Cambridge Analytica Case: ICT710 Task 2—Background And Requi ✓ Solved
Cambridge Analytica Case: ICT710 Task 2—Background and Requi
Cambridge Analytica Case: ICT710 Task 2—Background and Requirements: Write a 2500-word report analyzing the Cambridge Analytica case using the Doing Ethics Technique and the ACS Code of Ethics. Include an executive summary, introduction and conclusions, plus Background to the case study, Analysis using the Doing Ethics Technique, Analysis from the ICT professional perspective using the ACS Code of Ethics, and Conclusions with overall recommendations. Do Ethics Technique steps: Q1 What’s going on? Q2 What are the facts? Q3 What are the issues? Q4 Who is affected? Q5 What are the ethical issues and implications? Q6 What can be done about it? Q7 What are the options? Q8 Which option is best – and why? Provide at least three options with benefits and drawbacks and argue for a recommended option. Include in-text citations and a References section with at least ten credible sources. Use standard report structure and appropriate referencing.
Paper For Above Instructions
Executive Summary
The Cambridge Analytica affair highlights a breach in data governance, user consent, and professional responsibility for ICT practitioners. This report applies the Doing Ethics Technique to dissect what happened, who was affected, and which ethical theories apply. It also analyzes the case through the lens of the Australian Computer Society (ACS) Code of Ethics to identify obligations around privacy, consent, transparency, and professional integrity. The analysis reveals that data collection and usage exceeded reasonable expectations, violated privacy norms, and undermined trust in digital platforms. A recommended path combines stronger adherence to privacy-by-design, minimization of data collected, robust consent mechanisms, independent auditing, and clear accountability for data handlers. The conclusion argues that ICT professionals must elevate ethical considerations to the same level as technical requirements and comply with established professional codes to prevent similar harms in the future. Key recommendations include (1) data minimization and purpose limitation, (2) strong user-consent governance and user-rights enforcements, (3) transparency in data practices and third-party access, (4) independent oversight and whistleblower protections, and (5) ongoing ethics training aligned with professional codes of conduct. These steps are aligned with the ACS Code of Ethics and informed by broader privacy literature.
Introduction
The Cambridge Analytica case exposed how personal data harvested through Facebook could be instrumentalized to influence political outcomes. This assignment examines the ethical dimensions of that case through the Doing Ethics Technique and the ACS Code of Ethics. The Doing Ethics Technique provides a structured framework for evaluating complex ethical issues by identifying the context, facts, stakeholders, and available remedies, then assessing options using ethical theory. From an ICT professional viewpoint, the case raises questions about privacy, consent, professional integrity, and social responsibility as described in the ACS Code of Ethics and related privacy literature (ACS Ethics v2.1; Solove, 2008; Nissenbaum, 2009).
Background to the Case Study
Cambridge Analytica reportedly obtained data from millions of Facebook users via a personality quiz that required Facebook login. Users granted permission for their own data and, indirectly, their friends’ data, enabling access to a broad network of individuals. This data was used to tailor political messaging, raising concerns about manipulation, consent, and the boundaries of data use in political campaigns. The case sits at the intersection of data science, social influence, and professional ethics in information and communications technology. It also touches on regulatory considerations, user autonomy, and platform responsibility in an environment of powerful data analytics tools. These issues motivate a rigorous ethical analysis using established professional codes and ethical reasoning frameworks (Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018; Isaac et al., 2018; BBC, 2018).
Doing Ethics Technique Analysis
Q1. What’s going on? The case describes the collection and use of personal data to influence political opinions, with potential misalignment between user expectations and data practices. Stakeholders include quiz participants, their friends, Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, political campaigns, regulators, and the broader public. The tension centers on privacy, consent, and manipulation risks in targeted political messaging (Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018).
Q2. What are the facts?
Data were harvested from Facebook users via a third-party app; millions of profiles were involved; data were used beyond the original consent; the incident prompted public outcry and regulatory scrutiny. Facts include the scope of data access, the purposes of use, and the potential impact on democratic processes (New York Times, 2018; BBC, 2018).
Q3. What are the issues?
