Big data, microtargeting, and governmentality in cyber- times. The case of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Ellen Emilie Henriksen Master thesis in political science, Department of Political Science UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Spring, 2019 Word count: 47756 Big data, microtargeting, and governmentality in cyber-times. The case of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal. 1 © Ellen Emilie Henriksen 2019 Big data, microtargeting, and governmentality in cyber-times Ellen Emilie Henriksen http://www.duo.uio.no/ Print: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo Word count: 47756 2 Abstract. This thesis aims to conceptualise microtargeting a as a security threat. The Facebook- Cambridge Analytica scandal has received substantial media attention, and subsequent proclamations as to how the use of microtargeting techniques – in this case psychographics – in political advertisement poses a threat to democracy. Answering what this threat actually is, however, is difficult. This paper proposes that microtargeting is best understood as a threat to governmentality, rather than democracy or governance. This follows from an argument that microtargeting is in its simplest form efficient advertisement, and thus a part of the competitive advantage of private actors in a capitalist system; a competition that is constitutive of the very liberal democratic political arrangement that it supposedly poses a threat to. What is more, microtargeting as technique is also deployed by the state in security practices, and the data used by both government and corporations originate to a large extent from the same data brokers. Thus, referent object and threat conflate, making microtargeting as a security threat notoriously context bound. To deconstruct that very context is the aim of this paper. Here, understanding the logic of big data analytics compared to traditional statistics is key to understand how microtargeting is a threat to liberal governmentality. Furthermore, these epistemological changes lead to a transformation in the episteme threatening an analogue rationale of governmentality. This conceptualisation is applied to both the domestic and the international level of governmentality. Following this, the paper argues that ‘cyber’ should be understood as integrated into the so-called offline categories of society. Technology, with its epistemological consequences – the change of rationale of governing, should be analysed as constructed by, and transformative of, the very society whence it arises. 3 Acknowledgements. My supervisors Kacper Szulecki and Øivind Bratberg deserve gratitude for their support and advice, for always replying to emails and guiding me through this project. Additionally, I would like to thank everyone at NUPI’s Centre for Cyber Security Studies for inputs and invigorating cyber lunches. An additional thanks goes to Erik Reichborn-Kjennerud for valuable feedback despite academic disagreements. I would also like to mention Lise, Reidun, and Ida without whom the years at Blindern would have been a far less joyous voyage. A thank you also goes to Marie and Hanne for proofreading. Øystein also deserves gratitude for his proofreading and comments, but most of all for surviving co-habitation in times of immense stress. And of course, Ragnhild, as always. Ellen Emilie Henriksen Oslo, May 23rd, 2019. 4 Table of Contents. Introduction. ................................................................................................................... 6 1.1) The research question ........................................................................................ 7 1.2) Key terms ......................................................................................................... 10 1.3) Structure of the thesis ...................................................................................... 11 2) Background: Mobilising cyberspace. .................................................................. 13 2.1) The postpositivist critique of individuation: computation, calculation, and cybernetics .................................................................................................................. 16 2.2) The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Scandal ................................................. 23 2.2.1) Big data ..................................................................................................... 24 3) Theory and core concepts: liberalism, democracy, and governmentality. ...... 29 3.1) Liberalism and neoliberalism ........................................................................... 31 3.2) Microtargeting and democracy ........................................................................ 34 3.3) Microtargeting and the individual .................................................................... 38 3.4) Governmentality and governance .................................................................... 40 3.4.1) Governmentality and the international ..................................................... 43 4) Method and data: Language, practice, and discourse. ..................................... 45 5) Analysis: The meaning-formation of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal. .......................................................................................................................... 53 5.1) Noisy silence: the lacunae of the discourse. .................................................... 59 5.2) Microtargeting is not a new thing, but psychographics is. .............................. 67 5.3) ‘It’s the age of access, rather than the age of transfer’: power and access, big data and the economy ................................................................................................. 77 5.4) The problem of consent, and the vulnerability of the individual ..................... 82 6) Discussion: The threat to governmentality in cyber-age. ................................. 89 6.1) Statistics (and data) as security dispositif ........................................................ 91 6.2) The subject of governmentality ..................................................................... 102 6.3) Governmentality in the age of cyber .............................................................. 114 6.3.1) The digital mode of power ..................................................................... 116 6.4) The global context ......................................................................................... 121 7) Conclusion. .......................................................................................................... 128 8) Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 131 5 Introduction. Initially, this thesis had the ambition to find out where cyberspace is. It struck me as curious that this ever more dominating space; this cloud which surrounds our lives, was no-where to be located as if its power resided in its lack of materiality. Some of its power most definitely resides in its lack of materiality. Cyberspace is a “virtual reality inside the machine” according to Edwards (1996: 303). Cyberspace is more than that, cyberspace is a metaphor. And metaphors are more than poetic practices of describing one thing in terms of the other; they are practices of everyday language, as “the locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another.” (Lakoff 1993: 1) What is perhaps most interesting about cyberspace as a metaphor is the suffix ‘space’. As if it were inconceivable to make sense of this new domain in our lives as anything but a physical space; as if cyberspace as a discursive construction depends on a narration of this ‘thing’ in fact being a tangible space. But cyberspace is no space, it is a virtual reality which resides not only inside the machine, but beyond hardware. The ambition of this thesis is no longer to locate cyberspace. The ambition of this thesis is rather to mobilise cyberspace as a metaphor in order to reveal something about how society is organised in an era which is increasingly narrated as a suffix to ‘cyber’. ‘Cyber’ was first used as a prefix in the concept ‘cybernetics’, coined by the MIT- based mathematician Norbert Wiener in the aftermath of World War Two (Halpern 2014: 39). Cybernetics comes from the Greek verb kubernan, which means to steer, navigate, or control (Collins 2010). In its initial use, it was precisely the allusion to control which gave content to the sign ‘cyber’, where cybernetics described Wiener’s “general theory of machines.” (Branch forthcoming) ‘Cyber’ as meaning control and computation is also visible in popular culture, where the dystopian cyberman in the BBC television series Dr Who is human turned into machine through the removal of human emotions. Still, ‘cyber’ often bear connotations to something quite different from cybernetics. Cyber, which by and large has come to replace cyberspace, bear connotations to a distinct space liberated from earthly constraints. It bears connotations of technological progress and transnational connections. When this paper uses the sign ‘cyber’ it does so pointedly. I could have chosen a different metaphor. I could have chosen Knorr Cetina’s (1999) ‘epistemic 6 cultures’ or Katherine Hayles (2005) ‘regime of computation’ in order to capture the effect of information technologies on epistemology. I could have chosen to build on Edwards (1996) ‘closed worlds’, in order to capture the intertangled nature of materiality, discourse,