VOD Review - The Great Hack

Karim Amer and Jehane Noujaim were nominated for an Oscar for Best Documentary Feature for their film The Square (2013), which was distributed by Netflix. The filmmakers are back with another documentary, put out by the same distributor. That previous film was about the Egyptian revolution. This film is about Cambridge Analytica, the company that helped a lot of conservative politicians win elections using the Internet and social media. Specifically, it was a part of the Brexit campaign or the Leave.EU campaign, as well as the 2016 Presidential campaign for Donald Trump. Cambridge Analytica made headlines in 2018 because it was revealed that the company was illicitly harvesting the personal data of people who used Facebook. The company had gotten personal data without people's consent or knowledge. This activity had been known since 2015 but it took a few years for it to explode in the British press, which prompted investigations in the UK and the United States.

That personal data was used to create what's called "psychographic profiles." These profiles allowed political campaigns to design and implement advertisements or ads that were more targeted and direct. In theory, these ads were more effective at swaying voters, particularly American voters, since the biggest application was in the United States. The data collected were from people's Facebook profiles. Many of these Facebook pages are public, so conceivably what Cambridge Analytica was doing could be done by anyone. The method by which they did it was through an app that could do it faster and more covertly. The question, which this film never engages, is if what Cambridge Analytica did was a data breach, meaning the information was essentially stolen, or if it was an overreach of implied consent from Facebook users.

Brittany Kaiser worked for Cambridge Analytica who is now speaking out against the company. She is the subject of this documentary or she's one of the main subjects. If one only read the headlines that were printed about her, one would think that she's this awful person trying to bring down democracy. Kaiser published a book, which isn't mentioned in this film, probably because the film was made prior to the book publishing, but the book identifies her as a whistle-blower. In that sense, that makes this film not unlike the Oscar-winning Citizenfour (2014).

Another question though that this film doesn't really engage is the question of effectiveness. One assumes that what Cambridge Analytica did was effective because the campaigns that it helped always won. It supported Donald Trump and he won. It supported Brexit and Brexit passed. Therefore, one can't argue against results. However, there are other factors involved, which contributed to Trump's election in particular. I don't know too much about Brexit, not having lived in England in decades and not being a British citizen. I am an American and followed a lot about the 2016 election. While Cambridge Analytica could be described as a weapon and making weapons out of people's personal data, which is what Kaiser and others argue, it's near-sighted to assume that those elections wouldn't have gone the way that they did, if not for Cambridge Analytica.

David Carroll is a professor in New York City who is also a subject in this documentary. He's notable because he filed a lawsuit against Cambridge Analytica. Once it was revealed that the company had mined all of this personal data, possibly illegally, Carroll went to the courts and demanded to know what exactly was the personal data that Cambridge Analytica had on him. He basically wanted to know what they knew about him. The answer is presumably everything. They knew everything about him that was online via Facebook or related social media. Yet, the point was that Carroll wanted to expose what they knew publicly.

His fight goes to a bigger idea, which is about data rights or the legal protections that people should have regarding personal digital information. People should have the right to decide who can have their data and who can't. When it comes to information about your bank records or medical records, most people understand that should be under the control of the individual person. What this film doesn't engage is the question of what about information posted on social media, which in theory is information intended to be made public and for everyone to see and know. There's no reckoning with this contradiction. Is it reductive to ask if this is about trying to put the genie back in the bottle or crying over spilled milk? People want privacy over data that they themselves make public.

There are questions that this film raises that I don't think are properly addressed or explored. One is about what's described as psychological warfare. The film simplifies it to propaganda, which is misleading or highly biased narratives and marketing. The point is that we don't want things in the media that are deceptive or lie about its elements like why it's doing what it's doing or how it's doing what it's doing. When the film though makes it about international conflicts, I don't think it distinguishes between what could be deemed psychological warfare and what could be deemed at the same time diplomacy.

Another question goes to the idea of "fake news," a term that President Trump propagated. Fake news is either propaganda or outright lies. However, Trump uses that term simply to refer to news that he doesn't like, regardless if it's truthful or corroborated information. Obviously, we've seen evidence of actual fake news on social media and arguably Facebook hasn't been helpful in stopping it. Cambridge Analytica is seen as aiding in either the creation or spread of fake news. If that's one's belief, then I would love to hear that person's opinion about FOX News. Many have complained about FOX News creating and spreading fake news. Is it not the same because that network does it loudly and out in the open?

I'm not defending Cambridge Analytica. I think that what they did underscores why we should be wary about believing or accepting anything that we see online and on social media, particularly Facebook. Yet, that was a lesson I learned ten years ago through the film Catfish (2010). It shouldn't shock anyone that there are liars on the Internet. Should we be alarmed that they're getting better at it? Yes, and if people cross the line in terms of committing fraud or libel, then they should be prosecuted, but if FOX News is still going strong, then other things need to be looked at as possible solutions.

Rated TV-MA.
Running Time: 1 hr. and 54 mins.

Available on Netflix.