JOUR 404.1001 James L’Angelle, University of Nevada, Reno, Dr. P. Pain, Professor, 26 September 2023
Cambridge Analytica: Non-Disclosure vs. 15 Minutes of Fame
Principal in the discovery of the rather unsavory methods employed by the British data-scraping firm Cambridge Analytica (CA) was an outsider, Christopher Wylie, named a “whistleblower” by the media. Through the complex network of shell-type companies where Wylie was allowed to operate freely, his direct role in the caper is not under scrutiny. What's in doubt was his intent. Little has been explored regarding his initial employment, how he gradually gained access to the sensitive materials that became the central focus of (what The New York Times characterized a “scandal”) the controversy, and what ethical standards he ignored in the process. Found in the 11-page UK Parliament report titled, “A Response to Misstatements in Relation to Cambridge Analytica Introductory Background to the Companies,” is the following:
“Mr Wylie is in possession of materials from Cambridge Analytica: these were the same documents and emails that the Guardian and New York Times published revealing the firm’s unethical practices and wrongdoing. He retained this information not for commercial gain but because he was concerned about the practices of the company. It was not information taken in order to compete and has never been used in that way. Any breach of a non-disclosure agreement is clearly justified where a whistleblower reveals potential criminality or unethical behaviour as in this case.”
Much of the first few sentences of the paragraph is old news, but the last sentence regarding the relationship between non-disclosure and the whistleblower bears directly on Wylie’s intent. Some of the relationship is hinted at in the other sentences; the part about “concerned about the practices of the company,” and “ not information taken in order to compete.”
Certainly the last sentence in the paragraph can be considered a semantic cop out to “justify” a “breach of a nondisclosure agreement,” but without the agreement (if one even existed) actually in possession of the reporters at the Guardian and The New York Times for scrutiny by their own publishing standards before releasing it, ethics may not have been considered:
“Before going public, he (Wylie) spent months working with the authorities to help with their investigation.”
The report does not mention if Wylie was still under the employ of CA or any of its sleuth shell companies while he helped authorities “with their investigation.”
The Wikipedia account of Christopher Wylie’s rise from a mentally disturbed British Columbia nothing to center stage in a spectacular news story that dragged in shady players from a presidential election, to a Brexit exit, billionaires with deep pockets, and African politicians is what every reporter who has ever seen All the President’s Men (1976) starring Redford and Hoffman dream about. However, nobody bought into it at the Academy Awards. Being nominated and winning are two different things; Wylie unfortunately falls into the nomination category.
As for the claim Wylie did not use the CA data for his own personal gain, the Wikipedia account, although not necessarily the most reliable source, did include a number of references stating the opposite. Jessica Guynn, reporting for USA Today, noted in a St. Lucie News Tribune article regarding the transfer of the data from CA to Wylie’s firm, Eunoia Technologies:
“In 2015, Facebook learned that Kogan broke its policies by passing on the information to Cambridge Analytica and Eunoia Technologies.”
Aleksandr Kogan was the principal, initial Facebook researcher. David Hamilton of the Associated Press reported on the same day in the Rapid City Journal a possible alternative course of action pursued by Wylie, not fully explored at the time:
“Wylie is a former Cambridge Analytics employee who has emerged as a primary source for the Times report.”
Separating a whistleblower's innocent, altruistic motives where intent is “doing the right thing” may go even deeper than suspected in this particular case. Wylie probably did not use the data, sell it to candidates, work on their campaigns beyond his role in CA. However, it occurred to him yet another more opportunistic road could be taken, leading him to 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York, the address of The New York Times, straight out of another Redford movie, Three Days of the Condor (1975). Again, however, he failed to capture the Oscar.
"In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes."
This famous quote by Andy Warhol was probably never said by the pop-art icon. In a 2014 Smithsonian Magazine article by Rachel Nuwer, it was coined by someone else.
Just how deeply Chris Wylie was committed to non-disclosure regarding the inner workings of the companies that fit neatly into the Times blockbuster scandal would require a great deal of research. True, he did work for, or was related to, various military-intelligence related firms. Also true, some of the work was connected to the UK Parliament. As security clearances go in a civilian environment, if not present, non-disclosure contracts would be the closest thing. Wylie possibly violated those ethical standards.
And all he got out of it was 15 minutes of fame.
References:
UK Parliament, A Response to Misstatements in Relation to Cambridge Analytica Introductory Background to the Companies, page 10.
Christopher Wylie bio/profile, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wylie
Jessica Guynn, Facebook suspends Trump-linked data firm, St. Lucie News Tribune, 18 March 2018, page 18A.
David Hamilton, Trump-linked data-analysis firm taps 50M Facebook profiles, Rapid City Journal, 18 March 2018, page D9.
Rachel Nuwer, Andy Warhol Probably Never Said His Celebrated “Fifteen Minutes of Fame” Line, Smithsonian Magazine, 08 April 2014, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/andy-warhol-probably-never-said-his-celebrated-fame-line-180950456/
Warhol image credit: Smithsonian Magazine
