and one of the things that's ironic about the ftc's complaint, the ftc said part of the deception wasllowing third parties to get access about how people exercise their political views without their consent. and so this is why i think this is -- i've seen this movie before, and it didn't end well. so one of the things the ftc did was try to reign in third-party collection. if you look at the consent decree, it draw s a bright line between users, who are people who actually post things, and third parties, who actually harvest things. the goal was to limit third-party access unless there's clear notice and clear consent. now, facebook's going to say, well, the settings they had allowed sharing, mass sharing, if you put friends to friends setting. on the other hand, the question the ftc was asking is what are consumers' reasonable expectations about what that means? so one question to ask zuckerberg next week at his hearings is do you really believe any of the friends thought that something like cambridge analytica was going to happen to them? your notice is back then, back in 2013 or wh

our next featured speaker is ftc acting chairman. she will be delivering her remarks via prerecorded video. >> thank you for coming to today's robo call forum. while i can't join you in person, i'm thrilled that the ftc and the fcc are co-hosting this event to explore the problem of illegal robo calls. and thank you to fcc chairman and fcc and ftc staff who made this possible. like you, i hate when my phone rings due to an illegal robo call. now, this problem isn't new, but it does seem to come in waves. in the late 2000s, we saw that robo calls were a growing problem, and the ftc responded by amending the telemarketing sales rule to prohibit the vast majority of robo calls or prerecorded sales calls. unfortunately, changes in telephone technology, primarily the growth of voiceover internet protocol, have made it much easier for telemarketers to make large volumes of robo calls with spoof caller i.d. information for a fraction of a cent per call, often from foreign countries with nothing more than a computer and an internet connectio

the ftc is serious. state actors are serious about taking aggressive action against those people that are initiating these unwanted robocalls. so, there's more work to do, but the fcc, ftc, state and industry partners, we are all committed to taking action. we hear from consumers what a problem this is. we also understand the scope and nature in terms of how difficult it is for us to solve it but we're committed to moving forward. so i welcome today's event and the additional ideas and areas for action that it's identifying. and with that, i will move off the stage and let the true experts on this continue the really productive discussion. i do look forward to seeing the continued efforts of these types of groups in seeing where at the fcc we can continue to take action to protect consumers. so, thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, commissioner carr. our second panel is entitled recent regulatory and enforcement efforts. it is moderated by tom paul, acting director of the ftc's bureau of consumer protec

i love the ftc. i think the staff of the ftc are saying and credible job with antiquated authority, the 104-year-old agency using using--protecting consumers from unfair practices. at the same time the agency has called for its strongest tools. the ftc is not strong enough and it is figured as current authorities and current resources to be the kind of consumer protection agency that is required for a moment in which we are connect every part of our lives to the entry into each other. >> i would start by making sure it's been more or less flat funded for the past three years. the obama administration to call for an increase in resources for the agency but it has never been funded at near that level so as first of all under resource. one of the things that it has been doing and i'm very proud of sharing the ftc with this implementation bringing more technology into our work and bringing more researchers. we have an office at technology investigations that i think is a great first step in that directio

there's more horsepower in the ftc. the ftc needs additional authority to contact outside experts to evaluating. needs in-house expertise and additional resources to bring that expertise and where it doesn't have it. down that it's really important for civil penalty authority and to access breach violations. it needs rulemaking authority that can at--it can use for security. it's also been studying it and it's been looking at the data broker industry in calling for more transparency and accountability for data brokers that they think that's important but beyond that we continue to make the case for the consumer rights that we need in the digital age which includes things like data affordability and interoperability. those are things we need to focus on as well. >> one of the questions is what the ftc can do and the if someone misrepresents what they are doing with your data that is the ftc's and the would have fared doing something with your data but telling you about it, that is okay. how do we get past that? first off

one of the things that's ironic about the ftc complaint, the ftc said part of the deception was allowing third parties to get access about how people exercise their political views without their consent. think i've seen this movie before and it did not end well. one of the things the fcc would guess the ftc did was try to rein in third-party protection. the consent decree draws the line between users and third parties who actually harvest things. the goal was to limit third-party access, unless there is clear notice and consent. facebook is going to say, the settings they had allowed sharing, mass sharing. on the other hand, the question the ftc was asking, what are consumers reasonable expectations about what that means. one question to ask zuckerberg next week's hearings is, do you really believe any of the friends thought that something like cambridge analytics was going to happen to them. back then, back in 2013 or whenever this happened, clear about that? i looked at those notices. i don't think they meet that test at all. that will be part of the ftc inquiry in terms of whether the

the ftc has been looking at the issue.hey looked at this recently in and said youse can't have a default setting that has several different options to navigate to keep something private. if you are trying to keep selling private, and you think you set to private and then have to do three more steps, that is a problem. the ftc was looking at whether consumers could really navigate the settings they were being offered. it also looked at, i think of the cases more as trickery and clever technical workarounds to privacy choices. if a consumer has said do not track my geolocation app, then running programs that is triangulating your location using wi-fi is probably going around that privacy setting. we have to find ways to make sure the technology is following the privacy choice of consumers. i think to have been looking at these issues. the fact that we had more than one case already on this suggests to me there are problems out that we need to be continuing to be very active about here. kevin: in trying to protect consumer pr

ld the ftc do >> when i was at the ftc in the dark ages, i do not know whether the commission would have thought of a remedy like that for a deceptive act as opposed -- i suspect the agency would still have problems doing that now. it is an interesting idea. bob always has interesting ideas. it is yet another interesting idea from bob that people should think about. the remedies that the agency has are basically equitable remedies. todo at times force people do all sorts of things they do not want. this is an intriguing idea. >> there will be plenty of other intriguing developments ongoing, findsing, i hope everyone interesting the testimony next week. thank you, everybody, for coming. thank you to the panelists. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this week, facebook ceo mark zuckerberg will testify before senate and house committees on facebook's use of user information and data privacy. on c-span3, he will answer qu

it should go to the ftc as well. in response to the questions about the apps, and the investigation you are going to do, you said you do not necessarily know how long. have you set deadlines? as my colleague said, there are tens of thousands, there has been 9 million apps. how long do we have to wait for that investigation? mr. zuckerberg: congresswoman, we expect it to take many months . rep. schakowsky: years? mr. zuckerberg: i hope not. rep. schakowsky: i want to ask you, yesterday, following up on your response to senator baldwin , you said yesterday that aleksandr kogan sold data to extra firms. a technology firm. how many are there total and what are their names? can we get that? we can follow up with you to make sure you get the information. i do not believe it was a large number. rep. schakowsky: what is a large number? mr. zuckerberg: a handful. rep. schakowsky: have you tried to get the firms to delete user data and is derivatives? commenterberg: yes 2015, when we first learned about it, we demanded that th

one >> the ftc investigation >> uh-huh. >> yes. >> okay. you entered into a consent decree with the ftc which carried no financial penalty for facebook, is that correct? >> congresswoman, i don't remember if we had a financial penalty. >> you're the ceo of the company. you entered into a consent decree and you don't remember if you had a financial -- >> i remember the consent decree it's extremely important to how we operate the company. >> i would think a financial penalty would be too okay the reason you probably don't remember it is because the ftc doesn't have the authority to issue financial penalties for first-time violations. the reason i'm asking these questions, sir, is because we continue to have these abuses and these data breaches, but at the same time, it doesn't seem like future activities are prevented. so i think one of the things that we need to look at in the future, as we work with you and others in the industry, is putting really robust penalties in place in case of improper actions and that's why i ask these questions.

>> the ftc investigation? >> uh-huh. >> yes. >> you entered into a consent decree with the ftc which carried no financial penalty for facebook, is that correct? >> congresswoman, i don't remember if we had a financial penalty. >> you are the ceo of the company, you entered into a consent decree and you don't remember if you had a financial -- >> i remember the consent decree, the consent decree is extremely important to how we operate the company. >> i would think a financial penalty would be, too. okay. well, the reason you probably don't remember it is because the ftc doesn't have the authority to issue financial penalties for first-time violations. the reason i'm asking these questions, sir, is because we continue to have these abuses and these data breaches, but at the same time it doesn't seem like future activities are prevented and so i think one of the things that we need to look at in the future as we work with you and others in the industry is putting really robust penalties in place in case of impro

back in 2011, there was a settlement with the ftc, and now we discover yet another incident where the data was failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica that fraudulently obtained all the information, why didn't you inform those 87 million? >> when we learned in 2015 that cambridge analytica had bought data from an app developer on facebook that people had shared it with, we did take action. we took down the app we demanded that both the app developer and cambridge analytica delete and stop using any data that they have. they told us that they did this. in retro spect, it was a mistake to believe them. we should have followed up and did the audit then >> you did that. you apologized for it, but you didn't notify them do you think you have an obligation to notify 87 million facebook users >> senator, when we heard back from cambridge analytica that they told us they were not using the data and deleted it, we considered it a closed case, but that was clearly a mistake we shouldn't have taken their word for it, and we've updated our policies and how we operate t

what's new about this announcement from the ftc?ors you probably want to know you are investigating a data breach, particularly if you're talking to them about a separate data breach. let me take you back in time and 2014 when huber was hacked and 100,000 drivers in formation was revealed including their bank accou nts revealed including their bank accounts and social security numbers. they've been talking about the federal trade commission about this data leak 2016 when it all. for another security breach. at that time there were 25 million uber customers whose phone numbers and e—mail addresses were revealed. there are also 600,000 drivers who drivers licenses were also revealed in that breach. uber didn't immediately tell the ftc that it had found out about this, in fact it paid the hackers who had the data $100,000 at the same time that it was still talking to these federal regulators. but the ftc has said is that they should have said this was happening when they weren't negotiating a settlement, so now they have decided that t

as congress looks in a bipartisan way at legislative solutions, we need to really give keys to the ftc and other agencies to be able to assess very strong penalties that will prevent future abuses and lapses. thanks. >> hello. you already? first i would like to thank mr. zuckerberg for coming out today. it is not easy to testify before congress two days in a row, and we appreciate his cooperation. it is very clear that facebook has made significant mistakes around protection of user data. i think we still have a lot more to learn about what happened at --ebook and changes to miss changes that mr. zuckerberg will make. these breaches of trust take time and real action to fix. users and lawmakers need to know that facebook is taking this seriously. only time will tell in this case. let's be clear, facebook was the focus of today's hearing, but the issues we dug into applied to many other companies as well. we will widen our lens to examine the entire tech industry , determining the right balance between services and the maintenance of personal privacy will be one of the challenges of our

i don't think the ftc has regulations in mind. i think we will be listening to what we find out.i will tell you, generally speaking, i come down on the side of a light touch regulation. i think the internet has derived -- thrived. it has been the engine of our economy and economic growth for two and a half, three decades. and we need to be careful with overregulation. at the same time, if something needs to be done, if laws are not adequate to protect privacy, to protect from the wholesale selling of private information, we need to look at that. but i am reluctant over regulate, because the internet has been so great for the economy and for americans in general. >> in your mind, what are the areas of weakness that do not have sufficient explanation from the company that you will be probing? sen. wicker: whether they violated the law, whether they feel they violated the law or ftc regulations. laws are a number of state which we need to look into. i'm going to be asking very straightforward questions. i have no idea what my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will be asking. emi

doesn't that term of service conflict with the ftc order?? that this term of service was in fact provided to facebook, and you'll note that the ftc order specifically requires facebook to protect privacy. isn't there a conflict in there? it certainly appears that we should have been aware that this app developer submitted a term that was in conflict with the rules of the platform. what happened here was, in effect, willful blindness. it was tedious and reckless, which, in fa ct, tedious and reckless, which, in fact, amounted to a violation should ftc consent decree. would you agree? no. my understanding was not that this was a violation of the decree. i think we need to take a broader view of our responsibility around privacy decides what is mandated in the loss. here is my reservation tonight apologise for interrupting you, but my time is limited. we have seen the apology tours before. you have refused to acknowledge even an ethical obligation to have reported this violation of the ftc consent decree and we have letters, we have had contact

>> the ftc investigation? >> uh-huh. >> yes. >> you entered into a consent decree with the ftc which carried no financial penalty for facebook, is that correct? >> congresswoman, i don't remember if we had a financial penalty. >> you are the ceo of the company, you entered into a consent decree and you don't remember if you had a financial -- >> i remember the consent decree, the consent decree is extremely important to how we operate the company. >> i would think a financial penalty would be, too. okay. well, the reason you probably don't remember it is because the ftc doesn't have the authority to issue financial penalties for first-time violations. the reason i'm asking these questions, sir, is because we continue to have these abuses and these data breaches, but at the same time it doesn't seem like future activities are prevented and so i think one of the things that we need to look at in the future as we work with you and others in the industry is putting really robust penalties in place in case of impro

underu believe you were no obligation to notify the ftc? mr. zuckerberg: in retrospect, it was a mistake. i was we had notified and told people -- >> did you think that the rules were kind of lax that you debated whether you needed to? mr. zuckerberg: i don't believe that we had a legal obligation to do so. it was the right thing to have done -- >> you answered my question. we do agree that for facebook to continue to be successful it has to continue to have the trust of its users? mr. zuckerberg: absolutely. >> great. does this not strike you as weakness with the current system that you were not required to notify the ftc? mr. zuckerberg: congressman, regardless of what the regulations are, we take a broader view of our responsibility around privacy. we should have notified people. the other ceo might not have such a broad view and might interpret it differently. that's why i'm asking these questions. i'm also taking a broad view as a congressman here to try to fix this problem. from what we've learned over the past two days of hearings, it do

it was heedless and reckless which, in fact, amounted to a violation of the ftc consent decree, would you agree? >> no, senator. my understanding is that it is not that this was a violation of the consent decree. as i've said a number of times today, i think we need to take a broader view of our responsibility around privacy than just what is mandated in the current law. >> well, here is my reservation mr. zuckerberg, and i apologize to you but my time is limited. we've seen the apology tours before. have you refused to acknowledge even an ethical obligation to have reported this violation of the ftc consent decree, and we have letters, we've had contacts with facebook employees, and i'm going to submit a letter for the record from sandy parikilis with your permission that indicates not only a lack of resources but lack of attention to privacy, and so my reservation about your testimony today is that i don't see how you can change your business model unless there are specific rules of the road. your business model is to monetize user information, to maximize profit over privacy, and u

i don't think the ftc has relations in mind. if it will be listening, and i will tell you. come downeaking, on the side of a light touch regulation. i think the internet has derived. has been the engine of our economy and economic growth for three decades. we need to be careful with overregulation. at the same time if something needs to be done and the laws are not acted to protect privacy wholesale selling of private information -- we need to look at that. i am reluctant to over regulate because the internet has been so great for the economy and for americans in general. in your mind, what are the areas of weakness that are insufficient that you will be probing? >> i will be probing if they validated the law or if they feel like they violated the law. we already have hit back, but already have a number of state laws that we need to look into. . am going to be asking straightforward questions i have no idea what my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will be asking. senator john wicker of the senate commerce committee, and on tuesday tune in for a special edition of "bloo

ftc would have jurisdiction over online space. now we have unified authority by the ftc over privacy. and one thing they'll look at is how to consistently protect consumers across the internet economy. whether it's an internet service providesser or an online provider like facebook or whoever. i think they want and the new ftc commissioners have to make this decision. just confirmed last night. they will have to figure out how to consistently protect consumers. i think the core question is to make sure that regardless of the particular regulatory classification of the entity that holdings consumer information, that those consumers are protected. they eave uniform expectation of that and i think the regular solutions respect that. >> final question. there's one back there. >> hi, mr. chairman. i have a low-tech question for you. >> a.m. radio. >> this deals with censorship. have you looked into the major news wires undertaking now editing of press releases behalf they go out to determine whether they are acceptable? >> that is not

the ftc found that facebook's privacy policies had deceived users in the past. and in the present case, we recognize that cambridge analytica and an app developer lied to consumers and lied to you, lied to facebook, but did facebook watch over the operations? we want to know that. and why didn't facebook notify 87 million users that their personally identifiable information had been taken? and it was being also used, why were they not informed for unauthorized political purposes? so only now, and i appreciate our conversation, only now facebook has pledged to inform those consumers whose accounts were compromised. i think you are genuine. i got that sense in conversing with you. you want to do the right thing. you want to enact reforms. we want to know if it's going to be enough. and i hope that will be in the answers today. now, since we still don't know what cambridge analytica has done with this data, you heard chairman thune say, as we have discussed, we want to haul cambridge analytica in to answer these questions at a separate hearing. i want to thank you

ftc and commerce want to get involved here. the challenge is that with high technology, regulations and laws are sticky. what to make sure what you are doing is technology neutral. there's a lot of resistive think the market. this problem. facebook's stock prices is taking a tumble. see sheryl sandberg and mark zuckerberg say they will try to fix the issue. i think you will see a very contrite and straightforward mark zuckerberg before congress. shery: what is the risk for him as he faces lawmakers? jamil: the biggest risk. is pushing back. he is a strong personality. they are adding a lot of innovation to the world. at the same time he is admitting that there was a problem here. they did not understand the scope of the data available and how it might be utilized. a business perspective alone, it is important for mark to acknowledge, and he will do that next week. differentw we take a attack in the sense -- why is it for facebook to protect our data? this was not a hack, this was shared by facebook. regulation have it easily av

they did not notify the users or the ftc. they did not notify the press.arm might have been avoided had they done that. they clearly did not have sufficient oversight. have played in rubles, and russians buying advertisements, and that not setting off alarm bells is deeply concerning. they allowed false propaganda to spread and go viral on their site without any verification. i am glad they are not owning up to their mistakes. i still believe in the power of social media to do good, but they were clear abuses and need to be transparent going forward, and make real efforts to fix it. congress also needs to regulate. we cannot rely on the self-regulation of facebook or tech companies. emily: a lot of the questions today focused on facebook's tracking of users, including users who never signed up for it in the first place. should facebook be able to track it user behavior across the internet, off of facebook, even if they do not have a facebook account? ro: this is exactly why we need an internet bill of rights. for example, if you use firefox, facebook would

the ftc found that facebook's privacy policies had deceived users in the past. and in the present case, we recognize that cambridge analytica and an app developer lied to consumers and lied to you, lied to facebook, but did facebook watch over the operations? we want to know that. and why didn't facebook notify 87 million users that their personally identifiable information had been taken? and it was being also used, why were they not informed for unauthorized political purposes? so only now, and i appreciate our conversation, only now facebook has pledged to inform those consumers whose accounts were compromised. i think you are genuine. i got that sense in conversing with you. you want to do the right thing. you want to enact reforms. we want to know if it's going to be enough. and i hope that will be in the answers today. now, since we still don't know what cambridge analytica has done with this data, you heard chairman thune say, as we have discussed, we want to haul cambridge analytica in to answer these questions at a separate hearing. i want to thank you

class doesn't that term of service conflict with the ftc order? that facebook was under at that very time that this term of service was in fact, provided to facebook and we will note that the ftc order specifically requires facebook to protect privacy. isn't there a conflict there? appears that we should have been aware that this app developer submitted a term that was in conflict with the rules of the platform. >> what happened here, was in effect, willful blindness. it was heedless and reckless, which in fact, amounted to a violation of the ftc consent decree. would you agree? >> no, senator. my understanding is that it is not this is a violation of the consent decree. as i said a couple of times i think we need to take a broader view. -- interrupting e for but my time is limited. we have seen the apology tour as before. you have refused to acknowledge even an ethical obligation to have reported this violation of the ftc consent decree. and we have letters, we have had contacts with facebook employees and i will submit a letter for the record fr

you have refused to acknowledge even an ethical obligation to have reported this violation of the ftc consent decree. and we have letters, we have had contacts with facebook employees. and i'm going to submit a letter for the record from sandy packalis, with your permission, that indicates not only a lack of resource but lack of attention to privacy. and so so my reservation about your testimony today is that i don't see how you can change your business model unless there are specific rules of the road, your business model is to monetize user information to maximize profit over privacy. and unless there are specific rules and requirements, enforced by an outside agency, i have no assurance that these kinds of vegas commitment -- vague coe going to produce action. so i want to ask you a couple of very specific questions and they're based on legislation that i have authored. my data act, legislation that senator markey is introducing today, the consent act which i'm joining. don't you agree that companies ought to be required to provide users with clear, plain information about how thei

. >> the ftc flag cross device tracking as one of their concerns. generally that people are tracking devices that the users of something like facebook don't know they are being tracked, how your collective methods? >> there are two ways we do this. one way is we try to be exhaustive in the legal documents run the terms of service and privacy policies. >> they can you do go to settings or we can show them at the top of the app so that people understand all the controls and settings that they have and can figure their experience the weather they want. >> so do people give you permission to track specific devices in their contract? if they do, is that a relatively new addition to what you do? mark: i don't have that information. >> in my able to opt out? say you can track what i'm saying on facebook but i don't you tracking what i do on an android. yes, senator, facebook is not collecting data from other apps that you use. there maybe some specific things about the device that you're using that facebook needs to understand in order to offer the service

>> the ftc investigation. >> the ftc investigation, yes. >> youou entered into a consent decree with the ftc which carried no financial penalty with facebook, is that correct?, >> is congresswoman, i don't remember if we had a financial penalty. >> you're the ceo ofco a compan you entered into a consent dece decree and you don't remember if there was a financial penalty. f >> i remember the consent degree. >> i would think a financial penalty would be, too.o. okay.y.we theas reasonon you probably dor remember it is because the ftc doesn't have the authority to issue financial penalties for first time violations.s. the reason i'm asking these questions, tsir, is because we continue to have these abuses is and these data breaches, but atm the same timee it doesn't seeme like future activities are so prevented, so i think that one e of the things that we need to look at in the future as we work with you and others in the industry is putting really robust penalties in place in in case of improper actions, and as that's why i asked these askedt questions. >> the gentle lady's time section

>> reporter: right now the ftc is investigating facebook. today actually while the house was hearing from mark zuckerberg, the senate was vetting a candidate to be the commissioner on the ftc. the candidate got a lot of questions about facebook. it's clear to this potential member and perhaps others that this is a priority. >>> clouds rolling over today. very chilly and dreary afternoon -- a very chilly and dreary afternoon. our meteorologist is tracking this.>> it's raining and portions of the north bay. santa rosa with the gusty wind. steady rainfall heading toward you. sonoma county, napa county, rain. meant cito county, lake county with rain. hail and higher elevation snowfall. all of this working its way toward the south. future cast says as soon as 7:00 it will cost -- cross the golden day into the east bay. increasing sunshine tomorrow. mid april, the first of three rain chances in the seven-day forecast. we got the details for the other two coming up.>>> more drama after the fbi raids the offices of the president's personal lawyer. h

did it break the law in your view >> we will let the ftc render their decision on this the ftc comeswhat we do know is that the penalty that could be imposed is $40,000 per day per violation. so we'll see what the penalty is going to be. what we do know is there are complaints against the privacy policies already also complaints against the way facebook has manipulated their algorithms and other social media also. facebook is not the only offender, when it comes to privacy an censorship. >> that is why you will see this hearing as just the tip of the iceberg. people have an expectation of privacy. and they want that right to be recognized, whether they're in the physical or the virtual space. >> you called at this time tip of the iceberg what other companies are on your radar? >> oh my goodness. when it comes to block and censorship you've got youtube, twitter. you have search prioritization that has been done by google we're looking at these algorithms as a subcommittee, i've already done one hearing only a go rhythms. i have a hearing on organization next week. i will do a second h

david blahnik who spent four ftc, as the ftc -- at the he basically identified in his article that that was the case. not only did facebook misrepresent -- that is why they were eight counts of his practices. -- requiredeed facebook to give clear notice. let me jump back here. they barred facebook for making any deceptive privacy claims. the required facebook get consumers approval before it changing the way it shares the data. a required facebook to give users clear and conspicuous notice and to obtain affirmative express consent before sharing their data with third parties. that was part of the ftc consent decree, correct? >> that sounds right to me. time, there were concerns about the sharing of data, correct? >> senator, my understanding -- >> let me ask you this. in response to the ftc consent to make those changes, did you make those changes, and what did you do to ensure individual data was protected. that third parties would be accessing that and that they had to give express consent? >> senator, number of things. one of the most important parts of the degree that we signed was

former ftc commissioner and former adviser to facebook.electronic privacy information center president who charged facebook with data misuse back in a 2011 complaint to the ftc. thank you for joining us. i'm trying to figure out what the biggest risk is to the facebook business. is it losing users, advertisers or increased regulation? what is your take? >> i think all of those are on the table. i think they have a pretty solid advertising base and have a solid user base. i think the challenge is what kind of regulation could take place that would single them out and for practices that everybody in the industry is involved in. and so if it's lop sided in that way then it could be harmful to them as opposed to their competitors. i think what we are going to hear on the hill we will hear a lot of venting. what i would like to see is something come out of this where we can have a candid conversation between regulators and the community about the handling of data and what is reasonable to expect and what the public should demand. that is an opp

we will see what the ftc has to say when they further investigate., caroline, thank you for breaking this down. not the first setback to hit lending club. in 2016, the then ceo resigned amid internal investigations. sanborn,nt ceo, scott another setback for him. coming up, paypal pushes ahead. it is no longer part of the ebay empire, but it does not show signs of slowing down. we will dig deeper into their first quarter results. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: advanced microdevices sales suggest it is making progress, winning market share from rival intel. it is projecting second-quarter revenue of nearly $7.1 billion, as analysts look at nearly $6 billion that they spent last year on new designs for laptops and computers. offering updates this year. the stock jumping as much as 8% on this news. as we reported earlier, paypal reported results that beat analysts' estimates. in addition to coming out ahead revenue, they given optimistic forecast for the second quarter, indicating it is holding its own after a split with ebay. here to tell us all about it j

spin that this is on the radar for the ftc and the fcc has calls keep increasing. lorenz, back to you. tranter the fight goes on. 80% of companies have profit estimates so far this earnings season. but why the stocks not moving that much? so faith taken by a monkey can vent -- look at that. can they sue for copyright? u.s. stock index futures now see an improvement to the market they. the dow up 109 points, s&p 500 and nasdaq as well. ♪ e in luck. e in luck. she believes in research. it can take more than 10 years to develop a single medication. and only 1 in 10,000 ever make it to market. but what if ai could find connections faster. to help this researcher discover new treatments. that's why she's working with watson. it's a smart way to find new hope, which really can't wait. ♪ ♪ cheryl: welcome back felix gets you caught up in what's happening in the dow. u.s. features breakdown. the dow was up 109 points. as you can see in the premarket come s&p at 12, nasdaq up 39. a petition to fire a fresno state university professor for: the late barbara bush and amazing r

