Slashdot Mirror


Amazon 'Reviewing' Its Website After It Suggested Bomb-Making Items (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Amazon said on Wednesday that it was reviewing its website after a British television report said the online retail giant's algorithms were automatically suggesting bomb-making ingredients that were "Frequently bought together." The news is particularly timely in Britain, where the authorities are investigating a terrorist attack last week on London's Underground subway system. The attack involved a crude explosive in a bucket inside a plastic bag, and detonated on a train during the morning rush. The news report is the latest example of a technology company drawing criticism for an apparently faulty algorithm. Google and Facebook have come under fire for allowing advertisers to direct ads to users who searched for, or expressed interest in, racist sentiments and hate speech. Growing awareness of these automated systems has been accompanied by calls for tech firms to take more responsibility for the contents on their sites. Amazon customers buying products that were innocent enough on their own, like cooking ingredients, received "Frequently bought together" prompts for other items that would help them produce explosives, according to the Channel 4 News.

28 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Apparently faulty algorithm? by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If that's the case, then it's not a problem. You're just showing ads for plastic buckets to people who don't want to build a bomb. I suspect the worry is that the algorithm might actually be working. In which case it's still not a problem. Once you have the recipe for a plastic bucket bomb, finding the bucket isn't a major obstacle.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Apparently faulty algorithm? by Bongo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand how this isn't just Amazon showing articles from a hardware store, rather than, well gee there are soooo many people making this stuff that the algorithm has learnt the specific components.

    2. Re:Apparently faulty algorithm? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      But it's the PR perception that Amazon is encouraging folks to buy all the bomb making materials a terrorist needs in one go that they are trying to avoid. That the algorithm works and apparently creates more sales and more happy customers is not the issue.

      Personally, I wonder if someday we won't realize that Amazon has subliminally pried it's way into having a virtual retail monopoly for literally EVERYTHING sold and has made it so impossible for the competition that we will pay dearly for everything we need/want. This "others have purchased" list is just another way to grab your money, regardless of what you are building.

      For now, Amazon needs to keep itself squeaky clean in a PR way.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Apparently faulty algorithm? by EvilSS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You would think they would be more concerned with why so many people are buying these items together that the algorithm is showing them as frequently bought together.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    4. Re:Apparently faulty algorithm? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The surprising thing is that enough people were buying bomb-making ingredients together to train their algorithm. Most things that you use to make bombs are dual-use items, and I'd expect a lot more people to have been buying them to not make bombs than were buying them to make bombs.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Apparently faulty algorithm? by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, the algorithm is working perfectly. Since people aren't blowing up buildings left and right and yet are making bomb making stuff, maybe the people in the UK should work on desensitizing themselves to things that are done a regular basis both for practical reasons and recreation. Here in the US (where Amazon is based) we have a massive rural population and blowing stumps and the like is just daily life for those folks. For most things that is just fine and legal so long as they don't transport and for things where it isn't entirely legal... lets just say if he isn't getting anything too crazy, stockpiling anything, or hurting anyone then whatever levy Farmer John is moving or refrigerator he's blowing up on his back 40 or personal firing range is somewhere near the bottom of the list for federal agents, especially since he has a legitimate reason to buy big bags of fertilizer and large quantities of diesel and it isn't the easiest thing in the world detect if he were using something a big bigger to blow a stump.

    6. Re:Apparently faulty algorithm? by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, I suppose this is an occasion for Bayesian reasoning. The probability that you buy bomb ingredients given that you're a terrorist being high doesn't mean that the probability that you are terrorist given that you buy bomb ingredients is necessarily high. In fact even if someone is *definitely* building a bomb, it doesn't automatically mean they are a terrorist.

      On YouTube there's a whole genre of videos devoted to large Tannerite explosions. Tannerite is an impact-initiated binary explosive that is popular for making shooting targets. Normally it's used in small quantities but of course there are many videos of people setting off very large Tannerite explosions, involving hundreds of pounds of the stuff.

      Some people are just fascinated with explosives. So what you have to ask is whether it is more common to be into blowing things up for DIY amusement or blowing things up to hurt people. Where people go wrong with this kind of question is they rely on their intuition in guessing prior probabilities. If blowing things up holds no fascination for them, they assume that that kind of thing must be rare, or even non-existent.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Apparently faulty algorithm? by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      It's much easier to push around online retailers than to look for solutions to social problems that breed terrorism to begin with.

