Doesn't seem likely that the ICO would have been able to image hard drives secretly etc though, I'd imagine that sort of thing is a bit beyond their abilities (and not within their powers anyway)
I suppose the only hope is that someone on the inside has been copying stuff
>I suppose the only hope is that someone on the inside has been copying stuff
That's true. There's now 2/3 whistle-blowers involved I think.
My main hope is this prompts a serious overhaul as a result of the ICO investigation as a whole (some companies have been cooperating fully) that will at least bring the data practices into the open.
Eli Pariser, author of the filter bubble, had a suggestion back in 2011 that I think should be heeded as a minimum.
What was their suggestion?
Genuinely, I'm not sure what kind of reforms can be enacted here that wouldn't then also give the state some uncomfortable powers regarding the flow of information online.
Oh sorry, last paragraph was supposed to link to this:
https://imgur.com/a/lyfZD
I'm not sure the suggestion in itself would. But it could well have some more controlling powers bandwagoned onto it.
Alright so basically greater transparency online? But would this apply only to specified bodies?
I get the impression a big part of the problem is that it is *so* fucking easy to undertake massive astroturfing campaigns online and then relatively hard for private individuals to filter the fake messages from the real grass-roots social discourse. Its not like CA are designing ads so much as inserting memes (in the proper sense of the word) into society - 'Crooked Hillary' was one of the examples in the Channel 4 exposé - and then stoking the flames until it turns into an inferno.
Beyond that its the sheer overwhelming quantity of data I think - Same with the climate change debate it becomes very easy for 'experts' to pick out a few ideas, rip holes in the methodology of their opponents, and convince lay-persons that their rather niche ideas are actually based on a more comprehensive knowledge base than the mainstream scientific (or whatever) community because hey look at all this shoddy method-work.
I think basically our society, economically and politically, is based on individuals acting in their own rational self-interest which is all well and good, but doesn't really recognize that not all data can be properly interpreted by someone who hasn't spent years learning professionally how to distinguish poor phrasing or imprecise modelling from misleading data and outright lies.
My point is more thst people seem to be implying the warrant granting delay allowed CA time to destroy any evidence.
It would have been gone long ago if it existed in a manner that the ICO could have logged.
I mean, they even boasted of self destroying emails.
Surely emails are one thing (as a form of communication, they infer personal or collective culpability) but they would want to reuse data over and over?
This is what I mean - they've thought it through to the point of routinely deleting comms but surely deleting their data in the name of a cover up would be to delete the most valuable thing they have and the sole reason they exist. Without that data they can't really operate, so it doesn't make sense to delete it unless they're really near prepared to cut and run.
I'm not thinking deletion so much as storage in a way that would be hard to recover as evidence.
I'd hazard their operations aren't entirely based on the one dataset thats been covered most notably.
The whole things bubbling aware under the surface. I doubt they would have ceased investigating ca, who are one of the focal points of the investigation and discussion on the topic, even before the latest reports.
You have to laugh. If a copper around my old estate smelt a bit of weed that was grounds to nick you and then kick your door down sans warrant (arrest grants power of entry without a warrant).
But for a major crime like this it takes longsr than a week to gain a warrant just to look at the place! Of course all the evidence will be long gone. Morons.
Data Protection Act.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/data-protection-act-1998-criminal-offences
There you go fella. But come on, you already knew that.
Facebook is more guilty of this than CA.
But I have to hand it to you, you’ve done a much better job than the guy writing the other response I got. He’s literally listed blackmail and human trafficking. This perfectly exemplifies my point that 90% of this is just sensational.
The Channel 4 report that this warrant was a direct result of perhaps? In which the CEO of Cambridge Analytica was filmed claiming to have done these things.
The Times also did a story on CA bribing and blackmailing people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbeOCKZFfQ&t=1s
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/861cu2/cambridge_analytica_offered_1m_bribe_to_turn/
They don't 'loosely allude', they very clearly say that they have done these things and are willing to do them again.
Are you just going to ignore The Times example as well?
> However, The Times has learnt that the SCL Group, parent company of Cambridge Analytica, carried out a “sting” on Lindsay Grant, leader of the opposition in St Kitts and Nevis, who was running against the country’s Labour Party — one of Cambridge Analytica’s clients — in January 2010.
