#Factcheck-Allu Arjun visits Shiva temple after success of Pushpa 2? No, image is from 2017

Introduction

In 2022, Oxfam’s India Inequality report revealed the worsening digital divide, highlighting that only 38% of households in the country are digitally literate. Further, only 31% of the rural population uses the internet, as compared to 67% of the urban population. Over time, with the increasing awareness about the importance of digital privacy globally, the definition of digital divide has translated into a digital privacy divide, whereby different levels of privacy are afforded to different sections of society. This further promotes social inequalities and impedes access to fundamental rights.

Digital Privacy Divide: A by-product of the digital divide

The digital divide has evolved into a multi-level issue from its earlier interpretations; level I implies the lack of physical access to technologies, level II refers to the lack of digital literacy and skills and recently, level III relates to the impacts of digital access. Digital Privacy Divide (DPD) refers to the various gaps in digital privacy protection provided to users based on their socio-demographic patterns. It forms a subset of the digital divide, which involves uneven distribution, access and usage of information and communication technology (ICTs). Typically, DPD exists when ICT users receive distinct levels of digital privacy protection. As such, it forms a part of the conversation on digital inequality. 

Contrary to popular perceptions, DPD, which is based on notions of privacy, is not always based on ideas of  individualism and collectivism and may constitute internal and external factors at the national level. A study on the impacts of DPD conducted in the U.S., India, Bangladesh and Germany highlighted that respondents in Germany and Bangladesh expressed more concerns about their privacy compared to respondents in the U.S. and India. This suggests that despite the U.S. having a strong tradition of individualistic rights, that is reflected in internal regulatory frameworks such as the Fourth Amendment, the topic of data privacy has not garnered enough interest from the population. Most individuals consider forgoing the right to privacy as a necessary evil to access many services, and schemes and to stay abreast with technological advances. Research shows that 62%- 63% of Americans believe that companies and the government collecting data have become an inescapable necessary evil in modern life. Additionally, 81% believe that they have very little control over what data companies collect and about 81% of Americans believe that the risk of data collection outweighs the benefits. Similarly, in Japan, data privacy is thought to be an adopted concept emerging from international pressure to regulate, rather than as an ascribed right, since collectivism and collective decision-making are more valued in Japan, positioning the concept of privacy as subjective, timeserving and an idea imported from the West.

Regardless, inequality in privacy preservation often reinforces social inequality. Practices like surveillance that are geared towards a specific group highlight that marginalised communities are more likely to have less data privacy. As an example, migrants, labourers, persons with a conviction history and marginalised racial groups are often subject to extremely invasive surveillance under suspicions of posing threats and are thus forced to flee their place of birth or residence. This also highlights the fact that focus on DPD is not limited to those who lack data privacy but also to those who have (either by design or by force) excess privacy. While on one end, excessive surveillance, carried out by both governments and private entities, forces immigrants to wait in deportation centres during the pendency of their case, the other end of the privacy extreme hosts a vast number of undocumented individuals who avoid government contact for fear of deportation, despite noting high rates of crime victimization.

DPD is also noted among groups with differential knowledge and skills in cyber security. For example, in India, data privacy laws mandate that information be provided on order of a court or any enforcement agency. However, individuals with knowledge of advanced encryption are adopting communication channels that have encryption protocols that the provider cannot control (and resultantly able to exercise their right to privacy more effectively),  in contrast with individuals who have little knowledge of encryption, implying a security as well as an intellectual divide. While several options for secure communication exist, like Pretty Good Privacy, which enables encrypted emailing, they are complex and not easy to use in addition to having negative reputations, like the Tor Browser. Cost considerations also are a major factor in propelling DPD since users who cannot afford devices like those by Apple, which have privacy by default, are forced to opt for devices that have relatively poor in-built encryption. 

Children remain the most vulnerable group. During the pandemic, it was noted that only 24% of Indian households had internet facilities to access e-education and several reported needing to access free internet outside of their homes. These public networks are known for their lack of security and privacy, as traffic can be monitored by the hotspot operator or others on the network if proper encryption measures are not in place. Elsewhere, students without access to devices for remote learning have limited alternatives and are often forced to rely on Chromebooks and associated Google services. In response to this issue, Google provided free Chromebooks and mobile hotspots to students in need during the pandemic, aiming to address the digital divide. However, in 2024, New Mexico was reported to be suing Google for allegedly collecting children’s data through its educational products provided to the state's schools, claiming that it tracks students' activities on their personal devices outside of the classroom. It signified the problems in ensuring the privacy of lower-income students while accessing basic education.

Policy Recommendations

Digital literacy is one of the critical components in bridging the DPD. It enables individuals to gain skills, which in turn effectively addresses privacy violations. Studies show that low-income users remain less confident in their ability to manage their privacy settings as compared to high-income individuals. Thus, emphasis should be placed not only on educating on technology usage but also on privacy practices since it aims to improve people’s Internet skills and take informed control of their digital identities.

In the U.S., scholars have noted the role of libraries and librarians in safeguarding intellectual privacy. The Library Freedom Project, for example, has sought to ensure that the skills and knowledge required to ensure internet freedoms are available to all. The Project channelled one of the core values of the library profession i.e. intellectual freedom, literacy, equity of access to recorded knowledge and information, privacy and democracy. As a result, the Project successfully conducted workshops on internet privacy for the public and also openly objected to the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to shut down the use of encryption technologies in libraries. The International Federation of Library Association adopted a Statement of Privacy in the Library Environment in 2015 that specified “when libraries and information services provide access to resources, services or technologies that may compromise users’ privacy, libraries should encourage users to be aware of the implications and provide guidance in data protection and privacy.” The above should be used as an indicative case study for setting up similar protocols in inclusive public institutions like Anganwadis, local libraries, skill development centres and non-government/non-profit organisations in India, where free education is disseminated. The workshops conducted must inculcate two critical aspects; firstly, enhancing the know-how of using public digital infrastructure and popular technologies (thereby de-alienating technology) and secondly, shifting the viewpoint of privacy as a right an individual has and not something that they own.

However, digital literacy should not be wholly relied on, since it shifts the responsibility of privacy protection to the individual, who may not either be aware or cannot be controlled. Data literacy also does not address the larger issue of data brokers, consumer profiling, surveillance etc. Resultantly, an obligation on companies to provide simplified privacy summaries, in addition to creating accessible, easy-to-use technical products and privacy tools,  should be necessitated. Most notable legislations address this problem by mandating notices and consent for collecting personal data of users, despite slow enforcement. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in India aims to address DPD by not only mandating valid consent but also ensuring that privacy policies remain accessible in local languages, given the diversity of the population.

References

• https://idronline.org/article/inequality/indias-digital-divide-from-bad-to-worse/ 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02669 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.07936#:~:text=The%20DPD%20index%20is%20a,(33%20years%20and%20over). 
• https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• /https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6265&context=law_lawreview 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• https://bosniaca.nub.ba/index.php/bosniaca/article/view/488/pdf 
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/just-24-of-indian-households-have-internet-facility-to-access-e-education-unicef/story-a1g7DqjP6lJRSh6D6yLJjL.html 
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/05/the-pandemic-has-unmasked-the-digital-privacy-divide/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/Privacy%20protection%20in%20Japan.pdf 
• https://socialchangenyu.com/review/the-surveillance-gap-the-harms-of-extreme-privacy-and-data-marginalization/ 

Executive Summary:

A fake photo claiming to show the cricketer Virat Kohli watching a press conference by Rahul Gandhi before a match, has been widely shared on social media. The original photo shows Kohli on his phone with no trace of Gandhi. The incident is claimed to have happened on March 21, 2024, before Kohli's team, Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB), played Chennai Super Kings (CSK) in the Indian Premier League (IPL). Many Social Media accounts spread the false image and made it viral.

Claims:

The viral photo falsely claims Indian cricketer Virat Kohli was watching a press conference by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on his phone before an IPL match. Many Social media handlers shared it to suggest Kohli's interest in politics. The photo was shared on various platforms including some online news websites.

‍

Fact Check:

After we came across the viral image posted by social media users, we ran a reverse image search of the viral image. Then we landed on the original image posted by an Instagram account named virat__.forever_ on 21 March.

‍

‍

The caption of the Instagram post reads, “VIRAT KOHLI CHILLING BEFORE THE SHOOT FOR JIO ADVERTISEMENT COMMENCE.❤️”

Evidently,  there is no image of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi on the Phone of Virat Kohli. Moreover, the viral image was published after the original image, which was posted on March 21.

‍

Therefore, it’s apparent that the viral image has been altered, borrowing the original image which was shared on March 21.

Conclusion:

To sum up, the Viral Image is altered from the original image, the original image caption tells Cricketer Virat Kohli chilling Before the Jio Advertisement commences but not watching any politician Interview. This shows that in the age of social media, where false information can spread quickly, critical thinking and fact-checking are more important than ever.  It is crucial to check if something is real before sharing it, to avoid spreading false stories.

‍

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 

‍