This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2018/nov/27/fake-news-inquiry-facebook-to-face-mps-from-around-the-world-mark-zuckerberg-live-updates
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Fake news inquiry: Facebook questioned by MPs from around the world - live updates | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Stevens turns to the non-user data Facebook holds. | |
| Allan: “I’ve uploaded contact data; when a non-user joins the platform, that lets them be recommended to their friends. | |
| “We also keep a log of where people come to us from, that helps us [with] security.” | |
| Allan says Facebook makes no money from that data, because no adverts are served on it. | |
| The UK’s Jo Stevens asks about November 2009, when Facebook had a “central privacy page”, that let users “control who sees you profile and personal information”. That was the basis of a 2012 Federal Trade Commission complaint, which alleged that developers were given access to information beyond those controls. | |
| Allan: “My understanding of the FTC settlement is that it objected to the idea that data may have been accessed without consent, without permission. We were confident that the controls we implemented did count as consent. | |
| “The notion at the time was something like a calendar with your friends’ birthdays on would be useful as a third-party application; that would require access to the birthdays of your friends. The idea behind this was not malicious, it was intended to add value.” | |
| Stevens: “If I set my own custom privacy settings, that didn’t matter, because Facebook just overrode them?” | |
| Allan: “No, because there was a separate setting that allowed users to opt-out of sharing their information with developers.” | |
| Ryan finally asks whether Facebook is still applying GDPR around the world, and Allan says that it is. | |
| Ryan brings up Facebook’s new transparency tools around political advertising, now launched in the US, UK and Brazil. “Why can we not have such transparency immediately, now?” | |
| Allan says the company has a team working on deployment now. “There are three elements. The first is that you can go to a page now and see all ads being run. Second is authorisation, that’s where we check that you live in the country – ‘know your customer’. The third is an ad archive: if you run ads as a political advertiser, they go in the archive. | |
| “That’s challenging; doing the authorisation is difficult. And then, for the archives, one of the things you need is for people to declare who they are, who they’re campaigning for. We found people tried to game the system, putting false information in, so we built up a team checking the information.” | |
| Ireland’s Eamon Ryan asks: “The Irish data protection commissioner in 2012 was looking for an end to the possibility of developers accessing friends’ data. They considered taking a legal challenge, but said they thought it would take too long. We didn’t get a clear answer why Facebook decided to fight that recommendation. Where was that decision made? By whom in the company? And in 2015, when this misuse was discovered, at what level was it decided not to notify the Irish data protection commission?” | |
| Allan says the view was that Ireland was giving “strong advice” but not declaring it “illegal”; “there was a view that the platform was working well at the time … and so the decision was taken with the data protection team to say ‘if we’re not compelled to make this change, we’re not going to make this change’”. | |
| Ryan asks whether the decision was made in Europe or California; Allan says it was made by Facebook Ireland. | |
| France’s Catherine Morin-Desailly asks Allan to “repeat Facebook’s decision on access controls that led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal”. | |
| Allan says that Facebook’s platform, which dates back to 2007, was used by Aleksandr Kogan to gather data from a large number of people. Morin-Desailly asks whether users were warned; Allan concedes it is a matter for debate but says Facebook believes they were given sufficient notice, but says that the specific usage of the data was abusive. | |
| “It was something that we do believe people were aware of at the time.” | |
| Morin-Desailly turns to “shadow profiles”, Facebook’s apparent policy of creating profiles for non-users. Allan denies creating such profiles: “there are not shadow profiles, there is a certain amount of non-user data that sits on Facebook servers. That can come from two sources: if you upload your contacts, that sits on our servers; and there is a certain amount of data that comes from browsing the web with sites that have Facebook plugins.” | |
| Collins moves on, asking if Facebook created a “whitelist” of developers that continued to have full access to user data after the company changed its policy in 2014. | |
| Allan explains that “some developers needed additional time, and we gave them that time where we thought it was justified”. | |
| “When somebody had chosen to install an application under version one [of the terms], they could choose to give access to broader data. The API was never like a ‘firehose’ of data … If you agreed to it, and agreed to certain permissions, developers could access some friends’ data; in version two, that access was removed.” | |
| Collins asks if Facebook had a reciprocity agreement, offering access to its data if they gave their own data back. Allan says that this only meant that Facebook developers had to offer the ability to users to share content back to Facebook. “Otherwise it’s simply taking data out, extractive, there’s no value back to the Facebook community.” | |
| Collins says Facebook has a “consistent pattern” of failing to disclose relevant information to public hearings, citing, the fact that the company didn’t tell parliament about Russian activity when it asked, leaving parliament to find out through media reports. | |
