Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and Stolen Data

[_MeDotOrg]

Cambridge Analytica, bankrolled by Robert Mercer, with Steve Bannon as Vice President, initially had Ted Cruz as a client.

Sen. Ted Cruz is under fire for his connections with a voter targeting firm that used data taken from 50 million Facebook users without their knowledge.

The Cruz presidential campaign touted its collaboration with Cambridge Analytica as a sign of a cutting edge run for the White House, allowing the Texan to carefully identify likely supporters. The firm shifted allegiance to Donald Trump once the Texan dropped out of the GOP primaries.

Both campaigns pumped millions into the company, controlled by billionaire Robert Mercer — a key patron first of Cruz and then Trump in 2016.

Cruz continued work with Cambridge Analytica for six months after allegations surfaced in December 2015 that the firm was using Facebook data it had received illicitly. Recent revelations show the data harvesting was far more extensive than previously suspected, and possibly among the biggest privacy breaches in history.

"It was a grossly unethical experiment because you are playing with the psychology of an entire country... in the context of the democratic process," whistleblower Christopher Wylie, a data scientist who worked for Cambridge Analytica, told The Guardian. "It is a full service propaganda machine."

To give you an idea of the total moral bankruptcy of Cambridge Analytica, Britain's Channel 4 had someone pose as a Sri Lankan Businessman wanting to change the outcome of some local elections. Cambridge Analytica's President Alexander Nix suggesting prostitution, bribery and blackmail as services he could provide.

Can't imagine Steve Bannon involved in this kind of operation.

Out of idle curiosity, I wonder how Trump's evangelical supporters will react to all of this. At this point I'm not sure anything penetrates.

Early on in the investigation, I thought Cambridge Analytica might be the nexus between Russians and the Trump campaign. After reading about Cambridge Analytica today, I'm not sure if Russian participation could have made the group more venal.

Here's an ugly fact about human beings: You can manipulate them without them knowing you are manipulating them. Unscrupulous human beings who are more concerned with power and control rather than ideas used those techniques to great effect in the 2016 elections. Some of them were Russian, but a lot of them were American as well.

I know that Republican are not the only ones using these techniques, but it sickens me. We are reducing out political forum to those who best manipulate limbic, knee jerk responses.

Facebook has lied and covered up as well. Their stock took a hit today.

This story is big and getting bigger.

[_moksha]

This story has far-reaching implications. Facebook's data collecting and the abuse of that data will be talked about for quite some time. Wonder how many data centers now have that Cambridge Analytica information besides Russia and Trump/Mercer/Bannon?

[_subgenius]

Given that television shows like The Daily Show have had similar modus operandi, what exactly is the crime here? Is Facebook somehow, magically, supposed to uphold itself as a beacon of anything other than gossip and such social constructs? When did the disconnect from reality occur and why?....is the Daily Show and Facebook to be held to the same standard as the NYT? what morons are admitting that these sources are good sources?....and should culpability and/or liability be encouraged for people being ignorant?

[_Bach]

Given that television shows like The Daily Show have had similar modus operandi, what exactly is the crime here? Is Facebook somehow, magically, supposed to uphold itself as a beacon of anything other than gossip and such social constructs? When did the disconnect from reality occur and why?....is the Daily Show and Facebook to be held to the same standard as the New York Times? what morons are admitting that these sources are good sources?....and should culpability and/or liability be encouraged for people being ignorant?

ARGEE. It’s so ironic. Liberals have been using voter ignorance for decades via entitlements to convince poor and uneducated voters they can never achieve anything on their own intelligence. Beat them into submission, get them addicted to the worst drug: laziness, and then feed them with the taxpayer dollars from those actually working hard, creating jobs and an economy and having a life other than a message board.

The only malfeasance here may be Facebook’s inability to protect its members privacy. I just hope by posting this reasonable and professional response I don’t become a target of irrational poster.

[_MeDotOrg]

Given that television shows like The Daily Show have had similar modus operandi, what exactly is the crime here? Is Facebook somehow, magically, supposed to uphold itself as a beacon of anything other than gossip and such social constructs? When did the disconnect from reality occur and why?....is the Daily Show and Facebook to be held to the same standard as the NYT? what morons are admitting that these sources are good sources?....and should culpability and/or liability be encouraged for people being ignorant?

From the Wall Street Journal:

By John D. McKinnon

WASHINGTON—The Federal Trade Commission is investigating Facebook Inc. over the use of personal data by an analytics firm tied to President Donald Trump’s campaign, a person familiar with the matter said.

The FTC is probing whether Facebook violated terms of an earlier consent decree when data of up to 50 million of its users was transferred to Cambridge Analytica, this person said. Under the decree, approved in 2012, Facebook agreed to get user consent for collecting personal data and sharing it with others.

If the FTC finds that Facebook violated the decree, the firm could face millions of dollars in fines as well as harm to its reputation with users.

Rob Sherman, Facebook’s deputy chief privacy officer, said in a statement: “We remain strongly committed to protecting people’s information. We appreciate the opportunity to answer questions the FTC may have.”

A person close to the social-media giant said that the agency’s probe doesn’t now appear to be a formal investigation, and the company is expecting to receive a letter from the FTC with questions.

So what happened?

Researchers in 2014 asked users to take a personality survey and download an app, which scraped some private information from their profiles and those of their friends, activity that Facebook permitted at the time and has since banned.

The technique had been developed at Cambridge University’s Psychometrics Center. The center declined to work with Cambridge Analytica, but Aleksandr Kogan, a Russian-American psychology professor at the university, was willing.

Dr. Kogan built his own app and in June 2014 began harvesting data for Cambridge Analytica.

He ultimately provided over 50 million raw profiles to the firm, said Christopher Wylie, a data expert who oversaw Cambridge Analytica’s data harvesting. Only about 270,000 users — those who participated in the survey — had consented to having their data harvested, though they were all told that it was being used for academic use.

So they got permission from 270,000 out of 50 million.

Lucy, you have some 'splaining to do.

Given that television shows like The Daily Show have had similar modus operandi - I watched a lot of Daily Shows, but I never had any hookers or bribery attempts from Jon Stewart or Trevor Noah.

[_moksha]

....is the Daily Show and Facebook to be held to the same standard as the New York Times?

Don't forget that subversive Joe Palooka comic strip included with good old American bubble gum, or those secret codes revealed by Ovaltine via their sponsored radio program!!!

[_MeDotOrg]

If you wonder about whether or not Cambridge Analytica had an effect on the election, consider this: The expressions drain the swamp and deep state came from Cambridge. The expression 'deep state' was used by the far right, but Cambridge moved into mainstream conservatism.

Here's Trump at a campaign rally talking about the origin of the phrase 'drain the swamp'

A couple of you are a little marginal about this, but I came up with this expression, it’s called ‘drain the swamp,’ right, drain the swamp. And I hated it, I hated it. And it was a speech during the campaign, and it was a term that was actually given to me, usually like to think them up myself, but this was given to me — which bothered me too. I never like that.

But they had this expression ‘drain the swamp.’ And I hated it, I thought it was so hokey. I said, ‘that is the hokiest, give me a break, I am embarrassed to say it.’ And I was in Florida where 25,000 people were going wild, and I said, ‘and we will drain the swamp’ — the place went crazy. I couldn’t believe it. And then the next speech I said it again and they went even crazier. ‘We will drain the swamp… we will drain the swamp,’ and every time I said it I got the biggest applause. And after four or five times I said, boy what a great expression, I love saying it, it’s amazing.

If you don't think Cambridge didn't have an effect on the election, think about how many times the expressions 'deep state' and 'drain the swamp' were used.