The Battle for Truth
"Information is the currency of democracy."   Thomas Jefferson [1]
‘Fake news’, lies and deception represent a serious threat to peace and stability in the world. These imposters and the often sinister forces behind them confuse and mislead the public and contribute to mistrust in government and mainstream organisations; they damage individuals and businesses, destroy reputations, sometimes lives; and they incite fear and anxiety, which undermines social cohesion, democracy and the rule of law.
This page summarises some of the ways in which civil society, business, the media,  governments and international agencies are trying to tackle the threat, and it outlines the elements of a viable strategy for slaying this modern day Hydra[2]. The page also includes a note on the online tools that are now available to help spot fakery and image manipulation, and suggests what individuals can do to play their part.
We cannot afford to lose the battle for truth — democracy and peaceful coexistence are at stake, along with humankind’s ability to tackle existential global threats.
Page Contents
Elements of the Strategy
1   Who's Fighting Fake?
"Information is the currency of democracy."   Thomas Jefferson [1]
The good news is that ‘fake news’ and disinformation are now recognised as a serious threat to social cohesion and more and more organisations are getting involved in trying to tackle the problem. They range from educational establishments promoting media literacy, critical thinking and quality journalism, to groups engaged in data analysis, website labelling or fact-checking, and software engineers working on cyber-security or forging tools to detect fraud or content tampering; and also agencies developing national legislation and think tanks formulating blueprints for internet regulation and discussing possible reforms to international bodies and treaties.[3]

These various initiatives are discussed in more detail on a separate page.
2   Things We Can Do
Everyone has a role to play in tackling the threat posed by lies and disinformation:
  • we need to stay alert to the dangers, check facts, and think twice before sharing suspect material with our friends on social media;
  • we can also support quality journalism with donations or an annual subscription; and
  • we can hold scoundrels to account (eg on social media or at the ballot box).
I've provided some practical suggestions on a separate page, many self-evident, but worth repeating none the less.
Tools to Spot Fakery
The adjacent quote is attributed to Einstein and may well represent his sentiments, but it is not clear that the great man actually said it.  The same is true for the quote at the top of the page which bears Jefferson's name [1].  Always wise to check with a site like Quote Inquisitor. 

There are now many tools available online to help you spot mis-quotes, and manipulated images and video. You will find examples on this page.
See Annex for examples of how fake is sometimes used to fight fake...
3   Sorting Out the Internet
“There are decades in which history seems to slow to a crawl... Elections are won and lost, laws adopted and repealed, new stars born and legends carried to their graves. But… the lodestars of culture, society, and politics remain the same... Then there are those short years in which everything changes all at once. Political newcomers storm the stage. Voters clamor for policies that were unthinkable until yesterday. Social tensions that had long simmered under the surface erupt into terrifying explosions. A system of government that had seemed immutable looks as though it might come apart... This is the kind of moment in which we now find ourselves.”
Yascha Mounk [‘The People vs Democracy’] 
As governments around the world have struggled with the coronavirus pandemic, one service has performed with surprising robustness, the Internet. But like so much technology these days we take the immensely valuable services it provides for granted — until our broadband goes down! And yet problems on and with the system are growing. If we want to maintain the many services we currently enjoy / rely on and protect our privacy and rights, we are going to have get serious about fixing the underlying architecture of the Internet — and fight off attempts to Balkanise the Web. 
Midway through a pandemic may not seem a good time to be asking probing questions about the operation of the Internet, but time is not on our side. In November 2020 the International Telecommunications Union is scheduled to hold a major conference in India where a delegation from China will make proposals for a new Internet Protocol (IP) and if it (and covert lobbying and arm twisting by its sponsors) are successful, it could be a game-changer. The new protocol may well “support faster broadband” (as China claims), but it will also enable authoritarian regimes around the world to exert even more control over their citizens.
I've explored the nature of ‘The Problem’ in a separate paper and identified six Internet conundrums that urgently need to be addressed, not least the first: should the Internet be regulated to reduce misuse, disinformation and criminal activity, and if so how and by whom? The conundrums are also in the Pulldown below.
  • Global Commission on Internet Governance

    The World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks the spread of misinformation and fake news, as among the world’s top global risks. It points out that more than 50% of the world’s population (an estimated 4.1 billion) is now online — with roughly one million more joining each day — and it notes that “the current lack of global technology governance and the presence of cybersecurity blind spots increase the risk of a fragmented cyberspace and competing technology regulations”. The Forum goes on to speculate on how “a fragmented cyberspace and differing technological standards could hinder economic growth, exacerbate geopolitical rivalries and further divide societies.”

     

    In 2014 the WEF launched the Global Commission on Internet Governance, which produced a hard-hitting report, 'One Internet' (in 2016), which argues that “Internet governance is one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time." It goes on to point out that "to realize its full potential, the Internet of the future will need to be open, secure, trustworthy and accessible to all”. 


  • Six Internet Conundrums

    Here are my six top Internet conundrums — all highly contentious!

    1 Should the Internet be regulated to reduce misuse, disinformation and criminal activity, and if so how and by whom?

    2 Should big tech be broken up to increase competition and encourage innovation, if so, how?

    3 How should society weigh the benefits of anonymity and encryption against the social, economic & political costs?

    4 Should netizens have rights, including the right to own their data and have protection from prying eyes and surveillance capitalism?

    5 Should access to the Internet be a basic human right, and if so, how might this be achieved?

    6 What can be done to maintain the Internet as a global resource and prevent its fragmentation? 


    These conundrums are explored here.



  • Eight Challenges

    Here are eight challenges we face:


    1:     False information on the internet helping undermine public trust in government, the media, business and civil society, damaging confidence and morale, and destabilizing the political process.

    2:     The problem of not knowing what’s true anymore, especially when aspects of ‘fake news’ items are often correct, albeit with information misleadingly presented .

    3:     ‘Fake news’ turning out to be ‘stickier’ and more toxic than real news — it can be produced anonymously and at little cost; and it spreads significantly faster, corrupting public understanding and provoking distrust, hatred and violence. And for the victims, it can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive to counter (‘mud sticks’).

    4:     Social media’s tendency to bring out the worst in us, and to attract trolls, crooks, perverts and other mendacious individuals. Bad bots and cyborgs now infest the web, capitalising on Big Tech’s attention-seeking algorithms, and promoting and amplifying ill-informed or malicious voices. 

    5:     The Tech Giants perfecting ‘surveillance capitalism’ — they use a multiplicity of (unregulated) black box algorithms and business models that involve profiting from our private data and biometrics. They have also shown themselves to be unable or unwilling to purge their platforms of fake, extremist or illegal material, and have become too powerful to control.

    6:     A vocal minority of conspiracy theorists disseminating a toxic mixture of fabricated content and misleading argument, often in pursuit of some ‘deeper truth’. This promotes polarisation and constrains society’s ability to tackle existential threats, not least threats to public health and the environment.

    7:     Malign actors, extremists and hostile foreign powers engaging in information warfare, using disinformation to poison social intercourse, damage markets and discredit open society, and in the process putting at risk peaceful coexistence — there is no consensus on when a cyber-attack or spreading malicious material becomes an ‘act of war’.

    8:     Failure to regulate/control online content and cybercrime and protect people’s data, privacy and security; and poor coordination between agencies and organisations that are fighting fake and seeking the truth.


    These issues are discussed in more detail on a separate page.

4   Six Point Strategy for Fighting Fake
In March 2019 the OECD completed the first phase of its ‘Going Digital’ Project and released its ‘Roadmap for the Future’; three months later a special UN Panel on Digital Cooperation issued ‘The Age of Digital Interdependence’ in which it made proposals for managing digital growth; then in November the World Wide Web Foundation launched its ‘Contract for the Web’, designed to “help protect the open web as a public good and a basic right for everyone.”

So, when it comes to the problems created by 'going digital' there’s clearly no shortage of analysis; what is missing is any sign of international consensus as to what we can and should do about it. 
In this section I have brought together some of the recommendations made in these reports and by other commentators[4] to help encourage debate on how we might control the digital juggernaut and manage peaceful change. For convenience, I’ve grouped the recommendations under six main headings. To give the discussion focus I’ve concentrated on the UK since governance, legislation and institutional structures vary so much between countries.
  • The Digital Economy

    It is difficult to provide a satisfactory definition of the ‘Digital Economy’ because the boundaries between digital and other economic activities have become increasingly blurred as a result of social media, internet searching, do-it-yourself publishing and a plethora of Apps. But in essence the term refers to an economy that is based on computing conducted over the internet. It includes:

    •   e-infrastructure — hardware, software, telecom, networks, human capital, etc. over which people and organizations communicate, collaborate and search for information;

    •    e-enterprise — how work is conducted over computer networks; and

    •    e-commerce — items sold online and goods transferred.


    The sheer size and impact of the digital economy is breath-taking — it is worth trillions of dollars, and according to some estimates, currently accounts for a tenth of the world's electricity (and concomitant CO2 emissions).

4.1   Set Up Oversight Bodies / Foster Digital Cooperation
“People worry that computers will get too smart and take over the world, but the real problem is that they’re too stupid and they’ve already taken over the world.”
Pedro Domingos [in 'The Master Algorithm']
Objective 1: Establish authoritative oversight bodies to identify problems with lies and misinformation, develop strategic solutions and foster cooperation between nations and bodies fighting fake.
The Digital Economy  has evolved in little more than 20 years and grown like topsy, with few controls or constraints, and this has resulted in the plethora of complex, multi-dimensional problems.
If we are to stand any chance of shaping an agreed digital vision for the future and protecting our data, privacy and security (rather than leaving things to the market and dark forces), we need authoritative oversight bodies to coordinate policy, challenge legislators’ timid, laissez-faire attitudes, and help formulate new systems of regulation underpinned by sanctions that really hurt.
Close cooperation is essential if we are to shape an agreed digital vision for the future, prioritise actions, and share skills and experience. And given differences in organisational size, resources and operating styles, and the wide spectrum of diverse issues, a variety of cooperative arrangements will be necessary, some led by international organisations or governments, others by the private sector or civil society. The UN Panel on Digital Cooperation called for a 'systems approach' that is “adaptive, agile, inclusive and fit for purpose for the fast-changing digital age" and suggested that cooperation be: consensus-oriented, polycentric, customised, accessible, inclusive, agile, accountable, resilient, open, innovative and tech-neutral, with subsidiarity, clarity in roles and responsibility and equitable outcomes.
There have also been calls for: more countries to adopt privacy laws [like the EU's General Data Protection Regulations] and a ‘common global framework’ (rather than having different laws from country to country); the establishment a ‘Digital Atlantic Charter’ as a new mechanism to reassure users that their digital rights are guaranteed; and ensuring that all internet-related laws and practices adhere to international human rights law and standards.
  • Action 1: Establish Authoritative Oversight Bodies

    There needs to be close cooperation and engagement between countries — at least those that want the internet to be open and free (as originally envisaged). This will mean inter alia setting goals, prioritising actions / interventions, sharing skills and experience, and putting the question of the ownership and safeguarding of our personal data centre stage. A variety of cooperative arrangements will be necessary, and given the diversity of issues — and differences in organisational size, resources and operating styles — some will need to be led by international organisations or governments, others by the private sector or civil society. The UN Panel on Digital Cooperation  has called for a 'systems approach' that is “inclusive and fit for purpose for the fast-changing digital age" and suggested that cooperation be: "consensus-oriented, polycentric, customised, accessible, inclusive, agile, accountable, resilient, open, innovative and tech-neutral, with subsidiarity, clarity in roles and responsibility and equitable outcomes."


    There have also been calls for: more countries to adopt privacy laws (like the EU's General Data Protection Regulations) and a ‘common global framework’ (rather than having different laws from country to country); and all internet-related laws and practices to adhere to international human rights law and standards. Last but not least there should be a root-and-branch examination of ‘surveillance capitalism’.

