At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
Another thing that appears to be massively overlooked. The Obama campaign also "downloaded" the Facebook "graph API", but that was ok....as have 100s of other companies and apps.
All the focus has been on CA and Trump, when it really should all be on the likes of how Facebook handles the data that is shared on their platform.
Yeah. I'm no fan of either the Leave or Trump campaigns, but I do think the coverage of this story has conflated a lot of things together in a very misleading way. As I understand it, the only thing that CA did wrong that, say, the Obama campaign didn't, was to sell on the data it collected. But most of the shock isn't about that, it's about the fact that data could be collected in this way in the first place.
Just put an offer in on a flat, sorry @rcs1000 St John's Wood won me over vs Hampstead! Assuming I get the place, NW8 here I come!
You giving up the good life in Switzerland?
Yeah, I miss London and so does my fiancé. Life in Switzerland is, simply put, boring. Plus being in Switzerland means having to rely on my fiancé's friends for a social life and they are also extremely dull. Even she has discovered that after spending a few years in London with my social circle (and her own friends that she's made in London).
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
Another thing that appears to be massively overlooked. The Obama campaign also "downloaded" the Facebook "graph API", but that was ok....as have 100s of other companies and apps.
All the focus has been on CA and Trump, when it really should all be on the likes of how Facebook handles the data that is shared on their platform.
Yeah. I'm no fan of either the Leave or Trump campaigns, but I do think the coverage of this story has conflated a lot of things together in a very misleading way. As I understand it, the only thing that CA did wrong that, say, the Obama campaign didn't, was to sell on the data it collected. But most of the shock isn't about that, it's about the fact that data could be collected in this way in the first place.
It isn't clear that the data collected by the academic couldn't be sold. The FT revealed that the T&Cs of the app stated that he could do exactly this. What apparently happened was his original version of the app said academic use only, then shortly after he released an updated version in which the T&C were altered.
Again, Facebook apparently don't manually check the T&C after the original app has been approved.
Just put an offer in on a flat, sorry @rcs1000 St John's Wood won me over vs Hampstead! Assuming I get the place, NW8 here I come!
You giving up the good life in Switzerland?
Yeah, I miss London and so does my fiancé. Life in Switzerland is, simply put, boring. Plus being in Switzerland means having to rely on my fiancé's friends for a social life and they are also extremely dull. Even she has discovered that after spending a few years in London with my social circle (and her own friends that she's made in London).
It really is life in the proverbial slow lane.
My overseas clients always tell me the same. That Geneva, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc are “boring”.
I’m happy to agree (and I live in the bleeding epicentre of London hipsterdom), but since I spend most of my free time looking after my 3-yr-old, drinking wine in front of Netflix, and ranting on PB, I don’t really know what they mean.
Just put an offer in on a flat, sorry @rcs1000 St John's Wood won me over vs Hampstead! Assuming I get the place, NW8 here I come!
You giving up the good life in Switzerland?
Yeah, I miss London and so does my fiancé. Life in Switzerland is, simply put, boring. Plus being in Switzerland means having to rely on my fiancé's friends for a social life and they are also extremely dull. Even she has discovered that after spending a few years in London with my social circle (and her own friends that she's made in London).
It really is life in the proverbial slow lane.
Well I hope it all goes well back in the big smoke.
How does Dominic Cummings square this with his decision to pay them several million pounds for their services?
I think the answer would be that they hired the Canadian lot, not CA/SCL, but you'd have to ask him. There's lots of info on his blog (which is in itself a fascinating read, a mixture of the informative, the perceptive, the self-serving, and the paranoid):
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
I believe this. Targeting ads on users' relationships is Facebook's business model. They should be better than anyone else at doing it. Which raises the more interesting question of what value was Kogan offering to Cambridge Analaytica, its sister company and ultimately the Leave campaigns. He was selling the usefulness of his harvested data despite his disingenuous claims that the data never left his server, but how was it useful to Leave?
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
How does Dominic Cummings square this with his decision to pay them several million pounds for their services?
Vote Leave didn’t pay CA for anything. Leave.EU (Farage’s mob) did.
Just put an offer in on a flat, sorry @rcs1000 St John's Wood won me over vs Hampstead! Assuming I get the place, NW8 here I come!
You obviously made a ton of money in Switzerland. St John’s Wood? Ouch.
It isn't the cheapest place but I really love the area and I've offered well below the asking price given that the place has been on the market for over 12 weeks.
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
Another thing that appears to be massively overlooked. The Obama campaign also "downloaded" the Facebook "graph API", but that was ok....as have 100s of other companies and apps.
All the focus has been on CA and Trump, when it really should all be on the likes of how Facebook handles the data that is shared on their platform.
Yeah. I'm no fan of either the Leave or Trump campaigns, but I do think the coverage of this story has conflated a lot of things together in a very misleading way. As I understand it, the only thing that CA did wrong that, say, the Obama campaign didn't, was to sell on the data it collected. But most of the shock isn't about that, it's about the fact that data could be collected in this way in the first place.
It isn't clear that the data collected by the academic couldn't be sold. The FT revealed that the T&Cs of the app stated that he could do exactly this. What apparently happened was his original version of the app said academic use only, then shortly after he released an updated version in which the T&C were altered.
Again, Facebook apparently don't manually check the T&C after the original app has been approved.
I meant that it broke Facebook's T&C, not necessarily their own app's. But I may be wrong on that, I haven't been following this story in tremendous detail.
Just put an offer in on a flat, sorry @rcs1000 St John's Wood won me over vs Hampstead! Assuming I get the place, NW8 here I come!
You giving up the good life in Switzerland?
Yeah, I miss London and so does my fiancé. Life in Switzerland is, simply put, boring. Plus being in Switzerland means having to rely on my fiancé's friends for a social life and they are also extremely dull. Even she has discovered that after spending a few years in London with my social circle (and her own friends that she's made in London).
It really is life in the proverbial slow lane.
My overseas clients always tell me the same. That Geneva, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc are “boring”.
I’m happy to agree (and I live in the bleeding epicentre of London hipsterdom), but since I spend most of my free time looking after my 3-yr-old, drinking wine in front of Netflix, and ranting on PB, I don’t really know what they mean.
Yeah, I'm sure my life will change after the summer once we're married and we have kids. That's kind of why I don't mind spending the extra for St John's Wood, it's almost like suburban life next to an awesome green space, but in the business end of town if we ever want to go out to a bar or for a decent meal.
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
I believe this. Targeting ads on users' relationships is Facebook's business model. They should be better than anyone else at doing it. Which raises the more interesting question of what value was Kogan offering to Cambridge Analaytica, its sister company and ultimately the Leave campaigns. He was selling the usefulness of his harvested data despite his disingenuous claims that the data never left his server, but how was it useful to Leave?
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
In other words, what we might have here is a scandal in the sense that data was improperly obtained and used, but it doesn't follow that the misuse of the data necessarily did any good to the campaigns allegedly involved. I think that is very likely to be the case.
Cummings nevertheless used Aggregate IQ, the sister company of Cambridge Analytica, for the bulk of his spend, who access to the same illegitimate data from Kogan. Still would like to know the purpose of that data.
At last, someone (Aleksandra Kogan) makes the most important and also quite obvious point about the Cambidge Analytica alleged scandal:
A second point of confusion is whether the data we collected would be useful for micro-targeting ads on Facebook. I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook. The Facebook ads platform provides tools and capability to run targeted ads with little need for our work—in fact, the platform’s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work.
Another thing that appears to be massively overlooked. The Obama campaign also "downloaded" the Facebook "graph API", but that was ok....as have 100s of other companies and apps.
All the focus has been on CA and Trump, when it really should all be on the likes of how Facebook handles the data that is shared on their platform.
Yeah. I'm no fan of either the Leave or Trump campaigns, but I do think the coverage of this story has conflated a lot of things together in a very misleading way. As I understand it, the only thing that CA did wrong that, say, the Obama campaign didn't, was to sell on the data it collected. But most of the shock isn't about that, it's about the fact that data could be collected in this way in the first place.
It isn't clear that the data collected by the academic couldn't be sold. The FT revealed that the T&Cs of the app stated that he could do exactly this. What apparently happened was his original version of the app said academic use only, then shortly after he released an updated version in which the T&C were altered.
Again, Facebook apparently don't manually check the T&C after the original app has been approved.
I meant that it broke Facebook's T&C, not necessarily their own app's. But I may be wrong on that, I haven't been following this story in tremendous detail.
I am not even sure that is true, as Facebook T&C were so open to "abuse" for so long. Given the agenda of some of the media on this, it is hard to discern fact from fiction on a lot of this. The FT article was one tiny snippet which hardly got any coverage, after which I noticed the media stopped claiming what the academic had done was potentially illegal.
Just put an offer in on a flat, sorry @rcs1000 St John's Wood won me over vs Hampstead! Assuming I get the place, NW8 here I come!
You giving up the good life in Switzerland?
Yeah, I miss London and so does my fiancé. Life in Switzerland is, simply put, boring. Plus being in Switzerland means having to rely on my fiancé's friends for a social life and they are also extremely dull. Even she has discovered that after spending a few years in London with my social circle (and her own friends that she's made in London).
It really is life in the proverbial slow lane.
My overseas clients always tell me the same. That Geneva, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc are “boring”.
I’m happy to agree (and I live in the bleeding epicentre of London hipsterdom), but since I spend most of my free time looking after my 3-yr-old, drinking wine in front of Netflix, and ranting on PB, I don’t really know what they mean.
Yeah, I'm sure my life will change after the summer once we're married and we have kids. That's kind of why I don't mind spending the extra for St John's Wood, it's almost like suburban life next to an awesome green space, but in the business end of town if we ever want to go out to a bar or for a decent meal.
Popular with celebrities, American and Jewish communities, wealthy professionals and the odd intellectual who can still afford it, St John’s Wood has always been seen as a high-end, exclusive London suburb. Unlike similar areas such as Primrose Hill, which was once home to workers cottages, railroad fumes and unsavoury activities, NW8 was purpose-built to provide private villas for the city’s growing middle and upper classes. Various Victorian aristocrats even used their properties here to house mistresses, the most famous of which was Napoleon III’s paramour Elizabeth Ann Howard. When it comes to residents, very few students or young professionals choose to live in St John’s Wood, due equally to the prices and the lack of wild nightlife. While there’s a buzzing high street filled with boutiques and French brands, the after-hours activities here are restricted to classy bars and gastropubs, so those seeking a more substantial evening will need to travel into nearby Camden or Soho. This contributes to making the area hugely popular with families, who also come for the large detached houses, top-rated schools and friendly, tranquil atmosphere.
I think that roughly translates as 'Welcome to the middle of your life, Max'
How does Dominic Cummings square this with his decision to pay them several million pounds for their services?
I think the answer would be that they hired the Canadian lot, not CA/SCL, but you'd have to ask him. There's lots of info on his blog (which is in itself a fascinating read, a mixture of the informative, the perceptive, the self-serving, and the paranoid):
To be fair to him he’s finally found the right form of words to use.
But it’s the actions that are important.
Hodges' deliberate misinterpreation of Corbyn's distinction between being a Zionist and being Jewish is disgusting.
Really? And how much weight does that distinction bear, do you think? There's three things: 1. anti-semitism, 2. anti-Zionism, and 3. opposition to the way Israeli governments have conducted themselves in pursuit of their national goals. 3. is clearly legitimate, but I am very happy with the view that Corbyn uses 3 as a cover for 2. and that you couldn't get a cigarette paper between his version of full-on anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism.
My overseas clients always tell me the same. That Geneva, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc are “boring”.
I’m happy to agree (and I live in the bleeding epicentre of London hipsterdom), but since I spend most of my free time looking after my 3-yr-old, drinking wine in front of Netflix, and ranting on PB, I don’t really know what they mean.
With your name, I always wonder whether we have passed each other in the street, since you presumably live about 400 yards from me.
But then I suppose there are quite a few City-based pbers who might have crossed my path unwittingly (on my side at least).
To be fair to him he’s finally found the right form of words to use.
But it’s the actions that are important.
Hodges' deliberate misinterpreation of Corbyn's distinction between being a Zionist and being Jewish is disgusting.
Really? And how much weight does that distinction bear, do you think? There's three things: 1. anti-semitism, 2. anti-Zionism, and 3. opposition to the way Israeli governments have conducted themselves in pursuit of their national goals. 3. is clearly legitimate, but I am very happy with the view that Corbyn uses 3 as a cover for 2. and that you couldn't get a cigarette paper between his version of full-on anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism.
But the passage he's quoting is explicitly making that distinction, in order to make the point that criticising Israel doesn't require or justify anti-semitism. You may well believe he doesn't really mean it, but that's not was Hodges is saying. He's saying that the statement itself is anti-semitic.
If you run an ad that says "Vote Trump to put America first", it's clear where the ad comes from and it makes a statement you might agree with, to the extent you vote for him. That's OK to me. If you run an ad that says "immigrants are killing our children", firstly the statement isn't true. Secondly if it appears to be coming from a concerned citizens group, they are also dishonest about who they are. That's why we should know who says what.
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
In other words, what we might have here is a scandal in the sense that data was improperly obtained and used, but it doesn't follow that the misuse of the data necessarily did any good to the campaigns allegedly involved. I think that is very likely to be the case.
Cummings nevertheless used Aggregate IQ, the sister company of Cambridge Analytica, for the bulk of his spend, who access to the same illegitimate data from Kogan. Still would like to know the purpose of that data.
Guardian, 29 March 2018: 'we are happy to clarify that we did not intend to suggest that AggregateIQ is a direct part and/or the Canadian branch of Cambridge Analytica or that it has been involved in the exploitation of Facebook data or otherwise in any of the alleged wrongdoing made against Cambridge Analytica. Further we did not intend to suggest that AIQ secretly and unethically coordinated with Cambridge Analytica on the EU Referendum.'
My overseas clients always tell me the same. That Geneva, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc are “boring”.
I’m happy to agree (and I live in the bleeding epicentre of London hipsterdom), but since I spend most of my free time looking after my 3-yr-old, drinking wine in front of Netflix, and ranting on PB, I don’t really know what they mean.
With your name, I always wonder whether we have passed each other in the street, since you presumably live about 400 yards from me.
But then I suppose there are quite a few City-based pbers who might have crossed my path unwittingly (on my side at least).
I have travelled in a lift with you when visiting your offices.
That works both ways though. On free movement, we already have it within the British isles and all of us are outside Schengen (so both Eire and the U.K. have already “Brexited” from the EU on that and, in fact, never Brentered).
On quitting the Customs Union you can do it at airports and ports fairly straightforwardly by hiring a few extra staff and opening a few more channels.
The problems are between NI and EIRE and at Dover, where the volume and velocity of trade via lorries is just so high.
My overseas clients always tell me the same. That Geneva, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc are “boring”.
I’m happy to agree (and I live in the bleeding epicentre of London hipsterdom), but since I spend most of my free time looking after my 3-yr-old, drinking wine in front of Netflix, and ranting on PB, I don’t really know what they mean.
With your name, I always wonder whether we have passed each other in the street, since you presumably live about 400 yards from me.
But then I suppose there are quite a few City-based pbers who might have crossed my path unwittingly (on my side at least).
I have travelled in a lift with you when visiting your offices.
Now that is a little unnerving! You should have said hello.
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
In other words, what we might have here is a scandal in the sense that data was improperly obtained and used, but it doesn't follow that the misuse of the data necessarily did any good to the campaigns allegedly involved. I think that is very likely to be the case.
Cummings nevertheless used Aggregate IQ, the sister company of Cambridge Analytica, for the bulk of his spend, who access to the same illegitimate data from Kogan. Still would like to know the purpose of that data.
Guardian, 29 March 2018: 'we are happy to clarify that we did not intend to suggest that AggregateIQ is a direct part and/or the Canadian branch of Cambridge Analytica or that it has been involved in the exploitation of Facebook data or otherwise in any of the alleged wrongdoing made against Cambridge Analytica. Further we did not intend to suggest that AIQ secretly and unethically coordinated with Cambridge Analytica on the EU Referendum.'
Interesting. Although the firm is currently under investigation by both Facebook (who have suspended it) and the Canadian Information Commissioner for the improper use of data.
That works both ways though. On free movement, we already have it within the British isles and all of us are outside Schengen (so both Eire and the U.K. have already “Brexited” from the EU on that and, in fact, never Brentered).
On quitting the Customs Union you can do it at airports and ports fairly straightforwardly by hiring a few extra staff and opening a few more channels.
The problems are between NI and EIRE and at Dover, where the volume and velocity of trade via lorries is just so high.
Basically I think we’ll get a Customs Union transition for 5-7 years. We need that time to develop and implement the smart border technology (gov IT programmes aren’t quick) and I can’t see how we won’t need a Customs post for pulling aside select lorries for full checks near Dover and Holyhead. That will also take time to build. Otherwise we just expand and recruit at existing ports and airports.
Any cameras /infrastructure on NI/Eire border would be a provocation, and probably vandalised/destroyed, so there will need to be an inland Customs inspection depot at Belfast, and for Customs checks to be intelligence led, with the U.K. tolerating a minor degree of smuggling. Smart drones may be able to help as well. Anything that gets through can then be checked again on GB mainland, mostly at Holyhead, or maybe at Stranraer with a discreet post.
Otherwise, I think it’s doable. If Labour win the next GE in 2022 they will probably try and cancel the transition and make Customs Union membership permanent.
My overseas clients always tell me the same. That Geneva, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc are “boring”.
I’m happy to agree (and I live in the bleeding epicentre of London hipsterdom), but since I spend most of my free time looking after my 3-yr-old, drinking wine in front of Netflix, and ranting on PB, I don’t really know what they mean.
With your name, I always wonder whether we have passed each other in the street, since you presumably live about 400 yards from me.
But then I suppose there are quite a few City-based pbers who might have crossed my path unwittingly (on my side at least).
I have travelled in a lift with you when visiting your offices.
Just put an offer in on a flat, sorry @rcs1000 St John's Wood won me over vs Hampstead! Assuming I get the place, NW8 here I come!
Which part?
Behind Avenue Road near the park. Closest station is St John's Wood.
I quite like Avenue Road although some of the houses are overbuilt. We’re on Clifton Hill.
Yeah, I was torn on this flat or a ground/LG split level in a mansion block in Hampstead. If this doesn't work out then I'll probably go for that one, both have been on the market for a while, but the Hampstead one needs a lot of money spending on it.
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
In other words, what we might have here is a scandal in the sense that data was improperly obtained and used, but it doesn't follow that the misuse of the data necessarily did any good to the campaigns allegedly involved. I think that is very likely to be the case.
Cummings nevertheless used Aggregate IQ, the sister company of Cambridge Analytica, for the bulk of his spend, who access to the same illegitimate data from Kogan. Still would like to know the purpose of that data.
Guardian, 29 March 2018: 'we are happy to clarify that we did not intend to suggest that AggregateIQ is a direct part and/or the Canadian branch of Cambridge Analytica or that it has been involved in the exploitation of Facebook data or otherwise in any of the alleged wrongdoing made against Cambridge Analytica. Further we did not intend to suggest that AIQ secretly and unethically coordinated with Cambridge Analytica on the EU Referendum.'
Reading the Observer’s weekly corrections to Cadwalladr’s stories has been rather amusing.
I am not even sure that is true, as Facebook T&C were so open to "abuse" for so long. Given the agenda of some of the media on this, it is hard to discern fact from fiction on a lot of this. The FT article was one tiny snippet which hardly got any coverage, after which I noticed the media stopped claiming what the academic had done was potentially illegal.
It's almost certainly illegal under the UK Data Protection Act, which has nothing to do with the Ts&Cs of Facebook or Kogan's company.
Stepping back, I think the big issue is with Facebook, not some hole in the corner data analytics companies.
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
In other words, what we might have here is a scandal in the sense that data was improperly obtained and used, but it doesn't follow that the misuse of the data necessarily did any good to the campaigns allegedly involved. I think that is very likely to be the case.
Cummings nevertheless used Aggregate IQ, the sister company of Cambridge Analytica, for the bulk of his spend, who access to the same illegitimate data from Kogan. Still would like to know the purpose of that data.
Guardian, 29 March 2018: 'we are happy to clarify that we did not intend to suggest that AggregateIQ is a direct part and/or the Canadian branch of Cambridge Analytica or that it has been involved in the exploitation of Facebook data or otherwise in any of the alleged wrongdoing made against Cambridge Analytica. Further we did not intend to suggest that AIQ secretly and unethically coordinated with Cambridge Analytica on the EU Referendum.'
Reading the Observer’s weekly corrections to Cadwalladr’s stories has been rather amusing.
Overall, a good piece of investigative journalism though, which has uncovered a lot of stuff we didn't know before.
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
In other words, what we might have here is a scandal in the sense that data was improperly obtained and used, but it doesn't follow that the misuse of the data necessarily did any good to the campaigns allegedly involved. I think that is very likely to be the case.
Cummings nevertheless used Aggregate IQ, the sister company of Cambridge Analytica, for the bulk of his spend, who access to the same illegitimate data from Kogan. Still would like to know the purpose of that data.
Guardian, 29 March 2018: 'we are happy to clarify that we did not intend to suggest that AggregateIQ is a direct part and/or the Canadian branch of Cambridge Analytica or that it has been involved in the exploitation of Facebook data or otherwise in any of the alleged wrongdoing made against Cambridge Analytica. Further we did not intend to suggest that AIQ secretly and unethically coordinated with Cambridge Analytica on the EU Referendum.'
Reading the Observer’s weekly corrections to Cadwalladr’s stories has been rather amusing.
Overall, a good piece of investigative journalism though, which has uncovered a lot of stuff we didn't know before.
Very little of it illegal some arguably unethical.
If we Lib Dems don't do OK in these elections it certainly won't be for lack of effort. The party is working hard here in our target wards where, to be fair, the intention is to improve our position over several cycles to take the seats (the council is made up of 11 3-seat wards so one 3rd are elected each time).
It's my first time helping out in any election campaign and it's been very enjoyable.
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
In other words, what we might have here is a scandal in the sense that data was improperly obtained and used, but it doesn't follow that the misuse of the data necessarily did any good to the campaigns allegedly involved. I think that is very likely to be the case.
Cummings nevertheless used Aggregate IQ, the sister company of Cambridge Analytica, for the bulk of his spend, who access to the same illegitimate data from Kogan. Still would like to know the purpose of that data.
Guardian, 29 March 2018: 'we are happy to clarify that we did not intend to suggest that AggregateIQ is a direct part and/or the Canadian branch of Cambridge Analytica or that it has been involved in the exploitation of Facebook data or otherwise in any of the alleged wrongdoing made against Cambridge Analytica. Further we did not intend to suggest that AIQ secretly and unethically coordinated with Cambridge Analytica on the EU Referendum.'
Reading the Observer’s weekly corrections to Cadwalladr’s stories has been rather amusing.
Overall, a good piece of investigative journalism though, which has uncovered a lot of stuff we didn't know before.
Very little of it illegal some arguably unethical.
It is extremely murky. The Guardian journalism has shone a light into that murk. The Brexit campaigns seem on the whole to be bit players in this business, although they reckon to have taken sufficient advantage of it to swing a narrow vote in their favour.
I said their Lordships are playing a very dangerous game at the moment...
Signed it.
So, you don't see a need for an amending chamber?
Unicameralists of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your second chamber.
The committee stage of scrutiny should be able to do the job claimed to be done by the HoL in scrutinising legislation. They should be able to co-opt experts to assist on a bill-by-bill basis (rather than giving them a seat for life and a robe, just in case their services might be required).
My overseas clients always tell me the same. That Geneva, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc are “boring”.
I’m happy to agree (and I live in the bleeding epicentre of London hipsterdom), but since I spend most of my free time looking after my 3-yr-old, drinking wine in front of Netflix, and ranting on PB, I don’t really know what they mean.
With your name, I always wonder whether we have passed each other in the street, since you presumably live about 400 yards from me.
But then I suppose there are quite a few City-based pbers who might have crossed my path unwittingly (on my side at least).
I have travelled in a lift with you when visiting your offices.
I am not even sure that is true, as Facebook T&C were so open to "abuse" for so long. Given the agenda of some of the media on this, it is hard to discern fact from fiction on a lot of this. The FT article was one tiny snippet which hardly got any coverage, after which I noticed the media stopped claiming what the academic had done was potentially illegal.
It's almost certainly illegal under the UK Data Protection Act, which has nothing to do with the Ts&Cs of Facebook or Kogan's company.
Stepping back, I think the big issue is with Facebook, not some hole in the corner data analytics companies.
Given how the media have withdrawn from making any claims of illegality, I can only presume the lawyers have been consulted and don't see it in quite as black and white terms.
The big stories is as you say how Facebook handles and processes the vast qualities of data, and not only the stuff we post. All the shadow profiling and purchasing of vast qualities of other data, such they can de-anonymize it should be of massive concern.
Just for a second, imagine if they suffered a data hack on the scale of Yahoo...
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
In other words, what we might have here is a scandal in the sense that data was improperly obtained and used, but it doesn't follow that the misuse of the data necessarily did any good to the campaigns allegedly involved. I think that is very likely to be the case.
Cummings nevertheless used Aggregate IQ, the sister company of Cambridge Analytica, for the bulk of his spend, who access to the same illegitimate data from Kogan. Still would like to know the purpose of that data.
Guardian, 29 March 2018: 'we are happy to clarify that we did not intend to suggest that AggregateIQ is a direct part and/or the Canadian branch of Cambridge Analytica or that it has been involved in the exploitation of Facebook data or otherwise in any of the alleged wrongdoing made against Cambridge Analytica. Further we did not intend to suggest that AIQ secretly and unethically coordinated with Cambridge Analytica on the EU Referendum.'
Reading the Observer’s weekly corrections to Cadwalladr’s stories has been rather amusing.
Overall, a good piece of investigative journalism though, which has uncovered a lot of stuff we didn't know before.
Very little of it illegal some arguably unethical.
It is extremely murky. The Guardian journalism has shone a light into that murk. The Brexit campaigns seem on the whole to be bit players in this business, although they reckon to have taken sufficient advantage of it to swing a narrow vote in their favour.
"to swing a narrow vote in their favour"
Sorry but that doesn't fly. In any event, one could argue that the only reason that the vote was close in the first place was the massive advantages that Remain had with the establishment pushing for it. Without that it may have been massively in Leave's favour.
It is extremely murky. The Guardian journalism has shone a light into that murk. The Brexit campaigns seem on the whole to be bit players in this business, although they reckon to have taken sufficient advantage of it to swing a narrow vote in their favour.
I think it's fair to say that the Guardian journalism has also added to the murk, with their normal throwing around of smears-by-association mixed in with a higher than normal count of simple factual errors.
I am not even sure that is true, as Facebook T&C were so open to "abuse" for so long. Given the agenda of some of the media on this, it is hard to discern fact from fiction on a lot of this. The FT article was one tiny snippet which hardly got any coverage, after which I noticed the media stopped claiming what the academic had done was potentially illegal.
It's almost certainly illegal under the UK Data Protection Act, which has nothing to do with the Ts&Cs of Facebook or Kogan's company.
Stepping back, I think the big issue is with Facebook, not some hole in the corner data analytics companies.
Given how the media have withdrawn from making any claims of illegality, I can only presume the lawyers have been consulted and don't see it in quite as black and white terms.
The big stories is as you say how Facebook handles and processes the vast qualities of data, and not only the stuff we post. All the shadow profiling and purchasing of vast qualities of other data, such they can de-anonymize it should be of massive concern.
Just for a second, imagine if they suffered a data hack on the scale of Yahoo...
The Data Protection Act 1998 prevents you from processing data for purposes other than the purpose it was originally collected for or for processing not authorised by the holder of the data. So any data held by Cambridge Analytica would be illegal unless all the subjects of that data had given explicit permission to Facebook for that particular use of the data AND FB had authorised CA to have the data. The second is clearly not the case. The first isn't really the case either, but it's Facebook's issue more than Cambridge Analytica's, although CA would be breaking the law.
Maybe it wasn't, and Dominic Cummings was right to conclude that they were snake-oil salesmen.
In other words, what we might have here is a scandal in the sense that data was improperly obtained and used, but it doesn't follow that the misuse of the data necessarily did any good to the campaigns allegedly involved. I think that is very likely to be the case.
Cummings nevertheless used Aggregate IQ, the sister company of Cambridge Analytica, for the bulk of his spend, who access to the same illegitimate data from Kogan. Still would like to know the purpose of that data.
Guardian, 29 March 2018: 'we are happy to clarify that we did not intend to suggest that AggregateIQ is a direct part and/or the Canadian branch of Cambridge Analytica or that it has been involved in the exploitation of Facebook data or otherwise in any of the alleged wrongdoing made against Cambridge Analytica. Further we did not intend to suggest that AIQ secretly and unethically coordinated with Cambridge Analytica on the EU Referendum.'
Reading the Observer’s weekly corrections to Cadwalladr’s stories has been rather amusing.
Overall, a good piece of investigative journalism though, which has uncovered a lot of stuff we didn't know before.
It wasn’t a bad piece of investigation, but would have had more credibility were it not for the numerous factual errors and the clear political agenda, rather than presenting it foremost as a critique of Facebook’s business model.
I said their Lordships are playing a very dangerous game at the moment...
Signed it.
So, you don't see a need for an amending chamber?
Amending to what,leave in name only if the majority of the unelected Lord's had their way.
The Lord's are certainly playing a dangerous game.
No, I don't think there should be an 'amending chamber'. That's a role the Lords has taken on itself for no better reason than it's something they could do.
If you're going to have two chambers - and that is a good thing, particularly in a parliamentary democracy where a government with a decent majority is otherwise an elected dictatorship - then they need to have different mandates in order to perform different roles.
But with insufficient legitimacy from appointments, the Lords can't really fulfil that role. It should be replaced with an elected Senate, elected by PR via the Euroconstituency regions, for lengthy terms (I'd have election by thirds, with 9-year renewable terms). Also, cut numbers by at least three-quarters: no more than 200 in total.
I am not even sure that is true, as Facebook T&C were so open to "abuse" for so long. Given the agenda of some of the media on this, it is hard to discern fact from fiction on a lot of this. The FT article was one tiny snippet which hardly got any coverage, after which I noticed the media stopped claiming what the academic had done was potentially illegal.
It's almost certainly illegal under the UK Data Protection Act, which has nothing to do with the Ts&Cs of Facebook or Kogan's company.
Stepping back, I think the big issue is with Facebook, not some hole in the corner data analytics companies.
Given how the media have withdrawn from making any claims of illegality, I can only presume the lawyers have been consulted and don't see it in quite as black and white terms.
The big stories is as you say how Facebook handles and processes the vast qualities of data, and not only the stuff we post. All the shadow profiling and purchasing of vast qualities of other data, such they can de-anonymize it should be of massive concern.
Just for a second, imagine if they suffered a data hack on the scale of Yahoo...
The Data Protection Act 1998 prevents you from processing data for purposes other than the purpose it was originally collected for or for processing not authorised by the holder of the data. So any data held by Cambridge Analytica would be illegal unless all the subjects of that data had given explicit permission to Facebook for that particular use of the data AND FB had authorised CA to have the data. The second is clearly not the case. The first isn't really the case either, but it's Facebook's issue more than Cambridge Analytica's, although CA would be breaking the law.
Isn't the purpose of collecting the data to deliver ads?
I'm told a poll is coming out on Thursday which isn't good for Labour in London.
It's been a hellish few weeks for Labour. It's not in the bag in the local elections. Not even close.
This is a wake-up call. If you don't vote and encourage others to vote, Labour will lose.
Wobbly Owen?
Well I think we've been caught about about surprise polls that prove to be anything but.
What's interesting about London for Labour is that a considerable rise in voteshare is almost guaranteed.
Realistically Labour should be gaining a full 5 percentage points from the Greens, turf out Rahman's lot in Tower Hamlets, and peel off some young, remainer Tories. They should be able to fight the LibDems to a draw.
They got 37.4% last time (highest vote basis) and should be 50%+ at a canter.
I am not even sure that is true, as Facebook T&C were so open to "abuse" for so long. Given the agenda of some of the media on this, it is hard to discern fact from fiction on a lot of this. The FT article was one tiny snippet which hardly got any coverage, after which I noticed the media stopped claiming what the academic had done was potentially illegal.
It's almost certainly illegal under the UK Data Protection Act, which has nothing to do with the Ts&Cs of Facebook or Kogan's company.
Stepping back, I think the big issue is with Facebook, not some hole in the corner data analytics companies.
Given how the media have withdrawn from making any claims of illegality, I can only presume the lawyers have been consulted and don't see it in quite as black and white terms.
The big stories is as you say how Facebook handles and processes the vast qualities of data, and not only the stuff we post. All the shadow profiling and purchasing of vast qualities of other data, such they can de-anonymize it should be of massive concern.
Just for a second, imagine if they suffered a data hack on the scale of Yahoo...
The Data Protection Act 1998 prevents you from processing data for purposes other than the purpose it was originally collected for or for processing not authorised by the holder of the data. So any data held by Cambridge Analytica would be illegal unless all the subjects of that data had given explicit permission to Facebook for that particular use of the data AND FB had authorised CA to have the data. The second is clearly not the case. The first isn't really the case either, but it's Facebook's issue more than Cambridge Analytica's, although CA would be breaking the law.
Under the current Data Protection Act 1998, it is likely that the consent users provided for Facebook to use their data when initially signing up to the social media platform will be sufficient to cover its obligations – unless the data was stolen. If that was the case, Facebook could be liable for failing to have adequate measures in place to protect the data and Cambridge Analytica for using it without consent.
I said their Lordships are playing a very dangerous game at the moment...
Signed it.
So, you don't see a need for an amending chamber?
Amending to what,leave in name only if the majority of the unelected Lord's had their way.
The Lord's are certainly playing a dangerous game.
No, I don't think there should be an 'amending chamber'. That's a role the Lords has taken on itself for no better reason than it's something they could do.
If you're going to have two chambers - and that is a good thing, particularly in a parliamentary democracy where a government with a decent majority is otherwise an elected dictatorship - then they need to have different mandates in order to perform different roles.
But with insufficient legitimacy from appointments, the Lords can't really fulfil that role. It should be replaced with an elected Senate, elected by PR via the Euroconstituency regions, for lengthy terms (I'd have election by thirds, with 9-year renewable terms). Also, cut numbers by at least three-quarters: no more than 200 in total.
I am not even sure that is true, as Facebook T&C were so open to "abuse" for so long. Given the agenda of some of the media on this, it is hard to discern fact from fiction on a lot of this. The FT article was one tiny snippet which hardly got any coverage, after which I noticed the media stopped claiming what the academic had done was potentially illegal.
It's almost certainly illegal under the UK Data Protection Act, which has nothing to do with the Ts&Cs of Facebook or Kogan's company.
Stepping back, I think the big issue is with Facebook, not some hole in the corner data analytics companies.
Given how the media have withdrawn from making any claims of illegality, I can only presume the lawyers have been consulted and don't see it in quite as black and white terms.
The big stories is as you say how Facebook handles and processes the vast qualities of data, and not only the stuff we post. All the shadow profiling and purchasing of vast qualities of other data, such they can de-anonymize it should be of massive concern.
Just for a second, imagine if they suffered a data hack on the scale of Yahoo...
The Data Protection Act 1998 prevents you from processing data for purposes other than the purpose it was originally collected for or for processing not authorised by the holder of the data. So any data held by Cambridge Analytica would be illegal unless all the subjects of that data had given explicit permission to Facebook for that particular use of the data AND FB had authorised CA to have the data. The second is clearly not the case. The first isn't really the case either, but it's Facebook's issue more than Cambridge Analytica's, although CA would be breaking the law.
Under the current Data Protection Act 1998, it is likely that the consent users provided for Facebook to use their data when initially signing up to the social media platform will be sufficient to cover its obligations – unless the data was stolen. If that was the case, Facebook could be liable for failing to have adequate measures in place to protect the data and Cambridge Analytica for using it without consent.
Indeed and the data was first bought and then destroyed by CA.
It is extremely murky. The Guardian journalism has shone a light into that murk. The Brexit campaigns seem on the whole to be bit players in this business, although they reckon to have taken sufficient advantage of it to swing a narrow vote in their favour.
I think it's fair to say that the Guardian journalism has also added to the murk, with their normal throwing around of smears-by-association mixed in with a higher than normal count of simple factual errors.
I don't agree. The people involved - Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, Kogan, Aggregate IQ, Cummings, Banks - are all trying to cover their tracks. Take the Guardian's correction in response to a legal letter from AIQ, asnoted earlier on the thread. This is what they say on their website:
AggregateIQ is a digital advertising, web and software development company based in Canada. It is and has always been 100% Canadian owned and operated. AggregateIQ has never been and is not a part of Cambridge Analytica or SCL. Aggregate IQ has never entered into a contract with Cambridge Analytica. Chris Wylie has never been employed by AggregateIQ.
AggregateIQ works in full compliance within all legal and regulatory requirements in all jurisdictions where it operates. It has never knowingly been involved in any illegal activity. All work AggregateIQ does for each client is kept separate from every other client.
AggregateIQ has never managed, nor did we ever have access to, any Facebook data or database allegedly obtained improperly by Cambridge Analytica.
I assume this kind of carefully worded statement aims to avoid outright falsehood, but to deflect by not telling the whole truth. So here are some questions: What contract, if any, does AIQ have with SCL? What relationship other than as a direct employee, if any, did Chris Wylie have with AIQ? What data, if any, did AIQ obtain from either SCL or Kogan, the original supplier to Cambridge Analytica? Did AIQ have access to any aggregated or other data from CA?
None of this addresses the issues raised by the Guardian.
My overseas clients always tell me the same. That Geneva, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc are “boring”.
I’m happy to agree (and I live in the bleeding epicentre of London hipsterdom), but since I spend most of my free time looking after my 3-yr-old, drinking wine in front of Netflix, and ranting on PB, I don’t really know what they mean.
With your name, I always wonder whether we have passed each other in the street, since you presumably live about 400 yards from me.
But then I suppose there are quite a few City-based pbers who might have crossed my path unwittingly (on my side at least).
I did, in fact live in Garden Walk as a footloose bachelor (and before that, on Old Street above a wine shop).
Subsequently bought a flat in Clerkenwell and then, as family started to grow, moved all the way out to London Fields.
But yes. We must surely have crossed paths. In fact, I just had lunch at Lantana (which I presume is almost underneath your abode!)
I said their Lordships are playing a very dangerous game at the moment...
Signed it.
So, you don't see a need for an amending chamber?
Amending to what,leave in name only if the majority of the unelected Lord's had their way.
The Lord's are certainly playing a dangerous game.
No, I don't think there should be an 'amending chamber'. That's a role the Lords has taken on itself for no better reason than it's something they could do.
If you're going to have two chambers - and that is a good thing, particularly in a parliamentary democracy where a government with a decent majority is otherwise an elected dictatorship - then they need to have different mandates in order to perform different roles.
But with insufficient legitimacy from appointments, the Lords can't really fulfil that role. It should be replaced with an elected Senate, elected by PR via the Euroconstituency regions, for lengthy terms (I'd have election by thirds, with 9-year renewable terms). Also, cut numbers by at least three-quarters: no more than 200 in total.
But what would be the new chamber's role(s)?
To ensure that legislation either had broad support or the certain support of the Commons (I'd keep the Parliament Act but would revert to the 1911 provisions, recognising the greater legitimacy of the Senate).
It would also provide a secondary source for ministers (though i'd limit both chambers to 10%), which without small constituencies might be useful in posts that require a lot of overseas travel.
Using PR would also enable better representation of smaller parties, which would add a different voice from those in the Commons.
Well there's a nice sweeping statement. Anyone else you'd like to include in the mix?
Look, it's perfectly obvious looking at the Guardian's coverage that they have worked backwards from their conclusion that the Trump and Brexit results were somehow illegitimate. In doing so, they have indeed uncovered some dodgy and probably illegal activity, although it's very complicated in legal terms not least because they keep confusing the different actors, repeatedly confuse data used in the Trump campaign with data used (or not used) in the referendum, repeatedly confuse data held and processed in the US with data held and used in the UK and Canada, and repeatedly make simple factual mistakes (as Cummings so trenchantly points out).
At the end of the day, though, the big picture is this: the Trump campaign + surrogates, and the Leave campaign + surrogates, used Facebook to deliver targetted ads. Well there's a surprise. So did the Obama campaign in 2012, and the Conservative campaign in 2015, and the Labour/Momentum campaign in 2017.
It is likely that from May this year, it is going to be much harder to do so, in Europe, because of GDPR. That has some interesting implications for UK elections, I suspect.
Well there's a nice sweeping statement. Anyone else you'd like to include in the mix?
Look, it's perfectly obvious looking at the Guardian's coverage that they have worked backwards from their conclusion that the Trump and Brexit results were somehow illegitimate. In doing so, they have indeed uncovered some dodgy and probably illegal activity, although it's very complicated in legal terms not least because they keep confusing the different actors, repeatedly confuse data used in the Trump campaign with data used (or not used) in the referendum, repeatedly confuse data held and processed in the US with data held and used in the UK and Canada, and repeatedly make simple factual mistakes (as Cummings so trenchantly points out).
At the end of the day, though, the big picture is this: the Trump campaign + surrogates, and the Leave campaign + surrogates, used Facebook to deliver targetted ads. Well there's a surprise. So did the Obama campaign in 2012, and the Conservative campaign in 2015, and the Labour/Momentum campaign in 2017.
It is likely that from May this year, it is going to be much harder to do so, in Europe, because of GDPR. That has some interesting implications for UK elections, I suspect.
I was quite amused by the Guardian's claims that VoteLeave used illegitimately retrieved Facebook data of several million Americans.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/988742599790952449
It really is life in the proverbial slow lane.
Again, Facebook apparently don't manually check the T&C after the original app has been approved.
I’m happy to agree (and I live in the bleeding epicentre of London hipsterdom), but since I spend most of my free time looking after my 3-yr-old, drinking wine in front of Netflix, and ranting on PB, I don’t really know what they mean.
https://dominiccummings.com/
I think that roughly translates as 'Welcome to the middle of your life, Max'
But then I suppose there are quite a few City-based pbers who might have crossed my path unwittingly (on my side at least).
Anyway Hampstead proper is now full of investment bankers and overpriced shops. Not that shopping is cheap, mind, in St John's Wood.
I always think of it as Anita Brookner territory.
https://twitter.com/kirmber2/status/988492502465482757
(walking distance from ASL)
On quitting the Customs Union you can do it at airports and ports fairly straightforwardly by hiring a few extra staff and opening a few more channels.
The problems are between NI and EIRE and at Dover, where the volume and velocity of trade via lorries is just so high.
Now I'm thinking - perhaps you did.
Any cameras /infrastructure on NI/Eire border would be a provocation, and probably vandalised/destroyed, so there will need to be an inland Customs inspection depot at Belfast, and for Customs checks to be intelligence led, with the U.K. tolerating a minor degree of smuggling. Smart drones may be able to help as well. Anything that gets through can then be checked again on GB mainland, mostly at Holyhead, or maybe at Stranraer with a discreet post.
Otherwise, I think it’s doable. If Labour win the next GE in 2022 they will probably try and cancel the transition and make Customs Union membership permanent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43868927
https://news.sky.com/story/calls-mount-to-deselect-fantasist-labour-candidate-mandy-richards-11344557
Stepping back, I think the big issue is with Facebook, not some hole in the corner data analytics companies.
It's my first time helping out in any election campaign and it's been very enjoyable.
The committee stage of scrutiny should be able to do the job claimed to be done by the HoL in scrutinising legislation. They should be able to co-opt experts to assist on a bill-by-bill basis (rather than giving them a seat for life and a robe, just in case their services might be required).
@OwenJones84
I'm told a poll is coming out on Thursday which isn't good for Labour in London.
It's been a hellish few weeks for Labour. It's not in the bag in the local elections. Not even close.
This is a wake-up call. If you don't vote and encourage others to vote, Labour will lose.
Wobbly Owen?
The big stories is as you say how Facebook handles and processes the vast qualities of data, and not only the stuff we post. All the shadow profiling and purchasing of vast qualities of other data, such they can de-anonymize it should be of massive concern.
Just for a second, imagine if they suffered a data hack on the scale of Yahoo...
The Lord's are certainly playing a dangerous game.
"to swing a narrow vote in their favour"
Sorry but that doesn't fly. In any event, one could argue that the only reason that the vote was close in the first place was the massive advantages that Remain had with the establishment pushing for it. Without that it may have been massively in Leave's favour.
If you're going to have two chambers - and that is a good thing, particularly in a parliamentary democracy where a government with a decent majority is otherwise an elected dictatorship - then they need to have different mandates in order to perform different roles.
But with insufficient legitimacy from appointments, the Lords can't really fulfil that role. It should be replaced with an elected Senate, elected by PR via the Euroconstituency regions, for lengthy terms (I'd have election by thirds, with 9-year renewable terms). Also, cut numbers by at least three-quarters: no more than 200 in total.
What's interesting about London for Labour is that a considerable rise in voteshare is almost guaranteed.
Realistically Labour should be gaining a full 5 percentage points from the Greens, turf out Rahman's lot in Tower Hamlets, and peel off some young, remainer Tories. They should be able to fight the LibDems to a draw.
They got 37.4% last time (highest vote basis) and should be 50%+ at a canter.
So what is a "not good poll"?
Under the current Data Protection Act 1998, it is likely that the consent users provided for Facebook to use their data when initially signing up to the social media platform will be sufficient to cover its obligations – unless the data was stolen. If that was the case, Facebook could be liable for failing to have adequate measures in place to protect the data and Cambridge Analytica for using it without consent.
But what would be the new chamber's role(s)?
AggregateIQ is a digital advertising, web and software development company based in Canada. It is and has always been 100% Canadian owned and operated. AggregateIQ has never been and is not a part of Cambridge Analytica or SCL. Aggregate IQ has never entered into a contract with Cambridge Analytica. Chris Wylie has never been employed by AggregateIQ.
AggregateIQ works in full compliance within all legal and regulatory requirements in all jurisdictions where it operates. It has never knowingly been involved in any illegal activity. All work AggregateIQ does for each client is kept separate from every other client.
AggregateIQ has never managed, nor did we ever have access to, any Facebook data or database allegedly obtained improperly by Cambridge Analytica.
I assume this kind of carefully worded statement aims to avoid outright falsehood, but to deflect by not telling the whole truth. So here are some questions: What contract, if any, does AIQ have with SCL? What relationship other than as a direct employee, if any, did Chris Wylie have with AIQ? What data, if any, did AIQ obtain from either SCL or Kogan, the original supplier to Cambridge Analytica? Did AIQ have access to any aggregated or other data from CA?
None of this addresses the issues raised by the Guardian.
Subsequently bought a flat in Clerkenwell and then, as family started to grow, moved all the way out to London Fields.
But yes. We must surely have crossed paths. In fact, I just had lunch at Lantana (which I presume is almost underneath your abode!)
It would also provide a secondary source for ministers (though i'd limit both chambers to 10%), which without small constituencies might be useful in posts that require a lot of overseas travel.
Using PR would also enable better representation of smaller parties, which would add a different voice from those in the Commons.
Look, it's perfectly obvious looking at the Guardian's coverage that they have worked backwards from their conclusion that the Trump and Brexit results were somehow illegitimate. In doing so, they have indeed uncovered some dodgy and probably illegal activity, although it's very complicated in legal terms not least because they keep confusing the different actors, repeatedly confuse data used in the Trump campaign with data used (or not used) in the referendum, repeatedly confuse data held and processed in the US with data held and used in the UK and Canada, and repeatedly make simple factual mistakes (as Cummings so trenchantly points out).
At the end of the day, though, the big picture is this: the Trump campaign + surrogates, and the Leave campaign + surrogates, used Facebook to deliver targetted ads. Well there's a surprise. So did the Obama campaign in 2012, and the Conservative campaign in 2015, and the Labour/Momentum campaign in 2017.
It is likely that from May this year, it is going to be much harder to do so, in Europe, because of GDPR. That has some interesting implications for UK elections, I suspect.