A Murky Story


As Facebook got caught in (yet another) storm over privacy, this time over a firm called Cambridge Analytica, we have the usual polarized views being blared out:
-         Was the Facebook data leaked? Or misused?
-         Did it contribute to Trump’s win (and Brexit)?
-         How much is Facebook to blame?
To answer those questions, we should see what exactly happened.

Cambridge Analytica is a data analytics firm. Depending on your political views, writes Bryan Clark, it was:
“either integral to the Brexit leave campaign and Donald Trump’s surprise presidential victory, or selling snake oil that both parties (and others) willfully swallowed.”
The firm was created by an American billionaire, Robert Mercer, a staunch Republican, to mine data for political purposes. If you are horrified, remember that Facebook, Google and Amazon target ads at you based on your preferences. So where does one draw a moral line? What should be the criteria?

How the firm got its data is shady. A psychology professor, Dr. Kogan asked Facebook for data for a “research app used by psychologists”. The app was downloaded just 0.27 million times. But where it gets shady is that the app got your permission (via that “I accept” button that we never read) to access your personal details and also that of your contacts.

And the firm offered $1 or $2 to each Amazon Turk worker if they’d be willing to download the app. You see where this is going? Offer money and the number of users will increase. And so the firm got access to the data of the new users and their contacts. Thus getting to a total of 50 million (American) users!

But wait, it gets worse. Kogan told Facebook he’d anonymize the data. He didn’t. In fact, he even shared the data with other entities.

Should Facebook’s policies for sharing data have been more stringent? Of course. Should Facebook have had better checks? Totally. Given past complaints on the same data sharing (and abuse) topic, should Facebook have improved its policy over the years? Absolutely.

To me though, the bad actor here is Cambridge Analytica who lied and abused the trust. But how much difference did any of this make to an election outcome? I think that’s the part where the answer can only be a guess. A guess that is inevitably based on your political leanings and personal views.

The amount of blame being laid at Facebook’s door seems excessive. Then again, is that inevitable because the media views Facebook as a competitor and threat? It’s hard to know since there are no neutral actors anywhere in this story.

Comments

  1. Ramiah KumarMarch 23, 2018 at 12:21 PM

    The finish line, "It’s hard to know since there are no neutral actors anywhere in this story", made me realize that a universal truth is here reduced to particular. I am inclined believe that neutral actors are actually nowhere in all stories! :-)

    There is a cliche "Nature abhors vacuum"; This could well be a cliche too: "The human mind abhors neutrality".

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Image
As a toddler, my daughter loved Alia Bhatt’s songs, esp. the ones from Student of the Year . (That movie did have many good songs and well-choreographed dances). Fast forward to present day, when she is 12 yo. She rarely watches Hindi movies now, but one of the few ones she likes of late, Raja aur Rani ki Prem Kahani has, yes, Alia Bhatt.   If I had any hopes that there was anything to be read in the name of her toddler-time favorite ( Student of the Year ), they have been dashed. Our conversations come exam time are perfectly captured by this photo and its caption: In fact, the pic below captures how she and I look at her answer sheets – me intently, she with an expression of “It’s over, so why are you even looking at it?”   Of late, we pull her leg and tell her that she isn’t showing any signs of academic prowess, she’d better find a rich guy to marry. Some time later, she showed us this meme on the Internet: “Me No Study, Me No Care Me Go Marry Millionaire If He Die
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn
Read more

Handling of the Satyam Scam

The Satyam scam. How does that fit into Montek Singh Ahluwalia’s book on reforms in India, Backstage ? The reason is that, as both NASSCOM and the government of India felt: “(Satyam’s) collapse would create a great deal of disruption for clients worldwide and seriously damage India’s reputation as a reliable source of software services.”   Therefore, the government decided to work with the private sector to “organize a quick takeover by a reputable new buyer, who would quickly restart the company”. But that could not be done overnight. In the meantime, the new board would have to reach out to Satyam’s clients and “reassure them that the company would survive”.   For the new board to have credibility when it made that statement, it had to be staffed with people who understood the private sector, the IT sector in particular, and commanded respect and trust. Deepak Parikh from HDFC was made chairman, and other members of the board included a former NASSCOM chairman, CII member,
Read more