Cambridge Analytica mentioned it was one among a whole bunch of firms legally utilizing Fb person knowledge and attacked critics it mentioned have been utilizing “hypothesis and rumour” to create a political scandal forward of Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony to Congress.
The info analytics agency that labored for the Trump marketing campaign mentioned it had been misrepresented “a whole bunch” of instances in media stories.
The corporate printed a press release of 10 bullet factors late on Monday, the eve of Mr Zuckerberg’s first testimony which is more likely to delve into Cambridge Analytica’s use of knowledge on as much as 87m Fb customers. Alexander Tayler, who has been the corporate’s performing chief govt since Alexander Nix stepped down final month, mentioned it wished to counter “conjecture and hearsay”.
“Cambridge Analytica didn’t ‘hack’ Fb,” it mentioned in a blog post. “A analysis firm (GSR) licensed the info to us, which they legally obtained through a device offered by Fb. Lots of of data firms have utilised Fb knowledge in a similar way.”
Mr Zuckerberg, Fb’s founder, chairman and chief govt, was on Capitol Hill on Monday assembly lawmakers forward of his look earlier than a Senate committee on Tuesday afternoon. He’s making ready to reply questions on person privateness and the usage of the social community to affect elections within the US and elsewhere.
Cambridge Analytica mentioned it had not used the Facebook data it obtained from World Science Analysis, an organization related to Cambridge professor Aleksandr Kogan, within the Trump marketing campaign.
“The claims that we used GSR knowledge for the Trump marketing campaign are merely unfaithful. Cambridge Analytica did present polling, knowledge analytics and digital advertising and marketing for the Trump marketing campaign. These are the identical strategies by which knowledge is used for each different marketing campaign,” it mentioned.
The GSR knowledge didn’t work effectively, it added. It underperformed typical demographic concentrating on, for instance, by age, gender and placement.
The corporate additionally mentioned it by no means labored on the UK’s Brexit referendum. It mentioned it subcontracted some digital advertising and marketing within the US and software program improvement to Combination IQ, a Canadian firm since banned from the platform by Fb.
“We pitched Go away.eu, Vote.depart and Stay however did no work paid or unpaid for any of those entities. We had discussions with Ukip, however these discussions by no means resulted in a contract. Ultimately, we weren’t concerned within the referendum in any capability,” it mentioned.
Cambridge Analytica repeated that it had obtained knowledge from 30m Fb customers — fairly than the up to 87m that Fb has estimated might be affected — and mentioned there have been no folks from outdoors the US within the dataset.
It added this was at the moment being independently verified by an audit performed by a 3rd get together and it might share the outcomes of the audit as quickly as doable. Additionally it is co-operating with the UK Data Commissioner’s Workplace, it mentioned, claiming it provided to take action earlier than the ICO determined to pursue a search warrant.
Fb mentioned the 87m customers was the very best complete that might have been affected, primarily based on all the person associates of each one that took the unique survey. It has beforehand mentioned it’s doing digital forensics to attempt to work out if different firms could have harvested its knowledge in a similar way.
In Monday’s weblog publish, Cambridge Analytica additionally reiterated its declare that Christopher Wylie, who was the supply of the unique stories in regards to the firm and the leaked Fb knowledge, had “no current information of our enterprise or its practices”. It claimed Mr Wylie’s firm Eunoia Applied sciences pitched the Trump marketing campaign and tried to work for Vote. Go away. A consultant for Mr Wylie didn’t reply to a request for remark.
Cambridge Analytica is a “politically impartial firm” working throughout the “mainstream political spectrum”, its publish concluded.