Hiding in plain sight

The Easter holiday rush is receding into distant memory. The only thing airport security personnel have to worry about is what happens when everyone starts arriving for the Olympics. That, and the helpful physicists who have worked out how to smuggle a gun through a metal detector.

It all started as a bit of harmless blue-sky thinking. In the late 1960s, a Russian physicist pointed out the fun you could have if you invented a material that bends light in the opposite direction to normal. You could use it as an invisibility cloak, he said: just as water diverts round a rock in a stream by going first to one side, then back to the other, light bent in two different directions as it passed an object would give a viewer the impression that the light had travelled in a straight line and that the object simply wasn’t there.

Oh, how everybody laughed. Then, in 2000, someone turned this ridiculous fantasy into reality. John Pendry of Imperial College London showed how to create “left-handed materials” that would bend microwave radiation the wrong way. The practicalities were a little cumbersome and it didn’t work with visible light. But still, it was surprising, impressive and fun, in a nerdy kind of way.

Over the past decade, the technology has matured. At first, left-handed materials were constructed from intricate arrays of copper rings and could only hide tiny objects from a microwave detector. Now, we have invisibility “carpets” made from cheap and widely available crystals of the mineral calcite. They are able to hide objects the size of your thumb – and they work in visible light.

That technology is not yet going to smuggle a gun through airport security, though. Even if the X-ray machine doesn’t make the outline obvious, the magnetic field from the steel triggers an alarm. But a paper recently published in the journal Science can get you round that obstacle.

As it turns out, you can cloak a metal’s magnetic field for less than £1,000. First, wrap your gun in a layer of superconducting tape. Magnetic fields cannot pass through a layer of superconductor, so the scanner wouldn’t see the gun’s field. The scanner would see the superconductor’s field, though. However, this can be countered by adding a layer of flexible magnetic strip, rather like that found on the back of a fridge magnet. The researchers showed that this combination of readily available materials does a reasonable job of cloaking a magnetic field.

Touching the void

OK, it’s still not quite a credible threat. The superconductor has to be kept at liquid-nitrogen temperatures and a cloud of nitrogen vapour coming out of your hand luggage might raise a few eyebrows. A simple thermal detector would certainly put paid to any gun-smuggling plans.

But the physicists aren’t beaten yet. While some have been content to bend light as it travels through space, Martin McCall of Imperial College London has played around with bending light as it travels though time.

The technique involves slowing down and speeding up light inside an optical fibre – something that physicists have learned to do with astonishing skill in the past few years. McCall now has a blueprint for a device that doesn’t just make things invisible; it makes it look like they never even happened. It only works on technologies with an optical fibre feed, such as a CCTV camera. Nevertheless, in principle, we now know how to create the illusion of a void in both space and time – a void that could plausibly be exploited to evade surveillance technologies. Of course, it’s ridiculous. But where these troublesome physicists are involved, nothing remains ridiculous for long.

Michael Brooks’s “Free Radicals: the Secret Anarchy of Science” is published by Profile Books (£12.99)

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At the Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science by Surprise.

This article first appeared in the 30 April 2012 issue of the New Statesman, The puppet master

Getty
Show Hide image

Fark.com’s censorship story is a striking insight into Google’s unchecked power

The founder of the community-driven website claims its advertising revenue was cut off for five weeks.

When Microsoft launched its new search engine Bing in 2009, it wasted no time in trying to get the word out. By striking a deal with the producers of the American teen drama Gossip Girl, it made a range of beautiful characters utter the words “Bing it!” in a way that fell clumsily on the audience’s ears. By the early Noughties, “search it” had already been universally replaced by the words “Google it”, a phrase that had become so ubiquitous that anything else sounded odd.

A screenshot from Gossip Girl, via ildarabbit.wordpress.com

Like Hoover and Tupperware before it, Google’s brand name has now become a generic term.

Yet only recently have concerns about Google’s pervasiveness received mainstream attention. Last month, The Observer ran a story about Google’s auto-fill pulling up the suggested question of “Are Jews evil?” and giving hate speech prominence in the first page of search results. Within a day, Google had altered the autocomplete results.

Though the company’s response may seem promising, it is important to remember that Google isn’t just a search engine (Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has too many subdivisions to mention). Google AdSense is an online advertising service that allows many websites to profit from hosting advertisements on its pages, including the New Statesman itself. Yesterday, Drew Curtis, the founder of the internet news aggregator Fark.com, shared a story about his experiences with the service.

Under the headline “Google farked us over”, Curtis wrote:

“This past October we suffered a huge financial hit because Google mistakenly identified an image that was posted in our comments section over half a decade ago as an underage adult image – which is a felony by the way. Our ads were turned off for almost five weeks – completely and totally their mistake – and they refuse to make it right.”

The image was of a fully-clothed actress who was an adult at the time, yet Curtis claims Google flagged it because of “a small pedo bear logo” – a meme used to mock paedophiles online. More troubling than Google’s decision, however, is the difficulty that Curtis had contacting the company and resolving the issue, a process which he claims took five weeks. He wrote:

“During this five week period where our ads were shut off, every single interaction with Google Policy took between one to five days. One example: Google Policy told us they shut our ads off due to an image. Without telling us where it was. When I immediately responded and asked them where it was, the response took three more days.”

Curtis claims that other sites have had these issues but are too afraid of Google to speak out publicly. A Google spokesperson says: "We constantly review publishers for compliance with our AdSense policies and take action in the event of violations. If publishers want to appeal or learn more about actions taken with respect to their account, they can find information at the help centre here.”

Fark.com has lost revenue because of Google’s decision, according to Curtis, who sent out a plea for new subscribers to help it “get back on track”. It is easy to see how a smaller website could have been ruined in a similar scenario.


The offending image, via Fark

Google’s decision was not sinister, and it is obviously important that it tackles things that violate its policies. The lack of transparency around such decisions, and the difficulty getting in touch with Google, are troubling, however, as much of the media relies on the AdSense service to exist.

Even if Google doesn’t actively abuse this power, it is disturbing that it has the means by which to strangle any online publication, and worrying that smaller organisations can have problems getting in contact with it to solve any issues. In light of the recent news about Google's search results, the picture painted becomes more even troubling.

Update, 13/01/17:

Another Google spokesperson got in touch to provide the following statement: “We have an existing set of publisher policies that govern where Google ads may be placed in order to protect users from harmful, misleading or inappropriate content.  We enforce these policies vigorously, and taking action may include suspending ads on their site. Publishers can appeal these actions.”

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.