#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Claims Snake Was Spotted on Aircraft Wing During Flight

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

The information of hundreds of thousands of Indians who received the COVID vaccine was Leaked in a significant data breach and posted on a Telegram channel. Numerous reports claim that sensitive information, including a person’s phone number, gender, ID card details, and date of birth, leaked over Telegram. It could be obtained by typing a person’s name into a Telegram bot.

What really happened?

The records pertaining to the mobile number registered in the CoWin portal are accessible on the Malayalam news website channel. It is also feasible to determine which vaccination was given and where it was given.

According to The Report, the list of individuals whose data was exposed includes BJP Tamil Nadu president K Annamalai, Congress MP Karti Chidambaram, and former BJP union minister for health Harsh Vardhan. Telangana’s minister of information and communication technology, Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao, is also on the list.

MEITY stated in response to the data leak, “It is old data, we are still confirming it. We have requested a report on the matter.

After the media Report, the bot was disabled, but experts said the incident raised severe issues because the information might be used for identity theft, phishing emails, con games, and extortion calls. The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), the government’s nodal body, has opened an investigation into the situation

The central government declared the data breach reports regarding the repository of beneficiaries against Covid to be “mischievous in nature” on Monday and claimed the ‘bot’ that purportedly accessed the confidential data was not directly accessing the CoWIN database.

According to the first complaint by CERT-In, the government’s cybersecurity division, the government claimed the bot might be displaying information from “previously stolen data.” Reports.

The health ministry refuted the claim, asserting that no bots could access the information without first verifying with a one-time password.

“It is made clear that all of these rumours are false and malicious. The health ministry’s CoWIN interface is entirely secure and has sufficient data privacy protections. The security of the data on the CoWIN portal is being ensured in every way possible, according to a statement from the health ministry.

Meity said the CoWin program or database was not directly compromised, and the shared information appeared to be taken from a previous intrusion. But the hack again highlights the growing danger of cyber assaults, particularly on official websites.‍

Recent cases of data leak

Dominos India 2021– Dominos India, a division of Jubilant FoodWorks, faced a cyberattack on May 22, 2021, which led to the disclosure of information from 180 million orders. The breach exposed order information, email addresses, phone numbers, and credit card information. Although Jubilant FoodWorks acknowledged a security breach, it refuted any illegal access to financial data.

Air India – A cyberattack that affected Air India in May 2021 exposed the personal information of about 4.5 million customers globally. Personal information recorded between August 26, 2011, and February 3, 2021, including names, dates of birth, contact information, passport information, ticket details, frequent flyer information from Star Alliance and Air India, and credit card information, were exposed in the breach.

Bigbasket – BigBasket, an online supermarket, had a data breach in November 2020, compromising the personal information of approximately 20 million consumers. Email IDs, password hashes, PINs, phone numbers, addresses, dates of birth, localities, and IP addresses were among the information released from an insecure database containing over 15 GB of customer data. BigBasket admitted to the incident and reported it to the Bengaluru Cyber Crime Department.

Unacademy – Unacademy, an online learning platform, experienced a data breach in May 2020, compromising the email addresses of approximately 11 million subscribers. While no sensitive information, such as financial data or passwords, was compromised, user data, including IDs, passwords, date joined, last login date, email IDs, names, and user credentials, was. The breach was detected when user accounts were uncovered for sale on the dark web.

2022 Card Data- Cybersecurity researchers from AI-driven Singapore-based CloudSEK found a threat actor offering a database of 1.2 million cards for free on a Dark Web forum for crimes on October 12, 2022. This came after a second problem involving 7.9 million cardholder records that were reported on the BidenCash website. This comprised information pertaining to State Bank of India (SBI) clients. And other well-known companies were among those targeted in high-profile data breach cases that have surfaced in recent years.

Conclusion

Data breach cases are increasing daily, and attackers are mainly attacking the healthcare sectors and health details as they can easily find personal details. This recent CoWIN case has compromised thousands of people’s data. The All-India Institute of Medical Sciences’ systems were compromised by hackers a few months ago. Over 95% of adults have had their vaccinations, according to the most recent data, even if the precise number of persons impacted by the CoWin privacy breach could not be determined.

Executive Summary

‍
‍
A video is being widely shared on social media showing a purported CRPF trooper accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government of corruption. In the video, the individual is also seen urging people to vote the BJP government out of power. CyberPeace Research Wing  research  found that the video was created using artificial intelligence (AI). There is no evidence that any CRPF personnel made such statements.

‍

Claim

‍

An Instagram user shared the viral video, claiming that a CRPF trooper was criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government over corruption allegations. The post link, archived link, and screenshot are provided below. https://www.instagram.com/reels/DZ_dbj_SNTf/ , https://www.awesomescreenshot.com/video/53998219?key=46c661b505ba61d19e7d9be97a17c273 

‍

FactCheck

‍

A closer examination of the video revealed several inconsistencies. The name tag on the uniform displayed only “CRPF,” which does not match the standard naming format used on official CRPF uniforms. Additionally, several faces visible in the background appeared blurred and distorted, which are common indicators of AI-generated content. We also noticed a visible Grok watermark in the bottom-right corner of the viral clip, suggesting that the video may have been generated or modified using artificial intelligence. Further analysis was conducted using Hive Moderation’s AI detection tool, which indicated the presence of AI-generated or deepfake elements in the video.

‍

‍

‍

‍

To further verify the authenticity of the clip, we analyzed it using Deepfake-O-Meter. The tool indicated a probability of more than 95 percent that the video was generated using artificial intelligence.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral video purportedly showing a CRPF trooper criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP government is AI-generated. Multiple indicators, AI detection tools, and the clarification issued by the government’s PIB Fact Check confirm that the video is not authentic.

‍