#FactCheck - AI-Cloned Audio in Viral Anup Soni Video Promoting Betting Channel Revealed as Fake

Digitisation in Agriculture

The traditional way of doing agriculture has undergone massive digitization in recent years, whereby several agricultural processes have been linked to the Internet. This globally prevalent transformation, driven by smart technology, encompasses the use of sensors, IoT devices, and data analytics to optimize and automate labour-intensive farming practices. Smart farmers in the country and abroad now leverage real-time data to monitor soil conditions, weather patterns, and crop health, enabling precise resource management and improved yields. The integration of smart technology in agriculture not only enhances productivity but also promotes sustainable practices by reducing waste and conserving resources. As a result, the agricultural sector is becoming more efficient, resilient, and capable of meeting the growing global demand for food.

Digitisation of Food Supply Chains

There has also been an increase in the digitisation of food supply chains across the globe since it enables both suppliers and consumers to keep track of the stage of food processing from farm to table and ensures the authenticity of the food product. The latest generation of agricultural robots is being tested to minimise human intervention. It is thought that AI-run processes can mitigate labour shortage, improve warehousing and storage and make transportation more efficient by running continuous evaluations and adjusting the conditions real-time while increasing yield. The company Muddy Machines is currently trialling an autonomous asparagus-harvesting robot called Sprout that not only addresses labour shortages but also selectively harvests green asparagus, which traditionally requires careful picking. However, Chris Chavasse, co-founder of Muddy Machines, highlights that hackers and malicious actors could potentially hack into the robot's servers and prevent it from operating by driving it into a ditch or a hedge, thereby impending core crop activities like seeding and harvesting. Hacking agricultural pieces of machinery also implies damaging a farmer’s produce and in turn profitability for the season.

Case Study: Muddy Machines and Cybersecurity Risks

A cyber attack on digitised agricultural processes has a cascading impact on online food supply chains. Risks are non-exhaustive and spill over to poor protection of cargo in transit, increased manufacturing of counterfeit products, manipulation of data, poor warehousing facilities and product-specific fraud, amongst others. Additional impacts on suppliers are also seen, whereby suppliers have supplied the food products but fail to receive their payments. These cyber-threats may include malware(primarily ransomware) that accounts for 38% of attacks, Internet of Things (IoT) attacks that comprise 29%, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, SQL Injections, phishing attacks etc. 

Prominent Cyber Attacks and Their Impacts

Ransomware attacks are the most popular form of cyber threats to food supply chains and may include malicious contaminations, deliberate damage and destruction of tangible assets (like infrastructure) or intangible assets (like reputation and brand). In 2017, NotPetya malware disrupted the world’s largest logistics giant Maersk and destroyed all end-user devices in more than 60 countries. Interestingly, NotPetya was also linked to the malfunction of freezers connected to control systems. The attack led to these control systems being compromised, resulting in freezer failures and potential spoilage of food, highlighting the vulnerability of industrial control systems to cyber threats.

Further Case Studies

NotPetya also impacted Mondelez, the maker of Oreos but disrupting its email systems, file access and logistics for weeks. Mondelez’s insurance claim was also denied since NotPetya malware was described as a “war-like” action, falling outside the purview of the insurance coverage. In April 2021, over the Easter weekend, Bakker Logistiek, a logistics company based in the Netherlands that offers air-conditioned warehousing and food transportation for Dutch supermarkets, experienced a ransomware attack. This incident disrupted their supply chain for several days, resulting in empty shelves at Albert Heijn supermarkets, particularly for products such as packed and grated cheese. Despite the severity of the attack, the company successfully restored their operations within a week by utilizing backups. JBS, one of the world’s biggest meat processing companies, also had to pay $11 million in ransom via Bitcoin to resolve a cyber attack in the same year, whereby computer networks at JBS were hacked, temporarily shutting down their operations and endangering consumer data. The disruption threatened food supplies and risked higher food prices for consumers. Additional cascading impacts also include low food security and hindrances in processing payments at retail stores. 

