Facebook Data Selling scandal with

presumed complicity of Cambridge Data

Analytica

Submitted to: Oswald A J Mascarenhas, S J

BM A Group 11

Hari Snakar B19018

Nikita Gulgule B19031
Pranav J B19033
Ronit Ray B19040
Sahil Gupta B19041
Contents

Cambridge Analytica Scandal as a current turbulent market phenomenon & Unit of Analysis.............4
Background........................................................................................................................................4
The reveal:.........................................................................................................................................5
Impact on Facebook:.........................................................................................................................5
The Data:...........................................................................................................................................5
Facebook’s response:.........................................................................................................................5
Impact:..............................................................................................................................................6
Analysis as Black Swan Event.................................................................................................................7
Analysis of Randomness of the Event....................................................................................................9
Application of Eleven Laws of Systems Thinking..................................................................................11
Law 1: Today’s Problems come from Yesterday’s Solutions..............................................................11
Law 2: Harder you push, harder the system pushes back................................................................11
Law 3: Behavior grows better before it grows worse.......................................................................11
Law 4: The Easy Way Out Usually Leads Back In..............................................................................12
Law 5: The Cure can be worse than the Disease..............................................................................12
Law 6: Faster is Slower....................................................................................................................12
Law 7: Cause and Effect are not closely related in Time or Space...................................................12
Law 8: Small Changes can produce big Results – but the areas of higher Leverage are often the less
obvious............................................................................................................................................12
Law 9: You can have your cake and eat it too – but not at once.....................................................13
Law 10: Dividing an Elephant in half does not produce two Elephants...........................................13
Law 11: There is no blame..............................................................................................................13
Application of Archetypes of Systems-Thinking...................................................................................13
Archetype 1 : Limits to Growth........................................................................................................14
Archetype 2: Shifting the burden.....................................................................................................14
Archetype 3: Fixes that Backfire.......................................................................................................14
Archetype 4: Tragedy of the Commons............................................................................................15
Archetype 5: Accidental Adversaries...............................................................................................15
Archetype 6: Success to the Successful............................................................................................15
Archetype 7: Balancing Process with Delay.....................................................................................16
Archetype 8: Growth and Underinvestment....................................................................................16
Archetype 9: Escalation...................................................................................................................16
Archetype 10: Eroding Goals...........................................................................................................16
Moral Reasoning, Moral Judgment Calls and Moral Justification.........................................................17
Reverse Moral Justification..............................................................................................................18
Forward Moral Justification.............................................................................................................19
Analysis from the viewpoint of Justice.................................................................................................20
LEMS Analysis and Planetary Ecological and Cosmic Sustainability Responsibility..............................25
Legal................................................................................................................................................25
Ethical..............................................................................................................................................25
Morally............................................................................................................................................25
Spiritually.........................................................................................................................................26
Domain and Scope of Individual, Joint and Corporate Moral Responsibility....................................26
References...........................................................................................................................................28
Cambridge Analytica Scandal as a current turbulent
market phenomenon & Unit of Analysis
Read, update and synthesize all available and relevant facts, figures, media coverage and
timeline the market phenomenon chosen by your group; document and reference your data by
source, date, page, and the like. Explain why you chose this current turbulent market
phenomenon for your analysis. Define also your “unit of analysis” of the market phenomenon:
for instance, in respect to the Case chosen, is it the entire Case, or any specific perspective (e.g.,
the Case from the management side, from the labour or customer side, based on its inputs
versus process versus outputs, specific major actor or action, and so on) that you choose to
investigate and analyse under the following questions. Why do you choose this unit of analysis?
Justify your choice. [15 marks].
[Major Contribution by Sahil Gupta B19041]

For all the years that we were worrying that internet and social media can control our thinking
process, Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal is a proof that we are surely heading into that
direction. The psych-ops is now not only limited to the war zone but has the capability to affect the
public at large. It is a scandal that has plunged the mega-communication platform, i.e. Facebook into
its greatest crisis in its 14-year history and markedly affected credibility of social media as a whole.

Background:
 This scandal broke out in early 2018 when it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica had
acquired data of millions of Facebook users and then used that data to design political
advertisements for the Trump Presidential campaign 2016.
 Actually, a Cambridge University Data Scientist, Aleksandr Kogan, developed an app known
by the name “This is your Digital Life” for Cambridge Analytica. It possessed a “informed
consent” research process, to which hundreds of Facebook users subscribed and completed a
survey for “academic” purposes.
  But the Facebook’s design allowed the app to gather data not only of the subscribed users but
also of the subscriber’s friends. In this way, by an app installed by just 300 thousand people,
Cambridge Analytica was able to gather personal data of around 87 million people.

The reveal:
 Personal data harvesting by Cambridge Analytica was first reported in December 2015 by a
Guardian journalist, Harry Davies, who reported that Cambridge Analytica had been using
Facebook users data for helping US Senator Ted Cruz. Further reports came in different
publications like Das Magazin (Swiss publication), The Intercept, The Observer etc. but the
issue didn’t come into lime-light and was sidelined.
 It was an ex-Cambridge Analytica employee, Christopher Wylie, who emerged as a
whistleblower and gave credibility to the data harvesting claims. Many news publications
simultaneously published about the scandal on 17 th March 2018 and caused a huge public
outcry.

Impact on Facebook:
 Immediate impact on Facebook was on its share price. Facebook’s market capitalization
reduced by more than 100 billion dollars in a matter of days.
 Many celebrities and public figures from different spheres came out and criticized Facebook
heavily. Some like Elon Musk even unsubscribed from the platform.
 Politicians in impacted countries like US (Trump’s Presidential Election) and UK (Brexit
referendum) started demanding answers from Facebook. Eventually, Mark Zuckerberg
(Facebook’s CEO) had to testify in relation to the scandal in front of United States Congress.

The Data:
 Facebook reported that data of approximately 87 million users was harvested this way. It also
said that the data included “public profile, liked pages, location and birth date” but it is
speculated widely that data also included “News feed, messages and timeline”.
 The data had enough depth for creating “psychographic” profiles of the users with locations.
This can help the campaigners to know which type of ad should be shown to which person at
a particular location so that he behaves as expected in a political event.

Facebook’s response:
Zuckerberg apologized for the situation a few after it broke out. During his apology, he mentioned
words like “issue”, a “mistake” and “breach of trust”. He pledged to make changes and reforms in the
organization.
But recent reports suggest that all the apologies seem to be heresy. As Ashkan Soltani (formerly of
FTC) said, “While it appears that Facebook is suddenly ‘woke’ to privacy issues, it’s safe to assume
it’s business as usual there.” Not much has been done internally to correct the way facebook gathers
and deals with data.
Impact:
Almost every other internet company has been accused of data breach, but only Facebook has faced
such a existential crisis. It is because the Cambridge Analytica case is not that of “system infiltration”
but facebook’s system working as it was designed. Data was gathered, extracted and exploited by the
very system. This incident affected the trust people had on the internet as a safe space. Until now,
people knew that data could be used for targeted advertisement but this is a case where an actual
politico-socio event has been affected profoundly by the data exploitation. This has shaken the
consciousness of people and no one had predicted this. It was a landmark moment in the public
understanding of privacy and personal data and how the internet giants can use our information.
How much data do the companies sell?
What purposes do they use the data for?
What about the data they already have?
These are questions that need to be answered in this new world internet dominance where opinions
are not formed but dictated. Thus, this whole case is our “unit of analysis” that will be probed further
in the questions that follow.
There have been speculations that such unethical use of data has also taken place in the context of
other events in countries other than UK and US. Our very own general elections of 2014 have been
said to be influenced by Cambridge Analytica. Below given is a chart highlighting the quantum of
data collection by Cambridge Analytica in different countries:

Analysis as Black Swan Event

This is Second Executive Exercise in Assurance of Learning (AOL2). Analyze this event as a
turbulent market, Black Swan event. [Read Chapter 13: The Ethics of Executive Critical
Thinking, especially pp. 3-4]. Were all three criteria for Black Swan events verified in your
Case, and how? Post factum, to what extent is the event explainable, predictable and
controllable and therefore avoidable in the future, and why? What have we learnt from this
event? How could we have detected this event in time, and predicted and prevented it for
humanity? [15 marks]
[Major Contribution by Pranav J B19033]

Facebook was complicit in providing information of its users to the political consulting firm
Cambridge Analytica which is said to have greatly influence the 2016 US Presidential elections,
“Leave’ winning during Brexit vote etc.
To analyse if it was indeed a Black Swan event, we need to look at the scandal from the perspective of
an executive critical thinker and firstly observe if it has three properties:
 If the scandal happened beyond the realm of expectations. If it had happened for the first time
in History
 If the scandal had an extreme impact on the world
 Despite if being an “outlier” as is mentioned in the first property, are there points to its post-
mortem? Are there any explanations in hindsight and if it could have been explained or
predicted retrospectively?

This can be viewed, keeping in purview, two corporate players here- Cambridge Analytica and
Facebook.While electoral tampering and foreign electoral intervention has been a relatively common
occurrence since the beginning of societies, using the data of millions to this effect was something
Cambridge Analytica achieved for the first time in history. And a corporation as large as Facebook,
jeopardizing its unwitting customers’ privacy at such a large scale is also a first-time occurrence.
More than 30 million users were directly affected when they gave away their information to
Cambridge Analytica through Facebook via the third-party app “this is yourdigitallife”. Breaches of
trust have happened in the Information technology age by many different corporations but one at this
scale, affecting the electorate and thus the nature of the country and the world, has been an
unprecedented first-time event. But the association of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is a series
of events and their repercussions to be seen as one continuous scandal right from the 2016 US
elections to even influencing Brexit.
The repercussions of the scandal are tremendous and will continue to affect the world for a long time
to come. The scandal has been described as a watershed moment in the public understanding of
personal data and precipitated a massive fall in Facebook's stock price and calls for tighter regulation
of tech companies' use of personal data. Beyond that, Cambridge Analytica has influenced decisive
victories in not just the USA but also had significant incursions into the democracies of the world.
UK, India, Colombia, Antigua, Brazil and many more countries have had Cambridge Analytica
meddling in their electoral processes with plausible unconfirmed involvement of Facebook (unlike the
case in the US). Brexit and Trump have altered the face of the world as we know it and the
unpredictability only rises by the day. India, the largest democracy in the world, although was less
affected, is still vulnerable given its tech-savvy internet using young population. The world economy
as we knew it, did change overtime owing to the results of the US election, Brexit etc. thus the
scandal indeed had a great impact upon the world. Besides economies and countries, it has also
affected the lives of more than 50 million Facebook users whose data stands compromised.
The inability to predict the course of history and the present as we know it, is implied by such
inability to predict outliers. While in hindsight it might appear that this could have been predictable, it
does not seem convincingly seem to be so. Could the scandal have been predicted? yes. Facebook had
been previously suspected of imperfect data privacy issues and there have been numerous imaginative
instances across the literature and cinema arts which illustrate how information could be misused.
Some kind of structured scientific thought on those lines could have predicted this. In late 2007 David
Lazer, a data-oriented political scientist at Harvard had put together a conference entitled
“Computational Social Science,” along with MIT Media Labs’ Alex Pentland and other leaders in
analysing what such future scenarios with respect to big data and privacy breaches. In this conference
they had predicted that as data collection and analysis got better, it could be misused for political gain,
almost a decade before the scandal. Is this explainable? Yes. The lack of stringent privacy concerns
and legislations and a lackadaisical and lying attitude of Facebook towards its own users led to this
scandal.
Although not to a strong extent given some doubts over its predictability the Facebook data privacy
scandal involving Cambridge Analytica is definitely a Black swan event.
While it has been discussed as to how it could have been predictable and explainable, it is to be
thought if the scandal could have been controllable and is it avoidable in the future?
Control could have been achieved with better legislation and its implementations and greater privacy
as well as transparency on the part of Facebook, But it can also be argues that it wasn’t controllable
since the app used by Cambridge Analytica was given access to the users’ data by the users
themselves who did not bother to read the terms and conditional and the various permissions they
gave away to Facebook & the app “thisisyourdigitallife”.
While one can argue that the control was within the users hands, the fact that almost none of them
bothered to check for it due to simple fallible laziness of the human nature .We don’t give enough
attention or thought to some actions we consider are simple and rudimentary but are actually tiny
black swan bombs in an otherwise normal life.
Such a scandal is indeed avoidable in the future but for that all the three stakeholders- the
government, the people(users) and the corporation (Facebook) would have to develop awareness
when it comes to data privacy. Although users are now more concerned about privacy, Facebook has
still not completely overhauled its privacy policies thus still keeping open the possibility of the
repetition of such a scandal in the future. Data Propia is a new company formed by former Cambridge
Analytica employees and continues to work in the same sphere. Will the world see a repeat of the
same scandal every time there’s a crucial election?
Active legislation, active monitoring and transparent and responsible privacy policies of Facebook
could have helped detect this scandal in time. But this is very difficult and the very reason
organizations like Cambridge Analytica worked was because it is not difficult to do such activities and
is possible to avoid detection of wrongdoing. It took a sting operation after all and some
whistleblowing to completely uncover this can of worms. We could not have easily predicted and
protected humanity from such an event. One way to think of preventing such future occurrences
would be to use real time analytics and AI tools to monitor and prevent such internet traffic from
causing such intrusions. But that could violate the freedom of speech and expression. Any method to
prevent such a scandal would be a double-edged sword.
What humanity can learn from this scandal is that awareness and personal enquiry is a very important
part of life in this age of information. Policies have to be more transparent and privacy must be a
primary concern or even a fundamental right. Facebook scandal is a case where nothing could be done
as it happened and it all snowballed much later. One learning to be gathered is to simply think for
oneself and judge in an unbiased manner. In this world of Fake news, it is important to filter Fair
news. Black swan events like this will only lead the experts and users into a vicious loop of being
fooled by randomness at every step.

Analysis of Randomness of the Event

This is Third Executive Exercise in Assurance of Learning (AOL3). [Read Chapter 13: The Ethics of
Executive Critical Thinking, especially pp. 4-5]. Analyze the randomness of this event. Did the
perpetrators plan and know this event and its non-randomness, whereas the rest of us were fooled by its
randomness and victimized by its major impact, and why? Which of the elements of the left hand column
of Exhibit 13.2 were mistaken for corresponding elements of the right hand column to cause the tragic
event, and why? Hence, using your Case and the framework of Exhibit 13.2 assess the cost to humanity
of being fooled by randomness? [15 marks]
[Major Contribution by Hari Sankar B19018]

When we look at the Cambridge Analytica scandall, personal data of millions of users were
compromised without their consent, and then used to manipulate their choice during the US
presidential elections. Coming to the randomness of the event, it was evident that Mark Zuckerberg,
who was already at the pinnacle of his career as Facebook had become a part of everyone’s daily life,
he just looked to expand his firm by looking at expansion and acquisitions, and this outsized success
did lead him to be myopic to recognize the risks of rare, which eventually led to a massive public
outcry. This was visible in the massive fall in the firm’s stock price. Sheryl Sandberg, COO of
Facebook, had confirmed that they knew about the data leak and the fact that Cambridge Analytica
used to collect user information, right from two years prior to the election. Facebook did not have the
required expertise or clear cur intention to delete the stolen data, and they went by assurances given
by Cambridge Analytica that the data had been cleared and deleted. It is very clear that a proper audit
was not done by Facebook, which downplays the rights of use. From this, it is clear that the likelihood
of a black swan event was underestimated. The perpetrators knew what they wanted to do with this
data and they thought they could get away with it till a whistleblower revealed the details. The main
idea that they had was to create a web of disinformation online, which would spread across the
internet, influence and manipulate multiple users based on data algorithms and exploit their mental
vulnerabilities. This is a clear misuse of power and clearly shows that some firms believe they can do
this just because they have the capabilities to do so. They should have realized that privacy invasion is
a serious offence and using it for personal gains or gaining popularity is something which is looked
down upon and invite a lot of trouble. This scandal has clearly violated the rights of a user and has
managed to violate our notion of fairness. In most cases like these, a mere apology is all people get
whereas by duty of reparation, a compensation is what they actually deserve. People here have been
deprived of their basic right to privacy.
By referring to Exhibit 13.2: Fooled by Randomness, the elements in the left hand column mistaken
for the right hand column are:
Probability Indeterminism
Belief Knowledge
Coincidence Necessity
Pattern Law
Privilege Right
Quick fix, band aid Tactic
Long term planning Competitive Strategy
Power and control Leadership

The probability of an event to turn into a massacre or affect humanity on a large scale is often
considered to be indeterministic. This is not always true as events such as frauds, scandals, man-made
disasters have proven to be predictable and not random occurrences. In this case, the fact that
Cambridge Analytica had all the users’ data and was using it to promote targeted advertisements, is itself
proof that the perpetrators are not unaware, but concealing the truth.
Often, when we believe in something or a certain theory, we assume to be completely knowledgeable in
that field. Here, Facebook has been prevalent among the masses for a couple of years, and it is very
simple to use, we assumed that we know it inside out. Little did we know that every activity of ours was
being tracked and monitored, which clearly proves that knowledge cannot be confused with belief.
Humanity has been at the receiving of certain scandals, and this too because of the greed and malicious
intent of a certain few people. People who have power and control, either due to their wealth, family or
any other reason , often confuse it to be synonymous with leadership. Cambridge Analytica had the
power to access anyone’s data and could control it as well. What they did not realise was the fact that
they considered it to be their right to use it for selfish gains or experiments, and did not feel the necessity
to ask for consent from the users. This has costed the people who have fallen for this scandal, which
further breaks the trust people have in social media.
Facebook tried to do a quick fix to this by apologizing to people and assuring them the data will be
erased from Cambridge Analytica’s database. However, they confused this with a tactic and this did not
work among the masses. Even though people are slowly regaining the trust in Facebook , many users
have opted out sighting breach of privacy, lack of interesting articles to read and too many
advertisements which track their daily activity. To regain the lost user base, the firm should try to make
its operations as transparent as possible , and implement strict data privacy laws. In European Union,
introduction of the GDPR law has been one such move which ensures the user is protected against such
malpractices.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal has costed a lot to the humanity, with nations blaming each other for
influencing elections and manipulating the voters. One thing that has to be stressed here is the fact that
in the US, there are certain rules and regulations, which clearly state that anti-trust actions succeed only
if a firm has managed to affect a user/consumer’s wellbeing , in terms of quality of products, services
and prices people have to pay. Comparing it with Facebook, it is likely that the firm would not fall under
such a criteria, thereby showing that rules are unfit for online age. We need a different set of parameters,
which can be industry specific and based on the power the company holds in the market.
Application of Eleven Laws of Systems Thinking

This is Fourth Executive Exercise in Assurance of Learning (AOL4). Apply the Eleven Laws of
Systems Thinking (see Chapter 2) that study any market phenomenon. Explain each Law and
its potential for explaining and predicting behaviour of the phenomena you have chosen for
investigation. Illustrate the application of each Law by past, current or projected examples. [15
marks]
[Major Contribution by Nikita Gulgule B19031]

Law 1: Today’s Problems come from Yesterday’s Solutions.

When we are faced with the urgency of solving a problem, we sometimes use a short-term, quick fix
or patchwork approach. Moreover, many times the problem itself is not properly defined due to the
paucity of time or the want of quick results. Due to this, problems from one part of the system are just
shifted to another part and are not dealt with from the root. Also, the people who solved the initial
problem are different than those who finally face the problem and hence, these problems may many a
times go undetected.

Data usage in political campaigning and decision making where it is being used as a Political asset,
Political intelligence and to create political influence has actually been a recent phenomenon which
started so that our democracies would be more efficient in its day-to-day workings. However, what
was seen as a solution turned out to be a major problem as can be seen from the Cambridge Analytica
Case where the data was not organized in a transparent, comprehensible and a responsible manner
which led to such a scandal.

Law 2: Harder you push, harder the system pushes back.

Every system or process has its own way of operation and functions within a range of parameters. If
an external intervention is made or any natural parameters are withheld, i.e. if we try to ‘push harder’,
the system breaks down and gives catastrophic results. These results offset the benefits of
intervention. This is known as “compensating feedback”. This behavior continues in a cycle, as the
system starts to backfire, we push harder hoping that our efforts would yield fruit. However, we end
up damaging the system even more.

There is a limit to how much a data analysis firm like Cambridge Analytica could do with the data it
has collected. In this case, it pushed its boundaries and surpassed all barriers to harvest private
information of more than 50 million Facebook users without even seeking their permission.
The announcement that Facebook users had their data mined and sold to political campaigns aimed at
manipulating the actions of voters has had wideranging consequences for both the United States and
Britain and the giant of social media.

Law 3: Behavior grows better before it grows worse .

When we use a temporary or low-leverage solution, we feel that that the solution is good because it
gets rid of the problem instantly. However, it being only a make shift solution, the problem arises
back, and this time, with greater rigor. By that time, the people who had initially dealt with the
problem have moved to another job and someone else is holding the chair.

As the scandal unfolded, Cambridge Analytica kept playing on the technicalities of the case that they
did not indulge in anything illegal and abided by the Terms and Conditions of Facebook as well as the
Application using which downloads were achieved. However, the defensive statement was not taken
well by the public and the situation grew worse and worse wherein Cambridge Analytica had to
suspend its Chief Operating Officer (CEO).
Law 4: The Easy Way Out Usually Leads Back In
When we face an issue, we generally tend to use the familiar ‘Best Practices”. However, sometimes as
we push harder using these best practices, the situation seems to worsen instead of getting any better.
This happens because these familiar solutions are cut out for a particular sort of problem and we
cannot just make it fit to all problems.

The Social Media Giant Facebook had an opportunity to ban Cambridge Analytica in 2015 and they
made a mistake by not doing the same. In 2015, Cambridge Analytica had started as an Advertiser and
Facebook could have banned them since an advertiser falls in their three listed categories. Because of
this small ignorance by the company, Cambridge Analytica went on to work with the Trump campaign
to help it optimize political messaging and ad targeting.

Law 5: The Cure can be worse than the Disease.

When we apply non systemic solutions over and over again for a long time, the problem starts to
become increasingly graver. So, the need for these solutions increases again. Due to this cycle, the
solutions become addictive. They lead to the decreased ability and increased dependence of the people
on these solutions.

As the news regarding the Cambridge Analytica incident began pouring in, social media giant
Facebook was criticized with the way they responded to the allegations that resulted in the plunging
of their stocks after the aftermath. From the late addressal to public by Mark Zuckerberg and sending
a deputy instead of himself before the British Parliamentary committee and vowing for tightening
security measures without any tangible proofs, Facebook could have done a lot better job in
responding in order to win the public sentiments.

Law 6: Faster is Slower.

Each system has an optimal speed of processing things. This optimal rate is much slower than the
fastest possible growth rate. When we try and induce excessive, the system itself tries to compensate
for this by slowing down the process. The fastest fix often leads to the slowest growth curve. When
we try to pressurize the system to perform more than its optimal capacity hen the system backfires and
leads to the emergence of disastrous problems and hence slows down the entire process in the bargain.

Law 7: Cause and Effect are not closely related in Time or Space
Effects are “the obvious symptoms that indicate there are problems”. Causes are “the interaction of
the underlying system that is most responsible for generating the symptoms”. Between every cause
and defect, there always exits a delay of some time period. Hence, the causes and their effects are not
closely related in time and space. This is true for most complex systems of humans and organizations.
When we see symptoms of some problems, we try and find solutions to those. However, the issue is
due to the time lag between the causes and their symptoms.

Cambridge Analytica started collecting the data of people years before the actual results of the entire
activity started to show. It took them a lot of time to extract data. Run it through algorithms, create
people profiles, generate targeted data and to reach out this data to the people. However, the actual lag
between the cause and effect was the lag between the people reading the data and the change in their
mindset.

Law 8: Small Changes can produce big Results – but the areas of
higher Leverage are often the less obvious.
We sometimes tend to apply high leverage solutions even to the smallest of problems. However, we
only end up wasting a lot of time, energy and money. Such grand solutions generally tend to have less
conspicuous effects. However, on the other hand, small simplistic solutions tend to produce more
lasting effects. They ensure that they cater to the root of the cause and produce effective solutions.
Cambridge Analytica and the social media giant Facebook took many small-scale measures after the
incident happened. However, they were unable to come to a conclusive action as they had missed the
nitty gritties of the aftermath which could have been easily tackled with provided both the firms had
acted well in advance. Facebook’s mistake of missing out an opportunity to ban Cambridge Analytica
in 2015 also was a missed opportunity and had that been implemented, the scandal could have been
avoided.

Law 9: You can have your cake and eat it too – but not at once.
We generally consider that all choices must be made at one point of time. Hence, we always view all
solutions as either-or to each other. However, this is not the case. We must consider the possibility of
applying one solution now and another in the future. Our main objective must be to have optimal
efficiency.

Cambridge Analytica nearly missed out being banned in 2015 by Facebook. However, despite that
warning, the firm did not learn of its past mistake and repeated the same incident wherein they
utilized the data for “psychographic micro targeting” and involved pitching personalized messages
that drove the US 2016 presidential elections to some extent.

Law 10: Dividing an Elephant in half does not produce two

Elephants
In most cases, we just view the system as in integration of several wholes. Hence when a problem
arises in one part, we just look towards solving it with respect to that part. We do not consider how it
might affect the rest of the system. A god manager always views the system as a whole. This saves
him a lot of resources as every problem is solve considering all aspects, and is hence non-recurring.

Cambridge Analytica viewed the system of making people profiles as a whole. They collected all the
aspects of information that led to the creating of effective profiles. They considered not only the likes
and history on facebook, but also the time spent on each article and their reaction via comments. They
even went to the extent of collecting peoples shared personal messages. However, by considering all
the aspects of data extraction and profile creation, Cambridge Analytica was able to influence the
decision of people.

Law 11: There is no blame

Whenever any issue arises pertaining to events, situations, problems, errors and mistakes we point out
fingers at others and tend to play the blame game. These actions end up in a series of cyclical events
without any solid conclusion. We fail to realize that all the individuals engaging in this blaming spree
are in the end a part of the system itself. So, of their energy and resources are put to use in developing
the system then it would yield better results.

After this scandal came to light, all the parties involved started to blame each other. Initially Facebook
declared that they have no association with the entire scenario. However, they later had to accept that
there was a data security issue on their part as well. Cambridge Analytica also blamed most other
parties involved before ultimately stating that they too had a role to play in the entire situation. If all
this had been eliminated and the stakeholders would have worked towards reversing the effects of the
damage, it would have yielded better results.

Application of Archetypes of Systems-Thinking

This is Fifth Executive Exercise in Assurance of Learning (AOL5). Apply now the Ten
Archetypes of Systems-Thinking (see also Chapter 2) that study any market phenomenon.
Explain each Archetype and its potential for explaining and predicting, past or expected
structures of market behavior of the same phenomenon under investigation. Illustrate the
application of each Archetype by past, current or projected examples. [15 marks]
[Major Contribution by Pranav J – B19033]

An Archetype is usually a system structure, a statement , a pattern of behavior , a pioneering prototype

or even a rudimentary “first form” or model which other system structures , statements , patterns of
behavior , copies etc.. emulate or merge into as one. They catalyze processes towards desired results
through reinforcement. They create spirals of failure or of success. They help in recognizing patterns
in a situation and help predict the behavior.
Systems thinking literature has identified ten systems archetypes and they shall be examined in the
context of their abilities or utlitites in explaning or predicting a particular event or market action –
through the purview of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Scandal.

Archetype 1 : Limits to Growth

The simplest explanation to this is that the impediments related to growth need to be removed while
not forcing growth. Archetypes can be dementing to growth structures. What rises has to fall as a rule
of nature and so are organizations and other entities. How does this archetype fit into the Facebook /
Cambridge Analytica story?
Both organizations started out small and grew rapidly. Facebook started as a simple website to “rate
the women” in the institution where Mark Zuckerberg studied and once it took off it grew
tremendously. Once graph search was available in 2010 , Facebook became the biggest connector of
longlost people on the planet. It grew so large thanks to initiatives and business environment in
Silicon Valley. And such a large database of people sharing a multitude of information, it could have
been predicted that there could have been some leak or mishandling of personal data since it would
have been very difficult to keep track of , given the size. But the exact means and methods would
have been very difficult to predict. The biggest connector of people , was in a way, responsible for
dividing them all on political lines – by giving access to data to Cambridge Analytica.
One such past example would be that of Jio – the telecom dominator grew very quickly through
cheap affordable tariff and is now revising the same to great extents , resulting in many who seem to
switch to other providers.

Archetype 2: Shifting the burden

This archetype basically deals with symptoms not the actual problem. Thus one can say that the
underlying problem is not addressed and hence one shifts the burden to well-intentioned easy fixes.
The easiest solutions only deteriorate the symptoms instead of curing them.
In the case of Facebook and CA, one can say a that the underlying problem of privacy and that of data
leak without permission by Facebook was the elephant in the room that it did not address. Instead
Facebook testified that the users were given the choice to read up what they were getting into you and
that they did so voluntarily by clicking on permissions provided to the Cambridge Analytica app .
Why is the problem could have been that the users were sort of gullible and could not understand
what they were getting into do Facebook did not take up responsibility e to educate them and instead
harped on the very fact that the users should have known what they were getting into. This is akin to a
robber saying that the house defences were poor. Classic case of the fence eating the crop.
Thus Facebook tried to shift the blame are the burden onto its own users instead of re looking into its
own data privacy policy.One past example of the same could be that of how Bernie Madoff blamed
his own investors saying that they never bothered to check his authenticity and were just greedy.

Archetype 3: Fixes that Backfire

A continuing series of fixes to a stubborn problem improves only momentarily.This archetype can best
be explained by a story. We have all heard of the poem for the want of a nail the shoe was lost for the
want of a shoe the horse was lost. And finally the kingdom was lost. This archetype is an example of
of a series of fixes or attempts to set something right only e to see it go catastrophically wrong
Facebook agreed to Congressional hearing and also announced immediate title privacy policies. News
off involvement with Cambridge analytica spread on Facebook itself and a legend remarks that it right
to suppress its information only backfired. Various search unfavourable series of complications and
combinations resulted in Facebook shares plummeting 2 new lows. At one point it seem like ok any
step taken by Facebook towards covering up the scandal only e added fuel to fire. There was no no
long term plan or commitment from Facebook towards setting the issue right.

Archetype 4: Tragedy of the Commons

A continuing increase of use of a common resource will eventually overstrain the resource until it
crashes.With respect to the archetype of tragedy of commons it is imperative that the resource in
question should not only be commonly available but it should also be finite. It should be difficult to
replenish the resource given the rate of its usage on consumption besides the resource loses value over
time simply because too many people are consuming and using it in a too less time
How can the tragedy of commons explain or could have predicted the Facebook Cambridge analytica
scandal? Facebook was going down a path where it no longer had the earlier of the entire social
network ok during the early 2010s . Almost everyone who used internet had joined Facebook does
making it a common place thing instead of something unique. Facebook power was relatively e a
novelty for the slightly older generation and they used in troves in the USA. Genuine as well as non
genuine uses soon flooded this social network. This definitely facilitated Cambridge analytica job and
also helped in the proliferation of fake news to the extent that 811 nowadays known trusts Facebook
completely with regards to privacy. The tragedy of commons plays out very well and in short life
cycles when it comes to apps which a lot of people use over a short period of time hence contributing
to faster redundancy life cycle. WhatsApp tik Tok or Twitter have all reached saturation and hence
require constant innovation to stay alive and relevant.

Archetype 5: Accidental Adversaries

Understand your partners’ needs, see if you are unintentionally undermining them, and look for ways
that support each other. ). It explains how groups or people who ought to be or want to be in
partnership with each other, end up bitterly opposed.
He fifth archetype accidental adversaries talks about to close knit partners who later turn adversaries.
This can can be observed in the modern world as new sudden rivalries between two teams aur
between two wings of an organisation or or between any two companies in in memorandum of
understanding. While this may not have a direct immediate example in the Facebook Cambridge
analytica scandal one of the future repercussions was that Steve Bannon was eventually fired by
Trump. The man Steve Bannon who allegedly could have been the initiative for the sower of seeds of
of this candle bye recruiting Cambridge Analytica fell out of favour with the very man he tried to
bring in power. Future scenario of this archetype could we wear two or more organisations which
have already merged decide to de much a day due to principles and their values or simply because the
two needs couldn't be met

Archetype 6: Success to the Successful

The sixth archetype titled success to the successful is somewhat along the lines of the rich get richer
while the poor get poorer. It assumes a zero-sum game where given the finite pool of resources and
capabilities better equipped manage to get a large attack while the other unfortunate ones keep
witnessing there resources getting depleted. Huge disparity is eventually seen between the success fill
and the ones not so successful. This can be avoided by taking into account both the successes and
failures together as one with success of one trying to cover up for the failure of the other.

In the case of Facebook versus Cambridge analytica there is not much of a display of this archetype
however it can be said given the image Park operations have Facebook despite losing a lot of a shares
still exist and a day keeps going strong or maintained itself pretty well while Cambridge analytica no
longer exists in it's true form.
Futuristic scenario can be imagine for this archetype where one could take the case of air India.
Disinvestment and contribution by other public sector companies towards loss making air India could
probably do something good for India's national carrier

Archetype 7: Balancing Process with Delay

This archetype is based on the principle that in a sluggish system, aggressiveness produces instability.
Either be patient or make the system more responsive.The very fact that Cambridge Analytica could
do such a scandal was due to the fact that no one noticed especially those authorities who who was
supposed to take care of such practices. Whistleblowers themselves took some considerable time to
come out and present the scandal to the world. However the very fact that was candle blue ok quickly
did lead to further instability amongst the internet circles in an already aggressively divided political
demographic of the United States.
One of the ways to avoid this is to have pre-emptive action strategies taken proactively that is
prevention is better than cure this brings is back to you doing this candle is a Black swan event and
contemplating if this could have been predicted and prevented in time and future efforts should be
directed towards doing the same to avoid such a similar scandal in the future where there are going to
be increasing connections on the Internet and at a faster pace. The world is shrinking

Archetype 8: Growth and Underinvestment

This archetype states that if there is a genuine potential for growth, one must build capacity in
advance of demand, as a strategy for creating demand.
The onus with repeect to the Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal lies not much with the two
corporations here in this Archetype but with the users themselves who need to learn from this incident
and take steps to ensure they don’t fall prey to such scandals the next time they use the internet. The
capacity for knowledge has to be increased at both the individual and societal level. People need to
learn and understand information beuond the realm of thir Facebook groups and social media so that
they can avoid falling prey to such schemes and especially to fake news. The growth of the human
mind and the growth of the capacity of a nation to protect itself from entities like Cambridge analytica
that undermine its sovereignty , is indeed paramount.

Archetype 9: Escalation
Two groups or organizations, each see their welfare as dependent on a relative advantage over the
other. Whenever, one side get ahead, the other feels threatened, and acts more aggressively to re-
establish its advantage.
The very reason why Cambridge Analytica was formed or let say spotted a business opportunity was
in the fact that rivaling political factions across the globe and especially the republicans and
democrats in the United States of America wanted to get the better of each other because each one
believes that their welfare is is a function of the relative advantage they had over the other. This
prompted some of the rival infections to take up a powerful yet unethical method of of psychographic
analysis of the voting population to influence them into voting for them with the help and collusion of
Facebook and Cambridge Analytica.
Probably no other archetype captures the very reason why the scandal happened then the archetype 9
escalation. The modern day war is fought over information through information. The very fact that
each wanted more than the other create a share of chunk of the population promoted discontentment
and bitterness among the population instead of being a regular democratic process which
unfortunately seems to be eroding over time .

Archetype 10: Eroding Goals

This is a subset of Archetype 2: Shifting the Burden. The organization shifts the burden by adopting a
short-term solution that essentially compromises its long-term goals and performance standards.
Probably no other archetype captures the very reason why the scandal happened then the archetype 9
escalation. The modern day war is fought over information through information. The very fact that
each wanted more than the other create a share of chunk of the population promoted discontentment
and bitterness among the population instead of being a regular democratic process which
unfortunately seems to be eroding over time .
Facebook from the beginning did not have strong values auto put it in succinct terms , had your
standards especially when it came to privacy of its uses. Even now after the entire scandal Facebook
has still not taken up a full-fledged revamp or improvement of its privacy policies. This is a clear case
of it eroding goals while still maintaining a white face to the public while hiding all the muck.
To conclude every minute action in any e good or bad scenario can be illustrated and probably explain
with the help of these 10 archetypes. In the future in the managerial world there are going to be
numerous project examples on how the ten archetypes of systems thinking would be of Paramount
importance and help.

Moral Reasoning, Moral Judgment Calls and Moral

Justification

This is Sixth Executive Exercise in Assurance of Learning (AOL6). Read Chapter 15 on Ethics of
Corporate Moral Reasoning, Moral Judgment Calls and Moral Justification. Make a moral judgment
call on the market event you have chosen: Who was right, who was wrong? Next, basing on Exhibits 15A
and 15B, a) Defend your moral judgment on the market events chosen using Reverse Moral Justification;
b) Defend your moral judgment using Forward Moral Justification [15 marks]
[Major Contribution by Hari Sankar B19018]

In this event, the main perpetrators are Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. But, it is often referred to
as Facebook’s scandal more than Cambridge Analytica’s. Initially when users created Facebook
accounts, they were not aware that their user data, sites they visit, activities that they are involved in
are being tracked by the firm. This is concealment of information , something which is not morally
right. The fact that a whistleblower had to reveal this information is itself evidence to the point that
Facebook was tracking data, but not revealing it. As stated in Chapter 15, executives experience moral
perplexity, moral conflict or moral disagreement, wherein they cannot come to a consensus on the
way forward. Mark Zuckerberg came out to the public and confirmed that the data had been taken by
Cambridge Analytica, only 5 days after the news broke out. This silence clearly shows that he was
unprepared to face the public, needed some time to come with a convincing reply to the users as he
was morally obligated to them. So, we can say that Facebook and Cambridge Analytica were on the
wrong side in this case.

Facebook had been providing regular updates on this investigation till August 2018, when the
company put out a statement which revealed that it had investigated thousands of third-party
applications and suspended more than 500. However, few months later, when they released another
press statement , the response was still the same and provided the same numbers as before. This
clearly shows that they expect people to forget the incident and move on with the assurances that they
provide over time, thereby evading moral responsibilities. Facebook had identified 5 core values that
are followed in the firm by decision makers and supposed to be followed by employees. They are:
Focus on impact, Move fast, Be bold ,Be open ,Build social value .After the breakout of the
scandal, the firm has contradicted its own value system by going against it. Sharing user data and
other personal data with third parties is something which was not there in their minds when they
introduced the core values.

