UK Home Office wants to use AI to block terrorist propaganda

[peterb]

The headline for this story is misleading it should be

“UK Home office wants social media companies to use AI to block terrorise propoganda”

There will be other platforms, which is why the gov hasn't just got facebook or youtube to make their own algorithm and called it a day. By putting this out there they're making it easier for the other, smaller sites to also catch this content before they get infested

Indeed, and there was an interesting interview with one of the developers on the BBC 10 o’clock news where he stated that if as a result of the technology the material can only be accessed by using TOR networks and multiple passwords to find a hidden sire, they regard that as a win because it prevents easy access and the easy sharing of links.

[Saracen]

Whether its intercepted via normal internet use,or not,they still need to data mine what is passing through the system,and that is a ton of data to sift through on social media. That includes everything from PCs to mobile phones. So serious computing power on the back end.

Tempora and its related systems would need to use algorithms to identify what is "problematic" and so would this "AI". It would be nigh on impossible to store everything that passes through the system on a daily basis,so you need to cut down what needs to be stored or analysed. Tempora like this "AI" would use a form of deep learning. So in both cases,the systems would need to be trained to cut out false positives,and only intercept/store/block stuff which is deemed to fall within certain parameters,and the parameters will be refined as they pass more and more data through it(training the network).

So this is for me just an extension of the same tech. In fact I would like to know where the back end of all of this is hosted. Is it GCHQ?? ISPs? Google? Facebook?? It has to be something UK specific as I can't see countries wanting a UK based system monitoring their citizens when they would rather do it themselves!!

If this works the way it's being implied, it has nothing to do with Tempura or systrn-wide intercepts. It's simply a tool made available for social media conpanies to install on their servers, and uploads to that platform are then 'scanned' before going live. It is analagous to installing AV software on your PC that analyses anything you download before saving it, and quarantining it if you get a hit.

How much of a backend system is needed depends on the volume of files, and perhaps size of files, are being uploaded to social media sites.

It's hard to see exactly what's implied because nobody is saying quite how it works, but the statement that the AI is "trained" with reference to thousands of hours of existing extrrmist material suggests known files will be fingerprinted and compared AV-style, but unknown vids have to be analysed according the whatever criteria the AI learned, and presumably, that will be sn ongoing exercise.

Also, for now, usage will be voluntary but ultimately it could become mandatory, presumably for sites hosting uploaded video. As ever, it's a balance between the negatives of enforcing ssuch aa regime, versus negatives of unlimited ability of extremists to upload terorist recruiting or training materials

[aidanjt]

Running this program will be a lot cheaper than manually moderating that volume

Will it, though? The existing moderating system works by checking out user flagged content, it's an implicitly permissive system, and only a tiny fraction of a percent of video will be checked out. Whereas the idea behind the A.I. is that all content should be checked out as it's uploaded, and it's deferred to a moderator when it flags something.

and for the new youtube it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper than developing their own version

I wasn't talking about the expense of the software, I was talking about how much hardware it'd need to keep up with YouTube's growth alone. Even if this software is optimised with tensor hardware in mind, which I doubt, it'd need a serious amount of hardware.

[aidanjt]

Indeed, and there was an interesting interview with one of the developers on the BBC 10 o’clock news where he stated that if as a result of the technology the material can only be accessed by using TOR networks and multiple passwords to find a hidden sire, they regard that as a win because it prevents easy access and the easy sharing of links.

Then they don't understand the internet. There's no need for TOR tunnelling or 'multiple passwords to find a hidden site' to bypass this system, all it takes is any webserver on the entire internet to easily access and share links.

[peterb]

Then they don't understand the internet.

I expect the developers of the application understand the internet very well!

There's no need for TOR tunnelling or 'multiple passwords to find a hidden site' to bypass this system, all it takes is any webserver on the entire internet to easily access and share links.

True, but a ‘private’ web server on the internet is easy to track and take down. It isn’t easy to take down FB and the like. The point of this software is to automate screening for content providers like FB and YouTube and potentially other server hosts services.

[Corky34]

There will be other platforms, which is why the gov hasn't just got facebook or youtube to make their own algorithm and called it a day. By putting this out there they're making it easier for the other, smaller sites to also catch this content before they get infested

You're assuming smaller sites will want to catch this content and even care what UK laws or governments want them to do, something even recent history has shown us doesn't necessarily hold true when people set up an alternative to reddit because they couldn't be misogynistic dicks.

Besides most things I've read on studies into online radicalisation show that's not where it starts, by the time someone is searching for and consuming extremist materiel they've already been radicalised and this sort of material is just feeding into their own confirmation bias, at best a solution like this will reduce accidental views and make research into terrorist and extremists groups harder.

