Questions about Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica Information Sharing Answers

According to the chair of a British parliamentary committee, Facebook continues to display a pattern of evasive behavior in response to questions about information sharing misuse of its data in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.   Facebook recently released a 747-page acknowledgement which revealed that it had shared user information with over 52 technology firms, including Amazon, Apple, China-based companies like Oppo, Huawei, Lenovo and South Korea-based Samsung.

Will push Facebook until public gets the answers they deserve: UK Lawmakers

The report disclosed the data information sharing deals of the social networking site with other companies. Some of those deals are still in force, while Facebook has ended its partnerships with over 38 of the 52 companies.

Damian Collins, chair of a British parliamentary committee, said that the company is continuing to display a pattern of evasive behavior which emerged over the course of the committee’s inquiry.

Lawmakers explained that the answers of the social media giant had been lacking, including not sharing country-by-country revenues, refusing to share the types and amount of resources that are being devoted to security, and refusing accountability for digital political advertising and fraudulent ads on the site.

Collins said that lawmakers are looking into issuing a formal summons which would legally force Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to face the committee.

During his testimony before the U.S. Congress, Zuckerberg told lawmakers that even his own data was part of the user data that was shared improperly with the British political consultancy firm Cambridge Analytica. In March, the company was hit by a massive data scandal where UK-based Cambridge Analytica was accused of collecting data of over 87 million Facebook users without their permission to aid politicians.

Related Article

The Role of Technology in Sanctions Compliance

Sanctions compliance is a complex and challenging task for many organizations, especially those that operate across multiple jurisdictions and sectors. Sanctions regimes are constantly evolving,