Credible Threat Agents and Their Targets

Any cyber-attack is usually carried out by credible threat agents that can be classified as either internal or external threat agents. Internal threat agents may include contractors, visitors to business sites, former/current employees, and individuals who work for suppliers. External threat agents may include activists, cyber-criminals, terror cells etc. These threat agents target large organisations owing to their larger ransom-paying capacity, but may also target small companies due to their vulnerability and low experience, especially when such companies are migrating from analogous methods to digitised processes.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation warns that the food and agricultural systems are most vulnerable to cyber-security threats during critical planting and harvesting seasons. It noted an increase in cyber-attacks against six agricultural co-operatives in 2021, with ancillary core functions such as food supply and distribution being impacted. Resultantly, cyber-attacks may lead to a mass shortage of food not only meant for human consumption but also for animals.

Policy Recommendations

To safeguard against digital food supply chains, Food defence emerges as one of the top countermeasures to prevent and mitigate the effects of intentional incidents and threats to the food chain. While earlier, food defence vulnerability assessments focused on product adulteration and food fraud, including vulnerability assessments of agriculture technology now be more relevant.  

Food supply organisations must prioritise regular backups of data using air-gapped and password-protected offline copies, and ensure critical data copies are not modifiable or deletable from the main system.  For this, blockchain-based food supply chain solutions may be deployed, which are not only resilient to hacking, but also allow suppliers and even consumers to track produce. Companies like Ripe.io, Walmart Global Tech, Nestle and Wholechain deploy blockchain for food supply management since it provides overall process transparency, improves trust issues in the transactions, enables traceable and tamper-resistant records and allows accessibility and visibility of data provenance. Extensive recovery plans with multiple copies of essential data and servers in secure, physically separated locations, such as hard drives, storage devices, cloud or distributed ledgers should be adopted in addition to deploying operations plans for critical functions in case of system outages. For core processes which are not labour-intensive,  including manual operation methods may be used to reduce digital dependence. Network segmentation, updates or patches for operating systems, software, and firmware are additional steps which can be taken to secure smart agricultural technologies. 

References

1. Muddy Machines website, Accessed 26 July 2024.  https://www.muddymachines.com/ 
2. “Meat giant JBS pays $11m in ransom to resolve cyber-attack”, BBC, 10 June 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57423008 
3. Marshall, Claire & Prior, Malcolm, “Cyber security: Global food supply chain at risk from malicious hackers.”, BBC, 20 May 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61336659 
4. “Ransomware Attacks on Agricultural Cooperatives Potentially Timed to Critical Seasons.”, Private Industry Notification, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 20 April  https://www.ic3.gov/Media/News/2022/220420-2.pdf. 
5. Manning, Louise & Kowalska, Aleksandra. (2023). “The threat of ransomware in the food supply chain: a challenge for food defence”, Trends in Organized Crime. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-023-09516-y 
6. “NotPetya: the cyberattack that shook the world”, Economic Times, 5 March 2022. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/newsletters/ettech-unwrapped/notpetya-the-cyberattack-that-shook-the-world/articleshow/89997076.cms?from=mdr 
7. Abrams, Lawrence, “Dutch supermarkets run out of cheese after ransomware attack.”, Bleeping Computer, 12 April 2021. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dutch-supermarkets-run-out-of-cheese-after-ransomware-attack/ 
8. Pandey, Shipra; Gunasekaran, Angappa; Kumar Singh, Rajesh & Kaushik, Anjali, “Cyber security risks in globalised supply chains: conceptual framework”, Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, January 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shipra-Pandey/publication/338668641_Cyber_security_risks_in_globalized_supply_chains_conceptual_framework/links/5e2678ae92851c89c9b5ac66/Cyber-security-risks-in-globalized-supply-chains-conceptual-framework.pdf 
9. Daley, Sam, “Blockchain for Food: 10 examples to know”, Builin, 22 March 2023 https://builtin.com/blockchain/food-safety-supply-chain 

‍

Executive Summary:

 A viral online image claims to show Arvind Kejriwal, Chief Minister of Delhi, welcoming Elon Musk during his visit to India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies. However, the CyberPeace Research Team has confirmed that the image is a deep fake, created using AI technology. The assertion that Elon Musk visited India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies is false and misleading.

