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 2 Version 3
Alexander Nix, former Cambridge Analytica chief, grilled by MPs – live Alexander Nix, former Cambridge Analytica chief, grilled by MPs – live
(35 minutes later)
Nix quotes from the Electoral Commission that found that Cambridge Analytica did no work for Leave.EU.
Simon Hart, Conservative, quotes Nigel Oakes describing the works as the “backbone” of Leave.EU’s campaign, saying it “provided a proof of concept” for the work. Nix demurs, noting that Oakes doesn’t know Cambridge Analytica that well: “Apart from my close personal relationship with him, he could have been a stranger.”
Farrelly turns to Kaiser’s testimony that CA pitched work to Aaron Banks’ insurance companies. Nix says he is unaware of those pitches, and that they lead to no work.
(Banks will be testifying himself on Tuesday, to answer some of these questions in his own inimitable style.)
“Do you know what use was made of the work you did for UKIP?”
“We never handed over any work to UKIP.”
“Do you know what use was made of the work you did for UKIP?”
“…no?”
“Do you know what use was made of the work you did for UKIP?”
“I’m afraid I don’t understand the question.”
Farrelly follows up by showing Nix an invoice from Cambridge Analytica to UKIP. How, he asks, does that work square with Nix’s statements about a lack of interest in UK politics.
“You’re really scratching round here,” Nix says. “We do 8, 9 elections around the world every year, and we’ve never done an election in the UK, so I stand by my statement that it’s not a target market.” The referendum, he says, was unique, which is why it was interested in the work, but it didn’t actually carry it out, he says.
“The committee was satisfied,” Nix says, “that we didn’t do any work for Leave.EU.”
We’re back, and conversation is turning to Brexit. Farrelly quotes Nix saying CA has never worked on UK campaigns, out of concern for British staff members.
Farrelly quotes from a pitch document, from CA’s pitch to Leave.EU, that proposed targeting adverts for donations overseas. WAs Nix advised this was legal?
Nix says he thought that soliciting donations from British nationals overseas was legal, but that it was unclear, and that in any event the work was not carried out.
While the Committee takes a break, here’s Channel 4’s response to Nix’s allegation that he fell prey to their “dark arts”:
Channel 4 News responds to Alexander Nix's comments to MPs in Parliament today https://t.co/30ygNMPSWo pic.twitter.com/CYmkHugHqD
Nix returns to his attack on Wylie: “He went around America pitching his business. My point is you have an individual, claiming to be a whistleblower… who purports to be a protector of data sovereignty but who actually acquired a significantly larger dataset than ours, and then went and tried to commercialise it in exactly the same way we did, and then spent the last two or three years getting bitter and jealous.”
Farrelly jumps in, knocking Nix’s break back further. Did Nix mislead over how useful GSR data was?
Nix says he did not. “That data was less useful than simply using Facebook’s own advertising algorithms.”
Farrelly: “It’s an interesting exercise in semantics.”
Nix: “No, it’s not… that data was less useful than we’d hoped.” Nix again notes that this avenue of questioning relies on testimony from Chris Wylie to the contrary.
Farrelly points out that the data which Nix dismissed in February as “fruitless research” was actually used in CA’s work in the US.
Nix: “I urge you, whilst I take a break, to revisit the testimony of Dr Kogan. He was extremely articulate in explaining how this data was modelled… the data was ultimately fruitless.”
Collins pushes back, pointing out that regardless of how useful the research was, a lot of it was delivered, and a second contract was signed. “Given the substance of the work that was done, to say it was fruitless clearly doesn’t reflect your view at the time.
“When we asked these questions initially, people chose to gloss over information they perhaps should have disclosed.”
Nix: “You will recall that when I appeared before you, the issue of Facebook data was not a sensational news story…”
(Ian Lucas: “Because you didn’t tell us about it!”)
Nix: “I gave you as much attention on it as you gave it yourselves. Clearly things have changed in the last three months.”
Collins: “What we asked you was pretty clear, and you chose not to talk about any of this.” Collins adds that Facebook, too, didn’t fully answer questions the first time the company appeared, only being fully open once it was quizzed after the information had already entered the public domain.
