This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie testifies before US Senate – live
Christopher Wylie: 'Social platforms are no longer safe', says whistleblower – live
(35 minutes later)
And we’re off, with an opening statement by Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman.
Grassley just established that Wylie did not work for CA while it was working for Trump, which he acknowledged was true.
Grassley says that he requested Cambridge Analytica to appear at this hearing, but they declined in light of their recent declaration of insolvency.
We’re moving on to questioning. Everyone gets 5 minutes, but I’m not sure if that’s 5 minutes per witness, or total. Grassley goes first.
Eitan Hersh, the political scientist and expert on microtargeting who is also testifying at today’s hearing, just released his written testimony.
Jamison: New regulations are likely to harm FB users. They would likely serve to protect FB from new competition.
The testimony is eight pages long, but here’s the introduction (emphasis mine):
Jamison says that Europe’s new GDPR regulations are stifling competition and driving small firms out of Europe.
First, I will describe voter targeting practices. Based on the information I have seen from public reports about Cambridge Analytica, it is my opinion that its targeting practices in 2016 ought not to be a major cause for concern in terms of unduly influencing the election outcome. Second, I will explain the gaps in our knowledge about the effects of social media-based targeting. Much more could be learned by impartial researchers to determine the power of targeting tools used in the 2016 election and, more importantly, the landscape of targeting in the coming years. In order for researchers to learn these things, they will need access to data held by Facebook. Third, I will suggest that those interested in the effect of social media platforms on electoral politics should focus not only on the supply of provocative political information from campaigns and firms like Cambridge Analytica, but also on the demand for provocative information from American citizens.
Jamison: Each of Facebook’s steps over the years probably made sense at the time, but taken as a whole, there’s a broader problem.
Senators are filing into the hearing, and the witnesses are seated, so we should be getting started soon.
Jamison: Facebook has pivoted from being a connector of communities to someone that investigates people’s lives and filters their messages.
Last night, the New York Times reported that the department of justice and FBI have begun investigating the now-defunct Cambridge Analytica.
Now for Jamison who sums up his testimony with three points:
According to the Times, investigators have been questioning former CA employees, as well as its banks. Wylie confirmed to the Times that he had been contacted by both the FBI and the DOJ, and was planning to meet with their investigators.
Using Facebook and other social media data in ways that are not transparent to users is not unusual.
The political consultancy is also facing investigations in the UK.
Facebook has allowed itself to drift from serving users to serving advertisers, which is not a regulatory problem.
Welcome to the Guardian’s live coverage of Christopher Wylie’s appearance before the Senate judiciary committee.
New regulations are more likely to benefit Facebook than to rein it in.
Wylie is the pink-haired Canadian data scientist whose decision to blow the whistle on the use of Facebook data by Cambridge Analytica set off shock waves that are still reverberating through Westminster, Washington DC, and Silicon Valley. Since Wylie went public with the story of how the personal information of tens of millions of people was harvested from Facebook and used by a political consultant for Donald Trump, Cambridge Analytica has collapsed and Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg was hauled in front of Congress for the first time.
Wylie: My Facebook ban reveals the unchecked power of technology companies, when they can delete my entire digital presence because I spoke out.
Wylie appeared before the digital, culture, media and sport select committee of Parliament in late March, and he met privately with House Democrats in April. Today’s hearing, titled “Cambridge Analytica and the Future of Data Privacy”, will be his first public appearance before US lawmakers.
“Social platforms are no longer safe for users.”
Also testifying are Eitan Hersh, a professor of political science and author of Hacking the Electorate, and Mark Jamison, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and director of the University of Florida’s Public Utility Research Center.
Wylie: The work of CA is not comparable to other political marketers, because it used rumor, misinformation, and kompromat.
Jamison has written about the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica scandal from a business perspective, noting that while the use of data for political campaigns is normal, Facebook was wrong not to be more transparent with its users:
Wylie: I have seen documents where the firm sought to obtain hacked materials. Some of the subjects were heads of state...
For markets to perform well, customers should be given complete and understandable information on the nature of the services they are buying, even those that have a zero monetary price as in the case of Facebook. This isn’t happening.
Wylie: Data is being used to algorithmically segregate us. Cambridge Analytica is the canary in the coal mine.
Hersh, whose book studies the use and efficacy of micro-targeting by political campaigns, has called Cambridge Analytica’s claims about psychographic profiling “snake oil”.
Hersh is casting doubt on whether Cambridge Analytica’s psychographic targeting claims. He says campaigns that attempt to predict race of voters are wrong 25% of the time. If campaigns get race wrong a quarter of the time, how can we expect them to predict psychographic traits like neuroticism?
“To me, the story is 99% about Facebook and 1% about Cambridge Analytica,” Hersh told the LA Times.
Hersh: “Every election brings exaggerated claims about the technological feats of campaigns.”
Hersh points out that this occurs both because new technology is an easy story for the media, and because political consulting firms need to market their wares.