Key issues include privacy violations, consent validity, data minimization, third-party access controls, transparency, and potential manipulation of political outcomes using sensitive personal data (Solove, 2008; Nissenbaum, 2009).
Q4. Who is affected?
Affected parties include individual users, their social networks, platform providers, developers, the political process, and the public trust in digital systems. Positive effects might include improved targeted messaging efficiency for campaigns; negatives include erosion of privacy and potential coercive influence (Floridi, 2013).
Q5. What are the ethical issues and implications?
Ethical concerns center on privacy, informed consent, autonomy, and the potential for manipulation. Implications span individual rights, organizational accountability, and societal trust in information systems. The case illustrates conflicts between data-driven capabilities and ethical boundaries in professional practice (ACS Ethics; Floridi, 2013; Boyd & Crawford, 2011).
Q6. What can be done about it?
Possible actions include strengthening consent mechanisms, limiting data collection to necessary purposes, implementing privacy-by-design, enabling independent audits, and enhancing regulatory oversight. These measures align with professional ethical expectations and promote responsible data stewardship (ACS Code of Ethics; GDPR considerations; Solove, 2008).
Q7. What are the options?
Option A: Strengthen platform transparency and enforce stricter data-sharing controls; Option B: Require explicit consent for each data-sharing purpose and implement data minimization; Option C: Establish independent oversight and ethics audits for data analytics in political contexts. Each option has trade-offs in practicality, innovation, and user privacy protection (ACM Code of Ethics; ACS Ethics; Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018).
Q8. Which option is best – and why?
Option B combined with Option C offers robust privacy protections and accountability without completely stifling analytical capabilities. This approach prioritizes user autonomy, tight consent practices, and external oversight, reducing the risk of misuse while supporting responsible data analytics. The recommendation is grounded in ethical theory and professional standards (Floridi, 2013; Nissenbaum, 2009; Solove, 2008; ACS Ethics; ACM Code of Ethics).
Analysis from the ICT Professional Perspective Using the ACS Code of Ethics
The ACS Code of Ethics emphasizes public interest, privacy, professional integrity, and responsible conduct. ICT professionals should avoid actions that infringe privacy or mislead users, ensure data handling aligns with stated purposes, and maintain transparency about data practices. The Cambridge Analytica case reveals failures in consent, data minimization, and accountability that are inconsistent with these obligations (ACS Code of Ethics; Floridi, 2013). The professional responsibility to prevent harm, promote trust, and protect user autonomy supports a stance advocating stronger privacy controls, auditing, and ethical data governance in all data analytics projects (ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct; Nissenbaum, 2009).
Conclusions and Recommendations
In summary, the Cambridge Analytica case demonstrates a breach of privacy norms and professional ethics in ICT practice. The Doing Ethics Technique helps identify ethical dimensions, stakeholders, and the spectrum of possible responses. A recommended course emphasizes privacy-by-design, data minimization, explicit consent for data sharing, and independent oversight of data analytics used in political contexts. ICT professionals should integrate ethics into system design and governance, following the ACS Code of Ethics and maintaining accountability for data handling. Such measures protect individuals, sustain public trust, and support ethical innovation in data-driven technologies (ACS Ethics; ACM Code; Solove, 2008; Floridi, 2013; Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018; Isaac et al., 2018).
References
- Australian Computer Society (ACS). Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (Condu ct v2.1).
- ACM. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Association for Computing Machinery, 2018 update.
- Floridi, Luciano. The Ethics of Information. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
- Solove, Daniel J. Understanding Privacy. Oxford University Press, 2008.
- Nissenbaum, Helen. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press, 2009.
- Boyd, Danah and Crawford, Kate. Six Provocations for Big Data. Social Science Computer Review, 2011.
- Cadwalladr, Carole; Graham-Harrison, Emma. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian, 2018.
- Isaac, Mike; others. Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: How the data scandal unfolded. The New York Times, 2018.
- BBC News. Cambridge Analytica: What you need to know. BBC, 2018.
- Kuner, Christopher; Bygrave, Anna; Padovano,Jennifer. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A commentary. International Data Privacy Law, 2016/2018.