Missouri AG demands all Facebook communications with Obama's 2012 campaign

Missouri AG demands all Facebook communications with Obama's 2012 campaign

The civil investigative demand, which was provided by the attorney general's office and can be viewed here, comes a week after a group of 37 state attorneys general sent a letter asking for answers on how user data was shared with third party groups such as Cambridge Analytica. Hawley decided to follow-up on the letter with the subpoena to give Facebook a "legal consequence for failing to respond" by May 29, his office said.

The probe aims to determine whether Facebook exercised "appropriate care and protection over private consumer data" and whether the site's terms and conditions "accurately and adequately explained how consumers' data would be used."

Note that this is a civil matter -- not criminal. And even if criminal wrongdoing were found, we're talking 6 years ago, and statute of limitations is about to expire anyway. So I seriously doubt any criminal charges can be or will be filed no matter what is found. But for information purposes, this investigation could be invaluable in understanding how the American people have been played. And while the relationship between FB and Cambridge Analytica is covered, so too is Obama's 2012 campaign --

It specifically asks for all communications between Facebook and Carol Davidsen, Obama's director of digital integration and media analytics, and for communications with "any employee, volunteer, independent contractor, or agent of the campaign Obama for America relating to the sharing of Facebook User Information." Also requested are any calendar entries reflecting meetings between the Obama campaign and Facebook.

-- And any/all other campaigns --

Hawley also asks for a list of every campaign and political action committee Facebook has provided user information to since January 1, 2012. Facebook is also asked to identify all types of user data that have been collected and when it began collecting each type.

Team Obama had been quite cocky about their exploitation and manipulation of FB and other social media for campaigning purposes, as noted at G ateway Pundit. Those who wish to scoff at the source can and will do so, of course, but the citations/links are easily followed and confirmed. It is what it is.

I suspect that in the end, we will find that Cambridge Analytica's efforts were just a drop in the barrel compared to that of Obama. And I am keeping in mind that Obama is still politically active via his "Organizing For America" group, and is quite likely still up to the same tricks... Which would mean Facebook is as well... and Heaven only knows who all else.

a reply to: Boadicea

Facebook is getting a lot of negative press lately for doing some really questionable things.

I wonder if we're watching the beginning of the end of the social-media groundbreaker. Everything goes into the history books at some point.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You may be right about that... well, at least as we know social media now. There are always kinks to work out with any new technology, and social media is obviously no exception, but I don't think anyone realized how quickly and easily it could be compromised and exploited.

And speaking from the perspective of an older generation, I believe many folks thought we had safeguards in place to protect us from such things. But we tend to look at things in terms of the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. So, for example, we thought the same spirit of the law that keeps our U.S. mail private would likewise keep our emails private. But in today's world, a world of "feelings" rather than principles, people pretty much make up the rules as they go along.

So the sooner we get this dirty laundry into the bright sunlight, the better. Perhaps when folks understand the way we have all been compromised and played, we can get back to the letter of the law serving the spirit of the law.

we're talking 6 years ago, and statute of limitations is about to expire anyway.

Depends on the extent of the damage done. Could be no statute of limitations . And a very BAD outcome for some folks that USED to be high up in US politics

Can anyone say "Federal Pen" ?

But , this is really not what is going to "send em up the river"
Small fish compared to what is going to come out soon

Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea that "Facebook" influenced an election laughable.

originally posted by: MteWamp
Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea that "Facebook" influenced an election laughable.

Maybe... maybe not. It's "laughable" to think that they didn't try... it's "laughable" to think there aren't such people who could be and were so manipulated... but was it "successful" to the extent that it could change the results of the election? That would probably depend on how close the election was.

And whether or not it had much impact in the past, with experience and practice, it no doubt could be made more successful and effective in the future -- if not regulated and controlled now.

More important than elections, however, is the gross breach of privacy and the unauthorized distribution of personal data and tracking information. This information can be misused and abused in a plethora of ways -- not just by political candidates and campaigns. And it can be especially dangerous for our kids.

originally posted by: MteWamp
Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea that "Facebook" influenced an election laughable.

For repubs maybe.

This could uncover all the Russian Bots that supported the Obama Campaign(s) !!

