Video has been removed of the beheading of a journalist by militants. Twitter said this is the latest example of social Media Companies policing user content from open internet policy many have embraced for years. I spoke with courtney radish, david kirkpatrick, and a law professor. I asked if there were any legal issues for social Media Companies policing user posts. The legal point is the First Amendment which guarantees free speech as a fundamental right. Over the years where it has been litigation, mostly focused on filing video for children and the like and not so much on what happens in real news. The freedom of speech curtailed mostly on sex but theres a lot less litigation on violence and in recent weeks, we have been flooded with images from around the world. The last series of images we have seen from gaza and the ukraine and all of these raise issues that have not been extensively litigated. Not necessarily illegal or legal . Is that what you are saying . As far as First Amendment issues or being charged with a criminal offense, that is what would be going on and properly covered. There may be tort law. Families afflicted or people close to related to people seen dead or mutilated or ravaged on tv might have a legal civil claim against a newspaper outlet saying watching the image and having the graphic images out there have caused distress. There may be a great area. Do you think there is a gray area . The issue is if they are going against the terms of service of each organization. Twitter, facebook, youtube all have their own terms of service and they are within their rights to remove content if it violates. I think the focus should be on the horrific james foley case and what happened and the deadly conflict and the need for journalists to be able to report without being murdered. It is the most deadly country for journalists and of the world right now. It is such a tragic story. David, i want to ask your thoughts. We tried to read the fine print and it can get a little confusing. Twitter said they will remove images or video of deceased individuals and that consider newsworthiness and may be not be able to honor all of the requests. Facebook said they place a burden on individuals to share responsibly. They expect people to choose carefully. People shall warn their audiences about the content. Youtube said they have clear policies to prohibit content like gratuitous violence and violent acts and they remove the video. You know, david, you are familiar with a history surrounding incidents like this. What do you make of what they decided today on twitter a youtube . Twitter seems to be on New Territory in not just removing the imagery but suspending the accounts of people who put up the imagery and even mistakenly suspended the account of the first journalist even though he never linked to the video. In a serious gray area, those of us reading the terms of service of twitter this morning, it is not clear they have been violated by this video except to the degree that someones account should be suspended. It seems the family of someone who is deceased has the ability to request twitter tools imagery related to their death which is probably what happened here. Suspended accounts go further and is really something that is being defined as we speak and nobody really knows how it is properly handled. These companies have acquired influence over the dissemination of information and yes, they are conduits for individuals to be empowered to share. Its a very complex scenario. Facebook has clear rules that allows of the company to remove pretty much anything that it determines constitutes hate speech or is excessively violent. Facebook has a lot presence to remove stuff. Facebook, though, has been criticized for removing certain things and they backtrack. You wrote the book on facebook. How does Mark Zuckerberg think about these types of issues . All of these companies tended to air on free speech as much as they can. As was mentioned earlier, they have to consider their own legal liabilities. Because so many of these are brandnew, Technology Never made possible in the past, they are responding on a casebycase basis. There is no real, clear, defined policy that can be applied in every situation. It does seem like twitter is taking action of a sort they have not taken in the past. Im sure there is no way you can find the symmetry on facebook. When you have 1. 3 billion users on a service, and no matter how many algorithms you have, you cannot stop everything the minute it happens. Courtney radsch, hadar aviram, and, david kirkpatrick. Could the controversy in ferguson had been prevented if more police were using technology . We will explore on the best of bloomberg west. Welcome back. I am emily chang. The city of ferguson, missouri may equip their officers with vest cameras. If the officer who shot Michael Brown was wearing a camera, would it have prevented the shooting . I started by asking doug if Ferguson Police had access to these cameras and why they did not use them. It is my understanding and i have not been able to independently confirm that ferguson pd may have been testing some cameras. It is abundantly clear in the last couple of weeks that there has been no video release that officer in question at the time of the shooting was probably not wearing one of the cameras. You brought in a few things to demonstrate with us. What are the options available . There are many. Now there are probably 10 companies, a whole bunch of Companies Working on these. We have Taser International represented here. Theyre all good cameras. Different types of options. This camera here would go on your body here and be held in a pocket. This camera here would probably clip onto your pocket here. This camera here, which i have lit up, it should be lit up. It is like that. Like google, cheaper glass. It predates google glass. Basically, you are capturing a live feed on a mobile phone we are showing you. The critical piece of this is the live feed is not for live consumption. It is how your camera is capturing, like this, making sure you are squared away. The only thing is you can go back and review an incident on your mobile device after it has happened. Really good for training. In terms of how it changes. I stumbled on reports that there are fewer incidents questionable incidents. Or using firearms. There was a study in california probably three or four years ago. The chief as part of his academic study decide you want to analyze the number of complaints, sustainable citizen complaints against officers. If memory serves in that time of 12 months or so, 88 reduction in complaints. The camera is on, so you will behave a little more differently. So will the subject. They know they are being video. You often hear, officer, i have video knowing you. Everybody knows we are on tape and collecting evidence. Whatever is happening. In the chain of custody. It is not a secret. If at the officer who shot Michael Brown had been wearing this, how do think it would be different . Most notably is what you have seen you wouldve had one of two things happen. If the officer was indeed incorrect and the assessment of the threat against him and was a bad shoot, there wouldve been Video Evidence and chief and others wouldve been able to look and say this what we are going to do. We are going to pursue disciplinary actions and make a statement as saying we are taking a stand. The riots. If it was a good shoot and a deadly threat to the officer, that wouldve been compelling evidence. He was being beat up. In fear for his life. A six foot four inch, 300 pound man. At least we wouldve known . We wouldve known. There wouldve been compelling evidence. There is a question of how much this would actually help. The camera has to be working and the officer has to turn it on. Maybe in chaotic moments, you do not turn it on. Maybe the officer resist. I hate to make broad generalizations. More often than not, the younger the office, the more inclined they are to embrace the new technology. They know more about technology. They are accustomed to film and their families and themselves. Generally speaking, it is a generational thing. That generation will get into leadership and over time, well see the other option. Tell me about the business. A human cry about the militarization of local police which i find interesting. What is the business behind . Who is selling the stuff . How is it sold . Why are police embracing the expensive stuff . At least 10 or so companies, really Good Companies making great products. The sales process are there people out to their banging on doors. Are they buying . Into depends on which one you get. You can get a body camera for 200 300. The data storage. Once you capture hundreds of hours, and that has to get into the chain of custody. That is another piece of the puzzle. The gear is self, when you look at thousands for the maximum of one piece of gear, it is 2000 for a 60 Man Department is not that big of an investment when you think about the frivolous lawsuits you are sadly out of court. Is it a rapidly growing business . I think it is. I think, you are roughly 15 or so officers wearing this on the streets right now. Theres an 85 market for this to happen. And the sales of new cameras, they do great and occasionally you get into a fist fight. You might have to buy another one. Cory johnson and an editor in chief. It has been a decade since google went public. A special look back on how it has evolved to the third most valuable company. Next on best of west. Welcome back. I am emily chang. 10 years ago, google started trading as a Public Company on the nasdaq and sold more than 19 million shares at 85 a piece raising 2 billion in cash. It was not your everyday ipo. The founder almost got in trouble. It started with the words google is not a conventional company. When it went public, it did so with a dutch auction. The shares have never fallen below the ipo price. And now close to 600 a piece. Take a look at googles golden decade and what may be to come. Over a 100 billion searches a month. 1. 3 billion android devices. Just some of the numbers behind googles staggering success. In its first decade as a Public Company, they have grown from 3000 to 52,000 employees. A market cap 17 times the ipo valuation. Google has become a fixture in popular culture. It has turned into a noun to a verb. Whether at home or on the move, google products help people find where they are moving and see what their house looks like from space. The core remains search. They have 6 7 in the u. S. And google is still not satisfied. When i think of search, to really understand what you want and the world. We are very much in the early stages. Search has helped google become a juggernaut. With all of the cash, they have branched out the big time. They bought youtube and grew it to the Largest Video site and android is the dominant smart phone platform. There are more than 1. 1 billion users. That number is growing dramatically. Allegations of user tracking and scanning emails and manipulating rankings. We are showing where data is being collected and given people more choice. Awareness means sinking about the future and reaching for the stars. Google x is about doing the brandnew, risky things that or sort of Science Fiction real. The socalled moon shots include google glass and Driverless Cars and trying to prolong life itself. What grew from a garage to the largest Search Engine has become a company searching for breakthroughs people have only dreamed of. Cory johnson spoke to three former google employees who help to build key employees. The maps cocreator and former Group Product manager and ceo of shadow puppet and former coo of ad knowledge. Corey asked ben what he thought of google. 10 years ago, google was really misunderstood. Selling the things based on clicks and pricing and understanding the economics of Digital Advertising was something people were not used to doing they had to educate the market on how to think differently in terms of digital. You were there at the time of the ipo and bloomberg west was talking about ipos and stock market. It was an amazing moment for the world. What do you think the world thought of google at the time . The company went public with less information. It was not a welldeveloped secondary market. Other companies are doing multibillion financing and that was not available. It was the first time people saw google business. I remember i was covering it for another network and the numbers were phenomenal. People were incredulous. They do not believe it could do that good and combined with the interesting model. Pay per click was new. People were in disbelief this company was for real. It took a number of years of being a Public Company before people rely us it was sustainable and something for real. It is hard to describe how it was compared to now and how all of the private companies, theyre so much knowledge about the financials. It was a really different time. Carl, what were you doing . I was on the calendar team. One of the first applications google built. I joined just a few months before the ipo. There were so many parallels and there was the story of how yahoo owns a stake and grew it up. They essentially had a piece of the company and that was a lawsuit. Launching the calendar business, that prestage, bigger plans to do a lot more and be in front of the users. Was that the original calendar . Google was on a mission to organize the worlds information. They had a broad vision. It was not just information you can find on the web but information that people had on their email or calendar. At the time, there were not many tools in a way that gave you unlimited storage. Ben, did you have a sense that the advertising world was changing and going online and into search . At the time, people saw online as an interesting sideline. To give you a sense of how people did not take it, it was given to one person and maybe not the best person. It is not something that companies or agencies sad we have to get it right. See what happens. It really took several years for people to say, wow, this works. If i pay money to buy clicks. Cory johnson with brett taylor and Carl Sjogreen and ben legg. We speak to an uber executive next. Welcome back to the best of bloomberg west. I am emily chang. Uber has launched a major campaign. The ridesharing app that is available in 44 countries and 170 cities announced the hire of david ploeff. We spoke about the new campaign. Take a listen. This is about communication and policy in branding and strategy. We are weaving that together. We are telling a story in the city that were going to and getting the data about all of the good that we are doing and how safe the rides are any tens of thousands of jobs we are creating every month and the Economic Opportunity for drivers and making sure that cities understand the progress that we represent. Uber opened up its app to all developers. I spoke with the Senior Vice President how the app works. We are allowing third parties to get access to the uber hot form and the uber network so they can build into their mobile apps the ability to get an uber and price it and see how long it will take from their home to the restaurant or to the airport. All of those kinds of different use cases or apps all over the world. This is just the beginning. Anybody can do this with you. Yes. We are starting today with 11 big brand launch partners. We are opening up to the dorm room developer and all of the company starting today in every country in the world. Youre going to see this blur of ration start today and go for the rest of the year. You estimate that they combine 200 million users. How many of those users do you think could be new customers . Hopefully, all of them. I am targeting a kind of different metric. Today we are available and being used by tens of millions of users. Hopefully starting today it is hundreds of millions. With new apps launching, we will be on billions of phones next year. There are talks about integrating with facebook and facebook messenger. When you look at what we can do, you be integrated into messenger apps and maps apps and commerce apps. Anywhere where you are trying to go from one place to another alone or with a group, messenger might be a part of that. Behindthescenes, what is that like . It is deal stuff. Uber launched corner store. This is something youre tested in washington dc, to deliver anything in the area. When you walk into a walgreens or the corner store to buy the collection of stuff you buy every day, what of the most used or bought items . We will put those in cars all over the city so that when you push a button they will be no more than five minutes away. When is this coming to San Francisco . We are starting with d. C. First. We are letting the city teams experiment with ideas and then when they work, we refine them and roll them out globally. It is coming soon. How about delivering mail . That is a good one. I havent heard of that one. Anything is possible. Seriously, you are trying all these different things. What sticks . I think what you will see from us in the next six months as allowing third parties to bring uber into their app. We want to deliver things like corner store and then you will see all kinds of experiments. Youve heard about startups getting funded that they are the uber for this or we are the uber for that. We are hoping to be the uber for uber. I got my first save uber email in california. There is a bill being voted on that would require more insurance for ridesharing which would kill ridesharing. You are asking people to write to their state senators and sign petitions. What is the response so far . We have had dozens of ceos of corporations in california and tens of thousands of consumers and tens of thousands of drivers addition there rep and the governor. Insurance is not what it seems to be. It is quadrupling the amount of insurance a driver has to have relative to taxi. In california and everywhere in the country, we have the same or better insurance than any other taxi company in the country. Let me repeat that. We have better insurance. This is looking to quadruple it beyond what we already have. That makes it tougher