#Fact Check: Pakistan’s Airstrike Claim Uses Video Game Footage

Introduction

Twitter is a popular social media plate form with millions of users all around the world. Twitter’s blue tick system, which verifies the identity of high-profile accounts, has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. The platform must face backlash from its users and brands who have accused it of basis, inaccuracy, and inconsistency in its verification process. This blog post will explore the questions raised on the verification process and its impact on users and big brands.

What is Twitter’s blue trick System?

The blue tick system was introduced in 2009 to help users identify the authenticity of well-known public figures, Politicians, celebrities, sportspeople, and big brands. The Twitter blue Tick system verifies the identity of high-profile accounts to display a blue badge next to your username.

According to a survey, roughly there are 294,000 verified Twitter Accounts which means they have a blue tick badge with them and have also paid the subscription for the service, which is nearly $7.99 monthly, so think about those subscribers who have paid the amount and have also lost their blue badge won’t they feel cheated?

The Controversy

Despite its initial aim, the blue tick system has received much criticism from consumers and brands. Twitter’s irregular and non-transparent verification procedure has sparked accusations of prejudice and inaccuracy. Many Twitter users have complained that the network’s verification process is random and favours account with huge followings or celebrity status. In contrast, others have criticised the platform for certifying accounts that promote harmful or controversial content.

Furthermore, the verification mechanism has generated user confusion, as many need to understand the significance of the blue tick badge. Some users have concluded that the blue tick symbol represents a Twitter endorsement or that the account is trustworthy. This confusion has resulted in users following and engaging with verified accounts that promote misleading or inaccurate data, undermining the platform’s credibility.

How did the Blue Tick Row start in India?

On 21 May 2021, when the government asked Twitter to remove the blue badge from several profiles of high-profile Indian politicians, including the Indian National Congress Party Vice-President Mr Rahul Ghandhi.

The blue badge gives the users an authenticated identity. Many celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan, popularly known as Big B, Vir Das, Prakash Raj, Virat Kohli, and Rohit Sharma, have lost their blue tick despite being verified handles.

What is the Twitter policy on blue tick?

To Twitter’s policy, blue verification badges may be removed from accounts if the account holder violates the company’s verification policy or terms of service. In such circumstances, Twitter typically notifies the account holder of the removal of the verification badge and the reason for the removal. In the instance of the “Twitter blue badge row” in India, however, it appears that Twitter did not notify the impacted politicians or their representatives before revoking their verification badges. Twitter’s lack of communication has exacerbated the controversy around the episode, with some critics accusing the company of acting arbitrarily and not following due process.

Is there a solution?

The “Twitter blue badge row” has no simple answer since it involves a complex convergence of concerns about free expression, social media policies, and government laws. However, here are some alternatives:

• Establish clear guidelines: Twitter should develop and constantly implement clear guidelines and policies for the verification process. All users, including politicians and government officials, would benefit from greater transparency and clarity.
• Increase transparency: Twitter’s decision-making process for deleting or restoring verification badges should be more open. This could include providing explicit reasons for badge removal, notifying impacted users promptly, and offering an appeals mechanism for those who believe their credentials were removed unfairly.
• Engage in constructive dialogue: Twitter should engage in constructive dialogue with government authorities and other stakeholders to address concerns about the platform’s content moderation procedures. This could contribute to a more collaborative approach to managing online content, leading to more effective and accepted policies.
• Follow local rules and regulations: Twitter should collaborate with the Indian government to ensure it conforms to local laws and regulations while maintaining freedom of expression. This could involve adopting more precise standards for handling requests for material removal or other actions from governments and other organisations.

Conclusion

To sum up, the “Twitter blue tick row” in India has highlighted the complex challenges that Social media faces daily in handling the conflicting interests of free expression, government rules, and their own content moderation procedures. While Twitter’s decision to withdraw the blue verification badges of several prominent Indian politicians garnered anger from the government and some public members, it also raised questions about the transparency and uniformity of Twitter’s verification procedure. In order to deal with this issue, Twitter must establish clear verification procedures and norms, promote transparency in its decision-making process, participate in constructive communication with stakeholders, and adhere to local laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Indian government should collaborate with social media platforms to create more effective and acceptable laws that balance the necessity for free expression and the protection of citizens’ rights. The “Twitter blue tick row” is just one example of the complex challenges that social media platforms face in managing online content, and it emphasises the need for greater collaboration among platforms, governments, and civil society organisations to develop effective solutions that protect both free expression and citizens’ rights.

Introduction

Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) is a process through which one can improve website visibility on search engine platforms like Google, Microsoft Bing, etc. There is an implicit understanding that SEO suggestions or the links that are generated on top are the more popular information sources and, hence, are deemed to be more trustworthy. This trust, however, is being misused by threat actors through a process called SEO poisoning.

SEO poisoning is a method used by threat actors to attack and obtain information about the user by using manipulative methods that position their desired link, web page, etc to appear at the top of the search engine algorithm. The end goal is to lure the user into clicking and downloading their malware, presented in the garb of legitimate marketing or even as a valid result for Google search.

An active example of attempts at SEO poisoning has been discussed in a report by the Hindustan Times on 11th November, 2024. It highlights that using certain keywords could make a user more susceptible to hacking. Hackers are now targeting people who enter specific words or specific combinations in search engines. According to the report, users who looked up and clicked on links at the top related to the search query “Are Bengal cats legal in Australia?” had details regarding their personal information posted online soon after.

SEO Poisoning - Modus Operandi Of Attack

There are certain tactics that are used by the attackers on SEO poisoning, these are:

• Keyword stuffing- This method involves overloading a webpage with irrelevant words, which helps the false website appear higher in ranking.
• Typosquatting- This method involves creating domain names or links similar to the more popular and trusted websites. A lack of scrutiny before clicking would lead the user to download malware, from what they thought was a legitimate site.
• Cloaking- This method operates by showing different content to both the search engines and the user. While the search engine sees what it assumes to be a legitimate website, the user is exposed to harmful content.
• Private Link Networks- Threat actors create a group of unrelated websites in order to increase the number of referral links, which enables them to rank higher on search engine platforms.
• Article Spinning- This method involves imitating content from other pre-existing, legitimate websites, while making a few minor changes, giving the impression to search engine crawlers of it being original content.
• Sneaky Redirect- This method redirects the users to malicious websites (without their knowledge) instead of the ones the user had intended to click.

CyberPeace Recommendations

• Employee Security Awareness Training: Security awareness training can help employees familiarise themselves with tactics of SEO poisoning, encouraging them to either spot such inconsistencies early on or even alert the security team at the earliest. 
• Tool usage: Companies can use Digital Risk Monitoring tools to catch instances of typosquatting. Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tools also help keep an eye on client history and assess user activities during security breaches to figure out the source of the affected file.
• Internal Security Measures: To refer to lists of Indicators of Compromise (IOC). IOC has URL lists that show evidence of the strange behaviour of websites, and this can be used to practice caution. Deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) to mitigate and detect malicious traffic is helpful.

Conclusion

The nature of SEO poisoning is such that it inherently promotes the spread of misinformation, and facilitates cyberattacks. Misinformation regarding the legitimacy of the links and the content they display, in order to lure users into clicking on them, puts personal information under threat. As people trust their favoured search engines, and there is a lack of awareness of such tactics in use, one must exercise caution while clicking on links that seem to be popular, despite them being hosted by trusted search engines.

References

• https://www.checkpoint.com/cyber-hub/cyber-security/what-is-cyber-attack/what-is-seo-poisoning/
• https://www.vectra.ai/topics/seo-poisoning
• https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/search-poisoning
• https://www.blackberry.com/us/en/solutions/endpoint-security/ransomware-protection/seo-poisoning
• https://www.coalitioninc.com/blog/seo-poisoning-attacks
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160791X24000186
• https://www.repindia.com/blog/secure-your-organisation-from-seo-poisoning-and-malvertising-threats/ 
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/typing-these-6-words-on-google-could-make-you-a-target-for-hackers-101731286153415.html

‍

What are Deepfakes? 

A deepfake is essentially a video of a person in which their face or body has been digitally altered so that they appear to be someone else, typically used maliciously or to spread false information. Deepfake technology is a method for manipulating videos, images, and audio utilising powerful computers and deep learning. It is used to generate fake news and commit financial fraud, among other wrongdoings. It overlays a digital composite over an already-existing video, picture, or audio; cybercriminals use Artificial Intelligence technology. The term deepfake was coined first time in 2017 by an anonymous Reddit user, who called himself deepfake. 

Deepfakes works on a combination of AI and ML, which makes the technology hard to detect by Web 2.0 applications, and it is almost impossible for a layman to see if an image or video is fake or has been created using deepfakes. In recent times, we have seen a wave of AI-driven tools which have impacted all industries and professions across the globe. Deepfakes are often created to spread misinformation. There lies a key difference between image morphing and deepfakes. Image morphing is primarily used for evading facial recognition, but deepfakes are created to spread misinformation and propaganda. 

Issues Pertaining to Deepfakes in India 

Deepfakes are a threat to any nation as the impact can be divesting in terms of monetary losses, social and cultural unrest, and actions against the sovereignty of India by anti-national elements. Deepfake detection is difficult but not impossible. The following threats/issues are seen to be originating out of deep fakes: 

• Misinformation: One of the biggest issues of Deepfake is misinformation, the same was seen during the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where in a deepfake of Ukraine’s president, Mr Zelensky, surfaced on the internet and caused mass confusion and propaganda-based misappropriation among the Ukrainians. 
• Instigation against the Union of India: Deepfake poses a massive threat to the integrity of the Union of India, as this is one of the easiest ways for anti-national elements to propagate violence or instigate people against the nation and its interests. As India grows, so do the possibilities of anti-national attacks against the nation. 
• Cyberbullying/ Harassment: Deepfakes can be used by bad actors to harass and bully people online in order to extort money from them. 
• Exposure to Illicit Content: Deepfakes can be easily used to create illicit content, and oftentimes, it is seen that it is being circulated on online gaming platforms where children engage the most. 
• Threat to Digital Privacy: Deepfakes are created by using existing videos. Hence, bad actors often use photos and videos from Social media accounts to create deepfakes, this directly poses a threat to the digital privacy of a netizen.  
• Lack of Grievance Redressal Mechanism: In the contemporary world, the majority of nations lack a concrete policy to address the aspects of deepfake. Hence, it is of paramount importance to establish legal and industry-based grievance redressal mechanisms for the victims. 
• Lack of Digital Literacy: Despite of high internet and technology penetration rates in India, digital literacy lags behind, this is a massive concern for the Indian netizens as it takes them far from understanding the tech, which results in the under-reporting of crimes. Large-scale awareness and sensitisation campaigns need to be undertaken in India to address misinformation and the influence of deepfakes. 

How to spot deepfakes? 

Deepfakes look like the original video at first look, but as we progress into the digital world, it is pertinent to establish identifying deepfakes in our digital routine and netiquettes in order to stay protected in the future and to address this issue before it is too late. The following aspects can be kept in mind while differentiating between a real video and a deepfake

• Look for facial expressions and irregularities: Whenever differentiating between an original video and deepfake, always look for changes in facial expressions and irregularities, it can be seen that the facial expressions, such as eye movement and a temporary twitch on the face, are all signs of a video being a deepfake. 
• Listen to the audio: The audio in deepfake also has variations as it is imposed on an existing video, so keep a check on the sound effects coming from a video in congruence with the actions or gestures in the video. 
• Pay attention to the background: The most easiest way to spot a deepfake is to pay attention to the background, in all deepfakes, you can spot irregularities in the background as, in most cases, its created using virtual effects so that all deepfakes will have an element of artificialness in the background. 
• Context and Content: Most of the instances of deepfake have been focused towards creating or spreading misinformation hence, the context and content of any video is an integral part of differentiating between an original video and deepfake. 
• Fact-Checking: As a basic cyber safety and digital hygiene protocol, one should always make sure to fact-check each and every piece of information they come across on social media. As a preventive measure, always make sure to fact-check any information or post sharing it with your known ones.  
• AI Tools: When in doubt, check it out, and never refrain from using Deepfake detection tools like- Sentinel, Intel’s real-time deepfake detector - Fake catcher, We Verify, and Microsoft’s Video Authenticator tool to analyze the videos and combating technology with technology. 

Recent Instance 

A deepfake video of actress Rashmika Mandanna recently went viral on social media, creating quite a stir. The video showed a woman entering an elevator who looked remarkably like Mandanna. However, it was later revealed that the woman in the video was not Mandanna, but rather, her face was superimposed using AI tools. Some social media users were deceived into believing that the woman was indeed Mandanna, while others identified it as an AI-generated deepfake. The original video was actually of a British-Indian girl named Zara Patel, who has a substantial following on Instagram. This incident sparked criticism from social media users towards those who created and shared the video merely for views, and there were calls for strict action against the uploaders. The rapid changes in the digital world pose a threat to personal privacy; hence, caution is advised when sharing personal items on social media​​.

Legal Remedies

Although Deepfake is not recognised by law in India, it is indirectly addressed by Sec. 66 E of the IT Act, which makes it illegal to capture, publish, or transmit someone's image in the media without that person's consent, thus violating their privacy. The maximum penalty for this violation is ₹2 lakh in fines or three years in prison. The DPDP Act's applicability in 2023 means that the creation of deepfakes will directly affect an individual's right to digital privacy and will also violate the IT guidelines under the Intermediary Guidelines, as platforms will be required to exercise caution while disseminating and publishing misinformation through deepfakes. The indirect provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which cover the sale and dissemination of derogatory publications, songs and actions, deception in the delivery of property, cheating and dishonestly influencing the delivery of property, and forgery with the intent to defame, are the only legal remedies available for deepfakes. Deep fakes must be recognized legally due to the growing power of misinformation. The Data Protection Board and the soon-to-be-established fact-checking body must recognize crimes related to deepfakes and provide an efficient system for filing complaints.

Conclusion 

Deepfake is an aftermath of the advancements of Web 3.0 and, hence is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the issues/threats from emerging technologies. It is pertinent to upskill and educate the netizens about the keen aspects of deepfakes to stay safe in the future. At the same time, developing and developed nations need to create policies and laws to efficiently regulate deepfake and to set up redressal mechanisms for victims and industry. As we move ahead, it is pertinent to address the threats originating out of the emerging techs and, at the same time, create a robust resilience for the same. 

References 

• https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/deepfake-technology
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-what-are-deepfakes-and-how-to-spot-one/articleshow/90916962.cms
• https://www.unite.ai/best-deepfake-detector-tools-and-techniques/