FOUNDER AND CURRENT FACEBOOK CEO IS SET TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE TODAY REGARDING CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA.
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook made his first appearance before Congress Tuesday to testify about what he knows about personal information from over 87,000,000 Facebook users that was shared with Cambridge Analytica without the knowledge or permission of Facebooks users.
Before questioning Mr. Zuckerberg on Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Chairman, Chuck Grassley, (R-Iowa) said, “The [social media] industry needs to work with Congress to determine if and how we need to strengthen privacy standards to ensure transparency for billions of consumers. We can’t undo the damage that’s been done, but we can work together in setting new rules of the road for our data.”
Zuckerberg suspended Facebook’s association with two additional data firms this past weekend that have ties to Cambridge Analytica.
Zuckerberg reemphasized his regrets for Facebook’s lapses in securing data privacy thus setting the stage for what is sure to be an uncomfortable appearance before Congress for its CEO. Zuckerberg is the sole witness at a joint hearing before the combined Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees Tuesday and the House Commerce committee Wednesday.
Released ahead of an appearance before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Wednesday, Zuckerberg stated for the record, “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,”
Mr. Zuckerberg spoke with lawmakers Monday, on the day before he was scheduled to testify before the combined Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees Tuesday and the House Commerce committee Wednesday. This comes amidst amid an uproar of public concerns about how Facebook handles the private information of its users.
Facebook found itself having been manipulated during the elections in 2016, with the Russians exerting covert influence for the purpose of spreading discord amongst American voters. Facebook then had to admit that many tens of millions of Facebook users’ information might have been misused by a consulting firm involved in the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. The resulting tumult which ensued has Mr. Zuckerberg and the senior staff at Facebook in panic mode.
Recently the social media giant announced a number of initiatives aimed at better securing their user’s information and to prevent any future misusage of the network. The latest of these initiatives will be an election research committee, which will reportedly seek to include independent researchers who shall work closely in conjunction with Facebook in helping them to root out any further weaknesses in its security measures.
They shall also assist Facebook in seeking to prevent any future attempts at any enemies foreign, or domestic that might seek to perform any other such form of propaganda based election manipulation on the world social media stage.
This type of event actually has a name, it’s called espionage in the vernacular of the U.S. Department of Justice. To any American who takes any part in or is a party to/of the practice of this form of espionage, it means that they are guilty of what is more commonly known in the vernacular of the U.S. Department of Justice as treason.
There are already articles of law in place which govern this type of crime and that we have already covered in a previous article In Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), a case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed fliers to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a “clear and present danger” of succeeding, could be punished.