#FactCheck - Viral Video Distorts Rahul Gandhi’s Speech to Push False Religious Claim

Introduction

Targeting airlines and airports, airline hoax threats are fabricated alarms which intend to disrupt normal day-to-day activities and create panic among the public. Security of public settings is of utmost importance, making them a vulnerable target. The consequences of such threats include the financial loss incurred by parties concerned, increased security protocols to be followed immediately after and in preparation, flight delays and diversions, emergency landings and passenger inconvenience and emotional distress. The motivation behind such threats is malicious intent of varying degrees, breaching national security, integrity and safety. However, apart from the government, airline and social media authorities which already have certain measures in place to tackle such issues, the public, through responsible consumption and verified sharing has an equal role in preventing the spread of misinformation and panic regarding the same.

Hoax Airline Threats

The recent spate of bomb hoax threats to Indian airlines has witnessed false reports about threats to (over) 500 flights since 14/10/2024, the majority being traced to posts on social media handles which are either anonymous or unverified. Some recent incidents include a hoax threat on Air India's flights from Delhi to Mumbai via Indore which was posted on X, 30/10/2024 and a flight from Nepal (Kathmandu) to Delhi on November 2nd, 2024.

As per reports by the Indian Express, steps are being taken to address such incidents by tweaking the assessment criteria for threats (regarding bombs) and authorities such as the Bomb Threat Assessment Committees (BTAC) are being selective in categorising them as specific and non-specific. Some other consideration factors include whether a VIP is onboard and whether the threat has been posted from an anonymous account with a similar history. 

CyberPeace Recommendations

1. For Public 

• Question sensational information: The public should scrutinise the information they’re consuming not only to keep themselves safe but also to be responsible to other citizens. Exercise caution before sharing alarming messages, posts and pieces of information
• Recognising credible sources: Rely only on trustworthy, verified sources when sharing information, especially when it comes to topics as serious as airline safety.
• Avoiding Reactionary Sharing: Sharing in a state of panic can contribute to the chaos created upon receiving unverified news, hence,  it is suggested to refrain from reactionary sharing.

2. For the Authorities & Agencies

• After a series of hoax bomb threats, the Government of India has issued an advisory to social media platforms calling for them to make efforts for the removal of such malicious content. Adherence to obligations such as the prompt removal of harmful content or disabling access to such unlawful information has been specified under the IT Rules, 2021. They are also obligated under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 to report certain offences on their platform. The Ministry of Civil Aviation’s action plan consists of plans regarding hoax bomb threats being labelled as a cognisable offence, and attracting a no-flyers list as a penalty, among other things.

These plans also include steps such as :  

• Introduction of other corrective measures that are to be taken against bad actors (similar to having a non-flyers list).
• Introduction of a reporting mechanism which is specific to such threats.
• Focus on promoting awareness, digital literacy and critical thinking, fact-checking resources as well as encouraging the public to report such hoaxes

Conclusion

Preventing the spread of airline threat hoaxes is a collective responsibility which involves public engagement and ownership to strengthen safety measures and build upon the trust in the overall safety ecosystem (here; airline agencies, government authorities and the public). As the government and agencies take measures to prevent such instances, the public should continue to share information only from and on verified and trusted portals. It is encouraged that the public must remain vigilant and responsible while consuming and sharing information. 

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/business/flight-bomb-threats-assessment-criteria-serious-9646397/
• https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-airline-flight-bound-for-new-delhi-from-nepal-receives-hoax-bomb-threat-amid-rise-in-similar-incidents-772795
• https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Oct/26/centre-cautions-social-media-platforms-to-tackle-misinformation-after-hoax-bomb-threat-to-multiple-airlines
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/amid-rising-hoax-bomb-threats-to-indian-airlines-centre-issues-advisory-to-social-media-companies/articleshow/114624187.cms 

‍

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, operationalises data privacy largely through a consent management framework. It aims to give data principles, ie, individuals, control over their personal data by giving them the power to track, change, and withdraw their consent from its processing. However, in practice, consent management is often not straightforward. For example, people may be frequently bombarded with requests, which can lead to fatigue and eventual overlooking of consent requests. This article discusses the way consent management is handled by the DPDP Act, and looks at how India can design the system to genuinely empower users while holding organisations accountable.

‍

Consent Management in the DPDP Act

‍

According to the DPDP Act, consent must be unambiguous, free, specific, and informed. It must also be easy for people to revoke their consent (DPO India, 2023). To this end, the Act creates Consent Managers- registered middlemen- who serve as a link between users and data custodians. 

The purpose of consent managers is to streamline and centralise the consent procedure. Users can view, grant, update, or revoke consent across various platforms using the dashboards they offer. They hope to improve transparency and lessen the strain on people to keep track of permissions across different services by standardising the way consent is presented (IAPP, 2024).

The Act draws inspiration from international frameworks such as the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), mandating that Indian users be provided with a single platform to manage permissions rather than having to deal with dispersed consent prompts from every service.

‍

The Challenges 

‍

Despite the mandate for an interoperable platform for consent management, several key challenges emerge. There is a lack of clarity on how consent management will be operationalised. This creates challenges of accountability and implementation.  Thus, : 

1. If the interface is poorly designed,  users could be bombarded with content permissions from apps/platforms/ services that are not fully compliant with the platform. 
2. If consent notices are vague, frequent, lengthy, or complex, users may continue to grant permissions without meaningful engagement. 
3. It leaves scope for data fiduciaries to use dark patterns to coerce customers into granting consent through poor UI/UX design.
4. The lack of clear, standardised interoperability protocols across sectors could lead to a fragmented system, undermining the goal of a single, easy-to-use platform.
5. Consent fatigue could easily appear in India's digital ecosystem, where apps, e-commerce websites, and government services all ask for permissions from over 950 million internet subscribers. Experiences from GDPR countries show that users who are repeatedly prompted eventually become banner blind, which causes them to ignore notices entirely.
6. Low levels of literacy (including digital literacy) and unequal access to digital devices among women and marginalised communities create complexities in the substantive coverage of privacy rights.  
7. Placing the burden of verification of legal guardianship for children and persons with disabilities (PwDs) on data fiduciaries might be ineffective, as SMEs may lack the resources to undertake this activity. This could create new forms of vulnerability for the two groups. 

Legal experts claim that this results in what they refer to as a legal fiction, wherein consent is treated as valid by the law despite the fact that it does not represent true understanding or choice (Lawvs, 2023). Additionally, research indicates that users hardly ever read privacy policies in their entirety. People are very likely to tick boxes without fully understanding what they are agreeing to. By drastically limiting user control, this has a bearing on the privacy rights of Indian citizens and residents.  (IJLLR, 2023).

‍

Impacts of Weak Consent Management:

‍

According to the Indian Journal of Law and Technology, in an era of asymmetry and information overload, privacy cannot be sufficiently protected by relying only on consent (IJLT, 2023). Almost every individual will be impacted by inadequate consent management.

1. For Users: True autonomy is replaced by the appearance of control. Individuals may unintentionally disclose private information, which undermines confidence in digital services.
2. For Businesses: Compliance could become a mere formality. Further, if acquired consent is found to be manipulated or invalid, it creates space for legal risks and reputational damage. 
3. For Regulators: It becomes difficult to oversee a system where consent is frequently disregarded or misinterpreted. When consent is merely formal, the law's promise to protect personal information is undermined.

‍

Way Forward

‍

1. Layered and Simplified Notices: Simple language and layers of visual cues should be used in consent requests. Important details like the type of data being gathered, its intended use, and its duration should be made clear up front. Additional explanations are available for users who would like more information. This method enhances comprehension and lessens cognitive overload (Lawvs, 2023).
2. Effective Dashboards: Dashboards from consent managers should be user-friendly, cross-platform, and multilingual. Management is made simple by features like alerts, one-click withdrawal or modification, and summaries of active permissions. The system is more predictable and dependable when all services use the same format, which also reduces confusion (IAPP, 2024). 
3. Dynamic and Contextual Consent: Instead of appearing as generic pop-ups, consent requests should show up when they are pertinent to a user's actions. Users can make well-informed decisions without feeling overburdened by subtle cues, such as emphasising risks when sensitive data is requested (IJLLR, 2023). 
4. Accountability of Consent Managers: Organisations that offer consent management services must be accountable and independent, through clear certification, auditing, and specific legal accountability frameworks. Even when formal consent is given, strong trustee accountability guarantees that data is not misused (IJLT, 2023).
5. Complementary Protections Beyond Consent: Consent continues to be crucial, but some high-risk data processing might call for extra protections. These may consist of increased responsibilities for fiduciaries or proportionality checks. These steps improve people's general protection and lessen the need for frequent consent requests (IJLLR, 2023).

