#FactCheck - Viral Video of Burning Aircraft Falsely Linked to UAE, Found to Be AI-Generated

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

Introduction

‍

The courts in India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of “enhanced customer protection” and “limited liability” on their part. The rationale behind such imperatives is to extend security against exploitation by institutions that are equipped with all the means to manipulate customers. India, with its looming financial literacy gaps that have to be addressed, needs to curb any manipulation on the part of banking institutions. Various studies have highlighted this gap in recent times; for example, according to the National Centre for Financial Education, only 27% of Indian people are financially literate, which is much less than the 42% global average. With only 19% of millennials exhibiting sufficient financial awareness yet expressing high trust in their financial skills, the issue is very worrisome. Thus, the increasing number of financial frauds intensifies the issue. 

Zero Liability in Cyber Frauds: Regulatory Safeguards for Digital Banking Customers

‍

In light of the growing emphasis on financial inclusion and consumer protection, and in response to the recent rise in complaints regarding unauthorised debits from customer accounts and cards, the framework for assessing customer liability in such cases has been re-evaluated. The RBI’s circular dated July 6, 2017 titled “Customer Protection-Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions”  serves as the foundation for regulatory protections for Indian customers of digital banking. A clear and organised framework for determining customer accountability is outlined in the circular, which acknowledges the exponential increase in electronic transactions and related scams. It assigns proportional obligations for unauthorised transactions resulting from system-level breaches, client carelessness, and bank contributory negligence. Most importantly it establishes the zero responsibility concept, which protects clients from monetary losses in cases when the bank or another system component is at fault and the client promptly reports the breach. 

This directive’s sophisticated approach to consumer protection is what makes it unique. It requires banks to set up strong fraud prevention systems, proactive alerting systems, and round-the-clock reporting systems. Furthermore, it significantly alters the power dynamics between financial institutions and customers by placing the onus of demonstrating customer negligence completely on the bank. The circular emphasises prompt reversal of funds to impacted customers and requires banks to implement Board-approved policies on liability to redress. As a result, it is a consumer rights charter rather than just a compliance document, promoting confidence and financial accountability in India’s digital banking sector. 

Judicial Endorsement in Reinforcing the Zero Liability Principle

‍

 In the case of Suresh Chandra Negi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Writ (C) No. 24192 of 2022) The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving consumer accountability rests firmly on the banking institution, hence reaffirming the zero liability concept in circumstances of unapproved electronic banking transactions. The Division bench emphasised the regulatory requirement that banks provide adequate proof before assigning blame to customers, citing Clause 12 of the RBI’s circular dated June 6, 2017, Customer Protection—Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions. In a similar scenario, the Bombay HC held that a customer is entitled to zero liability when an authorized transaction occurs due to a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor the customer, provided the fraud is promptly reported. 

The zero liability principle, as envisaged under Clause 8 of the RBI circular, has emerged as a cornerstone of consumer protection in India’s digital banking ecosystem.  

Another landmark judgment that has given this principle the front stage in addressing banking frauds is Hare Ram Singh vs RBI &Ors. (W.P. (C) 13497/2022) laid down by Delhi HC which is an important legal turning point in the development of the zero liability principle under the RBI’s 2017 framework. The court reiterated the need to evaluate customer diligence in light of new fraud tactics like phishing and vishing by holding the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for a cyber fraud incident even though the transactions were authenticated by OTP. The ruling made it clear that when complex social engineering or technical manipulation is used, banks are nonetheless accountable even if they only rely on OTP validation. The legal protection provided to victims of unauthorised electronic banking transactions is strengthened by the court’s emphasis on the bank having the burden of evidence in accordance with RBI standards. 

Importantly, this ruling lays the full burden of securing digital banking systems on financial organisations and supports the judiciary’s increasing acknowledgement of the digital asymmetry between banks and consumers. It emphasises that prompt consumer reporting, banks’ failure to disclose important credentials, and their own operational errors must all be taken into consideration when determining culpability. As a result, this decision establishes a strong precedent that will increase consumer confidence, promote systemic advancements in digital risk management, and better integrate the zero liability standard into Indian digital banking law. In a time when cyber vulnerabilities are growing, it acts as a beacon for financial accountability. 

Conclusion

‍

The Zero Liability Principle serves as a vital safety net for customers navigating an increasingly intricate and precarious financial environment in a time when digital transactions are the foundation of contemporary banking. In addition to codifying strong safeguards against unauthorized electronic transactions, the RBI’s 2017 framework rebalanced  the fiduciary relationship by putting financial institutions squarely in charge. Through significant rulings, the courts have upheld this protective culture and emphasised that banks, not the victims of cybercrime, bear the burden of proof. 

It would be crucial to execute these principles consistently, review them frequently, and raise public awareness as India transitions to a more digital economy. In order to ensure that consumers are not only protected but also empowered must become more than just a policy on paper. 

‍

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/making-money-vs-managing-money-india-s-critical-financial-literacy-gap-125021900786_1.html 
• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-ruling-bank-liability-unauthorized-electronic-transaction-and-customer-fault-297962 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1635616/cyber-law-series-2-issue-10-the-zero-liability-principle-in-cyber-fraud-hare-ram-singh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-ors-case 

‍

Executive Summary:

In the digital world, people are becoming targets more and more of online scams, which rely on deception. One of the ways the social media is being used for the elections in recent time, is the "BJP - Election Bonus" offer that promises a cash prize of Rs. 5000 or more, through some easy questionnaire. This article provides the details of this swindle and reveals its deceptive tricks as well as gives a set of recommendations on how to protect yourself from such online fraud, especially during the upcoming elections.

False Claim:

The "BJP - Election Bonus" campaign boasts that by taking a few clicks of the mouse, users will get a cash prize. This scheme is nothing but a fake association with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s Government and Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi and therefore, it uses the images and brands of both of them to give the scheme an impression of legitimacy. The imposters are taking advantage of the public's trust for the Government and the widespread desire for remuneration to ensnare the unaware victims, specifically before the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.

‍

The Deceptive Scheme:

• Tempting Social Media Offer: The fraud begins with an attractive link on the social media platforms. The scammers say that the proposal is related to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with the caption of “The official party has prepared many gifts for their supporters.” accompanied by an image of  the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi.

• Luring with Money: The offer promises to give Rs.5,000 or more. This is aimed at drawing in people specifically during election campaigns; and people’s desire for financial gain.

• Tricking with Questions: When the link is clicked, the person is brought to the page with the simple questions. The purpose of these questions is to make people feel safe and believe that they have been selected for an actual government’s program.

• The Open-the-Box Trap: Finally, the questions are answered and the last instruction is to open-the-box for the prize. However, this is just a tactic for them to make you curious about the reward.

• Fake Reward and Spreading the Scam: Upon opening the box, the recipient will be greeted with the text of Rs. 5000. However, this is not true; it is just a way to make them share the link on WhatsApp, helping the scammers to reach more victims.

The fraudsters use political party names and the Prime Minister's name to increase the plausibility of it, although there is no real connection. They employ the people's desire for monetary help, and also the time of the elections, making them susceptible to their tricks.

Analytical Breakdown:

• The campaign is a cleverly-created scheme to lure people by misusing the trust they have in the Government. By using BJP's branding and the Prime Minister's photo, fraudsters aim to make their misleading offer look credible. Fake reviews and cash reward are the two main components of the scheme that are intended to lure users into getting involved, and the end result of this is the path of deception.
• Through sharing the link over WhatsApp, users become unaware accomplices that are simply assisting the scammers to reach an even bigger audience and hence their popularity, especially with the elections around the corner.
• On top of this, the time of committing this fraud is very disturbing, as the election is just round the corner. Scammers do this in the context of the political turmoil and the spread of unconfirmed rumors and speculation about the upcoming elections in the same way they did earlier. The fraudsters are using this strategy to take advantage of the political affiliations by linking their scam to the Political party and their Leaderships.

• We have also cross-checked and as of now there is no well established and credible source or any official notification that has confirmed such an offer advertised by the Party.

• Domain Analysis: The campaign is hosted on a third party domain, which is different from the official website, thus creating doubts. Whois information reveals that the domain has been registered not long ago. The domain was registered on 29th march 2024, just a few days back.   

• Domain Name: PSURVEY[.]CYOU
• Registry Domain ID: D443702580-CNIC
• Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.hkdns.hk
• Registrar URL: http://www.hkdns.hk
• Updated Date: 2024-03-29T16:18:00.0Z
• Creation Date: 2024-03-29T15:59:17.0Z (Recently Created)
• Registry Expiry Date: 2025-03-29T23:59:59.0Z
• Registrant State/Province: Anhui
• Registrant Country: CN (China)
• Name Server: NORMAN.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
• Name Server: PAM.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM

Note: Cybercriminals used Cloudflare technology to mask the actual IP address of the fraudulent website.

CyberPeace Advisory and Best Practices:

• Be careful and watchful for any offers that seem too good to be true online, particularly during election periods. Exercise caution at a high level when you come across such offers, because they are usually accompanied by dishonest schemes.

• Carefully cross-check the authenticity of every campaign or offer you’re considering before interacting with it. Do not click on suspicious links and do not share private data that can be further used to run the scam.

• If you come across any such suspicious activity or if you feel you have been scammed, report it to the relevant authorities, such as the local police or the cybercrime section. Reporting is one of the most effective instruments to prevent the spread of these misleading schemes and it can support the course of the investigations.

• Educate yourselves and your families on the usual scammers’ tricks, including their election-related strategies. Prompt people to think critically and a good deal of skepticism when they meet online offers and promotions that evoke a possibility to obtain money or rewards easily.

• Ensure that you are always on a high level of alert as you explore the digital field, especially during elections. The authenticity of the information you encounter should always be verified before you act on it or pass it over to someone else.

• In case you have any doubt or worry regarding a certain e-commerce offer or campaign, don’t hesitate to ask for help from reliable sources such as Cybersecurity experts or Government agencies. A consultation with credible sources will assist you in coming up with informed decisions and guarding yourself against being navigated by these schemes.

Conclusion:

The "BJP - Election Bonus" campaign is a real case study of how Internet fraud is becoming more popular day by day, particularly before the elections. Through the awareness of the tactics employed by these scammers and their abuse of the community's trust in the Government and political figures, we can equip ourselves and our communities to avert becoming the victim of such fraudulent schemes. As a team, we can collectively strive for a digital environment free of threats and breaches of security, even in times of high political tension that accompany elections.

‍