Data Rapists: Facebook Whistleblower Claims Millions More Than 87 Million Users Targeted by Cambridge Analytica
London, UK: A former Cambridge Analytica insider turned whistleblower, Brittany Kaiser, has revealed that far more than the previously reported 87 million Facebook users may have had their data harvested by the political consulting firm. Kaiser, speaking at a UK Parliament committee meeting yesterday, detailed the company’s sophisticated data collection tactics, raising serious concerns about the potential for widespread data misuse.
"The real issue with the Cogan datasets wasn’t that they were collected, it was that they were collected under the pretense that they weren’t going to be used for commercial purposes," Kaiser explained. She went on to say that while Facebook quizzes were popular at the time, users often didn’t fully understand how their data was being collected and used, even if it technically fell within Facebook’s terms of service.
"There’s a very low amount of data literacy around the world," Kaiser acknowledged. "When you agreed to terms and conditions of using a Facebook app, such as these quizzes, you were agreeing to giving your data."
She argued that this was just the "tip of the iceberg," as companies like Google collect even more data than Facebook. The real issue, Kaiser emphasized, is the lack of transparency surrounding data collection and how it is used for monetization.
This sentiment was echoed by Jeffrey Wernick, an early investor in Uber and Airbnb, who has been working with Kaiser on initiatives to improve data collection transparency.
"If the data is used specifically for in-house users, I don’t expect there to be any compensation," Wernick said. "But if they’re using the data to sell advertising space – that’s where the compensation is involved." He further argued that users should be compensated for their data, comparing it to being an "input into the production function" of companies like Facebook and Google.
"It’s an issue of property rights," he stated. "We have a problem defining this…given the act of defining it with Facebook being given the curator of the platform, essentially ownership of that information, I don’t see anywhere where, in any contracts, they basically become the owner of the information."
Wernick argued that users own their data, and any use of it beyond the context of a transaction should require their explicit permission and compensation.
While some may think the genie is already out of the bottle, both Kaiser and Wernick believe it’s not about reining back existing data, but rather building a new framework for data collection and use going forward. This framework, they argue, must include transparency, user control, and fair compensation when data is monetized.
"We need to change the model with which we interact with companies that are doing the data collection," stated Kaiser. "Individuals need to be educated about what this actually means."
Both experts acknowledged the challenge of educating users about data ownership and the complexities of data collection practices. However, they believe a new social contract is needed, one where users are empowered to make informed choices about their data and receive fair compensation for its use.
This latest development highlights the growing concerns around data privacy and the need for greater transparency and user control in a world where personal data is increasingly valuable. As the debate surrounding data ownership and its monetization continues, the question remains: are we ready to take ownership of our digital lives?
Facebook Data Harvesting Scandal: Whistleblower Exposes "Sex Compass" Quizzes and the Wider Data Privacy Crisis
Former Cambridge Analytica insider Brittany Kaiser revealed shocking details about the company’s data collection tactics during a UK Parliament committee meeting, shattering the illusion of Facebook user privacy and igniting a wider debate about data ownership. While the headlines focused on the 87 million Facebook users whose data was potentially compromised, Kaiser emphasized that the real issue lies within "the pretense" under which this data was collected. She went on to explain that "sex compass" and "music personality" quizzes were specifically designed to gather personal information without users’ awareness. Many individuals may have unknowingly given away their data through these seemingly innocuous quizzes. These revelations have raised serious concerns about data privacy and sparked a conversation about the need for greater data literacy and transparency.
Key Takeaways:
- More than 87 million Facebook users may have had their data harvested by Cambridge Analytica, but the actual number could be much higher.
- Cambridge Analytica collected data through quizzes disguised as harmless entertainment, deceiving users about the true purpose of data collection.
- The issue extends beyond Cambridge Analytica, as companies like Google gather extensive data on users.
- The lack of transparency regarding data collection and usage is a critical concern, pushing individuals to demand more control over their personal information.
Beyond the "Sex Compass": A Deeper Dive into Data Collection Tactics
Kaiser’s testimony offered a chilling glimpse into the inner workings of Cambridge Analytica, highlighting the sophisticated techniques used to harvest data from Facebook users. The "sex compass" and "music personality" quizzes served as deceptive gateways to collect sensitive personal information about individuals’ preferences and interests. These quizzes were designed to mimic harmless entertainment, lulling users into a false sense of security while actually feeding a vast database with their personal data.
But the spotlight on Cambridge Analytica only skims the surface of a much larger problem, Kaiser warns. "Facebook collects a fraction of the amount of data that companies like Google collect," she states, emphasizing that the lack of transparency and control over data collection is a systemic issue that extends far beyond one company.
Data Ownership: A New Model for Personal Information
The Cambridge Analytica scandal has thrust the issue of data ownership into the forefront of public consciousness. Jeffrey Wernick, an early investor in Uber and Airbnb, joins the conversation, advocating for a paradigm shift in how we view and manage our data.
Wernick uses stark language to describe companies that collect and monetize user data, comparing them to "data rapists." He argues that if companies like Amazon and Walmart collect data for internal purposes and don’t monetize it, there’s less of a concern. However, once the data is utilized for profit, the question of ownership and compensation arises.
"If they’re using it to market products, they’re using my information to make their platform more valuable without compensating me," Wernick argues. "I should be getting compensated for being an input into their production function." He sees this as an issue of property rights, highlighting the unequal power dynamics between users and companies that control their data.
The "Genies Out of the Bottle" Argument: A New Social Contract?
The question arises: if so much data has already been collected, is it even possible to reclaim control over our personal information? Both Kaiser and Wernick believe it is not a question of "reining it back in" but rather of moving forward with a new model for data ownership and transparency.
"If we start to view our digital assets, our personal data, as our property, then we can start to change the terms and conditions, the social contract, and the actual legal contracts that we have with our usage of these platforms," Kaiser explains.
She emphasizes the lack of transparency in the "terms and conditions" that we routinely agree to without fully understanding their implications. Instead of operating in a "default opt-in" environment, where users are essentially granted access to a platform with the presumption that they agree to data collection, Kaiser advocates for an "opt-in" system, similar to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
"Individuals need to be educated about what this actually means," Kaiser states. "If your data is your property and other people are using it, what transparency is there? What kind of permissions and permission-based structures are available for you to make those decisions?"
Wernick highlights the need for greater data literacy, acknowledging that the current system relies on users being sufficiently informed and aware of how their data is being used. "Nothing’s for free," he says, reminding consumers that information is a valuable commodity. He ultimately sees the solution as empowering individuals to make more informed choices about their data, ensuring that they are not unknowingly providing their personal information to companies that intend to profit from it without compensation.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal is a wake-up call, pushing individuals and legislators alike to re-evaluate the relationship between data, privacy, and ownership. The "sex compass" quizzes may have served as a gateway to a deeper issue – the lack of control we have over our personal information in the digital age. As the use of data continues to evolve, the need for transparency, informed consent, and fair compensation will become increasingly critical.