Claim

‍

A viral image claims that Arvind Kejriwal welcomed Elon Musk during his visit to India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies.

Post link

‍

‍

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the viral posts, we conducted a reverse image search using InVid Reverse Image searching tool. The search traced the image back to different unrelated sources featuring both Arvind Kejriwal and Elon Musk, but none of the sources depicted them together or involved any such event. The viral image displayed visible inconsistencies, such as lighting disparities and unnatural blending, which prompted further investigation.

Using advanced AI detection tools like TrueMedia.org and Hive AI Detection tool, we analyzed the image. The analysis confirmed with 97.5% confidence that the image was a deepfake. The tools identified “substantial evidence of manipulation,” particularly in the merging of facial features and the alignment of clothes and background, which were artificially generated.

  Analysis link

‍

‍

‍

Moreover, a review of official statements and credible reports revealed no record of Elon Musk visiting India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies. Neither Arvind Kejriwal’s office nor Tesla or SpaceX made any announcement regarding such an event, further debunking the viral claim.

Conclusion:

The viral image claiming that Arvind Kejriwal welcomed Elon Musk during his visit to India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies is a deep fake. Tools like Reverse Image search and AI detection confirm the image’s manipulation through AI technology. Additionally, there is no supporting evidence from any credible sources. The CyberPeace Research Team confirms the claim is false and misleading.

• Claim: Arvind Kejriwal welcomed Elon Musk to India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies, viral on social media.
• Claimed on: Facebook and X(Formerly Twitter)
• Fact Check: False & Misleading

‍

Introduction

Election misinformation poses a major threat to democratic processes all over the world. The rampant spread of misleading information intentionally (disinformation) and unintentionally (misinformation) during the election cycle can not only create grounds for voter confusion with ramifications on election results but also incite harassment, bullying, and even physical violence. The attack on the United States Capitol Building in Washington D.C., in 2021, is a classic example of this phenomenon, where the spread of dis/misinformation snowballed into riots. 

Election Dis/Misinformation 

Election dis/misinformation is false or misleading information that affects/influences public understanding of voting, candidates, and election integrity. The internet, particularly social media, is the foremost source of false information during elections. It hosts fabricated news articles, posts or messages containing incorrectly-captioned pictures and videos, fabricated websites, synthetic media and memes, and distorted truths or lies. In a recent example during the 2024 US elections, fake videos using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) insignia alleging voter fraud in collusion with a political party and claiming the threat of terrorist attacks were circulated. According to polling data collected by Brookings, false claims influenced how voters saw candidates and shaped opinions on major issues like the economy, immigration, and crime. It also impacted how they viewed the news media’s coverage of the candidates’ campaign. The shaping of public perceptions can thus, directly influence election outcomes. It can increase polarisation, affect the quality of democratic discourse, and cause disenfranchisement. From a broader perspective, pervasive and persistent misinformation during the electoral process also has the potential to erode public trust in democratic government institutions and destabilise social order in the long run.  

Challenges In Combating Dis/Misinformation

‍

1. Platform Limitations:  Current content moderation practices by social media companies struggle to identify and flag misinformation effectively. To address this, further adjustments are needed, including platform design improvements, algorithm changes, enhanced content moderation, and stronger regulations.

2. Speed and Spread: Due to increasingly powerful algorithms, the speed and scale at which misinformation can spread is unprecedented. In contrast, content moderation and fact-checking are reactive and are more time-consuming. Further, incendiary material, which is often the subject of fake news, tends to command higher emotional engagement and thus, spreads faster (virality). 

3. Geopolitical influences: Foreign actors seeking to benefit from the erosion of public trust in the USA present a challenge to the country's governance, administration and security machinery. In 2018, the federal jury indicted 11 Russian military officials for alleged computer hacking to gain access to files during the 2016 elections.  Similarly, Russian involvement in the 2024 federal elections has been alleged by high-ranking officials such as White House national security spokesman John Kirby, and Attorney General Merrick Garland. 

