This is on the front page of reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/86qxrb/cambridge_anal...
I’m guessing it’s real the building does look like the CA HQ.
I’m guessing it’s real the building does look like the CA HQ.
Privacy protections are, as far as I know, completely a matter of civil law. The worst that one would expect from the facts known so far is a high fine, bankrupting the company.
Buy CA is toast anyway: no politician or reputable brand will ever want to be associated with them.
Destroying evidence, however, can rather quickly result in criminal prosecution.
So this doesn't make much sense even for the owners of CA. It's even worse for employees: their risk was mostly limited to losing their job when the inevitable happens. Participating in obstruction of justice for the sake of job security is borderline insane. That's actually the #1 reason why I mostly doubt conspiracy theories in the private sector.
The only way to possibly way to square destruction of evidence with rational thinking is the possibility of CA having engaged in things worse than currently known. Maybe they actually engaged in honeytraps or killing Kennedy.
[0]: Which doesn't mean it's not possible. They don't have the best track record as far as not-being-stupid goes.
I disagree with all your points. This would imply that no one has ever destroyed evidence. You are also implying they are acting rationally. You are also projecting US laws onto the U.K.
> The only way to possibly way to square destruction of evidence with rational thinking is the possibility of CA having engaged in things worse than currently known.
Why are you assuming that this is unlikely rather than most likely?
>> The only way to possibly way to square destruction of evidence with rational thinking is the possibility of CA having engaged in things worse than currently known.
> Why are you assuming that this is unlikely rather than most likely?
I don't want to extrapolate from the known into the unknown. Also note that I didn't actually give an estimate on the possibility.
Section 55(1) DPA unlawful obtaining etc. of personal data
It is an offence to knowingly or recklessly obtain, disclose or procure the disclosure of personal information without the consent of the data controller.
There are some exceptions to this for example, where such obtaining or disclosure was necessary for crime prevention/detection. Section 55(2) sets out four defences to section 55(1).
If a person has obtained personal information illegally it is an offence to offer or to sell personal information. Section 55(3) makes the contravention of section 55(1) a criminal offence.
Section 55(4) and section 55(5) DPA create offences of selling and offering to sell personal data. For the purposes of section 55(5) DPA an advertisement indicating that personal data are or may be for sale is an offer to sell the data.
When prosecuting DPA cases as per the case of R v Julian Connor (Southwark Crown Court, 19 May 2003) prosecutors should remember to adduce evidence that the individuals named in each charge were alive at the time their data was obtained, and as per R v Buckley, England, Wallace and Moore (Winchester Crown Court, September 2003), the prosecution has to prove that the information was data within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the DPA.
There are no custodial sentences in respect of DPA offences and no powers of arrest; all offences are punishable only by a fine. Search warrants are available to the Information Commissioner by virtue of section 50 and the powers outline at schedule 9 of the DPA.
---End Quote---
That doesn't really matter, I think. AFAICT, CA was merely a shell company and figurehead for SCL Group. I think what will just happen is SCL will found another shell company and keep on going as usual.
But anyway, the Guardian has an article too: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/23/judge-grants-se...
(it's a legit Reuters photo, visible in the results at https://www.reuters.com/search/pictures?blob=cambridge+analy... )
Best source from reverse image search