Browsing: Technology

Most stock quote data provided by BATS. Market indices are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer. Morningstar: Copyright 2018 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Factset: FactSet Research Systems Inc.2018. All rights reserved. Chicago Mercantile Association: Certain market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. Dow Jones: The Dow Jones branded indices are proprietary to and are calculated, distributed and marketed by DJI Opco, a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and have been licensed for use to S&P Opco, LLC and CNN. Standard & Poor’s and S&P are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. All content of the Dow Jones branded indices Copyright S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2018 and/or its affiliates.©

Burd, who served as CEO of the grocery chain from 1993 to 2013, said he was drawn to Theranos for its promise of being able to conduct blood tests faster, cheaper and without the need of a full laboratory. Burd said he saw the potential for customers to get their blood tests done while shopping and to use that service to bring more customers into Safeway stores. “It was a fascinating concept,” Burd said in his testimony, saying that the blood testing device he was shown was about the size of a “large bagel toaster” and that he was told the turnaround time on results could be just 20 to 30 minutes. As he put it, “we were consistently told that it essentially replaces a traditional full blown lab.”Holmes and Theranos touted the promise of using their proprietary device to test for a conditions like cancer and diabetes with just a few drops of blood taken by a finger stick. Holmes catapulted her startup to a $9 billion valuation and secured key retail partnerships with both Safeway and Walgreens. Then, the dominoes started to fall after a 2015 investigation into its testing methods and capabilities by the Wall Street Journal.Safeway invested hundreds of millions of dollars into building out clinics in 800 of its supermarkets to eventually offer Theranos blood tests, but reportedly dissolved its relationship with the company before it ever offered its services.Burd is one of the most high-profile names yet to testify in the trial of Holmes, who is being accused of knowingly misleading investors, patients, and doctors about the capabilities of her company in order to take their money. Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison. She has pleaded not guilty.”There are very few people that I’ve met in business that I would actually say were charismatic,” Burd said Wednesday. “She was clearly charismatic. She was very smart. And she was doing one of the hardest things you can do in business and that is to create an enterprise from scratch.”Burd said, “whenever she was talking, she owned the room.””Not all CEOs are alike and she would rise to the top of the pile in terms of vision, in terms of command of the information, clearly in terms of delivery … she was always decisive,” he testified, adding that he would put her in the same category as the four US presidents he’s met in terms of commanding a room.Safeway and Theranos signed a contract in September, 2010, according to Burd, with an anticipated financial commitment of $85 million. Of that, $30 million was earmarked for remodeling its stores — an amount that Burd said “turned out to be very low.” Burd said Holmes “appeared to be negotiating completely on her own,” with no attorney involved in their discussions. “I’ve never seen that done,” he said.When it came to the rollout schedule for its partnership, Theranos missed deadline after deadline, Burd testified.”We often weren’t given a lot of explanation for that and I kept asking ‘give me some details here. Maybe we can help. We’re a big company with lots of resources.’ That was the frustrating part. We always tried to help them in any way that we could,” said Burd, noting that eventually it launched a pilot at a campus clinic.In a December 2012 email to Holmes shown shortly before court recessed for the week, Burd expressed his frustration over the delays. In the email, he mentioned “the newly acquired [Department of Defense] business,” which he testified was one possible reason given for delays. He said that Holmes told him it was “very confidential.””I was bothered by it, I was disappointed,” Burd said. “It seemed plausible. It just seemed like one more delay for us.” In anticipation of Burd taking the witness stand, Holmes’ defense attorney Kevin Downey sought to limit prosecutors from specifying the dollar amount that Safeway spent on renovating its stores, noting that it is distracting and that there could have been alternate reasons for spending this money on those renovations. Prosecutor Robert Leach argued that Safeway spent “$300 million” on the renovations and that it was relevant to Holmes’ representations of the company and its capabilities. “There’s a lot of big numbers in this case, your honor,” Leach said. Burd, the tenth witness in the trial, took the stand after six days of questioning of Theranos’ former lab director Adam Rosendorff, which concluded earlier Wednesday.Deciding Holmes’ fate is a jury of eight men and four women. On Wednesday, another member of the 12 person jury was excused after expressing conflicts with her religious beliefs as a Buddhist pertaining to the issue of forgiveness and any possible sentencing that may result from how she votes on the trial. An alternate juror was tapped to replace her, after there was first some discussion about the jurors concern regarding possibly sentencing Holmes who is of a youthful age. The juror was reminded by the judge that punishment is not for her to determine and the defense and prosecution opted to have her serve. There are three remaining alternates.

Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager with stints at several other big tech companies, went public with an appearance on “60 Minutes” and testified before a US Senate subcommittee on Tuesday.The select committee is also interested in hearing from Haugen, CNN has learned, as she could provide insight into how Facebook was used to ultimately facilitate violence that occurred at the US Capitol on January 6.On Monday, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who is serving on the select panel, tweeted that the select committee “will need to hear from her [Haugen], and get internal info from Facebook to flesh out their role.””According to this Facebook whistleblower, shutting down the civic integrity team and turning off election misinformation tools contributed to the Jan 6 insurrection,” he said.A senior Facebook (FB) executive said on “Reliable Sources” Sunday that the company will never be able to control all the content on its site, and may be open to regulation as lawmakers continue to crack down on the tech giant. Facebook’s vice president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, was pushing back after last week’s damning Wall Street Journal investigation based on internal documents provided by Haugen found that the company was aware of problems in its platforms. “If the assertion is that January 6th can be explained because of social media, I just think that’s ludicrous,” Clegg said during Sunday’s “Reliable Sources” broadcast. “The responsibility of the violence on January 6th and the insurrection on that day lies squarely with the people who inflicted the violence and those who encouraged them, including then-President Trump and, candidly, many other people elsewhere in the media who were encouraging the assertion that the election was stolen.”Clegg said he believes “it gives people false comfort to assume that there must be a technological or a technical explanation for the issues of political polarization in the United States.”In August, the select committee sent letters to 15 social media companies, including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter (TWTR), seeking to understand how misinformation and efforts to overturn the election by both foreign and domestic actors existed on their platforms.The panel specifically asked for data and analysis on domestic violent extremists affiliated with efforts to overturn the 2020 election, particularly around the January 6 attack.- Brian Stelter contributed to this report

Most stock quote data provided by BATS. Market indices are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer. Morningstar: Copyright 2018 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Factset: FactSet Research Systems Inc.2018. All rights reserved. Chicago Mercantile Association: Certain market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. Dow Jones: The Dow Jones branded indices are proprietary to and are calculated, distributed and marketed by DJI Opco, a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and have been licensed for use to S&P Opco, LLC and CNN. Standard & Poor’s and S&P are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. All content of the Dow Jones branded indices Copyright S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2018 and/or its affiliates.©

Rosendorff, who ran Theranos’ clinical lab during a crucial period for the startup as it launched blood testing to consumers with Walgreens, has occupied the witness stand for the better part of the past six out of the 12 court days since the highly anticipated trial kicked off last month. Wednesday marks his sixth day on the stand.Rosendorff, who was revealed last week as a key whistleblower, was called to testify by the government as it makes its case to jurors that Holmes knowingly misled patients, doctors and investors over Theranos’ capabilities in order to take their money. (Holmes, who faces up to 20 years in prison, has pleaded not guilty.) Rosendorff said he departed the company feeling “very skeptical” about the accuracy and reliability of its tests. He testified he felt it “was a question of my integrity as a physician” to not stay at the company and continue to endorse test results he “didn’t have faith in.” He’s said he “came to believe that the company believed more about PR and fundraising than about patient care.” Much of his testimony was in the scientific weeds as he was questioned about specific tests and lab protocols. He spent the vast majority of his more than 20 hours of questioning being prodded by the defense — which made clear in its opening statements on September 8 that it planned to point the finger at those who served in the lab director position as being legally responsible for any failings of its blood tests. The defense attempted to portray Holmes, who started the company at 19, as a college dropout who was unqualified for the role.During his cross examination, Lance Wade, a defense attorney for Holmes, sought to discredit Rosendorff, who is now known as the first and most important source in helping then Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou expose the company’s failings in 2015. Wade attacked Rosendorff’s motivations, his credibility and his competence. At multiple points during his days of testimony, Rosendorff testified that he felt an obligation to “alert the public,” including exploring a whistleblower lawsuit. The defense tried to portray the potential suit as an indication he was financially motivated, given he might have been entitled to a percentage of the recovery. He ultimately didn’t move forward with the lawsuit, but did speak with Carreyrou about his experience.Perhaps the most pointed comments from Wade came when arguing to Judge Edward Davila Tuesday outside the presence of the jury that he should be allowed to question Rosendorff about his career after Theranos. As Wade framed it, since leaving Theranos in late 2014, Rosendorff has worked for three different companies, each tied to its own set of controversies. Wade argued that his competence in subsequent jobs is relevant because “he was incompetent at Theranos, too.” “If he was incompetent and didn’t do his job, that is exculpatory of Ms. Holmes,” Wade argued.Prosecutor John Bostic pushed back on Wade’s attempts to tie Rosendorff to the issues at other companies, including failed biotech startup uBiome, whose founders were charged with criminal fraud pertaining to its billing practices, not its lab operations.Judge Davila largely agreed, telling Wade that he was already “grilling” Rosendorff over the course of four days about his competency. He ultimately only permitted Wade to lightly question Rosendorff about his current job as a lab director at PerkinElmer, which was the subject of a recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) investigation. The same agent who had investigated Theranos inspected the lab where Rosendorff is currently director. Wade sought to portray Rosendorff as potentially biased in favor of the government because his career is threatened by the CMS investigation. The cross examination ended with Rosendorff conceding that he could lose his license to operate a lab for two years due to the investigation. Wade also attempted to poke holes in Rosendorff’s commitment to his job at Theranos by pointing out that he joined Theranos in April 2013 and began looking for other jobs in “mid 2013.” Wade plotted that out against some key dates like June, 2013, when Rosendorff’s name was put on the clinical lab certification, as well as September 2013, when its blood tests first became available to some patients with Walgreens.”You essentially had a foot out the door the whole time,” said Wade. Rosendorff pushed back that he was “very committed to my job as lab director,” while acknowledging that he was indeed looking at other job opportunities. Rosendorff had previously testified that he began looking for jobs after growing “disillusioned” with the company’s priorities.Rosendorff ultimately resigned from the company in November 2014. Wade pointed out that it was two days after putting in his resignation that Rosendorff asked for his name to be taken off the clinical lab license. (His contract required him to stay at the company for another 60 days after putting in notice). Wade pressed him, asking “That’s so you could go start your other job?” Rosendorff said he wanted to be off the license “because I was uncomfortable with the legal responsibility that I held at Theranos at that time.”On Wednesday, Rosendorff responded to a question from Bostic about the difference between responsibility (“what you’re legally responsible for in the eyes of CMS”) and authority (“the actual power to make those things happen and implement them in the laboratory”). Rosendorff said it was Holmes who held the power, which came from “business priorities,” rather than regulations.In all, Rosendorff called Theranos the “most complicated laboratory I’ve ever had to supervise or direct.”

“We can confirm a breach has taken place,” Twitch, which is owned by Amazon, said on Twitter. “Our teams are working with urgency to understand the extent of this.”The company’s statement came after an anonymous individual reportedly released more than 120 gigabytes of Twitch data on the online forum 4chan, including what they claim was the platform’s source code and data on how much top streamers on the service get paid. The breach was first reported by the website Video Games Chronicle. CNN could not independently verify details of the breach, but some streamers indicated on Twitter Wednesday that the earnings revealed as part of it were accurate.”What happened to Twitch can happen to almost any organization, though their particular service niche likely made them a higher priority target for some groups,” said Bob Rudis, chief data scientist at the cybersecurity firm Rapid7. Twitch, acquired by Amazon for $970 million in 2014, is one of the most popular game streaming platforms, with millions of streamers and tens of millions of users. The platform is home to some of the world’s top streamers, including popular streamer Ninja, who signed a multi-year deal with Twitch last year.

Most stock quote data provided by BATS. Market indices are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer. Morningstar: Copyright 2018 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Factset: FactSet Research Systems Inc.2018. All rights reserved. Chicago Mercantile Association: Certain market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. Dow Jones: The Dow Jones branded indices are proprietary to and are calculated, distributed and marketed by DJI Opco, a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and have been licensed for use to S&P Opco, LLC and CNN. Standard & Poor’s and S&P are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. All content of the Dow Jones branded indices Copyright S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2018 and/or its affiliates.©

The company is releasing features on Google Maps and Google Flights to show how travel plans may contribute to climate change.Eco-friendly routesIn addition to showing drivers the fastest way to get to their destination, Google Maps will now show the route that’s the most fuel-efficient. To provide the new feature, Google incorporated data from the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which estimates that eco-friendly routing has the potential to prevent more than one million tons of carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere per year. That’s the equivalent of removing 200,000 cars from the road, Google claims.On the Google Maps app, the most eco-friendly route will display with a small green leaf next to it. The route option will include information about how long the trip will take and how much fuel the driver could save. Options for bikersIt’s no secret that biking is a more eco-friendly travel option than driving, and the use of biking directions on Maps has increased by as much as 98% over the past year, according to Google. The tech company is focusing on tapping into bike riders with a new feature called “lite navigation” that gives cyclists important details about their routes.This feature is being introduced after Google heard from cyclists who were sick of following turn-by-turn directions on their phones. Bikers tend to tuck their phones away for most of the ride, after all.With lite navigation, bike riders will be able to see details about their route without needing to keep their screen on or engage turn-by-turn navigation. Cyclists will also be able to track their trip progress, see their ETA updated in real time and find details about the elevation of their route.Bike and scooter sharingIn addition to the biking feature, in 300 cities — including Berlin, New York and São Paulo — Google Maps is introducing a feature that will provide more information about bike and scooter sharing. With this new option, Google Maps users will be able to find nearby docking stations and pinpoint how many vehicles are available at that moment.To make this feature possible, Google is partnering with bike and scooter companies including Europe-based Donkey Republic, Tier and Voi, as well as Bird and Spin, which are based in the US.Finding flights with fewer carbon emissionsAlongside price and trip duration information, Google Flights users will now be able to see carbon emissions estimates for nearly every flight in the search results. The estimates are “flight-specific” and “seat-specific,” Google said. “Newer aircraft are generally less polluting than older aircraft,” the company said in its press release. “Emissions increase for premium economy and first-class seats because they take up more space and account for a larger share of total emissions,” Google added.

The former Facebook employee-turned-whistleblower detailed to the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security her vast knowledge of the internal workings of the company through both her previous work and the thousands of pages of internal documents she reviewed and shared with lawmakers. And she explained the technical workings of Facebook’s platforms in a polished and uncomplicated way, citing real-world examples of the harms they can cause.Facebook’s products “harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy” and put profit over moral responsibility, she told lawmakers. Although Haugen was highly critical of Facebook, she was constructive and even hopeful.”These problems are solvable. A safer, free speech-respecting, more enjoyable social media is possible,” Haugen said. “Facebook can change, but is clearly not going to do so on its own. … Congress can change the rules that Facebook plays by and stop the many harms it is causing.”The hearing came as Facebook is already facing growing regulatory scrutiny and calls to break up the company. Indeed, criticism of the company is a rare point of bipartisan agreement among lawmakers, and her testimony this week may only add to the consensus that Facebook needs to be reined in with legislation. ‘A twenty-first century American hero’Haugen’s testimony was clearly persuasive to members of the subcommittee, who repeatedly praised her as a hero and vowed to try to protect her from potential retribution by Facebook (FB). They made it clear they would like to have her back for further testimony, and possibly bring in Zuckerberg for a hearing of his own to respond.”You are a twenty-first century American hero,” Senator Ed Markey told her. “Our nation owes you a huge debt of gratitude for the courage you’re showing here today.” Unlike some Facebook executives who have testified before Congress, Haugen didn’t appear to withhold information in hopes of protecting the company’s reputation. And unlike Christopher Wylie, the former Cambridge Analytica data analyst who blew the whistle on Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, Haugen was able to draw on experience working within Facebook. Moreover, while Haugen was working to fix Facebook’s issues as a member of its civic integrity team, Wylie had been directly involved in the problematic work Cambridge Analytica did using Facebook’s data. In explaining and criticizing how Facebook’s platforms work, Haugen brought to bear her extensive background working in tech. After studying electrical and computer engineering, followed by an MBA at Harvard, Haugen worked at multiple tech firms before Facebook, including Google (GOOGL GOOGLE), Pinterest (PINS), Yelp (YELP) and the dating app Hinge. She specializes in “algorithmic product management,” and has worked on several ranking algorithms similar to the one Facebook uses to organize its main newsfeed, she said in her testimony. Haugen made specific recommendations for how Facebook might alter its platforms — or how regulators might create laws to force it to do so — including moving away from algorithms that rank content based on engagement and popularity-based measures such as likes and comments from Instagram. It was refreshing to veer away from the usual grandstanding that comes from more adversarial Facebook-related hearings, which usually devolve into debates over censorship, bias and misinformation. Rather than focus on conflict over how Facebook should handle different types of content, Haugen drilled down on the algorithms that surface that content and how they work. Facebook on edgeFacebook made repeated attempts to discredit Haugen before, during and after her testimony. Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone said on Twitter during the hearing: “Just pointing out the fact that @FrancesHaugen did not work on child safety or Instagram or research these issues and has no direct knowledge of the topic from her work at Facebook.” The company’s statement following the hearing also tried to portray her as an employee with little tenure, no direct reports or high-level involvement, and said she testified concerning a subject with which she had no involvement. Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said in an interview with CNN after the hearing that there were “mischaracterizations” of the documents Haugen referenced during the hearing, calling them “stolen documents.” And late Tuesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a 1,316-word statement to his Facebook page criticizing the testimony. Zuckerberg said he believed the testimony overall created a “false picture of the company” and also said tech companies “should build experiences that meet” the needs of young people “while also keeping them safe.”Haugen herself repeatedly acknowledged during her testimony that she did not work directly on child safety issues, and instead only cited information she learned from Facebook’s own internal research documents, which she said were “freely available to anyone in the company.” Haugen also admitted when questions were outside of her scope of knowledge and declined to answer them. Facebook’s early efforts to snub Haugen did not impress those inside the hearing. Senator Marsha Blackburn called out Stone’s tweet during the hearing, saying, “If Facebook wants to discuss their targeting of children, if they want to discuss their practices, privacy violations, or violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, I am extending to you an invitation to step forward, be sworn in, and testify before this committee.”A whistleblower who wants to fix FacebookIn a call with reporters following the hearing, subcommittee Chair Sen. Richard Blumenthal said he found Haugen’s remarks “compelling” and “credible.” “Frances Haugen wants to fix Facebook, not burn it to the ground,” Blumenthal said.Indeed, that may be one of Haugen’s biggest assets as a reliable witness — she repeatedly told lawmakers that she was there because she believes in Facebook’s potential for good, if the company is able to address its serious issues. Haugen even said she would work for Facebook again, if given the chance. She also said she is against breaking up Facebook, instead emphasizing collaborative solutions with Congress, or else “these systems are going to continue to exist and be dangerous even if broken up.”Haugen suggested that Congress give Facebook the chance to “declare moral bankruptcy and we can figure out how to fix these things together.” Asked to clarify what she meant by “moral bankruptcy,” Haugen said she envisioned a process like financial bankruptcy where there is a “mechanism” to “forgive them” and “move forward.””Facebook is stuck in a feedback loop that they cannot get out of. …They need to admit that they did something wrong and that they need help to solve these problems. And that’s what moral bankruptcy is,” she said.This likely won’t be Haugen’s last time testifying before Congress. During the hearing, she said her time working on counterespionage issues at Facebook gave her “strong national security concerns about how Facebook operates today.”Blumenthal suggested that these national security concerns could be the subject of a future subcommittee hearing.

