The 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal shook the world of politics, social media, and modern technology. This scandal saw the illumination of the shady world between data privacy, voter manipulation, and user concerns, changing how the government and users of technology interact for good. As the revelations about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica’s exploitation of user data for political purposes, concerns over the integrity of democratic processes in the United States and abroad and the vulnerability of personal information jumped to the forefront of public argument. By exploring the missteps of these organizations and the violations of ethics they committed, communicators can become better equipped and more understanding of social media, and the distrust sewn into the public’s mind.
Cambridge Analytica exploited personal data without user consent, as is explored in Hal Berghel’s Article “Malice Domestic: The Cambridge Analytica Dystopia,” written in 2018, fresh on the heels of the incident. The scandal unfolded after a Cambridge professor, Aleksandr Kogan Spectre, and a number of associates established a company called Global Science Research to capitalize off of a Facebook extension called ‘thisisyourdigitallife,’ which collected and harvested the information of participants, most of whom were tricked into thinking that it was a harmless BuzzFeed-esque personality test. This app collected user data without consent and utilized it for politically influential purposes. Kogan and his associates at GSR collected information from “an estimated 50 million people,” (Berghel, 2018) and was then marketed to the Republican party, also according to Berghel and his sources.
At the heart of Cambridge Analytica’s strategy is the exploitation of user trust in social media platforms. By leveraging user participation in these platforms, the company gained access not only to the data of users that opted-in to sharing data, but also stole the information of said user’s social network without explicit consent. This cloak and dagger data collection led to, fairly raised, questions about the efficacy of existing privacy protections, and the transparency companies such as Facebook utilize in their advertising practices. This scandal was key to exposing individuals’ vulnerabilities to manipulation through advertising, highlighting a need for greater awareness and oversight to avoid unethical situations such as what unfolded with the Cambridge Analytica Scandal.
The aftermath of the scandal prompted broader discussions about what the implications are of leaving data exploitation unchecked, shedding light on the power that social media owners, such as Mark Zuckerberg, and political entities hold over social media users, raising concerns about what choices aren’t being influenced by targeted algorithms and data analytics. The advent of personal data weaponization, especially in the political field, presents a very real threat to democratic processes. This necessitates the introduction of regulatory governmental frameworks over social networking organizations, similar to those established for banks. Additionally, the scandal highlighted the importance of data literacy among social media users.
In the journal article “It Wouldn’t Happen to Me,” written by Joanne Hinds, Emma Williams, and Adam Joinson, the authors address the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the privacy concerns that followed the misplacement of trust by Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analytica’s involvement in political campaigns was shown through their controversial acquisition of Facebook user data, a practice that stole data not just from those who agreed to share their information, but also from associates of those who opted in to data sharing. This was an egregious example of a privacy leak that Facebook overlooked until it was brought to light. The scandal unfolded with the realization, from Facebook, that around 87 million, as opposed to the 50 million assumed in Hal Berghel’s article, Facebook profiles had information collected without consent, and this data was used to formulate a “psychologically tailored” (Hinds et al., 2020) targeted political messaging. The size of this data exploitation, subsequently, led to public outrage and a hearing by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in May of 2018. The concern was that the psychological targeting led to a swing in the 2016 U.S. presidential election via exploitation of the American public. The scandal brought attention to the ethical implications of misusing user data and emphasizes significant gaps in individual awareness of threats to privacy.
Hal Berghel’s article further analyzes and discusses how far Cambridge Analytica intervened in the United States democratic process, and betrayed the faith of voters and app users. Cambridge Analytica’s involvement in political campaigns was trademarked through the analysis of user data, and the further use of this data to manipulate and influence voters. According to the article, the company’s strategy involved “meticulous analysis of whatever data they rely on, from Facebook or some other source,” (Berghel, 2018) this allowed Cambridge Analytica to designate what they called ‘political hot buttons,’ to goad voter decisions. This terrifying approach allowed Cambridge Analytica to tailor political messaging to specific individuals, exploiting the opinions of voters, their ability to vote, and compromising the elections. The tactics Cambridge Analytica used is likened to propaganda by Berghel, and is an accurate comparison. The article notes that the company “weaponized social media, online trolling, and botnets to efficiently [target] voters” (Berghel, 2018). Using the stolen data acquired through Facebook’s exploitation of user trust, the organization started spewing misinformation and goading voters into online conflicts, one way or another.
