Thread by @jason_kint

Here is the update on Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Digging in...thread likely... ico.org.uk/media/action-w…

and here is the full notice of intent sent to Facebook. Highlighting this section which seems to focus on Facebook's lack of doing anything leading up to the Guardian report. ico.org.uk/media/2259364/…

the size and scope of the @ICOnews investigation is impressive. 280+ individuals, 170+ organizations, major social media platforms, political parties, analytics firms, data brokers...

The FT report has now moved, too. It appears the claim that the Facebook data sold to Cambridge Analytica was accessed in Russia came from the FT interview with ICO Info Commissioner Denham. As @felixsalmon points out, I don't see it in the actual reports. ft.com/content/b7c2e7…

As you read this, worth noting here in the US we have more data, more data brokers, more Facebook, more Google, more politics, more $$$$.... "the ICO had been “astounded” by the amount of personal data in the possession of Britain’s political parties." ft.com/content/b7c2e7…

Adding to thread, Chancellor mystery:
- he signed '14 CA data $ deal
- Kogan called him his equal partner to @LesleyRStahl
- FB hired him Nov '15 before they claim to know about CA "breach"
- Press reported on him in late 2016
- FB claims to be investigating him since Mar '18

In light of Facebook's fine, it would be interesting to know when Twitter made this referenced decision. If they knew Cambridge Analytica was inherently conflicted with Twitter's acceptable practices then why didn't Facebook?

This is a very good chart. Every reporter should run with it to explain to their audiences. Note the last section clearly says the models were ***"matched to US databases to target messages during Presidential elections"*** p18 (ico.org.uk/media/action-w…)

p18-23 is really interesting to see in a major regulator report rather than just press. It also defies Kogan's talking point the data was garbage. Quite simply, it states Facebook's data was used to inform targeting in marginal states for 2016 election. More to come it seems.

(side note from me, it's simply insane @parscale hasn't had to testify publicly anywhere yet beyond a @60Minutes interview which he now uses to promote his services)

report says most of the data harvesting happened during the "one-year grace period" which came after the Irish DPA report identified the problem. And this was nearly 3yrs before Facebook got its certification from Cambridge Analytica / Nix well after Brexit and US election....

sounds like ICO has a lot of data sets, derivatives and possibly evidence data was never deleted consistent with Mar 2018 reports from @nickconfessore @carolecadwalla . also sounds like they're keeping an eye on the cambridge analytica zombie companies reported by @WendySiegelman

Facebook owes answers to one of three notices from the ICO. Facebook has promised to respond although it sounds like there has been some jurisdiction debate (my sense is this may be something FB wants to clear ahead of time in case ICO gets too into Facebook's business).

"This pattern is suggestive of a close working relationship." seems to be an understatement. For those not tracking closely, Massingham testified very awkwardly and then failed to show up going forward for @CommonsCMS hearing in UK. AIQ is very important to all of this.

"This data is stored on a code repository and has been previously subject to unauthorised access by a third party" would seem to be a fairly important statement in the AIQ Notice of Intent considering AIQ hasn't even testified here in the U.S. Anything to add to this?

Actually, the AIQ Notice of Intent looks to be the first DPA enforcement for GDPR. They gave AIQ 30 days (August 5, 2018) to stop processing EU data otherwise threatened $20million Euro fine. I'm curious why the entire 1st page is redacted by the way. ico.org.uk/media/2259364/…

This points out that SCL/Nix played word games in their certification they deleted the data and Facebook either missed or ignored the last part which likely rendered it meaningless. Also attaching the letter itself - see the bold.

This reminds of this gem from Facebook's grilling by Singapore government earlier this year. The hearing was very, very long but this two minutes of this four minute clip is well worth it. 🍿 ht @podehaye @carolecadwalla

I'm sure @michalkosinski will be unhappy to know that Sputnik's "report" on tonight's ICO report on Facebook & Cambridge Analytica wrongly blames him and never mentions Kogan (or Chancellor). Not going to link it. Google offered it up. I know, ironic.

When only 1 of out of 11 orgs isn't cooperative, it sort of puts the spotlight on them. ico.org.uk/media/action-w…

Solid explainer of 'micro-targeting' and yes Facebook already admitted to having Like buttons which track your browsing history on more than 8.4 million publisher sites.

pg 41 interesting. also, Facebook has answers but my recollection is they changed their policy after @JuliaAngwin reporting on how they were allowing categories to be targeted. ico.org.uk/media/action-w…

"These concerns about transparency lie at the core of our investigation.
Whilst these concerns about Facebook’s advert model exist in relation
in general terms and its use in the commercial sphere, the concerns are
heightened when these tools are used for political campaigning."

the part where Google gives Facebook an elbow to the jaw => "Recommendation 5: The ICO will work with the European Data Protection Board, and the relevant lead data protection authorities, to ensure that online platforms comply with the GDPR"

One last @ICOnews report read on future of political campaigning. note the point about competition and how the duopoly is "corrosive to fairness, trust and legitimacy." ico.org.uk/media/2259365/…

thread. finished. more tomorrow.