facebook. facebook has operating margins of 30 or 40%. linkedin posting small losses holding on to one or 2% margins. that is not enough to put a lot of bottom line dollars out for investors. deirdre: let me stop you there if you don't mind, i hear what you're saying about the margins, these are long term, at least what we're hearing from the company's management, these are long-term plans. they made the big acquisition back in april and they're really trying to become a next generation recruiter which does require investment. >> no, i couldn't agree more. linda.com acquisition they did in april, that is great strategic move. i'm excited about this company but i think that is what you will really see. wall street largely given linkedin a free pass on margins like amazon first 15 years of its existence. they posted tiny profits. it's a wonderful company. we all want a piece of it. linkedin is the same way. it is the social network for professionals. i think they're spending their money fairly well. they're using it for acquisitions. putting those dollars into research and development trying to grow the main lines of business. when you see those revenues begin to increase, that is a really a sign they started to do turn on the spigot to profits so to speak. that's what i think you will see exciting stuff out of the stock. deirdre: ross givens, thanks so much for your insight. chief market analyst at wealth empire. >>> from networking to communicating under the radar, google rolling out a new service that is annoying the u.s. and u.k. governments. google is giving customers more control over their data via encryption. former legal counsel for the nsa stuart baker is with me now. stuart, thanks so much for being on with me. >> a pleasure, deirdre. deirdre: what your take? how much trouble is google getting in with the u.s. government and with the u.k. government? >> i think this is one where google is probably not going to get in too much trouble. the reason i say that is, they're giving this service to their business customers which means that the business will encrypt and keep the keys for their employees communications. so if the u.k., u.s. government thinks that there is a crook inside one of these companies, they can still go to somebody they trust like the chief security officer and say, we need to see this employee's communications. they will be able to get them. it isn't likely they are going to be treating an entire business as a criminal suspect. therefore i'm not sure this is going to impinge on criminal investigations too much. deirdre: because that is really the concern. i mean we know that david scam scam -- cameron, we think something is happening where system-wide hack could make the u.s. or u.k., whichever case it is more vulnerable we need to know who is in there. google is saying well we gave the keys to the business. >> yes they did. the reason they did this in part because, amazon and microsoft started doing this. fact is if you're a big business you don't want to trust another company. even if it is google or microsoft or amazon, with the keys to all of your secrets. it is not a surprise there is a pretty heavy commercial pressure to let companies encrypt their own stuff and keep it safe from the cloud companies that they're using. >> so, stewart, that is a point well-taken. in fact google essentially following what its pierce are doing, you -- peers, mentioned microsoft and amazon. there are companies like coca-cola, numerous fortune 500 companies depend on google. best buy is another one. next step forward, stewart, i want to talk to you about this, you know about both arguments, encryption argument and policy argument and what it means to the government and business community. where does this conversation go, this line between privacy and security? >> we are going to continue to see a debate over how much encryption and how unbreakable that encryption should be. that is a debate that jim comey, the fbi director, has done a remarkable job of turning into a seriousent years it was viewed as over and decided against the government. so that debate's going to go on. i think the place where it will be most pressing is in encryption of what's on people's phones. because that's under the control of individual who owns the phone which means that there is real possibility that he is a criminal. and, that he will be with holding that evidence from the police. that is a big problem. we're already starting to see prosecutors complain about their inability to get information off of the suspect's phone when he is arrested. deirdre: so individuals still represent in general a greater risk than companies. stewart baker, glad to have you with us, former nsa legal counsel. >> a pleasure. deirdre: staying with you security, new government review into the hack attack of office of personnel management just released revealing the national security implications may be more serious than thought. liz macdonald has the latest. >> that's right, deirdre. the cyber hack is worse than previously thought. a new government review of the alleged chinese hack of sensitive security clearance files of 21 1/2 million federal workers, those files are at the office of personnel management this review has just been released. and the implications for national security are more serious than previously thought. the congressional research service, now he questions whether, quote the specific actions taken and proposed by the obama administration in the wake of the opm breaches are sufficient to provide the required improvements in cybersecurity of federal agencies. now this new report to congress also now says, covert intelligence officers and their operations could be exposed, and, high resolution fingerprints could be copied by criminals or spies and this is one of the most damaging cyber thefts in u.s. history. that is what the crs says. it also says of some 1.1 million records had fingerprint information in the background information, investigation files, those fingerprint files have likely been stolen. the fingerprint information is of such high enough quality, that quote, depending on who's hands the fingerprints come into, they could be used for criminal or counterintelligence purposes. deirdre: liz macdonald joining me there. for more on the report, ron beckstrom is with me. a former national cybersecurity center director. ron, glad to have you here. so we're saying at least 1.1 million from time to times may have been stolen. what are the implications to you as an expert? >> yeah, for one they may be my own fingerprints because obviously i worked for the u.s. government. so they could be mine. if you look