because the ftc issued is on the table. and he will be asked about that.l tell you another issue you will be asked about. does facebook have a political bias? a great deal has been made about the fact that the most recent breach with cambridge analytic which worked for president trum president trump, but the media advisor for president obama was recently quoted in "the new york post," and i'll tell you what she said. she said and they, meaning facebook, were very candid that they allowed us to do things that wouldn't have been allowed someone else to do because they were on our side. i'd like to know if that's an accurate statement by president obama's media advisor and is facebook getting involved in our politics? >> julie: there's also the russian hijacking speaking of getting involved in our politic politics. facebook has taken heat for the fact that russia used its platform to influence a 2016 presidential election and in doing so, russian military intelligence actually were able to create profiles of fake americans to promote emails stolen from democr

remember, ftc does have authority. and if they violate the decent decree, there are very serious fines. there are statutory obligations in place already. the question is are they adequate? do they work in this environment? is there better way to protect consumers than today? >> what kind of regulations? >> we'll be looking at that down the road. >> there wasn't a lot of consensus. >> that's right. you had erred that. there is a division. and people want to know more about what the company's can do, held to doing, and what kind of additional federal support, federal authority may be necessary. and that's what we'll look at. >> would you consider having mr. zuckerberg back here again, sir? >> i don't know that's necessary. i'm not ready to go down that path. there are others that could certainly share their thoughts with us, though. >> [ inaudible question ] >> i think he was genuine and forthcoming. obviously, members had a lot of questions, some of which didn't have answered. he'll have ten days to answer. >> [ inaudib

back in 2011, was a settlement with the ftc. now we discover another instance where the data was failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica that had fraudulently obtained all of this information, why didn't you inform those 87 million? 2015 when we learned in that cambridge analytica had bought data from an app developer on facebook that but shared it with -- we did take action. andook down the app demanded that both the app developer and cambridge analytica delete and stop using any data they had. they told us they did this. . in retrospect. it was clearly a mistake to believe them we should have followed up and donate full audit then. that is not the mistake will make. >> you did that and you apologized for it. but you didn't notify them. think that you have an ethical obligation to notify the -- 87ion facebook users million facebook users? while he heard back from cambridge analytica that they deleted it, we considered it a closed case. was clearly athat mistake, and we updated our policies in how we

unwanted calls are a major source of complaints to the fcc and ftc, and we

and the ftc will ruin the model.facebook sells an inexpensive price. >> sometimes those guys in the senate make the house guys look -- or the house guys make the senate look smart. now we're going to the house today. >> yeah. technology illiteracy is incredible when you post things on the web, there's no privacy it's the lack of understanding of how it works that is palpable and i think, you know, they didn't -- no one made fools of themselves but it did explain there's another mistake, if zuckerberg has something else that is lurking, if sandburg knows something is lurking, they never put anybody from the outside examine. apparently nobody got fired. it means they're not done. >> no. all right, jim we'll be back for more in minutes. "squawk on the street" at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. for complete coverage of day two of mark zuckerberg's testimony stay tuned we'll be right back. each day our planet awakens with signs of opportunity. but with opportunity comes risk. and to manage this risk, the world turns to cme group

so back in 2011, it was a settlement with the ftc and now we discover yet another incident where the data was failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica that had fraudulently obtained all of this information, why didn't you inform those 87 million? >> when we learned in 2015 that cambridge analytica had bought data from an app developer on facebook that people had shared it with, we did take action. we took down the app. and we demanded that both the app developer and cambridge analytica delete and stop using any data that they had. they told us that they did this. in retrospect, it was clearly a mistake to believe them. and we should have followed up and done a full audit then. that's not a mistake we'll make. >> yes. you did that and apologized for it, but you didn't notify them. and do you think that you have an ethical obligation to notify 87 million facebook users? >> senator, when we heard back from cambridge analytica that they had told us that they weren't using the data and deleted it, we considered it a closed case. in retrospect, that was clearly a