 |
| Photo Credit: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-646-5188-17 / Opitz / CC-BY-SA 3.0 |
By Neil Patrick
The new Agents of Fortune have emerged from the shadows
In the summer of 1940, the Nazi Blitzkreig overran the whole
of Western Europe. Blitzkreig was a revolution in warfare. It used the
concentration of forces, speed and communications to outwit the bigger and
better armed allied powers of Western Europe. I use the word ‘speed’ advisedly;
German troops used a lot of amphetamines, but that’s another story. Great Britain and
France had prepared for a traditional war. They were outwitted and outmanoeuvred
at every turn.
Over seventy five years on and Datakreig is on the rampage.
The Cambridge Analytica and Facebook scandal has remarkable similarities to the 1940 Blitzkreig. It represents a revolution in how power is acquired and disseminated (or more likely sold) by a new breed of digital data warriors. With or without
the use of amphetamines, they are running rings around a complacent and out of
touch old media, government and judiciary.
Yesterday I observed how this scandal was unfolding and how
the public were reacting. Most used the situation to voice their political prejudices, citing this case as proof of the correctness of their viewpoints. In my opinion:
The fact that the now ex-CEO of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander
Nix went to Eton is not evidence of a global elite intent on enslaving the
rest of us.
The (big) dent in Facebook's share price doesn’t mark the beginning
of the end for the big digital media firms.
The fact that Facebook holds an immense amount of personal data
is not a crime IF it is gathered fairly and transparently and only shared with
our full knowledge and explicit consent.
Nonetheless, there is something deeply unsettling emerging here. Lines must be drawn. But where?
Nonetheless, there is something deeply unsettling emerging here. Lines must be drawn. But where?
Use of our individual and personal
data for political purposes is unacceptable in a democracy
The way that the Trump campaign used social media data would
be recognised and well understood by any marketing specialist or military
strategist. But this doesn't make it acceptable within the political process.
Better intelligence and targeting than your competitors or
rivals provides a serious tactical advantage. And Cambridge Analytica’s
strategy worked better than probably even they had expected. A previous attempt
to use it with Republican nominee Ted Cruz had disappointing results.
Nonetheless Cambridge Analytica were surely not exactly grief-stricken having
pocketed $5.8m in fees for this work.
The pooling and utilisation of personal data in this way is
probably at least tacitly accepted by social media users as a fair exchange if it is just being used for advertising
products and services. Irritating perhaps, but a reasonable price to pay for an essentially free platform. After all, most people would accept that old media advertising is fair and
reasonable, provided it can be clearly identified for what it is, ie. not cloaked within editorial content.
But politics is not about commerce. It is about power. And personal digital
data is not old media. It is or should be private. When our data is being
passed to political groups, a line is crossed. Yet Cambridge Analytica may
well not have broken any laws however unacceptable their actions may be – because
the law is completely out of step with the nature and pace of the digital
revolution. If and when legal actions and government interventions occur, we
can fully expect that by the time they are enacted, the game and its tactics
will have moved on.
This is a very
unequal struggle
Data regulators are not adequately empowered to act
independently of the judiciary. The UK Data Commissioner has a team of ten people
working on this case. That’s ten UK civil servants with their hands tied behind their
backs vs. a corporation with total assets in 2017 of $84billion.
The power and capital amassed by Facebook is more than
monopoly power; FB had a revenue of $40.6bn in 2017, which is greater than the
entire GDP of many countries.
Because the UK Data Commissioner cannot raid premises
without a court order, the whole world knew they intended to examine Cambridge
Analytics' servers long before they actually gained access. Facebook on the
other hand entered Cambridge Analytica's premises on Monday. We can conjecture that both Facebook
and CA will have erased without trace any evidence of possible malpractice long
before the civil servants arrive.
And it has now emerged that Cambridge Analytica used
ProtonMail accounts set to self-destruct without trace within two hours of
being delivered. This fact alone suggests that they were intent on establishing a cloak of secrecy over everything they did. There will be no paper
trail here…
Remember though that
the whistle blowers have a deeply vested interest
The media forces which have ranged themselves against the new agents of
fortune are the old agents of fortune. The New York Times, the Observer and
Channel 4 Television News. The old guard are used to having the power to
influence events. Usually in favour of their own proprietors' political and business
allegiances.
So we should also recognise that the whistle blowers are not without their own motives. Old media has been losing billions in revenues to digital
platforms for years. They have tried every trick to get in step with the
digital revolution and have mostly failed. The Cambridge Analytica situation
is possibly the best news old media has received in years. They can fully
expect that in the coming weeks and months their digital nemeses will likely
have their wings seriously clipped.
Datakreig deploys
pace and opaqueness to assure its goals are accomplished
Tech knows it can easily exceed the pace at which government and
regulators can respond. Digital media owners know that their opaqueness, resources and
pan-national organisations make them able to out run and out gun regulatory controls.
Cambridge Analytics represents a new revolutionary guard.
Whether they acted legally or not is a moot point. Data regulations and enforcement
are hopelessly out of step with digital media. The big digital media firms can
afford the best lawyers and tech heads to ensure the not very digital regulators are
outwitted at every turn. Just like blitzkrieg, they use speed and camouflage to
leave the forces of justice choking in their dust.
If we wish to live in a democracy, we can and should
demand that legal lines are drawn over how our personal data can be used. Government
action requires though that we wait for their painfully slow next moves. I'd venture that a much more effective response is to vote
with our consciences, our smartphones and our wallets...
For my views on Mark Zuckerberg's Congressional hearing click here
For my views on Mark Zuckerberg's Congressional hearing click here
No comments:
Post a Comment