LIVE: Google CEO Sundar Pichai testifies on Data Collection (C-SPAN)

LIVE: Google CEO Sundar Pichai testifies on Data Collection (C-SPAN)


>>ONCE AGAIN, WE’RE LIVE ON CAPITOL HILL AWAITING THE SOLE WITNESS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, GOOGLE’S CEO SUNDAR PICHAI. HE IS EXPECTED TO TALK ABOUT DATA COLLECTION PRACTICES. WE EXPECT THE HEARING TO GET UNDER WAY IN A COUPLE MINUTES. THIS IS LIVE COVERAGE ON C-SPAN 3. MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONTINUING TO ARRIVE FOR THE START OF THE HEARING, LOOKING INTO DATA COLLECTION PRACTICES BY COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK, TWITTER AND GOOGLE. EARLIER THIS YEAR THERE WAS A CAPITOL HILL HEARING WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THOSE COMPANIES TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUE. THE ONLY SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY NOT REPRESENTED DURING THAT HEARING WAS GOOGLE. TODAY GOOGLE’S CEO SUNDAR PICHAI WILL GET HIS TIME BEFORE CONGRESS AND HE WILL BE THE SOLE WITNESS DURING THIS HEARING. COMMITTEE CHAIR BOB GOODLATTE WE EXPECT TO START HERE IN A MOMENT LIVE ON C-SPAN 3. AGAIN, WAITING FOR THE START OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING LOOKING INTO DATA COLLECTION PRACTICES BY COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK, TWITTER AND GOOGLE. THEY HAD THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY EARLIER THIS YEAR. TODAY, IT’S ALL ABOUT GOOGLE’S CEO SUNDAR PICHAI. HE’S GETTING HIS TIME BEFORE CONGRESS THIS MORNING. YOU SEE ROGER STONE THERE AND ALEX JONES FROM INFOWARS, BOTH IN THE AUDIENCE FOR THE HEARING. WE EXPECT IT TO GET UNDER WAY HERE IN JUST A MINUTE.>>>GOOD MORNING. THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER AND WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE RECESSES OF THE COMMITTEE AT ANY TIME AND WE WELCOME EVERYONE TO THIS MORNING’S HEARING ON TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, COMING GOOGLE AND ITS DATA COLLECTION USE AND FILTERING PRACTICES. BEFORE I RECOGNIZE MYSELF AND THE RANKING MEMBER FOR OPENING STATEMENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OUR FIRST WITNESS, THE MAJORITY LEADER, KEVIN McCARTHY OF CALIFORNIA, FOR HIS STATEMENT. WELCOME. >>WELL, THANK YOU, MR. GOODLATTE, FOR WORKING WITH ME TO ORGANIZE THIS HEARING. I WANT TO THANK SUNDAR PICHAI FOR TESTIFYING ON CAPITOL HILL. WE APPRECIATE AND NOTE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO TRAVEL HERE AND ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. FIRST IN A PRIVATE SETTING IN SEPTEMBER AND NOW A PUBLIC SETTING. GOOGLE IS ONE OF THE MOST VALUABLE COMPANIES IN AMERICA BECAUSE OF WHAT IT DOES. GOOGLE’S SEARCH ENGINE ORGANIZES THE INTERNET AND BY EXTENSION ALMOST ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE WORLD. THIS IS HARDLY AN EXAGGERATION. HERE IS A STATISTIC YOU WILL HEAR A LOT TODAY, BUT IT BEARS REPEATING. ACCORDING TO THE “WALL STREET JOURNAL,” 90% OF ALL INTERNET SEARCHES GO THROUGH GOING. THAT IS POWER. IT COMES WITH RESPONSIBILITY. MR. PICHAI IS — IT WAS NECESSARY TO CONVENE THIS HEARING BECAUSE OF THE WIDENING GAP OF DISTRUST BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. FOR OUR COUNTRY AND ECONOMY TO GROW STRONGER, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE TRUST IN THE GREAT COMPANIES OF THE 21st CENTURY. WE CAN ALLEVIATE SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS TODAY WITH TRANSPARENCY AND CANDOR. I HOPE WE CAN BEGIN TO RESTORE TRUST IN TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES THAT SHAPE OUR WORLD, BUT WE NEED ANSWERS. WE NEED TO KNOW FIRST THAT GOOGLE IS COMMITTED TO THE FREE MARKET IDEALS OF COMPETITION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP THAT LAUNCHED ITS REVOLUTIONARY PRODUCTS TO BEGIN WITH. SECOND, WE NEED TO BE SURE THAT ANY POLITICAL BIAS WITHIN GOOGLE’S WORKFORCE DOES NOT CREEP INTO ITS SEARCH PRODUCTS. THIRD, WE THESE TO KNOW THAT GOOGLE IS LIVING UP TO AMERICA’S BELIEF IN FREE EXPRESSION AND HUMAN RIGHTS WHEN IT DEALS WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. A WORD ON THE LAST SUBJECT, RIGHT NOW GOOGLE REPORTEDLY IS DEVELOPING A CENSORED SEARCH ENGINE WITH THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY AND ALSO DEVELOPING NEXT GENERATION TECHNOLOGY ON CHINESE SOIL AND IN CONION WITH CHINESE NATIONAL CHAMPIONS. TECHNOLOGY THAT THE ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERS A NATIONAL PRIORITY. NOW THIS NEWS RAISES A TROUBLING POSSIBILITY THAT GOOGLE IS BEING USED TO STRENGTHEN CHINA’S SYSTEM OF SURVEILLANCE, REPRESSION AND CONTROL. RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND, CHINA’S AUTHORITARIAN SYSTEM DETAINS MORE THAN A MILLION RELIGIOUS MINORITIES IN REEDUCATION CAMPS. MR. PICHAI, I URGE YOU TO REFLECT ON THAT FACT AND ON THE PROMISE YOUR COMPANY MADE WHEN IT PULLED OUT OF THE CHINA MARKET IN 2010 AND I APPLAUDED YOU FOR THAT MOVE IN 2010. BACK THEN IT PROMISED IT WOULD NOT CENSOR ITS SEARCH RESULTS OR COMPROMISE ITS COMMITMENT TO A FREE AND OPEN INTERNET. IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT EVENTS I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW SOMETHING CHANGED AND IF SO WHAT? ALL OF THESE TOPICS, COMPETITION, CENSORSHIP, BIAS, AND OTHERS, POINT TO ONE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT DEMANDS THE NATION’S ATTENTION. ARE AMERICA’S TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES SERVING AS INSTRUMENTS OF FREEDOM OR INSTRUMENTS OF CONTROL? ARE THEY FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF THE DIGITAL AGE AND ADVANCING THE CAUSE OF SELF-GOVERNMENT, OR SERVING OF INSTRUMENTS OF MANIPULATION, USED BY POWERFUL INTERESTS AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO ROB THE PEOPLE OF THE POWER, AGENCY, AND DIGNITY? I BELIEVE WE NEED TO GRAPPLE WITH THESE QUESTIONS TOGETHER AS A NATION BECAUSE A FREE WORLD DEPENDS ON A FREE INTERNET. WE NEED TO KNOW THAT GOOGLE IS ON THE SIDE OF THE FREE WORLD AND THAT IT WILL PROVIDE ITS SERVICES FREE OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR, POLITICAL BIAS AND CENSORSHIP. I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BEING HERE AND ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS. I LOOK FORWARD TO LISTENING TO THE ANSWERS WITH A VERY OPEN MIND AND I YIELD BACK.>>I WOULD NOW LIKE TO INVITE MR. PICHAI TO TAKE HIS SEAT AT THE WITNESS TABLE. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE RANKING MEMBER MR. NADLER FOR A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE TO RECOGNIZE A MEMBER OF HIS STAFF, A VERY DISTINGUISHED MEMBER OF HIS STAFF.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE DANIELLE BROWN, WHOSE LAST WORKING DAY FOR THE COMMITTEE IS TOMORROW. DANIELLE HAS SERVED ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEMOCRATIC STAFF FOR MORE THAN A DECADE IN A VARIETY OF ROLES, BEGINNING AS STAFF ASSISTANT AND THEN GOING TO COUNSEL PARLIAMENTARIAN, CHIEF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL AND DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL. DANIELLE HAS BEEN ESSENTIAL TO THE OPERATIONS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN NEARLY EVERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF COMMITTEE BUSINESS OVER THE LAST DECADE. HER INTERESTS AND EXPERTISE RANGE FROM PROTECTING VULNERABLE IMMIGRANTS TO ENSURING REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM AND VITAL CONSUMER PROTECTIONS AND LEAVING US NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, TO BECOME GENERAL COUNSEL AND PARLIAMENTARIAN OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. OUR LOSS IS SURELY THEIR GAIN. I WISH YOU WELL. I APPRECIATE A WISE COUNSEL. I THANK HER FOR ALL OF HER YEARS TO THE SERVICE OF THIS COMMITTEE AND HOPE THE COMMITTEE WILL JOIN ME IN THANKING HER FOR HER YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE COMMITTEE. >>WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? [ APPLAUSE ]>>I WILL YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN.>>I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING AND I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN HIM IN THANKING DANIELLE FOR HER SERVICE TO THIS COMMITTEE. SHE HAS WORKED WITH MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND HAS WORKED WITH THE MAJORITY STAFF VERY PRODUCTIVELY AND COOPERATIVELY ON A GREAT MANY ISSUES THAT HAVE MADE THIS COMMITTEE MOT ONLY MORE PRODUCTIVE BUT ALSO OPERATING IN A FASHION THAT HAS RESULTED IN A NUMBER OF BILLS GETTING FROM THIS COMMITTEE ALL THE WAY TO THE PRESIDENT’S DESK, WHETHER THAT PRESIDENT BE BARACK OBAMA OR DONALD TRUMP. THAT’S AN ACCOMPLISHMENT THAT THIS ENTIRE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE PROUD OF AND DANIELLE SHOULD BE PROUD SHE’S PLAYED AN IMPORTANT PART IN DOING THAT AND I THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ] I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. IN THE UNITED STATES, GOOGLE OPERATES THE PREEMINENT INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE, THE LEADING E-MAIL SERVICE PROVIDER, AND THE ANDROID OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH RUNS MOST OF ITS SMART — MOST OF THE SMARTPHONES IN THE UNITED STATES. WHEN A CONSUMER PERFORMANCE AN INTERNET SEARCH, SENDS AN E-MAIL OR USES HIS OR HER SMARTPHONE, GOOGLE COLLECTS INFORMATION ON THAT PERSON. IN FACT, ALMOST EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY THE ANDROID OPERATING SYSTEM SENDS INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXACT LOCATION, TEMPERATURE, BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, AND SPEED OF MOVEMENT OF EVERY PHONE THAT RUNS ON THE ANDROID OPERATING SYSTEM. AMERICANS CARRYING THEIR SMARTPHONES ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, GOOGLE IS ABLE TO COLLECT AN AMOUNT OF INFORMATION ABOUT ITS USERS THAT WOULD EVEN MAKE THE NSA BLUSH. WHEN USERS CLICK THROUGH THE TERMS OF SERVICE FOR THESE SERVICES THEY DO CONSENT TO SUCH COLLECTION. I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT MOST AMERICANS HAVE NO IDEA THE SHEER VOLUME OF DETAILED INFORMATION THAT IS COLLECTED. TODAY I HOPE TO GET ANSWERS ON THE EXTENT OF DATA COLLECTION AND USE BY GOOGLE. IN ADDITION, DECADES AGO, CONGRESS PASSED THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT, INCLUDING SECTION 230 OF THAT ACT, WHICH ALLOWS SERVICE PROVIDERS TO REMOVE, LEWD, LASCIVIOUS, VIOLENT OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT FROM THEIR PLATFORMS. THIS LAW ALLOWS PROVIDERS TO REMOVE ILLEGAL MATERIAL INCLUDING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND CONTENT THAT IS ILLEGAL UNDER OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS. WHILE MEANT TO BLOCK OBSCENE AND HARMFUL MATERIALS, THERE IS SOME DISCRETION THAT SERVICE PROVIDERS, BY NECESSITY, MUST USE TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT CONTENT IS HARMFUL OR OBJECTIONABLE. GIVEN GOOGLE’S UBIQUITY IN THE SEARCH MARKET, GOOGLE IS OFTEN CONSUMER’S FIRST AND LAST STOP WHEN SEARCHING FOR INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET. AS SUCH, THIS COMMITTEE IS VERY INTERESTED IN HOW GOOGLE MAKES DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT THAT JUSTIFIES FILTERING AND WHO AT GOOGLE MAKES THESE DECISIONS. GIVEN THE REVELATION THAT TOP EXECUTIVES AT GOOGLE HAVE DISCUSSED HOW THE RESULTS OF THE 2016 ELECTIONS DO COMPLY WITH GOOGLE’S VALUES, THESE QUEST — QUESTIONS HAVE BECOME ALL MORE IMPORTANT. WHILE IT’S TRUE GOOGLE IS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY AND DOES NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT TYPES OF INFORMATION THEY ARE NOT GETTING WHEN THEY PERFORM SEARCHES ON THE INTERNET. MARKET WORKS BEST WHEN INFORMATION ABOUT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES IS READILY AVAILABLE AND SO TODAY, ON BEHALF OF THIS QUESTION AND THE AMERICAN CONSUMER, I HOPE TO GET ANSWERS FROM MR. PICHAI REGARDING WHO AT GOOGLE MAKES THE JUDGMENT CALLS ON WHETHER TO FILTER OR BLOCK OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT AND WHAT METRICS GOOGLE USES. I WANT TO THANK GOOGLE’S CEO FOR HIS WILLNESS TO TESTIFY TODAY AND ANSWER THESE AND OTHER QUESTIONS. RESPECT TO SEARCH RESULTS, ALGORITHMIC SCREENING IS THE MEANS BY WHICH GOOGLE SORTS DATA AND INFORMATION. GOOGLE’S SEARCH ALGORITHM, FOR EXAMPLE, CALCULATES WHAT IS PRESENTED TO A USER BASED ON THE VARIABLES THE USER INPUTs INTO THE SEARCH BAR. AT ITS BEST GOOGLE’S ALGORITHM REACHES THE BEST ANSWER IN THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME WHILE PROVIDING CHOICES TO THE USER BY RANKING PAGES MOST RELEVANT TO THE SEARCH INQUIRY. OF COURSE, BY RANKING PAGES GOOGLE’S SEARCH FAVORS ONE PAGE OVER ANOTHER. THIS KIND OF BIAS APPEARS HARMLESS. AFTER ALL, THE POINT OF A SEARCH IS TO DISCRIMINATE AMONG MULTIPLE RELEVANT SOURCES TO FIND THE BEST ANSWER. THIS PROCESS, HOWEVER, TURNS MUCH MORE SINISTER WITH ALLEGATIONS THAT GOOGLE MANIPULATES ITS ALGORITHM TO FAVOR THE POLITICAL PARTY IT LIKES, THE IDEAS THAT IT LIKES OR THE PRODUCTS THAT IT LIKES. THERE ARE NUMEROUS ALLEGATIONS IN THE NEWS THAT GOOGLE EMPLOYEES HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT DOING THIS, TALKED ABOUT DOING THIS, AND HAVE DONE IT. THE DANGEROUS IMPLICATIONS TO A FAIR, DEMOCRATIC PROCESS CANNOT BE UNDERSTATED. ONE STUDY PERFORMED BY PSYCHOLOGIST ROBERT EPSTEIN HAS REVEALED THAT INTERNET SEARCH RANKINGS HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON CONSUMER CHOICES, MAINLY BECAUSE USERS TRUST AND USE HIGHER RANKED RESULTS MORE THAN LOWER RANKED RESULTS. AFTER PERFORMING FIVE RELEVANT DOUBLE BLIND RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED EXPERT USING A TOTAL OF 4556 UNDECIDED VOTERS, REPRESENTING DIVERSE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VOTING POPULATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND INDIA, THE STUDY REVEALED THAT BIASED SEARCH RANKINGS CAN SHIFT THE VOTING PREFERENCES OF UNDECIDED VOTERS BY 20% OR MORE. THE SHIFT CAN BE MUCH HIGHER IN SOME DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS AND SEARCH RANKING BIAS CAN BE MASKED SO THAT PEOPLE SHOW NO AWARENESS OF THE MANIPULATION. THE POTENTIAL FOR THIS KIND OF BIAS IS CLEARLY PROBLEMATIC AND IS FURTHER COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT GOOGLE EVERY DAY COLLECTS MOUNTAINS OF INFORMATION ABOUT ITS USERS WHILE THEY ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGED WITH A GOOGLE PRODUCT OR EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT. ACCORDING TO A STUDY CONDUCTED BY VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, A DORMANT, STATIONARY ANDROID PHONE WITH CHROME ACTIVE IN THE BACKGROUND COMMUNICATED LOCATION INFORMATION TO GOOGLE 340 TIMES DURING A 24-HOUR PERIOD OR AT AN AVERAGE OF 14 DATA COMMUNICATIONS PER HOUR. THE COLLECTION OF LOCATION DATA MAY BE OBVIOUS TO MOST USERS, BUT THEY ARE OFTEN UNAWARE OF THE MANY CENSORS THAT THE ANDROID PLATFORM SUPPORTS INCLUDING AN ACCELEROMETER, BAROMETER AND A PHOTO METER. THESE CENSORS IN ADDITION TO THE CAMERAS AND MICROPHONE ON A MOBILE DEVICE, CAN COLLATE INTO A VERY ACCURATE PICTURE OF WHERE A USER IS, WHAT THEY ARE DOING, AND WHO ELSE IS THERE. THE SHOCKING AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT GOOGLE COLLECTS VIA ITS PHONES WAS RECENTLY FEATURED ON GOOD MORNING AMERICA WHICH A REPORTER USING AN ANDROID PHONE WITH NO SIM CARD WASN’T CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET DISCOVERED THAT THE PHONE COLLECTED THE DEVICE’S MOVEMENT EVEN IDENTIFYING THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION SUCH AS THE SUBWAY OR EVEN A BICYCLE AND AT TIMES TAKING TEN SENSOR READINGS PER MINUTE. MOREOVER, GOOGLE’S PRACTICE OF REINFORCING ITS DOMINANCE IN LIGHT OF SELF-SERVING ALLEGATIONS OF BIAS CREATES LITTLE CHOICE FOR CONSUMERS ACROSS THE SPECTRUM OF INTERNET-BASED PRODUCTS OR SERVICES. GIVEN THAT GOOGLE’S ADS SHOW UP ON NONGOOGLE WEBSITES AND GOOGLE’S SEARCH ENGINE IS BEING USED AS THE DEFAULT SEARCH TOOL ON OTHER PRODUCTS SUCH AS THE APPLE PHONE IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID GOOGLE ALTOGETHER. GOOGLE IN MANY THINGS — GOOGLE IS MANY THINGS. IT’S ONE OF THE LARGEST DATA COLLECTORS EVER SEEN IN HUMAN HISTORY. IT’S AN ADVERTISER THAT CAN GET THE RIGHT PRODUCT TO THE RIGHT CUSTOMER AT PRECISELY THE RIGHT TIME. GOOGLE IS ALSO AN INTERNET GIANT DIRECTING OVER 3.5 BILLION SEARCHES PER DAY. WITH THIS MASSIVE AUTHORITY, HOWEVER, COMES THE POTENTIAL FOR FAR-REACHING ABUSE. A MERE SUSPICION THAT GOOGLE MANIPULATES ITS PRODUCTS AND FEATURES FOR SELF-SERVING OR EVEN POLITICAL PURPOSES RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT ITS BUSINESS PRACTICES, ITS IMPACT ON FREE SPEECH AND OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND AMERICANS TRUST THAT THE INFORMATION GATHERED ABOUT THEM IN THEIR DAY-TO-DAY LIVES IS DONE WITH THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND IS NOT BEING USED AGAINST THEM. MY HOPE IS THAT THROUGH OUR INQUIRIES TODAY, WE WILL ENSURE MORE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY GOING FORWARD. LAST, DESPITE THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF TODAY’S HEARING, GOOGLE IS STILL THE STORY OF THE AMERICAN DREAM. THE COMPANY WAS STARTED BY TWO INDIVIDUALS IN A GARAGE AND GREW TO BE ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES IN THE WORLD. TWO DECADES AGO WE COULD NOT FATHOM INSTANTANEOUS ACCESS TO MORE INFORMATION THAN THAT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN ALL THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS IN THE WORLD NOW WE TAKE THAT FOR GRANTED BECAUSE OF SERVICES GOOGLE PROVIDES. THAT I WANT TO AGAIN THANK OUR WITNESS FOR HIS PRESENCE HERE TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR TESTIMONY. IT’S NOW MY PLEASURE TO RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK, MR. NADLER, FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, OUR SOCIETY HAS BECOME RELIANT ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER ON-LINE PLATFORMS TO OBTAIN, CREATE, SHARE, AND SORT INFORMATION. THIS INFORMATION HELPS US MAKE DECISIONS RANGING IN IMPORTANCE FROM WHERE TO MAKE DINNER RESERVATIONS TO WHICH CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. THE PUBLIC’S INCREASING USE OF THESE PLATFORMS HAS GENERATED MANY POSITIVE BENEFITS FOR SOCIETY, BUT IT HAS ALSO GIVEN RISE TO TROUBLING TRENDS. GOOGLE IS AMONG THE DOMINANT FIRMS IN THIS FIELD AND AS SUCH, GIVEN THE PUBLIC’S WIDESPREAD USE AND RELIANCE ON ITS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, THERE ARE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COMPANY’S POLICIES AND PRACTICES, INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO CONTENT MODERATION AND THE PROTECTION OF USER PRIVACY. BEFORE WE DELVE INTO THESE QUESTIONS, I MUST FIRST DISPENSE WITH AN ILLEGITIMATE ISSUE, THE FANTASY, DREAMED UP BY SOME CONSERVATIVES THAT GOOGLE AND OTHER ON-LINE PLATFORMS HAVE AN ANTI-CONSERVATIVE BIAS. AS I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY THEORY. I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WILL SPENT TIME PRESENTING OUT OF CONTEXT STATEMENTS MADE BY GOOGLE EMPLOYEES AS SUPPOSED EVIDENCE OF ANTI-CONSERVATIVE BIAS. NONE OF THAT WILL MAKE IT TRUE. THIS FACTORY PROPAGANDA DOES HELP GENERATE THE MISTRUST THAT THE MAJORITY LEADER REFERRED TO A FEW MOMENTS AGO. EVEN IF GOOGLE WERE TO DELIBERATELY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS SUCH AS FOX NEWS AND SINCLAIR BROADCASTING, CONSERVATIVE RADIO HOSTS LIKE RUSH LIMBAUGH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LIBERAL POINTS OF VIEW, THAT WOULD BE ITS RIGHTS AS A PRIVATE COMPANY TO DO SO, NOT TO BE QUESTIONED BY GOVERNMENT. DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, 35 YEARS AGO, THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APPOINTED BY RONALD REAGAN ABOLISHED WHAT WE USED TO HAVE CALLED THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WHICH PLACED AN OBLIGATION ON BROADCASTERS WHO USE THE AIRWAVES TO BE FAIR TO DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. THIS QUESTION MIGHT BE RELEVANT IF THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS WANTED TO BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AND EXPAND ITS SCOPE TO SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES. I DOUBT WE WILL SEE ANY INTEREST IN DOING SO. WE SHOULD NOT LET THE DELUSIONS OF THE FAR RIGHT EXTRACT US FROM THE REAL ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE THE FOCUS OF TODAY’S HEARING. FOR EXAMPLE, WE SHOULD EXAMINE WHAT GOOGLE IS DOING TO STOP HOSTILE FOREIGN POWERS FROM USING ITS PLATFORM TO SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION TO HARM OUR POLITICAL DISCOURSE. IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN TWO YEARS SINCE THE 2016 ELECTION, YET THIS COMMITTEE HAS NOT HELD A SINGLE HEARING FOCUSED ON RUSSIA’S CAMPAIGN TO MANIPULATE ON-LINE PLATFORMS TO UNDERMINE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS THE CONSENSUS VIEW OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES THAT RUSSIA ENGAGED IN A MASSIVE DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 ELECTION. HOPE THAT MR. PICHAI CAN TELL US WHAT ACTIONS GOOGLE HAS TAKEN TO COUNTER THIS UNPRECEDENTED ATTACK AND WHY GAPS REMAIN IN HIS DEFENSE WITHOUT BEING SPECIFIC TO GIVE A GUIDANCE TO FOREIGN POWERS. THIS MAY HELP CONGRESS DETERMINE WHAT MORE CAN BE DONE TO FURTHER INSULATE OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES FROM FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. WE SHOULD ALSO EXAMINE HOW GOOGLE ENFORCES COMMUNITY STANDARDS THAT PROHIBIT RACIST AND BIGOTED THREATS AND INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT. WHILE INTERNET PLATFORMS HAVE PRODUCED SOCIETAL BENEFITS THEY HAVE PROVIDED A NEW TOOL FOR THOSE SEEKING TO STOKE RACIAL AND ETHNIC HATRED. THE PRESENCE OF HATEFUL CONDUCT AND CONTENT ON THESE PLATFORMS HAS BEEN MADE ALL THE MORE ALARMING BY THE RECENT RISE IN HATE MOTIVATED VIOLENCE. ACCORDING TO STATISTICS RECENTLY RELEASED BY THE FBI, REPORTED INCIDENTS OF HATE CRIMES ROSE BY 17% LAST YEAR, COMPARED TO 2016 MARKING THE THIRD CONSECUTIVE YEAR THAT SUCH REPORTS HAVE INCREASED. THE HORRIBLE MASSACRE AT THE TREE OF LIFE SYNAGOGUE IN PITTSBURGH, THE RECENT MURDER OF AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN COUPLE IN A KENTUCKY GROCERY STORE, THE KILLING OF AN INDIAN ENGINEER LAST YEAR IN KANSAS ARE SADLY NOT ISOLATED OUTBURSTS OF VIOLENCE BUT THE MOST SALIENT EXAMPLES OF A TROUBLING TREND. WE SHOULD CONSIDER TO WHAT EXTENT GOOGLE AND OTHER ON-LINE PLATFORMS MAY HAVE BEEN USED TO FOMENT AND DISSEMINATE SUCH HATRED AND HOW THESE PLATFORMS CAN PLAY A CONSTRUCTIVE ROLE IN COMBATTING ITS SPREAD. AS THE DOMINANT PLAYER IN ITS FIELD GOOGLE POSSESSES SIGNIFICANT MARKET POWER. IT IS ALSO USEFUL TO EXAMINE ITS POLICIES AND PRACTICES TO ENSURE THAT OTHER COMPANIES ARE ABLE TO COMPETE IN AN OPEN AND FAIR MARKETPLACE. THERE ARE ALSO CONCERNS ABOUT THE PREVALENCE OF PIRATED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON GOOGLE AND OTHER INTERNET PLATFORMS AT THE EXPENSE OF LEGITIMATE CONTENT. FINALLY, IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHAT GOOGLE IS DOING TO PROTECT THE USERS’ DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY. THE “WALL STREET JOURNAL” REPORTED THAT GOOGLE DISCOVERED LAST MARCH THAT A BUG IN GOOGLE PLUS HAD EXPOSED THE PRIVATE PROFILE DATA OF UP TO 500,000 USERS TO THIRD-PARTY DEVELOPERS. IT OPTED NOT TO DISCLOSE THE ISSUE PUBLICLY. JUST YESTERDAY THE COMPANY ANNOUNCED IT HAD DISCOVERED ANOTHER GOOGLE PLUS BUG THAT MAY HAVE EXPOSED THE PRIVATE PROFILE DATA OF MILLIONS OF USERS. WHILE GOOGLE HAS FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE, IN FACT, ABUSED THESE BUGS, OR THAT ANY USER PROFILE DATA HAS BEEN MISUSED IN ANY WAY, INCIDENTS LIKE THIS RAISE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT TYPES OF DATA EXPOSURES A COMPANY — HOW MUCH THEY SHOULD HAVE OVER THEIR DATA AND HOW MUCH CONTROL SHOULD BE REGULATED AND I AM DISTURBED BY REPORTS THAT GOOGLE IS DEVELOPING A SEARCH ENGINE FOR THE CHINESE MAINLAND MARKET. ACCORDING TO REPORTS THE SEARCH ENGINE WOULD NOT ONLY ACCOMMODATE CHINESE GOVERNMENT CENSORS BUT ALLOW THEM TO TRACK INDIVIDUALS BY LINKING SEARCH TERMS TO THE USER’S MOBILE PHONE NUMBER. UNFORTUNATELY, IN THIS, OUR FOURTH HEARING DEVOTED TO ENTIRELY FICTITIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF ANTI-CONSERVATIVE BIAS BY INTERNET COMPANIES, WE WILL WASTE MORE TIME AND MORE TAXPAYER MONEY AND ELEVATING WELL-WORN RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY THEORIES INSTEAD OF CONCENTRATING ON THE QUESTIONS AND ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE THE FOCUS OF OUR HEARINGS. OUR COMMITTEE CAN AND MUST AND WILL DO BETTER. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >>THANK YOU, MR. NADLER.>>>WE WELCOME OUR DISTINGUISHED WITNESS AND IF YOU WOULD RISE, I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR THAT TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD?>>YES.>>THANK YOU. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT WITNESS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. OUR ONLY WITNESS TODAY IS MR. SUNDAR PICHAI. MR. PICHAI IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF GOOGLE. YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL BE ENTERED INTO RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ASK YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN FIVE MINUTES. TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT TIME THERE’S A TIMING LIGHT ON YOUR TABLE. WHEN THE LIGHT SWITCHES FROM GREEN TO YELLOW YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE TO CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY. WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED IT SIGNALS YOUR FIVE MINUTES HAVE EXPIRED. MR. PICHAI, YOU ARE VERY WELCOME AND MAY BEGIN.>>CHAIRMAN GOODLATTE, RANKING MEMBER NADLER, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY. I JOINED GOOGLE 15 YEARS AGO AND HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO SERVE AS CEO FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS, BUT MY LOVE FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY BEGAN LONG BEFORE THAT. IT’S BEEN 25 YEARS SINCE I MADE THE U.S. MY HOME. GROWING UP IN INDIA, I HAVE DISTINCT MEMORIES OF WHEN MY FAMILY GOT ITS FIRST PHONE AND ITS FIRST TELEVISION. EACH FEW TECHNOLOGY MADE A PROFOUND DIFFERENCE IN OUR LIVES. GETTING THE PHONE MEANT I COULD CALL AHEAD TO THE HOSPITAL TO CHECK THAT THE BLOOD RESULTS WERE IN INSTEAD OF TAKING A TWO-HOUR TRIP THERE. AND THE TELEVISION, WHILE IT ONLY HAD ONE CHANNEL, BUT I COULDN’T HAVE BEEN MORE THRILLED BY ITS ARRIVAL. THOSE EXPERIENCES MADE ME A TECHNOLOGY OPTIMIST AND I REMAIN ONE TODAY, NOT ONLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN TECHNOLOGY, BUT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN PEOPLE AND THEIR ABILITY TO USE TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVES. I’M INCREDIBLY PROUD OF WHAT GOOGLE DOES TO EMPOWER PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY HERE IN THE U.S. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SHARE A BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THAT. 20 YEARS AGO TWO STUDENT, ONE FROM MICHIGAN AND ONE FROM MARYLAND, CAME TOGETHER AT STANFORD WITH A BIG IDEA — TO PROVIDE USERS WITH ACCESS TO THE WORLD’S INFORMATION. THAT MISSION STILL DRIVES EVERYTHING WE DO, WHETHER THAT’S SAVING YOU A FEW MINUTES ON YOUR MORNING COMMUTE OR HELPING DOCTORS DETECT DISEASE AND SAVE LIVES. TODAY GOOGLE IS MORE THAN A SEARCH ENGINE. WE ARE A GLOBAL COMPANY THAT IS COMMITTED TO BUILDING PRODUCTS FOR EVERYONE. THAT MEANS WORKING WITH MANY BE INDUSTRIES FROM EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE TO MANUFACTURING AND ENTERTAINMENT. EVEN AS WE EXPAND INTO NEW MARKETS, WE NEVER FORGET OUR AMERICAN ROOTS. IT’S NO COINCIDENCE THAT A COMPANY DEDICATED TO THE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION WAS FOUNDED RIGHT HERE IN THE U.S. AS AN AMERICAN COMPANY, WE CHERISH THE VALUES AND FREEDOMS THAT HAVE ALLOWED US TO GROW AND SERVE SO MANY USERS. I AM PROUD TO SAY WE DO AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO KEEP OUR COUNTRY SAFE AND SECURE. OVER THE YEARS, OUR FOOTPRINT HAS EXPANDED FAR BEYOND CALIFORNIA TO STATES SUCH AS TEXAS, VIRGINIA, OKLAHOMA, AND ALABAMA. TODAY IN THE U.S., WE’RE GROWING FASTER OUTSIDE OF THE BAY AREA THAN WITHIN IT. I’VE HAD THAT GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO TRAVEL ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND SEE ALL THE PLACES THAT ARE POWERING THE DINL ECONOMY FROM CLARKSVILLE TO PITTSBURGH TO SAN DIEGO WHERE WE RECENTLY LAUNCHED A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE USO TO HELP VETERANS AND MILITARY FAMILIES. ALONG THE WAY, MANY PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON GOOGLE TO LEARN NEW SKILLS, FIND JOBS OR NEW BUSINESSES. OVER THE PAST YEAR, WE’VE SUPPORTED MORE THAN 1.5 MILLION AMERICAN BUSINESSES AND OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, WE HAVE MADE DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS OF $150 BILLION TO THE U.S. ECONOMY, ADDED MORE THAN 24,000 EMPLOYEES, AND PAID OVER $43 BILLION TO OUR U.S. PARTNERS ACROSS SEARCH, YOUTUBE AND ANDROID. THESE INVESTMENTS STRENGTHEN OUR COMMUNITIES AND SUPPORT THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN JOBS. THEY ALSO ALLOW US TO PROVIDE GREAT SERVICES TO OUR USERS TO HELP THEM THROUGH THE DAY. IT’S AN HONOR TO PLAY THIS ROLE IN PEOPLE’S LIVES, AND IT’S ONE WE KNOW COMES WITH GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. PROTECTING THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF OUR USERS HAS LONG BEEN AN ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR MISSION. WE HAVE INVESTED AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WORK OVER THE YEARS TO BRING CHOICE, TRANSPARENCY, AND CONTROL TO OUR USERS. THESE VALUES ARE BUILT INTO EVERY PRODUCT WE MAKE. WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING THIS COMMITTEE, IN SETTING RULES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY. TO THAT END, WE SUPPORT FEDERAL PRIVACY LEGISLATION AND PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR PRIVACY EARLIER THIS YEAR. USERs LOOK TO US TO PROVIDE ACCURATE, TRUSTED INFORMATION. WE WORK HARD TO ENSURE THE INNING AT THE GRITY OF OUR PRODUCTS. WE HAVE PUT CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PLACE. I LEAD THIS COMPANY WITHOUT POLITICAL BIAS AND WORK TO ENSURE THAT OUR PRODUCTS CONTINUE TO OPERATE THAT WAY. TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD BE AGAINST OUR CORE PRINCIPLES AND OUR BUSINESS INTERESTS. WE ARE A COMPANY THAT PROVIDES PLATFORMS FOR DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES AND OPINIONS, AND THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF THEM AMONGST OUR EMPLOYEES. SOME GOOGLERS ARE FORMER SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE RISKED MUCH IN DEFENSE OF THEIR COUNTRY. SOME ARE CIVIL LIBERTARIANS WHO DEFEND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. SOME ARE PARENTS WHO WORRY ABOUT THE ROLE TECHNOLOGY PLAYS IN OUR HOUSEHOLDS. SOME LIKE ME ARE IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE PROFOUNDLY GRATEFUL FOR THE FREEDOMS AND OPPORTUNITIES IT OFFERS. SOME OF RUSS MANY OF THESE THINGS. LET ME KOSE BY SAYING THAT LEADING GOOGLE HAS BEEN THE GREATEST PROFESSIONAL HONOR OF MY LIFE. IT’S A CHALLENGING MOMENT FOR OUR INDUSTRY, BUT I’M PRIVILEGED TO BE HERE. I GREATLY APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME SHARE THE STORY OF GOOGLE AND OUR WORK TO BUILD PRODUCTS WORTHY OF THE TRUST USERS PLACE IN US. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS.>>THANK YOU. WE’LL PROCEED UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE WITH QUESTIONS AND I’LL BEGIN BY RECOGNIZING MYSELF. MR. PICHAI, IS IT TRUE THAT THE ANDROID OPERATING SYSTEM SENDS GOOGLE INFORMATION EVERY FEW MINUTES DETAILING THE EXACT LOCATION OF A SMARTPHONE WITHIN A FEW FEET, THE SPEED OF MOVEMENT OF THE PHONE TO DETERMINE WHAT FLOOR OF A BUILDING THE PHONE IS ON, THE TEMPERATURE SURROUNDING THE PHONE AND OTHER READINGS AND IF SO, WITH AMERICANS CARRYING THEIR PHONES WITH THEM VIRTUALLY AT ALL TIMES DOESN’T THE COLLECTION OF THIS VOLUME OF DETAILED INFORMATION REALLY MEAN THAT GOOGLE IS COMPILING INFORMATION ABOUT VIRTUALLY EVERY MOVEMENT AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A SMARTPHONE IS MAKING EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY?>>MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. TODAY, FOR ANY SERVICE WE PROVIDE OUR USERS, WE GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY AND WE GIVE THEM TRANSPARENCY, CHOICE AND CONTROL. ANDROID IS A POWERFUL PLATFORM AND PROVIDES SMARTPHONES FOR OVER 2 BILLION PEOPLE. AS PART OF THAT, IT DEPENDS ON THE APPLICATIONS USERS CHOOSE TO USE. IF YOU’RE USING A FITNESS APPLICATION, DETECTING THE STEPS YOU WALK, IT’S A CHOICE USERS MAKE, WE MAKE IT CLEAR AND IT DEPENDS ON THE CASES. >>THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IS YES? IS THAT CORRECT? THAT THE INFORMATION THAT I CITED IS GATHERED BY GOOGLE?>>IF THE — FOR GOOGLE SERVICES, YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF WHAT INFORMATION IS COLLECTED AND WE MAKE IT TRANSPARENT.>>I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE USES THAT CONSUMERS MAKE USE OF. I USE IT TO KEEP TRACK OF THE NUMBER OF STEPS I WALK. I UNDERSTAND THAT SERVICE THAT ONE OF YOUR COMPETITORS PROVIDES. I UNDERSTAND THAT PURPOSE. DO YOU THINK THE AVERAGE CONSUMER UNDERSTAND THAT GOOGLE WILL COLLECT THIS VOLUME OF DETAILED INFORMATION WHEN THEY CLICK THROUGH THE TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENTS TO USE THE ANDROID OPERATING SYSTEM?>>IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT USERS ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT. THIS IS WHY WE DO SOMETHING CALLED PRIVACY CHECKUP. >>DO YOU THINK THE AVERAGE USERS READ THE TERMS OF SERVICE AND UPDATES THAT ARE FREQUENTLY SENT TO US?>>BEYOND THE TERMS OF SERVICE, WE ACTUALLY OFFER, REMIND USERS TO DO A PRIVACY CHECKUP AND WE MAKE IT VERY OBVIOUS EVERY MONTH. IN FACT IN THE LAST 28 DAYS, 160 MILLION USERS WENT TO THE MY ACCOUNT SETTINGS WHERE THEY CAN CLEARLY SEE WHAT INFORMATION WE HAVE. WE SHOW IT BACK TO THEM. AND WE GIVE CLEAR TOGGLES BY CATEGORY WHERE THEY CAN DECIDE WHETHER THAT INFORMATION IS COLLECTED, STORED, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF THEY DECIDE TO STOP USING IT, WE WORK HARD TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR USERS TO TAKE THEIR DATA WITH THEM IF THEY CHOOSE TO USE ANOTHER SERVICE.>>LET ME SWITCH TO THE ISSUE OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT. YOU HEARD ME SAY IN MY OPENING STATEMENT THIS PROVIDES BROAD LIABILITY PROTECTIONS FOR YOU AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES FOR GOOD FAITH RESTRICTIONS THAT WHEN GOOGLE THINKS SOMETHING IS OBSCENE, LEWD, FILTHY, EXCESSIVELY VIOLENT, HARASSING OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE, ON THE OTHER HAND OBJECTBLE MATERIAL BY WHATEVER STANDARD APPLIED, LIKELY ILLICITS THE MOST ENGAGEMENT FROM USERS ON YOUR SITE AND FOR GOOGLE INCREASED ENGAGEMENT MEANS INCREASED REVENUE. HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR GOOGLE TO MAKE CLEAR WHERE IT DRAWS THE LINE AND I DON’T BELIEVE GOOGLE HAS DONE ITS BEST TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THE FOLLOWING, WOULD GOOGLE OR YOUTUBE BE WILLING TO MAKE CHANGES IN SUPPORT OF A HEALTHIER CIVIC DIALOG IF DOING SO MEANT A DROP IN USER ENGAGEMENT METRICS?>>ABSOLUTELY, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE A LONG TRACK RECORD, WE HAVE ALWAYS TO FOCUSED ON LONG-TERM GOALS TO USER SATISFACTION. WE FOCUS ON THEIR KNOWLEDGE, HAPPINESS, SUCCESSES AND THAT’S WHAT WE WORK HARD TO CREATE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO US THAT PLATFORMS LIKE YOUTUBE ARE VIABLE AND IT’S IN OUR NATURAL INCENTIVE TO DO SO. YOUTUBE IS A PLACE WHERE USERS, ADVERTISERS AND CONTENT CREATORS WHO MAKE THEIR LIVELIHOOD USE THE PLATFORM. WE WANT TO MAKE THIS WORK IN A SUSTAINABLE WAY. >>WHEN IT COMES TO POLITICAL ADVERTISING, SOME OF YOUR COMPETITORS IN OTHER ADVERTISING MEDIA ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO OFFER THE SAME RATE, THE LOWEST RATE AS A MATTER OF FACT, TO ALL POLITICAL CANDIDATES. FOR EXAMPLE, THAT’S TRUE IN TELEVISION AND RADIO. WOULD GOOGLE — SHOULD COMPETING POLITICAL CANDIDATES BE CHARGED THE SAME AD RATES TO REACH PROSPECTIVE VOTERS. >>OUR ADVERTISING PRODUCTS ARE BUILT WITHOUT ANY BIAS AND THE RATES ARE SET BY A LIVE AUCTION PROCESS. DEPENDING ON THE KEYWORDS FOR WHICH YOU’RE BIDDING FOR AND THE DEMAND THAT IS IN THE AUCTION, THE PRICES ARE AUTOMATICALLY CALCULATED. THE SYSTEM DECIDES THAT.>>I UNDERSTAND AUTOMATICALLY CALCULATED BUT COULD TWO COMPETING POLITICAL CANDIDATES TARGETING THE SAME AUDIENCE SEE DIFFERENT AD RATES AND COULD THAT DISPARITY BE SUBSTANTIAL?>>THERE WOULDN’T BE A DIFFERENCE BASED ON, YOU KNOW, ANY POLITICAL REASONS UNLESS THERE ARE KEYWORDS WHICH ARE OF PARTICULAR INTEREST IN THE MARKET. IT’S ESSENTIALLY A SUPPLY AND DEMAND EQUILIBRIUM. IT CAN LEAD TO DIFFERENCE IN RATES BUT IT WILL VARY FROM TIME TO TIME. >>CAN THOSE RATES BE VERY SUBSTANTIAL IN DIFFERENCE?>>THERE COULD BE OCCASIONS WHERE, YES, THERE COULD BE DIFFERENCE IN RATES YEAH. I HAVEN’T LOOKED AT THE SPECIFIC OF IT. >>THE RESULT IS DIFFERENT THAN IN OTHER MARKETS LIKE TELEVISION OR RADIO WHERE EVERY CANDIDATE IS ENTITLED TO THE LOWEST RATE THAT THAT TELEVISION STATION OR RADIO STATION OFFERS TO ANY POLITICAL CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE?>>WE — THERE COULD BE VARIATIONS BASED ON THE TIME OF TODAY, THE KEYWORDS YOU’RE CHOOSING TO GO FOR, YOU KNOW, THE GEOGRAPHIES YOU’RE ADVERTISING IN. IT’S DECIDED BY THE SYSTEM AND IT’S A PROCESS WE HAVE DONE FOR OVER 20 YEARS. LET ME ASSURE YOU ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR CIVIC PROCESS WE MAKE SURE WE DO SO IN A NONPARTISAN WAY AND IT’S IMPORTANT FOR US.>>THANK YOU. THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK, MR. NADLER, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >>THANK YOU, MR. PICHAI. ACCORDING TO MEDIA REPORTS GOOGLE FOUND EVIDENCE THAT — WELL, LET ME GO TO THE OTHER ONE FIRST. GOOGLE FOUND A BUG IN ITS GOOGLE PLUS SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY EXPOSED THE PRIVATE DATA OF HALF A MILLION USERS WITHOUT THE CONSENT TO THIRD-PARTY DEVELOPERS AND GOOGLE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE BUG UNTIL MONTHS LATER AFTER REVEALED BY A REPORT IN THE “WALL STREET JOURNAL.” YESTERDAY AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THEY FOUND — YOU ANNOUNCED ANOTHER BUG. WHAT LEGAL OBLIGATIONS IS THE COMPANY UNDER TO DISCLOSE THAT EXPOSURE THAT DO NOT INVOLVE SENSITIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION BUT STILL INVOLVE PRIVATE, PERSONAL DATA LIKE USER’S NAME, AGE, PHONE NUMBER. >>WE TAKE PRIVACY SERIOUSLY. THE BUGS YOU MENTIONED ARE BUGS WE FOUND THEM BY EITHER DOING AN AUDIT OR, YOU KNOW, USING OUR AUTOMATED TESTING SYSTEMS. WHENEVER WE FIND ANY BUGS, WE FOLLOW, YOU KNOW — IT GETS ESCALATED TO OUR PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION OFFICE AND WE COMPLY WITH — >>I’M NOT CRITICIZING WHAT YOU DO. I’M ASKING WHAT LEGAL OBLIGATION IS THE COMPANY UNDER TO DISCLOSE SUCH DATA EXPOSURES THAT DON’T INVOLVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION, BUT STILL INVOLVE OTHER PERSONAL INFORMATION?>>IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. WE FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS AND IN THAT CASE, IN THE FIRST CASE, TYPICALLY WE LOOK AT OUR LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT WE GO ABOVE AND BEYOND TO MAKE SURE WE DO THE RIGHT THING FOR OUR USERS. IN THE FIRST CASE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DATA WAS MISUSED — >>I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT. MY QUESTION IS WHAT LEGAL OBLIGATIONS ARE THERE?>>YOU KNOW, TODAY, RIGHT NOW, IF WE FOUND A BUG AND A CERTAIN — ONCE YOU’VE DONE THE INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINED THE USERS ARE FOR NOTIFICATION, YOU HAVE 72 HOURS. WE NOTIFY USERS AND REGULATORS IN THAT TIME FRAME. >>THANK YOU. ACCORDING TO MEDIA REPORTS GOOGLE FOUND EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIAN AGENTS SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PURCHASE ADS ON ITS PLATFORMS THAT SPAN MULTIPLE GOOGLE PRODUCTS AS PART OF THE RUSSIAN AGENT’S CAMPAIGN TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION TWO YEARS AGO. JUNIPER DOWNS, HEAD OF GLOBAL POLICY FOR YOUTUBE, TESTIFIED IN JULY THAT YOUTUBE IDENTIFIED AND SHUT DOWN MULTIPLE CHANNELS CONTAINING THOUSANDS OF VIDEOS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RUSSIAN MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN. DOES GOOGLE NOW KNOW THE FULL EXTENT TO WHICH ITS ON-LINE PLATFORMS WERE EXPLOITED BY RUSSIAN ACTORS IN THE ELECTION TWO YEARS AGO?>>WE HAVE — WE UNDERTOOK A VERY THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AND IN 2016 WE NOW KNOW THERE WERE TWO MAIN AD ACCOUNTS LINKED TO RUSSIA WHICH, YOU KNOW, ADVERTISED ON GOOGLE FOR ABOUT 4700 DOLLARS IN ADVERTISING. WE ALSO FOUND OTHER LIMITED — >>TOTAL OF $4700?>>THAT’S RIGHT. WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, NO AMOUNT IS OKAY HERE, BUT WE FOUND LIMITED AND IMPROPER ACTIVITY. WE LEARNED A LOT FROM THAT AND WE HAVE DRAMATICALLY INCREASED THE PRODUCTIONS WE HAVE AROUND OUR ELECTION OFFERINGS, LEADING UP TO THE CURRENT ELECTIONS WE AGAIN FOUND LIMITED ACTIVITY BOTH FROM THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY IN RUSSIA AS WELL AS ACCOUNTS LINKED TO IRAN.>>WHAT SPECIFIC STEPS HAVE YOU TAKEN, INCLUDING DURING THE RECENT 2018 ELECTIONS TO PROTECT AGAINST FURTHER INTERFERENCE FROM RUSSIA OR OTHER FOREIGN POWERS. >>WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN SIGNIFICANT REVIEW OF HOW ADS ARE BOUGHT. WE LOOK FOR THE ORIGIN OF THESE ACCOUNTS. WE SHARE AND COLLABORATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, OTHER TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES, AND WE ESSENTIALLY ARE INVESTING A LOT OF EFFORT AND OVERSIGHT IN THIS AREA. >>LOOKING AHEAD TO THE NEXT CONGRESS, I ASSUME WE CAN HAVE YOUR ASSURANCES THAT GOOGLE WILL WORK WITH THIS COMMITTEE AS WE EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF HOW TO BETTER SECURE OUR ELECTIONS FROM FUTURE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE?>>CONGRESSMAN, PREDICTING OUR ELECTIONS IS FOUNDATIONAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY AND YOU HAVE MY FULL COMMITMENT THAT WE WILL DO THAT.>>MY LAST QUESTION BECAUSE THE TIME IS RUNNING OUT, WHAT IS GOOGLE DOING TO COMBAT THE SPREAD OF WHITE SUPREMACY AND RIGHT WING EXTREMISM?>>CONGRESSMAN, YOUTUBE IS AN IMPORTANT PLATFORM. WE DO WANT TO ALLOW FOR DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES AND OPINIONS, BUT WE HAVE RULES AND CLEAR CONTENT POLICIES AND POLICIES AGAINST MANY CATEGORIES AND WE ARE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THESE POLICIES. WHEN WE FIND VIOLATIONS ON OUR POLICIES WE REVIEW THOSE VIDEOS AND HANDLE CONTENT. >>WHEN YOU FIND VIOLATIONS YOU WHAT?>>OFFER POLICY. WE HAVE POLICIES AGAINST HATE SPEECH AND CLEARLY DEFINE THEM AND IF WE FIND VIOLATIONS THERE, WE TAKE DOWN CONTENT. >>WHEN YOU TAKE THE DOWN THE CONTENT, DO YOU NOTE WHO PUT IT UP SO YOU CAN FLAG FUTURE CONTENT FROM THE SAME SOURCES?>>YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT IT ON A VIDEO BY VIDEO BASIS. TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE REPEAT OFFENSES FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT, WE DO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AND NOTIFY THE CONTENT CREATOR AND FOLLOW UP ACCORDINGLY. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I YIELD BACK.>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR. SMITH, FOR FIVE MINUTES. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, GOOGLE HAS REVOLUTIONIZED THE WORLD, THOUGH NOT ENTIRELY IN THE WAY I EXPECTED. AMERICANS DESERVE THE FACTS OBJECTIVELY REPORTED. THE MUTING OF CONSERVATIVE VOICES BY INTERNET PLATFORMS HAS INTENSIFIED, ESPECIALLY DURING THE PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP. MORE THAN 90% OF ALL INTERNET SEARCHES TAKE PLACE ON GOOGLE OR YOUTUBE AND ARE CUREUATING WHAT WE SEE. GOOGLE HAS LONG FACED CRITICISM FOR MANIPULATING SEARCH RESULTS TO SENSOR. CONSERVATIVES. ORGANIZATIONS HAVE HAD PRO-TRUMP CONTENT TAGGED AS HATE SPEECH R OR CONTENT REDUCED IN SEARCH RESULTS. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS HAS BEEN TAGGED AS HATE SPEECH AS WELL. SUCH ACTIONS POSE A GRAVE THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT. PJ MEDIA FOUND 96% OF SEARCH RESULTS FOR TRUMP WERE FROM LIBERAL MEDIA OUTLETS. IN FACT, NOT A SINGLE RIGHT-LEANING SITE APPEARED OBJECT ON THE FIRST PAGE OF RESULTS. THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT, BUT IS BAKED INTO THE AGORITHM ALGORITHMS. APPARENTLY MANAGEMENT ALLOW IT IS. A HARVARD TRAINED PSYCHOLOGIST AUTHORED A STUDY THAT SHOWED GOOGLE’S BIAS SWUNG 2.6 MILLION VOTES TO HILLARY CLINTON IN THE 2016 ELECTION. GOOGLE COULD WELL ELECT THE NEXT PRESIDENT WITH DIRE IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR DEMOCRACY. THIS SHOULD BE A REAL CONCERN TO ALL BUT THE MOST POLITICALLY PARTISAN. THOSE AT THE TOP SET THE TONE. IT WILL REQUIRE A HERK LEAN EFFORT IN SENIOR MANAGEMENT TO CHANGE THE POLITICAL BIAS NOW PROGRAMMED INTO THE COMPANY’S CULTURE. AND LET ME ASK MY QUESTION ABOUT THOSE EXAMPLES OF POLITICAL BIAS THAT I JUST MENTIONED. AND YOU’RE GOING TO HEAR OTHERS TOO. IN THE OPENING STATEMENT, YOU MENTIONED YOUR DESEWER TO PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT WAS WITHOUT POLITICAL BIAS. CLEARLY, THAT’S NOT WORKING. SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO IMPROVE THAT SITUATION?>>CONGRESSMAN, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. IF I MAY, SOME OF THE STUDIES YOU MENTIONED, WE HAVE INVESTIGATED THOSE THAT ARE OTHER STUDIES THAT HAVE LOOKED AT HAVE FOUND ISSUES WITH THE MEDOLOGY AND THE SAMPLE SIZE. BUT LET ME STEP BACK AND SAY PROVIDING USERS WITH HIGH QUALITY INFORMATION IS SACK RA ZING TO US. IT’S WHAT OUR PLINS PRESIDENTIALS ARE. WE WANT TO SERVE USERS EVERYWHERE AND WE NEED TO EARN THEIR TRUST IN DOING SO.>>SO WHAT ACTIONS ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE TO TRY TO COUNTER THE LIT CALL BIAS THIS SOME OF THOSE EXAMPLES THAT US JUST GAVE? THEY ARE IRREFUTABLE. IT OCCURS, YOU HAVE TO TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT BIAS. WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO ABOUT IT?>>CONGRESSMAN, WITH RESPECT, THE STUDY BEING INVESTIGATED, WE DON’T AGREE. HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP AND GIVE OUR FINDINGS ON THE TRADE. WE EVALUATE OUR STUDIES AND SEARCH RESULTS. TODAY WE USE A MEDOLOGY THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR 20 YEARS. MAKING SURE THAT THE RESULTS ARE ACCURATE IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND WE WORK HARD TO DO THAT.>>WHAT DOES IT DO WITH THE FACT THAT 96% OF THE REFERENCES TO TRUMP ARE FROM LIBERAL MEDIA?>>THERE ARE ALWAYS STUDIES WHICH CAN SHOW ONE SET OF DATA AND CONCLUSIONS. BUT WE HAVE LOOKED AT RESULTS ON THE TOP CATEGORY. WE FIND THAT WE HAVE A WIDE VARIETY OF SOURCES INCLUDING SOURCES FROM THE LEFT AND SOURCES FROM THE RIGHT. AND ET WE COMMITTED TO MAKE SURE IT’S A DIVERSE PER SPECT YOU HAVE.>>THE STUDY WAS DONE BY A SELF-PROCLAIMED DEMOCRAT WHO VOTED FOR HILLARY CLINTON AND SAID HE REGRETTED TO FIND WHAT HE FOUND, BUT HE FELT IT WAS IRREFUTABLE. LET ME GO TO ANOTHER QUESTION. CLEARLY, THERE MAY BE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO THE DEGREE OR AMOUNT OF POLITICAL BIAS. WOULD YOU AGREE TO ALLOW AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY TO STUDY YOUR SEARCH RESULTS FOR POLITICAL BIAS? I KNOW YOU’VE HAD INDIVIDUALS STUDYING THAT NOW, US YOU APPOINTED THEM. WOULD YOU ALLOW A THIRD PARTY OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION TO STUDY YOUR SEARCH RESULTS AND COOPERATE WITH THEM TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE, IF ANY, OF POLITICAL BIAS?>>CONGRESSMAN, IF I MAY MAKE TWO POINTS. TO DATE THERE HAVE BEEN INDEPENDENT THIRD PART. STUDIES LOOKING AT SEARCH RESULTS.>>BUT YOU CHOSE THOSE THIRD PARTIES. I’M TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE TRULY INDEPENDENT.>>WE DIDN’T CHOOSE THE THIRD PARTIES. THEY COMPLETED THE STUDIES. WE ARE TRANSPARENT AS TO HOW WE EVALUATE SEARCH. WE PUBLISH GUIDELINES. THAT’S HOW WE ARE TRYING HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHAT USERS WANT AND THIS IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO US TO GET RUGT. I’M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP AND EXPLAIN THE METHODOLOGY.>>TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YOU HAVE PICKED THOSE THIRD PARTIES AND I’D LIKE TO HAVE SOMEONE TRULY INDEPENDENT STUDY THOSE RESULTS. NUMBER TWO, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YOU HAVE NEVER SANCTIONED ANY EMPLOYEE FOR ANY TYPE OF MANIPULATING THE SEARCH RESULTS WHATSOEVER. IS THAT THE CASE?>>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED, BUT HE WILL BE ALLOWED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.>>IT’S NOT POSSIBLE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE TO MANIPULATE THE SEARCH RESULTS. WE HAVE A ROBUST FRAMEWORK INCLUDING MANY STEPS IN THE PROCESS.>>I DISAGREE. US THINK THEY CAN MANIPULATE THE PROCESS.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. GOOGLE IS LOCATED IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY, MY HOME. AND I’VE GOT TO SAY IN CONTRAST TO THE RECENT AMAZON EFFORT FOR HEADQUARTERS, THEY ARE PROPOSING TO ESTABLISH A FACILITY IN DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE. I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE EXCITE ED BY THE PROPOSAL, BUT THERE’S ANXIETY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON HOUSING. AND WHETHER GOOGLE INTENDS TO BE A PARTNER WITH THE CITY OF SAN JOSE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ACCOMMODATE THE HOUSING THAT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR THE 20,000 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN SAN JOSE.>>I MISSED THE LAST PART OF THE QUESTION.>>WHETHER YOU’D BE A PARTNER WITH THE CITY IN HELPING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOUSING TO ACCOMMODATE THESE EMPLOYEES.>>IT’S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. WE DEEPLY CARE ABOUT THE COMMUNITY WHERE WE WORK. AS PART OF THIS EFFORT, WE HAVE DONE WIDE OUTREACH AND COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THERE’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING.>>THANK YOU SO MUCH.>>THERE’S SO MANY QUESTIONS. I’M HOPING WE’LL BE ABLE TO VISIT WITH YOU AND OTHER TECH COMPANIES TO TALK ABOUT PRIVACY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO HUMAN RIGHTS. AND WHAT’S GOING ON IN AUSTRALIA. FILTERING AND CONFIRMATION BIAS IN ITS IMPACT ON SOCIETY GENERALLY BOTH CULTURALLY AND POLITICALLY. BUT WE CAN’T DO THAT IN THE FIVE MINUTES WE HAVE HERE TODAY. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REVISIT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASKED. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED ABOUT LOCATION POLICIES IN YOUR ANDROID SYSTEM. YOU POINTED TO VARIOUS APPS THAT MIGHT PROVIDE INFORMATION. LET’S SAY I GOT AN ANDROID PHONE AND I DON’T HAVE A SINGLE APP ON THAT PHONE. WHAT INFORMATION WOULD BE CHEKTED?>>THERE’S NO INFORMATION SENT TO THAT DEVICE. BUT THIS IS A COMPLEX AREA. THERE ARE TIMES YOUR IP ADDRESS MAY UNCOLLUDE LOCATE INFORMATION. IT’S AN AREA WE’RE COMMITTED TO MAKING IT EASIER.>>MANIPULATION OF SEARCH RESULTS. IT’S IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW SEARCH WORKS. RIGHT NOW, IF YOU GOOGLE THE WORD IDIOT, UNDER IMAGES, A PICTURE OF DONALD TRUMP COMES UP. I JUST DID THAT. HOW WOULD THAT HAPPEN? HOW DOES SEARCH WORK SO THAT THAT WOULD OCCUR?>>WE PROVIDE SEARCH FOR ANY TIME YOU TYPE IN A KEYWORD, WE AS GOOGLE HAVE GONE OUT AND CRAWLED COPIES OF BILLIONS OF PAGES IN OUR INDEX AND WE TAKE THE KEYWORD AND MATCH IT AGAINST THE PAGES AND GRANT THEM IT BASED ON OUR 200 SIGNALS THINGS LIKE RELEVANCE, FRESHNESS, POPULARITY, HOW OTHER PEOPLE ARE USING IT, AND BASED ON THAT, WE TRIED TO FIND THE BEST RESULTS FOR THAT QUERY. THEN WE EVALUATE THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY EVALUATED TO OBJECTIVE GUIDELINES AND THAT’S HOW WE MAKE SURE THE PROCESS IS WORKING.>>SO IT’S NOT SOME MAN SITTING BEHIND THE CURTAIN FIGURING OUT WHAT WE’RE GOING TO SHOW THE USERS BASICALLY A COMPILATION OF WHAT USERS ARE GENERATING AND TRYING TO SORT THROUGH THAT INFORMATION.>>LAST YEAR WE SOLD OVER 3 TRILLION SEARCHES. EVERY SINGLE DAY 15% OF THE THE SEARCHES GOOGLE SEES, WE HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM BEFORE. SO THIS IS WORKING AT SCALE. AND WE DON’T MANUALLY INTERVENE ON ANY PARTICULAR SEARCH RESULT.>>I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE, FROM TIME TO TIME, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE COMPLAIN THAT THEY HEAR AN INDIVIDUAL ENGINEER APPEARS TO BE A DEMOCRAT. AND I JUST LIKE TO PUT THIS IN CONTEXT. IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY, DONALD TRUMP IN THE 2016 ELECTION GOT 20% OF THE VOTE. THAT’S HOW MUCH OF THE VOTE HE GOT. SO IT’S NOT A SURPRISE THAT THE ENGINEERS WHO LIVE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY WOULD REFLECT THAT GENERAL POLITICAL OUTCOME. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ALGORITHMS AND AUTOMATED PROCESS THAT IS THE SEARCH ENGINE THAT SERVES US IF WE DIDN’T HAVE GOOGLE, WE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO FIND ANY INFORMATION IN THE EFFICIENT WAY THAT WE DO. I LOOK FORWARD NEXT YEAR TO WORKING WITH YOU ON SOME OF THE VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS THAT WE FACE. IT’S PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT BIAS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY TIME IS EXPIRED.>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO FOR FIVE MINUTES.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LET ME START OUT WITH SOMETHING REAL QUICKLY. WE HAVE HEARD SEVERAL TIMES THIS MORNING THE MENTION THAT 90% OF THE TIME THAT A PERSON, HE OR SHE, DOES AB INTERNET SEARCH IT’S THROUGH GOOGLE. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT’S TRUE?>>MORE THAN EVER, THERE ARE MANY WAYS USERS ACCESS INFORMATION. . JUST TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE, IF YOU’RE TRYING TO SHOP OR BUY SOMETHING, MORE THAN 50% OF PRODUCT SEARCHES ORIGINATE WITH AMAZON IN THE U.S. TODAY. IF YOU’RE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ON NEWS,ED TO YOU CAN GET IT FROM MORE SOURCES THAN EVER BEFORE.>>BUT DO YOU DISPUTE THE 90% NUMBER?>>IT’S TOUGH FOR US TO ASSESS NUMBERS. THERE ARE STUDIES THAT HAVE SHOWN DIFFERENT NUMBERS INCLUDING LOWER NUMBERS THAN THAT.>>THERE’S A BIAS IN LIBERAL POINTS OF VIEW AND AGAINST MORE CONSERVATIVE POINTS. YOU HAVE HEARD THAT THIS MORNING.>>YES.>>LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT A FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE THAT I HAD. I DO A WEEKLY BLOG. I HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR THE BETTER PART OF NINE YEARS. AWHILE BACK, REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE PASSED LEGISLATION TO REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMACARE. OUR BILL WAS CALLED THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE ACT OR THE AHCA. WHEN I WAS WRITING ABOUT THAT, I GOOGLED AMERICAN HEALTH CARE ACT AND VIRTUALLY EVERY ARTICLE WAS AN ATTACK ON OUR BILL. ARTICLE AFTER ARTICLE ALLEGING THAT OUR BILL WOULD RESULT IN MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LOSING THE GREAT CARE THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSEDLY GETTING UNDER OBAMACARE. I WOULD ARGUE THAT WAS COMPLETELY FALSE. BUT IT WASN’T UNTIL YOU GOT TO THE THIRD OR FOURTH PAGE OF SEARCH RESULTS THAT YOU FOUNDING IN REMOTELY POSITIVE ABOUT OUR BILL. THE REPUBLICAN TAX CUT BILL WAS PASSED ABOUT A YEAR AGO. THE TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT, SAME STORY. ARTICLE AFTER ARTICLE ATTACKING REPUBLICAN TAX CUT PLAN ALLEGING THE TAX CUTS ONLY WENT TO THE RICH WHEN IN ACTUALITY 85% OF TAXPAYERS GOT THEIR TAXES CUT, INCLUDING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF MIDDLE CLASS TAXPAYERS. . AND ONCE AGAIN. TO FIND ANY ARTICLE THAT HAD ANYTHING REMOTELY GOOD TO SAY OBJECT OUR PLAN, YOU HAD TO GO DEEP INTO THE SEARCH RESULTS. I KNOW GOOGLE’S ATTITUDE, THE ALGORITHM MAY DO IT. BUT I DON’T KNOW I BUY THAT. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS APPARENT BIAS ON GOOGLE’S PART AGAINST CONSERVATIVE POINTS OF VIEW, AGAINST CONSERVATIVE POLICY ISES? IS IT JUST THE ALGORITHM OR MORE HAPPENING THERE?>>CONGRESSMAN, I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION OF SEEING NEGATIVE NEWS AND I SEE IT ON ME. YOU CAN SEARCH ON GOOGLE AND PAGE AFTER PAGE THERE’S NEGATIVE NEWS, WHICH WE DEFLECT. BUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT HERE IS WE USE THE ROBUST METHODOLOGY TO REFLECT WHAT IS BEING SAID ABOUT ANY GIVEN TOPIC AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME. AND WE TRY TO DO IT OBJECTIVELY USING A SET OF RULES. IT’S IN OUR INTEREST TO MAKE SURE WE DEFLECT WHAT’S HAPPENING OUT THERE IN THE BEST OBJECTIVE MANNER POSSIBLE. I CAN COMMIT TO YOU AND ASHOWER YOU WE DO IT WITHOUT REGARDS TO POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.>>I’M GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME. I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING. I BELIEVE THAT YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU’RE SAYING HERE. BUT YOU HAVE ALMOST 90,000 EMPLOYEES. SOMEBODY OUT THERE IS DOING SOMETHING THAT JUST ISN’T WORKING IF YOU’RE LOOKING FOR UNBIASSED RESULTS. AND I HAVE SEEN THIS FIRSTHAND. TIME AFTER TIME, I JUST MENTIONED TWO OF THE MOST OBVIOUS ONES THAT PEOPLE WOULD REMEMBER THOSE BILLS HEARD ABOUT THOSE. SO I HAVE SEEN IF WHAT I HAVE DESCRIBED AND OTHERS, IF IT IS HAPPENING, YOU SEE HOW CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE THAT YOUR COMPANY IS KIND OF PUTTING THEIR THUMB ON THIS, SO TO SPEAK, THAT YOU ARE PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS AND POLITICAL DISCOURSE OUT THERE IN AMERICA TODAY. THEREFORE, AFFECTING ELECTIONS AND DO YOU SEE WHY CONSERVATIVES WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AND WHY WE’RE ASKING THESE KINDS OF QUESTIONS? THERE’S A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK WHAT I’M SAYING HERE IS HAPPENING. AND I THINK IT’S HAPPENING. SO I’VE ONLY GOT ABOUT 20 SECONDS TO GO.>>CONGRESSMAN, IT’S IMPORTANT TO ME THAT I UNDERSTAND THESE CONCERN CANS. THIS IS WHY I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO REACH OUT AND MEET PEOPLE. WE WANT THE TO EXPLAIN HOW THESE THINGS WORK. WE ARE HAPPY TO LOOK AT INDEPENDENT STUDIES. IT’S IMPORTANT TO DEMONSTRATE OUR PRODUCTS WORK WITHOUT ANY BIAS. I’M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP AND LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN IT BETTER.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO FOLLOW UP BECAUSE THERE’S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I’M ALREADY OUT OF TIME. BUT LET ME THANK GOOGLE FOR ONE THING. YOUR COMPANY HAS WORKED WITH AN AWFUL LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO CREATE A LOT OF JOBS. I COMMEND YOU FOR THAT. I YIELD BACK.>>I’M RIGHT HERE. IT’S A PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU HERE THIS MORNING. I’M GOING TO TRY AND ANSWER VERY OR OFFER TO YOU QUESTIONS INITIALLY THAT REQUIRE A YES OR NO ANSWER. DOES GOOGLE CHOOSE CONSERVATIVE VOICES OVER LIBERAL CHOICES?>>WE APPROACH WORK WITHOUT POLITICAL BIAS. WE BUILD IN A NEUTRAL WAY.>>THE ANSWER IS YES OR NO?>>NO.>>IF HATE SPEECH PROVOKES VIOLENCE, IS THAT THE DEFINITION IN OTHER ASPECTS THAT US YO CONSIDER THAT YOU’D TAKE IT DOWN. THERE ARE OTHER ASPECTS, BUT PARTICULARLY ENCOURAGING VIOLENCE? DOES THAT GET TAKEN DOWN?>>PRIMARY PURPOSE OF INCITING VIOLENCE IS HATE SPEECH.>>IT WOULD BE TAKEN DOWN?>>YES, WE WOULD REMOVE.>>I WANT TO JUST TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT I LOOK FORWARD TO BEST PRACTICES WHEN WE START THE 116 CONGRESS IN TERMS OF HAVING MORE HEARINGS. THIS COMMITTEE HAS WASHED ITS HAND OF ENGAGING IN MEANINGFUL OVERSIGHT OF TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM EFFORTS TO SIFT THROUGH CONTENT BEING SOLD BY HOSTILE FOREIGN ACTORS CLAIMING TO HEIGHT B SOCIAL DIVISION. I WILL MAKE MENTION OF THE DECLARATION OF ARTICLE XII, THAT SAYS NO ONE SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY AND GOOGLE DOES ENGAGE IN REVIEWING E-MAILS. WOULD YOU COMMIT TO ARTICLE 12 HOEMZ OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS IT RELATES TO PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF INDIVIDUAL E-MAILS?>>IT’S AN IMPORTANT INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. WE ARE COMMITTED TO UPHOLDING THAT AND HAPPY TO ENGAGE IN ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THAT.>>I’D LIKE TO DO SO. WE KNOW THAT BUILDING THE U.S. ECONOMY THROUGH INNOVATION IS VERY IMPORTANT. I’D LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO GOOGLE INVOLVING THE ECONOMY TO NONTRADITIONAL AREAS OF SOCIAL ECONOMIC GROUPS. THAT SHOWS THE IMPACT OF NOT HAVING THAT ACCESS. WOULD YOU BE WELCOME OR WOULD YOU WELCOME INVITATIONS TO THOSE COMMUNITIES TO DO MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DONE?>>ABSOLUTELY, YES.>>YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE SENATE A FEW WEEKS AGO REGARDING ILLEGAL DRUG SALES. IT’S QUITE EXTENSIVE. HAVE YOU MADE ANY EFFORTS TO DEAL WITH THE FACILITATING SALE OF FALSIFIED MEDICINES SOLD THROUGH ILLEGAL ONLINE PHARMACIES?>>THERE’S A NATIONAL CRISIS. WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN A LOT OF WORK IN THIS AREA. WE JUST RECENTLY ROLLED OUT A NATIONAL TAKEBACK DAY IN GOOGLE MAPS AND SHOWED DROP OFF LOCATIONS. WE WORK WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT HERE AND JUST LAST WEEK WE RECEIVED A CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP AWARD. WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING MORE WORK IN THIS AREA.>>WE APPLAUDED YOU IN 2010 WHEN GOOGLE TOOK A POWERFUL STAND OF A PRINCIPLE AND DEMOCRATIC VALUE OEFRS PROFITS. AND CAME OUT OF CHINA. I’M CONCERNED YOU’RE NOW GOING BACK INTO CHINA AND UPHOLDING THE DRAGON FLY PROCEDURES WHICH WOULD HELP CENSOR CHINESE PERSONS SEEKING A LIFELINE OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM. HOW CAN YOU DO THAT AND WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO MINIMIZE OR TO INDICATE THAT THIS IS NOT THE BEST PRACTICES?>>CONGRESSMAN, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NO. PLANS TO LAUNCH IN CHINA. WE DON’T HAVE A SEARCH PRODUCT THERE. OUR CORE MISSION IS TO PROVIDE USERS ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND GETTING ACCESS TO INFORMATION IS AN IMPORTANT HUMAN RIGHT. SO WE ARE ALWAYS COMPELLED ACROSS THE WORLD TO TRY HARD TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION. BUT RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE NO PLANS TO LAUNCH SERGE IN NA.>>THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT. MY COMMUNITY IS DIVERSE. AS YOU WELL MAY HAVE HEARD THE CONGRESSIONAL CAUGHT CUSHION HAS BEEN WORKING WITH GOOGAL AND OTHER SEARCH ENGINES TO RECOGNIZE THERE’S NOT ENOUGH INDIVIDUALS OF DIVERSITY. MY DISTRICT HAS A HUGE NUMBER OF MUSICIANS, ARTISTS AND CREATORS FROM ALL AREAS OF ENTERTAINMENT. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN WHAT EFFORTS ARE BEING TAKEN TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY WITH EMPLOYEES, WHAT ARE THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF EMPLOYEES AND HOW IS YOUTUBE DISTRIBUTING RESOURCES. WHAT ARE YOU DOING? YOUTUBE IS A GREAT MESSAGE AND THERE’S A WHOLE POPULATION GROWING OF DIVERSE PERSONS INCLUDING AFRICAN-AMERICANS.>>DIVERSITY IS AN AREA WE’RE COMMITTED TO. IT’S A PLATFORM THAT AS WE REACH OUT, WE WANT TO ENSURE THERE’S DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES. IT’S SOMETHING WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING. AS A COMPANY, WE ARE UNDERTAKING A LOT OF WORK. WE WERE ONE OF THE FIRST TO PUBLISH A TRANSPARENCY REPORT. WE PUN LISH OUR REPRESENTATION NUMBERS EXTERNALLY. THERE’S A LOT MORE WORK LEFT TO DO. WE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT, BUT IT’S AN AREA OF ENGAGEMENT OF BLACK CAUCUS AND ARE COMMITTED TO DOING MORE.>>LET ME INVITE YOU TO TEXAS AND THE 18th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. I’D LIKE TO WORK WITH GOOGLE ON THE ISSUES I HAVE RAISED HERE TODAY.>>IT WOULD BE A PLEASURE.>>LET ME THANK THE WITNESS FOR HIS TESTIMONY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.>>GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA FOR FIVE MINUTES.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE GENTLEMAN THAT CAME BEFORE ME ON THIS SIDE WHO TALKED ABOUT THE BIAS AND I KNOW THAT THE GENTLE LADY FROM TEXAS AND SOME OF THE OTHERS SAID THERE’S NO BIAS. BUT I’D LIKE TO PICK UP WHERE THEY HAVE LEFT OFF BECAUSE I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT. SHE USED NUMBERS AND OUTCOME THAT SHE EITHER HAS OR BELIEVES EXISTS TO SAY THAT IT YOU HAVE TO DO BETTER IN THE MINORITY COMMUNITY. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?>>AS A COMPANY, WE ARE COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE — >>STATISTICALLY, THE OUTCOME THAT SHE MEASURES IS HOW SHE ASKS YOU TO DO BETTER BECAUSE YOUR OUTCOME IS INSUFFICIENT RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE COMMUNITY. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?>>I INTERPRET. IT AS WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH REPRESENTATION.>>VERY GOOD. YOU GOT HER POINT. NOW HERE’S THE POINT THAT I THINK WE’RE GIVING. IF YOU MEASURE THE OUTCOME AS THOSE JUST LISTED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS AND OHIO, WHAT YOU FIND IS THAT THERE IS AN APPEARANCE OF BIAS INCLUDING THE OUTCOME OF SEARCH ENGINES, EVEN THE QUESTION OF IF I PAY FOR ADVERTISING AND MY DEMOCRATIC OPPONENT PAYS FOR ADVERTISING, IF THE CHARACTERISTIC OF WHAT WE HAPPEN TO SEARCH FOR SOMEHOW IS MORE EXPENSIVE IF YOU’RE TRYING TO GET CONSERVATIVE AND REPUBLICAN, THOSE ARE OUTCOME EVENTS. WILL YOU COMMIT TO LOOK IN THE CASE OF POTENTIAL POLITICAL BIAS IN ALL ASPECTS OF YOUR VERY LARGE COMPANY TO LOOK AT THE OUTCOME, MEASURE THE OUTCOME AND SEE IF, IN FACT, THERE’S EVIDENCE OF BIAS USING THAT AND THEN WORK BACKWARDS TO SEE IF SOME OF THAT CAN BE EVENED TO WHAT WOULD APPROPRIATELY BE THE OUTCOME. YOU SEE MY POINT THERE.>>IT’S IMPORTANT WE LOOK AT OUTCOMES AND ASSESS TO MAKE SURE THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF BIAS.>>THE REASON I GIVE YOU THIS POINT FOR MOST OF MY ADULT LIFE THERE HAVE BEEN LAWS ON THE BOOK TO STOP THE EVENTS THAT MS. JACKSON SPEAKS OF. WE HAVE HAD LAWS TO PROTECT MINORITY COMMUNITIES. WE HAVE HAD LAWS TO PROTECT AGAINST SEGREGATION AND BIAS. AND YET THERE ARE MEASUREMENTS THAT ARE STILL BEING USED INCLUDING WE CREATE DISTRICTS DEDICATED TO MINORITIES UNDER FEDERAL ORDERS BECAUSE OF A HISTORY OR A MEASUREMENT OF OUTCOME. I WOULD ASK YOU TO COMMIT TO MEASURE AND WHEN YOU FIND AN OUTCOME THAT’S INCONSISTENT WITH THAT WHICH WOULD BE ORDINAILY PREDICTABLE, WE ARE TWO PARTIES RELATIVELY TIED IN THE OUTCOME OF ELECTIONS ON A GLOBAL AND NATIONAL BASIS. IF THAT OUTCOME DOESN’T COME OUT SIMILAR, THEN YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO WORK BACKWARDS AND SEE IF, IN FACT, POLICIES CAN BE FOUND WHICH ARE CAUSING THAT ARTIFICIALLY. WHICH BY THE WAY, MIGHT INCLUDE AN OVERZEALOUS LIBERAL CROWD THAT SPENDS MORE TIME TRASHING REPUBLICANS THAN VICE VERSA. THAT MIGHT BE WHAT YOU FIND, BUT UNLESS YOU LOOK AT THE OUTCOME, YOU’RE ALWAYS GOING TO SAY WE SEEM TO BE FAIR, BUT THE JOUT COME MEASURED BY MY COLLEAGUES WILL NOT WORK OUT.>>I THINK IT’S A VALID POINT. I’M HAPPY TO ENGAGE MORE AND FOLLOW UP ON IT.>>I WANT TO GET THROUGH TWO MORE QUICK THINGS. IF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND IN THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ASKED, YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT TURNING OFF LOCATION AND OTHER DATA COLLECTION. AND THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT I’M CONCERNED ABOUT. CAN YOU COMMIT AS YOU GO THROUGH GENERATION 15 AND 16 OF YOUR SOFTWARE TO IMPROVE THE DASHBOARD TRANSPARENCY AND THE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY, HOW TO OFFLOAD DATA, HOW TO TURN OFF THINGS THEY MAY NOT WANT TO HAVE IN ORDER TO GAIN PRIVACY.>>IT’S AN AREA WE WANT TO DO BETTER. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AS A COMPANY HAS GROWN A LOT, THERE’S COMPLEXITY AND IT’S SOMETHING I DO THINK WE CAN DO BETTER. AND IT’S SOMETHING WE ARE WORKING ON.>>I WILL TELL YOU EACH TIME I TRY TO TURN IT ON AND OFF, REFRESHING MY MEMORY IS A PAIN BECAUSE THERE’S NO SIMPLE PLACE TO GO TO FIND OUT HOW TO DO IT. THE REALITY IS I AGREE YOU HAVE A DASHBOARD AND MOST DON’T. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT AN ARTICLE FROM THE “WALL STREET JOURNAL” OCTOBER 8th OF 2018 BE PLACED ON THE RECORD.>>WITHOUT OBJECTION.>>THERE’S A MEMORANDUM AT GOOGLE AND HAS BEEN REQUESTED MY MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. WOULD YOU COMMIT TO PROVIDE THAT MEMORANDUM TO CONGRESS SO WE CAN KNOW MORE ABOUT THE INTERNAL WORKINGS RELATED TO THIS BREECH?>>I’M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP. I CAN COMMIT TO FOLLOWING UP WITH YOUR OFFICE ON IT.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I YIELD BACK.>>ARE RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE.>>FIRST, I’D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP. I USE YOUR APPARATUS OFTEN OR YOUR SEARCH ENGINE. AND I DON’T UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE THE DIFFERENT WAYS YOU CAN TURN OFF THE LOCATIONS. THERE’S SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED HAVING AN ONLINE SCHOOL THAT PEOPLE COULD GO TO WITH A GOOGLE REP THAT YOU COULD KIND OF LOG IN AND KIND OF ASK QUESTIONS OR HAVE GOOGLE — NOT LIKE COMCAST WHERE YOU GET PUT ON HOLD FOR 30 MINUTES AND FIND SOMEBODY YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND. SOMETHING EASY TO TALK TO SOMEBODY.>>CONGRESSMAN, WE ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR BETTER WAYS TO DO IT. ONE OF THE AREAS IS GIVING ONLINE TUTORIALS. WE HAVEN’T LOOKED AT AN OPTION LIKE THAT, BUT I’M HAPPY TO TAKE THAT FEEDBACK. WE REMIND PEOPLE OF PRIVACY IS CHECKUPS AND WALK THEM THROUGH A FLOW. 20 MILLION PEOPLE COME TO IT EVERY DAY.>>THAT’S ONLINE THOUGH.>>THAT’S ON LOIN.>>YOU DON’T HAVE INDIVIDUALED. I FIND IT’S EASIER TO TALK TO SOMEBODY AND SAY THIS IS WHAT I WANT. THE OTHER THING IS FRUSTRATING.>>YOU SAID THAT YOU CAN TURN OFF YOUR LOCATION HISTORY, BUT STILL YOUR IP ADDRESS WILL TRACK YOUR INFORMATION. IS THAT CORRECT?>>TODAY MANY INTERNET COMPANIES DO COLLECT AND SOMETIMES TOLL IP INFORMATION. WE NEED TO KNOW THE LANGUAGE. THERE MAY BE SOME LOCATION INFORMATION IN THERE. LOCATION TURNS OUT TO BE THE FABRIC OF HOW PEOPLE USE INTERNET TODAY. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT THERE’S LEGISLATION IN THIS AREA AS A COMPANY WE WANT TO TRY TO SIMPLIFY THINGS AND BE STATE OF THE ART. BUT IT’S A COMPLEX AREA. WE REALIZE WE NEED TO DO BETTER AND WE ARE WORKING ON IT.>>QUESTION ABOUT RUSSIA.>>RECENT MONTHS, AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES, HAVE USED BOTS TO RESTRICT THE ACCESSIBILITY OF ONLINE CONTENT — >>WOULD THE GENTLEMAN SUSPEND? THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS STOPPED THE CLOCK WITH THE POSTER WILL REMOVE THAT IMMEDIATELY FROM THE ROOM.>>COULD WE HAVE THE DOORS CLOSED? POLICE WILL ESCORT THE GENTLEMAN OUT OF THE BUILDING.>>I FEEL LIKE AT A FOOTBALL GAME.>>CAN I GET 20 MORE SECONDS?>>YES, WITHOUT OBJECTION.>>IN RECENT MONTHS, AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES MOST PROMINENTLY VLADIMIR PUTIN USED BOTS TO RESTRICT THE ACCESSIBILITY OF ONLINE CONTENT FROM HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS BY PILING UP DISLIKES TO VIDEOS. I’M AWARE THEY MET TO DISCUSS THIS PROBLEM AND FIND A WAY OF AMENDING THE ALGORITHMS TO PREVENT THIS ABUSE. BUT SO FAR NO SYSTEMIC SOLUTION HAS BEEN FOUND. THIS RESULTS IN ALGORITHMS PUTTING. UP BARRIERS TO CONTENT. WHAT IS YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE CURRENTLY DOING TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM?>>THEY ARE COMMITTED TO FREEDOM OF, PRESENTATION. WE WANT TO BE A PLATFORM TO GET MESSAGES OUT AND WORK HARD TO DO THAT. I’M NOT SURE IF ALL THE SPECIFICS IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, BUT HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP. BUT IN GENERAL WE WORK HARD AND OPERATE AROUND THE WORLD. PART OF THE REASON WE DO IT IS SO WE CAN BE A PLATFORM BY WHICH PEOPLE CAN GET THEIR MESSAGES OUT INCLUDING HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS.>>THERE ARE WAYS THAT BOTS COULD INFLUENCE THE ALGORITHM BY GOING IN AND DISLIKING OR WHATEVER? IS THAT NOT RIGHT?>>THROUGHOUT OUR SYSTEM ISES, WE DEAL WITH SPAM BOTS AND BOTS OF MANY KINDS. IT’S WHAT WE WORKED HARD OVER 20 YEARS TO MAKE SURE WE CAN COUNTER. WE HAVE SEVERAL MEASURES IN PLACE. WE DID THESE ACTIVITIES AND RESPOND STRONGLY.>>TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS, I HEARD ON TELEVISION THIS MORNING YOU HAVE 200 LOBBYISTS. IT’S AMAZING THEY ALL LOOK LIKE ED ON. BUT SHOULD I TALK TO ONE OF THEM AND ASK HIM TO GET WITH YOU ON THIS ISSUE?>>WE’LL HAVE OUR OFFICE FOLLOW UP.>>AS FAR AS MSNBC WOULD BE A NEWS. WOULDN’T THAT BE IN YOUR NEWS? LIKE I PUT MY NAME IN HERE. I PUNCH NEWS. THIS WEEKEND I WAS ON MSNBC FOUR TIMES. YET THE FIRST THING THAT COMES UP IS THE DAILY CALLER. NOT EXACTLY A LIBERAL OR WELL KNOWN GROUP. SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE OVERLY USING CONSERVATIVE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ON YOUR NEWS. I’D LIKE YOU TO LOOK INTO OVERUSE OF CONSERVATIVE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS TO PUT ON LIBERAL PEOPLE’S NEWS ON GOOGLE.>>WE DO THIS IN A NEUTRAL WAY AND BASED ON KEYWORD, WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO ACCESS.>>I’M SURE YOU TRY TO, BUT IT’S HARD BEING ON MSNBC FOR EIGHT MINUTES FOUR TIMES AND THERE’S MORE CONTENT ON BREITBART NEWS THAN MSNBC. THAT MIGHT SAY SOMETHING ABOUT — WELL, I’M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT. SCARY. THANK YOU, SIR.>>IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU SAID I LEAD THIS COMPANY WITHOUT POLITICAL BIAS AND WORK TO ENSURE THAT OUR PRODUCTS OPERATE THAT WAY. GOOGLE’S HEAD OF MULTICULTURAL MARKETING. DOES SHE DO GOOD WORK?>>I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH HER WORK, BUT SHE’S AN EMPLOYEE OF GOOGLE. WE ARE PROUD OF OUR EMPLOYEES.>>YOU PRAISED HER WORK THE DAY OF THE 2016 ELECTION IN A FOUR-PAGE E-MAIL SHE WROTE ABOUT HER WORK WITH THE LATINO VOTE. SHE SAID OUR EFFORT WAS GAVE A OUTSHOUT.>>SHE WAS REFERRING TO MY COMMUNICATION AROUND TRANSLATION FOR DIFFERENT RELATED EFFORT.>>I’M GOING TO LOOK AT TWO OTHER SENTENCES IN THAT LONG E-MAIL RECAPPING HER WORK IN THE 2016 ELECTION WITH THE LATINO VOTE. WE PUSH TO ET GET OUT THE LATINO VOTE WITH OUR FEATURES. A FEW LINES DOWN IN HER E-MAIL, SHE QUALIFIED THAT SENTENCE AND SHE SAID WE PUSH TO GET OUT THE VOTE WITH OUR FEATURES IN KEY STATES. SHE SPECIFICALLY CITES FLORIDA AND NEVADA. NEAR THE END IN A SIMILAR SENTENCE, WE SUPPORTED PARTNERS LIKE LATINO TO PAY FOR RIDES TO THE POLLS IN KEY STATES. WITH ME? WE PUSH TO GET OUT THE VOTE. WE SUPPORTED PARTNERS TO PAY FOR RIDES TO THE BOLLS. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE WE IN THE SENTENCE REFERS TO GOOGLE?>>CONGRESSMAN, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED WHETHER ALLEGATIONS LIKE THAT.>>I’M NOT ASKING THAT QUESTION. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE WE REFERS TO THE COMPANY GOOGLE?>>AS GOOGLE, WE WON’T PARTICIPANT IN ANY PARTISAN EFFORTS. SO I DON’T THINK SO.>>SO WE PUSHED AND SUPPORTED PARTNERS TO PAY FOR RIDES AND POLLS IN KEY STATES AND PUSHED TO GET OUT THE LATINO VOTE. DURING THE ELECTION, HOW WERE THEY GETTING THAT DONE? THEY WERE GETTING THAT DONE BY ALTERING FEATURES OR CONFIGURING IN SUCH A WAY FOR PAYING FOR RIDES FOR PEOPLE TO GET TO THE POLLS. IS THAT AN ACCURATE READING? IS THAT FAIR TO SAY?>>WE DID LOOK INTO IT. WE FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE ANY ACTIVITY LIKE THAT FROM GOOGLE.>>SHE SAID SHE PAID FOR RIDES TO THE POLLS AND THEY CONFIGURED FEATURES TO GET OUT THE LATINO VOTE.>>I ACTUALLY THINK THAT’S ALL OKAY. I THINK THAT’S JUST A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN ENCOURAGING VOTER PARTICIPATION, ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTION PROCESS. SO FAR THOSE SENTENCES ARE JUST FINE. BUT THEN THERE’S THREE WORDS AT THE END THAT CAUSE ME REAL CONCERN. THOSE THREE WORDS ARE WE PUSHED TO GET OUT THE VOTE WITH OUR FEATURES IN KEY STATES. NOW SUDDENLY IT GETS POLITICAL. WE SUPPORTED PARTNERS TO PAY FOR RIDES TO THE POLLS IN KEY STATES. THAT MAKES EVERYTHING DIFFERENT. I GOT ONE QUESTION FOR YOU. WHY? WHY DID GOOGLE CONFIGURE FEATURES AND PAY FOR RIDES TO THE POLLS TO GET OUT THE LATINO VOTE ONLY IN KEY STATES?>>CONGRESSMAN, WE FOUND NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THOSE CLAIMS. THE ONLY EFFORT WE DO AROUND ELECTIONS — >>YOUR HEAD OF MULTICULTURAL MARKETING WAS LYING WHEN SHE SAID YOU WERE TRYING TO GET OUT THE LATINO VOTE IN KEY STATES?>>WE TODAY IN THE U.S. AROUND ELECTIONS ET WE MAKE IT TO REGISTER TO VOTE, WHERE TO FIND YOUR NEAREST POLLING PLACE, HOW LONG THEY ARE OPEN, WE DO THOSE THINGS EFFECTIVELY.>>I ALREADY SAID THAT IS BEING A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN. WHAT I’M ASKING IS WHY DID YOU ONLY DO IT IN KEY STATES?>>WE DIDN’T DO ANY SUCH ACTIVITY AS GOOGLE. THERE ARE EMPLOYEES THAT — >>DID YOU PUSH TO GET AUTOTHE LATINO VOTE IN ALL STATES?>>ET WITH DON’T HAVE GOALS AROUND PUSHING OUT TO GET ANY PARTICULAR SEGMENT. WE DON’T PARTICIPATE IN PARTISAN ACTIVITIES. WE SUPPORT AND SPONSOR DEBATES ACROSS BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. WE PROVIDE USERS WITH INFORMATION TO GET THE ELECTION.>>YOUR HEAD OF MULTICULTURAL MARKETING SAYING YOU WERE PAYING FOR RIDES TO THE POLLS FOR THE LATINO VOTES IN KEY STATES. YOU’RE SAYING THAT’S NOT ACCURATE?>>YES, THAT’S RIGHT. WE HAVEN’T FOUND ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT.>>I’M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP, BUT EMPLOYEES TODAY DO THEIR OWN ACTIVITIES.>>I WANT THE REAL ANSWERS HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE.>>AS I SAID, WE HAVE LOOKED INTO IT.>>DID YOU PUSH TO GET OUT THE KEY VOTE? THE TWO MOST POPULOUS STATES FOR LATINOS WOULD BE CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS. DO YOU PUSH FOR THE VOTE IN CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS?>>WE AS A COMPANY DIDN’T HAVE ANY EFFORT ANY PARTICULAR DEMOGRAPHIC. THAT’S AGAINST OUR PRINCIPLES. WE PARTICIPATE IN THE CIVIC PROCESS IN A NONPARTISAN WAY. IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT WE DO IT THAT WAY.>>I JUST THINK IT’S INTERESTING. I KNOW I’M OVER TIME. IT’S INTERESTING THAT THEIR HEAD OF MULTICULTURAL MARKETING WRITES A DAY AFTER THE ELECTION TALKING ABOUT 71% VOTED FOR HILLARY, BUT THAT WASN’T ENOUGH. AND SHE TALKS ABOUT PAYING FOR RIDES TO THE POLLS IN KEY STATES FOR LATINO VOTES TO GET OUT THE VOTE IN KEY STATES. AND THE HEAD OF THE COMPANY SAYS THAT’S NOT ACCURATE.>>THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.>>I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR US AND WE ARE HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE CONGRESSMAN. WE HAVEN’T FOUND ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THOSE ALLEGATIONS.>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA FOR FIVE MINUTES.>>THANK YOU. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD TALK OF THIS E-MAIL THAT YOU WOULD JUST ASK ABOUT BY YOUR HEAD OF MULTICULTURAL MARKETING?>>NOT AT THAT TIME, BUT LATER WHEN THERE WAS EXPRESSIONS MADE ABOUT IT.>>IS IT TRUE SHE SENT THAT E-MAIL OR COULD THAT BE FAKE NEWS?>>MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WERE E-MAILS SENT.>>BUT IT’S YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT GOOGLE DID NOT CONFIGURE FEATURES TO GET OUT THE LATINO VOTE IN KEY STATES?>>WE DON’T BUILD PARTISAN FEATURES WITH ANY GOALS AROUND AFFECTING ELECTIONS IN THOSE WAYS. WE FOCUS EFFORTS OBJECT HELPING PEOPLE REGISTER TO VOTE AND WE REACH USERS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. ANY TIME WE DO THESE EFFORTS INFORMING PEOPLE WHERE TO VOTE, THESE ARE USED IN A VERY DISTRIBUTED WAY WIDELY ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.>>THANK YOU, SIR. GOOGLE’S COLLECTION AND USE OF CONSUMER’S DATA IN ITS RECORD OF PROTECTING CONSUMERS AND THEIR DATA ARE APPROPRIATE AREAS OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT, BUT SADLY THIS COMMITTEE HAS NEGLECTED CONSUMER PROTECTION AS AN AREA OF OVERSIGHT CHOOSING INSTEAD TO SQUANDER THEIR OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY AND USE ITS POWER SO AS TO BULLY GOOGLE AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES INTO MINIMIZING NEGATIVE NEWS AND COMMENTS ABOUT REPUBLICANS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. YESTERDAY, GOOGLE DISCLOSED THAT PRIVATE PROFILE DATA OF OVER 52 MILLION USERS MAY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED. MANY AMERICANS TRUST YOUR E-MAIL PLATFORM AND COUNTLESS OTHER PRODUCTS WITH THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION IN WHICH THEY COLLECT PRIVATE DATA FOR USE IN ADVERTISING. HOW CAN WE BE ASSURED CONSIDERING THIS NEW BREACH THAT THE PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION OF CONSUMERS IS SAFE WITH YOU?>>BUILDING SOFTWARE HAS BUGS ASSOCIATED AS PART OF THE PROCESS. WE UNDERTAKE A LOT OF EFFORTS TO FIND BUGS AND SO WE FIND IT AND FIX IT AND THAT’S HOW WE CONSTANTLY MAKE OUR SYSTEMS BETTER AND THE BIGGEST AREA OF RISK WE NORMALLY SEE FOR OUR USERS IS AROUND SECURITY. THAT’S HOW WE WORK HARD. WE HAVE AN ADVANCED PROTECTION PROGRAM. IT ALLOWS A SECOND LAYER OF PROTECTION, WHICH MAKES IT MUCH HARDER TO GET YOUR ACCOUNT MISAPPROPRIATED IN ANY WAY.>>THANK YOU. YESTERDAY “THE NEW YORK TIMES” PUBLISHED AN IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION OF YOUR LOCATION TRACKING APPLICATIONS THAT IDENTIFIED OR PERSONALLY IDENTIFIED DATA. GOOGLE HAS SAID THAT IT DOESN’T SELL DATA, BUT AS A CORPORATION DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSUMER DATA USE IN ADVERTISING, YOUR COMPANY BENEFITS FROM APPLICATIONS THAT TRACK CONSUMER LOCATIONS. HOW DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE WHAT GOOGLE DOES WITH GEOLOCATION ON DATA FROM COMPANIES WITH APPLICATIONS THAT TRACK AND SELL THE DATA.>>AS A COMPANY, WE DO NOT SELL USER DATA. THAT WOULD BE AGAINST OUR PRINCIPLE.>>HOW DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE WHAT YOU DO WITH THE GEOLOCATION DATA FROM COMPANIES THAT DO SELL THE DATA. HOW DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE WHAT YOU DO WITH THAT DATA VERSUS WHAT THESE APPLICATIONS THAT DO TRACK AND SELL THE DATA DO?>>AN IMPORTANT SOURCE OF DIFFERENTIATION. WE WOULD NEVER SELL USER DATA. WE GIVE CONSUMERS PREFERENCES ABOUT HOW THEIR DATA IS USED FOR ADVERTISING. MOST OF OUR USER EXPERIENCE ARE WE MAKE OUR ADVERTISING RELEVANT BASED ON THE KEY WORDS YOU TYPE IN. YOU CAN CONTROL YOUR AD SETTINGS AND CHANGE THE USE OF PERSONAL DATA AS WELL.>>MY TIME EXPIRES, DO YOU BELIEVE GOOGLE HAS DONE ENOUGH TO BE TRANSPARENT IN ITS DATA COLLECTING POLICIES?>>WE ALWAYS THINK THERE’S MORE TO DO. IT’S AN AREA OF ONGOING EFFORT FOR US. BUT WE HAVE ENLISTED A LOT OVER THE YEARS AND WE MAKE IT TRANSPARENT AND ENCOURAGE USERS TO CHECK IT OUT. 20 MILLION USERS GO AND CHECK IT. OVER THE LAST MONTH, 170 MILLION USERS DID CHECK IT.>>THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK.>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.>>THANK YOU. I HAVE AN iPHONE. AND IF I MOVE FROM HERE AND GO OVER THERE AND SIT WITH MY DEMOCRAT FRIENDS WHICH WILL MAKE THEM REAL NERVOUS, DOES GOOGLE TRACK MY MOVEMENT? DOES GOOGLE THROUGH THIS PHONE KNOW THAT I HAVE MOVED HERE AND MOVED OVER TO THE LEFT? IT’S EITHER YES OR NO.>>NOT BY DEFAULT. THERE MAY BE A GOOGLE SERVICE THAT YOU HAVE OPTED IN HAD TO USE.>>SO GOOGLE KNOWS THAT I’M MOVING OVER THERE. IT’S NOT A TRICK QUESTION. YOU MAKE $100 MILLION A YEAR. YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. DOES GOOGLE KNOW THROUGH THIS PHONE THAT I AM MOVING OVER THERE AND SITTING NEXT TO MR. JOHNSON? IT’S YES OR NO.>>I WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT WITHOUT LOOKING.>>IF I WALK OVER THERE AND SIT NEXT TO MR. JOHNSON AND CARRY MY PHONE, DOES GOOGLE KNOW THAT I WAS SITTING HERE AND THEN I MOVED OVER THERE?>>YOU’RE WELCOME ANY TIME, JUDGE.>>YES OR NO?>>I DON’T KNOW WITHOUT — >>I’M SHOCKED YOU DON’T KNOW. I THINK GOOGLE OBVIOUSLY DOES. HAVE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION BY THE EUROPEAN UNION?>>VERY FAMILIAR. WE WORKED OVER 18 MONTHS ON IT.>>THE EUROPEAN UNION IS PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY OF THE PEOPLE IN EUROPE. WE DON’T HAVE SUCH LAW IN THE UNITED STATES. DO WE?>>CONGRESSMAN, WE HAVE SUPPORTED — >>WE DO NOT HAVE SUCH A LAW IN THE UNITED STATES, DO WE?>>WE DON’T HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE USER DATA PRIVACY.>>ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE RESOLUTION I INTRODUCED TO BASICALLY ADOPT SOME OF THE EUROPEAN PRACTICES IN AMERICA AND GIVE CONSUMERS IN THE UNITED STATES THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT LEGISLATION?>>NO.>>I’LL GIVE YOU A COPY BEFORE YOU LEAVE. IT’S IRONIC TO ME THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPPOSED TO BE THE COUNTRY THAT PROTECTS PRIVACIES OF INDIVIDUALS MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE WE’RE PLAYING SECOND FIDDLE TO THE EUROPEANS. THEY PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THEIR FOLKS MORE THAN WE DO. I THINK THE UNITED STATES, CONGRESS NEEDS TO MOVE IN A DIRECTION TO ALLOW CITIZENS TO OPT IN TO THE DISSEMINATION OF THEIR INFORMATION RATHER THAN OPT OUT, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE CURRENT LAW. AS MR. COHEN HAS STATED, I THINK MOST AMERICANS DON’T KNOW ALL THE THINGS THAT THIS PHONE CAN DO. AND ONE THING THAT IT CAN DO IS DISSEMINATE INFORMATION REALLY THAT WE ARE UNAWARE OF TO ALL DIFFERENT PEOPLE OUT THERE. THE UNITED STATES SHOULD CHANGE THE RULES AND MAKE IT SO WE AS CONSUMERS OPT IN. OTHERWISE THAT INFORMATION IS NOT DISSEMINATED. THAT’S MY OPINION. WHAT DOES GOOGLE VIEW AS OBJECTIONABLE?>>I THINK THERE ARE IF YOU’RE REFERRING TO COB TENT POLL CIRCUMSTANCES WE PUBLISH AREAS FOR YOUTUBE LIKE VIOLENT EXTREMISM, PORNOGRAPHY, CHILD SAFETY, FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY SO WE DEFINE CATEGORIES.>>WE THINK IT’S IMPORTANT. GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE ARE PLATFORMS WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THOSE.>>WHAT ARE THOSE EXTREME POLITICAL VIEWS THAT YOU FIND OBJECTIONABLE.>>WE DON’T DEFINE ANY POLITICAL VIEWS.>>SO YOU LET THEM COME ON.>>WE HAVE AREAS WHICH WE HAVE DEFINED AS NOT ALLOWED ON OUR PLATFORMS. THEY HAVE CLEAR DEFINITIONS AROUND HATE SPEECH, BUT IT’S SPEECH WHICH IS THE PRIMARY GOAL OF INCITING HATRED OR VIOLENCE TO GROUPS OF PEOPLE.>>YOU WOULD AGREE THAT HATE SPEECH HAS MANY DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS DEPENDING ON WHO IS DOING THE DEFINING. WOULDN’T YOU AGREE?>>WE UNDERSTAND IT’S A SUBJECTIVE AREA. IT WOULD BE OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. BUT WE PUBLISH OUR DEFINITION OF IT.>>DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOOGLE HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT HERE IN SOME QUESTION IS BIASSED?>>CONGRESSMAN, IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT WE APPROACH OUR WORK IN AN UNBIASSED WAY.>>DO YOU BELIEVE GOOGLE IS BIASSED?>>IT IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.>>YES, IT IS.>>IT’S NOT THE GOVERNMENT. GOOGLE IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT.>>NOT THE LAST I CHECKED.>>YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE GOOGLE?>>WE ARE SUBJECT TO A LOT OF REGULATION.>>BUT YOU’RE NOT SUBJECT TO THE DEFINITION OF WHAT BIAS IS BY THE GOVERNMENT COMING IN AND SAYING GOOGLE CANNOT BE BIASSED AND WE THE GOVERNMENT ARE GOING TO DECIDE WHAT’S BIASSED AND NOT BIASSED. YOU’RE NOT SUBJECT TO THAT PHILOSOPHY?>>NOT TODAY.>>I HOPE WE DON’T GET TO THAT POINT. WHERE GOVERNMENT TRIES TO COME IN AND REGULATE WHAT BIAS IS BECAUSE THIS IS AN INDEPENDENT, FREE COMPANY. I THINK GOOGLE IS A PART OF IT DOING BUSINESS. THEY CAN SAY WHAT THEY WANT. I HAVE GONE OVER TIME. I HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS I’D LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT, THE GENTLEMAN IS CERTAINLY WELCOME TO JOIN ME ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE AND SWITCH AT ANY TIME.>>GETTING A LITTLE LATE IN HIS CAREER.>>I WILL JUST RESPOND TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS AND SAY THAT WE WILL BE SUBMITTING QUESTIONS IN WRITING TO YOU. INCLUDING THE ONCE FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU ANSWER THEM PROMPTLY.>>BE VERY HAPPY TO.>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA FOR FIVE MINUTES.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I BELIEVE THE PLATFORMS CAN AND SHOULD DO A BETTER JOB PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM USING SERVICES TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. SOME OF YOUR PEERS ARE RECKONING WITH THE WAYS COMPANIES ARE NOT NEUTRAL PLATFORMS AND ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CONTENT ON THE SERVICES. MARK ZUCKERBERG SAID HIS COMPANY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT ON ITS PLATFORM. UBER CEO SAID WE HAVE TO STAND FOR THE CONTENT OF OUR PLATFORMS AND CAN’T SAY WE’RE A PLT FORM AND OUR JOB IS DONE. WILL YOU IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE THIS MORNING JOIN PEERS AND AFFIRM THAT GOOGLE IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR CONTENT ON YOUR PLATFORMS?>>WE HAVE A COMMITMENT TO USERS TO PROVIDE ACCURATE AND TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION. I WORK HARD TO UPHOLD THOSE COMMITMENTS.>>I WANT TO RETURN TO THE PRIVACY DISCUSSION THAT’S GONE ON. AND I WENT TO THE PRIVACY CHECKUP WHILE YOU’RE SITTING HERE. IT’S QUITE GOOD. BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IT DOES AND WHAT IT DOESN’T DO AND PERHAPS YOU CAN HELP ME WORK THROUGH THIS A BIT. MY SETTINGS NOW ON GOOGLE, MY LOCATION HISTORY IS PAUSED, DEVICE INFORMATION IS PAUSED, VOICE ACTIVITY IS PAUSED, YOUTUBE WATCH HISTORY IS PAUSED. THAT’S PROBABLY A GOOD THING. AND MY SEARCH HISTORY IS PAUSED. THAT SAID, IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOU’RE NOT COLLECTING DATA ON ME, DOES IT?>>I THINK FOR THOSE CATEGORIES F YOU PAUSE IT, WE STOP COLLECTING.>>BUT OVERALL T DOESN’T MEAN YOU HAVE STOPPED COLLECTING DATA. YOU’RE STILL COLLECTING ON SEARCH, WAYS THAT CAN HELP ADVERTISING AND HELP PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT YOU PROVIDE. I APPRECIATE THAT. MY QUESTION IS THIS. I WANTED TO FOCUS ON “THE NEW YORK TIMES” ARTICLE ABOUT WHAT THEY REFER TO AS THE MOBILE LOCATION INDUSTRY. AND I UNDERSTAND THE WAY THAT DATA IS COLLECTED WHEN YOU TALK OBJECT YOUR WEBSITE ABOUT SEARCH AND GOOGLE GETTING DIRECTIONS FOR MAPS, WATCHING VIDEOS. YOU COLLECT DATA TO MAKE SERVICES WORK BETTER. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT DATA IS ALSO COLLECTED TO USE IN ADVERTISING. AND ACCORDING TO “THE NEW YORK TIMES” STORY, IT’S A HOT MARKET. $21 BILLION THIS YEAR. IT TALKS ABOUT YOUR COMPANY AND FACEBOOK DOMINATING THE MOBILE AD MARKET THAT LEAD IN LOCATION-BASED ADVERTISING. AND IT SAYS THAT GOOGLE ALSO RECEIVES PRECISE LOCATION FROM APPS THAT USE ITS AD SERVICES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? IS “THE NEW YORK TIMES” SAYING THAT IF THERE’S ANY COMPANY THAT USES YOUR AD SERVICES AND GIVEN THE DOMINANT PLACE THAT YOU PLAY IN ADVERTISING THAT WOULD BE MOST, IF THERE’S ANY COMPANY THAT USES ADVERTISING, THEN THAT DATA THAT THEY COLLECT WOULD ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO YOU? ULTIMATELY THE DATA THEY COLLECT ON ME, IS THE QUESTION I’M ASKING.>>WE AS A COMPANY, WE HAVE COMMITMENTS TO YOU. WE VIEW DATA AS BELONGING TO USERS. SO WE DON’T TRANSMIT PERSONAL DATA TO ADVERTISERS.>>I UNDERSTAND THAT. I’M ASKING ABOUT THE DATA THAT COMPANIES — “THE NEW YORK TIMES” SAID THAT GOOGLE RECEIVES PRECISE LOCATION INFORMATION FROM APPS THAT USE ITS AD SERVICE. MY QUESTION IS DO YOU RECEIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOCATIONS THAT I TRAVEL FROM COMPANIES WHO USE YOUR ADVERTISING SERVICE?>>I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE SPECIFICS. THERE MAY BE INFORMATION. IF WE’RE PROVIDING AN AD AND LET’S SAY IT’S FOR A RESTAURANT. WE NORMALLY WOULD DO IT IN A LOCATION NEAR YOU. SO YOU HAVE AN OPTION TO TURN THE SETTING OFF, BUT IF IT IS SINCE WE ARE PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO VERIFY. IT’S NOT COMING FROM THE COMPANY TO US.>>BUT THAT’S WHAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND. IF THE AD — IF A COMPANY USES YOUR ADVERTISING, DOES THEIR LOCATION SHARING GET TO YOU? HERE’S WHY. THE TIMES TALKS ABOUT THE INFORMATION ISN’T TIED TO SOMEONE’S NAME OR PHONE NUMBER. PERSONAL INFORMATION IS YOU DEFINE IT AS NAME, E-MAIL, ADDRESS AND BILLING INFORMATION. THE QUESTION A LOT OF US HAVE IS THAT WHILE THAT MAY BE PERSONAL INFORMATION AND YOU TREAT THAT THE WAY WE WOULD EXPECT, THERE’S A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE WE GO AND WHERE WE ARE AT ANY MOMENT THAT CAN AS THE TIMES POINTS OUT ALLOW SOMEONE WITH ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA INCLUDING EMPLOYEES OR CLIENTS TO IDENTIFY A PERSON WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT BY FOLLOWING SOMEONE, PINPOINTING A PHONE THAT SPENT TIME AT THAT HOME ADDRESS. CAN YOU USE THE LOCATION THAT PEOPLE GO TO IDENTIFY TO BACK INTO WHO A PERSON IS? YOU WOULDN’T DO IT. BUT COULD SOMEONE ELSE DO THE SAME THE SAME THING?>>WE WOULDN’T DO THAT WITHOUT USER CONSENT. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I’M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THE SPECIFIC QUESTION. AT A HIGH LEVEL, I WOULD SAY LOCATION IS TURNING OUT TO BE AN IMPORTANT AREA. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT WE GIVE LOCATION PRODUCTION FOR OUR USERS. AS A COMPANY WE WANT TO LEAD THE WAY AND — >>I UNDERSTAND, AND I HAVE TO INTERRUPT. JUST ONE LAST QUESTION.>>THE TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA, MR. MARINO.>>THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, ALL OF YOU. LET ME START OUT BY SAYING, SIR, YOU AND THE OFFICE OF YOUR COMPANY, I THINK PARTICULARLY YOU, BECAUSE YOU ARE AT THE HELM, HAVE A TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITY, RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD YOUR EMPLOYEES, RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD YOUR STOCKHOLDERS TO YOUR COMPANY, PROVIDING JOBS, AND WE THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING JOBS. I THINK YOU ALSO HAVE A MUCH MORE AWESOME RESPONSIBILITY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU EDUCATE ACCURATELY, TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU STAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD BECAUSE I’VE LEARNED THIS OVER THE YEARS, AS A PROSECUTOR AND ALSO AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT’S PUT OUT BY ANYONE. WE’RE A 10-SECOND SOCIETY NOW, AND WE CAN’T HOLD CONVERSATIONS, WE CAN ONLY READ 10 OR 12 WORDS AND THAT’S SUPPOSEDLY THE GOSPEL. YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE. AND I WILL HOLD YOU TO DOING THAT. I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OR DEFINING. AS MY FRIEND THE JUDGE SAYS, WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG. I, FOR ONE, THE LESS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN MY LIFE THE BETTER. I AM DEPENDING ON YOU AND COMPANIES LIKE YOUR COMPANY TO HELP US ALONG THE LINES BECAUSE IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES EVER STEP IN TO REGULATE, YOU’RE NOT GOING TO LIKE IT. AND WITH THAT SAID, I HAVE A CONCERN CONCERNING CHINA. IN 2010, GOOGLE LEFT THE CHINESE MARKETPLACE DUE TO CONCERNS OVER HACKING ATTACKS, CENSORSHIP AND HOW THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT WAS POSSIBLY GAINING ACCESS TO DATA. I’M INTERESTED IN WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE 2010 AND HOW WORKING WITH THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT TO CENSOR RESEARCH RESULTS ARE A PART OF GOOGLE’S CORE VALUES. DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION?>>CONGRESSMAN, RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR US TO LAUNCH A SEARCH PRODUCT IN CHINA. WE ARE IN GENERAL ALWAYS LOOKING TO SEE HOW BEST IT’S PART OF OUR CORE MISSION AND OUR PRINCIPLES TO TRY HARD TO PROVIDE USERS WITH INFORMATION. WE ALWAYS HAVE EVIDENCE, BASED ON EVERY COUNTRY WE’VE OPERATED IN, US REACHING OUT AND GIVING USERS MORE INFORMATION HAS A VERY POSITIVE IMPACT, AND WE FEEL THAT CALLING. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO PLANS TO LAUNCH IN CHINA. TO THE EXTENT WE EVER APPROACH A DECISION LIKE THAT, I WILL BE FULLY TRANSPARENT, INCLUDING WITH POLICYMAKERS HERE AND ENGAGE IN CONSULT WIDELY.>>AM I, THEN, TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE NO PLANS TO ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENTS WITH CHINA CONCERNING GOOGLE, HOW IT’S USED IN CHINA?>>WE CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE A SEARCH PRODUCT THERE, SO — >>DO YOU PLAN ON HAVING A SEARCH PRODUCT THERE?>>RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO PLANS TO LAUNCH A SEARCH PRODUCT IN CHINA.>>LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY. IF, IN THE FUTURE, YOU DECIDE TO DO THAT, WHAT INFORMATION WOULD YOU SHARE WITH THE CHINESE CONCERNING OTHER USERS, OTHER COUNTRIES?>>ANY TIME WE LOOK TO OPERATE IN A COUNTRY, WE WOULD — YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LOOK AT WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE TO OPERATE. THERE ARE TIMES IN THE PAST WE HAVE DEBATED THE CONDITIONS TO OPERATE AND WE EXPLORE A WIDE RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES. CURRENTLY IT IS ONLY INTERNALLY FOR US. WE ARE NOT DOING THIS IN CHINA. BUT I’M HAPPY TO CONSULT BACK AND BE TRANSPARENT SHOULD WE PLAN SOMETHING THERE.>>I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE THAT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE THOUSANDS, MAYBE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, OF PEOPLE THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT HAS ON COMPUTERS TRYING TO HACK IN THE U.S. AND ANY OTHER COUNTRIES. SAME THING TAKING PLACE TO A LESSER DEGREE IN RUSSIA, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE POPULATION. WHAT CAN GOOGLE DO TO HELP CURTAIL THAT, IF NOT ELIMINATE, COUNTRIES FROM HACKING INTO OTHER COUNTRIES?>>AS A COMPANY WE HAVE FACED SIGNIFICANT ATTACKS BEFORE. PROTECTING THE SECURITY OF OUR USERS IS WHAT REALLY KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT, AND IT’S SOMETHING WE INVEST IN A LOT OVER THE YEARS. WE WORK WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE WE RELY ON THEIR INTELLIGENCE TO HELP US ASSESS THREATS, BUT IT’S A CONSTANT EFFORT AND IT’S SOMETHING WE TAKE SERIOUSLY.>>THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK, BUT REMEMBER THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT I THINK YOU HAVE.>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA, MS. BASS, FOR FIVE MINUTES.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR ALLOWING US TO COME HERE TODAY. I WANTED TO ASK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE USE OF BOTS AND ALSO THE TROLL FARMS USED BY RUSSIA. I WONDERED IF YOU COULD BE MORE SPECIFIC AS TO HOW GOOGLE IS GOING TO RESPOND. IN OTHER WORDS, WILL YOU EXPAND YOUR STAFF OR MODIFY YOUR ALGORITHMS IN AN EFFORT TO IDENTIFY AND ERADICATE THE ON-LINE TROLLS. AND IN TERMS OF THE FLOODING THAT TAKES PLACE WITH BOTS, WHAT SPECIFICALLY WILL YOU DO TO ADDRESS THIS?>>THIS IS SOMETHING WE ACTUALLY FACE ACROSS A SET OF PRODUCTS WE DO TOLD, BE IT OUR AD SYSTEMS, BE IT OUR SEARCH PRODUCTS, PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SPAM, AND BE IT YOUTUBE AND SO ON. IN GENERAL WE HAVE BUILT SYSTEMS OVER THE YEARS TO DETECT ANONYMOUS TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND MITIGATE THAT. WE ALSO COLLABORATE WITH OTHERS. LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN VERY KIND TO US IN THIS REGARD.>>SO IN THE EXAMPLE OF THE BOTS WHERE YOU HAVE — I SAW ONE EXAMPLE WHERE THERE WAS ONE DAY 125 DISLIKES AND THE NEXT DAY THERE WERE 84,000. HOW DO YOU RESPOND IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT WHERE IT’S OBVIOUSLY DONE PURPOSELY?>>SO WHEN WE SEE VIEW COUNT MANIPULATION, MANIPULATION OF LIKES, DISLIKES, AND WE GET REPORTS OR DETECT IN OUR SYSTEMS, SPIKES MAKE IT CLEAR IT’S NOT HUMANS DOING IT. WE TREAT IT AS SPAM OR ABUSE OF OUR SYSTEMS.>>YOU HAVE STAFF DEDICATED TO LOOKING AT THAT?>>BOTH ALGORITHMS AND MANUAL SYSTEMS AND MANUAL REVIEWERS, OUR STAFF HAS LOOKED AT MANUAL REVIEWERS SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE YEARS, SO WE GO ACROSS ALL THOSE THINGS.>>SPECIFICALLY WITH WHAT TOOK PLACE IN 2016, AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY REGARDING WHAT RUSSIA DID TO FOMENT RACIAL TENSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, I’M WONDERING HOW YOU ARE RESPONDING TO THAT, WHERE THEY CALLED FOR FAKE PROTEST EITHER TO GET AFRICAN-AMERICANS TO TURN OUT TO PROTEST SOMETHING THAT WAS FAKE OR TO HAVE WHITE SUPREMACISTS BE JIMMED UP TO ATTACK HUMANS OF COLOR. WHAT IS GOOGLE DOING TO RESPOND TO THAT?>>WE MAINLY SAW WITH RESPECT TO RUSSIA LIMITED IMPROPER ACTIVITY ON OUR AD PLATFORMS. BUT IN GENERAL, WE ARE NOT A SOCIAL NETWORKING COMPANY ACROSS THE PRODUCTS WE DO. WE TYPICALLY AREN’T CONNECTING GROUPS OF PEOPLE. THAT’S NOT HOW GOOGLE WORKS TODAY. WE HAVEN’T SEEN THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY ON OUR PLATFORMS, BUT WE ARE VIGILANT AND HAPPY TO SHARE ANY FINDINGS WHICH COME THROUGH US AS WE LOOK INTO IT MORE.>>I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT ON-LINE CREATORS OF COLOR WHERE MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLETS OFTEN FAIL TO CATER TO PEOPLE OF COLOR WITH REPRESENTATION OR MISREPRESENTATION. COMMUNITIES OF COLOR HAVE SOUGHT OUT DIGITAL MEDIUMS TO TELL THEIR STORIES, AND IN SOME CASES THIS HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL AND IT’S LED TO LARGER NETWORKS RECOGNIZING THE TALENT. IN OTHER CASES IT’S GIVEN PLATFORM TO VOICES THAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE SILENCED. I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT POLICIES GOOGLE MIGHT BE DEVELOPING TO PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THE VOICE OF ON-LINE CREATORS CAN EXPAND.>>YOUTUBE HAS A LOT OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAMS. WE PARTNER WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WHO DO IMPORTANT WORK IN THIS AREA. BUT TODAY, WHEN WE LOOK AT YOUTUBE, WE DO SEE A PLATFORM WITH A VERY DIVERSE SET OF PERSPECTIVES AND OPINIONS. IT’S PART OF THE PLATFORM.>>COULD I GET THE INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR OUTREACH, SPECIFICALLY WHO YOU DO OUTREACH TO? THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.>>I WOULD VERY HAPPY TO DO THAT.>>I YIELD BACK MY TIME TO REPRESENTATIVE DEUTSCH.>>. >>AGAIN, APPRECIATE YOU BECOME HERE, AND I WANT TO START WITH SOMETHING THE CHAIRMAN STARTED OUR HEARING WITH, AND THAT WAS A QUESTION ABOUT INFORMATION COLLECTED BY GOOGLE. I THINK THE REPORT THAT HE REFERRED TO TALKED ABOUT INFORMATION COLLECTED SPECIFICALLY ON ANDROID PHONES. EVEN IF THOSE PHONES AREN’T ON WI-FI OR THE CELL SERVICE ISN’T ON. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS?>>CONGRESSMAN, IT’S NOT FAIR TO ME HOW SOMETHING WHEN THERE IS NO CONNECTIVITY WOULD HAPPEN, SO — >>I’M SORRY.>>WE HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THOSE SPECIFIC FINDINGS.>>YOU’RE LOOKING INTO THOSE FINDINGS, THOUGH?>>THE SCENARIO, OUR GOAL IS TO — WE’RE TRYING TO GIVE USERS THE INFORMATION THEY WANT. USERS GIVE US FEEDBACK. PART OF WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO DO IS THEY WANT US TO BE LOCATION AWARE — >>I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU’RE NOT AWARE OF DATA BEING COLLECTED WHILE THE PHONE IS NOT CONNECTED TO EITHER A CELL SERVICE OR A WI-FI?>>THERE MAY BE SPECIFIC INSTANCES. FOR EXAMPLE, GPS MAY BE WORKING, BUT IN GENERAL, NO.>>FINALLY THE QUESTION IS, IF THAT’S POSSIBLE, IF YOU LEARN THAT IT IS HAPPENING, I WOULD LOVE YOU TO SHARE THAT WITH US. IF YOU LEARN THAT’S HAPPENING AND THE INFORMATION, THEN, WHEN THE CUSTOMER TURNS ON HIS OR HER CELL SERVICE, IF THAT INFORMATION IS THEN SENT BACK TO YOUR COMPANY ON THEIR DATA PLAN, A LOT OF PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY HAVE LIMITED DATA PLANS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, IF YOU COULD ALSO LOOK AT WHETHER, WHEN THE INFORMATION IS SENT BACK TO THE EXTENT IT’S HAPPENING, THAT IT MIGHT CAUSE SOME PEOPLE TO GO OVER THEIR LIMITS, THEREBY COSTING THEM MORE ON THEIR MONTHLY BILL. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL INFORMATION AS WELL.>>THAT’S GOOD FEEDBACK. WE WILL.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.>>>THE CHAIRMAN RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR. COLLINS, FOR 5 MINTS.>>PERCEPTION IS REALITY. YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH THE PERCEPTION, YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH THE REALITY, BUT AS YOU’VE HEARD FROM FOLKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE TODAY, THERE ARE SEVERAL MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE DATA PRIVACY ISSUE AND HOW THE SOURCE OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE SEARCHES ARE MADE. ONE OF THE ISSUES, NOT JUST GOOGLE ITSELF BUT ALSO YOUTUBE, THERE IS ANOTHER ISSUE I WILL NOT TOUCH TODAY BUT PROBABLY WILL DO SOME QUESTIONS ON, IS THE ISSUE OF CONTENT AND THE ISSUE OF HOW THAT IS STOLEN IN MANY CASES AND HOW THAT COULD BE WORKED ON. THOSE ARE ISSUES WE’LL DEAL WITH IN ANOTHER SETTING. WE’VE TALKED ABOUT THIS. I WANT TO GO THROUGH SEVERAL QUESTIONS, BECAUSE IT’S BEEN TALKED ABOUT WHAT YOU COLLECT AND WHAT YOU DON’T COLLECT. THE NEXT FEW QUESTIONS WILL BE YES-NO QUESTIONS. I’M NOT TRYING TO TRICK YOU HERE. IT’S SIMPLY WHAT DO YOU COLLECT AND HOW DO YOU COLLECT IT? IN DEALING WITH GOOGLE, DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT COLLECT IDENTIFIERS LIKE NAME, AGE AND ADDRESS, YES OR NO?>>WHEN CREATING AN ACCOUNT, YES. USING AN ACCOUNT, YES.>>SPECIFIC HISTORIES WHEN PEOPLE TYPE SOMETHING INTO A SEARCH BAR.>>IF YOU HAVE SEARCH HISTORY TURNED ON, YES.>>IDENTIFIERS LIKE IP ADDRESS OR IMEI.>>DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION, WE COULD BE COLLECTING IT, YES.>>WI-FI SIGNALS, BLUETOOTH, BEACONS.>>DEPENDING ON SPECIFICS, BUT THERE MAY BE SITUATIONS, YES.>>GPS, YES?>>YES.>>CERTAIN CONVERSATIONS WHEN USING GOOGLE VOICE PRODUCTS?>>WE GIVE THE OPTION OF TURNING IT ON AND OFF.>>IF PEOPLE DIDN’T KNOW IT WAS ON WHEN USING GOOGLE VOICE PRODUCTS?>>WE ONLY DO THAT WHEN THEY INITIATE WITH OKAY GOOGLE.>>CONTENTS OF INFORMATION IN GOOGLE DOCUMENTS?>>WE STORE THE DATA BUT WE DON’T READ OR LOOK AT YOUR G-MAIL.>>BUT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THEM.>>AS A COMPANY, WE HAVE ACCESS TO THEM, YES.>>I’M NOT ASKING IF YOU DO OR DON’T, YOU COULD, THOUGH, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY?>>WE HAVE CLEAR ESTABLISHED POLICIES ON HOW WE WOULD VIEW THAT DATA.>>AND YOUR POLICIES HAS CHANGED 28 TIMES, INCLUDING EIGHT TIMES SINCE 2016. AND THIS IS WHY I’M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANY TYPE OR ORIGIN OF DATA THAT GOOGLE WOULD REFUSE TO COLLECT THAT ARE NOT ALREADY PROTECTED BYLAWS LIKE COBRA AND HIPAA.>>THERE ARE MANY CATEGORIES OF INFORMATION TODAY. WE ARE CAREFUL ABOUT THINGS LIKE HEALTH DATA — >>THOSE ARE COVERED UNDER THOSE. ANYTHING YOU WOULD NOT COLLECT OUTSIDE OF THE TWO THAT I NAMED WHICH ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTED AS THINGS YOU CANNOT COLLECT?>>THERE ARE MANY THINGS WE DON’T COLLECT. FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON’T COLLECT — YOU COULD HAVE A PRODUCT LIKE GOOGLE HOME. WE WOULDN’T COLLECT CONVERSATIONS UNLESS YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED US TO, SO YOU ASK A QUESTION. WE DEFINITELY ARE VERY CAREFUL AND MINIMIZE THE DATA. WE NEED TO PROVIDE A SERVICE BACK TO OUR USERS.>>I’M GLAD YOU MENTIONED ITEMIZATION. WE’LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. HOW LONG DO YOU KEEP THE DATA THAT YOU HAVE CAPTURED?>>WE GIVE YOU THE CHOICE WHETHER YOU WANT TO STORE THE DATA OR NOT, BUT IF YOU STORE THE DATA, FROM THE TIME YOU TURN IT ON, WE STORE IT FOR YOU.>>FOR ALL OF THIS THAT’S BEEN DISCUSSED, HOW MANY WOULD YOU SAY — YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION. HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY CUT THIS OFF?>>WE REMIND PEOPLE AND EVERY DAY 20 MILLION PEOPLE COME AND MAKE CHANGES IN THE SETTINGS.>>YOU CONTROL 95% OF SEARCHES. YOU CONTROL THIS IN A VERY LARGE WAY. I WOULD SAY THE VAST MAJORITY NOT THE MOST SOPHISTICATED, NOT THE ONES IN A CERTAIN AGE DEMOGRAPHIC ARE NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THIS AS, SAY, SOME WHO WORK IN THE INDUSTRY OR AT LEAST AROUND THE INDUSTRY. WOULD THAT NOT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?>>IF YOU COULD REPEAT THAT, CONGRESSMAN. SORRY.>>I’LL GET BACK TO IT. EARLIER IT WAS SAID THE IDENTIFYER SUCH AS NAME AND ADDRESS TREATED DIFFERENTLY. HOW ARE THEY TREATED DIFFERENTLY SUCH AS LOCATORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.>>WE GIVE SPECIFIC CONTROLS FOR WI-FI. WE’RE TRYING TO MEET USERS’ EXPECTATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, SOME PEOPLE MAY WANT THEIR SEARCH HISTORY TO BE AVAILABLE BUT THEY DON’T WANT YOUTUBE HISTORY TO BE DISCARDED. SO WE GIVE THAT CHOICE TO OUR USERS.>>ONE OF THE DYNAMICS IS DATA MINIMALIZATION. THE ISSUE I HAVE IS A SEARCHER ACTUALLY GOOGLED TAKEOUT. THIS IS NOT JUST A FEW NAMES AND ADDRESSES AND WHERE YOU WENT. WHY, NUMBER ONE, DOES GOOGLE NEED ALL THIS INFORMATION — WE CAN ANSWER THAT IN THE FACT THAT 86% OF YOUR REVENUE COMES FROM ADVERTISING, SO WE KNOW YOU MANIPULATE THE DATA IN SOME WAYS. HOWEVER, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU DO TO MINIMIZE THIS DATA WHICH IS GENERALLY AN ACCEPTED STANDARD OF PRACTICE AMONG THOSE WHO COLLECT DATA?>>OUR GOAL IS — FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE ARE PROVIDING YOU A SERVICE LIKE G-MAIL, WHICH WE HAVE DONE FOR 15 YEARS, WE NEED TO STORE THAT DATA FOR OUR USERS, SO THEY EXPECT US TO. WE ARE TRYING HARD TO MATCH USERS’ EXPECTATIONS. WE DON’T NEED — OUR DATA FOR ADVERTISING, AS I SAID EARLIER, MOST OF IT COMES FROM THE KEY WORDS YOU TYPE. SO WE NEED MINIMAL DATA TO DO ADVERTISING. WE GIVE YOU OPTIONS TO TURN AD PERSONALIZATION OFF. WE STORE DATA, WE DO IT TODAY, TO HELP GIVE USERS THE EXPERIENCE THEY WANT.>>I’M GOING BACK WHERE I STARTED. PERCEPTION IS REALITY. THE AMOUNT OF DATA COLLECTED, HOW IT’S BEING USED, THE FLOW OF INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE AND THE MONITORIZATION OF THAT IS A CONCERN. I THINK THE PERCEPTION OF HOW IT IS USED AND WHAT SIDE OF THE AISLE IS SOMETHING THIS COMMITTEE, I THINK, WILL TAKE UP AND CONTINUE TO PROCESS. BUT I THINK WHEN MOST PEOPLE DEAL WITH THIS, WHAT I SAID EARLIER, I’M NOT SURE THAT IN THE BROAD SCOPE OF THINGS, SIMPLY CLICKING YES, ESPECIALLY IN A SOCIETY TODAY WHERE SOME OF THESE THINGS, AND ESPECIALLY IT WAS TALKED ABOUT MOBILE WHICH WE HAVE NOT DELVED INTO ANY FURTHER WHICH IS NOT JUST MONITORIZING DATA, IT’S ALSO INFORMATION THAT CAN BE USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR OTHERS IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS THAT CAN THEN BE USED AGAINST THEM, BUT THEY’RE NOT GOING TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON. WITH THAT MY TIME HAS EXPIRED AND I YIELD.>>THE CHAIRWOMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND, MR. CICILLINE.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IT WAS DECIDED THAT NO GATEKEEPER COULD USE DATA FOR RIVALS OR OTHER BUSINESSES. SINCE THEN IT’S BECOME INCREASINGLY CLEAR THAT THIS CYCLE OF INNOVATION IS THREATENED BY THE DOMINANCE OF A FEW COMPANIES. MR. ZUCKERBERG, THE DISCOVERY OF THE INTERNET, HAS MUCH INFORMATION SHARED ONLINE. I PROPOSE A GROUP THAT IS FREE OF RIVALS THAT THREATEN UTILIZATION OR HARM CONSUMERS. WITH THAT IN MIND, I’M DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE USERS OF DISCRIMINATORY USE IN THE MARKET OF INTERNET SEARCH. GOOGLE HAS HARMED THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS BY FAVORING ITS OWN PRODUCTS AND SERVICES OVER RIVALS BY DEPRIORITIZING OR DELISTING COMPETITORS’ CONTENT. MY FIRST QUESTION, AS A PROPONENT OF INTERNET OPENNESS, WILL GOOGLE COMMIT TO ENDING THE DECISION MADE AGAINST RIVALS AND OTHER PRODUCTS?>>WITH ALL RESPECT, I DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. WE PROVIDE USERS WITH THE BEST EXPERIENCE THEY’RE LOOKING FOR, THE MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION, AND THAT’S HOW WE APPROACH OUR PRODUCTS.>>BUT DOES THAT INCLUDE THE USE OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES? IS THAT PART OF YOUR BUSINESS MODEL?>>DEFINITELY NOT. IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, WE ARE APPEALING THAT DECISION. WHEN THEY LOOKED AT SHOPPING AS A CATEGORY, THEY EXCLUDED AMAZON AS AN ENTRANT IN THE SPACE. SO THE SPECIFICS MATTER HERE. WE ARE IN A POSITION OF PROVIDING USERS TO THE BEST INFORMATION THEY’RE LOOKING FOR, BE IT FROM ANOTHER COMPANY AND BE IT FROM A COMPETITOR. THAT’S WHAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN DOING.>>I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN STRUCTURAL ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT. I ALSO PLAN TO WORK WITH THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO DEVELOP LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THIS TYPE OF DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT ONLINE. WILL GOOGLE COMMIT TO WORKING TOGETHER WITH CONGRESS ON A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT ONLINE FIRMS WITH SIGNIFICANT MARKET POWER ARE NOT ABLE TO HARM THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS THROUGH DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT?>>I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ENGAGE CONSTRUCTIVELY ON LEGISLATION IN ANY OF THESE AREAS.>>THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE NOW TO TURN TO THE QUESTION OF CHINA. MR. PICHAI, THE OPERATING ENVIRONMENT IN CHINA HAS DETERIORATED WITH RESPECT TO SURVEILLANCE, CENSORSHIP AND THE LIKE SINCE GOOGLE FIRST MADE THE DECISION IN 2010 TO LEAVE. IN SEPTEMBER I SENT YOU A LETTER ALONG WITH 15 OTHER COLLEAGUES RAISING SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT REPORTS THAT GOOGLE IS PLANNING TO RE-ENTER THE CHINESE MARKET WITH A SEARCH ENGINE THAT HAS TO MEET STRICT SURVEILLANCE AND SEARCH GUIDELINES SET BY THE GOVERNMENT. THE ENVIRONMENT HAS DETERIORATED. YOU’RE LAUNCHING AN APP IN THAT ENVIRONMENT WOULD SEEM TO BE COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH GOOGLE’S RECENTLY LAUNCHED AI PRINCIPLES WHICH SAY YOU WILL NOT DEPLOY ACTIVITIES OF WIDE INTEREST OF LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS. IT’S HARD TO IMAGINE YOU COULD OPERATE IN THE CHINESE MARKET AND MAINTAIN A COMMITMENT TO UNIVERSAL VALUES SUCH AS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND PERSONAL PRIVACY. I WANT TO ASK VERY SPECIFICALLY, ARE ANY EMPLOYEES CURRENTLY HAVING PRODUCT MEETINGS ON THIS CHINESE PROJECT? AND IF NOT, WHEN DID THOSE END?>>WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN AN INTERNAL EFFORT, BUT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO PLANS TO LAUNCH A SEARCH SERVICE IN CHINA.>>ARE THERE ANY CURRENT DISCUSSIONS WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT ON LAUNCHING THIS APP.>>CURRENTLY WE ARE NOT IN DISCUSSIONS OF LAUNCHING A SEARCH PRODUCT IN CHINA.>>ARE THERE ANY CURRENT DISCUSSIONS WITH MEMBERS OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT ABOUT THIS?>>THIS EFFORT CURRENTLY IS AN INTERNAL EFFORT, AND I’M HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, CONSULT. WE ARE TRANSPARENT IN TAKING STEPS TO LAUNCHING A PROJECT IN CHINA.>>WHO AT GOOGLE IS IN THIS EFFORT?>>IT’S UNDERTAKEN BY OUR SEARCH TEAMS BUT THESE ARE LIMITED EFFORTS CURRENTLY.>>WILL YOU BE LAUNCHING A TOOL FOR SURVEILLANCE IN CHINA WHILE YOU ARE EMPLOYED WITH GOOGLE?>>ONE OF THE THINGS WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO US AS A COMPANY, WE HAVE A STATED MISSION OF PROVIDING USERS WITH INFORMATION, SO WE ALWAYS — WE THINK IT’S IN OUR DUTY TO EXPLORE POSSIBILITIES, TO GIVE USERS ACCESS TO INFORMATION. I HAVE THAT COMMITMENT, BUT AS I SAID EARLIER, ON THIS WE’LL BE VERY THOUGHTFUL AND WE WILL ENGAGE WIDELY AS WE MAKE PROGRESS.>>I APPRECIATE THAT AND LET ME BE CLEAR. THIS GOES BEYOND GOOGLE AND FRANKLY BEYOND CHINA. AT A MOMENT OF RISING AUTHORITARIANISM AROUND THE WORLD, WHEN MORE LEADERS ARE USING SURVEILLANCE AND CENSORSHIP AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE, WE ARE IN A MOMENT WHERE WE MUST USE MORALITY IN LEADERSHIP. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD THE LETTER 15 COLLEAGUES AND I SENT TO MR. PICHAI, HIS RESPONSE AND A LETTER FROM 15 HUMAN RIGHTS CIVIL ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSING THE LAUNCH FOR A SEARCH IN THE CHINESE MARKET. I WOULD JUST NOTE, MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE SUBMISSION OF THIS, THE NGO LETTER REPORTS, AND I QUOTE, THEY ARE ACTIVELY SUPPORTING THEIR MODEL OF ADDITIONAL CENSORSHIP AND SURVEILLANCE AROUND THE WORLD. MANY GOVERNMENTS LOOK TO CHINA’S EXAMPLE AND SUCH DEMANDS WILL LIKELY CAUSE MANY OTHER REGIMES TO FOLLOW CHINA’S LEAD INVOKING A RACE FOR THE STANDARDS. IT WOULD ALSO RESIST GOVERNMENT REQUESTS IN ORDER TO ENLIST PRIVACY AND SECURITY AND EMBOLDEN COMPANIES TO LIMIT USER DATA. I ASK THAT THEY BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.>>WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. GAETZ.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. HAVE YOU EVER LAUNCHED AN EXPERIMENT ON WHETHER POLITICAL BIAS HAS MESSED WITH CONSUMER EXPERIENCE?>>THROUGH COMMON SENSE, WE LOOK AT THEM — >>HAVE YOU SPECIFICALLY LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION INTO POLITICAL BIAS OF YOUR EMPLOYEES?>>ON OUR EMPLOYEES, YOU SAID?>>YES.>>TO THE EXTENT WE ALWAYS TAKE ANY ALLEGATIONS ON CODE OF CONDUCT ACROSS EVERY ISSUE SERIOUSLY AND WE LOOK INTO THEM.>>YOU SAID TO ME YESTERDAY THAT AS A POLITICAL BIAS, YOU HAVEN’T LAUNCHED THOSE INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY REDUNDANCIES AND SO MUCH PEER REVIEW THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. IS THAT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY?>>CONGRESSMAN, IT’S THE WAY OUR PROCESSES WORK. IF YOU NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE IN OUR ALGORITHMS, THERE ARE SEVERAL STEPS IN THE PROCESS INCLUDING LAUNCH COMMITTEES AND USER TESTING AND GUIDELINE EVALUATION.>>BUT YOUR COMPANY GETS TOGETHER AND TALKS IN GROUPS, RIGHT, GOOGLE GROUPS?>>YES, THEY CAN.>>ONE OF THOSE GROUPS IS A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP, RIGHT?>>WE HAVE MANY IN WHICH THEY CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE CONVERSATION, YES.>>HAVE YOU EVER LOOKED INTO THE VISTA GROUP?>>CONGRESSMAN, NO.>>IS THAT A SURPRISE TO YOU, THAT THERE IS A RESIST GROUP?>>I’M NOT AWARE WHETHER SUCH A GROUP EXISTS OR NOT.>>IF THERE WAS A RESIST GROUP, WOULD THAT BE THE TYPE OF THING YOU WOULD WANT TO LOOK INTO?>>WE HAVE CLEAR POLICIES AROUND HOW OUR PRODUCTS ARE BUILT AND — >>YOU KNOW A RESIST GROUP IS A MOVEMENT TO RESIST THE AGENDA OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. IS THERE A RESIST GROUP IN YOUR COMPANY WHERE A GROUP OF PEOPLE, NOT ONE, ARE GETTING TOGETHER TO REDUCE THAT RISK FORCE, IS THAT THE TYPE OF THING YOU WOULD WANT TO INVESTIGATE?>>CONGRESSMAN, I’M NOT AWARE OF ANY SUCH GROUP, NOT THAT’S BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION AND I’M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, I SPEAK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD A DOCUMENT FROM WHAT PURPORTS TO BE GOOGLE EMPLOYEE MILES BORENS WHICH IS OPPOSED TO THE GOOGLE GROUP RESIST.>>SO ORDERED.>>I AM NOW READING ABOUT THE DISCUSSION THAT OCCURRED OVER BREITBART AND GOOGLE ADS AND I’M READING FROM ONE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES WHO WANTED TO HOLD THEIR NOSE OVER BREITBART AND HATE SPEECH. WHY WOULD SOMEONE NEED TO HOLD THEIR NOSE OVER THAT WORK?>>WE HAVE MANY EMPLOYEES AND THEY COMMUNICATE IN FORUMS AS A COMPANY. WE HAVE ALLOWED FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND WE DON’T CONDONE COMMON EXPRESSION IN THESE THINGS. WE ARE VERY CLEAR AS TO OUR POLICIES OF HOW WE BUILD OUR PRODUCTS, AND WE SERVE OUR PUBLISHERS THAT WAY.>>WELL, IF YOU HAVEN’T LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION ON ANY OF YOUR EMPLOYEES BECAUSE IT WOULD TAKE A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES TO ENGAGE IN IMPROPER CONDUCT, AND IF THOSE GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGING IN DISCUSSION ON YOUR PLATFORM, AND IF ONE OF THOSE PLATFORM GROUPS IS RESIST, AND IF ON THAT RESIST MOVEMENT SITE OR ANY OTHER SITES ON YOUR PLATFORM, THERE IS TALK OF SUPPRESSING CONSERVATIVE SPEECH, WHY WOULDN’T THAT BE SOMETHING YOU WOULD LAUNCH AN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION IN, PUBLISH THOSE REPORTS, SANCTION THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ENGAGED IN PROPER CONDUCT SO WE CAN ALL BE INVOLVED IN THE EXPERIENCE?>>WE HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES OF EMPLOYEES, NOT JUST ON THIS ISSUE, ACROSS ANY ISSUE. WE PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF OUR SYSTEMS AND WE WOULD DO THAT.>>HOW CAN I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU’RE PROTECTING THE SANCTITY OF YOUR SYSTEM WHEN YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW YOUR EMPLOYEES ARE GETTING TOGETHER ON YOUR OWN COMPANY’S INFRASTRUCTURE TO TALK ABOUT POLITICAL ACTIVITY?>>WE ALWAYS ASSUME — OUR SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED AND WE ASSUME THERE COULD BE ISSUES. AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT WE ASSUME THAT SOMEBODY MAY BE ACTING IN BAD FAITH, AND THAT’S HOW WE HAVE DESIGNED OUR SYSTEMS WITH ALL THE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE. WE NEED TO DO THAT FOR SECURITY OF OUR SYSTEMS AND IT’S A FIRST PRINCIPLE APPROACH.>>IF YOUR ASSUMPTION IS THAT PEOPLE CAN ACT IN BAD FAITH, WHY, THEN, HAVE YOU NOT LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT SEEM TO INDICATE A DESIRE TO SUPPRESS CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL MOVEMENTS AND CONSERVATIVE VOICES?>>IF THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS AROUND, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSIONS WHICH ARE SPECIFIC WITH THE INTENT OF MANIPULATING OUR PRODUCTS, WE WOULD CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION.>>THAT’S GOOD TO HEAR. THE “WALL STREET JOURNAL” REPORTED THAT YOUR WORKERS WERE DISCUSSING TWEAKING SEARCH TERMS TO FRAME THE DISCUSSION OVER THE TRAVEL BAN. DID YOU PERFORM AN INVESTIGATION INTO THAT ALLEGATION?>>WE LOOKED INTO IT. THERE WAS NO ATTEMPTED ANYTHING TO INFLUENCE OUR PRODUCTS. THERE ARE AT TIMES DURING IMPORTANT NEWS EVENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, DURING EVENTS LIKE HURRICANES, WE HAVE A SET OF RESPONSE CREWS. EVEN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WAS LOOKING TO PUT OUT INFORMATION BECAUSE THERE WAS CONFUSION AROUND THE EVENT. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AROUND THINGS LIKE THAT.>>I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT ONE OF THE CRISIS RESPONSE TOOLS THAT YOU USE IS AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE DISCOURSE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES ON RESISTING THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY, RESISTING THE TRUMP AGENDA AND THEN SMOTHERING SOME OF THE CONSERVATIVE OUTLETS THAT SEEM TO PRESERVE THAT CONTENT. I YIELD BACK.>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA, MR. ISSA.>>GOOD MORNING, MR. PICHAI. I WAS HOPING WE COULD DIVE INTO SOME ISSUES AND I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY. DOES THE UNITED STATES NEED A NATIONAL PRIVACY LAW?>>CONGRESSMAN, I’M OF THE VIEW, GIVEN HOW IMPORTANT PRIVACY IS, THAT WE’RE BETTER OFF — >>EXCUSE ME, WOULD YOU MIND MOVING THE MICROPHONE IN FRONT OF YOUR MOUTH SO WE CAN HEAR YOU BETTER? THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. I’M OF THE OPINION THAT WE ARE BETTER OFF WITH MORE REACHING DATA PROTECTION FRAMEWORK OF OUR USERS, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO DO.>>IN FLORIDA THEY LAUNCHED GDPR, AND THE GOALS WERE FOR CONSUMERS TO KNOW, TO UNDERSTAND AND CONSENT. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IF THERE WERE A FRAMEWORK IN THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE A NATIONAL PRIVACY LAW, THAT WOULD BE THE CRITICAL FRAMEWORK TO HAVE, KNOW, UNDERSTAND AND CONSENT?>>WE HAVE QUITE A BIT OF EXPERIENCE NOW WORKING WITH GDPR AND WE HAVE DONE IT FOR MANY, MANY MONTHS, AND I THINK — YOU KNOW, I THINK IT’S A WELL THOUGHT OUT CRAFTED PIECE OF LEGISLATION. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR COMPANIES TO HAVE SOME INSTANCES. I ALSO THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR USERS TO NAVIGATE.>>IN THE ATTACK IN 2016, IT USED THE FACEBOOK PLATFORM, THE TWITTER PLATFORM. WHAT HAS GOOGLE DONE TO MAKE SURE THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN AGAIN? JUST LAST WEEK SECRETARY MATTIS CONFIRMED THAT RUSSIA CONTINUED ITS ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY IN THE MOST RECENT MIDTERM ELECTIONS.>>AS I SAID EARLIER, WE DID SEE LIMITED IMPROPER ACTIVITY. OBVIOUSLY WE LEARNED FROM THAT. WE HAVE BEEN VERY TRANSPARENT WITH OUR FINDINGS. LEADING UP TO THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, ANY TIME WE HAVE FOUND OTHER ACTIVITY WE DISCLOSE IT. WE ARE CONSTANTLY EVOLVING THE PRACTICE THAT WE DO. I WOULD SAY OUR EFFORTS HAVE BEEN PRETTY SUCCESSFUL SO FAR. IT’S AN AREA WHERE IT’S NEVER ENOUGH, SO YOU CONSTANTLY TRY AND DO MORE.>>MR. PICHAI, I DON’T THINK ANYBODY DISAGREES SEEING AN ANSWER ON A PAGE CAN BE USEFUL. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I TYPE IN WHAT IS 25 TIMES 15 AND GOOGLE SPITS OUT 375, THAT’S USEFUL. BUT TODAY IF MY WIFE WAS TO SEARCH FOR A PEDIATRICIAN IN DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA, INSTEAD OF BEING MATCHED WITH THE MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM ACROSS THE WEB, ACCORDING TO GOOGLE’S ALGORITHMS, MY WIFE OR ANY MOM WOULD SEE A MAP THAT IS POWERED BY GOOGLE’S ECOSYSTEM OF LOCAL REVIEWS. IN RESPONSE TO CLAIMS THAT GOOGLE HAS PUT ITS OWN RESULTS AHEAD OF ITS COMPETITORS WHEN ITS PAGE RANK ALGORITHM BELIEVES THE COMPETITOR SHOULD BE RANKED HIGHER, GOOGLE HAS TOLD CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL FORCES THAT LOCAL SEARCH RESULTS COME FROM A SPECIALIZED INDEX WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM ITS ORGANIC WEB INDEX. I WAS HOPING YOU COULD CLARIFY FOR ME, IS IT TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE THAT GOOGLE COULD COLLECT CONTENT OF THIRD PARTY SERVICES USING A PAGE-LIKE QUALITY SCORE?>>WE EMPLOY A WIDE VARIETY OF SIGNALS. WE ARE INTERESTED IN RESPONDING TO USER FEEDBACK. AS A USER YOU COULD BE ON A MOBILE PHONE WITH VERY LIMITED CONNECTIVITY, AND YOU’RE CHECKING FOR INFORMATION, MAYBE TRYING TO FIND A DOCTOR BECAUSE YOUR KID IS SICK. WE’RE LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. THAT IS THE USE WHICH DRIVES OUR PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT. IF IT’S AVAILABLE FROM OUR COMPANY, WE MAKE IT AVAILABLE. SOMETIMES WE’RE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION BECAUSE WE HAVE BETTER INFORMATION, SO WE’RE CONSTANTLY LOOKING AND WE DO THAT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY.>>THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK.>>THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. AT THIS TIME THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA, MR. JOHNSON.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. REPLY PICHAI, WE THANK YOU FOR MEETING US TODAY AND ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS. I THINK WE BOTH AGREE IT’S IMPORTANT FOR YOUR COMPANY AND FOR THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND TO GET ALL THIS INFORMATION ON THE RECORD, SO TO SPEAK. AS WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, WE ARE FIERCE ADVOCATES OF GOVERNMENT AND WE’RE ALSO AN ADVOCATE FOR FREE SPEECH AND FREE IDEAS. WE DO NOT WANT TO IMPOSE BURDENSOME ISSUES ON YOUR COMPANY. HOWEVER, WE DO AGREE THAT 90% OF ALL INTERNET SEARCHES IS NEVER USED TO FAIRLY CENSOR CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS OR SUPPRESS POLITICAL VIEWS. YOUR CHALLENGE TODAY, AND IN THE DAYS AHEAD, IS TO CONVINCE THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY THAT GOOGLE AND YOUR INDUSTRY PEERS WILL IMPLEMENT YOUR OWN SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARDS AND SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM SO THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE TO INTERVENE. HERE’S A QUESTION. IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS AND DISCUSSIONS, GOOGLE HAS PRESCRIBED TO THE FLAGGER PROGRAM IN REQUEST THAT YOU REMOVE CERTAIN THINGS FROM YOUR PROGRAM. RECENTLY THERE WAS CONSTANT REMOVAL WHICH SAID OUT OF THE 670 ITEMS THAT WERE FLAGGED, ALMOST 70% WAS REMOVED BEFORE IT RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC. HOW DOES GOOGLE BE SURE THAT ANYTHING REMOVED IS NOT BECAUSE OF PHILOSOPHICAL OR POLITICAL DIFFERENCES?>>IT’S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. AS YOU SAID, GOOGLE IS COMMITTED TO BEING A PRODUCT OF FREE EXPRESSION, AND WE GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO DO THAT. WE ONLY HANDLE THAT IN TERMS OF THE CLEAR POLICIES WE HAVE. WE DO HAVE AUTOMATED SYSTEMS, BUT WE LATER SPOT-CHECK IT TO MAKE SURE THE SYSTEM IS WORKING AS INTENDED. WE RESPOND TO FEEDBACK. YOU CAN APPEAL IF YOU THINK SOMETHING WAS REMOVED ERRONEOUSLY. BUT IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO US THAT WE CREATE A PLATFORM FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION BUT ENFORCE THE RULES OF THE ROAD ON RULES WE HAVE SET. WE ARE VERY TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE AREAS AND THE CLEAR POLICIES IN WHICH WE DO THOSE THINGS.>>YOU’VE SPOKEN A LOT TODAY ABOUT OBJECTIVITY. THAT’S THE GOAL. WE APPLAUD AND APPRECIATE THAT. AS YOU KNOW, ALPHABET’S INCUBATOR JIGSAW IS A TOOL USED AS A MACHINE TO FILTER ON-LINE DISCUSSIONS FOR, QUOTE, TOXICITY, UNQUOTE. THIS TO ME RAISES ISSUES OF HOW GOOGLE’S PARENT COMPANY IS USING FILM LEARNING TO DO THINGS UNPRODUCTIVE, SUCH AS ATTACKS AND THE LIKE. WHEN CREATING A TOOL FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, WHAT STEPS ARE GOOGLE TAKING TO KEEP SOME VIEWPOINTS AWAY CONSIDERED TOXIC?>>THE PERSPECTIVE PROVIDED BY ONE OF OUR SISTER ORGANIZATIONS, JIGSAW, IT’S A PLATFORM FOR PUBLISHERS TO USE. THE PUBLISHERS GET TO DEFINE WHAT THEY WANT, ACCEPTABLE OR NOT, AND THEN THAT’S WHAT THE TOOL PROVIDES FOR THEM. BUT I THINK YOUR POINT IS VALID. WE DON’T WANT TO BE IN THE POSITION OF JUST EDITORIALIZING PUBLISHER CONTENT AND PROVIDING A TOOL FOR PUBLISHERS TO PROVIDE THE CONTENT ON THEIR PLATFORMS.>>YOU MENTIONED THE TOOL PROCESS OF THE PROVIDER HAS THEIR MATERIAL FLAG. HOW QUICK DOES THAT APPEALS PROCESS WORK? IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT’S THE REVIEW PERIOD?>>I THINK IT PRIORITIZES AREAS THAT ARE SENSITIVE, FOR EXAMPLE, AREAS LIKE TERRORISM IS SOMETHING WE PRIORITIZE VERY SIGNIFICANTLY AND HIGHER UP IN THE QUEUE. BUT WE ARE RAMPING UP OUR RESOURCES AND OUR GOAL IS TO DO IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT SOMETIMES IT CAN BE A MATTER OF HOURS. IF IT’S AREAS AROUND COPYRIGHT, WE HAVE A SYSTEM BY WHICH WE CAN AUTOMATICALLY DETECT AND RESPOND RIGHT AWAY BACK TO COPYRIGHT OWNERS, SO IT’S A CONSTANT WORK IN PROGRESS.>>IN THE COMMITTEE’S LAST HEARING WITH GOOGLE’S MISS GINA DOWNS, I RAISED THE CASE OF GINA’S CONTENT BEING REMOVED AS BEING RAISED BY A FLAGGER ON YOUTUBE. THEY HAVE KIND OF AN INFAMOUS REPUTATION FOR BEING A KIND OF RADICAL LEFT VIEWPOINT. WHAT KIND OF SIGNS DOES GOOGLE USE WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS SUCH AS THE PRC?>>I FIRST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING. OUR TRUSTED FLAGGERS CAN FLAG CONTENT FOR US TO REVIEW AND WE REVIEW FLAG CONTENT. IT’S MOSTLY USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, MANY NONPROFIT AGENCIES IN AREAS, IMPORTANT AREAS LIKE CHILD SAFETY, TERRORISM AND SO ON. IT IS A TRUSTED FLAGGER. PEOPLE CAN REGISTER. LAST WE’VE CHECKED THEY’VE NEVER FLAGGED A SINGLE VIDEO ON OUR PLATFORM. WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO A WIDE VARIETY OF ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS WHO WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADD ORGANIZATIONS OF SUGGESTED FLAGGERS.>>I APPRECIATE THAT. WE NEED A LITTLE OBJECTIVITY FROM OUR VIEWERS. I YIELD BACK.>>THE CHAIR CALLS ON THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA.>>A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THIS HEARING WAS A WASTE OF TIME BECAUSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS’ FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. NOW, THERE ARE THINGS THAT GOOGLE DOES UNRELATED TO SPEECH THAT I DISAGREE WITH, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO SEARCH ALGORITHMS, YOUR PRIORITIZATION, WHAT VIDEOS YOU WANT TO SHOW, THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS YOU. I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS. SOME OF THEM ARE FAIRLY BASIC, AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT I FEEL I HAVE TO EDUCATE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ON HOW THE LEGAL EDUCATION WORKS, SO FEEL FREE TO ANSWER YES OR NO. MY FIRST QUESTION IS, WE ARE HERE AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND GOOGLE IS A CORPORATION, CORRECT? YES OR NO.>>YES.>>THE FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO IN LIMITING THE CONTENT OF SPEECH. IT DOES NOT LIMIT GOOGLE. BUT GOOGLE DOES HAVE TO FOLLOW CORPORATE LAWS AND OTHER LAWS. UNDER THOSE LAWS, YOU AND YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO YOUR SHAREHOLDER, CORRECT?>>YES.>>ONE OF THE WAYS GOOGLE GENERATES A PROFIT IS WHEN CONSUMERS USE YOUR SEARCH ENGINE, THEY WATCH VIDEOS, SOME CLICK ON ADS, THEY USE YOUR APPLICATIONS. IS THAT ONE WAY YOU GENERATE PROFIT?>>THAT’S ONE OF THE BUSINESS MODELS.>>IF CONSUMERS WERE NOT GETTING THE SEARCH RESULTS THEY WANTED OR NOT GETTING THE VIDEOS THEY WANTED TO SEE, THEY MIGHT START MOVING TO YOUR COMPETITORS, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?>>EVERY MONDAY WHEN I’M IN THE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS, YES, WE WORRY ABOUT — USERS HAVE A LOT OF CHOICES SO WE WORK HARD TO EARN THEIR TRUST EVERY WEEK.>>SO LET’S SAY YOU FIGURE OUT ONE OF THE THINGS USERS WANT TO SEE ARE DOG AND CAT VIDEOS. YOU HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PROMOTE DOG AND CAT VIDEOS. I’M NOT SAYING YOU DO THAT, BUT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT IF YOU WANTED TO, IS THAT CORRECT?>>CONGRESSMAN, I’M NOT THE EXPERT ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BUT GENERALLY I THINK THAT’S RIGHT.>>THANK YOU. LAST WEEK WHEN I GOT NOTICE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE HEARINGS, I DID A SEARCH ON GOOGLE. I SEARCHED FOR CONGRESSMAN STEVE SCALISE. HE IS A REPUBLICAN. I HIT THE NEWS TAB, AND THE FIRST FOUR ARTICLES THAT CAME UP WERE GENERALLY PRETTY POSITIVE. THE FIRST ONE IS FROM TOWN HALL, A GENERALLY CONSERVATIVE PUBLICATION, ABOUT HIS BOOK, “BACK IN THE GAME.” THE SECOND ARTICLE ALSO ABOUT HIS BOOK “BACK IN THE GAME.” THE THIRD ONE WAS ABOUT ELECTION RESULTS. THE FOURTH ONE WAS FACTS ABOUT HIS BOOK “BACK IN THE GAME.” YOU DON’T HAVE PEOPLE AT GOOGLE THINKING, HEY, WE LIKE STEVE SCALISE SO WE’RE GOING TO GENERATE POSITIVE ARTICLES. THAT’S NOT WHAT’S HAPPENING, RIGHT?>>I AM HAPPY TO HEAR STEVE SCALISE HAS POSITIVE FEEDBACK BUT WE DON’T LOOK AT ANY VIEWPOINTS.>>NOWHERE IN YOUR PROGRAMMING CODE DOES CONGRESSMAN SCALISE EVEN SHOW UP, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?>>YES, THAT’S RIGHT.>>NOW I’M GOING TO DO A REALTIME GOOGLE SEARCH FOR A VERY SIMILAR TERM. I’M GOING TO CHANGE ONE WORD. I’M GOING TO SEARCH FOR COUNCILMAN STEVE KING. I’M GOING TO HIT THE NEWS TAB. THE FIRST ARTICLE THAT POPS UP IS FROM ABC NEWS. IT SAYS, STEVE KING’S INTERRACIAL TALKS PROMPT CENSURE. YOU DON’T HAVE GOOGLE PROGRAMMED THAT EVERY TIME STEVE KING’S NAME COMES UP, THERE’S A NEGATIVE AD, RIGHT?>>WE ARE TRYING TO REFLECT WHAT IS CURRENTLY NEWSWORTHY, WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED ABOUT THAT PHRASE.>>THANK YOU. SO LET ME JUST CONCLUDE HERE BY STATING THE OBVIOUS. IF YOU WANT POSITIVE SEARCH RESULTS, DO POSITIVE THINGS. IF YOU DON’T WANT NEGATIVE SEARCH RESULTS, DON’T DO NEGATIVE THINGS. AND TO SERVE MY COLLEAGUES, IF YOU’RE GETTING BAD RESULTS, DON’T BLAME GOOGLE OR TWITTER, CONSIDER BLAMING YOURSELF. I YIELD BACK.>>THE GENTLEMAN’S TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA, MR. BIGGS.>>I DON’T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THE LAST QUESTIONER, IN THE SENSE THAT I THINK YOU HAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO WITH YOUR COMPANY. THERE ARE CONSTRAINTS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE CONSTRAINTS FROM EVERYTHING TO LIBEL TO SLANDER TO DEALING WITH FIRE. WE HAVE INCREDIBLE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. BUT YOU YOURSELF HAVE SAID YOU PERSONALLY DON’T HAVE BIAS, AND YOU ALSO TRIED TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES TO PREVENT BIAS, ISN’T THAT TRUE?>>WE WORK HARD TO BUILD OUR PRODUCTS IN A NEUTRAL WAY AND I’M COMMITTED TO DOING IT THAT WAY.>>IN SOME RESPECTS, WE HAVEN’T HEARD MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HUMAN INTERSECTION WITH THE CREATION OR MANIPULATION OR EDITING OF ALGORITHMS. BUT THERE IS HUMAN INTERACTION WITH — YOU MUST CREATE THE ALGORITHMS AND YOU MUST HAVE SOME ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE THAT MIGHT DO SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS IT GOES. BUT ORIGINALLY THE CREATIVITY COMES FROM HUMANS, RIGHT?>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>WELL, HOW CAN WE BE ASSURED THAT FOREIGN ADVERSARIES WILL NOT USE YOUR PLATFORM AGAINST AMERICANS OR AMERICAN NATIONAL INTERESTS?>>WE ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT THAT AS A CHECK FACTOR, AND THIS IS WHY WE MAKE SURE THE BEST WAY WE DO IT. WHEN WE ARE BUILDING OUR PRODUCTS, WE DON’T RELY ON ONE PERSON OR GROUPS OF PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DO IT. WE FOLLOW A SET OF ROBUST PROCESS INCLUDING VALIDATION FROM USERS, WE GET FEEDBACK FROM USERS AND WE USE AREAS TO VALIDATE. WE’RE IN ALL 50 STATES OF THE U.S. WE GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTRIBUTE THEM SO WE GET THE PROSPECTS OF EVERYBODY AROUND THE COUNTRY.>>THAT DOESN’T REALLY ANSWER MY QUESTION OF SECURITY ASSURANCE. I GUESS IF MANIPULATION OF YOUR INFORMATION SYSTEMS WAS NOT POSSIBLE OR EFFECTIVE, WE WOULD NOT BE SEEING SO MANY COUNTRIES INVESTING IN THE CAPABILITY OF MANIPULATION, WHETHER IT’S RUSSIANS OR CHINESE OR IRANIANS OR OTHERS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, ATTEMPTING TO MANIPULATE YOUR SYSTEM.>>THERE MAY BE ATTEMPTS TO USE OUR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE WE PROVIDE ADVERTISING PRODUCTS. WHAT WE SAW IN THE 2016 ELECTION WAS LIMITED ACTIVITY, BUT IT’S IMPROPER. TWO ACCOUNTS RELATED TO RUSSIA ADVERTISING USING OUR PLATFORMS.>>A TOTAL OF $4800, I THINK YOU SAID.>>YEAH. THAT’S AN EXAMPLE OF A THREAT WE SEE AND WE’RE WORKING HARD TO MITIGATE THAT.>>I GUESS I WOULD SAY YOU GUYS HAVE A POLICY OF DO NO EVIL. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY?>>IT’S NOT AN OFFICIAL POLICY, BUT IT’S A STATEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED BY US INTERNALLY.>>AND PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT UP THE WORK THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE DOING IN CHINA AND I WANT A CLARIFICATION OF THAT. ARE YOU LOOKING TO EXPAND IN CHINA A SEARCH IN CHINA?>>WE ARE NOT TRYING TO OPERATE IN CHINA.>>ARE YOU DOING ANYTHING WITH THE DATA SHARE WITH THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT?>>TODAY WE DON’T OPERATE OUR SERVICES WHICH INVOLVE USER DATA LIKE GOOGLE SEARCH OR G-MAIL IN CHINA, SO NO.>>YOU’RE TELLING ME NOTHING AT ALL, THEN, WITH CHINA?>>WE PROVIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, ANDROID, WHICH IS AN OPERATING SYSTEM. WE WORK WITH PARTNERS AROUND THE WORLD AND THERE ARE OIL MANUFACTURERS AROUND THE WORLD, INCLUDING IN CHINA.