tv Bloomberg Technology Bloomberg September 5, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm EDT
emily: i am emily chang in san francisco. this is "bloomberg technology." big tech takes on washington as jack dorsey and sheryl sandberg testify before the senate. how was this different from when mark zuckerberg was in the hot seat? plus, one big name missing from the hearing. what senate intelligence has toee, mark warner, say about google being a no-show. 23 and me's quest to cure the world's diseases.
a big-time up with world farmer could provide the key to new drugs and treatment. big tech takes tenor -- center stage on capitol hill. they face questions from the senate intelligence committee over social media and russian election hacking. so aly absent is google symbolic third chair was left empty and lawmakers openly expressed their disapproval over being snubbed. otherwise, the discourse was -- more civil than the mark zuckerberg trial. >> russia used social media as part of an "comprehensive and multifaceted campaign to undermine democratic institutions and interfere in u.s. elections and those of our allies." we were too slow to spot this and to slow to act -- too slow
to act. the free proud of how and open exchange has been weaponize dan used to distract and divide people. and our nation. we found ourselves unprepared and ill-equipped for the immensity of the problems we have it knowledged. emily: that was over the twitter ceo answering questions in front of the house committee. they pressed him over the shadow banning of conservatives. we caught up with mark warner and asked his thoughts of the day's testimonies. >> they clearly understand this problem of russian intervention or other foreign countries intervention, and spreading misinformation is not going to go away. they are finally taking serious movements. they did not take that after the
2016 elections and they realize this is an ongoing challenge. they have a real willingness to work with us on how we can get appropriate rules of the road. not to cut off innovation or over regulate, but i heard from said should ahey human being have a right to know whether they are being contacted on social media by another human being or why a lot. does that mean you get rid of the bought? no, but maybe let them know. there's also a question where i thought facebook was very forward leaning about not only would they make more public reach of our personal data, but they would sell it to advertisers and it would help us know how much value they are getting. if you know how much value your personal information is creating in the marketplace, i think that is a good thing for all involved. they also said they thought
there were certain sites in sending violence at such a level and we cited the example of miramar where there is military sites sending people out getting killed and they would have a moral and legal obligation to take down those sites. i had a real -- her a real willingness to think about this together. the wild wild west in social media will not expand. there has to be some guard but not cutting off innovation. come towere willing to the table, but what does the table look like in terms of next steps? what is the timeline on regulation and working groups? >> one of the things i was proud of today was that our committee showed a lot of folks had done their homework. 101 the not an internet way some of the early hearings have been. we will sit down with these companies and others. one of the reasons it was so frustrating google did not participate, which was a huge
error on their part, but we will stand with these companies and say how do we get this right that allows users of this information to have a better judge of the accuracy and origin, and not try to limit people's discussions but be able to have some sense of what is real or not. >> i want to press on google in particular. you met with these companies. for them to say we're not showing up, they were a no-show at this hearing not just saying no to the committee, but also not taking questions from the company 10 weeks before a midterm election. >> i don't get it. i have worked with google for years. they have been a very forward leaning company. their unwillingness to sit down and try to work with not only answers but also questions americans have, at the end of the day, it has hurt their reputation not just from
policymakers, but a lot of google users -- but with a lot of google users. >> can americans trust silicon valley? >> i won't go as broad as the question. >> can a trust facebook and twitter? >> i think trust but verify. that is one of the reasons i'm glad the companies are moving but this is not something that we can always say has totally solved the problem. the government is getting better, but the russians, iranians, chinese, our adversaries are getting better as well. emily: that was the senator mark warner with kevin's really there -- kevin cirilli there. i want to bring in someone who on foreigntestified operations in social media, laura rosenberger and selina wang covering twitter and
attended today's events. walk us through the highlights. the room was packed and alex jones was there. probably one of the many people interested in the discussions around the shadow banning. where there any surprises? it has certainly been a marathon of hearings and one is still ongoing. you saw the lawmakers were more prepared and quite aligned on the issues they wanted to hit the tech companies on. we also saw facebook and twitter evolve their statements to say they did -- this is their number one priority to stop election meddling. there are a lot of questions about if they are adequately equipped to deal with the threats. many lawmakers brought up the new misinformation campaign coming from russia and iran. in the hearing ongoing, we saw the tone shift into a much more political tone and we saw the
democratic and republican lawmakers really start to divide and be quite combative toward each other. wanted tos lawmakers focus on the platforms while democratic lawmakers found this as a conspiracy that republicans are using to push their ideals in preparation of the midterms. the conversation did steer to several other issues in addition to data privacy, regulation, and election interference. jack dorsey has kept his cool throughout all of it. this was his first time says to find -- time testifying. it was impressive how he was like -- how he was able to respond in his own way to these questions. emily: dorsey was perhaps more contrite than what investors perhaps wanted him to be. we sought put shares and facebook shares fall. laura, what did you make of what we heard from dorsey and the samberg? was there any new information here? laura: there really wasn't much
new information here. what we heard from them was a recognition that there is a problem. a recognition that they have an obligation to do something about it. they were extremely short on specifics in terms of what that means. i agree with senator warner's assessment that we are hearing more in terms of a willingness to cooperate potentially with governments in terms of tackling this problem. one of the things the members asked about at a couple of different points was information sharing across the platforms with one another. this is not a problem just combined with one platform. our adversaries are using different platforms two different ends. to tackle the problem, we have to pull the information together. jack dorsey came up short in terms of saying what they have in place to share that information. this is nearly two years after the 2016 election.
we are still talking about needing to develop ways to tackle the problem rather than doing that in a meaningful way. that is what concerns me. emily: they talked a bit about how they are working together. sheryl sandberg repeatedly talked about what facebook has done and is doing to combat the behavior. to what she had to say about inauthentic behavior. >> finding that behavior is a challenge. resources tog real bear in that is why we are investing so heavily in people and technology. this is why we invest in organs like verification. the other step we take around -- is around transparency. emily: selena dorsey talked twitter does not have the resources that facebook has so what is the answer when it comes to twitter. do anything to stop
the threats, especially in a matter of weeks? selina: it is interesting to see dorsey sitting next to sandberg advanced us -- has resources to tackle the issue and sandberg has said they have thousands of content moderators whereas dorsey has failed to disclose any number of moderators or where they are located. they say they are in the hundreds. this is a vast discrepancy in terms of the threat they can deal with. the answer dorsey has been given -- giving, is relying on albums -- our rhythms to identify threats. thus far, they rely on user reports to service the issues of reports -- issues of abuse. dorsey has been repeating that they can hope to evolve their algorithms fast enough to deal threats, but there is a lot of skepticism from lawmakers as to whether this is that it --
this is adequate. ♪ emily: google is exploring ways to get back into china. take a listen to this exchange. >> we would only operate in the country where we can do so with keeping with our values. >> and that would apply to china as well? >> that would apply to china as well. it certainly seems sandberg has closed the door on breath,ut in the same she said we cannot connect the world without connecting china. what do you make of getting that kind of statement on the record? companieshink these are really, in a way, an inflection point. i think that is something one of
the senators said to the point today. these companies have grown to what they are because of american democracy and because of american free market and american innovation. they have also been operating as global platforms and have a market interest in being able to make the market as broad as possible. their origin story, and their continued existence as american companies benefit from american laws, is at odds with their market interest. at some point, there will be a reckoning. we also see very aggressive investments in china by -- by china in things like artificial intelligence in ways not only at all with american values but national security. these are big questions and i'm not convinced the companies have been wrestling with them in the most meaningful weight possible weput us in a footing where
are safe, secure, and consistent with values. emily: i asked another tech ceo whether google showing up -- not showing up was a bad decision. she said maybe it was a smart move or missed opportunity. was this a lose, lose situation for google or should they have been there? in my book, this is about getting to the bottom of dealing with this problem and developing solutions. either google wants to be a part or doesn't. for me, not showing up means they do not want to be part of that solution. they are absolutely a part of the problem and any attempt to act otherwise is misguided. just because they are not a social media platform, if this is about manipulation of the broader online information our gameshem's -- there are for propaganda and youtube is a hotbed for propaganda, they are absolutely a part of this.
