Introduction 介绍
The article on Cambridge Analytica by Rosenberg, Confessore and Cadwalladr (2018), highlights how this company collected data on Facebook users and used this data to create profiles in order to help influence the voters in United States of America. The data for Facebook users was collected without their permission. 50 million users were affected by the data leak. The collected data was used to categorise the American voters and then target them with specific messages in order to influence them to vote in a particular way, with this influence focusing on influencing voters to vote for the presidential candidate, Donald Trump. The article notes that whereas Facebook had previously refused to accept that Cambridge Analytica had used data of its users to influence the American voter campaigns, it finally accepted that Cambridge Analytica had used a scam to obtain this data. The article ends with Mr. Alexander Nix, Cambridge Analytica’s CEO boasting on how he employed former spies on behalf of the political elite across the globe, as well as how to catch political figures in compromised situations. With this in mind, this paper looks at the ethical issues raised in the article, how people make ethical decisions, as well as my personal moral philosophies in making decisions.
Rosenberg、Confessore和Cadwalladr（2018）在《剑桥分析》（Cambridge Analytica）上发表的文章强调了该公司如何收集Facebook用户的数据，并利用这些数据创建个人资料，以帮助影响美国选民。Facebook用户的数据是在未经他们许可的情况下收集的。5000万用户受到数据泄漏的影响。收集的数据被用来对美国选民进行分类，然后用具体的信息针对他们，以影响他们以特定的方式投票，这种影响集中在影响选民投票给总统候选人唐纳德·特朗普。文章指出，尽管Facebook此前拒绝接受剑桥Analytica利用其用户数据影响美国选民竞选，但它最终接受了剑桥Analytica利用欺诈手段获取这些数据。文章的结尾是剑桥Analytica的首席执行官亚历山大·尼克斯（Alexander Nix）先生，他吹嘘自己是如何为全球政治精英雇佣前间谍的，以及如何在妥协的情况下抓住政治人物。有鉴于此，本文着眼于文章中提出的道德问题，人们如何做出道德决策，以及我个人在决策中的道德哲学。
Background and Argument Summary 背景和论点摘要
Rosenberg, Confessore and Cadwalladr (2018) raise different ethical argument issues in their article. To begin with, one of the issues that emerge in this article is the fact that the Cambridge Analytica obtained user data from another company without the consent of the company, that is Facebook, or its users. On the contrary, Cambridge Analytica relied on a third party to obtain this data, which from an ethical point of view, is unethical. The second ethical issue that emerges from the article regards how the obtained data was used. Notably, Rosenberg, Confessore and Cadwalladr (2018) argue in their article that whereas the third party who obtained the user data from Facebook claimed it was going to be used for academic research, he passed this data to Cambridge Analytica without the knowledge and consent of Facebook. According to van Wel and Royakkers (2004), when one is collecting data from websites that is not available to the public, one should not interfere with people’s privacy, and the use of this data should be based on user consent. In this case, when using people’s personal data, one should obtain permission from the user to do so, otherwise it would be unethical. Whereas this is the case, Cambridge Analytica did not obtain permission from the Facebook users to use their personal data for the activities. Furthermore, the obtained data was used in an unlawful way to influence the choices that Americans made on presidential elections, thus denying them their rights to vote freely. This is unethical.
Rosenberg、Confessore和Cadwalladr（2018）在他们的文章中提出了不同的伦理争论问题。首先，本文中出现的一个问题是，剑桥Analytica未经另一家公司，即Facebook或其用户的同意，从该公司获取了用户数据。相反，Cambridge Analytica依靠第三方获得该数据，从伦理角度来看，该数据是不道德的。文章中出现的第二个道德问题涉及如何使用获得的数据。值得注意的是，Rosenberg、Confessore和Cadwalladr（2018）在他们的文章中指出，虽然从Facebook获得用户数据的第三方声称该数据将用于学术研究，但他在未经Facebook知情同意的情况下将该数据传递给剑桥分析公司。根据van Wel和Royakkers（2004年）的说法，当一个人从公众无法访问的网站收集数据时，他不应该干涉人们的隐私，使用这些数据应该基于用户同意。在这种情况下，当使用人们的个人数据时，应该获得用户的许可，否则将是不道德的。鉴于这种情况，Cambridge Analytica并未获得Facebook用户使用其个人数据进行活动的许可。此外，所获得的数据被非法用于影响美国人在总统选举中的选择，从而剥夺了他们自由投票的权利。这是不道德的。