. you have described this as an arms race but every time we saw what precautions you have or in most cases have not taken, your company it caught unprepared and ready to issue another apology. i'm left wondering again why congress should trust you again. we'll be watching you closely to insure facebook follows through on these commitments. many of my constituents asked about your business model where users are the product. mary in my district called it infuriating. andy in new york asked why doesn't facebook pay its users for their incredibly valuable data? facebook claims users rightly own and control the data but yet

their data keeps being exposed on your platform and these preach breaches cause more harm. users are having their information abused with absolutely no recourse. in light of this harm, what liability should facebook have when users data is mishandled, who is responsible and what recourse do users have? do you bear that liability? >> congressman i think we're responsible for protecting people's information for sure but one thing you said i want to provide some clarity on -- >> do you bear the liability? >> well you said earlier, you referenced that you thought we were only taking action after this came to light. actually we made significant changes to the platform in 2014 that would have made this incident with cambridge analytica impossible to happen fenn today. i wish we had made those changes a couple years earlier because this app got people to use it back in 2013 and 2014 and if we

had made changes couple years earlier we would have -- >> gentleman's time expired. >> mr. chairman, if i might ask questions that my constituents have the answers by unanimous consent. >> without objection. goes for all members. chair recognizes gentleman from mr., about bilirakis for four minutes. >> with regard to illegal online pharmacies, when are those ads, when are you going to take those off? i think we need an answer to that. we need to get these off as soon as possible. can you give us an answer, a clear answer as to when these pharmacies -- we have an epidemic here with regard to the opioids. i think we're owed a clear answer, definitive answer as to when these ads will be off,

off-line? >> congressman, if people flag those ads for us we will take them down now. >> now? >> yes. >> by the end of the day. >> if people flag them for us, we will look at them as quickly as we can -- >> you have knowledge now, you have knowledge. you have knowledge of those ads? will you begin to take them down today? the ads that are flagged for us we will review and take down if they violate our policies, which i believe -- >> they clearly do. they're illegal. they clearly violate your policies. >> they do but what i think really think needs to happen is not just us reviewing content that gets flagged for us, we need to build tools protect tiffly identified what might be these ads for opioids before people even have to flag them for to us review. >> i agree. >> that will be a longer-term thing in order to build that solution. today if someone flags ads for us we will take them down. >> work on those tools as soon

as possible, please. okay. next question, a constituent of mine in district 12 of florida, tampa bay area, came it me recently with what was clear violation of your privacy policy and in this case a third party organization publicly posted personal information about my constituent on his facebook page. this included his home address, voting record, degrading photos and other information, in my opinion, this is cyberbullying. for weeks my constituent tried reaching out to facebook on multiple occasions, through its report feature. but the offending content remained. it was only when my office got involved that the posts were removed almost immediately for violating facebook policy how

does facebook's self-reporting policy work to prevent misuse and why did i take an act of congress, a member of congress, to get again a clear privacy violation removed from facebook? if you can ends -- answer that question, i would appreciate it please. >> congressman that clearly sounds likes a big issue and something that would violate our policies. i don't have specific knowledge of that case but i imagine what happened as you said, they reported it to us, one of the people who reviews content made an enforcement error. when you reached out we probably looked at it again and realized it violated policies is and took it down. we have a number of steps that we need to take to emprove the accuracy of our enforcement. >> absolutely. >> that is a big issue. >> has to be consistent. >> we need to be do better at this. i think the same solution to the opioid question you raised earlier doing more with automated tools will lead to

faster response times and more accurate enforcement of policies. >> can you give us a timeline as to when will this be done? i mean this is very critical. i mean, listen my family uses facebook, my friends, my constituents. we all use facebook. i use facebook,. wonderful for seniors to connect with relatives. >> gentleman's time expired. >> i'm sorry. can i submit for the record my additional questions? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. >> chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york, miss clark, for four minutes. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for coming before us mr. zuckerberg. today i want to take the opportunity to represent the concerns of the newly-formed tech accountability caucus which i serve as a co-chair with my colleagues, representative robin kelly, congressman emanuel cleaver, and congresswoman bonnie watson coleman but most importantly, people in our

country and around the globe who are in vulnerable populations, including those who look just like me. my first question to you, as you may be aware, there have been numerous media reports about how more than 3,000 russian ads were brought on facebook to incite racial and religious decision and chaos in the u.s. during the 2016 election of the those ads specifically characterized and weaponized african-american groups like black lives matter in which lives matter in which s the suggested through propaganda or fake news as we call it these days, that they were arising directly or do you think the lack of diversity, cultural and competent personnel director organization in which your

company did not detect or disrupt and investigate these claims are a problem in this regard? >> congresswomen probably agree what each worker diversity. in this case i don't think i was the issue because we were slow to identifying the whole misinformation operation and not that specific example. going forward, we are going to address this by verifying the identity of every single advertiser who's running political or issue oriented ads to make it so foreign actors are people trying to spoof their identity or say they or someone they are not cannot run political ads or large pages. >> so whether they were russian or not, when you have propaganda, how are you addressing that? this was extremely harmful during the last election. can continue to be so in the

upcoming elections and throughout the year. i'm concerned they are not culturally competent looking at these things and being able to see how this would impact civil society. if everyone within the organization is monolithic, then you can miss these things very easily. we talk about diversity forever with your organization. what can you think today when you look at how all of this operates, that you can do immediately to make sure we have the types of viewing that could enable us to catch it in its tracks. >> we announced a change in how we are going to review ad that now going forward, we are going to verify the identity and location of every advertiser who's running political or issue

ads. >> we would like you to get back to us with a timeline on that. >> that will be in place for these elections. >> when mr. code in sold the facebook they stated that he acquired through the quays app to cambridge analytica, did he violate facebook policy at the time? when the obama campaign collected millions of facebook user data through their own ads during the 2012 election, did he violate facebook policies at the time? >> know, congresswoman. it did not. >> this distinction provides little comfort to us about privacy online. regardless of political party come americans definitely need to be protect it. democrats on his committee has been called >> gentlelady -- >> we really can't wait, mr. chair. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. john

in. >> mr. zuckerberg, thanks for joining us today. let me add my name to the list of folks you are going to get back to undergo abroad and internet access. please add my name to that list. i got a lot of those folks in my district. you are a real american success story. there is no question that you and facebook have russia we should last the way american, in fact the world, communicate and connect with one another. i think the reason -- one of the reasons you are able to do that is because nowhere other in america where a young man in college can pursue his dreams and ambitions on its own terms without a federal government over regulating them and telling them what they can and cannot do, could you have achieved something like this. but in the absence of federal regulation that would real back

then, the only way works for the betterment of society and people is that the high degree of responsibility and trust beard and you have acknowledged there have been some breakdowns in responsibility. and i think sometimes, i'm a technology guy. a two degrees in computer science and software engineering , patent holder. i know the challenges you face in terms of managing technology appeared often times technology folks spend so much time thinking about what they can do an little time thinking about what they should do. i want to talk about some of those should do kind of things. you heard earlier about faith-based material that had been taken down, ads that have been taken down. you admitted that he was a mistake. i was in my district, by the way peer a faith-based university

was the one that did that. how was your content filter again determined to be appropriate or not appropriate and policy compliant? if compliant? is it an algorithm that is a early as 13 of a gazillion people that sit there and look at each and every ad that makes that determination? >> congressmen, it's a combination of both. at the end of the day, we have community standards that are written now and try to be very clear about what is acceptable. we have a large team of people, they fed by the end of this year we would have more than 20,000 people with content review across the company. but in order to flag quickly, we also build technical assistance in order to take things down. so if we see terrorist content for example, we'll fly down and take that down. >> what do you do when you find someone or something that is made in the date.

i mean, i heard you say several times today that a mistake has been made. what kind of accountability was there when mistakes are made because every time a mistake like that is made it's a little bit of a chip away how do you hold people accountable when they make those kind of mistakes. taking stuff down there shouldn't be taken down be taken out of be taken down or leaving stuff out there should not be left out. >> for content reviewer specifically, their performance is measured by whether they do their job accurately. [inaudible] a >> i'm sure we do. as part of the chorus of running a company come you are hiring and firing people all the time to grow your capacity. >> what happened to the person that took down the franciscan university add and didn't put it back up into the media started

getting involved. >> congressmen, not specifically aware. >> take that question for me. my time has expired. can you give me the answer back, please? >> we will. >> the general men's tennis expired. >> i want to thank you holding this hearing today and i want to did mr. for being here as well. in the southeast part of iowa, we definitely need more help on that front. thank you. you may recall, mr. zuckerberg, that you set out to visit every country coming to meet different people in one of days you visit was iowa, home state of iowa and he did visit the district that i probably represent a new method of my constituents. as you begin coming you said you believed in connecting the world

i will do the same thing in a second and ask you some question. they were submitted to my facebook page my sister. i do ask for unanimous consent. >> without objection. >> trust has been the issue today. i think that is what i'm hearing from my constituents and what i am hearing from our colleagues there that is really the question. how could we be guaranteed that, for example, when you agree to some things today that you will follow through and we will hold you accountable. and without perhaps construct into many rules and regulations, would like to keep that to a minimum if we possibly can. i understand you have agreed we will have to have some rules and regulations so we can protect people's privacy and protect the use of the consumer data. going forward from there, i've got a few questions i will have an opportunity to get to.

the first one goes to the business model issue because you are publicly traded. is that correct? and you're the ceo? >> yes, right. >> eyebrow born from seoul and alas, is it possible for facebook to exist without collecting and selling our data. is it possible to exist? >> congressmen, we don't sell people's data. that's an important thing to clarify upfront. in terms of collect data, double purpose is to share with people around you and your friends. >> is it possible for you to be in business about sharing the data because that's what you done, whether selling it or sharing it to cambridge analytica another folks on the way. >> is it possible for your business to exist about doing that? >> would be possible for a business to exist without having a developer platform. it would not be possible for

business or product or services or anything we do to exist without having the opportunity for people to go to facebook, but in the content they want to share in who they want to share it with them do that. >> thank you. i appreciate that. brenda for muscatine has a question honestly related to trust as well. how is that going to happen? how can she and those folks throughout america, not just members of congress, how can folks in the districts hold you accountable? that's what the question is about. >> for the developer platform changes announced, we are putting those into place. we announced a bunch of specific things on our blog in her written testimony and that stuff is happening. we are going back with access to a large amount of data.

