The recent disclosures that Russians bought ads from Facebook, Google and Twitter to target US voters in 2016 have left lawmakers investigating how to prevent foreign interference in future elections. But thereâ€™s another alarming problem that Congress also needs to address â€” how to prevent domestic and foreign organisations from duping Americans out of information they unwittingly share on social media â€”and using the data to try to sway elections.
During the 2016 election, the Trump campaign hired Cambridge Analytica, an American affiliate of a British consulting firm, which built psychological profiles of over 200 million Americans in part by using information they shared on social media. For example, according to The New York Times, hundreds of thousands of Americans took personality quizzes spread by the firm on Facebook, which were designed to reveal how they score on measures of the so-called â€śbig fiveâ€ť personality traits. Iâ€™m willing to bet many of those test takers didnâ€™t know their answers could be used by political consultants to profile and target them â€” and that they wouldnâ€™t have taken the quizzes if they did.
Cambridge Analytica now says it didnâ€™t use psychographic data when it worked for Trump (though reports it tried to get stolen data from WikiLeaks certainly call the firmâ€™s ethical standards into question). But it â€” or anyone else â€” could try to do so in a future election. Thatâ€™s why Congress needs to act.
Of course, it should remain legal for an organisation to post a question on social media and then list or use the aggregate results (for example, 45 per cent of Americans believe x). But if organisations are going to extract personally identifiable information â€” PII, in industry parlance â€” from things they post on social media, they should be required to disclose three things: who they are, how theyâ€™re funded, and how theyâ€™re going to use the data. That way, Americans can make informed decisions about whether they want to share their personal information.
Thereâ€™s some precedent for this. Gary Nordlinger, a professional in residence at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management, noted that, according to the American Association for Public Opinion Researchâ€™s code of ethics, pollsters canâ€™t disclose information to clients or the public that could be used to identify people who participated in surveys without their permission.
Of course, advertisers target people based upon data we probably didnâ€™t realise would be shared all the time. The majority of online ads today are bought through exchanges such as DoubleClick Bid Manager (which is owned by Google) and The Trade Desk. These platforms aggregate thousands of data points on individual consumers â€” like information from resorts about where they vacationed and data from auto loan providers about what kinds of cars they drive.
But that doesnâ€™t make it right to dupe Americans out of more information without their knowledge. We should have the right to keep knowledge about how we think anonymous if we so desire. Thatâ€™s much more deeply personal than data about what we buy or where we went to school. And such information could be much more useful to a political campaign or corporation trying to manipulate us.