His main argument was that Haugen was taking Facebook’s research on its impact on children — among the tens of thousands of pages of internal documents and research she took before she left the company — out of context. In essence, he argued she cannot be trusted to properly portray the company’s findings, claiming she painted a “false picture of the company.” But despite employing many talented and diligent researchers, it’s Facebook’s top executive who cannot be trusted when it comes to sharing the work of those researchers with the public. In August, Facebook (FB) released a report about the most-viewed posts on its platform in the United States. Guy Rosen, Facebook’s vice president of integrity (yes, that’s a real job title at Facebook) said at the time the company had become “by far the most transparent platform on the internet.” The report covered Facebook data for the second quarter of this year, and Facebook suggested it painted a rather rosy picture. “Many of the most-viewed pages focused on sharing content about pets, cooking, family,” Facebook said. There was a catch. The research report focused on the second quarter of 2021 — but what about the first quarter? Had Facebook not gathered data and compiled a report for the first three months of 2021? It had, but Facebook executives chose not to share it with the public “because of concerns that it would look bad for the company,” The New York Times reported. The shelved report showed that the most-viewed link on Facebook in the first quarter of this year was a news article that said a doctor died after receiving the coronavirus vaccine, the Times reported. That a news article with clear potential to be reshared in a way that undermines the safety of vaccination would be one of the most popular pieces of content on Facebook amid a pandemic didn’t fit with the image the company’s executives are trying to project: that anti-vaccine sentiment isn’t running rampant on the platform and the company isn’t contributing to America’s vaccine hesitancy problem. When the research eventually leaked to the Times, Facebook came clean, “We’re guilty of cleaning up our house a bit before we invited company,” said Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesperson. The next month, the company was criticized after New York University researchers who were studying misinformation on Facebook said they were booted from the platform. (The company said their decision to deplatform the researchers was related to a separate study on political ads that involved using a browser extension that allowed users to anonymously share the ads they saw on Facebook with the researchers.)The very blatant cherry-picking of what research to make public and what to hide begs the question: what else does Facebook know that it’s not telling us? And who is really creating a “false picture” of the company and its impact on society? A low-level employee Facebook’s other attempt to undermine the whistleblower was to portray Haugen as a low-level employee who doesn’t know what she is talking about. But that strategy appears to be backfiring, too. Samidh Chakrabarti was head of “civic engagement” at Facebook. Chakrabarti had regularly been put forward by the company to speak publicly about the good work Facebook was doing, even being part of the press tour of the Facebook “war room” for the 2018 US Midterm elections. (The war room was later widely mocked as a publicity stunt.)After her testimony Tuesday, Facebook described Haugen as “a former product manager at Facebook who worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, never attended a decision-point meeting with C-level executives.” That prompted Chakrabati to respond on Twitter, “Well I was there for over 6 years, had numerous direct reports, and led many decision meetings with C-level execs, and I find the perspectives shared on the need for algorithmic regulation, research transparency, and independent oversight to be entirely valid for debate.” Unfortunately for Facebook, Haugen is on to something.