#FactCheck - Viral Video of Car Arson Falsely Linked to Iran Protests

Introduction

Cybercrimes have been traversing peripheries and growing at a fast pace. Cybercrime is known to be an offensive action that either targets or operates through a computer, a computer network or a networked device, according to Kaspersky.  In the “Era of globalisation” and a “Digitally coalesced world”, there has been an increase in International cybercrime. Cybercrime could be for personal or political objectives. Nevertheless, Cybercrime aims to sabotage networks for motives other than gain and be carried out either by organisations or individuals. Some of the cybercriminals have no national boundaries and are considered a global threat. They are likewise inordinately technically adept and operate avant-garde strategies. 

The 2023 Global Risk Report points to exacerbating geopolitical apprehensions that have increased the advanced persistent threats (APTs), which are evolving globally as they are ubiquitous. Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank and former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in 2020 cautioned that a cyber attack could lead to a severe economic predicament. Contemporary technologies and hazardous players have grown at an exceptional gait over the last few decades. Also, cybercrime has heightened on the agenda of nation-states, establishments and global organisations, as per the World Economic Forum (WEF). 

The Role of the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee 

In two shakes, the United Nations (UN) has a major initiative to develop a new and more inclusive approach to addressing cybercrime and is presently negotiating a new convention on cybercrime. The following convention seeks to enhance global collaboration in the combat against cybercrime. The UN has a central initiative to develop a unique and more inclusive strategy for addressing cybercrime. The UN passed resolution 74/247, which designated an open-ended ad hoc committee (AHC) in December 2019 entrusted with setting a broad global convention on countering the use of information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for illicit pursuits. 

The Cybercrime treaty, if adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) would be the foremost imperative UN mechanism on a cyber point. The treaty could further become a crucial international legal framework for global collaboration on arraigning cyber criminals, precluding and investigating cybercrime. There have correspondingly been numerous other national and international measures to counter the criminal use of ICTs. However, the UN treaty is intended to tackle cybercrime and enhance partnership and coordination between states. The negotiations of the Ad Hoc Committee with the member states will be completed by early 2024 to further adopt the treaty during the UNGA in September 2024.

However, the following treaty is said to be complex. Some countries endorse a treaty that criminalises cyber-dependent offences and a comprehensive spectrum of cyber-enabled crimes.  The proposals of Russia, Belarus, China, Nicaragua and Cuba have included highly controversial recommendations. Nevertheless, India has backed for criminalising crimes associated with ‘cyber terrorism’ and the suggestions of India to the UN Ad Hoc committee are in string with its regulatory strategy in the country. Similarly, the US, Japan, the UK, European Union (EU) member states and Australia want to include core cyber-dependent crimes. 

Nonetheless, though a new treaty could become a practical instrument in the international step against cybercrime, it must conform to existing global agencies and networks that occupy similar areas. This convention will further supplement the "Budapest Cybercrime Convention" on cybercrime that materialised in the 1990s and was signed in Budapest in the year 2001.

Conclusion

According to Cyber Security Ventures, global cybercrime is expected to increase by 15 per cent per year over the next five years, reaching USD 10.5 trillion annually by 2025, up from USD 3 trillion in 2015. The UN cybercrime convention aims to be more global. That being the case, next-generation tools should have state-of-the-art technology to deal with new cyber crimes and cyber warfare. The global crevasse in nation-states due to cybercrime is beyond calculation. It could lead to a great cataclysm in the global economy and threaten the political interest of the countries on that account. It is crucial for global governments and international organisations. It is necessary to strengthen the collaboration between establishments (public and private) and law enforcement mechanisms. An “appropriately designed policy” is henceforward the need of the hour.

References

• https://www.kaspersky.co.in/resource-center/threats/what-is-cybercrime
• https://www.cyberpeace.org/
• https://www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Cybercrime
• https://www.bizzbuzz.news/bizz-talk/ransomware-attacks-on-startups-msmes-on-the-rise-in-india-cyberpeace-foundation-1261320
• https://www.financialexpress.com/business/digital-transformation-cyberpeace-foundation-receives-4-million-google-org-grant-3282515/
• https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/08/what-un-cybercrime-treaty-and-why-does-it-matter
• https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/global-rules-crack-down-cybercrime/
• https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2023/
• https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/03/global-cyber-threat-to-financial-systems-maurer.htm
• https://www.eff.org/issues/un-cybercrime-treaty#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20is%20currently,of%20billions%20of%20people%20worldwide.
• https://cybersecurityventures.com/hackerpocalypse-cybercrime-report-2016/
• https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/the-budapest-convention
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/counter-use-of-technology-for-cybercrime-india-tells-un-ad-hoc-group/articleshow/92237908.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
• https://consultation.dpmc.govt.nz/un-cybercrime-convention/principlesandobjectives/supporting_documents/Background.pdf
• https://unric.org/en/a-un-treaty-on-cybercrime-en-route/

‍

Biological data includes biometric information such as fingerprints, facial recognition, DNA sequences, and behavioral traits. Genetic data can be extracted from an individual’s remains long after their death and can continue to identify both that individual and an expanding pool of their living relatives. This persistent identification can significantly reduce privacy over time, revealing genetic characteristics and familial relationships across successive generations.

Key Developments in Privacy Protection for Biological Data:

Legal texts have been created relating to personal data protection and privacy broadly, and can sometimes prove to be poor adaptations specifically for ‘biometric data’ and its safety. Some examples are mentioned below:

1. EU and UK- GDPR

GDPR focuses primarily on biometrics in Biological Data while deciphering the technology's immense potential. The EU describes “personal data” under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) including any identifiable information about a particular person. For example, this can include names, identification numbers, location data, and other structured and unstructured data. In addition, the GDPR has more specific requirements around processing sensitive or “special categories of personal data.” These “special categories” include things like genetic and biometric data. For biometric security to work well, citizens' rights must be protected appropriately, and the data collected by private and public concerns must be managed carefully and sensibly. 

2. USA

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) grants Californian consumers the right to protect their personal information and biometric data including the right to disclosure or access, the right to be forgotten, and data portability. The sale of personal information and the option of opt-out is also given to consumers. Additionally, it contains the right to take legal action, with penalties imposed for violations.

The California Privacy Rights Act was passed on November 3, 2020, and took effect on January 1, 2023, with a lookback period starting January 1, 2022. It introduces sensitive personal information which includes biometric data and other sensitive details. 

Virginia's Consumer Data Protection Act, effective from January 1, 2023, designates genetic and biometric data as sensitive data that must be protected.

Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act is recognised as the most robust biometric privacy law in the United States. The significance of the Rosenbach v. Six Flags case lies in the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling that a plaintiff does not need to demonstrate additional harm to impose penalties on a BIPA violator. A mere loss of statutory biometric privacy rights is sufficient to warrant penalties.

3. India

As per Rule 2(1)(b) of the SPDI Rules, Sensitive Personal Data or Information, including biometric data is included under its meaning. The term ‘biometric data’ has not been defined in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The need for data privacy under the DPDP Act emerges only if such data is subsequently digitised under extraction and manipulation, including notice and consent requirements and penalties. 

The Biotech-PRIDE (Promotion of Research and Innovation through Data Exchange) Guidelines of 2021 are aimed at fostering an exchange of information which would thereby enhance research and innovation among various research groups nationwide. These guidelines do not deal with the generation of biological data but are a mechanism to share and exchange information and knowledge generated according to existing laws, rules, regulations and norms of the country. They will ensure data-sharing benefits, maximise use, avoid duplication, maximise integration, ownership of information, better decision-making and equity of access

How is Biological Data vulnerable?

• Biological data is often immutable, meaning it cannot be altered once compromised. Unlike other authentications that can be changed, compromised biometric data poses a permanent risk, making its protection paramount.
• The use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies and the creation of databases by the same also highlights the urgent need for stringent privacy protections.
• Advances in technology, particularly AI and ML, make it easier to collect, analyse, and utilise biometric data by manipulating biometric data. This in turn is leading to new forms of identity theft and fraud that make it necessary to enhance security measures and ethical considerations to prevent abuse.
• Cross-border data transfers raise serious privacy concerns, especially as countries have varying levels and standards of data protection. 
• Wearable health-related biometric devices lack the required privacy protections which ends up making the data they collect vulnerable to misuse and breaches.

Future Outlook

With the growing use of biological data, there is likely to be increased pressure on regulatory bodies to strengthen privacy protections. This necessitates a need for enhanced security measures to protect users' identities and further prevent any form of unauthorised access. Future developments should be aimed at including strict consent requirements, and enhanced data security measures, especially for wearable devices. A new legal framework specifically designed to address the challenges posed by biometric data would be welcome. Biological data protection is an emerging need in the digital environment that we live in today.

References

• https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/17/new-privacy-battle-is-underway-as-tech-gadgets-capture-our-brain-waves.html 
• https://www.snrlaw.in/sense-and-sensitivity-sensitive-information-under-indias-new-data-regime/ 
• https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/markets/digital-identity-and-security/government/biometrics/biometric-data‍
• https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-releases-guideline-to-provide-framework-for-sharing-of-biological-data-121073001467_1.html

A Foray into the Digital Labyrinth

In our digital age, the silhouette of truth is often obfuscated by a fog of technological prowess and cunning deception. With each passing moment, the digital expanse sprawls wider, and within it, synthetic media, known most infamously as 'deepfakes', emerge like phantoms from the machine. These adept forgeries, melding authenticity with fabrication, represent a new frontier in the malleable narrative of understood reality. Grappling with the specter of such virtual deceit, social media behemoths Facebook and YouTube have embarked on a prodigious quest. Their mission? To formulate robust bulwarks around the sanctity of fact and fiction, all the while fostering seamless communication across channels that billions consider an inextricable part of their daily lives.

In an exploration of this digital fortress besieged by illusion, we unpeel the layers of strategy that Facebook and YouTube have unfurled in their bid to stymie the proliferation of these insidious technical marvels. Though each platform approaches the issue through markedly different prisms, a shared undercurrent of necessity and urgency harmonizes their efforts.

The Detailing of Facebook's Strategic

Facebook's encampment against these modern-day chimaeras teems with algorithmic sentinels and human overseers alike—a union of steel and soul. The company’s layer upon layer of sophisticated artificial intelligence is designed to scrupulously survey, identify, and flag potential deepfake content with a precision that borders on the prophetic. Employing advanced AI systems, Facebook endeavours to preempt the chaos sown by manipulated media by detecting even the slightest signs of digital tampering.  

However, in an expression of profound acumen, Facebook also serves reminder of AI's fallibility by entwining human discernment into its fabric. Each flagged video wages its battle for existence within the realm of these custodians of reality—individuals entrusted with the hefty responsibility of parsing truth from technologically enabled fiction.

Facebook does not rest on the laurels of established defense mechanisms. The platform is in a perpetual state of flux, with policies and AI models adapting to the serpentine nature of the digital threat landscape. By fostering its cyclical metamorphosis, Facebook not only sharpens its detection tools but also weaves a more resilient protective web, one capable of absorbing the shockwaves of an evolving battlefield.

YouTube’s Overture of Transparency and the Exposition of AI

Turning to the amphitheatre of YouTube, the stage is set for an overt commitment to candour. Against the stark backdrop of deepfake dilemmas, YouTube demands the unveiling of the strings that guide the puppets, insisting on full disclosure whenever AI's invisible hands sculpt the content that engages its diverse viewership.

YouTube's doctrine is straightforward: creators must lift the curtains and reveal any artificial manipulation's role behind the scenes. With clarity as its vanguard, this requirement is not just procedural but an ethical invocation to showcase veracity—a beacon to guide viewers through the murky waters of potential deceit.

The iron fist within the velvet glove of YouTube's policy manifests through a graded punitive protocol. Should a creator falter in disclosing the machine's influence, repercussions follow, ensuring that the ecosystem remains vigilant against hidden manipulation.

But YouTube's policy is one that distinguishes between malevolence and benign use. Artistic endeavours, satirical commentary, and other legitimate expositions are spared the policy's wrath, provided they adhere to the overarching principle of transparency.

The Symbiosis of Technology and Policy in a Morphing Domain

YouTube's commitment to refining its coordination between human insight and computerized examination is unwavering. As AI's role in both the generation and moderation of content deepens, YouTube—which, like a skilled cartographer, must redraw its policies increasingly—traverses this ever-mutating landscape with a proactive stance.

In a Comparative Light: Tracing the Convergence of Giants

Although Facebook and YouTube choreograph their steps to different rhythms, together they compose an intricate dance aimed at nurturing trust and authenticity. Facebook leans into the proactive might of their AI algorithms, reinforced by updates and human interjection, while YouTube wields the virtue of transparency as its sword, cutting through masquerades and empowering its users to partake in storylines that are continually rewritten.

Together on the Stage of Our Digital Epoch

The sum of Facebook and YouTube's policies is integral to the pastiche of our digital experience, a multifarious quilt shielding the sanctum of factuality from the interloping specters of deception. As humanity treads the line between the veracious and the fantastic, these platforms stand as vigilant sentinels, guiding us in our pursuit of an old-age treasure within our novel digital bazaar—the treasure of truth. In this labyrinthine quest, it is not merely about unmasking deceivers but nurturing a wisdom that appreciates the shimmering possibilities—and inherent risks—of our evolving connection with the machine. 

Conclusion 

The struggle against deepfakes is a complex, many-headed challenge that will necessitate a united front spanning technologists, lawmakers, and the public. In this digital epoch, where the veneer of authenticity is perilously thin, the valiant endeavours of these tech goliaths serve as a lighthouse in a storm-tossed sea. These efforts echo the importance of evergreen vigilance in discerning truth from artfully crafted deception. 

References 

• https://about.fb.com/news/2020/01/enforcing-against-manipulated-media/
• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/google-sheds-light-on-how-its-fighting-deep-fakes-and-ai-generated-misinformation-in-india-9047211/
• https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/14/youtube-adapts-its-policies-for-the-coming-surge-of-ai-videos/
• https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/cybercrime-and-digital-threats/youtube-twitter-hunt-down-deepfakes