Misinformation’s Impact on Public Health Policy Decisions
Introduction
Misinformation poses a significant challenge to public health policymaking since it undermines efforts to promote effective health interventions and protect public well-being. The spread of inaccurate information, particularly through online channels such as social media and internet platforms, further complicates the decision-making process for policymakers since it perpetuates public confusion and distrust. This misinformation can lead to resistance against health initiatives, such as vaccination programs, and fuels scepticism towards scientifically-backed health guidelines.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation surrounding healthcare largely encompassed the effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption, marijuana use, eating habits, physical exercise etc. However, there has been a marked shift in the years since. One such example is the outcry against palm oil in 2024: it is an ingredient prevalent in numerous food and cosmetic products, and came under the scanner after a number of claims that palmitic acid, which is present in palm oil, is detrimental to our health. However, scientific research by reputable institutions globally established that there is no cause for concern regarding the health risks posed by palmitic acid. Such trends and commentaries tend to create a parallel unscientific discourse that has the potential to not only impact individual choices but also public opinion and as a result, market developments and policy conversations.
A prevailing narrative during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic was that the virus had been engineered to control society and boost hospital profits. The extensive misinformation surrounding COVID-19 and its management and care increased vaccine hesitancy amongst people worldwide. It is worth noting that vaccine hesitancy has been a consistent trend historically; the World Health Organisation flagged vaccine hesitancy as one of the main threats to global health, and there have been other instances where a majority of the population refused to get vaccinated anticipating unverified, long-lasting side effects. For example, research from 2016 observed a significant level of public skepticism regarding the development and approval process of the Zika vaccine in Africa. Further studies emphasised the urgent need to disseminate accurate information about the Zika virus on online platforms to help curb the spread of the pandemic.
In India during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite multiple official advisories, notifications and guidelines issued by the government and ICMR, people continued to remain opposed to vaccination, which resulted in inflated mortality rates within the country. Vaccination hesitancy was also compounded by anti-vaccination celebrities who claimed that vaccines were dangerous and contributed in large part to the conspiracy theories doing the rounds. Similar hesitation was noted in misinformation surrounding the MMR vaccines and their likely role in causing autism was examined. At the time of the crisis, the Indian government also had to tackle disinformation-induced fraud surrounding the supply of oxygens in hospitals. Many critically-ill patients relied on fake news and unverified sources that falsely portrayed the availability of beds, oxygen cylinders and even home set-ups, only to be cheated out of money.
The above examples highlight the difficulty health officials face in administering adequate healthcare. The special case of the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted how current legal frameworks failed to address misinformation and disinformation, which impedes effective policymaking. It also highlights how taking corrective measures against health-related misinformation becomes difficult since such corrective action creates an uncomfortable gap in an individual’s mind, and it is seen that people ignore accurate information that may help bridge the gap. Misinformation, coupled with the infodemic trend, also leads to false memory syndrome, whereby people fail to differentiate between authentic information and fake narratives. Simple efforts to correct misperceptions usually backfire and even strengthen initial beliefs, especially in the context of complex issues like healthcare. Policymakers thus struggle with balancing policy making and making people receptive to said policies in the backdrop of their tendencies to reject/suspect authoritative action. Examples of the same can be observed on both the domestic front and internationally. In the US, for example, the traditional healthcare system rations access to healthcare through a combination of insurance costs and options versus out-of-pocket essential expenses. While this has been a subject of debate for a long time, it hadn’t created a large scale public healthcare crisis because the incentives offered to the medical professionals and public trust in the delivery of essential services helped balance the conversation. In recent times, however, there has been a narrative shift that sensationalises the system as an issue of deliberate “denial of care,” which has led to concerns about harms to patients.
Policy Recommendations
The hindrances posed by misinformation in policymaking are further exacerbated against the backdrop of policymakers relying on social media as a method to measure public sentiment, consensus and opinions. If misinformation about an outbreak is not effectively addressed, it could hinder individuals from adopting necessary protective measures and potentially worsen the spread of the epidemic. To improve healthcare policymaking amidst the challenges posed by health misinformation, policymakers must take a multifaceted approach. This includes convening a broad coalition of central, state, local, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, and research partners to assess the impact of misinformation and develop effective preventive measures. Intergovernmental collaborations such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should be encouraged whereby doctors debunk online medical misinformation, in the backdrop of the increased reliance on online forums for medical advice. Furthermore, increasing investment in research dedicated to understanding misinformation, along with the ongoing modernization of public health communications, is essential. Enhancing the resources and technical support available to state and local public health agencies will also enable them to better address public queries and concerns, as well as counteract misinformation. Additionally, expanding efforts to build long-term resilience against misinformation through comprehensive educational programs is crucial for fostering a well-informed public capable of critically evaluating health information.
From an individual perspective, since almost half a billion people use WhatsApp it has become a platform where false health claims can spread rapidly. This has led to a rise in the use of fake health news. Viral WhatsApp messages containing fake health warnings can be dangerous, hence it is always recommended to check such messages with vigilance. This highlights the growing concern about the potential dangers of misinformation and the need for more accurate information on medical matters.
Conclusion
The proliferation of misinformation in healthcare poses significant challenges to effective policymaking and public health management. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the role of misinformation in vaccine hesitancy, fraud, and increased mortality rates. There is an urgent need for robust strategies to counteract false information and build public trust in health interventions; this includes policymakers engaging in comprehensive efforts, including intergovernmental collaboration, enhanced research, and public health communication modernization, to combat misinformation. By fostering a well-informed public through education and vigilance, we can mitigate the impact of misinformation and promote healthier communities.
References
- van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Jin, Y. (2019), “Seeking Formula for Misinformation Treatment in Public Health Crises: The Effects of Corrective Information Type and Source” Health Communication, 35(5), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295
- “Health Misinformation”, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/health-misinformation/index.html
- Mechanic, David, “The Managed Care Backlash: Perceptions and Rhetoric in Health Care Policy and the Potential for Health Care Reform”, Rutgers University. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751184/pdf/milq_195.pdf
- “Bad actors are weaponising health misinformation in India”, Financial Express, April 2024.
- “Role of doctors in eradicating misinformation in the medical sector.”, Times of India, 1 July 2024. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/national-doctors-day-role-of-doctors-in-eradicating-misinformation-in-the-healthcare-sector/articleshow/111399098.cms
Related Blogs
Brief Overview of the EU AI Act
The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies. The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.
The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.
In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.
Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions
- The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
- Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
- The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.
Application & Timeline of Act
The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:
- August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
- February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
- August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models.
- August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
- August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.
The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).
In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers.
CyberPeace Outlook
The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.
The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount.
At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.
References:
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
- https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
- https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
- https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
- https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
- https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide
Introduction
Misinformation has been a significant concern in recent times, especially in the online information landscape. This past month, misinformation has been linked to the communal tensions that have flared up in the North Tripura district. While the law enforcement agencies were quick to respond, misinformation about the law and order situation spread rapidly. Shri Amitabh Ranjanon, Tripura’s Director General of Police, issued a public statement on 21st October 2024, Monday, clarifying “The state's law and order situation has improved, and misinformation is being spread about it”. This instance is a classic example of how misinformation can affect the delivery of good governance to citizens or hamper the relationship between the citizenry and the state mechanisms. Such misinformation undermines the efforts of the law enforcement agencies striving to maintain peace, and distorted narratives can colour public opinion about the authorities and create cycles of misplaced distrust.
DGP's Statement
DGP Amitabh Ranjanon clarified during an event to commemorate Police Commemoration Day, stating that the state has recorded a lesser number of crimes this year compared to the last 10 years. He emphasized that senior police officials promptly respond to any law and order issues and additional forces have been deployed as necessary. Ranjan highlighted the peaceful celebration of Durga Puja as a testament to the effective law enforcement measures in place, demonstrating communal harmony.
Impact of Misinformation in communal settings
Misinformation in communal settings can cause anxiety, fear, and distrust among community members, leading to conflicts. It undermines public confidence in law enforcement and government institutions. The spread of false information can erode trust in law enforcement and government bodies, hindering their ability to address and solve conflicts. Therefore, precise data and accurate information are essential in every environment to avoid the harm caused by misinformation.
Preventive Measures Against Misinformation
- Look for authenticated sources
In a digital landscape filled with information from various sources, it’s essential to differentiate between credible and unreliable content. Authenticated sources are typically reputable organizations and officials. Users must rely on authenticated sources to ensure the information's accuracy and credibility. Users must verify the source, confirm the claims made in the source by comparing them with other credible sources for accuracy, and follow fact-checking practices.
- Exercise caution on social media information
Social media platforms can rapidly disseminate information, but they can also serve as breeding grounds for misinformation. The ease of sharing content can lead to the spread of unverified claims, rumours, or even outright falsehoods. Therefore, exercising caution when engaging with information on these platforms is crucial. Users must scrutinize headlines and images as well, especially since misleading images can distort the truth with the advent of AI. One must always read beyond the headline and check the context of the images used and not make split-second decisions and impressions. Users must engage in critical thinking and share informed opinions responsibly, to promote discussions about the validity of shared content.
- Role of Awareness
Awareness about misinformation is essential for navigating the complexities of modern communication. People can make better decisions and help create a more informed society by being aware of the strategies used to disseminate false information. Users need to become knowledgeable about typical misinformation strategies, hone their cognitive abilities to critically assess internet content, and verify the reliability of sources before they form opinions, make decisions or share ahead.
Final words
By integrating these simple best practices into our daily lives we can cultivate a more informed public, reduce the spread of online misinformation, and enhance critical thinking skills among peers and the larger digital community.
References
- https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/national/2024/10/21/cal8-tr-dgp.html
- https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Oct/21/tripura-dgp-says-misinformation-being-spread-about-states-law-and-order-situation
- https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/tripura/police-inaction-tripura-dgp-amitabh-ranjan-sharp-decline-crime-rate-9632509/
- https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Oct/21/tripura-dgp-says-misinformation-being-spread-about-states-law-and-order-situation
Introduction
“GPS Spoofing” though formerly was confined to conflict zones as a consequence, has lately become a growing hazard for pilots and aircraft operators across the world, and several countries have been facing such issues. This definition stems from the US Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, which delivers specialized advice for government regulatory authorities. Global Positioning System (GPS) is considered an emergent part of aviation infrastructure as it supersedes traditional radio beams used to direct planes towards the landing. “GPS spoofing” occurs when a double-dealing radio signal overrides a legitimate GPS satellite alert where the receiver gets false location information. In the present times, this is the first time civilian passenger flights have faced such a significant danger, though GPS signal interference of this character has existed for over a decade. According to the Agency France-Presse (AFP), false GPS signals mislead onboard plane procedures and problematise the job of airline pilots that are surging around conflict areas. GPS spoofing may also be the outcome of military electronic warfare systems that have been deployed in zones combating regional tension. GPS spoofing can further lead to significant upheavals in commercial aviation, which include arrivals and departures of passengers apart from safety.
Spoofing might likewise involve one country’s military sending false GPS signals to an enemy plane or drone to impede its capability to operate, which has a collateral impact on airliners operating at a near distance. Collateral impairment in commercial aircraft can occur as confrontations escalate and militaries send faulty GPS signals to attempt to thwart drones and other aircraft. It could, therefore, lead to a global crisis, leading to the loss of civilian aircraft in an area already at a high-risk zone close to an operational battle area. Furthermore, GPS jamming is different from GPS Spoofing. While jamming is when the GPS signals are jammed or obstructed, spoofing is very distinct and way more threatening.
Global Reporting
An International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) assessment released in 2019 indicated that there were 65 spoofing incidents across the Middle East in the preceding two years, according to the C4ADS report. At the beginning of 2018, Euro control received more than 800 reports of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) interference in Europe. Also, GPS spoofing in Eastern Europe and the Middle East has resulted in up to 80nm divergence from the flight route and aircraft impacted have had to depend on radar vectors from Air Traffic Control (ATC). According to Forbes, flight data intelligence website OPSGROUP, constituted of 8,000 members including pilots and controllers, has been reporting spoofing incidents since September 2023. Similarly, over 20 airlines and corporate jets flying over Iran diverted from their planned path after they were directed off the pathway by misleading GPS signals transmitted from the ground, subjugating the navigation systems of the aircraft.
In this context, vicious hackers, however at large, have lately realized how to override the critical Inertial Reference Systems (IRS) of an airplane, which is the essential element of technology and is known by the manufacturers as the “brains” of an aircraft. However, the current IRS is not prepared to counter this kind of attack. IRS uses accelerometers, gyroscopes and electronics to deliver accurate attitude, speed, and navigation data so that a plane can decide how it is moving through the airspace. GPS spoofing occurrences make the IRS ineffective, and in numerous cases, all navigation power is lost.
Red Flag from Agencies
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) correspondingly hosted a workshop on incidents where people have spoofed and obstructed satellite navigation systems and inferred that these direct a considerable challenge to security. IATA and EASA have further taken measures to communicate information about GPS tampering so that crew and pilots can make sure to determine when it is transpiring. The EASA had further pre-cautioned about an upsurge in reports of GPS spoofing and jamming happenings in the Baltic Sea area, around the Black Sea, and regions near Russia and Finland in 2022 and 2023. According to industry officials, empowering the latest technologies for civil aircraft can take several years, and while GPS spoofing incidents have been increasing, there is no time to dawdle. Experts have noted critical navigation failures on airplanes, as there have been several recent reports of alarming cyber attacks that have changed planes' in-flight GPS. As per experts, GPS spoofing could affect commercial airlines and cause further disarray. Due to this, there are possibilities that pilots can divert from the flight route, further flying into a no-fly zone or any unauthorized zone, putting them at risk.
According to OpsGroup, a global group of pilots and technicians first brought awareness and warning to the following issue when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a forewarning on the security of flight risk to civil aviation operations over the spate of attacks. In addition, as per the civil aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), a forewarning circular on spoofing threats to planes' GPS signals when flying over parts of the Middle East was issued. DGCA advisory further notes the aviation industry is scuffling with uncertainties considering the contemporary dangers and information of GNSS jamming and spoofing.
Conclusion
As the aviation industry continues to grapple with GPS spoofing problems, it is entirely unprepared to combat this, although the industry should consider discovering attainable technologies to prevent them. As International conflicts become convoluted, technological solutions are unrestricted and can be pricey, intricate and not always efficacious depending on what sort of spoofing is used.
As GPS interference attacks become more complex, specialized resolutions should be invariably contemporized. Improving education and training (to increase awareness among pilots, air traffic controllers and other aviation experts), receiver technology (Creating and enforcing more state-of-the-art GPS receiver technology), ameliorating monitoring and reporting (Installing robust monitoring systems), cooperation (collaboration among stakeholders like government bodies, aviation organisations etc.), data/information sharing, regulatory measures (regulations and guidelines by regulatory and government bodies) can help in averting GPS spoofing.
References
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/false-gps-signal-surge-makes-life-hard-for-pilots/articleshow/108363076.cms?from=mdr
- https://nypost.com/2023/11/20/lifestyle/hackers-are-taking-over-planes-gps-experts-are-lost-on-how-to-fix-it/
- https://www.timesnownews.com/india/planes-losing-gps-signal-over-middle-east-dgca-flags-spoofing-threat-article-105475388
- https://www.firstpost.com/world/gps-spoofing-deceptive-gps-lead-over-20-planes-astray-in-iran-13190902.html
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2024/01/31/gps-spoofing-is-now-affecting-airplanes-in-parts-of-europe/?sh=48fbe725c550
- https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2024/01/30/758635.htm
- https://airwaysmag.com/gps-spoofing-commercial-aviation/
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/aviation-industry-to-tackle-gps-security-concerns-c11a917f
- https://www.deccanherald.com/world/explained-what-is-gps-spoofing-that-has-misguided-around-20-planes-near-iran-iraq-border-and-how-dangerous-is-this-2708342
