FBI & other US branches join Justice Department in Cambridge Analytica investigation
A U.S. federal probe into Facebook's data sharing with now-defunct politcal consulting firm Cambridge Analytica has reportedly grown to pull in multiple agencies, including the FBI, the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The investigation is centered on what Facebook knew in 2015 -- when it first learned that Cambridge Analytica had been building voter profiles -- and why it didn't share this information with users or investors at the time, according to sources for the Washington Post. Facebook only revealed Cambridge Analytica's harvesting of data without users' consent in March 2018.
The government is also said to be concerned about discrepancies in more recent versions of the scandal, including whether Facebook officials like CEO Mark Zuckerberg were fully honest in their Senate testimony.
"We are cooperating with officials in the U.S., U.K. and beyond," said a Facebook spokesman, Matt Steinfeld. "We've provided public testimony, answered questions, and pledged to continue our assistance as their work continues."
In 2015 Cambridge Analytica and Cambridge University researcher Aleksandr Kogan used a quiz app to collect data on not just the people who used the app, but also their connected friends, allowing Analytica to build voter profiles for some 71 million Americans.
Facebook has accused Analytica of violating policies, but the latter and Kogan have insisted not only that they did nothing wrong but that they weren't the only parties to collect data this way. Kogan has further maintained that he got permission to share data with Analytica when he changed his app's terms of service from academic to wider commercial use.
Facebook has additionally insisted that when it learned of the situation, it ordered Analytica to delete its data and promise not to take the same actions again. The latter has claimed it complied, but it isn't at all clear if they actually did.
Voter manipulation has become one of Facebook's biggest concerns. On top of the Analytica scandal, Russia is known to have targeted Facebook users with ads in the run up to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.
The investigation is centered on what Facebook knew in 2015 -- when it first learned that Cambridge Analytica had been building voter profiles -- and why it didn't share this information with users or investors at the time, according to sources for the Washington Post. Facebook only revealed Cambridge Analytica's harvesting of data without users' consent in March 2018.
The government is also said to be concerned about discrepancies in more recent versions of the scandal, including whether Facebook officials like CEO Mark Zuckerberg were fully honest in their Senate testimony.
"We are cooperating with officials in the U.S., U.K. and beyond," said a Facebook spokesman, Matt Steinfeld. "We've provided public testimony, answered questions, and pledged to continue our assistance as their work continues."
In 2015 Cambridge Analytica and Cambridge University researcher Aleksandr Kogan used a quiz app to collect data on not just the people who used the app, but also their connected friends, allowing Analytica to build voter profiles for some 71 million Americans.
Facebook has accused Analytica of violating policies, but the latter and Kogan have insisted not only that they did nothing wrong but that they weren't the only parties to collect data this way. Kogan has further maintained that he got permission to share data with Analytica when he changed his app's terms of service from academic to wider commercial use.
Facebook has additionally insisted that when it learned of the situation, it ordered Analytica to delete its data and promise not to take the same actions again. The latter has claimed it complied, but it isn't at all clear if they actually did.
Voter manipulation has become one of Facebook's biggest concerns. On top of the Analytica scandal, Russia is known to have targeted Facebook users with ads in the run up to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.
Comments
There is a difference between a story about politics and how tech relates, and when it turns into a partisan bicker-fest. I will not tolerate the latter.
I am not a fan or believer in social (mystique) media, but Facebook has a right to develop a ‘bad’ marketing approach. As long as customers have a choice to use other media, Facebook can keep screwing customers for free....and customers can choose not to look at ‘the man behind the curtain.’
You mean the “free” service isn’t actually free?
You mean a 1/2 a trillion dollar company has been monetizing the @#$& out of it’s users? No...
Don’t worry your politicians will fine Facebook for a hundredth of 1% of their profits, and the world will be safe again.
Nothing to see here. Wink. Wink.
Had CA, Facebook, and non-political party actors collaborated in a similar influence campaign to persuade a target group of individuals to purchase one brand of automobile over another, say by falsely alluding through misleading social media channels that one automobile brand uses the pelts of clubbed baby seals in their upholstery leather, would we even be talking about this? Probably not, but the negatively impacted brand would very likely seek legal remedies for the damages caused by the campaign.
Humans are obviously quite vulnerable to media influence. The 1938 Halloween broadcast of War of the Worlds persuaded more than a few people to believe that Earth was being invaded by Martians because it was broadcast over a contemporary and trusted media source in a familiar news-like format. In retrospect it was laughable but for a window of time more than a few people were panicked and a widespread media outrage ensued after the broadcast and unwinding of the ruse. During the lifespan of the unintentional (?) deception had a person walked down the street dressed in whatever was deemed an "alien" costume at the time, especially if the nature of the costume was communicated in the broadcast, they very likely could have been shot by someone in the induced state of hysteria. The CA+Facebook+Political Party Actors "social media broadcasts" during the 2016 political cycle were very similar to War of the Worlds in terms of putting the targeted group of individuals in an altered state for a period of time and for some folks, permanently.
This is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed by those who make the tools that allow human engineering campaigns to be executed so effectively. At some level it is simply political advertising and I'd imagine Facebook saw it as a way to promote their suite of advertising tools. More than anything it's a wakeup call for us, the general population of people who got duped by assuming the information dissemination channels are benign, neutral, and (cough cough) factual in all cases. We've all become numb to most forms of advertising/Influence but we didn't recognize this new form of advertising/Influence that is disguised as news. Ultimately the blame is on us and we all need to learn from this experience and demand that information sources be transparent about what they're peddling. If life on Earth turns into one big f-ing infomercial of social, political, or some other context, we should all be hoping that there's a real War of the World and Martians coming that will rescue us from this stinking mess.