The document discusses the 2018 Facebook data scandal involving Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analytica acquired data from 50 million Facebook profiles without consent and used it for political advertising, including for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. This raised major ethical issues and data privacy concerns. The document examines what Facebook and Cambridge Analytica should have done differently to prevent the crisis and how they could have responded after it occurred.

1. 1
FACEBOOK DATA SCANDAL
Name:
Course Code and Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Date:
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
What should have been done before the Crisis? 4
What could have been done after the Scandal? 6
Work and Service provided by Cambridge Analytica to Trump’s
Campaign 7
Facebook’s Ethical Challenges 10
Conclusion 12
References 14
Introduction
The Cambridge Analytica scandal with Facebook was reported
by the New York Times and the Guardian in March 2018. In the
scandal, over 50 million Facebook profiles were compromised
and illegally utilized by Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge
Analytica is a political consulting firm that was in charge of the
2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign. During this
campaign period, Facebook made a mistake and authorized third
party users to use its data for what they termed as academic

2. research. The company Cambridge Analytica was to use the data
given by Facebook for academic research (Isaak & Hanna,
2018). However, they used the data to help in the campaign for
former president Donald Trump.
The crisis developed a claim on the use of Facebook data and
the eligibility of privacy for Facebook users. This raised ethical
concerns as there was improper use of Facebook’s data for
political gains. The improper use of Facebook data by
Cambridge Analytica gave rise to a massive ethical dilemma
since the Facebook users did not approve of their data been
used. Facebook is among one of the largest media multinational
companies globally. Facebook parents social media platforms
such as WhatsApp, Instagram and Messenger. By the time the
crisis was taking place in 2018, Facebook had an estimated
population of 2.38 billion users, which is a third of the total
world’s population.
Cambridge Analytica was registered as a political consulting
firm. The company specialized in data analysis and mining. The
2016 United States presidential election was one of the most
crucial elections I the history of the United States. Cambridge
Analytica was hired by Trump to help in data analysis during
the elections. The company requested for data from Facebook
for personal user accounts. Instead if the intended use of the
data for academic research, Cambridge used this data to
formulate and send certain type of advertisements to a specifie d
target group (Isaak & Hanna, 2018). Some of the Facebook
users could not view this adverts. They were only viewed by the
selected group. This Facebook scandal of mishandling Facebook
data was termed unethical. Facebook took less regulatory
actions on its data use and Cambridge Analytica broke the code
of Facebook’s data guidelines. This case study is important to
break the monopoly of data use that Facebook has over its
users’ data. This paper will examine the Cambridge Analytica
and Facebook data scandal and its impacts on technology. What
should have been done before the Crisis?
The 2018 Cambridge Analytica crisis led to mining of data from

3. 50 million Facebook users. While the company suggested that
the data was to be used for academic research, this was not the
case. The data was intended to be used for political gains to
push the Donald Trump campaign for presidency. According to
the whistle blower of the scandal, the data acquired was used to
develop psychographic profiles of Facebook users and to deli ver
pro-Trump campaign material to these profiles online
(Kozlowska, 2018). Facebook has however denied that none of
its data was used for such a scenario. Over the years, the United
States and United Kingdom governments have been pursuant
over the matter for Facebook to submit the data. This has
however been unsuccessful as there is no evidence for the case.
For Facebook to evade this case, a number of things should have
been done.
i. Maintaining users’ privacy. Just as stated in Facebook terms
and conditions, the privacy of users is paramount. For any
social media platform, the privacy of the users is put at hand
and considered crucial. When users sign up for social media
accounts such as Facebook, they are assured of the privacy of
their data. This data includes their personal information on their
names, address, jobs, social status, likes and dislikes. From
such data, it was possible for Cambridge Analytica to form a
target group (Kozlowska, 2018). This then gave the company a
chance to send targeted messages filtered for the specific group.
If Facebook had maintained their privacy policy of keeping
users’ data private and confidential, then such personal data
would not have been exposed to third party handlers. Facebook
would have avoided such a scandal that put it into controversy
in the limelight.
ii. Investing in cybersecurity research. Prior the scandal,
Facebook braved itself as a big enthusiast of cyber security.
Through its USENIX security symposium, Facebook awarded up
to $200,000 in grants to cybersecurity researchers (Kozlowska,
2018). The company did not however strengthen its
cybersecurity systems. Funding the cyber security researchers
did not necessarily mean that Facebook’s cyber security was to

4. notch. To avoid a scandal as the 2018 Cambridge Analytica
crisis, Facebook should have ensured to implement cyber
security techniques. This would ensure that any personal data
from users cannot be used even through third party agreements.
iii. Prior analysis and getting more information on Cambridge
Analytica. Before handing the data, or rather selling the data to
Cambridge Analytica Company, Facebook’s management should
have analyzed the company and get information on what the
company does. Facebook should have had critical meetings to
establish the intention of the company. Facebook should have
also performed research on Cambridge Analytica and get more
information concerning the company. This would have given
Facebook an overview of the mission of Cambridge Analytica.
iv. Contractual agreement on data use with Cambridge
Analytica. Facebook should have had a contractual agreement
with Cambridge Analytica. In this agreement, Facebook should
have stated their terms and conditions on use of the data. This
would not let Cambridge Analytica mishandle Facebook data.
Cambridge Analytica should also have undertaken a series of
serious agreements with Facebook. As the CEO of the company,
Alex Nix should have ensured that Facebook data is not
mishandled and is used for the intended purpose. Using the data
for the academic use stated when acquiring the data would avoid
the crisis. Maintaining a trustworthy relationship between
Facebook and Cambridge Analytica would have been used to
evade such a crisis. Most of the data was used for political
gains. If Cambridge Analytica had maintained a trustworthy
status, then it would not have used private data for political
purposes. Instead, it would have first consulted with Facebook
to get approval. What could have been done after the Scandal?
After the scandal, Facebook was left in a position of bad
reputation and a crisis with the united st5ates government. If at
all Cambridge Analytica was an ethical body, it would have
taken up the responsibility and confessed of its data
mishandling. This would help clean up the air for Facebook to
avoid Facebook been under the radar for unethical concerns. It

5. would also be important for the CEO to hold meetings with
Facebook and find a solution to the crisis. Having such a
meeting would help Cambridge Analytica come into agreement
terms with Facebook and also have a good reputation in the
society. The company should take up a corporate social
responsibility. Taking up corporate social responsibility will
help the company create a good relationship with the society.
This would be a form of covering up for its mistakes.
Cambridge Analytica should also focus on better marketing
communication strategies. The strategy of using personal
Facebook data in the 2018 United States elections brought up a
crisis with Facebook. Therefore, the company should choose
better ways for marketing and communication. These strategies
should uphold moral culture and be ethical to the community
(Kozlowska, 2018). Cambridge Analytica should also consider
its marketing content. During the 2018 crisis, the company was
accused of passing wrong information through Facebook
advertisements (Kozlowska, 2018). The company also used
these wrong information on a target group of Facebook users.
This was a wrong move that broke the reputation of Facebook
and that of Cambridge Analytica. Therefore, before conveying
any information for marketing, the company should ensure that
the information is true and conforms to the community
guidelines. .
If all these factors discussed above are followed, the Cambridge
Analytica company will regain its reputation in the society.
Having a good reputation will also clear the bad reputation
created for Facebook. A good reputation for the company will
help create a good brand name. This will ensure that the
company remains afloat in business and that it does not undergo
losses from loss of customers. Cambridge Analytica should
focus on brand awareness (Kozlowska, 2018). The CEO should
ensure that the company engages in activities that place the
company in a good position with the society as well as with its
stakeholders. Therefore, Cambridge Analytica will be in a better
position to undertake business activities and will retain its good

6. relationship with Facebook. Work and Service provided by
Cambridge Analytica to Trump’s Campaign
The British data mining and analysis company Cambridge
Analytica has been in the limelight since 2018 for its role in the
2016 trump’s election. The company through its access to
personal Facebook data was able to data from 50 million user
accounts as a strategy to target voters. There have been legal
issues concerning how the company achieved the data. The
company distanced itself from the presidential campaign of
2016 (Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018). Since Facebook
has not yet provided evidence to be used against Cambridge
Analytica, it has become so hard for the government as well as
humanitarian bodies to sue Cambridge Analytica. It is also hard
to sue Facebook for mishandling of personal information.
The CEO, Nix in an interview with television 4 news report
stated that his firm handled everything for the Trump campaign
except the make great America great again caps. The company
was responsible for all the data, analysis and research and the
digital and television campaigns. Nix stated that the data from
his company formed Trump’s campaign strategy. The company
got involved in the foreign statute that prevented foreign
involvement in the American elections. This law was made in
1996 by Bill Clinton when he refused to get millions of dollars
from illegal donors.
The Cambridge Analytica sold data to the Trump campaign. The
Trump campaign paid a total of $5.9 million to the company
(Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018). According to the
federal election commission, the company provided the Trump
campaign with data management and survey research. The
estimates for the value of the data are high. If the data was sold
at the market value, then it means that the Cambridge Analytica
sold it for the contribution of the campaign. This was a
violation of the law which bars foreign bodies from interfering
with elections in the United States.
According to the CEO, Nix, the company treated the Trump’s
campaign and the SuperPAC as a single project. Campaigns in

7. the United States are supposed to be independent. However, this
norm is only within the American politics. When two bodies
cannot communicate clearly and effectively, they hire the same
vendor. Cambridge Analytica also had other clients. The
SuperPAC acted as decoy to the American presidential
campaign (Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018). The company
actively participated in the mishandling of Facebook personal
data for the 2016 presidential campaign. This was against
community standards and against the agreement with Facebook.
Cambridge Analytica was responsible for misinformation of
critical information to the American Facebook users. The
company targeted a certain demographic data and presented
them with false information in a bid to get votes for Donald
Trump. This population was fed with wrong information that
made the manifesto of Trump look sensible to them. Mostly, the
highly targeted population consisted of the low class in the
society. Having a large population of low class people in the
country made it easier to acquire a target audience. This
therefore was the basis of the Facebook scandal.
The company managed to give a fake manifesto to its targeted
population. Illegally using data from Facebook users, the
company ensured that the false manifesto and information that
benefited Trump’s campaign was passed to the low class. Only
those in the targeted population could view such advertisements
in Facebook. Until to date, there are still debates as to whether
the Cambridge Analytica impacted the 2016 United States
elections (Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018). Nothing has
been proven yet but the justice department has a set of core
prohibitions that wants to make prosecutions on campaign
finances and foreign expenditures and contributions. This case
could put Cambridge Analytica in the loop of the department of
justice.
In my opinion, it was not right for the Cambridge Analytica to
provide this work for Trump. It was unethical to use people’s
data without consent. The company being a data driven center
should have put data and analytics front and center in its

8. business strategies. Data is vital for any decision making
process. Therefore, it would have been more reliable if such a
data driven organization would focus and analyze its data to
avoid a conflict of interest. Data driven companies and
technology companies are directly inter-related (Cadwalladr &
Graham-Harrison, 2018). The technology companies offer data
to data driven companies for use in surveys and analytics.
Working together harmoniously and following ethical
considerations can help both companies acquire positive
business outcome. However, lack of trust and misuse of data can
land both companies in an ethical dilemma as it is the case with
Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Facebook’s Ethical
Challenges
The involvement of Facebook in the Cambridge Analytica data
scandal had many effects on the firm.
i. Facebook started facing many regulatory procedures. Initially,
the use of Facebook was not limited and any data to be used in
Facebook was not controlled. Recently, politicians called upon
the firm to explain Facebook’s privacy policy. Political bodies
in the United States and in the United Kingdom have raised
serious concerns on the Facebook’s privacy policy (Wilson,
2019). This is a regulatory burden that will add costs to
Facebook and will also have an impact on the speed of
operations in Facebook. This is bad news for Facebook as it has
been put under the radar for privacy concerns by the
government.
ii. There has currently been a large outrage against Facebook
policies. Due to distrust on Facebook, there was a stock market
crash. Facebook lost most of its clientele base as most users
deactivated their Facebook accounts. This pushed mark
Zuckerberg to make a public appearance for damage control.
Facebook too made a public apology on their inability to contr ol
personal data use (Wilson, 2019). The CEO, Zuckerberg, also
announced various measures that would be undertaken to
strengthen Facebook’s data policy and avoid mishandling of
data by third party associates.

9. iii. Due to the security breech, large companies such as Mozilla,
Tesla and Space X have stopped posting in their Facebook
accounts. This is a small event that created a bad reputation for
Facebook. Large corporations would not want to be associated
with unethical firms like Facebook. Since its involvement in the
unfair data usage by Cambridge Analytica for political gains in
the Trump elections, there has been an online motion of delete
Facebook in twitter (Wilson, 2019). Users are viewing Facebook
as too intrusive thus pushing the motion of exiting Facebook.
Even Brian Acton, who is the WhatsApp cofounder urged
people to delete Facebook for the violation of privacy rights for
users. This has had a negative impact on the business of
Facebook. The revenue of Facebook has gone down due to the
less advertisements from multinational corporations.
iv. Most of the large firms have stopped funding their Facebook
campaigns. This is due to the bad reputation that Facebook has
created in the society and the business world. At this point in
life after indulgence in such a sensitive matter, association with
Facebook brings negative implications to the firms (Wilson,
2019). Many firms have not confirmed whether suspension of
ads is temporary or long term. This will only depend by how
Facebook will manage its public relations crisis in future. This
has affected Facebook’s revenue as a result of the crisis.
From my perspective, Facebook will continue to face negative
impacts in business from its mishandling of users’ data.
Facebook was once a reputable multinational corporation and
the leading social media platform. Since the introduction of
social media, Facebook took the market by storm. Current
trends in technology indicate that people have embraced used of
social media rather than physical meetings. There has also been
an increase in use of modern technology especially the internet.
People have embraced use of online platforms for
communication and education. Facebook had been getting
positive attention over the years, making high levels of revenue
from ads. The Cambridge Analytica scandal put Facebook in the
limelight for unethical concerns. Therefore, Facebook is no

10. longer a trusted brand. Many people have pulled out of the
platform for privacy concerns. Facebook will continue facing
these negative impacts on business unless it reassures its users
of a strong privacy policy. This will affect the future and long
term performance of Facebook negatively.Conclusion
Use of digital marketing during campaigns has been embraced
over the years. With the great advancements in technology and
improvement of digital platforms, politicians prefer social
media politics. However the mode of marketing and the message
should be in line with community guidelines and should be
ethical. However, this is not the case with Cambridge Analytica.
Instead of the company conducting fair marketing politics for
Trump in the 2016 presidential elections, they sold data
acquired from Facebook to target the low class. This caused a
major crisis which resulted into breech of privacy policy in
Facebook.
Being a giant organization in the technology field, it is
important for Facebook to regain its lost reputation. This will
only be achieved by assuring its users of a strong privacy
policy. Facebook should also detest sharing personal
information from users with third party alliances. Mishandling
of data by Facebook has really cost the company a loss. Large
corporations such as Tesla and Mozilla no longer post in their
Facebook pages. This has resulted to loss of revenue from
business ads from these corporations. Most of the users also
have no confidence in Facebook anymore. The once celebrated
social media platform has gained a bad reputation making it not
user friendly. Facebook is a large corporation that should ensure
safety of data for its users. Cambridge Analytica should also
come forward and give the correct information so as to clean up
the Facebook name and come clear with the scandal. The
scandal has caused a bad relationship between Facebook and the
data based company Cambridge Analytica. Therefore, it is
important for both companies to resolve their issues for the
success of their businesses.
References

11. Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). Revealed: 50
million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in
major data breach. The guardian, 17, 22.
Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User data privacy: Facebook,
Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection. Computer, 51(8),
56-59.
Kozlowska, I. (2018). Facebook and data privacy in the age of
Cambridge Analytica. Seattle, WA: The University of
Washington. Retrieved August, 1, 2019.
Wilson, R. (2019, July). Cambridge analytica, Facebook, and
Influence Operations: A case study and anticipatory ethical
analysis. In European conference on cyber warfare and
security (pp. 587-XX). Academic Conferences International
Limited.
Task: Provide a critical self-reflection essay of the process of
completing your previous assignment on Marketing Project
Report( Topic: Facebook Data Scandal).
For completing this Task successfully, you must summarize all
your academic knowledge and professional benefits you
received while critically analysed the case study/company
selected including strategic implications and strategic business
issues, during the development of summative assignment on
Marketing Project Report( Topic: Facebook Data Scandal).
Learning outcomes applied in this assessment (LO):
1. Develop a critical understanding of major concepts,
frameworks, and methods in marketing and corporate social
responsibility, and assess their application in the business
environment, including brand value. (IC) (SID) (EID)
4. Critically evaluate marketing strategies, including digital

12. marketing solutions - in different business contexts, and address
their implications including ethical issues, and reflect on the
significance of key historical events. (IC) (DP) (SID) (CID)
(CC)
6. Critically assess currently implemented corporate social
responsibility solutions and recognise the links between the
adoption of certain solutions and the performance of business
operations. (IC) (SID) (CID) (CC)9. Collect, analyze and
synthesize data; and take a problem-solving approach to
strategic thinking, and creativity.
7. Adopt a persuasive argumentation, and present it in verbal or
written communication. (UGB) (EID)
ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
Produce a 3000-word marketing project report (+/- 10%)
(excluding the list of references). Times New Roman size 12
font, double spaced
Introduction (250 words):
General background on the topic you are going to discuss.
Possible definitions for terms relating to the question. What the
essay will include and/or leave out (scope). What themes the
essay will discuss and the order they are presented. What the
essay will argue / demonstrate (thesis statement). 10 points
Main Body(2,450 words):
Summarize all your academic knowledge and professional
benefits you received while critically analysed the case
study/company selected including strategic implications and
strategic business issues, during the development of summative
assignment on Marketing Project Report( Topic: Facebook Data
Scandal).
In doing so: - Critically reflect on your personal learning
experience - Make effective use of relevant literature (but not
extensive) - Provide your own argument and show evidences of
critical thinking. 60 points
Conclusions(300 words):
Links back to the themes identified in the introduction. A

13. reminder of what the essay has argued. A recap of the main
themes that have been discussed. 15 points
Formatting and Referencing (list of references not principles of
academic writing included in word count): High quality
presentation of the material that conforms to and contains
minimal errors in sentence construction, grammar and
punctuation. The assignment followed appropriate academic
conventions regarding in-text citations and referencing. 15
points