Terror laws watchdog warns of risk posed by extremists using AI
Jonathan Hall KC said generative AI could be used for propaganda purposes, attack planning and spreading disinformation which may trigger acts of terrorist violence.
Mr Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, suggested new laws should be brought in to ban the creation or possession of computer programmes designed to stir up racial or religious hatred.
Terrorist chatbots already exist 'presented as fun and satirical models' but given the right prompts they are willing to promote terrorism, he said in his annual report.
Mr Hall said: 'The popularity of sex-chatbots is a warning that terrorist chatbots could provide a new radicalisation dynamic, with all the legal difficulties that follow in pinning liability on machines and their creators.'
The watchdog highlighted the case of Jaswant Singh Chail, who climbed into the grounds of Windsor Castle in 2021 armed with a crossbow after conversing with a chatbot called Sarai about planning the attack.
More widely, Mr Hall said 'generative artificial intelligence's ability to create text, images and sounds will be exploited by terrorists'.
Groups such as al Qaida could avoid the technology because of their belief in 'authentic messages' from senior leaders but it could be 'boom time for extreme right wing forums, antisemites and conspiracy theorists who revel in creative nastiness'.
Terrorist groups could use AI to generate propaganda images or translate text into multiple languages.
The technology could be used to produce deepfakes to bring 'terrorist leaders or notorious killers back from the dead' to spread their message again.
Generative AI could be used to provide technical advice on avoiding surveillance, or make knife-strikes more lethal – reducing the need for would-be terrorists to receive training from other people.
But he said that current safeguards may deter attack planners from using AI models until offline versions were readily available.
He noted it had also been argued that in certain circumstances AI could be used to extend the way attacks are carried out, by potentially helping to create biological or chemical weapons or generating code for cyber attacks.
Warning about the spread of disinformation online, Mr Hall said the storming of the US Capitol on January 6 2021 emerged from a 'soup of online conspiracy and a history of anti-government militarism that had been supercharged by the internet'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Revealed: The new state-of-the-art technology Man United will bring to Old Trafford to help player analysis
Manchester United will install state-of-the-art tracking technology at Old Trafford and Carrington after renewing their partnership deal with STATSports. The fixed infrastructure will be in use at the stadium and training ground following Monday's announcement that United's stars will continue to wear the Apex 2.0 GPS performance trackers. Insiders said it will remove the need for portable beacons and enable the club's analysts to monitor the players in action more accurately, saving coaching staff up to 20 hours a week which can now be spent on deeper analysis or providing better feedback. United said in a statement that the new agreement 'reinforces the club's commitment to implementing best-in-class performance hardware solutions'. Ed Leng, head of physical performance at United, added: 'At Manchester United, we're always looking to push the boundaries of player performance. 'Wearable trackers are a vital part of that process, and we're grateful for STATSports' continued support and partnership. 'Their Apex 2.0 trackers will enable us to unlock deeper insights across all men's and women's players spanning all training environments, from academy to first team. 'By expanding our fixed infrastructure at Carrington, Old Trafford and Leigh, we'll enhance real-time tracking capabilities helping us to better prepare, develop, and protect our players.' Sean O'Connor, co-founder of STATSports, said: 'Manchester United are a benchmark for ambition and excellence. 'This supplier partnership renewal is a testament to their belief in the value of high-performance and our role in delivering it. 'Apex 2.0 trackers enable United's staff to obtain up-to-date accurate information in respect of player availability, individual development and team performance. 'With the addition of fixed infrastructure across both training and matchday environments, we're helping embed a world-class performance culture across every touchpoint.'
Sky News
41 minutes ago
- Sky News
Retreat from Afghanistan began as a farce, then it was a scandal, now it's a cover-up
The retreat from Afghanistan during the Taliban takeover in 2021 began as a farce, then it was a scandal and now it's a shoddy cover-up. The farce was when the then foreign secretary Dominic Raab remained on his holiday sunbed in Crete rather than return to work during the height of the evacuation crisis. It was a scandal because around 200 people were killed in the chaos, with distressing pictures of terrified Afghans clinging to the wings of moving aeroplanes at Kabul airport. And now we learn that in a massive cover-up, the Tory government of Rishi Sunak took out a superinjunction to gag the media from reporting a data breach that put 20,000 Afghans in danger. Over the years, superinjunctions granted by UK courts have been condemned for enabling celebrities and sports stars to cover-up extra-marital affairs, drug-taking and other secrets. The superinjunction granted to the government in 2023 to conceal a secret scheme to relocate Afghan nationals was obviously entirely different and no doubt sought for honourable motives. But it was a cover-up nonetheless and not so honourable because it hid a data blunder exposing names and contact details of 18,000 people who had applied for asylum in the UK under a resettlement scheme. The scheme had been set up by the government in 2021 to provide asylum for people who had worked with the UK armed forces and could be at risk of Taliban reprisals for working with western forces. In the Commons, the current defence secretary, John Healey, said it was "deeply uncomfortable" to be prevented from reporting the data breach blunder to MPs until now. 1:59 The ministers involved in seeking the gagging order were the former defence secretary Ben Wallace and the then armed forces minister James Heappey, he said. But while most MPs welcomed Mr Healey's apology, it's probably fair to say that if it hadn't been for tenacious campaigning by media organisations the superinjunction might not have been lifted by the High Court. One Tory MP, Mark Pritchard, accused the defence secretary of "wriggling" and said: "The fact is that he is justifying this superinjunction and not telling parliament, the press, the public and, unbelievably, the Afghans who were potentially in harm's way." And, among a number of individual cases highlighted by MPs, Lib Dem Calum Miller told MPs that "in the chaos of withdrawal" a constituent who left Afghanistan was promised by British officials that his pregnant wife could follow him. "Two years later, we have still not kept that promise," said Mr Miller. "My constituent's wife and child continue to move around in Afghanistan to evade the Taliban and my constituent is so desperate that he is talking about returning to Afghanistan - despite the risk to him - to be reunited with them." Reform UK's Zia Yusuf hit out at the Tory government's asylum policy, writing on X: "24k Afghans secretly granted asylum, costing British taxpayers up to £7bn. "The government covered it up. Who was in government? Home secretary: Suella Braverman. Immigration minister: Robert Jenrick." Later, Mr Healey was asked on LBC's News Agents podcast if the official responsible for the data breach is still employed by the government. "They are no longer doing the same job on the Afghan brief," he replied. Hmm. That suggests the person hasn't been fired, which will alarm those MPs who remain extremely concerned about this whole fiasco. Asked whether he would have taken out the superinjunction if he had been defence secretary in 2023, he replied: "Very, very unlikely." But when he was asked if he could rule out the use of superinjunctions by the Ministry of Defence in the future, Mr Healey said: "Well, you can never say never." So while Mr Healey will obviously be determined to avoid a farce in future, it appears that the threat of another Ministry of Defence cover-up in future hasn't gone away.
Sky News
41 minutes ago
- Sky News
Yet another fiscal 'black hole'? Here's why this one matters
Why you can trust Sky News You're probably tired by now of hearing all about "black holes". It's one of those phrases trotted out by journalists in an effort to make economic policy sound a little more interesting. And in some senses it's a massively misleading image. After all, when people talk about fiscal holes, what they're really talking about is something rather prosaic: the amount of money it would take for the chancellor not to break her fiscal rules. Those fiscal rules are not god-given, after all. They were confected by the chancellor herself. Missing them will not really result in Britain sliding into infinite nothingness. Even so, whatever you choose to call the dilemma she's faced with right now, it's certainly quite a big deal. And understanding this helps provide a little context for the extraordinary events of the past few days, with markets sliding in the wake of Ms Reeves' teary appearance at Prime Minister's Questions. Following that moment, the yield on UK government debt - the rate of interest we're being charged by international investors - suddenly leapt higher. Granted, the jump was nothing like what we saw in the wake of Liz Truss's mini-budget. And those yields dropped down after the prime minister backed the chancellor. Even so, they underline one very important bit of context. The UK has become something of an outlier in global debt markets. For years, the yield on our benchmark government bonds was more or less middle of the industrialised-world pack. But since 2022's drama, it has hovered unnervingly high, above every other G7 nation. That speaks to a broader issue. Britain might not have the biggest deficit in the G7, or for that matter, the highest national debt. Others (most notably France, and to some extent, too, the US) face even more desperate fiscal dilemmas in the coming years. But markets do still seem nervous about Britain. Perhaps that's because of what they (and we) all endured in 2022 - when British gilt markets stepped briefly over the precipice, causing malfunctions all around the financial system (most notably in obscure parts of the pensions investment sector). But it also owes something to the fact that the chancellor's own fiscal plans are sailing worryingly close to the wind. Reeves made f iscal rules matter The main piece of evidence here is the amount of leeway she has left herself against her fiscal rules. As I said at the start, there's nothing gospel about these rules. But having created them and banged on about them for a long time, even those of us who are a little sceptical about fiscal rules would concede that breaking them is, as they say, not a good look. Back in spring, the Office for Budget Responsibility thought the chancellor had about £9.9bn in leeway against these rules. But since then, she has u-turned on both the cuts in winter fuel payments and on personal independence payments. That reduces the £9.9bn down to barely more than £3bn. But the real issue isn't just these U-turns. It's something else. The stronger the economy is, the more tax revenues come in and the more her potential headroom against the fiscal rules would be. By the same token, if the economy grows less rapidly than the OBR expected, that would mean less tax revenues and an even bigger deficit. And if you compare the OBR's latest forecasts with the current average of forecasts among independent forecasters, or for that matter, the Bank of England, they do look decidedly optimistic. If the OBR is right and everyone else is wrong, then the chancellor "only" has to fill in the hole left by those U-turns. But if the OBR is wrong and everyone else is right, things get considerably more grisly. Even a small downgrade in the OBR's expectations for productivity growth - say a 0.1 percentage point drop - would obliterate the remaining headroom and leave the chancellor with a £6bn shortfall against her rule. Anything more than that (and bear in mind, most economists think the OBR is out by more than that) and she could be £10bn or more underwater. Now, there are plenty of very reasonable points one could make about how silly this all is. It's silly that so many people treat fiscal rules as tablets of stone. It's silly that government tax policy from one year to the next seems to hinge on how right or wrong the OBR's economic forecasts are. Yet all this stuff, silly as it might all seem, is taken quite seriously by markets right now. They look at the UK, see an outlier, and tend to focus more than usual on black holes. So I'm afraid we're going to be talking about "black holes" for quite some time to come.
