Facebook has recently been embroiled in a data scandal with the controversial firm Cambridge Analytica. The latter firm harvested data from up to 87 million users on Facebook and used the data for unethical practices. Facebook CEO has been on the hot seat for weeks on end trying to answer the charges brought against the company concerning the data scandal. There is public outcry for accountability from Facebook and other data mining companies since there is a lot of personal information that individual post on social media. The data scandal brings to question the moral awareness of data mining companies such as Facebook. The decisions made by Facebook in the course of the data scandal and its aftermath are being viewed from a moral lens to determine the moral awareness of the company. Despite Facebook's drastic attempts to repair its reputation following the scandal, the jury is still out on whether the company lacks or has moral awareness.
At a glance, the data scandal in question entails the harvesting and use of the personal data of over 80 million Facebook users. The illegal collection of personal profiles by Cambridge Analytica was perpetuated by Alexander Kogan, one of the researcher's at Cambridge Analytica (Schneble, Elger & Shaw, 2018). Kogan designed an application that was purported to be collecting psychological information for an experiment. Most of the people who accessed the app and used it had their profiles harvested. The information was used to further different political projects. For instance; the collected profiles were used to influence the Brexit vote and to post political ads that were used to promote Donald Trump's 2016 presidential bid (Cadwalladr, 2017). These ads were tailored to appeal to the target audience based on the conclusions made from their profile information. This is one of the worst cases of big data mining (Willson, & Leaver, 2015; Schroeder, 2014).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One may ask why this scandal is more of a Facebook issue and not Cambridge Analytica who did most of the dirty work. First of all, the information harvested was from Facebook users hence it is proof that Facebook failed to protect the data of its users. Facebook denies the allegations brought against it by claiming that the company was not aware that Cambridge Analytica had not deleted the data (Tarran, 2018). This is an indication that the company did not make a follow-up. Second, the data scandal has brought to light the fact that safeguards meant to regulate data harvesting companies are inadequate if not non-existent. Lastly, Facebook has little to no oversight of developers who are using the social media platform. The problem also stems partially from Facebook users who often agree to broadly defined terms and conditions without scrutiny. As a result of the above factors, all the fingers point towards Facebook making the company liable to answer all the charges concerning the data mining schedule.
The broader debate that has arisen from the scandal concerns how much Facebook users can trust the data company with their personal information. The CEO has taken full responsibility for the loopholes existent in the company policies and ensured the users that stringent measures should be made to protect data (Ingram, 2018). However, taking responsibility has not diminished the effect that the scandal has had on the reputation of the company as well as their influence in the market. Following the scandal, Facebook's shares in the market tanked a great deal, and the company is bent on recuperating from the losses incurred. This is being done by restoring the trust that the public had in the company as well as upgrading user protection to safeguard the data of Facebook users. The CEO of Facebook confirmed to the public that Facebook terminated its relationship with Cambridge Analytica following the exposure of the data breach (Laterza, 2018). Facebook is also limiting the access that developers have to account data as well as prohibiting third-party data being used for targeting ads. The company has also in extension, revisited its relationship with other data mining companies in search for policy breaches.
The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scuffle can be looked at from a moral perspective. The illicit use of users' personal information was highly unethical and irresponsible. The intention is to find out if the accused lacks moral awareness concerning decision making in this case. Moral awareness is defined as “the tendency to recognize and pay attention to the moral elements in a situation” (Reynolds, 2006). It is also defined as the ability to recognize that a moral problem exists hence there is the need for the application of a moral standard or principle relevant to the specific circumstance (Reynolds, 2006). Often, moral people focus on both the harm was done and the violation of a behavioral norm. The aspects mentioned above are the most important aspects when considering moral issues. Other markers that are used to define moral issues include; social consensus, proximity, the magnitude of the consequences and concentration of the effect. In the case of corporations, the moral awareness of the founder-manager plays a key role in the emergence and maintenance of a strong moral culture that shall characterize the firm's collective behavior (Montiel et al., 2011). Therefore, when the founder-manager has a strong moral orientation, the company's entrepreneurial orientation and performance are likely to be hinged on the same aspect (Saqr, 2017).
It could be said that Facebook has a relatively low moral awareness concerning the company's conduct and decision-making in the selected case. As mentioned earlier, the company has been on the receiving end of the public's anger as well as parliamentary committees in the United Kingdom and the United States following the data scandal. All fingers are pointed towards Facebook since the corporation is to blame mainly for the harvesting of personal information from its users. In the course of questioning and trial in the UK, Members of Parliament made requests to have the CEO Mark Zuckerberg appear before the trial committees. Instead, Facebook sent Mike Schroepfer who is the chief technical officer at the company (Waterson, 2018). The committee members stated categorically that the accused corporation was a morality-free zone especially since it tended to bully journalists and impede investigations by the authority. It was also noted that Facebook was the problem and not the victim of unethical practices by Cambridge Analytica. Despite the accused assuming all responsibility for the data scandal, Facebook still vehemently denies being aware of the intentions and actions of Cambridge Analytica. The legal and moral implications of admitting to the accusation mentioned earlier would be too enormous for the company reputation to handle.
In the light of Facebook's handling of the case, the accused does not consider the issue as a moral issue because the focus has been placed solely on the violation of a behavioral norm and not the harm that has been done. The data harvested by Cambridge Analytica was used to tailor political ads to specific persons to influence their decisions. Facebook confirmed that they were not aware that the data had not been deleted or was being used in illicit means. During and after the scandal, Facebook did not attempt to ensure that the data had been deleted and had not been sold or transferred to other third parties. The extent to which the harvested data had been used was also not well explored. Despite suspending ties with the involved organization, limiting developers' access to user information and the use of third-party data in advertisement, there are still many unanswered questions from Facebook users that have not been looked into. In summary, the fact that the harm caused to Facebook users and the potential damage that could arise if the harvested data lands in other malicious hands have not been fully explored shows a lack of moral awareness.
Facebook made an effort to notify millions of its users that their profiles had been compromised. The company then proceeded to run apology ads on full newspaper pages as part of strategies meant to restore public trust in the company. Facebook CEO also took the blame for the data breach but insisted that Facebook was not aware of the dealings of Cambridge Analytica. As part of the response, Facebook announced that it would ask its users and partners to assist in policing suspicious postings. As much as the image-repair responses may look appealing to the general public, these responses are not morally inclined. Asking the public to assist in monitoring is a technique for blame shifting. The company is trying to say that other people and organizations are responsible for the illegal collection and dissemination of private user information (Iles, 2013). If the corporation were morally aware, an ethicist would have been hired to assist in the decision making process. Ethicists help executives and company professionals to make critical decisions. They also provide guidance and training on ethical decision making. For large technological companies, there is a constant need for an ethicist since ethical conflicts are a recurring event in their field of operation. Nevertheless, these companies rely on machines to make moral decisions for them. The bottom line is that in a world where human beings and technology collide, wrong and right are not written in black and white (Martin, 2014). Therefore, technological companies stand to benefit from the assistance of ethicist. In Facebook's case, the scandal would have had less significant damage had the organization employed the services of an ethicist.
The moral awareness of Facebook is also under questioning because the Cambridge Analytica data scandal is not the only data issue that the company has encountered. Over the years, there have been a plethora of cases that have plagued the reputation of the company concerning the safety of user information (Houghton & Joinson, 2010; Waldman, 2016; Moreno, Goniu, Moreno, & Diekema, 2013). First of all, the storm of controversy boils around the fact that Facebook rescinded the ability of developers and other data miners to obtain data from friends without the consent of the users back in 2015 (Meredith, 2018). Therefore, it comes as a surprise that Cambridge Analytica was able to access the information of friends and family of the approximately 300, 000 people who downloaded the app. Second, back in 2005, several researchers at MIT were able to create a script that downloaded information that was posted publicly by users on the social media platform (Sanders & Patterson, 2018). Later on, Facebook attempts to monetize user profiles ended in chaos when the company added to user profiles the activities that they engaged in on other websites. In 2011, the New York Times reported that user data was being tracked and shared from Facebook. In 2013, it was revealed that Facebook could mine the personal information of the friends and family of its users without their consent and also without these users giving the specific information identified (Esteve, 2017). With this backlog of data clashes, it seems appropriate that Facebook should have put in place proper mechanisms for the protection of clientele data. However, Facebook is still in the present case being questioned about its ability to protect user data. It can be deduced that the company gives little priority to the protection of user data ( Zimmer, 2010) .
Moral awareness remains an elusive concept in the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal especially because Facebook-owned up partially to the charges and has made an effort to remedy the situation. Each time the company has found itself of the receiving end of a data scandal, Facebook has always followed a familiar playbook which starts with a partial acceptance of the blame, a heartfelt apology from the CEO and promises to do better or make amends. The current data scandal did not play out differently. Facebook took partial blame for the loophole in their system whereby they admitted to allowing Kogan to collect data but were not aware that the data was being used illicitly. Later on, Facebook claimed that all the users downloaded the app designed by Kogan and gave their consent by agreeing to the ambiguous terms and conditions of the app. The company insists that the data scandal was not a data breach, but instead, it was a breach of trust. Therefore, the company's partial acceptance of the blame while insisting on pointing fingers at other companies can be regarded as a lack of moral awareness.
References
Arbes, V. (2018). Fair data accreditation: ‘Antidote in the wake of a scandal'. B&T , (2826): 26. Retrieved from https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=698039760281409;res=IELBUS
Cadwalladr, C. (2017). The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked. The Guardian . Retrieved from http://davelevy.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/great-british-brexit-robbery.pdf
Esteve, A. (2017). The business of personal data: Google, Facebook, and privacy issues in the EU and the USA. International Data Privacy Law , 7(1), 36–47,https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipw026
Houghton, D. J., & Joinson, A.N. (2010). Privacy, Social Network Sites, and Social Relations. Journal of Technology in Human Services , 28(1-2)74-94 https://doi.org/10.1080/15228831003770775
Iles, H. R. (2013). Ethics of Data Mining: a New Zealand Survey . Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264673019_Ethics_of_Data_Mining_a_New_Zealand_Survey
Ingram, D. (2018). Zuckerberg apologizes for Facebook mistakes with user data, vows curbs. Reuters . Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cambridge-analytica/zuckerberg-apologizes-for-facebook-mistakes-with-user-data-vows-curbs-idUSKBN1GX0OG
Laterza, V. (2018). Cambridge Analytica, independent research and the national interest. Anthropology Today 34(3): 1-2.
Martin, E.R. (2014). The Ethics of Big Data. Forbes Magazine . Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/emc/2014/03/27/the-ethics-of-big-data/#512dabc86852
Meredith, S. (2018). Facebook-Cambridge Analytica: A timeline of the data hijacking scandal. CNBC . Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/facebook-cambridge-analytica-a-timeline-of-the-data-hijacking-scandal.html
Montiel et al. (2011). The Impact of Moral Awareness on the Entrepreneurial Orientation- Performance Relationship in New Technology Based Firms. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation 6(4). Retrieved from https://scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-27242011000400008
Moreno, M. A., Goniu, N., Moreno, P. S., & Diekema, D. (2013). Ethics of Social Media Research: Common Concerns and Practical Considerations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking , 16 (9), 708–713. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0334
Reynolds, S.J. (2006). Moral Awareness and Ethical Predispositions: Investigating the Role of Individual Differences in the Recognition of Moral Issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(1): 233–243. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3350/2c989cc4e57a5e0a5e4b7078ad23b89a2877.pdf
Sanders, J. & Patterson, D. (2018). Facebook data privacy scandal: A cheat sheet. Tech Republic. Retrieved from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/facebook-data-privacy-scandal-a-cheat-sheet/
Saqr, M. (2017). Big data and the emerging ethical challenges. International Journal of Health Sciences , 11 (4), 1–2.
Schneble, C.O., Elger, B.S. & Shaw, D. (2018). The Cambridge Analytica affair and Internet‐mediated research. Embro Reports 19(8). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201846579
Schroeder, R. (2014).Big Data and the brave new world of social media research. Sage Journals, 1 (2) https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714563194
Tarran, B. (2018). What can we learn from the Facebook—Cambridge Analytica scandal? Significance 15(3): 4-5. Retrieved from https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2018.01139.x
Waldman, A. E. (2016). Privacy, Sharing, and Trust: The Facebook Study. Case Western Reserve Law Review , 67 (1), 193-233.
Waterson, J. (2018). Facebook is a morality-free zone’: tech chief lambasted by MP. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/26/facebook-morality-free-zone-executive-mps-cambridge-analytica
Willson, M., & Leaver, T. (2015). Zynga’s FarmVille, social games, and the ethics of big data mining. Communication Research and Practice , 1(2). 147-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2015.1048039
Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology . 12:313–325
