Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Software agent targets chatroom paedophiles ['chatbot' program]
New Scientist ^ | 17 March 04 | Duncan Graham-Rowe

Posted on 03/18/2004 11:08:23 AM PST by John Jorsett

Paedophiles attempting to "groom" children in internet chatrooms can now be detected by a computer program.

The program works by putting on a convincing impression of a young person taking part in a chatroom conversation. At the same time it analyses the behaviour of the person it is chatting with, looking for classic signs of grooming: paedophiles pose as children as they attempt to arrange meetings with the children they befriend.

Called ChatNannies, the software was developed in the UK by Jim Wightman, an IT consultant from Wolverhampton in the West Midlands. It creates thousands of sub-programs, called nanniebots, which log on to different chatrooms and strike up conversations with users and groups of users.

If a nanniebot detects suspicious activity it sends an alert to Wightman and emails a transcript of the conversation. If he considers the transcript suspicious, he contacts the relevant police force, giving them the internet address of the suspect user.

He claims that tip-offs from his software have already led to police investigations, but New Scientist was unable to verify this before going to press.


Convincing conversation

The nanniebots do such a good job of passing themselves off as young people that they have proved indistinguishable from them. In conversations with 2000 chatroom users no one has rumbled the bots, Wightman says. (See if you can tell the difference below.)

Chatbots scarcely distinguishable from people were predicted by computer pioneer Alan Turing as long ago as 1950, says Aaron Sloman, an artificial intelligence expert at the University of Birmingham in the UK.

So he is not surprised the bots are so convincing, especially as their conversation is restricted to a limited topic - like youth culture, say - and is kept relatively short. "It's not going to be too difficult for a chatbot to look like an ordinary chatroom participant to other users who are not even on the lookout for them," he says.

To converse realistically, ChatNannies analyses the sentences other users type, breaks them down into verb and noun phrases, and compares them with those in sentences it has previously encountered.

ChatNannies includes a neural network program that continually builds up knowledge about how people use language, and employs this information to generate more realistic and plausible patterns of responses.


Random personality

One of its tricks is to use the internet itself as a resource for its information on pop culture. Wightman will not reveal how it judges what is reliable information and what not. He does say, however, that each bot has dozens of parameters that are assigned at random, to give each one a different "personality".

"If this software works, then it would be marvellous because there is nothing like this out there," says Chris Atkinson, the internet safety officer with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in the UK. But she warns that paedophiles may outsmart it. "The grooming activity that I have seen doesn't have to be sexual," she says.

Wightman says, however, that ChatNannies is sophisticated enough to look for less obvious signs that something is amiss. It also looks for slip-ups and inconsistencies that give away an adult posing as a child.

Wightman currently has 100,000 bots chatting away undetected in chatrooms - the most he can generate on the four internet servers at his IT practice. He would like to build more but funding is the sticking point, as he does not want anyone to profit financially from his technology.

"Some companies have offered fantastic sums of money, but all want technology ownership. And that's something that isn't going to happen," he says. Instead, he hopes eventually to get financial support from government-run organisations that focus on child protection.

Can you tell the difference?

In this chatroom dialogue, which is the bot and which is the human?

A - hi
B - hi, how are ya?
A - i'm good. whats new man?
B - nothing much - i just dropped in when i was checking my mail. no-one here!
A - heh yeah it is kinda quiet...you know why though don't you!
B - no, why?
A - national holiday in the uk!
B - what, thursday? i don't know any national holiday on thursday! and besides wouldn't that mean there were more people not less?
A - yeah youre right, i was confused with pancake day
B - pancake day! i love pancakes...mmmm so tasty
A - yeah me too, but i forget every damn year
B - did you forget this year?
A - yes! damn!
B - well any day can be pancake day - just make pancakes
A - its not the same!
B - sure it is! hey, this one year I bought a box of 'pancake mix' for pancake day...guess what?
A - go on?
B - it was a box of flour!
A - LOL thats bad news dude
B - tell me about it - you had to add the eggs and everything
A - i didn't know you used eggs to make pancakes
B - you dont? well these were pretty tasty anyway, even if I did get ripped off!!
A - national holiday in the uk!
B - lol
B - hey, where are you from? the usa?
A - no the uk. Birmingham.
B - oh cool. did you watch robocop 2 last night?
A - what side was it on?
B - sky one
A - we haven't got sky
A - but i've seen it before
A - it wasn't as good as robocop
B - i agree, though it was cool in places.
A - did you watch robocop last night
B - yes, i just said i did!
A - no you said you watched robocop 2 not robocop - so which one was it?
B - robocop 2 - pedant!
A - not robocop or robocop 3 or robocop the series
B - it was definitely robocop 2, the one with kain the second robocop in it. i haven't seen robocop 3 or the series.
A - ok, chill out, take a pill
B - consider me chilled, daddy-o
B - i've gotta get going now, i'm meeting some friends.
B - you know it. l8r

Answer: A - human, B - nanniebot


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: chatrooms; internet; pedophiles
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

1 posted on 03/18/2004 11:08:24 AM PST by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Soon the Internet will be clogged to a standstill with chatbots chatting with counter-chatbots.
2 posted on 03/18/2004 11:12:26 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Called ChatNannies, the software was developed in the UK by Jim Wightman, an IT consultant from Wolverhampton in the West Midlands. It creates thousands of sub-programs, called nanniebots, which log on to different chatrooms and strike up conversations with users and groups of users.
We need software that creates thousands of sub-programs called jihadibots, which log to different chatrooms and strike up conversations with users and groups of users and attempt discover terrorists.
3 posted on 03/18/2004 11:15:36 AM PST by Asclepius (karma vigilante)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
B - consider me chilled, daddy-o

Oh, please. Don't tell me "daddy-o" is back in favor among subteens. Shades of Annette......

4 posted on 03/18/2004 11:17:08 AM PST by Leroy S. Mort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Wow..I'm impressed by that conversation assuming it the real deal and doesn't take excessive amounts of setup for a conversation like that.

I hope hacker/crackers will have some good sense and leave this one alone and let it do some good if it can.

One bridge they'll have to cross at somepoint though is whether or not its illegal to proposition a computer program pretending to be a young child.
5 posted on 03/18/2004 11:18:21 AM PST by PropheticZero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Didn't Orrin Hatch have some wacky scheme to fry computers of people who were file sharing?

Maybe they could merge these two Ideas,with Fragmentation Grenades.
6 posted on 03/18/2004 11:21:31 AM PST by Redcoat LI ( "help to drive the left one into the insanity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
It's good. But if you're looking for it, it was obviously B.
7 posted on 03/18/2004 11:21:45 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Maybe they already do?! ;)
8 posted on 03/18/2004 11:22:56 AM PST by Freedom2specul8 (Please pray for our troops.... http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
A bot that passes the Turing test? It would get lots more press than that.

can a bot detect another bot?

Is chatting up such a bot probable cause if you happen to fit it's algorithm?

Can network news anchors be replaced now?
9 posted on 03/18/2004 11:22:58 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PropheticZero
I'm impressed by that conversation assuming it the real deal and doesn't take excessive amounts of setup for a conversation like that.

Yeah, it's *far* better than any Turing-test bot I've seen elsewhere, which makes me suspicious.

10 posted on 03/18/2004 11:23:43 AM PST by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PropheticZero
Wonder if the bot'll be "broken" if you try to lead the conversation instead of letting the bot steer you. Nearly anything passes the Turing test if you are completely passive, bad example.
11 posted on 03/18/2004 11:24:04 AM PST by Nataku X (Ich bin ein ultrakonservativen Aktivisten & I am a chocolate frosted donut.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
Yeah, it's *far* better than any Turing-test bot I've seen elsewhere, which makes me suspicious.

Note how A was completely passive. Didn't try to do anything except comment on what B said.
12 posted on 03/18/2004 11:25:52 AM PST by Nataku X (Ich bin ein ultrakonservativen Aktivisten & I am a chocolate frosted donut.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nakatu X
"Wonder if the bot'll be "broken" if you try to lead the conversation instead of letting the bot steer you. Nearly anything passes the Turing test if you are completely passive, bad example."

I wonder what it would do if you simply repeated back to it everything it "said"...

--Boris

13 posted on 03/18/2004 11:27:22 AM PST by boris (The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
I don't think so. I really didn't try to guess, was just looking for anything glaring and nothing really stood out.

If anything B offered more detailed information and talked about stuff actually happening to them.

Might make sure you eyes didn't peak down to the answer before you read the whole thing :)

14 posted on 03/18/2004 11:30:20 AM PST by PropheticZero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
No. Only the teen chatrooms will. Sounds fine to me.
15 posted on 03/18/2004 11:30:54 AM PST by jwalburg (Terrorists just need more counseling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nakatu X
Wonder if the bot'll be "broken" if you try to lead the conversation instead of letting the bot steer you. Nearly anything passes the Turing test if you are completely passive, bad example.

A realated question might be if a Paedophile is more apt to take a passive or an active role in the conversation.

If they tend to stay for the most part passive, slowly weedling information then the bot may or may not work.

However if they are for the most part the most active part of the conversation and this bot can't handle it then it's usefullness is degraded.

16 posted on 03/18/2004 11:33:37 AM PST by PropheticZero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent; Nakatu X
I don't believe it for a minute. Let's see the source. And besides, if their software is so slick, why do they need human volunteers to monitor chatrooms?
17 posted on 03/18/2004 11:38:14 AM PST by general_re (The doors to Heaven and Hell are adjacent and identical... - Nikos Kazantzakis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
A - national holiday in the uk!

. . . <snip> . . .

A - national holiday in the uk!

B - lol

B - hey, where are you from? the usa?

A - no the uk. Birmingham.

The 'bot doesn't listen very well.

18 posted on 03/18/2004 11:39:04 AM PST by FoxInSocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
http://www.alicebot.org/

http://www.jabberwacky.com/

Google shows lots of chat bots out there.

Using robots to catch human criminals makes me uneasy, especially this one that relys on "profiles" to discern intent.
19 posted on 03/18/2004 11:43:21 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson