Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower: Palantir Worked with CA

I'm back ATS — did you miss me? Long story short, I got really sick earlier this month, thought I had the flu and waited a bit too long to seek medical attention and I ended up in the hospital with pneumonia.

My timing couldn't have been worse as I was laid up when Christopher Wylie blew the whistle on CA and the mainstream media, world governments and Facebook users, investors, etc finally decided to care about something I first started posting about a year and a half ago (The Billionaire's Brain Hackers, Mapping the Swamp II: The Billionaire Brain Hackers Edition)

Anyway, I'm just getting back into the swing of things and catching up on the news I've been missing (honestly, not that much, it was nice to take a little break from the madness of politics and CT) and for my first post in weeks, I thought I'd draw everyone's attention to some recent claims coming from Wylie.

First up, Wylie is claiming that CA worked with the Palantir, a big data contractor serving (and funded by) the IC and co-founded by Peter Thiel, big league Trump supporter.

CNBC - Palantir worked with Cambridge Analytica on the Facebook data it acquired, whistleblower alleges

Palantir, a secretive company co-founded by billionaire Peter Thiel, worked with Cambridge Analytica, the political analysis firm that harvested data from Facebook users, whistleblower Christopher Wylie told U.K. lawmakers Tuesday.

Wylie claimed that Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix was introduced to Palantir by Sophie Schmidt, the daughter of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

Thiel, who has not been accused of any wrongdoing, was not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC.

Wylie, a former employee of Cambridge Analytica, said Nix had "several meetings" with Palantir.

"Senior Palantir employees" then worked on the Facebook profile data that was acquired by Cambridge Analytica, Wylie claimed.

"That was not an official contract between Palantir and Cambridge Analytica, but there were Palantir staff that would come into the office and work on that data," Wylie told lawmakers. He added that Palantir staff "helped build the models we were working on."

Palantir has previously done work for the National Security Agency and is backed by the CIA's not-for-profit venture capital firm. Palantir's CEO Alex Karp, who is also not accused of wrongdoing, was also one of the technology executives who was at a meeting with Trump in December 2016.

Palantir is an outfit that should be discussed a lot more on ATS given that their bread and butter is compiling and linking giant privacy destroying databases, data mining, etc for the surveillance state but they tend to do a good job of staying under the radar. You may however remember hearing the name a few years back when they teamed up with cyber security firm HBGary to draft a proposal for Bank of America to sabot age WikiLeaks.

Moving along, Wylie has also claimed that as part of its work in the Nigerian elections in 2015, another SCL Group offshoot, AggregateIQ, contracted the Israeli private intelligence firm, Black Cube, to hack medical records of Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari.

NY Daily News - Cambridge Analytica-linked company used hacked data in 'privatized colonizing operation': whistleblower

Wylie said the Canadian-based company that worked on Brexit, AggregateIQ, was a “franchise” of SCL and built the software that Cambridge Analytica and others used for its election operations.

He said Tuesday it had previously been involved in Nigerian elections, and had an Israeli company called Black Cube hack private health data from current Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari.

Black Cube said in a statement to the Daily News that it "always operated within the boundaries of the law in every jurisdiction it operates" and that Wylie's assertion is a "flagrant lie" perhaps worthy of a defamation suit.

Buhari won election in 2015, but had unsuccessfully run three times before, when Wylie said AggregateIQ handled the hacked data and also distributed threatening anti-Islamic videos that showed people’s throats being cut in an effort to intimidate voters.

Undercover footage aired by the UK’s Channel 4 also showed now-suspended Cambridge Analytica leader Alexander Nix, who said that his company could use prostitutes to entrap candidates.

Finally, we have Wylie retelling what is essentially a rumor as unlike with the aforementioned allegations, he claims no first hand knowledge of the circumstances of the man's death. That said, a 32 year-old dropping dead of a heart attack in hotel room, particularly one engaged in a dirty business like this, is probably something that warrants scrutiny.

Gizmodo - Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower Floats Wild Nairobi Poison Plot

Christopher Wylie, the 28-year-old political strategist whose allegations against Cambridge Analytica have prompted investigations on both sides of the Atlantic, told the British parliamentary committee on media that one of Cambridge’s former employees, Dan Muresan, may have been murdered during a business trip in Kenya.

Muresan, 32, was founded dead in a hotel room in Nairobi, Kenya, in September 2012. The cause of death was listed as a heart attack, according to Romanian press.

Muresan was the head of elections at SCL Group, Cambridge Analytica’s parent company, for two years before his death. According to one report, Muresan communicated that he just landed a contract in Nairobi and was planning to visit his father afterwards.

Muresan’s father, Ioan Avram Muresan, the former Romanian agriculture minister, was convicted of embezzlement in February 2012. At the time of his son’s death, he was imprisoned in Gherla.

“When you work in Kenyan politics, or politics in a lot of African countries, if a deal goes wrong then you can pay for it,” Wylie told the British lawmakers.

“What I heard was that he was working on some kind of deal of some sort ... and that a deal went sour ... people suspected that he was poisoned in his hotel room,” he said. “I also heard that the police had got bribed to not enter the hotel room for 24 hours.”

Wylie admitted that he couldn't attest to the veracity of the claims but it's certainly interesting.

a reply to: theantediluvian

1) Sorry to hear about your illness; but
2) Glad to see you survived and are back at it; but
3) I don't understand any of this crap and never started following it; because
4) There's nothing anyone can do at this point to arrest the data collection. Sad to say, but that ship has sailed. Now all that really remains is to see how they intend to use it against all of us.

Nice to see you back. Hope you are feeling better! Nice post.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I was thinking about you the other day when the CA story started to unfold. You mentioned similar in threads last year and sent me on a few hours of browsing. Tip of the hat to you.

a reply to: TonyS

Plus its not like its new news and that Fusion GPS may either work for them or may be a competitor . Either way having their MO exposed will help us look under those rocks in the future

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yea, which brings to my mind the question: What in the world will the next election cycle look like? With all this data and the campaigns using consultants and the onslaught of weird crap on social media?

Its gonna be a friggin' circus of accusations, innuendo, calls for investigations, assertions and denials.

Let me get this straight. People who use Facebook VOLUNTARILY provide information about themselves. They type it in, upload it, link it, etc. When people take a quiz or do something interactive on Facebook, the app frequently says, "We will take your Facebook data if you want to do this." When you load an app on your smart phone and interact with Facebook, Facebook says, "We need access to your contact list to do this." I realize people do not read "Terms and Conditions" and simply press "I agree" when they encounter those long-winded legalistic statements. Few people carefully pore over this information and ponder just what it is they are agreeing to. But they do agree to it. And now when it turns out Facebook actually uses the data they collect, or gives it away, or gets it stolen from them, people are "outraged."

Well, Duh!!!!

What the Hell did people expect?

a reply to: theantediluvian

I am happy you are feeling better, and glad to have you back posting even if I think your a dirty leftist nutbag...

Just kidding on the last part there...

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yea, which brings to my mind the question: What in the world will the next election cycle look like? With all this data and the campaigns using consultants and the onslaught of weird crap on social media?

Its gonna be a friggin' circus of accusations, innuendo, calls for investigations, assertions and denials.

The Democrats have already making this happen via Media Matters, Blue Share, etc. check out the agenda for media on through 2020 elections. The following site has acquired the actual agenda documents and you will be amazed how eerily familiar it will all seem.

Ella Cruz Source

I am surprised this has not received as much attention here on ATS, but then again...it may have been missed since it is so obvious.

Good to have you back my friend.

One request with this information: don't taint it with anything remotely partisan. Both parties have been up to no good, and the Peoples interest is best served in addressing the concepts behind this, and how to enact laws to bind politicians from taking advantage of our own worst traits.

Its a riveting story, and the more is uncovered the more that us in the CT community look sane.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Glad you’re in good health.

Both Wylie and AgreggateIQ are both from my hometown. According to local reporters, AgreggateIQ denies Wylie’s claims.

Times Colonist

Besides, the whole charade that any of these firms have the influence they have is drastically overblown, and this charade will lead us to the government intervention into the internet.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: theantediluvian
Now all that really remains is to see how they intend to use it against all of us.

me too - I'd like to see how porn, construction equipment, concrete colour systems, volumetric mixers and google images memes equates to me being a threat.

I am glad you are feeling better.
I hope you enjoy catching up on all the different threads you may have missed.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Good to see you back.

First off, any allegations of murder or hacking should be investigated, and is very serious.

But aside from that, I dont see what the big deal on the data mining is.

I find it reprehensible, but that is the reason I dont use facebook or twitter. Now granted, I use ATS, and could be subject to giving out info here, but I know that.

Either way, I find that people should be more careful about what they put online, and companies should be more open about what they are doing with it.

I am glad this cambridge story is breaking.

Having said that, I have predicted that the people that are pushing it in a partisan way will be put in a very awkward position wants the cat is out of the bag, and it is shown to the everyday people that not only did Facebook directly work with Obama to allow datamining, but many non political corporations that they may have relationships with also heavily data mine.

Hopefully thi story wakes people up to the dangers of sharing to much info on social media, and how no matter what the ideologies or political affiliations, almost everyone is trying to get access to this info for one reason or another.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian



Besides, the whole charade that any of these firms have the influence they have is drastically overblown, and this charade will lead us to the government intervention into the internet.

This is a fear I have as well.

In the name of protecting us from datamining, now the government will step in and start to censor info they dont like on social media.

Meanwhile, they have known this datamining has been going on for years, with many politicians working with facebook to do so, and the media calling them geniuses for doing it.

But now its a problem that needs addressed.

Not to mention, if this is such a problem, why did they just last week pass the CLOUD act, giving tons of info like this to foriegn actors?

www.zerohedge.com...

The focus on this is reeks of an agenda, and more attempts at censorship.

And for all of those that might be ok with right wing opinions being censored as has been the tendency lately, remeber, its only a matter of time before these sorts of excuses are used to come after left wing people.

Ask Jill stein.

a reply to: TonyS

Thanks, It's good to be back among the living!

I wouldn't say that the ship has sailed exactly. Data collection is an ongoing process and its scope is constantly expanding but it's never too late to start opting out and stop forking over data about oneself.

Maybe this is the last best opportunity to rally people to do something about privacy going forward. Right now it's Facebook that's in the spotlight for enabling a sketchy outfit like SCL/CA but that's just one instance on one platform and things will get a lot worse from here.

Maybe it will go nowhere like ending mass surveillance by the government has but I think we have to try.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: theantediluvian

I was thinking about you the other day when the CA story started to unfold. You mentioned similar in threads last year and sent me on a few hours of browsing. Tip of the hat to you.

I don't know why it wasn't a bigger deal then except now there's a guy from inside the company who is spilling his guts publicly. A lot of the big pieces, like the surreptitious harvesting of data on tens of millions of Americans where already known when I wrote that first thread in 2016.

There's enough out there that people should have been genuinely alarmed about how things have been trending for years.

Right now people are thinking it's bad that Facebook didn't protect them from SCL/CA when it came to harvesting the data and maybe they're a little unnerved when they hear how the data can be used but really, and at the risk of using the most cliched of cliches, it's just the tip of the iceberg.

SCL/CA is up to all sorts of no good aside from "data services" but the bulk of what CA purports to do is basically the same sort of microtargetting that our political parties have been engaged in and perfecting over the last few election cycles via a number of vendors (NGP VAN, NationBuilder, i360, CDMI, etc) who all have massive databases with billions of bits of data on hundreds of millions of Americans.

The seamless integration with social media platforms is a service Facebook and the like are eager to provide.

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

Brad Parscale: I understood early that Facebook was how Donald Trump was going to win. Twitter is how he talked to the people. Facebook was going to be how he won.

Lesley Stahl: And Facebook IS how he won.

Brad Parscale: I think so. I think Donald Trump won, but I think Facebook was the method -- it was the highway in which his car drove on.

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.

originally posted by: schuyler
Let me get this straight. People who use Facebook VOLUNTARILY provide information about themselves. They type it in, upload it, link it, etc. When people take a quiz or do something interactive on Facebook, the app frequently says, "We will take your Facebook data if you want to do this." When you load an app on your smart phone and interact with Facebook, Facebook says, "We need access to your contact list to do this." I realize people do not read "Terms and Conditions" and simply press "I agree" when they encounter those long-winded legalistic statements. Few people carefully pore over this information and ponder just what it is they are agreeing to. But they do agree to it. And now when it turns out Facebook actually uses the data they collect, or gives it away, or gets it stolen from them, people are "outraged."

Well, Duh!!!!

What the Hell did people expect?

Actually no. What happened was the participants were lied to about both the nature of the survey and what would be done with their data but that's not the worst of it.

The worst of it was that it wasn't just the participants whose data was harvested, it was all of the data from all of their friends that was accessible to the participants. In other words, if your cousin Bob opted in, they would also scrape anything from your account that cousin Bob could see even though you never agreed to anything.

a reply to: Grambler

In the name of protecting us from datamining, now the government will step in and start to censor info they dont like on social media.

I really don't see how censorship could be promoted as an answer to massive data collection but maybe I'm suffering from a lack of imagination. Now if you said that something like Russian bots were being used to promote censorship or fake news sites or something, that would make more sense.

I don't think censorship is the answer. Personally, I think that education is whats needed. I've been around since the BBS days and for years up until social media started taking off, "the rule" was don't tell anyone online anything personal. Then somehow social media tapped into peoples' innate desire to prove how awesome their lives were to everyone and people couldn't wait to share EVERYTHING they were doing, eating, seeing, reading, watching, listening to, purchasing, visiting, etc with time stamps and geolocation.

I do think that legislation that offers some protection could be part of the solution. For instance, laws that limit how long data can be kept, limit the the types of data that can be collected, strengthen the requirements for opting into data collection, limit what companies can do with data, etc.

Blanket declarations that we can't do *anything* seem not only shortsighted and defeatist but ultimately dangerous because it's a sentiment that shortcircuits any conversation at all. I don't understand why people don't have at least the same level of skepticism/unease/suspicion/etc for massive corporations as they do for the government. You talk about "right wing opinions" being "censored" and what you're actually referring to is what you perceive as censorship by companies that effectively have a monopoly on large scale social interaction on the Internet.

We can debate how much of that is reality, how much of it is is actual attempts at censoring "right wing opinions" (as opposed to something like closing down white nationalist trolls) but if you honestly believe that this is something that is happening then you should already be in the camp that there's already something fundamentally wrong with so few entities having such complete control over so much of what people consider "the Internet."

What happens when free market dynamics don't yield the best case scenario for the public as they often haven't in the past? Where would we be if it weren't for the advent of anti-trust laws, labor laws, child labor laws, environmental protections, etc?

Facebook has proven itself not to be good stewards of our private data time and time again. The question is what will we do about it and what will we do about Facebook and the rest of them? It's great that some people choose to opt out of some social media but ultimately billions of people do not and will not so it's hardly a solution.

The world is changing — has changed — and we're going to have to deal with it soon or risk letting things get to a point where there's nothing we can do to reverse course. I don't want to get all the sky is falling here but in just the last few years, things have gotten considerably more Orwellian.

I think it's a good thing that people are talking about this. I hope it continues to escalate. Remember immediately after Snowden when ISPs were rushing to assure users that they weren't sharing their data with the government? I'd like to see something similar but on a larger scale when it comes to sharing/selling data to private entities.

I honestly believe that the best thing that could happen here is that people become WAY more concerned with what data is being collected about them and how it's being used.