&nbsp;Mark &nbsp;Zuckerberg-led&nbsp;Facebook <a href="http://wionews.com/videos/apple-blocks-facebook-web-tracking-tools--142468">which was hit by a data breach </a>scandal recently, said today that Chinese phone makers were&nbsp;given access to data on users.

"Facebook along with many other <a href="http://wionews.com/world/facebook-shared-user-data-with-over-60-device-makers-including-apple-samsung-report-142133">US tech companies have worked</a> with them and other Chinese manufacturers to integrate their services onto these phones," Facebook mobile partnerships leader Francisco Varela said in a statement.

The social network said it would end the agreement with Huawei later this week including three other partnerships with Chinese firms. Members of Congress had raised concern over data of users' friends could have been accessed without their explicit consent. Facebook denied it would happen.

"Given the interest from Congress, we wanted to make clear that all the information from these integrations with Huawei was stored on the device, not on Huawei's servers," it said.

US intelligence officials have maintained that Chinese phones allow foreign espionage and therefore are a threat to national security. The Pentagon had earlier ordered retail outlets on US military bases to stop selling Huawei and ZTE phones, citing potential security risks.

Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee in a statement said House of Representatives Intelligence Committee had raised concerns about Huawei dating back in 2012.

"The news that Facebook provided privileged access to Facebook's API to Chinese device makers like Huawei and TCL raises legitimate concerns, and I look forward to learning more about how Facebook ensured that information about their users was not sent to Chinese servers," Warner said.

Facebook had earlier revealed 87 million users' account was hacked after a UK-based firm Cambridge Analytica was accused of harvesting Facebook data.

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood said the "data-sharing partnerships with other corporations" is part of the ongoing investigation into the reported misuse of Facebook user data by Cambridge Analytica.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dGtBFIJc7Tg" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee in a statement said House of Representatives Intelligence Committee had raised concerns

Mark Zuckerberg-led Facebook which was hit by a data breach scandal recently, said today that Chinese phone makers were given access to data on users. "Facebook along with many other US tech companies have worked with them and other Chinese manufacturers to integrate their services onto these phones," Facebook mobile partnerships leader Francisco Varela said in a statement. The social network said it would end the agreement with Huawei later this week including three other partnerships with Chinese firms. Members of Congress had raised concern over data of users' friends could have been accessed without their explicit consent. Facebook denied it would happen. "Given the interest from Congress, we wanted to make clear that all the information from these integrations with Huawei was stored on the device, not on Huawei's servers," it said. US intelligence officials have maintained that Chinese phones allow foreign espionage and therefore are a threat to national security. The Pentagon had earlier ordered retail outlets on US military bases to stop selling Huawei and ZTE phones, citing potential security risks. Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee in a statement said House of Representatives Intelligence Committee had raised concerns about Huawei dating back in 2012. "The news that Facebook provided privileged access to Facebook's API to Chinese device makers like Huawei and TCL raises legitimate concerns, and I look forward to learning more about how Facebook ensured that information about their users was not sent to Chinese servers," Warner said. Facebook had earlier revealed 87 million users' account was hacked after a UK-based firm Cambridge Analytica was accused of harvesting Facebook data. New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood said the "data-sharing partnerships with other corporations" is part of the ongoing investigation into the reported misuse of Facebook user data by Cambridge Analytica.

Huawei stores our information on phone, not on servers: Facebook

By:&nbsp;Ronald Robertson*

As the 2018 midterm elections approach in the U.S., Google's power to influence undecided voters remains overshadowed by Facebook's personal data crisis.

Facebook has "taken it on the chin" for its role in the 2016 presidential election, and organisations like the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica and the Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency have dominated headlines. Yet, despite having a troubling history and collecting more personal data through more products than Facebook, Google has somehow managed to evade the public spotlight on this one. That may be changing.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recently sent Google a letter asking a series of questions about the company’s personal data protection. As one of the researchers who helped discover that search engines can substantially influence users' voting preferences, I found the last question to be the most intriguing: "Are you aware of any foreign entities seeking to influence or interfere with U.S. elections through your platforms?" If Google’s response to this question exists, it has not been made public.

Search engine influence

Since 2013, I've been involved in the design and execution of a long series of experiments that have demonstrated how search engines can influence undecided voters' candidate choices through nearly undetectable manipulations to search rankings. We labeled this powerful new form of influence the search engine manipulation effect.

The way these effect works is simple: Favoritism for a particular candidate in election-related search rankings leads to people preferring that candidate. For example, a search related to an upcoming election might return results favoring candidate A higher than results favoring candidate B. That's called partisan ranking bias. Since people tend to click on and trust highly ranked results, more people will then trust and consume the information supporting candidate A. In turn, that consumption increases their preference for candidate A.

The most important aspect of this effect, however, is that most people can't detect the partisan ranking bias – and it's virtually impossible to defend yourself from influences you can't perceive. Fortunately, in three follow-up experiments, involving 3,600 participants, we demonstrated that alerting people to partisan ranking bias can help suppress the effect – though only laws or regulations actually preventing partisan ranking could eliminate the effect entirely.

Why focus on Google?

Google handles more than 60 percent of internet search activity in the U.S., and nearly 90 percent worldwide. Every year, this translates to trillions of queries related to people's private thoughts, concerns and questions.

With respect to news, search engines are a bigger source than social media. Although an often cited 2016 Pew study found that a majority, 62 percent, of U.S. adults got news on social media, the devil is in the details. If you unpack that statistic, you'll find that 18 percent do so "hardly ever." Added to the 38 percent of Americans who "never" got news on social media, the same study suggests that social media is a negligible source of news for 56 percent of Americans, also a majority.

Think about it: When you need to fact-check something or learn more about a topic, what do you do? You Google it. This fact is supported by a recent international survey that found that 74 percent of participants reported using search engines to fact-check information they found on social media. The same survey found that 68 percent reported that the information they found while searching was "important to influencing their decisions about voting."

What does Google think?

Google’s executives rarely make public responses to critiques of its search system. But in 2015, my colleague Robert Epstein published an article in Politico – entitled "How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election" – and that did the trick. Google's head of search at the time, Amit Singhal, responded with his own article, calling Epstein a conspiracy theorist, stating that "there is absolutely no truth to Epstein's hypothesis that Google could work secretly to influence election outcomes" and that "Google has never ever re-ranked search results on any topic (including elections) to manipulate user sentiment."

Singhal's first claim is hard to believe, unless you dismiss our research, our replication, and the independent research built on our findings. Search engines do have the capacity to shift people's opinions, including who to vote for.

His second claim, that Google "never ever re-ranked search results," also doesn’t quite hold up: The EU recently fined the company US$2.7 billion for ranking its own services higher in search results than its competitors.

Defending democracy

Another one of the Judiciary Committee’s questions to Google also struck a chord with me: "How do you monitor the ability of foreign entities to influence and interfere with U.S. elections?"

This question struck me because I've been developing systems for exactly this purpose – preserving search rankings and analysing them for systematic differences – for several years. In the course of this work, however, I've come to believe that freeing the democratic process from technologically enabled influences is virtually impossible without the cooperation of modern tech giants.

Facebook is now offering to collaborate with academic researchers who can measure and perhaps lessen or prevent undue influence on elections, and Twitter is doing something similar. Related efforts are also bringing transparency to other platforms like YouTube and Reddit. When will Google get on board?

At an upcoming conference, I will present the latest system I've been designing with Christo Wilson, a leading scientist in the field of algorithm auditing, for monitoring search rankings for partisan bias. With a little assistance from Google, no more than Facebook is offering, accurately monitoring or preventing search engine influence in the 2018 elections is actually a feasible goal. Without the company's help, things look bleak.

Although Google is an advertising business, its core is composed of creative and intelligent individuals who care deeply about the impact their work has on the world. This is evidenced by the recent letter signed by more than 3,100 Google employees protesting the use of their work in warfare technology. Nearly a dozen Google workers went so far as to resign in protest.

Perhaps the day is fast approaching when Google will step up, as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit have, to help defend democracy from the new world of computational propaganda. Perhaps there is already a letter circulating internally and gathering signatures. With state and federal primary elections already underway, let's hope so.

*Ronald Robertson is a Ph.D. Student in Network Science, Northeastern University

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-will-google-defend-democracy-96838">article</a>.)

As the 2018 midterm elections approach in the U.S., Google's power to influence undecided voters remains overshadowed by Facebook's personal data crisis

By: Ronald Robertson* As the 2018 midterm elections approach in the U.S., Google's power to influence undecided voters remains overshadowed by Facebook's personal data crisis. Facebook has "taken it on the chin" for its role in the 2016 presidential election, and organisations like the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica and the Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency have dominated headlines. Yet, despite having a troubling history and collecting more personal data through more products than Facebook, Google has somehow managed to evade the public spotlight on this one. That may be changing. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recently sent Google a letter asking a series of questions about the company’s personal data protection. As one of the researchers who helped discover that search engines can substantially influence users' voting preferences, I found the last question to be the most intriguing: "Are you aware of any foreign entities seeking to influence or interfere with U.S. elections through your platforms?" If Google’s response to this question exists, it has not been made public. Search engine influence Since 2013, I've been involved in the design and execution of a long series of experiments that have demonstrated how search engines can influence undecided voters' candidate choices through nearly undetectable manipulations to search rankings. We labeled this powerful new form of influence the search engine manipulation effect. The way these effect works is simple: Favoritism for a particular candidate in election-related search rankings leads to people preferring that candidate. For example, a search related to an upcoming election might return results favoring candidate A higher than results favoring candidate B. That's called partisan ranking bias. Since people tend to click on and trust highly ranked results, more people will then trust and consume the information supporting candidate A. In turn, that consumption increases their preference for candidate A. The most important aspect of this effect, however, is that most people can't detect the partisan ranking bias – and it's virtually impossible to defend yourself from influences you can't perceive. Fortunately, in three follow-up experiments, involving 3,600 participants, we demonstrated that alerting people to partisan ranking bias can help suppress the effect – though only laws or regulations actually preventing partisan ranking could eliminate the effect entirely. Why focus on Google? Google handles more than 60 percent of internet search activity in the U.S., and nearly 90 percent worldwide. Every year, this translates to trillions of queries related to people's private thoughts, concerns and questions. With respect to news, search engines are a bigger source than social media. Although an often cited 2016 Pew study found that a majority, 62 percent, of U.S. adults got news on social media, the devil is in the details. If you unpack that statistic, you'll find that 18 percent do so "hardly ever." Added to the 38 percent of Americans who "never" got news on social media, the same study suggests that social media is a negligible source of news for 56 percent of Americans, also a majority. Think about it: When you need to fact-check something or learn more about a topic, what do you do? You Google it. This fact is supported by a recent international survey that found that 74 percent of participants reported using search engines to fact-check information they found on social media. The same survey found that 68 percent reported that the information they found while searching was "important to influencing their decisions about voting." What does Google think? Google’s executives rarely make public responses to critiques of its search system. But in 2015, my colleague Robert Epstein published an article in Politico – entitled "How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election" – and that did the trick. Google's head of search at the time, Amit Singhal, responded with his own article, calling Epstein a conspiracy theorist, stating that "there is absolutely no truth to Epstein's hypothesis that Google could work secretly to influence election outcomes" and that "Google has never ever re-ranked search results on any topic (including elections) to manipulate user sentiment." Singhal's first claim is hard to believe, unless you dismiss our research, our replication, and the independent research built on our findings. Search engines do have the capacity to shift people's opinions, including who to vote for. His second claim, that Google "never ever re-ranked search results," also doesn’t quite hold up: The EU recently fined the company US$2.7 billion for ranking its own services higher in search results than its competitors. Defending democracy Another one of the Judiciary Committee’s questions to Google also struck a chord with me: "How do you monitor the ability of foreign entities to influence and interfere with U.S. elections?" This question struck me because I've been developing systems for exactly this purpose – preserving search rankings and analysing them for systematic differences – for several years. In the course of this work, however, I've come to believe that freeing the democratic process from technologically enabled influences is virtually impossible without the cooperation of modern tech giants. Facebook is now offering to collaborate with academic researchers who can measure and perhaps lessen or prevent undue influence on elections, and Twitter is doing something similar. Related efforts are also bringing transparency to other platforms like YouTube and Reddit. When will Google get on board? At an upcoming conference, I will present the latest system I've been designing with Christo Wilson, a leading scientist in the field of algorithm auditing, for monitoring search rankings for partisan bias. With a little assistance from Google, no more than Facebook is offering, accurately monitoring or preventing search engine influence in the 2018 elections is actually a feasible goal. Without the company's help, things look bleak. Although Google is an advertising business, its core is composed of creative and intelligent individuals who care deeply about the impact their work has on the world. This is evidenced by the recent letter signed by more than 3,100 Google employees protesting the use of their work in warfare technology. Nearly a dozen Google workers went so far as to resign in protest. Perhaps the day is fast approaching when Google will step up, as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit have, to help defend democracy from the new world of computational propaganda. Perhaps there is already a letter circulating internally and gathering signatures. With state and federal primary elections already underway, let's hope so. *Ronald Robertson is a Ph.D. Student in Network Science, Northeastern University (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.)

Opinion: When will Google defend democracy?

The Papua New Guinea government may temporarily ban social media giant Facebook in order to carry out a research to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the use of Facebook and vulnerabilities linked to personal data use and cybercrime.&nbsp

The information gathered from the study will then be used to curb the fake profile and fake news floating on the site.

Communications Minister Sam Basil has&nbspsuggested banning Facebook for one month which will give the government time to gather information on fake accounts and users who uploads pornography and defamatory information in order to remove it from the platform.

He also proposed the idea to replace Facebook with a locally developed social media site.&nbsp

"This will allow genuine people with real identities to use the social network responsibly," &nbspnews agency quoted Basil as saying.

"If there need be then we can gather our local applications developers to create a site that is more conducive for Papua New Guineans to communicate within the country and abroad as well," Basil added,

However, no time has been fixed at for the potential ban on Facebook. But reports say that the ban might come into effect during the time when Papua New Guinea is hosting the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation&nbsp(APEC) summit later this year. The summit is expected to be attended by the United States president Donald Trump.

Mark Zuckerberg owned Facebook is under fire from past few months after a whistleblower revealed that UK based data mining firm Cambridge Analytica gathered data from illegal measures.

It has faced a lot of criticism after it was revealed that over 80 million users' information was compromised during the Cambridge Analytica row.

AFP reported a spokesperson of Facebook is saying that it has reached the Papua New Guinea authorities and is addressing the concerns.

The decision of temporarily banning the Facebook has however been ridiculed by Papua New Guinea media as the time of the ban may coincide with APEC summit.

PNG Institute of National Affairs executive director Paul Barker was quoted as saying by AFP, "The APEC meeting is all about promoting the digital era to assist business, develop economies, and improve citizen welfare in member countries."&nbsp

Media has said that it restricts the freedom of speech in the country as the Platform is widely used to discuss politics.

(With inputs from AFP)

A study will be conducted during this period to gather from the study will then be used to curb the fake profiles and fake news floating on the site

The Papua New Guinea government may temporarily ban social media giant Facebook in order to carry out a research to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the use of Facebook and vulnerabilities linked to personal data use and cybercrime. The information gathered from the study will then be used to curb the fake profile and fake news floating on the site. Communications Minister Sam Basil has&nbspsuggested banning Facebook for one month which will give the government time to gather information on fake accounts and users who uploads pornography and defamatory information in order to remove it from the platform. He also proposed the idea to replace Facebook with a locally developed social media site. "This will allow genuine people with real identities to use the social network responsibly," &nbspnews agency quoted Basil as saying. "If there need be then we can gather our local applications developers to create a site that is more conducive for Papua New Guineans to communicate within the country and abroad as well," Basil added, However, no time has been fixed at for the potential ban on Facebook. But reports say that the ban might come into effect during the time when Papua New Guinea is hosting the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit later this year. The summit is expected to be attended by the United States president Donald Trump. Mark Zuckerberg owned Facebook is under fire from past few months after a whistleblower revealed that UK based data mining firm Cambridge Analytica gathered data from illegal measures. It has faced a lot of criticism after it was revealed that over 80 million users' information was compromised during the Cambridge Analytica row. AFP reported a spokesperson of Facebook is saying that it has reached the Papua New Guinea authorities and is addressing the concerns. The decision of temporarily banning the Facebook has however been ridiculed by Papua New Guinea media as the time of the ban may coincide with APEC summit. PNG Institute of National Affairs executive director Paul Barker was quoted as saying by AFP, "The APEC meeting is all about promoting the digital era to assist business, develop economies, and improve citizen welfare in member countries." Media has said that it restricts the freedom of speech in the country as the Platform is widely used to discuss politics. (With inputs from AFP)

Papua New Guinea may temporarily ban Facebook to curb fake profiles

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg&nbsp;appeared in front of UK lawmakers in&nbsp;European Parliament&nbsp;to address data breach by Cambridge Analytica today.

While conceding that the social network hadn't done enough to stop data privacy, Zuckerberg&nbsp;said he was "sorry" for mistakes made by Facebook for use of personal data.

In his opening remarks, Zuckerberg&nbsp;said it had "become clear over the last couple of years that we haven't done enough to prevent the tools we've built from being used for harm as well."

"Whether it's fake news, foreign interference in elections or developers misusing people’s information, we didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibilities. That was a mistake, and I’m sorry."

The Facebook data breach had hit 2.7 million European Union(EU) citizens.

"We are using new technology to prevent fake news," Zukerberg told UK lawmakers, adding,"keeping people safe is our priority."

Zuckerberg had appeared before the US Senate Intelligence Committee on data breach last month.

Zuckerberg&nbsp;told the lawmakers that Apps that measure data will be banned.

"We are working with governments to prevent poll meddling," he said. "I believe deeply in what we're doing. And when we address these challenges, I know we'll look back and view helping people connect and giving more people a voice as a positive force here in Europe and around the world," he added.

The EU has put new rules on data protection in place under which companies will be subjected to fines of up to 4 per cent of global turnover for breaching them.

Zuckerberg&nbsp;will go on to meet French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday.

Zuckerberg had appeared before the US Senate Intelligence Committee about data breach.

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg appeared in front of UK lawmakers in European Parliament to address data breach by Cambridge Analytica today. While conceding that the social network hadn't done enough to stop data privacy, Zuckerberg said he was "sorry" for mistakes made by Facebook for use of personal data. In his opening remarks, Zuckerberg said it had "become clear over the last couple of years that we haven't done enough to prevent the tools we've built from being used for harm as well." "Whether it's fake news, foreign interference in elections or developers misusing people’s information, we didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibilities. That was a mistake, and I’m sorry." The Facebook data breach had hit 2.7 million European Union(EU) citizens. "We are using new technology to prevent fake news," Zukerberg told UK lawmakers, adding,"keeping people safe is our priority." Zuckerberg had appeared before the US Senate Intelligence Committee on data breach last month. Zuckerberg told the lawmakers that Apps that measure data will be banned. "We are working with governments to prevent poll meddling," he said. "I believe deeply in what we're doing. And when we address these challenges, I know we'll look back and view helping people connect and giving more people a voice as a positive force here in Europe and around the world," he added. The EU has put new rules on data protection in place under which companies will be subjected to fines of up to 4 per cent of global turnover for breaching them. Zuckerberg will go on to meet French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday.

Now, Zuckerberg apologizes to UK lawmakers over data breach

Cambridge Analytica, the British marketing analytics firm, filed for voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York, court filings showed.

The firm, whose attorney filed on Wednesday, announced early May that it would close and file for insolvency in Britain and the United States after failing to recover from the Facebook data scandal.