>>SO MANUFACTURERS, BUT BEYOND MANUFACTURERS, ANY OTHER PLATFORM USE?>>WE DON’T HAVE ANY SPECIAL AGREEMENTS ON USER DATA.>>WITH THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT?>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>DO YOU SHARE THE DATA THAT YOU COLLECT ON CIVILIANS WITH THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?>>WE COMPLY WITH VALID LAW ENFORCEMENT REQUESTS, YOU KNOW, AND WITH DUE PROCESS WE COMPLY WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT — >>WHAT’S THE EXTENT OF THAT?>>WE PUBLISH A TRANSPARENCY REPORT IN WHICH WE GIVE INSIGHTS INTO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OUR COMPLIANCE THERE.>>THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE, REAL QUICKLY. IN MAY 2016, GOOGLE BANNED ALL ADS BY PAY DAY VENDORS EVEN THOUGH IT INVESTED IN A PAYDAY LENDER. IT BANNED ADS BY COMPETITORS. IS THAT A NORMAL PRACTICE?>>CONGRESSMAN, WE UNDERTOOK AD POLICIES IN A PARTICULAR AREA BECAUSE WE SAW EVIDENCE OF MISUSE, AND WE HAD GOTTEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK AND THAT’S WHAT WE HAD TO DO.>>DID YOU BAN YOUR OWN LINDUP?>>I THINK ONE OF OUR SISTER COMPANIES AS AN INVESTMENT IN –>>LINDUP?>>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING.>>THE GENTLEMAN’S TIME HAS EXPIRED.>>I CAN FOLLOW UP.>>THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.>>THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT FRAZZLE DIP IS?>>NOT SPECIFICALLY. I’VE HEARD SOME REFERENCES OF IT FROM MY TEAM IN THE LAST 24 HOURS.>>THERE IS AN ARTICLE WITH THE HEADLINE, A PLATFORM FOR FREE SPEECH THAT EXTREISTS ROUTINELY EXPLOIT. IN IT THE ARTICLE EXPLAINS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION ENGINE FOR YOUTUBE, WHICH IS OWNED BY GOOGLE, CORRECT?>>YES.>>THE RECOMMENDATION ENGINE FOR YOUTUBE RECENTLY SUGGESTED VIDEOS CLAIMING THAT POLITICIANS, CELEBRITIES AND OTHER LEAD FIGURES WERE SEXUALLY ABUSING OR CONSUMING THE REMAINS OF CHILDREN OFTEN IN SATANIC RITUALS ACCORDING TO WATCHDOG GROUP ARGO TRANSPARENCY. IT EXPLOITS THE PIZZA AGENCY WHICH LED A MAN FIRING THREATS INTO A PIZZA RESTAURANT WHERE HE BELIEVED CHILDREN WERE BEING HELD AS SEX SLAVES BY DEMOCRATIC LEADERS. THIS BEGAN SPREADING IN THE SPRING IN WHICH IT WAS SAID THAT HILLARY CLINTON HAD SEXUALLY ASSAULTED A GIRL AND DRANK HER BLOOD, SOMETHING THEY DESCRIBED AS FRAZZLE DIP. THE ARTICLE WENT ON TO SAY HOW THIS FRAZZLE DIP CONSPIRACY IS ALL OVER YOUTUBE, AND SOME OF THE FRAZZLE DIP CLIPS PURPORT TO SHOW HILLARY CLINTON AND ABERDEEN IN THE VIDEO. SEVERAL VIEWS HAS A VOICEOVER THAT SAYS, WILL THESE CHILDREN BECOME THE DESSERT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEAL? SO — AND THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE THAT THEY USE OF EXTREME RIGHT AND PARANOID CONSPIRACY GROUPS USING YOUTUBE AS A PLACE TO TRADE THEIR VIDEOS AND TO PROMOTE PROPAGANDA. WHAT IS YOUR COMPANY POLICY ON THAT, AND ARE YOU TRYING TO DEAL WITH IT?>>YOU KNOW, WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDERTAKING EFFORTS TO DEAL WITH MISINFORMATION, BUT WE HAVE CLEARLY STATED POLICIES, AND WE HAVE MADE LOTS OF PROGRESS IN MANY OF THE AREAS OVER THE PAST YEAR, SO, FOR EXAMPLE, INAREAS OF POLITICS AND CHILD SAFETY AND SO ON. WE ARE LOOKING TO DO MORE. THIS IS A RECENT THING BUT I’M FOLLOWING UP ON IT AND MAKING SURE WE ARE EVALUATING THESE AGAINST OUR POLICIES. IT’S AN AREA WE ACKNOWLEDGE THERE IS MORE WORK TO BE DONE, AND, YOU KNOW, WE’LL DEFINITELY CONTINUE DOING THAT.>>ONE OF THE VIDEOS DISCUSSED INCLUDED IMAGES OF A BODY ON A TABLE BEFORE RESTRAINED CHILDREN AND OF HILLARY CLINTON WITH A BLOODIED MOUTH AND FANGS CLAIMING SHE AND ABERDEEN DRANK THE BLOOD OF THEIR VICTIM. THAT WAS REMOVED, BUT ANOTHER ONE CONSISTING AN EXACT COPY OF THE VIDEO REMAINED ON LINE OR APPARENTLY REMAINS ON LINE. SO IS YOUR BASIC POSITION THAT THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT, BUT BASICALLY THERE IS JUST AN AVALANCHE OF SUCH MATERIAL AND THERE’S REALLY NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE, AND IT SHOULD BE BUYER BEWARE OR CONSUMER BEWARE WHEN YOU GO ON YOUTUBE?>>YOU KNOW, WE DO GRAPPLE WITH DIFFICULT ISSUES. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT ON A VIDEO BY VIDEO BASIS, AND WE HAVE CLEARLY STATED POLICY. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO EVALUATE THE SPECIFIC VIDEO IF IT VIOLATES ANY OF OUR POLICIES. WE DO IT FOR THE AMOUNT OF CONTENT WE DO GET. WE GET AROUND 400 HOURS OF VIDEO EVERY MINUTE. IT’S OUR RESPONSIBILITY, I THINK, TO MAKE SURE YOUTUBE IS A PLATFORM FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE RESPONSIBLE IN OUR SOCIETY.>>SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE UPSET THAT THEY MAKE REFERENCE TO DONALD TRUMP AND NOT HILLARY CLINTON OR OBAMA. ONE STRATEGY TODAY IS TO TRY TO HECKLE YOU TO SOMEHOW PLAYING FAVORITES WITH DONALD TRUMP AND REPUBLICANS. I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A SILLY AND RIDICULOUS TAKEAWAY FROM THIS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS MATERIAL WHICH IS A TRUE PUBLIC DANGER. YOU KNOW, YOU’VE GOT A RIGHT TO HAVE WHATEVER POLITICS YOU HAVE. I MEAN, WE COULD SUBPOENA FOX NEWS AND BRING THEM IN HERE AND BEAT THEM UP ABOUT HOW 90% OF THE REFERENCES ON FOX NEWS TO BARACK OBAMA AND HILLARY CLINTON ARE NEGATIVE, BUT THEY’VE GOT THAT RIGHT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO HAVE WHATEVER POLITICAL VIEWS YOU’VE GOT. BUT I THINK THE POINT AT WHICH IT BECOMES A MATTER OF SERIOUS PUBLIC INTEREST IS WHEN YOUR COMMUNICATION VEHICLE IS BEING USED TO PROMOTE PROPAGANDA THAT LEADS TO VIOLENT EVENTS, LIKE THE GUY SHOWING UP IN THE PIZZAGATE CONSPIRACY CASE. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU TAKING THAT THREAT SERIOUS SNL. >>THE GENTLEMAN’S TIME IS EXPIRED BUT YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.>>THANK YOU. WE HAVE VERY CLEAR POLICIES AGAINST HATE SPEECH, THINGS WHICH COULD INCITE HARM OR HATRED OR VIOLENCE, AND THAT’S AN AREA WE ARE CLEARLY TAKING A LOT OF ACTION. BUT I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE’S MORE WORK TO BE DONE, AND WITH OUR GROWTH COMES MORE RESPONSIBILITY, AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING BETTER AS WE INVEST MORE IN THIS AREA.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MS. HANDEL.>>FOR YEARS WE HAVE AFFIRMED THAT PRECISE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION IS CONSIDERED HIGHLY, HIGHLY SENSITIVE AND THAT CONSUMERS MUST OPT IN TO THAT. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?>>YES, I AGREE WITH THAT.>>DO YOU THINK THERE IS OTHER INFORMATION, PRIVACY INFORMATION OF CONSUMERS, THAT SHOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE OPT IN VERSUS OPT OUT?>>IN GENERAL, I THINK A FRAMEWORK FOR PRIVACY IN WHICH USERS HAVE A SENSE OF TRANSPARENCY, CONTROL AND CHOICE AND HAVE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRADEOFFS THEY NEED TO MAKE, I THINK, IS VERY GOOD FOR CONSUMERS AND WE WOULD SUPPORT THAT.>>AND SPEAKING OF PRIVACY AND TRANSPARENCY, I’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PAYING CUSTOMER FOR THE GOOGLE SUITES VERSUS THE FREE G-MAIL. SO WHEN IT COMES TO DATA COLLECTION, ARE THE CRITERIA AND THE RULES THE SAME IF YOU’RE ON GOOGLE SUITES VERSUS G-MAIL?>>G-MAIL — GOOGLE SUITE IS A BROADER SUITE OF PRODUCTS THAN G-MAIL ALONE. WOULD BE A VERY SPECIFIC POLICY AROUND G-MAIL IN GENERAL. AS A COMPANY WE DON’T READ YOUR G-MAIL UNLESS WE HAVE EXPRESS CONSENT FROM YOU. FOR EXAMPLE, TO INVESTIGATE SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION ON AN ACCOUNT. THE G-SUITES, WE HAVE CLEAR POLICIES AGAINST THAT.>>BUT I’M ASKING ARE THE POLICIES DIFFERENT?>>FOR EXAMPLE, TODAY WE PROVIDE G-SUITE FOR FREE TO MANY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. WE DON’T USE THE DATA WITHIN G-SUITE FOR ADVERTISING — >>YOU COLLECT IT.>>WELL, WE STORE — G-SUITE IS USER DOCUMENTS, SO WE STORE IT FOR THE USER SO THEY CAN ACCESS IT.>>AND NO ONE IN YOUR COMPANY DOESN’T HAVE ACCESS TO IT? OR DO THEY?>>WE HAVE POLICY THEY CAN’T ACCESS IT UNLESS THEY HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE USER FOR A CERTAIN INSTANCE.>>WHAT WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE REASONS?>>YOU MAY WANT TO INVESTIGATE FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY RELATED TO YOUR ACCOUNT AND WE MAY ASK FOR PERMISSION TO DO THAT. THERE MAY BE A VALID LAW ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENT WHICH WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH.>>I WANT TO GO BACK TO GOOGLE TAKEOUT WHICH MY COLLEAGUE FROM GEORGIA ASKED ABOUT EARLIER. I WOULD SAY THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON PROBABLY HAS NEVER HEARD OF GOOGLE TAKEOUT UNTIL RECENTLY. WHEN DID IT BECOME AVAILABLE?>>WE STARTED THIS EFFORT OVER TEN YEARS AGO, AND WE STARTED BUILDING FOR MANY OF OUR PRODUCTS. WE STARTED AN OFFICE IN CHICAGO WITH THE EXPRESS GOAL OF PROVIDING USERS WITH THIS TAKEOUT CAPABILITY. I THINK WE’RE QUITE UNIQUE IN STARTING TO WORK ON THAT AS A COMPANY, BUT THERE IS MORE WE PLAN TO DO THERE.>>WHO HAS ACCESS TO IT?>>THIS IS FOR USERS, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU DECIDE TO STOP YOUR G-MAILG-MAIL ACCOUNT AND GO WITH ANOTHER E-MAIL PROVIDER, BEING ABLE TO TAKE YOUR G-MAIL DATA WITH YOU. TAKEOUT IS FOR USERS.>>BUT NO ONE FROM WITHIN GOOGLE OR ANY OTHER PLACE CAN COME INTO GOOGLE TAKEOUT AND GET YOUR INFORMATION?>>NO. IT’S EXPRESSLY DESIGNED FOR CONSUMERS TO TAKE THEIR DATA WITH THEM.>>I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT’S DESIGNED FOR. I’M ASKING WHO, PRACTICALLY, CAN GET ACCESS TO IT?>>YOU KNOW, WE HAVE VERY STRICT LIMITATIONS ON ACCESS TO — >>OH, SO IT’S MORE THAN JUST, IF I WERE GOING TO GO GOOGLE TAKEOUT FOR KAREN HANDEL, I’M NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAS ACCESS TO MY GOOGLE TAKEOUT?>>YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN TAKE OUT YOUR DATA, BUT I’M JUST SAYING, YOU ASKED ABOUT INTERNAL SYSTEMS. WE HAVE CLEAR POLICIES. EMPLOYEES CAN’T GO LOOKING AT USER DATA, UNLESS THERE IS — UNLESS THERE ARE A NARROW SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH MEAN EITHER CONSENT FROM THE USER OR LEGAL SITUATIONS, ET CETERA.>>ALL RIGHT. IS IT FREE?>>YES, IT IS FREE.>>SO WHEN A PERSON TAKES THEIR DATA OUT OR THEY WANT TO GO THROUGH AND CLEAN UP PRIVACY AND THEY DELETE, IS IT REALLY DELETED OR IS IT JUST HIDDEN?>>DEPENDING ON THE SURFACE, IF YOU’RE TERMINATING YOUR ACCOUNT AND YOU DELETE THE DATA, IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME AND WE COMMUNICATE THAT TO PROPAGATE THROUGH OUR SYSTEMS AND GET REMOVED, BUT WE FOLLOW THROUGH ON THAT.>>BUT IT’S DELETED. IT’S NOT JUST HIDDEN FROM SIGHT.>>IT’S DELETED.>>YOU SAID YOUR COMPANY EMBARKED ON AN INITIATIVE TO REGISTER PEOPLE TO VOTE. HOW DID YOU DO THAT AND WHO DID YOU TARGET AND IN WHAT STATES?>>SO, FOR EXAMPLE, DURING REGISTRATION WINDOWS, WE GIVE PEOPLE INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE TO REGISTER. WE DO THESE THINGS FOR ALL OUR USERS ACROSS THE U.S. AND ALL INDICATIONS ARE THAT THE PARTICIPATION IS UNIFORMLY HIGH ACROSS OUR USER BASE. SO, YOU KNOW, WE DO THIS WITH THE EXPRESS GOAL OF — >>BUT HOW DID YOU DO IT? DID YOU SEND OUT LINKS? DID YOU SEND OUT VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS TO PEOPLE?>>THE GENTLE LADY’S TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.>>YOU CAN CLICK ON IT AND WE GIVE YOU THE LOCATION OF YOUR CLOSEST POLLING LOCATIONS AND THE OPENING TIMES AVAILABLE TO YOU.>>I’LL BE FOLLOWING UP ON THAT. I YIELD.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND THANK YOU, MR. PICHAI FOR COMING TO TESTIFY BEFORE US. I, FOR ONE, AM THRILLED THAT YOU AS A COMPANY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO VOTE. I THINK WE SHOULD ALL DO THAT. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE ELECTION DAY AS A HOLIDAY. I’VE BEEN DEEPLY CONCERNED FOR SOME TIME ABOUT EMPLOYERS MANDATES FORCED ARBITRATION RATHER THAN ALLOWING FOR PEOPLE TO PURSUE JUSTICE. AND FORCING PEOPLE INTO ARBITRATION WHEN THEY’VE ALREADY EXPERIENCED A VIOLATION OF THEIR BASIC RIGHTS, I THINK, IS A DEEP INJUSTICE AND IT SUBJECTS PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN VICTIMIZED TO FURTHER VICTIMIZATION, AND WE’VE SEEN RESEARCH THAT SHOWS THAT IT DISCOURAGES PEOPLE FROM COMING FORWARD TO REPORT ABUSES TO BEGIN WITH. THERE ARE VERY SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES IN YOUR FIELD, INCLUDING COMPANIES LIKE SALES FORCE, THAT HAVE THRIVED WHILE FORGOING FORCED ARBITRATION CONTRACTS AND CLAUSES. AND I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT ELIMINATES FORCED ARBITRATION THAT THREATENS INNOVATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED OUT OF HAND. ELIMINATING FORCED ARBITRATION HAS BEEN A SHARED PRIORITY BY MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS COMMITTEE, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT JERRY NADLER HAVE ALL INTRODUCED LEGISLATION TO END THE PRACTICE. AND I WAS VERY HEARTENED TO SEE THAT GOOGLE ENDED FORCED ARBITRATION, BUT ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT. AND SO, I HOPE YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT UPHOLDING PEOPLE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE AND FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION, WHETHER IT’S BASED ON GENDER OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR RACE OR RELIGION OR ANY OTHER METRIC REALLY BENEFITS ALL OF US. SO I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IT’S PARTICULARLY CRITICAL FOR COMPANIES LIKE GOOGLE TO TAKE THAT MORAL LEADERSHIP IN THIS SPACE, SINCE THERE ARE LIMITATIONS FOR AFFECTED PEOPLE TO PURSUE SYSTEMWIDE CHANGE THROUGH TOOLS LIKE CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS. AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO GOOGLE AND THAT IT EXTENDS TO MANY, MANY OTHER EMPLOYERS, BUT SINCE YOU’RE HERE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY, WHICH HAS JURISDICTION OVER THIS ISSUE, I WANT TO ASK YOU IF YOU WILL VOLUNTARILY COMMIT TO EXPANDING THE POLICY OF ENDING FORCED ARBITRATION, FOR ANY VIOLATION OF A PERSON’S RIGHTS, NOT JUST AROUND SEXUAL HARASSMENT, BUT REALLY, FOR ALL OF YOUR EMPLOYERS AND YOUR CONTRACTORS.>>CONGRESSWOMAN, THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. IT’S AN IMPORTANT AREA. ONE THING, IF I COULD CLARIFY. TODAY, OUR ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS DON’T REQUIRE ANY CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS. THAT’S HOW WE HAVE DONE IT. BUT AS YOU MENTIONED, FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT, WE AGREED THAT IT SHOULD BE UP TO THE EMPLOYEES AND WE GAVE THEM A CHOICE. WE ARE DEFINITELY LOOKING INTO THIS FURTHER. IT’S AN AREA WHERE I’VE GOTTEN FEEDBACK PERSONALLY FROM OUR EMPLOYEES, SO WE ARE DEFINITELY REVIEWING WHAT WE COULD DO AND, YOU KNOW, I’M LOOKING FORWARD TO CONSULTING AND HAPPY TO THINK ABOUT MORE CHANGES HERE.>>WELL, WE WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT. I THINK THAT THIS, REALLY, FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE LISTENING TO THIS HEARING, THAT MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS, BASICALLY, WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT, AS WE SAW WITH SEXUAL HARASSMENT, YOU — SOME EMPLOYEES DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY’RE SIGNING AWAY, BUT THEY’RE SIGNING AWAY THEIR ABILITY TO ACTUALLY PURSUE CLAIMS IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, BY GOING TO FORCED ARBITRATION. AND SO, I THINK THAT THIS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. I THINK YOUR POINT ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY IS IMPORTANT, BUT THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE HERE. THAT IS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. BUT IT’S NOT ABOUT THE BASIC RIGHT OF SOMEBODY TO SEEK ACCESS TO DUE PROCESS AND TO JUSTICE IN THE COURTS. SO, WHAT STAGE ARE YOU AT IN ADVANCING THE ISSUE OF ENDING FORCED ARBITRATION, BOTH ON THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT SIDE, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS FOR LOOKING AT IT MORE BROADLY? HOW DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE? HOW DO WE ENGAGE WITH YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ENDORSE OUR LEGISLATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN THE NEXT CONGRESS?>>WE HAVE ALREADY — YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ALREADY ENACTED THE CHANGES FOR FORCED ARBITRATION FOR GIVING ARBITRATION AS AN OPTION FOR EMPLOYEES FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT. WE ARE DEFINITELY REVIEWING WHAT MORE WE COULD DO IN THIS AREA. I’M DEFINITELY HAPPY TO HAVE MY OFFICE FOLLOW UP, AS THEY’RE THINKING ABOUT IT, TO GET THEIR THOUGHTS ON IT. AND WE ARE DEFINITELY COMING INTO LOOKING INTO THIS MORE AND MAKING CHANGES.>>THANK YOU. THE OTHER ISSUE I WANTED TO RAISE IN MY LAST MINUTE IS MODERATING HATE SPEECH. AND THIS HAS COME UP IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS. AND WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE, PARTICULARLY WITH YOUTUBE. I KNOW WE HAD ALEX JONES IN THE ROOM EARLIER, BUT I THINK PROMOTING CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT ARE PATENTLY FALSE AND RESULT IN REAL HARM IS A PROBLEM. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE U.N. HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ASSESSMENT, THAT SOCIAL MEDIA PLAYED A ROLE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN PERPETUATING GENOCIDE AGAINST THE ROHINGYA? AND WHAT IS GOOGLE’S RESPONSIBILITY TO MODERATE HATE SPEECH ON YOUR PLATFORMS?>>WE FEEL A TREMENDOUS SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO MODERATE HATE SPEECH. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DEFINED HATE SPEECH CLEARLY AS INCITING VIOLENCE OR A HATRED TOWARDS GROUPS OF PEOPLE. IT’S ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING WHICH I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A VERY STRICT LINE ON AND WE HAVE STATED OUR POLICIES CLEARLY AND WE ARE WORKING HARD TO MAKE OUR ENFORCEMENT BETTER AND WE HAVE GOTTEN A LOT BETTER, BUT IT’S NOT ENOUGH. SO WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING MORE HERE.>>WELL, WE ARE REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING ON YOU WITH THIS. AND LET ME TAKE A PERSONAL PRIVILEGE TO SAY, I WAS BORN IN THE SAME STATE AS YOU IN INDIA AND I’M EXCITED TO SEE YOU LEADING A COMPANY AND CONTINUING TO SHOW THAT IMMIGRANTS TO THIS COUNTRY CONTRIBUTE GREAT VALUE IN SPITE OF SOME OF THE RHETORIC WE HEAR. THANK YOU, MR. PICHAI.>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMEN FROM PENNSYLVANIA, MR. ROTHFUS.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. PICHAI, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. PIP APPRECIATED THE REFERENCE TO PITTSBURGH IN YOUR OPENING TESTIMONY. GREAT TO HAVE YOU AS PART OF OUR COMMUNITY THERE. YOUR COMPANY REALLY SHOULD BE HELD OUT AS A SUCCESS STORY FOR AMERICA’S FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM. GOOGLE HAS VERY POWERFUL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. THERE IS A SAYING THAT GOES, WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. AND I THINK YOU REALIZE THAT. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THESE ALLEGATIONS OF BIAS THAT HAVE BEEN OUT THERE. YOU KNOW, I’VE SEEN THE MEDIA REPORTS ABOUT A FEW GOOGLE ENGINEERS LAMENTING THE 2016 ELECTION RESULTS. THEN THEY DISCUSSED POTENTIALLY MANIPULATING SEARCH RESULTS THAT WOULD FAVOR SOME POLITICAL VIEWPOINTS IN THE FUTURE. ON A HYPOTHETICAL LEVEL, THOSE GOOGLE ENGINEERS BELIEVE THAT THEY HAD THE POWER TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION. DO YOU THINK GOOGLE’S PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ARE POWERFUL ENOUGH THAT THEY CAN SWAY PUBLIC OPINION TO TILT AN ELECTION, IF THE COMPANY WANTED IT TO? ARE YOUR PRODUCTS THAT POWERFUL?>>CONGRESSMAN, TODAY WE SEE USERS GET INFORMATION FROM A WIDE VARIETY OF SOURCES AND WHILE GOOGLE IS A BIG PLAYER IN SEARCH, SEARCH IS JUST ONE OF THE WAYS IN WHICH PEOPLE GET INFORMATION. THEY GET IT FROM SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES — >>DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR PRODUCTS ARE THAT POWERFUL?>>THAT’S NOT THE WAY I THINK ABOUT IT, WHEN WE ARE BUILDING THE PRODUCTS. YOU KNOW, WE CONSTANTLY WORRY ABOUT THE AREAS WHERE WE ARE NOT DOING WELL AND WE’RE LOOKING TO DO BETTER. WE DEFINITELY SEE A LOT OF INNOVATION, NOT JUST FROM WITHIN THE U.S., BUT GLOBALLY AROUND THE WORLD. AND WE DO REALIZE WE ARE A LARGE COMPANY. AND WITH THAT COMES SCRUTINY. AND WE THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO ENGAGE ON THAT.>>YOU’VE TESTIFIED ABOUT GOOGLE AND ITS ALGORITHMS WORKING IN A NONPARTISAN WAY AND THAT YOU ARE CONFIDENT THAT GOOGLE DOES NOT APPROACH WORK WITH ANY POLITICAL BIAS. ZOE LOFTGREN HIGHLIGHTED THE VOTE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY. DOES GOOGLE DO ANYTHING TO ENSURE IDEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AMONG ITS EMPLOYEES AND DECISION MAKERS?>>CONGRESSMAN, WE’VE — YOU KNOW, I’VE COMMUNICATED CLEARLY TO THE COMPANY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO WELCOME VIEWPOINTS FROM ACROSS ALL SIDES. AS A COMPANY, YOU’RE RIGHT, WE ARE DEFINITELY BASED IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A LEANING THERE. BUT LAST YEAR WAS THE FIRST YEAR WE GREW FASTER OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA THAN WITHIN CALIFORNIA. WE ALSO HAVE EMPLOYEES GLOBALLY. AND I DO SEE A WIDE VARIETY OF OPINIONS — >>WHEN MR. JOHNSON ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THE TRUSTED FLAGGER PROGRAM, YOU SAID, FOR US TO REVIEW, WHO’S THE “US”? WHO’S DOING THAT REVIEW?>>WE REVIEW THINGS BOTH WITH A COMBINATION OF OUR AUTOMATED SYSTEMS, AS MANUAL REVIEWERS, THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE PART OF — >>HOW MANY PEOPLE IS THAT? IS IT A COMMITTEE?>>YOU KNOW, IN — WE’VE COMMITTED TO SCALE UP OUR MANUAL REVIEWERS TO OVER 10,000 PEOPLE AND WE ARE WELL UNDERWAY TO DO THAT. SO THESE ARE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WORKING 24/7, GLOBALLY, ACROSS, LOOKING AT CONTENT BASED ON OUR POLICIES.>>GOOGLE HAS DESCRIBED ITS ETHIC WITH THESE PITHY, GREAT STATEMENTS, DON’T BE EVIL, DO THE RIGHT THING. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THESE IDEALS IN RELATION TO REPORTS THAT GOOGLE — THAT WE’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH CHINA. THE STRICT AUTHORITARIANISM THAT CHINA RULES ITS PEOPLE HAS CAUSED CONCERNS AROUND THE GLOBE FOR GENERATIONS. I VIVIDLY RECALL THE EARLY DAYS OF JUNE 1999 IN TIANANMEN SQUARE. NOW I READ RECENT REPORTS ABOUT CRACKDOWNS ON MUSLIMS, ON CHRISTIANS, MASS INCARCERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AGAINST PEOPLE OF FAITH IN CHINA SHOULD BE A MAJOR CONCERN FOR EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD, INCLUDING YOUR COMPANY. DID GOOGLE DESIGN A PROTOTYPE FOR A SEARCH ENGINE THAT COULD BE USED IN CHINA TO CENSOR CONTENT?>>CONGRESSMAN, WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN AN INTERNAL EFFORT –>>DID THEY — DID YOU CREATE A PROTOTYPE, THOUGH? THERE WAS A REPORT IN THE INTERCEPT THAT SAYS THAT A PROTOTYPE FOR THE CENSORED SEARCH ENGINE WAS DESIGNED.>>WE HAVE — >>ARE THEY WRONG?>>WHAT SEARCH COULD LOOK LIKE, IF IT WERE TO BE LAUNCHED IN A COUNTRY LIKE CHINA. AND THAT’S WHAT WE EXPLORED — >>HOW MANY MONTHS WAS THAT PROJECT ONGOING?>>WE HAVE HAD THE PROJECT UNDERWAY FOR A WHILE. AND THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER PROJECT WHICH IS WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN FOR A WHILE AND WE HAVE NEVER LAUNCHED THEM, TOO.>>HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE WORKING ON IT?>>THE ESTIMATES, YOU KNOW, SORRY, THE NUMBER OF ENGINEERS IN THE PROJECT HAVE VARIED OVER TIME.>>AT ONE POINT, WE’VE HAD OVER A HUNDRED PEOPLE WORKING ON IT. THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING.>>OKAY, I JUST WANT TO ECHO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE HAD SAID. YOU KNOW, YEAH, I’M GLAD YOU’RE HERE AT THE COMMITTEE, BUT I’M GLAD YOU’RE HERE IN OUR COUNTRY. YOU ARE THE SUCCESS STORY, THAT I CAN JUST THINK OF YOU SITTING IN INDIA AS A TEENAGER AND THIS WAS PROBABLY NEVER ON YOUR RADAR. BUT YOU CAME TO THIS COUNTRY, BECAUSE THIS COUNTRY HAD THAT PROMISE OUT THERE. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE COLLABORATING WITH THIS COMMITTEE. THANK YOU.>>THE GENTLEMEN’S TIME HAS EXSPIRED. THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLE LADY FROM FLORIDA.>>THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MR. PICHAI. I’M HERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND ENDURING ALL THAT WE HAVE HEARD AND SEEN TODAY. AS YOU KNOW, GOOGLE CERTAINLY HAS SIGNIFICANCE OVER THE INFLUENCE OF DISSEMINATION TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOLD AND SHAPE HOW WE THINK, THE DECISIONS WE MAKE, WHAT WE BUY. BUT LET ME JUST REMIND YOU AND OTHERS THAT AMERICA, WITH ALL OF ITS GREATNESS, HAS ENOUGH PROBLEMS. AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE GIFT OF GOOGLE IS USED, THE SERVICE THAT YOU PROVIDE IS A RESPONSIBLE ONE. IN YOUR OWN STATEMENT, YOU SAID THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVES. SO THAT TELLS ME THAT GOOGLE HELPS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS, NOT CREATE PROBLEMS. MY CONCERNS SPECIFICALLY CENTERS AROUND THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMERS. BECAUSE GOOGLE CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING WITHOUT THE CONSUMERS. SO THE PROTECTION OF THE DATA, THEIR INFORMATION, THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT YOU PROVIDE — AND I KNOW WE’VE TALKED A LOT TODAY ABOUT DATA COLLECTION AND HOW IT’S USED AND IF THE SETTINGS ARE IN PLACE, THEN IT’S NOT COLLECTED. SO LET ME JUST UNDERSTAND, REALLY STARTING WITH THE CHAIRMAN’S QUESTIONS, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD OPENING FOR US, IF A CONSUMER TELLS YOU NOT TO COLLECT THEIR DATA, THEN YOU DO NOT COLLECT THE DATA. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>OKAY. AND HOW DOES GOOGLE — OR DOES GOOGLE ALLOW ADVERTISERS TO TARGET ADS BASED ON SENSITIVE FACTORS LIKE RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION?>>CURRENTLY, WE DON’T HAVE THOSE — THE ONES YOU MENTIONED, AS FACTORS IN OUR PRODUCT.>>OKAY, AND WHAT IS YOUR POLICY REGARDING PREDATORY ADVERTISEMENTS?>>YOU KNOW, WE HAVE STRICT POLICIES AGAINST AND WE RESPOND TO CONSENSUS THERE. WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN PRECAUTIONS. IT’S AN AREA WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING BETTER.>>AND SINCE WE DO REPRESENT EVERYBODY, POOR COMMUNITIES AS WELL AS AFFLUENT COMMUNITIES, HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION THAT IS RECEIVED IN AT-RISK COMMUNITIES PROTECTS THE CONSUMER, IF YOU WILL? HOW ARE THEY TREATED THE SAME IN TERMS OF AFFLUENT VERSUS POOR COMMUNITIES? HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE?>>WE DO ENGAGE WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. WE DO — OUR TEAMS DO OUTREACH AND TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE SPECIFIC CONCERNS, YOU KNOW, WHICH, THERE IS AN OBVIOUS OF OUR PRODUCT, OUR PLATFORM THAT CONNECTS COMMUNITIES, WE FOLLOW UP AND ENGAGE AND TAKE ACTION.>>AND HOW DO YOU DO THAT AGAIN, PLEASE?>>FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE’S A SPECIFIC CATEGORY OF A PRODUCT WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE GET CLEAR FEEDBACK, THE WAY WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED THE PRODUCT HAS A DISPARATE EFFECT ON SOME MINOR COMMUNITIES CAN, WE DO ENGAGE AND WE UNDERSTAND AND MAKE CHANGES IN OUR PRODUCTS, OUR POLICIES.>>SO YOU GET FEEDBACK. SO DO YOU INITIATE OR DO ANY CHECK ORGANIZE — DOES THAT INFORMATION HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU OR YOU PROACTIVE IN TERMS OF LOOKING FOR THOSE TYPE OF VULNERABILITIES?>>WE DO BOTH. AND BUT I DO THINK THERE’S MORE WE CAN DO IN BEING PROACTIVE AND IT’S SOMETHING I’M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP AND UNDERSTAND BETTER. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT’S AN AREA WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING WELL.>>YOU TALKED QUITE A BIT WORKING MORE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. I BELIEVE YOU’VE SAID THAT MAYBE FOUR, FIVE TIMES. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU DO WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PROTECT THE CONSUMERS, AS WELL. AND PROTECT OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT.>>WE DO THIS ACROSS A WIDE VARIETY OF AREAS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THERE WERE CONCERNS EXPRESSED ABOUT ELECTION INTERFERENCE, IT’S AN AREA WHERE WE LOOK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR GUIDANCE AND AREAS LIKE CHILD SAFETY IS AN AREA WHERE WE ACTIVELY COLLABORATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SO FRAUD, MALWARE, AND DEPENDING ON THE AREA, WE ENGAGE AND WE SUPPORT THEM THROUGH EFFORTS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO. THE OPIOID CRISIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF AN AREA WHERE WE ARE DOING A LOT OF WORK WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT >>WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MAIN AREA WHERE GOOGLE COULD IMPROVE TO BETTER HELP THE CONSUMER?>>I ALWAYS THINK — >>GOT TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER.>>I ALWAYS THINK, PRIVACY IS AN AREA WHERE WE THINK IS SACROSANCT, AND WE HAVE DONE A LOT FOR USERS OVER THE YEARS, BUT IT’S AN AREA WHERE EXPECTATIONS ARE CONSTANTLY EVOLVING AND WE AS A COMPANY NEED TO EVOLVE AND ADAPT TO IT. IT’S AN AREA THAT WE’RE COMMITTED TO DOING BETTER, BUT IT’S AN AREA THAT I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE’S MORE TO DO AND IT’S NEVER DONE.>>AGAIN, THANK, MR. CHAIRMAN. I YIELD BACK.>>GENTLE LADY LEADS BACK. THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMEN FROM TEXAS, MR. GOHMERT FOR FIVE MINUTES.>>MR. PICHAI, I APPRECIATE YOUR BEING HERE. AND I THINK MOST ALL OF US AGREE ON BOTH SIDES, WE APPLAUD GREAT WORK. FOR EXAMPLE, STEVEN SPIELBERG, DESPITE POLITICS, HE’S PROVIDED MY FAMILY A LOT OF ENJOYMENT AND ENTERTAINMENT. YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES AT GOOGLE HAVE CREATED AN EXTRAORDINARY VEHICLE FOR SEARCHING OUT THINGS. IT’S FANTASTIC! AND AS MR. LOU, MY FRIEND ACROSS THE AISLE WAS POINTING OUT, YOU’VE GOT GOVERNMENT THAT’S NOT SUPPOSED TO INTERFERE IN PEOPLE’S CIVIL RIGHTS AND THEN YOU’VE GOT A COMPANY, A CORPORATION LIKE GOOGLE. MY PROBLEM IS, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT GIVES ITS IMMUNITY FROM LAWSUITS OVER TO A PRIVATE CORPORATION THAT’S THE HEAD OF THAT CORPORATION DOESN’T EVEN REALIZE THAT THERE IS POLITICAL BIAS RUN AMOK IN HIS COMPANY, AND THAT’S THE PROBLEM. I DON’T WANT TO SEE YOU OVERREGULATED. I DON’T WANT TO SEE YOU REGULATED. I WANT TO SEE OTHERS COME UP WITH BRILLIANT WAYS, AS YOU, MR. BREM AND OTHERS DID, TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT MAKES LIFE EASIER. BUT A GOOD EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE A TRUSTED FLAGGER, YOU HAD INDICATED, CALLED THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER. THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER REALLY HAS STIRRED UP MORE — STIRRED UP MORE HATE THAN AMOUNT ANY OTHER GROUP I KNOW. THEY STIRRED UP ONE GUY TO THE POINT THAT HE WENT TO THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL AND I KNOW THOSE PEOPLE. AND THEY’RE CHRISTIANS. AND THEY BELIEVE AND I BELIEVE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS REALLY MORE BASED ON LOVE THAN ABOUT ANY OTHER RELIGION IN HISTORY. GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, HE SENT HIS SON, HIS SON SO LOVED THE WORLD, HE GAVE HIS LIFE. YET THEY STIRRED UP HATE AGAINST THE FAMILY RESEARCH CENTER AND A GUY GOES IN SHOOTING. YOU HAVE — WELL, LET’S SEE, JUNE 18th OF THIS YEAR, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER ANNOUNCED THAT IT HAD REACHED A SETTLEMENT WITH NAJED FOR FALSELY LABELING THEM AS AN ANTI-MUSLIM HATE GROUP. THEY WERE WRONG. NOW, YOU CONSIDER THEM A TRUSTED FLAGGER, YET THEY KEEP CREATING PROBLEMS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT HATERS. IN FACT, THEY HAD TO — EXCUSE ME. THEY HAD TO PAY OUT $3.375 MILLION. MY PROBLEM IS, WHEN YOU PUT YOUR MONIKER ON THEM OF TRUSTED FLAGGER, WHY AREN’T YOU PAYING $3.375 TO MR. NAJID NAWAZ? THAT’S MY PROBLEM. YOU TRUST PEOPLE THAT HAVE STIRRED UP A LOT OF HATE. AND ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE. AND YOU’RE SO SURROUNDED BY LIBERALITY THAT HATES CONSERVATISM, HATES PEOPLE THAT REALLY LOVE OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE FREEDOM IT’S AFFORDED PEOPLE LIKE YOU, THAT YOU DON’T EVEN RECOGNIZE IT. IT’S LIKE A BLIND MAN NOT EVEN KNOWING WHAT LIGHT LOOKS LIKE, BECAUSE YOU’RE SURROUNDED BY DARKNESS. BUT IF YOU LOOK. LEST SEE, A GOOD EXAMPLE, AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP WON, YOUR COFOUNDER, MR. BREMM SAID, QUOTE, MOST PEOPLE HERE ARE PRETTY UPSET AND PRETTY SAD. A LOT OF US HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO. WE SAW HOW UPSET THE TOP PEOPLE AT GOOGLE WERE. AND FOR YOU TO COME IN HERE AND SAY, THERE IS NO POLITICAL BIAS IN GOOGLE TELLS US, YOU EITHER ARE BEING DISHONEST, AND I DON’T WANT TO THINK THAT, OR YOU DON’T HAVE A CLUE HOW POLITICALLY BIASED GOOGLE IS. NOW, ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS WIKIPEDIA. WE DO A SEARCH AND WHAT COMES UP AS — RIGHT THERE AS THE KNOWLEDGE PANEL ON THE RIGHT, AND HOPEFULLY WE’LL HAVE A SCREENSHOT OF THAT, WE GET WIKIPEDIA. MY CHIEF OF STAFF WENT ON, SHE TOLD ME, EVERY NIGHT FOR TWO WEEKS AND PUT PROPER, HONEST INFORMATION IN WITH PROPER ANNOTATIONS AND WIKIPEDIA’S LIBERAL EDITORS AROUND THE WORLD WOULD KNOCK IT OUT EVERY DAY AND INSTEAD PUT UP A BUNCH OF GARBAGE LIKE MARK LAVIN HAS NOW BEEN FACING. YET TO YOU, THEY GET A TRUSTED SPOT. AND WHEN WIKIPEDIA SLANDERS OR LIBELS SOMEONE AND YOU’RE THE ONE THAT HAS TRUSTED THEM ABOVE ANY OTHER ENTITY, YOU OUGHT TO BE LIABLE. YOU OUGHT TO BE LIABLE WHEN THE SBLC IS LIABLE. YOU OUGHT TO BE LIABLE WHEN WIKIPEDIA DEMEANS AND USES THEIR POLITICAL BIAS. AND I HOPE AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AROUND AND NOTICE YOU RUN OFF CONSERVATIVES, YOU EMBRACE LIBERALS. AND IT’S TIME GOOGLE WAS ACTUALLY NOT IMMUNE, SO THAT PEOPLE CAN HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE AND GET A LITTLE BETTER OBJECTIVITY. I SEE MY TIME’S RUN OUT. I YIELD BACK.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY AND A NUMBER OF THESE QUESTIONS FALL TO ME, EVEN THOUGH I MAY BE REPEATING SOME OF THIS. BUT I’M STILL NOT CLEAR ON HOW MANY STAFF AND WHO IT IS THAT PUBLISHES THE PERIMETERS BY WHICH THE ALGORITHMS ARE WRITTEN. CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT HOW MANY STAFF THAT IS AND HOW THAT WORKS?>>CONGRESSMAN, TODAY IT’S OUR SEARCH TEAM, WHICH WORKS ON THE CORE, THE CORE OF OUR SEARCH TEAMS. AND IT’S, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE OVER A THOUSAND PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, I’M HAPPY TO ELABORATE MORE, BUT IT’S DOZENS ON OF PEOPLE.>>THAT’S CLOSE ENOUGH, CONCEPTUALLY. AND WHEN YOU HIRE THEM, ARE THERE PEOPLE HIRED FROM THE OUTSIDE OR BROUGHT UP FROM INTERNALLY? WHAT’S THE TYPICAL PATH TO THIS ROUGHLY 1,000-PERSON SEARCH TEAM?>>IT’S A COMBINATION OF BOTH, BUT SENIOR-MOST ENGINEERS ON OUR SEARCH TEAM TYPICALLY TEND TO HAVE BEEN IN THE COMPANY FOR A VERY LONG TIME.>>SO MOST OF THE TIME YOU WILL KNOW THEM FROM HAVING WORKED WITH THEM. DO YOU THEN — DO YOU GO INTO THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT THEY MIGHT BE DOING ON SOCIAL MEDIA?>>NORMALLY, WE DON’T, AS A COMPANY, WE HAVE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES, BUT WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT HOW WE BUILD OUR PRODUCTS IS DONE WITH GREAT CARE AND THOUGHT, FOCUSED ON GIVING USERS THE INFORMATION THEY ARE LOOKING FOR.>>BUT THESE ARE THIS TEAM OF ROUGHLY A THOUSAND. THEY’RE THE PEOPLE THAT WRITE THE PARAMETERS BY THOSE WHO WHICH WRITE THE ALGORITHMS WRITE THE ALGORITHMS?>>THAT’S ROUGHLY, CORRECT.>>SO THERE REALLY ISN’T ANY LOOK AT WHAT THEIR PRIVATE LIVES ARE, EVEN THOUGH THEIR PUBLIC SOCIAL MEDIA IS NOT EXAMINED BY THE COMPANY. AND DOES ANYONE OUTSIDE OF GOOGLE KNOW WHO THESE THOUSAND PEOPLE ARE?>>WE DON’T EXAMINE THEIR PERSONAL ACTIVITIES AND THERE ARE SOME SENIOR PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATE IN CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS OUTSIDE AND THEY ARE KNOWN TO THE OUTSIDE COMMUNITY.>>AND WE’RE WATCHING PEOPLE WHOSE SOCIAL MEDIA HAS KNOCKED THEM OUT OF SOME PRETTY HIGH POSITIONS IN LIFE. ALMOST EVERY WEEK, THERE’S ONE OR MORE WHOSE SOCIAL MEDIA THIS WEEK, THERE’S A COUPLE I CAN THINK OF IN THE LAST 24 TO 48 HOURS. BUT I’M GOING TO MAKE THIS POINT. AND I BELIEVE I’VE MADE IT WITH A NUMBER OF THE INTERNET COMPANIES THAT HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE AT THIS TABLE IN THE PAST. WHEN WE’RE MET WITH A SITUATION HERE IS THAT THERE’S A VERY STRONG CONVICTION ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT THE ALGORITHMS ARE WRITTEN WITH A BIAS AGAINST CONSERVATIVES. SO PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE DON’T AGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE, OF COURSE, IT BENEFITS FROM THEM. BUT WHAT WE DON’T KNOW ARE, WHO ARE THESE THOUSAND PEOPLE? AND WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA LOOKS LIKE. BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE THAT COME FROM THAT COUNTY ARE ABOUT 80% SUPPORTERS OF HILLARY CLINTON, IF I LISTEN TO THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA CORRECTLY. AND SO THAT WOULD BE A BUILT-IN BIAS, IF I KNOW PEOPLE FROM CALIFORNIA AND KNOW THEIR POLITICS FROM CALIFORNIA, AND I THINK I DO. SO WE’VE GOT AT LEAST THEORETICALLY, A BUILT-IN BIAS THAT’S HERE. IT’S NOT BEING EXAMINED AND NOT BUILDING THE SOCIAL MEDIA. HOW DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET TO AN OBJECTIVE RESULT, IN WHICH YOU SAY, WE BUILD OUR PRODUCTS IN A NEUTRAL WAY, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOUR PRODUCT COMES OUT NEUTRAL. HOW WOULD YOU EXPECT TO GET TO AN UNBIASED RESULT WITH A BUILT-IN FORMULA THAT I’VE DESCRIBED THAT I DON’T THINK YOU OBJECT TO OR DISAGREE WITH?>>CONGRESSMAN, IT’S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION, BUT THE WAY WE RANK OUR IS ESSENTIALLY BASED ON USER FEEDBACK AND THAT’S WHAT DRIVES THE LOOP IN WHAT WE PUT IN.>>I DO UNDERSTAND HOW IT’S PRIORITIZED THAT WAY AND I WATCH WHAT’S GOING. BUT I MADE THIS POINT THAT IF WE DON’T KNOW WHO THE THOUSAND ARE AND WE CAN’T LOOK AT THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA AND WE CAN’T SEE THE ALGORITHMS TO UNDERSTAND THE RESULTS OF THE WORKS THEIR DOING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, AND YET THE PUBLIC BELIEVES IT’S AN OPEN FORUM, WHERE THERE’S A BALANCED EXCHANGE OF OPEN ACCESS FOR INFORMATION, AND OF COURSE, IT’S NOT. SO I HAVE SAID, WE EITHER NEED TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND LOOK AT THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA, AND IF THAT DOESN’T SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, NEXT STEP THEN IS PUBLISH THE ALGORITHMS. IF THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN, THEN THE NEXT STEP ON THE LINE IS SECTION 230. THE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 230. AND THE STEP ON THE LINE BEYOND THAT IS A TEDDY ROOSEVELT STEP. I’M WITH MR. GOHMERT. I DON’T WANT TO REGULATE ANYTHING. BUT NEITHER DO I WANT TO SEE A SOCIETY THAT’S SO POLARIZED AND SO LOADED THAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE CAN’T BE EXPRESSED IN THE BALLOT BOX. I HAVE A 7-YEAR-OLD GRANDDAUGHTER WHO PICKED UP HER PHONE BEFORE THE ELECTION AND SHE’S PLAYING A LITTLE GAME, KIND OF GAME A KID WOULD PLAY, AND UP ON THERE POPS A PICTURE OF HER GRANDFATHER. AND I’M NOT GOING TO SAY INTO THE RECORD WHAT KIND OF LANGUAGE WAS USED AROUND THAT PICTURE OF HER GRANDFATHER, BUT I WOULD ASK YOU, HOW DOES THAT SHOW UP ON A 7-YEAR-OLD’S iPHONE WHO’S PLAYING A KIDS’ GAME?>>CONGRESSMAN, iPHONE IS MADE BY A DIFFERENT COMPANY AND SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN — >>IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN ANDROID. IT WAS A HAND ME DOWN OF SOME KIND.>>YOU KNOW — >>I WOULD ASK — >>I’M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP. THERE MAY BE AN APPLICATION WHICH WAS BEING USED WHICH HAD A NOTIFICATION, BUT I’M HAPPY TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER AND CLARIFY IT FOR YOU.>>OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.>>MR. CHAIRMAN?>>THE GENTLEMEN FROM TEXAS.>>TO PLACE THREE QUESTIONS ON THE RECORD, MR. CHAIRMAN.>>UM, WE’VE ALREADY INDICATED WE’LL TAKE ALL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED IN WRITING AND ASK HIM TO ANSWER THEM.>>I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF I CAN SHARE THESE THREE.>>ALL RIGHT. GENTLEWOMAN, WITHOUT OBJECTION.>>I THANK YOU FOR THE COURTESY FROM THE GENTLELADY FROM ALABAMA, I THINK IT’S HER TIME NEXT. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL POINTS MADE AND OBVIOUSLY ALGORITHM HAS BEEN MENTIONED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THREE QUESTIONS. ONE, THE EXPLAINING HOW ALGORITHM MAY PLAY INTO SOMEONE’S IMPRESSION THAT CONSERVATIVES OVER LIBERAL. I THINK YOU’RE VERY CLEAR ON THAT, THAT THAT’S NOT THE CASE. IN ADDITION, YOUR CLARIFICATION ON CHINA AND ENGAGING IN ANY ACTIVITIES TO SENSOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS. AND NUMBER THREE, THE ALGORITHMS AGAIN ABOUT YOUR PRODUCTS MAY BE A PROPRIETARY — MAY BE A PRIORITY OVER OTHERS. AND ANY EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THAT IS, IN FACT, IF YOU REPRESENT IT TO BE, NOT TRUE, OR HOW THAT MIGHT BE PERCEIVED THAT HAPPENS. YOUR PRODUCTS, GOOGLE PRODUCTS OVER OTHERS AND HOW ALGORITHMS MAY PLAY A PART INTO THAT.>>AND THE GENTLEWOMAN WILL SUBMIT THOSE IN WRITING TO US SO WE CAN SUBMIT.>>THANK YOU. AND I THANK YOU THE GENTLEMEN AND I THANK YOU FOR YIELDING.>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMEN FROM FLORIDA, MR. RUTHERFORD FOR FIVE MINUTES.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. PICHAI, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE PRIVACY POLICY AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. BECAUSE I THINK THAT’S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. YOU MENTIONED THE TRANSPARENCY IN YOUR POLICY, BUT WHEN, YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOUR POLICY IS 20 PAGES LONG. CHANGES MULTIPLE TIMES A YEAR. I HAVE TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POLICY, BECAUSE I, QUITE FRANKLY, DON’T UNDERSTAND ALL OF IT. AND THAT IS THE POLICY STATES THAT GOOGLE’S DATA COLLECTION APPLIES WHEN, QUOTE, YOU USE GOOGLE SERVICE. AND SO MOST CONSUMERS WOULD THINK THAT MEANS GOOGLE SEARCH OR GOOGLE MAPS. MY QUESTION IS, DOES THE POLICY APPLY WHEN A CONSUMER CONTACTS A DOUBLE-CLICK COOKIE? ARE THEY THEN UNDER THAT POLICY ORND.>>TODAY OUR PRODUCT IS CALLED GENERAL ADD MANAGER. AND IN GENERAL, WHEN USERS INTERACT WITH OUR SERVICES, WE NEED THEIR CONSENT, AND BY LAW, WE NEED TO APPLY OUR PRIVACY POLICY SO WE CAN OFFER THEM THE FULL PROTECTIONS WE CAN. AND FULFILL OUR OBLIGATIONS. AND SO AS PART OF THAT, IF YOU’RE INTERACTING WITH OUR AD SERVICES, WE DO GET CONSENT FOR YOUR PRIVACY POLICY.>>SO THAT’S WRITTEN IN THE POLICY. AND THEY HAVE — OKAY. AND SECONDLY, IF A CONSUMER DOES NOT HAVE A GOOGLE ACCOUNT, THEY LAND ON A WEB PAGE THAT HAS GOOGLE ADWARE AGAIN, IS THAT CONSUMER USING A GOOGLE SERVICE? UNDER THE PRIVACY POLICY?>>MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE, YES, IF THEY’RE INTERACTING. THEY MAY BE BOTH SUBJECT TO THE PRIVACY POLICY OF THE PUBLISHER OR THE APPLICATION THEY ARE USING. FOR US TO ADD PLATFORMS THAT WORK ON THAT PRODUCT.>>AND THIRD AND FINALLY, YOUR PRIVACY POLICY SAYS YOU COLLECT VOICE AND AUDIO INFORMATION, WHEN YOU USE AUDIO FEATURES. HOWEVER, DOES THIS MEAN GOOGLE ASSISTANT IS RECORDING OUR VOICES AND CONVERSATIONS? HOW ABOUT WHEN JUST USING GOOGLE VOICE? IS THAT ACTUALLY BEING RECORDED?>>TODAY, IF YOU INVOKE GOOGLE VOICE BY EITHER USING THE MICROPHONE OR SAY “OKAY GOOGLE” AND ISSUE A COMMAND, WE TREAT IT LIKE A SEARCH QUERY AND RECORD THAT ACTIVITY PCH BUT WE HAVE A SEPARATE SETTING WHICH AS A USER YOU CAN CHOOSE WHETHER YOU WANT THIS STORED OR NOT. AND SO WE GIVE USERS THE CHOICE AND THE OPTION.>>SEE, I — I — YOU KNOW, WHEN IT GETS TO TRANSPARENCY, I THINK WHEN YOU REALIZE YOU HAVE THESE ACTIVE — YOU KNOW, WHEN I’M CLICKING AND GIVING THAT INFORMATION AND AGREEING TO IT, I THINK PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT INFORMATION IS GOING OUT. AND THEY’RE GIVING THAT PERMISSION. BUT IT’S THESE PASSIVE COLLECTION POINTS, YOU KNOW, LIKE AN DETROIT AND CHROME, WHERE THEY’RE PICKING UP THAT INFORMATION AND THE USER, I’M NOT SURE THE USUALLY ACTUALLY KNOWS THAT. AND SO YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS, WE’RE AGREEING TO A PRIVACY POLICY, BUT WE DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT INFORMATION THAT WE’RE GIVING UP, BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER GROUPS THAT YOU ARE CONTACTING, ANDROID AND CHROME, WHO ARE COLLECTING PASSIVE INFORMATION. HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT AND HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT TRANSPARENT FOR THE CONSUMER?>>YOU HAVE TO REALIZE, PRIVACY POLICY ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH. THIS IS WHY WE PROMPT AND GIVE PRIVACY CHECKUPS.>>RIGHT. RIGHT. SO LET ME STOP YOU THERE AND ASK YOU, THEN. BECAUSE IS IT POSSIBLE FOR GOOGLE TO SEND ME A PRINTOUT OF ALL THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE COLLECTED ON ME WITHIN THE LAST MONTH AND WHERE I’VE BEEN, WHAT I’VE CLICKED? IS ALL OF THAT INFORMATION — YOU HAVE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. IT CAN BE PROVIDED TO ME, RIGHT?>>WE DO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO YOU VERY EASILY. YOU KNOW, WE WANT — WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THE DATA, SO WE DON’T CASUALLY GET IT OUT. BUT — >>ALL RIGHT, SO I WOULD ASK, IF, BECAUSE I’M RUNNING OUT OF TIME, BUT INSTEAD OF ME AS A CONSUMER OR ANYONE AS A CONSUMER GIVING YOU THE PRIVACY RIGHT UP FRONT, WHY DON’T YOU BE MORE HONEST WITH ME, TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN COLLECTED, WHAT INFORMATION YOU WANT TO SHARE, AND THEN ALLOW ME TO DECIDE HOW MUCH OF THAT INFORMATION I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE AS A CONSUMER.>>CONGRESSMAN, I AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT. IN FACT, WHAT WE PRILS DO IS WE ARE VERY TRANSPARENT AND WE MAKE IT VERY EASY. YOU GO TO YOUR ACCOUNT SETTINGS. WE CLEARLY TELL THE CATEGORIES AND YOU CAN CLICK AND SEE THE INFORMATION WE HAVE. YOU CAN TURN IT ON OR OFF. BUT WE WANT TO DO BETTER.>>BUT THERE ARE AREAS WHERE INFORMATION IS BEING COLLECTED, EVEN IF I HAVE — EVEN IF I HAVE THE PARTICULAR SITES TURNED OFF, THERE’S STILL INFORMATION BEING COLLECTED THROUGH SOME OF THESE OTHER PASSIVE SYSTEMS, THAT YOU’VE CONTRACTED WITH. CORRECT?>>WE ARE PRETTY COMPLICIT ABOUT DATA WHICH WE COLLECT AND GIVE YOU PREDICTIONS FOR YOU TO TURN THEM ON OR OFF. AND WHEN YOU USE CHROME OR G-MAIL OR GOOGLE HOME, WE’RE VERY CLEAR. AND WE TRY TO BE TRANSPARENT.>>I CAN JUST — AND MY TIME IS OUT, BUT I WOULD TELL YOU THIS. I WOULD MUCH RATHER BE GIVING PERMISSION AFTER I KNOW WHAT INFORMATION I’M GIVING PUP SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH WITHIN AGAIN, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLELADY FROM ARIZONA, MRS. ROBI FOR FIVE MINUTES.>>I’M GOING TO BUILD UPON WHAT MY COLLEAGUE WAS TALKING ABOUT AND USE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. IN JUNE OF 2016, GOOGLE CHANGED ITS PRIVACY POLICY TO ALLOW FOR COMBINING THE DOUBLE-CLICK COOKIE INFORMATION WITH PERSONAL, INFORMATION. BEFORE THIS CHANGED, THE COOKIES THAT TRACKED PEOPLE ACROSS THE WEB WERE NOT MELDED WITH OTHER CONSUMER INFORMATION THAT GOOGLE GOT FROM ANDROID PHONE USE. AND IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN GOOGLE PURCHASED DOUBLE CLICK, REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE THAT GOOGLE WOULD KEEP THE DATA SEPARATE. THE POINT HERE, AS YOU’VE HEARD FROM MANY PEOPLE CONCERNED TODAY, ABOUT THE CONSUMER AND WHAT THE CONSUMER KNOWS. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE’S A PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AS A CONSUMER TO DO MY PART TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND US. BUT IT’S ALSO VERY COMPLICATED STUFF. AND SO I WANT TO POINT TO SOMETHING POSITIVE THAT GOOGLE IS DOING, IN MARCH, YOU HAD THE ONLINE SAFETY ROAD SHOW THAT CAME THROUGH ALABAMA’S SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT TO A MIDDLE SCHOOL, GERARD MIDDLE SCHOOL IN DOTHAN. YOU’RE BEING A CORPORATE CITIZEN BY TRYING TO TEACH OUR YOUNG PEOPLE HOW TO BE SMART AND SAFE ON THE INTERNET. AND AS A MOM OF A 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL, I APPRECIATE THAT, VERY MUCH. I THINK THAT IS TRULY, TRULY A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CORPORATE CITIZEN, THAT THESE YOUNG PEOPLE CAN HAVE THE WORLD IN THEIR HANDS IN RECOGNIZING THAT ALL THE POSITIVE THINGS THAT CAN COME FROM IT, THERE’S SOME DANGERS, AS WELL. I THINK I’LL JUST SAY, WHAT WE CAN ALL BENEFIT FROM IS UNDERSTANDING AS A CORPORATE SYSTEM, WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO EDUCATE THE CONSUMER ABOUT THE PRIVACY POLICY. YOU’VE HEARD MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES POINT TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE THIS 20-PAGE PRIVACY POLICY, BUT IT CHANGES MULTIPLE TIMES DURING THE YEAR. OR THERE’S REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE MADE IN 2016 ABOUT DOUBLE-CLICK THAT CHANGE. AND SO MOST OF US DON’T HAVE A WAY TO UNDERSTAND THIS IN A WAY TO KNOW THAT THE DATA THAT’S BEING COLLECTED ON US IS EXACTLY HOW IT’S BEING USED. SO I APPLAUD YOU FOR THE WORK YOU’RE DOING TO EDUCATE OUR YOUNG PEOPLE, BUT I WOULD JUST ASK IF YOU CAN PROVIDE US — YOU SAID YOU USED THE WORDS “EVOLVE” AND “ADAPT” WHEN IT COMES TO THE POLICY. BUT WHAT ARE YOU DOING SPECIFICALLY TO HELP EDUCATE YOUR CONSUMERS ON HOW THEY CAN BE AWARE OF WHEN THEY CLICK “ACCEPT” ON THE PRIVACY POLICY, THAT THEY HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THEIR DATA IS GOING TO BE USED?>>CONGRESSWOMAN, IT’S A GOOD QUESTION. AND FOR EXAMPLE, WE ARE SENDING E-MAIL REMINDERS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DATA THAT’S BEING COLLECTED AND ASKING YOU TO GO REVEAL YOUR SETTINGS. AND THAT’S AN EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF EVOLUTION WE ARE DOING AND WE ARE IMPLEMENTING. WE ARE LOOKING AT COMBINING SETTINGS WHERE WE CAN, SO IT’S EASIER FOR USERS. SO WE WANT TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF CONTROLS, BUT WE WANT TO MATCH IT, USERS HAVE COMPLEX EXPECTATIONS, TOO, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WANT SOME OF THE DEVICES TO BE PRIVATE, BUT THEY ARE OKAY WITH SOME OF THEIR OTHER DEVICES BEING ABLE TO BE USED WHERE LOCATION IS AVAILABLE, ET CETERA. SO WE ARE TRYING TO MATCH USERS’ EXPECTATIONS. THEY WANT RESTAURANTS NEAR THEIR LOCATION AND NOT SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IF SOMEONE IS SEARCHING, THEY WANT INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEM. SO THAT’S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO MEET, BUT I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO SIMPLIFY THIS EVEN MORE. AND THERE’S MORE WORK TO DO. AND IT’S A CONSTANT EFFORT WE ARE UNDERTAKING. AS I LOOK INTO 2019, WE’LL BE DOING MORE CHANGES TO MAKE THINGS WORK BETTER AND I’LL TAKE THIS FEEDBACK INTO ACCOUNT.>>JUST ONE EXAMPLE. MY LEGISLATE I HAVE ASSISTANT WAS SHOWING ME IN THE PRIVACY POLICY, WHERE IT’S RED LINED TO SHOW WHAT THE CHANGE WAS, BUT IT’S NOT POINTED OUT TO THE CONSUMER WHEN THE POLICY IS UPDATED FOR WHATEVER REASON WHAT THE EXACT CHANGE IS. YOU HAVE TO GO SEARCH FOR IT AND FIND IT YOURSELF. SO IF I’VE GOT THAT CORRECT, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU WOULD HAVE TO SCROLL THROUGH THE ENTIRE PRIVACY POLICY TO SEE WHERE THE CHANGES WERE MADE. IS THAT CORRECT?>>I’M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. I THINK THERE ARE TIMES WE HAVE POINTED OUT THE UPDATES AND WE MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THE CHANGES ARE, BUT HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP AND GET THE — >>I JUST THINK THE MORE YOU CAN STREAMLINE TO THE CONSUMER HOW THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL BE USED, IS BEING USED WITHOUT THE CONSUMER HAVING — AGAIN, THERE’S PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY THERE AS WELL, BUT I JUST THINK YOU’RE DOING SOME GOOD THINGS IN TERMS OF EDUCATING FOLKS ABOUT, PARTICULARLY WITH THE ONLINE SAFETY ROAD SHOW. I THINK THAT YOU COULD TAKE SOME OF THE WORK YOU’RE DOING THERE AND HEARING OUR CONCERNS HERE TODAY, LOOK FOR WAYS THAT YOU COULD BETTER EDUCATE THE CONSUMER, MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. PICHAI, A COUPLE OF QUICK FOLLOW-UPS HERE. I DON’T THINK ANYBODY ASKED WHO MAKES THE JUDGMENT CALLS REGARDING CONTENT MODERATION AT GOOGLE?>>CHAIRMAN, IT DEPENDS ON THE AREA. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT’S YOUTUBE, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, VERY CLEAR TEAMS WHICH ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTUBE CONTENT POLICIES AND — >>ARE THEY IDENTIFIED? IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A CONSUMER TO WRITE TO THEM AND SAY, HEY, HERE’S A CONCERN I HAVE?>>WE GIVE CLEAR CHANNELS TO RACE BACK AND WE HAVE CLEAR AVENUES AND WE ALSO HAVE HAD PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE PLATFORMS, INCLUDING CONTENT MODERATION APPEAR HERE. AND I THINK THEY’RE CONSULTED WIDELY HERE, TOO.>>I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT PRELOADED APPS. DO YOU HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE COMPANIES THAT AMAZON MIGHT HAVE AN APP THAT THEY PUT ON YOUR PLATFORM? DO YOU HAVE A DATA SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THEM? DO THEY GET THE INFORMATION AND YOU GET THE INFORMATION THAT’S GENERATED BY THEIR APP AS WELL? HOW’S THAT WORK.>>WE DON’T HAVE ANY SPECIAL AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO USER DATA IN TERMS OF PRELOADING ANY APPLICATION.>>SO IF ANOTHER — IF SOMEBODY PUTS AN APP ON YOUR PLATFORM, THEY DO IT WITH YOUR PERMISSION, IS THAT CORRECT?>>NOT NECESSARILY. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, OUR DEVICE MANUFACTURER CAN PRE-LOAD APPLICATIONS ON ANDROID AND, YOU KNOW, IT’S UP TO THEM AND THE APP TO DO SO.>>ALL RIGHT. IF THEY OPERATE ON YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM, DO YOU GET THE INFORMATION AS WELL AS THE APP OWNER?>>OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT’S HAPPENING WITHIN THAT APPLICATION?>>RIGHT.>>UNLESS THERE MAY BE SPECIFIC CASES WHERE THE USER HAS GIVEN US DIAGNOSTIC INFORMATION, SO THE ANSWER WOULD DEPEND ON THE CONTEXT, BUT IN GENERAL, NO. THE RELATIONSHIP IS BETWEEN THE USER AND THE APP.>>SO IF YOU GET AN APP THAT GATHERS INFORMATION ON A SPECIFIC THING, THAT’S NOT ALSO COMING TO GOOGLE AS WELL AS TO THE DEVELOPER OF THE APP?>>IN A GENERAL SENSE, NO.>>AND FINALLY, AND THIS YOU CAN WRITE TO US A WRITTEN ANSWER, BECAUSE IT’S A VERY LENGTHY ANSWER, I BELIEVE. BUT I’M INTERESTED IN KNOWING — I KNOW YOU’VE HAD A LOT OF DIFFICULTIES IN EUROPE OF LATE. AND I’M INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW YOUR POLICY FROM EUROPE DIFFERS FROM YOUR POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES.>>I’M HAPPY TO HAVE IT — I THINK IT’S A PRETTY EXTENSIVE TOPIC AND I’M HAPPY TO GET BACK TO YOUR OFFICE.>>YES, WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT HAVE. WE’LL GIVE YOU SOME WRITTEN QUESTIONS THAT MEMBERS HAVE PROVIDED. WE’LL HAVE SOME MORE OF OUR OWN. AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THOSE PROMPTLY.>>WE DEFINITELY WILL.>>THANK YOU.>>WELL, YOU’VE GONE FOR ABOUT 3 1/2 HOURS AND IT’S ABOUT WHAT WE PREDICTED, ISN’T IT, YESTERDAY, WHEN WE TALKED? SO WE — THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRECIPITATION TODAY. THIS CONCLUDES TODAY’S HEARING. AND WITHOUT OBJECTION, ALL MEMBERS WILL HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO SUBMIT WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS OR ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR THE RECORD. AND WITH THAT, THIS HEARING IS ADJOURNED.>>THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

Related Posts

Rhino Rack Road-Warrior Roof Bike Racks Review – 2016 Ford Escape – etrailer.com

TravelSmith RFID Wallet with AntiTheft PacSafe Features

CONFIRMATION. CONFIRMATION. OH CONFIRMATION. OH YES! CONFIRMATION. OH YES! I CONFIRMATION. OH YES! I JUST CONFIRMATION. OH YES! I JUST
How to keep your mobile safe with Sophos

100 Replies to “LIVE: Google CEO Sundar Pichai testifies on Data Collection (C-SPAN)”

  1. Why is the comments section full of crap..no sense talk just accusation. I feel the people questioning r far more Intelligent than u and me. I wish someday internet crashes atleast for a few months and we have quality time with our own selves.

  2. While hearing the opening statements of the members, I was thinking, "What would I have said if I was in the place of Mr. Pichai?" It went something like this:

    Similar to the American Government, Google comprises of individuals with varying opinions and political stances. To make decisions in such circumstances, we have to rely on a higher code of ethics and morality similar to the Congress which abides by the constitution of the United States. Incidentally, Google's philosophy is an extension of the same.

  3. Shouldn't "free market" capitalist conservative Republicans respect the right of a public corporation to decide internally what it decides to show on its site? What are they suggesting? Regulation? Bust up their monopoly like they used to do up until the 80s? Congress knowingly and profited from allowing these monsters to merge and grow… these hearings are all theater for their voters bitching about silenced voices, blah blah.

  4. google = darpa = cia https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/

  5. Why no sign about CSPAN being sponsored by whole or in part by the US government. Yet I get this message anytime I watch Russian, Chinese, Venezuelan, and Iranian news channels. Maybe you should have not made English the international language if you are scared of Americans discovering the truth.

  6. OMG 3 and half hour answering with so much patience and a smile on every answer, very much clear answers, Now I understood y he Deserve to be the CEO of Google

  7. Political or not…. Just ask Steven Crowder about YouTube's "Non-existent political bias".

     Also, my opinion is that the Committee is asking very detailed questions but Pichai's responses feel very uncaring, flat and vague.

    I also feel that the Democrats are so vigilant and quick to defend Google's neutrality, but I wonder if their positions would be the same if the results were more Republican leaning. (Not blaming Google bias, though I do believe there is a YouTube bias.) I also wonder if it is just a tactic to combat the Republicans on that matter.

  8. I had an question regarding this… How these ppl doesn't know the google collects data? All the search engines collects each and every data from ppl. These ppl asking questions only about how google collects data.. But the fact is "What is the protocol or procedure they are following to secure our data?".

    These ppl should ask this question to all search engine companies including apple. Will they do??

  9. Reason for this meeting : Donald Trump ego 😅
    Congress tried to : own google by pointing any flaws if found 😈
    Pichai tried to : repeat the same answers which he had practised to tell his kids if needed 🤔
    Google is not evil, it's just cunningly nasty 😭
    *man of the video – white moustache guy 😂
    Women of the video – red dress hottie😜

  10. These is wrong im a victim i am worse my life its been hurt these torchering us please stop some help or stop them please

  11. Ah, everyone circle jerking among their own party in the comments. Of course Poe's question was stupid, everyone under the age of 35 could probably tell you as much, but on the other hand Congressman Collins, for example, asked some rather interesting ones. What wouldn't Google collect that they aren't already prohibited from gathering by existent law, such as healthcare information? Why all the evasion around Dragonfly? As a software engineer I understand the opt-in data collection for telemetry and providing better service, but any project that's giving serious attention and resources to even prototyping a system that would help a repressive government exert further control over their people is deeply concerning. I don't think it's too much to ask that American companies hold core fundamentally American values.
    Very interesting stuff, I just wish we would stop trying to see this in terms of party and understand that division is exactly what they (party leaders) want.

  12. what a lying cunt pichai is ! we take privacy seriously hahahahaha and we read each of your emails too, google must be destroyed !

  13. Ive already noticed this. Im notifying everyone i know that ppl outside the country are hacking our devices. Stop invading our privacy.

  14. Indian culture needs to devise an app that programs their own brains to not be racist and a cancer to the human brain🙏 that would benefit society way more than invasion of thoughts and location

  15. Google doesn't need one puny America.If senators cross their idiotic
    level then make it so that you don't use Google.You can't live without google.

  16. Two big giants such as Amazon & Google Judiciary committee asking questions?
    They are tech expert.& knows how to manipulate.

  17. What google and the other companies do to protect their users?
    Nothing… because they are made to collect our information, location and spy on us… welcome to jews world.

  18. I think this was a waste of time. As these people know the right answer but still again and again asking the same question.what the hell man!!!!!

  19. Now i know why I've been fool, Google used my Galaxy S7 and my Table 10 A , last year.Yes! It does am a victim. I vow not to used Samsung anymore , for the rest of my life.

    I remembered someone asked me if i was a famous person and why was Google following me?
    Could be, that's the reason my enemies who try eliminating me change their mind?

    Again, if Google does those skims to protect life , not too bad. Nevertheless, we need our privacy.

  20. Mr.Pichai you're a great man, those Congress men should have gathered information from google to question you. I think these questions couldn't be answered by Google but only you could do it….

    Proud of you Man

  21. 2:26:36 heartless asshole. crises is for more important things. i dont like how the judge allowed ted poe to talk to him like that.

  22. Sundar should be behind bars for life, he's helped China jail and kill thousands of dissidents, death would be too good for this human stain.

  23. Unarguably,the best congressional hearing so far…thrilling,exciting & really educative…with humor too!!!

  24. Why am i still being stalked and bothered. And still Broke and Hungry while everyone else still sitting back enjoin this Pathetic Show?

  25. What Laywer can Help me Deal with this un fair system? Anyone? Its been Hell and it shouldn't take for it for me to do all this to get my point across. She's still Super Rich and it seems i continue to suffer.

  26. I do not care if they collect my data
    As long as they provide free services like YouTube and google map

  27. Why does the ceo answer with pre written statements it sounds dead to me. What did the board say before its owner got kicked out?

  28. Legally as King I have them in 3 Deferent stages Revolutionary idea I have challenge and you know this! Enlightenment of thinker doctrine God given and you know this. like said I don't have against you Religion Philosophy is Joke..Using Alien Alien gray as way to be of bliss to steel from the people the world ❤️ Contribution to the revolution 1. # Disagree King Divine right of King is lie. 2. The Continental Congress 1774 meet and approve Congress Declaration of Independence Articles of Confederation-Nations orginal plan of Government. declaration structure this Historic document Composed of 2 parts: Preamble Justified the Colonist ( bullshit why?) When you take Hamanity for the people country it is written in Bible) ( Colossians 3: 22-23-24-25 ) Read please Muslim Islamic ) I am King of Kings I like be for you I ask them not start war but they want to pick fight with you why? All men are created equal. As King of King I will rule both but Religion will teach word is God. 2; The declaration independence Adopted by the Continental Congress why? 1776 ? When it was given in 1774 🤔 I know this is what slot people in America want because they King James German Jewish Zonism 🤔 That are the Satantism Illuminati confirmed. Now let me ask you Question why do you think they want war with Iran ?

  29. I am little people I have taken inheritance in God they never had God they gray alien demons Satantism for Humankind species laws of nature cause effect balance Universes purpose love anything everything good bad whenever forever in time.God🌕 sun give light 🌎 earth creation Mircoorgansim biology via Biogenetic DNA moleculespH spiritual growth Corinthians 2: 6-10 Wisdom this came to me just now? Element Atmosphere Zing Ling Cha Cha Ching Ring Zone phone rRHA Ribonucleic acid Protien polymer sycthesis ISIS narcissistic egoistical sycophantical phony bigots Shania Twain. Why? Satantism Illuminati confirmed. Catholic Church Bible study Pearables taught through my Millington TN. I lesson Joel Osteen Joyce Meyers Brother always sport me Dollar TD Banks Franklin Gram, I had make sure give my Crown and clean house 😒 Before war start and we all burn not good some of us will burn for entity evil is not the Devil 👿😈

  30. America I am King of Kings why? You will take my Challenge from any Country we reprsent why? You are also in on the deal it's simple honor your true King America are take my challenge yes are no?

  31. we have to fallow the rules why? Because they all betrayed Moses laws God given 10 Commandments foundation structure elements Principle Moral value rule.

  32. I am honestly not sure which is more disrespectful. The kid who was permitted to distract everyone from the remarks of the CEO of a company that not only contributes enormously to the GDP and economic strength of the United States but also contributes in countless ways to technological and scientific advancements that benefit people everywhere. Or the congressmen rudely paying more attention to their phones than to what he is saying only to later badger him with leading questions designed to further their own agendas. Respect is earned. If we are wanting to be shown respect, we need to show it to others. Particularly to the leaders of businesses that have contributed so much to our economy and standard of living. I'm all for accountability but it needs to be done respectfully which is blatantly absent in this hearing. Kudos to Mr. Pichai who remained respectful despite the situation.

  33. Did they even come up with these questions some don't even seem to understand what their asking , not surprised they repeat it many times since the response doesn't make sense either it seems to those who ask the questions

  34. Hillary Clinton 2:50:00 did cut off the face of a little girl and danced wearing her face with Huma after they each had les sex with the child. Nypd has the video from weiners laptop.

  35. I understand why he is the CEO of Google I would’ve said “ Google it “ I don’t know or it’s entirely possible.

  36. Data mining should be illegal or only with consent and if they are using it asked each time you visit a site. Any company, government or politician using a data collection company can manipulate masses over time by personalizing political ads to each individual. They can determine your general personality with over 5000 points of information about you. Who your friends are and what they buy sell or talk to. They can tell which people are susceptible to change their minds, via playing silly free games those fun little personality test that says your a tiger. what products you use, alter what websites you visit via suggestions over months. Health insurance prices even everyday product prices you pay online can vary widely based on how you use the web. These tactics are psychological warfare tactics learned by military's all over the world to destabilize entire nations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *