#FactCheck: Old Jerusalem Clash Video Falsely Shared as Chaos at Tel Aviv Airport

Starting on 16th February 2025, Google changed its advertisement platform program policy. It will permit advertisers to employ device fingerprinting techniques for user tracking. Organizations that use their advertising services are now permitted to use fingerprinting techniques for tracking their users' data. Originally announced on 18th December 2024, this rule change has sparked yet another debate regarding privacy and profits.

The Issue

Fingerprinting is a technique that allows for the collection of information about a user’s device and browser details, ultimately enabling the creation of a profile of the user. Not only used for or limited to targeting advertisements, data procured in such a manner can be used by private entities and even government organizations to identify individuals who access their services. If information on customization options, such as language settings and a user’s screen size, is collected, it becomes easier to identify an individual when combined with data points like browser type, time zone, battery status, and even IP address.

What makes this technique contentious at the moment is the lack of awareness regarding the information being collected from the user and the inability to opt out once permissions are granted.

This is unlike Google’s standard system of data collection through permission requests, such as accepting website cookies—small text files sent to the browser when a user visits a particular website. While contextual and first-party cookies limit data collection to enhance user experience, third-party cookies enable the display of irrelevant advertisements while users browse different platforms. Due to this functionality, companies can engage in targeted advertising.

This issue has been addressed in laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU) and the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 (India), which mandate strict rules and regulations regarding advertising, data collection, and consent, among other things. One of the major requirements in both laws is obtaining clear, unambiguous consent. This also includes the option to opt out of previously granted permissions for cookies.

However, in the case of fingerprinting, the mechanism of data collection relies on signals that users cannot easily erase. While clearing all data from the browser or refusing cookies might seem like appropriate steps to take, they do not prevent tracking through fingerprinting, as users can still be identified using system details that a website has already collected. This applies to all IoT products as well. People usually do not frequently change the devices they use, and once a system is identified, there are no available options to stop tracking, as fingerprinting relies on device characteristics rather than data-collecting text files that could otherwise be blocked.

Google’s Changing Stance

According to Statista, Google’s revenue is largely made up of the advertisement services it provides (amounting to 264.59 billion U.S. dollars in 2024). Any change in its advertisement program policies draws significant attention due to its economic impact.

In 2019, Google claimed in a blog post that fingerprinting was a technique that “subverts user choice and is wrong.” It is in this context that the recent policy shift comes as a surprise. In response, the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office), the UK’s data privacy watchdog, has stated that this change is irresponsible. Google, however, is eager to have further discussions with the ICO regarding the policy change.

Conclusion

The debate regarding privacy in targeted advertising has been ongoing for quite some time. Concerns about digital data collection and storage have led to new and evolving laws that mandate strict fines for non-compliance.

Google’s shift in policy raises pressing concerns about user privacy and transparency. Fingerprinting, unlike cookies, offers no opt-out mechanism, leaving users vulnerable to continuous tracking without consent. This move contradicts Google’s previous stance and challenges global regulations like the GDPR and DPDP Act, which emphasize clear user consent.

With regulators like the ICO expressing disapproval, the debate between corporate profits and individual privacy intensifies. As digital footprints become harder to erase, users, lawmakers, and watchdogs must scrutinize such changes to ensure that innovation does not come at the cost of fundamental privacy rights

References

• https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/profit-over-privacy-google-gives-advertisers-more-personal-info-in-major-fingerprinting-u-turn
• https://www.ccn.com/news/technology/googles-new-fingerprinting-policy-sparks-privacy-backlash-as-ads-become-harder-to-avoid/
• https://www.emarketer.com/content/google-pivot-digital-fingerprinting-enable-better-cross-device-measurement
• https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2025/01/16/google-adopts-new-stance-on-device-fingerprinting-102ju7b
• https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2025/01/16/ico-consults-on-storage-and-access-cookies-guidance-102ju62
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm21g0052dno 
• https://www.techradar.com/features/browser-fingerprinting-explained
• https://fingerprint.com/blog/canvas-fingerprinting/
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-global-revenue/#:~:text=In%20the%20most%20recently%20reported,billion%20U.S.%20dollars%20in%202024

‍

Introduction

A famous quote, “Half knowledge is always dangerous”, but “Too much knowledge of anything can lead to destruction”. Recently very infamous spyware and malware named WyrmSpy and Dragon Egg were invented by a Chinese group of hackers APT41. The APT41 is a state-endorsed Clandstein active group based in the People’s Republic of China that has been active since 2012. In contrast to numerous countries-government supported, APT has a footprint record jeopardising both government organisations for clandestine activities as well as different private organisations or enterprises for their financial gain. APT41 group aims at Android devices through spyware wyrmspy and dragon egg, which masquerades as a legitimate application. According to the U.S. jury legal accusation from 2019 to 2020, the group was entangled in threatening over more than 100 public and private individuals and organisations in the United States and around the world.Moreover, a detailed analysis report was shared by the Lookout Threat Researchers, that has been actively monitoring and tracking both spyware and malware.

Briefing about how spyware attacks on Android devices take place

To begin with, this malware imitates a real source Android application to show some sort of notification. Once it is successfully installed on the user’s machine, proclaims multiple device’s permission to enable data filtration.

Wyrmspy complies with log files, photos, device locations, SMS(read and write), and audio recordings. It has also authenticated that there are no detection malware activities found on google play even after running multiple security levels. These malicious things are made with the intent to obtain rooting access privileges to the device and monitor activities to the specified commands received from the C2 servers.

Similarly, Dragon Egg can collect data files, contacts, locations, and audio recordings, and it also accesses camera photos once it successfully trade-off the device. Dragon egg receives a payload that is also known as “smallmload.jar”, which is either from APK(Android Packet Kit).

WyrmSpy initially masquerades as a default operation system application, and Dragon Egg simulates a third-party keyboard/ messaging application.

Overview of APT41 Chinese group background

APT41 is a Chinese-based stealth activity-carrying group that is said to be active since mid-2006. Rumours about APT41 that it was also a part of the 2nd Bureau of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) General Staff Department’s (GSD) 3rd Department. Owning to that fact, 2006 has seen 140+ organisations’ security getting compromised, ranging from 20 strategically crucial companies.APT is also recognised for rationally plundering hundreds of terabytes of data from at least 141 organisations between 2006 and 2013. It typically begins with spear-phishing emails to the targeted victims. These sent emails contain official templates along with language pretending to be from a legitimate real source, carrying a malicious attachment. As the victim opens the attached file, the backdoor bestows the control of the targeted machine to the APT groups machine. Once there is an unauthorised gain of access, the attacker visits and revisits the victim’s machine. The group remains dormant for lengthy durations, more likely for months or even for years.

Advisory points need to adhere to while using Android devices

• The security patch update is necessary at least once a week
• Clearing up unwanted junk files.
• Cache files of every frequently used application need to clear out.
• Install only required applications from
  Google play store.
• Download only necessary APK files only it comes from trusted resources.
• Before giving device permission, it is advisable to run your files or URLs on VirusTotal.com this website will give a good closure to the malicious intent.
• Install good antivirus software.
• Individuals need to check the source of the email before opening an attachment to it.
• Never collect or add any randomly found device to your system
• Moreover, the user needs to keep track of their device activity. Rather than using devices just for entertainment purposes, it is more important to look for data protection on that device.

Conclusion

Network Crack Program Hacker Group (NCPH), which grew as an APT41 group with malicious intent, earlier performed the role of grey hat hacker, this group somehow grew up greedy to enhance more money laundering by hacking networks, devices, etc. As this group conducts a supply chain of attacks to gain unauthorised access to the network throughout the world, targeting hundreds of companies, including an extensive selection of industries such as social media, telecommunications, government, defence, education, and manufacturing. Last but not least, many more fraud-making groups with malicious intent will be forming and implementing in the future. It is on individuals and organisations to secure themselves but practise basic security levels to safeguard themselves against such threats and attacks.

Introduction

In an age where the lines between truth and fiction blur with an alarming regularity, we stand at the precipice of a new and dangerous era. Amidst the wealth of information that characterizes the digital age, deep fakes and disinformation rise like ghosts, haunting our shared reality. These manifestations of a technological revolution that promised enlightenment instead threaten the foundations upon which our societies are built: trust, truth, and collective understanding.

These digital doppelgängers, enabled by advanced artificial intelligence, and their deceitful companion—disinformation—are not mere ghosts in the machine. They are active agents of chaos, capable of undermining the core of democratic values, human rights, and even the safety of individuals who dare to question the status quo.