The firm, whose attorney filed on Wednesday, announced early May that it would close and file for insolvency in Britain and the United States after failing to recover from the Facebook data scandal.

Cambridge Analytica, the British marketing analytics firm, filed for voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York, court filings showed. The firm, whose attorney filed on Wednesday, announced early May that it would close and file for insolvency in Britain and the United States after failing to recover from the Facebook data scandal.

Cambridge Analytica files for voluntary bankruptcy in US

The ex-boss of Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy that closed down after being involved in a scandal about the improper use of the data of millions of Facebook users, will appear in front of British lawmakers on June 6.

The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee said that Alexander Nix had accepted its summons. While Nix has testified once to the committee, lawmakers want him to give further evidence - a request he had previously declined.

"We are glad that Alexander Nix has accepted our summons. The Committee will use the opportunity to address numerous inconsistencies in his previous evidence," Damian Collins, the committee's chairman, said in a statement.

The media committee is investigating fake news, and is increasingly focused on the role of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook in the 2016 Brexit vote and in the election of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Cambridge Analytica has denied doing paid work on the campaign for Brexit, and says its work on the Trump campaign did not use data at the centre of a Facebook scandal, where the details of around 87 million users were allegedly improperly obtained.

Cambridge Analytica said it pitched to Leave.EU, a Brexit campaign group, but did not do any work for them after it missed out on the official campaign designation to Vote Leave, which is separately being investigated for possibly breaches of campaign finance rules.

The committee said that Dominic Cummings, former campaign director Vote Leave, had refused to appear in front of lawmakers to discuss the campaign and its use of data.

Collins said that Cummings would be reported for failing to appear, which "could result in a decision that a contempt of parliament has been committed, a very serious outcome for the individual."

While Nix has testified once to the committee, lawmakers want him to give further evidence - a request he had previously declined

The ex-boss of Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy that closed down after being involved in a scandal about the improper use of the data of millions of Facebook users, will appear in front of British lawmakers on June 6. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee said that Alexander Nix had accepted its summons. While Nix has testified once to the committee, lawmakers want him to give further evidence - a request he had previously declined. "We are glad that Alexander Nix has accepted our summons. The Committee will use the opportunity to address numerous inconsistencies in his previous evidence," Damian Collins, the committee's chairman, said in a statement. The media committee is investigating fake news, and is increasingly focused on the role of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook in the 2016 Brexit vote and in the election of U.S. President Donald Trump. Cambridge Analytica has denied doing paid work on the campaign for Brexit, and says its work on the Trump campaign did not use data at the centre of a Facebook scandal, where the details of around 87 million users were allegedly improperly obtained. Cambridge Analytica said it pitched to Leave.EU, a Brexit campaign group, but did not do any work for them after it missed out on the official campaign designation to Vote Leave, which is separately being investigated for possibly breaches of campaign finance rules. The committee said that Dominic Cummings, former campaign director Vote Leave, had refused to appear in front of lawmakers to discuss the campaign and its use of data. Collins said that Cummings would be reported for failing to appear, which "could result in a decision that a contempt of parliament has been committed, a very serious outcome for the individual."

Former Cambridge Analytica boss to appear before British lawmakers on June 6

Political consulting group Cambridge Analytica used Russian researchers and shared data with companies linked to Russian intelligence, a whistleblower told a congressional hearing on interference in the 2016 US election Wednesday.

Christopher Wylie, who leaked information on the British-based firm's hijacking of data on millions of Facebook users, told a Senate panel he believes Russian intelligence services had access to data harvested by the consultancy.

Wylie told the panel that Russian-American researcher Aleksandr Kogan, who created an application to harvest Facebook user profile data, was working at the same time on Russian-funded projects, including "behavioral research."

"This means that in addition to Facebook data being accessed in Russia, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that CA may have been an intelligence target of Russian security services...(and) that Russian security services may have been notified of the existence of CA's Facebook data," Wylie said in his written testimony.

Wylie added that Cambridge Analytica "used Russian researchers to gather its data, (and) openly shared information on 'rumor campaigns' and 'attitudinal inoculation'" with companies and executives linked to the Russian intelligence agency FSB.

The hearing is part of a broad inquiry on both sides of the Atlantic over the misuse of Facebook data by the consulting firm working on Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.

Facebook has accused Cambridge Analytica of misappropriating its user data by violating terms of the data agreement with Kogan, the academic researcher.

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the FBI and Justice are investigating Cambridge Analytica for potential criminal violations.

The Times said it was unclear whether the probe was linked to the one led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

'Black ops' at CA&nbsp

Wylie told the panel that "the ethos of the firm was 'anything goes'" for its political campaigns, including "attempting to divert health ministry funds in a struggling African country to support a politician's re-election campaign."

He added that he was aware of "black ops" at the company, "which I understood to include using hackers to break into computer systems to acquire kompromat or other intelligence for its clients."

He said that one of the tactics used to interfere with voter participation included "weaponizing fear."

"In one country, CA produced videos intended to suppress turnout by showing voters sadistic images of victims being burned alive, undergoing forced amputations with machetes and having their throats cut in a ditch," he said.

"These videos also conveyed Islamophobic messages. It was created with a clear intent to intimidate certain communities, catalyze religious hatred, portray Muslims as terrorists and deny certain voters of their democratic rights."

Cambridge Analytica announced earlier this month it was shutting down, unable to recover from the Facebook-linked scandal.

Its chief executive Alexander Nix was suspended after he was filmed by undercover reporters bragging about ways to win political campaigns, including through blackmail and honey traps.

Another whistleblower said that Britons' personal data may have been misused by a pro-Brexit campaign ahead of the 2016 referendum in which Britain voted to leave the European Union.

Christopher Wylie, who leaked information on the British-based firm's hijacking of data on millions of Facebook users, told a Senate panel he believes Russian intelligence services had access to data harvested by the consultancy

Political consulting group Cambridge Analytica used Russian researchers and shared data with companies linked to Russian intelligence, a whistleblower told a congressional hearing on interference in the 2016 US election Wednesday. Christopher Wylie, who leaked information on the British-based firm's hijacking of data on millions of Facebook users, told a Senate panel he believes Russian intelligence services had access to data harvested by the consultancy. Wylie told the panel that Russian-American researcher Aleksandr Kogan, who created an application to harvest Facebook user profile data, was working at the same time on Russian-funded projects, including "behavioral research." "This means that in addition to Facebook data being accessed in Russia, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that CA may have been an intelligence target of Russian security services...(and) that Russian security services may have been notified of the existence of CA's Facebook data," Wylie said in his written testimony. Wylie added that Cambridge Analytica "used Russian researchers to gather its data, (and) openly shared information on 'rumor campaigns' and 'attitudinal inoculation'" with companies and executives linked to the Russian intelligence agency FSB. The hearing is part of a broad inquiry on both sides of the Atlantic over the misuse of Facebook data by the consulting firm working on Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. Facebook has accused Cambridge Analytica of misappropriating its user data by violating terms of the data agreement with Kogan, the academic researcher. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the FBI and Justice are investigating Cambridge Analytica for potential criminal violations. The Times said it was unclear whether the probe was linked to the one led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. 'Black ops' at CA Wylie told the panel that "the ethos of the firm was 'anything goes'" for its political campaigns, including "attempting to divert health ministry funds in a struggling African country to support a politician's re-election campaign." He added that he was aware of "black ops" at the company, "which I understood to include using hackers to break into computer systems to acquire kompromat or other intelligence for its clients." He said that one of the tactics used to interfere with voter participation included "weaponizing fear." "In one country, CA produced videos intended to suppress turnout by showing voters sadistic images of victims being burned alive, undergoing forced amputations with machetes and having their throats cut in a ditch," he said. "These videos also conveyed Islamophobic messages. It was created with a clear intent to intimidate certain communities, catalyze religious hatred, portray Muslims as terrorists and deny certain voters of their democratic rights." Cambridge Analytica announced earlier this month it was shutting down, unable to recover from the Facebook-linked scandal. Its chief executive Alexander Nix was suspended after he was filmed by undercover reporters bragging about ways to win political campaigns, including through blackmail and honey traps. Another whistleblower said that Britons' personal data may have been misused by a pro-Brexit campaign ahead of the 2016 referendum in which Britain voted to leave the European Union.

Cambridge Analytica shared data with Russia: Whistleblower

Facebook chief Mark <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/frances-macron-to-hold-tough-talks-with-facebooks-zuckerberg-in-paris-meet-137496">Zuckerberg has agreed to meet European </a>Parliament members to answer questions after a data harvesting scandal, newswire AFP quoted a top European Parliament official as saying on Wednesday.

Facebook&nbsphad earlier said Zuckerberg wouldn't be answering questions to UK lawmakers but he has finally agreed to meet representatives of the European Parliament.&nbsp&nbsp

Senior&nbsplawmakers have agreed Mark Zuckerberg should come clarify issues related to the use of personal data in a meeting with representatives of the European Parliament, the parliament's leader Antonio Tajani said in a statement.

Tajani said the meeting could take place "as early as next week".

Meanwhile, reports said French president Macron will hold "tough talks" with the Facebook boss over data privacy in Paris when Zuckerberg visits the city next week.

Zuckerberg is set to visit France for a technology meet next Wednesday. The French president will hold one-to-one meet with the Facebook chief, reports said.

Last month Zuckerberg had answered questions to a US congressional committee over data hacking allegedly carried out by Cambridge Analytica, a UK-based company which reportedly used Facebook data during President Trump's US presidential campaign in 2016.

Reports said French president Macron will hold "tough talks" with the Facebook boss

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has agreed to meet European Parliament members to answer questions after a data harvesting scandal, newswire AFP quoted a top European Parliament official as saying on Wednesday. Facebook&nbsphad earlier said Zuckerberg wouldn't be answering questions to UK lawmakers but he has finally agreed to meet representatives of the European Parliament. Senior&nbsplawmakers have agreed Mark Zuckerberg should come clarify issues related to the use of personal data in a meeting with representatives of the European Parliament, the parliament's leader Antonio Tajani said in a statement. Tajani said the meeting could take place "as early as next week". Meanwhile, reports said French president Macron will hold "tough talks" with the Facebook boss over data privacy in Paris when Zuckerberg visits the city next week. Zuckerberg is set to visit France for a technology meet next Wednesday. The French president will hold one-to-one meet with the Facebook chief, reports said. Last month Zuckerberg had answered questions to a US congressional committee over data hacking allegedly carried out by Cambridge Analytica, a UK-based company which reportedly used Facebook data during President Trump's US presidential campaign in 2016.

Facebook chief Zuckerberg to meet European Parliament members over data privacy

As per reports, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will not be testifying before the UK Parliament.

Parliament members had previously noted that Zuckerberg would be summoned to testify in connection to the Cambridge Analytica data leak whenever he is in the country next.

Facebook officials have now noted that Zuckerberg does not plan to do so.

Parliamentary member Damian Collins called the incident "disappointing".&nbsp;

"It is disappointing that a company with the resources of Facebook chooses not to provide a sufficient level of detail and transparency on various points including on Cambridge Analytica, dark ads, Facebook Connect, the amount spent by Russia on UK ads on the platform, data collection across the web, budgets for investigations, and that shows general discrepancies between Schroepfer and Zuckerberg’s respective testimonies. Given that these were follow up questions to questions Mr Schroepfer previously failed to answer, we expected both detail and data, and in a number of cases got excuses," Collins noted in a statement.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Collins urged Zuckerberg to appear via video link if he does not plan to present himself in person before the Parliament.&nbsp;

"If Mark Zuckerberg truly recognises the ‘seriousness’ of these issues as they say they do, we would expect that he would want to appear in front of the Committee and answer questions that are of concern not only to Parliament but Facebook’s tens of millions of users in this country. Although Facebook says Mr Zuckerberg has no plans to travel to the UK, we would also be open to taking his evidence by video link, if that would be the only way to do this during the period of our inquiry," read the statement.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Zuckerberg and his social media giant, Facebook, emerge at the centre of a controversy that involves UK-based data analysis company Cambridge Analytica.

Zuckerberg is facing regulatory probes over data breach and privacy violation&nbsp;of around 90 million users.&nbsp;

Zuckerberg is facing regulatory probes over data breach and privacy violation of around 90 million users.

As per reports, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will not be testifying before the UK Parliament. Parliament members had previously noted that Zuckerberg would be summoned to testify in connection to the Cambridge Analytica data leak whenever he is in the country next. Facebook officials have now noted that Zuckerberg does not plan to do so. Parliamentary member Damian Collins called the incident "disappointing". "It is disappointing that a company with the resources of Facebook chooses not to provide a sufficient level of detail and transparency on various points including on Cambridge Analytica, dark ads, Facebook Connect, the amount spent by Russia on UK ads on the platform, data collection across the web, budgets for investigations, and that shows general discrepancies between Schroepfer and Zuckerberg’s respective testimonies. Given that these were follow up questions to questions Mr Schroepfer previously failed to answer, we expected both detail and data, and in a number of cases got excuses," Collins noted in a statement. Collins urged Zuckerberg to appear via video link if he does not plan to present himself in person before the Parliament. "If Mark Zuckerberg truly recognises the ‘seriousness’ of these issues as they say they do, we would expect that he would want to appear in front of the Committee and answer questions that are of concern not only to Parliament but Facebook’s tens of millions of users in this country. Although Facebook says Mr Zuckerberg has no plans to travel to the UK, we would also be open to taking his evidence by video link, if that would be the only way to do this during the period of our inquiry," read the statement. Zuckerberg and his social media giant, Facebook, emerge at the centre of a controversy that involves UK-based data analysis company Cambridge Analytica. Zuckerberg is facing regulatory probes over data breach and privacy violation of around 90 million users.

Mark Zuckerberg may not testify before UK Parliament

Facebook Inc said it took down 583 million fake profiles in the first three months of the year, usually within minutes of their creation.

The social network also scrubbed 837 million pieces of spam and acted on 2.5 million instances of hate speech, it said on Tuesday in its first-ever report on how effectively it’s enforcing community standards.

Responding to calls for transparency after the Cambridge Analytica data privacy scandal, Facebook said those closures came on top of blocking millions of attempts to create fake accounts every day.

Despite this, the group said fake profiles still make up 3-4 percent of all active accounts.

It claimed to detect almost 100 percent of spam and to have removed 837 million posts assimilated to spam over the same period.

Facebook pulled or slapped warnings on nearly 30 million posts containing sexual or violent images, terrorist propaganda or hate speech during the first quarter.

Improved technology using artificial intelligence had helped it act on 3.4 million posts containing graphic violence, nearly three times more than it had in the last quarter of 2017.

In 85.6 percent of the cases, Facebook detected the images before being alerted to them by users, said the report, issued the day after the company said about 200 apps had been suspended on its platform as part of an investigation into misuse of private user data.

The figure represents between 0.22 and 0.27 percent of the total content viewed by Facebook's more than two billion users from January through March.

"In other words, of every 10,000 content views, an estimate of 22 to 27 contained graphic violence," the report said.

Responses to rule violations include removing content, adding warnings to content that may be disturbing to some users while not violating Facebook standards and notifying law enforcement in case of a "specific, imminent and credible threat to human life".

Improved IT also helped Facebook take action against 1.9 million posts containing terrorist propaganda, a 73 percent increase. Nearly all were dealt with before any alert was raised, the company said.

It attributed the increase to the enhanced use of photodetection technology.

Hate speech is harder to police using automated methods, however, as racist or homophobic hate speech is often quoted on posts by their targets or activists.

- Sarcasm needs human touch -

"It may take a human to understand and accurately interpret nuances like... self-referential comments or sarcasm," the report said, noting that Facebook aims to "protect and respect both expression and personal safety".

Facebook took action against 2.5 million pieces of hate speech content during the period, a 56 increase over October-December. But only 38 percent had been detected through Facebook's efforts -- the rest flagged up by users.

The posts that keep the Facebook reviewers the busiest are those showing adult nudity or sexual activity -- quite apart from child pornography, which is not covered by the report.

Some 21 million such posts were handled in the period, a similar number to October-December 2017.

That was less than 0.1 percent of viewed content -- which includes text, images, videos, links, live videos or comments on posts -- Facebook said, adding it had dealt with nearly 96 percent of the cases before being alerted to them.

Facebook has come under fire for showing too much zeal on this front, such as removing images of artwork tolerated under its own rules.

In March, Facebook apologised for temporarily removing an advert featuring French artist Eugene Delacroix's famous work "Liberty Leading the People" because it depicts a bare-breasted woman.

Facebook's head of global policy management Monika Bicket &nbsp;said the group had kept a commitment to recruit 3,000 more staff to lift the numbers dedicated to enforcing standards to 7,500 at the start of this year.

(With inputs from AFP)

Responding to calls for transparency after the Cambridge Analytica data privacy scandal, Facebook said those closures came on top of blocking millions of attempts to create fake accounts every day.

Facebook Inc said it took down 583 million fake profiles in the first three months of the year, usually within minutes of their creation. The social network also scrubbed 837 million pieces of spam and acted on 2.5 million instances of hate speech, it said on Tuesday in its first-ever report on how effectively it’s enforcing community standards. Responding to calls for transparency after the Cambridge Analytica data privacy scandal, Facebook said those closures came on top of blocking millions of attempts to create fake accounts every day. Despite this, the group said fake profiles still make up 3-4 percent of all active accounts. It claimed to detect almost 100 percent of spam and to have removed 837 million posts assimilated to spam over the same period. Facebook pulled or slapped warnings on nearly 30 million posts containing sexual or violent images, terrorist propaganda or hate speech during the first quarter. Improved technology using artificial intelligence had helped it act on 3.4 million posts containing graphic violence, nearly three times more than it had in the last quarter of 2017. In 85.6 percent of the cases, Facebook detected the images before being alerted to them by users, said the report, issued the day after the company said about 200 apps had been suspended on its platform as part of an investigation into misuse of private user data. The figure represents between 0.22 and 0.27 percent of the total content viewed by Facebook's more than two billion users from January through March. "In other words, of every 10,000 content views, an estimate of 22 to 27 contained graphic violence," the report said. Responses to rule violations include removing content, adding warnings to content that may be disturbing to some users while not violating Facebook standards and notifying law enforcement in case of a "specific, imminent and credible threat to human life". Improved IT also helped Facebook take action against 1.9 million posts containing terrorist propaganda, a 73 percent increase. Nearly all were dealt with before any alert was raised, the company said. It attributed the increase to the enhanced use of photodetection technology. Hate speech is harder to police using automated methods, however, as racist or homophobic hate speech is often quoted on posts by their targets or activists. - Sarcasm needs human touch - "It may take a human to understand and accurately interpret nuances like... self-referential comments or sarcasm," the report said, noting that Facebook aims to "protect and respect both expression and personal safety". Facebook took action against 2.5 million pieces of hate speech content during the period, a 56 increase over October-December. But only 38 percent had been detected through Facebook's efforts -- the rest flagged up by users. The posts that keep the Facebook reviewers the busiest are those showing adult nudity or sexual activity -- quite apart from child pornography, which is not covered by the report. Some 21 million such posts were handled in the period, a similar number to October-December 2017. That was less than 0.1 percent of viewed content -- which includes text, images, videos, links, live videos or comments on posts -- Facebook said, adding it had dealt with nearly 96 percent of the cases before being alerted to them. Facebook has come under fire for showing too much zeal on this front, such as removing images of artwork tolerated under its own rules. In March, Facebook apologised for temporarily removing an advert featuring French artist Eugene Delacroix's famous work "Liberty Leading the People" because it depicts a bare-breasted woman. Facebook's head of global policy management Monika Bicket said the group had kept a commitment to recruit 3,000 more staff to lift the numbers dedicated to enforcing standards to 7,500 at the start of this year. (With inputs from AFP)

Facebook deletes 583 million fake accounts in first three months of 2018

The Department of Justice and the FBI have started investigating the data mining firm Cambridge Analytica which had announced its shut down last month due to the Facebook scandal.&nbsp;

As per reports, the investigation is in the primary stages and no details have yet been given out about the firm's involvement in the 2016 presidential elections.&nbsp;

Prosecutors have sought to question former Cambridge Analytica employees and banks that handled its business, the newspaper said, citing an American official and others familiar with the inquiry,&nbsp;

The investigation is also looking into the company’s financial history, in particular, its relationship to certain banks, and how it may have used the data it gathered from Facebook and other online sources, reports say.&nbsp;

Cambridge Analytical announced its shut down amid reports of providing ad targeting expertise for Trump's campaign based on data it got from Cambridge psychology professor Aleksandr Kogan, who gathered the data on as many as 87 million Facebook users using a quiz app.&nbsp;

Kogan thereafter sold the data - violating Facebook's terms and services.&nbsp;

Cambridge Analytica said earlier this month it was shutting down after losing clients and facing mounting legal fees.&nbsp;

Cambridge Analytica was created around 2013, initially with a focus on US&nbsp;elections, with $15 million in backing from billionaire Republican donor Robert Mercer and a name chosen by future Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon, the New York Times has reported. Bannon left the White House on August 2017. 
&nbsp;

As per reports, the investigation is in the primary stages and no details have yet been given out about the firm's involvement in the 2016 presidential elections

The Department of Justice and the FBI have started investigating the data mining firm Cambridge Analytica which had announced its shut down last month due to the Facebook scandal. As per reports, the investigation is in the primary stages and no details have yet been given out about the firm's involvement in the 2016 presidential elections. Prosecutors have sought to question former Cambridge Analytica employees and banks that handled its business, the newspaper said, citing an American official and others familiar with the inquiry, The investigation is also looking into the company’s financial history, in particular, its relationship to certain banks, and how it may have used the data it gathered from Facebook and other online sources, reports say. Cambridge Analytical announced its shut down amid reports of providing ad targeting expertise for Trump's campaign based on data it got from Cambridge psychology professor Aleksandr Kogan, who gathered the data on as many as 87 million Facebook users using a quiz app. Kogan thereafter sold the data - violating Facebook's terms and services. Cambridge Analytica said earlier this month it was shutting down after losing clients and facing mounting legal fees. Cambridge Analytica was created around 2013, initially with a focus on US elections, with $15 million in backing from billionaire Republican donor Robert Mercer and a name chosen by future Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon, the New York Times has reported. Bannon left the White House on August 2017.

US Department of Justice, FBI begin investigating Cambridge Analytica following its shutdown

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sunanda-pushkar-death-delhi-police-files-fir-against-congress-mp-shashi-tharoor-136735">Sunanda Pushkar death: Delhi Police names Congress MP Shashi Tharoor in FIR</a>

Delhi Police today filed a First Information Report(FIR) in the death of Sunanda Pushkar, wife of MP Shashi Tharoor, naming the Congress leader as one of the accused.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-set-to-open-embassy-in-jerusalem-amid-clashes-in-gaza-136710">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-set-to-open-embassy-in-jerusalem-amid-clashes-in-gaza-136710"> set to open </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-set-to-open-embassy-in-jerusalem-amid-clashes-in-gaza-136710">embassy</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-set-to-open-embassy-in-jerusalem-amid-clashes-in-gaza-136710"> in Jerusalem amid clashes in Gaza</a>

The United States will open its embassy in Jerusalem today even as Palestinians clash with Isreali forces at Gaza.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/gaza-unrest-2-palestinians-killed-35-injured-by-israeli-forces-136718">Gaza unrest: 2 Palestinians killed, 35 injured by Israeli forces</a>

As the United States embassy is all set to shift from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on Monday, two Palestinian were killed by Israeli forces during the Gaza protests continuing for the sixth week.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/death-toll-rises-to-71-due-to-lightning-thunderstorm-in-5-states-136703">Death toll rises to 71 due to lightning, </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/death-toll-rises-to-71-due-to-lightning-thunderstorm-in-5-states-136703">thunderstorm</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/death-toll-rises-to-71-due-to-lightning-thunderstorm-in-5-states-136703"> in 5 states</a>

As many as 71 people lost their lives in five states, including 42 in Uttar Pradesh, due to lightning and thunderstorms since Sunday, the Home Ministry said today.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/as-mark-zuckerberg-turns-34-heres-exploring-foodie-side-of-facebooks-chief-136701">Life beyond Cambridge Analytica: Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg turns 34</a>

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg rings in his 34th birthday today. The chief of one of the world's biggest social networking giants is well known for his love for fitness and food.

Sunanda Pushkar death: Delhi Police names Congress MP Shashi Tharoor in FIR Delhi Police today filed a First Information Report(FIR) in the death of Sunanda Pushkar, wife of MP Shashi Tharoor, naming the Congress leader as one of the accused. US set to open embassy in Jerusalem amid clashes in Gaza The United States will open its embassy in Jerusalem today even as Palestinians clash with Isreali forces at Gaza. Gaza unrest: 2 Palestinians killed, 35 injured by Israeli forces As the United States embassy is all set to shift from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on Monday, two Palestinian were killed by Israeli forces during the Gaza protests continuing for the sixth week. Death toll rises to 71 due to lightning, thunderstorm in 5 states As many as 71 people lost their lives in five states, including 42 in Uttar Pradesh, due to lightning and thunderstorms since Sunday, the Home Ministry said today. Life beyond Cambridge Analytica: Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg turns 34 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg rings in his 34th birthday today. The chief of one of the world's biggest social networking giants is well known for his love for fitness and food.

WION evening news brief, May 14, 2018

Britain's Electoral Commission has fined Leave.EU, one of the main campaign groups for Brexit in the 2016 referendum, for breaking spending rules.

Leave.EU was fined 70,000 pounds ($95,000) for multiple breaches of electoral law, but the voting regulator said it had found no evidence that Leave.EU received donations or paid-for services from Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy at the centre of a storm over how Facebook data was used in political campaigns.

Leave.EU and Cambridge Analytica had previously denied working together on the Brexit campaign. Leave.EU was not the officially designated "leave" campaign group during the referendum.

Voting regulator, however, said it had found no evidence that Leave.EU received donations or paid-for services from Cambridge Analytica.

Britain's Electoral Commission has fined Leave.EU, one of the main campaign groups for Brexit in the 2016 referendum, for breaking spending rules. Leave.EU was fined 70,000 pounds ($95,000) for multiple breaches of electoral law, but the voting regulator said it had found no evidence that Leave.EU received donations or paid-for services from Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy at the centre of a storm over how Facebook data was used in political campaigns. Leave.EU and Cambridge Analytica had previously denied working together on the Brexit campaign. Leave.EU was not the officially designated "leave" campaign group during the referendum.

Britain's Electoral Commission fines Leave.EU over Brexit vote spending

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/seven-indian-engineers-kidnapped-in-afghanistan-police-134950">Seven Indian engineers kidnapped in Afghanistan: Police</a>

Seven Indian engineers and an Afghan national working for a power plant in northern Baghlan province of Afghanistan were kidnapped on Sunday, news agency Reuters reported quoting officials.&nbsp

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/blast-at-mosque-in-eastern-afghanistan-kills-13-official-134952">Blast at </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/blast-at-mosque-in-eastern-afghanistan-kills-13-official-134952">mosque</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/blast-at-mosque-in-eastern-afghanistan-kills-13-official-134952"> in eastern Afghanistan kills 13: Official</a>

An explosion at a mosque in the eastern Afghan province of Khost on Sunday killed at least 13&nbsppeople and wounded 31, news agency Reuters reported quoting a local police official.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/french-president-emmanuel-macron-warns-of-risk-of-war-if-trump-withdraws-from-iran-deal-134967">French President warns of risk of war if Donald Trump withdraws from Iran deal</a>

French President Emmanuel Macron has warned that war could ensue if US&nbspPresident Donald Trump withdraws from the 2015 deal in which Iran agreed to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/clashes-breaks-out-in-jk-following-terrorist-encounter-5-civilians-killed-134954">5 civilians killed in clashes following </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/clashes-breaks-out-in-jk-following-terrorist-encounter-5-civilians-killed-134954">terrorist</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/clashes-breaks-out-in-jk-following-terrorist-encounter-5-civilians-killed-134954"> encounter</a>

Five civilians were killed in the clashes that broke out between civilians and security forces on Sunday in parts of Jammu and Kashmir&nbsp<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/encounter-between-security-forces-terrorists-in-jks-shopian-134867">following the encounter of five terrorists</a>.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-watchdog-orders-cambridge-analytica-to-hand-over-americans-personal-data-134968">UK watchdog orders Cambridge Analytica to hand over American's personal data</a>

Britain's data privacy watchdog has ordered Cambridge Analytica to hand over all the personal information it holds on a US academic, confirming the right of people abroad to seek data held by a UK firm.

&nbsp

Seven Indian engineers kidnapped in Afghanistan: Police Seven Indian engineers and an Afghan national working for a power plant in northern Baghlan province of Afghanistan were kidnapped on Sunday, news agency Reuters reported quoting officials. Blast at mosque in eastern Afghanistan kills 13: Official An explosion at a mosque in the eastern Afghan province of Khost on Sunday killed at least 13&nbsppeople and wounded 31, news agency Reuters reported quoting a local police official. French President warns of risk of war if Donald Trump withdraws from Iran deal French President Emmanuel Macron has warned that war could ensue if US&nbspPresident Donald Trump withdraws from the 2015 deal in which Iran agreed to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. 5 civilians killed in clashes following terrorist encounter Five civilians were killed in the clashes that broke out between civilians and security forces on Sunday in parts of Jammu and Kashmir following the encounter of five terrorists. UK watchdog orders Cambridge Analytica to hand over American's personal data Britain's data privacy watchdog has ordered Cambridge Analytica to hand over all the personal information it holds on a US academic, confirming the right of people abroad to seek data held by a UK firm.

News brief: Big stories of the day

Britain's data privacy watchdog has ordered Cambridge Analytica to hand over all the personal information it holds on a US academic, confirming the right of people abroad to seek data held by a UK firm.

Data privacy activists say that it sets a precedent that would enable millions of other US voters to request information that the company had collected on them.

The Information Commissioner's Office served notice to SCL Elections, Cambridge Analytica's parent, to provide the information it holds on David Carroll, saying failure to do so would be a criminal offence punishable by an unlimited fine.

The order comes days after both firms filed for insolvency after reports that Cambridge Analytica had improperly obtained data on tens of millions of Facebook users without their knowledge or consent.

Cambridge Analytica advised US President Donald Trump's election campaign, building psychographic profiles of the electorate to help micro-target voters with advertising in key swing states.

Its managers have denied, however, using data harvested by Cambridge University psychologist Alexandr Kogan through a personality quiz on Facebook, in the 2016 US election.

"The company has consistently refused to cooperate with our investigation into this case and has refused to answer our specific enquiries in relation to the complainant's personal data," Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said.

"The right to request personal data that an organisation holds about you is a cornerstone right in data protection law and it is important that Professor Carroll, and other members of the public, understand what personal data Cambridge Analytica held and how they analysed it."

The case rests on the principle that, because a British company processed his data, Carroll is entitled under UK data protection law to receive the data a company holds on him even though he is a US resident.

"The ICO's decision will provide us all with answers about what Cambridge Analytica did with people's data, how it was used and who it was given to," said Carroll's UK lawyer Ravi Naik.

Cambridge Analytica and its insolvency administrators did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment on Sunday.

&nbsp

 
&nbsp

Data privacy activists say that it sets a precedent that would enable millions of other US voters to request information that the company had collected on them

Britain's data privacy watchdog has ordered Cambridge Analytica to hand over all the personal information it holds on a US academic, confirming the right of people abroad to seek data held by a UK firm. Data privacy activists say that it sets a precedent that would enable millions of other US voters to request information that the company had collected on them. The Information Commissioner's Office served notice to SCL Elections, Cambridge Analytica's parent, to provide the information it holds on David Carroll, saying failure to do so would be a criminal offence punishable by an unlimited fine. The order comes days after both firms filed for insolvency after reports that Cambridge Analytica had improperly obtained data on tens of millions of Facebook users without their knowledge or consent. Cambridge Analytica advised US President Donald Trump's election campaign, building psychographic profiles of the electorate to help micro-target voters with advertising in key swing states. Its managers have denied, however, using data harvested by Cambridge University psychologist Alexandr Kogan through a personality quiz on Facebook, in the 2016 US election. "The company has consistently refused to cooperate with our investigation into this case and has refused to answer our specific enquiries in relation to the complainant's personal data," Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said. "The right to request personal data that an organisation holds about you is a cornerstone right in data protection law and it is important that Professor Carroll, and other members of the public, understand what personal data Cambridge Analytica held and how they analysed it." The case rests on the principle that, because a British company processed his data, Carroll is entitled under UK data protection law to receive the data a company holds on him even though he is a US resident. "The ICO's decision will provide us all with answers about what Cambridge Analytica did with people's data, how it was used and who it was given to," said Carroll's UK lawyer Ravi Naik. Cambridge Analytica and its insolvency administrators did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment on Sunday.

UK watchdog orders Cambridge Analytica to hand over American's personal data

Most of Facebook's US users have remained loyal to the social network despite revelations that a political consultancy collected information about millions of accounts without owners' permission,&nbsppoll released on Sunday showed.

Facebook has faced pressure from regulators, privacy advocates and shareholders since it said in March that political consultant Cambridge Analytica wrongly obtained personal data through a quiz app connected to Facebook. US lawmakers grilled Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg for two days on the matter.

The&nbsppoll adds to other indications that Facebook has so far suffered no ill effects from the episode, other than a public relations a headache.

The national online poll, conducted April 26-30, found that about half of Facebook's American users said they had not recently changed the amount that they used the site, and another quarter said they were using it more.

The remaining quarter said that they were using it less recently, had stopped using it or deleted their account.

That means that the people using Facebook less were roughly balanced by those using it more, with no clear net loss or gain in use.

Among all adults, 64 per cent said they use Facebook at least once a day, down slightly from 68 per cent who said so in a similar poll in late March, shortly after news organizations reported Cambridge Analytica's activity.

Analyst Michael Pachter of Wedbush Securities said Facebook is lucky the data apparently has been used only for political ads and not more nefarious purposes.

"I have yet to read an article that says a single person has been harmed by the breach," he said. "Nobody's outraged on a visceral level."

Facebook declined to comment. Its executives have apologized for the data-harvesting, pledged to investigate others who collected Facebook user data and reduced the amount of data available to similar app developers now.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal broke on March 16, sparking interest online in the hashtag #deletefacebook.

In its first quarter results, however, Facebook said the number of monthly users in the United States and Canada rose to 241 million on March 31 from 239 million on December 31, growth that was roughly in line with recent years.

According to the poll, more Facebook users said they knew how to guard their personal information on the site than users of other social media platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram, Pinterest and Tumblr.

It found that 74 per cent of Facebook users said they were aware of their current privacy settings, and 78 per cent said they knew how to change them.

In comparison, 60 per cent of Instagram users said they knew their current privacy settings and 65 per cent said they knew how to change them. And 55 per cent of Twitter users knew their privacy settings, and 58 per cent knew how to use them.

Despite their understanding of Facebook's privacy settings, only 23 per cent of its users said they have "total control" over the information they store on the platform. Another 49 per cent said they have "some control," and 20 per cent said they had "no control." The remaining 9 per cent said they do not know how much control they have.

The poll was conducted online in English throughout the United States. It gathered responses from 2,194 adults, including 1,938 Facebook users, 1,167 Twitter users and 1,237 Instagram users. It has a credibility interval of 3 percentage points, meaning that the results could vary in either direction by that amount.

Facebook has faced pressure from regulators, privacy advocates and shareholders since it said in March that political consultant Cambridge Analytica wrongly obtained personal data through a quiz app connected to Facebook. US lawmakers grilled Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg for two days on the matter

Most of Facebook's US users have remained loyal to the social network despite revelations that a political consultancy collected information about millions of accounts without owners' permission,&nbsppoll released on Sunday showed. Facebook has faced pressure from regulators, privacy advocates and shareholders since it said in March that political consultant Cambridge Analytica wrongly obtained personal data through a quiz app connected to Facebook. US lawmakers grilled Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg for two days on the matter. The&nbsppoll adds to other indications that Facebook has so far suffered no ill effects from the episode, other than a public relations a headache. The national online poll, conducted April 26-30, found that about half of Facebook's American users said they had not recently changed the amount that they used the site, and another quarter said they were using it more. The remaining quarter said that they were using it less recently, had stopped using it or deleted their account. That means that the people using Facebook less were roughly balanced by those using it more, with no clear net loss or gain in use. Among all adults, 64 per cent said they use Facebook at least once a day, down slightly from 68 per cent who said so in a similar poll in late March, shortly after news organizations reported Cambridge Analytica's activity. Analyst Michael Pachter of Wedbush Securities said Facebook is lucky the data apparently has been used only for political ads and not more nefarious purposes. "I have yet to read an article that says a single person has been harmed by the breach," he said. "Nobody's outraged on a visceral level." Facebook declined to comment. Its executives have apologized for the data-harvesting, pledged to investigate others who collected Facebook user data and reduced the amount of data available to similar app developers now. The Cambridge Analytica scandal broke on March 16, sparking interest online in the hashtag #deletefacebook. In its first quarter results, however, Facebook said the number of monthly users in the United States and Canada rose to 241 million on March 31 from 239 million on December 31, growth that was roughly in line with recent years. According to the poll, more Facebook users said they knew how to guard their personal information on the site than users of other social media platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram, Pinterest and Tumblr. It found that 74 per cent of Facebook users said they were aware of their current privacy settings, and 78 per cent said they knew how to change them. In comparison, 60 per cent of Instagram users said they knew their current privacy settings and 65 per cent said they knew how to change them. And 55 per cent of Twitter users knew their privacy settings, and 58 per cent knew how to use them. Despite their understanding of Facebook's privacy settings, only 23 per cent of its users said they have "total control" over the information they store on the platform. Another 49 per cent said they have "some control," and 20 per cent said they had "no control." The remaining 9 per cent said they do not know how much control they have. The poll was conducted online in English throughout the United States. It gathered responses from 2,194 adults, including 1,938 Facebook users, 1,167 Twitter users and 1,237 Instagram users. It has a credibility interval of 3 percentage points, meaning that the results could vary in either direction by that amount.

Three-quarters Facebook users as active or more since privacy scandal: Poll

Lately, I can't log onto Facebook without being asked to consider my own motivations for using the site.

As a researcher who focuses on online communities, I'm accustomed to this running meta-narrative about what it is I'm actually doing online — but usually, that narrative plays inside my head, not all the way down the feed I'm scrolling through.

It's like my research questions have sprung to life these days: What's Facebook all about, anyway? Is this even fun? If it's not fun … what is it, exactly?

This is an exciting time in the very short history of social media use.

Facebook's users are becoming critical of the systems into which they’ve been conscripted. This is an important moment: Will public opinion follow the same well-worn cycle of outrage and acceptance, or will it jump the tracks and begin engaging Facebook on new, more challenging terms?

Researchers have been asking tough questions about Facebook for the past decade, but even armed with the most prestigious credentials, they pose a much smaller threat than educated consumers. And without consumer outrage, government regulation seems unlikely to move forward.

'Sound and fury'

So far, at least in my own feed, the same old script is being followed to the letter. The soul-searching is punctuated by passionate cris-de-coeur from the feed's more opinionated characters: Wake up, sheeple! If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product — remember? Quit Facebook! Encrypt your data! Smash your phone under the heel of your steel-toed boots!

Next, right on cue, the incisive social commentators swoop in to remind us that these calls are coming from inside the house. "Pretty ironic that you're posting all this stuff on Facebook!" To which everyone silently rolls their eyes in resignation.

Cue the gallows humor about how we're all under constant surveillance, rinse and repeat. The human condition's same old two-step. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

That this discursive cycle was triggered by the revelations earlier this year that voter profiling company Cambridge Analytica obtained the Facebook data of 50 million American accounts is beside the point.

This is only the latest in a long series of such leaks about data mining. In 2017, approximately 200 million registered voters' personal data stored by voter profiling company Deep Root Analytics was accidentally made public. The previous year, Russian hackers accessed a large cache of voter information owned by the Democratic National Committee.

What this latest go-round is revealing is that these are industry practices that will carry on undisturbed, regardless of what Mark Zuckerberg says or does. This is not a Zuckerberg problem anymore it's a problem with an advertising model that is the industry standard.

Most of us Facebook users have been on the platform for about a decade, and perhaps our outrage is our growing pains.

We've gained some critical distance through time spent on the platform. We are less easily distracted by the ostensible fun the platform offers. And we appear to be compelled to ask questions about Facebook we've never asked before

Must ask different questions

Fenwick McKelvey, co-director of the Media History Research Centre at Concordia University’s Milieux Institute for Art, Culture and Technology, wishes that the media would start asking different questions about how data is being used by platforms like Facebook.

"The media narrative still assumes that the goal of these platforms (like Facebook) is to expose people to information," McKelvey told me. "But it's less and less about that — the goal is to manage and control people's behaviour.”

Among the urgent questions media commentators should be asking, McKelvey believes, is how online advertisers are deploying user data to subtly nudge people. He provides the illustrative example of SnapChat — a company with relatively strong privacy settings in place — that leaks data to advertisers with dizzying granularity that reflects the industry standard.

Through SnapChat's protocols, your phone informs advertisers how much time passes between the moment you're served one of their ads and the moment you make a purchase at their business, either online or in person.

Every time you walk into a retailer with your phone's location services on, you are leaking data about your consumption habits.

Perhaps we should be burrowing even deeper into Facebook's business practices.

Facebook tends to rely on the fact that most of its data collection practices are laid bare in its terms of service. But according to Martin French, an assistant professor of sociology at Concordia, Facebook’s notion of "consent" is flimsy at best.

Most unaware of how their data is being used

"Facebook reportedly changed its policies after 2015 to stop app developers accessing information on app users' network. But for me, the question is: Are Facebook users, in the real world, actually aware of the changing ways their data is being used, and the policies that purportedly govern these uses?" wonders French.

French posits that based on research that has been done on who reads and understands social media privacy policies, most users are unaware of how their data is actually being used. The "consent" that Facebook is talking about when they refer to an agreement with their users is not really a kind of consent that conforms to any dictionary definition of that term.

The consensus among social scientists who study life online is that whatever dynamics play out online have offline analogs.

We've had a decade to incorporate Facebook into our lives, and like any learning process, our success with it has been uneven.

We're at a critical moment as users of Facebook. It's our responsibility to educate ourselves about the implications of our participation. Deactivating our accounts won't change how our personal data is valued to advertisers.

But perhaps, as we become mature users of social media, we can begin to demand that limits be set on how and when our data is bought and sold.

*Kathryn Jezer-Morton is a Doctoral student, at Concordia University

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-stay-on-facebook-its-complicated-93906">original article</a>.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Facebook's users are becoming critical of the systems into which they’ve been conscripted

Lately, I can't log onto Facebook without being asked to consider my own motivations for using the site. As a researcher who focuses on online communities, I'm accustomed to this running meta-narrative about what it is I'm actually doing online — but usually, that narrative plays inside my head, not all the way down the feed I'm scrolling through. It's like my research questions have sprung to life these days: What's Facebook all about, anyway? Is this even fun? If it's not fun … what is it, exactly? This is an exciting time in the very short history of social media use. Facebook's users are becoming critical of the systems into which they’ve been conscripted. This is an important moment: Will public opinion follow the same well-worn cycle of outrage and acceptance, or will it jump the tracks and begin engaging Facebook on new, more challenging terms? Researchers have been asking tough questions about Facebook for the past decade, but even armed with the most prestigious credentials, they pose a much smaller threat than educated consumers. And without consumer outrage, government regulation seems unlikely to move forward. 'Sound and fury' So far, at least in my own feed, the same old script is being followed to the letter. The soul-searching is punctuated by passionate cris-de-coeur from the feed's more opinionated characters: Wake up, sheeple! If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product — remember? Quit Facebook! Encrypt your data! Smash your phone under the heel of your steel-toed boots! Next, right on cue, the incisive social commentators swoop in to remind us that these calls are coming from inside the house. "Pretty ironic that you're posting all this stuff on Facebook!" To which everyone silently rolls their eyes in resignation. Cue the gallows humor about how we're all under constant surveillance, rinse and repeat. The human condition's same old two-step. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. That this discursive cycle was triggered by the revelations earlier this year that voter profiling company Cambridge Analytica obtained the Facebook data of 50 million American accounts is beside the point. This is only the latest in a long series of such leaks about data mining. In 2017, approximately 200 million registered voters' personal data stored by voter profiling company Deep Root Analytics was accidentally made public. The previous year, Russian hackers accessed a large cache of voter information owned by the Democratic National Committee. What this latest go-round is revealing is that these are industry practices that will carry on undisturbed, regardless of what Mark Zuckerberg says or does. This is not a Zuckerberg problem anymore it's a problem with an advertising model that is the industry standard. Most of us Facebook users have been on the platform for about a decade, and perhaps our outrage is our growing pains. We've gained some critical distance through time spent on the platform. We are less easily distracted by the ostensible fun the platform offers. And we appear to be compelled to ask questions about Facebook we've never asked before Must ask different questions Fenwick McKelvey, co-director of the Media History Research Centre at Concordia University’s Milieux Institute for Art, Culture and Technology, wishes that the media would start asking different questions about how data is being used by platforms like Facebook. "The media narrative still assumes that the goal of these platforms (like Facebook) is to expose people to information," McKelvey told me. "But it's less and less about that — the goal is to manage and control people's behaviour.” Among the urgent questions media commentators should be asking, McKelvey believes, is how online advertisers are deploying user data to subtly nudge people. He provides the illustrative example of SnapChat — a company with relatively strong privacy settings in place — that leaks data to advertisers with dizzying granularity that reflects the industry standard. Through SnapChat's protocols, your phone informs advertisers how much time passes between the moment you're served one of their ads and the moment you make a purchase at their business, either online or in person. Every time you walk into a retailer with your phone's location services on, you are leaking data about your consumption habits. Perhaps we should be burrowing even deeper into Facebook's business practices. Facebook tends to rely on the fact that most of its data collection practices are laid bare in its terms of service. But according to Martin French, an assistant professor of sociology at Concordia, Facebook’s notion of "consent" is flimsy at best. Most unaware of how their data is being used "Facebook reportedly changed its policies after 2015 to stop app developers accessing information on app users' network. But for me, the question is: Are Facebook users, in the real world, actually aware of the changing ways their data is being used, and the policies that purportedly govern these uses?" wonders French. French posits that based on research that has been done on who reads and understands social media privacy policies, most users are unaware of how their data is actually being used. The "consent" that Facebook is talking about when they refer to an agreement with their users is not really a kind of consent that conforms to any dictionary definition of that term. The consensus among social scientists who study life online is that whatever dynamics play out online have offline analogs. We've had a decade to incorporate Facebook into our lives, and like any learning process, our success with it has been uneven. We're at a critical moment as users of Facebook. It's our responsibility to educate ourselves about the implications of our participation. Deactivating our accounts won't change how our personal data is valued to advertisers. But perhaps, as we become mature users of social media, we can begin to demand that limits be set on how and when our data is bought and sold. *Kathryn Jezer-Morton is a Doctoral student, at Concordia University This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why do we stay on Facebook? It's complicated

The Cambridge Analytica consultancy at the center of this year’s Facebook privacy row is closing, the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday reported the founder of the firm’s UK-based parent as saying.

SCL Group founder Nigel Oakes confirmed that both companies were closing, the WSJ said.

The newspaper added, citing an unnamed source, that the decision was taken because the companies were losing clients and facing mounting legal fees in the Facebook investigation.

The firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The row over the improper use of data on 87 million Facebook users by Cambridge Analytica in President Donald Trump’s 2016 U.S. election campaign, has hurt the shares of the world’s biggest social network and prompted multiple official investigations.

SCL Group founder Nigel Oakes confirmed that both companies were closing, the WSJ said

The Cambridge Analytica consultancy at the center of this year’s Facebook privacy row is closing, the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday reported the founder of the firm’s UK-based parent as saying. SCL Group founder Nigel Oakes confirmed that both companies were closing, the WSJ said. The newspaper added, citing an unnamed source, that the decision was taken because the companies were losing clients and facing mounting legal fees in the Facebook investigation. The firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The row over the improper use of data on 87 million Facebook users by Cambridge Analytica in President Donald Trump’s 2016 U.S. election campaign, has hurt the shares of the world’s biggest social network and prompted multiple official investigations.

Cambridge Analytica shutting down following Facebook crisis

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/investigations-cannot-be-impeded-by-closure-of-cambridge-analytica-damian-collins-member-uk-parliament-committee-134296">Investigations cannot be impeded by </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/investigations-cannot-be-impeded-by-closure-of-cambridge-analytica-damian-collins-member-uk-parliament-committee-134296">closure</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/investigations-cannot-be-impeded-by-closure-of-cambridge-analytica-damian-collins-member-uk-parliament-committee-134296"> of Cambridge Analytica: UK Parliament committee</a>

Cambridge Analytica(CA), the firm at the centre of a worldwide data breach of Facebook users, announced today that it was filing for bankruptcy and closing down.

"Despite Cambridge Analytica's unwavering confidence that its employees have acted ethically and lawfully, the siege of media coverage has driven away virtually all of the company's customers and suppliers," the company said in a statement.

"As a result, it has been determined that it is no longer viable to continue operating the business, which left Cambridge Analytica with no realistic alternative to placing the company into administration," it added.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/champions-league-liverpool-edge-out-as-roma-to-meet-real-madrid-in-final-134295">Champions League: Liverpool edge out AS Roma, to meet Real Madrid in final</a>

AS Roma fought hard till the end but it was not enough to stop Liverpool from advancing to the finals of the Champions League at the Stadio Olimpico on Thursday night.

Klopp's team went down 2-4 to a resurgent Roma who were determined to show their home fans they could overcome the 3 goal deficit of the first leg at Anfield as Radja Nainggolan struck late with 2 goals, but it was not to be as the visitors held off to win the game on a 7-6 aggregate.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/justin-langer-to-be-new-coach-of-australia-134298">Justin Langer to be </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/justin-langer-to-be-new-coach-of-australia-134298">new</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/justin-langer-to-be-new-coach-of-australia-134298"> coach of Australia</a>

Cricket Australia said today former Australian Test opener Justin Langer, 47, will takeover as head coach of the national team.

Langer's coaching job comes after Darren Lehmann stepped down as coach of the Australian team after the ball-tampering row in South Africa which led Steve Smith and David Warner to be banned by Cricket Australia. Cameron Bancroft was also banned for his part in the incident.

"Whilst Darren Lehmann was not due to complete his term until next year, we have had a succession plan in place for this role for some time," Cricket Australia (CA) CEO James Sutherland said.

"We firmly believe Justin is the right person to lead this team and have huge confidence in what he will bring to the role, " Sutherland added.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/macron-calls-australian-pms-wife-delicious-134299">Macron calls Australian PM's wife 'delicious'</a>

French president Emmanuel Macron left his Australian audience wondering after he called Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's wife "delicious".

"Thank you and your delicious wife for your warm welcome, the perfect organisation of this trip," he said.

"Thanks to you and Lucy, thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister," he added.

Speculation, however, is rife that Macron was referring to the word délicieux, which can be used to describe a very tasty meal.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/gunmen-kidnap-german-nurse-in-somalia-134297">Gunmen kidnap German nurse in Somalia's Mogadishu</a>

A German nurse working for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was kidnapped on Wednesday evening from a compound in Somalia's capital Mogadishu, the Red Cross said today.

The attack happened around 8.00 pm local time (1700 GMT) when unidentified armed men entered its compound in Mogadishu, the Red Cross said.

Daniel O'Malley, ICRC's deputy Somalia head said the Red Cross was "deeply concerned about the safety of our colleague" and that the nurse was working everyday to save lives.

Investigations cannot be impeded by closure of Cambridge Analytica: UK Parliament committee Cambridge Analytica(CA), the firm at the centre of a worldwide data breach of Facebook users, announced today that it was filing for bankruptcy and closing down. "Despite Cambridge Analytica's unwavering confidence that its employees have acted ethically and lawfully, the siege of media coverage has driven away virtually all of the company's customers and suppliers," the company said in a statement. "As a result, it has been determined that it is no longer viable to continue operating the business, which left Cambridge Analytica with no realistic alternative to placing the company into administration," it added. Champions League: Liverpool edge out AS Roma, to meet Real Madrid in final AS Roma fought hard till the end but it was not enough to stop Liverpool from advancing to the finals of the Champions League at the Stadio Olimpico on Thursday night. Klopp's team went down 2-4 to a resurgent Roma who were determined to show their home fans they could overcome the 3 goal deficit of the first leg at Anfield as Radja Nainggolan struck late with 2 goals, but it was not to be as the visitors held off to win the game on a 7-6 aggregate. Justin Langer to be new coach of Australia Cricket Australia said today former Australian Test opener Justin Langer, 47, will takeover as head coach of the national team. Langer's coaching job comes after Darren Lehmann stepped down as coach of the Australian team after the ball-tampering row in South Africa which led Steve Smith and David Warner to be banned by Cricket Australia. Cameron Bancroft was also banned for his part in the incident. "Whilst Darren Lehmann was not due to complete his term until next year, we have had a succession plan in place for this role for some time," Cricket Australia (CA) CEO James Sutherland said. "We firmly believe Justin is the right person to lead this team and have huge confidence in what he will bring to the role, " Sutherland added. Macron calls Australian PM's wife 'delicious' French president Emmanuel Macron left his Australian audience wondering after he called Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's wife "delicious". "Thank you and your delicious wife for your warm welcome, the perfect organisation of this trip," he said. "Thanks to you and Lucy, thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister," he added. Speculation, however, is rife that Macron was referring to the word délicieux, which can be used to describe a very tasty meal. Gunmen kidnap German nurse in Somalia's Mogadishu A German nurse working for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was kidnapped on Wednesday evening from a compound in Somalia's capital Mogadishu, the Red Cross said today. The attack happened around 8.00 pm local time (1700 GMT) when unidentified armed men entered its compound in Mogadishu, the Red Cross said. Daniel O'Malley, ICRC's deputy Somalia head said the Red Cross was "deeply concerned about the safety of our colleague" and that the nurse was working everyday to save lives.

News brief: 5 big stories of the day

Cambridge Analytica(CA), <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/never-received-twitter-data-from-gsr-cambridge-analytica-confirms-133927">the firm at the centre of a worldwide data breach</a> of Facebook users, announced today that it was filing for bankruptcy and closing down.

"Despite Cambridge Analytica's unwavering confidence that its employees have acted ethically and lawfully, the siege of media coverage has driven away virtually all of the company's customers and suppliers," the company said in a statement.

"As a result, it has been <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-soon-to-offer-dating-services-to-users-134111">determined that it is no longer viable to </a>continue operating the business, which left Cambridge Analytica with no realistic alternative to placing the company into administration," it added.

CA said its parent company SCL Elections would also file for bankruptcy even as the chair of UK Parliament committee investigating the firm raised concerns over Cambridge Analytica and SCL Elections closing down.

"They are party to very serious investigations and those investigations cannot be impeded by the closure of these companies," said MP Damian Collins.

"I think it's absolutely vital that the closure of these companies is not used as an excuse to try and limit or restrict the ability of the authorities to investigate what they were doing," Collins added.

Cambridge Analytica's data breach which allegedly involved millions of users of Facebook users linked to US president Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign snowballed into a worldwide controversy after reports emerged several countries including Indian users' social networking account was hacked.&nbsp;

Trump's campaign team, however, denied it ever used CA's data.

CA in its closing statement defended its decision to close down, adding: "This doesn't change our commitment and determination to understand exactly what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again."

As the data breach scandal became public, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was called in by the US House committee to answer questions on the details of the breach. Facebook is conducting its own investigation into the matter and has since tightened its privacy restrictions.

According to Facebook, data on up to 87 million of its users was harvested by an app and then passed on to the political consultancy.

<iframe allow="autoplay encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i2bkYyGSp2E" width="560"></iframe>

Cambridge Analytica's data breach allegedly involved millions of users of Facebook users linked to US president Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign

Cambridge Analytica(CA), the firm at the centre of a worldwide data breach of Facebook users, announced today that it was filing for bankruptcy and closing down. "Despite Cambridge Analytica's unwavering confidence that its employees have acted ethically and lawfully, the siege of media coverage has driven away virtually all of the company's customers and suppliers," the company said in a statement. "As a result, it has been determined that it is no longer viable to continue operating the business, which left Cambridge Analytica with no realistic alternative to placing the company into administration," it added. CA said its parent company SCL Elections would also file for bankruptcy even as the chair of UK Parliament committee investigating the firm raised concerns over Cambridge Analytica and SCL Elections closing down. "They are party to very serious investigations and those investigations cannot be impeded by the closure of these companies," said MP Damian Collins. "I think it's absolutely vital that the closure of these companies is not used as an excuse to try and limit or restrict the ability of the authorities to investigate what they were doing," Collins added. Cambridge Analytica's data breach which allegedly involved millions of users of Facebook users linked to US president Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign snowballed into a worldwide controversy after reports emerged several countries including Indian users' social networking account was hacked. Trump's campaign team, however, denied it ever used CA's data. CA in its closing statement defended its decision to close down, adding: "This doesn't change our commitment and determination to understand exactly what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again." As the data breach scandal became public, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was called in by the US House committee to answer questions on the details of the breach. Facebook is conducting its own investigation into the matter and has since tightened its privacy restrictions. According to Facebook, data on up to 87 million of its users was harvested by an app and then passed on to the political consultancy.

Investigations cannot be impeded by closure of Cambridge Analytica: UK Parliament committee

Cambridge Analytica has confirmed that, although GSR (Global Science Research) had many other clients and it was the only contractor with Cambridge Analytica, no Twitter data was received from GSR.&nbsp;

"Cambridge Analytica has never received Twitter data from GSR or Aleksandr Kogan, and has never done any work with GSR on Twitter data. GSR was only ever a contractor to Cambridge Analytica and we understand it did work for many other companies," the&nbsp;UK-based political consulting firm noted in a tweet.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Cambridge Analytica has never received Twitter data from GSR or 
Aleksandr Kogan, and has never done any work with GSR on Twitter data. GSR was only ever a contractor to Cambridge Analytica and we understand it did work for many other companies.
— Cambridge Analytica (@CamAnalytica) <a href="https://twitter.com/CamAnalytica/status/990959309231132672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

On Monday, a news report by The Sunday Telegraph noted that Aleksandr Kogan, who created tools for Cambridge Analytica to psychologically profile and target voters, bought Twitter data in 2015.

Kogan-led Global Science Research (GSR) had access to Twitter data.&nbsp;

The report stated that Kogan bought tweets, usernames, photos, profile pictures and location data from Twitter over a five-month period between December 2014 and April 2015 through GSR.

Meanwhile, in a press release issued earlier today, Cambridge Analytical noted that it&nbsp;is a politically neutral company. "Globally, we work across the mainstream political spectrum," the release&nbsp;titled 'Time for facts not conjecture' read.

“It has become open season for critics to say whatever they like about us based on speculation and hearsay,” said the acting CEO Alexander Tayler.

The release stated, in deep, ten facts associated with the company explaining&nbsp;in detail the nature of the work it deals in.&nbsp;&nbsp;

"No laws were broken. Cambridge Analytica did not “hack” Facebook. A research company (GSR) licensed the data to us, which they legally obtained via a tool provided by Facebook. Cambridge Analytica did not use the GSR data or any derivatives of this data in the US Presidential Election. We used data from the RNC, data from public sources such as the voter registry. The claims that we used GSR data for the Trump campaign are simply untrue. Cambridge Analytica did provide polling, data analytics and digital marketing for the Trump campaign," the release stated.

It also confirmed that the company did not work at all on the Brexit Referendum and&nbsp;only collects data with informed consent.&nbsp;

"Mr Wylie is not a whistle-blower. He has repeatedly-claimed to be a founder of Cambridge Analytica. In reality, he was a contractor of SCL Elections and left in mid-2014," the release read.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oqzZm-lU0Ss" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Kogan had started Global Science Research (GSR), which was granted access to Twitter data

Cambridge Analytica has confirmed that, although GSR (Global Science Research) had many other clients and it was the only contractor with Cambridge Analytica, no Twitter data was received from GSR. "Cambridge Analytica has never received Twitter data from GSR or Aleksandr Kogan, and has never done any work with GSR on Twitter data. GSR was only ever a contractor to Cambridge Analytica and we understand it did work for many other companies," the UK-based political consulting firm noted in a tweet. Cambridge Analytica has never received Twitter data from GSR or Aleksandr Kogan, and has never done any work with GSR on Twitter data. GSR was only ever a contractor to Cambridge Analytica and we understand it did work for many other companies. — Cambridge Analytica (@CamAnalytica) April 30, 2018 × On Monday, a news report by The Sunday Telegraph noted that Aleksandr Kogan, who created tools for Cambridge Analytica to psychologically profile and target voters, bought Twitter data in 2015. Kogan-led Global Science Research (GSR) had access to Twitter data. The report stated that Kogan bought tweets, usernames, photos, profile pictures and location data from Twitter over a five-month period between December 2014 and April 2015 through GSR. Meanwhile, in a press release issued earlier today, Cambridge Analytical noted that it is a politically neutral company. "Globally, we work across the mainstream political spectrum," the release titled 'Time for facts not conjecture' read. “It has become open season for critics to say whatever they like about us based on speculation and hearsay,” said the acting CEO Alexander Tayler. The release stated, in deep, ten facts associated with the company explaining in detail the nature of the work it deals in. "No laws were broken. Cambridge Analytica did not “hack” Facebook. A research company (GSR) licensed the data to us, which they legally obtained via a tool provided by Facebook. Cambridge Analytica did not use the GSR data or any derivatives of this data in the US Presidential Election. We used data from the RNC, data from public sources such as the voter registry. The claims that we used GSR data for the Trump campaign are simply untrue. Cambridge Analytica did provide polling, data analytics and digital marketing for the Trump campaign," the release stated. It also confirmed that the company did not work at all on the Brexit Referendum and only collects data with informed consent. "Mr Wylie is not a whistle-blower. He has repeatedly-claimed to be a founder of Cambridge Analytica. In reality, he was a contractor of SCL Elections and left in mid-2014," the release read. ×

Never received Twitter data from GSR: Cambridge Analytica confirms 

After Facebook, another major social media outlet Twitter has now been caught up in the data scandal involving Cambridge Analytica, the British political consulting firm which collected the data of nearly 87 million Facebook users without their knowledge and permission, according to a media report.

Aleksandr Kogan, who created tools for Cambridge Analytica that allowed the political consultancy to psychologically profile and target voters, bought the data from the microblogging website in 2015, before the recent scandal came to light, The Sunday Telegraph reported.

Kogan had established Global Science Research (GSR), which was granted access to Twitter data. The academic said the information had only been used to create "brand reports" and "survey extender tools" and that he had not violated Twitter's policies.

Kogan bought tweets, usernames, photos, profile pictures and location data from Twitter over a five-month period between December 2014 and April 2015 through his GSR, the report said.

Earlier this month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had admitted making a "huge mistake" as personal data of up to 87 million users may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica.

Zuckerberg, 33, had said that he accepted blame for the data leak, which has angered users, advertisers and lawmakers, while also saying he was still the right person to head the company he founded.

According to the report, while most tweets are public, Twitter charges companies and organisations to collect them en masse.

Large datasets are particularly useful for building a pattern of public opinion or receptiveness to certain topics and ideas, although Twitter bans companies from using the data to derive sensitive political information or matching it with personal information obtained elsewhere, it said.

"Twitter has also made the policy decision to off-board advertising from all accounts owned and operated by Cambridge Analytica. This decision is based on our determination that Cambridge Analytica operates using a business model that inherently conflicts with acceptable Twitter Ads business practices," a Twitter spokesperson said.

"Cambridge Analytica may remain an organic user on our platform, in accordance with the Twitter Rules," the spokesperson added.

A Cambridge Analytica spokesperson said the company used Twitter for political advertising but insisted that it had never "undertaken a project with GSR focusing on Twitter data and Cambridge Analytica has never received Twitter data from GSR".

It added that "Cambridge Analytica is a data-driven marketing agency and does not manipulate political views."

Kogan told the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media & Sport Committee last week that his company, GSR, was created in 2014 purely to create datasets for SCL - the parent group of Cambridge Analytica.&nbsp

GSR developed a Facebook app that reportedly collected data from people who signed up to use the app as well as information from their Facebook friends, without the explicit approval of all involved. Kogan accused Cambridge Analytica's now-suspended CEO Alexander Nix of "total fabrication" when it came to denying the links between Cambridge Analytica and GSR's data. 
Social-media companies have come under intense scrutiny over reports that Facebook failed to protect the privacy of its users. Companies like Twitter tend to have access to less private information than Facebook.

About 270,000 people downloaded Kogan's personality-quiz app, which shared information on the people and their friends that then was improperly passed to Cambridge Analytica. 
Zuckerberg has testified in front of Congress about the misuse of data, and lawmakers have called on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Google's India-born CEO Sundar Pichai to testify as well.

Aleksandr Kogan, who created tools for Cambridge Analytica that allowed the political consultancy to psychologically profile and target voters, bought the data from the microblogging website in 2015, before the recent scandal came to light, the Sunday Telegraph reported

After Facebook, another major social media outlet Twitter has now been caught up in the data scandal involving Cambridge Analytica, the British political consulting firm which collected the data of nearly 87 million Facebook users without their knowledge and permission, according to a media report. Aleksandr Kogan, who created tools for Cambridge Analytica that allowed the political consultancy to psychologically profile and target voters, bought the data from the microblogging website in 2015, before the recent scandal came to light, The Sunday Telegraph reported. Kogan had established Global Science Research (GSR), which was granted access to Twitter data. The academic said the information had only been used to create "brand reports" and "survey extender tools" and that he had not violated Twitter's policies. Kogan bought tweets, usernames, photos, profile pictures and location data from Twitter over a five-month period between December 2014 and April 2015 through his GSR, the report said. Earlier this month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had admitted making a "huge mistake" as personal data of up to 87 million users may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. Zuckerberg, 33, had said that he accepted blame for the data leak, which has angered users, advertisers and lawmakers, while also saying he was still the right person to head the company he founded. According to the report, while most tweets are public, Twitter charges companies and organisations to collect them en masse. Large datasets are particularly useful for building a pattern of public opinion or receptiveness to certain topics and ideas, although Twitter bans companies from using the data to derive sensitive political information or matching it with personal information obtained elsewhere, it said. "Twitter has also made the policy decision to off-board advertising from all accounts owned and operated by Cambridge Analytica. This decision is based on our determination that Cambridge Analytica operates using a business model that inherently conflicts with acceptable Twitter Ads business practices," a Twitter spokesperson said. "Cambridge Analytica may remain an organic user on our platform, in accordance with the Twitter Rules," the spokesperson added. A Cambridge Analytica spokesperson said the company used Twitter for political advertising but insisted that it had never "undertaken a project with GSR focusing on Twitter data and Cambridge Analytica has never received Twitter data from GSR". It added that "Cambridge Analytica is a data-driven marketing agency and does not manipulate political views." Kogan told the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media & Sport Committee last week that his company, GSR, was created in 2014 purely to create datasets for SCL - the parent group of Cambridge Analytica. GSR developed a Facebook app that reportedly collected data from people who signed up to use the app as well as information from their Facebook friends, without the explicit approval of all involved. Kogan accused Cambridge Analytica's now-suspended CEO Alexander Nix of "total fabrication" when it came to denying the links between Cambridge Analytica and GSR's data. Social-media companies have come under intense scrutiny over reports that Facebook failed to protect the privacy of its users. Companies like Twitter tend to have access to less private information than Facebook. About 270,000 people downloaded Kogan's personality-quiz app, which shared information on the people and their friends that then was improperly passed to Cambridge Analytica. Zuckerberg has testified in front of Congress about the misuse of data, and lawmakers have called on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Google's India-born CEO Sundar Pichai to testify as well.

Twitter also sold data to Cambridge Analytica researcher: Report

Prime Minister Narendra Modi seemed to make a reference to Cambridge Analytica on Thursday while <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/development-is-the-only-agenda-of-my-government-pm-modi--132901">speaking to the Karnataka BJP</a>.&nbsp;Modi was speaking to his party's workers and candidates before the upcoming Karnataka elections.&nbsp;

"So, you will have to fight against lies, false propaganda. As part of a conspiracy, efforts will be made to mislead you by hiring foreign agencies. Karyakartas (party workers) should not be shaken, their trust should not be shaken," he said.

There have been reports here that Cambridge Analytica — the UK firm accused of trying to swing the US presidential election Trump's way — may have been engaged by political parties here.&nbsp;

"The Congress, after repeated defeat in elections, is spreading lies. Earlier, out of 50 things they said there were 5-10 lies. Now, out of the 50 things they say, 40-45 are lies and the rest five would also lack clarity," Modi said.&nbsp;

The prime minister added there was a need to cleanse Indian politics of Congress culture.

"The mainstream of India's political culture is associated with Congress' misdeeds. Unless we liberate this mainstream from Congress culture, we cannot cleanse Indian politics," he said.

Modi also seemed to refer to pre-poll surveys indicating a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-elections-survey-indicates-photo-finish-by-congress-bjp-132478">photo finish</a> by the Congress and BJP in the upcoming Karnataka elections.&nbsp;

The prime minister said "false propaganda" about a fractured mandate was being spread as part of a "conspiracy".

"A government with absolute majority is needed to change Karnataka's destiny. India is shining in the world today only because we have a government which has a complete majority at the Centre after 30 years," Modi said, asking BJP workers to endeavour to achieve that goal in the only big state the Congress still rules over apart from Punjab.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)

'You will have to fight against lies, false propaganda. As part of a conspiracy, efforts will be made to mislead you by hiring foreign agencies,' Modi told BJP workers and candidates before the upcoming state elections

Prime Minister Narendra Modi seemed to make a reference to Cambridge Analytica on Thursday while speaking to the Karnataka BJP. Modi was speaking to his party's workers and candidates before the upcoming Karnataka elections. "So, you will have to fight against lies, false propaganda. As part of a conspiracy, efforts will be made to mislead you by hiring foreign agencies. Karyakartas (party workers) should not be shaken, their trust should not be shaken," he said. There have been reports here that Cambridge Analytica — the UK firm accused of trying to swing the US presidential election Trump's way — may have been engaged by political parties here. "The Congress, after repeated defeat in elections, is spreading lies. Earlier, out of 50 things they said there were 5-10 lies. Now, out of the 50 things they say, 40-45 are lies and the rest five would also lack clarity," Modi said. The prime minister added there was a need to cleanse Indian politics of Congress culture. "The mainstream of India's political culture is associated with Congress' misdeeds. Unless we liberate this mainstream from Congress culture, we cannot cleanse Indian politics," he said. Modi also seemed to refer to pre-poll surveys indicating a photo finish by the Congress and BJP in the upcoming Karnataka elections. The prime minister said "false propaganda" about a fractured mandate was being spread as part of a "conspiracy". "A government with absolute majority is needed to change Karnataka's destiny. India is shining in the world today only because we have a government which has a complete majority at the Centre after 30 years," Modi said, asking BJP workers to endeavour to achieve that goal in the only big state the Congress still rules over apart from Punjab. (With inputs from PTI)

'Foreign agencies' may mislead you, Modi tells Karnataka BJP in apparent reference to Cambridge Analytica

Internet data firm <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cambridge-analytica-facebook-row-indian-website-ovleno-currently-unavailable-36635">Cambridge Analytica (CA) said today</a> that it will investigate all its activities around the world, including in India.

"All the national issues and national associations are part and parcel of the independent investigation. Rest assured, India, Kenya, Nigeria, all the other countries that SCL has been working in historically, will be investigated and reported on as part of the independent investigation," a spokesman of the firm said.

Meanwhile, the Indian government has sent two notices to Cambridge Analytica and has sought reply by May 10th.&nbsp;

The government had sent a notice to Facebook on April 5th, 2018 and informed the social networking site that data of estimated 5.62, 455 Indians may have been used in an unauthorised manner by CA through 335 installations of the App developed by GSR and installed by Indians.

On Tuesday, Aleksandr Kogan, a researcher of the firm was grilled by UK parliamentary committee. Kogan said what he was doing was "useless" work since it was not connected to swaying voters during elections.

"Quite frankly, if the goal is micro-targeting using Facebook ads, (the project) makes no sense. It's not what you would do," he told a parliamentary committee.

Last month, Christopher Wylie, a whistleblower, had said&nbsp;the company had worked "extensively" in India and named the Congress as one of its clients. He named other parties as well namely the Janta Dal (United) as a client during the 2010 Bihar elections.&nbsp;

Wylie said Cambridge Analytica had a database on "over 600 districts and 7 lakh villages, which is constantly being updated".&nbsp;

He revealed that CA's reach in India reportedly included a head office in Ghaziabad, with nine regional offices in Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Cuttack, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Indore, Kolkata, Patna and Pune.

On the other hand, Kogan quite unexpectedly added that it was "unlikely Cambridge Analytica had used the data in the Trump campaign," although he added that CEO Alexander Nix had lied to &nbsp;the British lawmakers about the US election campaign.

Both Facebook and &nbsp;Cambridge Analytica have blamed Kogan for alleged data misuse, Kogan says he was made a scapegoat.

Kogan accussed &nbsp;Nix of "total fabrication" for denying links between Cambridge Analytica and Global Science Research (GSR) which developed a Facebook app to collect data about people.

Asked if Nix had lied, Kogan answered: "Absolutely."

"This has been a very painful experience, because when I entered into all of this, Facebook was a close ally," Kogan said.

"I was thinking this would be helpful to my academic career and my relationship with Facebook. It has very clearly done the complete opposite," he told the UK lawmakers.

Last month, Christopher Wylie, a whistleblower, had said the company had worked "extensively" in India

Internet data firm Cambridge Analytica (CA) said today that it will investigate all its activities around the world, including in India. "All the national issues and national associations are part and parcel of the independent investigation. Rest assured, India, Kenya, Nigeria, all the other countries that SCL has been working in historically, will be investigated and reported on as part of the independent investigation," a spokesman of the firm said. Meanwhile, the Indian government has sent two notices to Cambridge Analytica and has sought reply by May 10th. The government had sent a notice to Facebook on April 5th, 2018 and informed the social networking site that data of estimated 5.62, 455 Indians may have been used in an unauthorised manner by CA through 335 installations of the App developed by GSR and installed by Indians. On Tuesday, Aleksandr Kogan, a researcher of the firm was grilled by UK parliamentary committee. Kogan said what he was doing was "useless" work since it was not connected to swaying voters during elections. "Quite frankly, if the goal is micro-targeting using Facebook ads, (the project) makes no sense. It's not what you would do," he told a parliamentary committee. Last month, Christopher Wylie, a whistleblower, had said the company had worked "extensively" in India and named the Congress as one of its clients. He named other parties as well namely the Janta Dal (United) as a client during the 2010 Bihar elections. Wylie said Cambridge Analytica had a database on "over 600 districts and 7 lakh villages, which is constantly being updated". He revealed that CA's reach in India reportedly included a head office in Ghaziabad, with nine regional offices in Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Cuttack, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Indore, Kolkata, Patna and Pune. On the other hand, Kogan quite unexpectedly added that it was "unlikely Cambridge Analytica had used the data in the Trump campaign," although he added that CEO Alexander Nix had lied to the British lawmakers about the US election campaign. Both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have blamed Kogan for alleged data misuse, Kogan says he was made a scapegoat. Kogan accussed Nix of "total fabrication" for denying links between Cambridge Analytica and Global Science Research (GSR) which developed a Facebook app to collect data about people. Asked if Nix had lied, Kogan answered: "Absolutely." "This has been a very painful experience, because when I entered into all of this, Facebook was a close ally," Kogan said. "I was thinking this would be helpful to my academic career and my relationship with Facebook. It has very clearly done the complete opposite," he told the UK lawmakers.

Government sends two notices to Cambridge Analytica over data breach

Months before it landed in a major data breach controversy, UK-based analytics firm Cambridge Analytica purportedly offered to spearhead Congress' campaign for the 2019 general elections for a 'budget' of about Rs 2.5 crore, even as the party says it never hired such services.

As per a leaked 49-page 'proposal' made in August 2017, which has now also found its way to the social media, Cambridge Analytics (CA) suggested using Facebook data for "influencing the voter intention".

When contacted, Congress' in-charge of data analytics department, Praveen Chakravarthy, told PTI the Congress is a big national party and receives so many proposals, but it never hired the services of CA.

"There has been no relationship or understanding with Cambridge Analytica," he said.

Asked about the document proposing the party's strategy for the 2019 polls, he said, "I have not seen any such document and am not aware of it."

Chakravarthy, who took over the data analytics department of the party recently, further said, "There is no reason for the Congress to obfuscate on this issue. The Congress party has never hired the services of Cambridge Analytica."

Following allegations over the issue from the BJP, the Congress had earlier also denied hiring the services of Cambridge Analytica, which is currently in the midst of a major row over a major user data leak at Facebook including of lakhs of Indians.

The proposal was allegedly made by CA's former CEO Alexander Nix, who was suspended after the Facebook scandal broke out last month and is facing a probe in the UK.

In the 'proposal' document -- Data-Driven Campaign - the path to the 2019 Lok Sabha -- CA had proposed a detailed strategy for the 2019 elections and the assembly polls in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

The document also highlighted the key points the Congress should focus on during its campaign and gave an "indicative budget" of USD 389,460 (about Rs 2.53 crore).

The proposal said the Congress had an opportunity to synthesise the party's liberatory grassroots heritage with a 'refreshed and bold vision for the future'.&nbsp;

"It (Congress) must quickly be perceived as the anti-thesis of corruption and the embodiment of effective governance and economic emancipation. Key to this is a robust understanding of the electorate and an equally robust strategy to communicate with them in accordance with contemporary attitudes, grievances and motivations that are uniquely to 21st century digital data," the proposal said.

CA further said the proposal was being made at a time when the Congress was at a major crossroads and it needs to be seen whether "it rebrands, reorganises and embraces India's new smartphone reality immediately or it struggles to survive as one of India's main political institutions".

The proposal also talked about a plan to "disrupt the BJP's current monopoly on India's 'smartphone voters' by building a world class data and digital capacity for the Congress in similar vein to what we (CA) did for the Trump campaign in 2016".