we will tell people if we find anything that misuse their data and tell people when the investigation is complete. >> chat from scott county wants to know who has made data other than cambridge analytica. >> congressmen, part of what i just said is we are going to do an investigation of every single app that had access to a large amount of people's data. if you sign into another rap, part of the investigation and whether they did anything improper and if we find anything like that, we will tell people their data was misused. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. long for four minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. zuckerberg for being here today in a voluntary basis. you are not subpoenaed to be here as mr. burton offered up a little bit ago. you are the only witness at the table today. we've had 10 people at the table

to get you an idea of the hearings we've had. and i would say if we invited everyone with dreams of agreement and service would probably set them at the table. i would also say represents 751,000 people and not of the 751,000 people in my area that are really worked up about facebook today would also fit with you at the table. i'm not getting outcry from my constituents about what is going on with cambridge analytica in this user agreement and everything else. but there are some things that i think you need to be concerned about. one question i'd like to ask before i go into my question is what is faith smash and this is still up and running? >> know, congressman. it was a prank website that i launched in college in my dorm room before i started facebook. there was a movie about this.

it was about an unclear truth. the claim that faith smash was somehow connected to the development of facebook. it isn't, it wasn't. >> the timing was the same, coincidental? >> you within 2003. >> you put up pictures of two women and decide which is the more track devoted to. >> congressmen, that is an accurate description of the prank website that i made when i was a sophomore. >> whether that was actually the beginning of a beginning of facebook or not, you've come a long way. jan schakowsky, congresswoman czajkowski said self-regulation simply does not work. mr. butterfield, representative butterfield said you need more african-american inclusion on your board of directors. if i was you, congress is better to things things. doing nothing in overreacting. so far we've had nothing on

facebook. we are getting ready to over react, so just take that as a shot across the bow warning to you. you've got a good outfit on your front row behind you. you are harvard educated. i have a yellow hat that cost me $160,000. that's as close as i ever got to an ivy league school. i'd like to show you right now a little picture here. you recognize these folks? >> i do. >> who are they? >> is that diamond and soak russian mark >> diamond and so, too biological sisters from north carolina. i point out they are african-american. their content was deemed by your folks to be unsafe. i don't know what type of the picture this is, who was taken at a police station or in the lineup, but it has been deemed unsafe. diamond and soak up a question for you.

and that question is what is unsafe about two black women supporting president donald trump? >> congressmen, nothing is unsafe about that. the specifics of this situation, i'm not as up to speed on but they probably would be -- >> 20,000 employees to check content. i would suggest as good as you are at analytics, that those 20,000 people use an analytical research and say how many conservative websites have been pulled down and how many liberal websites? one of her talk show host on the radio said if the diamond itself for liberal they would be in the late-night talkshow circuit back and forth. they are humorous, have their opinion. not that you have to agree or don't agree with them. the fact that they are conservative and if you don't remember anything else today, remember we do nothing and we overreact. i would suggest you go home and review all these other things

people accuse you of today can i get with your good team behind you. you you. you're the guy to fix this. we are not. you need to save your ship. thank you. >> mr. chairman, since my name was mentioned, can i just respond? >> i tell you, just because we are going to run out of time for members down diets to ask her questions. >> i consider billy long a good friend. let me say i don't think was a breach of decorum and i take issue with him saying the modest villa of introduced as an overreach. that is all. >> i didn't say was an overreach. i was just reminding in several -- >> the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader. >> thank you, appreciate that. thank you for being here. appreciate your good offices and voluntarily coming before us. he testified you voluntarily took cambridge analytic is work that they had deleted

information, found that subsequently they did not delete the information and sending your forensics team, which i applaud. i want to make sure and get some questions answered here. can you tell us they were told not to destroy any data they may find? >> congressmen, you are right that in 2015, when we find out that the app developer alexander kogan installed data to cambridge analytic, we reached out at that point and demanded they delete all the data that they had. they told us at that point they hadn't done it. a month ago, we heard a new report that said they actually hadn't done it. >> i'm talking about the direction you given your forensics team. if they find stuff, they are not to delete it or they will go ahead? >> the audit team we are sending in? >> the first order of business is to understand what happened. >> i'm worried about the

information being deleted without one person having the opportunity to review that. we you commit to this community that facebook has removed any evidence from cambridge analytica's office? >> i do not believe we have. one specific point on that is our audit in cambridge analytic, we pause that in order to see the u.k. government co. which is conducting its own government audit -- >> with all due respect, and like to have the information available for the u.k. or u.s. law enforcement officials and i did not hear you commit to that. when you commit to the committee that facebook has not destroyed any data records relevant to any federal, state or international law enforcement investigation. >> congressman coming at us for the u.k. government will complete its investigation before we go in and do our audit. they will have full access.

>> yes, we've caused it. >> so it's my understanding you another facebook executives have the ability to resend or delete messages that are on people's website. to be clear, i want to make sure if that is indeed the case that after you delete about information, that somehow one for us make him a particular government to this case is still of access to those messages. >> congressman, yes. we have a document after a period of time, but we of course reserve anything that there's a legal hold on. >> thank you. what he testified clearly that you do not sell information. you do the advertising and obviously have other means of revenue. it is pretty clear others sell that information. does not make you complicit in what they're doing? allowing them to sell the information they glean from your website. >> i would disagree that we

allow it. we expressly prohibit any developer. >> how do you enforce that? that's my concern. complaint only is what i've heard so far tonight. >> yes, congressman pearson is in response to reports we get in sun as we do spot checks to make sure the absurd doing what they say they are doing. going forward, we are going to increase the number of audits we do as well. >> is my understanding based on the testimony here today that even after i'm off of facebook, that you guys still have the ability to follow my web interactions. is that correct? do you still have the ability to follow my interactions on the web? >> congressman, you have control over what we do for ads in the information collection around that. on security there may be specific things and how you use facebook even if you're not logged in there we keep track of to make sure people are abusing

it. >> the gentleman's time has expired. just for members who haven't had a chance to ask questions, we will pause -- we have both that 1:40. we will cordon it out. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. zuckerberg for being here. plenty of anecdotal examples including family members of mine who will be verbally discussing items, never having actually been on the internet at this time. the next time they get on facebook and other online apps, ask for things they are verbally discussing with each other will show up. i know you said in the senate that facebook doesn't listen, specifically listen to what people are saying to their phone, whether that is a google phone or apple or another one. the other day, my mother-in-law and i were discussing her brother who had been deceased

for about 10 years and later on that evening on her facebook site, she had set to music in memoriam picture collage that came up on facebook, specifically to her brother and that happened the other night. so if you are not listening to us on the phone, who is then do you have specific contracts with these companies that will provide data that is being acquired verbally or through our phones are now through things like alexa or their products. >> congressman, we are not collecting any information verbally on the microphone and we don't have contracts or anyone else who is. the only time we as it is when you are recording a video or something were you intentionally are trying to record audio, but we don't have anything that is trying to listen to what is going on in the background. >> like i said can you talk to

people this is people this is happening to good my son who lives in chicago. him and his colleagues are talking about a certain type of suit as their business guys in the next day he had a bunch of bats when he went onto the internet. it's pretty obvious to me that someone is listening to the audio on our phones. i see that it's a pretty big issue. the reason is, you may not be, but it's a pretty big issue because for example, if you're in your doctor's office, corporate boardroom, your office or even personal areas of your home, that is a potential issue. i'm glad to hear facebook is not listening. i'm skeptical someone isn't. i see this as an industrywide issue that you could potentially help address. the final thing i will ask is when you have an executive session or whatever and you have decisions to be made, do you

allow people in the ring to have their phones on them? >> congressman, we do. i don't think with a policy that says your phone can't be on. again, i'm not familiar -- basically doesn't do this and i'm not familiar with other companies that do either. my understanding is a lot of these cases you are talking about are a coincidence or someone might be talking about something, but they also go to a website or interact with it on facebook because they were talking about and they will see the ad because the back, which is a much clearer statement of the intent. >> okay, if that's the case, i mean come i know for convenience companies have developed things like alexa and other companies are developing things like that. but it just seems to me that part of the whole point of those products is not just for your own convenience, but when you

are verbally talking about things and you're not on the internet, they are able to collect information on the type of activities you are engaging in. i would implore the industry to look into that and make sure that in addition to physical exploring the internet and collecting data, that data be taken verbally not be allowed. thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy. >> mr. zuckerberg, thank you for being here and your patients about the testimony. you spoke about privacy security and democracy. i want to ask you about privacy and democracy because obviously those are linked. you said over the course of question yesterday and today that users on all of their data. i want to make sure we drill down on that a little bit. i think our colleagues have tried. that includes i believe the

information facebook requires users to make public. profile picture, gender, age range, all of which is public information. >> yes. >> advertisers, understanding you maintain the data appear you are not selling that to anybody else. advertisers are not having access with you about how they targeted ads to any other user. can they in any way used nonpublic data that individuals would not think is necessarily public so they can target their ads? >> congressman, the way this works is let's say you have a business that is selling skis and you have on your profile that you are interested in skiing, the say you haven't made that public but you share with your friends. so broadly. we don't tell the advertiser here is a list of people who like skis. they say we are trying to sell skis. can you reach people who like skis and we match that up on our site without sharing any

information. >> i understand you don't share that, but they get access to that information but if they want to mark a skis to me because i like skis. >> the realm of data that is accessible to them, does facebook include deleted data? >> congressman, no. i also would push back on the idea that we are giving them access to the data. we allow them to reach people, but we are not giving them access to data. >> okay. can advertisers directly or indirectly get access or use metadata that facebook collects two more specifically target ads. so that would include -- i know you've talked a lot about how facebook would use access to information for folks -- i might be able to opt-in or out of your ability to track a website. in fact used by those advertisers as well?

