The ICO Investigation Result of Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal is Out! It claims that CA didn’t misuse data in the EU Referendum.
With the amount of data being generated every second, it is common to see big companies and organizations using data analysis to strategize future product development or marketing directions. Cambridge Analytica (CA), a British consulting firm, took data analysis further and utilized 50000 thousand unconsenting Facebook users data to sway public opinion in politics, business, food security, etc. These actions aroused heated discussions regarding data usage and data rights. Netflix documentary “The Great Hack” captured how CA’s improper data usage swayed the public to support the notorious 2016 EU referendum. It comes as a great surprise four years later in October 2020, that the UK Information Commissioners Office (ICO) investigation found CA actions uninfluential in Brexit.?
To better understand the 2016 Cambridge Analytica scandal we need to dive into the data dilemma. For a long time, the public understood data analysis as providing more considerate services and customized ads. They thought general data inputted on platforms such as Facebook were secure and restricted to the platform’s usage. Users willingly participated in online surveys, such as Facebook’s “This Is Your Digital Life”, for research naive to the fact that their responses were actually being sold to third parties such as CA.
CA scandal brought to light many issues regarding data. Our data is not secure and there is a disconnect between the expected data usage and the actual data usage. In fact, in the case of CA, data was used to sway public opinion influencing many elections globally. Data security and privacy as well as the lack of transparency and the general deception technology companies have regarding the use of our data aroused public anger and raised the level of distrust.
Technology continues to advance, however the data dilemma still lingers. How can we progress technologically without compromising our data rights?
Fast forward four years to October 2020, turns out CA influence on EU referendum is unlikely due to lack of evidence as stated by ICO investigation. Though the result is unexpected, when considering the nature of data it is not a surprise. Not only is it difficult to prove the qualitative influence of data, the data discussion has a lot of gray areas. For example, many people think personalized search engines are convenient and thoughtful while others believe they can no longer get diverse search results due to their information being analyzed. This same gray area applies to politics. Candidates can utilize data and surveys to understand public opinion in order to understand their actual needs. However if the same information is used for political manipulation (smear campaigns and proliferation of disinformation), it results in “tampered” elections and misleading political goals.
The ICO investigation also found Facebook liable for not protecting user data resulting in a half million euro fine. This highlights the importance of having well-established personal data rules and transparency to prevent data from being stolen or misused. In the CA situation, users agreed to Facebook’s policy but were unaware of loop holes that allowed CA to have their data accessed.
Hopes of monetizing on users data caused platforms such as Facebook to move away from its intended social interaction purpose. The methods CA used to gain data insights, such as “This Is Your Digital Life” FB game, misled 270 thousands users into giving up personal data insights to a third party. Facebook’s-Cambridge Analytica data relationship is in violation of users data rights. Not only is the data responsibility confined to active behaviors (trading data) and passive actions (not protecting data well), the responsibility to communicate and understand future organizational data flows is essential as well.
The ICO investigation findings were opposite of public opinion. Despite this, it reveals additional perspective on data usage. At the end of the day, technology is human creations. Creations can be used for good or for bad. Data usage is similar in that if used correctly it can create thoughtful user experiences. If used incorrectly, it can create cultural divergences. The question moving forward is: how should data develop? What analytics are proper? What protections if any are needed as we continue to move deeper into the big data era. Even as technology advances, the data dilemma lingers. How can we progress technologically without compromising data rights? All of these things are topics worth serious considering moving forward.
