#FactCheck-Viral Mother-Child Image Linked to Bargi Dam Tragedy Is AI-Generated

Introduction

According to a new McAfee survey, 88% of American customers believe that cybercriminals will utilize artificial intelligence to "create compelling online scams" over the festive period. In the meanwhile, 31% believe it will be more difficult to determine whether messages from merchants or delivery services are genuine, while 57% believe phishing emails and texts will be more credible. The study, which was conducted in September 2023 in the United States, Australia, India, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan, yielded 7,100 responses. Some people may decide to cut back on their online shopping as a result of their worries about AI; among those surveyed, 19% stated they would do so this year. 

In 2024, McAfee predicts a rise in AI-driven scams on social media, with cybercriminals using advanced tools to create convincing fake content, exploiting celebrity and influencer identities. Deepfake technology may worsen cyberbullying, enabling the creation of realistic fake content. Charity fraud is expected to rise, leveraging AI to set up fake charity sites. AI's use by cybercriminals will accelerate the development of advanced malware, phishing, and voice/visual cloning scams targeting mobile devices. The 2024 Olympic Games are seen as a breeding ground for scams, with cybercriminals targeting fans for tickets, travel, and exclusive content.

AI Scams' Increase on Social Media

Cybercriminals plan to use strong artificial intelligence capabilities to control social media by 2024. These applications become networking goldmines because they make it possible to create realistic images, videos, and audio. Anticipate the exploitation of influencers and popular identities by cybercriminals. 

AI-powered Deepfakes and the Rise in Cyberbullying

The negative turn that cyberbullying might take in 2024 with the use of counterfeit technology is one trend to be concerned about. This cutting-edge technique is freely accessible to youngsters, who can use it to produce eerily convincing synthetic content that compromises victims' privacy, identities, and wellness.

In addition to sharing false information, cyberbullies have the ability to alter public photographs and re-share edited, detailed versions, which exacerbates the suffering done to children and their families. The study issues a warning, stating that deepfake technology would probably cause online harassment to take a negative turn. With this sophisticated tool, young adults may now generate frighteningly accurate synthetic content in addition to using it for fun. The increasing severity of these deceptive pictures and phrases can cause serious, long-lasting harm to children and their families, impairing their identity, privacy, and overall happiness.

Evolvement of GenAI Fraud in 2023

We simply cannot get enough of these persistent frauds and fake emails. People in general are now rather adept at [recognizing] those that are used extensively. But if they become more precise, such as by utilizing AI-generated audio to seem like a loved one's distress call or information that is highly personal to the person,  users should be much more cautious about them. The rise in popularity of generative AIs brings with it a new wrinkle, as hackers can utilize these systems to refine their attacks:

• Writing communications more skillfully in order to deceive consumers into sending sensitive information, clicking on a link, or uploading a file.
• Recreate emails and business websites as realistically as possible to prevent arousing concern in the minds of the perpetrators.
• People's faces and voices can be cloned, and deepfakes of sounds or images can be created that are undetectable to the target audience. a problem that has the potential to greatly influence schemes like CEO fraud.
• Because generative AIs can now hold conversations, and respond to victims efficiently.
• Conduct psychological manipulation initiatives more quickly, with less money spent, and with greater complexity and difficulty in detecting them. AI generative already in use in the market can write texts, clone voices, or generate images and program websites.

AI Hastens the Development of Malware and Scams

Even while artificial intelligence (AI) has many uses, cybercriminals are becoming more and more dangerous with it. Artificial intelligence facilitates the rapid creation of sophisticated malware, illicit web pages, and plausible phishing and smishing emails. As these risks become more accessible, mobile devices will be attacked more frequently, with a particular emphasis on audio and visual impersonation schemes.