>> i'm not sure he understand the question. can you give me an example? >> essentially do the advertisers that are using your platform, do they get access to information that the user doesn't actually think is either one being generated or two is public. understanding if you dive into the details of your platform, users might be able to shut that off. one of the challenges of trust as there is an awful lot of information that people don't think they are generating because facebook collects it. >> yes. congressman, my understanding is that targeting options available for advertisers are based on what people share. once an advertiser chooses how to target something, facebook does its homework to help determine which ads will be interest into which people. we may use metadata or behaviors of what you show you're interested in a news feed or

other places to make our systems more relevant to you. but that's a little bit different from giving that as an option to an advertiser if that makes sense. >> i've only got 20 seconds. what you're hearing as i don't understand how users on that data. second, you focus a lot of your testimony and questions on individual privacy aspects of this. we haven't talked about the societal implication of it. why applaud reforms to put forward, the underlining issue is the platform has become a mix of -- two seconds. news entertainment social media that is up for manipulation. we've seen now for me for an actor. if the changes to individual privacy don't be sufficient to address the underlying issue. >> a bitter comments on that at the appropriate time. >> the chair recognizes mr. florez. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. zuckerberg, thank you for

being here today. i'm sure there's things you'd rather be doing. the ideas of facebook and other technology companies should not surprise us. we've seen it before. but we saw a large oil company becoming a monopoly in the late 1900s, early 1900s. they were becoming their monopoly in the 60s, 70s and 80s. just as facebook and his company founded by bright entrepreneurs and eventually they sometimes became detached from everyday americans. what happened is policymakers had to step in and reestablish the balance between those folks in everyday americans. you didn't intend for this to happen. it did happen and i appreciate you apologize for it. one thing i appreciated his appears you are proactively trying to address the situation. just as we address monopolies in the past, that situation today,

we need to in this goes beyond facebook. this has to do with providers, social media organizations and also isps. back to facebook, we heard examples yesterday during a senate hearing in today so far about ideological bias among the users of facebook and fantastic district and his conservative postings were banned or stopped. the good news is i was able to work with facebook personnel and get her reinstated. that said the facebook centers seem to still be trying to stop her postings and anything you can do in that regard to fix that bias will go a long way. i want to have a different direction and talk about the future. congress needs to consider policy responses as i said earlier and i want to call this policy response privacy to point

out in fairness to point out predicting technology companies should be agnostic regarding activities. the only exception would be potentially violent behavior. my question is do agree with facebook and other platforms would be ideological neutral? >> congressman come i agree would be a platform for all ideas and focus on now. >> i've got limited time. with respect to privacy, we need to set a baseline grid when we talk about a virtual person in each technology users addresses online come in they address their online purchases, geolocation and the pictures come et cetera. the individual owns a virtual person may set up online. my second question is this weird you said earlier the accuser of virtual presence. you think the concept should apply to other technology providers including social media platforms, providers and isps.

>> congressman, yes in general. >> i'm not trying to catch you offguard. you can provide more information supplemental aid if you don't mind. in this regard, if congress enacts privacy standards for technology providers, just as we have for financial institutions in the health care come employee benefits et cetera. they should stay the accuser should be held privately unless they specifically consider the use of data by others, they should be based upon the absolute transparency as to what data will be used, where it will be stored, what algorithms will be applied to it, who would have access to it. to whom it will be sold. the disclosure and the associated -- associated actions should be easy to understand and easier for non-technical users to execute. the days of the long scrolling fine prayer with a single checkmark at the bottom in this regard. i think you've come a long way

by meeting that objective. i will have to other questions to submit later. you can expand on your responses later. thank you. >> the gentleman's time is expired for the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you very much. seems like we've been here forever, don't you think? thank you, mr. chairman. thank you ranking member for holding this hearing. i'm of the opinion that basically we are hearing from one of the leaders come and the ceo of the biggest corporations in the world, they get almost entirely in an environment that is unregulated or for basic terms, the lanes and which are to operate in a very wide and broad, unlike other industries. yet at the same time, i have a chart here that the growth of facebook. congratulations to you and your shareholders. it shows in 2009 your net value of the company was less than --

revenue is less than a billion dollars in you that all the way over to 2016 in excess of 26 billion in 2017 apparently close to 40 billion. are those numbers relatively accurate about the growth in the phenomenon of facebook? >> based on relatively accurate. >> just so you know, my staff takes me a little while ago that the ceo of cambridge in a letter analytica stepped down a little while ago. that is interesting. the fact that the ceo of cambridge analytica step down, is that in and of itself solve the issue in the controversy around what they did? >> congressman, i don't think so. there were a couple of big issues here. one is what happened specifically with cambridge analytica. how are they able to buy data from a developer people chose to share and how to make sure that can happen again. >> some of that did originate

with facebook. >> people had it on facebook and chose to share theirs and their friends information, yes. >> something is brought to my attention most recently that apparently facebook does in fact by information to add or augment information to users to build around them. >> congressman, we just recently announced we were stopping working with data brokers as part of the system. >> but she did do that to build your company? >> commander c. standard and recently upon examining our systems we decided that's not everyone to be part of even if or when i'll says that >> not just everybody else, but she did engage in that. >> ask him until he announced we were shutting it down, yes. >> it is my understanding when "the guardian" decided to report on the cambridge analytica

analytic issue, facebook threatened to sue them if they went forward with her story. did it have been something like that? maybe you don't want to do that. >> congressman, i don't believe that i think there may have been a specific factual inaccuracy. >> so another is coming to check in "the guardian" and saying you don't want to go with that story because it's not 100% factual. however, they did go through with their story regardless of the warnings are the threats of facebook saying you don't want to do that. when they did do that and only then did facebook actually apologize for the incident, for the 89 million users information ending up in their hands. is not the case? >> congressman, you are right that we apologized after they posted a story. they had most of the details of what was right there and i don't

think we objected to that. >> thank you. i only have a few more seconds. my main point is this. i think it is time that you, facebook, if you want to be a leader in all the sense of the word and recognize that you can in fact do right by american users of facebook and unfortunately getting in the wrong hands you can be a leader. are you committed to being a leader in that sense? >> the gentleman's time -- >> congressman, i am definitely committed to taking a broader view of our responsibility. that is that my testimony is about. making sure we don't give people tools to make sure they are used for good. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and with that, we will recess for about five minutes, 10 minutes. we will recess for 10 minutes and then resume the hearing. neil: alright, i'm a charlie gasparino here.

welcome back, everybody. i'm neil cavuto. i know this is unusual. why are you staying on this thing so long? we want to hear your voice, but wouldn't mind if you occasionally piped up. we decided not to when i think this is very important. it's fascinating what was going on. one of the world's richest man is being more on the right and the left, more in the left i should say of her privacy practices and how much his company is willing to do to prevent the overreach we've seen on the political side. this seemed like you needed to hear rock, interrupted without me pontificating about it. we will go back as soon as these guys go back. i will tell you this. an interesting development, at least to eye here and i watch a lot of watch a lot of these things as banking executives, you name the industry. energy titans and the like. in this particular case, they haven't laid a glove on

mr. zuckerberg. no matter what you think of them. furthermore, he's gotten much rougher treatment from liberals and democrats than republicans. i hasten to add they've all been critical of business practices and how this can happen and information leaks out that is sort of like the pot calling the kettle -- you know that routine. the issue here for someone who is a spouse, a lot of liberal causes in the same candidates. not that they owed him anything, but i'm thinking given the harsh treatment he's been getting from some of these folks, and remember this is the guy behind the obama technology summit in so many other big causes across the board by democratic party luminaries. he might quickly be turning into ronald reagan at after this. that's a leap on my part. he might remember how he's been

treated here. where this goes i have no idea. policing on privacy issues and the rest on imitating what's going on with europe is one of the ideas that's been kicked around. deirdre bolton has been following this hearing. i don't think they are laying a glove on him. he's open to regulation. it sounds like more self-regulation. what do you think? >> well, i did inc. whenever he speaks about regulation, he seems to be repeating this talking point about the right regulation. to your point, i don't think he wants congress people to go through and tell him what to do. he wants them to issue guidelines and it goes to the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. i want to play now because you've been talking about privacy issues and i just noticed something i wanted to bring to your attention. just as mark zuckerberg was testifying here, facebook on the platform just notified

advertisers about new terms for data collection and targeting as he was in their testifying. so it seems as if the company is beginning to hear the message that is coming through in a much tougher stance today then we heard yesterday and really trying to answer this question or answer the concern, which most people have, which is how calm i seem to be getting my data collected even when i'm not on the facebook format though. even when i go on other sites where my patterns are being analyzed. mark zuckerberg has fielded a lot of questions today and yesterday about that specific issue in this kind of been dodging the answer. doing some research, seems like you can go in and turn off all of these little connections, but the default design. earlier in today's session we heard from representative rush who was kind of hounding him pretty hard and said how come the burden is on the user.

i just thought it was interesting while the hearing is going on, facebook is changing the way they interact with advertisers. >> he might be texting not out. thank you very much. this hearing should resume shortly. while we owe it to you just to hear this, it is a big deal. i want to weigh this with my panelists right now, the former wells fargo ceo. they were selling new accounts that he didn't want. those people were paying for something they did not score. no one lost money on this deal that lost her privacy in terms of that being told to a political organization. we are not getting into the weeds. that is the last time a single ceo was brought before a committee here. it does tell you a little bit about the appetite to go after someone on this privacy issue. where this is going besides that

is anyone's guess. i've got charlie gasparino with us. and connell mcshane. christina, you have been hearing this as well back and forth. where does this ultimately go and what will be the treatment that facebook is going to get out of congress that seems low to get too deep in this. at least let it be known to not happy. >> they aren't happy. we've been watching us go back and forth. a lot of the discussion is about how much disk they spoke scrutinize their data. people like to complain yesterday lawmakers didn't know about facebook. they are still stuck on aol. would zuckerberg had done today is mentioned several times, we don't sell our data. but i would like to explain their caveats to that. they monetize the data. they make money off of the data. they profit. they don't sell to advertisers. advertisers want people to play sports, they provide the data.

but they keep it so they can continuously use it again and again and again. the third-party acts like cambridge analytica where we know the ceo has stepped down. they have taken the data and sold it off. it's not just cambridge analytica. others have done that as well. that's where facebook has to come in now. >> they violated the terms of service. >> by cambridge. of course. charlie: facebook does not sell any of its data. they tell an advertiser we can assemble people that might like your product. and by the way, i get a lot of weight lifting and salsa dancing. by the way, twitter does all this stuff. here's the interesting thing. a couple in us yesterday, 50% of the problems come from the direct sale of information. about a month ago when this first broke him i spoke with a bunch of people in the capitol hill, gop types.

this is your time to get at the lousy liberals in silicon valley and they were like now, republicans. we are not go in there. we believe this is private enterprise. as much as we know them politically, we don't want to open a pandora's box. it's not like the deep state of the cia. i will tell you this. i think there will i think there'll be some rolls and stuff with republicans in congress. they will not be real harsh regulations. connell: and if there was, what would it be? how would they do it? i'm trying to follow along what their goal is. charlie: if it's on your twitter screen that nothing will be shared out of your account and you push the button, a lot of people would do that and twitter stops its ability to monetize. i'm not saying they sell it. they monetize it has a better

word. >> you just said they are going to change their business model. he just didn't answer that question. she asked what you change your business model in order to protect customers and he said i don't know what you mean. transfer my point is that democrats get congress, regulation will force them to change the business. neil: will they be couch in one of their biggest outlays up until now. he will update facebook and zuckerberg and his practices. he has been a very good friend to those democrats. >> corporatist democrats. neil: i don't care. i pointed saying this if i defended people now out to regulate the out of me and i don't think it's going to go anywhere. i think it's an interesting juxtaposition for him to be and where he's probably scratching his chin and say you know what, this is weird. i put a lot on the line for these people in this political

organization gains the benefit, he has a long and pretty consistent record of being left. transfer you have to look at -- neil: i want to get your thoughts on this. do you think the democrats take over, that they would really risk, you know, alienating a guy and a company, that has been very friendly. charlie: very friendly. the media focuses so much on the republican party from the populist right-wing breitbart types, mainstream republicans. here's the battle going on in the democratic party. the elizabeth warren types, the lefties come and they don't like this guy. neil: that's a good point. they don't differentiate. >> using the campaign contributions might decrease because now at the commerce committee and energy committee

with massive contributions. >> most of silicon valley's association of the democratic arty is based on social issues rather than business issues. a lot of social liberals in that part of the world our work in that industry. neil: he acknowledged that in testimony yesterday. i am well aware of the perception. i'm just wondering. this is just me making this. a couple of times he was surprised by the nastiness. >> there was a little bit of hostility, but it was a collaborative environment today. neil: there was much more that i saw exciting by breaking it down. it was overwhelmingly, disproportionately democrat favoring sweeping regulation. >> you a precedent for saying that. the second biggest contributor to barack obama in 2000 it was

goldman sachs. jerry cohen was raising money on wall street to basically make iraq obama president. he turned around and went ballistic on wall street, push dodd-frank on a squeeze goldman sachs business model and guess what happened with cohen and went blank fine. they started raising money for republicans and guess where they ended up ultimately? working for donald trump. there is precedent for that. the mainstream media -- i hate that word because i don't think i mainstream. neil: not even on this planet. at least i know that there are divisions in the democratic party that could rupture, take power and hurt their donor base. neil: let me switch you guys a little bit. when i have time on my hands, dangerous. one of the things i've also noticed his congressmen and women from either party to be lecturing a company on its business practices in taking

responsibility. are you going to admit a mistake? as soon as you admit how we pile up these trillion dollars deficit and lose money and programs at the defense department, compromise and far more valuable than facebook users personal information. this was our national security information. as soon as you take responsibility for that. it was like a dietary advice. i wouldn't go there. i found a bridge for these guys to go. >> it was their moment to shine in many use their opportunity for pictures which is not the time to do that. we have to talk about whether regulation -- neil: i don't have time for your answer. >> exactly. they are just getting the word out. connell: they honestly learned yesterday there were three ways we can do this and then he goes through the three ways and three ways in your four minutes

arrive. it brings up an interesting thing about the way these hearings are programmed. was it five minutes yesterday? it was for today. it is a little frustrating as a viewer, as an observer that there were certain members of congress that are better at this than others in that know more about it than others. just when you get a lot of ally mcbeal. questioning was interesting. but you're cut off. this has gone way beyond -- charlie: here's the bottom line at these hearings. i remember with banking hearing, like lehman brothers, he started fighting back with one of the guys. he was saying you did this and he actually fought back to one of the congressmen i'm paraphrasing a little bit, he said you were supposed to sit here and get the beat out of you. and that is what this is all about. this is theater. that's what a lot of this is. mr. zuckerberg could've came up

and said you've been rolling the dice with our nations future through dad. neil: the "washington post," don't hold me to that i might be wrong, calculated the time zuckerberg was speaking yesterday before the senate versus the questioning time and it was seven to one, questioning verse answering. by the way, if you read anything into that, that the stock was up today. >> that is a relief rally from yesterday. he did very well in answering the questions. perfect ceo/politician. doesn't answer where he doesn't feel comfortable. neil: a lot of people didn't think he was going to be up to this. >> he's been doing this for a long time. he's been running this company. we can't cut him any slack that is 33. he doesn't matter the age. he has to take responsibility. neil: i'm not saying that give the impression was he was going to this.

>> he's got a lot of people to train him. charlie: when i was talking to my sources on the hill yesterday the pregame warm-up they all said is going to blow it. this kid is not ready for this theater. when i talked to my d.c. sources of a bunch of venture-capital silicon valley guys and said he would kill it and he's so smart. you don't realize how smart this guy is. i think the d.c. guys were basically right. i don't know if he killed it, but he didn't screw up. neil: the market is selling off in other areas. we are keeping an update on the lower portion of our screen with speaker paul ryan not to run for reelection and the threat of war tonight may be in syria. but technology by and large has come through a lot of the big beatings that it's gotten and facebook. continuous amazon and the president targeting amazon. wondering what you think about

if an industry is hanging on zuckerberg, way beyond facebook. >> because he performs well, i guess he's doing fine today. it necessarily means his company, the industry evades all regulation. i really do think a lot of yesterday was the fact you had problems here it is a little less today, but problems in the senate with understanding the technology. neil: what is this internet? connell: they go back to their office -- neil: you know what is interesting and i'm talking to you young people here. charlie: thank you. neil: the younger the questionnaire, the more savvy he or she was. >> do they get something they had to prove? neil: i don't know if this committee and whether they weighed the younger representation. charlie: although i thought a question for lindsey graham is not exactly young. he asked are you a monopoly. he was the take away from that.

that was a great question. here is the great answer. you know what zuckerberg said which was fascinating to the point we shall talk about and this is what scares the gop a lot. if you throw regulation at us like a thorough regulation of banks, there won't be much competition. one thing about facebook, it's a huge company with a massive market, makes a lot of money. they throw that out on their compliance staff. it's easier for jpmorgan to comply with dodd-frank then in buffalo. you spread out your cost. i think that is something he said which is very important. neil: do you see facebook as a monopoly? transport if you put more regulation on them, they can basically maintain their monopoly status. i deny you break them up. neil: in the day when it ruled the world and if you go after that no killing industry.

>> and kill off all the startups. do you think that his buddies using i'd keep them afloat and say we care about everyone else in the industry. neil: you are young. do you use facebook? >> not really, no. i used instagram. that is the avenue. everybody, i would say everybody uses instagram now. >> whether that deal should be allowed to go through and was gone not through already. >> if you started using regulations on these guys, maybe they get rid of instagram, but they will spread that cost out. you will prevent others. >> will you let facebook go on this and give them a mulligan? charlie: think they should be forced to monitor sites like terrorist and russian bots trying to do stuff. listen, i talked to a lot of republicans. they complained that if you go after facebook, even though they

cut out some right wing out their stories come it's a lot easier to deal with facebook and get your republican message out to the mainstream media. transfer republicans used it very well. better than clinton the last time. >> abrupt obama used a better than nick bromley. connell: facebook in particular in this last election. it's helping spread. neil: congress doesn't act on where there's apparent improprieties in problems, then be careful. hypocrisy notwithstanding, have to do something. i'm always leery about. a little regulation leads to too much regulation is stifling business practices overseen by people not up to the task. >> are you really burger not going to get an ad for pumpkin

spice latte? neil: but when you explain that process -- bashar >> he's saying i'm getting tired of hearing. connell: i was going to say something about transparency. kamala harris surge ahead on this. it was interesting. that may be is where this ends up. if there is something known about facebook like the cambridge analytica mass, they've got to tell us. and that can be written into some sort of a war regulation. how many times has your credit card, whatever happens, they tell you that day. >> people are doing it because it's expected from consumers nowadays. you see companies react much quicker. trend for what are they going to find out about me? neil: is looking that up as you

were speaking. charlie: roster said you got to go. neil: i know we were on this a long time. why do you go wall-to-wall with this? i think it's important. it's a moment and we should watch this . neil: we have a lot more with trish regan and fed minutes. trish: the federal reserve minutes for the month of march, the march meeting, certainly could have big impact on this market right now, we look at market trading off the lows of the session. nonetheless, off 114 points, 24,293. we have a few stocks trading higher. just a few. most everything in the red. we'll see whether or not the fed has the ability to turn this around today. mcdonald's, intel, visa, ibm only ones as we watch this market on the dow in the green with index off half a percent.

we have the facebook issue, still front and center. i'm trish regan. welcome to the to "the intelligence report." we await for the federal reserve. let's go to d.c. to jennifer. >> fed officials believe there is stronger outlook for the economy that expectation inflation will move back towards 2% will spell a slightly steeper path forward for rate increase over the next couple years. minutes from the federal reserve policy meeting last month showed the fed isn't settled right now on the actual amount of poll at this tightening would be needed next couple years though fed officials expect it update the if omc statement at some point n march the fed opted to raise the short term benchmark index by a quarter percentage point, and penciled a two more rate hikes for three more rate hikes there