Zuckerberg doesnt want to talk about changing the business model

Facebook is testifying is again before congress about the Cambridge Analytica debacle and Facebook’s privacy policy in general. One representative including with regard to nailed down Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s position on many subjects.

The U.S. Representative for California’s 18 th congressional district Anna Eshoo started by setting the tone. “First, I believe that our democratic institutions are undergoing a stress exam in our country, ” she said. “Putting our private information on offer without concern for possible misuses is simply irresponsible, ” she added.

Eshoo asked her constituents to submit questions that they want to ask Zuckerberg. The result is an intense four-minute yes-or-no round of questions.

While Zuckerberg was pretty good at answering yes or no to Eshoo’s topics, it wasn’t so simple with the business model topic. “Are you willing to change your business model in the interest of protecting individual privacy? ” she asked.

“Congresswoman, we have made and are continuing to make changes to reduce the amount of data…” Zuckerberg told. Eshoo stopped him and recurred her question word for word.

“Congresswoman, I’m not sure what that means, ” Zuckerberg said.

Earlier questions were also quite telling. “Do you think you have a moral responsibility to run a platform that protects our republic? Yes or no? ” she asked. After a short reluctance, Zuckerberg answered yes.

Later in the conversation, Eshoo asked if Facebook would offer a blanket opt-in option to share their personal data with third-party companies.

“Congresswoman, yes, that’s how our platform works. You have to opt in to sign in to any app before you use it, ” Zuckerberg said.

“Let me merely add that it is a minefield in order to do that and you have to make it transparent, clear, in pedestrian language:’ this is what we will do with your data, do you want this to happen or not? ’ So I think this is being blurred, I think you know what I entail, ” Eshoo said.

Even more interesting, when Zuckerberg used to say Facebook was analyse third-party developers who “had access to large amounts of data, ” Eshoo couldn’t take it.

“What does that mean? ” she said. Zuckerberg recurred his answer about the internal investigation, without clarifying what Zuckerberg means by large amounts of data and who qualifies for that.

No other representative thought about asking a basic question about Cambridge Analytica’s data. Eshoo asked if Zuckerberg’s data was included in the data sold to the malicious third party. Zuckerberg simply answered “yes.”

Make sure to visit: CapGeneration.com

Advertisements

Zuckerberg refuses UK parliament summons over Fb data misuse

So much for’ We are accountable ‘; Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has declined a summons from a UK parliamentary committee that’s analyse how social media data is being used, and — as recent revelations suggest misused — for political ad targeting.

The DCMS committee wrote to Zuckerberg on March 20 — following newspaper reports based on interviews with a former employee of UK political consultancy, Cambridge Analytica, who disclosed the company obtained Facebook data on 50 million users — calling for him to give oral evidence.

Facebook’s policy staffer, Simon Milner, previously told the committee the consultancy did not have Facebook data.” They may have lots of data, but it will not be Facebook user data ,” told Milner on February 8.” It may be data about people who are on Facebook that they have collected themselves, but it is not data that we have .”

In his letter to Zuckerberg, the chairman of the committee Damian Collins accuses Facebook officials of having” consistently downplayed” the risk of user data being taken without users’ consent.

” It is now day that I hear from a senior Facebook executive with the sufficient authority to give an accurate account of this catastrophic failure of process ,” Collins writes.” There is a strong public interest test regarding user protection. Accordingly we are sure you will understand the necessity of achieving a representative from right at the top of the organisation to address concerns. Devote your commitment at the start of the New Year to “fixing” Facebook, I hope that this representative is likely to be you .”

Regardless of rising pressure around what is now a major public scandal — including the FTC opening an investigation — Zuckerberg has declined the committee’s summons.

In a statement a company representative said it has offered its CTO or chief product policeman to answer questions.

“We have responded to Mr Collins and the DCMS and offered for two senior company representatives from our management team to meet with the Committee depending on timings most convenient for them. Mike Schroepfer is Chief Technology Officer and is a matter of Facebook’s technology including the company’s developer platform. Chris Cox is Facebook’s Chief Product Officer and results development of Facebook’s core products and features including News Feed. Both Chris Cox and Mike Schroepfer report directly to Mark Zuckerberg and are among the longest serving senior representatives in Facebook’s 15 year history ,” the spokesperson said.

Facebook declined to answer additional questions.

Collins made a statement before today’s proof session of the DCMS committee, which is hearing from Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Chris Wylie — saying it would still like to hear from Zuckerberg, even if he isn’t able to provide evidence in person.

” We will seek to clarify with Facebook whether he is available to give evidence or not, because that wasn’t clear from our correspondence ,” he said.” If he is available to give evidence, then we will be happy to do that either in person or by video link if that will be more convenient for him .”

Update: Collins returned to the theme of the Facebook founder’s reluctance to put in a personal appearance to answer questions about the questions more than once during the course of its four hour oral hearing, remarking subsequently:” I must say that given the extraordinary evidence we’ve heard in so far today, and the things we’ve heard in the other enquiry, I think it’s absolutely astonishing that Mark Zuckerberg is not prepared to submit himself to questioning in front of a parliamentary or congressional hearing given that these are questions of a fundamental importance and concern to Facebook users and to our enquiry as well .”

” We would certainly recommend him to suppose again if he has any care for people who use him company’s services ,” he added.

Make sure to visit: CapGeneration.com