A new offshoot of Cambridge Analytica, the disgraced data analysis company at the heart of the Facebook personal data sharing scandal, has been set up by former members of staff under the name Auspex.

Old version of Cambridge Analytica shut down

After news of the scandal, which saw the details of an estimated 87 million Facebook users (mostly in the US) being shared with CA, and then used by CA to target people with political messages in relation to the last US presidential elections, CA was shut down by its parent company SCL Elections. CA is widely reported to have ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy in the wake of the scandal.

Auspex claims to be ethical

Auspex, which (it should be stressed) is not just another version of CA, but is likely to carry on the same kind of data analysis work, has been set up by Ahmed Al-Khatib, a former director of Emerdata which was also set up after the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Mr Al-Khatib has been reported as saying that Auspex will use ethically based, data-driven communications with a focus on improving the lives of people in the developing world.

Middle East and Africa

The markets in the developing world that Auspex will initially be focusing on are the Middle East and Africa, and the kinds of ethical work that it will be doing, according Auspex’s own communications, are health campaigning and tackling the spread of extremist ideology among a disenfranchised youth.

Compliant

Auspex has been quick to state that it has made changes and that it will be fully compliant from the outset, thereby hoping to further distance itself from its murky origins in CA.

Personnel

One thing that is likely to attract the attention of critics is that, not only is Mark Turnbull, the former head of CA’s political division the new Auspex Managing Director, but that the listed directors of the new company include Alastair Harris, who is reported to have worked at CA, and Omar Al-Khatib is listed as a citizen of the Seychelles.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The Cambridge Analytica and Facebook scandal is relatively recent, and the ICO have only just presented their report about the incident. For many people, it may not feel right that personnel from Cambridge Analytica can appear to simply set up under another name and start again. Critics can be forgiven for perhaps not trusting statements about a new ethical approach, especially since Mark Turnbull appeared alongside former CA chief executive Alexander Nix in an undercover film by Channel 4, where Nix gave examples of how his company could discredit politicians e.g. by setting up encounters with prostitutes.

The introduction of GDPR has brought the matters of data security and privacy into sharp focus for businesses in the UK, and businesses will be all too aware of the possible penalties if they get on the wrong side of the ICO.

In the case of the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scandal, the ICO has recently announced that Facebook will be fined £500,000 for data breaches, and that it is still considering taking legal action against CA’s company’s directors. If successful, a prosecution of this kind could result in convictions and an unlimited fine.

Globalnet is a managed servicer provider for a wide range of businesses throughout London, Essex, Kent and Herts. Call us on 0203 005 9650 today to find out how we can improve your IT infrastructure and increase productivity.

Sixteen months after the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) began its investigation into the Facebook’s sharing the personal details of users with political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, the ICO has announced that Facebook will be fined £500,000 for data breaches.

Maximum Fine Under Old Law for Facebook

The amount of the fine is the maximum that can be imposed under the old Data Protection Act. Although it sounds like a lot, for a corporation valued at around $500 billion, and with $11.97 billion in advertising revenue and $4.98 billion in profit for the past quarter (mostly from mobile advertising), it remains to be seen how much of an effect it will have on Facebook. In fact, Facebook earns the same amount as the fine in around 5 1/2 minutes. Had the ruling come into force under GDPR, the fine could have been a maximum of €20 million.

Time Before Responding

Facebook has now been given time to respond to the ICO’s verdict before a final decision is made by the ICO.

Facebook have said, however, that it acknowledges that it should have done more to investigate claims about Cambridge Analytica and taken action back in 2015.

Reminder of What Happened

The fine relates to the harvesting of the personal details of 87 million Facebook users without their explicit consent, and the sharing of that personal data with London-based political Consulting Firm Cambridge Analytica, which is alleged to have used that data to target political messages and advertising in the last US presidential election campaign.

Also, harvested Facebook user data was shared with Aggregate IQ, a Data Company which worked with the ‘Vote Leave’ campaign in the run-up to the Brexit Referendum.

The sharing of personal user data with those companies was exposed by former Cambridge Analytica employee and whistleblower Christopher Wylie. The resulting publicity caused public outrage, saw big falls in Facebook’s share value, brought apologies from its founder / owner, and saw insolvency proceedings (back in May) for Cambridge Analytica and its parent SCL Elections.

What About Cambridge Analytica?

Although Facebook has been given a £500,000 fine, Cambridge Analytica no longer exists as a company. The ICO has indicated, however, that it is still considering taking legal action against the company’s directors. If successful, a prosecution of this kind could result in convictions and an unlimited fine.

AggregateIQ

As for Canadian data analytics firm AggregateIQ, the ICO is reported to still be investigating whether UK voters’ personal data provided by the Brexit referendum’s Vote Leave campaign had been transferred and accessed outside the UK and whether this amounted to a breach of the Data Protection Act. Also, the ICO is reported to be investigating to what degree AIQ and SCL Elections had shared UK personal data, and the ICO is reported to have served an enforcement notice forbidding AIQ from continuing to make use of a list of UK citizens’ email addresses and names that it still holds.

Worries About 11 Main Political Parties

The ICO is also reported to have written to the UK’s 11 main political parties, asking them to have their data protection practices audited because it is concerned that the parties may have purchased certain information about members of the public from data brokers, who might not have obtained consent.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

When this story originally broke, it was a wake-up call about what can happen to the personal data that we trust companies / corporations with, and it undoubtedly damaged trust between Facebook and its users to a degree. It’s a good job that the ICO is there to follow things up on our behalf because, for example, a Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted back in April found that, even after all the publicity surrounding Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal, most users remained loyal to the social media giant.

Also, the case has raised questions about how our data is shared and used for political purposes, and how the using and sharing of our data to target messages can influence the outcome of elections, and, therefore, can influence the whole economic and business landscape. This has meant that there has now been a call for the UK government to step-in and introduce a code of practice which should limit how personal information can be used by political campaigns before the next general election.
Facebook has recently been waging a campaign, including heavy television advertising, to convince us that it has changed and is now more focused on protecting our privacy. Unfortunately, this idea has been challenged by the recent ‘Deceived By Design’ report by the government-funded Norwegian Consumer Council, which accused tech giants Microsoft, Facebook and Google of being unethical by leading users into selecting settings that do not actually benefit their privacy.

Globalnet works with businesses throughout London, Essex, Kent and Herts to ensure their data and networks are secure from all threats. Call us on 0203 005 9650 today to find out how we can provide the right protection for you.

Hackers are reported to have stolen $13.5 million of user crypto-currency tokens from the Israeli start-up and decentralized crypto-currency trading platform Bancor.

What Happened with Bancor?

It has been reported that on Monday, hackers were able to access and compromise a wallet on the Bancor platform that is used to upgrade smart contracts. These smart contracts have been likened to digital vending machines which manage crypto-currency transactions so there is no need for a middle-man.

This compromised wallet was then used by the hackers to steal different types of crypto-currency tokens from Bancor’s customers. The stolen tokens are reported to comprise 24,984 ($12.5 million) in Ethereum tokens, and 229, 356, 645 NPXS (approx. $1 million).

The total loss in the hack would have included an extra 3,200,00 of Bancor’s own token BNT (approx. $10 million), had Bancor not frozen the $10 million of its own Bancor tokens (BNT) as soon as it found out about the hack.
Bancor, which raised over $150 million in an ICO last year, is reported to have taken its exchange offline while it conducts an investigation of the incident.

Criticism

Following reports of the incident, some commentators have criticised Bancor for advertising itself as decentralized, and yet responding to the hack with strategies like those of a centralised system.

Centralised exchanges have received criticism for demanding large fees up front to list tokens, while not appearing to use those fees to help security, judging by the number and frequency of hacks.

User of MyEtherWallet Crypto-currency Also Hit By Hack

In the same week as customers of Bancor took a hit form a hack, so did one of the internet’s most popular services for managing crypto-currencies, MyEtherWallet. MyEtherWallet (MEW) is used to access crypto wallets and also to send and receive tokens to and from other wallets.

For the MEW hack, it has been reported that the hackers compromised ‘Hola’ for about 5 hours. Hola is a free VPN that plugs into browsers, and claims to have nearly 50 million users. Compromising Hola meant that any users who navigated to MEW and accessed their wallet with the VPN switched on are likely to be those who fell victim to the hackers.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Many businesses and individuals have been deterred from investing in and using crypto-currencies after the bad press surrounding the Bitcoin bubble and the associated crypto-jacking schemes, media reports of multiple hacks to different exchanges / platforms and crypto-currencies, and a general lack of knowledge and confidence about crypto-currencies. The Bancor and a MyEtherWallet hacks are just two more indications of the many existing security issues (particularly with centralised systems), and may be two more reasons why businesses may shy away from all things crypto-currecncy.

The fact is, however, that crypto-currencies could have many advantages for some businesses, such as the speed and ease with which transactions can take place due to the lack of central banking and traditional currency control. Some crypto-currencies e.g. Ripple, are actually products of banks. Crypto-currencies generally mean easier, faster and more convenient cross-border and global trading, but traditional currencies tend to have the backing of assets or promises of assets of some kind. Crypto-currencies, therefore, tend to be less trusted and more volatile in the markets and governments and banks don’t like the fact that they have no real control over them.

In the case of the MEW hack, this is also an example of why it is better to pay for a VPN service rather than use a free one.

Globalnet IT Innovations offers a range of managed IT services and on-demand IT services, including secure Internet and Wi-FI solutions for businesses in London, Essex, Kent, Surrey and Herts. Call us on 0203 005 9650 to speak to one of our IT consultants and discover how we can help to protect you from hackers and viruses.

The ‘Deceived By Design’ report by the government-funded Norwegian Consumer Council has accused tech giants Microsoft, Facebook and Google of being unethical by leading users into selecting settings that do not benefit their privacy.

Illusion of Control

The report alleges that, far from actually giving users more control over their personal data (as laid out by GDPR), the tech giants may simply be giving users the illusion that this is happening. The report points to the possible presence of practices such as:

– Facebook and Google making users who want the privacy-friendly option go through a significantly longer process (privacy intrusive defaults).

– Facebook, Google and Microsoft Windows 10 using pop-ups that direct users away from the privacy-friendly choices.

– Google presenting users with a hard-to-use dashboard with a maze of options for their privacy and security settings. For example, on Facebook it takes 13 clicks to opt out of authorising data collection (opting in can take just one).

– Making it difficult to delete data that’s already been collected. For example, deleting data about location history requires clicking through 30 to 40 pages.

– Google not warning users about the downside of personalisation e.g. telling users they would simply see less useful ads, rather than mentioning the potential to be opted in to receive unbalanced political ad messages.

– Facebook and Google pushing consumers to accept data collection e.g. with Facebook stating how, if users keep face recognition turned off, Facebook won’t be able to stop a stranger from using the user’s photo to impersonate them, while not stating how Facebook will use the information collected.

Dark Patterns

In general, the reports criticised how the use of “dark patterns” such as misleading wording and default settings that are intrusive to privacy, settings that give users an illusion of control, hiding privacy-friendly options, and presenting “take-it-or-leave-it choices”, could be leading users to make choices that actually stop them from exercising all of their privacy rights..

Big Accept Button

The report, by Norway’s consumer protection watchdog, also notes how the GDPR-related notifications have a large button for consumers to accept the company’s current practices, which could appear to many users to be far more convenient than searching for the detail to read through.

Response

Google, Facebook and Microsoft are all reported to have responded to the report’s findings by issuing statements focusing on the progress and improvements they’ve made towards meeting the requirements of the GDPR to date.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

GDPR was supposed to give EU citizens much more control over their data, and the perhaps naive expectation was that companies with a lot to lose (in fines for non-compliance and reputation), such as the big tech giant and social media companies would simply fall into line and afford us all of those new rights straight away.

The report by the Norwegian consumer watchdog appears to be more of a reality check that shows how our personal data is a valuable commodity to the big tech companies, and that, according to the report, the big tech companies are willing to manipulate users and give the illusion that they are following the rules without actually doing so. The report appears to indicate that these large corporations are willing to force consumers to try to fight for rights that have already been granted to them in GDPR.

 IF YOU’RE STRUGGLING WITH GDPR CALL US ON 0203 005 9650 FOR SUPPORT

Globalnet aims to be an integral part of your success, providing the best business advice, superior IT support and technology to help you reach your goals. 

California-based vehicle tech corporation Tesla is suing a former employee, who some saw simply as a whistleblower, over alleged acts of industrial espionage.

Martin Tripp

The former Tesla technician who stands accused by Tesla boss Elon Musk of industrial espionage has been named as Martin Tripp. The allegations made against Mr Tripp include that he was hacking and stealing company secrets, and that he wrote software that was designed to aid in the theft of photos and videos.

Tesla has also alleged that Mr Tripp was partly motivated to commit malicious acts against the company after he failed to get a promotion. Tesla has filed a federal lawsuit against him.

Tesla is also reported as saying that 40-year old forces veteran Tripp made false claims to the media about the information he allegedly stole, particularly where claims about punctured battery cells, excess scrap material and manufacturing delays are concerned.

Tesla Whistleblower?

Far from being an alleged criminal who meant the company harm, Mr Tripp claims that he is simply a whistleblower who the company is trying to get rid of in order to cover up details about products / components that could damage the company’s reputation if they were known.

For example, Tripp claims that he has simply been trying to expose “some really scary things” at Tesla, including punctured batteries being used in vehicles. Mr Tripp has also alleged that he became disillusioned with Tesla when (as he alleges) he saw how Elon Musk was lying to investors about how many cars they were making.

Mr Tripp has also been reported as saying that he didn’t write any software to aid the theft of photos and videos because he has no patience for coding, and that he didn’t care about failing to get a promotion.

Tripp is looking for legal protection as a whistleblower.

Silencing a Scapegoat?

Mr Tripp has been reported as saying that he is being made a scapegoat because he provided information that was true, that Tesla are doing everything they can to silence him, and that he feels that he had no rights as a whistleblower.

The local Sheriff’s office is reported as announcing that there is no credible threat to the Tesla’s lithium-ion battery factory, known as the Gigafactory.

Mr Tripp has been reported as saying that he allegedly turned whistleblower after his concerns were not taken seriously by anyone in the company.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

It would certainly not be unheard-of for a disgruntled employee / former employee to pose a security risk or commit acts of sabotage. For example, back in 2014, Andrew Skelton, who was an auditor at the head office of supermarket chain Morrisons in Bradford, leaked the personal details of almost 100,000 staff. Mr Skelton is believed to have deliberately stolen and leaked the data in a move to get back at the company after he was accused of dealing in legal highs at work.

We are also familiar with how difficult companies / organisations and other interested parties can make it for people who are whistleblowers, e.g. reports in the media about Dr Hayley Dare who received poison-pen letters was dismissed from a 20 year unblemished career with a three line email after raising concerns over a patient’s safety with her employer, an NHS Trust.

In the case of Tesla, it is currently not possible to say whether or not Mr Tripp is a whistleblower or a disgruntled former-employee with malicious intent. What it does remind us though is that corporate / company culture should be such that employees feel able to express their concerns, are listened to, and that it is viewed as a positive way to find areas to make improvements and modifications that could actually help a company in the long-run.

The Tesla story should also remind companies to plug some basic security loopholes in IT systems when employees leave / are dismissed. This includes simply changing passwords, access rights, and monitoring systems to ensure that nothing untoward is happening.

CALL US ON 0203 005 9650 FOR SUPERIOR IT SUPPORT

Globalnet aims to be an integral part of your success, providing the best business advice, superior IT support and technology to help you reach your goals.