Cambridge Analytica campaigned for Republicans across America in 2014


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/04/10/repeat-customers.html


#2

I checked the Facebook tool.

It said I was not one of the ones whose data was shared, but one of my friends was, so because of that, mine was.

“We shared your data, but we are not counting it as shared data.”


#3

2016 wasn’t a dry run, they’d been at this for a some time.


#4

I’ll bet that’s a relief!


#5

The story left out the clear fact that CA is funded by Republican ideologue hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. Always follow the money.


#6

I don’t like the Republican Party, and I don’t like what Cambridge Analytica has done. But why do you say it was illegal? What laws have they broken?


#7

So what this says is people vote based on Facebook? Yikes!!!


#8

And by working on those down-ballot races, they also affected an up-ballot race. Mark Udall was well-liked; Gardner’s win was exceedingly narrow and unexpected. There are a lot of us who have been thinking Gardner was a test run for 2016.

We often think that top of ballot races affect down-ballot, and that’s true, but we pay hardly any attention to the fact that down-ballot races can reach up and alter the top of the ballot, too.


#9

Welcome to BoingBoing!

My understanding is that no US laws are broken - mainly because there are no US laws prohibiting the use of personal data like this.

The retention and sale of data belonging to British users would appear to breach the UK’s Data Protection Act.

Any US person know of any US laws alleged to have been breached?


#10

That’s what I thought. I was responding to this in Doctorow’s post “In addition to Cambridge Analytica’s dirty/illegal use of data”. Dirty, yes. Illegal, I don’t think so. There ought to be a law, certainly, but as far as I know, there isn’t. jr


#11

Well as I said, it probably is illegal in a very specifically Cory-article sense.

The organisation’s use of some data at some time is probably illegal in some jurisdiction.

Just not the data being discussed or its use at the time and in the jurisdiction being discussed in this particular article. :slight_smile:

Coupled with the use of “dirty/illegal”, it probably just scrapes over the line of editorial hyperbole but it’s definitely pushing it.

As always with Cory’s articles (well, any article really) it pays to read the linked article and consider BB’s summary as an editorial comment on the article rather than “news” itself.


#12

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.