In 2008, I gave a talk at my 20th-year reunion at MIT Sloan. The title of the talk was something like “Privacy is Dead” and my assertion, in 2008, was that there was no longer any data privacy, anywhere, for anyone.

I’ve been living my life under that assumption since then.

The current Facebook scandal around Cambridge Analytica, and – more significantly – data privacy, shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. All of my experiences with companies around Facebook data over the years have been consistent with what is nicely called “data leakage” from Facebook out into the world. Facebook’s privacy and data settings have always been complex, have changed regularly over the years, and are most definitely not front and center in the Facebook user experience. And, that data has been easily and widely accessible at many moments in time to any developer who wanted access to it.

Answer the following questions:

If the answer to all of these questions is yes, good on you. But, my answers are no to all of them and, unless you do some real work, you probably are answering no to at least two or three of them.

I haven’t used Facebook for a while. I broadcast my blog posts to it, but I’ve never really figured out how to engage properly with it in a way that is satisfying to me. Periodically I think about deleting my Facebook account, but since I’ve been operating under the assumption that privacy is dead since 2008, it doesn’t really bother me that my Facebook data is out in the world.

As I read articles about the current version of the Facebook Data Privacy Meltdown (or whatever name it is ultimately going to get this time around), I’m fascinated by the amplification of “nothing new going on here, but now we are outraged.” A pair of  articles that are a little off the beaten path (just watch CNN if you want the beaten path on this one) include:

The meme of #DeleteFacebook is making the rounds but it’s not new either. Here’s one from 2012.

I’m not sure what I’m going to do, but I do know that I’m not surprised.

Also published on Medium.

March 20, 2018

As many of you know, my partner Jason is from Detroit. The 313. The Motor City. The D! He’s going back home for a special event and I encourage anyone near Detroit to go hang with him.

In case you don’t know about Jason, prior to co-founding Foundry Group, Jason was a co-founder of SRS Acquiom and a Managing Director and General Counsel for Mobius Venture Capital. Prior to this, Jason was an attorney with Cooley. Early in his career, Jason was a software engineer at Accenture.

Going further back, Jason holds a B.A. in Economics and a J.D. from the University of Michigan. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado Law School. He is also an active musician with his band Legitimate Front (which has a gig in Boulder April 13th should you be around). Most importantly, he is my co-author on our book Venture Deals and he puts up with me on a daily basis.

Jason is returning to Detroit to sprinkle some of the wisdom he has learned along the way with the Detroitpreur startup community at Bamboo Detroit on April 5th from 6-8 pm.

Startup Grind Detroit is one of over 350+ chapters around the world, holding Fireside Chats with notable entrepreneurs and bringing startup communities together. The Detroit chapter has recently been reignited by Ben Seidman and Dwain Watkins, the co-organizers, who breathed new life into the program. Recent speakers include Dug Song of Duo Security, David Tarver of Wayne State University, Stacy Brown-Philpot of TaskRabbit and more!

Thanks to Jason’s generous sponsorship of this event, attendance is free to all. But space is limited so register your spot today. If you live in Detroit or know someone who lives in the #2 place to visit in the world (according to Lonely Planet and Jason), please sign up or share this free registration link.

https://www.startupgrind.com/events/details/startup-grind-detroit-presents-fireside-chat-jason-mendelson-co-founder-managing-director-at-foundry-group#/

Also published on Medium.

Lewis Hamilton. Getty Images

Four-time Formula 1 World Champion Lewis Hamilton has agreed to take part in a two-man race.

There is, of course, a catch. The cars involved would have no steering wheels, no gearsticks, and no pedals.

Usually, this would cause problems — but not if you're Hamilton or his quadriplegic opponent, Rodrigo Hübner Mendes.

This is because if the race goes ahead, Hamilton and Mendes will use headsets that translate brainwave signals into commands, allowing them to accelerate, brake, and turn using nothing but their minds.

Hamilton verbally committed to the competition while speaking at the two-day Global Education and Skills Forum event in Dubai last weekend.

According to Techradar, Hamilton was giving a speech about what it takes to be a champion. At the end of the session, the floor opened up to questions.

Mendes was one of the people to ask a question, though he posed it as more of a challenge.

Mendes, the first person to control a F1 car with his brain, wanted to race Hamilton using Emotiv Epoc+ technology — a neuroheadset which measures brainwave signals, allocates them to commands, and allows users to control various devices, like a car, using their brain.

The initial challenge was for Mendes to race with a headset against Hamilton in his F1 car. Hamilton "clearly wasn't expecting the challenge," according to Techradar, but accepted on the terms that they both wear headsets.

The 2018 F1 season begins this weekend and Hamilton will be hoping to defend his world title. It is therefore unclear when the Briton will take part in the race against Mendes — but it is one we will certainly tune in for.

Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix gives evidence to the Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee. Parliament TV

The Facebook data scandal all-but confirmed a long-held suspicion that Cambridge Analytica (CA) used online voter profiling techniques that may have helped swing the 2016 US election in favour of Donald Trump.

But while questions about CA's shadowy work in American democracy are being bottomed out, many still linger about the company's involvement in the UK's historic vote to leave the European Union.

British politicians have called for a full investigation into CA's work in the UK and overseas, particularly after the firm gave differing accounts of the work it undertook for Nigel Farage's Brexit campaign group, Leave.EU.

Here are all the times CA has brazenly contradicted itself over its involvement in helping to persuade British voters to leave the EU.

CA's CEO wrote that the firm had "teamed up with Leave.EU" — then furiously backpedaled

In February 2016, CA's Chief Executive Alexander Nix penned a comment piece for British trade journal Campaign about how data had — ironically — helped Ted Cruz beat Trump in the Republican primary in Iowa.

Within the column, which is still online here, Nix said the company had "teamed up with Leave.EU" to help the Brexit advocates "better understand and communicate with UK voters."

The CEO boasted: "We have already helped supercharge Leave.EU's social media campaign by ensuring the right messages are getting to the right voters online, and the campaign's Facebook page is growing in support to the tune of about 3,000 people per day."

But in evidence to the Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee (DCMSC) last month, Nix furiously backpedaled from this version of events. He said the Campaign comment piece was drafted by a "slightly overzealous PR consultant" and was published before it entered into an official partnership with Leave.EU.

"It was an error. We were very vocal about that at the time and we addressed it head-on immediately when we realised that it had been put out," he told the DCMSC chair Damian Collins. Asked why the article is still online, Nix said: "I cannot speak to that personally, but I am sure that we have asked them [to withdraw it.]"

The CEO was pressed on the matter repeatedly by the committee. "The facts of the matter are that we did no work on that campaign or any campaigns. We were not involved in the referendum," he told MPs, adding that he would be "pleased" to provide bank statements showing that no money passed hands between Leave.EU and CA.

On Sunday, Collins cast doubt over Nix's evidence to MPs. He said the revelations that CA harvested data from 50 million Facebook accounts meant Nix had "deliberately misled the committee and Parliament" by saying CA does not engage in such activities.

Nix admitted CA "did undertake some work" for Leave.EU — but it was only preparatory

A year after writing in Campaign magazine, Nix again admitted to a relationship with Leave.EU. He told Bloomberg: "We did undertake some work with Leave.EU, but it's been significantly overreported."

Nix explained that the work he referred to was simply preparatory. He said: "I was using the word 'work' to mean that we met with them to discuss an opportunity. That is working.

"Unfortunately, having meetings, even if they do not lead anywhere, is still work but it does not entail the sort of relationship that you are trying to suggest existed between their organisation and our company."

A CA employee took part in the Leave.EU launch event, despite claims they weren't working together

Flashback again to 2015, and at a launch event for Leave.EU in November, CA's Business Development Director Brittany Kaiser was sat on the press conference panel.

Cambridge Analytica's Brittany Kaiser at the Leave.EU event. Leave.EU/YouTube

She told the audience that CA will be "running large-scale research of the nation to really understand why people are interested in staying in or out of the EU. The answers to that will help inform our policy and communications." You can watch the full press conference here.

But Nix said it was perfectly normal for two organisations to appear alongside each other at a launch event, despite having no formal connection. He told MPs: "It is not unusual, when you are exploring a working relationship with a client, to speak in public together about the work that you hope to undertake."

Leave.EU also repeatedly boasted that it worked with CA — and named the company in documents applying to be the official Brexit campaign group

It wasn't just CA that repeated claims that it worked with Leave.EU, the campaign group itself boasted about their collaboration on a number of occasions.

Aaron Banks, who bankrolled the campaign, wrote in his book "The Bad Boys of Brexit" that on 22 October 2015, Leave.EU "hired Cambridge Analytica, an American company that uses 'big data and advanced psychographics' to influence people."

Aaron Banks. Peter Macdiarmid/Getty

Furthermore, Communications Director Andy Wigmore admitted last year that Leave.EU hired CA and can "highly recommend" the company's services.

He also told The Observer that the group harvested personal data and targeted voters on Facebook with anti-EU messaging. He said Facebook was a powerful weapon in Leave.EU's armoury, claiming that the accuracy of the technology is "really creepy."

Wigmore explained that CA was "happy to help" with its work on Brexit because Farage is a "good friend" of Robert Mercer, the hedge fund billionaire who is reported to have invested in CA.

Leave.EU even named CA in its paperwork when it applied to the Electoral Commission to be the official Brexit campaign, according to DCMSC chair Collins. The company was not designated as the official campaign group and Nix said he was unaware CA had been named in the documents.

And just like Nix, Banks has rowed back from his statements about CA and Leave.EU's relationship.

In a letter to the DCMSC last week, he said: "Leave.EU's dealings with Cambridge Analytica were limited to tender discussions, negotiations regarding contract terms contingent upon winning designation, and Cambridge Analytica being presented as an intended strategic partner in the event that designation was secured."

Flickr / Qfamily

As the Dow Jones industrial average plummeted more than 1,000 points last month, many human traders blamed their automated counterparts for massive selling.

That's unlikely to be the last of the finger-pointing or of flash crashes worsened by machines, according to Charles Himmelberg, Goldman Sachs' cohead of global markets research.

"We suspect the Feb. sell-off is symptomatic of a broader risk, namely, the rising 'financial fragility' during the post-crisis period," Himmelberg said in a note on Monday.

"By 'fragility' we mean price volatility that arises not from changes in the fundamental outlook for markets, but rather from markets themselves."

Although the Dow had its biggest ever one-day point drop last month, the biggest casualties were exchange-traded notes that had been engineered to profit from lower volatility. As the Cboe Volatility index, or VIX, had its biggest one-day spike ever, machines (and traders) invested in these ETNs were forced to cover their short bets. Two of the biggest ETNs lost 95% of their value that day.

The VIX reflects traders bets for turbulence on the S&P 500, and tends to rise when the index falls.

"It felt like the machines took over but we saw (human) investors buying the dip not only in financials but also other sectors," Vincent Kondaveeti, a financials sector sales specialist at Credit Suisse, said at the time.

"The machines took over" and other flavors of that opinion were shared by several fund managers after the sell-off.

According to Himmelberg, post-crisis regulations and technologies have already put the machines in charge, with dire consequences for trading liquidity.

"In this new market structure, machines have replaced humans, and speed has replaced capital," he said.

"While such changes have greatly reduced the need for equity capital, and are thus efficiency-enhancing, the same was also true about leverage and structured products during the run-up to the financial crisis. While the new ecosystem for providing market liquidity has arguably freed up equity capital for more efficient uses, it has also depleted the pools of capital that will be available for liquidity when the cycle turns."

At a recent Goldman Sachs conference, Himmelberg noted that episodes such as the February sell-off have so far happened against the backdrop of a growing economy. Additionally, investors were always on standby to intervene by buying the dip at cheaper prices.

But all this has bred complacency among investors, Himmelberg said. And, there could be a steep price to pay when, unlike now, there are more compelling reasons to sell stocks over buying.

"I think eventually the machines and AI will be so smart that your typical machine trader will be better than your typical human trader," Himmelberg said at the conference.

"Having said that, the problem with machines is they're very simple. They don't have any money. So when things get hairy ... the machines shut down."

Getty Images / Ethan Miller

Recent declines in bitcoin may be foreign to traders accustomed to record-breaking returns, but the cryptocurrency's price chart looks awfully familiar to strategists at Morgan Stanley.

It reminds the firm of how the Nasdaq traded in 2000, during the tech bubble's heyday. And based on the chart below — which overlays bitcoin's one-year performance over a 15-year Nasdaq line — they have some serious similarities.

The only catch is that bitcoin is moving 15 times faster than the Nasdaq did.

Morgan Stanley

Morgan Stanley highlights bitcoin's recent descent into a bear market, which has seen the cryptocurrency fall 70% from its mid-December peak to its most recent low in early February. The firm argues this is a totally normal turn of events for bitcoin, once again highlighting its similarities to the dotcom-bubble Nasdaq.

Perhaps most intriguing to bitcoin enthusiasts will be Morgan Stanley's finding that these types of weak spots have historically preceded rallies in the underlying asset.

During recent selloffs, the price of bitcoin has fallen an average of 47%, then rallied an average of 43%. Back in the span from March 2000 through October 2002, the Nasdaq fell an average of 44%, only to rebound roughly 40%, Morgan Stanley data show. Those are some eerily similar fluctuations.

So what's the big deal? Is there any insight to be gleaned from this intertwined relationship, marked by investor overexuberance? Given the similarities seen, investors should be able to use the historical Nasdaq chart to forecast moves in bitcoin — so long as they apply Morgan Stanley's 15-to-1 ratio.

Comparing the two is also a worthwhile exercise in staying calm amid panic-inducing conditions. As the chart below shows, even the worst selloffs in the dotcom-era Nasdaq were softened somewhat by the roaring rallies that followed.

Given where bitcoin is in its current cycle, bulls should find comfort in knowing a rebound may soon be afoot — that is, until the next inevitable reckoning.

Morgan Stanley

Head of Accenture Interactive Brian Whipple Accenture

The ad agency model continues to be under threat from from management consultancies, who claim that they can meet the needs of modern CEOs and CMOs by integrating traditional creative with business and tech strategy far better than classic ad agencies can.

Accenture Interactive, the agency wing of consulting giant Accenture, is no different. It is not only the largest digital agency in the world in terms of revenue, but continues to expand at a frenetic pace, making 12 acquisitions in the past 15 months and opening new offices across the globe.

While Accenture's existing relationships with Fortune 100 companies have helped steer Accenture Interactive business, it has plenty of other things going for it, says Accenture Interactive head Brian Whipple.

Business Insider caught up with Whipple during the South by Southwest Interactive conference last week for a chat. Here's an edited version of the conversation.

Tanya Dua: You've been on quite the acquisition spree over the past few years. What's the rationale behind these moves?

Brian Whipple: We are not like other financial entities where you're buying companies to just grow by revenue. That's not at all our strategy. There's really only two scenarios: one where we need to add a new capability, and the other is to scale something that we already do in other geographies.

So for instance, we bought Fjord in 2013 because we saw the connection between service design and all the technology-enabled work that we can do — and that has turned out to be a hugely successful play for us. Whereas buying PacificLink in Asia was an example of scaling geographically. So it's not quite an acquisition spree — where we decide where can we spend Accenture's money — it's more like if we need a new capability because that all be relevant to our clients in the future, we will invest in that.

Dua: But those post acquisition integrations must not always be easy. How hard is the process? Are there any cultural clashes, particularly in global deals?

Whipple: It would be accurate to say that — take a Pacific Link at Hong Kong — is very different from Accenture. But it's not very different from Accenture Interactive. If you go through the Accenture Interactive studio in Hong Kong you won't at all feel like you work for an old accounting firm or technology firm or anything like that at all. We believe in what we internally call the "culture of cultures" where the culture of these companies together makes up the culture of Accenture Interactive. We are kind of our own thing inside Accenture and we have been given great latitude in creating our own culture.

Dua: So the larger corporate culture of Accenture never seeps in or dominates the culture at Accenture Interactive?

Whipple: Accenture is a big company and it does a lot of different things, like infrastructure outsourcing and business processes and big IT consulting projects and all that stuff. And they're very successful at that.But it doesn't have much to do with us. What it does have to do with us is that CEOs of large companies are used to spending hundreds of million dollar sums in multi-year arrangements with Accenture and have a very trusted, high-quality type of relationship with it. And now, we're porting those relationships over to marketing services. That is the part of the mothership that is relevant: the role of being the trusted advisor to these companies.

Dua: What about traditional ad agencies? How similar to or different from them are you?

Whipple: You're not going to see us pitching for the new Olive Garden creative. We could do that, but we just wouldn't choose to do that. They may be great assignments for a lot of agencies, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But they're going to negotiate for a $6.5-7.5 million retainer for the year, and it's going to be print and TV. We would never ever do that. But if Olive Garden wanted to invest in reinventing the restaurant experience — of which advertising would be a part — that is something we would be all over. We would rather deploy our resources in helping Maserati reinvent the car-buying experience than doing a TV spot. That's how we look at it.

Dua: And how do you think consultancies and this kind of an approach fits in with the current advertising landscape?

Hollis Johnson/Business Insider Whipple: I don't think they do. I think it's a new kind of a landscape. There are many smart leaders of iconic traditional ad holding firms and they have been successful for a long time, and they will continue to be successful. There's always going to be a Super Bowl ad and the need for that. But what we do is a different thing. We are catering to this kind of a business shift, and our business is focused on this entirely different need. Our decisions are about capitalizing on the shifts in spending away from the traditional toward more of business reinvention, such as how you try on clothes, how you buy a car, how you bank and dine at a restaurant. I don't care what we're called, we're just focused on helping our clients get closer to their customers through providing the best experiences on the planet.

Another way that our business is different — not better or worse — just different, is that we not only design these experiences and architect them through technology and processes and systems, but we also manage them. It's not just about creating the tech, someone's got to manage that mobile tech, someone's got to come up with the upgrade. You can see what a powerful business model this is for Accenture. Ad agencies are not even in that business at all.

Dua: How much are these changes being driven by the changing demands of clients? How are they approaching you differently and why do you think you are better suited in responding to them?

Whipple: It is still the job of CMOs and CMO-type people, whatever you may want to call them, to build and maintain a brand. However, how that's done has changed massively. Brands were built through advertising, marketing and messaging — where you could tell someone that coffee tastes a certain way and it means happiness and sunshine and a fresh start to the day — and that coffee is Dunkin'. If you keep saying that on the radio, in the Patriots' games and on television and your signage, pretty soon, people were going to believe that.

But what has started happening, thanks to companies like Uber, like Spotify, like Paypal, is that brands are now built through experiences. Uber has transformed transportation, reinvented technology in a way that you can do everything from your device, and did not advertise for the longest time. But everyone knows that their brand is about efficiency, choice and user empowerment.

CMOs are now doing things differently because they know that brands are now built through a collection of experiences, not advertising. Advertising is relevant, for sure, and will always be, but it does not drive a brand and is one of many things that do. That coincidentally fits in well with what we want to do.

Dua: Do you think traditional agencies are justified in being threatened by you guys?

Whipple: We are absolutely not out to put them out of work at all. We will never have massive creative capabilities for the sake of creative — but we will invest in creative to the extent that it is necessary for creating those experiences, just as we would invest in AR, VR and other things. What will put them out of work though is not having a business that addresses the shift in the industry and the ability to not run experiences. They traditionally have not moved much, they might move one chess piece around, but most of them still have their founders' culture. When we do our strategy meetings and I bring all my top guys together, we don't talk about them. Ever. Not because they're not great, but they're not relevant to what we're doing.

Our competition is the inertia that thrives in every industry till today. Think about all those experiences that haven't changed in years: getting a mortgage sucks, shopping for a car is horrendous, eating at a restaurant or how you try on clothes at a department store hasn't changed. Our competition is CEOs of these corporations wanting to be risk-averse and wanting to do the same thing that they did last year. We spend more time working with CEOs to transform and disrupt much more than we ever do comparing ourselves with ad agencies.

Dua: What are some things you can categorically say you do better than traditional agencies?

Whipple: Without a doubt, owning an experience from start to finish — through design to management — we're 100% number one. Number two would be managing complicated things on a global scale, and that's where we leverage the mothership. Pick a part of the world, say Tokyo, and we have people that know the culture at Accenture Japan, people who know how to do business there, people that know how to get real estate, people that understand the work laws. We don't have ot send people on a two month project to stick a flag, the flags are already there, we just take it an expand and bring in all the digital and marketing expertise. Having that global presence and being able to help along every part of the process is something that no one else does. And thirdly, if a client wants to focus on the experience, that is uniquely us.

Dua: Another criticism that agencies level at you is that they see you at client pitches, but never end up seeing actual work. How do you respond to that?

Whipple: Depends on how you define work. What is work? And ad? Typically they would say that because they want to point to a print ad or a TV ad or a campaign at Cannes — and that would only be a piece of what we do. We're basically advising on a client's business and how to reinvent that — not on their advertising. What we do is at the center of their business strategy, which is not something they typically launch a press release around. So in that sense there is no "work" to show. But that being said, there are many examples on how we're working on the future of the shopping experience, with Whole Foods, for example, or how you're going to buy a car in the future through a car configurator. It's not like we don't have award-winning advertising. But that's small potatoes to us. Our client is the CEO, not the brand manager.

Dua: So what is it that keeps you up at night?

Whipple: What I would lose sleep on is that Fortune 100 client electing not to proceed not to proceed on transforming the retail business. And that's not happening. Another thing that I would lose sleep over is if we were one day not being able to attract the best talent in the industry. And right now, we have our pick of the litter.

If you work at an agency that does $300-400 in revenue, that's a media-sized agency. For us, that's two projects. If you're a creative director or an account planner or a strategy person, you could work on award-winning stuff for us, travel wherever globally, and some people want to be a part of that kind of a bigger picture scenario.

Jeff Swanson/Getty

Good morning! Here is the tech news you need to know this Tuesday.

1. A self-driving Uber car hit and killed a woman in Tempe, Arizona while in autonomous mode. Uber suspended its entire self-driving car programme as a result.

2. The UK's data regulator has a warrant to raid political research firm Cambridge Analytica and seize its servers, after Facebook suspended the firm for misusing user data. Facebook had already sent in its own investigators to Cambridge Analytica, but "stood down" after the Information Commissioner's Office got involved.

3. Cambridge Analytica's chief executive, Alexander Nix, was filmed by Channel 4 boasting that the research firm could entrap politicians with sex workers. Cambridge Analytica nonetheless denied using such tactics.

4. Facebook's stock price took a hammering through Monday as politicians lined up to slam the company over the way it policed third-party use of user data. The firm had dropped around $35 billion by close of trading.

5. A Business Insider investigation has found it's incredibly easy to buy illegal fake luxury goods on Facebook Marketplace, with few protections for buyers in place. We spoke to sellers who tried to obtain our bank details and phone numbers.

6. Amazon is tracking how many people return to its cashierless Go supermarket after an initial visit. Shopping frequency will probably help determine whether Amazon decides to expand the concept.

7. Secretive virtual reality startup Magic Leap has given a preview of its platform to third-party developers with a "creator portal" that offers resources for people who want to build apps for its yet-to-launch headset. The portal lets people preview apps in a simulator.

8. Facebook's longtime and vocal head of security, Alex Stamos, may leave the company in August because he disagrees with how it handles big issues like fake news. Stamos merely commented on Twitter that "it's true" his role at Facebook had now changed, but didn't confirm or deny his departure.

9. Google is expanding its Instant Apps program to games, meaning Android users can find a game via the Play Store, click the "try now" button, and immediately start playing without downloading an app. The idea is to help people find more new games.

10. BlackBerry's shares rose after the firm announced a partnership with Microsoft, providing security for Office apps. The firm's share price was up 5% on Monday.

Business Insider's fake goods haul from Facebook. Business Insider

Facebook has a major problem with scammers and fake designer goods on its popular Marketplace platform, contributing to a global counterfeiting industry that is worth an estimated half a trillion dollars a year, or around £358 billion.

Marketplace lets users buy and sell almost anything they want on Facebook. A Business Insider investigation found that it was easy to buy illegal knock-off luxury goods, including a fake Rolex watch, Gucci bag, and Tiffany bracelet for £50 ($70) or less. None were flagged as fake, and the genuine articles can cost thousands of pounds.

Facebook has little protection in place for users who knowingly or unknowingly buy fake goods through its platform. Users don't pay for items through Marketplace itself, and Facebook never handles a payment. Instead, you deal directly with the seller.

Business Insider found sellers who asked for phone numbers or bank details to carry out transactions — something which UK police warned could lead to identity theft. We talked to around 30 sellers, most of whom were operating independently. In one case, a seller ran an entire online shop selling fake Tiffany bracelets.

Facebook does have policies against selling or advertising counterfeit goods on its platform, but the company evidently can't keep up with the plethora of fakes popping up on Marketplace.

When Business Insider highlighted the issue to Facebook, the firm said it vets new listings for counterfeit goods and is using machine learning to try and identify fakes. It has also started asking some sellers who sell branded goods for identification.

The company relies on users and luxury brands to file counterfeit forms if they spot fake goods, report policy violations and, in the case of brands, proactively search listings for rip-offs. After we flagged the seller who ran a counterfeit goods shop online to Facebook, the firm temporarily suspended that seller's account.

Business Insider

Rolex and Gucci declined to comment. Tiffany & Co's Chief Compliance and Privacy Officer Ewa Ebrams said Facebook has removed thousands of fake Tiffany postings in the past year.

Facebook's fakes marketplace is massive: In the first six months of 2017, the company removed more than 200,000 posts relating to counterfeit goods, according to a transparency report released in December. This is the first Facebook report which included counterfeit goods, making it difficult to see whether the problem has deteriorated since Marketplace first launched in 2016.

The sale of fake goods affects all the biggest e-commerce platforms, including Amazon and Ebay, though neither disclose statistics. But crucially, both have dedicated anti-counterfeiting programs in place that appear more robust than Facebook's.

Marketplace is a Craigslist-style local listings service

Facebook Marketplace is a little like going to the community noticeboard, seeing what's on offer, and then ringing up a seller directly to buy their goods. It's comparable to local classifieds service Craigslist.

You can search for almost anything on Marketplace — from bedding to food to a new phone. Once you've searched through the listings and found what you want, Facebook allows you to contact the seller directly through its Messenger service. After that, you're pretty much on your own.

Facebook Marketplace is an online listings service where you can buy almost anything Business Insider

From then on, you sort out how you'd like to pay — bank transfer, PayPal, cash in hand — directly with the seller, and whether you'd like to collect the item yourself or have it posted to you.

Facebook has brief safety instructions advising buyers to take a friend for any in-person purchases. It also gives some guidance on avoiding fake goods but the language makes it clear that it's the seller and you, the buyer, who are responsible for checking what you buy — not Facebook.

Facebook has never revealed how much it makes from Marketplace, but the service has the potential to become big business. During the firm's full-year 2017 investor call, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said more than 700 million people buy and sell items on Facebook, while COO Sheryl Sandberg said the firm was testing ads to make money from the service.

Last August, the firm revealed that US users placed 18 million items on sale on Marketplace in May alone. And if Facebook decided to bring Marketplace payments in-house, one estimate pegs potential annual revenue at $5 billion (£3.6 billion).

Because Facebook doesn't take responsibility for payments, and Marketplace is only open to individuals and not businesses, buyers don't have much by way of consumer rights. Although you have the legal right not to be tricked into buying fake goods, you would have to resolve any disputes with the seller directly or through the courts under UK laws, according to the consumer magazine Which. Facebook does not, and currently cannot, offer you any recourse if you are ripped off.

A Facebook spokeswoman told Business Insider that the company takes the problem of fake goods seriously:

"Making sure people have a safe and positive experience on Facebook is our top priority, which is why we are constantly working to improve enforcement of our Commerce Policies.

"We take counterfeit issues very seriously, and our terms prohibit people from posting content that violates third-parties' intellectual property rights. We built a variety of tools like our Commerce & Ads IP Tool to help rights owners protect their IP rights on Facebook, and we are continually improving how we address IP infringement to keep infringing content off of our platform.

"We also encourage our community to report any accounts or content they feel doesn't belong on Facebook, including sellers who they believe aren't acting in good faith. We are also building machine-learning models to better detect policy-violating content and are requiring identification from some merchants selling branded goods."

But despite Facebook's best intentions, it doesn't take long to run into sellers making money out fake goods on Marketplace. Business Insider picked three of the most counterfeited brands in luxury— Rolex, Gucci, and Tiffany — and found a large number of fakes being sold at a fraction of the price of the real thing.

The real version of this £50 'Rolex' costs around £20,000

Business Insider initially set out to buy one of the most counterfeited items in the world: A Rolex watch.

There are plenty of fakes on Facebook Marketplace, although actually buying one was surprisingly difficult. It was tough to find a seller who agreed to take a refundable and trackable PayPal payment, who would post the item, or who was based in London for a pick-up. It was also hard to find someone who wasn't selling an obviously fake watch for less than our budget of £75.

We started out simply by searching for "Rolex" on Facebook Marketplace. We found the top listings were full of grammatical errors, poor quality photos, and what appeared to be plasticky-looking fakes. One listing showed a £4,500 Rolex where the seller claimed to have "lost" the accompanying certification papers and box.

Business Insider Eventually, we found someone willing to take a trackable PayPal payment, and who would send us a photo of the package as proof of postage.

Business Insider

After messaging the seller, the process was reasonably straightforward. We sent our address to the seller, a PayPal payment, and a few days later the fake Rolex turned up in a padded brown envelope.

The fake Rolex. Shona Ghosh/Business Insider

The entire buying process should make you suspicious that you aren't buying a real Rolex, according to Joseph McKenzie, founder of independent pre-owned luxury goods seller Xupes. Xupes does not directly compete with Marketplace, but does offer a way for people to buy and sell designer handbags, watches, and jewellery.

The seller never offered a Rolex box or accompanying certification for the knock-off we purchased — the first clear sign of a fake.

And our £50 ($70) watch had some obvious flaws, which McKenzie identified within seconds of picking up our timepiece.

"This is supposedly a gold Rolex — and if it were a solid 18 karat gold watch than it would be a lot heavier than this," he said. "The bracelet and buckle are not correct, the case back is stainless steel as opposed to gold, and there's a random engraving on the back, which a Rolex never has."

The watch expert added: "The dial and the bezel is also incorrect. The bezel [here] is blue and red, and there is no such Submariner in the Rolex range. All in, this is a pretty obvious fake."

Even the Marketplace listings with Rolex-like pricetags of several thousand pounds might just be advertising "Frankenwatches" — sophisticated knock-offs that contain some genuine parts, he said.

In the video below, you can watch McKenzie comparing the dud watch to a £6,195 (£8,663) Rolex Submariner and a £17,295 Rolex GMT-Master II.

This Gucci bag normally costs £805 — but the fake version came with a Chinese tag

It took less than an hour for Business Insider to find and buy this fake Gucci handbag for £41 ($57). It's a clear imitation of Gucci's real "Soho" disco bag, which sells through online retailers for £805 ($1,190).

At no point was there any indication that the bag was counterfeit. Nor did the seller offer any kind of guarantees.

The original listing for the fake Gucci bag, with the seller's details blanked out. Business Insider

There are some obvious differences between the genuine article and the fake. The real bag is a classy tan colour, unlike the flesh-coloured knock-off. The fake version doesn't have extra detail like studding on the metalwork and, if you look closely, there is some loose stitching on the Gucci logo.

And probably the biggest giveaway was the cardboard label attached to the bag, which featured Chinese lettering and described the bag as "apricot," whereas Gucci describes its version as "rose beige." China happens to be the world's factory for counterfeit goods.

Business Insider

Victoire Boyer Chammard, head of authentication at luxury resale site Vestiaire Collective, said there are some obvious features to look for in a fake designer bag. Vestiaire Collective competes with Facebook Marketplace in that people can buy second-hand luxury goods via its site, though the company says conducts quality control checks on items.

"First of all look at the general aspects: Shape, proportion and posture. A real bag typically takes on a strong structure," Chammard told Business Insider.

"Then check the quality of the material the bag is made from — it helps to have an understanding of how good quality material should look, feel and smell in order to compare accurately.

"Look at the typography of the brand on the label, the stitching should be perfect with no inconsistencies. The metal details are also very important: The metal has to be [quality]. Finally, the packaging, you should always have the box, the dustbag and the invoice."

The seller in this instance was quick to nail down the deal, simply passing over their PayPal payment deals, requesting Business Insider's address, and sending a photo of the package.

Business Insider's exchange with a counterfeit goods seller. Business Insider

A Tiffany bracelet can cost around £4,000 — our fake was £15

Business Insider's final purchase was a fake Tiffany & Co bracelet, which didn't appear to be based on any particular original design.

The fake was made of cheap, gold-coloured metal rather than genuine precious metal, and the engraving featured the incorrect font, rather than Tiffany custom lettering.

The closest equivalent Business Insider could find on Tiffany's website cost £4,625 ($6,464). Our knock-off bracelet was £15 ($21) and arrived in a cheap brown envelope.

Tiffany & Co's Chief Compliance and Privacy Officer Ewa Ebrams said Facebook has a problem. "Tiffany & Co. rigorously enforces our trademarks to protect our customers and the strength of our brand, including robust efforts that target both physical and digital infringements. On Facebook, more than 2,000 counterfeit Tiffany listings have been taken down since the beginning of 2017," she told Business Insider.

Sellers asked for bank transfers, phone numbers, and for monet via an unprotected PayPal feature

The most alarming aspect of Facebook Marketplace was how unsafe it was for a buyer.

Despite Facebook's safety tips, there's little advice on the best way to pay, or how to keep your information safe. The Facebook Marketplace tab also does not directly link to Facebook's help pages.

Facebook only suggests that PayPal or cash are "good options" and that anyone paying in person should take a friend. For safety and practical purposes, Business Insider arranged PayPal payments, and for sellers to post us the fake goods.

Of the 30 sellers we contacted, five asked us to send money via PayPal's Friends and Family feature. This was to avoid the fee PayPal charges if you are buying goods or services.

