[Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Ceo:] This was a major breach of trust. And I'm really sorry that this happened. And we have a basic responsibility to protect people's data. And if we can't do that, then we don't deserve to have the opportunity to serve people. So, our responsibility now is to make sure that this doesn't happen again.
[Kinkade:] Well, from offering his first sorry in that CNN exclusive to now. In less than three hours Facebook's 33-year-old boss, Mark Zuckerberg, will take his apology all the way to some of America's most powerful lawmakers. Spending today and tomorrow owning up to his mistakes and answering questions about a massive data harvesting scandal that exposed the private information of 87 million Facebook users. Well, CNN's Laurie Segall is on Capitol Hill for us where this is all going down. Laurie, of course, is that first interview with Zuckerberg after this scandal broke that we just played. So, Laurie, obviously we know Mark Zuckerberg is the type of man that generally likes to lay low, but he has had to prepare for this grilling today. You've got the inside word on that. What is his strategy?
[Laurie Segall, Cnnmoney Senior Tech Correspondent:] Yes, well, in short, his strategy is to be contrite, humble and respectful. That's what I'm told from a source within Facebook. And what they've done over the last week is essentially turn one of the conference rooms into a congressional hearing room and they've been doing these mock trials. And he's prepared to answer a lot of hard questions. They've been trying to throw him curveballs. One thing he's ready to talk about is why he believes he should be leading the company through this tough time. There have been a lot of questions on whether he should step down. So, he's ready to answer that question. I'm also told by this source that, you know, we're going to hear him try to remind people why Facebook is a good thing. I think we have seen a very tough news cycle, tough narrative around Facebook and what it's doing essentially for democracy, for the mental health of users, what it's doing with our data privacy. He's going in and try to tell a different story, the other story of Facebook. And I'm told he's also prepared to push back a little bit, so say, you know, Senator, I respectfully disagree with you. And he's prepared to answer the question of whether the business model is fundamentally broken at the cost of the users, which I think a lot of folks are asking about Lynda.
[Kinkade:] And Laurie, it's no surprise we have heard a lot of criticism of this. Let's just take a listen to what the U.S. president's chief economic adviser had to say.
[Unidentified Male:] Those in reference to The Hill, this week to testify. Does the administration feel that Facebook should be regulated?
[Larry Kudlow, Director, National Economic Council:] Is he going to wear a suit and tie and a clean white shirt? That's my only question. Is he going to behave like an adult? As a major corporate leader or give me the phony baloney what is it? Hoodies and dungarees and what does that kind of say to itself.
[Kinkade:] Is Larry Kudlow there not mincing words. Unusual phrasing perhaps. But also, is there any truth to that, that people as powerful as the man running Facebook, need to essentially grow up?
[Segall:] Well, first of all, I'm told from behind the scenes he's definitely wearing a suit. So, to answer his question. But look, I think this is a point this is a moment of maturity for the company. You know, I've been covering Silicon Valley for nearly a decade and you know, there's an amount of hubris. When you used to go into Facebook's offices years ago, there was these signs that said, move fast and break things. There's this idea that, you know, were doing great work at any cost without looking at the human cost of this. And I think, you know, this is a moment for accountability. And I also think to really shape how were looking at the power in the future of the internet. Our Suzanne Malveaux spoke to Senator Chuck Grassley. And what he said, which I thought was interesting in his interview, he said people have a constitutional right to privacy. I think we're all trying to figure out what did we sign up for when we sign up for Facebook? Should we have trusted them with our data? And what are they doing to be responsible? And if they're not being responsible with it, what kind of regulatory issues are we going to see? What kind of regulation are we going to see? I know that Facebook has been trying to get in front of this in a big way over the last couple of weeks. Ever since I sat down and spoke with Mark, they've rolled out a number of changes, you know, for data protection and data privacy, political ads and issue ad transparency, verifying users within big pages. You know, so, it's been an onslaught of news over the last couple of weeks. I think the frustration, which you'll hear from lawmakers, that you hear from us users, is that this is really the first we're hearing of this after the fact.
[Kinkade:] And I want to get a bit more of your take on that, Laurie, because some of our viewers might have a look at Facebook and see this morning. I want to show the viewers. This warning may pop up when they log into Facebook. That basically their information was harvested. And you can remember that, of course, that the company shied away from ever even telling anyone that it happened back when it took place. So, we have seen this warning, we have seen this apology. But take us through the steps that Facebook is actually taking right now to rehabilitate its image.
[Segall:] Well, even that speech that you just saw, I mean, what you can do is see what apps you sign up for. You can actually kind of opt out of these apps. They've tried to they're now billing their ads with more transparency. Slapping the word political ad or issue ad on them. That'll be rolling out at the beginning in a couple months. And you know, they are taking steps, but there is that 'frustration. You know, is it, you know, are they getting in front of this? You know, when we look back at the Cambridge Analytica data, we still don't know exactly how that was used. And we still don't also know, they said they were going to do an audit. We also don't know if that data has been deleted. Those questions aren't clear. There's frustration around that. And then, you know, they just announced a data bounty program, just literally in my inbox a couple moments ago I saw this, where they are trying to, you know, incentivize people to find misuse of data. And so, I think the big question is, you know, what else are we going to find? What else are we going to see? And how is our data used in all these different ways? And these are important questions and you can argue, you know, from covering this company for a long time, and for me, stepping into Mark's orbit a little bit. You know, he's not used to this setting. This is political theater, too. He was very nervous during our interview because he is very much, I don't want to joke, he's been almost living in his own filter bubble of sorts. He's ruled his constituents of 2 billion people from afar with Facebook live, with blog posts, after the fact. And I think, you know, that's got to change. Because at this point he's a world leader. And the company needs to be more accountable, more transparent and humbled by this big moment in time. And this is, you know, a moment for Facebook. But I think that the tech community as a whole to do some soul searching.
[Kinkade:] Yes, they will certainly have to do that. Laurie Segall on Capitol Hill. We will, no doubt, be covering that testimony when Mark Zuckerberg faces the lawmakers there in three hours from now. Thank you so much, Laurie.
[Segall:] Thank you.
[Jones:] Well, you will remember, of course, Donald Trump's own deadline to decide how to respond to an alleged gas attack in Syria. It is fast approaching. Mr. Trump says nothing is off the table and that issue has been thrown into sharp focus for American allies, too. British Prime Minister, Theresa May, spoke to Mr. Trump earlier on Tuesday while friends say there will be a response if Syria has crossed a red line. One person with firsthand experience of military strategy is our next guest. Cedric Leighton is a retired Air Force colonel and CNN military analyst. He joins us now from Washington. Always good to get your perspective. We heard from President Trump that there will be action and that it will come soon within 24 to 48 hours. And he made that statement late yesterday. Just explain for us what options he has? COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON, AIR FORCE COLONEL
[Kinkade:] But when you look at what happened last year at those U.S. strikes on that Syrian air base, if this was indeed another chemical attack at the hands of the Syrian regime, clearly last year's response wasn't a deterrent as it should have been. So, what else could the U.S. do and what are the ramifications if it goes too far? Especially given the fact that Russia has threatened grave ramifications.
[Leighton:] So, Lynda, this is really the difficulty of planning these kinds of strikes. I think the attack last year had an effect for a period of time. But of course, is not a lasting effect. And the only time you are going to really prevent somebody from using chemical weapons is to take those chemical weapons away from them or take away their ability to use those chemical weapons. So, failing that, we are left with a series of options that are probably not the most palatable. They are the kind of options that are inconclusive, that are not as decisive as many of us would like. But that's the kind of situation that the President finds himself in, unless, unless he's willing to commit ground troops to Syria. And I don't see that happening based on his other pronouncements and on the general political mood in the United States and around the world.
[Jones:] And on that point, Cedric, why hasn't the U.S. gone after the chemical weapons warehouses along with its allies?
[Leighton:] That could be something that would be part of the planning effort that is happening right now. So, it is possible that we might be doing that. I think the reason that I think there's several reasons. One of them is that they are very difficult to find, in some cases, although we do have an intelligence as to some of the locations of the chemicals, especially sarin gas and chlorine. But chlorine is a very tough thing to isolate because it is so pervasive. Everybody uses it for industrial purposes and it is not necessarily a precursor to a chemical munition. And that makes part of this difficult because you've got legitimate uses of chemicals and you have uses of chemicals that are completely illegitimate and immoral, such as we saw in Douma.
[Kinkade:] Right. I just want to play sound that we've got from the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, who spoke yesterday. Let's just take a listen.
[Nikki Haley, U.s. Ambassador To U.n:] The monster who was responsible for these attacks has no conscience. Not even to be shocked by pictures of dead children. The Russian regime whose hands are all covered in the blood of Syrian children cannot be ashamed by pictures of its victims.
[Kinkade:] And Nikki Haley went on to describe Assad as a monster. Very early in this Syrian civil war, there was a lot of discussion about his fate. What happens to him when this civil war is over? That seems to be off the table given the support he has from Russia and Iran. What is it going to take for that to come back on the table of discussion?
[Leighton:] Well, I think that is a very interesting point because all of the that we've seen right now, Lynda, are on the part of Assad or action that are characteristic of a criminal behavior. In that this time of criminal behavior extends very much into the category of war crimes. Assad is frankly, a war criminal. And what would have to happen is the Russians would have to agree that Assad must go. To get them to do that would require a degree of coercive force on the ground in Syria and really around all of Russia's activities globally. And that, in essence, prevents them from doing some of the things that they're engaged in. To include the cyber-attacks that they are committing against European nations and the U.S. It would also include other things such as tightening up sanctions until Assad left. So those are the kinds of things that would have to happen. It would take a really concerted strategic approach to do this. And right now, I don't see the U.S. administration going that route. But it could happen. But it would take a long time for Assad to be in the same court dock Slobodan Milosevic, the late leader of Serbia was. So that would be really the goal of the international justice system or it should be the goal of the international justice system. But for us to get there would require an international agreement on the part of not only the U.S. and its Western partners, but also an agreement on the part of Russia to get Assad out of there. And that is something that is very, very difficult to achieve.
[Kinkade:] Yes, no doubt. Really good to get your perspective. Colonel Cedric Leighton in Washington, thanks so much for joining us.
[Leighton:] You bet, always a pleasure.
[Kinkade:] You are watching CONNECT THE WORLD. Still to come, a city in India that's literally on the way up. Will look at what is behind the boom in our Gurgaon report next.