2 Burst results for "Cambridge Inlet"
"cambridge inlet" Discussed on Can He Do That?
"Profiles of all of their friends. And that turned out to be upwards of fifty million people from around the world whose data was collected stored in and ended up in the hands of Cambridge Analytica. Now, Facebook says it asked Cambridge Analytica to delete that data. It changed its policies in two thousand fourteen and twenty fifteen to prevent all kinds of third party apps from collecting information about users friends a. But the recent allegations from a whistle blower Christopher Wiley in the UK suggests that Cambridge analytic a baby didn't delete that data. It used that data which is the Cambridge Illustrated's Nuys. So now we find ourselves in this. A place where potentially this political firm has information on Americans and folks who don't even know that the firm exists. And there are other reasons why people view this firm as kind of shady like there is video that was recently published by Britain's Channel four, where the company's CEO was caught on a surveillance camera. Apparently talking about illegal activities like he was encouraging sting operations involving bribes and paid sex all in an effort to swing political campaign in Sri Lanka, but it's not just Cambridge politica. That looks really shady here. This is also a really big problem for Facebook because they were already in trouble with the federal government for this big scandal that happened back in two thousand eleven. And at that time, if came to light that Facebook users that it set some of their information to private, that information was still being shared and made public. There were a number of complaints that had been raised, like consumer protection. Groups, but the thrust of it came down to this. It was if you said that you wanted, you know your piece of information to be treated one way, Facebook, wet unchanged at settings and something that you listed as private suddenly was public. You know, they shouldn't have the ability to do that as a result, the federal government force Facebook to agree to a settlement and that settlement mandated that Facebook had to overhaul its privacy protection practices. They had to get your explicit permission before that took a piece of information that you gave to them and used it in a new way. You know away that maybe you hadn't anticipated when you turn that information over to the company. And if Facebook failed to keep users private information, actually private, they would be violating the settlement they signed and they get in trouble for that. And if you break that settlement a legal settlement with the agency, you could face really steep fines. In this case, we're talking about forty thousand dollars per violation. And so if you do the math on the back of a napkin, you know we could be talking about finds well into the millions of dollars past the millions of dollars. If they find that Facebook violated the settlement that brokered in twenty eleven. So one of the things that everyone is asking is this did Facebook violate the terms of that settlement and how did Facebook let this happen twice. So. Who's looking into this like who's investigating? I think the question is was not looking into it at this point, but we have. We have a couple of the Federal Trade Commission is the big privacy and security watchdog here in the United States, and the agency made the rare decision to tell everybody that it was investigating Facebook for what had happened with Cambridge Analytica. Then you have a whole bunch of folks in Europe who really want to investigate this and European regulators have been super ready to go after US tech companies when they run afoul of the rules, we have more than thirty state attorneys general. And we have three congressional committees here in the United States that have announced that they want to hold hearings and invite Mark Zuckerberg to come testify. And of course, if we're talking about Facebook and efforts to influence the outcome of the two thousand sixteen election, we're going to end up talking about special counsel Robert Muller, not because this is related in any way to Russia, but because there's a chance that folks in the Trump campaign could have been aware that there was Shakti stuff happening at this data analytics company. But we don't know fully what happened with the Trump campaign and how much it had used this. We do know though that Robert Mueller is taking a look at Cambridge analytic. He's asked the questions. We don't know exactly what the questions are because we unfortunately can't peer behind the curtain there, but I don't think anybody is out there saying that what the Trump campaign did was wrong. One of the concerns is that Cambridge Analytica itself had connections to members of the Trump team. Steve Bannon was vice president of the company for a while and then later served on its board of directors. So in theory, he could get in trouble if it turned out that he knew that Cambridge Analytica was doing something illegal and because Cambridge Analytica is a British company. There's also this issue of foreign workers and many of the folks with Cambridge inlet ago who seemed to have done work on the twenty sixteen election are not US citizens under US law. Those far nationals aren't supposed to have direct roles in US campaigns. So that's the question right now. Even though some of them may be from Canada from the UK close allies of the United States, like the law says that they're not supposed to be working in that way on US campaigns until you've had folks in the in the consumer protection community who have asked the F E C and the Justice department to look into that, see what may have happened there. So we've got this kind of shadowy British company and it says they have these vast databases of information to make psychographic profiles of potential Trump voters. And we know that all of this data should have been deleted, but somehow it wasn't Leded and then it may have actually had an effect on the two thousand sixteen election. So this all sounds super creepy rate for somebody who's been writing about political data and political privacy for a decade. It is a little ironic that like now it's starting to really sort of take root. That's Daniel crease. He's an associate professor in the school of media and journalism at the university of North Carolina and Chapel Hill, and he's got to. Takeaways here. One. Nobody really knows if Cambridge analytic is psychographic profiles had any actual effect on the election. He said that these companies are always trying to exaggerate how effective they are in to. There's nothing new about these kinds of like next level, big data tactics in politics. I remember writing a piece back in the Stephanie law review called, yes, we can profile you, and this was in the context of the Obama two thousand eight campaign about all the ways in which the Obama team was garnering hundreds of millions of pieces of information about the electorate and using them in the advertising. They were run and using that in their field campaigning using that in the context of their social media outreach. And yet it kinda just fell on deaf ears because five or ten years ago, most people weren't hyper concerned about how their Facebook data was being used by the. Campaigns. People actually thought that it was cool and exciting that Obama was using all this data because as Daniel explains politicians on both sides of the aisle, had the chance to harness the Power of Facebook to win over voters. So Facebook is at the center of the political universe. And there's there's a simple reason why it's because everyone is there. It's the biggest, most general interest, medium where campaigns could go and reach everybody. Other social media platforms have more specialized in more Nisha audiences like Twitter, for instance, has super politically engaged people and lots of journalists, but it's not the way to speak to the mass public Facebook
"cambridge inlet" Discussed on KQED Radio
"The republican party wasn't doing a good enough job of leveraging taking advantage of political data so he was going to go by a data firm and do a better job of it himself on one of the things he saw happening as if rebecca mercer supported a political candidate or organization there would be a lot of pressure sometimes from steve bannon to also higher cambridge analytica is a data vendor in a lot of republican mainstream republican outlets felt very threatened by this you have this company cut of elbowing their way in that controls this data that the party doesn't but cambridge inlet occur has been a big part of the trump story and in fact they had their own data scientists embedded at the trump campaign that very advanced models about who trump was appealing to and who they needed to reach it wasn't clear at the time that they really knew what they were doing nothing but in hindsight it's clear that the that they did so in terms of cambridge in a litigants connection to steve bannon bannon had an ownership stake in the company and a seat on the board what do you think cambridge analytica did to help trump win the went in and spent a lot of time and money figuring out who trump voters really are and how they differ from ordinary republican voters there more rohrer all their more populous they care about different issues than your standard republican does and so the trump campaign was able to go and.