By looking at the scandal through an ethical lens, by applying the utilitarian and deontological
principles, many people believed misunderstood utilitarian ethics and misunderstood that utility
applies for the stakeholders in a narrow manner. This means that they thought the positives and
negative effects of the event will only apply to Facebook’s owners, top management and employees.
But this is a wrong interpretation of utility ethics. The right way to look at the scandal is by
considering the utility and impact to all the stakeholders involved and the society as whole, rather than
looking at it from who gained or lost from a business perspective.
Reverse Moral Justification
Step Reverse Moral Justification
E Start with a specific moral
judgment based on a given Case
D What specific moral rules justify
this moral judgment and why?
C What specific moral standards
justify this moral judgment and
the rules it is based on, and
why?
B What specific moral principles
justify this moral judgment and
the rules and standards it is
based on, and why?
A What specific moral or ethical
theories justify this moral
judgment and the rules,
standards it is based on, and
why?
Steps What have you learnt in this
E-A iterative moral reasoning and
backward judgment and
justification process?
Assessment of Justification
This security breach and loss of privacy has created
an in-balance in how users trust Facebook, and it
has put pressure on Mark Zuckerberg and where he
truly stands morally. To continue trusting facebook is
something that each of us has to think over and take
an independent decision but losing our trust comes
along with a loss of comfort.
Non-malfeasance – In this case Facebook was
unsuccessful in preventing people from harm as
procedures were not set up to protect the data of
users. Fair Opportunism – Facebook failed in this as
it gave undue privilege to Cambridge Analytica to
access user data and thereby make target
advertisements
The moral standards of Facebook with respect to
distributive justice has not been correct as the issue
was not dealt in a fair manner, with concealment of
information, and no updates regarding what
happened to the user data. Corrective justice was
not also followed as there was no concrete
response from Facebook in terms of revealing why
the data was shared , and why it was not
communicated earlier till the scandal broke out
The moral principles in this case with respect to
teleological principles have been successful to some
extent as benefits have outweighed costs , by
connecting people across different parts of the
world , by just creating an account, for free of cost.
However, the drawback was the fact that users
were kept in the dark and that their information,
day-to-day activities were being tracked
Justifying the stand of Facebook in terms of moral
theories after the data leak scandal , should be
based on the stand they took by conducting an
audit to ensure all leaked data has been deleted.
The consequences of the scandal has been
detrimental to Facebook, with it losing around $35
million in market value and many have deleted their
accounts as well. Morally, Facebook has been on the
wrong side and no amount of justification can
alleviate their wrongdoing. The fact of the matter is
that Facebook will continue to grow, and we have to
 wait and watch whether the scandal will be
forgotten in the next few years.

Forward Moral Justification

Forward Moral Justification
Step A- Study a given Case thoroughly, holistically, and identify the critical problem that defines and
undergirds the Case. What ethical theories would you invoke in understanding, characterizing and
defining this problem? What are the key subjects, objects, properties and events (SOPE) of the Case?
Why?

Assessment of Justification

The critical problem with the case is that Facebook shared upto 87 million users’ data with Cambridge
Analytica, which further used the data to judge the personality of an individual and target them with
political advertisements. The ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontological will apply here as
the utility over here was only for the perpetrators. If we apply duty ethics, which evokes Immanuel
Kant’s categorical imperative, it is evident that to use personal data of others is morally wrong if used
as means to achieve one’s goals (Facebook’s profits)

Subject – User data was compromised to a third-party entity. Object – The fact that users were
unaware that their daily activities, personal information was being tracked and stored by Facebook.
Properties- Facebook helps in connecting people and has multiple third-party entities running
advertisements, applications on their site. It should be clear as to what privacy settings are in place to
protect user data. Events – Cambridge Analytica had harvested personal data of millions of
Facebook profiles without their consent and used it for targeting them with political advertisements.
Subsequently, Facebook’s stock price crashed and came under heavy public scrutiny

Step B - From these ethical theories what specific moral principles would you derive that will enable
you to explain, analyze and morally assess the key subjects, objects, properties or events (SOPE) of
this problem, and why?

Assessment: When we look at the case in terms of deontological theory, the fact that the
consequences of the scandal were unjust to a large number of people shows that Facebook faltered in
its duties to maintain a morality. The fact that Facebook helps in connecting people irrespective of
caste, creed, gender shows its utilitarianism principle, but this was short-lived as when the news of
scandal broke out, it was then revealed by Facebook that it has been collecting user data and sharing
with third party entities.

Step C- What specific moral standards would you derive from the moral principles derived at Step B
in order to justify your explanation, analysis and moral assessment of SOPE under Step B, and why?
Assessment: As stated earlier, Facebook believed in a set of core values which was not shown in their
operations.Certain actions such as openness and building social values, which were initially visible ,
turned out to be an eyewash as the scandal exposed their ulterior motives.

Step D - Fourthly, what specific moral rules would you extract from the moral standards (Step C),
moral principles (Step B) and ethical theories (Step A) to further justify your explanation, analysis and
moral assessment of SOPE under Steps B and C, and why?

Assessment: The SOPE of this case clearly shows that user data was compromised and the basic
objective of ensuring data confidentiality was not followed. Looking at the moral rules from the point
of view of virtual ethics, people were harmed , and their well-being was disturbed.As per
deontological theory, every consumer has a right to product/service safety , and in this case, it was
violated by Facebook
Step E - Given Steps A, B, C and D, and the moral assessment of SOPE under each, what specific
moral judgments can you arrive at regarding key SOPE in the Case, how and why? How can you
thereby justify this moral judgment and the rules, standards, principles, and ethical theories it is based
on, and why?

Assessment: From Steps A, B, C and D, we learn that moral principles were violated and users were
not given proper justification. Ethical theories like utilitarianism, which aims at providing greatest
utility to all stakeholders involved was also not respected, and Facebook just looked at people as
business prospects for gaining profits. Hence, morally, the firm was wrong and only time will tell if
they can come up with a convincing explanation for their act.

Steps A-E: What have you learnt in this iterative moral reasoning and forward moral judgmental
justification process?

Assessment: The learning from this iterative moral reasoning and forward moral judgement process is
that, when we break the case into multiple segments and analyze it from different angles, we get a
much wider perspective as to why the firm was morally wrong and what was the outcome of their
wrongdoing.

Analysis from the viewpoint of Justice

This is Seventh Executive Exercise in Assurance of Learning (AOL7). Read Chapter 16 on

Ethics of Moral Justification. Study the same market event, now from the viewpoint of justice.
Chapter 16, Table 16.3 provides 9 justice Rules (R01- R09) based on Deontological Justice, 4
Rules (R10, R11a, R11b and R12) based on Teleological Justice, and Table 16.4 provides 16
Rules (R13- R 28) based on Distributive Justice. Using all 29 Rules of Justice, do AOL 7 as
illustrated in Chapter 16, Table 16.5 (ABC). [15 Marks].
[Major Contribution by Ronit Ray B19040]

“Facebook Data Selling scandal with presumed complicity of Cambridge Data Analytica.”

From the viewpoint of Deontological Justice, let us analyze the case of Cambridge Analytica. The
philosophy of deontology basically judges the rightness or wrongness of the actions based on the
intentions of the decision makers and rights and duties of the individuals involved in the duties or
actions. It helps us to analyze the “acts” i.e. the inputs and the processes that goes into the
decision-making process irrespective of the consequences which the actions follow.

From the viewpoint of Teleological Justice, the consequences which evolve due to the acts are
immoral and unethical as people’s opinions have been influenced by using their own data and
targeting them through that by curating content to suit their preferences and nudging them and
thereby influencing the electoral process as a whole.

From the viewpoint of Distributive Justice, Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have distributed
the benefits unequally and also in the process violated the social rights of individuals resulting in
unequal distribution of distributive justice to common people.

In the case of Cambridge Analytica, it is more of a morality and ethicality issue apart from a legal
issue. The scandal involved Cambridge Analytica mishandling the data which was more or less
publicly accessible to assess and formulate the psychographic profile of millions of users based on
their preferences, friend lists and so on and so forth to create targeted advertisements which in
turn may influence their political viewpoints. The question of morality comes here because if
there is a capability to create a psychographic profile based on data of millions of people does not
mean that the company should do it and thereby use people as a means to an end and not an end
 by itself.

Cambridge Analytica & Facebook together:

a) Fails to respect the dignity of every human being

b) Fails to treat people as autonomous person with individual freedom
c) Fails to treat people as ends in themselves and never only as means to own ends.

Justic Ethical Theory of Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Deontological Justice:
e Deontological Justice
Rules Did the common people treat Did Facebook and Cambridge
Facebook & Cambridge Analytica treat citizens by :
Analytica by:
R01 Kantian Formalism: Principles of Principles of Universalizability?
Act in as much as Universalizability? YES. NO: They collected data from
your act is motivated People using Facebook enter groups which violated their
by a law that can data trusting that their data privacy as the data entered by
apply to all. will be secured by the firm. them was used for political
favours.
R02 Kantian Formalism: Principles of Principles of Reversibility? NO:
Act in as much as Universalizability? Yes. People would never be aware that
your act is grounded People acted on moral their opinions can be influenced
on moral reasons that reasons and there were no by private firms by using their
convince all. wrong intentions on their own data.
part for participating in the
surveys / Facebook.
R03 Principle of Principle of Deontological Principle of Deontological Justice
Deontological Justice among the among the marginalized?
Justice: Safeguard marginalized? Not
economic and social Applicable NO. Although the influence on
rights and duties of voters were irrespective of their
the marginalized income but groups were targeted
based on their social backgrounds,
cultures etc.
R04 Prince of Principle of Deontological Principle of Deontological Justice
Deontological Justice among the corporate among all the corporate
Justice: Also executives: Yes. People did executives: NO, to the extent that
safeguard rights and not do anything to harm the Facebook and Cambridge
duties of corporate rights and duties of corporate Analytica safeguarded only the
executives executives. influential people’s rights and
duties of corporate executives
R05 Situationanism: Principle of Existential Principle of Existential
When rights/duties Situationism: YES: People Situationism: NO: As the firms
conflict, the actual have participated in have failed to take responsibility
situation should Facebook and other online for exploitation of data and
determine the surveys considering that privacy of people.
decision ad judgment their data and privacy will be
but one must own the safeguarded and did not have
act and its anyone else to blame.
consequences.
R06 Existentialism: When Principle of Existentialism: Principle of Existentialism: NO:
 amidst uncertainty, YES: Since people acted in As Facebook failed to prevent
risk and ambiguity, their better self under the mishandling of data by Cambridge
right or wrong, truth impression that consumer Analytica and therefore did not act
or falsehood, and surveys will help in the moral sense which led to
good or evil cannot organizations in Cambridge Analytica create
be clearly understanding consumer psychographic profile of people to
distinguished, then preferences for market influence the elections.
act in the midst of research.
doubt.
R07 Legalism: Compliance to legitimately Compliance to legitimately
Legitimacy of promulgated and enforced promulgated and enforced
government laws and government laws and government laws and industry
industry ordinances industry ordinances? YES, ordinances? YES, as long as they
As long as people consented are using the data which is already
to providing their data on publicly available.
Facebook and their
preferences in online surveys
R08 Contractualism: Compliance to freely agreed Compliance to freely agreed on
Binding capacity of on contracts? YES: As long contracts to help Cambridge
freely agreed on as people consent to giving Analytica? YES: If there was no
contracts. their data or preferences breach of contract rules as the data
voluntarily having read all which Cambridge Analytica had
the terms and conditions ang access to was publicly available.
agreeing to it.
R09 Parenesis: A Code of Following Corporate code of Following Corporate code of
ethics that counsels conduct which may not conduct which may not necessarily
and exhorts action. necessarily be moral? YES. be moral? YES.
The obligation is
parenetic or
hortatory.

Justic Ethical Theory of Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Teleological Justice:
e Teleological Justice
Rules Did the common people Did Facebook and Cambridge
treat Facebook & Cambridge Analytica treat citizens by :
Analytica by:
R10 Hedonism: Principle of Universal Principle of Universal Hedonism:
Satisfaction and Hedonism: Not Applicable Did Facebook and Cambridge
Pleasure of all Analytica act in ways to
(Jeremy Bentham) provide/maximize satisfaction and
pleasure for all? NO: Most facts
prove the contrary.
R11a Utilitarianism (J. S. Principle of utility- Principle of utility-maximization
Mill): Maximize maximization of the greatest of the greatest number fulfilled?
utility of all number fulfilled? Not NO: Rather it was directed to
Applicable maximize utility of only a specific
political party.
R11b Consequentialism (E. Maximize Utility of good Did Facebook/Cambridge
Anscombe 1920- Consequences to all? Analytica act in ways to minimize
2001): Maximally harmful consequences to all
 reduce harmful Not Applicable innocent stakeholders? NO.
consequences to all.
R12 Eudemonism Principle of happiness of the Principle of happiness of the
(Aristotle): Principle maximum fulfilled? NO: maximum fulfilled? NO: As
of happiness of the People did not fill data/ Facebook and Cambridge
maximum consumer surveys in order to Analytica did not have intentions
create happiness for the of creating happiness for the
maximum. maximum.

Distri- Ethical Theory Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Distributive Justice:
butive of Distributive
Justice Justice (DJ) Did the common people treat Did Facebook and Cambridge
Rules Facebook & Cambridge Analytica Analytica treat citizens by :
by:
R13 Formal Aristotle’s Canon of Equality: Not Aristotle’s Canon of Equality:
Justice: Applicable NO: As all the stakeholders were
Egalitarianism not treated in proportion to their
stakes.
R14 Socialist The Canon of Need: Not Applicable The Canon of Need: treating all
Justice in this case. stakeholders at least according to
each one's need:
NO, as it was influenced by
major political players
R15 Naturalist The Canon of Natural Ability: Not Their level of innate merit or
Justice applicable ability? No: Justice is not served
based on the merit or ability.

R16 Retributive The Canon of Effort: Not
Justice Applicable in this case.
R17 Capitalist The Canon of Productivity: The
Justice contribution of people towards
Facebook and consumer surveys is
not related to capital justice.
R18 Libertarian The Canon of Social Utility: The
Justice level of social value of the common
people: Yes, as people participating
in surveys might be genuinely
interested in helping out the
companies do better market
Their level of effort? No:
Because, justice is not served to
stakeholders who actually are
influenced intentionally by
corporate firms like Cambridge
Analytica by targeted ads and
thereby leading to violation of
their social rights.
The Canon of Productivity: No.
Although people possessing
higher power has exercised
influence leading to unethical
influence in the elections but the
strengths are not deserved that is
more efforts did not lead to more
benefits.
Their level of social value? No.
Here individuals are cheated not
for the common good but for the
benefit of single political party
coming to power.
 research.
R19 Libertarian The Canon of Supply-demand: The Canon of Supply-Demand:
Justice Here, there is no distribution of Here distribution of justice is not
wealth but access to the surveys are based on supply- demand and
equally distributed without rather it is based on the power of
discrimination and hence, yes. some corrupt firms.
R20 Individual Rescher’s Canon of Legitimate Rescher’s Canon of Legitimate
Justice Claims: YES. Here, people are not Claims? NO, as certain sections
discriminating Facebook and of people are getting benefitted
Cambridge Analytica in terms of more than the others and certain
race, colour, nationality or religion . sections of society are
discriminated to make precision
targeted groups in order to
influence their voting opinions.
R21 Fair Rawls’ Equality Principle: Did Did wealth gained by Facebook/
Opportunist wealth-maximization of the few Cambridge Analytica offer equal
Justice offer equal opportunity to all? Yes. opportunity to all? No. It only
People treated Facebook and helped those in power to
Cambridge Analytica in a way influence the elections in their
which does not directly affect favour.
people’s life prospects and
expectations.
R22 Libertarian Rawls’ Difference Principle:? Not Nullifying undeserved
Egalitarian applicable in this regard. advantages among all
Justice stakeholders? No, as the aim of
Cambridge Analytica was
directly to benefit only certain
people in power win / influence
the elections.
R23 Libertarian Nozick’s Principle of Distributive Nozick’s Principle of Distributive
Justice Justice: YES, as from each as they Justice: NO, the stakeholders
choose, and to each as they are (people) in this case are not
chosen. chosen like that in a patterned
society but are cheated by
influencing their opinions
through targeted ads.
R24 Non- Principle of Strict Liability: Doing Doing no harm or evil to others?
malfeasance no harm or evil to Facebook and No, as the influencing of votes by
Justice Cambridge Analytica? YES. using data leads to changing of
future events of people life which
may cause harm in the long run.
R25 Pre-emptive Principle of Preventive Justice: Preventing all evil to the common
Justice Preventing all evil to the firms? people? No. Although no
YES. physical harm but altering the
opinions through targeted ads
with the help of private data is
equivalent to harming of people.
R26 Protective Principle of Protective Justice: Not Principle of Protective Justice
Justice applicable. No, as it fails to protect the
 unbiased interests and opinions of
people.
R27 Procedural Principle of Procedural Justice and Principle of Procedural Justice
Justice; Corrective Justice: YES. Procedural and Corrective Justice: No.
Corrective Justice exists. Although procedural justice and
Justice corrective justice exists, it has
failed to deliver.
R28 Beneficent Principle of Beneficent Justice: Yes, Principle of Beneficent Justice:
Justice as common citizens did not have NO. Facebook and Cambridge
any intention to inflict harm or evil. Analytica used the people’s data
and influenced their opinions and
thereby inflicted harm in that
way.

LEMS Analysis and Planetary Ecological and Cosmic

Sustainability Responsibility
This is Eighth Executive Exercise in Assurance of Learning (AOL8). Read Chapter 17, and
Chapter 17A: Assessing Individual, Joint and Corporate Moral Responsibility of Agents in Market
Turbulent Events. Hence, assess and assign, legal, ethical, moral and spiritual (LEMS)
responsibility of individuals, corporations, or combinations thereof, regarding this tragic event.
Estimate also planetary ecological and cosmic Sustainability Responsibility of such events,
especially based on Table 17A.1, Table 17A.2 and Table 17A.3. [20 Marks]
[Major Contribution by Nikita Gulgule B19031]

Legal
The inception of Cambridge Analytica itself was an illegal event. The company, originally known as
SCL Group was based out of London and was known for influencing elections. After having colluded
with Steve Bannon, the editor of Breitbart News, in order to impress him, they started to operate their
business from a fake office in Cambridge. Every time Steve would come to UK to visit them, they
would shift some staff from the London office to the one in Cambridge and put up a show. Such was
the illegal inception of ‘Cambridge Analytica’.
This company further went on to extract the data of 50 million Facebook users without their
knowledge or consent. They not only breached their privacy through tapping their likes and posts but
also had a clear access to their personal messages. This illegally collected data was then run through
algorithms to create people’s profiles.
During the US presidential elections of 2016, these people were slowly fed a lot of illegally created
information in order to bias their views. Thus, the future of an entire country was being shaped
illegally by creating such biases.
Moreover, even after this whole show had come to light, they denied any sort of affiliation with
Trump’s election campaign process. They not only denied presenting data but also tried to destroy
evidences related.

Ethical (Doing the right thing)

While living in a society we adhere to certain norms of the society. We respect the privacy of those
around us. Cambridge Analytica breached this privacy of not only a person or a group of people, but
that of an entire country. By extracting the data of people, they had an access to peoples search
history, their likes dislikes, what people feel strongly about as well as their personal messages.
 Keeping people in ignorance is another unethical step that Cambridge Analytica took. The people
whose data was being extracted had no idea about it. Moreover, the company stooped to such a level
as to procure the data of all the Facebook friends of these people. Hence, the people who did not even
know about the existence of the personality test had their data being extracted and used to bias their
opinion.
The major unethical thing that the company did was to influence the voting decision of the people.
Electing the government is a people right and Cambridge Analytica took away this discretion from
them. People were not given the chance of selecting the best candidate who they thought that work
most for their benefit.
Finally, they denied any sort of affiliation with Trump’s election campaign process which according to
the evidences and the whistle blower was false.
Hence right since the inception of the company till the end they have been playing on unethical terms.

Morally: (Doing the right thing rightly)

The breach of privacy of people in the time span of over a year was extremely immoral on the part of
Cambridge Analytica. They should have considered the moral implications of this idea before
applying it itself. However, they did not consider this even after the end of their extraction of data.
They continued to exploit the people by supplying them with information in order to bias their
decisions.
They did not feel morally obligated towards then people whose data they were procuring. Also, they
did not feel morally obligated towards the nation whose development they were hampering.

Spiritually: (Doing the right thing rightly for the right reasons)
Cambridge Analytica, instead of being a company that promotes peace, harmony and trust,
became a company that promotes fear in the minds of the people. Cambridge Analytica was
responsible for hindering the development of humanity that could have happened because of the
connecting of millions of people and the free sharing of ideas over the internet. Nix, and all the other
individuals involved, created a global attitude of fear of data breach. They set the mindset that data is
no longer secure over the internet.

Domain and Scope of Individual, Joint and Corporate Moral

Responsibility
Dimensions Domain, Scope and Mandate of Responsibility
of Individual Corporate Joint
Responsibility (Executive) (Organizational) (Executive/Corporate)
Alexander Nix was The company was itself The employees who were
aware of the legal started as a con. It aware of the entire illegal
Legal system and laws against further went on to procedure kept in view their
Responsibility data breach. However, illegally extract data of personal gains from the
wanting to deliver millions of users. It company’s profit. They did
results to his investor, further went on to the not consider the legality of
he went against the laws extent of illegally the affair above their greed.
and extracted private influencing the decision They were also involved in
data of Facebook Users of the Presidential hiding and destroying
and influenced the US Elections of the super evidences related to the
Elections. power US. case.

It is the responsibility of As a corporation, every The employees supported

every individual to company tries to give their company as it took
respect the privacy of the best return on unethical decisions. They
 Ethical others. It was hence investment to its did not raise a voice until it
Responsibility unethical of Alexander investors. However, was very late. They saw
to breach the privacy of Cambridge Analytica their benefit over people’s
50 mn Facebook users. stooped to unethical privacy and the future of an
measures to give these entire nation.
returns.
It is the moral The company took away People working in the
obligation of an the right of the people to company did not did not
individual to not intrude choose their government consider their moral
Moral in the private matters of and representative. They responsibility to take care of
Responsibility others. However, Nix risked the future of an the future of the people of
took the decision to entire country which US. By biasing an election
extract the private data being a superpower they put the wellbeing of
of millions of users and would have an impact the people of US is
to use it without their on the whole world. jeopardy.
knowledge.
Nix, and all the other Cambridge Analytica The employees of the
individuals involved, was responsible for company did not realize the
Spiritual created a global attitude hindering the sort of terror that they are
Responsibility of fear of data breach. development of creating in the minds of
They set the mindset humanity that could people if at all the entire
that data is no longer have happened because scandal came to light.
secure over the internet. of the connecting of Instead of creating peace,
millions of people and harmony and trust, they
the free sharing of ideas contributed towards
over the internet. creating fear.

Not Applicable in this Not Applicable in this Not Applicable in this

Responsibility Scenario Scenario Scenario
for
Planetary
Ecology

Not Applicable in this Not Applicable in this Not Applicable in this

Responsibility Scenario Scenario Scenario
for
Cosmic
Sustainability
References
1. The Cambridge Analytica Story , Explained – 5 March 2017 Retrieved from
https://www.wired.com/amp-stories/cambridge-analytica-explainer/
2. Cambridge Analytica Facebook Scandal – 10 April 2018 Retrieved from
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17207394/cambridge-analytica-facebook-zuckerberg-trump-privacy-
scandal
3. How did Click turn into Votes? – 6 May 2018 Retrieved from “The Guardian”
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analytica-how-turn-clicks-into-votes-
christopher-wylie
4. Aftermath - How the world has changed but not Facebook - 18 March 2019 Retrieved from
“The Guardian” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-cambridge-analytica-
scandal-changed-the-world-but-it-didnt-change-facebook
5. The Facts , Implications and Questions – Cambridge Analytica – Geneva Internet Platform ,
Retrieved from https://dig.watch/trends/cambridge-analytica
6. Steve Bannon’s ties to Cambridge Analytica – Retrieved from Business Insider India – 24
Match 2018 from https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/new-details-emerge-about-steve-bannons-
ties-to-cambridge-analytica-as-he-seeks-to-distance-himself-from-the-firm/articleshow/63445594.cms
7. A Question of Ethics , Not Legality – 26 March 2018 -Retrieved from Decision Marketing
UK
https://www.decisionmarketing.co.uk/views/cambridge-analytica-a-question-of-ethics-not-legality
8. The Ethics of Political microtargeting – 4 December 2018 – Retrieved from Medium-
https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/the-ethics-of-political-micro-targeting-c3b0be245607
9. Laws of Systems Thinking – Retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53b78765e4b0949940758017/t/5a78fab4f9619a68bdfa9c22/151
7877943094/11+Laws+of+Systems+Thinking+Peter+Senge+with+references.pdf
10. Cambridge Analytica – Ethics call Action – 2 April 2018 , Retrieved from Recode Health
https://recode.health/2018/04/02/cambridge-analytica-scandal-research-ethics-call-action/