‍

Conclusion

‍

The core of the DPDP Act is to empower users to have control over their data through measures such as consent management. But requesting consent is insufficient; the system must make it simple for people to manage, monitor, and change it. Effectively designed, managed, and executed consent management has the potential to revolutionise user experience and trust in India's digital ecosystem if it is implemented carefully.To make consent management genuinely meaningful, it is imperative to standardise procedures, hold fiduciaries accountable, simplify interfaces, and investigate supplementary protections.

‍

References

‍

Building Trust with Technology: Consent Management Under India’s DPDP Act, 2023

Consent Fatigue and Data Protection Laws: Is ‘Informed Consent’ a Legal Fiction

Beyond Consent: Enhancing India's Digital Personal Data Protection Framework

Constitutional Implications Of Consent Fatigue In Data Protection: Rethinking Meaningful Consent In The Indian Context 

Top 10 operational impacts of India’s DPDPA – Consent management

‍

Introduction

Search engines have become indispensable in our daily lives, allowing us to find information instantly by entering keywords or phrases. Using the prompt "search Google or type a URL" reflects just how seamless this journey to knowledge has become. With millions of searches conducted every second, and Google handling over 6.3 million searches per minute as of 2023 (Statista), one critical question arises: do search engines prioritise results based on user preferences and past behaviours, or are they truly unbiased?

Understanding AI Bias in Search Algorithms

AI bias is also known as machine learning bias or algorithm bias. It refers to the occurrence of biased results due to human biases that deviate from the original training data or AI algorithm which leads to distortion of outputs and creation of potentially harmful outcomes. The sources of this bias are algorithmic bias, data bias and interpretation bias which emerge from user history, geographical data, and even broader societal biases in training data. 

Common biases include excluding certain groups of people from opportunities because of AI bias. In healthcare, underrepresenting data of women or minority groups can skew predictive AI algorithms. While AI helps streamline the automation of resume scanning during a search to help identify ideal candidates, the information requested and answers screened out can result in biased outcomes due to a biased dataset or any other bias in the input data.

Case in Point: Google’s "Helpful" Results and Its Impact 

Google optimises results by analysing user interactions to determine satisfaction with specific types of content. This data-driven approach forms ‘filter bubbles’ by repeatedly displaying content that aligns with a user’s preferences, regardless of factual accuracy. While this can create a more personalised experience, it risks confining users to a limited view, excluding diverse perspectives or alternative viewpoints.

The personal and societal impacts of such biases are significant. At an individual level, filter bubbles can influence decision-making, perceptions, and even mental health. On a societal level, these biases can reinforce stereotypes, polarise opinions, and shape collective narratives. There is also a growing concern that these biases may promote misinformation or limit users’ exposure to diverse perspectives, all stemming from the inherent bias in search algorithms.

Policy Challenges and Regulatory Measures

Regulating emerging technologies like AI, especially in search engine algorithms, presents significant challenges due to their intricate, proprietary nature. Traditional regulatory frameworks struggle to keep up with them as existing laws were not designed to address the nuances of algorithm-driven platforms. Regulatory bodies are pushing for transparency and accountability in AI-powered search algorithms to counter biases and ensure fairness globally. For example, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act aims to establish a regulatory framework that will categorise AI systems based on risk and enforces strict standards for transparency, accountability, and fairness, especially for high-risk AI applications, which may include search engines. India has proposed the Digital India Act in 2023 which will define and regulate High-risk AI. 

Efforts include ethical guidelines emphasising fairness, accountability, and transparency in information prioritisation. However, a complex regulatory landscape could hinder market entrants, highlighting the need for adaptable, balanced frameworks that protect user interests without stifling innovation.

CyberPeace Insights

In a world where search engines are gateways to knowledge, ensuring unbiased, accurate, and diverse information access is crucial. True objectivity remains elusive as AI-driven algorithms tend to personalise results based on user preferences and past behaviour, often creating a biased view of the web. Filter bubbles, which reinforce individual perspectives, can obscure factual accuracy and limit exposure to diverse viewpoints. Addressing this bias requires efforts from both users and companies. Users should diversify sources and verify information, while companies should enhance transparency and regularly audit algorithms for biases. Together, these actions can promote a more equitable, accurate, and unbiased search experience for all users. 

References 

• https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241101-how-online-photos-and-videos-alter-the-way-you-think 
• https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241031-how-google-tells-you-what-you-want-to-hear
• https://www.ibm.com/topics/ai-bias#:~:text=In%20healthcare%2C%20underrepresenting%20data%20of,can%20skew%20predictive%20AI%20algorithms

‍