"I could kill for a bacon sandwich". Photo: Getty.
Show Hide image

US Secret Service seeks Twitter sarcasm detector

The US Secret Service is seeking some help with its online snooping, and needs a company that can detect sarcasm online - because you need to be able to distinguish between "I love Al Qaeda" and "I love Al Qaeda". Good luck with that, pals! 

“How do I look?”

“Great.”

Without the benefit of other clues, this conversation could have gone any number of ways. Perhaps Ed Miliband was consulting Justine on his latest portrait with a bacon sandwich. And even then, who knows, maybe Miliband’s wife really loves his bacon buttie face. The English language is so delightfully, confusingly rich in meaning that “great” can mean anything from “wonderful” to “mediocre” to “awful”.  

Which brings me to a great piece of news. The US Secret Service is looking to commission a Twitter sarcasm detector to improve its online social media surveillance. It is inviting analytics firms to bid for a five-year contract to monitor and analyse online trends and sentiment, and one of its requirements is the ability to “detect sarcasm and false positives” – presumably because when scanning the web for potential threats to national security, you don’t want to deploy police to the home of the tweeter who could “totally kill for a bacon sandwich right now.” (We know who you are.)  And you need to be able to distinguish between “I love Al Qaeda” and “I love Al Qaeda”.

Humans are not actually very good at detecting sentiment in written language. Consider, for instance, that for over 500 years, scholars have tried to improve the way in which irony is expressed on paper – including by developing several irony marks, from backwards question marks to squiggly exclamation marks (more on which here).

Because tweets and text messages are too short to give much context, there is an even greater potential for misunderstanding. The emoticon might have helped a little, and yet over the years, a billion sentiments have been furnished with a winky face.wink

According to one study published in 2005 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, respondents had a 50/50 chance of correctly judging the tone of an email – although they thought they were right 90 per cent of the time. 

Still, the Secret Service can take heart. A number of attempts to develop computerised sarcasm detectors appear to have slightly better odds of being correct than the humans in the above study. In 2010, scientists at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem reported they had developed an algorithm to judge sarcasm that had a 77 per cent success rate at identifying snark in Amazon reviews. The French company Spotter claims to have an 80 per cent success rate at identifying sentiment correctly, and can work in 29 different languages. Its clients include the EU Commission, the Home Office and the Dubai Courts. Perhaps they will be offering their skills to the US as we speak.

If this new information on government surveillance gives you the heebie-jeebies, there is some cause for optimism. The US Secret Services computer technology might not be as advanced as you feared – as the BBC points out, the Secret Service requests that the software be compatible with Internet Explorer 8, a web browser released over five years ago. Good luck with it all, guys!

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

There is one thing Donald Trump can't build a wall against

Muslim immigrants don't bring terrorism - ideology does. 

Rather than understanding the root of the Islamist extremist issue and examining the global scale of the challenge, one US presidential candidate has decided to pin his domestic security hopes on the demonisation of a particular group of people. 
 
The arrest of Ahmad Khan Rahami over the recent New York bombing, an Afghan-born naturalised US citizen, proved too tantalising an opportunity for the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to once again conflate terrorism and immigration. Taking aim at his rival Hillary Clinton, Trump claimed that she “wants to allow hundreds of thousands of these same people", people who he described as having hatred and sickness in their hearts.
 
It is unclear who exactly Mr Trump is referring to here, one can only assume that it is a reference to Muslims, more specifically those not born in the US, and their apparent deep-rooted hatred for all things American. These comments will no doubt strengthen support for his campaign among those who have remained supportive of his overtly anti-Muslim stance, but the reality is that Mr Trump is rather missing the point.
 
Trump’s insistence on profiling Muslims as a measure to curb terrorism is not merely offensive; it reinforces the "us versus them" rhetoric used by the very terrorists he is trying to defeat.
 
The attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando earlier this year was described as the deadliest mass shooting by a single attacker in American history. Omar Mateen, the perpetrator, was not an immigrant. Born in New York, Mateen was an American citizen by birth. This, however, did not stop him from killing dozens of innocent people and wounding many more. 
 
One of the most influential jihadi ideologues, certainly in the Western world, was in fact an American. Not a naturalised citizen, but a born American, Anwar al-Awlaki was a central figure in the propaganda output of al-Qaeda’s affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula. Awlaki’s ideas are reported to have been a significant factor in the radicalisation of the Tsarnaev brothers, the perpetrators of the deadly Boston Marathon bombing. 
 
Putting the spotlight on immigration as the most effective means to curb terrorism ignores the real problem; the ideology. The poisonous, divisive, and intolerant mindset that is at the heart of the matter is the real culprit. This ideology, which presents itself as a "true" reflection of Islam is nothing more than a politically motivated worldview that seeks to spread hatred and violence. 
 
Research from the Centre on Religion and Geopolitics has shown that those individuals who buy into this worldview come from a multitude of backgrounds. Some are from poor backgrounds while others are from more affluent ones, some are well-educated while others aren’t. The truth is that there is no prototype terrorist - the common denominator, however, is that they share an ideology. Focusing on immigration as a source for terrorists fails to acknowledge the wide and varied pool from which they recruit.
 
The ideology, which perverts the shared religious heritage that 1.6bn Muslims around the world hold dear, is not simply a threat to the US, but to the world over. There is no wall high enough, no trench deep enough, and no bomb big enough to destroy this ideology. 
 
While the focus on Isis conjures images of the Middle East, this year alone we have witnessed deadly attacks committed by the group including Indonesia, Bangladesh, France, Germany, and Belgium. The ideology that drives the violence is transnational; it’s a global threat that necessitates a global response.
 
The transnational appeal and threat of this ideology is evident with the recent phenomena of online radicalisation. Men and women, boys and girls, have been lured by these ideas from the safety of their own homes, with these powerful ideas moving some to join causes in lands they have never visited. 
 
Recent attacks in France, Germany, and indeed the US, have demonstrated how items that can be obtained ordinarily, such as vehicles and knives, are being weaponised to cause maximum damage. But would a ban on knives and trucks be the solution? The only effective means for defeating terrorists is by challenging and dismantling their ideological appeal, effectively sapping the substance that fuels the violence.
 
Mr Trump, who may become Commander-in-Chief of the world’s most formidable army, must recognise that we are engaged in a battle of ideas, similar to that of the Cold War. A battle in which opposing worldviews are key, words are important, and taking control of the narrative is paramount.
 
In this battle of ideas, Mr Trump is not only hampering the global efforts against groups like Isis and its ilk, but actually reinforcing the ideas put forward by the extremists. Our leaders should not mirror the intolerant attitudes of our enemies or echo their binary worldview. 
Though, when it comes to the Republican candidate, his past statements on the topic indicate, perhaps, that this aim is overly ambitious.
 
Our response must be clear and robust, but we must first acknowledge who, or what, the enemy is. Muslims coming to the US are not the enemy, Muslims born in America are not the enemy, the enemy is the poisonous ideology that has manipulated Islam.
 
Defeating this transnational ideology requires alliances, not alienation. Mr Trump has expressed his commitment to work with allies in the Middle East to fight terrorism, but it is just as important to foster good relations with American Muslims. They can, and should, play an integral role in defeating Islamist extremism at home.

Mubaraz Ahmed is an analyst at the Centre on Religion and Geopolitics. He tweets at @MubarazAhmed.