The CA proposal included a national situational analysis, including a comprehensive review of the Congress' communications activity, creation of a national data infrastructure project, a data-driven campaign for the 2019 elections and separately strategise the state assembly polls.

The analytics company had proposed to conduct an in-depth understanding of Indian people to know what they really think and feel, and what motivates and drives their behaviour and their propensity for change.&nbsp;

As per a leaked 49-page 'proposal' made in August 2017, which has now also found its way to the social media, Cambridge Analytics (CA) suggested using Facebook data for "influencing the voter intention".

Months before it landed in a major data breach controversy, UK-based analytics firm Cambridge Analytica purportedly offered to spearhead Congress' campaign for the 2019 general elections for a 'budget' of about Rs 2.5 crore, even as the party says it never hired such services. As per a leaked 49-page 'proposal' made in August 2017, which has now also found its way to the social media, Cambridge Analytics (CA) suggested using Facebook data for "influencing the voter intention". When contacted, Congress' in-charge of data analytics department, Praveen Chakravarthy, told PTI the Congress is a big national party and receives so many proposals, but it never hired the services of CA. "There has been no relationship or understanding with Cambridge Analytica," he said. Asked about the document proposing the party's strategy for the 2019 polls, he said, "I have not seen any such document and am not aware of it." Chakravarthy, who took over the data analytics department of the party recently, further said, "There is no reason for the Congress to obfuscate on this issue. The Congress party has never hired the services of Cambridge Analytica." Following allegations over the issue from the BJP, the Congress had earlier also denied hiring the services of Cambridge Analytica, which is currently in the midst of a major row over a major user data leak at Facebook including of lakhs of Indians. The proposal was allegedly made by CA's former CEO Alexander Nix, who was suspended after the Facebook scandal broke out last month and is facing a probe in the UK. In the 'proposal' document -- Data-Driven Campaign - the path to the 2019 Lok Sabha -- CA had proposed a detailed strategy for the 2019 elections and the assembly polls in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The document also highlighted the key points the Congress should focus on during its campaign and gave an "indicative budget" of USD 389,460 (about Rs 2.53 crore). The proposal said the Congress had an opportunity to synthesise the party's liberatory grassroots heritage with a 'refreshed and bold vision for the future'. "It (Congress) must quickly be perceived as the anti-thesis of corruption and the embodiment of effective governance and economic emancipation. Key to this is a robust understanding of the electorate and an equally robust strategy to communicate with them in accordance with contemporary attitudes, grievances and motivations that are uniquely to 21st century digital data," the proposal said. CA further said the proposal was being made at a time when the Congress was at a major crossroads and it needs to be seen whether "it rebrands, reorganises and embraces India's new smartphone reality immediately or it struggles to survive as one of India's main political institutions". The proposal also talked about a plan to "disrupt the BJP's current monopoly on India's 'smartphone voters' by building a world class data and digital capacity for the Congress in similar vein to what we (CA) did for the Trump campaign in 2016". The CA proposal included a national situational analysis, including a comprehensive review of the Congress' communications activity, creation of a national data infrastructure project, a data-driven campaign for the 2019 elections and separately strategise the state assembly polls. The analytics company had proposed to conduct an in-depth understanding of Indian people to know what they really think and feel, and what motivates and drives their behaviour and their propensity for change.

Will use Facebook data to influence voters: Cambridge Analytica told Congress; Party denies

British lawmakers on Monday published evidence that Brexit campaign group Leave.EU benefited from work by Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy at the centre of a recent storm over use of Facebook data.

Nigel Oakes, founder of SCL Group, the parent company of Cambridge Analytica, said the consultancy was lined up to do work with Leave.EU in the event that it was designated as the official campaign to leave the European Union, according to transcripts of interviews published by a parliamentary committee.

Oakes said that "there was no contract and no money" but that they did do work to demonstrate their capabilities. A transcript of another interview with Leave.EU official Andy Wigmore says the campaign group copied Cambridge Analytica's methods.

"Leave.EU benefited from their work with Cambridge Analytica before the decision was made on which Leave campaign would receive the official designation for the referendum," Damian Collins, chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said in a statement.

Cambridge Analytica lies at the center of a storm for using data obtained from millions of Facebook users without their permission after it was hired by Donald Trump for his 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign.

The analytics firm is also under scrutiny over campaigning for the 2016 referendum when Britons voted to leave the European Union, a move seen by critics as a colossal historical mistake but by admirers as a vital reassertion of British sovereignty.

Oakes said Wigmore's claim to have copied Cambridge Analytica's techniques raised "more questions about how Leave.EU developed their database to do this, and whether consumer data from other companies they had a relationship was used to support their campaign."

The interview transcripts were submitted by Emma Briant, an academic who interviewed figures from SCL Group, Cambridge Analytica and Leave.EU.

In the event, "Vote Leave" beat Leave.EU to become the officially designated campaign to leave the EU ahead of Britain's referendum, though Leave.EU continued to campaign for Brexit.

Leave.EU founder Arron Banks has said that because it did not win the designation and due to concerns about the consultancy, it did no work with Cambridge Analytica, and received no benefit in kind.

Former Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix told the committee in February that the firm did not work with Leave.EU, but he has been recalled for a new hearing, which will take place on Wednesday.

The lawmakers were also critical of Wigmore and Oakes for speaking in admiring terms about Nazi propganda techniques, and said there were also questions about Cambridge Analytica's closeness with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

"The propaganda machine of the Nazis, for instance – you take away all the hideous horror and that kind of stuff – it was very clever, the way they managed to do what they did," Wigmore said, according to one interview transcript.

Collins said that the "extreme messaging" around immigration during the campaign meant "these statements will raise concerns that data analytics was used to target voters who were concerned about this issue, and to frighten them with messaging designed to create 'an artificial enemy' for them to act against."

British lawmakers on Monday published evidence that Brexit campaign group Leave.EU benefited from work by Cambridge Analytica

British lawmakers on Monday published evidence that Brexit campaign group Leave.EU benefited from work by Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy at the centre of a recent storm over use of Facebook data. Nigel Oakes, founder of SCL Group, the parent company of Cambridge Analytica, said the consultancy was lined up to do work with Leave.EU in the event that it was designated as the official campaign to leave the European Union, according to transcripts of interviews published by a parliamentary committee. Oakes said that "there was no contract and no money" but that they did do work to demonstrate their capabilities. A transcript of another interview with Leave.EU official Andy Wigmore says the campaign group copied Cambridge Analytica's methods. "Leave.EU benefited from their work with Cambridge Analytica before the decision was made on which Leave campaign would receive the official designation for the referendum," Damian Collins, chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said in a statement. Cambridge Analytica lies at the center of a storm for using data obtained from millions of Facebook users without their permission after it was hired by Donald Trump for his 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. The analytics firm is also under scrutiny over campaigning for the 2016 referendum when Britons voted to leave the European Union, a move seen by critics as a colossal historical mistake but by admirers as a vital reassertion of British sovereignty. Oakes said Wigmore's claim to have copied Cambridge Analytica's techniques raised "more questions about how Leave.EU developed their database to do this, and whether consumer data from other companies they had a relationship was used to support their campaign." The interview transcripts were submitted by Emma Briant, an academic who interviewed figures from SCL Group, Cambridge Analytica and Leave.EU. In the event, "Vote Leave" beat Leave.EU to become the officially designated campaign to leave the EU ahead of Britain's referendum, though Leave.EU continued to campaign for Brexit. Leave.EU founder Arron Banks has said that because it did not win the designation and due to concerns about the consultancy, it did no work with Cambridge Analytica, and received no benefit in kind. Former Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix told the committee in February that the firm did not work with Leave.EU, but he has been recalled for a new hearing, which will take place on Wednesday. The lawmakers were also critical of Wigmore and Oakes for speaking in admiring terms about Nazi propganda techniques, and said there were also questions about Cambridge Analytica's closeness with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. "The propaganda machine of the Nazis, for instance – you take away all the hideous horror and that kind of stuff – it was very clever, the way they managed to do what they did," Wigmore said, according to one interview transcript. Collins said that the "extreme messaging" around immigration during the campaign meant "these statements will raise concerns that data analytics was used to target voters who were concerned about this issue, and to frighten them with messaging designed to create 'an artificial enemy' for them to act against."

Cambridge Analytica work helped Brexit group: UK lawmakers

HEARING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

April 11, 2018

Testimony of Mark Zuckerberg

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Facebook

I. INTRODUCTION 
&nbsp

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, and Members of the Committee,

We face a number of important issues around privacy, safety, and democracy, and you will rightfully have some hard questions for me to answer. Before I talk about the steps we’re taking to address them, I want to talk about how we got here. Facebook is an idealistic and optimistic company. For most of our existence, we focused on all the good that connecting people can bring. As Facebook has grown, people everywhere have gotten a powerful new tool to stay connected to the people they love, make their voices heard, and build communities and businesses. Just recently, we’ve seen the #metoo movement and the March for Our Lives, organized, at least in part, on Facebook. After Hurricane Harvey, people raised more than $20 million for relief. And more than 70 million small businesses now use Facebook to grow and create jobs. But it’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy. We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.

So now we have to go through every part of our relationship with people and make sure we’re taking a broad enough view of our responsibility. It’s not enough to just connect people, we have to make sure those connections are positive. It’s not enough to just give people a voice, we have to make sure people aren’t using it to hurt people or spread misinformation. It’s not enough to give people control of their information, we have to make sure developers they’ve given it to are protecting it too. Across the board, we have a responsibility to not just build tools, but to make sure those tools are used for good. It will take some time to work through all of the changes we need to make, but I’m committed to 
getting it right. That includes improving the way we protect people’s information and safeguard elections around the world. Here are a few key things we’re doing:

II. CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA

Over the past few weeks, we’ve been working to understand exactly what happened with Cambridge Analytica and taking steps to make sure this doesn’t happen again. We took important actions to prevent this from happening again today four years ago, but we also made 
mistakes, there’s more to do, and we need to step up and do it.

A. What Happened

In 2007, we launched the Facebook Platform with the vision that more apps should be social. Your calendar should be able to show your friends’ birthdays, your maps should show where your friends live, and your address book should show their pictures. To do this, we enabled 
people to log into apps and share who their friends were and some information about them In 2013, a Cambridge University researcher named Aleksandr Kogan created a personality quiz app. It was installed by around 300,000 people who agreed to share some of their Facebook 
information as well as some information from their friends whose privacy settings allowed it. Given the way our platform worked at the time this meant Kogan was able to access some information about tens of millions of their friends.

In 2014, to prevent abusive apps, we announced that we were changing the entire platform to dramatically limit the Facebook information apps could access. Most importantly, apps like Kogan’s could no longer ask for information about a person’s friends unless their friends had 
also authorized the app. We also required developers to get approval from Facebook before they could request any data beyond a user’s public profile, friend list, and email address. These actions would prevent any app like Kogan’s from being able to access as much Facebook data today.

In 2015, we learned from journalists at The Guardian that Kogan had shared data from his app with Cambridge Analytica. It is against our policies for developers to share data without people’s consent, so we immediately banned Kogan’s app from our platform, and demanded that Kogan and other entities he gave the data to, including Cambridge Analytica, formally certify that they had deleted all improperly acquired data — which they ultimately did. Last month, we learned from The Guardian, The New York Times and Channel 4 that Cambridge Analytica may not have deleted the data as they had certified. We immediately banned them from using any of our services. Cambridge Analytica claims they have already deleted the data and has agreed to a forensic audit by a firm we hired to investigate this. We’re also working with 
the UK&nbspInformation Commissioner’s Office, which has jurisdiction over Cambridge Analytica, as it completes its investigation into what happened.

B. What We Are Doing

We have a responsibility to make sure what happened with Kogan and Cambridge Analytica doesn’t happen again. Here are some of the steps we’re taking:

<ul>
	<li>Safeguarding our platform. We need to make sure that developers like Kogan who got access to a lot of information in the past can’t get access to as much information going forward.We made some big changes to the Facebook platform in 2014 to dramatically restrict the amount of data that developers can access and to proactively review the apps on our platform. This makes it so a developer today can’t do what Kogan did years ago.</li>
	<li>But there’s more we can do here to limit the information developers can access. and put more safeguards in place to prevent abuse.</li>
</ul>

We’re removing developers’ access to your data if you haven’t used their app in three months.

We’re reducing the data you give an app when you approve it to only your name, profile photo, and email address. That’s a lot less than apps can get on any other major app platform.

We’re requiring developers to not only get approval but also to sign a contract that imposes strict requirements in order to ask anyone for access to their posts or other private data.

We’re restricting more APIs like groups and events. You should be able to sign into apps and share your public information easily, but anything that might also share other people’s information — like other posts in groups you’re in or other people going to events you’re going to — will be much more restricted. Two weeks ago, we found out that a feature that lets you look someone up by their phone number and email was abused. This feature is useful in cases where people have the same name, but it was abused to link people’s public Facebook information to a phone number they already had. When we found out about the abuse, we shut this feature down.

<ul>
	<li>Investigating other apps. We’re in the process of investigating every app that had access to a large amount of information before we locked down our platform in 2014. If we detect suspicious activity, we’ll do a full forensic audit. And if we find that someone is improperly using data, we’ll ban them and tell everyone affected.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp

<ul>
	<li>Building better controls. Finally, we’re making it easier to understand which apps you’ve allowed to access your data. This week we started showing everyone a list of the apps you’ve used and an easy way to revoke their permissions to your data. You can already do this in your privacy settings, but we’re going to put it at the top of News Feed to make sure everyone sees it. And we also told everyone whose Facebook information may have been shared with Cambridge Analytica. Beyond the steps we had already taken in 2014, I believe these are the next steps we must take to continue to secure our platform.</li>
</ul>

 
III. RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE

Facebook’s mission is about giving people a voice and bringing people closer together. Those are deeply democratic values and we’re proud of them. I don’t want anyone to use our tools to undermine democracy. That’s not what we stand for. We were too slow to spot and respond to Russian interference, and we’re working hard to get better. Our sophistication in handling these threats is growing and improving quickly. We will continue working with the government to understand the full extent of Russian interference, and we will do our part not only to ensure the integrity of free and fair elections around the world, but also to give everyone a voice and to be a force for good in democracy everywhere.

A. What Happened

Elections have always been especially sensitive times for our security team, and the 2016 US&nbsppresidential election was no exception. Our security team has been aware of traditional Russian cyber threats — like hacking and malware — for years. Leading up to Election Day in November 2016, we detected and dealt with several threats with ties to Russia. This included activity by a group called APT28, that the US government has publicly linked to Russian military intelligence services. But while our primary focus was on traditional threats, we also saw some new behavior in the summer of 2016 when APT28-related accounts, under the banner of DC Leaks, created fake personas that were used to seed stolen information to journalists. We shut these accounts down for violating our policies.

After the election, we continued to investigate and learn more about these new threats. What we found was that bad actors had used coordinated networks of fake accounts to interfere in the election: promoting or attacking specific candidates and causes, creating distrust in political institutions, or simply spreading confusion. Some of these bad actors also used our ads tools. We also learned about a disinformation campaign run by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) — a Russian agency that has repeatedly acted deceptively and tried to manipulate people in the US, Europe, and Russia. We found about 470 accounts and pages linked to the IRA, which generated around 80,000 Facebook posts over about a two-year period. Our best estimate is that approximately 126 million people may have been served content from a Facebook Page associated with the IRA at some point during that period. On Instagram, where our data on reach is not as complete, we found about 120,000 pieces of content, and estimate that an additional 20 million people were likely served it. Over the same period, the IRA also spent approximately $100,000 on more than 3,000 ads on&nbspFacebook and Instagram, which were seen by an estimated 11 million people in the United States. We shut down these IRA accounts in August 2017.

B. What We Are Doing 
&nbsp

There’s no question that we should have spotted Russian interference earlier, and we’re working hard to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Our actions include: 
&nbsp

<ul>
	<li>Building new technology to prevent abuse. Since 2016, we have improved our techniques to prevent nation states from interfering in foreign elections, and we’ve built more advanced AI tools to remove fake accounts more generally. There have been a number of important elections since then where these new tools have been successfully deployed.</li>
</ul>

For example:

In France, leading up to the presidential election in 2017, we found and took down 30,000 fake accounts.

In Germany, before the 2017 elections, we worked directly with the election commission to learn from them about the threats they saw and to share information.

In the US&nbspSenate Alabama special election last year, we deployed new AI tools that proactively detected and removed fake accounts from Macedonia trying to spread misinformation.

We have disabled thousands of accounts tied to organized, financially motivated fake news spammers. These investigations have been used to improve our automated systems that find fake accounts.

Last week, we took down more than 270 additional pages and accounts operated by the IRA and used to target people in Russia and Russian speakers in countries like Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine. Some of the pages we removed belong to Russian news organizations that we determined were controlled by the IRA. 
&nbsp

<ul>
	<li>Significantly increasing our investment in security. We now have about 15,000 people working on security and content review. We’ll have more than 20,000 by the end of this year.</li>
</ul>

I’ve directed our teams to invest so much in security — on top of the other investments we’re making — that it will significantly impact our profitability going forward. But I want to be clear about what our priority is: protecting our community is more important than maximizing our profits.

<ul>
	<li>Strengthening our advertising policies. We know some Members of Congress are exploring ways to increase transparency around political or issue advertising, and we’re happy to keep working with Congress on that. But we aren’t waiting for legislation to act.&nbsp</li>
</ul>

From now on, every advertiser who wants to run political or issue ads will need to be authorized. To get authorized, advertisers will need to confirm their identity and location. Any advertiser who doesn’t pass will be prohibited from running political or issue ads. We will also label them and advertisers will have to show you who paid for them. We’re starting this in the US&nbspand expanding to the rest of the world in the coming months.

For even greater political ads transparency, we have also built a tool that lets anyone see all of the ads a page is running. We’re testing this in Canada now and we’ll launch it globally this summer. We’re also creating a searchable archive of past political ads.

We will also require people who manage large pages to be verified as well. This will make it much harder for people to run pages using fake accounts, or to grow virally and spread misinformation or divisive content that way.

In order to require verification for all of these pages and advertisers, we will hire thousands of more people. We’re committed to getting this done in time for the critical months before the 2018 elections in the US&nbspas well as elections in Mexico, Brazil, India, Pakistan and elsewhere in the next year.

These steps by themselves won’t stop all people trying to game the system. But they will make it a lot harder for anyone to do what the Russians did during the 2016 election and use fake accounts and pages to run ads. Election interference is a problem that’s bigger than any one platform, and that’s why we support the

Honest Ads Act. This will help raise the bar for all political advertising online.

<ul>
	<li>Sharing information. We’ve been working with other technology companies to share information about threats, and we’re also cooperating with the US&nbspand foreign governments on election integrity. At the same time, it’s also important not to lose sight of the more straightforward and larger ways Facebook plays a role in elections. In 2016, people had billions of interactions and open discussions on Facebook that may never have happened offline. Candidates had direct channels to communicate with tens of millions of citizens. Campaigns spent tens of millions of dollars organizing and advertising online to get their messages out further. And we organized “get out the vote” efforts that helped more than 2 million people register to vote who might not have voted otherwise. Security — including around elections — isn’t a problem you ever fully solve. Organizations like the IRA are sophisticated adversaries who are constantly evolving, but we’ll keep improving our techniques to stay ahead. And we’ll also keep building tools to help more people make their voices heard in the democratic process.</li>
</ul>

 
IV. CONCLUSION 
&nbsp

My top priority has always been our social mission of connecting people, building community and bringing the world closer together. Advertisers and developers will never take priority over that as long as I’m running Facebook. I started Facebook when I was in college. We’ve come a long way since then. We now serve more than 2 billion people around the world, and every day, people use our services to stay connected with the people that matter to them most. I believe deeply in what we’re doing. And when we address these challenges, I know we’ll look back and view helping people connect and giving more people a voice as a positive force in the world. I realize the issues we’re talking about today aren’t just issues for Facebook and our community — they’re challenges for all of us as Americans. Thank you for having me here 
today, and I’m ready to take your questions.

A full transcript of Mark Zuckerberg's testimony hearing before the United States of Representatives over Facebook data breach row

HEARING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE April 11, 2018 Testimony of Mark Zuckerberg Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Facebook I. INTRODUCTION Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, and Members of the Committee, We face a number of important issues around privacy, safety, and democracy, and you will rightfully have some hard questions for me to answer. Before I talk about the steps we’re taking to address them, I want to talk about how we got here. Facebook is an idealistic and optimistic company. For most of our existence, we focused on all the good that connecting people can bring. As Facebook has grown, people everywhere have gotten a powerful new tool to stay connected to the people they love, make their voices heard, and build communities and businesses. Just recently, we’ve seen the #metoo movement and the March for Our Lives, organized, at least in part, on Facebook. After Hurricane Harvey, people raised more than $20 million for relief. And more than 70 million small businesses now use Facebook to grow and create jobs. But it’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy. We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here. So now we have to go through every part of our relationship with people and make sure we’re taking a broad enough view of our responsibility. It’s not enough to just connect people, we have to make sure those connections are positive. It’s not enough to just give people a voice, we have to make sure people aren’t using it to hurt people or spread misinformation. It’s not enough to give people control of their information, we have to make sure developers they’ve given it to are protecting it too. Across the board, we have a responsibility to not just build tools, but to make sure those tools are used for good. It will take some time to work through all of the changes we need to make, but I’m committed to getting it right. That includes improving the way we protect people’s information and safeguard elections around the world. Here are a few key things we’re doing: II. CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA Over the past few weeks, we’ve been working to understand exactly what happened with Cambridge Analytica and taking steps to make sure this doesn’t happen again. We took important actions to prevent this from happening again today four years ago, but we also made mistakes, there’s more to do, and we need to step up and do it. A. What Happened In 2007, we launched the Facebook Platform with the vision that more apps should be social. Your calendar should be able to show your friends’ birthdays, your maps should show where your friends live, and your address book should show their pictures. To do this, we enabled people to log into apps and share who their friends were and some information about them In 2013, a Cambridge University researcher named Aleksandr Kogan created a personality quiz app. It was installed by around 300,000 people who agreed to share some of their Facebook information as well as some information from their friends whose privacy settings allowed it. Given the way our platform worked at the time this meant Kogan was able to access some information about tens of millions of their friends. In 2014, to prevent abusive apps, we announced that we were changing the entire platform to dramatically limit the Facebook information apps could access. Most importantly, apps like Kogan’s could no longer ask for information about a person’s friends unless their friends had also authorized the app. We also required developers to get approval from Facebook before they could request any data beyond a user’s public profile, friend list, and email address. These actions would prevent any app like Kogan’s from being able to access as much Facebook data today. In 2015, we learned from journalists at The Guardian that Kogan had shared data from his app with Cambridge Analytica. It is against our policies for developers to share data without people’s consent, so we immediately banned Kogan’s app from our platform, and demanded that Kogan and other entities he gave the data to, including Cambridge Analytica, formally certify that they had deleted all improperly acquired data — which they ultimately did. Last month, we learned from The Guardian, The New York Times and Channel 4 that Cambridge Analytica may not have deleted the data as they had certified. We immediately banned them from using any of our services. Cambridge Analytica claims they have already deleted the data and has agreed to a forensic audit by a firm we hired to investigate this. We’re also working with the UK&nbspInformation Commissioner’s Office, which has jurisdiction over Cambridge Analytica, as it completes its investigation into what happened. B. What We Are Doing We have a responsibility to make sure what happened with Kogan and Cambridge Analytica doesn’t happen again. Here are some of the steps we’re taking: Safeguarding our platform. We need to make sure that developers like Kogan who got access to a lot of information in the past can’t get access to as much information going forward.We made some big changes to the Facebook platform in 2014 to dramatically restrict the amount of data that developers can access and to proactively review the apps on our platform. This makes it so a developer today can’t do what Kogan did years ago. But there’s more we can do here to limit the information developers can access. and put more safeguards in place to prevent abuse. We’re removing developers’ access to your data if you haven’t used their app in three months. We’re reducing the data you give an app when you approve it to only your name, profile photo, and email address. That’s a lot less than apps can get on any other major app platform. We’re requiring developers to not only get approval but also to sign a contract that imposes strict requirements in order to ask anyone for access to their posts or other private data. We’re restricting more APIs like groups and events. You should be able to sign into apps and share your public information easily, but anything that might also share other people’s information — like other posts in groups you’re in or other people going to events you’re going to — will be much more restricted. Two weeks ago, we found out that a feature that lets you look someone up by their phone number and email was abused. This feature is useful in cases where people have the same name, but it was abused to link people’s public Facebook information to a phone number they already had. When we found out about the abuse, we shut this feature down. Investigating other apps. We’re in the process of investigating every app that had access to a large amount of information before we locked down our platform in 2014. If we detect suspicious activity, we’ll do a full forensic audit. And if we find that someone is improperly using data, we’ll ban them and tell everyone affected. Building better controls. Finally, we’re making it easier to understand which apps you’ve allowed to access your data. This week we started showing everyone a list of the apps you’ve used and an easy way to revoke their permissions to your data. You can already do this in your privacy settings, but we’re going to put it at the top of News Feed to make sure everyone sees it. And we also told everyone whose Facebook information may have been shared with Cambridge Analytica. Beyond the steps we had already taken in 2014, I believe these are the next steps we must take to continue to secure our platform. III. RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE Facebook’s mission is about giving people a voice and bringing people closer together. Those are deeply democratic values and we’re proud of them. I don’t want anyone to use our tools to undermine democracy. That’s not what we stand for. We were too slow to spot and respond to Russian interference, and we’re working hard to get better. Our sophistication in handling these threats is growing and improving quickly. We will continue working with the government to understand the full extent of Russian interference, and we will do our part not only to ensure the integrity of free and fair elections around the world, but also to give everyone a voice and to be a force for good in democracy everywhere. A. What Happened Elections have always been especially sensitive times for our security team, and the 2016 US&nbsppresidential election was no exception. Our security team has been aware of traditional Russian cyber threats — like hacking and malware — for years. Leading up to Election Day in November 2016, we detected and dealt with several threats with ties to Russia. This included activity by a group called APT28, that the US government has publicly linked to Russian military intelligence services. But while our primary focus was on traditional threats, we also saw some new behavior in the summer of 2016 when APT28-related accounts, under the banner of DC Leaks, created fake personas that were used to seed stolen information to journalists. We shut these accounts down for violating our policies. After the election, we continued to investigate and learn more about these new threats. What we found was that bad actors had used coordinated networks of fake accounts to interfere in the election: promoting or attacking specific candidates and causes, creating distrust in political institutions, or simply spreading confusion. Some of these bad actors also used our ads tools. We also learned about a disinformation campaign run by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) — a Russian agency that has repeatedly acted deceptively and tried to manipulate people in the US, Europe, and Russia. We found about 470 accounts and pages linked to the IRA, which generated around 80,000 Facebook posts over about a two-year period. Our best estimate is that approximately 126 million people may have been served content from a Facebook Page associated with the IRA at some point during that period. On Instagram, where our data on reach is not as complete, we found about 120,000 pieces of content, and estimate that an additional 20 million people were likely served it. Over the same period, the IRA also spent approximately $100,000 on more than 3,000 ads on&nbspFacebook and Instagram, which were seen by an estimated 11 million people in the United States. We shut down these IRA accounts in August 2017. B. What We Are Doing There’s no question that we should have spotted Russian interference earlier, and we’re working hard to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Our actions include: Building new technology to prevent abuse. Since 2016, we have improved our techniques to prevent nation states from interfering in foreign elections, and we’ve built more advanced AI tools to remove fake accounts more generally. There have been a number of important elections since then where these new tools have been successfully deployed. For example: In France, leading up to the presidential election in 2017, we found and took down 30,000 fake accounts. In Germany, before the 2017 elections, we worked directly with the election commission to learn from them about the threats they saw and to share information. In the US&nbspSenate Alabama special election last year, we deployed new AI tools that proactively detected and removed fake accounts from Macedonia trying to spread misinformation. We have disabled thousands of accounts tied to organized, financially motivated fake news spammers. These investigations have been used to improve our automated systems that find fake accounts. Last week, we took down more than 270 additional pages and accounts operated by the IRA and used to target people in Russia and Russian speakers in countries like Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine. Some of the pages we removed belong to Russian news organizations that we determined were controlled by the IRA. Significantly increasing our investment in security. We now have about 15,000 people working on security and content review. We’ll have more than 20,000 by the end of this year. I’ve directed our teams to invest so much in security — on top of the other investments we’re making — that it will significantly impact our profitability going forward. But I want to be clear about what our priority is: protecting our community is more important than maximizing our profits. Strengthening our advertising policies. We know some Members of Congress are exploring ways to increase transparency around political or issue advertising, and we’re happy to keep working with Congress on that. But we aren’t waiting for legislation to act. From now on, every advertiser who wants to run political or issue ads will need to be authorized. To get authorized, advertisers will need to confirm their identity and location. Any advertiser who doesn’t pass will be prohibited from running political or issue ads. We will also label them and advertisers will have to show you who paid for them. We’re starting this in the US&nbspand expanding to the rest of the world in the coming months. For even greater political ads transparency, we have also built a tool that lets anyone see all of the ads a page is running. We’re testing this in Canada now and we’ll launch it globally this summer. We’re also creating a searchable archive of past political ads. We will also require people who manage large pages to be verified as well. This will make it much harder for people to run pages using fake accounts, or to grow virally and spread misinformation or divisive content that way. In order to require verification for all of these pages and advertisers, we will hire thousands of more people. We’re committed to getting this done in time for the critical months before the 2018 elections in the US&nbspas well as elections in Mexico, Brazil, India, Pakistan and elsewhere in the next year. These steps by themselves won’t stop all people trying to game the system. But they will make it a lot harder for anyone to do what the Russians did during the 2016 election and use fake accounts and pages to run ads. Election interference is a problem that’s bigger than any one platform, and that’s why we support the Honest Ads Act. This will help raise the bar for all political advertising online. Sharing information. We’ve been working with other technology companies to share information about threats, and we’re also cooperating with the US&nbspand foreign governments on election integrity. At the same time, it’s also important not to lose sight of the more straightforward and larger ways Facebook plays a role in elections. In 2016, people had billions of interactions and open discussions on Facebook that may never have happened offline. Candidates had direct channels to communicate with tens of millions of citizens. Campaigns spent tens of millions of dollars organizing and advertising online to get their messages out further. And we organized “get out the vote” efforts that helped more than 2 million people register to vote who might not have voted otherwise. Security — including around elections — isn’t a problem you ever fully solve. Organizations like the IRA are sophisticated adversaries who are constantly evolving, but we’ll keep improving our techniques to stay ahead. And we’ll also keep building tools to help more people make their voices heard in the democratic process. IV. CONCLUSION My top priority has always been our social mission of connecting people, building community and bringing the world closer together. Advertisers and developers will never take priority over that as long as I’m running Facebook. I started Facebook when I was in college. We’ve come a long way since then. We now serve more than 2 billion people around the world, and every day, people use our services to stay connected with the people that matter to them most. I believe deeply in what we’re doing. And when we address these challenges, I know we’ll look back and view helping people connect and giving more people a voice as a positive force in the world. I realize the issues we’re talking about today aren’t just issues for Facebook and our community — they’re challenges for all of us as Americans. Thank you for having me here today, and I’m ready to take your questions.

Mark Zuckerberg testimony before US Congress: Read full text of day 2

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg fielded 10 hours of questions over two days from nearly 100 US lawmakers and emerged largely unscathed and considerably richer.

He parried questions of how much control people have over their data on the world's largest social media network without a major gaffe, while avoiding being cornered into supporting new government regulation.

The hearings that ended on Wednesday revealed no consensus among US lawmakers about what kind of privacy legislation they might want to pursue, if any, and no timeline for action. As he did on Tuesday before a Senate hearing, Zuckerberg refused during a House of Representatives committee hearing to make any promises to support new legislation or change how the social network does business.

"It is inevitable that there will need to be some regulation" of internet firms, Zuckerberg said, but he avoided any specifics.

Although Zuckerberg, 33, had never testified at a Congressional hearing before, he succeeded in deflecting questions like a Washington veteran. Forty times the internet mogul told lawmakers he had no answers at hand and would get back to them later. About one in three lawmakers got that response over the two days.

Democratic Representative Debbie Dingell expressed frustration with Zuckerberg's frequent promises to get back to lawmakers later in writing. "Some things are striking during this conversation," she said. "As CEO, you didn't know some key facts."

On one point, Zuckerberg undercut his consistent message that Facebook users have control of their data. He said he was among the nearly 87 million people whose personal information was improperly shared with political consultancy Cambridge Analytica. He gave no further details.

His admission that even the company's tech-savvy founder was unable to protect his own data underscored the problem Facebook has in persuading sceptical lawmakers that users can easily safeguard their own information and that further legislation governing Facebook is unnecessary.

The Cambridge Analytica issue was the reason Zuckerberg was on Capitol Hill, answering questions about how that company - which has counted U.S. President Donald Trump's election campaign among its clients - got hold of data about Facebook users.

"How can consumers have control over their data when Facebook does not have control over the data?" asked Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, at the beginning of Wednesday's hearing.

Zuckerberg said it would take "many months" to complete an audit of other apps that might also have improperly gathered or shared users' data.

"I do imagine that we will find some apps that were either doing something suspicious or misusing people's data," he said.

INEVITABLE REGULATION?

<img alt="facebook-testimony-reuters_0.jpg" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="430" src="http://images.wionews.com/iniline-images/facebook-testimony-reuters_0.jpg" width="770" />

A senator holds up his phone displaying a fake Facebook profile during the Congressional hearing. (Reuters)

Zuckerberg was unable to answer Dingell, the Michigan Congresswoman, when she asked how frequently Facebook used computer code embedded in websites to gather dossiers on virtually everyone online.

In a series of questions on how people can remove data from Facebook, Zuckerberg said the company does "collect data on people who are not signed up for Facebook, for security purposes." He had no response when asked how a non-Facebook member could remove information without signing up for the service.

He also said he was not familiar with what various media reports call "shadow profiles," collections of data assembled on Facebook users that they have no knowledge of or control over.

Wearing a dark suit and tie and politely prefacing almost every remark with "Congressman" or "Congresswoman," Zuckerberg appeared even more controlled than he did on Tuesday when he testified before senators. He refrained from cracking jokes and flashed few smiles.

The performance had favourable results. Facebook shares closed up 0.78 percent on Wednesday after rising 4.5 percent Tuesday. Over the two days, the value of Zuckerberg's stake in the company grew about $3 billion.

Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Greg Walden, told reporters he would talk with committee members about holding similar hearings with other technology chief executives. He did not name specific companies.

"This is a wake-up call to Silicon Valley and the tech community that if you let these things get out of hand, having grown up in a very lightly regulated environment, you could end up with a lot more regulation than you seek," he said after the hearing.

Many Democrats disagreed, saying their Republican colleagues held no genuine interest in having a meaningful debate that could lead to a regulatory overhaul of how technology firms handle data.

What remained as the dust settled on Wednesday was an inability to translate bipartisan concern into regulation due to the complexity of regulating technology issues and the powerful lobbying forces assembled against any effort to do so.

"If you think it is hard to pass a bill that affects a lobbyist's favourite client," said Alvaro Bedoya, a former Congressional aide who worked on privacy issues for former Senator Al Franken, "try passing a bill that affects all of them."

Although Zuckerberg, 33, had never testified at a congressional hearing before, he succeeded in deflecting questions like a Washington veteran.

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg fielded 10 hours of questions over two days from nearly 100 US lawmakers and emerged largely unscathed and considerably richer. He parried questions of how much control people have over their data on the world's largest social media network without a major gaffe, while avoiding being cornered into supporting new government regulation. The hearings that ended on Wednesday revealed no consensus among US lawmakers about what kind of privacy legislation they might want to pursue, if any, and no timeline for action. As he did on Tuesday before a Senate hearing, Zuckerberg refused during a House of Representatives committee hearing to make any promises to support new legislation or change how the social network does business. "It is inevitable that there will need to be some regulation" of internet firms, Zuckerberg said, but he avoided any specifics. Although Zuckerberg, 33, had never testified at a Congressional hearing before, he succeeded in deflecting questions like a Washington veteran. Forty times the internet mogul told lawmakers he had no answers at hand and would get back to them later. About one in three lawmakers got that response over the two days. Democratic Representative Debbie Dingell expressed frustration with Zuckerberg's frequent promises to get back to lawmakers later in writing. "Some things are striking during this conversation," she said. "As CEO, you didn't know some key facts." On one point, Zuckerberg undercut his consistent message that Facebook users have control of their data. He said he was among the nearly 87 million people whose personal information was improperly shared with political consultancy Cambridge Analytica. He gave no further details. His admission that even the company's tech-savvy founder was unable to protect his own data underscored the problem Facebook has in persuading sceptical lawmakers that users can easily safeguard their own information and that further legislation governing Facebook is unnecessary. The Cambridge Analytica issue was the reason Zuckerberg was on Capitol Hill, answering questions about how that company - which has counted U.S. President Donald Trump's election campaign among its clients - got hold of data about Facebook users. "How can consumers have control over their data when Facebook does not have control over the data?" asked Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, at the beginning of Wednesday's hearing. Zuckerberg said it would take "many months" to complete an audit of other apps that might also have improperly gathered or shared users' data. "I do imagine that we will find some apps that were either doing something suspicious or misusing people's data," he said. INEVITABLE REGULATION? A senator holds up his phone displaying a fake Facebook profile during the Congressional hearing. (Reuters) Zuckerberg was unable to answer Dingell, the Michigan Congresswoman, when she asked how frequently Facebook used computer code embedded in websites to gather dossiers on virtually everyone online. In a series of questions on how people can remove data from Facebook, Zuckerberg said the company does "collect data on people who are not signed up for Facebook, for security purposes." He had no response when asked how a non-Facebook member could remove information without signing up for the service. He also said he was not familiar with what various media reports call "shadow profiles," collections of data assembled on Facebook users that they have no knowledge of or control over. Wearing a dark suit and tie and politely prefacing almost every remark with "Congressman" or "Congresswoman," Zuckerberg appeared even more controlled than he did on Tuesday when he testified before senators. He refrained from cracking jokes and flashed few smiles. The performance had favourable results. Facebook shares closed up 0.78 percent on Wednesday after rising 4.5 percent Tuesday. Over the two days, the value of Zuckerberg's stake in the company grew about $3 billion. Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Greg Walden, told reporters he would talk with committee members about holding similar hearings with other technology chief executives. He did not name specific companies. "This is a wake-up call to Silicon Valley and the tech community that if you let these things get out of hand, having grown up in a very lightly regulated environment, you could end up with a lot more regulation than you seek," he said after the hearing. Many Democrats disagreed, saying their Republican colleagues held no genuine interest in having a meaningful debate that could lead to a regulatory overhaul of how technology firms handle data. What remained as the dust settled on Wednesday was an inability to translate bipartisan concern into regulation due to the complexity of regulating technology issues and the powerful lobbying forces assembled against any effort to do so. "If you think it is hard to pass a bill that affects a lobbyist's favourite client," said Alvaro Bedoya, a former Congressional aide who worked on privacy issues for former Senator Al Franken, "try passing a bill that affects all of them."

