FTC rules 5-0 that Cambridge Analytica engaged in deceptive practices [pdf]

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/d09389_comm_final_opinionpublic.pdf

by anigbrowl • 7 years ago

240 39 7 years ago

mindslight• 7 years ago

This is what early stage regulatory capture looks like. Now that some token bad actors have been called out, we can go back to ignoring the elephant in the room of the too-big-to-fail surveillance companies keeping databases that would make the staunchest Stasi agent blush.

munk-a2• 7 years ago

It looks like a pretty nice outcome for CA, no persons involved are being hit with criminal charges, instead they're limited to just constraints on future actions - additionally CA has filed for bankruptcy and there is no initiative I can see in this order that goes after original investors as having conspired on these charges, so they'll lose their investment but that was probably a write off anyways.

sigstoat• 7 years ago

no persons involved are being hit with criminal charges

can the FTC or whoever else is involved _at_ _this_ _stage_ even file criminal charges against individuals?

we see over and over comments of the "omg no criminal charges" variety whenever a government body that can't file criminal charges fails to do so.

vermontdevil• 7 years ago

I’m sure they can refer to Justice Department to go down that path?

tyingq• 7 years ago

They have a liason department that has that mission: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/criminal-liaison-unit

shaneprrlt• 7 years ago

They're known for imposing fines that are minuscule relative to the amount of damage whoever they're investigating caused. For most deceptive operations large enough to land on the FTC's radar, whatever fines they might end up paying are considered a speeding ticket and cost of doing business. It's sad, really. They're also known for being massively understaffed relative to the amount of complaints they receive.

akira2501• 7 years ago

even file criminal charges against individuals?

Usually it would be recommended to FBI for legal review, and if they find that laws were broken, then referred to the DOJ for prosecution.

we see over and over comments of the "omg no criminal charges"

If you committed a crime, whether violent or financial, then you should be prosecuted. It's disheartening to see government lawyers give away the candy store every time just so they can secure a "quick" negotiation and move on with their jobs.

Unless people have _real_ disincentives to break the law.. guess what? They're just going to break the law and hide behind their money for as long as we let them. This needs to change or we're going to experience the 1930s again.

lvs2• 7 years ago

I think you misunderstand what the FTC does. The FTC does not have the power to charge individuals under criminal indictments.

munk-a2• 7 years ago

The FTC has the ability to recommend charges and often will name and shame involved parties - additionally the FTC could extend the liability for these fines to the backers of CA if they chose to and that'd honestly send a ridiculously strong message - investing in something this shady should really break out of the standard liability agreements of a corporation and extend to personal assets. If the investors behind CA were aware of the shady business CA was trying to do (and all signs point strongly to yes in this case) then they conspired. If they conspired they should be prosecuted accordingly and this seems like a good and easy charge to press.

shakna• 7 years ago

instead they're limited to just constraints on future actions

Just as a small reminder:

CA is officially shutting down. [0]

They're also re-emerging as Emerdata. [1] (Same people, same office, different name and registration.)

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43983958

[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/02/cambridge_analytica...

ones_and_zeros• 7 years ago

In this timeline a ruling like this probably increases their valuation, too bad they filed for bankruptcy.

etaioinshrdlu2• 7 years ago

The way I heard the story, Alexander Nix was a chronic exaggerator who pushed the narrative that CA had a huge impact on Brexit and other elections when it simply wasn't true. He did this in order to gain more sales. They said the Facebook data was deleted by the time of the Trump campaign.

My theory is that they are not so different than a typical digital ad agency but they got caught up in a political tornado. I think we should at least be open minded to the possibility they have been scapegoated here.

wavefunction• 7 years ago

"Don't be so open-minded your brain falls out"

rsynnott2• 7 years ago

Nix said that his company uses honey traps, bribery stings, and prostitutes, for opposition research

VERY NORMAL DIGITAL AD AGENCY THINGS.

etaioinshrdlu2• 7 years ago

It is possible Nix made all that up as a weird form of bragging to close a sale to a sleazy customer. I couldn't find any actual evidence to the contrary. This isn't my theory, it is literally what a CA employee told me in person.

PixyMisa• 7 years ago

Ah, I see you've worked with SEO companies too.

disappearance• 7 years ago

Rubbish. Watch this.

British investigative journalism at its best. Collaboration between the Guardian & Channel 4. https://www.channel4.com/news/data-democracy-and-dirty-trick...

pjc50• 7 years ago

The real question is, which company is doing the unethical data collection and covert advertising today? Ready for the December UK election?

deepakhj• 7 years ago

Cambridge Analytica -> Emerdata https://www.fastcompany.com/90381366/the-mysterious-afterlif...

newnewpdro• 7 years ago

s/company is/companies are/

m0zg4• 7 years ago

I'd be interested in seeing an unanimous FTC ruling on Barack Obama's campaign downloading and mining the entire Facebook social graph in 2012, with Facebook's implicit consent. And unlike the Trump campaign, Obama's did use this data for more than just winning the primary. It went something like this: you downloaded an app on FB and that app would grab not just your data, but also _that of your friends_. FB turned the blind eye. Nary a word from the press, too.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-...

sysyefyct• 7 years ago

The downvotes are because saying anything negative about Democrats or positive about Republicans isn't allowed here.

makomk• 7 years ago

The FTC's basis for this ruling against Cambridge Analytica is that they deceived users about what data was being gathered and how it was being used in order to get access. The 2012 Obama campaign didn't. Now that's not to say that they had any sort of consent from the people they were gathering information from - they clearly didn't, because they were scraping information about friends just like CA - or that what they were doing wasn't creepy and morally dubious. It just means that the reasoning in this opinion doesn't apply.

In fact, they don't seem to allege that CA committed any kind of violation by scraping the data of US friends of people who used their app, precisely because those users didn't consent. Their argument is that CA breached the FTC Act by making false or misleading representations to get people to give them access to their data, but they can't stretch that to cover scraping of their friends' data because those friends never agreed to anything and CA made no promises to users about their friends.

m0zg4• 7 years ago

But it kinda did, tho. I really doubt the users understood the full extent of the data they were _actually_ sharing, and particularly that this data included data of all their friends as well.

Traster• 7 years ago

This is basically whataboutism. If you agree with the principle you should be calling for the people in CA to be personally culpable (and their investors and customers, who knew full well what they were doing). If you disagree, make an argument as to why the principle is wrong.

m0zg4• 7 years ago

> This is basically whataboutism.

And this ^ is hypocrisy.

FpUser• 7 years ago

"you should be calling for the people in CA to be personally culpable"

I am all for it. But let's follow first come first served and start punishing the earlier perpetrators first.

What you call "whataboutism" is simply people's natural feel for justice. When you advocate punishment make sure it applies EQUALLY TO EVERY ENTITY GUILTY. If not then people will start pointing fingers and quite rightfully. It is not them being "whataboutists". It is you behaving like/protecting a hypocrite.

FTC rules 5-0 that Cambridge Analytica engaged in deceptive practices [pdf]

Related Stories