| Allan: “Once we’ve investigated, and confirmed, such reports, we publish them. Over the last few months, we’ve published several reports about attempts by Russian and Iranian operatives to spread false information on Facebook.” | |
| Collins brings up the Six4Three documents that parliament has received, but says that “we don’t intend to publish them today”. | |
| He does, however, quote from them a claim that Facebook had discovered in 2013 that a Russian entity had been pulling information from the site using an API. He asks if that is true, but Allan responds by attacking Six4Three as a “hostile litigant”. | |
| Collins again asks what Facebook actually did about that breach, and whether it had reported it. Allan says the information is “at best partial”, but says he will “come back to” Collins about whether Facebook actually knew about Russian activity. | |
| The DCMS committee has released an image of Mark Zuckerberg’s empty chair, just to hammer home the CEO’s absence. | |
| Allan argues that the intention of Facebook with its app platform is to provide a “win win win”: Facebook gets more features for free, Facebook users get to do things that Facebook doesn’t normally provide, and developers get access to a large customer base. | |
| Lucas again asks for one specific example of a business banned by Facebook for sharing information, and again Allan cannot provide one, but promises to do so after. | |
| If you want to watch the hearing yourself, you can see it here: | |
| Lucas turns to Joseph Chancellor, a co-founder of GSR (the Cambridge University affiliated firm that provided Facebook data to Cambridge Analytica) and former employee of Facebook. He asks what action Facebook took against Chancellor, and Allan says he is not aware of any action. | |
| “Isn’t it true you don’t take any action against developers,” asks Lucas. | |
| Allan says “we will prevent access to our platform” for any apps that breach its terms, but Lucas again says there are no specific examples. | |
| Next up is the UK’s Ian Lucas, who asks whether Facebook first learned about the GSR data incident (the root of the Cambridge Analytica scandal) from the press in 2015. | |
| Allan says he, at least, learned about it then, and that he believes that Zuckerberg did not discover it then. But Lucas pushes for a precise answer. | Allan says he, at least, learned about it then, and that he believes that Zuckerberg did not discover it then. But Lucas pushes for a precise answer. |
| Allan: “We have provided written answers; my belief is that it was in March 2018, when this round of stories was published, that he learned about them.” | Allan: “We have provided written answers; my belief is that it was in March 2018, when this round of stories was published, that he learned about them.” |
| Lucas asks for other apps that were banned. Allan cannot name a specific app, and promises to follow up with a written answer; Lucas notes that that promise was also made by Zuckerberg in front of the US Congress, but that no such written answer was provided. “We still do not know any company that was banned by Facebook on that basis.” | |
| Angus brings up the fact that Facebook hired Washington DC political consultants Definers, who smeared Facebook critics as members of a George Soros-funded conspiracy to take down the site. | Angus brings up the fact that Facebook hired Washington DC political consultants Definers, who smeared Facebook critics as members of a George Soros-funded conspiracy to take down the site. |
| Allan: “I”m not going to disagree with you that we’ve damaged public trust with some of the actions we’ve taken. Mr Zuckerberg said himself that was not what he expected of us; Elliot Schrage said he was publicly responsible, and Mr Zuckerberg has given us instructions to look at all relationships we have.” | Allan: “I”m not going to disagree with you that we’ve damaged public trust with some of the actions we’ve taken. Mr Zuckerberg said himself that was not what he expected of us; Elliot Schrage said he was publicly responsible, and Mr Zuckerberg has given us instructions to look at all relationships we have.” |
| Angus says he’s not asking Facebook to be “perfect”, but to be “accountable.” “Once again, ‘Mr Zuckerberg is looking into this’; we don’t know that he is, because he’s refusing to show up to parliaments around the world.” | Angus says he’s not asking Facebook to be “perfect”, but to be “accountable.” “Once again, ‘Mr Zuckerberg is looking into this’; we don’t know that he is, because he’s refusing to show up to parliaments around the world.” |
| Collins turns to Canada’s Charlie Angus, who says he is “deeply disappointed” at Zuckerberg’s decision to “blow off this meeting”, and asks Allan “who gave Mr Zuckerberg the advice to ignore this committee.” | Collins turns to Canada’s Charlie Angus, who says he is “deeply disappointed” at Zuckerberg’s decision to “blow off this meeting”, and asks Allan “who gave Mr Zuckerberg the advice to ignore this committee.” |
| Allan: “Our intent is to be there to answer the questions you have of us,” but that doesn’t always involve Zuckerberg. | Allan: “Our intent is to be there to answer the questions you have of us,” but that doesn’t always involve Zuckerberg. |
| Angus: “Mr Zuckerberg’s decision to not appear here speaks volumes … when he says that the plan was, to move fast and break things, and that breaking may have involved our democratic institutions, does he not think or not believe that parliamentarians will push back?” | |
| Allan: “As we sit here today, there are reviews of Facebook’s engineering product going on that he is leading.” | Allan: “As we sit here today, there are reviews of Facebook’s engineering product going on that he is leading.” |
| We’re off! Collins proudly proclaims this as the first time the House of Commons has held such a multi-parliament hearing since 1933. | |
| “This shows just how seriously we take these issues, as do our colleagues from other parliaments.” | |
| Richard Allan is sat next to an empty chair set for Mark Zuckerberg. “We were rather hoping your boss would appear,” Collins says. | Richard Allan is sat next to an empty chair set for Mark Zuckerberg. “We were rather hoping your boss would appear,” Collins says. |
| Naturally, representatives from other parliaments can’t sit on a British parliamentary committee, so they appear to have instead been recorded as witnesses. Appearing are: | Naturally, representatives from other parliaments can’t sit on a British parliamentary committee, so they appear to have instead been recorded as witnesses. Appearing are: |
| Leopoldo Moreau, chair, Freedom of Expression Commission, Chamber of Deputies, Argentina. | Leopoldo Moreau, chair, Freedom of Expression Commission, Chamber of Deputies, Argentina. |
| Alessandro Molon, member of the Chamber of Deputies, Brazil. | Alessandro Molon, member of the Chamber of Deputies, Brazil. |
| Bob Zimmer, chair, and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Charlie Angus, vice-chairs, standing committee on access to information, privacy and ethics, House of Commons, Canada. | Bob Zimmer, chair, and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Charlie Angus, vice-chairs, standing committee on access to information, privacy and ethics, House of Commons, Canada. |
| Hildegarde Naughton, chair, and Eamon Ryan, member, joint committee on communications, climate action and environment, parliament of Ireland. | Hildegarde Naughton, chair, and Eamon Ryan, member, joint committee on communications, climate action and environment, parliament of Ireland. |
| Dr Inese Lībiņa-Egnere, deputy speaker, parliament of Latvia. | Dr Inese Lībiņa-Egnere, deputy speaker, parliament of Latvia. |
| Pritam Singh, Edwin Tong and Sun Xuelin, members, select committee on deliberate online falsehoods, parliament of Singapore. | Pritam Singh, Edwin Tong and Sun Xuelin, members, select committee on deliberate online falsehoods, parliament of Singapore. |
| Karine Lalieux, hair, committee on infrastructure, communications and public enterprises, parliament of Belgium. | Karine Lalieux, hair, committee on infrastructure, communications and public enterprises, parliament of Belgium. |
| Catherine Morin-Desailly, standing committee on culture, education and media, French Senate. | Catherine Morin-Desailly, standing committee on culture, education and media, French Senate. |
| And representing Facebook: Richard Allan, vice president of policy solutions. | And representing Facebook: Richard Allan, vice president of policy solutions. |
| Correction: Belgium is represented by Nele Lijnen, not Karine Lalieux. | |
| Chaired by Damian Collins MP, the head of the UK parliament’s digital, culture, media and sport (DCMS) select committee, the “grand committee” also includes representatives from Singapore, Brazil, Argentina, Ireland, Canada, Belgium, France and Latvia. | |
| It is expected to open with a bang, thanks to a cache of documents seized by Collins at the weekend from Six4Three, a US-based app developer that is suing the social network in California. | It is expected to open with a bang, thanks to a cache of documents seized by Collins at the weekend from Six4Three, a US-based app developer that is suing the social network in California. |
| Six4Three had obtained the documents as part of the legal discovery process, but they were sealed under a court order. Collins invoked a rarely used parliamentary power to compel Six4Three’s founder, who was in the UK for business purposes, to hand over the information anyway. | Six4Three had obtained the documents as part of the legal discovery process, but they were sealed under a court order. Collins invoked a rarely used parliamentary power to compel Six4Three’s founder, who was in the UK for business purposes, to hand over the information anyway. |
| “This is an unprecedented move but it’s an unprecedented situation,” Collins told the Observer on Sunday. “We’ve failed to get answers from Facebook and we believe the documents contain information of very high public interest.” | “This is an unprecedented move but it’s an unprecedented situation,” Collins told the Observer on Sunday. “We’ve failed to get answers from Facebook and we believe the documents contain information of very high public interest.” |
| Today, a “grand committee” comprised of representatives from nine parliaments around the world is due to face Facebook, holding the company to account for its failure to police its own platform in nations as diverse as Singapore, France and Brazil. | Today, a “grand committee” comprised of representatives from nine parliaments around the world is due to face Facebook, holding the company to account for its failure to police its own platform in nations as diverse as Singapore, France and Brazil. |
| The company is represented in the hearings, which kick off at 11.30am, by its European policy chief, Richard Allan, after Facebook declined repeated requests to send its chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg. | The company is represented in the hearings, which kick off at 11.30am, by its European policy chief, Richard Allan, after Facebook declined repeated requests to send its chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg. |
| Allan is no stranger to the British parliament: he’s a member of the House of Lords, as Lord Allan of Hallam, and was the Liberal Democrat MP for Sheffield Hallam before then. | Allan is no stranger to the British parliament: he’s a member of the House of Lords, as Lord Allan of Hallam, and was the Liberal Democrat MP for Sheffield Hallam before then. |
| Curiously, Allan’s successor as Sheffield Hallam MP was Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader who is now, again, Allan’s boss as the new head of Facebook’s worldwide communications. | Curiously, Allan’s successor as Sheffield Hallam MP was Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader who is now, again, Allan’s boss as the new head of Facebook’s worldwide communications. |