Facebook's Zuckerberg unscathed by Congressional grilling, stock rises

Facebook CEO <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-says-his-own-data-was-shared-by-cambridge-analytica-129906">Mark Zuckerberg sat through</a> the second day of hearing with US senators answering questions on data leaks but most of the answers and questions fielded by lawmakers ended inconclusively with both sides unable to set a timeline and failing to reach a consensus over privacy legislation.

In over 10 hours of questioning over the last two days, Zuckerberg was able to deflect most questions. Forty times the Facebook chief told lawmakers he had no answers at hand and would get back to them later. About one in three lawmakers got that response over the two days.

Democratic Representative Debbie Dingell expressed frustration with Zuckerberg's frequent promises to get back to lawmakers later in writing. "Some things are striking during this conversation," she said. "As CEO, you didn't know some key facts."

During the hearing, the Facebook CEO conceded that regulation was the need of the hour.

"It is inevitable that there will need to be some regulation" of internet firms, Zuckerberg said, but he avoided any specifics.

During the hearing, the Facebook chief said he was among the nearly 87 million people whose personal information was improperly shared with political consultancy firm Cambridge Analytica. He gave no further details.

"How can consumers have control over their data when Facebook does not have control over the data?" asked Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey at the beginning of Wednesday's hearing.

Zuckerberg said it would take "many months" to complete an audit of other apps that might also have improperly gathered or shared users' data.

"I do imagine that we will find some apps that were either doing something suspicious or misusing people's data," he said.

&nbsp;

<iframe allow="autoplay encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pk4jGxqeEEA" width="560"></iframe>

&nbsp;

In over 10 hours of questioning, Zuckerberg was able to deflect most questions

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg sat through the second day of hearing with US senators answering questions on data leaks but most of the answers and questions fielded by lawmakers ended inconclusively with both sides unable to set a timeline and failing to reach a consensus over privacy legislation. In over 10 hours of questioning over the last two days, Zuckerberg was able to deflect most questions. Forty times the Facebook chief told lawmakers he had no answers at hand and would get back to them later. About one in three lawmakers got that response over the two days. Democratic Representative Debbie Dingell expressed frustration with Zuckerberg's frequent promises to get back to lawmakers later in writing. "Some things are striking during this conversation," she said. "As CEO, you didn't know some key facts." During the hearing, the Facebook CEO conceded that regulation was the need of the hour. "It is inevitable that there will need to be some regulation" of internet firms, Zuckerberg said, but he avoided any specifics. During the hearing, the Facebook chief said he was among the nearly 87 million people whose personal information was improperly shared with political consultancy firm Cambridge Analytica. He gave no further details. "How can consumers have control over their data when Facebook does not have control over the data?" asked Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey at the beginning of Wednesday's hearing. Zuckerberg said it would take "many months" to complete an audit of other apps that might also have improperly gathered or shared users' data. "I do imagine that we will find some apps that were either doing something suspicious or misusing people's data," he said.

As Facebook CEO, you don't know some key facts: US lawmaker to Mark Zuckerberg

The biggest challenge for the Congress post-2014 shock defeat was to change its perception in the civil society and media. Rahul Gandhi gradually made changes in various wings of the party but changes in media department were most drastic and visible. He also appointed Priyanka Chaturvedi as the Convenor of the AICC Communication.

She spoke to WION's Kartikeya Sharma at length on the changes made within the media department and overhaul done by Rahul.

WION: How has media landscape changed for the Congress after 2014?

Priyanka Chaturvedi: Before 2014, there came a point when media was not willing to give us space. We would not even get a response time on debates. But things are changing. The change is happening. Post 2014-15, the country was waiting to see implementation and policy focus of the Modi government and things he promised. However, now there is a perceptible shift. People are asking questions and media response too has changed. But tough questions need to be asked to those in power by media. The shift has taken place but it is not total. 
&nbsp 
WION: What has been the biggest challenge of the Congress party when it comes to media?

Priyanka Chaturvedi: Many channels, websites and other publications grew during our tenure (at the Centre) but not being able to keep up with this growth phenomena is what we lacked in 2014. However, there is a shift happening through consumers. We are trying to get a right balance in our communication model. It has to be more frequent. We also need to change with the times. We are also creating a fluid and flexible structure where we are available to answering questions. We are also more people focused and by leveraging technology we are getting voices heard in the din of fake news. 
&nbsp 
WION: Why could Congress not adjust to the nature of change in the media? Why did it happen?

Priyanka Chaturvedi: I think when a party is in power, you sometime do not understand the impact it has on your organisation. This a problem which BJP is also facing at this point of time. Sometimes management of the problem takes place at the expense of the organisation. 
&nbsp 
WION: Don't you think media houses have become easy scapegoats in fight between political parties whereas the problem of fake news emanates from anonymous accounts in social media?

Priyanka Chaturvedi: I couldn't agree more with you. Social media is unregulated. Earlier there was a belief that media was a gatekeeper, but social media ended that. But what has happened is that social media is setting the agenda for mainstream channel and that is being carried forward by them. Why don't we have a fact check system in this context? Problem arises when mainstream media amplifies social media content without verifying it. They also need to be held accountable. Statutory bodies should be empowered rather than depending on the government to bring in regulation.

WION: Mainstream media becomes the whipping boy whereas the problem lies somewhere else?

Priyanka Chaturvedi: The (social media) platform is absolutely unregulated and we need a free and fair discussion on this matter. Policy needs to be created which doesn't seem to be happening.

WION: How has your department changed over time? There was a time when 10 people were saying 10 different things about the party...

Priyanka Chaturvedi: There are lessons we have learnt. Lot of newcomers have now got a chance to join the department. Our structure has become more flexible and we are using multiple platforms. We have ensured that our representation in regional channels goes up. The problem of accessibility is being taken care of. We are accessible, fluid, flexible and more informed. We also ensure that content to all is readily available.

WION: What is Congress president Rahul Gandhi's vision when it comes to your department?

Priyanka Chaturvedi: Mr Gandhi is very clear about the issue. He believes that departments need to be decentralised. The media department is also restructuring various teams at the state level. He is letting us take initiatives within the party.

WION: But it took a long time for Rahul Gandhi to rename his Twitter handle as Rahul Gandhi from the Office of Rahul Gandhi...

Priyanka Chaturvedi: I would not say that he took a lot of time. There are people who are not open about their own lives. Their choice of interaction is very personal. But these platforms have huge impact and when you have a government which doesn't allow opposition to speak, you have to rely on these platforms. So, you see him speaking at lot of forums engaging with lot of people, but it is being noticed and observed now. Leave opposition, even media voice is being challenged. Engaging with people and being heard is very important and that is being done from bottom to the top.

WION: Despite increased TV, newspaper and social media presence, Congress has failed to win states. What do you have to say about that?

Priyanka Chaturvedi: We are trying to build our entire communication narrative. Democracy goes through a cycle. Change is a constant. We will see an upswing. We witnessed a downswing earlier. Media component amplifies what the organisation does and I believe that mood of the nation is changing, and people have started to question the government.

WION: There was lot of controversy around Cambridge Analytica. How do you respond to it?

Priyanka Chaturvedi: It is a ridiculous charge. It was made by none other than our Law Minister. He used newspaper reports to make allegations against us. If there is any truth in the matter he should take it to the Supreme Court and wait for how SC responds to it. Cambridge Analytica, when it started operation in India, came with SCL. It had 4 co-founders and one of them, Avnish Rai, has categorically said that CA was paid by one of the BJP sympathisers to sabotage Congress campaign in 2014. However, they did not find much success in that. What you cannot do away with is the fact that OVI's vice president claimed that he worked with BJP in four election-bound states which included Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Haryana and Delhi. He also mentioned that they were working with the BJP for Mission 272. What cannot be missed is that the missed call drive was also handled by them. These are the questions which have gone unanswered. Who leveraged technology and is talking big about it? It is BJP. 
&nbsp 
WION: Mantra for the old Congress was alliances. What is the mantra of the new Congress? Is it organisation?

Priyanka Chaturvedi: Alliances are very important in democracy. We ran a government with alliance partners and gave good growth story. Alliances with regional parties is a reality today. Perhaps we are seeing a phase where regional parties are playing an important role. It has to be balance of both organisation and alliance. Today alliance is a reality and cannot be done away with.

Priyanka, Convenor of the AICC's Communication wing, speaks on reorganisation happening in the party under Rahul Gandhi's leadership and Cambridge Analytica row.

The biggest challenge for the Congress post-2014 shock defeat was to change its perception in the civil society and media. Rahul Gandhi gradually made changes in various wings of the party but changes in media department were most drastic and visible. He also appointed Priyanka Chaturvedi as the Convenor of the AICC Communication. She spoke to WION's Kartikeya Sharma at length on the changes made within the media department and overhaul done by Rahul. WION: How has media landscape changed for the Congress after 2014? Priyanka Chaturvedi: Before 2014, there came a point when media was not willing to give us space. We would not even get a response time on debates. But things are changing. The change is happening. Post 2014-15, the country was waiting to see implementation and policy focus of the Modi government and things he promised. However, now there is a perceptible shift. People are asking questions and media response too has changed. But tough questions need to be asked to those in power by media. The shift has taken place but it is not total. WION: What has been the biggest challenge of the Congress party when it comes to media? Priyanka Chaturvedi: Many channels, websites and other publications grew during our tenure (at the Centre) but not being able to keep up with this growth phenomena is what we lacked in 2014. However, there is a shift happening through consumers. We are trying to get a right balance in our communication model. It has to be more frequent. We also need to change with the times. We are also creating a fluid and flexible structure where we are available to answering questions. We are also more people focused and by leveraging technology we are getting voices heard in the din of fake news. WION: Why could Congress not adjust to the nature of change in the media? Why did it happen? Priyanka Chaturvedi: I think when a party is in power, you sometime do not understand the impact it has on your organisation. This a problem which BJP is also facing at this point of time. Sometimes management of the problem takes place at the expense of the organisation. WION: Don't you think media houses have become easy scapegoats in fight between political parties whereas the problem of fake news emanates from anonymous accounts in social media? Priyanka Chaturvedi: I couldn't agree more with you. Social media is unregulated. Earlier there was a belief that media was a gatekeeper, but social media ended that. But what has happened is that social media is setting the agenda for mainstream channel and that is being carried forward by them. Why don't we have a fact check system in this context? Problem arises when mainstream media amplifies social media content without verifying it. They also need to be held accountable. Statutory bodies should be empowered rather than depending on the government to bring in regulation. WION: Mainstream media becomes the whipping boy whereas the problem lies somewhere else? Priyanka Chaturvedi: The (social media) platform is absolutely unregulated and we need a free and fair discussion on this matter. Policy needs to be created which doesn't seem to be happening. WION: How has your department changed over time? There was a time when 10 people were saying 10 different things about the party... Priyanka Chaturvedi: There are lessons we have learnt. Lot of newcomers have now got a chance to join the department. Our structure has become more flexible and we are using multiple platforms. We have ensured that our representation in regional channels goes up. The problem of accessibility is being taken care of. We are accessible, fluid, flexible and more informed. We also ensure that content to all is readily available. WION: What is Congress president Rahul Gandhi's vision when it comes to your department? Priyanka Chaturvedi: Mr Gandhi is very clear about the issue. He believes that departments need to be decentralised. The media department is also restructuring various teams at the state level. He is letting us take initiatives within the party. WION: But it took a long time for Rahul Gandhi to rename his Twitter handle as Rahul Gandhi from the Office of Rahul Gandhi... Priyanka Chaturvedi: I would not say that he took a lot of time. There are people who are not open about their own lives. Their choice of interaction is very personal. But these platforms have huge impact and when you have a government which doesn't allow opposition to speak, you have to rely on these platforms. So, you see him speaking at lot of forums engaging with lot of people, but it is being noticed and observed now. Leave opposition, even media voice is being challenged. Engaging with people and being heard is very important and that is being done from bottom to the top. WION: Despite increased TV, newspaper and social media presence, Congress has failed to win states. What do you have to say about that? Priyanka Chaturvedi: We are trying to build our entire communication narrative. Democracy goes through a cycle. Change is a constant. We will see an upswing. We witnessed a downswing earlier. Media component amplifies what the organisation does and I believe that mood of the nation is changing, and people have started to question the government. WION: There was lot of controversy around Cambridge Analytica. How do you respond to it? Priyanka Chaturvedi: It is a ridiculous charge. It was made by none other than our Law Minister. He used newspaper reports to make allegations against us. If there is any truth in the matter he should take it to the Supreme Court and wait for how SC responds to it. Cambridge Analytica, when it started operation in India, came with SCL. It had 4 co-founders and one of them, Avnish Rai, has categorically said that CA was paid by one of the BJP sympathisers to sabotage Congress campaign in 2014. However, they did not find much success in that. What you cannot do away with is the fact that OVI's vice president claimed that he worked with BJP in four election-bound states which included Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Haryana and Delhi. He also mentioned that they were working with the BJP for Mission 272. What cannot be missed is that the missed call drive was also handled by them. These are the questions which have gone unanswered. Who leveraged technology and is talking big about it? It is BJP. WION: Mantra for the old Congress was alliances. What is the mantra of the new Congress? Is it organisation? Priyanka Chaturvedi: Alliances are very important in democracy. We ran a government with alliance partners and gave good growth story. Alliances with regional parties is a reality today. Perhaps we are seeing a phase where regional parties are playing an important role. It has to be balance of both organisation and alliance. Today alliance is a reality and cannot be done away with.

Congress becoming more decentralised under Rahul Gandhi: Priyanka Chaturvedi to WION

Facebook is committed to ensure the integrity of key elections across the world, including in India, its founder Mark Zuckerberg said as he testified before the US Congress over the massive Cambridge Analytica scandal that has shaken the social media giant.

Zuckerberg's testimony came after it was revealed in March that British firm Cambridge Analytica tied to US President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign improperly collected profile data of up to 87 million Facebook users.

The scandal shook confidence in Facebook, leading some people to go as far as abandoning the social media site altogether&nbspa revolt called the hashtag #DeleteFacebook.

Zuckerberg, who is also the CEO of Facebook, said data privacy and foreign interference in elections were topics that they have discussed at the Facebook board meeting.

"These are some of the biggest issues that the company has faced, and we feel a huge responsibility to get these right," Zuckerberg told lawmakers during the Congressional hearing, adding that "this is one of my top priorities in 2018".

He said Facebook was taking steps to ensure the integrity of elections in countries like the United States, India, Brazil, and Pakistan.

"2018 is is an incredibly important year for elections. Not just in the US mid-terms, but, around the world, there are important elections -- in India, Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, and Hungary -- and we want to make sure we do everything we can to protect the integrity of these elections," he said.

Zuckerberg organisation faces charges of failing to prevent Cambridge Analytica from gathering personal information of Facebook users to try to influence an election.

Zuckerberg said his one of the greatest regrets was that Facebook has been slow in identifying the Russian information operations in 2016.

"We expected them to do a number of more traditional cyber attacks, which we did identify and notify the campaigns that they were trying to hack into them," he said.

The Facebook CEO said he was now more confident as his company has set the things right. Since the 2016 election, there have been several important elections around the world where it has had a better record, he said.

There was the French presidential election. There was the German election. There was the US Senate Alabama special election last year," Zuckerberg added.

He said Facebook has deployed new Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools that better identify fake accounts, trying to interfere in elections or spread misinformation.

"Between those three elections, we were able to proactively remove tens of thousands of accounts before they could do significant harm," he said.

"And the nature of these attacks, though, is that there are people in Russia whose job is to try to exploit our systems and other internet systems, and other systems, as well. So this is an arms race, right? I mean, they're going to keep on getting better at this, and we need to invest in keeping on getting better at this, too, which is why one of the things I mentioned before is we're going to have more than 20,000 people, by the end of this year, working on security and content review across the company," he said.

Zuckerberg said they had developed tools which identify people when they try to create fake accounts.

Your content has to be authentic. So we build technical tools to try to identify when people are creating fake accounts, especially large networks of fake accounts, like the Russians have in order to remove all of that content," he said.

Zuckerberg said after the US 2016 election, Facebook's top priority was to protect the integrity of other elections around the world.

"What we're going to do is to ask a valid government identity and we're going to verify the location. We are going to do that so that someone sitting in Russia, for example, couldn't say that they're in America and, therefore, able to run an election ad," he said.

Mark Zuckerberg's testimony came after it was revealed in March that British firm Cambridge Analytica tied to US President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign improperly collected profile data of up to 87 million Facebook users

Facebook is committed to ensure the integrity of key elections across the world, including in India, its founder Mark Zuckerberg said as he testified before the US Congress over the massive Cambridge Analytica scandal that has shaken the social media giant. Zuckerberg's testimony came after it was revealed in March that British firm Cambridge Analytica tied to US President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign improperly collected profile data of up to 87 million Facebook users. The scandal shook confidence in Facebook, leading some people to go as far as abandoning the social media site altogether&nbspa revolt called the hashtag #DeleteFacebook. Zuckerberg, who is also the CEO of Facebook, said data privacy and foreign interference in elections were topics that they have discussed at the Facebook board meeting. "These are some of the biggest issues that the company has faced, and we feel a huge responsibility to get these right," Zuckerberg told lawmakers during the Congressional hearing, adding that "this is one of my top priorities in 2018". He said Facebook was taking steps to ensure the integrity of elections in countries like the United States, India, Brazil, and Pakistan. "2018 is is an incredibly important year for elections. Not just in the US mid-terms, but, around the world, there are important elections -- in India, Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, and Hungary -- and we want to make sure we do everything we can to protect the integrity of these elections," he said. Zuckerberg organisation faces charges of failing to prevent Cambridge Analytica from gathering personal information of Facebook users to try to influence an election. Zuckerberg said his one of the greatest regrets was that Facebook has been slow in identifying the Russian information operations in 2016. "We expected them to do a number of more traditional cyber attacks, which we did identify and notify the campaigns that they were trying to hack into them," he said. The Facebook CEO said he was now more confident as his company has set the things right. Since the 2016 election, there have been several important elections around the world where it has had a better record, he said. There was the French presidential election. There was the German election. There was the US Senate Alabama special election last year," Zuckerberg added. He said Facebook has deployed new Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools that better identify fake accounts, trying to interfere in elections or spread misinformation. "Between those three elections, we were able to proactively remove tens of thousands of accounts before they could do significant harm," he said. "And the nature of these attacks, though, is that there are people in Russia whose job is to try to exploit our systems and other internet systems, and other systems, as well. So this is an arms race, right? I mean, they're going to keep on getting better at this, and we need to invest in keeping on getting better at this, too, which is why one of the things I mentioned before is we're going to have more than 20,000 people, by the end of this year, working on security and content review across the company," he said. Zuckerberg said they had developed tools which identify people when they try to create fake accounts. Your content has to be authentic. So we build technical tools to try to identify when people are creating fake accounts, especially large networks of fake accounts, like the Russians have in order to remove all of that content," he said. Zuckerberg said after the US 2016 election, Facebook's top priority was to protect the integrity of other elections around the world. "What we're going to do is to ask a valid government identity and we're going to verify the location. We are going to do that so that someone sitting in Russia, for example, couldn't say that they're in America and, therefore, able to run an election ad," he said.

Facebook committed to ensure integrity of elections in India, other countries: Zuckerberg

cambridge-analytica

Cambridge Analytica, News on Cambridge Analytica, stories on Cambridge Analytica, articles on Cambridge Analytica, Cambridge Analytica stories at Wion, Cambridge Analytica news, Cambridge Analytica latest news

cambridge analytica