4. Lack of Targeted Plan to Combat Election Dis/Misinformation:  In the USA,  dis/misinformation is indirectly addressed through laws on commercial advertising, fraud, defamation, etc. At the state level, some laws such as Bills AB 730, AB 2655, AB 2839, and AB 2355 in California target election dis/misinformation. The federal and state governments criminalize false claims about election procedures, but the Constitution mandates  “breathing space” for protection from false statements within election speech. This makes it difficult for the government to regulate election-related falsities.

‍

‍

CyberPeace Recommendations

1. Strengthening Election Cybersecurity Infrastructure: To build public trust in the electoral process and its institutions, security measures such as updated data protection protocols, publicized audits of election results, encryption of voter data, etc. can be taken. In 2022, the federal legislative body of the USA  passed the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act (ECRA), pushing reforms allowing only a state’s governor or designated executive official to submit official election results, preventing state legislatures from altering elector appointment rules after Election Day and making it more difficult for federal legislators to overturn election results. More investments can be made in training, scenario planning, and fact-checking for more robust mitigation of election-related malpractices online. 
2. Regulating Transparency on Social Media Platforms: Measures such as transparent labeling of election-related content and clear disclosure of political advertising to increase accountability can make it easier for voters to identify potential misinformation. This type of transparency is a necessary first step in the regulation of content on social media and is useful in providing disclosures, public reporting, and access to data for researchers. Regulatory support is also required in cases where popular platforms actively promote election misinformation.
3. Increasing focus on ‘Prebunking’ and Debunking Information: Rather than addressing misinformation after it spreads, ‘prebunking’ should serve as the primary defence to strengthen public resilience ahead of time. On the other hand, misinformation needs to be debunked repeatedly through trusted channels. Psychological inoculation techniques against dis/misinformation can be scaled to reach millions on social media through short videos or messages.
4. Focused Interventions On Contentious Themes By Social Media Platforms: As platforms prioritize user growth, the burden of verifying the accuracy of posts largely rests with users. To shoulder the responsibility of tackling false information, social media platforms can outline critical themes with large-scale impact such as anti-vax content, and either censor, ban, or tweak the recommendations algorithm to reduce exposure and weaken online echo chambers. 
5. Addressing Dis/Information through a Socio-Psychological Lens: Dis/misinformation and its impact on domains like health, education, economy, politics, etc. need to be understood through a psychological and sociological lens, apart from the technological one. A holistic understanding of the propagation of false information should inform digital literacy training in schools and public awareness campaigns to empower citizens to evaluate online information critically. 

‍

Conclusion

According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024, the link between misleading or false information and societal unrest will be a focal point during elections in several major economies over the next two years. Democracies must employ a mixed approach of immediate tactical solutions, such as large-scale fact-checking and content labelling, and long-term evidence-backed countermeasures, such as digital literacy, to curb the spread and impact of dis/misinformation.

‍

Sources

•  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2024-election-misinformation-fbi-fake-videos/ 
•  https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-disinformation-defined-the-2024-election-narrative/ 
•  https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/russian-interference-in-2016-u-s-elections
• https://indianexpress.com/article/world/misinformation-spreads-fear-distrust-ahead-us-election-9652111/ 
•  https://academic.oup.com/ajcl/article/70/Supplement_1/i278/6597032#377629256 
• https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/how-states-can-prevent-election-subversion-2024-and-beyond 
•  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2dpj485nno 
• https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2022/how-misinformation-and-disinformation-influence-elections 
• https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/a-survey-of-expert-views-on-misinformation-definitions-determinants-solutions-and-future-of-the-field/ 
• https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/Digital_News_Report_2023.pdf 
• https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/03/disinformation-trust-ecosystem-experts-curb-it/ 
• https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/misinformation-recommendations 
• https://mythvsreality.eci.gov.in/ 
• https://www.brookings.edu/articles/transparency-is-essential-for-effective-social-media-regulation/ 
• https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-should-social-media-platforms-combat-misinformation-and-hate-speech/ 

‍