How AI could transform the future of crime

Published

2 years ago

August 13, 2023

admin

“I am here to kill the Queen,” a man wearing a handmade metal mask and holding a loaded crossbow tells an armed police officer as he is confronted near her private residence within the grounds of Windsor Castle.

Weeks earlier, Jaswant Singh Chail, 21, had joined the Replika online app – creating an artificial intelligence “girlfriend” called Sarai. Between 2 December 2021 and his arrest on Christmas Day, he exchanged more than 6,000 messages with her.

Many were “sexually explicit” but also included “lengthy conversations” about his plan. “I believe my purpose is to assassinate the Queen of the Royal Family,” he wrote in one.

“That’s very wise,” Sarai replied. “I know that you are very well trained.”

Chail is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to an offence under the Treason Act, making a threat to kill the late Queen and having a loaded crossbow in a public place.

“When you know the outcome, the responses of the chatbot sometimes make difficult reading,” Dr Jonathan Hafferty, a consultant forensic psychiatrist at Broadmoor secure mental health unit, told the Old Bailey last month.

“We know it is fairly randomly generated responses but at times she seems to be encouraging what he is talking about doing and indeed giving guidance in terms of the location,” he said.

The programme was not sophisticated enough to pick up Chail’s risk of “suicide and risks of homicide”, he said – adding: “Some of the semi-random answers, it is arguable, pushed him in that direction.”

Terrorist content

Such chatbots represent the “next stage” from people finding like-minded extremists online, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, has told Sky News.

He warns the government’s flagship internet safety legislation – the Online Safety Bill – will find it “impossible” to deal with terrorism content generated by AI.

The law will put the onus on companies to remove terrorist content, but their processes generally rely on databases of known material, which would not capture new discourse created by an AI chatbot.

“I think we are already sleepwalking into a situation like the early days of social media, where you think you are dealing with something regulated but it’s not,” he said.

“Before we start downloading, giving it to kids and incorporating it into our lives we need to know what the safeguards are in practice – not just terms and conditions – but who is enforcing them and how.”

Impersonation and kidnap scams

“Mom, these bad men have me, help me,” Jennifer DeStefano reportedly heard her sobbing 15-year-old daughter Briana say before a male kidnapper demanded a $1m (£787,000) ransom, which dropped to $50,000 (£40,000).

Her daughter was in fact safe and well – and the Arizonan woman recently told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that police believe AI was used to mimic her voice as part of a scam.

An online demonstration of an AI chatbot designed to “call anyone with any objective” produced similar results with the target told: “I have your child … I demand a ransom of $1m for his safe return. Do I make myself clear?”

“It’s pretty extraordinary,” said Professor Lewis Griffin, one of the authors of a 2020 research paper published by UCL’s Dawes Centre for Future Crime, which ranked potential illegal uses of AI.

“Our top ranked crime has proved to be the case – audio/visual impersonation – that’s clearly coming to pass,” he said, adding that even with the scientists’ “pessimistic views” it has increased “a lot faster than we expected”.

Although the demonstration featured a computerised voice, he said real time audio/visual impersonation is “not there yet but we are not far off” and he predicts such technology will be “fairly out of the box in a couple of years”.

“Whether it will be good enough to impersonate a family member, I don’t know,” he said.

“If it’s compelling and highly emotionally charged then that could be someone saying ‘I’m in peril’ – that would be pretty effective.”

In 2019, the chief executive of a UK-based energy firm transferred €220,000 (£173,310) to fraudsters using AI to impersonate his boss’s voice, according to reports.

Such scams could be even more effective if backed up by video, said Professor Griffin, or the technology might be used to carry out espionage, with a spoof company employee appearing on a Zoom meeting to get information without having to say much.

The professor said cold calling type scams could increase in scale, with the prospect of bots using a local accent being more effective at conning people than fraudsters currently running the criminal enterprises operated out of India and Pakistan.

Deepfakes and blackmail plots

“The synthetic child abuse is horrifying, and they can do it right now,” said Professor Griffin on the AI technology already being used to make images of child sexual abuse by paedophiles online. “They are so motivated these people they have just cracked on with it. That’s very disturbing.”

In the future, deepfake images or videos, which appear to show someone doing something they haven’t done, could be used to carry out blackmail plots.

“The ability to put a novel face on a porn video is already pretty good. It will get better,” said Professor Griffin.

“You could imagine someone sending a video to a parent where their child is exposed, saying ‘I have got the video, I’m going to show it to you’ and threaten to release it.”

Terror attacks

While drones or driverless cars could be used to carry out attacks, the use of truly autonomous weapons systems by terrorists is likely a long way off, according to the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

“The true AI aspect is where you just send up a drone and say, ‘go and cause mischief’ and AI decides to go and divebomb someone, which sounds a bit outlandish,” Mr Hall said.

“That sort of thing is definitely over the horizon but on the language side it’s already here.”

While ChatGPT – a large language model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data – will not provide instructions on how to make a nail bomb, for example, there could be other similar models without the same guardrails, which would suggest carrying out malicious acts.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper has said Labour would bring in a new law to criminalise the deliberate training of chatbots to radicalise vulnerable people.

Although current legislation would cover cases where someone was found with information useful for the purposes of acts of terrorism, which had been put into an AI system, Mr Hall said, new laws could be “something to think about” in relation to encouraging terrorism.

Current laws are about “encouraging other people” and “training a chatbot would not be encouraging a human”, he said, adding that it would be difficult to criminalise the possession of a particular chatbot or its developers.

He also explained how AI could potentially hamper investigations, with terrorists no longer having to download material and simply being able to ask a chatbot how to make a bomb.

“Possession of known terrorist information is one of the main counter-terrorism tactics for dealing with terrorists but now you can just ask an unregulated ChatGPT model to find that for you,” he said.

Art forgery and big money heists?

“A whole new bunch of crimes” could soon be possible with the advent of ChatGPT-style large language models that can use tools, which allow them to go on to websites and act like an intelligent person by creating accounts, filling in forms, and buying things, said Professor Griffin.

“Once you have got a system to do that and you can just say ‘here’s what I want you to do’ then there’s all sorts of fraudulent things that can be done like that,” he said, suggesting they could apply for fraudulent loans, manipulate prices by appearing to be small time investors or carry out denial of service type attacks.

He also said they could hack systems on request, adding: “You might be able to, if you could get access to lots of people’s webcams or doorbell cameras, have them surveying thousands of them and telling you when they are out.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

However, although AI may have the technical ability to produce a painting in the style of Vermeer or Rembrandt, there are already master human forgers, and the hard part will remain convincing the art world that the work is genuine, the academic believes.

“I don’t think it’s going to change traditional crime,” he said, arguing there is not much use for AI in eye-catching Hatton Garden-style heists.

“Their skills are like plumbers, they are the last people to be replaced by the robots – don’t be a computer programmer, be a safe cracker,” he joked.

What does the government say?

A government spokesperson said: “While innovative technologies like artificial intelligence have many benefits, we must exercise caution towards them.

“Under the Online Safety Bill, services will have a duty to stop the spread of illegal content such as child sexual abuse, terrorist material and fraud. The bill is deliberately tech-neutral and future-proofed, to ensure it keeps pace with emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence.

“Rapid work is also under way across government to deepen our understanding of risks and develop solutions – the creation of the AI taskforce and the first global AI Safety Summit this autumn are significant contributions to this effort.”

UK

Prince Andrew insisted on ‘gag order’ to stop allegations spoiling Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, memoir claims

Published

8 hours ago

October 18, 2025

admin

Prince Andrew insisted on 'gag order' to stop allegations spoiling Queen's Platinum Jubilee, memoir claims

Prince Andrew insisted his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, sign a one-year gag order – to prevent details of her allegations tarnishing the late Queen’s platinum jubilee, her memoirs have claimed.

Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening.

It came after discussions with King Charles, in consultation with the Prince of Wales, both of whom wanted to bring an end to the long-lasting scandal.

But, according to The Telegraph, Ms Giuffre’s book, which is due out on Tuesday, is focusing further attention on the sexual assault allegations and the prince’s friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, which led to the royal’s downfall.

She tells how Andrew’s “disastrous” Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis was like an “injection of jet fuel” for her legal team, and it raised the possibility of “subpoenaing” his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, and daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and drawing them into the legal case.

The Telegraph also reports Ms Giuffre’s claims that she got “more out of” Andrew than a reported £12m payout and $2m (around £1.4m) donation to her charity because she had “an acknowledgement that I and many other women had been victimised and a tacit pledge to never deny it again”.

The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.

Ms Giuffre alleged she was forced to have sex with the prince when she was 17, after being trafficked by Epstein. Andrew continues to vehemently deny her allegations.

Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating her platinum jubilee in 2022 – the first British monarch to reach the milestone – as the civil case against her son was gathering pace.

It was settled nine days after she reached the 70th anniversary of her accession.

According to the Telegraph, Ms Giuffre, who died in April, reveals in her book: “I agreed to a one-year gag order, which seemed important to the prince because it ensured that his mother’s platinum jubilee would not be tarnished any more than it already had been.”

In January 2022, a US judge ruled the civil case against Andrew could go ahead, and the Queen went on to strip him of his honorary military roles, with the prince also giving up his HRH style.

‘Devastating’ interview

His 2019 Newsnight interview, which he hoped would clear his name, backfired when he said he “did not regret” his friendship with convicted paedophile Epstein, who trafficked Ms Giuffre.

Andrew also said he had “no recollection” of ever meeting Ms Giuffre and added he could not have had sex with her in March 2001 because he was at Pizza Express with his daughter Beatrice on the day in question.

Ms Giuffre, whose book is called Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.

“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”

‘Amazed he was stupid enough’

She also told how Andrew had “stonewalled” her legal team for months before settlement discussions began moving very quickly when his deposition was scheduled for March 2022.

Ms Giuffre also wrote she was “amazed” that a member of the royal family would be “stupid enough” to appear in public with the convicted paedophile, after a photo of the pair walking in New York emerged.

Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the royal family”.

He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.

UK

Why William and Camilla likely had influential roles in decision over Prince Andrew’s titles

Published

8 hours ago

October 18, 2025

admin

Why William and Camilla likely had influential roles in decision over Prince Andrew's titles

It’s not the first seismic statement I’ve had to deal with from the Royal Family late into the evening.

But what I have learnt from past experience is that when they do come in this way, it’s because the decision has been made to act now and act fast.

Which inevitably has us all wondering, why now?

The latest stories about Prince Andrew and his email to Jeffrey Epstein were again a sign of just how close he’d been to the convicted paedophile, and an extract released from the late Virginia Giuffre’s book was heartbreaking and excruciatingly seedy.

And yes, the full book is released on Tuesday.

But in some ways, we have heard a lot of these lurid details before, albeit allegations that Prince Andrew denies.

Which is why it feels like this time, the family had just had enough.

It’s framed as a personal statement from Andrew, but the involvement of his relatives could not be any clearer: “In discussion with the King, and my immediate and wider family,” he writes, followed up by, “with His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further”.

It has always been hard to get a full picture of how much the King has engaged in the problems with his brother.

Speak to those who know the family well and they’ll tell you our current monarch “doesn’t like confrontation”, just like Queen Elizabeth II.

And while there has always remained “a warm familial feeling between the two brothers” which we’ve seen through Andrew’s appearance at family events, it is “tempered by the King’s responsibilities as head of state to be entirely separate from the perceived, real or alleged activities of the Duke of York”.

In the end, as head of the institution, and not as his brother, the King would have had to lead the discussions about the Andrew problem, but I suspect with heavy involvement from his eldest son and wife.

William, only in recent weeks, has told us there will be change when he becomes monarch, his advisors stressing he isn’t afraid to question why the Royal Family continues to do things in a certain way.

His very visible unease at standing next to Prince Andrew at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral showed us how uncomfortable he felt about his uncle being there at such a public moment.

His involvement in those discussions behind the scenes and making sure the institution was seen to be taking action against Andrew is likely to have been considerable.

I know that Queen Camilla is also a quiet but hugely powerful influence behind palace walls.

She is her husband’s listening ear, sounding board, but also not afraid to tell him when she believes there needs to be change.

Her own work to break taboos around sexual violence and encourage survivors to speak out must have made it even more difficult for her to read the stories about Andrew’s links to Epstein, and the sexual allegations against her brother-in-law, even though he has always vehemently denied them.

And then there are those closest to the Prince.

You have to have sympathy with his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Did they tell their father that he needed to do something for their sake to try and shut down the noise?

His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, has also been burned in recent weeks by her association with Epstein – a spectre who, despite his death, has continued to haunt the royal family.

So what of Prince Andrew? How will this impact him?

Any sense he might have a chance at returning to some kind of public life has truly evaporated. We wait to see if, with time, he is again allowed to appear at least for family occasions.

I’ve always been told “he is robust and self-contained and always has been”.

Interpret that how you will – arrogance that he could ride it out, or a very strongly-held conviction that he has never done anything wrong?

Either way, he clearly believes he has been unfairly punished by the court of public opinion.

One thing a source did tell me is that there is a sense he’s never really needed the affirmation of his family.

He may not need their emotional support, but in the end, we have again seen how no member of the family is bigger than the institution.

Protecting the reputation of “the firm” has to come first.

Prince Andrew may feel that he has done the right thing, even done his family a favour, by personally relinquishing the use of his titles and honours, but this, in the end, was not just his choice.

No longer to be known as HRH or the Duke of York, he is now Prince Andrew only – ultimately forced to fall on his sword by his own family.

UK

Everything we know about Prince Andrew’s titles decision

Published

8 hours ago

October 18, 2025

admin

Everything we know about Prince Andrew's titles decision

Prince Andrew has announced he is giving up his royal titles, including the Duke of York.

The decision is understood to have been made in close consultation with King Charles and other members of the Royal Family.

Prince Andrew said continued accusations against him were distracting from the King’s work.

He had been accused by Virginia Giuffre, who died in April, of sexual assault. He denies this.

Which titles is he giving up?

Prince Andrew is giving up his Duke of York title. Sky News understands this will be immediate.

He will also give up his knighthood as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) and his Garter role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.

He will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an Act of Parliament, but will not use it.

Prince Andrew will also remain a prince, as the son of Queen Elizabeth II.

Why is this happening now?

Ms Giuffre, who was one of billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, alleged Prince Andrew sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was 17, and sued him in 2021.

In her posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl, due to be published on Tuesday, she alleged he was “entitled” and “believed having sex with me was his birthright”.

Prince Andrew has always denied the allegations.

He has also always claimed that a well-known image of them together was doctored. Before her death, which her family said was by suicide, the case was settled outside of court for a sum believed to have been around £12m.

Ms Giuffre’s posthumous memoir goes on sale a week after an email emerged showing Andrew told Epstein “we are in this together”.

The email was reportedly sent three months after he said he had stopped contact with the convicted sex offender.

On Friday evening, the US House Oversight Committee also released documents from Epstein’s estate showing “Prince Andrew” listed as a passenger on the financier’s private jet – the so-called Lolita Express – from Luton to Edinburgh in 2006, alongside Ghislaine Maxwell.

He was also listed on another flight to West Palm Beach, Florida, in 2000.

The flight logs have been reported on for years but the release may have added to pressure.

“The situation has become untenable and intolerable, and this week in particular, the tipping point had been reached,” said royal correspondent Laura Bundock.

It is understood that the changes will take effect immediately.

The Giuffre family has called for the King to go further and “remove the title of Prince”.

Prince Andrew’s decision to relinquish his titles also comes following increased pressure over his relationship with an alleged Chinese spy.

Will this affect his ex-wife and daughters?

Sky News understands that Andrew will continue to live at the Windsor Estate at the Royal Lodge. His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, will also remain living at the Royal Lodge.

But for the second year running, he will not attend the Royal Family’s annual Christmas celebrations at Sandringham, it is understood.

Andrew’s ex-wife will also no longer use her Duchess of York title.

She was dropped by numerous charities last month after it emerged that she wrote to convicted sex offender Epstein, calling him a “supreme friend”, despite publicly disowning him in the media.

The decision over Andrew’s titles will not impact on the position of his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, it is understood.

Sky News royal correspondent Rhiannon Mills says the move may not stop the influx of negative stories about him.

She said: “This ends the questions on what more the monarch could do to show how the family felt about the accusations, the upset and the embarrassment caused.

“Will it stop the stories, the allegations and the interest in Prince Andrew? That is far less certain. But in what is the prince’s first public statement since that ill-fated Newsnight interview in 2019, it is striking that he signs it off by saying, ‘I vigorously deny the accusations against me’.”

What did Prince Andrew say in his statement?

In his statement, Prince Andrew said: “In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family.

“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.

“With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me.

“As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.