Recently it was uncovered that Facebook may have inadvertently influenced the results of the 2016 US Presidential elections. The social networking website is said to have provided the platform for a data analytics firm called Cambridge Analytica to harvest the information that they needed to create psychographic profiles of around 50 million Facebook users.
These profiles, the firm’s founder-turned-whistleblower Christopher Wylie, said were used to target the “inner demons” of voters. Strangely, the parties involved in this endeavor did not think they were doing anything inappropriate at the time. Aleksandr Kogan, the developer of the app that Cambridge Analytica used to gain the information said that everyone involved in the data breach thought what they were doing was perfectly normal.
Free Step-by-step Guide To Become A Data Scientist
Subscribe and get this detailed guide absolutely FREE
The difficulty of deciding where to draw the line between proper use and misuse of data is proving to be a challenging problem. And more data creators, users, protectors and organizations are finding it to difficult to be self-critical in the matter. Facebook’s response is also a partial admission of guilt in-hindsight after the unraveling of a scandal. The company issued full-page apologies in British newspapers and its billionaire founder Mark Zuckerberg accepted that trust was breached in the popular social networking community.
The admission was followed by an explanation of the measures Facebook has taken and plans to take to avoid simil