Population Policy found in a filing cabinet in…

What we do know about Australia's population is that it will achieve…

Who's the real baby here, Mr Trump?

Who's the real baby here? A monster orange balloon-effigy of Trump as…

Persuasion ... (the language of sedition)

Mr. Hogarth spoke: “He would honestly and fairly put the objects of…

The Woes of Luka Modrić: Croatia, Nationalism and…

Juraj Vrdoljak of Telesport was convinced. “I think half the population didn’t…

Just because you are Aboriginal doesn't make you…

Every time I hear Alice Springs councillor and political hopeful Jacinta Price…

Das Testament

Any reading of the annals of human history, its achievements and failings,…

Stomping in Britain: Donald Trump and May’s Brexit

What a rotten guest, but then again, that was to be expected.…

The Treasurer’s pick

The resignation of Treasury Secretary John Fraser was too good an opportunity…

«
»
Facebook

Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and Surveillance Capitalism

Whether it creeps into politics, marketing, or simple profiling, the nature of surveillance as totality has been affirmed by certain events this decade. The Edward Snowden disclosures of 2013 demonstrated the complicity and collusion between Silicon Valley and the technological stewards of the national security state.

It took the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016 to move the issue of social media profiling, sharing and targeting of information, to another level. Not only could companies such as Facebook monetise their user base; those details could, in turn, be plundered, mined and exploited for political purpose.

As a social phenomenon, Facebook could not help but become a juggernaut inimical to the private sphere it has so comprehensively colonised. “Facebook in particular,” claimed WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange in May 2011, “is the most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented.” It furnished “the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, and their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US intelligence.”

Now, the unsurprising role played by Cambridge Analytica with its Facebook accessory to politicise and monetise data reveals the tenuous ground notions of privacy rest upon. Outrage and uproar has been registered, much of it to do with a simple fact: data was used to manipulate, massage and deliver a result to Trump – or so goes the presumption. An instructive lesson here would be to run the counter-factual: had Hillary Clinton won, would this seething discontent be quite so enthusiastic?

Be that as it may, the spoliations of Cambridge Analytica are embedded in a broader undertaking: the evisceration of privacy, and the generation of user profiles gathered through modern humanity’s most remarkable surveillance machine. The clincher here is the link with Facebook, though the company insists that it “received data from a contractor, which we deleted after Facebook told us the contractor had breached their terms of service.”

Both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have attempted to isolate and distance that particular contractor, a certain Aleksandr Kogan, the Cambridge University researcher whose personality quiz app “thisisyourdigitallife” farmed the personal data of some 50 million users who were then micro-targeted for reasons of political advertising.

The sinister genius behind this was the ballooning from the initial downloads – some 270,000 people – who exchanged personal data on their friends including their “likes” for personality predictions. A broader data set of profiles were thereby created and quarried.

Kogan claims to have been approached by Cambridge Analytica, rather than the other way around, regarding “terms of usage of Facebook data”. He was also reassured that the scheme was legal, being “commercial” in nature and typical of the way “tens of thousands of apps” were using social media data.  But it took Cambridge Analytica’s whistleblower, Christopher Wylie, to reveal that data obtained via Kogan’s app was, in fact, used for micro-targeting the US electorate in breach of privacy protocols.

Mark Zuckerberg’s response has entailed vigorous hand washing. In 2015, he claims that Facebook had learned that Cambridge Analytica shared data from Kogan’s app. “It is against our policies for developers to share data without other people’s consent, so we immediately banned Kogan’s app from our platform”. Certifications were duly provided that such data had been deleted, though the crew at Facebook evidently took these at unverified face value. Not so, as matters transpired, leading to the claim that trust had not only been breached between Facebook, Kogan and Cambridge Analytica, but with the users themselves.

Facebook, for its part, has been modestly contrite. “We have a responsibility to protect your data,” went Zuckerberg in a statement, “and if we can’t then we don’t deserve to serve you.” His posted statement attempts to water down the fuss. Data protections – most of them, at least – were already being put in place. He described the limitations placed on the accessing of user information by data apps connected to Facebook friends.

The networked sphere, as it is termed in with jargon-heavy fondness by some academics, has seen the accumulation of data all set and readied for the “information civilisation”. Google’s chief economist Hal Varian has been singled out for special interest, keen on what he terms, in truly benign fashion, “computer-mediated transactions”. These entail “data extraction and analysis,” various “new contractual forms” arising from “better monitoring”, “personalisation and customisation” and “continuous experiments”.

Such are the vagaries of the information age. As a user of such freely provided services, users are before a naked confessional, conceding and surrendering identities to third parties with Faustian ease. This surrender has its invidious by products, supplying intelligence and security services accessible data.

Cambridge Analytica, for its part, sets itself up as an apotheosis of the information civilisation, a benevolent, professionally driven information hitman. “Data drives all we do,” it boldly states to potential clients. “Cambridge Analytica uses data to change audience behaviour.”

This sounds rather different to the company’s stance on Saturday, when it claimed that, “Advertising is not coercive; people are smarter than that.” With cold show insistence, it insisted that, “This isn’t a spy movie.”

Two services are provided suggesting that people are not, in the minds of its bewitchers, that intelligent: the arm of data-driven marketing designed to “improve your brand’s marketing effectiveness by changing consumer behaviour” and that of “data-driven campaigns” where “greater influence” is attained through “knowing your electorate better”.

On the latter, it is boastful, claiming to have supported over 100 campaigns across five continents. “Within the United States alone, we have played a pivotal role in winning presidential races as well as congressional and state elections.”

CA has donned its combat fatigues to battle critics. Its Board of Directors has suspended CEO Alexander Nix, claiming that “recent comments secretly recorded by Channel 4 and other allegations do not represent the values or operations of the firm and his suspension reflects the seriousness with which we view this violation.”

The comments in question, caught in an undercover video, show Nix offering a range of services to the Channel 4 undercover reporter: Ukrainian sex workers posing as “honey-traps”; a video evidencing corruption that might be uploaded to the Internet; and operations with former spies. “We can set up fake IDs and Web sites, we can be students doing research projects attached to a university; we can be tourists.”

The company has also attempted to debunk a set of what it sees as flourishing myths. It has not, for instance, been uncooperative with the UK’s data regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office, having engaged it since February 2017. It rejects notions that it peddles fake news. “Fake news is a serious concern for all of us in the marketing industry.” (Nix’s cavalier advertising to prospective clients suggests otherwise).

In other respects, Cambridge Analytica also rejected using Facebook data in its political models, despite having obtained that same data. “We ran a standard political data science program with the same kind of political preference models used by other presidential campaigns.” Nor did it use personality profiles for the 2016 US Presidential election. Having only hopped on board in June, “we focused on the core elements of a core political data science program.”

The company’s weasel wording has certainly been extensive. Nix has done much to meander, dodge and contradict. On the one hand, he would like to take credit for the company’s product – the swaying of a US election. But in doing so, it did not use “psychographic” profiles.

Surveillance capitalism is the rope which binds the actors of this latest drama in the annals of privacy’s demise. There are discussions that political data mining designed to manipulate and sway elections be considered in the same way political donations are. But in the US, where money and political information are oft confused as matters of freedom, movement on this will be slow. The likes of Cambridge Analytica and similar information mercenaries will continue thriving.


7 comments

  1. corvus boreus

    I have long believed that ‘facebook’ is a creature that should not be fed.

    Zeynep Tufekoi gives a good talk on some of the commercial and political manipulation that occurs through social media, and the potential (and observed) societal repercussions.
    ‘We’re building a dystopia just to make people click on ads’.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI

  2. Andrew Smith

    Not overly concerned by Facebook and similar social networking or media sites; simply digital platforms able to capture, analyse and use data (not understood by politicians, regulators etc. while more education on media and digital literacy for the public is essential).

    However, it would have been interesting if Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook action had centred upon an EU nation’s election in a few months time…. Facebook’s guidelines for app developers and privacy:

    ‘If you operate a website or app, you probably use cookies or other storage technologies to offer people a better user experience, understand what kinds of visitors use your service and show them more relevant ads. In many instances, you are required to obtain consent from people before using these technologies.’

    https://developers.facebook.com/docs/privacy

    Under new EU Data Protection Directive from 2016, to be enforced from late May 2018, outcome would have been interesting:

    ‘This website is a resource to educate the public about the main elements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)……organizations in non-compliance may face heavy fines.’

    https://www.eugdpr.org/

  3. paul walter

    Trouble posting, try again, at best a stuff up, nothing to suggest it isn’t something worse

    Can I commend the Drum on the subject tonight?

  4. New England Cocky

    I seem to remember that the Nazis used the latest census data when seeking out Jewish citizens in occupied countries. The difference here with Facebook is that it has always been the individual users who are providing the ultimate data for spy agencies and other entities wanting to obtain advantage in politics, marketing and the distribution of “false news”, the propaganda distributed by the too many press officers employed by the NLP misgovernment in Canberra.

  5. Glenn Barry

    Dr Binoy Kampmark – Great article

    I suppose in the grand scheme of the neoliberal market strategy of everything for sale – it’s the final step in the commodification of us.

    This evening on 7:30 there was finally a segment which tackled the Federal Liberal involvement with Cambridge Analytica – Turnbull could not raise his eyes in responding to the question with a denial of having anything more than a preliminary meeting with CA executives – CAUGHT!

    Between the Murdoch propaganda arm and micro campaigning we do risk having an election or three stolen by nefarious means.

    But not to be dismissive of this article, this is all old news, I do query the motivation for the frenzy of reporting right now

    I originally read this article many months ago – check the date it was originally published Sunday May 7, 2017

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

    as well as the original version to see the changes which had been inflicted by threat of litigation

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170511011446/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

  6. RatMatrix

    Does nobody feed Farcebook falsehoods?

    Anybody?

    I do.

    I make damn sure that when I do post content that has basis in fact, it is also sprinkled with a hefty dose of creative imagination.

    I also never “Log in with your Facebook account” when offered to by other sites online. There’s a nifty tracking tool right there, Folks.

    If one is willing to share only truisms on that or any other social media platform then surely they are open slather to surveillance abuse?

  7. helvityni

    Were Putin’s finger prints found on the poison bottle, or did he wear gloves, it’s cold out there in Putin land behind that iron curtain…Is Theresa May shaping up to be another Iron Lady…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: