Data Ethics - Case Study (Cambridge Analytica)
Rupesh Gandhi
Problem Solver | Business and Technology Consulting | Business Leader | Continuous Learner | Cloud Advisory | DevOps | Pre-Sales | IT Strategy
1.???? Introduction
Cambridge Analytica – a data mining company was reported for its involvement and manipulation of the 2016 USA presidential campaign. The company is also widely accused of interfering with the Brexit referendum.
Aleksandr Kogan, a data scientist at the University of Cambridge was hired by Cambridge Analytica, to develop an app called “This is Your Digital Life” in 2013. Facebook allowed this app to collect personal information for their users and their friends. Cambridge Analytica operated in multiple countries such as Lithuania, Romania, Kenya, Ghana, Brazil, Malaysia, India etc.
Cambridge Analytica’s website claimed to hold up to 5,000 data points on more than 230 million (estimates around 30 million to 70 million) American voters. It promises to help clients “gain the advantage over your opponents by adding our blend of big data analytics and behavioural psychology to your campaign arsenal.” It is believed to analyse social media, such as Facebook likes, to build a “psychographic” picture of target voters. Trump campaign paid Cambridge Analytica $5.9m, according to the Federal Election Commission.
Facebook was Acquiring and Storing the data and Cambridge Analytica was Aggregating and Analysing it. Campaigns such as Cruz and Trump were consuming the data for Use, Share/Sell and manipulation for mass movement. Decision makers also included political bigwigs and industry honchos who wanted to influence the masses. Lack of consent made Facebook users stakeholder rather than decision makers. Stakeholders also included Data scientist, Data Analyst, Political Analyst, application developers, Politicians and their staff, Advertisement and Marketing companies and Company honchos.
Addressed the case study from the below perspective personas:
?Data-driven approach has been used pre-existence of data industry to manipulate, manage and lobbying during elections or enterprises. It was used by large media houses to cover many specific right-wing, left-wing agenda topics. Enterprises and Political parties have augmented this approach with targeted and customised campaigns.
So why is Cambridge Analytica such an enigma?
The scenario has two ethical dilemmas.
2.???? Analysis
Consent of data usage and manipulation of data, mauling respect and user privacy were two ethical dilemmas. Having a might of 5000 pointers over 230 million USA voters, gave immense insights to a data mining company such as Cambridge Analytica. They had already built a formidable data insight during the Ted Cruz campaign, following which Cambridge Analytica provided much anticipated and valued insights to Donald Trump’s campaign. Cambridge Analytica was engaged by Donald Trump, and they rated Trump’s campaign interest to be higher than end users. Analysis included individual and persona-based advertisement campaigns. This augmented Trump workers on the ground and immensely assisted to swing voters and states to Trump’s side.?
Consequentialism framework defines the decision or action for intended and unintended stakeholders. Facebook users, although unaware of the intent or outcome were unintentional stakeholders in the ecosystem. In this case data scientist interpreted the data sets, for shareholders ala Trump campaign, via user information supplied by Facebook. This is the ultimate form of Utilitarianism where the data interpretation benefits shareholders and has complex set of circumstances. Strictly speaking Utilitarianism is about the larger good – here the decision makers, manipulated the outcome to the society as impacting the larger good. In this instance the rights of minorities in America were clearly considered irrelevant to the outcome and were sacrificed. This is immoral and unethical limitation of Utilitarianism where the rights of minority groups were trampled.
Note: the minority protested for Black Lives Matters, which is speculated to be influenced by Cambridge Analytica via their Russian stakeholders
Other ethical dilemma in the case study has been of user data being shared with Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analytica developed an application for user sentiment gathering with intent to create psychographic profiles of users. Facebook platform collected information from users where the consent was purely for academic purpose. During his testimony before Congress on April 10, 2018, Zuckerberg said it was his personal mistake that he did not do enough to prevent Facebook from being used for harm. "That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections and hate speech". During the testimony, Mark Zuckerberg publicly apologized for the breach of private data: "It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here". He also lied during his testimony that user data collected via the application was deleted once he came to know about it. It was later discovered that the data indeed had NOT been deleted.
Consequentialism, where the shareholder denied knowledge of outcome the conversation clearly moved into unethical practice. Facebook had completely lost its moral compass. Deontology refers to the principles, or the duties that govern acts or decisions. These principles do not relate to the consequences of those decisions. Facebook had moral duty of informing users of the collected data. The data was collected on the pretext of academic knowledge and was later sold to Cambridge Analytica. Till end neither Facebook nor Cambridge Analytica was able to share individual data and provide confirmation of data deletion.
领英推荐
Facebook sold confidential data to a third party with questionable consent. Kantianism further extends Deontology framework into rational and not just moral or religious ethics. Although Facebook had legal rights of selling the data but, did they have a moral right to do so? Legality is possibly the lowest bar of following the rules – even apartheid was legal in South Africa until 1980s, was it moral or rational though? The morality of the ethical dilemma is NOT to be interfered in person’s privacy. This morality was completely lost on Facebook. Privacy can insulate a person from being treated as mere means to an end, this action between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica exactly did that to users.
Rationality of data rights should form basis of human rights. Users should not be treated as mere means to an end. Privacy of information, autonomy, control was deliberately destroyed, which would isolate for freedom from pressure to confirm and freedom from exploitation. Deontology is about rights to maintain self-respect, human dignity and identity. In specific data context, transparency and traceability are practical elements of privacy which was failed by both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica.
Integrity with virtue framework has strong prominence amongst other virtues. It has to be evaluated at each level, from principles, decisions-makers, stakeholders, data acquisition, data manipulation and data consumption. Cambridge Analytica and Facebook challenges the status quo as;
·?????? nefarious intent of shareholders with an agenda
·?????? means of data acquisition with questionable consent on academic basis
·?????? analysing data with intent of manipulating mass mobilisation
·?????? utilising user information as means to an end
Utilitarianism and Deontology covers ethical dilemma in terms of data usage and privacy protection. In either framework, multiple stakeholders, actors, and shareholders are involved. The case study allows these two frameworks to be evaluated in terms of the ethical dilemma. Virtue Framework, queries individual intention – it defines a personal moral compass for individuals. Few stakeholders have had their moral compass re-calibrated during the process, i.e., Brittany Kaiser and Christopher Wylie.
?
?
3.???? Decision and Justification
Lot of companies use data-driven approach to manipulate agenda. Cambridge Analytica’s legacy for example in India is near permanent. Social influencers, print and digital media, continue to target vulnerable individuals in India, inciting hatred, and communal disharmony, manipulating right-wing politics. This bias is actively encouraged in algorithms at varying degree within Indian politics completely mauling ethical boundaries. This sort of marketing has moved from innocuous retail marketing into large scale mass mobilisation.In this case study, Facebook users never consented to Facebook and Cambridge Analytica to use their data to manipulate USA elections or Brexit. Data rights are Human rights – digital journey for individuals have become isolated. Targeting these individual personas and manipulating them have become increasingly easier.
Meta Platforms (Facebook, Messenger, Whatsapp and Instagram) have 7.4 billion active users. This gives immense power to a single organisation to manipulate certain decisions and views. Cambridge Analytica pleaded guilty (filed for bankruptcy in 2018) in protecting user rights, they never admitted acquiring data illegally, although morally or ethically the intent was questionable. Facebook did an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed amount for data breach. Regulators and policymakers are clearly playing catch-up to technology companies. During the UK trials, a closing statement was “elections in UK could never be fair”. In future every individual would have 70,000 unique points of reference, ranging from choice of food, political affiliation, mode of transportation to active lifestyle etc. If we do not consider the frameworks discussed above and take actions for it; humans will have NO rights to their personal data. Technology companies will continue to use user data as they seem suitable, blurring ethical boundaries.
Cambridge Analytica and Facebook did NOT perform an illegal act, they merely did an unethical one. Ethical challenge to this problem is NOT a country specific problem. Data mining is rapidly progressing in varied sector such as business, education, politics, industry, welfare etc. Ethical frameworks for data usage, regulation, compliance and privacy will avoid another Cambridge Analytica like situation. A global enforcement of such framework is required. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in EU has been a pioneer in adoption. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) continues to break new grounds in Information Security. Similar global regulations will avoid rogue genocide of data rights.
4.???? Bibliography and References
?