Warning to UK politicians over risk of audio deepfakes that could derail the general election

Published

1 year ago

June 2, 2024

admin

As AI deepfakes cause havoc during other elections, experts warn the UK’s politicians should be prepared.

“Just tell me what you had for breakfast”, says Mike Narouei, of ControlAI, recording on his laptop. I speak for around 15 seconds, about my toast, coffee and journey to their offices.

Within seconds, I hear my own voice, saying something entirely different.

Follow the latest updates on the election

In this case, words I have written: “Deepfakes can be extremely realistic and have the ability to disrupt our politics and damage our trust in the democratic process.”

We have used free software, it hasn’t taken any advanced technical skills, and the whole thing has taken next to no time at all.

This is an audio deepfake – video ones take more effort to produce – and as well as being deployed by scammers of all kinds, there is deep concern, in a year with some two billion people going to the polls, in the US, India and dozens of other countries including the UK, about their impact on elections.

Sir Keir Starmer fell victim to one at last year’s Labour Party conference, purportedly of him swearing at staff. It was quickly outed as a fake. The identity of who made it has never been uncovered.

London mayor Sadiq Khan was also targeted this year, with fake audio of him making inflammatory remarks about Remembrance weekend and calling for pro-Palestine marches going viral at a tense time for communities. He claimed new laws were needed to stop them.

Ciaran Martin, the former director of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, told Sky News that expensively made video fakes can be less effective and easier to debunk than audio.

“I’m particularly worried right now about audio, because audio deepfakes are spectacularly easy to make, disturbingly easy”, he said. “And if they’re cleverly deployed, they can have an impact.”

Those which have been most damaging, in his view, are an audio deepfake of President Biden, sent to voters during the New Hampshire primaries in January this year.

A “robocall” with the president’s voice told voters to stay at home and “save” their votes for the presidential election in November. A political consultant later claimed responsibility and has been indicted and fined $6m (£4.7m).

Mr Martin, now a professor at the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University, said: “It was a very credible imitation of his voice and anecdotal evidence suggests some people were tricked by that.

“Not least because it wasn’t an email they could forward to someone else to have a look at, or on TV where lots of people were watching. It was a call to their home which they more or less had to judge alone.

“Targeted audio, in particular, is probably the biggest threat right now, and there’s no blanket solution, there’s no button there that you can just press and make this problem go away if you are prepared to pay for it or pass the right laws.

“What you need, and the US did this very well in 2020, is a series of responsible and well-informed eyes and ears throughout different parts of the electoral system to limit and mitigate the damage.”

He says there is a risk to hyping up the threat of deepfakes, when they have not yet caused mass electoral damage.

A Russian-made fake broadcast of Ukrainian TV, he said, featuring a Ukrainian official taking responsibility for a terrorist attack in Moscow, was simply “not believed”, despite being expensively produced.

The UK government has passed a National Security Act with new offences of foreign interference in the country’s democratic processes.

The Online Safety Act requires tech companies to take such content down, and meetings are being regularly held with social media companies during the pre-election period.

Democracy campaigners are concerned that deepfakes could be used not just by hostile foreign actors, or lone individuals who want to disrupt the process – but political parties themselves.

Polly Curtis is chief executive of the thinktank Demos, which has called on the parties to agree to a set of guidelines for the use of AI.

She said: “The risk is that you’ll have foreign actors, you’ll have political parties, you’ll have ordinary people on the street creating content and just stirring the pot of what’s true and what’s not true.

“We want them to come together and agree together how they’re going to use these tools at the election. We want them to agree not to create generative AI or amplify it, and label it when it is used.

“This technology is so new, and there are so many elections going on, there could be a big misinformation event in an election campaign that starts to affect people’s trust in the information they’ve got.”

Deepfakes have already been targeted at major elections.

Last year, within hours before polls closed in the Slovakian presidential election, an audio fake of one of the candidates claiming to have rigged the election went viral. He was heavily defeated and his pro-Russian opponent won.

The UK government established a Joint Election Security Preparations Unit earlier this year – with Whitehall officials working with police and security agencies – to respond to threats as they emerge.

A UK government spokesperson said: “Security is paramount and we are well-prepared to ensure the integrity of the election with robust systems in place to protect against any potential interference.

“The National Security Act contains tools to tackle deepfake election threats and social media platforms should also proactively take action against state-sponsored content aimed at interfering with the election.”

A Labour spokesperson said: “Our democracy is strong, and we cannot and will not allow any attempts to undermine the integrity of our elections.

“However, the rapid pace of AI technology means that government must now always be one step ahead of malign actors intent on using deepfakes and disinformation to undermine trust in our democratic system.

“Labour will be relentless in countering these threats.”

Politics

US Supreme Court will not review IRS case involving Coinbase user data

Published

6 hours ago

June 30, 2025

admin

US Supreme Court will not review IRS case involving Coinbase user data

A lower court ruling will stand in a case involving a Coinbase user who filed a lawsuit against the IRS after the crypto exchange turned over transaction data.

Politics

First US staking ETF to launch Wednesday, giving investors exposure to Solana

Published

7 hours ago

June 30, 2025

admin

First US staking ETF to launch Wednesday, giving investors exposure to Solana

REX Shares will launch the first US staked crypto ETF this week, giving investors direct exposure to SOL with staking rewards.

Politics

Government accused of ‘stark’ contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

Published

7 hours ago

June 30, 2025

admin

Government accused of 'stark' contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

The government has won a long-running legal challenge about its decision to continue allowing the sale of spare parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel, while suspending other arms licences over concerns about international humanitarian law in Gaza.

But a key part of its case has highlighted mixed messaging about its position on the risk of genocide in Gaza – and intensified calls for ministers to publish their own assessment on the issue.

PM braced for pivotal vote – politics latest

Lawyers acting for the government told judges “the evidence available does not support a finding of genocide” and “the government assessment was that…there was no serious risk of genocide occurring”.

Therefore, they argued, continuing to supply the F-35 components did not put the UK at risk of breaching the Genocide Convention.

This assessment has never been published or justified by ministers in parliament, despite numerous questions on the issue.

Some MPs argue its very existence contrasts with the position repeatedly expressed by ministers in parliament – that the UK is unable to give a view on allegations of genocide in Gaza, because the question is one for the international courts.

For example, just last week Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner told PMQs “it is a long-standing principle that genocide is determined by competent international courts and not by governments”.

‘The UK cannot sit on our hands’

Green MP Ellie Chowns said: “The government insists only an international court can judge whether genocide is occurring in Gaza, yet have somehow also concluded there is ‘no serious risk of genocide’ in Gaza – and despite my urging, refuse to publish the risk assessments which lead to this decision.

“Full transparency on these risk assessments should not be optional; it is essential for holding the government to account and stopping further atrocity.

“While Labour tie themselves in knots contradicting each other, families are starving, hospitals lie in ruins, and children are dying.

“The UK cannot sit on our hands waiting for an international court verdict when our legal duty under the Genocide Convention compels us to prevent genocide from occurring, not merely seek justice after the fact.”

‘Why are these assessments being made?’

“This contradiction at the heart of the government’s position is stark,” said Zarah Sultana MP, an outspoken critic of Labour’s approach to the conflict in Gaza, who now sits as an independent after losing the party whip last summer.

“Ministers say it’s not for them to determine genocide, that only international courts can do so. Yet internal ‘genocide assessments’ have clearly been made and used to justify continuing arms exports to Israel.

“If they have no view, why are these assessments being made? And if they do, why refuse to share them with parliament? This Labour government, in opposition, demanded the Tories publish their assessments. Now in office, they’ve refused to do the same.”

Judges at the High Court ultimately ruled the case was over such a “sensitive and political issue” it should be a matter for the government, “which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not the court”.

Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at the Global Legal Action Network, and a solicitor for Al-Haq, the Palestinian human rights group which brought the case, said: “This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.

“The government’s disgraceful assessment that there is no risk of genocide has therefore evaded scrutiny in the courts, and as far as we know it still stands.”

What is the government’s position?

Government lawyers argued the decision not to ban the export of F-35 parts was due to advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the whole F-35 programme and have a “profound impact on international peace and security”.

The UK supplies F-35 component parts as a member of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets. As a customer of that programme, Israel can order from the pool of spare parts.

Labour MP Richard Burgon said the ruling puts the government under pressure to clarify its position.

“This court ruling is very clear: only the government and parliament can decide if F-35 fighter jet parts – that can end up in Israel – should be sold,” he said.

“So the government can no longer pass the buck: it can stop these exports, or it can be complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“On many issues they say it’s not for the government to decide, but it’s one for the international courts. This washing of hands will no longer work.”

Israel has consistently rejected any allegations of genocide.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu branded a recent UN report on the issue biased and antisemitic.

“Instead of focusing on the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Hamas terrorist organisation… the United Nations once again chooses to attack the state of Israel with false accusations,” he said in a statement.

The UK government has not responded to requests for comment over its contrasting messaging to parliament and the courts over allegations of genocide.

But in response to the judgement, a spokesperson said: “The court has upheld this government’s thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter.

“This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.

“On day one of this Government, the foreign secretary ordered a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL).

“The review concluded that there was a clear risk that UK exports for the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) in the Gaza conflict might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL.

“In contrast to the last government, we took decisive action, stopping exports to the Israeli Defence Forces that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.”