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.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2018/jun/06/alexander-nix-cambridge-analytica-chief-commons-committee-live
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Alexander Nix, former Cambridge Analytica chief, grilled by MPs – live | Alexander Nix, former Cambridge Analytica chief, grilled by MPs – live |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Elliott now follows up with a question about some leaked AIQ source code, which was accidentally kept public and discovered in April. Nix notes that the leak was Aggregate IQ, not Cambridge Analytica. | |
| “The confusion seems to be that this codebase was the same as the data on the platform… my understanding is that the codebase contained to the platform. There is no correlation between the codebase for the platform and the data that went in it.” He explains further with an odd metaphor about building a car. | |
| “There’s nothing sensitive or put at risk by the code for a program being left on an open forum,” Nix says, citing the open source programming community’s choice to do exactly that. | |
| Julie Elliott, Labour, asks Nix if he wants to revise his answer that Cambridge Analytica has no relationship with Aggregate IQ, a Canadian agency that was involved with the EU referendum. | |
| Nix says he is happy with his answer, because it was in the present tense: AIQ does not work with CA, but it did once, to build a digital platform called Ripon. | |
| “We used AIQ as an independent company of software engineers to help us build a voter engagement platform” – Ripon. | |
| “The vast majority of data that was used in this platform was a combination of voter registration data… and consumer and lifestyle data,” Nix adds. | |
| Matheson asks about the Guardian’s report, published just over an hour ago, that Cambridge Analytica employee Brittany Kaiser had met with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange. | |
| Nix says he knows nothing about that meeting, prompting Matheson to ask whether Nix knows anything at all about the actions of his staff. | |
| “It might have been useful,” given Wikileaks’ role in politics, “if you had been aware of that,” Matheson says. | |
| “I don’t know how I can say this more clearly, I wasn’t aware of that,” Nix says. “She certainly wasn’t there representing Cambridge Analytica and SCL.” | |
| Collins follows up, asking if Nix knew that Kaiser knew Julian Assange. “Whether she knew Assange directly or had ever met him, I can’t speak to that, but I knew she had a relationship with John Jones,” Assange’s lawyer, Nix says. | |
| Nix admits – as he did back in February – that he was curious about Wikileaks’ emails, and reached out to Assange, but heard nothing back. | |
| Christian Matheson, Labour, says Nix was “a bit unlucky with Channel 4,” if every other meeting had been ethical and yet the only unethical one was the one that had been filmed. | |
| “It wasn’t luck,” Nix responds, “it was a very deliberate program of deception by Channel 4.” | |
| “I know the committee would like to believe the media’s impression that we’re this large nefarious multinational company that influences politics around the world. | |
| “The truth of the matter is that we’re a very small advertising agency that happens to work in a number of sectors, one of which is political campaigns. Most of our time is spent selling toothpaste and automotives and things like that.” | |
| Ian Lucas, Labour, asks why Cambridge Analytica never turned down an advert from a client. Nix says it shows that CA’s clients were morally upstanding, and tacks on a denial that some unpleasant adverts aired in the Nigerian election CA worked on had anything to do with his company: the Nigerian adverts, he said, came from a US digital consultancy that CA had nothing to do. | |
| Not rejecting an advert on ethical grounds, Nix reiterates, “simply means we have not been asked to air unethical adverts”. | |
| Rebecca Pow, Conservative, again quotes from more CA documents that seem to detail the company’s use of the “Dark Arts”. Nix points out that what Channel 4 did – undercover filming – is similarly “dark”. | |
| Nix narrows his language, denying “honeytraps” and “infiltrations”, but says there’s a different between them and “what Channel 4 would call an exposé”. He seems to be saying that Cambridge Analytica did the latter, but not the former. | |
| Collins turns to a document on CA’s actions in Mongolia covering “proactive intelligence”, which details “stings” the company apparently offers. | |
| Nix says he’s not familiar with the document, but says that in 2014, when CA worked in Mongolia, “we didn’t have the wherewithal to undertake that sort of work, even if we wanted to, which we didn’t want to, and we never have.” | |
| Collins notes that in documents, and in Channel 4’s undercover filming, Cambridge Analytica says is carries out these sorts of dubious tactics, even while Nix claims the company doesn’t. | |
| The Channel 4 interview, Collins says, “wasn’t a one-off. This is the sort of thing you tell new clients.” | |
| (When Nix was called to Parliament, Dominic Cummings, the leader of Vote Leave, was also summoned; Nix agreed, but Cummings refused. There will now be a Commons debate on Cummings’ refusal to attend… which Cummings will attend: | |
| NEW: Dominic Cummings has told friends he *will* turn up to watch the Commons debate on his failure to attend a Commons select committee —— from the public gallery in the Commons.👽 https://t.co/SzQx54XQEh | |
| Trolling parliament is a risky strategy.) | |
| Stevens hits back, quoting a Cambridge Analytica brochure that discusses a “digital attack” on a candidate as part of a “campaign that turned nasty”. “Are these the values of Cambridge Analytica?” she asks. | Stevens hits back, quoting a Cambridge Analytica brochure that discusses a “digital attack” on a candidate as part of a “campaign that turned nasty”. “Are these the values of Cambridge Analytica?” she asks. |
| “There are huge areas of positive work I could point to,” Nix says, “but the media and this committee are intent on pointing to this one meeting which is not representative of the ethics of this company.” | “There are huge areas of positive work I could point to,” Nix says, “but the media and this committee are intent on pointing to this one meeting which is not representative of the ethics of this company.” |
| Labour’s Jo Stevens asks about Channel 4’s secret filming of Nix, in which he claimed the company used bribery, honeytraps and extortion to win elections. | Labour’s Jo Stevens asks about Channel 4’s secret filming of Nix, in which he claimed the company used bribery, honeytraps and extortion to win elections. |
| Nix says he is embarrassed by the fact that he “spoke with such exaggeration and hyperbole … I didn’t represent the company properly, I didn’t represent what we do … and there was significant impact.” | |
| “My colleague was absolutely crystal clear in telling the reporter that we’re not in the business of fake news, of lying, of entrapment … there are companies that do this but to me that crosses the line–” | |
| Nix tries to continue, but Stevens interrupts, noting that “you were suspended by Cambridge Analytica.” | Nix tries to continue, but Stevens interrupts, noting that “you were suspended by Cambridge Analytica.” |
| He responds: “I caveated my words, very clearly, by saying the answers were hypothetical.” These caveats, he says, were edited out. | He responds: “I caveated my words, very clearly, by saying the answers were hypothetical.” These caveats, he says, were edited out. |
| “In our overzealousness to secure a contract, Mark Turnbull and I were guilty of hyperbole of agreeing on matters that, not only had we never done, but we had no understanding of. We were telling a client what we thought he wanted to hear.” | “In our overzealousness to secure a contract, Mark Turnbull and I were guilty of hyperbole of agreeing on matters that, not only had we never done, but we had no understanding of. We were telling a client what we thought he wanted to hear.” |
| Labour’s Paul Farrelly follows up with another question about Nix’s apparent benevolence. Did he receive any of that money back? “I did not … at that time, none of us envisaged that this outcome would happen.” | |
| Collins: “After the publication of the story in the Observer newspaper … things were removed from the offices of Cambridge Analytica. What was removed, and have they been made available to investigators?” | |
| Nix asks why Collins thinks things were being removed, Collins says he saw pictures in the press, and Nix responds that those were pictures of staff from another company in another office in the same building. “Those boxes were not ours.” | Nix asks why Collins thinks things were being removed, Collins says he saw pictures in the press, and Nix responds that those were pictures of staff from another company in another office in the same building. “Those boxes were not ours.” |
| “As far as I’m aware, the ICO were the only people to remove documents, files and hardware from that office,” Nix adds. | “As far as I’m aware, the ICO were the only people to remove documents, files and hardware from that office,” Nix adds. |
