Wearable Tech: Navigating Privacy, Compliance, and Misinformation
Smart Wearable devices are designed to track several activities in defined parameters and are increasingly becoming a part of everyday life. According to Markets and Markets Report, the global wearable tech market is projected to reach a staggering USD 256.4 billion by 2026. One of the main areas of use of wearable devices is health, including biomedical research, health care, personal health practices and tracking, technology development, and engineering. These wearable devices often include digital health technologies such as consumer smartwatches that monitor an individual's heart rate and step count, and other body-worn sensors like those that continuously monitor blood glucose concentration.
Wearable devices used by the general population are getting increasingly popular. Health devices like fitness trackers and smartwatches enable continuous monitoring of personal health. Privacy is an emerging concern due to the real-time collection of sensitive data. Vulnerabilities due to unauthorised access or discrimination in case of information being revealed without consent are the primary concerns with these devices. While these concerns are present a lot of related misinformation is emerging due to the same.
While wearable devices typically come with terms of use that outline how data is collected and used, and there are regulations in place such as EU Law GDPR, such regulations largely govern the regulatory compliances on the handling of personal data, however, the implementation and compliances by the manufacturer is a one another aspect which might present the question on privacy protection. In addition, beyond the challenge of regulatory compliance, the rise of myths and misinformation surrounding wearable tech presents a separate issue.
Common Misconceptions About Privacy with Wearable Tech
- With the rapid development and growth of wearable technology their use has been subject to countless rumours which fuel misinformation narratives in the minds of general public. Addressing these misconceptions and privacy concerns requires targeted strategies.
- A prevalent misconception is that they are constantly spying on users. While wearable devices collect users’ data in real time, their vulnerability to unauthorised access is similar to that of a non-wearable device. The issue is of consent when it comes to wearable technology because it gives the ability to record. If permissions are not asked when a person is being recorded then the data is accessible to external entities.
- There is a common myth that wearable tech is surveillance tool. This is entirely a conjecture. These devices collect the user data with their prior consent and have been created to provide them with real-time information, most commonly physical health information. Since users choose the information shared, the idea of wearable tech serving as a surveillance tool is unfounded.
- Another misconception about wearable tech is that it can diagnose medical conditions. These devices collect real-time health data, such as heart rate or activity levels, they are not designed for medical diagnosis. The data collected may not always be accurate or reliable for clinical use to be interpreted by a healthcare professional. This is mainly because the makers of these devices are not held to the safety and liability standards that medical providers are.
- A prevalent misconception is that wearable tech can cure health issues, which is simply untrue. Wearable tech devices are essentially tracking the health parameters that a user sets. It in no way is a cure for any health issue that one suffers from. A user can manage their health based on the parameters they set on the device such as the number of steps that they walk, check on the heart rate and other metrics for their mental satisfaction but they are not a cure to treat diseases. Wearable tech acts as alerts, notifying users of important health metrics and encouraging proactive health management.
Addressing Privacy and Health Concerns in Wearable Tech
Wearable technology raises concerns for privacy and health due to the colossal amount of personal data collected. To address these, strong data protection measures are essential, ensuring that sensitive health information is securely stored and shared only with consent. Providing users with control over their data is one of the ways to build user trust. It includes enabling them to opt in, access, or delete the data in question. Regulators should establish clear guidelines, ensuring wearables ensure the compliances with data protection regulations like HIPPA, GDPR or DPDP Act, whichever is applicable as per the jurisdiction. Furthermore, global standards for data encryption, device security, and user privacy should be implemented to mitigate risks. Transparency in data usage and consistent updates to software security are also crucial for protecting users' privacy and health while promoting the responsible use of wearable tech.
CyberPeace Insights
- Making informed decisions about wearable tech starts with thorough research. Start by reading reviews and comparing products to assess their features, compatibility, and security standards.
- Investigate the manufacturer’s reputation for data protection and device longevity. Understanding device capabilities is crucial. One should evaluate whether the wearable meets their needs, such as fitness tracking, health monitoring, or communication features. Consider software security and updates, and data accuracy when comparing options. Opt for devices that offer two-factor authentication for an additional layer of security.
- Check the permissions requested by the accompanying app; only grant access to data that is necessary for the device's functionality. Always read the terms of use to understand your rights and responsibilities regarding the use of the device. Review and customize data-sharing settings for better control to prevent unauthorised access.
- Staying updated on the tech is equally important. A user should follow the advancements in wearable technology be it regular security updates, or regulatory changes that may affect privacy and usability. This ensures getting tech that aligns with user lifestyle while meeting privacy and security expectations.
Conclusion
Privacy and Misinformation are key concerns that emerge due to the use of wearable tech designed to offer benefits such as health monitoring, fitness tracking, and personal convenience. It requires a combination of informed decision-making by users and stringent regulatory oversight to overcome the issues that emerge due to misinformation about these devices. Users must ensure they understand the capabilities and limitations of their devices, from data accuracy to privacy risks. Additionally, manufacturers and regulators need to prioritise transparency, data protection, and compliance with global standards like GDPR or DPDP to build trust. As wearable tech continues to evolve, a balanced approach to innovation and privacy will be essential in fostering its responsible and beneficial use for all.
References
- https://thehealthcaretechnologyreport.com/privacy-data-security-concerns-rise-as-healthcare-wearables-gain-popularity/
- https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000104
- https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/wearable-electronics-market-983.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwgMqSBhDCARIsAIIVN1V0sqrk6SpYSga3rcDtWcwh8npZ08L0_s4X91gh7yPAa6QmsctB-lMaAlpqEALw_wcB
- https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-information-management/article/health-data-on-the-go-navigating-privacy-concerns-with-wearable-technologies/05DAF11EFA807051362BB39260C4814C
Related Blogs
Introduction
This tale, the Toothbrush Hack, straddles the ordinary and the sophisticated; an unassuming household item became the tool for committing cyber crime. Herein lies the account of how three million electronic toothbrushes turned into the unwitting infantry in a cyber skirmish—a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) assault that flirted with the thin line that bridges the real and the outlandish.
In January, within the Swiss borders, a story began circulating—first reported by the Aargauer Zeitung, a Swiss German-language daily newspaper. A legion of cybercriminals, with honed digital acumen, had planted malware on some three million electric toothbrushes. These devices, mere slivers of plastic and circuitry, became agents of chaos, converging their electronic requests upon the servers of an undisclosed Swiss firm, hurling that digital domain into digital blackout for several hours and wreaking an economic turmoil calculated in seven-figure sums.
The entire Incident
It was claimed that three million electric toothbrushes were allegedly used for a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, first reported by the Aargauer Zeitung, a Swiss German-language daily newspaper. The article claimed that cybercriminals installed malware on the toothbrushes and used them to access a Swiss company's website, causing the site to go offline and causing significant financial loss. However, cybersecurity experts have questioned the veracity of the story, with some describing it as "total bollocks" and others pointing out that smart electric toothbrushes are connected to smartphones and tablets via Bluetooth, making it impossible for them to launch DDoS attacks over the web. Fortinet clarified that the topic of toothbrushes being used for DDoS attacks was presented as an illustration of a given type of attack and that no IoT botnets have been observed targeting toothbrushes or similar embedded devices.
The Tech Dilemma - IOT Hack
Imagine the juxtaposition of this narrative against our common expectations of technology: 'This example, which could have been from a cyber thriller, did indeed occur,' asserted the narratives that wafted through the press and social media. The story radiated outward with urgency, painting the image of IoT devices turned to evil tools of digital unrest. It was disseminated with such velocity that face value became an accepted currency amid news cycles. And yet, skepticism took root in the fertile minds of those who dwell in the domains of cyber guardianship.
Several cyber security and IOT experts, postulated that the information from Fortinet had been contorted by the wrench of misinterpretation. They and their ilk highlighted a critical flaw: smart electric toothbrushes are bound to their smartphone or tablet counterparts by the tethers of Bluetooth, not the internet, stripping them of any innate ability to conduct DDoS or any other type of cyber attack directly.
With this unraveling of an incident fit for our cyber age, we are presented with a sobering reminder of the threat spectrum that burgeons as the tendrils of the Internet of Things (IoT) insinuate themselves into our everyday fabrics. Innocuous devices, previously deemed immune to the internet's shadow, now stand revealed as potential conduits for cyber evil. The layers of impact are profound, touching the private spheres of individuals, the underpinning frameworks of national security, and the sinews that clutch at our economic realities. The viral incident was a misinformation.
IOT Weakness
IoT devices bear inherent weaknesses for twin reasons: the oft-overlooked element of security and the stark absence of a means to enact those security measures. Ponder this problem Is there a pathway to traverse the security settings of an electric toothbrush? Or to install antivirus measures within the cooling confines of a refrigerator? The answers point to an unsettling simplicity—you cannot.
How to Protect
Vigilance - What then might be the protocol to safeguard our increasingly digital space? It begins with vigilance, the cornerstone of digital self-defense. Ensure the automatic updating of all IoT devices when they beckon with the promise of a new security patch.
Self Awareness - Avoid the temptation of public USB charging stations, which, while offering electronic succor to your devices, could also stand as the Trojan horses for digital pathogens. Be attuned to signs of unusual power depletion in your gadgets, for it may well serve as the harbinger of clandestine malware. Navigate the currents of public Wi-Fi with utmost care, as they are as fertile for data interception as they are convenient for your connectivity needs.
Use of Firewall - A firewall can prove stalwart against the predators of the internet interlopers. Your smart appliances, from the banality of a kitchen toaster to the novelty of an internet-enabled toilet, if shielded by this barrier, remain untouched, and by extension, uncompromised. And let us not dismiss this notion with frivolity, for the prospect of a malware-compromised toilet or any such smart device leaves a most distasteful specter.
Limit the use of IOT - Additionally, and this is conveyed with the gravity warranted by our current digital era, resist the seduction of IoT devices whose utility does not outweigh their inherent risks. A smart television may indeed be vital for the streaming aficionado amongst us, yet can we genuinely assert the need for a connected laundry machine, an iron, or indeed, a toothbrush? Here, prudence is a virtue; exercise it with judicious restraint.
Conclusion
As we step forward into an era where connectivity has shifted from a mere luxury to an omnipresent standard, we must adopt vigilance and digital hygiene practices with the same fervour as those for our corporal well-being. Let the toothbrush hack not simply be a tale of caution, consigned to the annals of internet folklore, but a fable that imbues us with the recognition of our role in maintaining discipline in a realm where even the most benign objects might be mustered into service by a cyberspace adversary.
References
- https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/no-3-million-electric-toothbrushes-were-not-used-in-a-ddos-attack/
- https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/smart-home/3-million-smart-toothbrushes-were-not-used-in-a-ddos-attack-but-they-could-have-been/
- https://www.securityweek.com/3-million-toothbrushes-abused-for-ddos-attacks-real-or-not/
Introduction
AI has transformed the way we look at advanced technologies. As the use of AI is evolving, it also raises a concern about AI-based deepfake scams. Where scammers use AI technologies to create deep fake videos, images and audio to deceive people and commit AI-based crimes. Recently a Kerala man fall victim to such a scam. He received a WhatsApp video call, the scammer impersonated the face of the victim’s known friend using AI-based deep fake technology. There is a need for awareness and vigilance to safeguard ourselves from such incidents.
Unveiling the Kerala deep fake video call Scam
The man in Kerala received a WhatsApp video call from a person claiming to be his former colleague in Andhra Pradesh. In actuality, he was the scammer. He asked for help of 40,000 rupees from the Kerala man via google pay. Scammer to gain the trust even mentioned some common friends with the victim. The scammer said that he is at the Dubai airport and urgently need the money for the medical emergency of his sister.
As AI is capable of analysing and processing data such as facial images, videos, and audio creating a realistic deep fake of the same which closely resembles as real one. In the Kerala Deepfake video call scam the scammer made a video call that featured a convincingly similar facial appearance and voice as same to the victim’s colleague which the scammer was impersonating. The Kerala man believing that he was genuinely communicating with his colleague, transferred the money without hesitation. The Kerala man then called his former colleague on the number he had saved earlier in his contact list, and his former colleague said that he has not called him. Kerala man realised that he had been cheated by a scammer, who has used AI-based deep-fake technology to impersonate his former colleague.
Recognising Deepfake Red Flags
Deepfake-based scams are on the rise, as they pose challenges that really make it difficult to distinguish between genuine and fabricated audio, videos and images. Deepfake technology is capable of creating entirely fictional photos and videos from scratch. In fact, audio can be deepfaked too, to create “voice clones” of anyone.
However, there are some red flags which can indicate the authenticity of the content:
- Video quality- Deepfake videos often have compromised or poor video quality, and unusual blur resolution, which might pose a question to its genuineness.
- Looping videos: Deepfake videos often loop or unusually freeze or where the footage repeats itself, indicating that the video content might be fabricated.
- Verify Separately: Whenever you receive requests for such as financial help, verify the situation by directly contacting the person through a separate channel such as a phone call on his primary contact number.
- Be vigilant: Scammers often possess a sense of urgency leading to giving no time to the victim to think upon it and deceiving them by making a quick decision. So be vigilant and cautious when receiving and entertaining such a sudden emergency which demands financial support from you on an urgent basis.
- Report suspicious activity: If you encounter such activities on your social media accounts or through such calls report it to the platform or to the relevant authority.
Conclusion
The advanced nature of AI deepfake technology has introduced challenges in combatting such AI-based cyber crimes. The Kerala man’s case of falling victim to an AI-based deepfake video call and losing Rs 40,000 serves as an alarming need to remain extra vigilant and cautious in the digital age. So in the reported incident where Kerala man received a call from a person appearing as his former colleague but in actuality, he was a scammer and tricking the victim by using AI-based deepfake technology. By being aware of such types of rising scams and following precautionary measures we can protect ourselves from falling victim to such AI-based cyber crimes. And stay protected from such malicious scammers who exploit these technologies for their financial gain. Stay cautious and safe in the ever-evolving digital landscape.
The World Economic Forum reported that AI-generated misinformation and disinformation are the second most likely threat to present a material crisis on a global scale in 2024 at 53% (Sept. 2023). Artificial intelligence is automating the creation of fake news at a rate disproportionate to its fact-checking. It is spurring an explosion of web content mimicking factual articles that instead disseminate false information about grave themes such as elections, wars and natural disasters.
According to a report by the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, a Canadian think tank, the most prevalent effect of Generative AI is the ability to flood the information ecosystem with misleading and factually-incorrect content. As reported by Democracy Reporting International during the 2024 elections of the European Union, Google's Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, and Microsoft’s AI interface ‘CoPilot’ were inaccurate one-third of the time when engaged for any queries regarding the election data. Therefore, a need for an innovative regulatory approach like regulatory sandboxes which can address these challenges while encouraging responsible AI innovation is desired.
What Is AI-driven Misinformation?
False or misleading information created, amplified, or spread using artificial intelligence technologies is AI-driven misinformation. Machine learning models are leveraged to automate and scale the creation of false and deceptive content. Some examples are deep fakes, AI-generated news articles, and bots that amplify false narratives on social media.
The biggest challenge is in the detection and management of AI-driven misinformation. It is difficult to distinguish AI-generated content from authentic content, especially as these technologies advance rapidly.
AI-driven misinformation can influence elections, public health, and social stability by spreading false or misleading information. While public adoption of the technology has undoubtedly been rapid, it is yet to achieve true acceptance and actually fulfill its potential in a positive manner because there is widespread cynicism about the technology - and rightly so. The general public sentiment about AI is laced with concern and doubt regarding the technology’s trustworthiness, mainly due to the absence of a regulatory framework maturing on par with the technological development.
Regulatory Sandboxes: An Overview
Regulatory sandboxes refer to regulatory tools that allow businesses to test and experiment with innovative products, services or businesses under the supervision of a regulator for a limited period. They engage by creating a controlled environment where regulators allow businesses to test new technologies or business models with relaxed regulations.
Regulatory sandboxes have been in use for many industries and the most recent example is their use in sectors like fintech, such as the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority sandbox. These models have been known to encourage innovation while allowing regulators to understand emerging risks. Lessons from the fintech sector show that the benefits of regulatory sandboxes include facilitating firm financing and market entry and increasing speed-to-market by reducing administrative and transaction costs. For regulators, testing in sandboxes informs policy-making and regulatory processes. Looking at the success in the fintech industry, regulatory sandboxes could be adapted to AI, particularly for overseeing technologies that have the potential to generate or spread misinformation.
The Role of Regulatory Sandboxes in Addressing AI Misinformation
Regulatory sandboxes can be used to test AI tools designed to identify or flag misinformation without the risks associated with immediate, wide-scale implementation. Stakeholders like AI developers, social media platforms, and regulators work in collaboration within the sandbox to refine the detection algorithms and evaluate their effectiveness as content moderation tools.
These sandboxes can help balance the need for innovation in AI and the necessity of protecting the public from harmful misinformation. They allow the creation of a flexible and adaptive framework capable of evolving with technological advancements and fostering transparency between AI developers and regulators. This would lead to more informed policymaking and building public trust in AI applications.
CyberPeace Policy Recommendations
Regulatory sandboxes offer a mechanism to predict solutions that will help to regulate the misinformation that AI tech creates. Some policy recommendations are as follows:
- Create guidelines for a global standard for including regulatory sandboxes that can be adapted locally and are useful in ensuring consistency in tackling AI-driven misinformation.
- Regulators can propose to offer incentives to companies that participate in sandboxes. This would encourage innovation in developing anti-misinformation tools, which could include tax breaks or grants.
- Awareness campaigns can help in educating the public about the risks of AI-driven misinformation and the role of regulatory sandboxes can help manage public expectations.
- Periodic and regular reviews and updates to the sandbox frameworks should be conducted to keep pace with advancements in AI technology and emerging forms of misinformation should be emphasized.
Conclusion and the Challenges for Regulatory Frameworks
Regulatory sandboxes offer a promising pathway to counter the challenges that AI-driven misinformation poses while fostering innovation. By providing a controlled environment for testing new AI tools, these sandboxes can help refine technologies aimed at detecting and mitigating false information. This approach ensures that AI development aligns with societal needs and regulatory standards, fostering greater trust and transparency. With the right support and ongoing adaptations, regulatory sandboxes can become vital in countering the spread of AI-generated misinformation, paving the way for a more secure and informed digital ecosystem.
References
- https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/on-the-importance-of-regulatory-sandboxes-in-artificial-intelligence/article68176084.ece
- https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/regulatory-sandboxes-in-artificial-intelligence_8f80a0e6-en.html
- https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/
- https://democracy-reporting.org/en/office/global/publications/chatbot-audit#Conclusions
