Deepfake Alert: Sachin Tendulkar's Warning Against Technology Misuse

Introduction

A hacking operation has corrupted data on Madhya Pradesh's e-Nagarpalika portal, a vital online platform for paying civic taxes that serves 413 towns and cities in the state. Due to this serious security violation, the portal has been shut down. The incident occurred in December 2023. This affects citizens' access to vital online services like possessions, water, and municipal tax payments, as well as the issuing of obituaries and certain documents offered via online portal. Ransomware which is a type of malware encodes and conceals a victim's files, and data making it inaccessible and unreachable unless the attacker is paid a ransom. When ransomware initially appeared, encryption was the main method of preventing individuals' data from such threats.

The Intrusion and Database Corruption: Exposing the Breach's Scope

The extent of the assault on the e-Nagarpalika portal was revealed by the Principal Secretary of the Urban Administration and Housing Department of Madhya Pradesh, in a startling revelation. Cybercriminals carried out a highly skilled assault that led to the total destruction of the data infrastructure covering all 413 of the towns for which the website was responsible.

This significant breach represents a thorough infiltration into the core of the electronic civic taxation system, not just an arrangement. Because of the attackers' nefarious intent, the data integrity was compromised, raising questions about the safeguarding of private citizen data. The extent of the penetration reaches vital city services, causing a reassessment of the current cybersecurity safeguards in place. 

In addition to raising concerns about the privacy of personal information, the hacked information system casts doubt on the availability of crucial municipal services. Among the vital services affected by this cyberattack are marriage licenses, birth and death documents, and the efficient handling of possessions, water, and municipal taxes.

The weaknesses of electronic systems, which are the foundation of contemporary civic services, are highlighted by this incident. Beyond the attack's immediate interruption, citizens now have to deal with concerns about the security of their information and the availability of essential services. This tragedy is a clear reminder of the urgent need for robust safety safeguards as authorities work hard to control the consequences and begin the process of restoration.

Offline Protections in Place

The concerned authority informed the general population that the offsite data, which has been stored up on recordings every three days, is secure despite the online attack. This preventive action emphasises how crucial offline restores are to lessening the effects of these kinds of cyberattacks. The choice to keep the e-Nagarpalika platform offline until a certain time highlights how serious the matter is and how urgently extensive reconstruction must be done to restore the online services offer

Effect on Civic Services

The e-Nagarpalika website is crucial to providing online municipal services, serving as an invaluable resource for citizens to obtain necessary paperwork and carry out diverse transactions. Civic organisations have been told to function offline while the portal remains unavailable until the infrastructure is fully operational. This interruption prompts worries about possible delays and obstacles citizens face when getting basic amenities during this time.

Examination and Quality Control

Information technology specialists are working diligently to look into the computer virus and recover the website, in coordination with the Madhya Pradesh State Electronic Development Corporation Limited, the state's cyber police, and the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In). Reassuringly for impacted citizens, authorities note that there is currently no proof of data leaks arising from the hack.

Conclusion

The computerised attack on the e-Nagarpalika portal in Madhya Pradesh exposes the weakness of computer networks. It has affected the essential services to public services offered via online portal. The hack, which exposed citizen data and interfered with vital services, emphasises how urgently strong safety precautions are needed. The tragedy is a clear reminder of the need to strengthen technology as authorities investigate and attempt to restore the system. One bright spot is that the offline defenses in place highlight the significance of backup plans in reducing the impact of cyberattacks. The ongoing reconstruction activities demonstrate the commitment to protecting public data and maintaining the confidentiality of essential city operations.

References

• https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/tag/cyber+attack
• https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/ransomware#:~:text=Ransomware%20is%20a%20type%20of,accessing%20their%20files%20and%20systems.
• https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/mp-s-e-nagarpalika-portal-suffers-cyber-attack-data-corrupted-officials-123122300519_1.html
• https://www.freepressjournal.in/bhopal/mp-govts-e-nagar-palika-portal-hacked-data-of-over-400-cities-leaked

Introduction

Cybersecurity threats have been globally prevalent for quite some time now. All nations, organisations and individuals stand at risk from new and emerging potential cybersecurity threats, putting finances, privacy, data, identities and sometimes human lives at stake. The latest Data Breach Report by IBM revealed that nearly a staggering 83% of organisations experienced more than one data breach instance during 2022. As per the 2022 Data Breach Investigations Report by Verizon, the total number of global ransomware attacks surged by 13%, indicating a concerning rise equal to the last five years combined. The statistics clearly showcase how the future is filled with potential threats as we advance further into the digital age.  

Who is Okta?  

Okta is a secure identity cloud that links all your apps, logins and devices into a unified digital fabric. Okta has been in existence since 2009 and is based out of San Francisco, USA and has been one of the leading service providers in the States. The advent of the company led to early success based on the high-quality services and products introduced by them in the market. Although Okta is not as well-known as the big techs, it plays a vital role in big organisations' cybersecurity systems. More than 18,000 users of the identity management company's products rely on it to give them a single login for the several platforms that a particular business uses. For instance, Zoom leverages Okta to provide "seamless" access to its Google Workspace, ServiceNow, VMware, and Workday systems with only one login, thus showing how Okta is fundamental in providing services to ease the human effort on various platforms. In the digital age, such organisations are instrumental in leading the pathway to innovation and entrepreneurship. 

The Okta Breach

The last Friday, 20 October, Okta reported a hack of its support system, leading to chaos and havoc within the organisation. The result of the hack can be seen in the market in the form of the massive losses incurred by Okta in the stock exchange. 

Since the attack, the company's market value has dropped by more than $2 billion. The well-known incident is the most recent in a long line of events connected to Okta or its products, which also includes a wave of casino invasions that caused days-long disruptions to hotel rooms in Las Vegas, casino giants Caesars and MGM were both affected by hacks as reported earlier this year. Both of those attacks, targeting MGM and Caesars’ Okta installations, used a sophisticated social engineering attack that went through IT help desks.

What can be done to prevent this? 

Cybersecurity attacks on organisations have become a very common occurrence ever since the pandemic and are rampant all across the globe. Major big techs have been successful in setting up SoPs, safeguards and precautionary measures to protect their companies and their digital assets and interests. However, the Medium, Mico and small business owners are the most vulnerable to such unknown high-intensity attacks. The governments of various nations have established Computer Emergency Response Teams to monitor and investigate such massive-scale cyberattacks both on organisations and individuals. The issue of cybersecurity can be better addressed by inculcating the following aspects into our daily digital routines: 

• Team Upskilling: Organisations need to be critical in creating upskilling avenues for employees pertaining to cybersecurity and threats. These campaigns should be run periodically, focusing on both the individual and organisational impact of any threat.  
• Reporting Mechanism for Employees and Customers: Business owners and organisations need to deploy robust, sustainable and efficient reporting mechanisms for both employees well as customers. The mechanism will be fundamental in pinpointing the potential grey areas and threats in the cyber security mechanism as well. A dedicated reporting mechanism is now a mandate by a lot of governments around the world as it showcases transparency and natural justice in terms of legal remedies.  
• Preventive, Precautionary and Recovery Policies: Organisations need to create and deploy respective preventive, precautionary and recovery policies in regard to different forms of cyber attacks and threats. This will be helpful in a better understanding of threats and faster response in cases of emergencies and attacks. These policies should be updated regularly, keeping in mind the emerging technologies. Efficient deployment of the policies can be done by conducting mock drills and threat assessment activities.  
• Global Dialogue Forums: It is pertinent for organisations and the industry to create a community of cyber security enthusiasts from different and diverse backgrounds to address the growing issues of cyberspace; this can be done by conducting and creating global dialogue forums, which will act as the beacon of sharing best practices, advisories, threat assessment reports, potential threats and attacks thus establishing better inter-agency and inter-organisation communication and coordination.  
• Data Anonymisation and Encryption: Organisations should have data management/processing policies in place for transparency and should always store data in an encrypted and anonymous manner, thus creating a blanket of safety in case of any data breach.
• Critical infrastructure: The industry leaders should push the limits of innovation by setting up state-of-the-art critical cyber infrastructure to create employment, innovation, and entrepreneurship spirit among the youth, thus creating a whole new generation of cyber-ready professionals and dedicated netizens. Critical infrastructures are essential in creating a safe, secure, resilient and secured digital ecosystem. 
• Cysec Audits & Sandboxing: All organisations should establish periodic routines of Cybersecurity audits, both by internal and external entities, to find any issue/grey area in the security systems. This will create a more robust and adaptive cybersecurity mechanism for the organisation and its employees. All tech developing and testing companies need to conduct proper sandboxing exercises for all or any new tech/software creation to identify its shortcomings and flaws. 

‍Conclusion 

In view of the rising cybersecurity attacks on organisations, especially small and medium companies, a lot has been done, and a lot more needs to be done to establish an aspect of safety and security for companies, employees and customers. The impact of the Okta breach very clearly show how cyber attacks can cause massive repercussion for any organisation in the form of monetary loss, loss of business, damage to reputation and a lot of other factors. One should take such instances as examples and learnings for ourselves and prepare our organisation to combat similar types of threats, ultimately working towards preventing these types of threats and eradicating the influence of bad actors from our digital ecosystem altogether. 

‍

References: 

• https://hbr.org/2023/05/the-devastating-business-impacts-of-a-cyber-breach#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20global%20average,legal%20fees%2C%20and%20audit%20fees.
• https://www.okta.com/intro-to-okta/#:~:text=Okta%20is%20a%20secure%20identity,use%20to%20work%2C%20instantly%20available.
• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/mgm-resorts-shuts-down-it-systems-after-cyberattack

‍

‍

Introduction

‍
You ask an app for directions to a street you've driven down a hundred times. You let autocomplete finish your sentence before you've decided what you meant to say. You take a photo of a document instead of reading it, trusting the summary a model hands back. None of these moments feel like a loss. Each one is, on its own, a reasonable trade of effort for convenience. But add them up across a year, a career, an industry, and you start to wonder what exactly we've been trading away. Every technology wave produces its own founding myth. For AI, the myth is that intelligence can be manufactured at scale, bottled into a model, and dispensed on demand - cheaper, faster, and eventually better than the human original. It's a seductive story, and one we've been telling ourselves so uncritically that we've stopped noticing what it costs.

The casualties of this bet are rarely dramatic. Nobody announces that a skill has quietly atrophied, or that a habit of independent judgement has gone unused long enough to weaken. These losses don't show up as headlines; they show up later, as gaps, when the system that was supposed to think for us turns out not to have been thinking at all. Ford Motor Company's recent decision to rehire around 350 veteran engineers, after leaning heavily on AI-driven quality systems, is a small but telling data point.¹ The lesson isn't that automation failed outright — it's that a process can be automated without the judgement that made the process work ever being captured in the first place. That distinction between automating a task and actually preserving the human expertise behind it is the real subject of this AI moment.

‍

How Organisations Are Using AI in Decision-Making

‍

More organisations are now leaning on AI not just to execute tasks, but to help shape decisions. Deloitte's 2026 Global Human Capital Trends survey found that 60% of executives now regularly use AI to support their decisions, and the same report cites Gartner's projection that by 2027, half of all business decisions will be augmented or automated by AI agents. Companies like Netflix and Amazon are often pointed to as examples of this working well using AI to enhance recommendations and logistics while keeping people involved in the interpretation, generating significant value in the process. Elsewhere, results have been more mixed: MIT's "State of AI in Business 2025" study found that 95% of generative AI pilots showed no measurable P&L impact within six months, often because this initiative failed to integrate feedback or adapt to context rather than because the underlying model was flawed. Critics have noted the study used a narrow definition of success (six-month, bottom-line ROI), so the figure may understate the value AI creates in ways that aren't captured on the P&L. Notably, this is not an argument against using AI. It is an argument about how we use it and why the human-in-the-loop principle, keeping people actively involved in judgement rather than passively rubber-stamping outputs, is not a compliance checkbox but the thing that determines whether automation actually works. That distinction, between automating a task and preserving the human expertise behind it, is the point of contention.

‍

Finding the Balance

‍

The lesson isn't to use AI less, it's to be deliberate about where it sits in the process. The strongest results come from pairing AI's speed with human judgement, not swapping one for the other. That means keeping a clear owner for important decisions, checking that the model is optimising for the right goal, and treating its output as a strong first draft rather than a final answer. Used this way, AI doesn't replace thinking, it gives good judgement more room to work.

‍

Two Framings We Should Retire

‍

Conversations about AI adoption keep falling into two lazy framings. The first is AI versus humans, as if technology and workforce are locked in a zero-sum contest for relevance. The second is AI versus jobs, reducing every discussion to headcount and displacement. Both are legitimate concerns, but they crowd out a more urgent question: as AI gets embedded deeper into how decisions are made, what happens to the quality of the decisions themselves? This is not a question about whether AI is useful and it plainly is. It is a question about what gets quietly outsourced along with the task, and whether anyone notices before it matters.

‍

Why “Wisdom of Crowds” Does Not Automatically Apply to AI

‍

A comforting analogy often gets reached for: surely, with millions of people using the same models, errors will average out, the way independent forecasters tend to converge on accurate estimates.² That analogy breaks down where it matters most. The wisdom-of-crowds effect depends on independent thinking, genuinely diverse information, and an aggregation mechanism that does not distort the signal. When millions of people query the same underlying model, those conditions collapse. Everyone draws from the same statistical engine, trained on overlapping data, tuned toward similar “safe” answers. The apparent agreement is not corroboration, it is an echo. This creates a genuinely new risk: AI can be confidently, fluently, and uniformly wrong across an entire organisation at once, without the friction that would normally surface an error in a single person's judgement.

‍

The Casualties, Named Plainly

‍

Several things erode quietly when organisations are not deliberate about integrating AI into decisions. Independent judgement is the first casualty of the willingness to form a view before checking what the model says. Verification effort follows: generative AI collapses retrieval and generation into one fluent output, and people invest less effort checking something that already sounds complete and well-reasoned. Diversity of thought narrows as more decision-makers lean on the same handful of models for research and drafting, quietly reducing the range of framings available when it matters most. Accountability becomes harder to trace when a recommendation generated by a model and passed along with minimal scrutiny creates a strange vacuum where a decision was made but nobody quite owns it. And informational anchoring sets in, where a signal becomes a coordination point simply because everyone is looking at it, regardless of its accuracy.

‍

Why Human-in-the-Loop Is a Design Requirement

‍

“Human in the loop” often becomes a rubber-stamp step rather than genuine scrutiny. That is a mistake, because the functions humans provide are structural, not decorative. Context that a model cannot infer  history, relationships, unstated constraints  shapes whether a reasonable-sounding answer is right in a specific situation. Domain expertise built over years lets someone recognise when a fluent answer is subtly wrong. Ethical judgement decides trade-offs a model has no standing to make on an organisation's behalf. Accountability means someone can be asked why a decision was made and answer from reasoning, not from “the system recommended it.” And the rarest function of all is the willingness to challenge a convincing answer and resisting the very fluency that makes AI output persuasive.

‍

What This Looks Like in Practice

‍

For organisations, the goal is not slowing AI adoption but being deliberate about where human judgement stays load-bearing. AI output should default to draft status until a qualified person has actively tested its logic against context the model lacks. Teams using the same AI tools for analysis should build in a step that actively seeks disagreement, rather than assuming convergence means correctness. Ford's decision to bring engineers back to lead design reviews is instructive: expertise, once encoded into a system, is not safe to let atrophy in the people who built it.³ Verification should be visible and required for decisions with real financial, legal, safety, or reputational consequences. And organisations should track which decisions were AI-assisted and who owned the final call, so accountability stays traceable rather than quietly disappearing.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Decades ago, management thinkers warned that automating a broken process only helps an organisation fail faster. The AI era raises the stakes on that warning: judgement itself, the hard-won capacity to reason well under uncertainty, can be automated away without anyone deciding to give it up. Machines already process information faster than any team of people. What they cannot yet do is originate the wisdom that comes from human experience, accountability, and the willingness to be told one is wrong. That capacity erodes not because AI is powerful, but because organisations stop deliberately exercising it. The real task ahead is not resisting AI, but ensuring that as it takes on more of the work of deciding, humans deliberately keep hold of the responsibility of deciding.

‍

References

‍

1. https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/100186-ford-rehires-veteran-engineers-to-improve-ai-vehicle-quality
2. https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/ford-rehires-veteran-engineers-ai-144332497.html
3. https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/ford-rehires-more-300-engineers-162210705.html
4. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/ford-rehires-hundreds-of-engineers-after-ai-struggles-to-improve-quality/ar-AA26P4QB?ocid=BingNewsSerp
5. https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ford-rehires-experienced-engineers-after-ai-misses-mark
6. https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/artificial-wisdom-of-crowds-jobs-crisis-ai-technology-automation-openai-model-11785009289768.html
7. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/human-capital-trends/2026/decision-making-with-ai.html
8. https://www.hpcwire.com/aiwire/2026/03/04/deloittes-state-of-ai-2026-why-enterprise-execution-is-falling-behind-adoption/ and Legal.io summary: https://www.legal.io/blog/5719519/MIT-Report-Finds-95-of-AI-Pilots-Fail-to-Deliver-ROI-Exposing-GenAI-Divide
9. https://www.marketingaiinstitute.com/blog/mit-study-ai-pilots

‍