facebook? and those who do not have facebook accounts, and that was a key exchange. vonnie: and it turned out nothing? he says we are targeting them to protect facebook security and also some at targeting. we have gotten more information about facebook tracks you when you are not on facebook or if you don't have a facebook account. basically what they do is they embed like buttons across the internet. if you are not a facebook user and use one of those buttons, facebook gets the information. saying you can't cap out of it, but you can't if you are not a facebook user. it was the philly moment of was ang him there -- it moment of catching him there. we are talking with tom of how facebook is accused of trying to suppress conservative views. it is interesting that he turns to artificial intelligence as the new front, were as facebook can do more. emily: can ai really make the decisions? they really is not good enough yet, and as a problem, which is why facebook is hiring thousands of more people to make these decisions. but the question is will a i ever be able to make

hundreds of people have been hired in germany to do what facebook claimed it was not in a position to do. edit content. what does that tell us? is it not possible for regulators to take action and compel facebook to take the kind of responsibility mark zuckerberg is promising? carl: i think it is possible and it europe, germany is leading the way, in terms of showing large tech companies can and should be regulated. we saw with the hate speech outcry here in germany, when people would report a hateful comment, or something they would see a picture or video on facebook and it would not get taken down and now there are tens of thousands of people around the world doing that exact same thing working for facebook. zuckerbig keeps -- that greenberg keep saying it -- zuckerberg keep saying it is about artificial intelligence. i think it is part of the solution, but it is going to be -- you need real people to do this and make the kind of judgment calls because it is difficult for a robot or algorithm to determine what hate speech is. i think it is a matter of moving some of the aliens of do

again larry let me just get jim sawed off on this and i'll get back to you in a second so do you think facebook can be regulated and when we're talking about regulating regulation what exactly do we want to regulate and to over what time frame are we looking at. yeah i think that's the real crux of it i think base book is certainly open to they know that some kind of regulation is coming it's a question of how much of a light touch i think that the most productive conversation is in and around the advertising there have been proposals to make political ads much more transparent who bought them and who did they target right you could extend that to all advertising on facebook or any other technology platform i would suspect the platforms themselves would think that's too far but i think that's a great conversation to add that people are using the platform to pay to deliver messages to certain audiences does the public have a right to know i mean that's a fascinating question that we'll get ask and will be part of the debate probably over the next six twelve eighteen months right. larry in parall

not think it really matters, because i do not think facebookas any argument that this is a violation of section five. section five turns on what consumers reasonably expect. i think they also do not have a defense to my view, which is they violated the consent decree. there's going to be a very substantial civil penalty. at the time of google, the civil penalty statute provided for $16,000. multiply $40,000 .imes 87 million people jumped from $16,000 to $40,000. that has changed? that would not be the starting point for the agency. i think there is likely to be very substantial penalty. we're talking about what the f cc might do. there's also the question of what congress might do or should do. to start that conversation i will move over to michelle. >> what should you do? i think yelling at mark zuckerberg is a start. it is not necessarily going to make change, though. at some point i want to go back to the consent decree. perhaps, congress could make some fixes to make them have more teeth. example, in the google case, the fine was $24 millio

second bird seemed to indicate some willingness to look at that as a possible model for what facebook could do internationally would that be a solution grace for facebook and the u.s. perhaps to take a leaf from europe space age i think that that's just a stopgap solution honestly i don't. i'm skeptical whether they will be able to implement all of those changes in time but also that it begs the question why does europe get to decide what these privacy standards will be and likewise why should facebook then decide whether or how much it complies with these standards i think there needs to be a wider discussion about personal digital identity around the world. i don't want any. our digital identities right now are going through the gate keeper of facebook or the gate keeper of twitter we don't really own our digital identities there's a wider discussion happening now in tech circles especially when it comes to data privacy about the idea of an autonomous digital. identity no idea what that looks like at that is that are you telling us there's a technical solution for this we don't need regulati

