Regulation that protects peoples privacy online and then makes sure that we have robust competition. But that does not impede our innovation or competitive advantage over europe or other nations. I do believe theres a possibility to get that kind of wellcrafted regulation. But candidly, congress has an extraordinary knowledge gap. People here frankly dont understand Technology Well enough. So we need to educate ourselves and then see if we can have well crafted regulation. Second, and equally important, weeb need to extend the promise of Silicon Valley, of job creation and a new economy to communities left out, to communities in rural america, in communities of color, right now, almost every american is a consumer of technology but few get to participate in the creation of these new jobs and new wealth. We have to do a better job of making sure people from around the country can participate and have access to the jobs of the future. Can you give an example of what you mean when you say well crafted . Rep. Khanna for example, on privacy regulation, we want to make sure that before people transfer data, they get an individuals consent. But we may not need an individuals consent if a company is just transferring data about a Third Party Verification for a credit card. I mean, you probably dont want to have to consent every time an ordinary business practice is done to verify that your credit card is actually yours. So we need a regulation that says yes, lets consent before collection of data. But lets make an exception for ordinary business use cases. Thats how, for example, californias privacy law was modeled. Congressman khanna joining us at the table to look at some of the specific issues is Craig Timberg of the Washington Post. Hello, congressman. How are you . Rep. Khanna hello, craig. How are you . Im good, thanks. You mentioned something in your opening remarks about a knowledge gap and an issue i thought a lot over the years and let me pose it this way. Every time that theres a hearing on the hill involving technology issues, twitter blows up with complaints saying essentially these guys dont even know thousand use their iphones. How are they going to regulate facebook, twitter, google . How do you fix that . These companies in Silicon Valley are paying huge salaries and bonuses and the hot place to be as you know since youre from that part of the world. How can the congress and federal government get better at ubbedsing and noketeg and crafting useful policies and laws . Rep. Khanna there has to be a greater curiosity and a willingness to learn. I mean, members of congress dont have an expertise in the financial sector. But they take an interest in that. They dont have an expertise in health care. But they take an interest in that. And i think for too long washington hasnt paid sufficient attention to Silicon Valley and hasnt understood what profound impact theyre having on the economy. I would urge every member of congress to come to my district, to spend a few days meeting with technology leaders. Its worse that members of congress dont know how to use an iphone. There are members of congress who didnt know that apple made the iphone. And theres a particular case where a member of congress was grilling the c. E. O. Of google, arguing that google made the iphone. And then berated him because when the c. E. O. Said it depends what apps you have on your phone whether we can track you, the congressperson said i dont know what apps are and i dont care what apps are. So theres almost a smugness in not Understanding Technology that culture has to change. So one of the big news stories in tech this week has been the Washington Posts story about the f. B. I. And i. C. E. , accessing facial recognition data. Essentially on every american in the country, right . We all have drivers licenses and all of our drivers licenses images end up in databases that the government and other authorities can access. Tell me what you thought of that story and the possibility something is going to happen about this issue. Rep. Khanna well, its concerning because as you know the facial recognition is not perfect. It can be subject to racial profiling. And has the inherent biases that are prevalent in society. So i think what is necessary is for us to have clear guidelines for the use of facial recognition or Artificial Intelligence to make sure the technology is being used for good uses, for example, in medicine, making sure that were using technology to actually be able to diagnose things with greater accuracy or using Artificial Intelligence to help make access to education more apparent or to process a lot of statistics. But that we shouldnt be using these technologies in ways that are furthering racial divides or furthering the erosion of Civil Liberties. Stanford has started a Human Interest center on Artificial Intelligence and technology that ive have great hope for. And theyre going to assemble some of the greatest minds and practitioners in the world to think through these issues. So obviously theres attention here, right . Im sure if we had the director of the f. B. I. Here with us, hed say we use this technology to you know, to run down terrorist threats, to prosecute and discover child predators, right . So youre talking about protecting Civil Liberties which is something that of course all of us would like to see happen. But where do you draw these lines . I mean, if you cant if you cant go into a facial recognition database to stop a terrorist threat, to go after child predators, you know, is there i mean, i want to ask you, is there any category of crime for which you think that this should be open and categories of crime for which you think it should not be open . Rep. Khanna im not shig we should wholesale ban the use of technology. Obviously if there are useful technologies that allow us to better detect crime or better detect terrorists, then we should use it. But there should be clear guidelines on the use of it and that we need to know that those technologies arent being exploited or misused. So i would want to see data that breaks down on race and on gender, to see whether certain populations are being more subject to the use of the technology or not. I want to make sure that Civil Liberties were actually being respected so that before you had the use of this technology, you had a court that said there was probable cause or that there was some standard that was being met and that you werent using the technology for surveillance violating peoples rights. So i think these are ageold dilemmas that the courts can adjudicate and that congress can pass laws protecting peoples privacy. Just because you have new technology doesnt mean that we throw out the safeguards of the constitution. And im curious, your read on the politics of this in congress. I mean, the post reported back in 2013 that the state license databases were being used by federal and other authorities up to 125 million americans at that point and now its grown. But im curious have we entered an era in 2019 when Congress Might actually act on this . My impression of congress is struggling to do anything right now other than fight over partisan matters. Do you think theres a real opportunity here for congress to come together on this issue . I do in the house. Candidly mcconnell hasnt done anything in the senate thats not a partisan comment just the truth. So we can pass something in the house that is thoughtful where we do regulate the use of this technology, allow Law Enforcement to use it but safeguard privacies. I think you could get some republicans, thoughtful republicans like will hurd on board with that kind of approach. But whether you can get it to move in the senate, and whether you can get the president to sign it, thats a difficult lift. And let me change subjects on you for a second. We all know how extensive the our Technology Companies were used to interfere in the president ial election in 2016. Its been one of the biggest stories of the past few years. Im curious if you would look into your crystal ball a little bit. Were heading into another president ial cycle. Potentially its going to be even more hotly contested. And potentially even more countries deeply interested in the outcome of that election. What do you think were going to see in 2020 in terms of social media disinformation . Well, its a big concern of mine. And i dont think enough has been done yet. There is better coordination between the social Media Companies and Law Enforcement. But one thing that needs to be fixed is social Media Companies should be sharing information with each other of bad absentors. Right now, that isnt happening. So, for example, if you go open up a fraudulent account in wells fargo bank, you cant the next day go open it up in bank of america or citibank. The banks will share that kind of information. But if youre a bot on facebook thats interfering or sowing discontent and facebook bans you, you could the next day go on to twitter or go on to youtube. So we need better platforms where these social Media Companies can share information and share best practices. And we need a real commitment in terms of resources that they will be prepared to remove any actors that get by and have a suspicion of foreign interference on the election. Congressman khanna, at some point is this censorship . Rep. Khanna well, its censorship if youre influencing speech. I mean, obviously, you want to make sure that these platforms are open to speech. But i dont think its censorship if youre saying that the russians shouldnt be allowed to have targeted messages to africanamericans in communities to suppress their vote by engaged in blatant falsehoods. I dont think that that standard is censorship. And its coming from a private company, not from the u. S. Government. So i wonder, you raised the question about whether the sows Media Companies are doing enough to share information. I wonder, is it realistic expectation that a bunch of private Companies Whose main motive is going to ultimately be profit that they be the ones to defuse this threat and protect our democracy . Is that a reasonable ask . And if not, whose job is it . And is that entity doing that job . Rep. Khanna i dont think we can leave the burden just on private companies for the reasons you say. I mean, their primary responsibility is for their shareholders to making a profit , as well intentioned as they may be, their charge is to their companies and not to the security of the United States. So i think ultimately its the responsibility of congress. The encouraging thing is ive had constructive conversations with minority leader kevin mccarthy. He understands these issues. His son actually works in Silicon Valley, and hes quite savvy about technology, leader mccarthy is. So im hopeful that we may be able to work on legislation in the next couple of months that addresses this issue of better preparing our Technology Platforms from the threat of foreign interference. So lets say you pull that off. Is the white house at this point, is the president an impediment to measures that might protect the country from social media disinformation . Well, i have to say, ive worked with the White House Office of innovation and matt lira there on a couple of constructive projects. The president signed my bill to modernize federal websites. Were working on reducing paperwork in federal agencies. So my hope is that the White