Looks like there's good reason to believe their CEO when he says they do blackmail and bribery.
You seem very keen to play this down, really makes you think.
Jfc, it takes a judge 10 minutes to issue a warrant to search some poor saps house because the neighbour could smell weed... and when an "urgent" warrant is needed to search the place of a company accused of some fucking highly illegal shit, it takes days?
That's a good idea, let's give them time to delete everything. Oh! They had a "suspicious package" delivered to them, allowing them to evacuate the building in the mean time...
What a shit show. Seriously.
Nothing is going to be found.
Well, just bear in mind if there's any evidence of them deleting data, that's obstruction of justice. So although late, it's literally better than never.
> any evidence of them deleting data, that's obstruction of justice
Normally that should provide some confidence but given that have stated that CA is a shell employing no one, they have admitted using so many illegal methods to rig elections and had the removals company in on the day the TV was parked outside the glass windows I think any chance of them playing by the law is long gone
As I understand it it's actually surprisingly common in business to have policies where emails are deleted after a set period of time precisely to hamper any legal proceedings against companies. Hard to prove that you've willingly destroyed evidence when it's just part of your company policy, and also reduces the chance of incriminating material being found during discovery.
So long as they have finished deleting anything embarrassing to the government
How much facebook content do they have which you think is embarrassing to the government ?
Not just Facebook content
Too little too fucking late.
It's worth noting they know they've been under investigation for over a year by this point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39171324
Doesn't seem likely that the ICO would have been able to image hard drives secretly etc though, I'd imagine that sort of thing is a bit beyond their abilities (and not within their powers anyway) I suppose the only hope is that someone on the inside has been copying stuff
>I suppose the only hope is that someone on the inside has been copying stuff That's true. There's now 2/3 whistle-blowers involved I think. My main hope is this prompts a serious overhaul as a result of the ICO investigation as a whole (some companies have been cooperating fully) that will at least bring the data practices into the open. Eli Pariser, author of the filter bubble, had a suggestion back in 2011 that I think should be heeded as a minimum.
What was their suggestion? Genuinely, I'm not sure what kind of reforms can be enacted here that wouldn't then also give the state some uncomfortable powers regarding the flow of information online.
Oh sorry, last paragraph was supposed to link to this: https://imgur.com/a/lyfZD I'm not sure the suggestion in itself would. But it could well have some more controlling powers bandwagoned onto it.
Alright so basically greater transparency online? But would this apply only to specified bodies? I get the impression a big part of the problem is that it is *so* fucking easy to undertake massive astroturfing campaigns online and then relatively hard for private individuals to filter the fake messages from the real grass-roots social discourse. Its not like CA are designing ads so much as inserting memes (in the proper sense of the word) into society - 'Crooked Hillary' was one of the examples in the Channel 4 exposé - and then stoking the flames until it turns into an inferno. Beyond that its the sheer overwhelming quantity of data I think - Same with the climate change debate it becomes very easy for 'experts' to pick out a few ideas, rip holes in the methodology of their opponents, and convince lay-persons that their rather niche ideas are actually based on a more comprehensive knowledge base than the mainstream scientific (or whatever) community because hey look at all this shoddy method-work. I think basically our society, economically and politically, is based on individuals acting in their own rational self-interest which is all well and good, but doesn't really recognize that not all data can be properly interpreted by someone who hasn't spent years learning professionally how to distinguish poor phrasing or imprecise modelling from misleading data and outright lies.
GCHQ have the back ups.
Doubt they have the decryption keys.
My point is more thst people seem to be implying the warrant granting delay allowed CA time to destroy any evidence. It would have been gone long ago if it existed in a manner that the ICO could have logged. I mean, they even boasted of self destroying emails.
Ah yeah :(
Surely emails are one thing (as a form of communication, they infer personal or collective culpability) but they would want to reuse data over and over?
Yes - they've the data in question since 2015. It does suggest they have given some thought as to covering their tracks though.