  2. Is it true... by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 2

    that they are frequently bought together ?

    If so, that should be a big clue as to who is building them.

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  3. Frequently Bought Together: by clonehappy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like you're building a pipe bomb. Would you also like some acid to throw in white women's faces in case it doesn't go off? How about a fidget spinner in case both of your attacks fail?

  4. Better than odd collections? by RevRagnarok · · Score: 2

    Amazon thinks I now have very strange collections of things that you never need more than one of, like cable modems and whole-house dehumidifiers...

    --
    I should put something clever here. Maybe someday.
  5. You can still get the book... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can still get "The Anarchist Cookbook" on Amazon, which is the number one bestseller in Anarchism.

    1. Re:You can still get the book... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      People who actually follow the recipes in The Anarchist's Cookbook will find they've found an excellent way to blow up themselves instead of other people.

    2. Re:You can still get the book... by geekmux · · Score: 2

      People who actually follow the recipes in The Anarchist's Cookbook will find they've found an excellent way to blow up themselves instead of other people.

      Your statement does nothing to diffuse the explosive irony surrounding the concern with algorithms that might suggest bomb making vs. directly selling bomb-making guides...

    3. Re:You can still get the book... by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Pretty much anybody that tries to make more historic (and easier to make) explosives for the first time finds this out. The stuff is dangerous. There is also a (IMO credible) rumor that the CIA actually published this book and the recipes are just recipes that are public anyways but all the safety-precautions have been removed. I find that credible, and if true, the CIA would have done good for a change.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. deleting reviews and now this? by anthony_greer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In recent days amazon has been found to be deleting reviews of Hillary Clinton book that are negative - they justify this by saying that "no one could have read the book that fast" yet they don't block the great reviews from people who have had the same amount of access to the book as the negative reviewers.

    If you take away the ability of people to speak freely, leaving them with the perception of censorship***, they will find other, very terrible ways to communicate their thoughts...and suggesting bombs at the same time is something that is actually genuinely frightening.

    ***I know amazon is not a government and therefore cant "censor" but it can give the perception thereof because of the sheer power they do hold.

    1. Re:deleting reviews and now this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In recent days amazon has been found to be deleting reviews of Hillary Clinton book that are negative - they justify this by saying that "no one could have read the book that fast" yet they don't block the great reviews from people who have had the same amount of access to the book as the negative reviewers.

      That's not accurate - it seems they removed non "Verified Purchaser" reviews, which were predominantly one star; it does seem likely that most of those people might not have read the book, and certainly they didn't get it from Amazon. From Slate:

      Amazon has since removed hundreds of reviews—both positive and negative—from unverified reviewers, but since these were overwhelmingly in the one-star camp, the book’s rating has now jumped from a 3.2 rating to a 4.9 rating overall.

    2. Re:deleting reviews and now this? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Amazon has been deleting negative reviews from people it can't verify have bought the book from it. That's entirely reasonable - the book is being review bombed heavily, and the goal is to provide reliable reviews (it's not your political free speech soapbox).

      There are plenty of people who have bought the book from Amazon, had time to actually read it and decided to leave a review. Not all of them are positive, but the barrier to entry (the cost of the book + time) does mean that people who review it are at least interested in the content.

      They are doing the same thing with Zoe Quinn's new book. Steam is doing something similar with game reviews, because people review bomb them in response to some random thing the developer posted on Twitter.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:deleting reviews and now this? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's not accurate - it seems they removed non "Verified Purchaser" reviews, which were predominantly one star

      Who are you going to believe -- a clearly unbiased (cough) Slate author, or your lying eyes? A sampling of verified negative reviews:

      By BabaLa on September 14, 2017
      Format: Kindle Edition | Verified Purchase
      I wrote a verified purchase review and it has been deleted 3 times. If Amazon doesn't like what we have to say, don't ask for input.

      By The Just-About-Average Ms. M on September 17, 2017
      Format: Kindle Edition | Verified Purchase
      I purchased this book four days ago in the Kindle format. My review was of the book specifically and not the author. And like the review of a number of other folks, mine has been deleted four times.

      And some examples of non-verified, positive reviews that are still up:

      By thomas on September 19, 2017
      Format: Hardcover
      Great book, better than exoected

      By tweetdeck on September 17, 2017
      Format: Hardcover
      Best book ever

  7. Don't blame the mirror by next_ghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The algorithm isn't faulty. It works exactly as designed. But it is also completely blind to the deeper meaning of the result. Take this as a cautionary tale against all software-augmented decision making. Software is not inherently fair and impartial. It just blindly follows a rigid set of rules that don't include any moral values. And sometimes, the developer may have even made the rules intentionally malicious.

  8. Sounds like it's working by burtosis · · Score: 2

    To be fair, it sounds like yet another case of pattern matching without human level oversight working too well. If you want actual bugs look at the fake baby registry emails sent out yesterday in mass.

    1. Re:Sounds like it's working by RevRagnarok · · Score: 2

      sent out yesterday in mass.

      "en masse" - unless they did it during church services, which is fine too. ;)

      --
      I should put something clever here. Maybe someday.
  9. I went on Amazon ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... to buy a Swastika armband. And it suggested butt-plugs as 'frequently bought together'.

  10. Something similar happened when I bought duct tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I bought a few rolls of duct tape from amazon and it suggested cable ties, rope and heavy duty tie down loops. How many people need to buy a full kidnap kit from amazon for this to register as "Items frequently bought together"?

  11. Re:Rise up by ichimunki · · Score: 2

    If you live somewhere with a "tyrannical government" just how likely are you to be shopping for bomb making materials on Amazon? Even if you could put in the order, do you really think you'd ever get your shipment delivered? I mean, it's not the 5 gallon pail that's the active ingredient here.

    Let me say it again: if you are shopping on Amazon for bomb parts and you reasonably believe your shipment will be delivered, you are a terrorist. At least in the minds of almost everyone else living around you. Because if you lived somewhere that actually wasn't free, you wouldn't a) have Amazon to shop at, and b) have a hope in hell that your real bomb parts would be delivered.

    --
    I do not have a signature
  12. "bomb" means 1800s camera flash by raymorris · · Score: 2

    This story is a bit misleading and sensationalist. The "gunpowder" they refer to isn't anything any modern gun would use. It's not nearly so strong. Instead it's the raw ingredients for the centuries-old black powder, which needs extensive processing in order to make black powder from these ingredients. Just mixing them will do nothing. (I've made black powder multiple times, using ingredients from the hardware store.)

    The other item they refer to as "explosive" is metal powder, which Burns with a bright light. This has been used for camera flashes from the 1800s until recently. It's not a very good way to make a bomb, though anything that burns quickly will build up pressure if it's put into a metal container. If you wanted to build a bomb, though, you'd use high explosive, not flash powder. Your local Walmart, Walgreens, or Home Depot carries the materials for MUCH more dangerous explosive, which is easier to make than black powder.

  13. Re: Honestly Who Cares? by oobayly · · Score: 2

    Or Kinder Surprise...

  14. Almost opposite. Modern powder has nitro-glycerin by raymorris · · Score: 2

    The power of modern comes from nitroglycerin, the same explosive used in Dynamite. It's a "high explosive", meaning it detonates, explodes all by itself.

    Black powder, on the other hand, merely burns quickly. Black powder is very finely powdered charcoal very thoroughly mixed with oxygen-rich saltpetre. The oxygen in the saltpetre helps the charcoal burn faster. Charcoal is hard to light, so a little sulfur is added to make it easier to light. (The hard part is grinding them into a fine enough powder and mixing them so thoroughly that practically every molecule of charcoal is touching a molecule of saltpetre, and doing this grinding and mixing without setting it off.)

    A pile of black powder won't explode. When black powder gets interesting is when it's burned inside a closed container. The resulting fumes increase pressure in the container, until the container bursts open (or the pressure sends a musket ball down the barrel).

    So you're basically right, you just got the two switched.

    Something that explodes by itself (detonates) is called a high explosive. Modern powder contains high explosive. Something that just burns fast, possibly causing it's container to burst, is called a low explosive.

    I've made a lot of black powder. It's fun. I made a few MILLIGRAMS of high explosive once. I won't do that again. High explosives are not to be played with.