at the trifecta of organizations hit, i'm a client or been a member of all of them but you know, for me it is not a major issue. i'm a known figure in the cybersecurity world. so i don't have a private identity as it were but this is more perillous potentially for intelligence operatives around the world particularly in covert situations could be discovered, could be compromised or could be tracked. or sources they worked with could be harmed. very disappointing and very concerning what's happened here. deirdre: how could, why are fingerprints even a worthy target? how can hackers use that information? >> yeah, unlike passwords we can't change them, right? i have these fingerprints for life unless they are scared or burnt or something. hackers use them to break into computer systems that need an accurate fingerprint for access, if they somehow get into the device and tweak software around submit false fingerprints it could be used for gaining unauthorized access to very important systems, number one. number two, as you travel around the world, more and more countries ask you for fingerprints when you come into the country. say someone is working in the intelligence services flying into a country and put their fingerprints on the table, then that country can no exactly who they rearly are or correlate and link them to the data pace. one of the problems here, does not come out in the report today, but a question of were those fingerprints themselves encrypted in the database? i fear they were not. because they really should have been encrypted or hash representation. even if the data was stolen, you couldn't back chain it and identify the individual. but unfortunately i doubt those protections were in place. deirdre: what are chances that china, for example, i'm just throwing this out there, is trying to construct a database of former or current federal u.s. employees? what is the chance this is state-run? >> well i think very high chance this is a state-run operation. as director of national intelligence, mr. clapper stated, is quoted in the congressional report, it suggests that, you know, china is a leading suspect. i do know having spoken to people, this information is not showing up on the dark net or dark markets yet. if this was a group of financial criminals they would be trying to sell this data for a lot of money quite possibly in small pieces or individual records. that is not the case. it is not appearing on the dark net that suggests that the party that took this data or got the data is holding it. i think, as we shared last time we discussed it, deirdre, that it is more likely there is, more than one nation-state that has had access to this database, given failed multiple security audits of opm over the past years. virtually they were leaving an open door to attackers to come in to take this precious information. deirdre: thank you, rod. disturbing, happy, grateful, all the same to have you with us. rod beck strom, joining us, former national cybersecurity director. >>> switching gears entirely. looking at dance party coming on a bike people describe soulcycle. david beckham and charlize theron are fans. the investors sold majority stake in the chain to equinox in 2011. he sees the relationship with the soulcycle brand as complimentary. >> you're a soulcycle brand member and different experiences. i think the day you start to down help fit with each other is the day you start to actually not be true to what the core consumer wants. deirdre: soulcycle accounted for 12% of equinox earnings in 2014 yet it is the fitness chains fastest growing segment. some say soulcycle founders wanted to unlike the rest of the brand's value. >>> when we come back you don't have to be real estate titan or millionaire to invest in properties like the world trade center. we'll tell you more about commercial real estate possibilities. if you're counting the days until your children are out of your house you should probably stop the clock. mover and more young adults are staying in the nest. we'll give you some stats next. ♪ you do all this research on the perfect car. gas mileage, horsepower torque ratios. three spreadsheets later you finally bring home the one. then smash it into a tree. your insurance company's all too happy to raise your rates. maybe you should've done a little more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. >> had a wonderful first meeting. i see potential here. >> all systems go. >> i think i could have your son moved out of this house an living on his own by june 15th. >> hallelujah. deirdre: that is from the movie, "failure to launch." new pew study center, millenials, between 18 and 34, less likely to be living on their own now than they were during the great recession. fox business contributor, tangent capital, bob rice. explain failure to launch. >> first, millenials, you saw 18 to 34-year-olds we do everything right, send them to college and get a job and leave the necessary but that last part actually doesn't happen. closer related to the term boomerang kids. you think you launch them and few months later, you hear them coming back at your front door again. economists are really puzzled they say by the growth of both of these sectors of kids. i'm not so surprised really. all you have to do is look at amount of student loin debt outstanding. a lot of these kids effectively have mortgages before they have homes. and so it is not surprising you're seeing this turn up directly in the housing data. homeownership is falling like a stone. new me construction is not up where we have it. not just parents problems, it is everyone's problem. deirdre: everyone's problem with 16 seconds to burn here. what does it mean it is everyone's problem, other than parents losing their privacy? what are else are they losing? >> for parents this takes a huge dent out retirement savings. deirdre: why is that? >> supporting their kids, not just kids living in the basement. buying groceries and doing all things typically kids would have done on their own and hoping to pay down the student debt. that is applicable not just to kids living at home, very, very common now, some statistics say at least half the parents of millenials are supporting their kids, even once they're in the workforce. >> i did informal poll with mark cuban's cyber dust, how many of you or your buddies between 18 and 34 lived at home? i at least 1 year-and-a-half, two years, not by choice but couldn't get a job or i just didn't have a job that paid enough. >> exactly. that last part is really a big problem now. realities we're miseducating a lot of our kids. we're still putting them very, very expensive schools. they're