Category Archives: Technology

Britain, Business, Government, Technology, United States

Probity needed over GKN bid

GKN’s TAKEOVER BID

ALL TOO OFTEN it is price which determines the outcome of mergers and takeovers. Share registers are now global and, once the proverbial train has departed, City traders and hedge fund managers hitch calculated risks and profit handsomely.

Notwithstanding, there have been several bid approaches where robust industrial and strategic- defence policies have prevailed. Examples include the proposed Airbus deal with BAE Systems, the Pfizer skirmish with Astrazeneca, the Deutsche Boerse ‘merger of equals’ with the London Stock Exchange, and the approach for Unilever by Kraft-Heinz. The key to shooting down these transactions were robust company boards, and strict regulatory and political responses.

The House of Commons business select committee may be up to its neck picking over the carcass of Carillion, but it would be a dereliction of duty if it now allowed GKN, Britain’s only world-class car components manufacturer, to fall into the hands of financially driven Melrose which has little of the same commitment to British research and development and manufacturing.

The country cannot allow manufacturing know-how to vanish into uncertain hands at the very moment when Britain is looking to new global markets post-Brexit. At least the defence select committee is preparing to ask some serious questions about aerospace.

GKN may not be a top Ministry of Defence contractor, but it does important work on the Typhoon fighter jet and is a strategic partner with the US (including work on the Lockheed Martin F-35 joint-strike fighter destined for Britain’s new aircraft carriers).

In the civilian sector, Airbus regards GKN as a vital supplier for wing components, to the point that the company’s chief executive, Tom Enders, says he would not favour GKN falling into the hands of a financially driven and predatory bidder.

Aerospace, along with pharmaceuticals, finance and high-tech, is a sector of the UK economy where there are industrial clusters and genuine competitive advantage. Allowing that to be whipped away would be enormously detrimental.

The biggest concern about a Melrose takeover is for GKN’s driveline (driveshaft) technology and its advanced work in Abingdon on e-drive, a vital component for next generation electric cars already embraced by manufacturers including Volvo.

The UK car components industry was greatly denuded by the experiences of the late 20th century, but, as the industry has risen phoenix-like from the ashes, GKN emerged as a world-class player willing to invest in the new drive technologies.

It would be an act of industrial sabotage if Melrose were to get its hands on driveline and e-drive and sell the technology to the highest bidders in France, Germany or China. We only have to look at the recent takeover by Vauxhall by Peugeot owners PSA and the threat to the Ellesmere Port plant to understand how ruinous that would be. The Unite union recognises this, and so does an industrialist of the stature of Sir Richard Lapthorne.

The business select committee has a sacred duty to properly scrutinise what the impact of a hostile Melrose deal would be. Allowing the future of GKN to be settled by global investors, with no loyalties to British technology and jobs, would be unconscionable.

Standard
Britain, Government, Internet, Society, Technology

The Home Office unveils new technology that detects hate content

INTERNET & ONLINE ACTIVITY

Home Office steps up fight against terror content with new technology.

INTERNET giants will have little excuse for allowing extremist propaganda on their websites after the Home Office unveiled new technology to detect hate content.

Web firms have been told to increase efforts to remove terror-related posts after the UK was hit by attacks in London and Manchester last year. All had an “online component”, the Home Office said.

Now the UK Government has revealed advanced technology that aims to automatically detect extremist and hateful videos and content before they become publicly available online.

Tests have shown the £600,000 tool can identify 94 per cent of the entire content in Islamic State propaganda videos. The breakthrough came as a Home Office analysis revealed IS supporters used more than 400 separate online platforms to pump out propaganda last year.

The Home Office said it would share the technology with firms to combat the abuse of their platforms. Home Secretary Amber Rudd welcomed the development as she visited San Francisco for talks with technology giants. She said: “Those who commit terror attacks on our streets are increasingly influenced by what they see online. I hope this new technology the Home Office has helped develop can support others to go further and faster.”

Using ‘advanced machine learning’, the technology analyses terror videos to pick out ‘subtle signals’ and determine whether it is IS related propaganda or something else, such as a news report. The systems can be adapted to look for other violent extremist content.

The chief executive of ASI Data Science, Marc Warner, whose firm developed the new model, said major organisations such as Google and Facebook could not “solve this problem alone”.

 

YET, we all know that no amount of moral pressure has so far made Facebook, Google and Twitter remove the deluge of hate-filled extremism, sick trolling and other disturbing extreme content that pollutes their sites. Hit them in their pockets and they might just begin to change their ways.

It is promising that large scale multiconglomerate companies such as the Anglo-Dutch company Unilever is threatening to pull all advertising from the three internet giants if they don’t clamp down on this filth. Unilever – which has a £6.8billion-a-year marketing budget – is thoroughly sick of seeing its products being placed next to terrorist propaganda or sexualised images of children and has decided enough is enough.

Other big firms – notably Procter and Gamble – are making similar threats. We should sincerely hope many more will follow.

All we ever hear from the tech giants are weasel words. They say they take down extremist or illegal material as soon as they are alerted to it, but this is demonstrably untrue. And why should they have to be alerted, rather than policing this kind of content themselves?

The Home Office has now unveiled a new system that can automatically detect 94 per cent of Islamic State propaganda on the web. Is it really beyond multibillion pound corporations that specialise in technology to do the same – or even better? They have run out of excuses.

Standard
Government, Society, Technology, Transport

Autonomous-driving lorries ‘at risk of crashing in cyber-attack’

TRANSPORT

Self Driving Lorries

Self-driving and autonomous running vehicle platoons pose many risks. They include a ‘malicious takeover’ by cyber-attack putting the safety of road users at risk.

SELF-DRIVING lorries which are to be trialled on England’s motorways could be vulnerable to cyber-attack, an official report has warned.

A feasibility study of the Government’s plans said there was a risk of a ‘malicious takeover’ of the convoys, putting road users at risk.

Under the scheme, up to three wirelessly connected HGVs will move in a platoon, with acceleration and braking controlled by the lead vehicle. The lorries would still be steered by drivers.

The report, commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT), concludes that the system has the potential to reduce accidents and emissions, while improving traffic flow. But it also outlines 20 risks, including cyber-attack and the potential for drivers in the middle and back vehicles to lose concentration.

Extreme weather conditions could lead to the sensing system keeping the vehicles a set distance apart malfunctioning. Other cars could enter the convoy by mistake, and the lead lorry could suffer a tyre blow-out.

The scheme is expected to be tried on major roads next year.

Driving in a convoy could see the front lorry push air out of the way, making the vehicles more efficient and lowering emissions. But Edmund King, AA president, said the safety of drivers must come first.

He said: ‘There have been causes of connected and autonomous vehicles and even road signs being hacked. The safety of the drivers is paramount.

‘If the platoon is hacked it could put on the brakes or try to make it accelerate.’

The study into “heavy vehicle platoons on UK roads” was carried out by the independent Transport Research Laboratory consultancy and others in 2014 but has only just been published.

One lorry drivers’ organisation, which was not named, told the authors it was worried about ‘the safety impact of running so close together,’ adding: ‘There is no fuel-saving amount that is worth risking road safety for.’

The report said the probability of a ‘malicious takeover of platoon (cyber-attack)’ was ‘very low’, but its impact would be ‘very high’ and would involve a ‘threat to road user safety, road infrastructure and reputation’ of the convoy system.

It said, ‘adverse environmental conditions’ such as fog and snow could ‘affect sensing capability’. The report also said other motorists could be unaware of the convoy and drive between the lorries. And the authors said ‘driver underload’ was a problem as they may lose concentration when they are not performing the full range of driving tasks. They suggest training drivers for ‘behavioural adaptation awareness’.

The document said: ‘It must be ensured that they will always be able to re-engage in the driving task within a few seconds.’

The report said it believed convoys would be safer overall, adding: ‘Around 90 per cent of accidents involve driver error. Automatic control (or driver assistance) reduces the magnitude of the risk of driver error.’ The DfT has not responded to a request for comment.

Standard