By Adrian Chen
Alexander Nix, pictured hither inward 2016, was lately suspended from his seat every bit the C.E.O. of Cambridge Analytica, the theater at the catch of a data-mining scandal involving Facebook. In 2006, a local pollster inward Nepal was kidnapped past times Maoist rebels spell conducting view surveys on behalf of the American political strategist Stan Greenberg. The Maoists, who had been waging a long-running insurgency against the government, did non number their typical ransom demands—money or weapons inward telephone substitution for the prisoner. No, they wanted the polling information that Greenberg’s squad had collected, patently to guess the political climate inward the province for themselves. The researchers eventually handed it over. In his mass “Alpha Dogs,” the British journalist James Harding cites this even every bit an representative of how the describe of piece of work concern of political campaigning is beingness remade, across the globe, past times a profusion of fine-grained information nigh voters too their habits. Where the consultants of the nineteen-sixties too seventies obsessed over how to work tv to beam ideal images of their clients into voters’ homes, today’s spinmasters hope that large information volition allow them to manipulate voters’ deepest hopes too fears. “What’s the currency of the globe now?” i of Greenberg’s partners asks Harding. “It’s non gold, it’s data. It’s the information.” Twelve years later, the fixation on information every bit the cardinal to political persuasion has exploded into scandal. For the past times several days, the Internet has been enveloped inward outrage over Facebook too Cambridge Analytica, the shadowy theater that supposedly helped Donald Trump win the White House. As amongst the Maoist rebels, this appears to endure a tale of data-lust gone bad. In lodge to fulfill the promises that Cambridge Analytica made to its clients—it claimed to possess cutting-edge “psychographic profiles” that could jurist voters’ personalities ameliorate than their ain friends could—the companionship had to harvest huge amounts of information. It did this inward an ethically suspicious way, past times contracting amongst Aleksandr Kogan, a psychologist at the University of Cambridge, who built an app that collected demographic information on tens of millions of Facebook users, largely without their knowledge. “This was a scam—and a fraud,” Paul Grewal, Facebook’s deputy full general counsel, told the Timesover the weekend. Kogan has said that he was assured past times Cambridge Analytica that the information collection was “perfectly legal too within the limits of the damage of service.”
Despite Facebook’s performance of victimization, it has endured a proficient bargain of blowback too blame. Even earlier the even broke, Trump’s critics oft railed at the companionship for contributing to his victory past times failing to rein inward mistaken tidings too Russian propaganda. To them, the Cambridge Analytica even was some other representative of Facebook’s inability, or unwillingness, to command its platform, which allowed bad actors to exploit people on behalf of authoritarian populism. Democrats receive got demanded that Mark Zuckerberg, the C.E.O. of Facebook, prove earlier Congress. Antonio Tajani, the President of the European Parliament, wants to verbalize to him, too. “Facebook needs to clarify earlier the representatives of v hundred 1000000 Europeans that personal information is non beingness used to manipulate democracy,” he said. On Wed afternoon, after remaining conspicuously soundless since Fri night, Zuckerberg pledged to trammel third-party access to Facebook information inward an endeavour to win dorsum user trust. “We receive got a responsibleness to protect your data, too if nosotros can’t hence nosotros don’t deserve to serve you,” he wrote on Facebook.
But, as some receive got noted, the furor over Cambridge Analytica is complicated past times the fact that what the theater did wasn’t unique or all that new. In 2012, Barack Obama’s reëlection get used a Facebook app to target users for outreach, giving supporters the selection to percentage their friend lists amongst the campaign. These efforts, compared amongst those of Kogan too Cambridge Analytica, were relatively transparent, but users who never gave their consent had their information sucked upwards anyway. (Facebook has since changed its policies.) As the sociologist Zeynep Tufekci has written, Facebook itself is a giant “surveillance machine”: its describe of piece of work concern model demands that it assemble every bit much information nigh its users every bit possible, hence allow advertisers to exploit the information through a scheme hence complex too opaque that misuse is almost guaranteed.
Just because something isn’t novel doesn’t hateful that it’s non outrageous. It is unquestionably a bad thing that nosotros send out much of our online lives within a data-mining apparatus that sells influence to the highest bidder. My initial reaction to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, though, was jaded; the feeling came from having seen how often, inward the past, major world outcries nigh online privacy led nowhere. In most cases, after the calls to delete Facebook croak downwardly too the sternly worded congressional letters halt beingness written, things pretty much become dorsum to normal. Too often, privacy scandals boil downwardly to a superficial ready to some specific breach or leak, without addressing how the entire scheme undermines the possibility of control. What exciting big-data technique volition endure revealed, half dozen years from now, every bit a democracy-shattering mind-control tool?
Yet I eventually establish argue to endure truly repulsed past times the story. On Monday, the U.K.’s Channel four published video footage of an undercover sting operation that it had conducted against Cambridge Analytica. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 human being working for the channel, posing every bit a political operative from Sri Lanka, met amongst the firm’s representatives to verbalize over hiring them for a campaign. On camera, over 3 meetings inward diverse swanky hotels around London, C.A.’s employees offering an increasingly sordid describe of piece of work concern human relationship of their methods too capabilities. The most unseemly revelation—and, inward the context of the sting, the most ironic—comes when Alexander Nix, Cambridge Analytica’s C.E.O., seems to offering to entrap the client’s political rivals amongst secretly videotaped bribes too rendezvous amongst sexual activity workers. (Nix was suspended on Tuesday.)
Like much of the best investigative journalism, the Channel four video gives viewers the queasy sense of a stone beingness overturned too sinister things beingness exposed to the light. It is hard to spotter the video without becoming at to the lowest degree a petty suspicious of the entire describe of piece of work concern of democracy, given how large a purpose political consultants such every bit Nix play inward it these days. Perhaps it is naïve to endure scandalized past times the cravenness of political consultants inward the historic menstruum of Paul Manafort, whose global democratic-perversion tour took him from buffing the prototype of the Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, inward the nineteen-eighties, to running Trump’s campaign, or to fighting a fraud instance for allegedly laundering his fees from the Ukrainian kleptocrat Viktor Yanukovych. But at that spot was something shocking nigh the stark double identity of this posh “Old Etonian,” every bit all the British papers telephone telephone Nix, who presented himself every bit a big-data sorcerer at marketing events but proposed basic gangsterism to clients inward private. And inward the same spiffy suit.
Watching the video makes you lot empathise that the ethical divergence betwixt outright electoral corruption too psychographics is largely a affair of degree. Both are shortcuts that warp the procedure into something pocket-size too dirty. You don’t demand to believe Cambridge Analytica’s ain hype nigh the persuasive might of its methods to worry nigh how data-obsessed political marketing tin undermine democracy. The model of the voter every bit a package of psychological vulnerabilities to endure carefully exploited reduces people to mathematical inputs. The large debates nigh values too policies that campaigns are supposed to facilitate too accept business office inward are replaced past times psychographically derived messages targeted to ever-tinier slivers of voters who are deemed past times an algorithm to endure persuadable. The organization of all of online life past times data-mining operations makes this finish seem attainable, spell an manufacture of information scientists too pollsters pitch it every bit inevitable. Candidates, voters, too pundits, enthralled amongst the geek’s hope of omniscience, rush to purchase in—at to the lowest degree until it’s used past times someone they don’t like. Cambridge Analytica is every bit much a symptom of democracy’s sickness every bit its cause.
Buat lebih berguna, kongsi:
