Ethicality of Data Collection done by Cambridge Analytica and Facebook

Bachelor’s Thesis

By

Katarina Pappova

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science

in

Business Administration

State University of New York

Empire State College

2019

Reader: Tanweer Ali

Statutory Declaration / Čestné prohlášení

I, Katarina Pappova, declare that the paper entitled:

Ethicality of data collection done by Cambridge Analytica and Facebook

was written by myself independently, using the sources and information listed in the list of

references. I am aware that my work will be published in accordance with § 47b of Act No.

111/1998 Coll., On Higher Education Institutions, as amended, and in accordance with the

valid publication guidelines for university graduate theses.

Prohlašuji, že jsem tuto práci vypracovala samostatně s použitím uvedené literatury a zdrojů

informací. Jsem vědoma, že moje práce bude zveřejněna v souladu s § 47b zákona č.

111/1998 Sb., o vysokých školách ve znění pozdějších předpisů, a v souladu s platnou

Směrnicí o zveřejňování vysokoškolských závěrečných prací.

In Prague, 26.4.2019

Katarina Pappova
 Acknowledgement

First of all, I would like to thank my family for allowing me to follow my dreams and to study

at the university. I would like to thank them for their unlimited support and guidance during

my studies.

Secondly, I would like to thank my mentor, Tanweer Ali for his continuous support and

guidance throughout the entire process of writing and composing of the Thesis, and for his

personal approach to solving issues.

Thirdly, I would like to thank my boss, colleagues and friends who were considerate and

supportive as the final deadline approached.

 Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3

1.1 FACEBOOK AND CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA ............................................................. 8

CHAPTER 2: ETHICS & LAW ........................................................................................... 11

2.1 BLOWING THE WHISTLE .............................................................................................. 12

2.2 TELEOLOGICAL ETHICAL THEORY AND UTILITARIANISM ............................... 14

2.3 ETHICAL EGOISM........................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 3: HISTORY OF DATA COLLECTION ........................................................ 16

CHAPTER 4: BACKGROUND OF THE SCANDAL ....................................................... 19

4.1 PRIOR TO THE SCANDAL ............................................................................................. 19

4.2 PUBLICATION OF THE REPORTS AND THE AFTERMATH .................................... 22

CHAPTER 5: THE PRIVACY ............................................................................................. 25

CHAPTER 6: THE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 30

6.1 EVENTS SUBJECTED TO THE ANALYSIS.................................................................. 30

6.2 ETHICAL EGOISM........................................................................................................... 31

6.3 EUDAIMONISMIC TELEOLOGICAL ETHICAL THEORY ........................................ 33

6.4 ETHICAL THEORY OF UTILITARIANISM .................................................................. 36

CHAPTER 7: COUNTERARGUMENT ............................................................................. 39

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 41

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 45
Abstract

Ethical issues raised by Cambridge Analytica begin at the point of the invasion of people’s

privacy, followed by the questionable usage of data, where approval of users was absent, and

end with unauthorized microtargeting and usage of bots. In 2018, The Guardian and The New

York Times reported alleged personal data harvesting practices on the part of Cambridge

Analytica. The massive harvest breached approximately 87 million Facebook profiles. The

thesis aims to evaluate the actions of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook leading to the

scandal using the Teleological ethical theory, the Utilitarian ethical approach, and Ethical

Egoism. The analysis focused on the impact on the society resulting from actions not

justifiable under the teleological and utilitarian approaches. Only self-interest oriented ethical

egoism could justify the actions. Therefore, the overall result is that the actions cannot be

justified due to their impact on the entire society.

 CHAPTER 1: Introduction

Data collection is a vital part of statistics as a scientific discipline. Statistics were developed

to serve as an instrument which would help to explain and bring a sense to what the data,

which was collected, represents. Based upon the interpretation, businesses can implement the

best fitting solution to design, modify and improve in any way the approach which is

currently being used.

The key aspect of Marketing is to understand who the customers are and what are their needs.

Any information which can be gathered about customers is vital in creating the right

marketing strategy. If the statistical data is correctly interpreted and implemented into the new

marketing strategy, the positive outcome for the company can be assured.

Therefore, marketing and statistics must go hand in hand in order to attain and deliver

desirable results. As shocking as the practice may seem to Internet and Facebook users, data

collection is not a novelty, it is rather a well-established practice done for many years now by

marketers all around the world.

In the Information Technology sphere, data collection is being done for example to identify

the needs of the users, to identify who the users are, what kind of devices they use, which

operating system they use, and which features are the most popular. The real power of this

data was first discovered by Google and Facebook who besides being IT corporations, have

entered the marketing sphere. The success of their marketing strategies lies in Big Data,

evaluation of gathered data and correct targeting.

When speaking about Big Data, one is referring to the large volumes of raw data which once

they are processed, can reveal patterns in human behaviour based upon which then a tailor-

7
made marketing strategy can be proposed. Big Data collection functions nowadays as a tool to

improve the targeting of online marketing. The Cambridge Dictionary explains the term Big

Data as "very large sets of data that are produced by people using the internet, and that can

only be stored, understood, and used with the help of special tools and methods” (“Big Data”,

n.d.). Whereas, the Cambridge Dictionary definition for data is the following

“information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used

to help decision-making, or information in an electronic form that can be stored and used by

a computer” (“data”, n.d.). Therefore, one may view the terms as similar, but the simple

explanation is that data is any piece of information stored and processed by a computer, while

Big Data is a large volume of data which has to be processed by a computer in order to be

understood.

This Thesis aims to evaluate the ethicality of actions of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook in

data collection, their behaviour and actions before the Cambridge Analytica scandal has

occurred and also directly after a whistle-blower, Christopher Wylie published their actions.

The topic of Big Data, data collection, and its marketing usage is very recent, although this

trend has been taking place for many years now. Users, who do not have an Information

Technology background, or are not interested in this topic, do not have the knowledge about

this topic and unwillingly, by uninformed decisions, provide corporations with their personal

information

1.1 Facebook and Cambridge Analytica

Facebook is an online social networking page accessible from any device which can be

connected to the internet and from all around the world. Initially, Facebook was founded in

2004 by five Harvard students, Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Eduardo Saverin, Chris

8
Hughes, and Andrew McCollum. At the time, the accessibility of the social media platform

was limited to Harvard students only. This was ensured by the restriction included in the

programming which made it possible to create an account only with a Harvard email address.

As it grew in popularity, the founders had decided to open the platform and to give access to

more people. It is a corporation which is currently sitting on millions of personal details of

their users which are being stored in data centers. A new business opportunity was identified -

to enter the marketing business and to offer the platform for advertising purposes. The

decision was a significant step in online marketing, and it provided a function to the data

which before was unused. Along with Google, Facebook has become a leader in providing

marketing space and data to its business customers. Some of the current subsidiaries of

Facebook are Instagram and Whatsapp.

Cambridge Analytica was one of those customers, who became masters in the statistical

interpretation of collected data and started providing precise marketing strategies to their

customers. It was founded by Steve Bannon, a political and media figure who was a former

Head of President Trump's campaign, and for a short period of time former White House

Chief Strategist and a former Senior Counsellor of President Donald Trump. Its parent

company is Strategic Communication Laboratories (SLC), which is a private behavioural

research and strategic communication company. The investors behind the Cambridge

Analytica are Robert and Rebekah Mercer, who are philanthropists and major Republican

donors. Steve Bannon and Rebekah Mercer had to approve all requests for funding and new

projects which were pursued by researchers in Cambridge Analytica. Therefore, they knew

about everything happening inside the company. (Cadwalladr C. , 2018). Among the

customers of Cambridge Analytica were not only businesses but mainly politicians such as

Steve Bannon, Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Cambridge Analytica was using Facebook to

9
massively harvest data of its users without their consent; some were even a subject of testing.

Once it collected enough information, created psychological profiles of those tested and also

identified the psychological profile of an ideal target, who would be vulnerable towards their

marketing strategy, they launched the campaign. The campaigns were immensely successful,

but the question of ethics has arisen. (Granville, 2018).

10
 CHAPTER 2: Ethics & Law

Ethical issues raised by Cambridge Analytica begin at the point of the invasion of a person's

privacy, followed by questionable use of data where approval of users was absent and

finished by uninformed microtargeting and usage of bots. Due to the insufficient legal

framework, one has to evaluate their actions using business ethics to be able to objectively

identify whether their actions can be seen under certain circumstances as justifiable or not.

This thesis aims to evaluate the actions of representatives of Cambridge Analytica and

Facebook based upon three ethical theories – Ethical Egoism, Eudaimonismic Ethical Theory,

and Utilitarianism.

Prior to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, regulatory institutions of the European Union and

the United States of America were either adopting regulations slowly, ineffectively or had

failed to adopt at all. As it is suggested by the Study, ‘A Comparison Between US and EU

Data Protection Legislation for Law Enforcement', conducted by the Committee on Civil

Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in 2015, the United States of America, unlike the

European Union, distinguishes between US persons and non-US persons. This differentiation

causes that non-US citizens are not protected by the laws, whereas in the EU, anybody subject

to law enforcement or surveillance is covered by the fundamental rights. (Committee on Civil

Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, 2015). Nevertheless, the European Union, by

establishing a specialised institution on 17th January 2004 called Data Protection Supervisor,

is a step ahead of the United States in regulating the Big Data collection by companies. In the

United States, the only institution which is focusing on data protection is the U.S. Federal

Trade Commission by imposing fines for unfair treatment to companies which collect data.

Unfortunately, currently, there is no other way of legal punishment in place. On the contrary,

the European Union has now effectively established the General Data Protection Regulation

11
which aims to protect not only internet users but all personal data submitted to any institution

or company in the European Union. (Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,

2015).

Due to the absence of a fully developed regulation of the Internet, this thesis will evaluate the

actions of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica not on the legal grounds, but rather on the

ethical. Law can be perceived as the lowest standard of business conduct. On the other hand,

ethics rather extends those standards to the level, which is desired by society and may not yet

be codified in law. The majority of companies unfortunately rather only adhere to the minimal

standards, Law, then to do more and adhere to the ethical standards of the society. It is

believed, the companies have to have a motivation to become ethical, rather than only

operating legally. The motivation can be represented in the form of benefits resulting from

ethical conduct, which must exceed the costs of being ethical. In recent years, it can be seen in

certain industries, such as fashion, that the consumers are calling for companies, which in

their line of production use sweatshops, to instead start acting ethically, and show some

respect for their workers.

2.1 Blowing the Whistle

Blowing the Whistle is an immensely stressful decision usually made by an employee who

has witnessed an unethical or illegal activity taking place inside the company. He or she is

unable to overlook it or remain quiet about it, especially when it involves wrongdoing to the

whole society. The decision to blow the whistle is not easy to make, and the person has to

take into consideration all of the risks and possible outcomes. The best-known whistle-blower

is Edward Snowden, who as a contractor allocated to National Security Agency in 2013

12
copied classified information on civilian surveillance and leaked it to the press in order to

inform citizens about the practices which are happening without their knowledge and consent.

Private companies and corporations tend to have a specific protocol on reporting any

suspicious, unethical or illegal actions of other employees. Unfortunately, the protocol is on

many occasions useless and cannot be used precisely. For example, sometimes an employee

has to skip one managerial level to report higher. Linda K. Trevino and Katherine A. Nelson

in their book, Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How To Do It Right, describe

how to blow the whistle correctly. According to them, the first step should be to approach an

immediate manager. The manager may not listen, may be involved in the actions or may ask

the employee to remain silent. Second critical step is to discuss the issue with the family.

Once the person approaches news publishers, it is highly probable this action will also have

an impact also on the family, friends and loved ones. It is essential to prepare them and

discuss with them the possible outcome and effect which it may have on their lives. If the first

level manager is not handling the case the way the employee would have hoped or he or she

views his or her actions as ineffective, the third step is to approach the next level management

and ask the immediate manager to attend as well. If the company does have a department with

a dedicated employee who deals with unethical or illegal actions of other employees, it would

be advisable to meet with this employee. Only after all of the options are exhausted, or the

employee raising the issue to the management has had his/her contract terminated, it is

recommended to approach someone outside the company and the public. When former

whistle-blowers were asked if they believe they did the right thing and would also recommend

other people to follow their steps, according to the research mentioned in the book, they

would not advise other people to blow the whistle. (pg. 86, Trevino, 2007). Even when the

extreme example of Edward Snowden is observed, he had to flee the United States of

America, remain in asylum in Russia since 2013 as the United States suspended his passport.

13
Snowden is being treated as a commodity; President Trump has requested Russia to give him

up to US authorities for a trial, is being followed by US agents and has limited access to the

surrounding world. In the case of Christopher Wyllie, the Cambridge Analytica whistle-

blower, he was able to proceed with a reasonably normal life and is currently employed in

private corporations.

2.2 Teleological Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism

For the purpose of this Thesis, a Teleological, in other words Consequentialist, Ethical Theory

and the theory of Utilitarianism have been chosen. The teleological theory evaluates actions

by their consequences on the entire society. Authors Linda K. Trevino and Katherine A.

Nelson in the book Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How To Do It Right,

explain in detail the Teleological theory. “According to the principle of utility, an ethical

decision should maximize benefits to society and minimize harms. What matters is the net

balance of good consequences over bad. A utilitarian would approach an ethical dilemma by

identifying the alternative actions and their consequences (harms or benefits) for all

stakeholders. This would be followed by a mental calculation for all the costs and benefits of

these consequences, stakeholder by stakeholder." (pg. 96, Trevino, 2007). The authors follow

with an explanation of the best ethical decision, which has to bring "the greatest net benefits

for the society, and the "worst" decision would be the one that yielded the greatest net harm

for the society." (pg. 97, Trevino, 2007).

In the book, Questions That Matter – An Invitation to Philosophy, the author Ed. L. Miller

distinguishes between two types of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a theory belonging under

the Teleological ethical theories, which is aiming at evaluating the consequences of one’s

actions using the cost-benefit analysis, and its advantage compared to other ethical theories is

14
that it is "able to explain why we hold that certain types of activities are generally morally

wrong (lying, adultery, killing) while others are generally morally right (telling the truth,

fidelity, keeping one's promises)" (pg. 64, Velasquez, 2006). Miller describes the differences

between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism as the following "When you hear or see the

word "act" you think immediately of something particular: a particular deed was done in this

situation. On the other hand, the word “rule” brings to mind something general: types of deeds

to be done in every situation. For the act-utilitarianism, the question is, What particular action

should be done in this situation to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number?

For the rule-utilitarian the question is, What rule should be followed in this situation to bring

about the greatest happiness for the greatest number?” (pg. 380, Miller, 1993).

The Teleological ethical theory was identified as the best fit for evaluating the impact of the

scandal on society due to its ability to evaluate existing consequences with what should have

been predicted and evaluated prior to any business decision being made. Managers have to

take into consideration if the actions they are about to take are going to harm society or not.

Since the absence of legal regulation is significant, the identified consequences of the scandal

should determine whether the actions of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook were ethically

correct and understandable or should have never happened.

Some may argue the Deontological theory should be as well used to evaluate the scandal.

However, the theory assumes there is some sort of an ethical code of conduct, which

determines the duty or an obligation which a person has in order for his or her actions to be

considered ethical. The deontological approach to this scandal is a topic worth further

research.

15
2.3 Ethical Egoism

The theory of Ethical Egoism gives a valuable overall perspective on the entire scandal.

Ethical Egoism is a theory which focuses mainly on the self-interest of a person or a company

as opposed to the interests of the entire society. It may seem as the theory does not fit into the

analysis provided by this paper, but Ethical Egoism helps to understand the reasons which

lead to the scandal and how self-interest played a crucial role. Since the purpose of this thesis

is not only to evaluate the ethicality but also to understand actions which contributed to the

outrage and the background of the scandal. Ethical Egoism portrays how Cambridge

Analytica and Facebook both promoted self-interest and growth in a clear and concise

analysis. The motives would not be as apparent by solely using the Teleological or Utilitarian

approach.

16
 CHAPTER 3: History of Data Collection

Due to the increase in the amount of data gathered about people by authorities, mainly for

security purposes, a way of storing this information had to be introduced. The article, A brief

history of big data everyone should read written by Bernard Marr chronologically explains

the history of data collection. In the 1960s, the first data centers were built to serve the needs

of governmental authorities in law enforcement cases.

IBM, Information Business Machines Corporation, has a prominent position as one of the

world's leaders in server and storage solutions, and also in hardware and software build. In the

1970s, IBM representatives designed a relational database. It was a significant breakthrough

in accessing the stored data and searching for information without the need for a set of unique

skills. In 1989, the term Big Data was used for the first time as we understand it today, and it

was introduced to the daily vocabulary of Information Technology experts. Although, some

people expressed their concern with the potential misuse of such data for different than

intended purposes. (Marr, 2015).

The 1990s mark as a rise of the Internet and online era, with people, increasingly having

personal computers. In a number of publications, this era is also referred to as the First wave

of the Internet. The first user-friendly and affordable operating systems and applications were

introduced to the end users at home. This has had a substantive impact on increasing the

number of Internet users. During this time, having digital storage was more cost-efficient than

storing all the data on paper. The end of the 1990s brought the possibility of devices

communicating with each other without the need of any human input. It marks the beginning

of a period when insight becomes gradually more important. (Marr, 2015).

17
During the 1990s and in the beginning of 2000, the number of important research papers had

been published depicting topics of the growth of the Internet, data collection and its increased

volumes, and the future of Big Data. Among the publications one can find for example: How

much Information is there in the World? Written by Michael Lesk, a paper published by the

oldest and the biggest information technology research center based in America, the

Association for Computing Machinery called Visually Exploring Gigabyte Data sets in Real

Time. Peter Lyman and Hal Varian co-authored another essential paper, How Much

Information and a paper written by an analyst Doug Laney, 3D Data Management:

Controlling Data Volumes, Velocity and Variety. (Marr, 2015).

In 2011, McKinsey and Co published a report warning there will have to be some regulation

introduced in order to resolve issues of user privacy, Internet security, and Intellectual

Property before the data collection and Big Data reveal its full potential. (Marr, 2015).

The rise of the Internet, the introduction of personal computers, the building of storage

facilities, clouds, the development of smartphones, and the launch of social media, all

contributed to the rise of Big Data. Today, Internet users produce approximately 90% of all

data stored and are able in about two days to exceed the number of gigabytes produced by

users in the early years of the Internet. The boost of the Internet over the last 30 years has

enabled users to search and make our lives easier, although it also enabled companies to

gather our data and to use them to improve their services for us. At the beginning, users did

not understand the full potential and the extent to which their personal information was being

exposed to businesses. Therefore, the Cambridge Analytica scandal has been an imminent

warning for all the users and regulators in the government.

18
 CHAPTER 4: Background of the Scandal

The events in this chapter are in chronological order inspired by the easily understandable

article written by Sam Meredith for CNBS called Facebook – Cambridge Analytica: A

timeline of the data hijacking scandal which had mapped all the events until April 2018, when

Mark Zuckerberg went to Capitol Hill to testify.

4.1 Prior to the Scandal

In 2008, Facebook led by its founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg had created one of its first

external connections between Facebook and other web pages, called Facebook Connect. The

primary function of this application was to connect external web pages to Facebook, and

therefore to enable Facebook users to leave likes and comments under posts and articles on

other sites without the need to sign in using a particular login.

Later on, in 2010, Facebook created its Open Graph platform and gave access to it to third-

party developers. Open Graph platform is a tool designed for programmers to be able to add

plug-ins. Plug-ins are software components which can add a specific feature, such as in the

case of Facebook, a like button, login button, comments, live stream, etc. This feature makes

Facebook an even more significant part of the external web page connected via Facebook

Connect. Therefore, Facebook now had access not only to the activity of its users inside the

Facebook page but also to any activity on the external web pages which the user liked. Third-

party developers could now, after getting users' permission, access not only their personal

data but due to a mistake also the data of their friends who never agreed to grant permission

for the data harvest themselves. Among the information which were now in the hands of

third-party developers were, for example, the name, gender, birthday, education, relationship

19
status, religious and political views, but more importantly also their location. (Meredith,

2018).

Three years later, in 2013, Aleksandr Kogan, Moldavian psychologist, data scientist, and

developer, created an app called ‘thisisyourdigitalprofile’ which had subsequently enabled

Cambridge Analytica to harvest personal data of users and their Facebook friends. The

application requested users to answer questions from a quiz and created their psychological

profile based upon their answers. Unfortunately, this app did not only collect data of people

who accessed it, gave consent, used the app and answered the questions, but it also collected

data of their Facebook friends, who did not give their consent. Among the data collected,

information from users’ news feed, timeline, posts and private messages sent between the user

and his/her friends can be found. The practice was allowed by the Facebook platform Open

Graph. The users who agreed did not know they were also giving out data of other users since

this information was not presented to them before, nor after, the agreement. The fact was only

discovered after the whistle-blower Christopher Wylie came forward. The co-founder and

former Director of Research for Cambridge Analytica is the mastermind behind the idea of

harvesting Facebook profile data and using it in creating psychological and political profiles

of millions of Americans. The massive data collection mainly affected North America.

Although, people can be found all around the world due to data being also collected from

their friends. An accusation was also published which claims Aleksandr Kogan and his

company General Science Research paid people to participate in the psychological test in

order to gather as much information as possible. (Meredith, 2018). Aleksandr Kogan claims

he had passed the obtained data to Cambridge Analytica for further research and analysis. He

believes Facebook is trying to frame him as the villain in this scandal, although, he claims he

did not breach any Facebook policy and Wylie himself supposedly reassured him, and that

20
many other companies similarly gather data on users for a profit. Facebook has requested

Kogan to delete all of the gathered personal data of Facebook users, Kogan passed the

information to Cambridge Analytica. (O'Sullivan, 2018).

In 2014, Facebook had decided to change the rules of Open Graph and to limit the access of

developers to the users’ data. Third parties were no longer able to gain personal data of the

users’ friends. It can be considered a step forward, but this decision did not require the

developers to delete the data which had been gathered without the consent of the person.

Therefore, Aleksandr Kogan and the General Science Research still possessed the personal

data.

In December 2015, an article published by the British newspaper, The Guardian, claimed the

American Senator, Ted Cruz has been using services of Cambridge Analytica during his run

for the American presidential office. A journalist discovered that Cambridge Analytica was

gathering personal information from Facebook users to create psychological profiles and to

later develop a marketing strategy to misinform the users and to ensure the winning of the

elections. Facebook had replied saying they requested Aleksander Kogan and Cambridge

Analytica to delete all the users' data which they collected lacking the consent immediately

after learning about the breach. When both claimed the data was deleted, Facebook believed

them. Later on, in 2016, Donald Trump's campaign team including Steve Bannon, the co-

founder of Cambridge Analytica, had also decided to involve Cambridge Analytica by

requesting help with launching an anti-Clinton Facebook campaign aiming to lower

preferences of the biggest rival of Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton. (Meredith, 2018).

Cambridge Analytica in that time approached WikiLeaks with a request to publish Clinton's

emails.

21
4.2 Publication of the reports and the aftermath

On March 17, 2018, two newspapers, The Guardian and The New York Times, were the first

to report on the Cambridge Analytica personal data harvesting practices. Today, it is known

that about 87 million of Facebook profiles were subjected to the massive harvest. The article

was based upon information received from a whistle-blower, Christopher Wylie, who

happened to be a co-founder of Cambridge Analytica, the political data analytics firm. Wylie

approached the two publishers and outlined the practices of Cambridge Analytica employees

and top management. (Meredith, 2018).

Several days later, The Federal Trade Commission in the United States of America began an

investigation of Facebook on the grounds of violation of user privacy protection which had

been settled with Facebook in 2011. Under the settlement, Facebook had to receive consent

from users before making changes which by default change settings submitted by users, to

delete within 30 days personal data of the user who has deleted his or her profile and to

establish a privacy program, which would be audited by an independent agency.

(Anonymous, Facebook Settles FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers By Failing To

Keep Privacy Promises, 2011). A couple of days after the scandal occurred, Mark Zuckerberg

released a Facebook post apologising to the users for the privacy breach. He also announced a

new change of the rules where external developers will lose access to personal data of

unregistered users after three months and also less information will be requested to submit

when accessing applications via Facebook or using a Facebook profile. (Meredith, 2018).

On April 10, 2018, Zuckerberg had the first hearing before the US Senate which brought

mixed feelings to Facebook users, and the low IT literacy of the members of the Senate

resulted in anger and disappointment of American users. During the hearing, Zuckerberg had

22
to answer basic questions about how the Internet works instead of answering questions about

data harvesting. During the European Parliament Conference held on May 22, 2018,

Zuckerberg avoided answering uncomfortable questions of the Members of the European

Parliament. A number of the Members of the European Parliament were dissatisfied with the

Facebook founders' answers and stated it was clear he tried to avoid some painful topics and

overlooked unfavourable details. On November 27, 2018, Mark Zuckerberg was about to

have a hearing in London with the British Committee which is investigating Facebook for

spreading misinformation, but he sent Richard Allen, the vice president for privacy solutions

to attend the meeting. (Meredith, 2018). In Europe, Mark Zuckerberg has a hard time

persuading the public and politicians about Facebook's innocence in the entire scandal, due to

him avoiding explaining his actions and sending other representatives to attend the hearings.

In Great Britain, Facebook also faces accusations of their involvement in promoting Brexit

and especially the arguments of politicians who inclined towards the idea of Great Britain

leaving the European Union. For Europeans, the absence of Zuckerberg suggests the

disrespect and carelessness of the founder. In the United States of America, people are instead

focused on the low literacy of the members of the Senate. Here, Zuckerberg did not need to

avoid uncomfortable questions due to the absence of case-specific questions.

At the beginning of 2019, Facebook has faced another scandal involving the incorrect storage

of passwords of its users. As a Forbes article, Facebook's Password Breach Suggests The

Public Sees Cybersecurity As Obsolete published in March 2019, suggests Facebook was

storing the passwords of hundreds of millions of its users in simple Microsoft Word document

which could be easily accessed by its employees and used to access the accounts of the given

users. It follows as "the company acknowledged that as many as 600 million users' passwords

were stored in plain text and accessible to 20,000 employees, of which 2,000 made more than

23
9 million searches that accessed the passwords going back to 2012. Making matters worse, the

company discovered the breach three months ago but was trying to keep it secret until a

concerned whistle-blower leaked details to KrebsOnSecurity, which forced the company to

make a hasty admission“. (Leetaru, 2019). According to The Statistical Portal, Facebook has

approximately 2.27 billion active users as of January 2019. (Anonymous, Global social

networks ranked by number of users 2019, 2019). This would mean, Facebook

inappropriately stored passwords of about 26 percent of its users and has kept it under cover

for three months not notifying its users.

24
 CHAPTER 5: The Privacy

With the rise of computing, database storage and software for data processing, a scandal such

as the one involving Cambridge Analytica was bound to happen any time. Information

technology professionals have been for a long time calling for an action which would stop

companies from breaching the privacy of its users. Nowadays, after the scandals, consumers

are finally requesting regulations which would prevent similar data harvesting from taking

place without their knowledge and consent.

The right to privacy is as important as ever before. People tend to overshare their activities

online including their current location, dinner preferences, partners, kids, and their political

beliefs. Employers nowadays tend to check social media of their prospective employees and

also current employees to get a picture of what the person shares and what his ideas and

believes are. A gesture as simple as a ‘like' on somebody's post can give not only the

developers but also other users, the idea of what kind of a person somebody is and what he or

she prefers. Devices provided by employers can contain a chip which reports the activity of

employees to their managers. Therefore, whenever an employee is not working, the manager

knows about it and can start a disciplinary action. Users have to have the right to decide to

whom they will disclose their private information and what kind of information they want to

give access to. Sharing in social media may give the impression the information is no longer

private, but the user should still have the right to ask where and how their data is being stored

and if receives a concerning and unsatisfactory answer, should be able to request the data to

be removed immediately from storage. IT companies argue their intention with private

information is to improve the overall experience of users with their platforms. Although, the

argument can be evaluated as a mere weak excuse after the scandal.

