THINGS.
NICHES IS
THCHES IS
THISES IS
THIS I IS
THIS ISIS
THIS IS SOMETHING WE DISAGREED
WITH STRONGLY.
WE NEVER BELIEVED THE ENDS
JUSTIFIED THE MEANS.
LET ME BRING IN BUD CUMMINS.
THE REASON THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR
FACEBOOK IS BECAUSE WHAT WE KNOW
NOW ABOUT FACEBOOK'S JUST
ALLOWING ABUSE OF PEOPLE'S DATA,
FACEBOOK ALLOWING TERRORIST TO
ROAM FREELY, FACEBOOK SLICING
AND DICING THE NEWS BASED ON
POLITICAL PERSUASION, THAT'S TO
NAME A FEW, ALLOWING PEOPLE TO
KILL THEMSELVES OR OTHERS ON
FACEBOOK LIVE, THIS RINGS TRUE
TO PEOPLE.
WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THIS?
>> OUR LAWS HAVE BEEN MORE SLACK
I THINK THAN MAYBE LAWS, PRIVACY
LAWS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD
LIKE EUROPE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY,
FACEBOOK'S A PUBLIC COMPANY AND
NO MATTER WHAT NOBLE THINGS
THEIR LEADERS SAY, THEIR MAIN
JOB IS TO MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER
VALUE.
AND WHAT THEY HAVE THAT'S
VALUABLE IS INFORMATION ABOUT
YOU AND YOU GAVE IT TO THEM AND
WE ALL GIVE IT TO THEM BECAUSE
WE'RE ALL ADDICTED TO THESE
PLATFORMS.
SO THEY'VE GOT GOOD LAWYERS.
I DOUBT THAT THEY'VE
INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED THE LAW.
BUT A LOT OF US DON'T READ THOSE
-- I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE
READ THOSE LONG AGREEMENTS WHEN
WE GET ONTO THESE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS AND START GIVING UP
INFORMATION AND THE INFORMATION
IS VERY VALUABLE.
>> DAGEN: IT DOES BECOME
AN ISSUE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
WHEN YOU HAVE -- YOU'VE HAD IN
THE PAST -- AND I POINTED THIS
OUT, AS SOON AS FACEBOOK LIVE,
THE LIVE VIDEO STREAMING SERVICE
OR ADD-ON THAT THEY HAVE, PEOPLE
WERE COMMITTING CRIMES ON
BASICALLY AND BROADCASTING IT
AND FACEBOOK WAS VERY SLOW TO
PULL DOWN SOME OF THESE VIDEOS.
YOU HAVE TERRORISTS WHO ARE
ESSENTIALLY ROAMING FREE AND
FACEBOOK IS AFTER THE FACT WILL
PULL DOWN SOMEONE'S ACCOUNT.
BUT AGAIN, IT BECOMES A LAW
ENFORCEMENT ISSUE AS WELL.
>> YEAH, YOU KNOW, BUT IT'S VERY
DIFFICULT.
I MEAN, I'D COME BACK TO YOU
WITH A QUESTION EXACTLY WHAT LAW
COULD WE PASS OR WHAT REGULATION
COULD WE IMPOSE ON THEM THAT
WOULDN'T LIMIT YOUR USE AND THE
MAJORITY OF THE USERS' USE THAT
THEY WANT TO HAVE, THE ACCESS
THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE AND THE
TOOLS THEY WANT TO USE ON
FACEBOOK AND THESE OTHER
PLATFORMS.
THESE ARE REALLY HARD, HARD
QUESTIONS FOR REGULATORS AND FOR
LAWMAKERS.
>> DAGEN: I THINK IT WILL
ULTIMATELY COME DOWN TO
DISCLOSURE OF HOW SOMEONE'S
PERSONAL INFORMATION IS BEING
USED.
IT MIGHT BE A CHANGE WITHIN THE
COMPANY WHERE EVERYTHING IS AN
OPT-IN RATHER THAN OPT-OUT.
BUT THEY ARE NOT -- HAVING BEEN
A USER AND I SHUT DOWN BASICALLY
EVERYTHING IN TERMS OF MY DATA
SHARING YEARS AGO, LOCATION
SERVICES OFF, BECAUSE I WAS VERY
SUSPICIOUS OF WHAT THEY WERE
DOING WITH IT.
I THINK THAT ULTIMATELY THERE
COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COMES
OUT OF WASHINGTON THAT CRACKS --
THAT FORCE THESE SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES TO BE MORE FORTHCOMING
AND TO DO MORE TO PROTECT
PEOPLE'S INFORMATION.
BUT WE JUST FOUND OUT THAT THE
DATA MINING CONTROVERSY, IT
ROPED IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BUT
NOW IT'S ROPED IN HILLARY
CLINTON'S 2016 PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN.
CRITICS ARE CONCERNED HER
CAMPAIGN'S VOTER OUTREACH APP
MAY HAVE HARVESTED FACEBOOK DATA
OF MILLIONS BY ASKING USERS TO
CONNECT THEIR FACEBOOK
FRIENDLY'S T WITH THEIR
SMARTPHONE CONTACT LIST.
THE OUTRAGE -- THIS HAS BECOME
-- FACEBOOK'S COME CENTER STAGE
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE UPSET THAT
SOMEHOW THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MIGHT
HAVE USED THIS INFORMATION, SO
AGAIN, IT'S
AGAIN, TT'S
AGAIN, THES
AGAIN, THE RAGE TOWARD TRUMP HAS
NOW TURNED TOWARD FACEBOOK.
>> I THINK THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
AND BRAD PARSKALL USED DATA
BETTER IN THIS ELECTION THAN
ANYBODY ELSE DID.
THERE'S A QUESTION OUT THERE,
EVEN GOING BACK TO THE OBAMA
RE-ELECT, WHETHER FACEBOOK
SHOWED FAVORITISM TO ONE SIDE OR
THE OTHER AND WHETHER THAT WAS
AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONSISTENT C
AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONSISTENT N
AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONSISTENT R
AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONSISTENT B
AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONSISTENT T
AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONSISTENT O
AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONSISTENT N
IF THEY ALLOWED OBAMA IN HIS
RE-ELECT CAM CONTAIN TO DO
THINGS THEY WEREN'T ALLOWING HIS
OPPONENTS TO DO.
THERE ARE REALLY HARD QUESTIONS
HERE AND A LOT OF THINGS THAT
MAKE PEOPLE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE,
MAKE ME UNCOMFORTABLE.
I'VE GOT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
I'M AN ATTORNEY, I NEVER READ
ONE OF THOSE TERMS OF USE
AGREEMENTS WHEN I OPTED INTO
THESE PLATFORMS AND I DON'T KNOW
ANYBODY WHO HAS.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU.
I HAVEN'T READ IT EITHER.
YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONCERN FOR
THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FACEBOOK
HERE, SO EVERYONE'S SHUTTING
DOWN THEIR FACEBOOK, CHECKING
PRIVACY SETTINGS.
WHAT ABOUT THE SIMPLE FACT THAT
FACEBOOK OWNS INSTAGRAM.
IS THIS GOING ON THERE TOO?
DO PEOPLE HAVE TO BE WORRIED ON
INSTAGRAM?
WILL THERE BE CARRY-OVER HERE?
THAT HAS TO BE A HUGE CONCERN
THAT PEOPLE AREN'T TALKING
ABOUT.
>> IF YOU WANT SOMEBODY TO COME
ON THE AIR AND EXPLAIN HOW ALL
THIS WORKS, YOU'VE GOT THE WRONG
GUY.
>> DAGEN: WE WANT TO TALK TO YOU
ABOUT THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS.
THEY'VE GOT AN ARMY OF LAWYERS.
THAT'S WHY I'M KIND OF SURPRISED
THAT THEY WERE SO LAX.
I'VE IMITATED FACEBOOK IN THE
LAST COUPLE WEEKS, FACEBOOK'S
ATTITUDE TOWARD -- EVEN WHEN
KIND OF NEFARIOUS ACTS WERE
UNCOVERED, THEIR ATTITUDE WAS
LIKE IN THE VOICE OF A VALLEY
GIRL, OH, MY GOD, DON'T DO THAT.
YOU REALLY CAN'T -- YOU'RE
ABUSING PEOPLE'S DATA.
