Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Tuesday July 17 2018, @12:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the here-we-go-again dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Former staff from scandal-hit Cambridge Analytica (CA) have set up another data analysis company.

Auspex International will be "ethically based" and offer "boutique geopolitical consultancy" services, according to its website.

CA was shut down by its parent company, SCL Elections, which itself faces criminal charges over failure to supply data when requested.

Auspex will work in the Middle East and Africa initially.

The company was set up by Ahmed Al-Khatib, a former director of Emerdata, which was also created in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal to continue the work it was doing.

In a press release announcing the new company, he says CA's collapse was a "bitter disappointment" to him.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Nuke on Tuesday July 17 2018, @12:59PM (7 children)

    by Nuke (3162) on Tuesday July 17 2018, @12:59PM (#708309)

    Ah it will work in the lovely countries with political systems that are less bothered by the writings and attitudes of the western nations.

    Nothing to do with political systems. The entire culture of some of those places sees scamming as a skill to be admired, in fact they consider it to be normal business practice.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday July 17 2018, @02:24PM (6 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday July 17 2018, @02:24PM (#708333) Journal

    Bribery is commonplace in many cultures. Westerners are ill-prepared for it and are frequently aghast when they encounter it.

    Unfortunately, it's an infectious practice. When people from those cultures emigrate to new places, they carry those practices with them. If they are moving to places that don't do that it gives them an early advantage through the difficult transition of language, laws, culture. In the long term it can turn native-born against them or rub off on their hosts.

    Relative honesty in business dealings seems to me a key competitive advantage in Western economies, because it means lower transaction costs (in the econ sense of the term), but when the number of people in the marketplace who cheat, steal, bribe, and corrupt as a matter of course overwhelm those who prefer not to do that it might turn into a hindrance. The guy you used to do business with because he was trustworthy becomes the guy everyone wants to do business with because he has a giant sign on his forehead that reads, "Sucker."

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday July 17 2018, @02:58PM (3 children)

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 17 2018, @02:58PM (#708347) Homepage Journal

      I am absolutely serious.

      This often puts US firms to a disadvantage relative to companies from countries where it's legal to bribe.

      At least at one time this law was strictly enforced. I haven't heard anything about it under the Trump administration.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday July 17 2018, @05:01PM (2 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday July 17 2018, @05:01PM (#708414) Journal

        It is, yes, but US companies simply use go-betweens like UnaOil [theage.com.au] to do it for them. They use other firms like Mossack Fonseca [wikipedia.org] to launder the proceeds and evade sanctions and that sort of thing.

        It has been shown that all that is an unnecessary bit of work, because companies doing business in the United States have been caught red-handed doing really bad stuff and have suffered no real consequences, such as HSBC laundering drug money for the Mexican and Columbian Cartels [reuters.com].

        Because of all those crimes there ought to be a corporate death penalty and nullification of personal indemnity for officers of those corporations who ordered those actions.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday July 17 2018, @05:09PM

          by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 17 2018, @05:09PM (#708419) Homepage Journal

          The legal Term Of Art for that is "piercing the corporate veil".

          There are certain unlawful acts for which a corporation's fiduciaries can be held libel if they don't fulfill their fiduciary duties to ensure the corporation obeys certain laws.

          Failure to file taxes is one such; the corporations officers and directors can be forced to pay the taxes owed by the corporation. I don't recall what other offenses lead the corporate veil to be pierced.

          Putting millions of people out of work as a result of your company's "investment" in subprime mortgage-backed securities is unfortunately not one of them.

          I'll write my congress critters about that this weekend.

          --
          Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
        • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Saturday July 21 2018, @03:16AM

          by cubancigar11 (330) on Saturday July 21 2018, @03:16AM (#710237) Homepage Journal

          Just to make sure you understand who actually made"bribery" normal and acceptable, here is a read: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/how-our-british-rulers-legalised-bribery/article2442485.ece [thehindu.com]

          The "westerners" went around punishing honest "subjects" and over hundreds of years purposefully established a corrupt system that only serves the people at top. This should also give you some context on exactly what is going on in USA today.

    • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday July 18 2018, @01:52AM

      by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday July 18 2018, @01:52AM (#708615)

      Bribery is commonplace in many cultures. Westerners are ill-prepared for it and are frequently aghast when they encounter it.

      Absolutely.

      I did some work several years ago for a large 'energy sector' multinational who was standardising policies and procedures across all of their global offices. They actually had a formal policy for how to handle bribes, or "facility payments" in some of the places that they operated (e.g. mining in Africa). To their credit, the company absolutely forbade these transactions unless a country was below a particular corruption index figure (something like this table [transparency.org]). Even then, there were certain signoffs required, limits imposed, and only certain conditions under which it could be used. It was all in the policy - fascinating reading!

    • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday July 18 2018, @05:20AM

      by cubancigar11 (330) on Wednesday July 18 2018, @05:20AM (#708679) Homepage Journal

      Just to clarify, bribery is not an output of culture but income inequality. It does ride on culture though.

      If they are moving to places that don't do that it gives them an early advantage through the difficult transition of language, laws, culture.

      It requires 2 to tango. Since offering a bribe is also an offense, just as taking one, immigrants offering a bribe won't work if native won't take it. So then why would they? Only if there is huge income inequality, and most probably because law enforcer isn't getting paid well.

      In the long term it can turn native-born against them or rub off on their hosts.

      There is absolutely no basis behind assuming native-born aren't against immigrants from the beginning. They almost always are. This is basic sociology. [wikipedia.org] Logical conclusion is that immigrants are successful because of two reasons: perseverance and undeniable need for their work.

      In fact, hatred against immigrants is worst in western countries because most of the Europe is basically a bunch of tribes who got rich over the hard-work and cunning perseverance of its own immigrants.

      You are right about the advantages of lack of bribery-culture, but it is not a cause it is a symptom. It is important to make this distinction because otherwise it will crop-up in your country and guess who will be blamed for that? The same group of people who have been blamed for everything by Europeans since forever - out-group.