25
Academic publications distinguish between two types of privacy: psychological and physical.

The book, Business Ethics, Concepts and Cases written by Manuel G. Velasquez explains

these two types as follows, "Psychological privacy is privacy with respect to a person's inner

life. This includes the person's thoughts and plans, personal beliefs and values, feelings, and

wants. These inner aspects of a person are so intimately connected with the person that to

invade them is almost an invasion of the very person. Physical privacy is privacy with respect

to a person's physical activities. Because people's inner lives are revealed by their physical

activities and expressions, physical privacy is important in part because it is a means for

protecting psychological privacy." (pg. 289, Velasquez, 2006)

The book follows by explaining why it is crucial to protect privacy using the law. Privacy was

designed to protect individuals. It has several protective functions. Some of them are for

example that it ensures that sensitive and personal information cannot be obtained by external

parties and published if the revelation would lead to embarrassment, harm or blackmail.

Privacy also prevents other people from limiting our plans due to incompatible beliefs, values,

and opinions. Certain harmless activities may be viewed as distasteful or unacceptable by

some people, whereas others may agree with them. This way, even unconventional freedom

of expression can be ensured. Privacy can also prevent from hurtful information about us to

be revealed. It is meant in a sense, that our close and loved ones can, as a result, have an

image of us damaged. The last protective function can be especially witnessed in the United

States where this right is already enshrined in the Constitution as the Fifth Amendment. The

Amendment upon Invoking protects the person from involuntary harming their reputation and

having to answer questions which may lead to their incrimination. (pg. 289, Velasquez, 2006).

26
Continuing, the author describes how privacy has to enable functions which are immensely

important for the people not only as the Internet users. "First, privacy enables a person to

develop ties of friendship, love, and trust. Without intimacy, these relationships could not

flourish. Intimacy, however, requires both sharing information about oneself that is not shared

with everyone and engaging in special activities with others that are not publicly performed."

(pg. 290, Velasquez, 2006). The chapter identifies as the second enabling function the

possibility of the existence of professional relationships as a reason for privacy. Certain

professional relationships, between doctor and patient or lawyer and client, would seize to

exist without the trust and confidentiality enabled by the privacy. The author describes the

third function as the ability “to sustain distinct social roles. The executive of a corporation, for

example, may want, as a private citizen, to support a cause that is unpopular with the firm.

Privacy enables the executive to do so without fear of reprisal.” (pg. 290, Velasquez, 2006).

The fourth enabling function is for people to be able to identify as whomever they desire, by

having control over their external appearance in society. For example, people as a result of the

fourth enabling function, are able to present themselves in front of every person differently. In

the case of a romantic relationship, the individual may decide to present him or herself in a

more favourable light or disclose a higher number of private information. (pg. 290,

Velasquez, 2006).

Businesses require a certain level of disclosure of private information in order to keep

themselves protected, in case a person has a negative history, or when it comes to social

media, to be able to distinguish illegal actions and hate crimes on their platforms. As a result,

the book, Business Ethics, Concepts and Cases has analysed the business needs and

consumer’s need for privacy and has suggestions for balancing the needs of both of the

27
groups. It includes relevance, informing, consent, accuracy, purpose, and recipients and

security. (pg. 290, Velasquez, 2006).

Relevance is understood as the consumer's toleration of database storing of their personal

data but only those relevant for the business. For example, doctors should store only

information which is relevant to health care and should not store financial information about a

person. (pg. 290, Velasquez, 2006).

Informing is described as the need to inform the consumers about the relevant data collection

and disclose the purpose of the collection and also, where and how the data will be stored, and

who will have access to the data. Consumers should be able to make an informed decision on

whether they want to enable the business to store and use their data. (pg. 290, Velasquez,

2006).

Consumers’ consent gives the business permission to collect, store and use individuals'

information. The business should be able to manipulate with the information "only if that

person has explicitly or implicitly consented to provide that information to that business and

only if the information is to be used for the purpose for which the person consented to have it

used. Consent may be explicit, such as when a person provides information on a credit card

application. However, consent may be implicit, such as when a person makes a purchase with

a credit card knowing that a record of that purchase will be kept by the company issuing the

credit card and a credit bureau will collect the record. In the latter case, the very act of using

the credit card constitutes acceptance of the conditions the credit card company imposes on

the use of the card, particularly if the credit card company has explicitly advised the consumer

that such information will be collected and reported to a credit bureau.” (pg. 290, Velasquez,

2006).

Among the suggestions is also the need for Accuracy. The suggestion is explained as the

need to store and use only accurate information about a consumer, and any discovered

28
inaccuracy has to be corrected by the business. Therefore, consumers have to have access to

the entire collection of their personal information in order to be able to maintain accuracy.

(pg. 291, Velasquez, 2006).

The author expressed the need for the Purpose of collecting personal information to be

legitimate. “In this context, a purpose is legitimate if it results in benefits that are generally

enjoyed by the people about whom the information is being collected.” (pg. 291, Velasquez,

2006).

The last suggestion of the author is the need for Recipients and Security. Business must

ensure the personal data collected about an individual is stored securely and is "not available

to parties that the individual has not explicitly or implicitly consented to be a recipient of that

information." (pg. 291, Velasquez, 2006). The author concludes that if an individual gives a

business the permission and consent to collect, store and use his or her personal data, the

business has to protect the data from any third-party access. The business should not

manipulate the data, nor sell it to other businesses without the explicit consent of the given

individual. (pg. 291, Velasquez, 2006).

29
 CHAPTER 6: The Analysis

6.1 Events Subjected to the Analysis

For the purpose of this analysis, five critical decisions done by the Cambridge Analytica

representatives and Facebook will be evaluated for their ethicality using the Teleological

Business Ethics approach. The following decisions will be evaluated.

1. In 2010, did Facebook act ethically when giving access to Open Graph to third

parties?

2. Harvesting of personal data of users who did not give consent, but their friends did,

using the application ‘thisisyourdigitalprofile’

3. In 2014, Facebook changed third-party access to the Open Graph only to have access

to personal data of people who gave consent

4. Facebook requested Cambridge Analytica to delete all personal data collected without

consent. It is not clear whether Cambridge Analytica deleted the data, although,

representatives told Facebook they did

5. Politicians using Cambridge Analytica services to favourably manipulate the public

opinion

The teleological approach will be used to evaluate the impact of the actions on the society as a

whole since it "morally evaluate(s) actions by looking to their consequences – right actions

being right because they tend to have good consequences, wrong actions being wrong because

they tend to have bad consequences. Thus, for teleologists, evaluations of consequences as

good or bad provide the premises for inferring the norms of right acting.” (Beck-Dudley,

1994). The approach evaluates what impact will the action of an individual will have on the

30
entire society. What makes one individual happy may be viewed as damaging to the society,

and therefore it is undesirable and unacceptable under this approach to behave in that way.

6.2 Ethical Egoism

This chapter will evaluate whether, from the point of view of the Ethical Egoism in

Teleological Business Ethics, the actions of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook in the

scandal can be justified by using the argument about their intention to maximize the self-

interest.

