Introduction
Humans respect their privacy and the safeguarding of their domain of personal existence. They desire some discretion over who has access to their information. The convergence of growing technological prowess and diminishing clarity and consensus on privacy creates legal, ethical, and policy issues. Cambridge Analytica was a data mining and information analysis-focused political consulting organization. In the 2010s, millions of Facebook consumers’ private information was acquired without their agreement by the organization, mostly for use in campaign spending (Hu, 2020). In addition, the digitization and datafication of people’s daily lives have been associated with various obstacles. This essay will explore the difficulty of conducting a comprehensive analysis of the Cambridge Analytica Scandal involving Facebook.
The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Data Controversy
Facebook has frequently exhibited irresponsible behavior regarding safeguarding its most precious asset, consumer data. The corporation has amassed a plethora of information but has not effectively and ethically enforced its third-party restrictions or notified its subscribers of prospective privacy violations. Facebook’s institutional model is centered on providing a mechanism that is independent to use and supported by adverts, which leads to irresponsibility (Hu, 2020). The safeguarding of user and employee records is addressed under Section 8 of Facebook’s standards of ethics.
Regarding Section 8 of Facebook’s data privacy laws, it is seen that the firm violated several of its guidelines. This chapter identifies the obligation Facebook, and its programmers have to secure sensitive customer information that is susceptible to multiple privacy laws and must be strictly hidden. Section 8 further highlights the vulnerability and anonymity of user credentials and the significance of user data protection (Hu, 2020). In 2015, Facebook’s disregard for the allegations of its employees regarding Cambridge Analytica’s data usage was evident to its leadership (Hu, 2020). Facebook’s incompetence in the Cambridge Analytica incident contradicts this tenet of their rules of behavior, as they were conscious that Cambridge Analytica was misusing customer information and did nothing to protect it.
Multiple other sections in Facebook’s privacy protection laws enumerate how the company failed in its relationship with Cambridge Analytica. Section 3 of Facebook’s privacy Regulation, particularly the subcategory referenced “Sharing with Third-Party Collaborators” (Hu, 2020). Facebook guarantees its users that scholars and professionals have access to Facebook data and are permitted to support experiments that “strengthen exploration and development on subjects related to the overall public protection, technological progress, interests of society, and wellbeing. It was demonstrated that Cambridge Analytica’s involvement with the Trump campaign adversely impacted the 2016 United States presidential poll instead of improving the common good (Hu, 2020). Facebook plainly breached its Data Protection by careless management of Cambridge Analytica’s statistics.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data controversy demonstrated the consequences of insufficient regulation of private customer data. At the time of the controversy, Facebook was responsible for ensuring that its information was not exploited. Facebook has little motivation to be aggressive in its engagement with Cambridge Analytica because there was no regulatory supervision. Consequently, Cambridge could leverage the private information of more than 87 million Facebook subscribers. Throughout the incident, Facebook disregarded both its Ethical guidelines and Privacy Protection. Facebook guidelines explain how Facebook and the third parties it partners with are permitted to function and how data should be managed. If Facebook had effectively implemented its regulations, millions of unprocessed profile pages and other confidential material would not have been exploited during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Therefore, poor privacy protection was among the several immoral behaviors that contributed to the incident. Facebook’s failure to adhere to its regulations was a key contributor to the scandal with Cambridge Analytica.
References
Hu, M. (2020). Cambridge Analytica’s black box. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 1-6. Web.