This would happen without Cambridge Analytica. Politics is like fashion”

Periscope translated this interview from the famous Spanish newspaper El Pais.

Christopher Wylie is the brain behind Cambridge Analytica [CA], the analytical data company that is being investigated for its role in Donald Trump's election campaign and the Brex vote. 28-year-old “gay, vegan by Canada” as he describes himself, was shocked by the way he was abused with human data. Willie has exposed CA and Facebook to the secret use of the personal data of millions of Facebook accounts. After serving as a source of information for The Guardian and The New York Times newspapers, Wylie joined a small group of European journalists in talking about privacy, Facebook failure, and policy intervention.

What was the motive for talking about these things?

The original goal was to expose Cambridge Analytica's work, partly because I helped build it and had responsibility for it. If not to correct what had already been done because there were things that could not be undone, at least I could inform the authorities and the people about these.

What's the most serious thing you've discovered?

First, there's a company that's a military contractor and also an advisor to the president of the United States. In modern democracies, the military is not allowed to participate in elections: why should we allow militant contractors to do so, or serve as advisers for some of the most important politicians in the world? When a company with clients of armies creates civil enormous databases, which they gather illegally, there is a serious risk to the line between internal supervision and conventional market research will become unclear. People and lawmakers have to learn what's going on with technology and understand what these companies, Facebook and others that make money through personal data really mean. It's important for people not to view it as abstract but something with tangible impacts.

When did you realize it was time to stop?

The problem was I lost in my curiosity. There's no excuse, but I had a budget of millions of dollars, and I could do any research I wanted. It was very tempting. I joined in June 2013 as director of the SLC group and began to understand over the months what they were really doing. But you get used to corporate culture. It's not an excuse, but it was. You take more and more, and every step is not much bigger than the past until the bang, you have created an NSA [the National Security Agency] privatised.

Then you left him.

I dropped it in late 2014. It was becoming more toxic, especially because of Alexander Nix [the director of Cambridge Analytica] and Steve Bannon [former vice president of the company and former strategist chief of Donald Trump]. When Bannon arrived, the freedom to investigate that had lured me at first turned into research for what we now call alt-right. The resident came to London repeatedly, at least once a month, and we had a telephone conference with him every Monday morning.

What was your role in Brexit? Recent findings show a CA-related data company that played a key role in results that helped regulate electoral spending.

I didn't work in the Brexit campaign, but I still had a huge presence on it. I know everything that happened there.

Do you think Brexit wouldn't have happened without CA?

Definitely. It is important because the referendum was won with less than 2% of the vote and much money was spent on ads based on personal data. This amount of money can buy you millions of impressions. If you target a small group, it could be a decisive factor. If you add all the collectives that campaigned for Brexit, it was the third of all that was spent. There must be an investigation into the indicators that they had spent more than legally permitted. People have to believe in their democratic institutions. Deception is deception. We're talking about the integrity of democratic processes, it's about the future of this country and all of Europe in general.

How did CA work in other European countries?

I know there was a project in Italy when I was there, but I don't have the details. I don't know about the others.

Is the science of dangerous data for our societies?

The data is our new electricity. Data is a tool. You may have a knife on your desk that can be used for good or for bad. But it's the same object. I don't think data itself is a problem. There are many extraordinary things you can do through data. But what CA has exposed is failures, not only of our legislatures, but also of society to think where to set the limits of the allowed.

Is it really that influential? How much information can help you make predictions?

There is no doubt that you can access people's profiles and use their information. What people have to think about is whether it's appropriate for this to happen through democratic processes.

There is nothing new about political campaigns targeting undecided voter groups...

The difference is that when you cheat, when you create an intermediate reality for someone, when you mock someone because you know they're more likely to believe in conspiracy theories because you've entered into profile, and you've sent a spiral of fake news. It's different to knock on the door and identify yourself as part of a campaign.

What was Facebook's failure in all of this?

At first, they said there was no harm because the users agreed to give them the data: in some parts of the terms and terms of the agreement [that each of Facebook users does anything wrong] it is said that your information can be used for apps, even those you don't use. One of Facebook's biggest failures is excessive legalisation of earthquakes and conditions and forgetting something very important as the reasonableness of user expectations.

Your specialty was the forecast of fashion trends. How did you end up in politics?

It's exactly the same thing. They are expressions of your identity and role in society. You can think of Trump in fashion terms. I see it as the sandals. Before they were popular, they looked ugly and then got ugly again. But as long as they were popular, everyone wore them. Donald Trump is just like a pair of Cricos sandals. It's kind of an aesthetic objectively terrible but what to do, people follow fashion. People adopt an aesthetic, and later when they look at the photos, they deeply regret what they wear.

It was translated by Periscope.