Cambridge Analytica

[Spy Bee]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-we-spent-1m-harvesting-millions-of-facebook-profiles-video?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

This looks like being huge!

[Spy Bee]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-academic-trawling-facebook-had-links-to-russian-university?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

Cambridge Analytica: links to Moscow oil firm and St Petersburg university

Data company gave briefing to Moscow firm Lukoil, and the lecturer who developed the crucial algorithm worked for St Petersburg university 

[Moctezuma]

Watching that blurts interview on the Guardian yesterday was one of the clearest examples I've seen of someone who is crushingly stupid thinking they are intelligent due to having a specific skill set that is being manipulated by others, a stark contrast to Edward Snowden. At least the dipshit has had the gumption to speak about what they were up to, though it did seem almost akin to boasting, now no doubt he'll have a nice soft career as a media talking head, instead of having any sanction thrown against him.

[VladimirIlyich]

So correct me if I am wrong,a clever Professor who is a specialist in data mining,information collection and trends,etc,persuaded idiots to vote against their own self interest by voting for Trump/Brexit/Tories or whatever?

Not really surprising now that newspapers are carrying less inflence. So where is the scandal?

[SasaS]

Wasn't Cambridge Analytica already profiled in BBC's documentary The Secrets of Silicon Valley where a Trump's campaigner more or less admits what they did for them?

[Spy Bee]

So correct me if I am wrong,a clever Professor who is a specialist in data mining,information collection and trends,etc,persuaded idiots to vote against their own self interest by voting for Trump/Brexit/Tories or whatever?

Not really surprising now that newspapers are carrying less inflence. So where is the scandal?

It was done illegally, it's a huge conspiracy - don't you think subverting democracy and playing psychological games with people without their knowledge is a bit of a big deal?

 

It appears that the funding may have come from Russia.

[Spy Bee]

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/975810387059802112

[Numero Veinticinco]

What did they do that was illegal?

 

(Genuine question... I've no idea about this as I've barely looked into it. No trick, no being a prick... just curious)

[Spy Bee]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4044728/Theresa-wants-use-army-computerised-Trump-mind-readers-help-win-Election.html

 

Theresa May 'wants to use an army of computerised Trump "mind-readers" to help her win the next Election' 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4044728/Theresa-wants-use-army-computerised-Trump-mind-readers-help-win-Election.html#ixzz5AEBYKjtt 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Spy Bee]

What did they do that was illegal?

 

(Genuine question... I've no idea about this as I've barely looked into it. No trick, no being a prick... just curious)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/15/cambridge-analytica-illegal-foreign-donors-leave-eu-arron-banks

[Spy Bee]

Wrong link, bit tied up now. Easy enough to Google

[Numero Veinticinco]

Yeah, that link doesn't say they broke the law. They seem shady as fuck, but from my relatively short Google, there doesn't seem to be anything illegal. Unethical, maybe, but not illegal. That's why I asked, because I can't find it.

[Spy Bee]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-non-american-employees-political

 

They didn't actually break protocol by gaining access to personal messages. Which is more of a worry than if they did circumvent the system.

[Spy Bee]

Yeah, that link doesn't say they broke the law. They seem shady as fuck, but from my relatively short Google, there doesn't seem to be anything illegal. Unethical, maybe, but not illegal. That's why I asked, because I can't find it.

Why not just say that up front?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Why not just say that up front?

I did. That's exactly what I said. I wanted to see what information you knew about it in order to make the statement you had about it being illegal. I think it's pretty fair? When you say something is a huge conspiracy and they're doing something illegal, and I don't know about it, then it seems sensible to actually ask.

[Spy Bee]

(Genuine question... I've no idea about this as I've barely looked into it. No trick, no being a prick... just curious)

This was just purely disingenuous then?

 

Standard!

[Numero Veinticinco]

Wow.

 

Sorry mate, I should have kept well clear.

[Spy Bee]

https://qz.com/1231643/cambridge-analytica-illegally-obtained-data-from-50-million-facebook-users-to-run-trump-ads/

[Spy Bee]

Wow.

 

Sorry mate, I should have kept well clear.

You can't really deny that you have been disingenuous, as you have contradicted yourself in this thread. Why not just say "I haven't been able to find anything which says it is illegal". I don't expect anything more from you though.

[Numero Veinticinco]

You can't really deny that you have been disingenuous

Where? I don't get why asking you a question has to get this sort of aggressive response, I really don't.

 

I first said 'I've no idea about this as I've barely looked into it'. The I said 'but from my relatively short Google', which means 'barely looked into'. I didn't want to steam straight in and say 'there's nothing illegal about it', I thought it both polite and courteous to actually ask you politely for the information that you had that I might not have seen.

[Spy Bee]

Yeah whatever, you can't tell God anything!

 

I'll revert to my previous plan of ignoring you.

 

This is an interesting video: 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Why not just look into it and make your own mind up?

 

They employed non-US nationals to work on a US election campaign. That's illegal.

 

They also hinted that their target ads weren't necessarily true but that didn't matter just as the electorate believed the claims. That's potentially defamatory. Illegal. In a tortuous rather than criminal sense.

 

Also, they've alluded to potential bribery and blackmail, although their admissions may have fell just short of those offences.

[Pureblood]

[Numero Veinticinco]

Why not just look into it and make your own mind up?

So that's the standard here now, is it? We see something that somebody posted, and rather than discuss it on this discussion forum, we go away, do research, and then rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt we just ignore it and go away? Risible.

 

They employed non-US nationals to work on a US election campaign. That's illegal.

I suggest you read the article.

 

They also hinted that their target ads weren't necessarily true but that didn't matter just as the electorate believed the claims. That's potentially defamatory. Illegal.

Hinted? Potentially? Nope.

 

I genuinely thought there was something solid to back up what he said, as these seem shady and it's what shady companies tend to do. I think it's more than fair to ask him for what he knows. Seems to have pissed him off to have to back up what he said rather than just to take it as fact. Quite bizarre.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

tl; dr