Use of Artificial Intelligence by Native Actors to Justify State Interference in Political Process

One of the matters Canada's political police say Canadians should be very concerned about is the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by foreign actors who seek to infiltrate and undermine Canada's democracy. The same political police then use AI to undermine Canada's democracy such as by designing surveys which masquerade as public consultations to draw unwarranted conclusions about whatever they like.

The "survey" recently posted by Public Safety Canada about a possible Foreign Influence Transparency Registry (FITR) is an example of precisely this. The survey prompts answers to five questions and leaves one open question. AI was used to compile and summarize the answers given as well as the "sentiment" and "emotions" of each respondent. Why this measure of sentiment is required is not explained, let alone how "sentiment" is gauged.

Public Safety Canada said the following: "Quantitatively, a computer program read each response and scored the sentiment of each response. [...] Scores were given on a scale of -1 to 1, where scores closer to 1 indicate positive emotions and scores close to -1 indicate negative emotions. Sentiment analysis indicates that overall response sentiment includes largely neutral language. ... A qualitative analysis shows that a majority of respondents support the registry."

To further explain its findings, it says: "-1 = 100% negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = 100% positive," noting that "The score of a document's sentiment indicates the overall emotion of a response, not whether or not the respondents support a registry."

Question 1 Prompt: A foreign principal might include a foreign power, economic entity, political organization, or individual/group that is owned or directed, in law or in practice, by a foreign government.

Question: Do you agree that these types of organizations or entities should be included in the definition of "foreign principal"? In your view, are there others that should be included?

Respondents: 861
Sentiment Score: 0.09

Question 2 Prompt: Registrable activities might include parliamentary lobbying, general political lobbying and advocacy, disbursement, and communications activity.

Question: Do you agree that these activities should be registrable? Are there any other types of activities and/or arrangements that should be registrable?

Repondents: 869
Sentiment Score: 0.11

Question 3 Prompt: Registration exemptions could include legal advice and representation, diplomatic and consular activities by accredited officials, and situations where it's already transparent/clear that the individual or organization is working on behalf of a foreign government.

Question: Do you agree that these activities should be exempt from registration obligations? What other activities (if any) should be exempt?

Respondents: 850
Sentiment Score: -0.17

Question 4 Prompt: Anybody who registers could be required to disclose personal details, such as activities undertaken, dates of the activities, and the nature of the relationship with the foreign principal.

Question: In your view, what kinds of information should registrants be required to disclose regarding their activities? To what extent should this information be made public?

Respondents: 831
Sentiment Score: -0.12

Question 5 Prompt: Compliance enforcement mechanisms could include administrative monetary penalties (AMPs), as well as criminal penalties.

Question: Do you agree that there should be penalties for non-compliance? If so, should these be scalable, including both AMPs and criminal penalties?

Respondents: 867
Sentiment Score: -0.05

Question 6: Do you have other views you wish to provide in relation to this consultation?

Respondents: 758
Sentiment Score: -0.29

---

This article was published in

Volume 54 Numbers 1-2 - January - February 2024

Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/Tmlm2024/Articles/M540019.HTM

Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca