Wynn Cuts Stake in Casino Company After Settlement With Ex-Wife
By
March 22, 2018, 9:47 PM GMT+11
Steve Wynn Photographer: Calvin Sit/Bloomberg
Steve Wynn cut his stake in the $18 billion casino company he founded after settling an acrimonious, six-year court fight with his ex-wife, a move that may move the company closer to becoming an acquisition target.
Wynn, 76, sold 4.1 million shares in Wynn Resorts Ltd. at $180 a share, according to a regulatory filing Thursday. The sale brings his stake down to 7.8 percent from 12 percent, lower than his ex-wife’s holding in the company.
The sale, along with the unwinding of a shareholder agreement that prevented Elaine Wynn from lowering her 9.3 percent stake, increases the possibility of a takeover of Las Vegas-based Wynn Resorts. The couple’s court battle also raised concerns about the company’s handling of harassment claims against Wynn that casino regulators are still investigating and could lead to him being found unfit to be the largest shareholder in a casino company.
Wynn Resorts fell 2.9 percent to $178.92 yesterday in New York, and has gained 6.1 percent since the beginning of the year.
Elaine Wynn said this week that she may seek talks with company management over strategy, business, management, capital structure and allocation, co
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Mark Zuckerberg: "One of the biggest mistakes" of Facebook is not digging deeper into Cambridge Analytica - CBS News
CBS NEWS March 21, 2018, 9:00 PM
Mark Zuckerberg: "One of the biggest mistakes" of Facebook is not digging deeper into Cambridge Analytica
Share Tweet Reddit Flipboard Email
Last Updated Mar 22, 2018 1:08 AM EDT
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is speaking publicly for the first time since a whistleblower described how a data firm exploited a loophole to access data from 50 million Facebook users. Hours after releasing a statement (on Facebook), Zuckerberg spoke to Wired editor-in-chief Nick Thompson about what he called "one of our biggest mistakes."
Thompson spoke to CBSN about his interview with Zuckerberg, who revealed "there are probably 15 changes" it will take "to further restrict data." He also told CBSN's Elaine Quijano that Facebook isn't so great at worst case scenarios and that it's inevitable Zuckerberg testifies in front of Congress.
Facebook's fight against the phrase "data breach"
Both Zuckerberg and Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg remained silent amid reports political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, which has links to President Trump's 2016 campaign, exploited a loophole in Facebook that allowed it to access data using an app created by a third-party research firm. Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica last week, saying the firm had not deleted the data in 2015, as it had claimed to.
Facebook (FB) learned about the Cambridge Analytica incident in late 2015 and had the firm sign a legal undertaking that the data would be deleted, Thompson wrote in his article. But this week's reports cast doubt on that set of circumstances. Thompson questioned Zuckerberg about not digging deeper into Cambridge Analytica in his Wired magazine article titled: "Mark Zuckerberg talks to Wired about Facebook's privacy problem."
"The first action that we now need to go take is to not just rely on certifications that we've gotten from developers, but actually need to go and do a full investigation of every single app that was operating before we had the more restrictive platform policies -- that had access to a lot of data -- and for any app that has any suspicious activity, we're going to go in and do a full forensic audit," Zuckerberg said. "And any developer who won't sign up for that, we're going to kick off the [Facebook] platform."
Where did Facebook go wrong in the Cambridge Analytica scandal?
Zuckerberg added: "That's the step that I think we should have done for Cambridge Analytica ... we're now going to go do it for every developer who is on the platform who had access to a large amount of data before we locked things down in 2014."
Zuckerberg spoke to CNN's Laurie Segall, saying he would "be happy to" answer questions before Congress.
"What we try to do is send the person at Facebook who will have the most knowledge," Zuckerberg said. "If that's me, then I am happy to go."
Facebook had come under increasing fire for failing to protect users' data early enough and strongly enough, and also for how it pushed back on the misuse of 50 million users' data, seemingly focusing on the semantics of whether or not it amounted to a "data breach" in the strictest sense.
On CNN, Zuckerberg shifted blame to Cambridge Analytica for providing what it said was formal certification that it had deleted the data.
"I don't know about you, but I'm used to when people legally certify that they are going to do something, that they do it. But I think this was clearly a mistake in retrospect," Zuckerberg said. "We need to make sure we don't make that mistake ever again."
"Facebook was just built in and for a world that was different from the world in which Cambridge Analytica operates," Thompson said Wednesday night. "You can call it idealism, you can call it naïveté, certainly [Facebook] misread the situation. What they should have done in 2015 when they learned what Cambridge Analytica had done -- they should have audited -- they should have pushed and got every computer Cambridge Analytica had ... and they should have searched them."
"I think the feedback that we've gotten from our community and from the world is that privacy and having the data locked down is more important to people than maybe making it easier to bring more data and have different kinds of experiences," Zuckerberg said.
Thompson said he asked Zuckerberg: "'Do you know [if Russian operatives got a hold of Facebook data]?' And he said, 'Look we don't, we can't.' There wasn't a watermark on the data that Cambridge Analytica got."
Zuckerberg's earlier statement noted there was a "breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us" and said the company "made mistakes" on what he referred to as the "Cambridge Analytica situation."
Zuckerberg said the company made changes in 2014 to restrict the amount of data app developers can access. He said Facebook will now take additional steps, such as removing developers' access to your data if you haven't used their app in three months, and reducing the amount of personal information an app gets when you sign in. Other than via apps, Zuckerbeg's statements made no mention of dialling back the amount of data gathered on users, or giving the user any additional control over the amount of data they surrender to the platform.
To help users understand which third-party apps have access to their data, Zuckerberg said, "In the next month, we will show everyone a tool at the top of your News Feed with the apps you've used and an easy way to revoke those apps' permissions to your data. We already have a tool to do this in your privacy settings, and now we will put this tool at the top of your News Feed to make sure everyone sees it."
Changes Facebook says it will take in wake of data scandal
Will investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information
Will conduct a full audit of any app with suspicious activity
Will ban any developer that does not agree to a thorough audit
Will restrict developers' data access further to prevent other abuse
Will reduce the data consumers give an app when they sign on
Will show tool at top of the News Feed with apps used and way to revoke access
Facebook backlash
Facebook is facing a growing backlash on Capitol Hill as more lawmakers demand that Zuckerberg testify. Some are calling for increased regulations on big tech companies.
"Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify under oath in public before the Judiciary Committee. He owes it to the American people who ought to be deeply disappointed by the conflicting and disparate explanations that have been offered," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, told reporters Monday. The former Connecticut attorney general warned, "Zuckerberg ought to be subpoenaed to testify if he won't do it voluntarily."
After Zuckerberg's statement on Wednesday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, said the committee still wants to question him. "The steps Facebook has laid out to protect its user data are a start but Mark Zuckerberg still needs to come testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee," Klobuchar said in a statement. "In addition, Facebook should show good faith by supporting the Honest Ads Act and the company will have to deal with the FTC investigation and other legal proceedings as a result of this breach."