CUT IT OUT.
THAT WAS THEIR ATTITUDE.
BUT CONTINUE.
>> MY QUESTION IS WHO IS
DEFINING -- I DON'T KNOW THAT
THE RULES ARE THAT CLEAR AND I
DON'T REPRESENT FACEBOOK IN
WASHINGTON.
THEY HAVE A LOT OF TALENTED
PEOPLE UP THERE THAT ARE
LOBBYING ON THEIR BEHALF.
I HAVEN'T READ AN ARTICLE OR
SEEN AN ARGUMENT EXCEPT FOR
THIS ISSUE ABOUT CAMPAIGN
FINANCING, ILLEGAL
CONTRIBUTIONS, THAT I SEE A REAL
BROAD LINE RULE THAT MAY HAVE
BEEN VIOLATED BY FACEBOOK.
>> I'LL TELL YOU RULES THAT WERE
VIOLATED IS THAT THE FAKE NEWS
THAT THEY WERE PERPETUATING AND
THEY KNEW ABOUT IT AND THEY TOOK
PAYMENT FROM FOREIGN COMPANIES
TO SEND THAT OUT.
SO I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IS THAT
THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME
STANDARDS THAT MEDIA COMPANIES
ARE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THEY WANT TO
DO IS
DO BS
DO BE AD MEDIA COMPANY.
THEY SAID THAT EARLIER.
WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER THAT
THEIR MAIN PURPOSE IS TO DRIVE
SHAREHOLDER VALUE AND MAXIMIZE
THE STOCK PRICE.
ONE OF THE WAYS YOU DO THAT IS
YOU TAKE CARE OF STAKE HOLDERS
INCLUDING YOUR CLIENTS,
INCLUDING YOUR CUSTOMERS,
INCLUDING YOUR VENDORS AND YOU
DON'T HAVE SHORT-TERM-ISM.
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS ALL
THE REGULATORS WILL COME IN AND
SEE HOW THEY DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST CERTAIN USERS,
ADVERTISERS DISCONSIDER
ADVERTISERS DISCRNSIDER
ADVERTISERS DISCRIMIDER
ADVERTISERS DISCRIMINER
ADVERTISERS DISCRIMINATED USER
PROPRIETARY DATA, HOW PEOPLE
MANIPULATED NEWS FEEDS.
I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A
LOT THAT'S GOING TO COME DOWN ON
HERE.
THEY KNEW THEY DID SOMETHING
WRONG.
>> DAGEN: I WANT TO POINT OUT
THAT THE WAY THAT THE OBAMA
RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN HARVESTED
DATA, THIS WAS BEFORE FACEBOOK
SAYS THAT IT CRACKED DOWN ON THE
ACCESS OF THESE APP DEVELOPERS
TO PEOPLE'S FRIENDS NETWORK,
THAT THEY STARTED TO LIMIT THAT
AMOUNT OF INFORMATION.
DURING THE 2012 RE-ELECTION, IT
WAS FREE REIN THAT THE APP
DEVELOPERS HAD OVER PEOPLE'S
INFORMATION AND IT WAS -- IT WAS
FRIENDS, IT WAS PEOPLE'S
FRIENDS.
>> I CAN TELL YOU THAT TODAY
THERE'S SOFTWARE OUT THERE THAT
CAN AGGREGATE ALL THESE
PLATFORMS.
IF I WANT TO KNOW WITHIN
50 MILES OF YOU WHO'S POSTING
ABOUT DAGEN TODAY I CAN HIT A
BUTTON AND I CAN SEE IT ALL AND
I CAN SEE THROUGH TO THEIR
E-MAILS AND THEIR PHONE NUMBERS
AND IT'S OUT THERE.
SO IF PEOPLE -- WE PROBABLY HAVE
NOT ADEQUATELY REGULATED THIS
SPACE.
YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT IN THE
AREA OF PROTECTING SHAREHOLDER
VALUE.
WHEN THEY STUMBLE, THEY'RE NOT
PROTECTING SHAREHOLDER VALUE.
IF SUPPOSED
IF TUPPOSED
IF THEPOSED
IF THEY'SED
IF THEY'RED
IF THEY'RE EXPOSED TO BE DOING
SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T