#FactCheck-Air Taxi is a prototype and is not launched to commercial public

Executive Summary:

A viral online video claims to show a Syrian prisoner experiencing sunlight for the first time in 13 years. However, the CyberPeace Research Team has confirmed that the video is a deep fake, created using AI technology to manipulate the prisoner’s facial expressions and surroundings. The original footage is unrelated to the claim that the prisoner has been held in solitary confinement for 13 years. The assertion that this video depicts a Syrian prisoner seeing sunlight for the first time is false and misleading.

Claim A viral video falsely claims that a Syrian prisoner is seeing sunlight for the first time in 13 years.

‍

Factcheck:

‍

Upon receiving the viral posts, we conducted a Google Lens search on keyframes from the video. The search led us to various legitimate sources featuring real reports about Syrian prisoners, but none of them included any mention of such an incident. The viral video exhibited several signs of digital manipulation, prompting further investigation.

‍

We used AI detection tools, such as TrueMedia, to analyze the video. The analysis confirmed with 97.0% confidence that the video was a deepfake. The tools identified “substantial evidence of manipulation,” particularly in the prisoner’s facial movements and the lighting conditions, both of which appeared artificially generated.

‍

Additionally, a thorough review of news sources and official reports related to Syrian prisoners revealed no evidence of a prisoner being released from solitary confinement after 13 years, or experiencing sunlight for the first time in such a manner. No credible reports supported the viral video’s claim, further confirming its inauthenticity.

Conclusion:

The viral video claiming that a Syrian prisoner is seeing sunlight for the first time in 13 years is a deep fake. Investigations using tools like Hive AI  detection confirm that the video was digitally manipulated using AI technology. Furthermore, there is no supporting information in any reliable sources. The CyberPeace Research Team confirms that the video was fabricated, and the claim is false and misleading.

• Claim: Syrian prisoner sees sunlight for the first time in 13 years, viral on social media.
• Claimed on: Facebook and X(Formerly Twitter)
• Fact Check: False & Misleading

Introduction:  The Internet’s Foundational Ideal of Openness

The Internet was built as a decentralised network to foster open communication and global collaboration. Unlike traditional media or state infrastructure, no single government, company, or institution controls the Internet. Instead, it has historically been governed by a consensus of the multiple communities, like universities, independent researchers, and engineers, who were involved in building it. This bottom-up, cooperative approach was the foundation of Internet governance and ensured that the Internet remained open, interoperable, and accessible to all. As the Internet began to influence every aspect of life, including commerce, culture, education, and politics, it required a more organised governance model.  This compelled the rise of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model in the early 2000s. 

The Rise of Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Representatives from governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector congregated at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Per this Agenda, internet governance was defined as “… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Internet issues are cross-cutting across technical, political, economic, and social domains, and no one actor can manage them alone. Thus, stakeholders with varying interests are meant to come together to give direction to issues in the digital environment, like data privacy, child safety, cybersecurity,  freedom of expression, and more, while upholding human rights. 

Internet Governance in Practice: A History of Power Shifts

While the idea of democratizing Internet governance is a noble one, the Tunis Agenda has been criticised for reflecting geopolitical asymmetries and relegating the roles of technical communities and civil society to the sidelines.  Throughout the history of the internet, certain players have wielded more power in shaping how it is managed. Accordingly, internet governance can be said to have undergone three broad phases.

In the first phase,  the Internet was managed primarily by technical experts in universities and private companies, which contributed to building and scaling it up.  The standards and protocols set during this phase are in use today and make the Internet function the way it does. This was the time when the Internet was a transformative invention and optimistically hailed as the harbinger of a utopian society, especially in the USA, where it was invented. 

In the second phase, the ideal of multistakeholderism was promoted, in which all those who benefit from the Internet work together to create processes that will govern it democratically. This model also aims to reduce the Internet’s vulnerability to unilateral decision-making, an ideal that has been under threat because this phase has seen the growth of Big Tech. What started as platforms enabling access to information, free speech, and creativity has turned into a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, cybercrime, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and privacy concerns. The rise of generative AI only compounds these challenges. Tech giants like Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have amassed vast financial capital, technological monopoly, and user datasets. This gives them unprecedented influence not only over communications but also culture, society, and technology governance. 

The anxieties surrounding Big Tech have fed into the third phase, with increasing calls for government regulation and digital nationalism. Governments worldwide are scrambling to regulate AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity, often through processes that lack transparency. An example is India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was passed without parliamentary debate. Governments are also pressuring platforms to take down content through opaque takedown orders. Laws like the UK’s  Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, are criticised for giving the government the power to indirectly mandate encryption backdoors, compromising the strength of end-to-end encryption systems. Further, the internet itself is fragmenting into the “splinternet” amid rising geopolitical tensions, in the form of Russia’s “sovereign internet” or through China’s Great Firewall. 

Conclusion

While multistakeholderism is an ideal, Internet governance is a playground of contesting power relations in practice. As governments assert digital sovereignty and Big Tech consolidates influence, the space for meaningful participation of other stakeholders has been negligible. Consultation processes have often been symbolic. The principles of openness, inclusivity, and networked decision-making are once again at risk of being sidelined in favour of nationalism or profit. The promise of a decentralised, rights-respecting, and interoperable internet will only be fulfilled if we recommit to the spirit of Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance, not just its structure. Efficient internet governance requires that the multiple stakeholders be empowered to carry out their roles, not just talk about them. 

‍

References

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/can-the-internet-be-governed 
• https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-PolicyBrief-InternetGovernance-20151030-nb.pdf 
• https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf\
• https://nrs.help/post/internet-governance-and-its-importance/
• https://daidac.thecjid.org/how-data-power-is-skewing-internet-governance-to-big-tech-companies-and-ai-tech-guys/ 

‍

Introduction

Ransomware is one of the serious cyber threats as it causes consequences such as financial losses, data loss, and reputation damage. Recently in 2023, a new ransomware called Akira ransomware emerged or surfaced. It has targeted and affected various enterprises or industries, such as BSFI, Construction, Education, Healthcare, Manufacturing, real estate and consulting, primarily based in the United States. Akira ransomware has targeted industries by exploiting the double-extortion technique by exfiltrating and encrypting sensitive data and imposing the threat on victims to leak or sell the data on the dark web if the ransom is not paid. The Akira ransomware gang has extorted a ransom ranging from $200,000 to millions of dollars.

Uncovering the Akira Ransomware operations and their targets

Akira ransomware gang has gained unauthorised access to computer systems by using sophisticated encryption algorithms to encrypt the Data. When such an encryption process is completed, the affected device or network will not be able to access its files or use its data.

The affected files by Akira ransomware showed the extension named “.akira”, and the file’s icon shows blank white pages. The Akira ransomware has developed a data leak site so as to extort victims.  And it has also used the ransom note named “akira_readme.txt”.

Akira ransomware steeled the corporate data of various organisations, which the Akira ransomware gang used as leverage while threatening the affected organisation with high ransom demands. Akira Ransomware gang threaten the victims to leak their sensitive data or corporate data in the public domain if the demanded ransom amount is not paid. Akira ransomware gang has leaked the data of four organisations and the size ranges from 5.9GB to 259 GB of data leakage.

Akira Ransomware gang communicating with Victims

The Akira ransomware has provided a unique negotiation password to each victim to initiate communication. Where the ransomware gang deployed a chat system for the purpose of negotiation and demanding ransom from the affected organisations. They have deployed a ransom note as akira_readme.txt so as to provide information as to how they have affected the victim’s files or data along with links to the Akira data leak site and negotiation site.

How Akira Ransomware is different from Pegasus Spyware

Pegasus, developed in the year 2011, belongs to one of the most powerful family of spyware. Once it has infected, it can spear your phone and your text messages or emails. It has the ability to turn your phone into a surveillance device, from copying your messages to harvesting your photos and recording calls. In fact, it has the ability to record you through your phone camera or record your conversation by using your microphone, it also has the ability to track your pinpoint location. In contrast, newly Akira ransomware affects encrypting your files and preventing access to your Data and then asking for ransom n the pretext of leaking your data or for decryption.

How to recover from malware attacks

If affected by such type of malware attack, you can use anti-malware tools such as SpyHunter 5 or Malwarebytes to scan your system. These are the security software which can scan your system and remove suspicious malware files and entries. If you are unable to perform the scan or antivirus in normal mode due to malware in your system, you can use it in Safe Mode. And try to find a relevant decryptor which can help you to recover your files. Do not fall into a ransomware gang’s trap because there is no guarantee that they will help you to recover or will not leak your data after paying the ransom amount.

Best practices to be safe from such ransomware attacks

Conclusion

The Akira ransomware operation poses serious threats to various organisations worldwide. There is a high need to employ robust cybersecurity measures to safeguard networks and sensitive data. Organisations must ensure to keep their software system updated and backed up to a secure network on a regular basis. Paying the ransom is illegal mean instead you should report the incident to law enforcement agencies and can consult with cybersecurity professionals for the recovery method.