to response from facebook these concerns is to say, well, you can do that -- sort of. e, it islity is, not easy to figure out how to even use the control the facebook has provided to opt out of certain types of sharing. and two, there are many areas were you still don't control your data. certain things the platform has deemed to be public. i think that looking at facebook, looking at the issues that have been raised, not just in the last month but over the last several years, it really emphasizes this need to have some types of rules in place to make clear the types of consent people have to provide. in many cases, the types of information being collected by these platform go far beyond the service they are providing, far beyond what people think are being collected come and go far beyond what i think is the day-to-day understanding of how this information is being treated. amy: what do you think is the single most important regulation around privacy that should be put in place, if that is a fair question, before we go? >> sure. regardless of what rules are in place, w

to response from facebook these concerns is to say, well, you can do that -- sort of. e, it islity is, not easy to figure out how to even use the control the facebook has provided to opt out of certain types of sharing. and two, there are many areas were you still don't control your data. certain things the platform has deemed to be public. i think that looking at facebook, looking at the issues that have been raised, not just in the last month but over the last several years, it really emphasizes this need to have some types of rules in place to make clear the types of consent people have to provide. in many cases, the types of information being collected by these platform go far beyond the service they are providing, far beyond what people think are being collected come and go far beyond what i think is the day-to-day understanding of how this information is being treated. amy: what do you think is the single most important regulation around privacy that should be put in place, if that is a fair question, before we go? >> sure. regardless of what rules are in place, w

facebook watches over us. the philosophy of everything we do it facebook is that our community can teach us what we need to do and our job is to learn as quickly as we can and keep on getting better and better and that's especially true when it comes to helping to keep people safe from the past to in a post on his own profile and have you larry he outlined his plan for the company a kind of manifesto that a central role he wants the platform to play in societies around the world. we're also going to focus on building the infrastructure for community for supporting us for keeping us safe for informing us for civic engagement and for inclusion of everyone. so it's a document that really felt like an attempt to take some responsibility but it wasn't apologetic. it was fairly bold and it seemed to suggest that the solution to facebook's problems is more facebook. zuckerberg has great ambition progress needs humanity to come together as a global community he writes facebook can help build it and wants to help fight terrorism while its news service can show us more diverse content. it seems there's almost no limit

what is facebook going to do to help address these issues? how will they be transparent about what happened? facebook has made a few small promises. it seems clear to us that there is a lot more that the company can do. four potential things facebook could do. slowly started to make advertisements on platform available to public scrutiny. they've been doing a pilot project in canada where is your user and you go to an advertisers page you could actually see a list of running at that advertiser is currently running. in principle, all ads are visible. it's also very manual process. if you're are a researcher in makes it difficult to know the universe of all ads that a particular advertiser is running. many advertisers have hundreds of ads. you're no idea what the scope of those ads in the reach of those ads are. the first thing i think facebook could do, in the same way that they built a very robust api for user data, a robust api for advertisements that allows the public, researchers and journalists to scrutinize ads more effectively. facebook

data and do more to prevent these abuses but the problem at facebook not only persisted, it proliferated relative to other types of problems you had on your platform, it seems as though you turned a blind eye to this, correct? >> congressman, i disagree with that assessment. i do think that going forward, we need to take a more proactive view of policing what the developers do, but looking back, we've had an app review process, we investigate -- >> mr. zuckerberg, it seems thus that -- it seems like you were more concerned with the attracting and retaining developers on your platform than you were with ensure the security of facebook user data let me switch gears. your company is subject to a 20-year consent decree with the ftc since 2011, correct? >> congressman, we have a consent decree, yes. >> and that decree emerged out of a number of practices that facebook engaged in that the ftc deemed to be unfair and deceptive. one such practice was making facebook users' private information public without notice or consent, claiming that facebook kerts side the security and integrity of apps w

