A false Impression?

Blog Layout

A false Impression?

Ian Hunt • 6 February 2024

Robots interfering with an election? Where does it leave the UK?

The recent New Hampshire primary was remarkable for unfortunately the wrong reasons. A sophisticated robocalling operation teamed with an AI generated message from President Biden was used to falsely try and tell voters to “save their votes for November”. This was something election officials, candidates, parties and the media were quickly debunking and claiming to be false, but was the damage already done, and what can we learn from it?

In elections as in life the thoughts of the late Sir Terry Pratchett in his Discworld book “the Truth” are as ever true:

“I’m saying, sir, that a lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on.”

Although the narrative was quickly changed in New Hampshire with everyone “official” calling this out and saying it was false; authorities are still investigating who was behind the operation (as at 6/2/24). The company whose AI models were used to create the message was identified within a week, and apparently the user account which created the text has been blocked by the company. By this point the poll was over and the public had moved on.

In the UK we have a mixed legislative environment when it comes to this type of operation. Given this relates to elections then offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983come to mind. If directed at a candidate and their character the provisions of s106, or the process as a whole then s115. These are investigated by the police.

For a robocalling operations then additional questions come to the fore, potentially the Information Commissioner and Ofcom have roles. The former in relation to the databases and use of information and the latter in relation to misuse of the telephone system.

As with any enforcement, the key issues will come down to evidence and the ability to bring relevant perpetrators to justice. With the real risk of foreign entities using the power of the internet to spread misinformation

In the event of becoming aware of issues all involved should remember to gather real-time evidence to support investigations later, although this does not solve the problem.

As in New Hampshire it is unlikely that enforcement can be taken in real time – all of those working in and around elections need to be ready to rapidly counter misinformation through trusted channels of communication. We need to help the truth get its boots on!

< Older Post

Disclaimer

The information in this blog post is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief at the time of publication. Whilst I provide general thoughts comments and views on topics, the comments are a summary and not to be regarded as definitive legal advice. Please take detailed advice if you need it from a suitable professional who can look at your personal circumstances and details.

Managing Elections in the age of AI

by Ian Hunt • 11 January 2024

What impact does AI have on how we manage elections?

What do we have to do?

by Ian Hunt • 26 October 2023

The thorny issue of essential functions and statutory powers in straitened times.

Client Earth v Shell: A wake-up call to Local Government?

by Ian Hunt • 6 October 2023

Looking at the lessons to be learned by local government from recent strategic climate litigation.

Handling the Storm

by Ian Hunt • 19 June 2023

Many words have been written about the report by the House of Commons Committee of Privileges into the conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson. The overall outcome will I am sure be contested by those who support him or lauded by his detractors. He is after all one of those characters who people have a certain view about. This missive is focused on a different element – namely what to do when things go wrong. It is an inevitable part of life that things happen, and sometimes things go wrong. It may be small or large, within risk tolerance or not but in any event the reaction of the people involved makes the difference. At the heart of this story was a series of events happening within number 10 during lockdown. Remembering that number 10 is a workplace and for many there was a need to be in the office to do their roles. Indeed, as the fulcrum of the effort to manage the pandemic it is not surprising that some office presence was needed. The challenge came when more “normal gatherings” (or at least non covid normal) and events occurred including parties. The contrast in response can be seen starkly between the Department for Education and the Cabinet Office; one of contrition and one of fight. Admittedly the Department of Education had only one event which was investigated, but it was a social event (within the work context) and designed as such. Once it became public, there was a quick public admission and apology. I cannot say they got away with it, but it has been largely forgotten. Part of the reason it has been forgotten was the approach of Boris; he has dug in and raised the profile of the story repeatedly. His argument is that there were no unlawful gatherings, and the guidance was followed; the committee found: