#FactCheck - Debunked: AI-Generated Image Circulating as April Solar Eclipse Snapshot

Introduction

Phone farms refer to setups or systems using multiple phones collectively. Phone farms are often for deceptive purposes, to create repeated actions in high numbers quickly, or to achieve goals. These can include faking popularity through increasing views, likes, and comments and growing the number of followers. It can also include creating the illusion of legitimate activity through actions like automatic app downloads, ad views, clicks, registrations, installations and in-app engagement. 

A phone farm is a network where cybercriminals exploit mobile incentive programs by using multiple phones to perform the same actions repeatedly. This can lead to misattributions and increased marketing spends. Phone farming involves exploiting paid-to-watch apps or other incentive-based programs over dozens of phones to increase the total amount earned. It can also be applied to operations that orchestrate dozens or hundreds of phones to create a certain outcome, such as improving restaurant ratings or App Store Optimization(ASO). Companies constantly update their platforms to combat phone farming, but it is nearly impossible to prevent people from exploiting such services for their own benefit.

How Do Phone Farms Work?

Phone farms are a collection of connected smartphones or mobile devices used for automated tasks, often remotely controlled by software programs. These devices are often used for advertising, monetization, and artificially inflating app ratings or social media engagement. The software used in phone farms is typically a bot or script that interacts with the operating system and installed apps. The phone farm operator connects the devices to the Internet via wired or wireless networks, VPNs, or other remote access software. Once the software is installed, the operator can use a web-based interface or command-line tool to schedule and monitor tasks, setting specific schedules or monitoring device status for proper operation.

Modus Operandi Behind Phone Farms 

Phone farms have gained popularity due to the growing popularity and scope of the Internet and the presence of bots. Phone farmers use multiple phones simultaneously to perform illegitimate activity and mimic high numbers. The applications can range from ‘watching’ movie trailers and clicking on ads to giving fake ratings and creating false engagements. When phone farms drive up ‘engagement actions’ on social media through numerous likes and post shares, they help perpetuate a false narrative. Through phone click farms, bad actors also earn on each ad or video watched. Phone farmers claim to use this as a side hustle, as a means of making more money. Click farms can be modeled as companies providing digital engagement services or as individual corporations to multiply clicks for various objectives. They are operated on a much larger scale, with thousands of employees and billions of daily clicks, impressions, and engagements.

The Legality of Phone Farms 

The question about the legality of phone farms presents a conundrum. It is notable that phone farms are also used for legitimate application in software development and market research, enabling developers to test applications across various devices and operating systems simultaneously. However, they are typically employed for more dubious purposes, such as social media manipulation, generatiing fake clicks on online ads, spamming, spreading misinformation, and facilitating cyberattacks, and such use cases classify as illegal and unethical behaviour.

The use of the technology to misrepresent information for nefarious intents is illegitimate and unethical. Phone farms are famed for violating the terms of the apps they use to make money by simulating clicks, creating multiple fake accounts and other activities through multiple phones, which can be illegal. 

Furthermore, should any entity misrepresent its image/product/services through fake reviews/ratings obtained through bots and phone farms and create deliberately-false impressions for consumers, it is to be considered an unfair trade practice and may attract liabilities. 

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

CyberPeace advocates for truthful and responsible consumption of technology and the Internet. Businesses are encouraged to refrain from using such unethical methods to gain a business advantage and mimic fake popularity online. Businesses must be mindful to avoid any actions that may misrepresent information and/ or cause injury to consumers, including online users. The ethical implications of phone farms cannot be ignored, as they can erode public trust in digital platforms and contribute to a climate of online deception. Law enforcement agencies and regulators are encouraged to keep a check on any illegal use of mobile devices by cybercriminals to commit cyber crimes. Tech and social media platforms must implement monitoring and detection systems to analyse any unusual behaviour/activity on their platforms, looking for suspicious bot activity or phone farming groups. To stay protected from sophisticated threats and to ensure a secure online experience, netizens are encouraged to follow cybersecurity best practices and verify all information from authentic sources.

Final Words

Phone farms have the ability to generate massive amounts of social media interactions, capable of performing repetitive tasks such as clicking, scrolling, downloading, and more in very high volumes in very short periods of time. The potential for misuse of phone farms is higher than the legitimate uses they can be put to. As technology continues to evolve, the challenge lies in finding a balance between innovation and ethical use, ensuring that technology is harnessed responsibly. 

References

• https://www.branch.io/glossary/phone-farm/
• https://clickpatrol.com/phone-farms/
• https://www.airbridge.io/glossary/phone-farms#:~:text=A%20phone%20farm%20is%20a,monitor%20the%20tasks%20being%20performed
• https://innovation-village.com/phone-farms-exposed-the-sneaky-tech-behind-fake-likes-clicks-and-more/

‍

Introduction

As the sun rises on the Indian subcontinent, a nation teeters on the precipice of a democratic exercise of colossal magnitude. The Lok Sabha elections, a quadrennial event that mobilises the will of over a billion souls, is not just a testament to the robustness of India's democratic fabric but also a crucible where the veracity of information is put to the sternest of tests. In this context, the World Economic Forum's 'Global Risks Report 2024' emerges as a harbinger of a disconcerting trend: the spectre of misinformation and disinformation that threatens to distort the electoral landscape.

The report, a carefully crafted document that shares the insights of 1,490 experts from the interests of academia, government, business and civil society, paints a tableau of the global risks that loom large over the next decade. These risks, spawned by the churning cauldron of rapid technological change, economic uncertainty, a warming planet, and simmering conflict, are not just abstract threats but tangible realities that could shape the future of nations.

India’s Electoral Malice

India, as it strides towards the general elections scheduled in the spring of 2024, finds itself in the vortex of this hailstorm. The WEF survey positions India at the zenith of vulnerability to disinformation and misinformation, a dubious distinction that underscores the challenges facing the world's largest democracy. The report depicts misinformation and disinformation as the chimaeras of false information—whether inadvertent or deliberate—that are dispersed through the arteries of media networks, skewing public opinion towards a pervasive distrust in facts and authority. This encompasses a panoply of deceptive content: fabricated, false, manipulated and imposter.

The United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom too, are ensnared in this web of varying degrees of misinformation. South Africa, another nation on the cusp of its own electoral journey, is ranked 22nd, a reflection of the global reach of this phenomenon. The findings, derived from a survey conducted over the autumnal weeks of September to October 2023, reveal a world grappling with the shadowy forces of untruth.

Global Scenario

The report prognosticates that as close to three billion individuals across diverse economies—Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and the United States—prepare to exercise their electoral rights, the rampant use of misinformation and disinformation, and the tools that propagate them, could erode the legitimacy of the governments they elect. The repercussions could be dire, ranging from violent protests and hate crimes to civil confrontation and terrorism.

Beyond the electoral arena, the fabric of reality itself is at risk of becoming increasingly polarised, seeping into the public discourse on issues as varied as public health and social justice. As the bedrock of truth is undermined, the spectre of domestic propaganda and censorship looms large, potentially empowering governments to wield control over information based on their own interpretation of 'truth.'

The report further warns that disinformation will become increasingly personalised and targeted, honing in on specific groups such as minority communities and disseminating through more opaque messaging platforms like WhatsApp or WeChat. This tailored approach to deception signifies a new frontier in the battle against misinformation.

In a world where societal polarisation and economic downturn are seen as central risks in an interconnected 'risks network,' misinformation and disinformation have ascended rapidly to the top of the threat hierarchy. The report's respondents—two-thirds of them—cite extreme weather, AI-generated misinformation and disinformation, and societal and/or political polarisation as the most pressing global risks, followed closely by the 'cost-of-living crisis,' 'cyberattacks,' and 'economic downturn.'

Current Situation

In this unprecedented year for elections, the spectre of false information looms as one of the major threats to the global populace, according to the experts surveyed for the WEF's 2024 Global Risk Report. The report offers a nuanced analysis of the degrees to which misinformation and disinformation are perceived as problems for a selection of countries over the next two years, based on a ranking of 34 economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal, and technological risks.

India, the land of ancient wisdom and modern innovation, stands at the crossroads where the risk of disinformation and misinformation is ranked highest. Out of all the risks, these twin scourges were most frequently selected as the number one risk for the country by the experts, eclipsing infectious diseases, illicit economic activity, inequality, and labor shortages. The South Asian nation's next general election, set to unfurl between April and May 2024, will be a litmus test for its 1.4 billion people.

The spectre of fake news is not a novel adversary for India. The 2019 election was rife with misinformation, with reports of political parties weaponising platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook to spread incendiary messages, stoking fears that online vitriol could spill over into real-world violence. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated the issue, with misinformation once again proliferating through WhatsApp.

Other countries facing a high risk of the impacts of misinformation and disinformation include El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Romania, Ireland, Czechia, the United States, Sierra Leone, France, and Finland, all of which consider the threat to be one of the top six most dangerous risks out of 34 in the coming two years. In the United Kingdom, misinformation/disinformation is ranked 11th among perceived threats.

The WEF analysts conclude that the presence of misinformation and disinformation in these electoral processes could seriously destabilise the real and perceived legitimacy of newly elected governments, risking political unrest, violence, and terrorism, and a longer-term erosion of democratic processes.

The 'Global Risks Report 2024' of the World Economic Forum ranks India first in facing the highest risk of misinformation and disinformation in the world at a time when it faces general elections this year. The report, released in early January with the 19th edition of its Global Risks Report and Global Risk Perception Survey, claims to reveal the varying degrees to which misinformation and disinformation are rated as problems for a selection of analyzed countries in the next two years, based on a ranking of 34 economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal, and technological risks.

Some governments and platforms aiming to protect free speech and civil liberties may fail to act effectively to curb falsified information and harmful content, making the definition of 'truth' increasingly contentious across societies. State and non-state actors alike may leverage false information to widen fractures in societal views, erode public confidence in political institutions, and threaten national cohesion and coherence.

Trust in specific leaders will confer trust in information, and the authority of these actors—from conspiracy theorists, including politicians, and extremist groups to influencers and business leaders—could be amplified as they become arbiters of truth.

False information could not only be used as a source of societal disruption but also of control by domestic actors in pursuit of political agendas. The erosion of political checks and balances and the growth in tools that spread and control information could amplify the efficacy of domestic disinformation over the next two years.

Global internet freedom is already in decline, and access to more comprehensive sets of information has dropped in numerous countries. The implication: Falls in press freedoms in recent years and a related lack of strong investigative media are significant vulnerabilities set to grow.

Advisory

Here are specific best practices for citizens to help prevent the spread of misinformation during electoral processes:

• Verify Information:Double-check the accuracy of information before sharing it. Use reliable sources and fact-checking websites to verify claims.

• Cross-Check Multiple Sources:Consult multiple reputable news sources to ensure that the information is consistent across different platforms.

• Be Wary of Social Media:Social media platforms are susceptible to misinformation. Be cautious about sharing or believing information solely based on social media posts.

• Check Dates and Context:Ensure that information is current and consider the context in which it is presented. Misinformation often thrives when details are taken out of context.

• Promote Media Literacy:Educate yourself and others on media literacy to discern reliable sources from unreliable ones. Be skeptical of sensational headlines and clickbait.

• Report False Information:Report instances of misinformation to the platform hosting the content and encourage others to do the same. Utilise fact-checking organisations or tools to report and debunk false information.

• Critical Thinking:Foster critical thinking skills among your community members. Encourage them to question information and think critically before accepting or sharing it.

• Share Official Information:Share official statements and information from reputable sources, such as government election commissions, to ensure accuracy.

• Avoid Echo Chambers:Engage with diverse sources of information to avoid being in an 'echo chamber' where misinformation can thrive.

• Be Responsible in Sharing:Before sharing information, consider the potential impact it may have. Refrain from sharing unverified or sensational content that can contribute to misinformation.

• Promote Open Dialogue:Open discussions should be promoted amongst their community about the significance of factual information and the dangers of misinformation. 

• Stay Calm and Informed:During critical periods, such as election days, stay calm and rely on official sources for updates. Avoid spreading unverified information that can contribute to panic or confusion.

• Support Media Literacy Programs:Media Literacy Programs in schools should be promoted to provide individuals with essential skills to sail through the information sea properly.

Conclusion

Preventing misinformation requires a collective effort from individuals, communities, and platforms. By adopting these best practices, citizens can play a vital role in reducing the impact of misinformation during electoral processes.

References:

• https://thewire.in/media/survey-finds-false-information-risk-highest-in-india 
• https://thesouthfirst.com/pti/india-faces-highest-risk-of-disinformation-in-general-elections-world-economic-forum/

‍

Introduction

In India, the rights of children with regard to protection of their personal data are enshrined under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 which is the newly enacted digital personal data protection law of India. The DPDP Act requires that for the processing of children's personal data, verifiable consent of parents or legal guardians is a necessary requirement. If the consent of parents or legal guardians is not obtained then it constitutes a violation under the DPDP Act. Under section 2(f) of the DPDP act, a “child” means an individual who has not completed the age of eighteen years. 

Section 9 under the DPDP Act, 2023

With reference to the collection of children's data section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023 provides that for children below 18 years of age, consent from Parents/Legal Guardians is required. The Data Fiduciary shall, before processing any personal data of a child or a person with a disability who has a lawful guardian, obtain verifiable consent from the parent or the lawful guardian. Section 9 aims to create a safer online environment for children by limiting the exploitation of their data for commercial purposes or otherwise. By virtue of this section, the parents and guardians will have more control over their children's data and privacy and they are empowered to make choices as to how they manage their children's online activities and the permissions they grant to various online services. 

Section 9 sub-section (3) specifies that a Data Fiduciary shall not undertake tracking or behavioural monitoring of children or targeted advertising directed at children. However, section 9 sub-section (5) further provides room for exemption from this prohibition by empowering the Central Government which may notify exemption to specific data fiduciaries or data processors from the behavioural tracking or target advertising prohibition under the future DPDP Rules which are yet to be announced or released. 

Impact on social media platforms

Social media companies are raising concerns about Section 9 of the DPDP Act and upcoming Rules for the DPDP Act. Section 9 prohibits behavioural tracking or targeted advertising directed at children on digital platforms. By prohibiting intermediaries from tracking a ‘child's internet activities’ and ‘targeted advertising’ - this law aims to preserve children's privacy. However, social media corporations contended that this limitation adversely affects the efficacy of safety measures intended to safeguard young users, highlighting the necessity of monitoring specific user signals, including from minors, to guarantee the efficacy of safety measures designed for them.

Social media companies assert that tracking teenagers' behaviour is essential for safeguarding them from predators and harmful interactions. They believe that a complete ban on behavioural tracking is counterproductive to the government's objectives of protecting children. The scope to grant exemption leaves the door open for further advocacy on this issue. Hence it necessitates coordination with the concerned ministry and relevant stakeholders to find a balanced approach that maintains both privacy and safety for young users.

Furthermore, the impact on social media platforms also extends to the user experience and the operational costs required to implement the functioning of the changes created by regulations. This also involves significant changes to their algorithms and data-handling processes. Implementing robust age verification systems to identify young users and protect their data will also be a technically challenging step for the various scales of platforms. Ensuring that children’s data is not used for targeted advertising or behavioural monitoring also requires sophisticated data management systems. The blanket ban on targeted advertising and behavioural tracking may also affect the personalisation of content for young users, which may reduce their engagement with the platform.

For globally operating platforms, aligning their practices with the DPDP Act in India while also complying with data protection laws in other countries (such as GDPR in Europe or COPPA in the US) can be complex and resource-intensive. Platforms might choose to implement uniform global policies for simplicity, which could impact their operations in regions not governed by similar laws. On the same page, competitive dynamics such as market shifts where smaller or niche platforms that cater specifically to children and comply with these regulations may gain a competitive edge. There may be a drive towards developing new, compliant ways of monetizing user interactions that do not rely on behavioural tracking.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

A balanced strategy should be taken into account which gives weightage to the contentions of social media companies as well as to the protection of children's personal information. Instead of a blanket ban, platforms can be obliged to follow and encourage openness in advertising practices, ensuring that children are not exposed to any misleading or manipulative marketing techniques. Self-regulation techniques can be implemented to support ethical behaviour, responsibility, and the safety of young users’ online personal information through the platform’s practices. Additionally, verifiable consent should be examined and put forward in a manner which is practical and the platforms have a say in designing the said verification. Ultimately, this should be dealt with in a manner that behavioural tracking and targeted advertising are not affecting the children's well-being, safety and data protection in any way. 

Final Words

Under section 9 of the DPDP Act, the prohibition of behavioural tracking and targeted advertising in case of processing children's personal data - will compel social media platforms to overhaul their data collection and advertising practices, ensuring compliance with stricter privacy regulations. The legislative intent behind this provision is to enhance and strengthen the protection of children's digital personal data security and privacy. As children are particularly vulnerable to digital threats due to their still-evolving maturity and cognitive capacities, the protection of their privacy stands as a priority. The innocence of children is a major cause for concern when it comes to digital access because children simply do not possess the discernment and caution required to be able to navigate the Internet safely. Furthermore, a balanced approach needs to be adopted which maintains both ‘privacy’ and ‘safety’ for young users.

References

• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.firstpost.com/tech/as-govt-of-india-starts-preparing-rules-for-dpdp-act-social-media-platforms-worried-13789134.html#google_vignette
• https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/social-media-platforms-worry-new-data-law-could-affect-child-safety-ads-124070400673_1.html

‍