Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to key eventsSkip to navigation

Cambridge Analytica whistleblower appears before Senate – as it happened

This article is more than 6 years old

Wylie appeared before the Senate judiciary committee, expressing concern about true informed consent when it comes to social platforms

 Updated 
in San Francisco
Wed 16 May 2018 14.26 EDTFirst published on Wed 16 May 2018 09.37 EDT
Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie testifies before the Senate judiciary committee in Washington DC Wednesday.
Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie testifies before the Senate judiciary committee in Washington DC Wednesday. Photograph: Tasos Katopodis/EPA
Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie testifies before the Senate judiciary committee in Washington DC Wednesday. Photograph: Tasos Katopodis/EPA

Live feed

Key events

Harris: What specifically did Steve Bannon decide motivates or demotivates African Americans to vote?

Wylie: When you poll a random sample of African Americans, they’re not the same people. Different lives, different characteristics. So you don’t treat them just as a black person, you treat them as who they are. That can be used to motivate them to vote or not to vote.

Harris: So how did they decipher who was African American and target them?

Wylie: Racial characteristics can be modeled. We were able to get an AUC score that was 0.89. It’s a way of measuring precision, which means it’s very high. But I didn’t participate on any voter suppression programs so I can’t comment on the specifics. Those questions are better for Steve Bannon.

Harris: I believe it is government’s responsibility to create rules to yield a better bargain for Americans.

Here’s Kamala Harris, Democrat from California.

Harris starts by discussing the Facebook business model: This arrangement is not always working in the best interest of the American people. Users have little to no idea of just how Facebook tracks their information ... In the real world, this would be like someone following you as you walk down the street, watching who you are, where you’re going, and who you’re with. For most people, this would be an invasion of privacy and most people would call the cops.

Blumenthal: Mentions that Jamison worked on the Trump transition. He asks whether Jamison had any contact with Michael Cohen.

Jamison says no.

Next up is Richard Blumental, Democrat from Connecticut: Are you aware of discussions between CA and representatives of the Russian government?

Wylie: I’m aware of conversations with Lukoil, which has ties to the Russian government.

Blumenthal: Asks about campaign donations?

Wylie: After I inquired about the relatively convoluted set up of CA, what was explained to me was that when you invest money as an investor into a company that you own, it doesn’t necessarily constitute an election donation which is declarable.

Blumenthal: Were you told that the purpose of the set up was to exploit this distinction?

Wylie: It was explained to me as a benefit of the setup.

Blumenthal: Were there firewalls set up to separate campaigns?

Wylie: Not that I saw. I did see memos about separating contact between campaigns and PACs. But when I was there I did not see those instructions followed.

Blumenthal: Can you provide examples of focus groups or other efforts to suppress voting?

Wylie: I can work with the committee to give a fuller explanation. I am aware of research that was looked at about what motivates and demotivates people.

Cruz is arguing that Facebook gives preferential treatment to Democratic campaigns.

Cruz: Does anyone on the panel know what the Hillary Clinton campaign did on the data side?

[crickets]

This is not really surprising since none of the witnesses have any connection to her campaign.

Next up is Senator Ted Cruz, another client of Cambridge Analytica. The Guardian first reported on the misappropriation of the Facebook dataset when CA was working for Cruz’s presidential campaign in December 2015.

Unsurprisingly, Cruz begins his questioning by turning to Obama’s use of Facebook data in 2015.

Wylie: Facebook not just a social networking site, also an "opportunity for information warfare"

Coons: Was one of Steve Bannon’s goals to supress voting?

Wylie: That was my understanding?

Coons: Was voter suppression a service that clients could request?

Wylie: Yes.

Coons: Why was CA testing Putin’s aggressive actions? And what would it mean if Russian intelligence got this dataset?

Wylie: I don’t have a clear answer for why the company was testing Russian expansionism. In terms of the dangers, data is powerful and if it’s put into the wrong hands it becomes a weapon. Companies like Facebook are not just social networking sites; they’re opportunities for information warfares, not just for state actors but also non-state actors. We have to look at protecting cyberspace just as we have agencies to protect the borders, land, space and air.

Share
Updated at 

Wylie: I don’t contest what Professor Hersh was saying in that it is true that persuading someone compared to motivating someone is very hard. But CA found that in comparison to traditional marketing sites, the data you can get from social media is much more dense and more valuable.

Christopher Coons, Democrat from Delaware, starts by bringing up the research of Michal Kosinski on how Facebook likes can be used to predict personal traits about individuals.

Wylie: The basis of what we were doing at CA was the papers by Dr Kosinski. The firm replicated his approach and sought to use it. You can get to the same level of predicting personality traits as your spouse.

Most viewed

Most viewed