One last question, from Rebecca Pow, before a short break: who is the “team” that Nix refers to occasionally? Nix says they are his former colleagues, who he asks for advice from as a friend.One last question, from Rebecca Pow, before a short break: who is the “team” that Nix refers to occasionally? Nix says they are his former colleagues, who he asks for advice from as a friend.
Pow adds a second question, noting that there’s another discrepancy, between Kaiser and Nix’s testimony about how Facebook surveys worked for Cambridge Analytica. “My former colleagues assured me that my original testimony was accurate… my understanding is that no data was collected.”Pow adds a second question, noting that there’s another discrepancy, between Kaiser and Nix’s testimony about how Facebook surveys worked for Cambridge Analytica. “My former colleagues assured me that my original testimony was accurate… my understanding is that no data was collected.”
He refrains from continuing further, because again this topic falls under the investigation from the ICO.He refrains from continuing further, because again this topic falls under the investigation from the ICO.
Finally, Nix addresses the number, 87 million people, whose data was harvested by GSR. “What Dr Kogan made amply clear is that while he collected data from 87m people… Cambridge Analytica only received data on about 20m people in the USA. The only person to receive the entire dataset, which I believe Dr Kogan said was 96% more data than that which Cambridge Analytica received, was Christopher Wylie.Finally, Nix addresses the number, 87 million people, whose data was harvested by GSR. “What Dr Kogan made amply clear is that while he collected data from 87m people… Cambridge Analytica only received data on about 20m people in the USA. The only person to receive the entire dataset, which I believe Dr Kogan said was 96% more data than that which Cambridge Analytica received, was Christopher Wylie.
“A lot of the allegations, 90% of the allegations, that gained traction in the media have all come from a single source: Mr Wylie. If you permit me, I would just like to give a little bit of background. Where so many allegations have been made, and so many of them have been proven to be false.”“A lot of the allegations, 90% of the allegations, that gained traction in the media have all come from a single source: Mr Wylie. If you permit me, I would just like to give a little bit of background. Where so many allegations have been made, and so many of them have been proven to be false.”
(Pow interjects to note that Wylie was in the UK on an exceptional talent visa. “If he went on to change his status, I can’t speak to that.”)(Pow interjects to note that Wylie was in the UK on an exceptional talent visa. “If he went on to change his status, I can’t speak to that.”)
“Christopher Wylie was at the company for ten months, and he was instrumental in defining the relationship with Dr Kogan. As that business grew, he became more and more resentful, to the point of openly discussing with clients that he wanted to build a competitor to Cambridge Analytica without Nix – that is, without me.“Christopher Wylie was at the company for ten months, and he was instrumental in defining the relationship with Dr Kogan. As that business grew, he became more and more resentful, to the point of openly discussing with clients that he wanted to build a competitor to Cambridge Analytica without Nix – that is, without me.
“He developed a pitch that he took to Silicon Valley… He was totally agnostic about where the money came from… One San Francisco-based investor—” Nix is cut off by Collins, who asks how this is relevant.“He developed a pitch that he took to Silicon Valley… He was totally agnostic about where the money came from… One San Francisco-based investor—” Nix is cut off by Collins, who asks how this is relevant.
“What we have is not Christopher Wylie’s opinion, but documents,” Collins says. “That’s what we’re basing our questions on. Evidence that you do not dispute.”“What we have is not Christopher Wylie’s opinion, but documents,” Collins says. “That’s what we’re basing our questions on. Evidence that you do not dispute.”
Collins asks whether, given technical evidence showing that audience files were shared between SCL and AIQ, Nix’s claims the two weren’t involved with each other stand up.Collins asks whether, given technical evidence showing that audience files were shared between SCL and AIQ, Nix’s claims the two weren’t involved with each other stand up.
Nix says that working on the same data doesn’t mean that two companies are intertwined. “That would be dealt with the contract with us.”Nix says that working on the same data doesn’t mean that two companies are intertwined. “That would be dealt with the contract with us.”