House Office of innovation would recognize that this isnt a partisan issue. I mean, you could see foreign cents wanting to sphere countries wanting to interfere as much on the liberal side as the conservative side. We should reject that and i hope thats how the white house will look at that time it and not make this partisan. Congressman khanna, one of the conversations thats being held here in washington at least is perhaps censorship of conservatives on social media. Do you think thats a legitimate complaint . I dont. Its quite absurd on its face given that i dont think donald trump would be president if it werent for social media. And the joke in Silicon Valley is that secretary clinton got 99 of the donations but donald trump got all of the buzz on social media, on twitter and facebook. Their campaign was better unfortunately at using it than our Democratic Campaign was. So the idea that these platforms are biased is just not true. Do you consider facebook and twitter like the Washington Post a Media Company . I do think theyre a new Media Company. I think theyre a hybrid. I mean, theyre not the Washington Post in that you know, if i write a letter to the editor to the Washington Post, the post gets a lot of letters but is not two billion letters. So its easier to monitor content and to edit content. On the other hand, i dont think facebook can just say were a platform when so many people are going to facebook to get their news. So the question is, what is their responsibility . They cant have to fact check all two billion users content. But maybe they have some responsibility if a post goes viral, if its close to an election, to take down propaganda or put in another perspective. I think theres a whole field on new media ethics that is missing. We need a Journalism School for new Media Companies to come up with some rules. I mean, for example, the reason the Washington Post, if i were to say or today on cspan if i were to say since ive been elected, weve had 20 Economic Growth in my district, the reason no one would print that or youd question back is not because you fear im going to sue you. Because there is some sense of standards and ethics that is involved in journalism. We need some standards and ethics to evolve in these new Media Companies. So let me just change the subject on you again. I think you have a couple of young children. I have children of my own and when i talk to people, one of the things i hear most often is how do i get my kids off their iphones, right . How do i get them to stop playing fortnite so often . Can i get them to go to the park suspect play baseball . Im curious whether you feel like both the companies and the federal government has done enough to protect children, their privacy, their time and even from, you know, content that we as parents probably wouldnt want our children to see . Has there been enough . And if not, what could be done to make it better . Rep. Khanna we need to do more. We have very young kids and dont let them use the phone and i like to read to them. But even at this age theyre very young. If they see something on the phone, theyll want to go to it. So its a challenge for for parents. Here let me give you a con croat example of concrete example of something that the companies can do better. I had a friend in the constituency and my constituency and he has a daughter whos a teenager. And she was getting creepy messages frankly from people who wanted to request her as a friend. And my friend got very concerned that this was taking place on instagram. So he wanted to go change the privacy settings on instagram. Very is is someone who is savey in technology. And it took him 15 minutes to figure out how to change the privacy setting so that his daughter wouldnt be subject to that kind of online harassment. So at the very least, we need clear standards that gives parents much tighter control and much easier ways of navigating the online world to protect children. You know, senator markey has a bill to update the child Online Privacy protection act. He has working on a bill that would control the kind of content as it is now, a kid just needs to enter his or her phony birthday and say that theres such a day they can access websites on alcohol. They can access pornography of any variety. What would be the right federal Government Role here and what are the chances that this congress could move on this . It seems like the kind of issue that would have reasonably bipartisan support. So whats the holdup on these things . I think senator markey is very thoughtful on these issues and i certainly would be interested in look at his legislation. I think what the federal government should do is issue clear guidelines of what Tech Companies need to do to make privacy settings easy for people to use, to make it clear that parents have maximum control over these technologies as is allowable. And to make that something that you dont have to navigate 20 minutes to be able to do. So i think thoughtful, clear regulations will help. I will say this, though. I mean, look, weve had new technologies come into society that have both positive and egative impacts for decades. I mean, people are probably more corrupted in some ways by the influence of tv. If you look at a study at stanford, a lot of the polarization he argues happened because of television, not social media. Does that mean that television is a bad platform . No. Im glad im doing this interview. Im glad television allows people to connect. But what is important is how we use that technology and how we make sure culturally that we arent adidnted to those technologies and so i think addicted to those technologies and so i think we have tof a conversation about how we