#FactCheck - Viral Claim of Highway in J&K Proven Misleading

Executive Summary:

The claim of a video of  US President Joe Biden dozing off during a television interview is digitally manipulated . The original video is from a 2011 incident involving actor and singer Harry Belafonte. He seems to fall asleep during a live satellite interview with KBAK – KBFX - Eyewitness News. Upon thorough analysis of keyframes from the viral video, it reveals that US President Joe Biden’s image was altered in Harry Belafonte's video. This confirms that the viral video is manipulated and does not show an actual event involving President Biden.

‍

Claims:

A video shows US President Joe Biden dozing off during a television interview while the anchor tries to wake him up.

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the posts, we watched the video then divided the video into keyframes using the inVid tool, and reverse-searched one of the frames from the video.

We found another video uploaded on Oct 18, 2011 by the official channel of KBAK - KBFX - Eye Witness News. The title of the video reads, “Official Station Video: Is Harry Belafonte asleep during live TV interview?”  

The video looks similar to the recent viral one, the TV anchor could be heard saying the same thing as in the viral video. Taking a cue from this we also did some keyword searches to find any credible sources. We found a news article posted by Yahoo Entertainment of the same video uploaded by KBAK - KBFX - Eyewitness News.

‍

Upon thorough investigation from reverse image search and keyword search reveals that the recent viral video of US  President Joe Biden dozing off during a TV interview is digitally altered to misrepresent the context. The original video dated back to 2011, where American Singer and actor Harry Belafonte was the actual person in the TV interview but not US  President Joe Biden.

Hence, the claim made in the viral video is false and misleading.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the viral video claiming to show US President Joe Biden dozing off during a television interview is digitally manipulated and inauthentic. The video is originally from a 2011 incident involving American singer and actor Harry Belafonte. It has been altered to falsely show US President Joe Biden. It is a reminder to verify the authenticity of online content before accepting or sharing it as truth.

• Claim:  A viral video shows in a television interview US President Joe Biden dozing off  while the anchor tries to wake him up.
• Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter)
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

Introduction

Google is set to change its storage and access of users' "Location History" in Google Maps, reducing the data retention period and making it impossible for the company to access it. This change will significantly impact "geofence warrants," a controversial legal tool used by authorities to force Google to hand over information about all users within a given location during a specific timeframe. This decision is a significant win for privacy advocates and criminal defense attorneys who have long decried these warrants.

The company aims to protect people's privacy by removing the repository of location data dating back months or years. Geofence warrants, which provide police with sensitive data on individuals, are considered dangerous and could turn innocent people into suspects. 

Understanding Geofence Warrants

Geofence warrants, also known as reverse-location warrants, are used by law enforcement agencies to obtain locational data stored by tech companies within a specified geographical area and timeframe to identify devices near a crime scene. In contrast to general warrants, which allow law enforcement agencies to obtain data of one individual (usually the suspect), geofence warrants enable law enforcement authorities to obtain data for all individuals in a specific location and subsequently track and trace any device that may be linked to a crime scene. Geofence warrants have become a major issue, with law enforcement agencies utilising them to obtain location data from tech companies.

Privacy Concerns of Geofence Warrants

While Geofence warrants allow law enforcement agencies to determine and identify potential suspects, these warrants have sparked controversy for their invasive characteristics. Civil rights activities and various technology companies have raised concerns over the impact of these warrants on the rights of data principals. It is noted that geofence warrants mark a rise in cases of state surveillance and police harassment. Not only is any data principal in the vicinity of the crime scene classified as a potential suspect, but companies are also compelled to submit identifying personal data on every device/phone in a marked geographic space.

From Surveillance to Safeguards

Geofence warrants have become a contentious tool for law enforcement worldwide, with concerns over privacy and civil liberties, especially in sensitive situations like protests and healthcare. Google is considering allowing users to store their location data on their devices, potentially ending the use of geofence warrants, which law enforcement agencies use to obtain location data from tech companies.

Google is changing its handling of Location History data, moving it on-device instead of on its servers. The default data retention period will be reduced. Google Maps' product director, Marlo McGriff, stated that the company will automatically encrypt backed-up data for cloud backups, preventing anyone from reading it. When these changes are implemented, Google will have no geodata fishing options for users. Google confirmed that it will no longer be able to respond to new geofence warrants once these changes are implemented, as it will not have access to the relevant data. The changes were designed to put an end to dragnet searches of location data.

Conclusion

Google's decision to change storage and access policies for users' location history in Google Maps marks a pivotal step in the ongoing narrative of law enforcement's misuse of geofence warrants. This move aims to safeguard individual privacy by significantly restricting the data retention period and limiting Google's ability to comply with geofence warrants. This change is welcomed by privacy advocates and legal professionals who express concerns over the intrusive nature of these warrants, which may potentially turn innocent individuals into suspects based on their proximity to a crime scene. As technology companies take steps to enhance user privacy, the evolving landscape calls for a balance between law enforcement needs and protecting individual rights in an era of increasing digital surveillance.  

References:

• https://techobserver.in/news/policy/will-googles-transition-to-on-device-location-storage-end-geofence-warrants-abuse-280852/

• https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/google-to-end-geofence-warrant-requests-for-users-location-data/106081499
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2023/12/14/google-just-killed-geofence-warrants-police-location-data/?sh=313da3c32c86
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-how-google-maps-is-preventing-authorities-from-accessing-users-location-history-data/articleshow/106086639.cms

‍

Introduction

The digital realm is evolving at a rapid pace, revolutionising cyberspace at a breakneck speed. However, this dynamic growth has left several operational and regulatory lacunae in the fabric of cyberspace, which are exploited by cybercriminals for their ulterior motives. One of the threats that emerged rapidly in 2024 is proxyjacking, in which vulnerable systems are exploited by cyber criminals to sell their bandwidth to third-party proxy servers. This cyber threat poses a significant threat to organisations and individual servers. 

Proxyjacking is a kind of cyber attack that leverages legit bandwidth sharing services such as Peer2Profit and HoneyGain. These are legitimate platforms but proxyjacking occurs when such services are exploited without user consent. These services provide the opportunity to monetize their surplus internet bandwidth by sharing with other users. The model itself is harmless but provides an avenue for numerous cyber hostilities.  The participants install net-sharing software and add the participating system to the proxy network, enabling users to route their traffic through the system. This setup intends to enhance privacy and provide access to geo-locked content. 

The Modus Operandi

These systems are hijacked by cybercriminals, who sell the bandwidth of infected devices. This is achieved by establishing Secure Shell (SSH) connections to vulnerable servers. While hackers rarely use honeypots to render elaborate scams, the technical possibility of them doing so cannot be discounted. Cowrie Honeypots, for instance, are engineered to emulate UNIX systems. Attackers can use similar tactics to gain unauthorized access to poorly secured systems. Once inside the system, attackers utilise legit tools such as public docker images to take over proxy monetization services. These tools are undetectable to anti-malware software due to being genuine software in and of themselves. Endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools also struggle with the same threats.

The Major Challenges 

Limitation Of Current Safeguards – current malware detection software is unable to distinguish between malicious and genuine use of bandwidth services, as the nature of the attack is not inherently malicious. 

Bigger Threat Than Crypto-Jacking – Proxyjacking poses a bigger threat than cryptojacking, where systems are compromised to mine crypto-currency. Proxyjacking uses minimal system resources rendering it more challenging to identify. As such, proxyjacking offers perpetrators a higher degree of stealth because it is a resource-light technique, whereas cryptojacking can leave CPU and GPU usage footprints.

Role of Technology in the Fight Against Proxyjacking

Advanced Safety Measures- Implementing advanced safety measures is crucial in combating proxyjacking. Network monitoring tools can help detect unusual traffic patterns indicative of proxyjacking. Key-based authentication for SSH can significantly reduce the risk of unauthorized access, ensuring that only trusted devices can establish connections. Intrusion Detection Systems and Intrusion Prevention Systems can go a long way towards monitoring unusual outbound traffic.

Robust Verification Processes- sharing services must adopt robust verification processes to ensure that only legitimate users are sharing bandwidth. This could include stricter identity verification methods and continuous monitoring of user activities to identify and block suspicious behaviour. 

Policy Recommendations

Verification for Bandwidth Sharing Services – Mandatory verification standards should be enforced for bandwidth-sharing services, including stringent Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols to verify the identity of users. A strong regulatory body would ensure proper compliance with verification standards and impose penalties. The transparency reports must document the user base, verification processes and incidents. 

Robust SSH Security Protocols – Key-based authentication for SSH across organisations should be mandated, to neutralize the risk of brute force attacks. Mandatory security audits of SSH configuration within organisations to ensure best practices are complied with and vulnerabilities are identified will help. Detailed logging of SSH attempts will streamline the process of identification and investigation of suspicious behaviour. 

Effective Anomaly Detection System – Design a standard anomaly detection system to monitor networks. The industry-wide detection system should focus on detecting inconsistencies in traffic patterns indicating proxy-jacking. Establishing mandatory protocols for incident reporting to centralised authority should be implemented. The system should incorporate machine learning in order to stay abreast with evolving attack methodologies.

Framework for Incident Response – A national framework should include guidelines for investigation, response and remediation to be followed by organisations. A centralized database can be used for logging and tracking all proxy hacking incidents, allowing for information sharing on a real-time basis. This mechanism will aid in identifying emerging trends and common attack vectors. 

Whistleblower Incentives – Enacting whistleblower protection laws will ensure the proper safety of individuals reporting proxyjacking activities. Monetary rewards provide extra incentives and motivate individuals to join whistleblowing programs. To provide further protection to whistleblowers, secure communication channels can be established which will ensure full anonymity to individuals. 

Conclusion

Proxyjacking represents an insidious and complicated threat in cyberspace. By exploiting legitimate bandwidth-sharing services, cybercriminals can profit while remaining entirely anonymous. Addressing this issue requires a multifaceted approach, including advanced anomaly detection systems, effective verification systems, and comprehensive incident response frameworks. These measures of strong cyber awareness among netizens will ensure a healthy and robust cyberspace. 

References 

• https://gridinsoft.com/blogs/what-is-proxyjacking/
• https://www.darkreading.com/cyber-risk/ssh-servers-hit-in-proxyjacking-cyberattacks
• https://therecord.media/hackers-use-log4j-in-proxyjacking-scheme

‍