“My data team assured me that there was no raw data that went in to the Ripon platform,” Nix adds.“My data team assured me that there was no raw data that went in to the Ripon platform,” Nix adds.
One last question from Farrelly: “You had a staffer from your company working on data from Breitbart… was any data gathered from that secondment to Breitbart, and if so how would that have been used by the company?”One last question from Farrelly: “You had a staffer from your company working on data from Breitbart… was any data gathered from that secondment to Breitbart, and if so how would that have been used by the company?”
Nix “can’t think of anyone who was seconded to Breitbart… I haven’t heard about that before.”Nix “can’t think of anyone who was seconded to Breitbart… I haven’t heard about that before.”
Nix, at this point, refuses to answer further questions on further matters relating to GSR and Facebook data, based on the ICO investigation.Nix, at this point, refuses to answer further questions on further matters relating to GSR and Facebook data, based on the ICO investigation.
“The ICO took advantage of my parliamentary privilege last time I was here to use my testimony as part of their application to search my premises. Clearly my privilege is not as absolute.“The ICO took advantage of my parliamentary privilege last time I was here to use my testimony as part of their application to search my premises. Clearly my privilege is not as absolute.
“The committee should be reacting to findings from the ICO and not the other way round,” Nix adds.“The committee should be reacting to findings from the ICO and not the other way round,” Nix adds.
Collins points out that none of this is in front of courts, and that the ICO is fine with Nix talking, but he’s happy to drop it.Collins points out that none of this is in front of courts, and that the ICO is fine with Nix talking, but he’s happy to drop it.
Farrelly: “He was mixing his tenses up and you misunderstood the question. So why did you not take the opportunity to clarify it in the supplementary information?” Nix says he didn’t realise he’d made the error until it was flagged to him, and that he agreed to come in and clarify in person.
Farrelly returns to Nix’s initial statement. “When you came to us in February, the chair asked whether any data came from GSR” – Alex Kogan’s Cambridge-based psychometrics company. At the time, Nix denied that, flatly and repeatedly.
Farrelly continues: “Since then, we’ve had some conflicting evidence from Dr Kogan, from Christopher Wiley – who described it as ‘the foundational data of the company’. Do you want to clarify the evidence you gave in February?”
Nix: “I would like to continue with the very short statement on this. Clearly I accept that some of my answers could have been clearer but I assure you that I did not intend to mislead you. It was my firm impression that Mr Collins’ questions were about whether we were currently in possession of the data… so I answered no.
“When I read the transcript, it became clear that Mr Collins was also asking whether we had ever held it. Clearly the answer should have been yes. The fact that we received data from GSR was already in the public domain from as early as December 2015, when the Guardian published an article.
“I also stand by my evidence that we do not work on Facebook data and we do not have Facebook data. That data was given by GSR, and subsequently deleted at Facebook’s request.”
Paul Farrelly returns, to ask whether all of SCL has gone into administration. It has, Nix confirms.
Has the brand been toxified? “It’s the case that all SCL companies are in administration,” Nix responds.
“What’s happened with your side of the company has made the business so toxic that the whole group is in administration?” Nix responds that “the board decided the company was no longer a viable going concern.”
Nix adds: “It would not be unusual for us as a firm to undertake data analytics on behalf of our clients; sometimes we would take receipt of that data, and sometimes we would work behind their firewalls. Just because we work on their data, does not mean that we have a right to that data. And that was the relationship with AIQ.”
(This matters, broadly, because the stronger the link to AIQ, the stronger the link between Cambridge Analytica and the EU referendum.)
Collins pushes further on the links between AIQ and CA. Nix: “You are not correct when you talk about data sharing. AIQ are a software engineering company, and CA is a data analytics company. They built the car and we put the petrol in.
“The petrol that was put in was not raw data, it was modelled data. They did not have access to the raw data, and the only way they could have would be if they took a copy of the data illegally.”
Nix is asked about whistleblower Chris Wylie, and his involvement in linking Cambridge Analytica to AIQ. Nix responds by pulling Wylie further in, noting that he was heavily involved in everything the company was doing to data at that point.
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.”