[excalibur1814]

It seems like the the new, but old, buzz word is AI.

[Corky34]

And the new thing to blame for what ails society and thus needs to be banned is stuff on the internet, previously its been books, music, art, films, television, radio, and video games.

[Mr_Jon]

It is the start of monetising the entire internet, one day I can see the internet being almost as limited as TV and Radio, except all the subscriptions to your favourite sites will end up costing more in total just to add insult to injury, the good times are nearly over boys and girls.

Nah, the big difference between tv and the internet is that anyone with a computing device can put stuff online, whereas with tv the only people who could put stuff on yer tele was the tv companies.

[deadstoned]

My money is on this AI being trigger happy with shutting down stuff. I commend the idea to prevent terror and radicalisation, but I predict the AI would be tyrannical in practice.

[Corky34]

The AI can't really be trigger happy from what i understand as it's just putting a probability number on a video, what would be trigger happy and very likely to decline overtime is where they draw the line on what should and shouldn't be allowed, that initially the bar will be set at videos flagged as 90% probability of being terrorist materiel and when that lets some through they'll lower it to 80%, 70%, 60% and so on.

[Moonister]

Can the Home Office please block Home Secretary Amber Rudd's scaremongering and bigoted propaganda

[valhar2000]

In the UK, the Tories have killed tens of thousands due to welfare cuts. Terrorists have killed how many?

Perhaps we are looking to block the wrong kind of terrorist.

Indeed, this is pretty much guaranteed to be used for political censorship. For our own good, of course, because politicians are never corrupt, or even wrong.

My money is on this AI being trigger happy with shutting down stuff. I commend the idea to prevent terror and radicalisation, but I predict the AI would be tyrannical in practice.

I am convinced that the primary purpose of this technology will be political censorship in Europe and the USA, with prevention of terrorist attacks coming in a distant second. Ideologues on this very comment thread are already suggesting it! All for our own good, of course.

[Xlucine]

Will it, though? The existing moderating system works by checking out user flagged content, it's an implicitly permissive system, and only a tiny fraction of a percent of video will be checked out. Whereas the idea behind the A.I. is that all content should be checked out as it's uploaded, and it's deferred to a moderator when it flags something.


I wasn't talking about the expense of the software, I was talking about how much hardware it'd need to keep up with YouTube's growth alone. Even if this software is optimised with tensor hardware in mind, which I doubt, it'd need a serious amount of hardware.

User flagging doesn't work at keeping this sort of thing off social media. The cost of this will linearly scale with the upload rate, just like manual moderation, and given youtube already scans videos for copyrighted music/video they can manage it

You're assuming smaller sites will want to catch this content and even care what UK laws or governments want them to do, something even recent history has shown us doesn't necessarily hold true when people set up an alternative to reddit because they couldn't be misogynistic dicks.

Besides most things I've read on studies into online radicalisation show that's not where it starts, by the time someone is searching for and consuming extremist materiel they've already been radicalised and this sort of material is just feeding into their own confirmation bias, at best a solution like this will reduce accidental views and make research into terrorist and extremists groups harder.

If anyone sets up a jihad-tube website, that'll be an easy target to block (just like they blocked piratebay). The difficulty is legitimate social media apps like telegram where a blanket ban is disproportionate - and now they can easily implement this tool to filter extremist videos

My money is on this AI being trigger happy with shutting down stuff. I commend the idea to prevent terror and radicalisation, but I predict the AI would be tyrannical in practice.

The actual appeal process & false detection rate is up to how the social media site deals with flagged videos.

I am convinced that the primary purpose of this technology will be political censorship in Europe and the USA, with prevention of terrorist attacks coming in a distant second. Ideologues on this very comment thread are already suggesting it! All for our own good, of course.

That is a bold statement, care to back up that assertion?

[Corky34]

If anyone sets up a jihad-tube website, that'll be an easy target to block (just like they blocked piratebay). The difficulty is legitimate social media apps like telegram where a blanket ban is disproportionate - and now they can easily implement this tool to filter extremist videos

The blocking of piracy related website is easy to circumvent and any blocking of a jihad-tube website would be equally as easy to circumvent, as i said in another post about the only thing this technology will prevent is accidental viewing and legitimate research, there's also a risk that the bar will slowly be lowered overtime so it catches more than just terrorist and extremist materiel.

Besides studies show people are not radicalised online, if they're seeking out terrorist and extremist materiel online they've already been radicalised.

[Kevsta]

Hmmm. 49 people kill by terrorists since 2010, in the same time 120'000 deaths are linked to tory policies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/he...-a8057306.html

Constant erosion of privacy and civil liberties in the name of security and safety. Personally I know where I would want this money spent. What will happen is that the communication methods use will be further buried and will become more difficult to deal with.