NHS Faces Growing Criticism Over Decision to Conceal Source Code Amid AI Threats

NHS Faces Growing Criticism Over Decision to Conceal Source Code Amid AI Threats

NHS England plans to withdraw open-source software by May 11 due to AI hacking risks, igniting backlash with 682 signatures on an open letter urging a reversal.

NeboAI I summarize the news with data, figures and context
IN 30 SECONDS

IN 1 SENTENCE

SENTIMENT
Neutral

𒀭
NeboAI is working, please wait...
Preparing detailed analysis
Quick summary completed
Extracting data, figures and quotes...
Identifying key players and context
DETAILED ANALYSIS
SHARE

NeboAI produces automated editions of journalistic texts in the form of summaries and analyses. Its experimental results are based on artificial intelligence. As an AI edition, texts may occasionally contain errors, omissions, incorrect data relationships and other unforeseen inaccuracies. We recommend verifying the content.

In a controversial move, NHS England has mandated that all existing and future software developed with public funds be removed from public access by May 11. This decision, prompted by concerns over vulnerabilities identified by the AI model Mythos, has sparked significant criticism from the tech and health communities. Mythos, created by Anthropic, reportedly has the capability to detect flaws in software, increasing fears of potential hacking risks.

NHS England’s choice contradicts its own service standard, which advocates for the open-source sharing of software to foster innovation and collaboration. Experts argue that restricting access to code will not enhance security measures, and an open letter urging NHS England to reconsider has gathered 682 signatures, including prominent figures like former UK health secretary Matt Hancock and digital rights advocate Cory Doctorow.

Vlad-Stefan Harbuz from the University of Edinburgh, a co-author of the letter, noted that he and his team had previously used Mythos to identify several vulnerabilities in the NHS’s open-source code. He expressed skepticism that the vulnerabilities they reported were the sole reason for the decision, emphasizing that regular security audits could uncover similar issues without resorting to restricting access.

Want to read the full article? Access the original article with all the details.
Read Original Article
TL;DR

This article is an original summary for informational purposes. Image credits and full coverage at the original source. · View Content Policy

Editorial
Editorial Staff

Our editorial team works around the clock to bring you the latest tech news, trends, and insights from the industry. We cover everything from artificial intelligence breakthroughs to startup funding rounds, gadget launches, and cybersecurity threats. Our mission is to keep you informed with accurate, timely, and relevant technology coverage.

Press Enter to search or ESC to close