Monday 21st July 2025
Blog Page 762

Holidays lead us down the trail of discovery

0

Studying at Oxford can be brilliant, but the infamous bubble is often stifling and claustrophobic. Mistakes, problems, and difficult situations totally surround us and seem inescapable – that is, until term finishes and most of us migrate out of the city.

Taking a break from our whirlwind lives at Oxford can provide an outsider’s perspective which allows us to analyse them, be grateful for them, or change them. After a Hilary term filled with feelings of isolation and disorientation, the break is an invaluable time to rediscover our bearings.

But we as students are given these six week holidays, when for many this sort of break has to be self-imposed. This kind of self-imposed holiday, to recuperate and reflect, is presented with passion, humility and humour by Cheryl Strayed in Wild: A Journey from Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail.

In the years leading up to 1995, Cheryl Stayed had gotten lost. After losing her mother to lung cancer at twenty-one years old, she took a series of wrong turns and found herself on a stained and bare mattress, next to a stranger, in an unknown city with a syringe full of heroine stuck in her ankle.

Cheryl decided to leave the whirlpool of disaster which her life had become and walk 1,100 miles up the West Coast of America, from the heat Mojave desert to the Bridge of God’s in North Oregon “to become the person my mother raised [me] to be”.

This could easily be seen as an indulgent holiday of alleged self-discovery, in a “gap-yah” fashion, but Strayed makes clear that the walk she takes is not a choice. It is an ardent, inconvenient necessity made in order to salvage her life and move on.

While most of her suffering was, in many respects, self-inflicted (her dropping out of college, her string of unfulfilling jobs, her compulsive promiscuity leading to divorce, and her eventual drug addiction) they nonetheless knocked her off her path in a shocking and brutal manner.

On her trip, she does not discover herself per se. In fact, the ending passage of the novel reflects on how neither she, nor anyone else, can ever fully know their “mysterious and irrevocable” self. Instead, it revels in the beauty of not needing to analyse and understand the meaning of every confusing element of ourselves.

The trip affirms for, not reveals to, Cheryl what she already knows of herself and the world, but has lost sight of. That she is a part of, not apart from, nature and the wilderness, as much as the mountains she climbs and the forest she treks through. And that she can bear more than she ever thought.

But most of all, the trek makes it undeniably clear to her that she is a writer. It shows her what she always suspected; that, through navigating in the wild, through her bizarre encounters, though each unique and life-affirming experience, she sees the world as a story to tell.

In the endless, lonely hours of her trek, once she has worked through the kinks of her past, she begins to recycle it into what would become her first novel. Thirteen years later she does this again, with the trek itself, for her second.

While the author’s experiences are certainly niche and call for somewhat drastic action, Strayed’s little unconventional holiday from her life is one of the better choices made in her twenties. Her holiday contains lessons which are of value to all of us. By cutting away all arbitrary goals, she is able to rid herself of her cluttered aspirations and illusionary needs, to find what kind of a path she wants to return to.

Any holiday – be it a few days at home, a lazy week on the beach, a lad’s trip to Magaluf or even the aforementioned “gap yah” –  detaches us and creates a little distance from our everyday lives. They allow us to assess them and maybe, as was the case for Cheryl, show us how we can abandon, express or change them.

Why I won’t be participating in trashing

1

What do shaving foam, glitter, flour, eggs, raw meat, talcum powder and silly string all have in common? At one point or another, all of them have been gleefully thrown over finalists leaving their last exam in the utterly bizarre Oxford tradition of trashing. 

There’s a buzzing atmosphere at trashings. One May afternoon in first year I clustered with  hundreds of others around the Merton Street exit of Exam Schools, waiting for my friend, one of the English finalists, to emerge. Everyone was eager to celebrate, especially those without exams of their own or, like me, with upcoming Prelims banished to the back of their mind. My friend came out, looking a little dazed. We popped the cork, stuck two party hats on her head and doused her in shaving foam, enveloping her in huge, sticky hugs. But once the finalists and their hangers-on had gone, Merton Street was still covered in the mess we’d made and, strangely enough, none of us came back to clear it up.

No-one quite knows when trashing as a tradition started — various articles quote a now-defunct Wikipedia page saying it began in the nineties — but it’s a fairly recent phenomenon. Colleges and the University have tried to put a stop to it, or at least limit its damage, in the last few years: foods and liquids have been banned, and the University Proctors state that students must not ‘throw, pour, spray, apply or use anything in a way that is intended or likely to injure anyone, damage (including defacing or destroying) any property, or cause litter’. Any trashing misconduct could earn students an £80 fine, or even lead to expulsion.

Given the high levels of poverty and homelessness in Oxford, asking students not to chuck perfectly edible food over their friends seems reasonable enough. Then there’s the cost of buying provisions in the first place, a booming industry if the queues trailing from Oxford’s party supply shops at twenty past twelve on exam days are anything to go by. It’s also worth noting that for some, trashing is just an unpleasant experience. Call me old-fashioned, but my idea of celebrating doesn’t involve immediately having to take a shower to stop myself from being turned into ready-made cake mix. Particularly for those with sensory issues, the prospect of being covered in various sticky substances while surrounded by a crowd of screaming people is unappealing at best, overwhelming at worst.

Calm down, you might say, it’s just a bit of fun. But what’s the point of trashing? Why do we celebrate the end of our friends’ exams by turning them into walking, talking, glittery foam-people? The ridicule? The profile pictures? The sheer, childlike glee of making a mess? There’s more than likely some element of performance: just as our Facebook feeds fill up with exhausted students clutching brown envelopes at the end of Hilary, so too do trashing pictures appear in May and June. Multiple angles, multiple friends to document our success; it’s the academic extension of the ‘Drinks with this one x’ Instagram post, a social competition as much as anything. For those without a close-knit friendship group, trashings can be a disheartening experience.

And I get it, I do. Once my finals are over this summer, I’m sure I’ll want to celebrate as much as anyone else. But celebrating and trashing don’t have to go hand in hand. Even with the ban on food and the move towards biodegradable products, trashing is still incredibly wasteful (if you don’t believe me, try walking past Exam Schools five minutes after the crowds clear). More than anything, I don’t want to make a mess that someone else has to clean up, just because I’m happy to be done with exams. By all means, celebrate with your friends: pop some champagne, wear a party hat, jump up and down screaming for ten minutes straight. Just don’t expect someone else to clean up your mess.

 

I’m deleting Facebook, for your benefit as much as mine

0

This is not about mental health, although that alone is (or should be) a good enough reason for deleting your Facebook account. It’s also not about “living life in the moment”, or “returning to a simpler time”. This will not be a holier-than-thou sermon to the effect of “I’m deleting Facebook, and if you know what’s good for you, you will too”. This is a response to the revelations surrounding Cambridge Analytica, who used data from Facebook to compromise the integrity of the democratic process worldwide.

In a curiously prescient art film from 1973 titled “Television Delivers People”, text scrolls over a blank background, proclaiming that “The viewer is not responsible for programming…you are the end product.” In the case of social media, to say we are only products is an oversimplification. Our data is the product. And we, as consumers, produce it. We are individually and collectively responsible for our own ‘programming’, though we can’t choose what form it takes, or how it is delivered.

We’ve known for over a year that we can’t trust Facebook to be responsible – not with the headlines they show us, not with the research on us that they conduct, and certainly not with our data. Whilst treating their user base as if they were a combination of lab rats and golden geese, they have repeatedly proven themselves to be arrogant, duplicitous, and incompetent. In times where security breaches of tech companies are commonplace and black markets for the trade of stolen data are multi-million dollar affairs, these opinions are not controversial.

But this was no security breach. Facebook didn’t fail to defend our data, they simply sold it. In effect, they sold us. The fields of psychometrics and quantitative psychology, in combination with vast quantities of user data, allowed governments and companies such as Cambridge Analytica to manipulate us in unprecedented ways and to, as Mark Turnbull so charmingly put it, “drop the bucket further down the well than anybody else, to understand…those really, deep-seated underlying fears, concerns”. Turnbull is not talking about individuals here. He is talking about aggregates and averages. This is the law of large numbers at work: an individual person is very difficult to predict, but large groups of people are far easier. Every reaction I choose, every video I watch, and every meme I tag my friends in contribute to an algorithm’s accuracy in targeting not only me, but also people like me. I produced the data. Facebook sold the data. Cambridge Analytica used the data. Now a demagogue sits in the White House, and Britain is leaving the EU. Who is responsible?

Of course Cambridge Analytica is. They knowingly misused data meant for academic research purposes, and gleefully provided Steve Bannon a weapon with which to wage his culture war.

Of course Facebook is. They’ve played fast and loose with our data in a way that, at best, indicates gross negligence.

But I am too. The data I produced for Facebook refined every algorithm that it was fed into. This is true not only of CA, but of all the other companies and governments (I’m looking at you, Russia) that perform identical metrics. My data is being misused, and I am, however indirectly, responsible for the effects that it causes. Similarly, people who don’t get immunised against disease are responsible for the (now alarmingly increasing) death toll due to preventable diseases. To protect the health of the herd, every animal has to pitch in and get vaccinated. I can’t be certain that Facebook (or blackhat hackers) won’t sell my data to another company or government looking to manipulate an election. The only solution I see is to delete my data, in the hope that it knocks a fraction of a percentage point of accuracy off those algorithms trying to scare someone into voting for a racist, or a misogynist, or a fascist, or some combination of the above. If enough people did the same, they would stop working entirely.

I have read arguments that claim there is no need to quit Facebook entirely. They point out how embedded the platform is in our lives, how difficult it is to delete your data, as well as its positive potential. Initially, I found them compelling. But then indignation kicked in. How could I let myself be held hostage by photos (or “memories”, as Facebook insidiously terms them) which I could easily download? Wouldn’t a new, professional account, devoid of anything but the bare minimum of personal data be sufficient for work? Surely the process of deletion couldn’t be more difficult than navigating Weblearn for the first time? (It isn’t.) Yes, Facebook’s potential to bring people together is unparalleled. But the source of its strength is also its greatest weakness – it can only function effectively with a huge number of users. We can easily envision a social network built upon principles of transparency, privacy, and integrity (perhaps based on blockchain technology). Viewed as a consumer choice, quitting Facebook provides tech companies with a tangible incentive in terms of user numbers to create that network. It falls to us to create that incentive, to show that this is a status quo we will not, under any circumstances, tolerate. #Deletefacebook.

Oxford win women’s Varsity match on penalties

2

Oxford won the women’s Varsity match on penalties after a thrilling 3-3 draw with Cambridge.

After a 3-0 win in the men’s match, the Dark Blues twice came from behind to seal a fourth consecutive double victory.

Cambridge started the game well and quickly opened their account after a well-delivered corner was headed in by Jen Atherton in the 16th minute.

Oxford hit back quickly after the goal and pushed the Cambridge defence hard. In the end it was another set piece which delivered the goods for the Dark Blues after star player Beverley Leon equalised from a rebound in the 40th minute.

Oxford didn’t have the lead for long however and another set piece delivered a second for Cambridge. This time, Sophia d’Angelo converted a well rehearsed corner to make it 2-1 to the Light Blues.

A period of end to end play followed the goal with both teams going close. However, Oxford went into half-time one goal down to what was a strong Cambridge team.

Oxford started the second half well and had some very close opportunities with Leon again almost finding the back of the net, following a skilful solo run.

But it was Cambridge who scored first after Oxford gave away a penalty in the 54th minute. Dark Blue substitute keeper, May Martin, dived the right way and was unlucky to concede a well-hit penalty from Atherton to make it 3-1.

Oxford fought back quickly and some more strong play from Leon finally broke through the Cambridge defence in 60th minute. She headed a good cross in the back of the net to take the match to 3-2.

However, there was still drama in the match with substitute Mary Hintze scoring late after a Cambridge defensive error. The match finished 3-3 and went to penalties.

Oxford shot first and never looked back. A good save from substitute goalie May Martin and a miss from Cambridge led to a 4-2 shoot-out victory.

Oxford’s coach, Rob Gier, told Cherwell:”I am feeling over the moon. The team has just been brilliant from when we started to today and it’s a culmination today of all their hard work that they have put in.”

“They were absolutely outstanding and it was great to see how they dug in when they were three one down. The goals galvanised them. We knew Cambridge were going to be aggressive but we pushed back at them and I just couldn’t be prouder of the girls right now.”

Oxford win men’s football Varsity

0

Oxford men’s team put in a dominant display to win the 2018 men’s football Varsity match 3-0.

This is fourth win in a row for Oxford against Cambridge in the Varsity match, which was played in Barnet FC’s stadium The Hive.

The Dark Blues entered the match slight favourites after a good run of form in the Bucs league.

Oxford started the game well and pressed the Cambridge defence on a number of occasions. The break through came from fan favourite Dominic Thelen who converted in the 24th minute after a long period of passing play from the dark blues.

A second goal quickly followed, with wing-back Leo Ackerman scoring after a clever solo run in the 31st minute. Ackerman slightly skewed his shot but it squirmed under the Cambridge goalkeeper and nestled in the bottom left corner.

Oxford went into the break dominating the game after some wasteful attacking moves from the Light Blues.

Both teams made subs coming into the second half, and Cambridge looked like they may be able to get one back.

But Thelen settled the match with his second of the afternoon in the 77th minute. His clever chip over the Cambridge keeper’s head followed a well-rehearsed bit of play from the Dark Blues.

Dom Thelen scored two to take the game away from the Light Blues.

Thelen, who has been Oxford’s star of the season, performed strongly throughout and was awarded man of the match.

The match was the first of a double-header Varsity which will see the Oxford women’s Blues team play Cambridge later in the afternoon.

Oxford’s coach, Mickey Lewis, told Cherwell: “It’s great to win the Varsity game, it was a really enjoyable occasion. The occasion of coming to a football league ground is great, but when you step over the line it is all about the game and its nice to get a win.”

Lewis, speaking about man of the match Dom Thelen, said: “Dom is a good footballer and he always has a goal in him. He scored two really well taken goals today. As a footballer, he could still carry on playing and play at a non league. He has a lot of ability but today was a real team effort.”

“The team are now off to America for ten days and some of the boys have a lot of studying to do. But it’s been a good season and we will restart again soon.”

Cambridge win the Men’s Boat Race

0

The Cambridge Men have won the 2018 Boat Race by 10 seconds.

Cambridge led from the off after a tricky start where the teams came close to clashing.

Oxford looked like they might hold on and kept up with Cambridge for the first five minutes of the race. But, as the crews past under the Hammersmith bridge, Cambridge’s lead became insurmountable. They finished three lengths ahead of their rivals.

Flares were let off by environmental protest groups from both universities as the boats crossed under the bridge.

Cambridge’s final time was 17 minutes and 51 seconds, which marks a strong performance for the now dominant boat. This is the seventh win for Cambridge since the millennia and gives them an 83 to 80 lead in the boat race overall.

Cambridge’s coach, Steve Trapmore, said: “The boys really stepped up and delivered.”

He added: “They took it up from stroke one and bang, they were off. In this race, so many things can go wrong, but you could tell they were on the money today.”

Cambridge entered the race as odds on favourites and, being the heavier and more experienced crew. Oxford had had a tough week with crew troubles making the national headlines. Returning blue and experienced rower Joshua Bugajski left the boat and was replaced by Benedict Aldous.

Aldous, who rowed in sixth seat, made national headlines last year when he was banned from JCR events at his college, Christ Church, after attending a ‘2016’-themed bop dressed as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

The loss caps off a disappointing day for Oxford rowing with all four Oxford boats, including the women’s crew and the reserves’ crews, losing their events. It is the first time that Cambridge have won all four races since 1997.

Cambridge win 2018 Women’s Boat Race

0

The Cambridge Women’s boat won the 2018 boat race with a dominant performance, winning by 20 seconds.

They entered the race as the favourite crew and were strong throughout, finishing with a time of 19m 10s. By the mile post, they were already one and a half lengths ahead.

This is first time they have won the race back to back since 1999 and follows a run of good for the Cambridge boat. Since their disastrous performance in 2016, the crew has strengthened and has now repeated their success in the 2017 boat race.

The Cambridge crew took a quick lead on an overcast but calm day and increased the gap to three lengths by the halfway point.

Despite putting in a strong effort, the Oxford crew were behind from the start and couldn’t make up any ground on Cambridge. Oxford’s lower stroke rate and lighter crew weight damaged their chances in the highly anticipated event.

Cambridge had won the toss and chose the Surrey side, which is often seen as the better side of the river. 62% of teams who have won the toss and chosen that side have gone on to win the race.

Cambridge Cox, Sophie Shapter, said: “We just knew we had to go out there and do a job.”

Oxford’s Women’s Boat Club President, Katherine Erickson, said: “I’m crying, but I’m actually really proud.”

The Cambridge Women’s reserve boat, Blondie, were also victorious against Oxford’s Osiris.

 

Wadham hosts £500-a-head ketamine conference

0

Wadham College played host to a £500-a-head ketamine conference last week.

The conference saw experts on the Class B party drug speak on their “cutting-edge clinical research and practice”, and its possible antidepressant effects.

24 speakers appeared at the conference between Wednesday and Friday, and attendees enjoyed dinner in Wadham’s 400-year-old hall on Thursday night.

Wadham has long held a reputation for both its liberalism and its ties with experimental science. In the 1650s, it regularly played host to meetings between Sir Christopher Wren, Robert Boyle, and Robert Hooke. The trio went on to found the Royal Society.

In 2014, Dr Andrew Farmery – a tutor in medicine and physiology at the college – attracted national attention for his research, which explored the possibility of using intravenous infusions of ketamine to help combat treatment-resistant depression.

The conference cost £350 to attend for academics and those working in NHS, or £500 for non-academics. The prices cover attendance, as well as two nights of accommodation at Wadham, lunches, teas and coffees, and conference material – but no ketamine, Cherwell understands.

Thursday night’s dinner cost guests a further £40.

According to the conference’s website, the discovery of ketamine’s potential antidepressant effects “is the most important advance in psychopharmacology in 50 years.

It claims: “Clinical adoption in the US has been rapid, with over 100 clinics established in the last two years. Clinical experience has moved ahead of research – an unusual situation which creates opportunities as well as risks.”

A second-year Wadham student told Cherwell: “I’m a bit annoyed that the college turfs out students over the vac to hold ket conferences.

“But then again, I’m probably just jealous I wasn’t invited.”

Ketamine – which is known for giving its users dreamlike, floaty feelings, is banned for recreational use in the UK, but is currently a licensed drug, which means it can be prescribed by doctors.

Last April, Oxford University research suggested that ketamine could be used as a last-resort method to treat clinical depression.

A month later, students at Exeter College were warned by a junior dean against posting about their use of the drug on social media.

In an email to all undergraduates, Michelle Hufschmidt said: “Exeter students have alleged to ketamine use [sic] on public Facebook groups.

“This means your comments can be seen by anyone, including your friends, tutors, and fellows of the College. It can also be seen by future employers, which is especially important for those studying law or medicine.”

A spokesperson for the conference said: “Clinical trials over the last 15 years have shown that very small doses of ketamine given under strict clinical supervision can be an effective treatment for some patients with treatment-resistant depression, which does not otherwise respond to more commonly used treatments.

“As with other academic meetings, the conference in Oxford resulted in fruitful discussion and an exchange of ideas about research on the broad topic of treatments for depression.

“It should be emphasised that the treatment uses very small (milligram) doses of ketamine, far lower than those used when ketamine is used as a drug of abuse, and this treatment is closely supervised by clinical professionals.”

Don’t delete Facebook – wise up

1

In the words of the self-proclaimed gay Canadian vegan genius who helped to mine data from over 50 million Facebook profiles, Facebook has now become a “psychological warfare mindfuck tool”. But how much is this being blown out of proportion? And should we really take measures to ensure that we can no longer be ‘mindfucked’?

Naturally, many have seen the best step is to just #deleteFacebook. Numerous newspapers have put together how-to guides explaining the best way to do so, and public figures like WhatsApp’s co-founder, Brian Acton – a company now owned by Facebook – tweeted bluntly: “Delete and forget. It’s time to care about privacy.”

The story goes that a British tech firm named Cambridge Analytica has been targeting psychological profiles on Facebook to sway political opinion. Using a personality test developed at Cambridge, a Facebook quiz app matched 270,000 users’ personality traits to everything they and their entire networks of friends like and post.

To give some degree of “data” to this seemingly fun and innocuous quiz was completely voluntary. But the consent box to tick before taking it presumably didn’t read “Are you happy for us to use these inner workings of your psyche to make you more likely to vote for Trump or Brexit?”

Simply put, we all know a personalised ad for a pair of shoes will pop up on Facebook because you nearly bought them the day before. Or that you’re likely to see umbrellas for puppies if you’re a dog-owner in Scotland. What we’re learning now, however, is that you might be pitched home insurance not just because you own a house, but because you worry more than the average person. Or, you could be shown a different kind of anti-immigration ad to your sibling because they’re more aggressive than you.

Here, we can find a few different narratives. There’s the full-on 1984 scenario – those in power are increasing control over how we think. There’s the more legal take – data firms like Cambridge Analytica are breaking more rules than just transparency by knowingly spreading lies and claiming to entrap politicians with “beautiful Ukrainian girls”. And there’s the more pragmatic view that Facebook’s not taking as much care as it should, so we should probably all just leave.

But then there’s the more sceptical, but nonetheless concerned, approach. Can I, as someone who takes pride in researching and articulating my political opinions, really be changed by a few Facebook videos somehow targeting my insecurities? This is likely an opinion voiced on all sides of the fence from those facing and throwing accusations that only the stupid can be brainwashed. That the solution is not to merely delete Facebook but to wise up on what you truly believe and not succumb to populist tactics.

Yet still this approach belies a fair bit of what this scandal is really about. From what we know so far, Cambridge Analytica obviously targeted the more likely swing voters at first, but from there paid more attention to “what kind of messaging you’d be susceptible to” rather than just isolating the most susceptible people. From this perspective, we could all quite likely be transformed by paid content. This content wouldn’t make us suddenly vote for our enemies – instead it bolsters or adjusts our pre-formed ideals.

Secondly, though the data was gathered through this Facebook quiz app, Cambridge Analytica’s scope stretched far beyond Facebook content and instead towards the entire “bloodstream of the internet”. Its managing director, Mark Turnbulll, has boasted about how the firm’s vast “Crooked Hilary” campaign was spread across innumerable blogs and websites. So, again, from this perspective, it’s hard to argue that you wouldn’t shift your outlook on something the whole internet seems to agree with.

With these points combined, could it be the case that elections will now always be won by the candidate which has the money and power to wield the greater force from psychological data? For many have been quick to note that, of course, similar tactics were used to elect Barack Obama, and many more votes throughout the course of political history.

My gut answer is still a strong and hopeful no. The power of this science cannot be ignored, but doubt has been cast on how important it actually was to the Trump campaign and whether Cambridge Analytica was even involved in Brexit. To consider this as any kind of “data breach” has also been refuted by Facebook as no real sensitive information, like passwords, was leaked. Instead, we can just agree that a mere 50 million of its users (2.5% of everyone on Facebook) had their deep cerebral demons remoulded and individually drip-dropped onto their screens.

The moral for now is probably to just use Facebook less for a number of reasons and to go about life “with a healthy dose of scepticism”. But then again, am I not also just a part of the barrage of information gradually shifting your opinion on this through Facebook? Like me, you should probably keep looking around to make sure you believe it.

Oxford beats Cambridge for data security

1

Oxford University’s quality of data protection is far better than Cambridge’s, according to a leading cybersecurity firm.

RepKnight searched the dark web – a seedy but massive back-alley to the normal internet – and found more than twice as many stolen Cambridge email addresses as Oxford email addresses.

As part of their campaign to raise awareness of hacked credentials, the firm scoured the dark web for stolen Oxbridge email addresses using their monitoring tool Breach Alert. They found around 400,000 stolen addresses with the cam.ac.uk domain, and less than half that number with the ox.ac.uk domain.

The addresses were found across numerous dark web sites that serve as warehouses for stolen information. Collectively, those warehouses store “more than five billion stolen, leaked or hacked credentials.”

Though the term “credentials” might suggest passwords or security answers, email addresses alone could be turned against users and institutions. RepKnight warns of how hackers use stolen university emails, including doing anything from conducting phishing scams to using university systems as proxies to conduct illegal operations.

Patrick Martin, the firm’s cybersecurity analyst, said: “It is often assumed that cybercriminals are primarily targeting commercial businesses. However, it’s not hard to see why the confidential data stored at universities might be a valuable commodity for criminals, given the links those institutions have to government agencies, supra-national organisations like the EU, and the private sector.

“Like most industries, universities are working hard to improve their cyber security capabilities. But the best network security often can’t defend against someone logging in using a stolen username and password. The vast majority of the credentials we see on the Dark Web are from third-party breaches, where an email address had been used on a site like LinkedIn or Dropbox, and that site was subsequently compromised – often including the user’s password.”

The findings come after Christopher Wylie’s revelations regarding his former employer Cambridge Analytica’s data gathering practices. Andrew Nix, CEO of the British Big Data firm, bragged to an undercover reporter of swinging elections using prostitutes and sting operations, among other underhanded methods.

Facebook employees have also come forward accusing Cambridge Analytica of mining users’ data to influence their vote.

Sandy Parakilas, former platform operations manager at Facebook, told the Guardian that hundreds of millions of Facebook users could also be targeted by other companies using the same methods as Cambridge Analytica.