Cambridge Analytica to file for insolvency

[peterb]

Cambridge Analytica - the company at the centre of the alleged misuse of Facebook data has ceased trading and is filing to be woulnd up as insolvent.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43983958

Although the company says it did nothing illegal, it seems its customers are unwilling to continue using the service, presumably in case they are tainted by the scandal.

Their press release is here:

https://ca-commercial.com/news/cambr...ease-results-3

Earlier today, the independent report into Cambridge Aanalytica's activities by Julian Malins QC

was published, with the finding that CA had not done anything illegal.

The report is here

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s...+(4.27.18).pdf

[johnroe]

It seems to me that there are many casualties of political smears and propaganda. I noticed the Observer and Guardian had been developing the CA story and the Windrush story for years.

[peterb]

CA aren’t the only ad agency using these techniques though. What this case as highlighted is how much secondary information can be inferred from aggregating lots of little bits.

But that too is not new - military intelligence has long regarded any snippet of information as potentially useful, even if not immediately useful, as it might be the last piece in a large jigsaw that gives a bigger picture.

Facebook and other forms of (anti)social media make the ad agencies’ jobs much easy.

CA might be the highest profile, but they won’t be the only players in the field, and while they may be insolvent, the data and skills they have are valuable assets that could be sold on or used to resurrect the company under a different name.

Edit - I see HEXUS have posted a news report since May original post last night.

[Moby-Dick]

But that too is not new - military intelligence has long regarded any snippet of information as potentially useful, even if not immediately useful, as it might be the last piece in a large jigsaw that gives a bigger picture.
.

Yep - metadata anaylsis was the key to what Gordon Welchman did at Bletchley Park!

[Millennium]

I have no idea what to say other than I hope the staff get savoury jobs from this. The whole meta wiki like corporate structure regime, stocks, equities, corporate monstrosity that we have saddens me. Do the people in charge (anywhere!) actually have any morals? Perhaps we should all view our work as a Public Service.

[directhex]

The fired staff already have found jobs

At a brand new company

Called Emerdata

With exactly the same people in charge as Cambridge Analytica

"""insolvency"""

[johnroe]

I'm approaching this from a political perspective, because quite frankly if you put your data (in whatever way) online, then you have to take responsibility for it. Because that data is being freely traded among all sorts of companies for different reasons, mostly marketing. And if not by 'legitimate' companies, then on the dark web. It was interesting that the FB exec said that FB hadn't read the terms and conditions of the CA app.

Politically you have to accept that you only have any power for a few seconds every five years. But in that time you appoint representatives to carry out good political policy, but in reality governments have to compromise and make some distasteful decisions. The UK sells armaments to Saudi Arabia for example, because last time they went against SA and supplied arms to Israel, during the Arab-Israeli wars, SA convinced OPEC to stop our supply of oil. So some times contingency out ways morality.

Left wing newspapers like the Guardian buy information, and pay whistle blowers to expose the workings of government. They knew about CA just after the referendum, but tried to keep the info building in the hope of undermining democracy at a time suited to them. Same with Windrush, it's only now being used because of the local election.

[Smudger]

Left wing newspapers like the Guardian buy information, and pay whistle blowers to expose the workings of government. They knew about CA just after the referendum, but tried to keep the info building in the hope of undermining democracy at a time suited to them. Same with Windrush, it's only now being used because of the local election.

All newspapers buy information and pay whistleblowers, this isn't some sort of left-wing coup attempt. Questions have been asked about CA and Windrush for quite some time, but it takes time for momentum to build, for people to become informed and say 'hang on, that's not right'. Unless you're implying that it's OK for CA, UKIP, various Leave campaigns, the Trump campaign to do what they did, and for the government to say to people who have lived all their lives here 'you're going home cos you haven't got the right paperwork'?

How is finding out the truth 'undermining democracy'?

[johnroe]

All newspapers buy information and pay whistleblowers, this isn't some sort of left-wing coup attempt. Questions have been asked about CA and Windrush for quite some time, but it takes time for momentum to build, for people to become informed and say 'hang on, that's not right'. Unless you're implying that it's OK for CA, UKIP, various Leave campaigns, the Trump campaign to do what they did, and for the government to say to people who have lived all their lives here 'you're going home cos you haven't got the right paperwork'?

How is finding out the truth 'undermining democracy'?

All the left wing press is doing is trying to muddy the waters. Instead of releasing the story when it's discovered they wait for an opportune time to use the story as propaganda. A friend of mine made a good point. After Brexit he realised that he didn't have the papers to give him rights to stay here. He had to take the initiative and procure the right to stay here, and he wonders why those also being examined didn't take the initiative themselves.

I think both of those situations are a lot more complex than we are being allowed to know. We live in a world where data is the new commodity, and post Brexit where immigration is an issue. People like to use 'victims' to further their causes, but what about individual responsibility to protect your data, and make sure your paperwork is up to date and relevant.

[Saracen]

All the left wing press is doing is trying to muddy the waters. Instead of releasing the story when it's discovered they wait for an opportune time to use the story as propaganda. A friend of mine made a good point. After Brexit he realised that he didn't have the papers to give him rights to stay here. He had to take the initiative and procure the right to stay here, and he wonders why those also being examined didn't take the initiative themselves.

I think both of those situations are a lot more complex than we are being allowed to know. We live in a world where data is the new commodity, and post Brexit where immigration is an issue. People like to use 'victims' to further their causes, but what about individual responsibility to protect your data, and make sure your paperwork is up to date and relevant.

While that argument might hold water for many immigrants, the Windrush generation (and bear in mind that is a very specufic group) aren't just "immigrants". They didn't decide one day "lets go to the UK".

They were explucitly and soecifically invited, by the UK government, to come here, at a time og great national need, to help us, the British population. Remember the context, aftermath of WW2, very large numbers of our young oeople dead, loads more physically or mentally disabled, and a nation blitzed to rebuild.


So, they're invited here, to help us, no mention in some 45 years of having to "normalise" their status and all of a sudden .... due to some overly-hidebound beaurocratic <insert word our rules won't let me use> they're not welcome..???

<Bleep> that for a game of soldiers.

I reckon I'm as hardline on immigration as anybody. Well, anybody reasonable. I'll all for a "hostile" environment for illegal immigrants, over whom I would say they're entitled to ONE asylum claim, ONE appeal, and then deportation, forcibly if need be.

As for legal migration, a degree of migration is undoubtedly beneficial BUT at a rate that allows immigrants to assimilate, and the country to absorb them without buckling at the seams.

As for racism, "immigrant" means ANYBODY seeking to come here, whatever skin colour, race, religion, etc. So it applies equally to a black brain-surgeon and a white one, a Canadian midwife or a Nigerian one.

If you qualify, you qualify.


But the Windrush generationhave been given the overt impression by about 50 years of successive governments that they're "legal" and now being yokd they're not is a huge, HUGE national disgrace. It is not what this country stands for, and they're due a ehopping great apology for 50 years of govdrnment cockup and incompetence, not being asked why they didn't take the initiative. They didn't, because this nation has spent 50+ years giving them the impression it was already done.

[directhex]

It is not what this country stands for

I'm not sure how you square this - inviting people over to help do jobs that need filling and making the country better, then telling them to rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish off for spurious reasons, is entirely what the UK stands for. It continues to this day, hence specifically recruiting doctors to fill desperately needed roles in the NHS, and denying them visas because zomg brown.

The "Windrush generation" were specifically targeted because they're an easy mark. The British population demands deportations of the foreigns, and these people lacked paperwork proving they aren't legally regarded as foreign (thanks in no small part to deliberately destroying the evidence), a perfect pool of people to deport to hit the targets.

Who cares if they're legally British citizens, under the British Nationality Act 1948? Headcount's headcount. Gotta hit the targets. Gotta deport foreigns, or UKIP might get the foreign-hating voters instead.

The Windrush scandal is the most United Kingdom thing I can think of in living memory. It's more British than pints of beer and pork pies. Actually, that's a lie - the crocodile tears from the Leopards Eating Peoples Faces Party voters, "oh I didn't want YOU to get deported, just the Belgians" - is far more British than the scandal itself.

[johnroe]

I think after many years of pandering to poorly thought out policy over immigration the government has been trying to remove illegal immigrants by asking people to prove their legal status. The story I know of the Windrush ship is that after returning airmen to New Zealand it stopped off in the Caribbean. No doubt dropping off servicemen there. Some Jamaicans decided to try their luck in the UK.

But all this is not the point. Actually Amber Rudd was considered fair and lenient. The scalp the Left (ie Momentum) are really after is Theresa May's because under her stricter rules on illegal immigrants were introduced. I'm sure the Guardian and many on the Left would have been aware of the new checks since then. Why not make a big story out of it then and get procedures checked for legality. Because they need a list of victims. Same as CA, it's all propaganda against a company that specialises in targeted propaganda. The Guardian is a general propaganda machine.

[directhex]

I think after many years of pandering to poorly thought out policy over immigration the government has been trying to remove illegal immigrants by asking people to prove their legal status. The story I know of the Windrush ship is that after returning airmen to New Zealand it stopped off in the Caribbean. No doubt dropping off servicemen there. Some Jamaicans decided to try their luck in the UK.

Jamaicans who moved to the UK after the British Nationality Act 1948, and prior to the Immigration Act 1971, are British citizens. We're talking about demanding that British citizens with as much right to be in the UK as you do provide 4 pieces of documentation to prove their legal right to remain, for every year of life, from when they arrived to today. British citizens who were children in the 1950s are required to provide over 200 pieces of evidence, or be deported to a country they have no memory of. And one of the most essential pieces of evidence was destroyed en-masse under the orders of then-Home Secretary Theresa May. Inhumane doesn't cover it.

Piss and moan about the Guardian and poor widdle Cambridge Analytica all you like, but it's not a good look.

[johnroe]

Jamaicans who moved to the UK after the British Nationality Act 1948, and prior to the Immigration Act 1971, are British citizens. We're talking about demanding that British citizens with as much right to be in the UK as you do provide 4 pieces of documentation to prove their legal right to remain, for every year of life, from when they arrived to today. British citizens who were children in the 1950s are required to provide over 200 pieces of evidence, or be deported to a country they have no memory of. And one of the most essential pieces of evidence was destroyed en-masse under the orders of then-Home Secretary Theresa May. Inhumane doesn't cover it.

Piss and moan about the Guardian and poor widdle Cambridge Analytica all you like, but it's not a good look.

You are being manipulated, in much the same way that those identified by CA were allegedly manipulated.

[directhex]

You are being manipulated, in much the same way that those identified by CA were allegedly manipulated.

And you don't care about British citizens being deported, as long as you get a chance to complain about the big spooky Left.

[johnroe]

The mandate from the British people was for the immigration office to do it's job properly. Check the legal status of those living here, those on temporary visas have a biometric passport to make them easier to trace and identify, and then talking to UK businesses work out a reasonable quota system.

The only scandal here is that the Left are having to sink to such levels of dirty politics and cheap propaganda, because they have no real policies. I read hard left politics at uni. Our Left are a bunch of fantasists who lost touch with reality decades ago.