ICO finally released details on its forensics of seized CA/SCL servers today. Skeptics will revel in these observations but even ICO fails to remind the reader here that they had previously determined that the company breached law, regardless of efficacy. committees.parliament.uk/publications/2… 
Headline here is the UK authority is hinting in a most British way that the RNC's data operation could continue to be contaminated by the Kogan data. Unless we do anything about it, it will remain a dark cloud over the RNC Data Trust which is apparently a cybersecurity disasster.
ICO's forensics comports with my assumptions. 30 million US voters had relatively accurate predictions modeled from their direct Facebook data harvesting. All remaining registered voters (including me) had modeled predictions that were far less useful (but we didn't matter).
ICO's forensics comport with Chris Wylie's evidence given and published in #SSCIvol5 report indicating that CA/SCL targeted 5% of the electorate. It doesn't matter if their predictions are hilariously bad for 95%. But even ICO fails to remind us it was illegal, per US and UK law.
Revisiting #SSCIvol5 against today's ICO letter, we can see a clear and clean corroboration across Brittany Kaiser's descriptions of the data brokers, ICO's forensics, and the data the @Channel4News gave to me on camera last Sunday. And yet, we cannot trace the provenance…
Today's ICO letter makes no effort to explain why the section 7 disclosure under UK DPA of my CA/SCL data offered in March 2017 and enforced by criminal prosecution does not resemble data provided by @Channel4News, nor Kaiser's evidence to Senate Intel, nor ICO's own inventory.
In short, the use of this data is not the controversy. It is standard industry practice. The regulatory crises to enforce laws on the books is the scandal and the cover-ups that were aided and abetted along the way is the real controversy. The ICO distracts us in today's letter.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
