Ethical Analysis of the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica Case

In 2014, targeted advertising firm Cambridge Analytica (CA) developed psychological

profiles of US voters by using voter’s Facebook data which were then used to specifically
tailor political advertisements (Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison 2018).

Christopher Wylie was hired by CA in 2013, after which he worked with a team of
programmers and data analysts to create a program called Ripon. Ripon was designed to
collect and aggregate as much data as possible about individual voters and create profiles
of them, including information such as party preference, voting history, demographics and
credit history (Cameron 2018). He is under pressure from CA’s CEO, Alexander Nix, as
well as the vice-president of CA, Steve Bannon, who received funding from Robert Mercer
– who invested $15 million in CA for the purpose of furthering their Ripon platform to
include more US voters. After receiving this funding, CA contacted researcher Aleksandr
Kogan who had developed an app for Facebook which had special permission, allowing it
to collect not only the person who used the app’s data, but also all of their friend’s data –
without the friend’s knowledge or consent. Kogan’s app had this special permission from
Facebook for the use of the data for academic purposes only. This app allowed CA to
collect the data of over 50 million Facebook user’s profiles to create psychological profiles
of them on the Ripon platform, allowing them to tailor advertising which each personality
profile would be reactive to (Cambridge Analytica whistle-blower: ‘We spent $1m
harvesting missions of Facebook profiles’ 2018). Facebook later revealed the true number
of accounts mined for information, which was 87 million (Cadwalladr 2019).

Facebook is the world’s largest social media platform with 2.23 billion users (Lua 2019). It
implements its advertising by allowing businesses to advertise to their users, with custom
audiences based on data collected by the user’s browsing habits (Facebook Business
2019). There is incentive for Facebook to collect more of their user’s information to
provide more services to the advertisers that use the platform. Facebook modified its terms
of service in May 2012 to enshrine its right to conduct (or allow others to conduct)
research on its users. They justified this decision in saying that companies wanting to
improve their services seek information from or about their customers, even if they do not
use the word ‘research’ to describe said information (Leetaru 2018).

1
Mark Zuckerberg is the founder, CEO and majority shareholder of Facebook. His platform
allowed Cambridge Analytica to collect data from its users without their consent.
Zuckerberg is the public face of the Facebook company and his reputation is often affected
by the public perception of Facebook (Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison 2018). Despite
wanting to go public with his information, Wylie is not yet able to due to a non-disclosure
agreement he has signed with CA (Cadwalladr 2019).

Who was the decision-maker in the case, and what conflicting demands did they have
to accommodate?

Christopher Wylie is the decision maker in this case.

He has conflicting demands from his employer, Facebook users, and the US voting
population. The US voting population demands that they know about any potential
interference in the democratic process. The Facebook users demand that they know about
any breach of their negative right to privacy. His employer, Cambridge Analytica, demands
that Wylie does not disclose confidential information obtained from his employment (due
to the non-disclosure agreement).

What was the initial ethical dilemma faced by the decision-maker in this case?

The ethical dilemma faced by Christopher Wylie is:

Inform the public about Cambridge Analytica’s methods

OR

Do not inform the public about Cambridge Analytica’s methods

The punishments for each of the ethical dilemma options are as follows:
1. Inform the public
 Wylie would immediately be fired from Cambridge Analytica.
 Wylie would breach his non-disclosure agreement and face legal repercussions.

2
 2. Do not inform the public
 The public finds out about Cambridge Analytica’s methods and Wylie is known to
be involved, his reputation for appropriately handling other’s data is ruined and he
will not be able to work in his field as a data scientist.
 Cambridge Analytica shuts down as a result of the scandal and Wylie loses his job.

Utilitarian Analysis

Affected Parties:
 Christopher Wylie
 Cambridge Analytica
 Alexander Nix
 Robert Mercer
 Steve Bannon
 Cambridge Analytica employees
 Cambridge Analytica investors
 Facebook
 Mark Zuckerberg
 Facebook shareholders
 Facebook users
 US voters

Foreseeable consequences if Wylie informs the public about Cambridge Analytica’s

methods:

 Wylie will lose his job at Cambridge Analytica and face legal repercussions for
breaching his non-disclosure agreement.
 Cambridge Analytica will face public and media backlash for the use of private
data and will shut down.
 Alexander Nix loses his job as CEO of Cambridge Analytica, as well as his
reputation.
 Robert Mercer loses the money he invested into Cambridge Analytica.
 Steve Bannon loses his position as vice-president of Cambridge Analytica and does
not get the data on US voters that he wanted.

