#FactCheck: In the Viral message has Akshay Kumar urged the citizens to contribute in Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualty?

Introduction

There is a rising desire for artificial intelligence (AI) laws that limit threats to public safety and protect human rights while allowing for a flexible and inventive setting. Most AI policies prioritize the use of AI for the public good. The most compelling reason for AI innovation as a valid goal of public policy is its promise to enhance people's lives by assisting in the resolution of some of the world's most difficult difficulties and inefficiencies and to emerge as a transformational technology, similar to mobile computing. This blog explores the complex interplay between AI and internet governance from an Indian standpoint, examining the challenges, opportunities, and the necessity for a well-balanced approach.

Understanding Internet Governance

Before delving into an examination of their connection, let's establish a comprehensive grasp of Internet Governance. This entails the regulations, guidelines, and criteria that influence the global operation and management of the Internet. With the internet being a shared resource, governance becomes crucial to ensure its accessibility, security, and equitable distribution of benefits.

The Indian Digital Revolution

India has witnessed an unprecedented digital revolution, with a massive surge in internet users and a burgeoning tech ecosystem. The government's Digital India initiative has played a crucial role in fostering a technology-driven environment, making technology accessible to even the remotest corners of the country. As AI applications become increasingly integrated into various sectors, the need for a comprehensive framework to govern these technologies becomes apparent.

AI and Internet Governance Nexus

The intersection of AI and Internet governance raises several critical questions. How should data, the lifeblood of AI, be governed? What role does privacy play in the era of AI-driven applications? How can India strike a balance between fostering innovation and safeguarding against potential risks associated with AI?

• AI's Role in Internet Governance: 

Artificial Intelligence has emerged as a powerful force shaping the dynamics of the internet. From content moderation and cybersecurity to data analysis and personalized user experiences, AI plays a pivotal role in enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of Internet governance mechanisms. Automated systems powered by AI algorithms are deployed to detect and respond to emerging threats, ensuring a safer online environment.

A comprehensive strategy for managing the interaction between AI and the internet is required to stimulate innovation while limiting hazards. Multistakeholder models including input from governments, industry, academia, and civil society are gaining appeal as viable tools for developing comprehensive and extensive governance frameworks.

The usefulness of multistakeholder governance stems from its adaptability and flexibility in requiring collaboration from players with a possible stake in an issue. Though flawed, this approach allows for flaws that may be remedied using knowledge-building pieces. As AI advances, this trait will become increasingly important in ensuring that all conceivable aspects are covered.

The Need for Adaptive Regulations

While AI's potential for good is essentially endless, so is its potential for damage - whether intentional or unintentional. The technology's highly disruptive nature needs a strong, human-led governance framework and rules that ensure it may be used in a positive and responsible manner. The fast emergence of GenAI, in particular, emphasizes the critical need for strong frameworks. Concerns about the usage of GenAI may enhance efforts to solve issues around digital governance and hasten the formation of risk management measures.

Several AI governance frameworks have been published throughout the world in recent years, with the goal of offering high-level guidelines for safe and trustworthy AI development. The OECD's "Principles on Artificial Intelligence" (OECD, 2019), the EU's "Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI" (EU, 2019), and UNESCO's "Recommendations on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence" (UNESCO, 2021) are among the multinational organizations that have released their own principles. However, the advancement of GenAI has resulted in additional recommendations, such as the OECD's newly released "G7 Hiroshima Process on Generative Artificial Intelligence" (OECD, 2023).

Several guidance documents and voluntary frameworks have emerged at the national level in recent years, including the "AI Risk Management Framework" from the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a voluntary guidance published in January 2023, and the White House's "Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights," a set of high-level principles published in October 2022 (The White House, 2022). These voluntary policies and frameworks are frequently used as guidelines by regulators and policymakers all around the world. More than 60 nations in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Europe had issued national AI strategies as of 2023 (Stanford University).

Conclusion

Monitoring AI will be one of the most daunting tasks confronting the international community in the next centuries. As vital as the need to govern AI is the need to regulate it appropriately. Current AI policy debates too often fall into a false dichotomy of progress versus doom (or geopolitical and economic benefits versus risk mitigation). Instead of thinking creatively, solutions all too often resemble paradigms for yesterday's problems. It is imperative that we foster a relationship that prioritizes innovation, ethical considerations, and inclusivity. Striking the right balance will empower us to harness the full potential of AI within the boundaries of responsible and transparent Internet Governance, ensuring a digital future that is secure, equitable, and beneficial for all.

References

1. The Key Policy Frameworks Governing AI in India - Access Partnership
2. AI in e-governance: A potential opportunity for India (indiaai.gov.in)
3. India and the Artificial Intelligence Revolution - Carnegie India - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
4. Rise of AI in the Indian Economy (indiaai.gov.in)
5. The OECD Artificial Intelligence Policy Observatory - OECD.AI
6. Artificial Intelligence | UNESCO
7. Artificial intelligence | NIST

Executive Summary:

Recently, a viral social media post alleged that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) had increased ticket prices following the BJP’s victory in the Delhi Legislative Assembly elections. After thorough research and verification, we have found this claim to be misleading and entirely baseless. Authorities have asserted that no fare hike has been declared.

Claim:

Viral social media posts have claimed that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) increased metro fares following the BJP's victory in the Delhi Legislative Assembly elections.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

After thorough research, we conclude that the claims regarding a fare hike by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) following the BJP’s victory in the Delhi Legislative Assembly elections are misleading. Our review of DMRC’s official website and social media handles found no mention of any fare increase.Furthermore, the official X (formerly Twitter) handle of DMRC has also clarified that no such price hike has been announced. We urge the public to rely on verified sources for accurate information and refrain from spreading misinformation.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion:

Upon examining the alleged fare hike, it is evident that the increase pertains to Bengaluru, not Delhi. To verify this, we reviewed the official website of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) and cross-checked the information with appropriate evidence, including relevant images. Our findings confirm that no fare hike has been announced by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC).

‍

‍

• Claim: Delhi Metro price Hike after BJP’s victory in election 
• Claimed On: X (Formerly Known As Twitter)
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

Digitisation in Agriculture

The traditional way of doing agriculture has undergone massive digitization in recent years, whereby several agricultural processes have been linked to the Internet. This globally prevalent transformation, driven by smart technology, encompasses the use of sensors, IoT devices, and data analytics to optimize and automate labour-intensive farming practices. Smart farmers in the country and abroad now leverage real-time data to monitor soil conditions, weather patterns, and crop health, enabling precise resource management and improved yields. The integration of smart technology in agriculture not only enhances productivity but also promotes sustainable practices by reducing waste and conserving resources. As a result, the agricultural sector is becoming more efficient, resilient, and capable of meeting the growing global demand for food.

Digitisation of Food Supply Chains

There has also been an increase in the digitisation of food supply chains across the globe since it enables both suppliers and consumers to keep track of the stage of food processing from farm to table and ensures the authenticity of the food product. The latest generation of agricultural robots is being tested to minimise human intervention. It is thought that AI-run processes can mitigate labour shortage, improve warehousing and storage and make transportation more efficient by running continuous evaluations and adjusting the conditions real-time while increasing yield. The company Muddy Machines is currently trialling an autonomous asparagus-harvesting robot called Sprout that not only addresses labour shortages but also selectively harvests green asparagus, which traditionally requires careful picking. However, Chris Chavasse, co-founder of Muddy Machines, highlights that hackers and malicious actors could potentially hack into the robot's servers and prevent it from operating by driving it into a ditch or a hedge, thereby impending core crop activities like seeding and harvesting. Hacking agricultural pieces of machinery also implies damaging a farmer’s produce and in turn profitability for the season.

Case Study: Muddy Machines and Cybersecurity Risks

A cyber attack on digitised agricultural processes has a cascading impact on online food supply chains. Risks are non-exhaustive and spill over to poor protection of cargo in transit, increased manufacturing of counterfeit products, manipulation of data, poor warehousing facilities and product-specific fraud, amongst others. Additional impacts on suppliers are also seen, whereby suppliers have supplied the food products but fail to receive their payments. These cyber-threats may include malware(primarily ransomware) that accounts for 38% of attacks, Internet of Things (IoT) attacks that comprise 29%, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, SQL Injections, phishing attacks etc. 

Prominent Cyber Attacks and Their Impacts

Ransomware attacks are the most popular form of cyber threats to food supply chains and may include malicious contaminations, deliberate damage and destruction of tangible assets (like infrastructure) or intangible assets (like reputation and brand). In 2017, NotPetya malware disrupted the world’s largest logistics giant Maersk and destroyed all end-user devices in more than 60 countries. Interestingly, NotPetya was also linked to the malfunction of freezers connected to control systems. The attack led to these control systems being compromised, resulting in freezer failures and potential spoilage of food, highlighting the vulnerability of industrial control systems to cyber threats.

