MEPs held a hearing lasting more than two hours for several key witnesses in the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scandal on Monday 4 June. This joint hearing of Parliament's civil liberties (LIBE), industry (ITRE), constitutional affairs (AFCO) and judicial (JURI) committees is the first in a long series to find out exactly what happened and what went wrong in this case.
Data and profiles sold
The concrete way in which Facebook operated and the algorithms used by Cambridge Analytica were at the centre of MEPs' concerns.
Sandy Parakilas, who worked at Facebook between 2011 and 2012 on data protection explained that the social network allowed developers to devise applications that used the personal data of users as well as their friends without their explicit consent. But once the data was transmitted to the application, Facebook did not have any real control on what became of this data and whose outcome was largely dependent on the “word” of the developer.
The whistleblower behind the scandal, Christopher Wylie, the director of research at Cambridge Analytica between 2013 and 2014 provided a description of his former employer that sent shivers down one’s spine. He said that “Cambridge Analytica is a specialist in disinformation, the dissemination of rumour and propaganda”.
With regard to the famous 'thisisyourdigitallife' application developed by Aleksandr Kogan, he asserted that Facebook had received a copy of the general conditions of application that stipulated that data would be sold to third parties, in this case, to Cambridge Analytica. The social network, however, did not read them. He said that if Facebook had read these conditions things could have turned out differently. The American legal expert, David Carroll also spoke. He was one of the users whose data was transmitted to Cambridge Analytica for political profiling purposes. He explained that he took matters to the British courts in an effort to obtain a complete picture about the information the company had about him in an effort to better understand the conclusions it could make from this information and how it was used it to target him.
What are the implications for Brexit ?
Guardian journalist, Carole Cadwalladr, who was behind the disclosures in the press, focused on the involvement of Cambridge Analytica in the Brexit referendum. She explained that several offences had been committed with regard to financing, data sharing, suppression of evidence and illegal coordination between different campaigns.
In her explanation she criticised the lack of answers provided by several key figures implicated in the affair, including Nigel Farage (EFDD, United Kingdom) – who was in the room - and who she accuses of being an instigator in the contact made between Cambridge Analytica and the ‘Leave’ campaign.
She also asserted that she had recordings that attested to the fact that Cambridge Analytica had provided support to the campaign, particularly by explaining how to use the data for guiding users' behaviour. Christopher Wylie said that he did not think that Brexit would have taken place if they had not had these technologies and the use of this data. He even suggested that the EU should call for another vote on this question in the United Kingdom.
Elizabeth Denham, the British Commissioner for Information and Private Life, who is in charge of the enquiry, attempted to provide assurances that this case was being taken seriously, despite the fact that she was restricted in the responses she could provide as the investigation was ongoing.
Asked by MEPs about which way they should proceed, she explained that the report of the British authority was expected to be published before the end of the month on the broader implications of the investigation and would also recommend the introduction of a code on the analysis and collection of data as part of election campaigns for the political parties.
Now that the context has been created, the next hearings will take place on 25 June and 2 July and are expected to tackle the ramifications of the scandal as well as possible solutions. Claude Moraes (S&D, United Kingdom) said that the aim was to produce a concrete result by way of a resolution or an oral question from Parliament. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)