😎

a reply to: Boadicea

Whataboutism at it's finest.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Boadicea

Whataboutism at it's finest.

Only to those who play that game... it's become quite the convenient circle jerk within the partisan echo chambers.

For the rest of us, we don't make excuses based upon who did it; we care about the what and the how and want it to stop.

a reply to: Boadicea

I suspect that in the end, we will find that Cambridge Analytica's efforts were just a drop in the barrel compared to that of Obama.

Why do you suspect that?

Among the many issues with CA (aside from the fact that their parent company literally markets itself as a PsyOps contractor for military and governments), the one that's gotten them in the most trouble was that they stole FB profile data on tens of millions of users. (the CEO was also on camera saying they'd hire prostitutes to entrap politicians and Wylie claims that SCL used Israeli hackers to steal medical records so CA is setting the bar pretty high)

The way they did this was by a) lying about the purpose of a survey delivered via an app and b) using the app permissions to scrape data on the friends of the participants. Meaning, if you stupid cousin Billy signed up for the app and he had access to your likes, etc then they not only lied to Billy to get his data, they went ahead and surreptitiously took yours too.

See, nobody actually seems to gaf about the actual microtargeting. The reason for this is that both parties have been employing domestic vendors for this purpose for the last several election cycles (NGP VAN, Nation Builder, i360, etc) and they'll be doing it in the midterms because that's the new norm.

Also, nobody seems to care that FB embedded employees with the Trump campaign (and offered to do the same with the Clinton campaign).

Do you have some reason to suspect that Obama stole FB data on tens of millions of users?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Unfortunately, Obama campaign officials have already bragged that Facebook supported them and gladly handed over plenty information and cyber tools... so, Team Obama didn't have to steal anything. It was freely given.

More to the point, Cambridge Analytica is not, was not and never will be president of the most powerful nation in the world, as Obama was before, during and after the 2012 election. Whatever damage they may inflict is nothing compared to the power and command of the POTUS.

So, please, don't play deaf, dumb and blind, because I know you know all of this.

Give the public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. Cambridge Analytica will pay their piper... and Obama and his minions will pay theirs.

originally posted by: MteWamp
Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea that "Facebook" influenced an election laughable.

Do you not believe that propaganda works? How about marketing? Over $200 billion is spent on marketing in the United States annually. Why? Because it works. We're inundated with advertising from birth — on the Internet, on TV, on the radio, in print media, on Olympic athletes, NASCAR cars, etc. It's a non-stop assault and it's not just traditional advertising, commercials and the like, they figured out decades ago that they could influence people through things like product placements and more recently, we've seen the growth in influencer marketing.

And the marketing has become ever more targeted. You search Google for reviews on keyboards, go to your favorite site with Google AdSense ads and your hit with a bunch of advertisements for keyboards. Like something on Facebook and you'll be hit with ads for something similar and so on and so forth.

Electioneering is really just a branch of marketing and we're several cycles into the age of microtargeting. The political parties have spent by now billions collecting bits of data on tens of millions of Americans which they use to target advertising. Facebook takes that to the next level. Now it's not just if you like fried chicken, you'll get ads for KFC, they're far more sophisticated when they look for indicators to determine things about you. Are you religious? Are you gay? Do you own a truck? How often do you eat out? They can figure out all sorts of things about you analyzing your social media data and do it in a completely automated fashion to spit out a profile that gets better and better as they improve their tech.

And they take all this data and they figure out exactly what messaging will work best for people in your ever shrinking demographic, tailor their advertisements to be the most persuasive for people like you and make sure you see it as often as possible.

Then you've got troll farms with fictional personas that act as influencers and bots to game the system to make sure your more likely to see what they're pushing and to give the impression of popularity (which adds to the influence).

Then of course there's the media and these days it's not just 3 broadcast networks or a couple of cable news stations, for every world view, there's an outlet that caters. So you can generally agree with the messaging for the largest and agree a little more with the next tier and find some news blog that you agree with totally and then somebody like FB figures out what out what you want to hear and pushes links to articles on those sites for ad revenue.

Marketing is already ubiquitous, the difference now is that it's increasingly seamless across platforms and personalized for maximum persuasion.

originally posted by: MteWamp
Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea that "Facebook" influenced an election laughable.

Why? It would be the equivalent of MSNBC and CNN influencing the election for Hillary and Foxnews for Rubio but on storoids?


However, you would have to be a complete Mojon to trust anything on the Internet , MSM, or social media as a non biased source. Its America everything is for sale , especially elections.

a reply to: Boadicea

Are you aware that Facebook embedded with the Trump campaign and that Brad Parscale credits FB with getting Donald Trump elected?

Facebook "embeds," Russia and the Trump campaign's secret weapon

Brad Parscale: Facebook, we did 'em on Twitter, Google search, other platforms. Facebook was the 500-pound gorilla, 80 percent of the budget kind of thing.

Facebook's advertising technology helped President Obama in 2012, but today Facebook offers something far more precise and sophisticated. While the president recently tweeted that "Facebook was always anti-Trump," Parscale relied heavily on the company, particularly on its cutting-edge targeting tools.

Lesley Stahl: One of the best things Facebook did for you, I heard, was penetrate the rural vote. Is that correct?

Brad Parscale: Yeah. So Facebook now lets you get to places and places possibly that you would never go with TV ads. Now, I can find, you know, 15 people in the Florida Panhandle that I would never buy a TV commercial for. And, we took opportunities that I think the other side didn't.

Lesley Stahl: Like what?

Brad Parscale: Well, we had our-- their staff embedded inside our offices.

Lesley Stahl: What?

Brad Parscale: Yeah, Facebook employees would show up for work every day in our offices.

and not just Facebook.

Brad Parscale: Google employees, and Twitter employees.

Lesley Stahl: They were embedded in your campaign?

Brad Parscale: I mean, like, they were there multiple days a week, three, four days a week, two days week, five days a week --

and this is interesting:

Brad Parscale: Yeah, I want 'em sittin' right next to us --

Lesley Stahl: How do you know they weren't Trojan Horses?

Brad Parscale: 'Cause I'd ask 'em to be Republicans, and I'd -- we'd talk to 'em.

Lesley Stahl: Oh, you only wanted Republicans?

Brad Parscale: I wanted people who support Donald Trump from their companies.

Lesley Stahl: And that's what you got?

Brad Parscale: Yeah. They already have divisions set up that way.

Lesley Stahl: What do you mean?

Brad Parscale: They already have groups of people in their political divisions that are Republican and Democrat.

and this:

Brad Parscale: We were making hundreds of thousands of 'em.

Lesley Stahl: You make 100,000 ads.

Brad Parscale: Programmatically. In one day. In one day.

Lesley Stahl: So 100,000 different ads every day?

Brad Parscale: Average day 50-60 thousands ads.

This was all automated.

Brad Parscale: Changing language, words, colors, changing things because certain people like a green button better than a blue button. Some people like the word "donate" or "contribute."

Lesley Stahl: So how would you know ... let's say I like a green button. How do you know I'd only like a green button?

Brad Parscale: Because I'd give you the red, blue buttons, you never click on 'em.

Parscale showed us how they tested: by sending out multiple versions of the same ad with only subtle differences.

Brad Parscale: Here we have an American flag, here we have a face of Hillary. Different colors, the blues, different messages above.

Lesley Stahl: So you'd send two identical ads with different colors?

Brad Parscale: Maybe thousands.

Lesley Stahl: You'd send THOUSAND of ads with different colors?

Keep in mind, this is the guy who ran all of this for Trump's campaign and is *currently* running Trump's 2020 campaign which started the moment he was elected.

You accuse me of playing deaf, blind and dumb. This guy is in our faces, brazenly bragging about it in explicit detail and you've probably never even read it. But based on your desire for Obama to be worse, and some political stunt by the MO AG, you'll be outraged about what you feel must have taken place in 2012 with Obama's campaign. And while you'll concede that CA is probably shady (but Obama must be worse because... emotion!) what's most telling is that you have said absolutely nothing about Trump.

It makes absolutely no sense. Whatever Obama did re working with FB in 2012, the Trump campaign did MORE of in 2016 by Brad Parscale's own admission. And that's not counting all the stuff CA was up to which you've conveniently compartmentalized so that you feel justified saying this:

More to the point, Cambridge Analytica is not, was not and never will be president of the most powerful nation in the world, as Obama was before, during and after the 2012 election. Whatever damage they may inflict is nothing compared to the power and command of the POTUS.

Trump is the President of the United States right now. Whatever damage you imagine Obama inflicted based on an absence of any evidence, if you're being honest with yourself, you 100% have to attribute to Trump given the fact that unlike with Obama, you know straight from the horse's mouth what the campaign was up to even without getting into the role of Cambridge Analytica.

Think that through.

Cambridge Analyitca: You know 100% that they were up to all sorts of bad things. There's no question. You manage to compartmentalize CA as somehow completely separate from the Trump campaign.

Trump campaign: undeniable, first hand evidence straight from the Brad Parscale that they did x, y and z. You don't even mention it. Choosing instead to talk about CA but only while expressing the opinion that whatever CA did must be small potatoes to what *Obama* did.

Obama: his campaign used Facebook in 2012 and you don't really have any specific information but you've already formed the opinion that anything anyone else did must have been a drop in the bucket by comparison and not only that, but Obama was personally responsible and it's a big deal because he used to be President.

Trump: Nada.

How is that reasonable? How do you manage to ignore piles of information about Trump and his 2016 campaign to focus on Obama and his 2012 campaign where you have no real information AND while utterly ignoring Trump, conclude that Obama did something worse? On top of everything else, show absolutely no concern for the current Trump campaign.

I'm no innocent, I've got all sorts of bias of my own but come on.

a reply to: Boadicea

Only to those who play that game... it's become quite the convenient circle jerk within the partisan echo chambers.

For the rest of us, we don't make excuses based upon who did it; we care about the what and the how and want it to stop.

Well then you better take off your Trump blinders because right now you're ignoring mounds of evidence about Trump and his campaign and choosing to focus on what you feel about Obama.

Missouri AG demands all Facebook communications with Obama's 2012 campaign

Then make them tell us how many of Obama's followers were BOTS!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Okay... Trump's bad too. Are you happy?

I've already been accused of "whataboutism"... isn't this pretty much the same thing? "Oh! Oh! But what about Trump???" And as you've already noted and cited, Trump's involvement with Cambridge Analytica is already being analyzed and reported.

And, again, there's only one person in this discussion who was also POTUS before, during and after the misuse and abuse of such information. And it ain't Trump.

How do you manage to ignore piles of information about Trump and his 2016 campaign to focus on Obama and his 2012 campaign...

Um... let's see... how about because the article is about the AGs' demands for Obama's FB communications in 2012... not Trump's FB communications in 2016. Perhaps you should bring this up with them?

...where you have no real information...

Except what Obama campaign officials have already stated publicly, much like Parscale spoke publicly. And, hence, the subpoena for the actual communications to verify or not.

...AND while utterly ignoring Trump...

Again... Trump is bad too! Trump is bad too! Trump is bad too!!!

...conclude that Obama did something worse?

Again... no one is more powerful than the president of the United States. No one has more opportunity to misuse and abuse such information than the president of the United States. No one except Obama was president of the United States before, during and after the 2012 election.

If you don't understand the full implications (and reality) of this, I don't know how to explain it to you.

On top of everything else, show absolutely no concern for the current Trump campaign.

Because I'm not worried about just Trump using and abusing social media... I'm concerned about anyone and everyone using and abusing social media... in many many ways and for many many reasons... so figuring out what was done and how it was done by anyone and everyone is the best way to stop it being done by anyone and everyone in the future. And that would include the Trump campaign. But not limited to the Trump campaign.

a reply to: Boadicea

Nice rebuttal and sick burn. I enjoy your thread. S+F 😀

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well then you better take off your Trump blinders because right now you're ignoring mounds of evidence about Trump and his campaign and choosing to focus on what you feel about Obama.

No. I'm not ignoring anything. Just because I didn't cry about Trump in this particular thread doesn't mean I'm ignoring any wrongdoing on his part. But it does seem that you want to ignore Obama's wrongdoing and focus only on Trump.

I'm pretty sure that a close examination of the "what" and "hows" of the Obama 2012 campaign with the "what" and "hows" of Trump 2016 (and probably Hillary 2016) would tell us much about how FB refined or reformed or improved or escalated or otherwise manipulated their technology to cater to political campaigns, as well as other forms of politicking and marketing in general.