The first decision which was done by Facebook and was to let external third-party developers

use the Open Graph. By letting the developers use the platform, Facebook was able to access

third-party web pages which used Facebook's plug-ins, such as the like button or comment

section. On the other hand, third-party developers now had access to personal information of

people who gave consent, but also to their friend's personal data. Only after four years,

Facebook restricted access to personal data of users who did not give consent. In the first

decision, the only apparent self-interest of Facebook is to grow as a new company. It is

questionable to which extent it is enough to justify the action, even though there is an intent to

maximize the gain on the side of Facebook.

The second decision, which was initially done by Aleksandr Kogan, was to use a

psychological application ‘thisisyourdigitalprofile’ to harvest data of Facebook users who

agreed to fill in the test, but also unknowingly gave access to their friend’s Facebook profiles.

The data collected was later provided to Cambridge Analytica. This decision is one of the few

which can be justified by teleological ethical theory and especially the Ethical Egoism. The

data was collected for the sole purpose of self-interest, and Cambridge Analytica used the

31
data with the intent to gain a competitive advantage over its competitors on the market.

Therefore, even though the decision did not have in mind the overall good of the entire

society, using the Ethical Egoism, the decision done by Kogan and subsequently by

Cambridge Analytical, can be justified as an intent to maximize self-interest.

Facebook has made a decision, which comes as the third decision in the analysis of the

Scandal. The decision was to limit the access of third-party developers to the personal

information of Facebook's users. The limitation is viewed as a step forward in protecting the

users' privacy. One may think there is very little self-interest from the side of Facebook, but

evaluating retrospectively, one can see the backlash which took place. Therefore, the self-

interest of Facebook was to appear as a company which cares, and it intends to do whatever it

takes to protect its users from mistreatment. Therefore, the decision to limit the access of

external developers to personal data of users is justifiable and overall viewed as a positive.

The fourth decision in question is the decision of Cambridge Analytica's representatives to

deceive Facebook after it requested them to delete all the data of Facebook's users. Although

Cambridge Analytica never confirmed nor denied the claims regarding the deletion of the

harvested data, many believe it is proven by their action that Cambridge Analytica still

disposed and used the data for its benefit. Using the Ethical Egoism to determine whether the

action is justifiable, one has to understand that the self-interest of Cambridge Analytica is

evident and straight-forward. Cambridge Analytica needs the data to function and deliver the

results its customers are accustomed to. The data is a vital instrument in their business plan

which when lost, cannot be replaced and the entire business plan fails. Thus, Cambridge

Analytica has to decide between survival in business and bankruptcy. Ethical Egoism helps to

32
understand the decision and evaluates it as a justifiable since the survival of the company was

at stake.

The fifth decision was made by public figures, politicians, rather than the companies

themselves. The last decision is being evaluated as to whether it is ethically justifiable for

public figures to use unethically harvested personal data for their self-interest and to secure

themselves a winning position in elections. In 2016, the Brexit referendum was held in the

United Kingdom. There has been some evidence regarding the connection of the Cambridge

Analytica and the Leave campaign. Senator Ted Cruz used the service of Cambridge

Analytica in the US Presidential Elections along with the current President Donald Trump.

The Ethical Egoism is based on self-interest and politicians make their living on promoting

self-interests. The goal of becoming a President of the United States using a sophisticated

system of manipulation of public opinion using Facebook may sound unrealistic, but it is very

much the truth. Therefore, when it comes to self-interest and Ethical Egoism, the action can

be justified.

6.3 Eudaimonismic Teleological Ethical Theory

Cambridge Analytica demonstrated how data collection and exploitation provides valuable

information for psychoanalysis of target audience and microtargeting, which is in direct

contradiction with the Eudaimonismic Teleological Ethical Theory. The theory is focused on

overall good provided to society by actions of any party or an individual.

The first decision, which was to give access to the Open Graph, has undeniably provided

some positive outcome for Facebook itself and the external developers. However, when the

decision is being evaluated from the point of view of society, in this case, Facebook users, the

33
decision does not perform well in bringing them happiness. Since this paper evaluates the

actions, or decisions, using the Teleological approach, it is important to identify the happiness

of the majority, which in this case is the society, and not the minority, which can be for

example Facebook or Cambridge Analytica. Therefore, overall the impact on the happiness of

the society as a whole was not positive, which means, the decision cannot be justified by the

Eudaimonismic approach to ethical theory.

The second decision, to ask people to fill in a psychological quiz on an app and to

subsequently harvest personal data of participants as well as of their Facebook friends, does

not fulfil the requirement of providing overall good to the society. The fact that the users were

on occasion paid to take part in the quiz only shows, how important it was to gather as much

data as possible on the users. The public views the decision to create psychological profiles of

Facebook users and to use them for appropriate political campaign targeting as a massive

breach of privacy. Users who did not provide the necessary consent feel used and abused.

People were not properly informed about the intent of Kogan or Cambridge Analytica with

their personal information. It is not justifiable under this theory to use and abuse data which

was collected without consent, especially not for the purpose it was used, which is a political

campaign and targeting.

The third decision was a significant one for the users, but unfortunately, the decision appears

as more positive than it in reality was. In essence, Facebook's decision to limit the exposure of

personal information is an amazing decision and significant progress. One must not forget the

decision came after four years of unlimited access to personal data. Therefore, users who were

using Facebook before 2014 and are from the United States, are most likely among the 87

million harvested profiles and their personal data was being used by a third-party. Overall,

34
the decision can be classified as one of the best decisions in this entire Scandal. The decision

aimed to limit the access of third-parties to personal information shared on the social media

platform and was intended to help increase safety and privacy on the platform. As a result, the

decision can be justified by ethical reasoning.

The fourth decision is where Cambridge Analytica decided to save itself rather than remain

honest in the public eye. Facebook intended to clear itself of the issue of giving access to

personal data to third-parties and to restore the belief of protecting the user's privacy. The idea

behind the request to terminate the disposal of personal information of Facebook's users can

be viewed as positive. The overall impact on society would have been positive if the

Facebook representatives would have requested proof from Cambridge Analytical about the

deletion of the personal data. However, Facebook decided to believe Cambridge Analytica's

representatives and to not check whether their claims are true. The actions of Facebook are

justifiable due to the intent to bring an overall positive outcome for the society, although, the

execution lacked precision. The actions of Cambridge Analytica to deceive Facebook and the

public cannot be justified by the theory.

The last decision which is a subject of the analysis is the evaluation of cooperation between

politically active figures and the Cambridge Analytica. The politicians have identified the

possibility of a competitive advantage over their competitors in the elections by using the

services of Cambridge Analytica. Although, one must realise that the personal data about

users was harvested from Facebook using an application which created a psychological

profile for each participant and his or her Facebook friends to be able to correctly target them

with disinformation and to, therefore, manipulate their voting patterns. As frightening as it

may seem, this practice may very well limit any freedom of information, which is in the

35
legislation of probably all democratic countries in the world. The freedom of information

means that all people have to have access to all the information on the Internet and should not

be targeted with only one kind of information or news. Therefore, the actions of Cambridge

Analytica in cooperation with politicians and Facebook contradicts the fundamental right of

every person. As a result, the actions of Cambridge Analytica, Facebook nor politicians

cannot be justifiable under this theory, due to the lack of overall good provided to society.

6.4 Ethical theory of Utilitarianism

Facebook has enabled a massive uninformed collection of users’ data using bots, which in the

end has proven to be against the principles of Ethical theory of Utilitarianism. The theory is

based on the cost-benefit analysis and decisions will be put into the equation and evaluated as

to whether the theory can justify the decisions.

Giving third-party access to Open Graph, which was the first decision, has provided the

developers with a possibility to invade users' privacy. Although it is nearly impossible to put a

price tag on a person's privacy, it is possible to distinguish whether a profit is more important

than privacy. If users would have been properly informed about the data collection, and the

data collection would be done on users who gave explicit consent, then under the Utilitarian

theory, the decision would be justifiable. However, in this case, where users were not

informed, and many of them did not give any consent, nor explicit nor implicit, the action

cannot be justified.

When the second decision is being evaluated by the cost-benefit analysis, a person has to

understand there is no precise cost of the feeling of being used or losing privacy. Facebook

users who participated in the psychological quiz were not informed about the exposure of

36
their friends. When a person is offered money to participate in research, many agree simply

because it is a simple way how to earn some money. After the scandal, when Christopher

Wylie published the internal information of Cambridge Analytica and when participants of

the research learnt their data was being harvested along with data of their friends, the society

was shocked. Facebook lost a lot of its users, Cambridge Analytica went bankrupt, and

society continues to ask for regulation preventing similar breaches from happening.

Therefore, as a result of the Scandal, the society is calling for regulatory action. The decision

to harvest personal data via an app cannot be justified due to its purely negative impact.

The cost-benefit analysis of the third decision may be one of the easiest in the analysis of the

Scandal. The benefit of increased users' privacy can also be hardly precisely evaluated, due to

privacy being a noneconomic good. However, from the emotional point of view, the decision

brought the users a sense of safety and belief that Facebook intends to protect them. In 2014,

not many people actually knew about the data harvesting issue; therefore the decision was

more of an internal cover up against a media and social backlash. As well as under the

Eudaimonismic approach, the decision is ethically justifiable with an overall positive impact

on the privacy of the society.

In the fourth decision, Facebook asked Cambridge Analytica to delete all personal data of its

users. When executing the cost-benefit analysis required by this theory, the cost would be for

Cambridge Analytica to leave the market. The benefits of Cambridge Analytica terminating

its operations would be for the society the restored privacy, terminated the disposal of

personal information by a company which lacks their consent and has no intention deleting

the personal data. First of all, Cambridge Analytica on an ethical basis has had no right to

dispose and use the data for its own benefit and profit. Therefore, the argument about the cost

37
of Cambridge Analytica getting out of business is invalid. Second of all, Cambridge Analytica

has already gone bankrupt, and its reputation has been destroyed as well as the reputation of

any institution with "Cambridge" written in its name. The evaluation of benefits and costs can

be concluded with a claim the actions are not justifiable, and society got Cambridge Analytica

out of business.

The last decision which will be the subject to the cost-benefit analysis is the decision of

politicians to use the services of Cambridge Analytica to advance their careers. Politicians

who decided to use the services either were willing to take all the risks that accompanied the

decision or did not realise what they got themselves into. The truth about the harvesting was

revealed much later, but to be a high-profile politician running for President of the United

States and to not ask where the personal data came from or how the targeting will take place

seems as an utter ignorance. The cost for society was the lost privacy, lost personal data, lost

freedom of information and on the other hand the benefit for the presidential candidates of

higher percentages in statistics. A question arises from this analysis, would the people want

such a president? Judging by the fact Donald Trump still president, the answer is most likely

yes. Even though, from the analysis, it is clear the decision cannot be justified under the

ethical theory of Utilitarianism.

38
 CHAPTER 7: Counterargument

The Teleological ethical theory used to analyse the ethicality of the actions of Facebook and

Cambridge Analytica does come with some challenges. On the one hand, for this analysis,

part of the challenge is eliminated by the scandal already happening. Some of the challenges

come with an argument that it is impossible to always be able to gather all the information

required beforehand and therefore to put into the equation all the necessary identifiers of

benefits and harms to society. The book, Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How

To Do It Right mentions that “a challenge involved in using a strictly consequentialist

approach is that it is often difficult to obtain the information required to evaluate all of the

consequences for all stakeholders who may be directly or indirectly affected by an action or

decision. Even if you have all of the information, it can be extremely cumbersome to have to

calculate all of the harms and benefits every time you encounter a new ethical dilemma.” (pg.

97, Trevino, 2007). The authors of the book, Linda K. Trevino and Katherine A. Nelson also

identified other challenges of the theory when it comes to minority rights and claim the

benefits for the minority can be easily over-ruled by the interests and benefits of the majority.

The book, Business Ethics, Concepts and Cases written by Manuel G. Velasquez also

describes the measurement problems when it comes to the Utilitarian theory. “One problem is

this: How can the utilities different actions have for different people be measured and

compared as utilitarianism requires? Comparative measures of the values things have for

different people cannot be made. A second problem is that some benefits and costs seem

intractable to measurement. How, for example, can one measure the value of health or life?...

A third problem is that, because many of the benefits and costs of an action cannot be reliably

predicted, they also cannot be adequately measured. The beneficial or costly consequences of

basic scientific knowledge, for example, are notoriously difficult to predict. … Yet a fourth

39
problem is that it is unclear exactly what is to count as a benefit and what is to count as cost.

This lack of clarity is especially problematic with respect to social issues that are given

significantly different evaluations by different cultural groups.” (pg. 64, Velasquez, 2006).

Miguel A. Velasquez in his book also mentioned certain types of “noneconomic goods – such

as life, love, freedom, equality, health, beauty – whose value is such that no quantity of any

economic good is equal to the value of the noneconomic good. … The only way of resolving

these problems is by arbitrarily accepting the valuations of one social group or another. But

this in effect bases utilitarian cost-benefit analysis on the subjective biases and tastes of that

group.” (pg. 65, Velasquez, 2006).

Even though there is a number of challenges to this ethical theory, the theory itself is a crucial

instrument in evaluating ethical decisions in business. As the book, Managing Business

Ethics: Straight Talk About How To Do It Right concludes, there are various reasons for why

the theory is still valid to use “First, utilitarian thinking – through its descendant, utility theory

– underlines much of the business and economics literature. Second, on the face of it, most of

us would admit that considering the consequences of one’s actions is extremely important to

good ethical decision making. In fact, studies of ethical decision making in business have

found that business managers generally rely on a utilitarian approach.” (pg. 98, Trevino,

2007). Both of the publications, either by Linda K. Trevino and Katherine A. Nelson or by

Manuel G. Velasquez, present valid arguments as to why the approach may not always be the

best option or the most accurate. Although, in the case of Cambridge Analytica, the theory is

sufficient in evaluating the actual consequences and their impact on society in general.

40
 CHAPTER 8: Conclusion

After initially declining the invitation to speak publicly, the CEO of Cambridge Analytica has

delivered a speech to the British parliamentary committee on June 2018. Other public

hearings consisted only of the representatives of Facebook and other technological

corporations. It is believed, it is the obligation of the tech companies to protect data of its

users, but the misconduct which was done by Cambridge Analytica should not be forgotten

nor overlooked. By filing for bankruptcy, Cambridge Analytica has escaped the public

prosecution, although its representatives such as, Mr. Bannon and former CEO Alexander

Nix, should be held responsible for the massive harvesting of the personal data done under

their supervision and with their consent. Among the first to publish an official report is the

parliament of the United Kingdom. The report is based on the “testimony from Cambridge

Analytica directors, Facebook executives and dozens of expert witnesses” (Cadwalladr C. ,

2019).

