But Are Mark Zuckerberg Interrogators Up To the Task?
Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg has had it tough as he endured a rite of passage earlier this week. Though it is the first public grill before Congress for Zuckerberg, other influential executives have experienced this before. For more than two days, the Facebook chief was questioned about his company’s integrity in handling user information. His appearance before Congress was prompted by the Cambridge Analytica revelation that surfaced in March, where the political firm did an improper data harvest of up to 87 million users of the social media platform.
During his two marathon hearings, Mr Zuckerberg faced close to 600 questions from nearly 100 lawmakers in Washington. These questions included whether the Facebook boss would welcome an idea of regulating his social media firm. In part, Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony might have been smooth because he dodged some questions with the phrases ‘I don’t know’ and ‘my team will get back to you.’
So how will this end for Mr Zuckerberg and FaceBook
All the same, do you think. Mark Zuckerberg will receive a fair verdict gauging the congress’s knowledge about how coding, internet, and cookie work? Does the panel possess the capacity to judge him depending on its understanding of how the Facebook platform works? With the intensity of insight demonstrated by the board about social media technology, do you think the Congress can help fix privacy invasions on Facebook?
These questions are quite helpful when evaluating the kind of judgment Mark Zuckerberg will receive from his interrogators. Did the senators betray general lack of knowledge about the operations of Facebook during the Congressional hearing? Senator Roy Blunt, for example, did not seem to comprehend that unless Facebook users opted in, this company could not access data from other apps.
Senator Roger Wicker, on the other hand, required lots of clarification to understand the relationship between cellular service and Facebook Messenger. Apps like Whatsapp are encrypted, meaning, a platform like Facebook cannot monetise or read content from them. However, Senator Brian Schatz needed Zuckerberg to explain this for him to understand that Facebook has no access to the information exchanged in apps like Whatsapp.
How will the panel tell if Facebook uses the shadow profiles (a term that Mr Mark said he is not familiar with) for other purposes other than security like Zuckerberg termed it? The case where Lawmaker Larry Bucshon is unconvinced about smartphones eavesdropping leaves one with doubts about the quality of panel verdict to Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony.
It might be true that Facebook can watch not only your online activities but also you’re offline as well. However, it does not mean it is through the microphone of your phone as the Lawmaker purported. So the question remains, was the congress questioning a legitimately complicated technology they do not understand? Let’s wait for the verdict as the call for Facebook regulation mounts.