You could make the case Facebook is actually the victim here, after Cambridge Analytica <\/a>\u00a0weaponized someone else\u2019s academic survey data by blending it with other available consumer data to create rich\u00a0profiles on the behaviours and activities of 50 million American Facebook users and potential voters. But right now, many fingers are pointing at the firm and its CEO-founder Mark Zuckerberg.<\/p>\n The\u00a0news broke hard over the weekend and the fallout has been fevered and far-reaching, extending far beyond a slide in Facebook shares that took as much as a US$5-billion bite<\/a> out of Zuckerberg\u2019s personal wealth in a matter of hours. The backlash includes calls for government inquiries<\/a>\u00a0or investigations in the U.S., EU and Britain, words of\u00a0concern from the British prime minister <\/a>and speculation that users could sign out of the social media giant\u2019s site for good due to concerns over data breaches and privacy threats<\/a>.<\/p>\n This may be the precise moment in time when we all acknowledge that privacy is officially gone. No one buys the Google mantra \u201cDo no evil\u201d anymore; even if social media companies aren\u2019t actively conspiring to eliminate privacy, they are complicit in its demise. Facebook may not have hacked an election, but nobody really knows where our data lives any more and who has access.<\/p>\n Who watches the watchers?<\/p>\n The question of oversight or regulation is one that consumers and brands must face when it comes to marketing and advertising on platforms like Facebook. It\u2019s one thing to help a company sell you its goods, but it\u2019s a whole new world to have the power to help anyone buy an election.<\/p>\n About 50 million profiles were allegedly harvested to create content and target individuals with specific political messages. Using personal profile data, analytics, predictive software and algorithms, Cambridge Analytica, with investment from U.S. hedge fund billionaire,\u00a0Robert Mercer, along with advisor\u00a0Steve Bannon\u00a0(from\u00a0Breitbart\u00a0and\u00a0Donald Trump\u2019s election team) allegedly used our personal information (without explicit authorization) in 2014 to build a database that could target personalized political advertisements down to specific individuals.<\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t a data breach. Or was it?<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s easy to shake your first in the air and scream, \u201cHow could this happen?\u201d The roots of this story seem innocuous enough. Back in 2014, Global Science Research\u2019s Aleksandr Kogan launched a personality quiz app on Facebook called thisisyourdigitallife<\/em> to study human behaviour based on information that could be gleaned from Facebook. The app was downloaded by 270,000 Facebook users, who were paid a small sum to take a personality test (all good and fun).<\/p>\n Depending on the users\u2019 privacy settings, GSR was able to gather not just information about the individual who downloaded the app, but (depending on the user\u2019s security settings) also gave GSR access to their \u201cfriends.\u201d This quickly scaled to the 50 million profiles that were also shared by GSR\u2019s data analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica. Facebook was made aware of this in 2015, removed the app and demanded proof from GSK (and all other parties) that the data had been destroyed.<\/p>\n Several days ago, Facebook was told that the data had not been deleted. Now, it\u2019s all one big hot mess. Facebook is currently attempting to confirm whether or not the data had been deleted. Cambridge Analytica claims that they did, in fact, delete it, when it became clear that the data was not obtained in line with Facebook\u2019s terms or service. Cambridge Analytica is denying the use of this data in relation to the Trump campaign. Now, a past employee of Cambridge Analytica, Christopher Wylie (a Vancouver-native), is doing the media circuit as a whistleblower. Both the New York Times<\/em><\/a> and the The Guardian<\/em><\/a>\u00a0have been leading this past weekend\u2019s revelations.<\/p>\n Welcome to \u201csurveillance capitalism\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The idea of \u201csurveillance capitalism\u201d was first introduced\u00a0by John Bellamy Foster and Robert McChesney in Monthly Review<\/em>, and later popularized by academic\u00a0Shoshana Zuboff (according to Wikipedia). In short: Facebook\u2019s business model is not based on content, marketing or advertising. You \u2014 the consumer \u2014 are the product and the money that Facebook generates is based on how well they can monetize your data and target you to their brand partners.<\/p>\n None of that should come as a surprise, but the Cambridge Analytica twist to this business model is not about knowing individuals and figuring out how to better position a brand in front of a consumer. This new model is about being able to leverage highly personalized information and psychological models to change the consumer\u2019s behaviour by showing them hyper-personalized content to sway their opinions. Of course, this is all being done without the consumer\u2019s consent and knowledge. And the weapon of choice was fake news, served up to appeal to unique profiles.<\/p>\n Do no evil. Do no harm.<\/strong><\/p>\n While that is often the mantra of these Silicon Valley social media and Internet platforms, it\u2019s getting harder and harder for consumers to believe it. It\u2019s not just Facebook. Google, Twitter, LinkedIn, Amazon and others hold a treasure trove of personal information about consumers. If third-party players are able to run apps and programs across multiple platforms, seeing 50 million accounts being harvested on Facebook may wind up being the tip of the iceberg. Everyone is vulnerable.<\/p>\n