| After a brief silence, Nix refuses to answer Collins’ opening question about the current status of Cambridge Analytica, and begins reading his statement again. | After a brief silence, Nix refuses to answer Collins’ opening question about the current status of Cambridge Analytica, and begins reading his statement again. |
| Collins cuts him off. “The way this works is we ask questions and witnesses answer them.” Another heated exchange later, and Nix grudgingly asks Collins to repeat his question. | Collins cuts him off. “The way this works is we ask questions and witnesses answer them.” Another heated exchange later, and Nix grudgingly asks Collins to repeat his question. |
| “Cambridge Analytica is in chapter seven in the US … and administration in the UK,” Nix says. “I have no further involvement.” He adds that that is also the case with the SCL group. | |
| Collins follows up with a question about the FT’s report today that Nix had taken $8m out of Cambridge Analytica. | Collins follows up with a question about the FT’s report today that Nix had taken $8m out of Cambridge Analytica. |
| “The allegation is false, the facts are not correct,” Nix says. He adds that he has personally paid money into the company to ensure staff salaries continued to be paid. | “The allegation is false, the facts are not correct,” Nix says. He adds that he has personally paid money into the company to ensure staff salaries continued to be paid. |
| We’re off. Collins offers Nix the chance to open with an update on the current status of Cambridge Analytica … which immediately leads to a clash, as Nix instead tries to open with a “few clarifications”, but is shut down. | |
| “These aren’t ordinary circumstances,” Nix says, and again tries to read a brief statement. | “These aren’t ordinary circumstances,” Nix says, and again tries to read a brief statement. |
| Nix firstly says he was very happy to give evidence, but that he wanted to either give evidence after investigations into Cambridge Analytica had been concluded, or give written or private evidence. | Nix firstly says he was very happy to give evidence, but that he wanted to either give evidence after investigations into Cambridge Analytica had been concluded, or give written or private evidence. |
| He says that, since he has been compelled, “there is a limit to the extent I can answer certain questions.” | He says that, since he has been compelled, “there is a limit to the extent I can answer certain questions.” |
| He then says that he disputes the allegation that he “misled” the committee … before, again, Damian Collins cuts him off. | |
| “Your opening statement is now going into the substance of the issues we want to raise with you,” Collins says. “I’m not going to allow an opening statement.” | “Your opening statement is now going into the substance of the issues we want to raise with you,” Collins says. “I’m not going to allow an opening statement.” |
| Nix “insists”; Collins points out Nix isn’t really in a position to insist anything. | Nix “insists”; Collins points out Nix isn’t really in a position to insist anything. |
| The digital, culture, media and sport (DCMS) committee’s “fake news” inquiry continues today, as Damian Collins and colleagues prepare to grill, for a second time, the former Cambridge Analytica chief executive Alexander Nix. | The digital, culture, media and sport (DCMS) committee’s “fake news” inquiry continues today, as Damian Collins and colleagues prepare to grill, for a second time, the former Cambridge Analytica chief executive Alexander Nix. |
| Nix has already appeared in front of the committee, back in February. But the committee recalled him to give further evidence once his company’s use of data harvested from millions of Facebook profiles was made public by the Observer in March. | Nix has already appeared in front of the committee, back in February. But the committee recalled him to give further evidence once his company’s use of data harvested from millions of Facebook profiles was made public by the Observer in March. |
| In his formal summons to Nix, Collins wrote: | In his formal summons to Nix, Collins wrote: |
| The committee will wish to examine apparent inconsistencies between your evidence and other evidence that we have received. | The committee will wish to examine apparent inconsistencies between your evidence and other evidence that we have received. |
| The session promises to be fiery indeed. MPs do not like feeling misled, and Nix has already attempted to avoid reappearing before parliament, but ultimately gave in to the summons. | The session promises to be fiery indeed. MPs do not like feeling misled, and Nix has already attempted to avoid reappearing before parliament, but ultimately gave in to the summons. |