THE parent company of elections consultancy Cambridge Analytica has been fined £15,000 after it repeatedly ignored a Data Protection Act enforcement notice.
SCL Elections Ltd, whose data-mining offshoot was last year criticised over its role in influencing elections worldwide, admitted it failed to comply with a legal notice from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) over details it held on US-based academic Professor David Carroll.
Prosecutor Ben Summers told Hendon Magistrates Court in London yesterday the firm dismissed demands to share the details following Prof Carroll’s subject access request (SAR), prompting the academic to call in the ICO.
But the court heard the company went into administration on May 3, 2018, the day before it received the enforcement notice.
Summers said the case represented a “discrete part of a broader matter” involving Cambridge Analytica.
READ MORE: Cambridge Analytica scandal shows opportunities for Yes movement
Last year it was revealed the firm used personal information harvested from 87 million Facebook accounts to build an algorithm delivering targeted political adverts based on the user’s psychological profile.
Defence counsel Sam Stockwell entered a guilty plea yesterday on behalf of the firm to one count of failing to comply with an enforcement notice, the day SCL was due to go on trial.
Sentencing, district judge Kenneth Grant said: “It is the administrators who have instructed counsel today. This [sentencing] exercise is complicated by the fact the company is currently in administration.”
Grant said he agreed with the prosecutor that the firm demonstrated a “wilful disregard for the enforcement notice”, handing SCL a £15,000 fine and ordering them to pay £6000 towards costs, as well as a £170 victim surcharge.
The court heard Carroll’s concerns included Cambridge Analytica’s release of “modelled data” contained in the SAR – specific information gleaned from sources that offered “predictions” about the individual.
Carroll raised the matter with the ICO in July 2017, who then wrote to Cambridge Analytica.
However, the court heard the ICO was constantly frustrated by the firm’s response, which included querying the American’s right to the information by replying: “He [Professor Carroll] had no right to make an SAR any more than a member of the Taliban sitting in a cave in the remotest part of Afghanistan.”
READ MORE: Scots Unionists fined over DUP dark money for Brexit campaign
Stockwell, for the administrators, said the information relating to Carroll was actually contained within vast servers of data seized by the ICO, to which the now-defunct Cambridge Analytica no longer had access.
The court heard the company had a turnover of £25.1 million in 2016, with a recorded profit of £2.3m.
Elizabeth Denham, the Information Commissioner, said: “This prosecution, the first against Cambridge Analytica, is a warning that there are consequences for ignoring the law.
“Wherever you live in the world, if your data is being processed by a UK company, UK data protection laws apply.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel