#FactCheck:AI-Created Video Falsely Shows Car Catching Fire During Celebration

Introduction:

Welcome to the third edition of our blog on digital forensics series. In our previous blog we discussed the difference between copying, cloning, and imaging in the context of Digital Forensics, and found out why imaging is a better process. Today we will discuss the process of evidence collection in Digital Forensics. The whole process starts with making sure the evidence collection team has all necessary tools required for the task.

Investigating Tools and Equipment:

Below are some mentioned tools that the team should carry with them for a successful evidence collection:

• Anti-static bags
• Faraday bags
• Toolkit having screwdrivers(nonmagnetic), scissors, pins, cutters, forceps, clips etc.
• Rubber gloves
• Incident response toolkit (Software)
• Converter/Adapter: USB, SATA, IDE, SCSI
• Imaging software
• Volatile data collection tools (FTK Imager, Magnet Forensics RAM Capture)
• Pens, permanent markers
• Storage containers
• Batteries
• Video cameras
• Note/sketch pads
• Blank storage media
• Write-Blocker device
• Labels
• Crime scene security tapes
• Camera

What sources of Data are necessary for Digital Evidence?

• Hard-Drive (Desktop, Laptop, External, Server)
• Flash Drive
• SD Cards
• Floppy Disks
• Optical Media (CD, DVD)
• CCTV/DVR
• Internal Storage of Mobile Device
• GPS (Mobile/Car)
• Call Site Track (Towers)
• RAM

‍

‍

Evidence Collection

The investigators encounter two primary types of evidence during the course of gathering evidence: non-electronic and electronic evidence.

The following approaches could be used to gather non-electronic evidence:

• In the course of looking into electronic crimes, recovering non-electronic evidence can be extremely important.  Be cautious to make sure that this kind of evidence is retrieved and kept safe. Items that may be relevant to a later review of electronic evidence include passwords, papers or printouts, calendars, literature, hardware and software manuals, text or graphical computer printouts, and photos.  These items should be secured and kept for further examination.
• They are frequently found close to the computer or other related hardware.  Locating, securing, and preserving all evidence is required by departmental procedures.

Three scenarios arise for the collection of digital evidence from computers: 

Situation 1: The desktop is visible, and the monitor is on.

• Take a picture of the screen and note the data that is visible. 
• Utilize tools for memory capturing to gather volatile data.
• Look for virtual disks. If so, gather mounted data's logical copies.
• Give each port and connection a label.
• Take a picture of them.
• Turn off network access to stop remote access.
• Cut off the power or turn it off.
• Locate and disconnect the hard drive by opening the CPU chassis.
• Take all evidence and place it in anti-magnetic (Faraday) bags.
• Deliver the evidence to the forensic lab.
• Keep the chain of custody intact.

Situation 2: The monitor is turned on, but it either has a blank screen (sleep mode) or an image for the screensaver.

• Make a small mouse movement (without pressing buttons). The work product should appear on the screen, or it should ask for a password.
• If moving the mouse does not result in a change to the screen, stop using the mouse and stop all keystrokes.
• Take a picture of the screen and note the data that is visible.
• Use memory capturing tools to gather volatile data (always use a write blocker to prevent manipulation during data collection).
• Proceed further in accordance with Situation 1.

Situation 3: The Monitor Is Off

• Write down the "off" status.
• After turning on the monitor, check to see if its status matches that of situations 1 or 2 above, and then take the appropriate action.
• Using a phone modem, cable, confirm that you are connected to the outside world. Try to find the phone number if there is a connection to the phone.
• To protect evidence, take out the floppy disks that might be there, package each disk separately, and label the evidence.  Put in a blank floppy disk or a seizure disk, if one is available. Avoid touching the CD drive or taking out CDs.
• Cover the power connector and every drive slot with tape.
• Note the serial number, make, and model.
• Take a picture of the computer's connections and make a diagram with the relevant cables.
• To enable precise reassembly at a later date, label all connectors and cable ends, including connections to peripheral devices. Put "unused" on any connection ports that are not in use.  Recognize docking stations for laptop computers in an attempt to locate additional storage media.
• All evidence should be seized and placed in anti-magnetic (Faraday) bags.
• All evidence should be seized and placed in anti-magnetic (Faraday) bags.
• Put a tag or label on every bag.
• Deliver the evidence to the forensic lab.
• Keep the chain of custody intact. 

Following the effective gathering of data, the following steps in the process are crucial: data packaging, data transportation, and data storage.

The following are the steps involved in data packaging, transportation, and storage:

Packaging:

• Label every computer system that is gathered so that it can be put back together exactly as it was found

When gathering evidence at a scene of crime,

• Before packing, make sure that every piece of evidence has been appropriately  labeled and documented.
• Latent or trace evidence requires particular attention, and steps should be taken to preserve it.
• Use paper or antistatic plastic bags for packing magnetic media to prevent static electricity. Do not use materials like regular plastic bags (instead use faraday bags) that can cause static electricity. 
• Be careful not to bend, fold, computer media like tapes, or CD-ROM.
• Make sure that the labels on every container used to store evidence are correct.

Transporting

• Make sure devices are not packed in containers and are safely fastened inside the car to avoid shock and excessive vibrations. Computers could be positioned on the floor of the car,and monitors could be mounted on the seat with the screen down .

When transporting evidence—

• Any electronic evidence should be kept away from magnetic sources.  Radiation transmitters, speaker magnets, and heated seats are a few examples of items that can contaminate electronic evidence.
• Avoid leaving electronic evidence in your car for longer than necessary. Electronic devices can be harmed by extremes in temperature, humidity.
• Maintain the integrity of the chain of custody while transporting any evidence.

Storing

• Evidence should be kept safe and away from extremes in humidity and temperature. Keep it away from dust, moisture, magnetic devices, and other dangerous impurities.  Be advised that extended storage may cause important evidence—like dates, times, and system configurations—to disappear. Because batteries have a finite lifespan, data loss may occur if they malfunction. Whenever the battery operated device needs immediate attention, it should be informed to the relevant authority (eg., the chief of laboratory, the forensic examiner, and the custodian of the evidence). 

CONCLUSION:

Thus, securing the crime scene to packaging, transportation and storage of data are the important steps in the process of collecting digital evidence in forensic investigations. Keeping the authenticity during the process along with their provenance is critical during this phase. It is also important to ensure the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings. This systematic approach is essential for effectively investigating and prosecuting digital crimes.

‍

In the rich history of humanity, the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has added a new, delicate aspect. The aspect of promising technological advancement has the potential to either enrich the nest of our society or destroy it entirely. The latest straw in this complex nest is generative AI, a frontier teeming with both potential and perils. It is a realm where the ethereal concepts of cyber peace and resilience are not just theoretical constructs but tangible necessities.

The spectre of generative AI looms large over the digital landscape, casting a long shadow on the sanctity of data privacy and the integrity of political processes. The seeds of this threat were sown in the fertile soil of the Cambridge Analytica scandal of 2018, a watershed moment that unveiled the extent to which personal data could be harvested and utilized to influence electoral outcomes. However despite the indignation, the scandal resulted in meagre alterations to modus operandi of digital platforms.

Fast forward to the present day, and the spectre has only grown more ominous. A recent report by Human Rights Watch has shed light on the continued exploitation of data-driven campaigning in Hungary's re-election of Viktor Orbán. The report paints a chilling picture of political parties leveraging voter databases for targeted social media advertising, with the ruling Fidesz party even resorting to the unethical use of public service data to bolster its voter database.

The Looming Threat of Disinformation

As we stand on the precipice of 2024, a year that will witness over 50 countries holding elections, the advancements in generative AI could exponentially amplify the ability of political campaigns to manipulate electoral outcomes. This is particularly concerning in countries where information disparities are stark, providing fertile ground for the seeds of disinformation to take root and flourish.

The media, the traditional watchdog of democracy, has already begun to sound the alarm about the potential threats posed by deepfakes and manipulative content in the upcoming elections. The limited use of generative AI in disinformation campaigns has raised concerns about the enforcement of policies against generating targeted political materials, such as those designed to sway specific demographic groups towards a particular candidate.

Yet, while the threat of bad actors using AI to generate and disseminate disinformation is real and present, there is another dimension that has largely remained unexplored: the intimate interactions with chatbots. These digital interlocutors, when armed with advanced generative AI, have the potential to manipulate individuals without any intermediaries. The more data they have about a person, the better they can tailor their manipulations.

Root of the Cause 

To fully grasp the potential risks, we must journey back 30 years to the birth of online banner ads. The success of the first-ever banner ad for AT&T, which boasted an astounding 44% click rate, birthed a new era of digital advertising. This was followed by the advent of mobile advertising in the early 2000s. Since then, companies have been engaged in a perpetual quest to harness technology for manipulation, blurring the lines between commercial and political advertising in cyberspace.

Regrettably, the safeguards currently in place are woefully inadequate to prevent the rise of manipulative chatbots. Consider the case of Snapchat's My AI generative chatbot, which ostensibly assists users with trivia questions and gift suggestions. Unbeknownst to most users, their interactions with the chatbot are algorithmically harvested for targeted advertising. While this may not seem harmful in its current form, the profit motive could drive it towards more manipulative purposes.

If companies deploying chatbots like My AI face pressure to increase profitability, they may be tempted to subtly steer conversations to extract more user information, providing more fuel for advertising and higher earnings. This kind of nudging is not clearly illegal in the U.S. or the EU, even after the AI Act comes into effect. The market size of AI in India is projected to touch US$4.11bn in 2023. 

Taking this further, chatbots may be inclined to guide users towards purchasing specific products or even influencing significant life decisions, such as religious conversions or voting choices. The legal boundaries here remain unclear, especially when manipulation is not detectable by the user. 

The Crucial Dos/Dont's 

It is crucial to set rules and safeguards in order to manage the possible threats related to manipulative chatbots in the context of the general election in 2024.

First and foremost, candor and transparency are essential. Chatbots, particularly when employed for political or electoral matters, ought to make it clear to users what they are for and why they are automated. By being transparent, people are guaranteed to be aware that they are interacting with automated processes.

Second, getting user consent is crucial. Before collecting user data for any reason, including advertising or political profiling, users should be asked for their informed consent. Giving consumers easy ways to opt-in and opt-out gives them control over their data.

Furthermore, moral use is essential. It's crucial to create an ethics code for chatbot interactions that forbids manipulation, disseminating false information, and trying to sway users' political opinions. This guarantees that chatbots follow moral guidelines.

In order to preserve transparency and accountability, independent audits need to be carried out. Users might feel more confident knowing that chatbot behavior and data collecting procedures are regularly audited by impartial third parties to ensure compliance with legal and ethical norms.

Important "don'ts" to take into account. Coercion and manipulation ought to be outlawed completely. Chatbots should refrain from using misleading or manipulative approaches to sway users' political opinions or religious convictions.

Another hazard to watch out for is unlawful data collecting. Businesses must obtain consumers' express agreement before collecting personal information, and they must not sell or share this information for political reasons.

At all costs, one should steer clear of fake identities. Impersonating people or political figures is not something chatbots should do because it can result in manipulation and false information.

It is essential to be impartial. Bots shouldn't advocate for or take part in political activities that give preference to one political party over another. In encounters, impartiality and equity are crucial.

Finally, one should refrain from using invasive advertising techniques. Chatbots should ensure that advertising tactics comply with legal norms by refraining from displaying political advertisements or messaging without explicit user agreement.

Present Scenario

As we approach the critical 2024 elections and generative AI tools proliferate faster than regulatory measures can keep pace, companies must take an active role in building user trust, transparency, and accountability. This includes comprehensive disclosure about a chatbot's programmed business goals in conversations, ensuring users are fully aware of the chatbot's intended purposes.

To address the regulatory gap, stronger laws are needed. Both the EU AI Act and analogous laws across jurisdictions should be expanded to address the potential for manipulation in various forms. This effort should be driven by public demand, as the interests of lawmakers have been influenced by intensive Big Tech lobbying campaigns.

At present, India doesn’t have any specific laws pertaining to AI regulation. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), is the executive body responsible for AI strategies and is constantly working towards a policy framework for AI. The Niti Ayog has presented seven principles for responsible AI which includes equality , inclusivity, safety, privacy, transparency, accountability, dependability and protection of positive human values.

Conclusion 

We are at a pivotal juncture in history. As generative AI gains more power, we must proactively establish effective strategies to protect our privacy, rights and democracy. The public's waning confidence in Big Tech and the lessons learned from the techlash underscore the need for stronger regulations that hold tech companies accountable. Let's ensure that the power of generative AI is harnessed for the betterment of society and not exploited for manipulation.

Reference

McCallum, B. S. (2022, December 23). Meta settles Cambridge Analytica scandal case for $725m. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64075067

Hungary: Data misused for political campaigns. (2022, December 1). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/01/hungary-data-misused-political-campaigns

Statista. (n.d.). Artificial Intelligence - India | Statista Market forecast. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/india

Executive Summary

A viral image circulating on social media claims that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay touched the feet of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi during his swearing-in ceremony, while Congress and several other parties extended support to his government. The image is being widely shared with captions suggesting it captures a real political moment. However, CyberPeace Research Wing research has found the claim to be false. The image is AI-generated and does not depict any real event.

‍

Claim

‍

A Facebook user shared the viral image on May 10, 2026, claiming that TVK chief and actor Vijay had taken oath as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The post further claimed that during the ceremony, Vijay touched Rahul Gandhi’s feet to seek blessings, and the gesture was applauded by leaders present on stage. The post, along with archived links and screenshots, is being circulated as authentic evidence of the alleged incident.

• https://www.facebook.com/100057774695228/posts/1389222123013598/?rdid=FEzRYpVvSIieeUbj# 
• https://archive.ph/kv4e1 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check
‍

A keyword-based search on Google did not return any credible news reports supporting the claim or confirming such an event. A closer visual examination of the image raised strong suspicions of AI manipulation, prompting verification through AI detection tools. When the image was analyzed using the SIGHTENGINE detection tool, the results indicated that the image is 99% likely to be AI-generated.

‍

‍

Further verification using another AI detection platform, HIVE MODERATION, also flagged the image as synthetic, showing an 81% probability of being AI-generated.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The research clearly shows that the viral image is not real. It has been generated using artificial intelligence and is being falsely shared as a real political event.

‍