Business Insider

But there's a catch for those who agree. Marketplace users who pay for items using PayPal's normal service are protected by PayPal's Buyer Protection program, meaning you can get your money back if the item isn't as advertised, or doesn't turn up. Paying through Friends and Family waives that protection — meaning unscrupulous sellers could take your money and never post you anything.

A PayPal spokeswoman confirmed that Friends and Family payments do not come with buyer protection and explicitly warned against buying goods and services through the mechanism.

She said: "If someone selling you goods or a service asks you to send a friends and family payment, you should refuse. There's no extra cost to you if you correctly identify a payment as being for goods or a service, and ultimately it ensures we can reimburse you if something goes wrong."

Business Insider refused to pay several sellers through Friends and Family, and that led to some transactions falling through.

In one case, a seller asked to move the conversation off Facebook and onto WhatsApp — meaning buyers would have to give away their phone numbers. And in another instance, a seller requested a bank transfer. Again, there's no way of getting your money back from a bank transfer, according to the consumer magazine Which.

Conversations with 3 Facebook Marketplace sellers about paying for items. Business Insider

Police warn that buying fake goods can contribute to human trafficking and slavery

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the international economic policy organisation, most of the proceeds from buying fake goods goes towards organised crime.

Even buying a knock-off Gucci bag from someone in east London through Facebook Marketplace might be contributing to the issue, according to Nick Court a detective inspector at the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU).

"[PIPCU's] focus as far as possible is organised crime groups — targeting those is more likely to have an effect," he said. "Those groups are involved in other activity, like human trafficking, slavery, money laundering. But having said that, you can never be sure who you're dealing with until you meet them. You may be looking at someone [selling goods] in Barking, but until we talk to them and search their premises, we can't be sure."

In other words, even a small-time fake goods seller might be a front for something more sinister.

Court added that handing over payment details online was very risky and might lead to identity theft. "Using PayPal isn't foolproof, but it is a lot safer than giving your bank details or card details. That goes straight to people you know are suspected criminals," he said.

Police and consumer protection agencies say tech firms aren't doing enough

This isn't the first time buyers have spotted dodgy goods being sold on Marketplace.

When the service first launched in 2016, buyers found guns, drugs, and adult services for sale. At the time, Facebook blamed the problem on a technical glitch which meant the illicit goods got past its review processes. And there have been several investigations into buyers selling fake goods, suggesting Facebook isn't moving quickly enough to tackle the problem.

According to an annual government report into intellectual property crime, social media has overtaken auction sites like eBay as the go-to place for criminals to sell knock-offs.

Last November, UK Trading Standards called out Facebook for not doing enough to crack down on the sale of fake goods in the run-up to Christmas.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Stephen Lam/Reuters

At the time Mike Andrews, from the National Trading Standards eCrime team, described Facebook's responses to takedown attempts as "unsatisfactory."

National Trading Standards told Business Insider that it was reliant on the public reporting fakes. The organisation estimated 78 complaints for fake goods being sold on Facebook, but said the problem was under-reported.

Andrews told Business Insider: "Criminals are increasingly using social media platforms to sell fake designer goods. Counterfeit products leave consumers out of pocket and can sometimes be dangerous.

"Our understanding of the scale of the issue — and intelligence around major problem sellers — is supported by reporting suspected cases. At present this is an issue that is significantly under-reported — we urge consumers who suspect sellers of flogging fake products to call the Citizens Advice consumer helpline on 03454 04 05 06."

Facebook told Business Insider it ran a robust notice-and-takedown program, with a dedicated team that operated in several languages.

It isn't just Facebook. Fake goods are a big enough issue for Amazon that the firm expanded its anti-counterfeiting "Transparency" program to third parties who were being ripped off, according to Digiday. The "Transparency" program tells buyers where their product comes from, with details such as the manufacturing date.

And eBay has a program called "VeRO" for brands who want to report knock-offs directly. It also has an "Authenticate" service, which verifies bags from certain luxury designers such as Gucci and Chanel.

Detective Nick Court said: "Different marketplaces are reacting differently to PIPCU, and we're trying to encourage and help them to change things.

"In general, all these marketplaces could do more, and there's an awful lot of money involved. Technology isn't being used as well as it might be."

Security cameras look out over Tiananmen Square before Tiananmen Gate. Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images

An expansive facial recognition network in the southwestern Chinese city of Guiyang have reportedly enabled police to detect and apprehend criminals in as little as two minutes.

The surveillance cameras are set up in more than 10,000 public places across the city, which is larger than the state of Delaware, reported the state-run newspaper Global Times this week. The cameras stream real-time footage back to a huge LED screen — 22 metres (24 yards) long and 5 metres (5 years) tall — which is monitored by police.

The system, which has a 90% accuracy rate, simultaneously checks faces against a nationwide database and can almost immediately provide a person's name, age, gender, ethnicity, as well as information including family members, people they regularly meet, and places they've recently been.

"The screen captures images of any suspects once they arrive in Guiyang, and then automatically reports them to the police command center which immediately allocates nearby police to make the arrest. The whole process from detecting to apprehending suspects usually takes less than two minutes," Global Times reported, citing a press release from local police.

The development is part of Skynet, a nationwide monitoring programme launched in 2005 to increase the use and capabilities of surveillance cameras.

In Guiyan last year, facial-recognition technology led to the apprehension of 375 suspects, including 39 fugitives, according to police.

"Guiyang has 'Skynet' everywhere. No matter where you go, there are eyes on you," Li Bin, an official at the Guiyang Public Security Bureau, said in a press release.

A BBC reporter put the Guiyang system to the test in December last year. In a city of 4 million people, it took only seven minutes for the reporter to be identified and arrested.

But as quick as Guiyang's police response times are, the number of cameras is lagging behind Beijing, which achieved 100% coverage of the city in 2015.

Currently, there are 170 million surveillance cameras in China and by 2020, the country hopes to have 570 million — that's nearly one camera for every two citizens.

Police are also developing AI-powered systems that, aside from recognizing faces, can identify people from their repeated behaviours or even gait. Officials want to use this information to predict crime before it happens.

China hits back at claims its surveillance infringes citizen's rightsSecurity cameras hang on a lamp at Tiananmen Square, Beijing. Feng Li/Getty Images

China has begun hitting back at human rights concerns over its expanding surveillance and facial recognition technologies.

"Some mainstream Western media outlets define the system as a tool for massive surveillance and suppressing human rights," an editorial in Global Times said last year. "This is the kind of fake news that US President Donald Trump often slams."

Part of the issue is that the government in China defines a person's right to privacy differently than Western countries.

The Global Times reported the system in Guiyang, like those across China, "does not infringe on people's privacy and human rights, as facial information is only collected in public places."

Its this approach to privacy that, until recently, has been a huge driver in China's soaring AI sector, according to a report out this month from Oxford University.

Lax privacy protections have allowed Chinese companies to access masses of data to develop AI and technologies like facial recognition technologies because "sharing among government agencies and companies is common," the report said.

Watch the BBC test here:

Facebook's dual-class stock structure insulates CEO Mark Zuckerberg from shareholder pressures — and accountability. Getty

If Mark Zuckerberg were a normal CEO, he might — emphasis on might— be fearing for his job right now.

At a typical company, a scandal the likes of the one involving Cambridge Analytica's illegitimate harvesting and possession of data on 50 million Facebook users might have directors asking some uncomfortable questions of the executive team. Those questions might be particularly pointed if that same company and executive team had already been at the center of a separate but related scandal regarding the 2016 election.

And a CEO who just saw $30 billion of his company's market valuation get evaporated in one day as a result of the most recent scandal might be rushing to get out in front of the news to try to protect his company if not his position.

But Facebook's not a typical company and Zuckerberg is not a normal CEO. No matter how bad the Cambridge Analytica scandal gets Zuckerberg is almost certainly staying put. That's because when it comes to whether Zuckerberg stays or goes, he himself has the final say. There's no way to appeal to the company's board, because for all intents and purposes, the board works for him.

Zuckerberg's power comes from Facebook's stock structure

Zuckerberg's unassailable position is due to the way Facebook's ownership is structured. Like several other tech companies, including Google and Snap, the social networking giant has more than one class of stock. Although all shares represent an equal stake in the company, one set — Facebook's Class B stock — has 10 times more voting power than the other.

Snap CEO Evan Spiegel has disproportionate control over his company, thanks to its multiclass stock structure. Michael Kovac/Getty Images for Vanity Fair Thanks in large part to his ownership of more than 75% of Facebook's Class B shares, Zuckerberg has more than half of the voting power at Facebook. That essentially gives him control over the company. He can vote directors in and out, vote down shareholder proposals urging reforms, veto merger proposals, and quash any effort to topple him — all by himself.

That structure was designed to protect Zuckerberg and his executive team from the often short-terms concerns of everyday shareholders so he could concentrate on building Facebook's business for the long term. That's a nice weapon to repulse unwanted meddling from malicious Wall Street forces that don't have the company's best interest at heart. But as the world is discovering now, when a company acquires the level of power that Facebook has, the implications of a dual-class stock structure stretch far beyond the firm's financial stakeholders.

If Zuckerberg doesn't want to be bothered with something, you really can't force him to care.

Dual-class stock structures can be beneficial — and controversial

Supporters of such structures can point to real-world situations where they've proven important, perhaps even crucial. Ford's dual-class stock arguably helped it survive the Great Recession without going into bankruptcy, unlike General Motors and Chrysler. The New York Times' dual-class structure arguably allowed it to better weather the downturn that's decimated other newspaper companies over the last two decades by allowing it to more easily invest in its online and other digital initiatives.

Still, the practice of giving certain insiders outsized control over a company has long been controversial, precisely because it limits the control everyday shareholders can exercise over a company. Dual-class structures also allow the empowered insiders to run the companies for their benefit rather than that of shareholders or the general public.

Zuckerberg's singular control over Facebook has already drawn criticism. Two years ago, he tried to force through a proposal that would have allowed him to maintain his control over the company even as he sold his shares. He eventually backed away from that proposal, but only after a lawsuit and stiff resistance from other shareholders.

Christopher Wylie, a cofounder of Cambridge Analytica, blew the whistle on its illegitimate harvesting of Facebook data. Channel 4 News/YouTube But now Zuckerberg and his company are under scrutiny for something that's important to a lot more people than just how he treats other shareholders — namely, how it handles and safeguards the data of its billions of users.

According to Facebook and published reports, Cambridge Analytica, the data firm that worked with Donald Trump's campaign to target voters, used a Facebook app to illegitimately glean data from some 50 million users of the social network without the knowledge of the vast majority of those users.

Facebook was aware more than two years ago that Cambridge Analytica got its hands on the data, but basically did nothing about it other than asking it to delete the data. It neither followed up to ensure that Cambridge Analytica actually did delete the data nor, apparently, did it warn users that the data firm had gotten access to their data. And it didn't even publicly acknowledge the data leak until late Friday and apparently only did it then because The Times and the Observer were about to publish reports about it.

Zuckerberg is acting like he did with reports of fake news

Since the leak, Zuckerberg has been nowhere to be seen. His absence from the scene and refusal to accept responsibility for what's happened are reminiscent of his initial response to reports that Russian-linked groups had exploited Facebook's network to spread fake news and propaganda in an effort to influence the 2016 US presidential election. Zuckerberg infamously dismissed such concerns.

Facebook's investors were obviously a bit more concerned than Zuckerberg seems to be showing publicly. Amid worries that regulators are going to step in because Facebook is doing such a poor job of overseeing its network, they sent the company's stock spiraling downward. It ended the day off 7%.

Zuckerberg is obviously very smart. He's also done a great job of growing Facebook into the behemoth it is today.

But when you give someone nearly unassailable, king-like powers, what you really want the person to be is wise and mindful of how his or her actions might affect others. Zuckerberg is showing he is neither.

Zuckerberg is smart, but not wise

To the contrary, Zuckerberg seems to have blinders on when it comes to the power Facebook now holds and the responsibility that comes with that power.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner has been helping lead the Senate's investigation of the attempt by Russian-linked groups to influence the 2016 election through posts on Facebook and other social networks. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque The company holds vast amounts of data about its users. The large majority of its users probably have no idea how much data Facebook holds or how that data could be used to manipulate them. Indeed, for the few who likely ever try to take the time to do it, trying to figure out which Facebook-linked apps or services have access to which parts of your personal data on Facebook can be an exercise in frustration.

Yet the company has shown that it wants to collect ever more data on its users and generally do with it as it sees fit. And it obviously felt little compulsion to govern how that data was used by the partners who it gave access to that data.

Likewise, the company's social network is incredibly powerful both in its ability to disseminate messages — and to control what messages get seen. But Facebook has shown little concern with how the Russian-linked groups abused that power.

Facebook has more than 2 billion users, an unprecedented level of power and influence for a single company. It's so large that its actions and policies have repercussions for the entire world, even those who are not on Facebook.

And remember, when we say Facebook here, we mean Zuckerberg. Because thanks to the power he holds over the company, Facebook is Zuckerberg and Zuckerberg is Facebook.

To hold Facebook accountable, you've got to hold Zuckerberg to account. But Facebook's dual-class stock is intentionally designed to prevent just that from happening.

Investors might have been OK with that. But society doesn't need to be.

Alexa Dell. Sigmund Freud/25

When Alexa Dell, the 24-year-old daughter of computer magnate Michael Dell, set out to launch her career in the tech industry, she had eyes for only one global innovation hub.

It wasn't San Francisco.

Dell grew up in Austin, Texas, where her father created Dell Computer Corporation while a student at University of Texas at Austin. The family lived in a sprawling estate called "The Castle."

In 2013, Alexa Dell dropped out of college to pursue a career in tech and settled in Los Angeles.

The former Columbia University student started working at a dating app company that she declines to name. Dell took her learnings from the gig and created a tech consulting firm.