what is facebook going to do to help address these issues? how are they going to be transparent about what's happening? so facebook has made a few small promises so far. it seems clear to us at upturn that there's a lot more that the company can do. i'll just go over four potential things facebook could do real quick. first, facebook has slowly started to make advertisements on its platform available to public scrutiny. so they've been doing a pilot project in canada where if you're a user and you go to an advertiser's page, you could actually see the list of running ads that that advertiser is currently running. so in principle, all ads are visible. but it's also a very manual process. if you're a researcher, it makes it really difficult for you to even know the universe of all ads that a particular advertiser is running. in addition, many advertisers have thousands of ads where they're testing different messages, and you have no idea what the scope of those ads and reach of those ads are. the first thing i think facebook could do is in the s

that's why we're doing the audits and then the coo went on to say, facebook cared about privacy all along. but i think we got the balance wrong. do you agree with the statement of your coo? >> yes, congressman, i do. we were trying to balance two equities on the one hand, making it so that people had data portability, the ability to bring their data to another app in order to have new experiences in other places, which i think is a voola that we all care about. on the other hand, we also need to balance making sure that everyone's information is protected. i think that we didn't get that balance right up front >> thank you i certainly concur with the statement of the coo as affirmed by you today that you got the balance wrong. and then regarding cambridge analytica, the fact that 300,000 individuals or so gave consent, but that certainly didn't mean they gave consent to 87 million friends. do you believe that that action violated your consent agreement with the federal trade commission >> we do not believe it did. but regardless, we take a broader view of what our responsibility is to pro

you use facebook, stefanie >> i do. >> are you less inclined to use it today than you were two monthsgo >> let me tell you something special about me i got an alert from facebook that i'm one of the people in this cambridge analytica breach this morning i was -- when i opened this morning -- >> that was your data i was reading. >> it was. i know did you see my likes >> i liked you yeah i liked you back i don't use facebook so i don't know >> how many more cambridge analyticas are there because cnbc found one and then facebook had to suspend it there could be more of those kind of apps >> there almost certainly are more of those. i mean, you probably have that one friend -- i know you're not on facebook much so maybe you don't know >> i use it to check people's birthdays. >> but people who are doing quizzes all the time i have an ex-girlfriend from high school who's doing quizzes all the time >> by the way, that's really what you use facebook for is to stalk ex-girlfriends >> dude, you got to get off facebook >> you got to let go >> the damage has been done. >> i hope your wife isn't w

i do not think we could just rely on facebook's word. eeds to do two things, we need to significantly fund first the national science foundation, m.i.t., carnegie mellon, research universities, so that we can do the kind of research in machine learning, in artificial intelligence that is going to be necessary to protect our national security, and to prevent this kind of russian meddling or other types of interference. that is for congress to make those kind of investments in research and in development. we are not making those investments. secondly, we need to have a right to -- individuals having a right to secured data, and making sure that there are advertisement disclosures. senator klobuchar has a bill along that line, so that facebook is required by law to comply. and that will put added incentive on their engineers to really come up with a solution if they have a legal liability that incentivizes them to do it. emily: necessarily going to but that is not happen before 2018, before november? ro: you are right. unfortunately given th

we do not allow hate books on facebook. if there's a group that their primary purpose or a large part of what they do is spreading hate, we will ban them from the platform overall. >> do you adjust your algorithms to prevent individuals interested in violence or nefarious activities other like-minded individuals? >> sorry, could you repeat that? >> do you adjust your algorithms to prevent individuals interested in violence or bad activities from being connected with other like-minded individuals? >> congressman, yes. that's certainly an important thing that we need to do. >> okay. and finally let me say this, many of us are very angry about russian influence in the 2016 presidential elections and russian influence over our presidential elections. does facebook have the ability to detect when a foreign entity is attempting to buy a political ad and is that process automated? do you have procedures in place to inform key government players when a foreign entity is attempting to buy a political ad or when it might be taking oth

