Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department, FBI Are Investigating Cambridge Analytica (cbsnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: The Justice Department and FBI are investigating Cambridge Analytica, the now-shuttered political data firm that was once used by the Trump campaign and came under scrutiny for harvesting data of millions of users, The New York Times reported on Tuesday. The Times, citing a U.S. official and people familiar with the inquiry, reported federal investigators have looked to question former employees and banks connected to the firm.
The Times reports prosecutors have informed potential witnesses there is an open investigation into the firm, whose profiles of voters were intended to help with elections. One source tells CBS News correspondent Paula Reid prosecutors are investigating the firm for possible financial crimes. A company that has that much regulatory scrutiny is almost guaranteed to have federal prosecutors interested, Reid was told. Christopher Wylie, a former Cambridge Analytica employee who spoke out about the data sharing practices, told the Times federal investigators had contacted him. The American official told the Times investigators have also contacted Facebook as a part of the probe.
The Times reports prosecutors have informed potential witnesses there is an open investigation into the firm, whose profiles of voters were intended to help with elections. One source tells CBS News correspondent Paula Reid prosecutors are investigating the firm for possible financial crimes. A company that has that much regulatory scrutiny is almost guaranteed to have federal prosecutors interested, Reid was told. Christopher Wylie, a former Cambridge Analytica employee who spoke out about the data sharing practices, told the Times federal investigators had contacted him. The American official told the Times investigators have also contacted Facebook as a part of the probe.
Gotta hand it to Trump, if nothing else he did what no other politician or internet freedom activist over the last several decades could. He got people to finally care about privacy. People weren't only indifferent. They were slobbering in ecstasy over the likes of google and obama for vacuuming all their PI everyday. Trump changed all of this. Maybe indirectly due to the fact that people couldn't stand him allegedly benefiting but change the game he did.
The fuss is because it benefited Trump. The company scraped a bunch of publicly available info; if it were Obama or Hillary people would be falling over themselves to call it brilliant strategy.
46137
The thing to bear in mind here is that Cambridge Analytica managed to obtain only a relatively small percentage of information about Facebook Users. The information it managed to obtain was either information voluntarily provided by users in response to a survey, or publicly-visible information carried by "friends" of the relatively small number of users who took their survey.
Facebook have access to data on ALL their users. They have the complete history of all their users. They have a vast trove of information about what their users do when they are not on the Facebook platform, thanks to a combination of cookies delivered by their servers and the beacons they place all across the Internet, courtesy of Facebook "Like" buttons on popular web sites.
Cambridge Analytica are only getting this level of scrutiny because Christopher Wylie basically left regulators with no choice, after publicly telling the world what CA had the ability to do. An equivalent FB insider, anyone who chose to reveal the full scope of what FB can do, would scare most people silly.
It's amazing to think that people are getting worked up about this relatively small data set obtained by this relatively tiny company, when the data is being held by this behemoth call Facebook, run by a guy who makes no secret of his political ambitions. Talk about elephant in the room.
It's Emerdata now.
They will probably do a second namechange later on like Blackwater / Xe Services / Academi did. (Founded by Betsy DeVos brother b.t.w.)
The name is just marketing anyway, keep track of the people behind it instead:
Jennifer and Rebekah Mercer are directors of Emerdata, and are the daughters of ultra-wealthy businessman Robert Mercer who created and bankrolled Cambridge Analytica.
Source: cambridge analytica shutdown
It doesn't matter how many companies they have or what they name them. If you see those names behind it it is probably part of organized crime.
While I too doubt there was personal contact between Trump and Putin (but never heard anything to suggest that's what Mueller was specifically looking for, but rather operatives of his campaign working with operatives representing Russia, of which he might have approved or had knowledge of), the fact is we have no idea what evidence the investigation has/will turn up. All you Trumpsters have this preordained conclusion where despite all the smoke, you insist since we can't see the fire, the absolutely is none and the investigation into the matter should just be shut down before it looks. Further, there's other components of the investigation, like obstruction. The underlying crime doesn't even need to have occurred, and busting people for that alone is routine criminal procedure, not some loophole they just made up specifically to nail Trump.
And yet another angle is that Trump and his sons have explicitly stated they've borrowed large amounts from Russian banks, which could potentially give them significant leverage over our President on one end, and probably involves laundering on the other. These are critical to investigate.
Not that any of this will matter to you, no matter what is presented when Mueller actually reveals his findings, you'll still think he's innocent, it's a witch hunt, Trump Did No Wrong, it's all a partisan hit job, and on and on to protect your boy.
Not that any of this will matter to you, no matter what is presented when Mueller actually reveals his findings, you'll still think he's innocent, it's a witch hunt, Trump Did No Wrong, it's all a partisan hit job, and on and on to protect your boy.
I'm actually good with believing he's innocent, until there's evidence.
I absolutely *hate* it when some police force make a flashy claim about someone - all the guns confiscated during the search, all the electronic devices taken from the home, nebulous "tip from an informant" - everything is being tried in the court of public opinion nowadays. None of that is evidence of a crime.
Let's not forget that after 9/11 someone was sending anthrax letters to people (remember those?) and Mueller - the lead investigator - ignored a tip about Bruce Edwards Ivins (the perpetrator, from one of Ivins' colleagues) and focused on Steven Hatfill. Mueller went before congress and swore under oath that Steven Hatfill was the person responsible, when in fact there was no evidence implicating Steven Hatfill whatsoever. Among other items, Steven Hatfill had no access to anthrax. The FBI didn't bother to explain this fact, and didn't seem to care.
Steven Hatfill went through several years of hell, having his life turned upside down, condemned in the media, death threats... and was eventually exonerated and sued the government for (IIRC) 5 million dollars.
That's the history of your "unimpeachable, honorable" Mueller.
Remember the indictments of 13 Russian nationals and 3 corporations recently released? It turns out one of the corporations didn't exist at the time of the purported crimes. Mueller indicted the proverbial "ham sandwich".
I like to think everyone is innocent, until proven guilty. and this thing about the court of public opinion is bollocks. Show us the evidence.
I sometimes ask a *question* about how someone appears to have broken the law. For example, Trump is widely believed to be obstructing justice for firing Comey, despite having a memo in-hand recommending it, but the Oakland mayor can warn illegal immigrants of an upcoming ICE raid... and that's not?
Or how Michael Flynn can be charged under the Hatch act for meeting with a Russian diplomat (as a member of the incoming administration, opening dialog and not specifically making claims or policy) while Kerry can negotiate with Iran and European countries to save the Iran agreement... and that's not?
I like to think everyone is innocent, until proven guilty.
Show me the evidence. What you have so far is nothing.