Analysis: From encryption to deepfakes, lawmakers geek out during Facebook and Twitter hearing

Jack Dorsey and Sheryl Sandberg relentlessly practiced before taking hot seats on Capitol Hill, engaging in role play and panels of questioning with colleagues and consultants. But the tech executives weren't the only ones who came prepared for class on Wednesday.

Senators on the Intelligence Committee clearly did their homework on a wide range of technical topics, and they peppered the executives with questions on issues ranging from doctored videos known as "deepfakes" to encryption.

The grilling marked a stark departure from hearings earlier this year with Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, when senators on the Judiciary and Commerce committees were panned for their technical illiteracy.

CBS News tweeted "Sen. Hatch: 'If [a version of Facebook will always be free], how do you sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service?'

"Mark Zuckerberg: 'Senator, we run ads.'"

Continued foreign interference on the platforms has ratcheted up pressure on lawmakers to better assess not only how these platforms were exploited ahead of the 2016 election, but also what threats could emerge next.

And it's evident they are putting in the work: Over the last year, Intelligence Committee senators have been working with advisers to better understand the rise of disinformation on social networks. They've met with tech executives behind closed doors and in open hearings, as well as third-party experts such as Renee DiResta, director of research for social media threat detection company New Knowledge.

DiResta has been battling disinformation campaigns online for years - and she has been helping lawmakers from both parties understand technical topics and develop questions ahead of hearings for the last year. "They've worked with external experts as advisers throughout that time, reaching out to make sure they fully understand all of the technical facets of the problems as they come up," she said.

After working with the committee behind-the-scenes, she publicly testified in August - and told me she was pleased to see the questions she got back were "similarly high caliber to what we heard" on Wednesday.

The senators' display of technical knowledge also comes as they grapple with potential next steps to rein in big tech.

Even as lawmakers and technology executives struck a conciliatory tone during Wednesday's hearing - stressing the importance of cooperation between government and the companies - they are also considering legislative action. Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., laid out some options in his opening remarks, including regulation of the social media platforms and legislation that facilitates information sharing on cyberthreats between companies and the government.

"There are no unsolvable problems," he said.

The top Democrat on the committee, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, set the tone at Wednesday's hearing in his opening remarks, warning that the threats to discourse, privacy and democracy will only intensify with new advances in technology and artificial intelligence. Warner cautioned deepfakes, or doctored videos, could amplify the fake news dilemma the technology giants are grappling with today.

"We're on the cusp of a new generation of exploitation and, potentially harnessing hacked personal information to enable tailored and targeted disinformation and social engineering efforts," he said. "That should frighten us all."

Warner and Florida Republican Marco Rubio began ringing the alarm about deepfakes earlier this year. Warner floated the idea of holding the companies liable for failing to take them down in a policy paper, and Rubio called them a national security threat in a speech.

Maine Sen. Angus King pressed on deepfakes later in the hearing, asking Sandberg if Facebook could tag videos that have been manipulated and warn consumers that they may be misleading. "Deepfakes is a new area, and we know people are going to continue to find new ones," Sandberg said. "As always, we're going to do a combination of investing in technology and investing in people so that people can see the most authentic information on our service."

Deepfakes were just one of many emerging technologies discussed as lawmakers attempted to address concerns ranging from election interference to censorship in a hearing that highlighted the complicated relationship that exists between Silicon Valley and Washington. As the technology companies continue to grow, they are increasingly treading into the crosshairs of regulators. As Wednesday's hearing was wrapping up, the Justice Department warned that leading technology companies may be "intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas" and hurting competition. And lawmakers' interest is unlikely to wane: Less than two hours after the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing finished, Dorsey was testifying again in front of the House Energy and Commerce.

Though senators were intent on determining whether the social networks have taken adequate steps to address election security, past points of contention between Silicon Valley and the government reemerged during the hearing. As law enforcement leaders warn that the spread of encryption is hindering critical investigations, Sandberg made a point to stress Facebook's commitment to consumer security and privacy. "We are strong believers in encryption," Sandberg said. "Encryption helps keep people safe, it's what secures our banking system, it's what secures the security of private messages, and consumers rely on it and depend on it."

There was one thing both lawmakers and executives seemed to agree on: That private-public cooperation was necessary to address disinformation at the hands of foreign adversaries.

And it's clear lawmakers expect the companies to engage. Google drew bipartisan criticism for not sending an executive that lawmakers deemed senior enough to testify at the hearing. Lawmakers left an empty chair for Google next to the other witnesses to draw attention to the company's absence.

Rubio lashed out at the company for not sending an executive. "Maybe it's cause they're arrogant," he said.