This appeared a few days ago.
‘Extremely risky’ $1.2 million voter data project abandoned by Liberals
By Max Koslowski
April 21, 2019 — 11.45pm
Talking points
- i360 is a world-leading campaign tool that uses personal voter information to help parties zero in on swing voters
- The Liberal Party hoped i360 would take the place of Feedback, a decades-old tool party insiders believe is outdated
- Feedback is run by Parakeelia, a Liberal Party-owned company that has paid the party over $2 million this decade
The Liberal Party has abandoned a $1.2 million data harvesting system amid a botched rollout and fears sensitive voter information was at risk, as the government deals with an internal rift over software once touted as its electoral "silver bullet".
Liberal sources who have worked with the party on its digital campaign strategy over the past three years say a rift between the federal organisation and state branches underpinned the ditching of i360, a controversial American voter data machine the party used in recent state elections in Victoria and South Australia.
The rollout of i360 – which began in 2016 and has cost the Liberals an estimated $1.2 million – marked a significant investment in the new frontier of Australian political campaigning: data collection.
Both major parties curate databases to identify swing voters and tailor campaign messages. i360 uses hundreds of data points on every voter – from how many bathrooms their house has to whether they have hearing difficulties or enjoy cruises – to predict how they will vote and how they will respond to different campaign messages.
The company is run by American billionaires Charles and David Koch and was formed five years ago to assist the country's conservative Republican Party.
Labor has carefully invested in sophisticated digital campaigning apparatus over recent election cycles but the Liberal Party has largely lagged behind. Those with a detailed understanding of its efforts describe an operation of “low IT maturity” and hamstrung by leaders hesitant to move on from decades-old software.
Recent changes to the parliamentary expenses guidelines allow each member of Parliament to spend an undeclared portion of their taxpayer-funded office budget on voter software. The change presented the Liberal Party with the dilemma of sticking with current provider Parakeelia – a Liberal-owned firm that returns much of the taxpayer funds it receives back to the party – or abandoning the lucrative revenue stream in favour of the more sophisticated i360 tool.
Lots more here:
With this I was reminded of the freedom political parties and their operatives give themselves permission to data-mine your life to try and persuade you to vote for them – with no protections in place for the misuse of the data they capture.
This sad situation was emphasized with this:
It's time political parties started taking data protection seriously
By David Wroe
April 25, 2019 — 11.45pm
When the major political parties were spared the tedium of complying with the Privacy Act in 2000, the then-Howard government argued their exemption would enhance political communication and free up the democratic process.
It was a controversial enough view at the time, but it has become almost ludicrously counterproductive in the years since.
None of the parties wanted to talk about what they'd done to improve security since the cyber attack on Parliament's computer network earlier this year.Credit:
Technology in 2019 means malign actors can steal data and then use it to manipulate elections. That includes data on individual voters.
So where precisely is the incentive for voters to engage with their local MPs or parties - thereby enhancing the political process - if they can't be confident the data generated on them through that interaction isn't going to end up in the hands of a hacker, such as a Chinese intelligence agency?
It's not just about the Privacy Act, although that would compel better cybersecurity standards by the political parties. It's about parties properly understanding they are targets.
They say they do, but the clear feeling among close observers is that parties don't take data protection seriously. Even some insiders joke about their cybersecurity.
Getting answers out of the parties this week about their cybersecurity was like pulling teeth. Each said it was following the Australian Signals Directorate's "essential eight" cyber tools, which include using multi-factor authentication and making daily backups.
But none wanted to talk about what they'd done to improve security since the cyber attack on Parliament's computer network earlier this year.
Again more horrifying facts here:
and also here:
In parallel with all this we have the various social networks being manipulated by all sorts of targeted fake news and untruths – (Death taxes and safe school program compulsion among other things).
The Mueller Report in the US has made it clear just how potent personal information can be in targeting political messages and we should push back really hard against this sort if manipulation and influence peddling.
It seems to be happening already.
Facebook Under Fire Over Fake News About Upcoming Federal Election
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is reported to have asked Facebook to remove four items of unauthorised election content from the social media platform in the lead up to the 18 May federal election.
The AEC, in partnership with ASIO and the Australian Signals Directorate, is said to be ramping up efforts to prevent the publication and circulation disinformation.
A special electoral integrity taskforce is receiving daily briefings over content that’s being circulated on social media, with the AEC saying a proactive approach will help ensure that the democratic process is not tainted as a result of false information.
Lots more here:
Two things need to happen. First the pollies need to become subject to the full force of the Privacy Act – including allowing access to the data they hold on you as well as making sure all the information is properly secured and protected, and destroyed as it becomes dated and obsolete.
Secondly as citizens we need to be certain of the veracity and source of all information that is pushed at us or appears in our newsfeeds.
Anything less that this does not cut it anymore – as the My Health Record Debate has clearly shown us!
David.
Things certainly seem to be going off the rails of late. I agree with the sentiments that the political parties need to be better governed and new rules applied to oversee their use of all things digital. Perhaps we need a central Agency to run this sort of data for all parties, each can then submit (for a reasonable fee) requests for information related to captured and consented to data sets.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand why do they need to go down this granular path? Elections are well known in advance, parties and their members are known. We are social engineered enough and disappointed in the results even more.
What we need is to restrict politicians and their staff screen time. Perhaps the WHO could provide guidance