#FactCheck: Misleading Clip of Nepal Crash Shared as Air India’s AI-171 Ahmedabad Accident

Introduction

Phone farms refer to setups or systems using multiple phones collectively. Phone farms are often for deceptive purposes, to create repeated actions in high numbers quickly, or to achieve goals. These can include faking popularity through increasing views, likes, and comments and growing the number of followers. It can also include creating the illusion of legitimate activity through actions like automatic app downloads, ad views, clicks, registrations, installations and in-app engagement. 

A phone farm is a network where cybercriminals exploit mobile incentive programs by using multiple phones to perform the same actions repeatedly. This can lead to misattributions and increased marketing spends. Phone farming involves exploiting paid-to-watch apps or other incentive-based programs over dozens of phones to increase the total amount earned. It can also be applied to operations that orchestrate dozens or hundreds of phones to create a certain outcome, such as improving restaurant ratings or App Store Optimization(ASO). Companies constantly update their platforms to combat phone farming, but it is nearly impossible to prevent people from exploiting such services for their own benefit.

How Do Phone Farms Work?

Phone farms are a collection of connected smartphones or mobile devices used for automated tasks, often remotely controlled by software programs. These devices are often used for advertising, monetization, and artificially inflating app ratings or social media engagement. The software used in phone farms is typically a bot or script that interacts with the operating system and installed apps. The phone farm operator connects the devices to the Internet via wired or wireless networks, VPNs, or other remote access software. Once the software is installed, the operator can use a web-based interface or command-line tool to schedule and monitor tasks, setting specific schedules or monitoring device status for proper operation.

Modus Operandi Behind Phone Farms 

Phone farms have gained popularity due to the growing popularity and scope of the Internet and the presence of bots. Phone farmers use multiple phones simultaneously to perform illegitimate activity and mimic high numbers. The applications can range from ‘watching’ movie trailers and clicking on ads to giving fake ratings and creating false engagements. When phone farms drive up ‘engagement actions’ on social media through numerous likes and post shares, they help perpetuate a false narrative. Through phone click farms, bad actors also earn on each ad or video watched. Phone farmers claim to use this as a side hustle, as a means of making more money. Click farms can be modeled as companies providing digital engagement services or as individual corporations to multiply clicks for various objectives. They are operated on a much larger scale, with thousands of employees and billions of daily clicks, impressions, and engagements.

The Legality of Phone Farms 

The question about the legality of phone farms presents a conundrum. It is notable that phone farms are also used for legitimate application in software development and market research, enabling developers to test applications across various devices and operating systems simultaneously. However, they are typically employed for more dubious purposes, such as social media manipulation, generatiing fake clicks on online ads, spamming, spreading misinformation, and facilitating cyberattacks, and such use cases classify as illegal and unethical behaviour.

The use of the technology to misrepresent information for nefarious intents is illegitimate and unethical. Phone farms are famed for violating the terms of the apps they use to make money by simulating clicks, creating multiple fake accounts and other activities through multiple phones, which can be illegal. 

Furthermore, should any entity misrepresent its image/product/services through fake reviews/ratings obtained through bots and phone farms and create deliberately-false impressions for consumers, it is to be considered an unfair trade practice and may attract liabilities. 

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

CyberPeace advocates for truthful and responsible consumption of technology and the Internet. Businesses are encouraged to refrain from using such unethical methods to gain a business advantage and mimic fake popularity online. Businesses must be mindful to avoid any actions that may misrepresent information and/ or cause injury to consumers, including online users. The ethical implications of phone farms cannot be ignored, as they can erode public trust in digital platforms and contribute to a climate of online deception. Law enforcement agencies and regulators are encouraged to keep a check on any illegal use of mobile devices by cybercriminals to commit cyber crimes. Tech and social media platforms must implement monitoring and detection systems to analyse any unusual behaviour/activity on their platforms, looking for suspicious bot activity or phone farming groups. To stay protected from sophisticated threats and to ensure a secure online experience, netizens are encouraged to follow cybersecurity best practices and verify all information from authentic sources.

Final Words

Phone farms have the ability to generate massive amounts of social media interactions, capable of performing repetitive tasks such as clicking, scrolling, downloading, and more in very high volumes in very short periods of time. The potential for misuse of phone farms is higher than the legitimate uses they can be put to. As technology continues to evolve, the challenge lies in finding a balance between innovation and ethical use, ensuring that technology is harnessed responsibly. 

References

• https://www.branch.io/glossary/phone-farm/
• https://clickpatrol.com/phone-farms/
• https://www.airbridge.io/glossary/phone-farms#:~:text=A%20phone%20farm%20is%20a,monitor%20the%20tasks%20being%20performed
• https://innovation-village.com/phone-farms-exposed-the-sneaky-tech-behind-fake-likes-clicks-and-more/

‍

Introduction

Conversations surrounding the scourge of misinformation online typically focus on the risks to social order, political stability, economic safety and personal security. An oft-overlooked aspect of this phenomenon is the fact that it also takes a very real emotional and mental toll on people. Even as we grapple with the big picture questions about financial fraud or political rumors or inaccurate medical information online, we must also appreciate the fact that being exposed to misinformation and becoming aware of one’s own vulnerability are both significant sources of mental stress in today’s digital ecosystem.

Inaccurate information causes confusion and worry, which has negative consequences for mental health. Misinformation may also impair people's sense of well-being by undermining their trust in institutions, authority figures, and their own judgment. The constant bombardment of misinformation can lead to information overload, wherein people are unable to discriminate between legitimate sources and misleading content, resulting in mental exhaustion and a sense of being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information available. Vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions are more sensitive or susceptible to the negative effects of misinformation.

How Does Misinformation Endanger Mental Health?

Misinformation on social media platforms is a matter of public health because it has the potential to confuse people, lead to poor decision-making and result in cognitive dissonance, anxiety and unwanted behavioural changes.

Unconstrained misinformation can also lead to social disorder and the prevalence of negative emotions amongst larger numbers, ultimately causing a huge impact on society. Therefore, understanding the spread and diffusion characteristics of misinformation on Internet platforms is crucial.

The spread of misinformation can elicit different emotions of the public, and the emotions also change with the spread of misinformation. Factors such as user engagement, number of comments, and time of discussion all have an impact on the change of emotions in misinformation. Active users tend to make more comments, engage longer in discussions, and display more dominant negative emotions when triggered by misinformation. Understanding the evolution pattern of emotions triggered by misinformation is also important in view of the public’s emotional fluctuations under the influence of misinformation, and social media often magnifies the impact of emotions and makes emotions spread rapidly in social networks. For example, the sentiment of misinformation increases when there are sensitive topics such as political elections, viral trending topics, health-related information, communal and local information, information about natural disasters and more. Active misinformation on the Internet not only affects the public's psychology, mental health and behavior, but also has an impact on the stability of social order and the maintenance of social security.

Prebunking and Debunking To Build Mental Guards Against Misinformation

As the spread of misinformation and disinformation rises, so do the techniques aimed to tackle their spread. Prebunking or attitudinal inoculation is a technique for training individuals to recogniseand resist deceptive communications before they can take root. Prebunking is a psychological method for mitigating the effects of misinformation, strengthening resilience and creating cognitive defenses against future misinformation. Debunking provides individuals with accurate information to counter false claims and myths, correcting misconceptions and preventing the spread of misinformation. By presenting evidence-based refutations, debunking helps individuals distinguish fact from fiction.

What do health experts say about online misinformation?

“In the21st century, mental health is crucial due to the overwhelming amount of information available online. The COVID-19 pandemic-related misinformation was a prime example of this, with misinformation spreading online, leading to increased anxiety, panic buying, fear of leaving home, and mistrust in health measures. To protect our mental health, it is essential to cultivate a discerning mindset, question sources, and verify information before consumption. Fostering a supportive community that encourages open dialogue and fact-checking can help navigate the digital information landscape with confidence and emotional support. Prioritising self-care routines, mindfulness practices, and seeking professional guidance are also crucial for safeguarding mental health in the digital information era.”

In conversation with CyberPeace ~ Says Dubai-based psychologist, Aishwarya Menon, (BA,in Psychology and Criminology from the University of Westen Ontario, London and MA in Mental Health and Addictions (Humber College, University of Guelph),Toronto.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations:

1)     Countering misinformation is everyone's shared responsibility. To mitigate the negative effects of infodemics online, we must look at developing strong legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, relying on authenticated content on mass media, and increasing people's digital literacy.

2)     Expert organisations actively verifying the information through various strategies including prebunking and debunking efforts are among those best placed to refute misinformation and direct users to evidence-based information sources. It is recommended that countermeasures for users on platforms be increased with evidence-based data or accurate information.

3)     The role of social media platforms is crucial in the misinformation crisis, hence it is recommended that social media platforms actively counter the production of misinformation on their platforms. Local, national, and international efforts and additional research are required to implement the robust misinformation counterstrategies.

4)     Netizens are advised or encouraged to follow official sources to check the reliability of any news or information. They must recognise the red flags by recognising the signs such as questionable facts, poorly written texts, surprising or upsetting news, fake social media accounts and fake websites designed to look like legitimate ones. Netizens are also encouraged to develop cognitive skills to discern fact and reality. Netizens are advised to approach information with a healthy dose of skepticism and curiosity.

Final Words:

It is crucial to protect mental health by escalating and disturbing the rise of misinformation incidents on various subjects, safeguarding our minds requires cognitive skills, building media literacy and verifying the information from trusted sources, prioritising mental health by self-care practices and staying connected with supportive authenticated networks. Promoting prebunking and debunking initiatives is necessary. Netizen scan protect themselves against the negative effects of misinformation and cultivate a resilient mindset in the digital information age.

References:

1. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/scn/2021/7999760/
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8502082/

‍

Introduction

‍
In today’s digital era, warfare is being redefined. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently stated that “we are in the age of Grey Zone and hybrid warfare where cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and economic warfare have become tools to achieve politico-military aims without a single shot being fired.” The crippling cyberattacks on Estonia in 2007, Russia’s interference in the 2016 US elections, and the ransomware strike on the Colonial Pipeline in the United States in 2021 all demonstrate how states are now using cyberspace to achieve strategic goals while carefully circumventing the threshold of open war.

Legal Complexities: Attribution, Response, and Accountability

‍

Grey zone warfare challenges the traditional notions of security and international conventions on peace due to inherent challenges such as :

• Attribution
  The first challenge in cyber warfare is determining who is responsible. Threat actors hide behind rented botnets, fake IP addresses, and servers scattered across the globe. Investigators can follow digital trails, but those trails often point to machines, not people. That makes attribution more of an educated guess than a certainty. A wrong guess could lead to misattribution of blame, which could beget a diplomatic crisis, or worse, a military one.
• Proportional Response
  Even if attribution is clear, designing a response can be a challenge. International law does give room for countermeasures if they are both ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. But defining these qualifiers can be a long-drawn, contested process. Effectively, governments employ softer measures such as protests or sanctions, tighten their cyber defences or, in extreme cases, strike back digitally.
• Accountability
  States can be held responsible for waging cyber attacks under the UN’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility. But these are non-binding and enforcement depends on collective pressure, which can be slow and inconsistent. In cyberspace, accountability often ends up being more symbolic than real, leaving plenty of room for repeat offences.

International and Indian Legal Frameworks

‍

Cyber law is a step behind cyber warfare since existing international frameworks are often inadequate. For example, the Tallinn Manual 2.0, the closest thing we have to a rulebook for cyber conflict, is just a set of guidelines. It says that if a cyber operation can be tied to a state, even through hired hackers or proxies, then that state can be held responsible. But attribution is a major challenge. Similarly, the United Nations has tried to build order through its Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) that promotes norms like “don’t attack. However, these norms are not binding, effectively leaving practice to diplomacy and trust.

India is susceptible to routine attacks from hostile actors, but does not yet have a dedicated cyber warfare law.  While Section 66F of the IT ACT, 2000, talks about cyber terrorism, and Section 75 lets Indian courts examine crimes committed abroad if they impact India,  grey-zone tactics like fake news campaigns, election meddling, and influence operations fall into a legal vacuum.

Way Forward

‍

• Strengthen International Cooperation
  Frameworks like the Tallinn Manual 2.0 can form the basis for future treaties. Bilateral and multilateral agreements between countries are essential to ensure accountability and cooperation in tackling grey zone activities.
• Develop Grey Zone Legislation
  India currently relies on the IT Act, 2000, but this law needs expansion to specifically cover grey zone tactics such as election interference, propaganda, and large-scale disinformation campaigns.
• Establish Active Monitoring Systems
  India must create robust early detection systems to identify grey zone operations in cyberspace. Agencies can coordinate with social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, X (Twitter), and YouTube, which are often exploited for propaganda and disinformation, to improve monitoring frameworks.
• Dedicated Theatre Commands for Cyber Operations
  Along with the existing Defence Cyber Agency, India should consider specialised theatre commands for grey zone and cyber warfare. This would optimise resources, enhance coordination, and ensure unified command in dealing with hybrid threats.

Conclusion

‍

Grey zone warfare in cyberspace is no longer an optional tactic used by threat actors but a routine activity. India lacks the early detection systems, robust infrastructure, and strong cyber laws to counter grey-zone warfare. To counter this, India needs sharper attribution tools for early detection and must actively push for stronger international rules in this global landscape. More importantly, instead of merely blaming without clear plans, India should focus on preparing for solid retaliation strategies. By doing so, India can also learn to use cyberspace strategically to achieve politico-military aims without firing a single shot.

References

‍

• Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Michael N. Schmitt)
• UN Document on International Law in Cyberspace (UN Digital Library)
• NATO Cyber Defence Policy
• Texas Law Review: State Responsibility and Attribution of Cyber Intrusions
• Deccan Herald: Defence Minister on Grey Zone Warfare
• VisionIAS: Grey Zone Warfare
• Sachin Tiwari, The Reality of Cyber Operations in the Grey Zone

‍