Cambridge Analytica, a case study

  • 08 nov. 2024
  • 08 nov. 2024
  • 3 min de lecture
  • llms.txt

group

Cambridge Analytica scandal epitomises a dark reality towards ethical responsibilities of corporations operating within the framework of surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2019) Through what Zuboff calls “extraction practices,” (Zuboff, 2015, p. 78) Cambridge Analytica harvested personal data from millions of Facebook users, treating individual privacy not as a right but as a commodity to be seized. 1 As Zuboff argues, this new economic logic is fundamentally incompatible with democratic norms, as it concentrates unprecedented power in private companies while eliminating traditional reciprocities between corporations and people.

The ethical responsibility of Facebook lies in its facilitation of an infrastructure that prioritizes data acquisition over user privacy (Srnicek, 2017, p. pg.2, see expansion, monopolisation, invulnerabilities). By designing a platform that encourages extensive data sharing and by failing to enforce strict oversight over third-party data access, Facebook normalized surveillance as a core aspect of its business model (Couldry & Mejias, 2019). This aligns with the principles of surveillance capitalism, where the commodification of personal information becomes a driving economic force, often at the expense of individual autonomy and privacy.

Cambridge Analytica’s actions further exemplify the perils of surveillance capitalism by demonstrating how personal data can be weaponised to manipulate democratic processes. The firm’s use of regression ML algorithm to influence electoral outcomes highlights a significant ethical breach—transforming citizens from participants in a democracy to subjects of behavioral manipulation (Susser et al., 2019). This not only undermines individual rights but also poses a threat to the integrity of democratic institutions.

In a sense, Chris Wylie assumed significant ethical responsibilities as a whistleblower. By exposing the company’s unethical data practices, Wylie upheld a moral imperative to prevent harm to society and protect democratic processes. Whistleblowers often face substantial personal and professional risks, but their actions are vital in bringing unethical practices to light (Vandekerckhove & Langenberg, 2012). Wylie’s decision to reveal the inner workings of Cambridge Analytica provided transparency and prompted a global discourse on data privacy and the dangers of surveillance capitalism.

Regulators and policymakers share in the ethical responsibility due to their delayed response to the evolving landscape of data privacy. The lack of robust legal frameworks allowed surveillance capitalism to flourish unchecked, exposing vulnerabilities in data protection and user rights (Acquisti et al., 2016). The scandal underscores the urgent need for comprehensive regulations that address the complexities of data commodification in the digital age.

References

  • Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. (2016). The Economics of Privacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(2), 442–492. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.2.442
  • Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford University Press. https://www.sup.org/books/sociology/costs-connection
  • Srnicek, N. (2017). The challenges of platform capitalism: Understanding the logic of a new business model. Juncture, 23(4), 254–257. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12023
  • Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Technology, autonomy, and manipulation. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1410
  • Vandekerckhove, W., & Langenberg, S. (2012). Can We Organize Courage? Implications from Foucault’s Parrhesia. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organizational Studies. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2005662
  • Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5
  • Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs.

Footnotes

  1. Surveillance capitalism operates by extracting surplus data from individuals—often without their explicit consent—and using it to predict and influence behavior for profit.(Zuboff, 2015, p. 81) Facebook’s business model relied heavily on harvesting vast amounts of user data to drive targeted advertising, creating an environment ripe for exploitation. ↩

⌘ '
afficher les raccourcis clavier
raccourcis clavier

Liens retour

Cambridge Analytica, a case study

group

Cambridge Analytica scandal epitomises a dark reality towards ethical responsibilities of corporations operating within the framework of surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2019) Through what Zuboff calls “extraction practices,” (Zuboff, 2015, p. 78) Cambridge Analytica harvested personal data from millions of Facebook users, treating individual privacy not as a right but as a commodity to be seized. 1 As Zuboff argues, this new economic logic is fundamentally incompatible with democratic norms, as it concentrates unprecedented power in private companies while eliminating traditional reciprocities between corporations and people.

The ethical responsibility of Facebook lies in its facilitation of an infrastructure that prioritizes data acquisition over user privacy (Srnicek, 2017, p. pg.2, see expansion, monopolisation, invulnerabilities). By designing a platform that encourages extensive data sharing and by failing to enforce strict oversight over third-party data access, Facebook normalized surveillance as a core aspect of its business model (Couldry & Mejias, 2019). This aligns with the principles of surveillance capitalism, where the commodification of personal information becomes a driving economic force, often at the expense of individual autonomy and privacy.

Cambridge Analytica’s actions further exemplify the perils of surveillance capitalism by demonstrating how personal data can be weaponised to manipulate democratic processes. The firm’s use of regression ML algorithm to influence electoral outcomes highlights a significant ethical breach—transforming citizens from participants in a democracy to subjects of behavioral manipulation (Susser et al., 2019). This not only undermines individual rights but also poses a threat to the integrity of democratic institutions.

In a sense, Chris Wylie assumed significant ethical responsibilities as a whistleblower. By exposing the company’s unethical data practices, Wylie upheld a moral imperative to prevent harm to society and protect democratic processes. Whistleblowers often face substantial personal and professional risks, but their actions are vital in bringing unethical practices to light (Vandekerckhove & Langenberg, 2012). Wylie’s decision to reveal the inner workings of Cambridge Analytica provided transparency and prompted a global discourse on data privacy and the dangers of surveillance capitalism.

Regulators and policymakers share in the ethical responsibility due to their delayed response to the evolving landscape of data privacy. The lack of robust legal frameworks allowed surveillance capitalism to flourish unchecked, exposing vulnerabilities in data protection and user rights (Acquisti et al., 2016). The scandal underscores the urgent need for comprehensive regulations that address the complexities of data commodification in the digital age.

References

  • Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. (2016). The Economics of Privacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(2), 442–492. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.2.442
  • Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford University Press. https://www.sup.org/books/sociology/costs-connection
  • Srnicek, N. (2017). The challenges of platform capitalism: Understanding the logic of a new business model. Juncture, 23(4), 254–257. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12023
  • Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Technology, autonomy, and manipulation. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1410
  • Vandekerckhove, W., & Langenberg, S. (2012). Can We Organize Courage? Implications from Foucault’s Parrhesia. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organizational Studies. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2005662
  • Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5
  • Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs.

Footnotes

  1. Surveillance capitalism operates by extracting surplus data from individuals—often without their explicit consent—and using it to predict and influence behavior for profit.(Zuboff, 2015, p. 81) Facebook’s business model relied heavily on harvesting vast amounts of user data to drive targeted advertising, creating an environment ripe for exploitation. ↩