1. The investigative long tail of the Cambridge Analytica scandal is slowly coming to its end. The British data rights regulator, the @ICOnews, has released its final report. Some interesting findings: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/2618383/20201002_ico-o-ed-l-rtl-0181_to-julian-knight-mp.pdf

2. The ICO found Cambridge had more or less the same tech in the 2016 campaign that competitors did—and even within the company, staff worried that Nix & Co. were exaggerating CA’s “impact and influence.”
This jibes with reporting by @nytimes, @BuzzFeed, and others in 2017.

3. All those things you read about the thousands of data points CA had on American voters? Most of it was commercially available to anyone with the $. Points to larger issues of data & privacy but not something unique to CA.

4. @ICOnews didn’t find any new evidence of a connection between CA’s campaign work and Russian interference in 2016.

5. @ICOnews reiterated its earlier finding that Cambridge Analytica did not work on the Brexit campaign beyond some early discussions.

6. Finally, some news (I think). As the walls were closing in, CA tried to offshore its trove of FB & other data, the way you would offshore financial assets—to shield them from regulation.
A glimpse of the future of privacy right there. https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/2618383/20201002_ico-o-ed-l-rtl-0181_to-julian-knight-mp.pdf

One CXN.
I called this document a "final report," but more accurately, it is a letter from @iconews to a Parliamentary committee, summarizing its work in the investigation and answering questions the committee had posed at an April 2019 hearing. https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/2618383/20201002_ico-o-ed-l-rtl-0181_to-julian-knight-mp.pdf

ADDENDUM: There seems to be a lot of misplaced dunking about "Cambridge Analytica was a hoax!", some of it seemingly inspired by this thread. So let's unpack a tiny bit more.
To my mind, Cambridge was always two, interrelated stories: 1) Digital privacy
2) "secret sauce"

The "secret sauce" story was, basically, had CA developed an extraordinarily effective new voter-persuasion technology using Facebook data?
The privacy story was: How did they get their Facebook data in the first place?