Digitally Altered Photo of Rowan Atkinson Circulates on Social Media
Executive Summary:
A photo claiming that Mr. Rowan Atkinson, the famous actor who played the role of Mr. Bean, lying sick on bed is circulating on social media. However, this claim is false. The image is a digitally altered picture of Mr.Barry Balderstone from Bollington, England, who died in October 2019 from advanced Parkinson’s disease. Reverse image searches and media news reports confirm that the original photo is of Barry, not Rowan Atkinson. Furthermore, there are no reports of Atkinson being ill; he was recently seen attending the 2024 British Grand Prix. Thus, the viral claim is baseless and misleading.
Claims:
A viral photo of Rowan Atkinson aka Mr. Bean, lying on a bed in sick condition.
Fact Check:
When we received the posts, we first did some keyword search based on the claim made, but no such posts were found to support the claim made.Though, we found an interview video where it was seen Mr. Bean attending F1 Race on July 7, 2024.
Then we reverse searched the viral image and found a news report that looked similar to the viral photo of Mr. Bean, the T-Shirt seems to be similar in both the images.
The man in this photo is Barry Balderstone who was a civil engineer from Bollington, England, died in October 2019 due to advanced Parkinson’s disease. Barry received many illnesses according to the news report and his application for extensive healthcare reimbursement was rejected by the East Cheshire Clinical Commissioning Group.
Taking a cue from this, we then analyzed the image in an AI Image detection tool named, TrueMedia. The detection tool found the image to be AI manipulated. The original image is manipulated by replacing the face with Rowan Atkinson aka Mr. Bean.
Hence, it is clear that the viral claimed image of Rowan Atkinson bedridden is fake and misleading. Netizens should verify before sharing anything on the internet.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be summarized that the photo claiming Rowan Atkinson in a sick state is fake and has been manipulated with another man’s image. The original photo features Barry Balderstone, the man who was diagnosed with stage 4 Parkinson’s disease and subsequently died in 2019. In fact, Rowan Atkinson seemed perfectly healthy recently at the 2024 British Grand Prix. It is important for people to check on the authenticity before sharing so as to avoid the spreading of misinformation.
- Claim: A Viral photo of Rowan Atkinson aka Mr. Bean, lying on a bed in a sick condition.
- Claimed on: X, Facebook
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Related Blogs
.webp)
Introduction
Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU.
Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis
Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta.
Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.
For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.
For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models.
The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.
Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.
Future Impact Outlook
- The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age.
- The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations.
- Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.
Conclusion
Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.
Reference:
- https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106
- https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/
- https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/
- https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/
%20(1).webp)
Introduction
The Central Electricity Authority (CEA) has released the Draft Central Electricity Authority (Cyber Security in Power Sector) Regulations, 2024, inviting ‘comments’ from stakeholders, including the general public, which are to be submitted by 10 September 2024. The new regulation is intended to make India’s power sector more cyber-resilient and responsive to counter emerging cyber threats and safeguard the nation's power infrastructure.
Key Highlights of the CEA’s New (Cyber Security in Power Sector) Regulations, 2024
- Central Electricity Authority has framed the ‘Cyber Security in Power Sector Regulations, 2024’ in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of 177 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in order to make regulations for measures relating to Cyber Security in the power sector.
- The scope of the regulation entails that these regulations will be applicable to all Responsible Entities, Regional Power Committees, Appropriate Commission, Appropriate Government and Associated Power Sector Government Organizations, and Training Institutes recognized by the Authority, Authority and Vendors.
- One key aspect of the proposed regulation is the establishment of a dedicated Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) for the power sector. This team will coordinate a unified cyber defense strategy throughout the sector, establishing security frameworks, and serving as the main agency for handling incident response and recovery. The CSIRT will also be responsible for creating/developing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), security policies, and best practices for incident response activities in consultation with CERT-In and NCIIPC. The detailed roles and responsibilities of CSIRT are outlined under Chapter 2 of the said regulations.
- All responsible entities in the power sector as mentioned under the scope of the regulation, are mandated to appoint a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and an alternate CISO, who need to be Indian nationals and who are senior management employees. The regulations specify that these officers must directly report to the CEO/Head of the Responsible Entity. Thus emphasizing the critical nature of CISO’s roles in safeguarding the nation’s power grid sector assets.
- All Responsible Entities shall establish an Information Security Division (ISD) dedicated to ensuring Cyber Security, headed by the CISO and remain operational around the clock. The schedule under regulation entails that the minimum workforce required for setting up an ISD is 04 (Four) officers including CISO and 04 officers/officials for shift operations. Sufficient workforce and infrastructure support shall be ensured for ISD. The detailed functions and responsibilities of ISD are outlined under Chapter 5 regulation 10. Furthermore, the ISD shall be manned by sufficient numbers of officers, having valid certificates of successful completion of domain-specific Cyber Security courses.
- The regulation obliged the entities to have a defined, documented and maintained Cyber Security Policy which is approved by the Board or Head of the entity. The regulation also obliged the entities to have a Cyber Crisis Management Plan (CCMP) approved by the higher management.
- As regards upskilling and empowerment the regulation advocates for organising or conducting periodic Cyber Security awareness programs and Cyber Security exercises including mock drills and tabletop exercises.
CyberPeace Policy Outlook
CyberPeace Policy & Advocacy Vertical has submitted its detailed recommendations on the proposed ‘Cyber Security in Power Sector Regulations, 2024’ to the Central Electricity Authority, Government of India. We have advised on various aspects within the regulation including harmonisation of these regulations with other rules as issued by CERT-In and NCIIPC, at present. As this needs to be clarified which set of guidelines will supersede in case of any discrepancy that may arise. Additionally, we advised on incorporating or making modifications to specific provisions under the regulation for a more robust framework. We have also emphasized legal mandates and penalties for non-compliance with cybersecurity, so as to make sure that these regulations do not only act as guiding principles but also provide stringent measures in case of non-compliance.
References:
Introduction
Considering the development of technology, Voice cloning schemes are one such issue that has recently come to light. Scammers are moving forward with AI, and their methods and plans for deceiving and scamming people have also altered. Deepfake technology creates realistic imitations of a person’s voice that can be used to conduct fraud, dupe a person into giving up crucial information, or even impersonate a person for illegal purposes. We will look at the dangers and risks associated with AI voice cloning frauds, how scammers operate and how one might protect themselves from one.
What is Deepfake?
Artificial intelligence (AI), known as “deepfake,” can produce fake or altered audio, video, and film that pass for the real thing. The words “deep learning” and “fake” are combined to get the name “deep fake”. Deepfake technology creates content with a realistic appearance or sound by analysing and synthesising diverse volumes of data using machine learning algorithms. Con artists employ technology to portray someone doing something that has never been in audio or visual form. The best example is the American President, who used deep voice impersonation technology. Deep voice impersonation technology can be used maliciously, such as in deep voice fraud or disseminating false information. As a result, there is growing concerned about the potential influence of deep fake technology on society and the need for effective tools to detect and mitigate the hazards it may provide.
What exactly are deepfake voice scams?
Artificial intelligence (AI) is sometimes utilised in deepfake speech frauds to create synthetic audio recordings that seem like real people. Con artists can impersonate someone else over the phone and pressure their victims into providing personal information or paying money by using contemporary technology. A con artist may pose as a bank employee, a government official, or a friend or relative by utilising a deep false voice. It aims to earn the victim’s trust and raise the likelihood that they will fall for the hoax by conveying a false sense of familiarity and urgency. Deep fake speech frauds are increasing in frequency as deep fake technology becomes more widely available, more sophisticated, and harder to detect. In order to avoid becoming a victim of such fraud, it is necessary to be aware of the risks and take appropriate measures.
Why do cybercriminals use AI voice deep fake?
In order to mislead users into providing private information, money, or system access, cybercriminals utilise artificial intelligence (AI) speech-deep spoofing technology to claim to be people or entities. Using AI voice-deep fake technology, cybercriminals can create audio recordings that mimic real people or entities, such as CEOs, government officials, or bank employees, and use them to trick victims into taking activities that are advantageous to the criminals. This can involve asking victims for money, disclosing login credentials, or revealing sensitive information. In phishing assaults, where fraudsters create audio recordings that impersonate genuine messages from organisations or people that victims trust, deepfake AI voice technology can also be employed. These audio recordings can trick people into downloading malware, clicking on dangerous links, or giving out personal information. Additionally, false audio evidence can be produced using AI voice-deep fake technology to support false claims or accusations. This is particularly risky regarding legal processes because falsified audio evidence may lead to wrongful convictions or acquittals. Artificial intelligence voice deep fake technology gives con artists a potent tool for tricking and controlling victims. Every organisation and the general population must be informed of this technology’s risk and adopt the appropriate safety measures.
How to spot voice deepfake and avoid them?
Deep fake technology has made it simpler for con artists to edit audio recordings and create phoney voices that exactly mimic real people. As a result, a brand-new scam called the “deep fake voice scam” has surfaced. In order to trick the victim into handing over money or private information, the con artist assumes another person’s identity and uses a fake voice. What are some ways to protect oneself from deepfake voice scams? Here are some guidelines to help you spot them and keep away from them:
- Steer clear of telemarketing calls
- One of the most common tactics used by deep fake voice con artists, who pretend to be bank personnel or government officials, is making unsolicited phone calls.
- Listen closely to the voice
- Anyone who phones you pretending to be someone else should pay special attention to their voice. Are there any peculiar pauses or inflexions in their speech? Something that doesn’t seem right can be a deep voice fraud.
- Verify the caller’s identity
- It’s crucial to verify the caller’s identity in order to avoid falling for a deep false voice scam. You might ask for their name, job title, and employer when in doubt. You can then do some research to be sure they are who they say they are.
- Never divulge confidential information
- No matter who calls, never give out personal information like your Aadhar, bank account information, or passwords over the phone. Any legitimate companies or organisations will never request personal or financial information over the phone; if they do, it’s a warning sign that they’re a scammer.
- Report any suspicious activities
- Inform the appropriate authorities if you think you’ve fallen victim to a deep voice fraud. This may include your bank, credit card company, local police station, or the nearest cyber cell. By reporting the fraud, you could prevent others from being a victim.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the field of AI voice deep fake technology is fast expanding and has huge potential for beneficial and detrimental effects. While deep fake voice technology has the potential to be used for good, such as improving speech recognition systems or making voice assistants sound more realistic, it may also be used for evil, such as deep fake voice frauds and impersonation to fabricate stories. Users must be aware of the hazard and take the necessary precautions to protect themselves as AI voice deep fake technology develops, making it harder to detect and prevent deep fake schemes. Additionally, it is necessary to conduct ongoing research and develop efficient techniques to identify and control the risks related to this technology. We must deploy AI appropriately and ethically to ensure that AI voice-deep fake technology benefits society rather than harming or deceiving it.