Dell also works as a branding consultant for dating app Bumble. Since joining the company as an adviser in 2016, Dell has helped Bumble launch several physical spaces called Hives, where app users attend activities and panel discussions. Dell describes the spaces as "Bumble IRL."

Though the company has headquarters in Austin, Dell works remotely from her home office in Los Angeles and Bumble hubs in cities including New York, London, and Paris.

"What I love about LA is there's a bit of everything. We have all kinds of industries," Dell said, adding: "I can have friends from finance, from film, from art, from tech. ... It's really great to kind of listen in on all kinds of conversations and be inspired by what everyone is doing."

The tech scene in Los Angeles is far less homogeneous than its counterpart in San Francisco, where Dell said, "you can't even step into a restaurant without hearing tech buzzwords."

Los Angeles' tech scene has been courting the tech elite for decades. In recent years, Peter Thiel, Tim Ferriss, and Elon Musk left San Francisco and the peninsula to the south — long seen as the epicenter of tech — to escape the self-described groupthink and arrogance of Silicon Valley. Thiel and Musk moved to Los Angeles, while Ferriss, the author of "The 4-Hour Workweek," decamped for Austin's tech scene.

Life in Silicon Beach, the Westside region of the Los Angeles metropolitan area, comes with perks. The area has a booming tech sector, proximity to San Francisco (a 75-minute flight away), and a diversity of interests among residents, though Los Angeles has its own lack of affordable housing.

Meanwhile, Silicon Valley is on the brink of an exodus.

San Francisco lost more residents than any other US city in the last quarter of 2017, according to a report from real-estate site Redfin. Data suggests the migration is far from over. Public-relations firm Edelman surveyed 500 Bay Area residents earlier this year and found 49% of respondents said they would consider leaving California because of the high cost of living.

Though Bumble has headquarters in Austin, Alexa Dell works out of her home office in Los Angeles. Sigmund Freud/25

Thiel, one of Silicon Valley's biggest success stories, announced he's leaving the Bay Area for Los Angeles earlier this year. His political views have made him a social outcast in tech, especially after the libertarian billionaire-investor supported President Donald Trumps' 2016 campaign.

Ferriss, who considers himself "very socially liberal," recently told Business Insider that Silicon Valley's tech scene can be punishing for people who don't subscribe to the same set of beliefs.

The author and podcaster was drawn to Austin because of its culture of diversity.

"In Austin I found a ... very young community and a medley of feature film, music — certainly tech if I need to scratch that itch — but there were more perspectives that I could borrow from and learn from than I found readily available in my circles in Silicon Valley," Ferriss said.

Dell said she thinks innovation can happen anywhere.

"To me, the idea that progress can only be made in one specific location geographically is complete nonsense. I think that successful companies will naturally thrive in cultures that best suit them and in spaces that, truthfully, are most convenient for them," Dell said.

She said that Bumble planted roots in Austin because it had a need for office space and because the founders appreciated the tech scene and "forward-thinking" culture in the Texas capital.

Dell said she plans to remain a visitor, rather than a resident, of the Bay Area.

A self driving Volvo vehicle, purchased by Uber, stops at an intersection in Tempe, Arizona, U.S., December 1, 2017. Photo taken on December 1, 2017. REUTERS/Natalie Behring

SAN FRANCISCO — Uber is "likely" not at fault in first-of-its-kind fatal self-driving car crash on Sunday in Tempe, Arizona, the local police chief has said.

On Sunday night, one of the transportation company's vehicles operating in autonomous mode hit and killed Elaine Herzberg, 49, in what is believed to be the first time a self-driving vehicle has killed a pedestrian.

Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, Tempe police chief Sylvia Moir said that "I suspect preliminarily it appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this incident."

There is video of the crash, which investigators are examining but not been released to the public. "It's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway," Moir said. Police have previously said Herzberg was not using a crosswalk.

There was a vehicle operator in the driver's seat at the time of the crash, and "the driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them," she said. "His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision."

But, she reportedly added: "I won't rule out the potential to file charges against the (backup driver) in the Uber vehicle."

Tempe Police Department did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment outside of regular business hours.

The vehicle was travelling at around 40 miles per hour at the time of the collision, a police spokesperson previously said, and did not appear to slow down when Herzberg entered the road.

Uber has halted all its self-driving car operations while the investigation takes place.

In an earlier statement, an Uber spokesperson said: "Our hearts go out to the victim's family. We are fully cooperating with local authorities in their investigation of this incident."

Ripcord founder Alex Fielding Ripcord

Alex Fielding, the founder of $250 million robotics company Ripcord, is stepping aside as CEO in the wake of an investigation into a 19-year-old former employee's allegations that she was fired after complaining of a toxic working environment.

However, Fielding will stay with the company: He'll be taking a new role as Chief Product Officer at Ripcord. He will also stay on Ripcord's board of directors. The Ripcord board is already searching for a new CEO.

"We are committed to building a team and company culture that everyone at Ripcord feels proud to be a part of," says a statement from a Ripcord spokesperson, in part. "Our Board engaged external investigators to conduct a thorough review of specific allegations as well as Ripcord's culture more broadly."

In early February, 19-year-old former Ripcord employee Perry Coneybeer published a bombshell Medium post, saying that her time with the company was characterized by "objectification, marginalization, and outright harassment."

In one instance, Coneybeer alleged that Fielding himself discussed pornography in front of her; in another, he allegedly made a lewd comment about her. Furthermore, Coneybeer said she was fired after officially complaining about these problems — along with the Ripcord cofounder who had stood up for her.

While the investigation "did not substantiate all claims that were made," according to the spokesperson, it "highlighted instances of inappropriate behavior and aspects of company culture that the Board does not condone and will not tolerate moving forward."

Fielding did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Ripcord spokesperson said it was handling press inquiries on Fielding's behalf and not to expect a comment from him.

In addition to the removal of Fielding as CEO, the startup is "taking a number of steps to improve Ripcord's culture, including but not limited to increased training, reporting mechanisms and Board oversight," says the spokesperson.

Last year, Ripcord raised $85 million in four separate funding events from investors including Kleiner Perkins, Lenovo-affiliated firm Legend Star, Telstra Ventures, and GV (formerly Google Ventures). Fielding is a friend and one-time mentee of legendary Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak, who also invested in the company.

"We are committed to building a team and company culture that everyone at Ripcord feels proud to be a part of. Our Board engaged external investigators to conduct a thorough review of specific allegations as well as Ripcord's culture more broadly. More than a dozen current and former employees were interviewed, and the Board deeply appreciates their participation. While the investigation did not substantiate all claims that were made, the review highlighted instances of inappropriate behavior and aspects of company culture that the Board does not condone and will not tolerate moving forward. We are taking a number of steps to improve Ripcord's culture, including but not limited to increased training, reporting mechanisms and Board oversight. Additionally, Alex Fielding will be transitioning from his role as CEO to a new role as Chief Product Officer. The Board is beginning a search for a new CEO and is committed to ensuring a respectful and productive work environment for all Ripcord employees, now and going forward."