Mark Zuckerberg: "One of the biggest mistakes" of Facebook is not digging deeper into Cambridge Analytica
Share Tweet Reddit Flipboard Email
Last Updated Mar 22, 2018 1:08 AM EDT
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is speaking publicly for the first time since a whistleblower described how a data firm exploited a loophole to access data from 50 million Facebook users. Hours after releasing a statement (on Facebook), Zuckerberg spoke to Wired editor-in-chief Nick Thompson about what he called "one of our biggest mistakes."
Thompson spoke to CBSN about his interview with Zuckerberg, who revealed "there are probably 15 changes" it will take "to further restrict data." He also told CBSN's Elaine Quijano that Facebook isn't so great at worst case scenarios and that it's inevitable Zuckerberg testifies in front of Congress.
Facebook's fight against the phrase "data breach"
Both Zuckerberg and Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg remained silent amid reports political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, which has links to President Trump's 2016 campaign, exploited a loophole in Facebook that allowed it to access data using an app created by a third-party research firm. Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica last week, saying the firm had not deleted the data in 2015, as it had claimed to.
Facebook (FB) learned about the Cambridge Analytica incident in late 2015 and had the firm sign a legal undertaking that the data would be deleted, Thompson wrote in his article. But this week's reports cast doubt on that set of circumstances. Thompson questioned Zuckerberg about not digging deeper into Cambridge Analytica in his Wired magazine article titled: "Mark Zuckerberg talks to Wired about Facebook's privacy problem."
"The first action that we now need to go take is to not just rely on certifications that we've gotten from developers, but actually need to go and do a full investigation of every single app that was operating before we had the more restrictive platform policies -- that had access to a lot of data -- and for any app that has any suspicious activity, we're going to go in and do a full forensic audit," Zuckerberg said. "And any developer who won't sign up for that, we're going to kick off the [Facebook] platform."
Where did Facebook go wrong in the Cambridge Analytica scandal?
Zuckerberg added: "That's the step that I think we should have done for Cambridge Analytica ... we're now going to go do it for every developer who is on the platform who had access to a large amount of data before we locked things down in 2014."
Zuckerberg spoke to CNN's Laurie Segall, saying he would "be happy to" answer questions before Congress.
"What we try to do is send the person at Facebook who will have the most knowledge," Zuckerberg said. "If that's me, then I am happy to go."
Facebook had come under increasing fire for failing to protect users' data early enough and strongly enough, and also for how it pushed back on the misuse of 50 million users' data, seemingly focusing on the semantics of whether or not it amounted to a "data breach" in the strictest sense.
On CNN, Zuckerberg shifted blame to Cambridge Analytica for providing what it said was formal certification that it had deleted the data.
"I don't know about you, but I'm used to when people legally certify that they are going to do something, that they do it. But I think this was clearly a mistake in retrospect," Zuckerberg said. "We need to make sure we don't make that mistake ever again."
"Facebook was just built in and for a world that was different from the world in which Cambridge Analytica operates," Thompson said Wednesday night. "You can call it idealism, you can call it naïveté, certainly [Facebook] misread the situation. What they should have done in 2015 when they learned what Cambridge Analytica had done -- they should have audited -- they should have pushed and got every computer Cambridge Analytica had ... and they should have searched them."
"I think the feedback that we've gotten from our community and from the world is that privacy and having the data locked down is more important to people than maybe making it easier to bring more data and have different kinds of experiences," Zuckerberg said.
Thompson said he asked Zuckerberg: "'Do you know [if Russian operatives got a hold of Facebook data]?' And he said, 'Look we don't, we can't.' There wasn't a watermark on the data that Cambridge Analytica got."
Zuckerberg's earlier statement noted there was a "breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us" and said the company "made mistakes" on what he referred to as the "Cambridge Analytica situation."
Zuckerberg said the company made changes in 2014 to restrict the amount of data app developers can access. He said Facebook will now take additional steps, such as removing developers' access to your data if you haven't used their app in three months, and reducing the amount of personal information an app gets when you sign in. Other than via apps, Zuckerbeg's statements made no mention of dialling back the amount of data gathered on users, or giving the user any additional control over the amount of data they surrender to the platform.
To help users understand which third-party apps have access to their data, Zuckerberg said, "In the next month, we will show everyone a tool at the top of your News Feed with the apps you've used and an easy way to revoke those apps' permissions to your data. We already have a tool to do this in your privacy settings, and now we will put this tool at the top of your News Feed to make sure everyone sees it."
Changes Facebook says it will take in wake of data scandal
Will investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information
Will conduct a full audit of any app with suspicious activity
Will ban any developer that does not agree to a thorough audit
Will restrict developers' data access further to prevent other abuse
Will reduce the data consumers give an app when they sign on
Will show tool at top of the News Feed with apps used and way to revoke access
Facebook backlash
Facebook is facing a growing backlash on Capitol Hill as more lawmakers demand that Zuckerberg testify. Some are calling for increased regulations on big tech companies.
"Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify under oath in public before the Judiciary Committee. He owes it to the American people who ought to be deeply disappointed by the conflicting and disparate explanations that have been offered," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, told reporters Monday. The former Connecticut attorney general warned, "Zuckerberg ought to be subpoenaed to testify if he won't do it voluntarily."
After Zuckerberg's statement on Wednesday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, said the committee still wants to question him. "The steps Facebook has laid out to protect its user data are a start but Mark Zuckerberg still needs to come testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee," Klobuchar said in a statement. "In addition, Facebook should show good faith by supporting the Honest Ads Act and the company will have to deal with the FTC investigation and other legal proceedings as a result of this breach."
United Airlines Will Pause Animal Shipments After a Dog Died and Another Was Accidentally Sent to Japan - TIME
United Airlines Will Pause Animal Shipments After a Dog Died and Another Was Accidentally Sent to Japan
Posted: 20 Mar 2018 08:32 AM PDT
A week after a dog died in an overhead bin and another was shipped to Japan instead of Kansas, United Airlines is reevaluating its handling of pets. On Tuesday, the carrier announced it was suspending its animal-shipping cargo program as the company conducts a review.
The suspension is effective immediately and will run until May 1, 2018, the company said. Customers who already made reservations by March 20 will still be able to transport their animals. The “PetSafe” program only applies to cargo travel, meaning passengers can still bring domesticated pets in aircraft cabins. That service was already under review following last week’s incident.
“We are deeply committed to the safety and comfort of the animals and pets in our care,” United wrote in a blog post, adding that the review will “make improvements that will ensure the best possible experience for our customers and their pets.”
In 2017, United Airlines had 18 pets die aboard its planes, while Alaska Airlines — closest to United in terms of total animals transported — had just two, according to Transportation Department statistics. Delta and American Airlines had just four combined.
While United recently came under scrutiny for its handling of an in-cabin pet, it had an incident with its PetSafe cargo program during the same week. The day after the reported dog death, the airline accidentally shipped another canine to Japan rather than its correct destination of Kansas. United apologized for the incident and said it was working to understand what happened.
Posted: 20 Mar 2018 08:32 AM PDT
A week after a dog died in an overhead bin and another was shipped to Japan instead of Kansas, United Airlines is reevaluating its handling of pets. On Tuesday, the carrier announced it was suspending its animal-shipping cargo program as the company conducts a review.
The suspension is effective immediately and will run until May 1, 2018, the company said. Customers who already made reservations by March 20 will still be able to transport their animals. The “PetSafe” program only applies to cargo travel, meaning passengers can still bring domesticated pets in aircraft cabins. That service was already under review following last week’s incident.
“We are deeply committed to the safety and comfort of the animals and pets in our care,” United wrote in a blog post, adding that the review will “make improvements that will ensure the best possible experience for our customers and their pets.”
In 2017, United Airlines had 18 pets die aboard its planes, while Alaska Airlines — closest to United in terms of total animals transported — had just two, according to Transportation Department statistics. Delta and American Airlines had just four combined.
While United recently came under scrutiny for its handling of an in-cabin pet, it had an incident with its PetSafe cargo program during the same week. The day after the reported dog death, the airline accidentally shipped another canine to Japan rather than its correct destination of Kansas. United apologized for the incident and said it was working to understand what happened.
Facebook’s Latest Crisis Has Earned it a Federal Investigation - TIME
Facebook’s Latest Crisis Has Earned it a Federal Investigation
Posted: 20 Mar 2018 07:14 AM PDT
Facebook Inc. is under investigation by a U.S. privacy watchdog over the use of personal data of 50 million users by a data analytics firm to help elect President Donald Trump.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is probing whether Facebook violated terms of a 2011 consent decree following the revelations that user data had been transferred to Cambridge Analytica without their knowledge, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Under the 2011 settlement, Facebook agreed to get user consent for certain changes to privacy settings as part of a settlement of federal charges that it deceived consumers and forced them to share more personal information than they intended. That complaint arose after the company changed some user settings without notifying its customers, according to an FTC statement at the time.
Spokesmen for Facebook and the FTC didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
If the FTC finds Facebook violated terms of the consent decree, it has the power to fine the company thousands of dollars a day per violation.
Facebook declined in New York trading, falling 3.2 percent to $167 as of 9:31 a.m. in New York. That follows a drop of 6.8 percent Monday.
The Facebook revelations have also prompted bipartisan, transatlantic concern. The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee announced Monday evening it would like a briefing on “the use and sharing of individual Facebook user data.” The chairman of a UK parliamentary committee announced Tuesday he was requesting that Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg, who has remained silent for days, appear before the panel to supplement prior testimony by the company’s executives.
Republican lawmakers, who normally resist regulation of private business, started coming down on the company as early as Sunday, with Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona calling the privacy violations “significant” and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida saying he was “disturbed” by many things about the company.
Amazon Might Take Advantage of Toys ‘R’ Us Store Closures - TIME Business
Posted: 20 Mar 2018 04:12 PM PDT
Amazon.com Inc. has looked at the possibility of expanding its retail footprint by acquiring some locations from bankrupt Toys “R” Us Inc., according to people with knowledge of the situation.
The online giant isn’t interested in maintaining the Toys “R” Us brand, but has considered using the soon-to-be-vacant spaces for its own purposes, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.
Such a move would let Amazon quickly expand its brick-and-mortar presence, coming on the heels of buying Whole Foods Market Inc. and its more than 450 locations last year. The Seattle-based company also has opened its own line of bookstores and a convenience-store concept.
Representatives for Amazon and Toys “R” Us declined to comment.
Additional stores would give Amazon space to showcase its popular Echo line of devices, which run on the Alexa voice-activated platform. Amazon sees voice as the next interface for people to access technology — supplanting computer mouses and touch screens — and the benefits may be easier to demonstrate in a real-world setting.
A bigger network of stores would put inventory closer to where shoppers live, potentially enabling quick delivery to e-commerce customers. The space could also serve as a staging ground for grocery delivery from Whole Foods stores. Amazon is already planning to roll out free two-hour service to Whole Foods customers in four cities, including Dallas and Cincinnati.
Still, the company is under little pressure to hammer out a deal and deliberations may lead nowhere. In 2015, Amazon held discussions about acquiring some RadioShack locations around the time of the electronics retailer’s bankruptcy filing, people familiar with the matter said. Nothing came of those talks.
Toys “R” Us has been holding out hope that an entity will buy the Canadian unit, which was in better shape financially than the U.S. business. A buyer could potentially still operate some U.S. stores from a Canadian base. The company has begun liquidating its more than 700 U.S. locations, but is holding off at its 200 best stores for the next few weeks.
An investment group led by Isaac Larian, the founder of toymaker MGA Entertainment Inc., has submitted a bid to acquire the Canadian business. Larian has said that his group is also doing due diligence on the U.S. stores, and hopes to keep some of them open.
The online giant isn’t interested in maintaining the Toys “R” Us brand, but has considered using the soon-to-be-vacant spaces for its own purposes, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.
Such a move would let Amazon quickly expand its brick-and-mortar presence, coming on the heels of buying Whole Foods Market Inc. and its more than 450 locations last year. The Seattle-based company also has opened its own line of bookstores and a convenience-store concept.
Representatives for Amazon and Toys “R” Us declined to comment.
Additional stores would give Amazon space to showcase its popular Echo line of devices, which run on the Alexa voice-activated platform. Amazon sees voice as the next interface for people to access technology — supplanting computer mouses and touch screens — and the benefits may be easier to demonstrate in a real-world setting.
A bigger network of stores would put inventory closer to where shoppers live, potentially enabling quick delivery to e-commerce customers. The space could also serve as a staging ground for grocery delivery from Whole Foods stores. Amazon is already planning to roll out free two-hour service to Whole Foods customers in four cities, including Dallas and Cincinnati.
Still, the company is under little pressure to hammer out a deal and deliberations may lead nowhere. In 2015, Amazon held discussions about acquiring some RadioShack locations around the time of the electronics retailer’s bankruptcy filing, people familiar with the matter said. Nothing came of those talks.
Canadian Business
Toys “R” Us, meanwhile, may live on in some form. The company, which filed for bankruptcy in September, announced plans to shut down its U.S. operations last week. But its Canadian unit is up for sale, along with its operations around the world. The division in the U.K. is currently being wound down.Toys “R” Us has been holding out hope that an entity will buy the Canadian unit, which was in better shape financially than the U.S. business. A buyer could potentially still operate some U.S. stores from a Canadian base. The company has begun liquidating its more than 700 U.S. locations, but is holding off at its 200 best stores for the next few weeks.
An investment group led by Isaac Larian, the founder of toymaker MGA Entertainment Inc., has submitted a bid to acquire the Canadian business. Larian has said that his group is also doing due diligence on the U.S. stores, and hopes to keep some of them open.
A Short History of the U.S. Not Winning Trade Wars - Fortune
A Short History of the U.S. Not Winning Trade Wars
Trump's Trade Wars: Where We Stand with Canada, Mexico, and China
President Trump is very tired of America's "very bad" trade deals. Here's a look at what's to come.
By CHRIS MATTHEWS March 21, 2018
President Trump says that winning a trade war is easy, but a closer look at history suggests otherwise. Of course, the most famous example of protectionism gone awry is 1930’s Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act—which along with similar protectionist measures enacted around the globe—helped torpedo world trade and exacerbate the Great Depression. Since that time U.S. has charted a course toward freer world trade, but when it has unilaterally deviated from that direction, it has usually paid a price.
President Nixon helped usher in the era of stagflation in the 1970s by relying on temporary across-the-board tariffs and currency revaluation rather than higher interest rates and budgetary restraint to stabilize rapidly growing trade deficits with countries like Japan. In 2002, President Bush implemented his own across the board tariffs on steel to protect American companies, but those measures hit fierce resistance by other members of the World Trade Organization, and were quietly lifted without doing much to staunch the loss of steel manufacturing jobs, while hurting job growth further down the supply chain.
The current administration’s proposal takes U.S. trade policy into uncharted waters, says Peter Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, because it is being justified on national security grounds. Though the WTO has always allowed members to institute tariffs to protect national security, these provisions have been little used, for fear that the international body is simply not equipped to decide what constitutes a member country’s national security interests. The tariffs’ underlying justification should be read as a shot across the bow to the WTO itself, Schott says, suggesting that the Trump Administration has “written off” the WTO’s ability to fairly arbitrate trade disagreements.
With the administration questioning the very foundations of a generation of global trade policy, it’s tough to know just how U.S. partners will react, but the European Union’s threat to institute retaliatory tariffs against goods like Kentucky bourbon and Harley Davidson motorcycles, suggests they won’t take it lying down.
Trump's Trade Wars: Where We Stand with Canada, Mexico, and China
President Trump is very tired of America's "very bad" trade deals. Here's a look at what's to come.
By CHRIS MATTHEWS March 21, 2018
President Trump says that winning a trade war is easy, but a closer look at history suggests otherwise. Of course, the most famous example of protectionism gone awry is 1930’s Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act—which along with similar protectionist measures enacted around the globe—helped torpedo world trade and exacerbate the Great Depression. Since that time U.S. has charted a course toward freer world trade, but when it has unilaterally deviated from that direction, it has usually paid a price.
President Nixon helped usher in the era of stagflation in the 1970s by relying on temporary across-the-board tariffs and currency revaluation rather than higher interest rates and budgetary restraint to stabilize rapidly growing trade deficits with countries like Japan. In 2002, President Bush implemented his own across the board tariffs on steel to protect American companies, but those measures hit fierce resistance by other members of the World Trade Organization, and were quietly lifted without doing much to staunch the loss of steel manufacturing jobs, while hurting job growth further down the supply chain.
The current administration’s proposal takes U.S. trade policy into uncharted waters, says Peter Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, because it is being justified on national security grounds. Though the WTO has always allowed members to institute tariffs to protect national security, these provisions have been little used, for fear that the international body is simply not equipped to decide what constitutes a member country’s national security interests. The tariffs’ underlying justification should be read as a shot across the bow to the WTO itself, Schott says, suggesting that the Trump Administration has “written off” the WTO’s ability to fairly arbitrate trade disagreements.
With the administration questioning the very foundations of a generation of global trade policy, it’s tough to know just how U.S. partners will react, but the European Union’s threat to institute retaliatory tariffs against goods like Kentucky bourbon and Harley Davidson motorcycles, suggests they won’t take it lying down.
May's Russia mission faces Brexit test - BBC News
22/3/2018
May's Russia mission faces Brexit test
By Laura Kuenssberg, BBC political editor
At home, Theresa May has taken a firm rhetorical tone, in response to the nerve agent attack in Salisbury.
What the government hopes for in the next 24 hours though is that the other EU nations are willing to come alongside in the same way.
The US, UK, France and Germany signed up to a very strong and uncompromising statement last week.
But the prime minister will use blunt language on Thursday night to try to create a similarly strong and united front among the other 27 EU member states.
Earlier, Mr Hancock told ITV's Good Morning Britain that the "best response" to the Salisbury attack "would be for England to go to the World Cup, in Russia, and win it".
It follows comments by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson on Wednesday that likened the way President Putin is promoting the World Cup in Russia to Hitler's notorious use of the 1936 Berlin Olympics.
When asked about his comments later on BBC Radio 4's Today, Mr Hancock said: "I was asked what would be the best response in terms of the World Cup and of course that is a tiny part of the overall response in terms of the country as a whole.
"We want the team to go, we don't want to send dignitaries alongside that, but there is of course a much broader response [to the attack]."
The Brexit transition talks
The EU's Donald Tusk said on Wednesday he had recommended a draft legal text on transition, citizens' rights and other withdrawal issues to its members.
It followed Spanish concerns over how the accord would affect its demands for a say on how Brexit affects Gibraltar.
The transition is set to start on exit day, on 29 March 2019. It is due to continue until the end of 2020.
Mrs May has said what she calls the "implementation period", in which the UK will have to adhere to EU rules, will be a bridge to a new economic and political partnership with the EU.
Under the terms of the agreement, the UK will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify its own trade deals while EU citizens arriving in the UK will enjoy the same rights and guarantees as those who arrive before Brexit.
UK and EU agree Brexit transition terms
Deal is done - but work remains
What will Brexit mean for Britain's overseas territories?
To the dismay of many Tory MPs, the UK will effectively remain in the Common Fisheries Policy until the end of 2020.
And a solution to avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland has yet to be agreed, with the EU insisting on a "backstop" option of Northern Ireland remaining in the customs union and single market.
In a message on Twitter, Mr Tusk said he had urged the other 27 EU leaders to welcome, in principle, the agreement on transition and other matters at a session expected to take place on Friday.
"In practice, the transition phase will allow to delay [sic] all the negative consequences of Brexit by another 21 months," he wrote.
He told reporters he was "absolutely sure" the two sides would find a lasting solution to prevent the return of physical checks on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Gibraltar among issues still to be resolved
However, a written declaration issued by the European Council on the eve of the summit noted that agreement had not been reached in some areas, including both Northern Ireland and Gibraltar.
"Negotiations can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken so far are respected in full," it said.
The document also called for "intensified efforts on the remaining withdrawal issues, as well as issues related to the territorial application of the Withdrawal Agreement, notably as regards Gibraltar, and reiterates that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".
Spanish concerns over Gibraltar have held up the EU's formal endorsement of progress so far
There have been complications over the British overseas territory, which will leave the EU on the same day as the UK, in the run-up to Thursday's meeting.
At the UK's request, Gibraltar was specifically mentioned in the transition text but Spain, which maintains a long-standing sovereignty claim, subsequently sought reassurances that its interests would be protected.
Also on Friday, the EU is set to adopt guidelines for its negotiations over its future relationship with the UK.
Other issues on the EU's agenda include the implications of US tariffs on steel and aluminium imports and the future enlargement of the EU into the Western Balkans.
May's Russia mission faces Brexit test
By Laura Kuenssberg, BBC political editor
At home, Theresa May has taken a firm rhetorical tone, in response to the nerve agent attack in Salisbury.
What the government hopes for in the next 24 hours though is that the other EU nations are willing to come alongside in the same way.
The US, UK, France and Germany signed up to a very strong and uncompromising statement last week.
But the prime minister will use blunt language on Thursday night to try to create a similarly strong and united front among the other 27 EU member states.
Earlier, Mr Hancock told ITV's Good Morning Britain that the "best response" to the Salisbury attack "would be for England to go to the World Cup, in Russia, and win it".
It follows comments by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson on Wednesday that likened the way President Putin is promoting the World Cup in Russia to Hitler's notorious use of the 1936 Berlin Olympics.
When asked about his comments later on BBC Radio 4's Today, Mr Hancock said: "I was asked what would be the best response in terms of the World Cup and of course that is a tiny part of the overall response in terms of the country as a whole.
"We want the team to go, we don't want to send dignitaries alongside that, but there is of course a much broader response [to the attack]."
The Brexit transition talks
The EU's Donald Tusk said on Wednesday he had recommended a draft legal text on transition, citizens' rights and other withdrawal issues to its members.
It followed Spanish concerns over how the accord would affect its demands for a say on how Brexit affects Gibraltar.
The transition is set to start on exit day, on 29 March 2019. It is due to continue until the end of 2020.
Mrs May has said what she calls the "implementation period", in which the UK will have to adhere to EU rules, will be a bridge to a new economic and political partnership with the EU.
Under the terms of the agreement, the UK will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify its own trade deals while EU citizens arriving in the UK will enjoy the same rights and guarantees as those who arrive before Brexit.
UK and EU agree Brexit transition terms
Deal is done - but work remains
What will Brexit mean for Britain's overseas territories?
To the dismay of many Tory MPs, the UK will effectively remain in the Common Fisheries Policy until the end of 2020.
And a solution to avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland has yet to be agreed, with the EU insisting on a "backstop" option of Northern Ireland remaining in the customs union and single market.
In a message on Twitter, Mr Tusk said he had urged the other 27 EU leaders to welcome, in principle, the agreement on transition and other matters at a session expected to take place on Friday.
"In practice, the transition phase will allow to delay [sic] all the negative consequences of Brexit by another 21 months," he wrote.
He told reporters he was "absolutely sure" the two sides would find a lasting solution to prevent the return of physical checks on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Gibraltar among issues still to be resolved
However, a written declaration issued by the European Council on the eve of the summit noted that agreement had not been reached in some areas, including both Northern Ireland and Gibraltar.
"Negotiations can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken so far are respected in full," it said.
The document also called for "intensified efforts on the remaining withdrawal issues, as well as issues related to the territorial application of the Withdrawal Agreement, notably as regards Gibraltar, and reiterates that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".
Spanish concerns over Gibraltar have held up the EU's formal endorsement of progress so far
There have been complications over the British overseas territory, which will leave the EU on the same day as the UK, in the run-up to Thursday's meeting.
At the UK's request, Gibraltar was specifically mentioned in the transition text but Spain, which maintains a long-standing sovereignty claim, subsequently sought reassurances that its interests would be protected.
Also on Friday, the EU is set to adopt guidelines for its negotiations over its future relationship with the UK.
Other issues on the EU's agenda include the implications of US tariffs on steel and aluminium imports and the future enlargement of the EU into the Western Balkans.
Theresa May to warn EU leaders of Russian threat to democracy - BBC News
22/3/2018
Theresa May to warn EU leaders of Russian threat to democracy
Theresa May will tell a summit of EU leaders in Brussels that they must remain united against a threat from Russia to all European democracies.
The prime minister will say the nerve agent attack in Salisbury shows Moscow has no respect for international law.
A senior Whitehall official said Russia had "shown itself to be a strategic enemy not a strategic partner".
European leaders are also due to decide whether or not to agree the terms for a 21-month Brexit transition period.
Mrs May, who will not be present when the other EU leaders discuss Brexit on Friday, will brief her counterparts on Thursday on the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury.
The European Council is expected to adopt conclusions strongly condemning the attack, which the UK government has said the Russian state was culpable for - but which Russia denies.
Russian spy: What we know so far
Putin 'will use Cup like Hitler's Olympics'
Russian diplomats leave amid spy row
The BBC's Europe editor Katya Adler said the meeting was the "first test of European support after 12 months of often bad tempered Brexit negotiations".
She said that the "very strong support being voiced for the UK" will be reflected at the meeting, but EU countries were not united in "being willing to point their finger at Russia" or taking further steps, such as expelling diplomats.
Mrs May will tell EU heads of state that although the attempted assassination of the Skripals took place on UK soil, the Russian threat does not respect borders and it places all European nations at risk.
Russia's flagrant breach of international law represents a threat to the basis of democracy across Europe, she will add.
But Mrs May will welcome the solidarity shown by allies across the world who have backed the UK's assessment that Russia is to blame for the attempted murders.
"As a European democracy, the UK will stand shoulder to shoulder with the EU and with Nato to face these threats together. United, we will succeed."
Meanwhile, the Whitehall official stressed that the UK's response to the Salisbury attack had been carefully calibrated to remain within the law, and that the UK is "not looking for some big confrontation with Russia or regime change".
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the UK's Culture Secretary Matt Hancock said it was "very important to stand up" to Russia over the attack, but the UK must "continue to engage" with the country.
He added: "We continue to engage with Russia because we seek a position where Russia does abide by internal rules and norms [and] where Russia is a grown-up player on the world stage abiding by the international app
Theresa May to warn EU leaders of Russian threat to democracy
Theresa May will tell a summit of EU leaders in Brussels that they must remain united against a threat from Russia to all European democracies.
The prime minister will say the nerve agent attack in Salisbury shows Moscow has no respect for international law.
A senior Whitehall official said Russia had "shown itself to be a strategic enemy not a strategic partner".
European leaders are also due to decide whether or not to agree the terms for a 21-month Brexit transition period.
Mrs May, who will not be present when the other EU leaders discuss Brexit on Friday, will brief her counterparts on Thursday on the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury.
The European Council is expected to adopt conclusions strongly condemning the attack, which the UK government has said the Russian state was culpable for - but which Russia denies.
Russian spy: What we know so far
Putin 'will use Cup like Hitler's Olympics'
Russian diplomats leave amid spy row
The BBC's Europe editor Katya Adler said the meeting was the "first test of European support after 12 months of often bad tempered Brexit negotiations".
She said that the "very strong support being voiced for the UK" will be reflected at the meeting, but EU countries were not united in "being willing to point their finger at Russia" or taking further steps, such as expelling diplomats.
Mrs May will tell EU heads of state that although the attempted assassination of the Skripals took place on UK soil, the Russian threat does not respect borders and it places all European nations at risk.
Russia's flagrant breach of international law represents a threat to the basis of democracy across Europe, she will add.
But Mrs May will welcome the solidarity shown by allies across the world who have backed the UK's assessment that Russia is to blame for the attempted murders.
"As a European democracy, the UK will stand shoulder to shoulder with the EU and with Nato to face these threats together. United, we will succeed."
Meanwhile, the Whitehall official stressed that the UK's response to the Salisbury attack had been carefully calibrated to remain within the law, and that the UK is "not looking for some big confrontation with Russia or regime change".
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the UK's Culture Secretary Matt Hancock said it was "very important to stand up" to Russia over the attack, but the UK must "continue to engage" with the country.
He added: "We continue to engage with Russia because we seek a position where Russia does abide by internal rules and norms [and] where Russia is a grown-up player on the world stage abiding by the international app
Trump set to announce China sanctions after IP probe - BBC News
22/3/2018
Trump set to announce China sanctions after IP probe
The Trump administration plans to announce sanctions against China on Thursday after determining that the country is encouraging the theft and transfer of intellectual property from US businesses.
The White House said the actions come after years of talks about the issue that failed to produce change.
The actions are expected to include tariffs, as well as other measures.
China said it was ready to retaliate with "necessary measures".
Trump: Political heir to Abe Lincoln?
The White House is considering between $30bn and $60bn in tariffs as well as measures that would restrict investment, US media report.
The US may also seek to bring complaints to the World Trade Organization, trade officials say.
America's top trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, told members of Congress on Wednesday the US was looking to put "maximum pressure on China and minimum pressure on US consumers".
Mr Lighthizer said protecting intellectual property was critical to the US economy.
"It's an enormously important issue," Mr Lighthizer said. "We think it is perhaps the most important thing that will have been done in terms of rebalancing trade."
What is behind the tariffs?
A US trade official, who spoke to reporters as part of a briefing, said the US had evidence that China required firms to create local partnerships to enter the Chinese market, as a way of pressuring them into technology transfer.
The US also found evidence that China steers investments in the US to strategic industries, and conducts and supports cyber attacks.
America's top trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, said the US wanted to put "maximum pressure on China and minimum pressure on US consumers".
The findings come from a review of China's practices that Mr Trump ordered in August, called a 301 investigation.
In section 301 of the trade act, the government has given itself the power to unilaterally impose sanctions against countries that it decides are not trading fairly.
Mr Trump has repeatedly railed against the big US trade deficit with China.
What has China said?
On Thursday, China's commerce ministry said it was ready to retaliate against the new tariffs.
"China will not sit idly by and let its legitimate rights and interests be harmed, and will certainly take all necessary measures to resolutely defend its legitimate rights and interests," it said in a statement.
According to the Wall Street Journal, China is preparing to hit back with tariffs aimed at President Donald Trump's support base.
This would include levies targeting US agricultural exports from Farm Belt states.
Does the move have wider support in the US?
There is growing concern in America that China is seeking technology that could be deployed for military purposes.
Congress is also weighing legislation that would boost the government's power to review foreign business deals, citing the threat posed by state-backed acquisition of US firms.
But some politicians and industries, including retailers, have expressed concern about possible retaliation.
Media captionTrump constantly worries about the trade deficit - should we?
"I'm all for targeting Chinese intellectual property violations, holding them accountable - but let's be targeted in what we want China to change," Erik Paulsen, a Republican who represents Minnesota, urged Mr Lighthizer on Wednesday.
"Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot."
Mr Lighthizer acknowledged the possibility of retaliation, noting that US agriculture was especially vulnerable. But he said that should not stop the US from taking action.
"I don't think it is a sufficient worry that therefore we're not going to stand up for intellectual property but we're trying to do everything in a measured and appropriate way," he said at a congressional hearing on Wednesday.
"If there is retaliation, then the United States is going to have to take action to stick up for our farmers."
Steel producers around the world are concerned about US tariffs on steel imports
What else has Trump done on trade?
In March President Trump signed controversial orders imposing heavy tariffs on steel and aluminium - but said some countries such as Canada and Mexico would be spared. The EU is also hoping to be given a last-minute exemption.
In January he imposed taxes on imported washing machines and solar panels, sparking anger in China and South Korea.
In addition he has pulled the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership - a 12-nation free trade deal - calling it a "disaster... pushed by special interests".
He is also renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) with Canada and Mexico, which he blames for a decline in manufacturing jobs in the US.
Mr Trump has long said the US is treated unfairly by its trade partners, and claimed America had a trade deficit of $800bn (£579bn) in 2017.
However, experts suggest the figure was actually $566bn.
Could we see a trade war?
China has previously said there would be no winner from any trade war.
It has also urged both sides to remain calm and hinted at making reforms "beyond expectations" to satisfy the US.
Nafta governs more than $1tn in trade
Mr Trump has previously tweeted "trade wars are good, and easy to win." But US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin recently said the president "was not trying to start a trade war".
In a possible sign of what is to come, Best Buy, the largest US consumer electronics retailer, has decided to stop buying smartphones from Chinese telecom equipment maker Huawei, according to a report on the Reuters news agency.
This would follow similar action from telecoms firms AT&T and Verizon, which cut ties with Huawei after US officials raised concerns about its close ties with the Chinese government.
Best Buy has declined to comment on the claims.
Meanwhile on Wednesday, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that Washington had not fully complied with a 2014 ruling against its anti-subsidy tariffs on various Chinese products.
These ranged from solar panels and wind towers to steel cylinders and aluminium extrusions.
China's commerce ministry said the WTO ruling "proves that the US side has violated WTO rules" and "repeatedly abused trade remedy measures".
"[This] has seriously damaged the fair and just nature of the international trade environment, and weakened the stability of the multilateral trading system."
Trump set to announce China sanctions after IP probe
The Trump administration plans to announce sanctions against China on Thursday after determining that the country is encouraging the theft and transfer of intellectual property from US businesses.
The White House said the actions come after years of talks about the issue that failed to produce change.
The actions are expected to include tariffs, as well as other measures.
China said it was ready to retaliate with "necessary measures".
Trump: Political heir to Abe Lincoln?
The White House is considering between $30bn and $60bn in tariffs as well as measures that would restrict investment, US media report.
The US may also seek to bring complaints to the World Trade Organization, trade officials say.
America's top trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, told members of Congress on Wednesday the US was looking to put "maximum pressure on China and minimum pressure on US consumers".
Mr Lighthizer said protecting intellectual property was critical to the US economy.
"It's an enormously important issue," Mr Lighthizer said. "We think it is perhaps the most important thing that will have been done in terms of rebalancing trade."
What is behind the tariffs?
A US trade official, who spoke to reporters as part of a briefing, said the US had evidence that China required firms to create local partnerships to enter the Chinese market, as a way of pressuring them into technology transfer.
The US also found evidence that China steers investments in the US to strategic industries, and conducts and supports cyber attacks.
America's top trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, said the US wanted to put "maximum pressure on China and minimum pressure on US consumers".
