Evidence of meeting #47 for Industry and Technology in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was something.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
You're asking about a specific ad, and I'm not really in a position to—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Let me then not be specific about that ad. An ad is uploaded onto YouTube. Somebody falls victim to whatever the fraud is. Fast-forward a month and $30,000 has been lost by the individual by virtue of that fraud. YouTube is made aware. It's proven that this was a fraudulent ad that was used on your platform. YouTube would have been paid for the advertisement.
Do you keep that money? Do you return that money to the individual who was the victim of the fraud? Do you use that money for your legal fees? Do you collect that money? Help us understand what happens there.
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
Actually, this is a really important question, because I think it speaks to maybe some parallel paths that seem to be conflated here, one that is policy-violative and one that is criminal activity. Our role as a non-state actor—we are not law enforcement—is to assess content, including ads, for whether they are policy-violative. We cannot make a finding on whether they are fraudulent. That is the role of law enforcement.
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
We operate at different paces. When we're made aware of an ad that is policy-violating, where it perhaps violates our misrepresentation policy, we can act rapidly to pull that down and terminate the account.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Ms. Patell, let me be clear. You and I are talking about two different things. I'll try to be clearer here. You haven't, in this situation, pulled it down. Someone has fallen victim to an ad that YouTube, for whatever reason, has failed to remove from its site. Would you have collected revenue during the period in which that ad was up?
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
It really depends; I don't have a good answer for you on what the revenue model would have been for a specific ad.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I thought your revenue model was that if an ad is up, you make money off it. You said a few moments ago that you don't make money off it until somebody engages. What I'm asking is that once somebody has engaged, and it's proven that the engagement was with a fraudulent ad, would you have collected revenue?
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
What I'm trying to say is that if it's proven that it was fraudulent, it's something that will, in my experience, come much longer down the road of a criminal case than whether we've been able to take action on something that was policy-violative.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I understand. Once it's been proven that it's criminal, what do you do with the money you raised?
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
You know, I think that is something I would have to come back to you on. Keep in mind that—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I'm sorry to interrupt, Ms. Patell. In other words, you can't say unequivocally that YouTube does not keep the money. Just right now, from where you stand, you cannot say unequivocally that YouTube does not keep the money that it might have earned off a fraudulent ad in which someone was victimized.
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
I'm pretty confident that we're not recognizing revenue from that activity.
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
I think that's something where we would have no incentive to take that money.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I understand, but you would have earned the money already on the ad. That's the point I'm making.
We'll come back to this, Ms. Patell. I think you understand where we're going with this.
I have a couple more really quick questions. You mentioned that you have some technology available to you in terms of providing an opportunity for public officials, for example, to remove a deepfake. You talked about “safe by design”. The ad that Monsieur Ste-Marie and Ms. Dancho talked about at the beginning purported to be Prime Minister Carney. Is that correct?
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
That's right.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Did YouTube send correspondence to the Prime Minister to verify whether or not that was in fact him in this particular fraud in question?
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
I can't speak to this particular situation. What I would say is that we—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
But your “safe by design” policy should have, if I understand it correctly. Is that right?
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
We've created something called the “likeness ID”. It is open to public figures to enrol. It's not something that we would necessarily proactively ask the Prime Minister to enrol in, but we'd offer the opportunity for any public figure to use the likeness ID feature. I think there's just a sequencing shift here in terms of how that would work. In cases where we have a public figure endorsement scam, and we're made aware of that, our first action, obviously, is to remove that and then to terminate the account.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Did you inform the Prime Minister's office in this instance, of this particular scam?
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
Again, you're asking about a very specific scenario, so—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I understand it's a specific scenario. We're talking about a deepfake involving the Prime Minister of Canada, encouraging Canadians to invest fraudulently, using a platform that you own and operate, that led to the defrauding of $30,000 of an individual. It's a pretty specific, high-profile case.
If I understand correctly, Ms. Patell, what you're saying is that Google and YouTube do not, in the way that your policy is currently designed, believe that it is your responsibility to reach out to the person who is being impersonated, and that is therefore leading to the potential victimization of a Canadian. What you're saying is that the onus is on the public official to first enrol in a program that you offer, and then at that point they would be able to engage with you.
Do I understand that correctly?
Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
No. I'm sorry if that's the impression I left. I'm talking about two different things.
When we have a policy violated.... Let's be clear. I think the Prime Minister's office is very aware of endorsement scams that are under way. That is something where, when they become aware of one, they need to flag it to us. That happens, and we appreciate being able to do a rapid response, but I would say that we are working to block those from ever coming onto our system.
What I'm talking about in terms of the likeness ID is something that's much broader than just ads. It's actually something that could be available through YouTube. It is something that stands on its own as opposed to interacting with a specific piece of content. That's something we would offer enrolment in for public figures, if that's something they would like to access.