Here's the 200 data points CA wanted to give to David.
- But what was particularly problematic for Carroll was that, he believes, the profile the company sent him wasn’t nearly comprehensive. Nix and other Cambridge Analytica executives have boasted that the company has up to a startling 5,000 data points on each of the 230 million voters in the US. What Carroll received in March, according to his tweet at the time, was about 200 data points, and, even then, it wasn’t clear how or where the company got the data or who it was shared with, beyond the vague descriptions in the letter.
I vaguely recall people dismissing CA before so I have my doubts about their efficacy, but it is a reminder that this is the age we live in.
This is interesting and all, but I can't help but come back to an underlying question: why are we so focused on what's going on rather than how to deal with it? I suppose talking about it is a step towards this, but I worry that we may lose sight of the ultimate goal. I read this article earlier today, arguing for a disease model for bad ideas (aka "someone discovered Snow Crash), but there's a good point here. Assuming these kinds of analytics actually work (which is far from proven), shouldn't we be more focused on how to inoculate ourselves?
The issue I see is the "weakness" of American privacy and data protection laws (and the lack of knowledge about international law that lawyers for firms like CA apparently have). American consumers have very little control over their data compared to other first world countries. Of course it can only be called a weakness if you view it from a consumer perspective. It is a potential boon for corporate operations.
I think you're right, particularly about where the priorities lie.
Mueller should be all over this, now that Flynn is flipped: