Cambridge Analytica responds to ICO comments

According to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), some of the data analytics company is supporting a political party to analyze the people’s personal information in the UK to micro-target voters. They want to aware people about the negative impact of exposing privacy of public information for creating political campaigns. Therefore, they have set up an enquiry to identify whether there is an act of criminal and civil enforcement involving in these campaigns or not. They targeted Cambridge Analytica for the enquiry in order to understand the real facts behind the cause.

This investigation includes collecting new information, evidence or statements that have come into suspects. On 7 March 2018, ICO demanded to access Cambridge Analytica data and records from them but the analytical company did not respond within the due date provided to them. Therefore, ICO started seeking for the warrant to collect information and get entry into the systems and the right evidence to their investigations. With this compelling, Facebook had decided to investigate their records on Cambridge Analytica’s premises with the support of ICO. This type of search has potentially agreed on a regulatory probe.

Due to some issues, the court has adjourned the ICO’s warrant application related to the Cambridge Analytica’s data hacking but ultimately agreed to continue with the warrant issuance for access information and other major investigation. They found that personal data are been utilized for the political purposes but yet lacking from any evidence and thus providing the exact conclusion has been delayed.  When things come to Cambridge Analytica side, they are been touched with ICO since February 2017 and consistently helping them investigate against the suspect things happened with the Facebook data.

Not only this, CA also took a proactive step while making conversation with the ICO in each aspect of the investigation. CA has let the ICO access the most recent Facebook data they have collected from GSR. CA always uses GSR to legally supply data for the research and it was not all any spam organization. GSR is the company where CA and other analytical companies regularly and legally take data for research purpose. CA remain committed to the support ICO needed from them. They have even permitted ICO volunteer to attend CA office to unfasten the scope of the inspection.

The warrant to inspect the Cambridge Analytica’s premises was executed on 23 March 2018. The investigators of the ICO team had left the premises at about 3 o clock morning and officially announced that this investigation was one of their larger investigations as it includes several tedious inspections like understanding the usage of personal data for creating political campaigns via social media companies and other commercial actors.

ICO is looking for how data has been extracted from the Facebook and shared with the analytical company and widens their research on investigating how these social media platforms are utilized in political campaigning. On another side, Facebook has also keep supporting the ICO to mitigate the uncertain acts happening with the organization and made certain changes to their security. CA and all other cooperative members ensured that the things that lead to criminal offence must not reciprocate within the organizations so that public data and their personal profiles could remain secure from deliberated actions.

ICO’s main focus on Cambridge Analytica and the Facebook data and the alleged misappropriation of the data, which is one strand of a much larger investigation into the use of personal data for big data politics. Therefore, they look at more than 30 organizations and they have been spending many months with their investigative team. They are looking at social media companies, data analytics companies, political campaigns and political parties because they are trying to understand on the basis of how they are sharing information. They also need to make sure that the public has more control and understands how their data may be used for political messaging and microtargeting.

At that point, ICO team was not satisfied with cooperation they are getting from the Cambridge Analytica and therefore, they decided to apply to the court and do an audit to get some answers as to whether data was misused and shared inappropriately. Once the court gives the approval for the warrant to get control over Cambridge Analytica premises, the analytical company calmly gives the ICO authorities to inspect for whatever they need from them. They entered some of the volunteers to the CA office for several days in order to inspect how the user’s data has been used for political campaigns. The team searched the organizational infrastructure comprehensively for several days and announced that both Cambridge Analytica and SCL group are their major targets and they keep investigating on them unless they find some big clue on the usage of personal data in political campaigns.

Cambridge Analytica clearly refuses to accept that they have a role in misusing public data for a political campaign. According to Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix, they ran many mobile servers appeared to time, trying to understand if they could use data in a meaningful way. Their intention was to accumulate the supporter through Facebook data and also allow them to give up on there. They were involved in the Trump campaigns for many months. They managed everything from research to data and analytics to all digital and television marketing. They rolled up some of the functions that are been delivered to the campaign.

By providing campaign services to the candidate who had been fairly nominated as a republic representative of the United States, Cambridge Analytic did not do any acts that could skew democracy. Although, they have some regrets about the way that CEO has represented what the company does. Alexander Nix certainly feels that the air of mystery and negativity that surrounds the work of Cambridge is misfounded. He took responsibility to enlight the fact that the staff have worked incredibly hard to build their business up. They are very driven on finding analytical solutions for very real problems.


Far-left extremists are raising money on Patreon to “inspire insurrection”.

Far-left extremists are raising money on Patreon to “inspire insurrection”.

Patreon is back in the news following another round of what appears to be an ideological purge from their platform. In the last few days the accounts for Milo Yiannopoulos, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad), and James Allsup were all terminated. These individuals all have different belief systems and principals and have been vocal critics of each other but their common denominator is a very vocal critique of the far-left and their creeping authoritarianism.

Following the termination of these accounts, many people speculated that Patreon was selectively enforcing their Community Guidelines in order to target right-of-center influencers.  What better way to test this theory then to see if left-of-center Patreon users are being dinged for their “manifest observable behavior”.

Here is what we found.

There are several far-left users who appear to be blatantly violating Pareon’s Community Guidelines. These users are raising thousands of dollars each month and are actively using that money to organize and advocate for violent and often illegal criminal activity.

Here is the breakdown on just a few of the larger accounts who are actively violating Patreon’s Community Guidelines. Should you decide to submit a report to Patreon, you will be asked to provide evidence. You can also contact their Trust & Safety team directly at We strongly recommend using the archived links we have provided below. Also, take a screenshot of your response from Patreon and share it on social media with the hashtag #DefundAntifa.

Revolutionary Left Radio:

This far-left podcast currently has  over 700 Patrons who donate monthly to their show, which is hosted by Brett Anderson aka “Breht Oshea”. Brett has a criminal record and is a vocal proponent of armed confrontation with the state and with people who he calls “reactionaries” (ie. people who oppose Communism).

Here are just some of the more inflammatory tweets from both the Revolutionary Left Radio twitter account and Brett.

In this thread, they openly admit their ideology and tactics are “authoritarian” but they believe their violence is justified because it is for the greater good.

Archive: (

Here, they talk about being armed and “militant”.

Archive: (

Here, they talk about putting every fascist (ie. people who oppose their far-left ideology) “against the wall”, which is a reference to execution.

Archive: (

Here, they share a quote from the Communist dictator, Mao Zedong who brutally murdered millions of his own citizens in order to advance his authoritarian ideology.

Archive: (

Here, Brett appears to be supporting the work of the New People’s Army (NPA), which is a State Department designated Foreign Terrorist Organization that is responsible for the death of at least 158 innocent civilians.

Archive: (

Here, Brett tells his followers that they “should use” tactics like sabotage and asymmetrical warfare.

Archive: (

The Guillotine Podcast:

This far-left podcast currently has over 350 Patrons who donate monthly to their show, which is hosted by an extremist who uses the moniker “Dr. Bones” as well as Brett Anderson. “Dr. Bones”, who is also a regular guest on Revolutionary Left Radio,  is a self described “Egoist-Communist, Insurrectionist, and an Illegalist”. He also has his own dedicated Patreon page with that he has been using in order to “inspire insurrection”. After we brought this to the attention of Patreon and Patreon support, “Dr. Bones” removed that language from his page as well as language where he discussed firing “massive .44 rounds at the heads of politicians and capitalists”.  Not to worry, we archived it before he made the changes.

Here are just some of the more inflammatory tweets from both “Dr. Bones” and The Guillotine Podcast

Here, he says that liberals “get the wall” too. Another reference to execution.

Archive: (

Here, he shared a pamphlet that was left at the site of several bombings in order  to “inspire” his followers.

Archive: (

Here he discusses “outshooting” his political opponents in lieu of a debate.

Archive: (

Here, he explicitly instructs his followers to “threaten rich people with violence”.

Archive: (

In this tweet, he encourages his followers to “start building guerrilla cells” to “up the insurrection”.

The text in the images he share suggests carrying out attacks against “police stations, political party offices, etc.” as well as “public buses, trams, and trains”.

Archived: (

Here, he praises the work of far-left extremists in France who burned 50 vehicles in an arson attack.

Archived: (

Here he shares an essay that attempts to justify the use of pipe bombs and shotgun in order to advance his far-left ideology.

Archive: (

Here, The Guillotine Podcast encourage their followers to start building “clandestine cells” and provide instructions on exactly how they can do that.

Archive: (

In on of their episodes they praised the work of the Informal Anarchist Federation (IAF), which is a Foreign Terrorist Organization responsible for numerous bombing campaigns throughout Italy.

Archive: (

I think we have pretty thoroughly demonstrated that the “Manifest Observable Behavior” of these three far-left Patreon accounts are in violation of Patreon’s Community Guidelines. Please help us #DefundAntifa and report these violations to Patreon’s Trust and Safety Team. You can also contact their Trust & Safety team directly at

The mission of Far Left Watch is to investigate, expose, and combat the far-left. Please share this article via Twitter, Facebook, etc. and encourage friendly media and YouTube content creators to report on this information. 

If you like our work please support us by donating to our SubscirbeStar or Patreon or making a one time donation here.

We are also now accepting cryptocurrency at:

BTC/BCH:  18SCjQf9Af3fXxqafRX3EXnBeLVPdThDF4

ETH: 0x850fd7e40b04aAC0240CA5c144DF20f110055Cc2

If you have any tips on far left activities please submit them here.


Cambridge Analytica responds to false allegations in the media

Several News channels such as Channel 4 News, the Guardian and the New York Times have alleged that Cambridge Analytica is responsible for misusing  public’s personal data in the Trumps’ political campaign. This is not a true statement according to the Cambridge Analytica. The company had claimed that their detail of accused responses was immensely ignored by the reporters and hence, viewers have only seen the negative side of the company’s participation in Trump’s victory.

They tried to clarify that it was all about misrepresenting the company’s work and misleading the viewers from different states. This activity is done by none other than the company’s  own former contractor who has driven absurd  comments to media channels and news reporters. Once a time in 2014, an analytical company GSR used to engage with legally providing Facebook data and its derivatives to the Cambridge Analytica. After getting known that CA has been accused of illegally accessing user’s data, GSR had broken the contract with CA.

This happened because the company was not stuck with the data protection regulation. Later, CA had trashed all the Facebook data and derivatives, in a coordination with Facebook. As far as using Facebook data concern, Cambridge Analytica had not used any Facebook data as a part of their services. They had provided the data to U.S presidential campaign supporting Donald Trump. The US media has also claimed that the analytical company has also conveyed personality targeted advertisement for the same political campaign, which is again a false statement according to CA. They had already provided a brief illustration of their accusations since 2016.

The data was used to prepare profiles on American voters so that they could show support for Donald Trump during the presidential election. In order to develop the software to identify the target voters, Cambridge Analytica has hired a Canadian firm Aggregate IQ (AIQ).CA worked with Trump for president campaign in a few key ways. One was data science, one was falling on research and then one was digital marketing. The presidential campaign in many ways is the ultimate startup. The company has considered the fact that the campaign is a multibillion-dollar endeavour that has to go from zero to a thousand in a matter of months and the number of infrastructures, resources and capital that is used during this time is on par even beyond some of the buzzy tech startups in the space.

This represents the need for the increased efficiency in everything that is done. In the beginning, they start with donors and fundraising. Obviously, campaigns need to invest in resources such as an advertisement. In the next process, they analyze the people mindset, understanding who has not yet decided who they are going to vote for, what particular issues they care about and how to best engage with them and then finally get out the vote. Talking to the people they know their supporters, elections are won and lost who actually shows up. So ensuring that those individuals have the tools needed will able to come out in a vote on election day.

CA start working with a Trump campaign in about June of 2016 when it became obvious that a sophisticated data operators would be needed to be able to combat the years of infrastructure and experience the political campaign has been building up. The research looks like going into the field. Collection thousands of survey responses from individuals in targeted battleground states. The research was throughout the period of about 7 days in the field, collecting the responses. At the end of that, that data then matched into their database through which they extract layout, models and predictions based on who they needed to be talking to and finally all these were segmented into various issues they cared about. While simultaneously, when the data will be worked with an extrapolated on throughout the models, the research was back in the field so that their data is always fresh and current and continually reflected the change in the electorate.

Cambridge Analutica’s involvement in the US election for the election of a president who proved to be so divisive among voters and polarizes among voters put an incredibly huge target on their back. Ever since that day although it was a great success in some terms for the company and its business growth, it actually proved to be some doing because from that moment onwards there were actors not least Democrats and liberal media particularly who were determined to destroy Cambridge Analytica and unfortunately they become a target of a sustained press and media attack. Cambridge Analytica wants to couple this incident with the reporting in the UK driven largely by a Carol and the Guardian about their involvement in backstage, which eventually proved to be a false reporting at every level.

After coming to the US they perceived to be the architect of the previous campaign and so they were mollified and hated. Cambridge also targeted an employee saying that “he is extremely jealous and resentful employee who sat there institute for three years as his baby grew and matured and got the success”. He saw this opportunity to go to Carol and share with her every single possible fantastical allegation he comes up with. He received a command from the opposition to put all of these into print so that it went viral on a global scale and make things into a perfect storm. They are the people who public want to hate because of their association with Trump and of full association with political campaigns.

They are affected by some people who are deeply motivated to destroy their organization who is feeding snippets of information and allegations  to the major organizations that incredibly influential and powerful. The Guardian and Carol forth it by attacking Cambridge Analytica and proving they had been involved in the referendum and the involvement  somehow been illegal. The people of Cambridge Analytica believes that American people can’t accept that Trump is their president and they want to blame someone for that and also the people of Carol looking to use them as a way to turn the outcome of the referendum they don’t agree with.


What Makes America Great?

What Makes America Great?


There is no doubt that current times, just like many of our past, is filled with political and social differences. We see more of it now with the technology that is available but the difference of opinions has always been there. However, strip away the media coverage, the social media sharing and the other forms that spread anger and hate and what do we have… The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  At our foundation of a nation we can still drive through most towns throughout this country and see various places of worship and freedom to pick what we choose to believe in. We can buy food at grocery stores 24 hours a day. We can buy clothes and household items at various stores and even on-line. Our children can go to public schools, private schools, charter schools, or even be home- schooled. People of all ages can participate in various activities from sports to crafts to hobbies of all sorts.  If we don’t like our political leaders we have the chance to change them out every few years. We can train and work in a field of our choosing and if we don’t like our job we have the freedom to try a different one. We can speak our mind and criticize those in power and we have protections from our Constitution as long as we are not hurting someone. We have the ability to protect our Country with our great military as well as other nations that may need our help. All of the above and many points not mentioned come with issues and problems that constantly need to be worked through as nothing will ever be perfect and no law will benefit 100% of the population 100% of the time. What we have is America….All it takes is a little research to realize, How Blessed We Are.


White House seeks alternatives to independent Space Force

White House seeks alternatives to independent Space Force

For months, Pentagon officials have been rushing to prepare plans for an independent Space Force, a sixth branch of the military ordered up by President Trump. But since Oct. 26, they have been marching to new White House orders: go back and look at different ways to reorganize the military’s space operations.

One of the four new options is an old one, defense officials said: a space corps that would be part of the Air Force, the way the Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy. The proposed structure is similar to a bipartisan proposal that passed in the House but failed in the Senate last year.

Why the second thoughts? The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, suggested that some in the Trump administration fear that the proposed independent Space Force might not make it through Congress.

A former senior defense official said Pentagon officials would be more comfortable with a space corps within the Air Force, but feel Trump’s comments that he wants a “separate but equal” space force have given them little wiggle room.

The four options, according to one of the officials, include: 1) an Air Force-owned space corps that includes only Air Force assets, 2) an Air Force-owned space corps that also takes space-related troops and assets from the Army and Navy, 3) an independent service that takes from the Air Force, Army, and Navy, and 4) an independent service that takes from the three services plus parts of the intelligence community.


Vice President Mike Pence and Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan — who are leading the reorganization of the military’s space operations — are scheduled to meet Thursday. The two are to discuss the options.

“As part of an ongoing review, the Department is developing options for a Space Force as a sixth military service branch to implement the President’s vision and guidance,” Lt. Col. Joseph Buccino, a Defense Department spokesman, said in an email.

A White House spokeswoman declined to comment.

No matter which option is chosen, the new organization is likely to be called “Space Force”, according to an Oct. 26 White House memo to the Pentagon. The memo is from Scott Pace, who is the National Space Council’s executive secretary, and Earl Matthews, who directs defense policy and strategy at the National Security Council, and it asks the Pentagon for alternate recommendations.

“As we work to meet the President’s intent of establishing a separate but distinct branch of the Armed Forces for Space, [we] request that the Department of Defense provide analysis and recommendations to the President on the optimal organizational construct to meet his intent,” they wrote.

The memo asks the Pentagon to decide whether it would be “best served by the establishment … of a new independent military department or whether the new Space Force would be most effectively organized as a separate service within the Department of the Air Force.”

The latter option would likely mimic the Marine Corps’ relationship to the Navy. The Marines are run by a four-star general overseen by the civilian Navy secretary.


Four times in the two-page memo, Pace and Matthews stress that the Pentagon’s recommendations should meet the “President’s intent” of establishing a space force. The term “space corps” is not used in the memo.

The memo was sent four days after Defense One published details from a draft of the Pentagon’s proposal to Congress. That draft proposed an independent service that would draw assets from the three spacefaring services but not the National Reconnaissance Office or other parts of the intelligence community.

“[W]e’re trying to produce what the President wants, which is a Space Force capability,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon on Nov. 21.

Mattis also downplayed the price tag associated with the new force, which remains a live argument in a Pentagon that President Trump may have told to cut spending. “For one thing it’s simply a shifting of costs,” Mattis said. “It’s not an increase, so we’re trying to…get clarity to you on that.”

Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said a space force would cost taxpayers an extra $300 million to $550 million each year. That’s because billions of dollars would be moved from the Air Force, Navy and Army budgets into the new service.


@ 2018 By National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.