tv Washington Journal Rep. Ro Khanna CSPAN April 11, 2018 1:14pm-1:41pm EDT
couple of financial regulation items. also debate rules for constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. that amendment will be fully debated tomorrow. live house coverage here on c-span when they gavel back in. again, that'll be at 1:40 p.m. eastern. until then, a discussion on facebook c.e.o. mark zuckerberg's testimony on data privacy and his company's use of user data from this morning's "washington journal." this is ro khanna. he is a member of the budget at armed services committee. good morning to you. district falls into silicon valley. caller: there are many people who work at facebook in my district. host: what did you gather on mark zuckerberg's testimony? guest: two things struck me. the knowledge gap that the
senators who have not been on facebook -- and a terror election of duty. it is not for mark zuckerberg to figure out privacy laws. it is for the united states senate and congress to legislate. europe has done it. we need an internet bill of rights. ,hen need to know our data transfer data, to correct data, to access data, limit data. these are principles that were not discussed. answer most questions, but there wasn't any commitment in what legislation would look like. what should have legislators ask? guest: they should have drilled down -- what do you think of your question zuckerberg said there are things they do right. the next question would be what is it that you disagree with? the right to be forgotten?
it would violate our first amendment, a can't just say if i don't like this show, take this off the internet. would you be open to adapting those principles? there was not as much of an understanding of the details. in europe the bureaucrats have told these companies what tools to design and how to design them. it was a disservice. withd not come armed knowledge. there was not any real commitment in terms of legislation. host: gd rp? caller: general data regulation protection which will go into place in may and is europe's law , protecting europeans on social media. i think it goes too far, but are of those principles
correct. i would have loved the conversation to be about how do we construct the privacy framework in the united states? the biggest point, it is not for zuckerberg to fix this. it is for congress to fix this. we are elected to protect .merican's privacy it is not for 30, 40-year-olds to be doing that. twitter at c-span, what keeps congressman writing that? caller: it was tried twice before with the obama administration. withnk the pendulum swung the snowden revelation. people became less concerned about privacy and more concerned about government access.
,he pendulum has swung back where people are concerned about privacy. the framework was a decent starting place. i think it can be stronger. there are republicans. the freedom caucus and the libertarians would agree a person's online identity are to be protected. i think it is time to give it one more try. host: how do you balance putting protections in the place but does not affect the business's ability to do what it does? guest: that is why i don't support the european framework. not only do you have the right transferur data, to your data, delete your data, but we are going to tell you how to design your site to protect your rights. should say we are going
to give the businesses the discretion how to make the product that will protect those rights. there is a balance between not being overly prescriptive recognizing people don't want online identities finally did just like they would not want their house violated. we have a whole new cyber world. most people under 30 grew up in the cyber world. the laws have not caught up. our framers would be debating this. host: don't consumers have a role in this? guest: they absolutely do. the consumer who can be better company.by the ,or example, if you use firefox you know that they can contain
your data. , and youowse on safari --it a site to buy tied ads targetingsee you fort wise. facebook gets data from your browsing. if you use firefox they don't allow for that to be transferred. are options for consumers. who has the time to research? you're busy making a living. it is for congress to require the proper disclosure so consumers know what products are doing. host: representative ro khanna joining us. our first color, from dallas. i think you are in the right place at the right time.
, weeed to stop pretending need to stop being so hypocritical. that is the main issue of humanity. havend to believe that we been created for memories. host: how does that apply to what we are talking about? we keep talking of the same thing over and over. everybody knows facebook has no value. they have no values. facebook is not an entity that produces a product.
a vegetable or anything of that nature. host: we will leave it there. guest: i appreciate your perspective. i disagree. this is a big debate about whether social media has value. 2 billion people have signed up on this platform. they certainly have a preference. could you argue this is a waste of time, i tend to believe there are positive aspects to social media. consider the parkland kids. i had one of them in my district. we put on facebook. i thought this was a terrific use of social media to mobilize the next generation. there are abuses, ways facebook
has been exploited for political gain. there are stories spreading that are harming our democracy. the fix is not to do away with a tool that allows people to connect or share their experiences. the fix is to make sure citizens and consumers are protected. host: jonathan in new york. caller: i would just like to present potential solutions for some of these problems. one is that we have all of these different privacy policies. everyone is different and modified each time. we don't have to let that happen. if you look at the open source community, there are standard licenses. that knows sees automatically what that means. they have to read it once and it is the same license applied
again and again. congress could have a few standard privacy policies and the industry could contribute ideas as to what they would be but the public would have a clear understanding of what each policy was and what it meant. that would help. fake profiles and things like that, we could use authentication to make sure that postings to platforms like facebook are coming from only registered devices. as far as preventing bad content like terrorist propaganda, that could be reviewed in advance. host: we have got your point. guest: some of these are excellent suggestions. i think there is a role for authentication. when i stand in line to get onto
an airplane i have this password and take my fingerprint they know it is really ro khanna getting on the plane. i'm not suggesting everybody needs to be fingerprinted, but there should be some form of authentication online so you don't have false profiles. and there is a technological solution. i agree about having a standard privacy. it is for congress to legislate a common standard, one that is simple. place to look at where
europe is requiring a pop-up to inform consumers about privacy protections and rights. host: bob in maine. republican line. there is a larger problem taking place. congress is not doing anything to the perpetrator. the broadcasting group is the largest in the country. within the last two weeks the touired 150 tv broadcasters read a statement prepared for the home market word for word to the public. that statement says our station group always tells the truth to the public and anyone else that tells you anything different is a purveyor of false news. host: what do you think about
that? guest: i agree with that. singulair is one of the biggest -- sinclair is one of the biggest challenges for our country. they control 72% of local news affiliates. view.ften have a point of they can spread propaganda into american homes, watching television. there was a report at stanford that said broadcast television and table -- cable news were more responsible for the polarization and misinformation election. why think facebook has problems they need to solve? absolutely. this congress made to legislate? absolutely. does this account for the misinformation? absolutely not. we need to look at cable news.
we need to look at the role they have played spreading false news or polarization. host: one of the topics that came up yesterday, senator klobuchar asking about facebook ads to put legislation into play , the honest ads act to counteract that. does that do a good job? guest: senator clover sure, all the members understood this technology. she got into the weeds. she is thoughtful about online legislation. sociall would require media to do the same saying broadcast media does. if you have an ad on television have to say where it is paid for , what should happen -- we
should have the same thing on social media. i don't think it is sufficient. it is a constructive step. host: what makes it sufficient? well make it better? guest: it is great tackling the problem of political ads on social media but there are a host of other concerns about privacy, protecting data, making sure there is third-party verification for news stories. -- the clover sure -- i do not think we should end with that. host: what about social media regulated like utility? guest: my concern with doing that, utilities are guaranteed a 15% rate of return profit. in california were i represent, pg&e gets a guaranteed rate of profit. you are entrenching them for the next 20, 30 years.
i don't think that is the answer to have bureaucrats controlling social media and having a guaranteed profit rate of return. , would rather we see snapchat other new companies emerge that we restrict mergers. i was dubious of allowing facebook to acquire instagram. we should require others to emerge. we are going to go to a subscription model, but we are not going to use your data for advertising. you can see alternatives emerge that may increase competition. i don't want to entrench facebook for the next 30 years. host: let's go to jennifer. caller: ro khanna said it all. we are making too big a deal out of facebook.
i am not sure if he is born here, but he will be our next president. guest: ma'am, i appreciate that. my wife's family is from ohio. i hope you're not connected to them. that is a kind thing for you to say. i was born in philadelphia. a very kind thing for you to say. i do appreciate your view that we should not just looks a facebook. as much as i think facebook acted incorrectly, we have a broader challenge. we have to change the way the economy works.
how are we going to create the opportunity?der of socially and cold surely our nation is changing. blame sinclair, let's blamelame facebook, let's the media companies. let's blame a company for our problem. the reality is becoming a mulch change.ltural we have all the struggles in our politics. host: is silicon valley as a , onlylooking at this because of the attention now being placed on facebook? guest: i think silicon valley, there has been a wake-up call, which is the iron rand
libertarianism is dead. let us do our thing, government doesn't matter, politics doesn't matter, technology is going to solve problems. recognition. zuckerberg said you need regulation if it gets it right. a need to answer the call to service. what is silicon valley doing to create jobs and parts of this country that have been left behind? what is silicon valley doing to deal with diversity problems? diversityions -- many problems. the problem of economic inequality. there has been a social and political awakening. let's go to don. european model is
excellent. one owns his own information and data. ,e owns his name, his address his family. we need that sort of law in the united states. i think you are right. the framework is that an individual owns their own data. the rightgive people to their own data and identity. this is their identity. this is about protecting their freedom, their individuality. it is not some massive regulation. it is about protecting american freedom, american citizens from
institutions that could harm individuality. i completely agree with you. in america we would never pass this. we would pass something in the bill of rights protecting equal freedoms and the right to their own data. caller: good morning. i would like to state i believe this is an issue that facebook notsocial media -- it is something the government really needs to put their hands into. you are just attacking the symptoms.
it is something that needs to be worked at between the users and the social media platforms. no regulations. no government needs to be involved. you're not going to stop people from the way they act on social media. you are just giving a false sense of security saying post whatever you want. be irresponsible and we will protect your data. i think this relationship is between these two entities and the government should not be involved. guest: i'm sympathetic to some of your point. consumers, when i go on social media are assuming some risk knowing they are putting information out there. there is a risk to that. but i do think the government has a role to make sure that consumers have the right information and they are protected. when you buy a car, there are a lot of rules about what a car
salesman can tell you. about got to be honest the pricing. he can't sell you a lemon. the government can create the roles of the market. but we are saying, when someone goes on facebook they should know what is happening to their data. like when you get a consumer credit report, you get to know who has asked for your credit score. there is no reason they should not get to know what is happening with their data, shouldn't be able to transfer their data. giving consumers some basic rights with the company. host: companies would say you are cutting off a source of income for me if you're going to limit me. guest: there may be some people who say yes, we are fine with to targetour data advertisers. i don't care if i get targeted
with ads saying by these nice ties. other users may say i don't want those ads. facebook and say we are going to give it to you for free anyway or were going to charge a subscription. others are sensitive about that. khanna,presentative ro before we let you go, take a few more calls. current policyn in syria. terrible, said situation. is a is a brutal -- assad brutal dictator. i think the united states made a mistake when we called for regime change that led to the
rise of isis. we should have pursued a more diplomatic solution involving russia and iran, not trying to oust a sod -- assad. where weve a situation have largely defeated isis. the president is right to call for most troops to come home. we can have some residual counterterrorism force. russianso involve the and iranians taking in bringing stability to that area. i don't think it is for the night at to continue to be involved in a region where we don't have a direct national security interest. another military strike? would you be in support of that? caller: i don't begin military strike at this point, which is unilateral from the united states makes sense.
if there was something to go to to have a nations, multilateral coalition to respond to chemical strikes, that should be debated and considered. oppose a unilateral strike and oppose a unilateral strike without consultation with congress. i was just on a letter, thomas ,assie has done a great job with a letter to the president saying any strike in syria would be unconstitutional. host: rachel, democrats line. caller: good morning. from the hearing yesterday, it was fascinating -- my question is what do you think of the tech leaders getting together with congress and creating a bill of rights? thank you. guest: >> we'll leave this discussion here and return to live coverage of the u.s. house.