#FactCheck - Old Video of Khamenei Manipulated With AI Voice, Viral Claim Misleading

Introduction

In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.

Brief Analysis of Prebunking 

Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation. 

The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it. 

The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.

There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution. 

Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions. 

Brief Analysis of Debunking 

Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem. 

Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.

Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts.  Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation.  Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.

Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis

Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms

With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions. 

1. Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions. 
2. Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
3. User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
4. Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.

Conclusion

The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential.  Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape. 

References

1. https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
2. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
3. https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
4. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/

‍

Introduction

‍

India’s new Policy for Data Sharing from the National Transport Repository (NTR) released by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) in August, 2025, can be seen as a constitutional turning point and a milestone in administrative efficiency. The state has established an unprecedentedly large unified infrastructure by combining the records of 390 million vehicles, 220 million driver’s licenses, and the streams from the e-challan, e-DAR, and FASTag systems. Its supporters hail its promise of private-sector innovation, data-driven research, and smooth governance. However, there is a troubling paradox beneath this facade of advancement: the very structures intended to improve citizen mobility may simultaneously strengthen widespread surveillance. Without strict protections, the NTR runs the risk of violating the constitutional trifecta of need, proportionality, and legality as stated in Puttaswamy v. UOI, which brings to light important issues at the nexus of liberty, law, and data.  

The other pertinent question to be addressed is as India unifies one of its comprehensive datasets on citizen mobility the question becomes more pressing: while motorised citizens are now in the spotlight for accountability, what about the millions of other datasets that are still dispersed, unregulated, and shared inconsistently in the areas of health, education, telecom, and welfare?

‍

The Legal Backdrop

‍

MoRTH grounds its new policy in Sections 25A and 62B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Data is consolidated into a single repository since states are required by Section 136A to electronically monitor road safety. According to the policy, it complies with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. 

The DPDP Act itself, however, is rife with state exclusions, particularly Sections 7 and 17, which give government organisations access to personal information for “any function under any law” or for law enforcement purposes. This is where the constitutional issue lies. Prior judicial supervision, warrants, or independent checks are not necessary. With legislative approval, MoRTH is essentially creating a national vehicle database without any constitutional protections. 

‍

Data, Domination and the New Privacy Paradigm

‍

As an efficiency and governance reform, VAHAN, SARATHI, e-challan, eDAR, and FASTag are being consolidated into a single National Transport Repository (NTR). However, centralising extensive mobility and identity-linked records on a large scale is more than just a technical advancement; it also changes how the state and private life interact. The NTR must therefore be interpreted through a more comprehensive privacy paradigm, one that acknowledges that data aggregation is a means of enhancing administrative capacity and has the potential to develop into a long-lasting tool of social control and surveillance unless both technological and constitutional restrictions are placed at the same time. 

‍

Two recent doctrinal developments sharpen this concern. First, the Supreme Court’s foundational ruling that privacy is a fundamental right remains the constitutional lodestar, any state interference must satisfy legality, necessity and proportionality (KS Puttaswamy & Anr. vs UOI). Second, as seen by the court’s most recent refusals to normalise ongoing, warrantless location monitoring, such as the ruling overturning bail requirements that required accused individuals to provide a Google maps pin, as movement tracking necessitates closer examination (Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors.,).When taken as a whole, these authorities maintain that unrestricted, ongoing access to mobility and toll-transaction records is a constitutional issue and cannot be handled as an administrative convenience. 

‍

Structural Fault Lines in the NTR Framework

‍

Fundamentally, the NTR policy generates structural vulnerabilities by providing nearly unrestricted access through APIs and even mass transfers on physical media to a broad range of parties, including insurance companies, law enforcement, and intelligence services. This design undermines constitutional protections in three ways: first, it makes it possible to draw conclusions about private life patterns that the Supreme Court has identified as one of the most sensitive data categories by exposing rich mobility trails like FASTag logs and vehicle-linked identities; Second, it allows bulk datasets to circulate outside the ministry’s custodial boundary, which creates the possibility of function creep, secondary use, and monetisation risks reminiscent of the bulk sharing regime that the government itself once abandoned; and third, it introduces coercive exclusion by tying private sector access to Aadhaar-based OTP consent. 