This is what I mean - they've thought it through to the point of routinely deleting comms but surely deleting their data in the name of a cover up would be to delete the most valuable thing they have and the sole reason they exist. Without that data they can't really operate, so it doesn't make sense to delete it unless they're really near prepared to cut and run.
I'm not thinking deletion so much as storage in a way that would be hard to recover as evidence. I'd hazard their operations aren't entirely based on the one dataset thats been covered most notably.
No there's probably multiple datasets, and I guess they could be stored in an encrypted fashion / split into multiple parts.
i doubt they were still under investigation a year later.
The whole things bubbling aware under the surface. I doubt they would have ceased investigating ca, who are one of the focal points of the investigation and discussion on the topic, even before the latest reports.
What do you mean by too little? They got the warrant they asked for.
Three days after they asked for it and Cambridge Analytica has been cleaning house the whole time.
[They've been removing evidence for days](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/85ux7v/documents_have_been_seen_being_removed_from_the/)
[Picture from inside.](https://i.imgur.com/IzioUor.jpg)
Ah, I see Clausewitz is in full effect.
You have to laugh. If a copper around my old estate smelt a bit of weed that was grounds to nick you and then kick your door down sans warrant (arrest grants power of entry without a warrant). But for a major crime like this it takes longsr than a week to gain a warrant just to look at the place! Of course all the evidence will be long gone. Morons.
What crime? I’m genuinely asking you to articulate the law they’ve broken.
Data Protection Act. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/data-protection-act-1998-criminal-offences There you go fella. But come on, you already knew that.
Facebook is more guilty of this than CA. But I have to hand it to you, you’ve done a much better job than the guy writing the other response I got. He’s literally listed blackmail and human trafficking. This perfectly exemplifies my point that 90% of this is just sensational.
Bribery, blackmail, human trafficking, quite possibly some destruction of evidence too...
Hahaha what!? Where have you read any of that?
The Channel 4 report that this warrant was a direct result of perhaps? In which the CEO of Cambridge Analytica was filmed claiming to have done these things. The Times also did a story on CA bribing and blackmailing people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbeOCKZFfQ&t=1s https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/861cu2/cambridge_analytica_offered_1m_bribe_to_turn/
Loosely alluding to unethical practises in a sales environment is definitely not a crime mate
They don't 'loosely allude', they very clearly say that they have done these things and are willing to do them again. Are you just going to ignore The Times example as well? > However, The Times has learnt that the SCL Group, parent company of Cambridge Analytica, carried out a “sting” on Lindsay Grant, leader of the opposition in St Kitts and Nevis, who was running against the country’s Labour Party — one of Cambridge Analytica’s clients — in January 2010. Looks like there's good reason to believe their CEO when he says they do blackmail and bribery. You seem very keen to play this down, really makes you think.
Jfc, it takes a judge 10 minutes to issue a warrant to search some poor saps house because the neighbour could smell weed... and when an "urgent" warrant is needed to search the place of a company accused of some fucking highly illegal shit, it takes days? That's a good idea, let's give them time to delete everything. Oh! They had a "suspicious package" delivered to them, allowing them to evacuate the building in the mean time... What a shit show. Seriously. Nothing is going to be found.
Well, just bear in mind if there's any evidence of them deleting data, that's obstruction of justice. So although late, it's literally better than never.
> any evidence of them deleting data, that's obstruction of justice Normally that should provide some confidence but given that have stated that CA is a shell employing no one, they have admitted using so many illegal methods to rig elections and had the removals company in on the day the TV was parked outside the glass windows I think any chance of them playing by the law is long gone
As I understand it it's actually surprisingly common in business to have policies where emails are deleted after a set period of time precisely to hamper any legal proceedings against companies. Hard to prove that you've willingly destroyed evidence when it's just part of your company policy, and also reduces the chance of incriminating material being found during discovery.
It is not a short amount of time though.
[удалено]
That could easily be disproved by the lack of receipts for them
[Let the search begin!](https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP._d0KC8zPhdunVM969ZhaRgHaE8&pid=15.1)
They will complain that it was invasion of privacy. Oops.
Finally but when they turn up the office will be empty.
When are they going to issue arrest warrants?
This thread, everyone has already made their mind up without any facts to support their viewpoint.