The aftermath of this scandal led to serious discussion regarding the future of user privacy in the new digital age, focusing on prevention of a situation like this from happening ever again. The research done in “It Wouldn’t Happen to Me” following the scandal shows how complex individual perception of online privacy is. Though there was considerable outrage from the public after the release of the scandal, data from the article shows that people continued to use Facebook, showing a discrepancy between the outrage being shown and the actual responses from the public. A majority of individuals did not alter any privacy settings nor delete accounts, but instead continued using the app as if nothing had happened.
Furthermore the research conducted in the article emphasizes the challenges faced by users trying to understand online privacy, particularly how their personal data is used and who is using it. The article describes this inability to understand as “significant hurdles for users seeking to protect their personal data,” (Hinds et al., 2020). The study further moves on to highlight a concerning lack of awareness amongst app users regarding the potential implications of the digital footprints they leave behind every time they get behind a screen. This data can and will be exploited by those seeking to make gains off of personal information if it is not properly protected, making it pertinent for app users to understand that their data can be sold to make them a target. The authors of the article outline the situation in the following: “This gap in understanding, coupled with the inherent complexities of privacy decision-making, suggests a need for greater education and transparency surrounding data practices,” (Hinds et al., 2020).
Berghel’s analysis also sheds light on the implications produced by the scandal. The author discusses the essential pieces of the issue, stating that “social media and free online services have been, and will continue to be weaponized against us-we’re the product!” (Berghel, 2018). The observation he makes here is frightening but not unrealistic. With more integration of products into the home, such as the Alexa home assistant, Siri on the iPhone, and Amazon utilizing artificial intelligence to assist in shopping, more and more personal data is being collected, making it considerably easier for these organizations to build psychological profiles, like Cambridge Analytica did in 2018. This means that targeted ads will become more accurate, posts on social media will be easier to target to users, and algorithms will predict behavior consistently. The reality is that individuals and their habits become commodities in the digital world, where personal data can be utilized for a number of purposes without consent. Additionally, Berghel’s analysis discusses what this could mean for the future of the democratic process. How can an election be truly fair when candidates have more means to advertise themselves and their beliefs in an individuals home, as opposed to the new progressive candidates, and their inability to break into what would become, essentially, a closed power loop with only the most elite controlling beliefs, due to the fact that organizations like Facebook contain all of the data needed to predict a user.
The two articles analyzed provide a frightening insight into the world of data collection and the potential horrors of data breaches similar to the Cambridge Analytica Scandal. The scandal marked a frightening junction in the road between politics, social media, and private information; making a case for how consequential data breaches are for users. Data exploitation by Cambridge Analytica and Facebook caused immense amounts of discourse within the United States, drawing a political candidate into question, and reaping the benefits of stealing from tens of millions of individuals. Though the scandal was a large ordeal, the lessons provided by the scandal have not been considered by the public. As analyzed in the 2020 article by Hinds, Williams, and Joinson, many social media users did not even bother to change their security settings, which could provide the potential for another breach. Berghel’s insights provide a deep and unsettling understanding that as individuals become increasingly codependent on social media for entertainment and engagement, their data is becoming increasingly harvested, and utilized as a form of currency. In the aftermath of such a scandal, it is imperative that social media users become educated on how their data is being used, wary of what data they allow social media to collect, and demand of companies, like Facebook, transparency to avoid a repeat of 2018.
Citations
Hinds, J., Williams, E. J., & Joinson, A. N. (2020). “It wouldn’t happen to me”: Privacy concerns and perspectives following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 143, 102498-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102498
Schneble, C. O., Elger, B. S., & Shaw, D. (2018). The Cambridge Analytica affair and Internet‐mediated research. EMBO Reports, 19(8). https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201846579