4.2   Reform Big Tech and the Digital Monopolies
“The emergence and rapid growth of digital monopolies suggests the response to the threats posed by these platforms needs to be notably faster [than previous responses to structural changes in the economy]. While it seems clear that the direction in which the digital economy is heading needs to change in order to create inclusive growth and shared prosperity, it is less clear how. The enormous power concentrated within current digital monopolies, the complexity of the digital world, the rapid development of new technologies, and a growing political instability make the endeavour to shift directions a difficult task.”  Stigler Center, Chicago
Objective 2: Dismantle the digital monopolies, increase platforms’ transparency and accountability, and regulate surveillance capitalism.
There is general agreement that regulation and reform of Big Tech and the digital monopolies is long overdue. This could (perhaps should) include breaking up corporations’ business units and or introducing a more comprehensive system of tax incentives. The question is how this might be done without jeopardising the services currently provided and the benefits we enjoy.
Only multinational bodies (like the EU) and nation states have the capacity to stand up to Big Tech, for example by employing antitrust legislation, encouraging competition (forcing digital platforms to give data ownership and control to users, and making it easy for users to switch to a competing platform); subpoenaing heads of the monopolies to appear before public hearings (which helps raise public awareness of transparency issues); imposing fines that hurt; mandating the equivalent of a quarterly financial disclosure of data usage; and generating some form third-party auditing system (similar to the ‘penetration tests’ run by banks) or introducing auditing protocols (which can also serve to improve platforms’ security and alleviate doubts about the handling of personal data). 
It is also suggested that big corporations from industries adjacent to the Big Techs — and even freelance hackers — could turn out to be equally powerful in challenging digital monopolies.The former can support the efforts of government and other parties in standing up to the digital monopolies — "they could do so by financially backing regulatory processes and campaigns, and by also demonstrating the need for transparency through sharing data themselves, making it a real alternative for consumers"[5]  — and the latter, by supporting regulators in auditing digital monopolies more efficiently.[6]

For more information on the problem of reforming the Big Techs see here.
  • Action 2: Dismantle the Digital Monopolies

    The measures proposed include:

    •    formulating a new category where big tech combine the functions of platform and publisher, with standards equivalent to those required of public service broadcasters, and enforced by third-party bodies;

    •    developing a global code of ethics which sets down in writing what is and what is not acceptable on social media, with possible liabilities for companies;

    •    ensuring paid-for political advertising data on social media platforms is transparent [It should identify the source/country of origin, who uploaded it, and who sponsored it].


    Big Tech companies should:

    •    state their terms and conditions — and in language children can understand;*

    •    embrace ‘freedom of thought’ as a policy commitment and perform due diligence on how their activities may harm it;

    •    release regular transparency reports which explain how they are tackling hate speech and mis/disinformation.

    *    This needs to explain clearly what data is collected and how it will be used. It should also be more transparent how they manipulate websites and hide identity in advert purchasing.

  • Social Media: Some Practical Suggestions

    There are all sorts of things that could be done to reduce the problems being generated by social media. Here are some really useful practical proposals from journalist Helen Lewis:


    "You could remove the ability to quote-tweet on Twitter, which is used as a kind of 'dunking mechanism.' You could introduce a pause button, which says 'are you sure you want to Tweet this?' and you have to click down for five seconds to see it. You could stop Facebook's architecture making everything look the same, so that news stories from the BBC or Guardian look the same as something from a sham site that has been created five minutes ago... You could ban the YouTube recommendation engine which is, as I see it, just a driver for more extreme content...


    All these things are more or less illiberal and it depends just how much you want to tell private companies what to do... because [they are] actually at this point public utilities, and I would argue that Facebook is now like a water company which pumps out information into our system and it needs a kind of sewerage system."

4.3   Prepare Citizens for Digital World
“To live with a part of your mind perpetually in the world of the news, exposed to an entire planet’s worth of mendacity and suffering, railing against events too vast for any individual to alter, is to feel... 'a low-grade sense of panic and loss of control', so normal it has come to feel routine."
Oliver Burkeman
Objective 3: Alert citizens of all ages to the opportunities and dangers of the digital world and prepare them for what’s to come.
We need to raise public awareness of the threats and challenges posed by digital technology, monopoly capital, cyber-crime and disinformation, and equip every person who goes online with the necessary skills to protect their privacy and safety. People should have the right and ability to control their own personal data. 
Schools should teach children how their data is collected and used — like this one in Helsinki, Finland — and what they can do to take control of their data footprint. This should cover information shared online, information gleaned from connected devices in the home, and information gathered elsewhere through public services. Finland and Lithuania provide useful exemplars —  see the Pulldowns below.
  • Action 3: Alert Citizens to Opportunities & Dangers of the Digital World

    Action is required by governments to develop a coherent digital / media literacy strategy and establish a major rolling programme of public education and skills training. The work — which should be funded in whole or in part by a levy on Big Tech — will help internet users navigate the digital environment and foster a better understanding of and engagement with our fast-evolving information technologies and alert the public to the tricks and deceptions used by corporations as well as criminals, troublemakers and political opportunists, including those who spread ‘fake news’ and disinformation. The programme also needs to explain people’s rights over their data, and encourage them to report adverts or digital campaigning that they consider misleading or unlawful.


    The UN Panel on Digital Cooperation recommended the establishment of regional and 'global digital help desks' to help governments, civil society and the private sector to understand digital issues and develop capacity to steer cooperation related to social and economic impacts of digital technologies.


    Online platforms, news publishers, broadcasters, voluntary organisations and academics should be involved in helping to formulate such a programme. There is much expertise to call on — in the UK more than 50  non-governmental organisations are currently working in some capacity to raise awareness of the threat posed by monopoly capitalism, cyber-criminals and mis/disinformation, and a number of these are actively campaigning on the issue.

  • Finland Sets an Example

    Finland has faced down a determined Kremlin-backed propaganda campaign ever since it declared independence from Russia in 1918. The trolling ramped up after Moscow annexed Crimea... President Niinisto called on every Finn to take responsibility for the fight against false information. He brought in experts to advise on how to recognize 'fake news', understand why it goes viral, and develop strategies to fight it; and the education system was also reformed to emphasize critical thinking. Today Finland excels in league tables on media literacy (1st),  happiness (1st), press freedom (2nd), transparency and social justice (3rd), gender equality (4th).

  • Lithuania's 'Elves'

    To be really effective, one needs an integrated approach across all organisations / platforms, nationally and internationally. Lithuania presents a good example — Russia is seen as the main threat.


    Demaskuok ['Debunk' in English] is a counter-disinformation campaign supported by more than 4,000 ‘elves’ — volunteer journalists, IT professionals, business people, students and scientists. The elves scans thousands of articles against a database of trigger words and narratives and Demaskuok sends their findings to interested parties, NGOs, newsrooms, politicians, etc. The Defence Ministry regularly produces written/video ‘debunks’ for the public, including sometimes aggressive debunking.


4.4   Refit Democracy for the Digital Age
Objective 4: Refit our democracies for the digital age.
In June 2019 the UN Panel on Digital Cooperation called on social media enterprises to work with governments, international and local civil society organisations and human rights experts around the world to fully understand and respond to concerns about existing or potential human rights violations —  see Pulldown below.
Governments do need to be careful as well-meaning legislation can have unintended consequences, not least by having a chilling effect on freedom of expression. This happened with Germany’s landmark legislation on hate speech. The NetzDG Law (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz) came into force in October 2017. It requires complaints to be checked immediately, ‘obviously illegal’ content deleted within 24 hours, and complainants informed of decisions taken. And it enables fines of up to €5 million to be imposed if the rules are infringed.
  • Action 4: Refit Democracy for the Digital Age

    Governments should ensure:

    •    the same rights online as offline, with strong data protection laws for personal data and clear rules on who's responsible when data is moved from one service to another.


    Social media platforms should:

    •    have a legal duty to inform users of their privacy rights, especially with regard to profiling & automated decision-making. [This should include richer data in ads and notifications on who is communicating with you, and identify / highlight potential bot accounts.]

4.5   Safeguard Mainstream Media & Access to Trusted Information
"Our job is to put the best obtainable version of the truth out there, period."  
Carl Bernstein Prize-winning investigative journalist
Objective 5: Safeguard the mainstream media, improve access to trustworthy content and dilute the visibility of ‘fake news’ / mis / disinformation.
Whilst the mainstream media [MSM] in general, and public interest news in particular, have their faults (and their biases and detractors ), a healthy society needs professional journalists to provide it with reliable and trustworthy information. It is this that lubricates public debate, endorses or reinforces social norms, and helps “inform, educate and entertain” (the BBC’s Mission Statement). A healthy MSM also helps expose potential risks to the fabric of our institutions and democracy.
That said, the media is today struggling to redefine its role / find its place in the Digital Economy, largely as a result of: the dominance of Google and Facebook in the online advertising market (which has meant a serious loss of advertising revenue); the shift (especially by the young) to alternative sources of information, notably social media; and MSM’s authority being challenged by populist politicians and rising online disinformation.
“The very existence of journalists, who might investigate and write about abuses of power, acts as a threat that keeps the powerful in check... They act as a ‘scarecrow’.”
Martin Moor & Gordon Ramsay [quoted by Cairncross]
The extent of the problems confronting the print media was explored by the Cairncross Review — see Pulldown below. Trusted Information — information that is accurate, reliable, relevant and up-to-date and comes from an authoritative and trustworthy source — and quality journalism are a prerequisite for an informed public. A wide spectrum of organisations are evaluating and rating websites for accuracy / bias  or looking out for suspicious activity / coordinated inauthentic behaviour on social media; and there are others that are checking news stories and claims for factual accuracy or bias.  The goal of fact-checkers is to "increase the cost of lying.”
That’s why in 2017 the Gazette launched its ‘Duopoly Campaign’ to “stop Facebook and Google destroying any more of the UK journalism industry.” It has since been “seeking a fairer deal between news publishers and the digital giants — one which fairly rewards the creators of the content on which these platforms rely.”[7]
The Big Tech companies are clearly concerned about the level of hate speech and false information on their networks and they are (belatedly) working to expose, censor and or de-list bad actors and their websites or social media outlets — see Pulldowns below.
To conclude this section on a more positive note: newspapers like The Guardian and New York Times have been fighting back and have over the last few years been able to significantly increase their revenue from online subscribers, and there has been successful cooperation to link up with non-partisan fact-checking services and initiatives to promote good journalism.
In Sept 2019 The Guardian announced that it had reached 1 million YouTube subscribers on its main video channel. It now has almost 2 million subscribers across its YouTube network, which includes The Guardian (1m) and Guardian News (527,000).
  • Action 5: Safeguard Mainstream Media & Access to Trusted Information

    Governments should ensure:

    •    the same rights online as offline, with strong data protection laws for personal data and clear rules on who's responsible when data is moved from one service to another.


    Social media platforms should:

    •    have a legal duty to inform users of their privacy rights, especially with regard to profiling & automated decision-making. [This should include richer data in ads and notifications on who is communicating with you, and identify / highlight potential bot accounts.]


    Trust in the media, our organisations (and democracy) has been badly damaged in recent years (see Edelman’s Trust Barometer). Measures such as the above should, taken together, help facilitate the slow process of rebuilding lost trust.

  • The Cairncross Review [Feb 2019]

    The Cairncross Review noted that: investigative and campaigning journalism and the humdrum task of reporting on the daily activities of public institutions matter greatly and are “essential in a healthy democracy”. But neither of these public services come cheap — especially investigations into abuses of power in both the public and the private sphere; and at the local level, reporting discussions of local councils or the proceedings in a Magistrates Courts — and as Cairncross observed: “each is often of limited interest to the public.” There is evidence of a “market failure” in the supply of public-interest news, for which "the only remedy may be public intervention." 

    Those in publishing are: “seeking a fairer deal between news publishers and the digital giants — one which fairly rewards the creators of the content on which these platforms rely.”  They also point out that: “The very existence of journalists, who might investigate and write about abuses of power, acts as a threat that keeps the powerful in check... They act as a ‘scarecrow’.”


    The Big Tech corporations could (and should) undoubtedly do more to purge their systems and reduce the profile of false or misleading information, for example, by taking on more staff and prioritising (fact-checked) trusted news over suspect news on newsfeeds, and ensuring that dubious material rapidly sinks down the list and out of sight. But the task is immense,  and platforms will not willingly change their lucrative business models.


    The Cairncross Review proposed the establishment of an Institute for Public Interest News dedicated to amplifying “efforts to ensure the sustainability of public-interest news.” It called for:

    •    online platforms to set out codes of conduct for commercial agreements with news publishers;

    •    a market study of the online advertising industry;

    •    new forms of tax relief on digital publications,  and support for public interest journalism;

    •    an expansion of the local democracy reporting service. [ Agreements should be approved and overseen by a regulator “with powers to insist on compliance”.]

  • Truth, Trust & Technology Commission [LSE]

    In Nov 2018, shortly before Cairncross, the LSE’s Truth, Trust & Technology Commission proposed that:

    •    the news industry develop a News Innovation Centre to support journalism innovation and quality news, funded by the levy on digital platform revenue; and that

    •    an Independent Platform Agency [IPA] be established — protected financially and through security of tenure of its governing Board.


    The Agency would work closely with Ofcom and the Competition & Markets Authority to monitor the level of market dominance and the impact of platforms on media plurality and quality. It should seek close links with civil society and be transparent in respect of its operation. It should have powers to request data from all the major platforms on the topmost shared news and information stories, referrals, news-sharing trends and case studies; impose fines on platforms if they fail to comply; and provide reports on request to other agencies such as the Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office, to support the performance of their duties, according to agreed criteria.


    If these measures fail to improve the UK information environment, the IPA should set standards in collaboration with civil society, Parliament and the public. (Until now, standards have been set by the platforms themselves). It should “provide a permanent forum for monitoring and review of platform behaviours, reporting to Parliament on an annual basis. [It] should be asked to conduct annual reviews of ‘the state of disinformation’ that should include policy recommendations to a parliamentary committee. These should encompass positive interventions such as the funding of journalism.”

4.6   Take Information Warfare Seriously
"The word ‘story’ itself isn’t clearly defined [in dictionaries]. It can consist of several different elements that depend entirely on the context. Some of the elements include gossip, a lie, a fictions tale, a plot, a description, an event, a report… So what is a story, then? It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing."
Objective 6: Take cyber-crime and information warfare seriously.
All nations are vulnerable to cyber-attack from organised crime,[8] disgruntled hackers, terrorist groups and hostile states. Critical national infrastructure is at risk along with businesses, intellectual property and people's personal data. There is also the threat to democracy from coordinated interference in public discourse and elections / referenda. The popularity and reach of social media platforms, and the ease with which they can be used to amplify and circulate disinformation, puts everyone at risk.
The distinguished political scientist, Joseph Nye (who invented the term 'soft power') once wrote: “In the information age it’s not just whose army wins but whose story wins.” Currently Russia tells the best stories, although China is fast catching up, and both countries are increasing their capacity to engage in cyberattacks — and countries like the UK are stepping up their efforts to counter them.[9]
One cyber security guru, Carl Miller, has written about the need for our security apparatus to be “reformed to monitor campaigns and detect these threats. The security treaties we’ve signed up to, especially NATO, need to be changed to recognise that there are some forms of attack that really can happen through Tweets, memes and viral posts. Authorities need to be encouraged by politicians to name, sanction and respond to at least the worst cases of information warfare, as and when they happen.”[10]
Law-making also needs to be speeded up: politicians’ pledges even where pursued can take years to become law yet, the looming threats facing politics are now changing as quickly as the technologies that are woven through them. “Politics must contend with, and of course govern, a reality that is accelerating all around them” and Miller concludes that “this issue will be at the heart of many of the most serious problems in future politics.” Few will disagree with that.
  • Action 6: Meeting the Cyber Security Challenge

    We’ve seen how the Internet and social media have been weaponised to interfere in elections and party politics...

    •    Politicians need to be more proactive in responding when interference is detected.

    •    Counter-measures must be employed which make attacks more expensive politically and economically.

    •    Security treaties need to be updated to recognise this new form of attack.

    *    Suspend biased media channels (like RT); publicise illicit activities; freeze oligarch’s assets / restrict their travel [eg 2010 US Magnitsky Act]; sanction perpetrator’s goods & services.

  • UK National Cyber Security Centre

    The UK has a National Cyber Security Centre (established in 2017) which is seen as integral to government and private sector efforts to improve the resilience of Critical National Infrastructure to cyber-attack. It provides a ‘one-stop shop’ for technical advice. And whilst its work has been praised, concerns have also been raised about aspects of its operation — in 2018 a Parliamentary Committee noted that “its effectiveness will be limited unless it has access to the experts it needs in the numbers it requires” and it identified “unresolved tensions derived from its status as part of GCHQ”. The Committee also called on the Government to “publish Annual Reports for the National Cyber Security Programme to improve transparency and aid external scrutiny... It should also share [with other governments] information on risks, vulnerabilities, and best practices to counter Russian interference, and co-ordinate between parliamentarians across the world.” The Committee mentioned that “the current complex arrangements for ministerial responsibility... is wholly inadequate to the scale of the task facing the Government, and inappropriate in view of the Government’s own assessment that major cyber-attacks are a top-tier national security threat.” 

Is there anything wrong with this page? If you would like to comment on the content, style, or the choice or use of material on this page, please use the contact form. Thank you!
Annex: Fake Can Have Its Uses...
It is well-nigh impossible to mount a perfect digital defence against determined hackers: at some point they are going to worm their way into your system. So big companies are turning to deception technology to thwart intruders. Juicy fake data (login credentials, customer details, intellectual property and the like) is uploaded onto a shadow network which looks like the real thing, and this is constantly changed as if it were being used. Cyber-security experts are then able to follow exactly what hapless hackers do and what malware and other tools they deploy (information that thieves usually try to disguise during attacks). This is the modern version of the old ‘honey pot’ technique, used to entice hackers using fake accounts.
Scam-baiting is another way of fighting fake with fake: it involves feigning interest in the financial hook in a scammer’s emails and then leading the perpetrator on a wild goose chase. The intention is to waste the spammer’s time, gather information that will be of use to the authorities, and publicly expose the scammer, possibly by live-streaming. Some do this out of a sense of civic duty, others as a form of amusement. The results can be very entertaining.[11]
Notes
1     Sorry. Jefferson’s quotation is spurious (like many others accredited to him on the internet) — it appears he never said it, although this takes very little away from the sentiment expressed...

2    In Greek legend, Hydra was the offspring of Typhon and Echidna, a gigantic water-snake-like monster with nine heads (the number varies), one of which was immortal.

3    Our database of initiatives and groups working to fight fake is growing fast -- we already have well over 500 listed (>100 in the UK). However, we have not as yet established which methodologies are the most cost-effective nor which groups are making the biggest contributions to the fightback, individually or collectively.

4     The proposals are not original, in addition to the reports mentioned, they build on proposals by Sandra Matz, Guy Rolnik & Moran Cerf, Carl Miller, Renee DiResta & Mike Godwin and others. Please also take a look at the Recommendations Page, which provides detailed proposals from selected reports.
5   “It is in other corporations’ own best interest to help mitigate the power of digital monopolies. This is because the monopolization of data on the behaviour of billions of consumers gives the digital monopolies an unprecedented advantage in various industries—even ones that currently do not actively compete with the monopolies. This movement is already underway and may prove successful and efficient. Smartphone manufacturers could play a special role in standing up to the digital monopolies e.g. by providing consumers with better tools to protect themselves from misuse of data on digital platforms, or from excessive/addictive usage.” [source]

6     The skills possessed by hackers “often surpass those nurtured within the digital monopolies themselves. As such, hackers can identify flaws in the digital monopolies’ security and data utilizations, alert the public about dishonest behaviours, and expose misconducts.” [ibid]
7      The Press Gazette points out that “Both Google and Facebook make much of their money through people viewing and sharing copyrighted journalistic content on their platforms. In exchange they return almost no value to journalism creators... Channel 4 News has generated literally billions of video views for Facebook – much of it for work created at great personal risk by journalists working inside Syria. By way of financial return it gets almost nothing, while Facebook banks the advertising income. Facebook profits while others take the risks and responsibility. Google and Facebook need to adopt a formula where a fair proportion of the search and display advertising income they make from journalism is returned to publishers so it can be reinvested in content creation. This is not just fair, it is enlightened self interest... Automated online advertising is largely controlled by Google, which owns the dominant Double Click technology used by most ad-buyers. As little as 30 per cent of the money spent by brands on programmatic advertising finds its way to publishers.”
8    Today cyber-crime accounts for >50% of reported crime in UK.
9   In the UK GCHQ, MI6, MI5 and the National Cyber Security Centre are working to neutralise malefactors and mischief-makers and protect vital infra-structure from cyberattack. GCHQ does have a ‘dirty tricks’ unit, the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (which was exposed by Edward Snowdon in 2014) but unsurprisingly very little is know about its work; the British Army has a psychological warfare unit, the 77th Brigade, and is reconfiguring its 6th Division to fight cyber threats and seek to influence the behaviour of the public and adversaries by specialising in ‘information warfare’.
10    The issue of what constitutes an 'act of war' is discussed here.
11   419eater.com is one of the first scam-baiting websites — the name 419 is derived from the relevant section of the Nigerian criminal code.  Among other things, the website chronicles various reverse scams (‘baits’) and members also help identify and take down fake banks and other illicit websites; and it posts scammers’ photographs in its Trophy Room — the one shown above with the fish on his head is one of the website founder, 'Shiver Metimbers'' victims. We don't know what he was asked the man to do!
We like the report of the hapless Nigerian scammer who was talked into traveling from Port Harcourt to Darfur to pick up a non-existent $500,000, a 3,000-mile round trip. The scammer was stranded there for two weeks before managing to make it home. We don’t know whether this is true, but it’s a nice story! [If you are lucky enough never to have seen an email scam, here’s a recent example.]