Chapter 3: Networked Communications

Network communication played a critical role in The Great Hack. The documentary discusses the societal implications of having 24/7 access to each other through social media. Because everyone is connected and constantly on the internet, Cambridge Analytica was able to constantly bombard people with subliminal messaging to influence their actions. What CA did was so smart because everyone who uses the internet to communicate (or specifically facebook in this case) would see specially tailored advertisements designed to change their opinion on a topic. One quote the movie mentions is that Social Media "Began with a dream for a connected world, a place where everyone can be connected and never feel alone", however, now social media has led to humans becoming the "commodity, so in love, with this gift that no one read the terms and conditions". Due to the potential and benefits, networked communication provides for humanity many ignore the costs, due to these applications becoming integral for modern life. The convenience social media communication provides outweighs the threat of becoming targeted as a commodity, showing the power and influence of communication. The issues brought forth by the movie are not limited to politics, any private entity with the resources to data-mine social media will have an interest in learning about and influencing the public discourse on various subjects. However, social media is the most common and beneficial platform for mining.

The Great Hack also discussed the idea of data rights. Network communication is facilitated by private entities, what do these entities owe to their users? It turns out that the data that can be gathered from facilitating communication is much more valuable than the service itself. These economics have helped create the tech bubble (Facebook, Twitter, etc) and the movie discusses the importance of data rights and why these companies should be limited in their ownership of user data.

1. Abby McCourt, Social Media Mining: The Effects of Big Data In the Age of Social Media(Yale, 2018), https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/social-media-mining-effects-big-data-age-social-media

2. Karim Amer and Jahane Noujaim, “The Great Hack” (Netflix, 2019), https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542

Chapter 4: Intellectual Property

There is not a lot in the film about the protection of a company’s intellectual property surrounding the idea and purpose of the company. The film focuses on the company versus the user, not one company or creator against another.

In The Great Hack, David Caroll, an American associate professor, tries to get a report of the data that has been collected about him from social media by Cambridge Analytica. Since Cambridge Analytica is a British company, he needed to use a British lawyer to accomplish this. Caroll’s argument was that Cambridge Analytica violated the UK Data Protection Act, which makes sure that companies using consumer data use it fairly and transparently [1]. Caroll was unsuccessful when Cambridge Analytica refused to turn over the data, making the court case a criminal one. Cambridge Analytica soon after declared bankruptcy and was liquidated, so the British court did not grant Caroll access to his data [2]. One perspective is that the file on David Caroll was company property and their intellectual property. The company developed an algorithm to track individuals and begin building a file on them. To the company, the file was their product that was being sold to the highest bidder, and in the case of Cambridge Analytica, it was political campaigns. The film does not mention if Cambridge Analytica held any patents or other forms of intellectual property management. The movie does not address this idea of intellectual property, and it might be more accurate to say that the algorithm itself was intellectual property, instead of the file on David Caroll. Yet, it should be noted that an algorithm cannot be patented due to it being considered an "abstract idea".

1. GOV.UK, Data protection, (Crown, 2018), https://www.gov.uk/data-protection#:~:text=The%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202018%20is%20the%20UK's%20implementation%20of,used%20fairly%2C%20lawfully%20and%20transparently (Accessed: April 19, 2021)

2. Will Fischer, We talked to the professor who fought Cambridge Analytica to get his data back in Netflix's 'The Great Hack' about why privacy rights in the US are lagging behind the rest of the world, (Insider Inc., Aug 18, 2019), https://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-great-hack-david-carroll-interview-data-rights-cambridge-analytica-2019-8 (Accessed: April 19, 2021)

Chapter 5: Information Privacy

This chapter describes how modern technology has allowed data collection and transfer to be much more accessible. Many privacy concerns have risen from this. It even touched on Cambridge Analytica and the scandal that arose from the 2016 US election.

The documentary touches on just that when former CEO of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander Nix said that the company has 5,000 data points on every American voter [1]. The company was able to control many political environments in countries all over the world by collecting user’s data and targeted content to them to persuade their political views. The movie explained how the company worked for both Ted Cruz and later the Trump campaign in the presidential election.

Data has become more and more valuable as information technology advances. The movie interviews Brittney Kaiser, former business development director of SCL Group, the parent of Cambridge Analytica. She said “Data surpassed oil in its value. Data is the most valuable asset on Earth” [1]. Because of this many companies are creating ways to profit from this data which means collecting in any way they can. This has led to the phenomenon of data brokerage. This is an entire industry that was developed around gathering and selling consumer information and building consumer databases [2].

Facebook gave permission to a survey app to harvest data from not only the person who took the survey but also their friend's network [1]. Friends of the people who used the app would have no idea that their data had been pulled. With this data, Cambridge Analytica was able to create physiological profiles on a couple hundred thousand people [1]. With this, they were able to determine voters who could be persuaded and targeted content to them to indirectly control whom they voted for. In the documentary, there are hearings on Mark Zuckerberg and former employees of Cambridge Analytica. During Zuckerberg’s hearing, he admitted that 87 million Facebook users were victims of this unethical data collection [1].

Due to the power of information humans have become the commodity.[1] People are targeted based on the little bits of information that they leave online. Websites specifically track users with the sole intention of gathering their information, for example, with the use of cookies and fingerprint scanning. Cookies were designed to be a reliable mechanism for websites to remember stateful information or to record the user's browsing activity.[3] Cookie tracking allows platforms to track user activity, and gather information on their habits and personality, ultimately leading to that individual becoming a target. Targeted ads are built upon the information gathered from websites, and shown to specific individuals based on their personality. Information Privacy is essential to protecting individuals from the misuse of their information online. Data Privacy Laws must be instituted to protect from manipulation by large information-gathering technology companies.

1. Karim Amer and Jahane Noujaim, “The Great Hack” (Netflix, 2019), https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542 (April 11, 2021)

2. Michael Fuller, “Big data and the Facebook scandal: Issues and responses” (Edinburgh University, 2018), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0040571X18805908 (April 18, 2021)

3. Federal Trade Commission, Online Tracking(FTC, 2016), accessed on 5/2/21 from https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0042-online-tracking

Chapter 6: Privacy and the Government

In our textbook, chapter 6 talks about ways in which the federal government itself has collected vast amounts of sensitive and private information about its citizens. One way that the US government has been collecting data about its citizens since 1790 is through the census records. The United States Constitution requires the government to perform the census every 10 years in order to ensure that each state has a fair representation in the House of Representatives. In the United State’s first census, it only contained 6 demographic determining questions. As time went by, the census asked more questions including questions about people’s engagement with agriculture, commerce, and manufacturing. By 1940, the census extensively used statistical sampling for the first time. The use of statistical sampling enabled the Census Bureau detailed demographic profiles without substantially increasing the amount of data it needed to process. The Census Bureau is supposed to keep the information they collect confidential, but in times of national emergencies, they have revealed the information they have to other agencies. Similar to how the Census Bureau creates demographic profiles about their citizens, the private company Cambridge Analytica created psychographic profiles of US citizens through the use of a reverse-engineered algorithm that collects data with Facebook activity. The difference between these two data collection methods is that one of them is done with known consent. Cambridge Analytica collected data on people without their known consent, relying heavily on social media platforms, like Facebook, where the user did not know how their information was being used. The word ‘known’ is included because the data collected is based on information that is publicly available, however, the people that got their data collected and their psychographic profiles created, without knowing it. The information on Social Media is public and open to data mining on a wide scale. The advanced behavioral data-collecting technology and statistical modeling give large tech companies the ability to socially manipulate their users, for example using targeted ads. Targeted advertising is a form of online advertising that focuses on the specific traits, interests, and preferences of a consumer.[3] Companies discover this information by tracking your activity on the Internet and using it to build a personal profile. The US politicians saw flaws in the legal system and saw it as an advantage to misuse it to change the outcome of a democratic process. Chapter 6 also talks about the ways the US government has used the collected data of its citizens in order to apprehend suspected criminals and to improve national security.

1.Quinn, M. J. (2012). Ethics for the Information Age (8th Edition ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education (US).

2.Karim Amer and Jahane Noujaim, “The Great Hack” (Netflix, 2019), https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542

3. Rae Nudson, When targeted ads feel a little too targeted (Vox, 2020), https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/4/9/21204425/targeted-ads-fertility-eating-disorder-coronavirus

Chapter 7: Computer and Network Security

The main focus of The Great Hack is the danger of widespread collection and sale of personal information. Organizations that collect information are great targets for hackers. One effect of data rights could be that organizations will be limited in how much personal information they can store, which would limit what data is available to be stolen in the first place.

The Great Hack emphasizes the importance of privacy and data protection. Computer security is essential to maintain any semblance of privacy and data protection. While the main focus of the movie was Facebook’s selling of advertisements and personal data, just as much data is taken illegally. Billions of people have had their personal data stolen in data breaches in the last several years [1]. The movie suggested that a data protection rights law is necessary for society, however if business cannot adequately protect their systems, then that data can still be stolen to a similar affect.

Most websites are tracking their users. In a world where everyone has data ownership rights, since data is essentially money, then users are storing their data with these websites akin to a bank. In the United States, the government insures bank savings, however you cannot insure personal data. Once personal data once it has been released it is impossible to reclaim ownership. This issue will only become more important as the data economy and the incentive for hackers to steal personal data grows.

Dan Swinhoe , The 15 biggest data breaches of the 21st century(CSO Online, 2021), accessed on 4/23/2021 from https://www.csoonline.com/article/2130877/the-biggest-data-breaches-of-the-21st-century.html

Chapter 8: Computer Reliability

The Great Hack does not discuss computer reliability, but there could be negative impacts if Cambridge Analytica’s computer systems had significant errors. Cambridge Analytica’s main goal was to target the “persuadables” to manipulate them to think a certain way. Depending on the person, Cambridge Analytica would create different types of ads that would appeal to certain types of persuadables. Getting this information correct and creating effective targeted ads from the information collected and conclusions about the people drawn was important for manipulating people.

Besides being appealing to users, targeted ads also influence how people think of themselves. A Harvard study found that people change how they think of themselves based on the content in their targeted ads. In the study, students were shown an ad for a high-end watch brand and rated how sophisticated they viewed themselves after. Some of the students believed that the ad was targeted towards them while the other students did not. The study found that the students who thought the ad was targeted towards them viewed themselves as more sophisticated than the students who did not believe it was targeted towards them. This means that the students who thought the ad was targeted believed that their search history was more sophisticated because the ad showed up on their social media [1]. They viewed themselves as more sophisticated because the ad was suggesting they were. When targeted ads are correct or closer to a person’s likes and habits, the ads can manipulate how people perceive themselves. If the ads are targeted at the wrong people, they do not have that same effect, so it was important to Cambridge Analytica to target ads to the right people.

If Cambridge Analytica’s software had errors, their whole mission could have failed. If the wrong type of ads were given to a group of people, they could influence that group of people to vote the opposite way than the ad suggested. If the social media information collected was interpreted incorrectly by a software program, the same result could happen. This would have a negative impact on Cambridge Analytica instead of the general public since these errors would have made it harder to manipulate people through social media.

Rebecca Walker Reczek, Christopher Summers, Robert Smith, Targeted Ads Don’t Just Make You More Likely to Buy — They Can Change How You Think About Yourself, (Harvard Business School Publishing, April 4, 2016), https://hbr.org/2016/04/targeted-ads-dont-just-make-you-more-likely-to-buy-they-can-change-how-you-think-about-yourself (Accessed April 29, 2021)

Chapter 10: Work and Wealth

The movie does not directly relate to Chapter 10, Work and Wealth, although there are some underlying plot points pertaining to the topic. The chapter covers a series of ethical case studies pertaining to a vacation trip, and the film does correlate to the idea of ethics. Although the movie is slightly different it can still address the ethical concerns that employees face at their place of employment. The film mentions the compromise between personal ethics and the need for wealth and work. One of the characters in the film, Brittney Kaiser, mentions how the work undergone at the company directly goes against her political beliefs, yet she required the wealth provided from the job. Kaiser's parents suffered from serious financial troubles that led to the loss of their home the same year she started working at Cambridge Analytica [2]. Much of the work at Cambridge Analytica focused on helping specific individuals win office in varying countries. One election impacted was the 2016 election in which Cambridge Analytica helped the Republican representative Donald Trump win the election. Brittney Kaiser was a well-known Democratic that helped in many Democratic campaigns, and the work done during the election was directly opposed to her political view and ethics. For example, Kaiser worked on the 2007 political campaign for Obama, while taking time off from university, showing her Democratic ties [1]. However, the work she did previously did not pay the same amount as Cambridge Analytica, causing her to compromise her ethics for work and wealth. Kaiser noted “I used to make excuses to my friends and family on why I was there and that it was okay to be working with these people and that what they were doing wasn't all that bad, and I was just doing my job. I look back at some of it, and it's shocking” [2]. Ultimately, Kaiser left Cambridge Analytica and helped in the campaign against Cambridge Analytica [3]. This film exemplifies the connection between work and ethics and shows the challenges that people face when needing money to live. Kaiser stated, “I'm sad that it took me so long to erode this outer shell that I had developed from working there” [3]. It raises awareness of the fact that sometimes personal financial gains and losses can trump personal beliefs. In terms of ethics, there are multiple different approaches that can be used to analyze Kaiser's decisions. In Act Utilitarianism theory a person's act is morally right if its net effect (over all affected beings) is to produce more happiness than unhappiness [4]. For Britney Kaiser, the action is not morally right because the results of her work at Cambridge Analytica resulted in the election of Donald Trump, which in her mind was against her beliefs, and made many people unhappy. Furthermore, in terms of Social Contract Theory Brittany Kaiser did nothing wrong, since she was not obligated to act in any specific way, resulting in her not breaking a social contract. Overall, however, Kaiser acted against her own moral contract resulting in her regretting her decision. In terms of Virtue Ethics, Kaiser showed a lack of courage and a lack of consideration for herself and the millions of other decisions would impact. By working at the company directly opposed to her moral compass she let herself and fellow American citizens down by making their lives more difficult in terms of the election outcome. Similar ethical arguments can be applied to other moral conundrums in the workplace.

1.KK Ottesen. (2020). Brittany Kaiser. The Washington Post.

2. Craig Timberg, & Rosalind S Helderman. (2019). She helped elect Trump. Now

she’s apologizing. The Washington Post.

3. Brittany Kaiser's work with Cambridge Analytica helped elect Donald Trump. She's

hoping the world will forgive her. (2019, August 2). Washingtonpost.com. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A595336340/STND? u=mlin_c_worpoly&sid=STND&xid=32e6ee89

4. Quinn, M. J. (2012). Ethics for the Information Age (8th Edition ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education (US).