The Perils of False Narratives in the Digital Age

As a society, we often throw around terms such as 'fake news' with a mixture of disdain and a weary acceptance of their omnipresence. However, we must not understate their gravity. Misinformation and disinformation represent the vanguard of the digital duplicitous tide, a phenomenon growing more complex and dire each day. Misinformation, often spread without malicious intent but with no less damage, can be likened to a digital 'slip of the tongue' — an error in dissemination or interpretation. Disinformation, its darker counterpart, is born of deliberate intent to deceive, a calculated move in the chess game of information warfare.

Their arsenal is varied and ever-evolving: from misleading memes and misattributed quotations to wholesale fabrications in the form of bogus news sites and carefully crafted narratives. Among these weapons of deceit, deepfakes stand out for their audacity and the striking challenge they pose to the concept of seeing to believe. Through the unwelcome alchemy of algorithms, these video and audio forgeries place public figures, celebrities, and even everyday individuals into scenarios they never experienced, uttering words they never said.

The Human Cost: Threats to Rights and Liberties

The impact of this disinformation campaign transcends inconvenience or mere confusion; it strikes at the heart of human rights and civil liberties. It particularly festers at the crossroads of major democratic exercises, such as elections, where the right to a truthful, unmanipulated narrative is not just a political nicety but a fundamental human right, enshrined in Article 25 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In moments of political change, whether during elections or pivotal referenda, the deliberate seeding of false narratives is a direct assault on the electorate's ability to make informed decisions. This subversion of truth infects the electoral process, rendering hollow the promise of democratic choice.

This era of computational propaganda has especially chilling implications for those at the frontline of accountability—journalists and human rights defenders. They find themselves targets of character assassinations and smear campaigns that not only put their safety at risk but also threaten to silence the crucial voices of dissent.

It should not be overlooked that the term 'fake news' has, paradoxically, been weaponized by governments and political entities against their detractors. In a perverse twist, this label becomes a tool to shut down legitimate debate and shield human rights violations from scrutiny, allowing for censorship and the suppression of opposition under the guise of combatting disinformation.

Deepening the societal schisms, a significant portion of this digital deceit traffic in hate speech. Its contents are laden with xenophobia, racism, and calls to violence, all given a megaphone through the anonymity and reach the internet so readily provides, feeding a cycle of intolerance and violence vastly disproportionate to that seen in traditional media.

Legislative and Technological Countermeasures: The Ongoing Struggle

The fight against this pervasive threat, as illustrated by recent actions and statements by the Indian government, is multifaceted. Notably, Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar's commitment to safeguarding the Indian populace from the dangers of AI-generated misinformation signals an important step in the legislative and policy framework necessary to combat deepfakes.

Likewise, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's personal experience with a deepfake video accentuates the urgency with which policymakers, technologists, and citizens alike must view this evolving threat. The disconcerting experience of actor Rashmika Mandanna serves as a sobering reminder of the individual harm these false narratives can inflict and reinforces the necessity of a robust response.

In their pursuit to negate these virtual apparitions, policymakers have explored various avenues ranging from legislative action to penalizing offenders and advancing digital watermarks. However, it is not merely in the realm of technology that solutions must be sought. Rather, the confrontation with deepfakes and disinformation is also a battle for the collective soul of societies across the globe.

As technological advancements continue to reshape the battleground, figures like Kris Gopalakrishnan and Manish Gangwar posit that only a mix of rigorous regulatory frameworks and savvy technological innovation can hold the front line against this rising tidal wave of digital distrust.

This narrative is not a dystopian vision of a distant future - it is the stark reality of our present. And as we navigate this new terrain, our best defenses are not just technological safeguards, but also the nurturing of an informed and critical citizenry. It is essential to foster media literacy, to temper the human inclination to accept narratives at face value and to embolden the values that encourage transparency and the robust exchange of ideas.

As we peer into the shadowy recesses of our increasingly digital existence, may we hold fast to our dedication to the truth, and in doing so, preserve the essence of our democratic societies. For at stake is not just a technological arms race, but the very quality of our democratic discourse and the universal human rights that give it credibility and strength.

Conclusion  

In this age of digital deceit, it is crucial to remember that the battle against deep fakes and disinformation is not just a technological one. It is also a battle for our collective consciousness, a battle to preserve the sanctity of truth in an era of falsehoods. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of the digital world, let us arm ourselves with the weapons of awareness, critical thinking, and a steadfast commitment to truth. In the end, it is not just about winning the battle against deep fakes and disinformation, but about preserving the very essence of our democratic societies and the human rights that underpin them.