The analysis was focused on five critical milestones in the Scandal which was published on

March 17, 2018, by the whistle-blower Christopher Wylie. Among the decisions was the

decision of Facebook to give access to its Open Graph platform to external developers. The

decision had exposed Facebook users’ personal data to external parties, which on many

instances lacked the needed consent of the users. The second decision was made by Aleksandr

Kogan who developed an application which based upon the answers from a quiz created a

psychological profile of the Facebook user. The profiles were later sold to Cambridge

Analytica. The third decision was to limit the access of third-parties when it came to personal

data. At this point, only data of people who gave consent can be viewed and used only as the

consent permitted them. The fourth decision was the request for Cambridge Analytica to

delete all personal information which was unethically harvested. Cambridge Analytica claims

41
they did as was requested, although no proof was presented. The fifth decision involved

politicians using the services of Cambridge Analytica to promote their campaigns among

Facebook users who are like-minded.

In the analysis can be observed, that only Ethical Egoism can justify all of the decisions of

both of the companies, Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. The apparent and clear self-

interest of the companies justifies their actions and decisions when viewing them through the

lens of this theory. The third decision, which was of Facebook to limit the access of third-

party developers to the personal data of its users is the only decision which is justifiable under

all the theories. It portrays how the overall good of society can be balanced with the self-

interest of one company which is trying to salvage its image. Besides the third decision, none

can be justified by the remaining two theories, by the Eudaimonismic Teleological ethical

theory which is based on an overall good provided to the entire society, and by the Utilitarian

ethical theory which evaluates costs and benefits of the given decision with respect to the

benefit of society.

Due to the limitations of the bachelor’s thesis, a more thorough examination is a subject of

further research. The scandal is yet to be resolved, parties involved are yet to be held

responsible for their actions and any legal regulations are yet to be proposed. Therefore, this

paper intended to inform the reader that the data gathering is not a trend of recent years, that

the scandal has deeper roots than it may appear to an uninvolved observer. The work aimed to

explain why the Scandal has to be evaluated using ethics rather than the law and why the

teleological ethical theory was chosen as the basis.

42
One may ask what has happened to the data which Cambridge Analytica had had at its

disposal. After filing for bankruptcy, the assets of the company will be sold at an auction.

Among the assets are also the personal data in the form of psychological profiles of Facebook

users. As an article Cambridge Analytica’s data may be sold to the highest bidder during the

bankruptcy published by the Business Insider explains “"Personal identifiable information in

bankruptcy can be sold," said Jim Vincequerra, a partner at law firm Alston and Bird who

specializes in bankruptcy law. "It's a defined term in the bankruptcy code, and there is a

specific provision that addresses it." In the US, when companies file for bankruptcy they are

required to list their assets, or what exactly the firm owns. If Cambridge Analytica lists any

user data or psychological profiles, those assets could be sold to the highest bidder,

Vincequerra said. Bankruptcy auctions are open to anyone who can prove they're able to pay

the asking price. But Cambridge Analytica has another option. It could sell or transfer such

data to a third party instead of putting it up for auction, Vincequerra said. That possibility is

especially concerning for privacy advocates because Cambridge Analytica's executives have

set up another company, dubbed Emerdata, which reports indicate is effectively just a

rebranded version of the same firm.“ (Sandler, 2018 ). The article follows to clarify as to why

the case might create a new precedent. The data at the disposal of Cambridge Analytica was a

data harvested without the user’s consent, and the users themselves have no connection to the

firm. The court has to appoint an ombudsman who has to protect the interest of the users and

their rights according to the privacy policy they agreed to. In the powers of the ombudsman is

to block the sale entirely. (Sandler, 2018 ).

The Scandal is the first to emerge and describe how personal information can be misused, and

users’ privacy invaded. The case is about to set a precedent in dealing with similar breaches

and misconduct of Information Technology companies around the world. The resolution of

43
the case will take years, and new regulations will have to be introduced. At this point, it is

impossible to determine the outcome and whether the hurt users will be satisfied. The privacy

cannot be restored for the users who were already a subject to the breach and harvesting.

Although, Facebook should aim at improving their security policies and ensure no other

Scandals will emerge and also the recent password scandal will be their last one.

44
References

Cadwalladr, C. (2018, March 18). ‘I made Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare tool’: meet

the data war whistleblower. Retrieved from The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-

wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump

Cadwalladr, C. (2019, March 17). Cambridge Analytica a year on: ‘a lesson in institutional

failure’. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-

news/2019/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-year-on-lesson-in-institutional-failure-

christopher-wylie

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. (2015). A Comparison Between US

and EU Data Protection Legislation for Law Enforcement. Brussels: European

Parliament.

Anonymous. (2011, November 29). Facebook Settles FTC Charges That It Deceived

Consumers By Failing To Keep Privacy Promises. Retrieved from Federal Trade

Commission: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebook-

settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-keep

Anonymous. (2019, March 24). Global social networks ranked by number of users 2019.

Retrieved from The Statistical Portal:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-

of-users/

Beck-Dudley, J. E. (1994, August 1). Are deontology and teleology mutually exclusive?

Retrieved from Springer Link:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00871809#citeas

Big Data, (n.d.). Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/big-data?q=Big+Data

45
data, (n.d.). Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/data

Granville, K. (2018, March 19). Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: What You Need to

Know as Fallout Widens. Retrieved from The New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambridge-analytica-

explained.html

Leetaru, K. (2019, March 23). Facebook's Password Breach Suggests The Public Sees

Cybersecurity As Obsolete. Retrieved from Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/03/23/facebooks-password-breach-

suggests-the-public-sees-cybersecurity-as-obsolete/#4573ef4a3e24

Marr, B. (2015, February 25). A brief history of big data everyone should read. Retrieved

from World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/02/a-brief-

history-of-big-data-everyone-should-read/

Meredith, S. (2018, April 10). Facebook-Cambridge Analytica: A timeline of the data

hijacking scandal. Retrieved from CNBC:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/facebook-cambridge-analytica-a-timeline-of-the-

data-hijacking-scandal.html

Miller, E. L. (1993). Questions That Matter - An Invitation to Philosophy. Boston: McGraw-

Hill.

O'Sullivan, D. (2018, March 20). Scientist at center of data controversy says Facebook is

making him a scapegoat. Retrieved from CNN Business:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/technology/aleksandr-kogan-interview/index.html

Sandler, R. (2018 , May 5). Cambridge Analytica's data may be sold to the highest bidder

during bankruptcy. Retrieved from Business Insider:

46
 https://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analyticas-data-may-be-sold-to-the-

highest-bidder-in-bankruptcy-2018-5

Trevino, L. K. (2007). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How To Do It Right.

United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Velasquez, M. G. (2006). Business Ethics, Concepts and Cases. New Jersey: Pearson.

47