what should facebook do. what should policy makers to him what should users demand that they do in facebook generally. i will be speaking to carroll mcsweeny about the state of on line privacy and how we can improve improve it but before we do that i wanted talk about rebecca. it is dedicated to answering another question that is relevant to the proceedings just how well are companies like facebook privacy collection will give it preview on the corporate accountability impacts will answer that question. thank you. >> thanks very much kevin. i don't want to take too much of your time other than to let you know that the ranking digital rights 2018 corporate accountability index is going to be launched on april 25 in new york and we have a flyer here. in an april 27 there will be an event here right in this room that we are planning for people who are not in new york. the index, the 2017 index can be found on our web site at ranking digital rights.org to see how we rated companies last year, the index ranks, 22

we do a number of things on facebook to do that already. >> i appreciated. i am talking about a law. would you support a law to ensure kids under 16 have this privacy bill of rights? i had this conversation with you in your office seven years ago about this specific subject in palo alto. and i think that's really what the american people want to know right now. what is protection? what are the protections that are going to be put on the books? especially for children. would you support a privacy bill of rights for kids where opt in is the standard? yes or no? >> it's an important principle. >> do we need a law to protect those children? that is my question. do you believe we need a law to do so, yes or no? >> i am not sure if we need a law but it's certainly a thing that deserves a lot of discussion. >> i couldn't disagree with you more. we are leaving these children to the most rapacious commercial predators in the country who will exploit these children unless we absolutely have a law on the books. i think it's absolutely -- >> give a short answer please.

we cannot allow people under the age of 13 to use facebook. you do not automatically go from having a messenger kid account to a facebook account. you have to start over and get a facebook account. it is a good idea to consider making sure all that information is deleted. general schedule will be starting over when they get there facebook or other account. >> illinois has a biometric information privacy act. our state does. which is commercial use of facial, voice, fender and iris scans and the like. we are now in debate on that. i'm afraid facebook has come a down to a position trying to carve out exceptions to that. hope you will fill me in on how that is consistent with protecting privacy. thank you. >> thank you senator, senator cornyn. >> thank you for being here. up until 2014, the mantra or model of facebook was moved fast and break things. is that correct? >> i do not know when we changed it. but the mantra is currently moved fast with able infrastructure. which is a much less sexy mantra. >> sounds much more boring. my question is, during th

facebook user? mr. zuckerberg: i do not know of the top of my head. >> it has been reported that facebook has as many as 29,000 data points for an average facebook user. you know how many points of data that facebook has on the average non-facebook user? mr. zuckerberg: i do not off the top of my head but i can have my can get to you afterwards. >> you collect data points on non-average users. my question is, can someone who does not have a facebook account up out of facebook's involuntary data collection? mr. zuckerberg: anyone can turn off and opt out of any data ds, whether they use services or not. but scripting public information, which again, the search feature you brought up on the bottom of public information. nonetheless, we don't want people aggregating public information. we need to know if someone is repeatedly trying to access our services. weit may surprise you haven't talked about this a lot today, said everyone controls data, but you are collecting data on people have never signed up to facebook, and you

often hasuse facebook information that advertiser shared with them. i do bill of rights. that from happening. leave you said we cannot the security of our elections up to an internet entrepreneur. facebook says it is working on new tools that will be in place before the midterm elections prevent what happened in 2016 from happening again. do you believe them, and if not, how concerning is that? and what can congress do? isn't it really on facebook to make sure that doesn't happen again? rep. khanna: i do believe they are acting with good intent. they haveabout this, grown from a platform of a few hundred thousand people to 2 billion people in 12 to 14 years. it's really a next her ordinary antform, an -- really extraordinary platform and it's an extraordinary platform. congress needs to significantly fund the national -- m.i.t., carnegie mellon, research institutions so we can do the research in machine i. that will be necessary to protect our national security and prevent this kind of russian meddling or other types of interference. that is for congress t

do i ged ads that? mr. zuckerberg: facebook doesn't see. . schatz: but do the systems talk to each other without human s touching it. mr. zuckerberg: i think the answer is no, if you message about "black panther" you won't see ads, for it. mr. schatz: i can't imagine that facebook data my because you're monetizing it. it doesn't seem to me that we own our own data, otherwise we'd be getting a cut. mr. zuckerberg: well, senator, you own it in the sense that you choose to put it there, you can take it down any time and you completely control the terms under which it's used. when you put it on facebook, you're granting us permission to show it to other people. mr. schatz: so your definition of ownership is, i sign up voluntarily and may delete my account if i wish and that's it. mr. zuckerberg: i think the control is much more granular than that. you can choose each photo you want to put up or each message and you can delete those and you don't need to delete your whole account, you have specific control. mr. schatz: i want to propose something t

we do not allow hate books on facebook. if there's a group that their primary purpose or a large part of what they do is spreading hate, we will ban them from the platform overall. >> do you adjust your algorithms to prevent individuals interested in violence or nefarious activities other like-minded individuals? >> sorry, could you repeat that? >> do you adjust your algorithms to prevent individuals interested in violence or bad activities from being connected with other like-minded individuals? >> congressman, yes. that's certainly an important thing that we need to do. >> okay. and finally let me say this, many of us are very angry about russian influence in the 2016 presidential elections and russian influence over our presidential elections. does facebook have the ability to detect when a foreign entity is attempting to buy a political ad and is that process automated? do you have procedures in place to inform key government players when a foreign entity is attempting to buy a political ad or when it might be taking oth

the past couple days trying to assuage some fears, members of congress, in terms of what facebook is planning to do. he's apologizing up one side down another. this just posted from him on his own facebook page. he said in an hour i'm going to testify in front of the senate about how facebook needs to take a broader view of our responsibility, not just to build tools, but to make sure those tools are used for good. i will do everything i can to make facebook a place for everyone to stay closer to the people they care about and make sure it is a positive force in the world. one thing they always say, i know you have a busy day. facebook always says it's very idealistic and optimistic type of company. but is that about to meet with some real cynicism from members of congress? >> look, dana, this company's been around not 15 days, but 15 years. it has 2 billion users. it's one of the biggest economic engines in the social media world. in fact, in the whole technology world. so you can't just say, oh, i'm i dealistic and i made a mistake. i do think he's being smart. the buck does stop with him. he's c

it is because facebook often has information that advertiser shared with them. i doill of rights would stop that from happening. emily: you said we cannot leave the security of our elections up to an internet entrepreneur. facebook says it is working on new tools that will be in place before the midterm elections to prevent what happened in 2016 from happening again. do you believe them, and if not, how concerning is that? and what can congress do? isn't it really on facebook to at this point to make sure that doesn't happen again? rep. khanna: i do believe they are acting with good intent. but think about this, emily, they have grown from a platform of a few hundred thousand people to 2 billion people in 12 to 14 years. it's really an extraordinary platform and it's an extraordinary platform. and i don't think we can just rely on facebook's word. congress needs to do two things. first, we need to significantly fund the national science foundation m.i.t., carnegie mellon institutions so , we can do the research in machine learning, in a.i. that will be necessary to p

facebook to fix. i have to go back in. do you trust facebook with your data? reince no. i do not think anyone right now can feel confident their data is protected on facebook. maybe that is unfair but i think mr. zuckerberg needs to face that had on. is just me, i just don't feel like we're connected today. i do not feel like he is getting it. and i hope he does. you have to watch what people do, not what they say. >> do think he is the right person to fix this book? >> guest. he built it, he founded it, if he can't then we have got a problem. ok? see you. announcer: this morning, zuckerbergo mark returns to capitol hill to testify at another congressional hearing, this one how about the house energy and commerce committee. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3, c-span.org, and the c-span radio cap. >> thursday, the senate mr.irmation hearing for pompeo who currently serves as cia director will testify before the senate foreign affairs committee. eastern.9:30 a.m. that we the issues have, is the idea of having conversation across political lines and party ideologies. say

do we get past that? first off as a starter is it a workable model? certainly facebook will argue as have you that its users and the f. t. c. were aware of and had notices of how it worked. this is what the product was. where'd where do you go from there? >> the idea that it's a framework that can adequately protect consumers and the environment is correct. i don't think we can continue to rely solely on that. i think the ftc itself is advocating that it relies solely on that framework but the ftc does have limits to its authority. if you're not telling people truthfully what's happening to their information and how it's being used it's very important but of course it's looking at the rule and how that has been playing out in the marketplace. the notice is clear and timely and the privacy policy agreement it's offered around the collection and use so i think it's been consistently laying out best practices whether the industry has been following it is a different question. and the issue of whether you the ftc is strong enough and i've been arguing obviously that it's no

sandberg, suggested on the nbc "today" show that facebook users who do not want their personal information used for advertising, might have to pay for that protection. pay for it are you actually considering having facebook users pay for you not using that information >> senator, people have a control how information is used in the product today if you want to have an experience where your ads are not targeted using the information we have available, you can turn off third party information. what we found is that even though some people don't like ads, people really don't like ads that are not relevant, and while there is some discomfort, for sure, with using information in making ads, more relevant, the overwhelming feedback that we get from our community is that people would rather have us show relevant content there than not. so we offer this control that you are referencing. some people use it it's not the majority of people on facebook. and i think that that is a good level of control to offer. what shesryl said in order to nt run ads at all, we still need some sort of business model.

that is because facebook often has information that advertisers have shared with them. i donternet bill of rights would stop that from happening. emily: you said that we cannot leave the security of our elections up to an internet entrepreneur. facebook says it is working on be an placeat will before the midterm elections to prevent what happened in 2016 from happening again. do you believe them, and if not, how concerning is that and what facebookess do present at this point to make sure it doesn't happen again? ro: i do believe they are acting with good intent, but think at this point to make sure it doesn't happen again? ro: i do believe they are acting with good intent, but think about this, emily. they have grown from a platform of a few thousand people to 2 billion people in 12-14 years. long time, and i felt a need to break through. we are regulated by the fcc. emily: does that same regulation need to apply to tech? >> i think regulation needs to apply to every industry. i think over time, most of the tech industry is doing brand-new things, and you need brand-new reg

this is not what is facebook doing to prevent flooring or actors from interfering in u.s. elections thank you senator.

seems to me, really comes down to what you tell the public, what you tell users of facebook about what you're going to do with the data, about how you're going to use it. can you give me a couple of examples, maybe two examples, of ways in which data is collected by facebook, in a way that people are not aware of? two examples of types of data that facebook collects that might be surprising to facebook users. >> well, senator, i would hope that what we do with data is not surprising to people. >> and has it been at times? >> well, senator, i think in this case, people certainly didn't expect this developer to sell the data to cambridge analytica. in general, there are two types of data that facebook has. the vast majority and the first category is conent that people chose to share on the service themselves. so that's all the photos that you share, the posts that you make. what you think of as the facebook service. everyone has control every single time that they share that, they can delete that data any time they want. full control, the majority of the data. the second category is around specific data th

. >>> it's clear now that we didn't do enough to prevent the tools from being used for harm. >> reporter: facebook under fire, and founder mark zuckerberg is back in the hot seat this morning after apologizing at yesterday's hearing, and what he says the social network is now doing to protect users' privacy. >> reporter: a major announcement from paul ryan. what we are learning about his political future. >>> a war of words this morning over syria. the strong message from president trump, and the warning from russia. >>> after a quick 5-minute break, here we are with facebook ceo, mark zuckerberg back facing questioning from lawmakers and the hearing has been underway for 2 hours, a little testier than the exchanges we saw yesterday. he's on capitol hill, and today he is facing the house committee on energy and commerce, and it's interesting to note, as we are talking about data, talking about privacy, and for a minute yesterday, zuckerberg left open a copy of his notes on his desk there, and they were -- >> careful. >> well, of course, someone took a picture, as photographers do, and we learned a