Further Case Studies

NotPetya also impacted Mondelez, the maker of Oreos but disrupting its email systems, file access and logistics for weeks. Mondelez’s insurance claim was also denied since NotPetya malware was described as a “war-like” action, falling outside the purview of the insurance coverage. In April 2021, over the Easter weekend, Bakker Logistiek, a logistics company based in the Netherlands that offers air-conditioned warehousing and food transportation for Dutch supermarkets, experienced a ransomware attack. This incident disrupted their supply chain for several days, resulting in empty shelves at Albert Heijn supermarkets, particularly for products such as packed and grated cheese. Despite the severity of the attack, the company successfully restored their operations within a week by utilizing backups. JBS, one of the world’s biggest meat processing companies, also had to pay $11 million in ransom via Bitcoin to resolve a cyber attack in the same year, whereby computer networks at JBS were hacked, temporarily shutting down their operations and endangering consumer data. The disruption threatened food supplies and risked higher food prices for consumers. Additional cascading impacts also include low food security and hindrances in processing payments at retail stores. 

Credible Threat Agents and Their Targets

Any cyber-attack is usually carried out by credible threat agents that can be classified as either internal or external threat agents. Internal threat agents may include contractors, visitors to business sites, former/current employees, and individuals who work for suppliers. External threat agents may include activists, cyber-criminals, terror cells etc. These threat agents target large organisations owing to their larger ransom-paying capacity, but may also target small companies due to their vulnerability and low experience, especially when such companies are migrating from analogous methods to digitised processes.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation warns that the food and agricultural systems are most vulnerable to cyber-security threats during critical planting and harvesting seasons. It noted an increase in cyber-attacks against six agricultural co-operatives in 2021, with ancillary core functions such as food supply and distribution being impacted. Resultantly, cyber-attacks may lead to a mass shortage of food not only meant for human consumption but also for animals.

Policy Recommendations

To safeguard against digital food supply chains, Food defence emerges as one of the top countermeasures to prevent and mitigate the effects of intentional incidents and threats to the food chain. While earlier, food defence vulnerability assessments focused on product adulteration and food fraud, including vulnerability assessments of agriculture technology now be more relevant.  

Food supply organisations must prioritise regular backups of data using air-gapped and password-protected offline copies, and ensure critical data copies are not modifiable or deletable from the main system.  For this, blockchain-based food supply chain solutions may be deployed, which are not only resilient to hacking, but also allow suppliers and even consumers to track produce. Companies like Ripe.io, Walmart Global Tech, Nestle and Wholechain deploy blockchain for food supply management since it provides overall process transparency, improves trust issues in the transactions, enables traceable and tamper-resistant records and allows accessibility and visibility of data provenance. Extensive recovery plans with multiple copies of essential data and servers in secure, physically separated locations, such as hard drives, storage devices, cloud or distributed ledgers should be adopted in addition to deploying operations plans for critical functions in case of system outages. For core processes which are not labour-intensive,  including manual operation methods may be used to reduce digital dependence. Network segmentation, updates or patches for operating systems, software, and firmware are additional steps which can be taken to secure smart agricultural technologies. 

References

1. Muddy Machines website, Accessed 26 July 2024.  https://www.muddymachines.com/ 
2. “Meat giant JBS pays $11m in ransom to resolve cyber-attack”, BBC, 10 June 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57423008 
3. Marshall, Claire & Prior, Malcolm, “Cyber security: Global food supply chain at risk from malicious hackers.”, BBC, 20 May 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61336659 
4. “Ransomware Attacks on Agricultural Cooperatives Potentially Timed to Critical Seasons.”, Private Industry Notification, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 20 April  https://www.ic3.gov/Media/News/2022/220420-2.pdf. 
5. Manning, Louise & Kowalska, Aleksandra. (2023). “The threat of ransomware in the food supply chain: a challenge for food defence”, Trends in Organized Crime. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-023-09516-y 
6. “NotPetya: the cyberattack that shook the world”, Economic Times, 5 March 2022. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/newsletters/ettech-unwrapped/notpetya-the-cyberattack-that-shook-the-world/articleshow/89997076.cms?from=mdr 
7. Abrams, Lawrence, “Dutch supermarkets run out of cheese after ransomware attack.”, Bleeping Computer, 12 April 2021. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dutch-supermarkets-run-out-of-cheese-after-ransomware-attack/ 
8. Pandey, Shipra; Gunasekaran, Angappa; Kumar Singh, Rajesh & Kaushik, Anjali, “Cyber security risks in globalised supply chains: conceptual framework”, Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, January 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shipra-Pandey/publication/338668641_Cyber_security_risks_in_globalized_supply_chains_conceptual_framework/links/5e2678ae92851c89c9b5ac66/Cyber-security-risks-in-globalized-supply-chains-conceptual-framework.pdf 
9. Daley, Sam, “Blockchain for Food: 10 examples to know”, Builin, 22 March 2023 https://builtin.com/blockchain/food-safety-supply-chain 

‍