‍

Reference

• https://morth.nic.in/sites/default/files/circulars_document/Data-Sharing-policy-20082025-merged.pdf

‍

What are Wi-Fi attacks?

Wi-fi is an important area of cyber security and there is no need for physical cable for the network. Wi-Fi has access to a network signal radius everywhere. The devices and systems can have a network without physical access due to Wi-fi. But everything comes with cons and pros, and if we talk about cybersecurity, it has been established that Wi-fi networks are extremely vulnerable to security breaches and it is very easy to be hacked by hackers. Wi-Fi can be accessed by almost every device in the modern day: it can be smartphones, tablets, computers, and laptops. To know whether someone has been tampering with your personal Wi-Fi there are certain signs that can prove it. The first and most important sign is that your internet speed gets slower, as someone else is using your Wi-Fi surf.

Why would anyone hack someone’s Wi-Fi network?

Usually, hackers hack the network because they want access to the confidential data of someone and they can observe all the online activities and data that have been sent through a network. An unauthorize hacker will pretty much be able to see everything you do online. Wi-Fi allows hackers o view information on sites. Any financial information which is saved in the browser can be accessed by hackers and they can alter it and can alter the content you see online. And all the information saved in Wi-fi networks can be used by hackers for their own benefit, they can sell it, impersonate you, or even take money out of your bank through Wi-Fi.

Avoiding vulnerable Wi-Fi networks

The first and foremost rule of protection is that you should not use public networks if that network is easily open to you then that is also available to others and from others, and someone can who wishes to use your confidential and sensitive information, can access that.  If you really need to access the public network in an urgent situation, then you must make sure to limit your activities while connected. And avoid accessing your online banking or pages that require login information. Also, a good measure to take as well is to always delete your cookies after using public WIFI.

How To Secure Your Home Wi-Fi Network

Your home’s wireless internet connection is your Wi-Fi network. Typically, a wireless router is used, which broadcasts a signal into the atmosphere. You can connect to the internet using that signal. However, if your network is not password-protected, any nearby device can grab the signal off the air and connect to your internet. The benefit of Wi-Fi? Wireless access to the internet is possible. The negative? Your internet activity, including your personal information, may be visible to neighboring users who connect to your unprotected network. Furthermore, if someone uses your network to conduct a crime or send out unauthorized spam, you might be held accountable.

Wi-Fi or Li-Fi? –

The common consensus is that Li-Fi technology is more secure than Wi-Fi. Li-Fi systems can be made more secure by integrating a variety of security features. Although these qualities might appear when Li-Fi is widely used in the near future, it is already thought to be safer because of a number of security features. Since the connection’s characteristics make it simpler to lock connections, limit access, and track users even in the absence of encryption and other security features, Li-Fi is seen as being safer. Li-Fi systems will be able to support new security protocols, which will not only enable high-speed networking but also open the door for innovative security techniques to strengthen connections.

Conclusion

A hacker can sniff the network packets without having to be in the same building where the network is located. As wireless networks communicate through radio waves, a hacker can easily sniff the network from a nearby location. Most attackers use network sniffing to find the SSID and hack a wireless network.

Any wireless network can theoretically be attacked in a number of different ways. Use of the default SSID or password, WPS pin authentication, insufficient access control, and leaving the access point available in open locations are all examples of potential vulnerabilities that could allow for the theft of sensitive data. Kismet’s architecture in WIDS mode may guard against DOS, MiTM, and MAC spoofing attacks. routine software updates on the other hand, the use of firewalls may help defend the network against outside intrusion. The act of finding infrastructure issues that could allow harmful code to be injected into a service, system, or organization is known as ethical hacking. They use this technique to prevent invasions by lawfully breaking into networks and looking for weak spots.