getting really interesting degrees but ones that they literally can not put to work. they're getting jobs paying 40 or $50,000 a year. they might have 150, $200,000 of debt. what are they going to do? deirdre: family togetherness. here we go. >> couch looks really, really good. deirdre: bob rice, joining me there fox news contributor. >>> staying with real estate in a way you can invest in commercial real estate a $13 trillion market. fund rise is a startup where you can do it. found irand coy president dan miller with me. glad to have you with us. >> thanks for having me on. deirdre: you make it easy for everyday people to invest in commercial real estate. for people who don't know prior to you the bar was extraordinarily high to do this kind investment. >> normally minimums in commercial real estate is 100,000 plus. normally millions. they can invest in 5,000 bucks. you can go there and invest in the projects. deirdre: you're not asking people to be accredited. definition for people that don't follow of accredited basically having a million dollars which has nothing to do with their primary residence but you're letting anybody participate? >> we do a mix. we do some deals available to everybody and some of those for as little as 100 bucks. true democratization. others are limited only to accredited. >> are you, is your company assuming any risk in this? >> we prefund the deals with our own balance sheets. we're underwriting deals. we fund them. believe in them and give individuals a chance to invest. so yes we're definitely taking a risk. deirdre: if the individuals don't pay up, how much, what percentage have you factored in for that to happen. >> that is data we use how many people will invest in what speed, we have better data on that. we're standing behind our deals. we underwrite deals, we fund themselves ourselves and if any remainder which hold on to it. deirdre: how much push back have you got? for many businesses this could be a lay recalling. >> you're cutting out a lot of middlemen. allowing people to invest directly. private equity industry and reit market very high fee loads those are the groups -- deirdre: those are goliaths. have you heard from them? are they complaining they think oh, it is so small don't have to worry about it? >> a few more innovative ones are focusing on it. size of market is billion. doubling and tripling but still small in overall reestate market. ance once it gets too big to ignore it will be too late. deirdre: jamie dimon of jpmorgan chase, look out because silicon valley is coming. great to meet you. dan miller, cofounder and president of fund rise. >>> when we come back, nbc close to making investment in buzzfeed and box. we'll tell you what that means for the media industry -- vox. >>> move over silicon valley, british prime minister david cameron wants the u.k. to be the leading tech capital of the world. we'll tell you which companies are functioning. ♪ -- fintech capital. super poligrip seals out more food particles. so your food won't get stuck. and you can enjoy every single bite. eat loud. live loud. super poligrip. seals out more food. ♪ super poligrip holds your dentures tightly in place. so you never have to hold back. laugh loud. live loud. super poligrip. get strong all day hold. deirdre: british prime minister david ca m on wants to make the u.k. the capital of the world, tech bites.com editor brett larson, glad to have you here. thank you for making it through this crazy new york city weather. [laughter] owe you both. what do you think of this, can the u.k. scoop the u.s. as far as tech? >> i think they actually have a better chance than with most things. >> you think so? >> we saw, i think it was 200% invested into tech over the last year, and that's compared to 63% of overall investment. it makes sense for the u.k. to go after it. >> i think it's a smart move for them. they've been ahead of the game on a lot of financial technology. deirdre: it's a huge banking center. >> credit cards long before we did, so i can see them doing a good job at this. deirdre: and at the very least, it is very good pr for the u.k. to say we want you to come here, we want you to build, companies, including fin-tech. all right, going to media, away from fitness -- nbc universal said to be very close to investing in buzzfeed and vox, the idea to capture more millennials and say, okay, we already more or less have a pretty good standing with the older crowd, we need the young uns, what do you think? >> you can't keep chasing down an audience that's dying, so it makes sense for them to kind of go after it. it's a smart move because they don't actually have to do anything. they don't actually have to say let's try and do this internet thing. they can say, well, let's just invest in this company that's clearly doing it right -- deirdre: which brings up a great point, this whole idea, clay christianson, can bug companies innovate -- big companies innovate. nbc is we're not even trying, we're just going to invest in others who are. >> it's even less risk than a merger. buzzfeed can go a traditional route if they choose to and maybe put some content on tv. i think it makes sense for both parties. >> and buzzfeed is starting to do more news, not just pictures of cats in fun positions that look like celebrities. deirdre: no, true point. that was how they started, but they have evolved, they have hired, they do serious journalism now. >> they do some of the good stuff on the web. deirdre: speaking of millennials, demographically they're the biggest, right? they outweigh even the baby boomers at this point, so it follows that facebookle are really owning the market, no other way to say it, on mobile ads. we saw that confirmed with facebook's earnings yesterday. [laughter] >> for some reason, that story scared me a little bit, it was just kind of like all the advertising is falling on two giant companies. i don't know, when it goes in that direction, i always feel like that's -- deirdre: worried, not worried? >> not even close to worried. you've got to put your trust somewhere, and these big companies -- >> yeah. deirdre: this guy was bragging, oh, yeah, i lie all the time, i say i'm a woman, i say i'm 20, he's like 45 -- [laughter] what kind of ads -- >> was he talking about online dating or -- deirdre: you know what? >> i would much rather have targeted ads that's relevant to me -- >> i totally agree with that, but my concern with all of this is at what point does it cross over to advertising, and then suddenly your insurance company knows that you go to bars a lot and buy a lot of liquor and smoke -- deirdre: all
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11
