Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cambridge Analytica
Cambridge Analytica
Cambridge Analytica
BM A Group 11
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 .............................. 26
Legal .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Ethical................................................................................................................................................ 26
Morally .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Spiritually .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Domain and Scope of Individual, Joint and Corporate Moral Responsibility ................................... 27
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 17th 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:
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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]
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 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 .
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.
E Start with a specific moral This security breach and loss of privacy has created an
judgment based on a given Case 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.
D What specific moral rules justify Non-malfeasance – In this case Facebook was
this moral judgment and why? 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
C What specific moral standards The moral standards of Facebook with respect to
justify this moral judgment and the distributive justice has not been correct as the issue
rules it is based on, and why? 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
B What specific moral principles The moral principles in this case with respect to
justify this moral judgment and the teleological principles have been successful to some
rules and standards it is based on, extent as benefits have outweighed costs , by
and why? 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
A What specific moral or ethical Justifying the stand of Facebook in terms of moral
theories justify this moral theories after the data leak scandal , should be based
judgment and the rules, standards on the stand they took by conducting an audit to
it is based on, and why? ensure all leaked data has been deleted.
Steps What have you learnt in this The consequences of the scandal has been detrimental
iterative moral reasoning and to Facebook, with it losing around $35 million in market
E-A backward judgment and value and many have deleted their accounts as well.
justification process? 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.
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.
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:
Justice Ethical Theory of Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Deontological Justice:
Rules Deontological Justice
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 your Universalizability? YES. NO: They collected data from groups
act is motivated by a People using Facebook enter which violated their privacy as the
law that can apply to data trusting that their data will data entered by them was used for
all. be secured by the firm. political favours.
R02 Kantian Formalism: Principles of Principles of Reversibility? NO:
Act in as much as your Universalizability? Yes. People would never be aware that
act is grounded on People acted on moral reasons their opinions can be influenced by
moral reasons that and there were no wrong private firms by using their own
convince all. intentions on their part for data.
participating in the surveys /
Facebook.
R03 Principle of Principle of Deontological Principle of Deontological Justice
Deontological Justice: Justice among the among the marginalized?
Safeguard economic marginalized? Not Applicable
and social rights and NO. Although the influence on
duties of the voters were irrespective of their
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: Justice among the corporate among all the corporate executives:
Also safeguard rights executives: Yes. People did NO, to the extent that Facebook and
and duties of corporate not do anything to harm the Cambridge Analytica safeguarded
executives rights and duties of corporate only the influential people’s rights
executives. and duties of corporate executives
R05 Situationanism: When Principle of Existential Principle of Existential Situationism:
rights/duties conflict, Situationism: YES: People NO: As the firms have failed to take
the actual situation have participated in Facebook responsibility for exploitation of data
should determine the and other online surveys and privacy of people.
decision ad judgment considering that their data and
but one must own the privacy will be safeguarded
act and its and did not have anyone else
consequences. to blame.
R06 Existentialism: When Principle of Existentialism: Principle of Existentialism: NO: As
amidst uncertainty, YES: Since people acted in Facebook failed to prevent
risk and ambiguity, their better self under the mishandling of data by Cambridge
right or wrong, truth or impression that consumer Analytica and therefore did not act in
falsehood, and good or surveys will help organizations the moral sense which led to
evil cannot be clearly in understanding consumer Cambridge Analytica create
distinguished, then act preferences for market psychographic profile of people to
in the midst of doubt. research. influence the elections.
R07 Legalism: Legitimacy Compliance to legitimately Compliance to legitimately
of government laws promulgated and enforced promulgated and enforced
and industry government laws and industry government laws and industry
ordinances ordinances? YES, As long as ordinances? YES, as long as they
people consented to providing are using the data which is already
their data on Facebook and publicly available.
their preferences in online
surveys
R08 Contractualism: Compliance to freely agreed Compliance to freely agreed on
Binding capacity of on contracts? YES: As long as contracts to help Cambridge
freely agreed on people consent to giving their Analytica? YES: If there was no
contracts. data or preferences voluntarily breach of contract rules as the data
having read all the terms and which Cambridge Analytica had
conditions ang agreeing to it. access to was publicly available.
R09 Parenesis: A Code of Following Corporate code of Following Corporate code of conduct
ethics that counsels conduct which may not which may not necessarily be moral?
and exhorts action. necessarily be moral? YES. YES.
The obligation is
parenetic or hortatory.
Justice Ethical Theory of Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Teleological Justice:
Rules Teleological Justice
Did the common people treat Did Facebook and Cambridge
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 (Jeremy Analytica act in ways to
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 of
Mill): Maximize maximization of the greatest the greatest number fulfilled? NO:
utility of all number fulfilled? Not Rather it was directed to maximize
Applicable utility of only a specific political
party.
R11b Consequentialism (E. Maximize Utility of good Did Facebook/Cambridge Analytica
Anscombe 1920- Consequences to all? act in ways to minimize harmful
2001): Maximally consequences to all innocent
reduce harmful Not Applicable 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 Analytica
maximum consumer surveys in order to
create happiness for the did not have intentions of creating
maximum. happiness for the 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 by: Analytica treat citizens by :
R13 Formal Justice: Aristotle’s Canon of Equality: Not Aristotle’s Canon of Equality: NO:
Egalitarianism Applicable As all the stakeholders were 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 Applicable Their level of effort? No: Because,
Justice in this case. 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.
R17 Capitalist The Canon of Productivity: The The Canon of Productivity: No.
Justice contribution of people towards Although people possessing higher
Facebook and consumer surveys is not power has exercised influence
related to capital justice. leading to unethical influence in the
elections but the strengths are not
deserved that is more efforts did
not lead to more benefits.
R18 Libertarian The Canon of Social Utility: The level Their level of social value? No.
Justice of social value of the common people: Here individuals are cheated not for
Yes, as people participating in surveys the common good but for the
might be genuinely interested in benefit of single political party
helping out the companies do better coming to power.
market research.
R19 Libertarian The Canon of Supply-demand: Here, The Canon of Supply-Demand:
Justice there is no distribution of wealth but Here distribution of justice is not
access to the surveys are equally based on supply- demand and
distributed without discrimination and rather it is based on the power of
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 of
discriminating Facebook and people are getting benefitted more
than the others and certain sections
Cambridge Analytica in terms of race, of society are discriminated to
colour, nationality or religion . 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 offer Cambridge Analytica offer equal
Justice equal opportunity to all? Yes. People opportunity to all? No. It only
treated Facebook and Cambridge helped those in power to influence
Analytica in a way which does not the elections in their favour.
directly affect people’s life prospects
and expectations.
R22 Libertarian Rawls’ Difference Principle:? Not Nullifying undeserved advantages
Egalitarian applicable in this regard. among all stakeholders? No, as the
Justice 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 no Doing no harm or evil to others?
malfeasance 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? YES. people? No. Although no 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 No,
Justice applicable. as it fails to protect the unbiased
interests and opinions of people.
R27 Procedural Principle of Procedural Justice and Principle of Procedural Justice and
Justice; Corrective Justice: YES. Procedural Corrective Justice: No. Although
Corrective Justice exists. procedural justice and corrective
Justice 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 any NO. Facebook and Cambridge
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.
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.
Not Applicable in this Not Applicable in this Not Applicable in this Scenario
Responsibility 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/