3
  Cambridge Analytica employees lose their jobs as a result of the business shutting
down.
 All Cambridge Analytica investors lose money as a result of it shutting down.
 Facebook will be associated with the breach of user’s data and will face backlash.
 Facebook will likely tighten its policies on collecting user’s data, so this does not
happen again.
 Some users will stop using Facebook. As the platform has over 2 billion users, it is
not foreseeable that every person will stop using it.
 Mark Zuckerberg loses his reputation as a responsible CEO of Facebook. He loses
money as his shares in Facebook lose value.
 Shares in Facebook lose value, shareholders suffer a loss of investment.
 Facebook users cease to have their data collected without their permission because
of tighter policies in response to Cambridge Analytica.
 The data collected by Cambridge Analytica can no longer be used to manipulate
voters in US elections, US voters retain their autonomy to vote without being
manipulated.

Foreseeable consequences if Wylie does not inform the public about Cambridge
Analytica’s methods:
 Wylie continues to work at Cambridge Analytica in the short-term.
 US voters are manipulated by targeted advertising techniques, losing their
autonomy to vote without being manipulated.
 Facebook users have their private data taken without their permission, and used to
create personal psychological profiles
 In the long-term, it is foreseeable that the public will find out about Cambridge
Analytica’s methods. The consequences of this are:
 Cambridge Analytica will face public and media backlash for the use of private
data and will shut down.
 Wylie is known to be involved in Cambridge Analytica’s questionable practices,
and he loses his job and his reputation. He will never be able to work as a data
scientist again due to misusing people’s private data.
 Alexander Nix loses his job as CEO of Cambridge Analytica, as well as his
reputation
 Robert Mercer loses the money he invested into Cambridge Analytica.

4
  Steve Bannon loses his position as vice-president of Cambridge Analytica and does
not get the data on US voters that he wanted.
 Cambridge Analytica employees lose their jobs as a result of the business shutting
down.
 All Cambridge Analytica investors lose money as a result of it shutting down.
 Facebook will be associated with the breach of user’s data and face negative media
attention.
 Facebook will likely tighten its policies on collecting user’s data, so this does not
happen again.
 Some users stop using Facebook. As the platform has over 2 billion users, it is not
foreseeable that every person will stop using it.
 Mark Zuckerberg loses his reputation as a responsible CEO of Facebook. He loses
money as his shares in Facebook lose value.
 Shares in Facebook lose value, shareholders suffer a loss of investment.

From a Utilitarian analysis, the dilemma alternative that provides the greatest good for the
greatest number is that Christopher Wylie should inform the public about Cambridge
Analytica’s methods. The consequences of not informing the public outweigh informing
the public as they are very similar except that if he does not inform the public, the US
voters will be manipulated and Facebook users in the US will continue to have their
private data analysed. As the US voters and US Facebook users are both very large groups,
with millions of people in each, the greatest good for the greatest number is produced
when the consequences affecting them are minimised.

Kantian Analysis

5
Wylie’s primary duty is owed to: Facebook users. In this case as the employer has acted
irrationally in their handling of the privacy breach at the expense of the Facebook users,
and cannot be owed a duty of confidentiality to the extent of this irrationality.

Maxims owed to Facebook users:

To always respect the autonomy of others

Or
To never respect the autonomy of others

Applying the Categorical Imperative:

To always respect the autonomy of others

1. Is it universalizable?

Yes. To always respect the autonomy will have the outcome that all privacy will be
respected. All Internet users will be comfortable using Internet Applications with no
privacy concerns.

2. Does it respect persons?

Yes. The intent of the decision-maker is to respect autonomy at the expense of his own
employment. This is selfless.

3. Does it respect the autonomy of rational beings?

Yes. The intent of the decision-maker is to remove all deception and manipulation from the
use of the Facebook application.

This maxim passes all three of the Categorical Imperative tests. It is ethical.
To never respect the privacy of others

6
 1. Is it universalizable?

No. If no person ever respected the autonomy of others then there would be no autonomy
for any Internet user. No Internet user would ever be interested in using a Facebook
application, and the market would cease to be functional.

2. Does it respect persons?

No. The intent of the decision-maker is to protect their own job and reputation at the
expense of the Facebook users’ negative Right to autonomy. This is selfish.

3. Does it respect the autonomy of rational beings?

No. The intent of the decision-maker is to perpetuate the deception and fraud of the
Facebook users’. This disrespects their autonomy.

This maxim does not pass any of the Categorical Imperative tests. It is unethical.

The maxim which passes the Categorical Imperative is: To always respect the
autonomy of others, indicating the dilemma choice of: Inform the public about Cambridge
Analytica’s methods.

Ethical Rights Analysis

7
The rights at play in this case include:

 The Facebook users’ negative right to privacy, which obligates all other rational
beings not to violate privacy.
 Cambridge Analytica’s negative right to make a business decision, which obligates
all other rational beings to not prevent them from making a business decision.
 Wylie’s negative right to free speech, which obligates all other rational beings not
to prevent him from speaking.
 The US voters negative right to autonomy, which obligates all other rational beings
not to coerce, manipulate or deceive them.

The clash of rights here is between Christopher Wyluie’s negative right to make a business
decision and the Facebook users’ negative right to privacy. This is because at the point of
the ethical dilemma, Christopher Wylie is seriously considering not informing the
Facebook users of the deception and fraud that they are exposed to.

The most basic right according to the Hierarchy of Rights is the negative right to privacy,
as the negative right to make a business decision would not be possible without a business
having some degree of privacy. Therefore, the most ethical decision, to preserve the
Facebook users’ negative right to privacy, is for Wylie to: Inform the public about
Cambridge Analytica’s methods.

Distributive Justice Analysis

The potential worst-off parties at the point of the ethical dilemma include:

8
 Christopher Wylie who is faced with an ethical dilemma resulting in a forced
choice between two negative alternatives.

Cambridge Analytica employees’ jobs are in jeopardy.

Facebook Users whose negative right to autonomy is being violated.

Alexander Nix’s reputation as an honest business man is in jeopardy.

Robert Mercer’s investments are in jeopardy.

Cambridge Analytica Shareholders’ investments are in jeopardy.

Facebook reputation as an honest business is in jeopardy.

Mark Zuckerberg’s investments are in jeopardy.

Facebook Shareholders’ investments are in jeopardy.

When applying the Veil of Ignorance, the Facebook users are the worst-off party, as
they are having their negative right to privacy violated.

The outcome of “informing the public” would be that all violations of autonomy will
cease. The outcome of “not informing the public” would be that all violations of autonomy
would be perpetuated. The only dilemma option which would improve the position of the
worst-off party would be for Wylie to Inform the public about Cambridge Analytica’s
methods.

1. Present and justify the final recommendation you would have made to the
decision-maker in this case had they asked you for advice on how to resolve

9
 their initial ethical dilemma

The overall recommend ethical dilemma option is for Christopher Wylie to Inform the
public about Cambridge Analytica’s methods. Of all the ethical theories discussed, all
pointed towards this outcome, confirming that it is the most ethical option for the decision-
maker to choose in the forced ethical dilemma.

A strategy to minimise the punishments associated with this ethical dilemma choice would be
for Wylie to inform the public through an official whistleblowing channel such as the US
government’s organisation – to attempt to avoid legal repercussions from the non-disclosure
agreement. Not enough detail here.

References

10
Cadwalladr, C 2019, ‘Cambridge Analytica a year on: ‘a lesson in institutional failure’, The
Guardian, 17 March, viewed 11 April 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2019/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-year-on-lesson-in-institutional-failure-christopher-
wylie

Cadwalladr, C & Graham-Harrison, E 2018, ‘Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles

harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach’, The Guardian, 18 March, viewed 7
April 2019, <https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-
facebook-influence-us-election>

Cambridge Analytica whistleblower: ‘We spent $1m harvesting missions of Facebook

profiles’ 2018, Interview, The Guardian, viewed 13 April 2019,
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXdYSQ6nu-M&ab_channel=TheGuardian>

Cameron 2018, ‘AggregateIQ created Cambridge Analytica’s election software, and here’s
the proof’, Gizmodo, 18 March, viewed 13 April 2019, <
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/03/aggregateiq-created-cambridge-analyticas-election-
software-and-heres-the-proof/>

Mark Zuckerberg: “I’m really sorry this happened” 2018, Interview, CNNMoney, viewed 13
April 2019, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6DOhioBfyY&ab_channel=CNN>

Facebook Business, Facebook, USA, viewed 6 April 2019,

<https://www.facebook.com/business/>

Ingram, D 2018, ‘Factbox: Who is Cambridge Analytica and what did it do?’, Reuters, 20
March, viewed 7 April 2019, <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cambridge-
analytica-factbox/factbox-who-is-cambridge-analytica-and-what-did-it-do-
idUSKBN1GW07F>

Leetaru, K 2018, ‘The problem isn’t Cambridge Analytica: it’s Facebook’, Forbes, 19 March,
viewed 7 April, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/the-problem-isnt-
cambridge-analytica-its-facebook/#523ec6a658a5>

Lua, A 2019, ’21 top social media sites to consider for your brand’, Buffer Marketing Library,
24 January, viewed 6 April 2019, <https://buffer.com/library/social-media-sites>

Soper, T 2019, ‘Report: amazon takes more digital advertising market share from Google-
Facebook duopoly’, GeekWire, 20 February, viewed 6 April 2019,
<https://www.geekwire.com/2019/report-shows-amazon-taking-digital-advertising-market-
share-google-facebook-duopoly/>

11