sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night?

您昨晚待的飯店叫什麼嗎？

- Um —

- 呃⋯⋯

No.

不願意

- If you've messaged anybody this week,

- 假設這個禮拜您有傳訊息給任何人，

would you share with us the names of the people

您願意和我們分享

you've messaged?

這些人的姓名嗎？

- Senator, no,

- 閣下，不，

I would probably not choose to do that publicly here.

我不會選擇在這裡公開這些資訊

- I think that may be what this is all about.

- 我想整個事件的核心就是這樣

- In 2015, we heard the report that this developer

- 2015 年，我們得知一份報告指出，某位 Aleksandr Kogan 先生，

Aleksandr Kogan had sold data to Cambridge Analytica.

一名程式開發工程師，將大筆數據賣給劍橋分析公司

- Did you or senior leadership do an inquiry

- 請問您或是其他公司高層有無曾經詢問

to find out who at Facebook had this information

貴公司內部是否有人得知這個消息？

and did they not have a discussion about

貴公司的高層難道沒有

whether or not the users should be informed

在 2015 年十二月討論

back in December of 2015?

用戶是否應得知這項資訊？

- Senator, in retrospect,

- 閣下，現在回想

I think we clearly view it as a mistake

我認為，我們都承認這是個錯誤

that we didn't inform people.

我們當時確實應該讓大眾知道

And we did that based on false information

但我們之所以做出這樣錯誤的決定

that we thought that the case was closed,

是因為我們誤認為當時問題已經不存在，

and that the data had been deleted.

還有那些數據都已經被刪除了

- So there was a decision made on that basis

- 所以意思是，貴公司決議

not to inform the users. Is that correct?

不告知用戶，是這樣嗎？

- That's my understanding, yes.

- 據本人理解，是這樣沒錯

- I assume Facebook's been served with subpoenas

- 我想臉書已經收到

from the special counsel Mueller's office.

檢座 Mueller 先生辦公室寄來的傳票，

Is that correct?

是這樣嗎？

- Yes.

- 是的

Actually, let me clarify that.

不，讓我解釋清楚

I actually am not aware of a subpoena.

我其實不知道有沒有傳票

I believe that there may be.

我想應該有

But I know we're working with them.

但我知道我們現在在跟他們配合

- Thank you.

- 謝謝

- If I buy a Ford and it doesn't work well

- 假如我買了一輛福特汽車，但它卻不夠好，

and I don't like it, I can buy a Chevy.

我不喜歡，那麼我可以買一台雪佛蘭

If I'm upset with Facebook,

如果我對臉書不滿意，

what's the equivalent product that I can go sign up for?

那麼我的替代方案有哪些？

- The average American uses eight different apps —

- 平均而言，美國人使用八種不同的 app——

- Okay.

- 好喔

- — to communicate with their friends

——聯絡朋友，

and stay in touch with people —

並且和人們保持聯繫——

- Okay.

- 嗯

- — ranging from text apps —

- 包含各種訊息傳送 app

- — which is —

- ——也就是——

— to email.”

- 來傳送 e-mail

- Which is the same service you provide.

- 也就是您所提供的服務

- Well, we provide a number of different services.

- 事實上，我們提供多項產品和服務

- Is Twitter the same as what you do?

- 請問推特做的和貴公司一樣嗎？

- It overlaps with a portion of what we do.

- 他們有些部分和我們重疊

- You don't think you have a monopoly?

- 您難道不覺得貴公司具有獨佔地位嗎？

- It certainly doesn't feel like that to me.

- 對我而言，完全沒有這種感覺

- Okay.

- 好吧

- Do you need to look behind shell corporations

- 請問您需要調查空殼公司

in order to find out who is really

以便得知背後發布貼文的人們

behind the content that's being posted?

到底是誰嗎？

And if you may need to look behind a shell corporation,

那麼，假使您需要對空殼公司進行調查，

how will you go about doing that?

請問您如何執行？

How will you get back to the true,

您如何追溯法律上所謂

what lawyers would call 'beneficial owner'

「受益所有權人」的真實身份？

of the site that is putting out the political material?

也就是發布那些政治訊息的網站背後的推手？

- So what we're going to do is require a valid government identity

- 在這種情況下，我們需要索取正式身分證明，

and we're going to verify the location.

我們也需要確認該方的所在位置

So we're going to do that,

我們之所以這麼做的結果是，

so that way someone sitting in Russia, for example,

假設有人在俄羅斯發布貼文，

couldn't say that they're in America

該人就無法宣稱自己在美國

and therefore able to run an election ad.

如此一來，就無法發布競選廣告

- But if they were running through a corporation domiciled

- 但假設同樣的人在德拉瓦州開設一間公司，

in Delaware, you wouldn't know that they were actually

您就不會知道幕後的金主其實是

a Russian owner.

俄國人

- Senator, that's— that's correct.”

- 閣下，是的，是這樣沒錯