I would have believed him right up to him claiming that the data wasn't useful. The reports on Cambridge Analytica show that their analysis and output are very good and very well targeted. Looks like he's lying.
> While at Cambridge Kogan accepted a position at St Petersburg State University, and also took Russian government grants for research.
> Kogan laughed off suspicions that he is linked to the Kremlin. He said: “This one is pretty funny … anyone who knows me knows I’m a very happy-go-lucky goofy guy, the last one to have any real links to espionage.”
To me that's the real news in this article
> He then passed the data to Cambridge Analytica who assured him this was legal, he said.
A Cambridge professor who doesn't bother to read the deal he has with Facebook, or check with a lawyer *before* handing over tens of millions of profiles. No wonder he's now blaming everyone else. He doesn't seem to be too wise.
And isn't it weird how Russia just keeps popping up in this Trump election story, over and over, even in parts that seemingly have no reason to involve them.
Maybe corporations should be banned from hoarding massive troves of meta data?
FB and CA will scratch and claw at everyone and everything as the hill they climbed gets rained on and slippery.
Also, FB needs to let us know, right now, of other mining they enabled that upon examination would give anyone concern.
Yeah, he's full of shit. He's contradicting himself with the statements he's making, and to me, that indicates he isn't being truthful.
>“The project that Cambridge Analytica has allegedly done, which is use people’s Facebook data for micro-targeting, is the primary use case for most data on these platforms.
This is at odds with the later statement:
>I personally don’t think micro-targeting is an effective way to use such data sets.
If it's not very effective, why is it the primary use-case? Those two statements don't align.
Furthermore, I 100% don't believe that an academic tied to a major university is going to be passing on massive data sets to corporate entities. I'm currently collaborating with a researcher associated with a British University, and before we could do anything, she had to receive clearance to do the work as my organization is non-academic. That came along with an MOU and Statement of Work as well.
There's no way that, if he passed the data off in a legitimate process, that the agreements wouldn't have been reviewed by at least one lawyer who would have identified that ToS violation in passing the data along.
The only reason to avoid that process is if you know you're doing something shady.
>hey, you will get this amazing product that costs billions of dollars to run and in return we can sell you to advertisers for micro-targeting’.”
I deleted my Facebook account a few years ago, but I do not recall any such assertions in the sign up process. It's possible it was in some fine print somewhere. The internet started out as a bottom-up phenomenon, where the folks who participated did so as enthusiasts. Now, the internet is a top-down command structure which is all about money?
NPR story this morning interviewed the guy. He said he didn't have money for a lawyer to review the deal with CA. Then gets asked if his group was paid and he admits they received 600-700 thousand dollars. This guy is playing the victim card rather poorly.