The findings come from a review of China's practices that Mr Trump ordered in August, called a 301 investigation.
In section 301 of the trade act, the government has given itself the power to unilaterally impose sanctions against countries that it decides are not trading fairly.
Mr Trump has repeatedly railed against the big US trade deficit with China.
What has China said?
On Thursday, China's commerce ministry said it was ready to retaliate against the new tariffs.
"China will not sit idly by and let its legitimate rights and interests be harmed, and will certainly take all necessary measures to resolutely defend its legitimate rights and interests," it said in a statement.
According to the Wall Street Journal, China is preparing to hit back with tariffs aimed at President Donald Trump's support base.
This would include levies targeting US agricultural exports from Farm Belt states.
Does the move have wider support in the US?
There is growing concern in America that China is seeking technology that could be deployed for military purposes.
Congress is also weighing legislation that would boost the government's power to review foreign business deals, citing the threat posed by state-backed acquisition of US firms.
But some politicians and industries, including retailers, have expressed concern about possible retaliation.
Media captionTrump constantly worries about the trade deficit - should we?
"I'm all for targeting Chinese intellectual property violations, holding them accountable - but let's be targeted in what we want China to change," Erik Paulsen, a Republican who represents Minnesota, urged Mr Lighthizer on Wednesday.
"Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot."
Mr Lighthizer acknowledged the possibility of retaliation, noting that US agriculture was especially vulnerable. But he said that should not stop the US from taking action.
"I don't think it is a sufficient worry that therefore we're not going to stand up for intellectual property but we're trying to do everything in a measured and appropriate way," he said at a congressional hearing on Wednesday.
"If there is retaliation, then the United States is going to have to take action to stick up for our farmers."
Steel producers around the world are concerned about US tariffs on steel imports
What else has Trump done on trade?
In March President Trump signed controversial orders imposing heavy tariffs on steel and aluminium - but said some countries such as Canada and Mexico would be spared. The EU is also hoping to be given a last-minute exemption.
In January he imposed taxes on imported washing machines and solar panels, sparking anger in China and South Korea.
In addition he has pulled the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership - a 12-nation free trade deal - calling it a "disaster... pushed by special interests".
He is also renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) with Canada and Mexico, which he blames for a decline in manufacturing jobs in the US.
Mr Trump has long said the US is treated unfairly by its trade partners, and claimed America had a trade deficit of $800bn (£579bn) in 2017.
However, experts suggest the figure was actually $566bn.
Could we see a trade war?
China has previously said there would be no winner from any trade war.
It has also urged both sides to remain calm and hinted at making reforms "beyond expectations" to satisfy the US.
Nafta governs more than $1tn in trade
Mr Trump has previously tweeted "trade wars are good, and easy to win." But US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin recently said the president "was not trying to start a trade war".
In a possible sign of what is to come, Best Buy, the largest US consumer electronics retailer, has decided to stop buying smartphones from Chinese telecom equipment maker Huawei, according to a report on the Reuters news agency.
This would follow similar action from telecoms firms AT&T and Verizon, which cut ties with Huawei after US officials raised concerns about its close ties with the Chinese government.
Best Buy has declined to comment on the claims.
Meanwhile on Wednesday, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that Washington had not fully complied with a 2014 ruling against its anti-subsidy tariffs on various Chinese products.
These ranged from solar panels and wind towers to steel cylinders and aluminium extrusions.
China's commerce ministry said the WTO ruling "proves that the US side has violated WTO rules" and "repeatedly abused trade remedy measures".
"[This] has seriously damaged the fair and just nature of the international trade environment, and weakened the stability of the multilateral trading system."
Facebook's Zuckerberg speaks out over Cambridge Analytica 'breach' - BBC News
22/3/2018
Facebook's Zuckerberg speaks out over Cambridge Analytica 'breach'
Cambridge Analytica: What we know so far
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has admitted that the social network "made mistakes" that led to millions of Facebook users having their data exploited by a political consultancy.
Cambridge Analytica is accused of improperly using the data on behalf of political clients.
In a statement, Mr Zuckerberg said a "breach of trust" had occurred.
In a later interview with CNN he said he was "really sorry", and pledged to take action against "rogue apps".
He added that he was "happy" to testify before Congress "if it's the right thing to do".
In his statement posted on Facebook, he promised to make it far harder for apps to "harvest" user information.
"We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you," Mr Zuckerberg said.
Facebook 'lost sight' of data says insider
Facebook warned by advertisers 'enough is enough'
Cambridge Analytica: The story so far
The data firm's global reach
How can you protect your Facebook data?
What has Zuckerberg pledged to do?
To address current and past problems, Mr Zuckerberg said his company would:
investigate all Facebook apps that had access to large amounts of information before the platform was changed "to dramatically reduce data access" in 2014
conduct a "full forensic audit" of any app with suspicious activity
ban any developer that did not agree to a thorough audit
ban developers that had misused personally identifiable information, and "tell everyone affected by those apps"
In future, he said Facebook would:
restrict developers' data access "even further" to prevent other kinds of abuse
remove developers' access to a user's data if the user hadn't activated the developer's app for three months
reduce the data that users give an app when they sign in to just name, profile photo, and email address
require developers to obtain approval and also sign a contract in order to ask anyone for access to their posts or other private data
Mr Zuckerberg added: "While this specific issue involving Cambridge Analytica should no longer happen with new apps today, that doesn't change what happened in the past.
"We will learn from this experience to secure our platform further and make our community safer for everyone going forward."
Mark Zuckerberg in 2009: Facebook privacy is central
'Legal defence'
Analysis by Dave Lee, BBC North America technology reporter, at Facebook's headquarters
I read one thing loud and clear from Mr Zuckerberg's initial statement: Facebook is not prepared to take the blame for what has happened.
Contrition has never been Mr Zuckerberg's strong point, and the statement, days in the making, was no different.
No apology to users, investors or staff over how this incident was allowed to happen by the data policies in place at the time.
No explanation as to why, after learning its data was being abused like this in 2014, it opted to give the companies a telling off instead of banning them outright.
No reasoning as to why Facebook failed to inform users their data may have been affected. Technically, it still hasn't.
Mr Zuckerberg's words were not an explanation, but a legal and political defence. This company knows it is heading into battle on multiple fronts.
Follow Dave Lee on Twitter @DaveLeeBBC
What is the row about?
In 2014, Facebook invited users to find out their personality type via a quiz developed by Cambridge University researcher Dr Aleksandr Kogan called This is Your Digital Life.
About 270,000 users' data was collected, but the app also collected some public data from users' friends.
Media captionFormer Cambridge Analytica employee Christopher Wylie says the firm planted fake news
Facebook has since changed the amount of data developers can gather in this way, but a whistleblower, Christopher Wylie, says the data of about 50 million people was harvested for Cambridge Analytica before the rules on user consent were tightened up.
Mr Wylie claims the data was sold to Cambridge Analytica - which has no connection with Cambridge University - which then used it to psychologically profile people and deliver pro-Trump material to them.
Tuesday's broadcast showed Mr Nix saying he met Donald Trump 'many times'
The firm's chief executive, Alexander Nix - who was suspended on Tuesday - was secretly recorded in a Channel 4 investigation saying the London-based company ran Donald Trump's digital campaign during the 2016 US election.
"We did all the research, all the data, all the analytics, all the targeting, we ran all the digital campaign, the television campaign and our data informed all the strategy," he added.
Dr Kogan has said he was told by Cambridge Analytica everything they had done was legal, and that he was being made a "scapegoat" by the firm and Facebook.
How has Cambridge Analytica responded?
Cambridge Analytica denies any wrongdoing.
Facebook says users' data was obtained legitimately but Cambridge Analytica failed to delete it when told to do so.
Media captionMr Nix spoke to BBC Newsnight before the Channel 4 report was aired on Monday night. He declined to be interviewed after the undercover footage was broadcast
For its part, Cambridge Analytica says it did delete the data when told to by Facebook.
It suspended Mr Nix following his comments which appeared to suggest tactics his company could use to discredit politicians online.
However, the firm said the report of comments secretly recorded by Channel 4 News had "grossly misrepresented" Mr Nix's comments.
What investigations are under way?
US senators have called on Mr Zuckerberg to testify before Congress about how his company will protect users, while consumer watchdog the US Federal Trade Commission has reportedly opened an investigation into Facebook.
The head of the European Parliament also said it would investigate to see if the data was misused.
Facebook boss summoned over data claims
India takes down Cambridge Analytica site
The UK's Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham is attempting to obtain a warrant to search the offices of Cambridge Analytica.
Meanwhile, a UK parliamentary committee has called for Mr Zuckerberg to give evidence about its use of personal data.
There have also been calls for an investigation into the work Cambridge Analytica carried out during the 2013 election in Kenya.
Facebook's Zuckerberg speaks out over Cambridge Analytica 'breach'
Cambridge Analytica: What we know so far
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has admitted that the social network "made mistakes" that led to millions of Facebook users having their data exploited by a political consultancy.
Cambridge Analytica is accused of improperly using the data on behalf of political clients.
In a statement, Mr Zuckerberg said a "breach of trust" had occurred.
In a later interview with CNN he said he was "really sorry", and pledged to take action against "rogue apps".
He added that he was "happy" to testify before Congress "if it's the right thing to do".
In his statement posted on Facebook, he promised to make it far harder for apps to "harvest" user information.
"We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you," Mr Zuckerberg said.
Facebook 'lost sight' of data says insider
Facebook warned by advertisers 'enough is enough'
Cambridge Analytica: The story so far
The data firm's global reach
How can you protect your Facebook data?
What has Zuckerberg pledged to do?
To address current and past problems, Mr Zuckerberg said his company would:
investigate all Facebook apps that had access to large amounts of information before the platform was changed "to dramatically reduce data access" in 2014
conduct a "full forensic audit" of any app with suspicious activity
ban any developer that did not agree to a thorough audit
ban developers that had misused personally identifiable information, and "tell everyone affected by those apps"
In future, he said Facebook would:
restrict developers' data access "even further" to prevent other kinds of abuse
remove developers' access to a user's data if the user hadn't activated the developer's app for three months
reduce the data that users give an app when they sign in to just name, profile photo, and email address
require developers to obtain approval and also sign a contract in order to ask anyone for access to their posts or other private data
Mr Zuckerberg added: "While this specific issue involving Cambridge Analytica should no longer happen with new apps today, that doesn't change what happened in the past.
"We will learn from this experience to secure our platform further and make our community safer for everyone going forward."
Mark Zuckerberg in 2009: Facebook privacy is central
'Legal defence'
Analysis by Dave Lee, BBC North America technology reporter, at Facebook's headquarters
I read one thing loud and clear from Mr Zuckerberg's initial statement: Facebook is not prepared to take the blame for what has happened.
Contrition has never been Mr Zuckerberg's strong point, and the statement, days in the making, was no different.
No apology to users, investors or staff over how this incident was allowed to happen by the data policies in place at the time.
No explanation as to why, after learning its data was being abused like this in 2014, it opted to give the companies a telling off instead of banning them outright.
No reasoning as to why Facebook failed to inform users their data may have been affected. Technically, it still hasn't.
Mr Zuckerberg's words were not an explanation, but a legal and political defence. This company knows it is heading into battle on multiple fronts.
Follow Dave Lee on Twitter @DaveLeeBBC
What is the row about?
In 2014, Facebook invited users to find out their personality type via a quiz developed by Cambridge University researcher Dr Aleksandr Kogan called This is Your Digital Life.
About 270,000 users' data was collected, but the app also collected some public data from users' friends.
Media captionFormer Cambridge Analytica employee Christopher Wylie says the firm planted fake news
Facebook has since changed the amount of data developers can gather in this way, but a whistleblower, Christopher Wylie, says the data of about 50 million people was harvested for Cambridge Analytica before the rules on user consent were tightened up.
Mr Wylie claims the data was sold to Cambridge Analytica - which has no connection with Cambridge University - which then used it to psychologically profile people and deliver pro-Trump material to them.
Tuesday's broadcast showed Mr Nix saying he met Donald Trump 'many times'
The firm's chief executive, Alexander Nix - who was suspended on Tuesday - was secretly recorded in a Channel 4 investigation saying the London-based company ran Donald Trump's digital campaign during the 2016 US election.
"We did all the research, all the data, all the analytics, all the targeting, we ran all the digital campaign, the television campaign and our data informed all the strategy," he added.
Dr Kogan has said he was told by Cambridge Analytica everything they had done was legal, and that he was being made a "scapegoat" by the firm and Facebook.
How has Cambridge Analytica responded?
Cambridge Analytica denies any wrongdoing.
Facebook says users' data was obtained legitimately but Cambridge Analytica failed to delete it when told to do so.
Media captionMr Nix spoke to BBC Newsnight before the Channel 4 report was aired on Monday night. He declined to be interviewed after the undercover footage was broadcast
For its part, Cambridge Analytica says it did delete the data when told to by Facebook.
It suspended Mr Nix following his comments which appeared to suggest tactics his company could use to discredit politicians online.
However, the firm said the report of comments secretly recorded by Channel 4 News had "grossly misrepresented" Mr Nix's comments.
What investigations are under way?
US senators have called on Mr Zuckerberg to testify before Congress about how his company will protect users, while consumer watchdog the US Federal Trade Commission has reportedly opened an investigation into Facebook.
The head of the European Parliament also said it would investigate to see if the data was misused.
Facebook boss summoned over data claims
India takes down Cambridge Analytica site
The UK's Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham is attempting to obtain a warrant to search the offices of Cambridge Analytica.
Meanwhile, a UK parliamentary committee has called for Mr Zuckerberg to give evidence about its use of personal data.
There have also been calls for an investigation into the work Cambridge Analytica carried out during the 2013 election in Kenya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