emily: selina, what is next? samberg talked about being open to regulation and it is a matter of what the regulation is. lawmakers are not going to stop asking questions, but when do we see some of the stuff discussed implemented in potential legislation? selina: it does seem it is only a matter of time before this becomes regulated. we heard lawmakers say the wild west days of social media are over. warner recently put out a paper with 20 different legislative ideas. none of these ideas have come even close to fruition, but many ideas were thrown out. some included maybe putting controls on section 230 that had given these companies immunity from legal liability for what content users post. lawmakers brought up the issue of opioid and other illicit drugs eating advertise on the platform and maybe they should
be held responsible for deaths that come from that information. there has also been discussion about a european privacy law that becomes implemented in the u.s.. there is also this honest ads act that the companies say they are for which would bring more transparency to political advertising, but we have yet to see what type of regulation would come from this and it's the hearing that is wrapping up and one of the lawmakers talked about the commerce committee saying despite the litany of hearings that have been held, there is almost nothing to show from it from the side of the lawmakers. emily: laura, will we see action here or will this be talk? laura: i think we will eventually see action, but there will be a lot of talk before that. selina talked about, that it will be very difficult to get legislation to actually
move. there are a number of pieces of legislation that have been introduced with bipartisan support but have not seen, hearings, markups in their committees or any kind of floor time in terms of moving forward. at this point, the chances of series legislation moving anytime before the midterm is unrealistic. the focus has to be on how we go forward, but i absolutely agree the kinds of reports that senator warner put forward in this paper, they were essentially for him. this is the conversation our policymakers need to be having. the reality is europe is regulating in the space and they are beginning to chart the global roles. china through its market alone is beginning to set the global rules. if we in the u.s. are not setting forward what a smart framework is, to protect privacy that is consistent with market principles continuing to allow for evasion, other countries will set the rules for us is
also not in our interest. from: laura rosenberger the alliance of securing democracy and our very own selina wang, that you so much. i want to mention president trump is speaking now at the white house and talking about this op-ed in the new york times written by an anonymous trump administration official very critical of the president leadership. he called a gutless, said it is a disgrace, and if he was not in the office, the new york times would fail. we will continue to monitor the headlines. coming up, 23 and me has high hopes about a new partnership with a pharmaceutical giant. we hear from the ceo about what could be cured in just a moment. this is bloomberg. ♪ is bloomberg. ♪
develop new cures for diseases including parkinson's. the ceo told me why it is a dream close to her heart. >> we started with the data so we said discovery can fundamentally change if you have an incredible amount of data. the hypothesis we have is that if we have all of this information and we discover targets that started from a human, genetic component, that we will have a higher success rate with drug rate -- drug development. so hard towhy it is develop a drug is because 95% of everything fails. if we can have a better beginning, starting with human genetics, we believe we have a higher likelihood of succeeding. ke partnership of -- with gs -- gsk is to help us scale. butan find tons of ideas each idea is like a child.
imagine we have 13 children, it is a lot. we have called in the big guns to help us really develop all of -- toograms to noble us enable us to scale and have the potential to bring drugs to market watch faster for customers and the whole world. range.orking on a whole i am bias because we have this genetic variants that runs in my family on parkinson's disease so i'm most excited that gsk has a program going for that. i'm really excited because we will be able to combine some of the power of what 23 and me has which is all of our engaged customers to drug development already undergoing, specifically for the parkinson's compound. >> you are doing a test for the first cancer threat in the first direct consumers test. how groundbreaking is that?
>> i think it is huge. if you want to have good health at scale, it cannot always be a one-to-one position. you have to have ways to leverage the internet and leverage ways to scale information across the entire country. to getlows people life-saving information in an affordable fashion without having to have a physician or genetic counselor. you help families reunite families separated at the u.s. border. what is the status? of people inumber government contact us on whether we could be a part of this and we said part of our business is connecting families. issues thatt of other peoples had around it. we are always trying to help
people improve their lives so this was an opportunity for us to help people that it never came to fruition. there were too many controversies around having us involved. emily: could law enforcement subpoena the data? >> it was a shame it did not happen. a lot of the children have been reunited. there are all kinds of things that we can do. people out of research or being part of the dna relative. spit, we doose the not cooperate with law enforcement and do not give your data to anyone else so we felt like we had a good. handle on privacy that said, we will always offer you help when there is an opportunity to help. emily: there's the question that once you hand of the data -- over the data, how do you prevent it from getting hacked or misused? had you think about these questions? >> i always say that people -- i
love looking at your dna but your bank account is so much more interesting. there is so much technology dedicated to protecting bank account information. there is tons of things we can privacy -- inty, privacy and security. what we really believe is that we had to do everything as a company to make sure we are protecting data, but we want to give you a choice. if you want to share your data with me or your mother or a friend,. we give you that choice if you decide to delete your data, you can. totally fine. you we want to do is allow to have choice about how your data is being used. it is also part of the reason we always give you back, when there is a publication out of our research, -- your research, we wanted to know about it. we are about transparency.
or wantant to share it us to use it for research, take a survey and we will tell you the results of what we learned. we are about empowering you to be in control and sharing the information back with you. emily: law enforcement used to data to track down the golden state killer operating since the 1970's. is that an ok use? >> they are totally separate from us because that is a database where people were uploading their genetic information voluntarily and it was consented. it could be used for all kind of purposes. consented forot law enforcement specifically we do not allow people to upload genomes from other places to see whether there are relatives there. it could never happen within 23 and me. emily: that was the ceo and cofounder. fascinating uses of new genetic data. we will have more from tech crunch disrupt later this hour. uber is rolling out new safety
emily: this is bloomberg technology, i am emily chang in san francisco. it has been quite a day. sheryl sandberg and jack dorsey asking -- answering questions about the russian interference in 2016 but dorsey went on to testify before the house energy and commerce committee on the potential biases of the social network against the republican party. here is what dorsey had to say about that. >> i will start by making something clear. we don't consider political orwpoints, perspectives, party affiliation in any of our
policies or enforcement decisions. in personality is our guiding principle. joining us is the ceo of the internet association michael beckerman. we also have sarah friar who covers the hearings. you were at the hearings with mark zuckerberg as well. what is your sort of biggest take away here? does anything surprise you about what sandberg or dorsey had to say? sarah: i think what is clear to at this point is the more senators learn about these companies, the more they want to know, the more they realize these are complicated algorithms, hard to explain policies, and the companies are really juggling a lot of different considerations here when they make decisions on what to leave up and take down. although the claims of anti-conservative bias have been
debunked, it speaks to this larger discomfort that there is not a lot of public transparency about how these companies operate. emily: you work with these companies, you are present these companies. what do you think about how sandberg and dorsey performed in the hot seat? seems lawmakers were better prefer -- better prepared. ,ichael: they performed well and transparency is important for these companies and these two in particular. coming to capitol hill, educate policymakers, talk about the platforms and open up to it makes everybody better off. jack dorsey in particular. emily: what do you make of the fact dorsey and twitter shares ended down 6% today? dorsey was very contrite, almost too contrite. he talked about the way twitter was designed 12 years ago, you
know, it may not be the way they want twitter to be today, and fundamental changes are necessary to make. nobody sort of knows how to interpret that. sarah: dorsey has said before they will have to make fundamental changes how twitter --ks, but it is underweight depends on how you say it in front of congress. he mentioned the follower count for example, maybe it needs to be revisited. twitter good content -- completely shift its priorities to look to a cleaner future for its users, and that could change what twitter is. at the same time he mentioned how difficult that will be. he mentioned it is difficult for twitter to be able to know who is a bot versus who is a human. , i wantan advertiser
twitter to tell me what people like and what they want to look for in terms of shopping, and if they don't know if they are human, how will they help a cell? -- help me sell? emily: you talked about distinguishing accounts. the companies talked about how they are working together. we have to talk about how google did not show up. lawmakers did not miss an opportunity to talk about how they did not like being snubbed. take a listen to this from marco rubio on googles no-show. io: there is an empty chair from you from google. maybe it is because they are arrogant or there is a report that, as of last night, posted at 3:36 yesterday, the group went on pretending to be kremlin linked trolls. the user details of the research agency, a kremlin linked trolls farm and were able to buy ads online and place them on sites
like cnn, cbs this morning, daily beast, so i'm sure they don't want to answer. emily: michael, you know how important it is for tech companies to be well represented . was this a big mistake? eric schmidt used to make appearances for google, but now they don't have someone who enjoys these kinds of public interactions. larry page of alphabet hasn't done a public interview in three years. michael: i cannot get into the negotiation between the committee and company on who will be testifying. ken walker has testified. i know an offer to testify this hearing, they speak in a number of different ways and they did offer to testify a missed opportunity, but between the committee and company if they want to send somebody up or not. emily: kent walker is that the ceo of google. not a founder of google either. you think going forward google has the representation it needs
in washington as it deals with issues around trying to potentially reenter china? the president taking aim at google over and over again for what he perceives as bias. michael: there are so many different issues the companies are facing, and frankly they are taking a lot of proactive steps, and i give them credit for doing that, making changes and improvements on their own. google's will are presented in washington and certainly have a number of experts back in mountain view, and who they want to send, that is between them and the committee. emily: in terms of next steps as the president continues to train his ire on google, facebook and twitter, these companies, they are facing a whole range of issues. are they prepared to answer questions, not just from lawmakers, but the administration? sarah: that will be even tougher
. the doj came out with a statement right after the faced -- first hearing concluded saying they thought there was stifling of american speech happening on these platforms. that is concerning because that is a little more -- the hearings were cordial. they were measured in terms of back and forth and the company has done a lot of behind-the-scenes work. both companies have to try and develop relationships for these. sandberg talked about mark warner. we don't know if they have that kind of relationship with administration or the doj, so that will be a completely new front for them to figure out how to deal with. emily: what do you think of this issue now the justice department is taking a closer look at these companies? how much of a concern is that? michael: it is their prerogative to look into it. there is no censorship of
political speech. it would be ironic if they want .o spend -- to censor speech from the conservative point of view in particular, these platforms are open and transparent, and people are getting their voices heard. all the policymakers at the hearing today are on social media every day officially and in campaigns. i think it is very obvious and clear to everyone that uses the platforms, they are open for all political parties and viewpoints. emily: sarah, the question of china came up over and over again, and it was interesting listening to sheryl sandberg's statements about china. sounded like lawmakers were trying to pin her down, saying we won't get back into china. is that the way you interpreted her response? she said we would not enter a country that did not share our values. sarah: and yet facebook has attempted to enter china in other ways. they have launched apps here and
there. they have one in beijing that sells ads to people that want to export products, and people access facebook within the country via the vpn's. they would love to be in china, let's be honest. the company is having some trouble dealing with this kind of line of questioning from the government here. the government a couple tries to write to explain they want the companies to say they are in favor of u.s. superiority over all over -- all other countries, but these are global countries -- companies and have deals in hundreds of countries, so they can't pledge allegiance to the united states without endangering their presence elsewhere. emily: sarah friar in washington as well as michael beckerman, ceo of the internet association. we will continue to discuss. cbd ventures is in line,
that looks for companies with at least one female founder and happens to be a big investor in amazon which hit $1 trillion. thank you for joining us back here on the show. >> i am a tiny investor in amazon. emily: but you personally invested in amazon, i believe in 2009, and then again this year, so what do you think about hitting $1 trillion? susan: it is a nice story. i also think they are a very unique company. they are attacked company. their commerce company, they are a media company, and they have really diversified in the way most have not. an ecosystemated or flywheel that is brilliant that moves people from one part of their ecosystem to another very seamlessly. emily: there has been a huge
run-up in the last three years. the stock has exploded, but really quickly, does that concern you? emily: this could be the top plateau. susan: i don't think it is the top. when you look at -- it is a highly valued stock, let's be fair. but i do think there is still a lot of room there when you think that e-commerce is still 15% of all commerce in the country, and they are the dominant player in that space. as it expands more, they will benefit from that. they are also one of the few companies out there where you can say, they are not going to be profoundly impacted by the trade wars. emily: interesting. i want to ask about that. i have a chart comparing apples to amazon.- apple
what about the fact amazon is in the president's crosshairs? susan: i think it is, but amazon enable and they thousands and thousands of small businesses around the country. so you go after amazon, and you are going after really the mainstay of the president's support system. i think he will think long and hard about how and when he goes after them. emily: you know what it is like to run an e-commerce company competing with amazon. today we saw j.crew actually partner with amazon. you can get j.crew products on amazon. do you think that is the only choice for a retailer today is to work with amazon, not against, or is this going to be an isolation? susan: i think there are lots of different options for retailers and brands.
so one of them is definitely to use the amazon platform because you can reach an enormous number of people, but there are plenty of brands doing very well by going directly to consumers, and those are among the companies we back as a vc firm. there is no question there is a lot of things amazon does really well. one of them is not necessarily developing brand strength. like morganompanies partner and casper and glossy eight, they develop a direct relationship with their consumer . it is an emotional connection, and it keeps the customer with them i think for longer, and on a more consistent basis. emily: talk about bb j. every company has a female founder. have you found that to be a
competitive advantage? susan: 100%. one of the reasons that we ventures is we knew women were the dominant consumer. we are either responsible for or have the last word on 85% of all consumer purchases in every part of life. it is not just fashion and beauty. it is what health care plan you use. it is what insurer you use, it is where you buy your house. all of those things, women are the dominant force in. it made sense to us to back entrepreneurs who understood user, and we will speak her language, know where to find her, and how to delight her. how to serve her needs. emily: despite the fact there are people out there like you i have ats on women,
lot of investors saying we are looking hard but cannot find them. what are they doing wrong? they aren't really looking. we have seen 4000 companies since we launched four years ago all with a female founder. i think organizations like all raise, which i imagine you have covered, all raise is doing fantastic work in that space. emily: nonprofit trying to get more women into venture and women funded. susan: correct, exactly. and lotshere are lots of women out there starting businesses. the problem is the vc world is still dominantly male. , all vc partners are male, so that impacts the way venture dollars get invested, and it may seem like it is an
arcane art of the finance world and not really -- part of the finance world and not really important, but it is. venture capital has a much bigger impact than you would think. look at look -- if you 44 years, 22% of the companies that went public were venture backed. if we want to have a more diverse ecosystem of companies ,ut there, if we believe that that a more diverse group of entrepreneurs will come up with better solutions, then we must find ways for mortgage capital to go to women. emily: the king and queen maker of silicon valley. looking for new people to bet on, so thank you for stopping by. ok, coming up more of bloomberg technology. this is bloomberg. ♪ this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: lockheed martin is looking to advance our artificial intelligence. here is one to talk about techcrunch disrupt. >> this is a challenge, and bringing them to the world of high speed. we are partnering with video and run racing league -- grown racing league -- drone racing league. if you see this on tv, we are raising the bar and raising the excitement. we are challenging people out here at the conference today and around the world to develop the technology that will allow autonomous drones to meet and compete in a complicated race. emily: there will be no human intervention. once it goes, it has to work on its own. that is what we call edge
computing, to navigate and create -- complete the course. these are speeds up to 80 miles per hour. emily: talk about the craft you use and the technical challenges about making this possible. keoki: a couple of things. it is all about putting really complex and high-powered computing into a very compact, lightweight, low size weight and power device at the edge. these are small drones. movement is very high speed. they are moving into -- you have seen on tv these drone racing courses, these are 3-d courses where they have to maneuver around obstacles and have to be able to complete the course in the fastest time possible. ultimately we will compete with these machines, and the ai folks out here develop against top human racing. emily: what kind of tracks are you using? keoki: we use tracks comparable
to what the pilots are using indrawn racing today. emily: lockheed martin likes to say it has been in silicon valley before silicon valley was silicon valley, but for a defense company how, how do you respond? keoki: whether it is defense-related, or it is putting people back on the moon and out to mars, these are incredibly complex challenges. they are very difficult missions and very difficult environments. they require a whole range of technology. so to meet those mission challenges, we need to be bringing in not just the challenge from around the area here. we are looking to partner with someone that has new ideas, whether it is iconic -- economy, sensors, quantum information i have. these are the technologies that will bring advancements of these capabilities. emily: lockheed martin could help develop?
keoki: absolutely. we are looking to collaborate with small companies through large companies. we are here on the floor at techcrunch we have represented is from lockheed martin ventures fund, $200 million plan where we are looking for companies that have interesting technology. they have a range of challenges from undersea to deep space. emily: we talk about self driving cars, but in reality they are a long way off. are we further along when it comes to drones that can be controlled by a piloted plane with or without human interaction? keoki: let me give you examples. i will use one in the military. we had a problem with improvised explosive devices harming troops in afghanistan. our engineer said we have technology that can fuel that. is it about deploying autonomous
helicopters? they did 1700 missions autonomously delivered over 4 million pounds of food and supplies and cargo. those of the capabilities that exist today. on the commercial side we are developing what we call matrix technology. autonomous full-scale helicopters, doing that the past five years, operating in zero weather conditions, indoor or at sea. you can detect a forest fire. the helicopter has to rescue somebody, and another helicopter with a water bucket to put the fire out. emily: lockheed martin ceo speaking to me earlier at the techcrunch disrupt conference. that does it for this edition of bloomberg technology. i am emily chang in san francisco. this is bloomberg. ♪ loomberg. ♪ xfinity mobile is a new wireless network
designed to save you money. whether you use your phone to get fit. to find meaningful, thoughtful, slightly-weird gifts. or just to know which way you're facing right now. however you use it, your wireless bill is about to cost a whole lot less. ask how you get xfinity mobile included with your xfinity internet. so you just pay for data -- by the gig or unlimited. saving you hundreds of dollars a year. plus, get $300 back when you buy a new smartphone. xfinity mobile. it's simple. easy. awesome. click, call or visit a store today.
♪ haidi: silicon valley in the themight, congress grilled on foreign interference. yvonne: raising the cost of [indiscernible] to multiyear highs. haidi: president trump that he completed a trade deal with south korea, but canada is still talking and china is bracing for more. >> it seems there is a place to hunker down. a look at the apocalypse in new zealand. ha