Olympic Games: A Haven for Scammers

The 2024 Olympic Games are seen as a breeding ground for scams, with cybercriminals targeting fans for tickets, travel, and exclusive content. Cybercriminals are skilled at profiting from big occasions, and the buzz that will surround the 2024 Olympic Games around the world will make it an ideal time for scams. Con artists will take advantage of customers' excitement by focusing on followers who are ready to purchase tickets, arrange travel, obtain special content, and take part in giveaways. During this prominent event, vigilance is essential to avoid an invasion of one's personal records and financial data. 

Development of McAfee’s own bot to assist users in screening potential scammers and authenticators for messages they receive

Precisely such kind of technology is under the process of development by McAfee. It's critical to emphasize that solving the issue is a continuous process. AI is being manipulated by bad actors and thus, one of the tricksters can pull off is to exploit the fact that consumers fall for various ruses as parameters to train advanced algorithms. Thus, the con artists may make use of the gadgets, test them on big user bases, and improve with time.

Conclusion

According to the McAfee report, 88% of American customers are consistently concerned about AI-driven internet frauds that target them around the holidays. Social networking poses a growing threat to users' privacy. By 2024, hackers hope to take advantage of AI skills and use deepfake technology to exacerbate harassment. By mimicking voices and faces for intricate schemes, generative AI advances complex fraud. The surge in charitable fraud affects both social and financial aspects, and the 2024 Olympic Games could serve as a haven for scammers. The creation of McAfee's screening bot highlights the ongoing struggle against developing AI threats and highlights the need for continuous modification and increased user comprehension in order to combat increasingly complex cyber deception.

References

• https://www.fonearena.com/blog/412579/deepfake-surge-ai-scams-2024.html
• https://cxotoday.com/press-release/mcafee-reveals-2024-cybersecurity-predictions-advancement-of-ai-shapes-the-future-of-online-scams/#:~:text=McAfee%20Corp.%2C%20a%20global%20leader,and%20increasingly%20sophisticated%20cyber%20scams.
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/deep-fakes-ai-scams-and-other-tools-cybercriminals-could-use-to-steal-your-money-and-personal-details-in-2024/articleshow/106126288.cms
• https://digiday.com/media-buying/mcafees-cto-on-ai-and-the-cat-and-mouse-game-with-holiday-scams/

Introduction

Global cybersecurity spending is expected to breach USD 210 billion in 2025, a ~10% increase from 2024 (Gartner). This is a result of an evolving and increasingly critical threat landscape enabled by factors such as the proliferation of IoT devices, the adoption of cloud networks, and the increasing size of the internet itself.  Yet, breaches, misuse, and resistance persist. In 2025, global attack pressure rose ~21% Y-o-Y ( Q2 averages) (CheckPoint) and confirmed breaches climbed ~15%( Verizon DBIR). This means that rising investment in cybersecurity may not be yielding proportionate reductions in risk. But while mechanisms to strengthen technical defences and regulatory frameworks are constantly evolving, the social element of trust and how to embed it into cybersecurity systems remain largely overlooked.   

‍

Human Error and Digital Trust  (Individual Trust) 

‍

Human error is consistently recognised as the weakest link in cybersecurity. While campaigns focusing on phishing prevention, urging password updates and using two-factor authentication (2FA) exist, relying solely on awareness measures to address human error in cyberspace is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Rather, it needs to be examined through the lens of digital trust. As Chui (2022) notes, digital trust rests on security,  dependability, integrity, and authenticity. These factors determine whether users comply with cybersecurity protocols. When people view rules as opaque, inconvenient, or imposed without accountability, they are more likely to cut corners, which creates vulnerabilities. Therefore, building digital trust means shifting from blaming people to design: embedding transparency, usability, and shared responsibility towards a culture of cybersecurity so that users are incentivised to make secure choices. 

‍

Organisational Trust and Insider Threats (Institutional Trust)

At the organisational level, compliance with cybersecurity protocols is significantly tied to whether employees trust employers/platforms to safeguard their data and treat them with integrity. Insider threats, stemming from both malicious and non-malicious actors, account for nearly 60% of all corporate breaches (Verizon DBIR 2024). A lack of trust in leadership may cause employees to feel disengaged or even act maliciously.  Further, a 2022 study by Harvard Business Review finds that adhering to cybersecurity protocols adds to employee workload. When they are perceived as hindering productivity, employees are more likely to intentionally violate these protocols.  The stress of working under surveillance systems that feel cumbersome or unreasonable, especially when working remotely, also reduces employee trust and, hence, compliance.  

‍

Trust, Inequality, and Vulnerability (Structural Trust)

Cyberspace encompasses a social system of its own since it involves patterned interactions and relationships between human beings. It also reproduces the social structures and resultant vulnerabilities of the physical world. As a result,  different sections of society place varying levels of trust in digital systems.  Women, rural, and marginalised groups often distrust existing digital security provisions more, and with reason. They are targeted disproportionately by cyber attackers, and yet are underprotected by systems, since these are designed prioritising urban/ male/ elite users.  This leads to citizens adopting workarounds like password sharing for “safety” and disengaging from cyber safety discourse, as they find existing systems inaccessible or irrelevant to their realities. Cybersecurity governance that ignores these divides deepens exclusion and mistrust.

‍

Laws and Compliances (Regulatory Trust)

Cybersecurity governance is operationalised in the form of laws, rules, and guidelines. However, these may often backfire due to inadequate design, reducing overall trust in governance mechanisms. For example, CERT-In’s mandate to report breaches within six hours of “noticing” it has been criticised as the steep timeframe being insufficient to generate an effective breach analysis report. Further, the multiplicity of regulatory frameworks in cross-border interactions can be costly and lead to compliance fatigue for organisations. Such factors can undermine organisational and user trust in the regulation’s ability to protect them from cyber attacks, fuelling a check-box-ticking culture for cybersecurity.  

‍

Conclusion 

Cybersecurity is addressed primarily through code, firewall, and compliance today. But evidence suggests that technological and regulatory fixes, while essential, are insufficient to guarantee secure behaviour and resilient systems. Without trust in institutions, technologies, laws or each other, cybersecurity governance will remain a cat-and-mouse game.  Building a trust-based architecture requires mechanisms to improve accountability, reliability, and transparency.  It requires participatory designs of security systems and the recognition of unequal vulnerabilities. Thus, unless cybersecurity governance acknowledges that cyberspace is deeply social,  investment may not be able to prevent the harms it seeks to curb. 

‍

References 

• https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-07-29
• https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/global-cyber-attacks-surge-21-in-q2-2025
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2024-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2025-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://insights2techinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Building-Digital-Trust-Challenges-and-Strategies-in-Cybersecurity.pdf 
• https://www.coe.int/en/web/cyberviolence/cyberviolence-against-women 
• https://www.upguard.com/blog/indias-6-hour-data-breach-reporting-rule 

‍

Smart Wearable devices are designed to track several activities in defined parameters and are increasingly becoming a part of everyday life. According to Markets and Markets Report, the global wearable tech market is projected to reach a staggering USD 256.4 billion by 2026. One of the main areas of use of wearable devices is health, including biomedical research, health care, personal health practices and tracking, technology development, and engineering. These wearable devices often include digital health technologies such as consumer smartwatches that monitor an individual's heart rate and step count, and other body-worn sensors like those that continuously monitor blood glucose concentration. 

Wearable devices used by the general population are getting increasingly popular. Health devices like fitness trackers and smartwatches enable continuous monitoring of personal health. Privacy is an emerging concern due to the real-time collection of sensitive data. Vulnerabilities due to unauthorised access or discrimination in case of information being revealed without consent are the primary concerns with these devices. While these concerns are present a lot of related misinformation is emerging due to the same. 

While wearable devices typically come with terms of use that outline how data is collected and used, and there are regulations in place such as EU Law GDPR, such regulations largely govern the regulatory compliances on the handling of personal data, however, the implementation and compliances by the manufacturer is a one another aspect which might present the question on privacy protection. In addition, beyond the challenge of regulatory compliance, the rise of myths and misinformation surrounding wearable tech presents a separate issue. 

Common Misconceptions About Privacy with Wearable Tech

• With the rapid development and growth of wearable technology their use has been subject to countless rumours which fuel misinformation narratives in the minds of general public. Addressing these misconceptions and privacy concerns requires targeted strategies.
• A prevalent misconception is that they are constantly spying on users. While wearable devices collect users’ data in real time, their vulnerability to unauthorised access is similar to that of a non-wearable device.  The issue is of consent when it comes to wearable technology because it gives the ability to record.  If permissions are not asked when a person is being recorded then the data is accessible to external entities.
• There is a common myth that wearable tech is surveillance tool. This is entirely a conjecture. These devices collect the user data with their prior consent and have been created to provide them with real-time information, most commonly physical health information. Since users choose the information shared, the idea of wearable tech serving as a surveillance tool is unfounded.
• Another misconception about wearable tech is that it can diagnose medical conditions. These devices collect real-time health data, such as heart rate or activity levels, they are not designed for medical diagnosis. The data collected may not always be accurate or reliable for clinical use to be interpreted by a healthcare professional. This is mainly because the makers of these devices are not held to the safety and liability standards that medical providers are.
• A prevalent misconception is that wearable tech can cure health issues, which is simply untrue. Wearable tech devices are essentially tracking the health parameters that a user sets. It in no way is a cure for any health issue that one suffers from. A user can manage their health based on the parameters they set on the device such as the number of steps that they walk, check on the heart rate and other metrics for their mental satisfaction but they are not a cure to treat diseases. Wearable tech acts as alerts, notifying users of important health metrics and encouraging proactive health management.

Addressing Privacy and Health Concerns in Wearable Tech

Wearable technology raises concerns for privacy and health due to the colossal amount of personal data collected. To address these, strong data protection measures are essential, ensuring that sensitive health information is securely stored and shared only with consent. Providing users with control over their data is one of the ways to build user trust. It includes enabling them to opt in, access, or delete the data in question. Regulators should establish clear guidelines, ensuring wearables ensure the compliances with data protection regulations like HIPPA, GDPR or DPDP Act, whichever is applicable as per the jurisdiction. Furthermore, global standards for data encryption, device security, and user privacy should be implemented to mitigate risks. Transparency in data usage and consistent updates to software security are also crucial for protecting users' privacy and health while promoting the responsible use of wearable tech.

CyberPeace Insights

• Making informed decisions about wearable tech starts with thorough research. Start by reading reviews and comparing products to assess their features, compatibility, and security standards. 
• Investigate the manufacturer’s reputation for data protection and device longevity. Understanding device capabilities is crucial. One should evaluate whether the wearable meets their needs, such as fitness tracking, health monitoring, or communication features. Consider software security and updates, and data accuracy when comparing options.  Opt for devices that offer two-factor authentication for an additional layer of security.
• Check the permissions requested by the accompanying app; only grant access to data that is necessary for the device's functionality. Always read the terms of use to understand your rights and responsibilities regarding the use of the device. Review and customize data-sharing settings for better control to prevent unauthorised access.
• Staying updated on the tech is equally important. A user should follow the advancements in wearable technology be it regular security updates, or regulatory changes that may affect privacy and usability. This ensures getting tech that aligns with user lifestyle while meeting privacy and security expectations.

Conclusion

Privacy and Misinformation are key concerns that emerge due to the use of wearable tech designed to offer benefits such as health monitoring, fitness tracking, and personal convenience. It requires a combination of informed decision-making by users and stringent regulatory oversight to overcome the issues that emerge due to misinformation about these devices. Users must ensure they understand the capabilities and limitations of their devices, from data accuracy to privacy risks. Additionally, manufacturers and regulators need to prioritise transparency, data protection, and compliance with global standards like GDPR or DPDP to build trust. As wearable tech continues to evolve, a balanced approach to innovation and privacy will be essential in fostering its responsible and beneficial use for all.

References

1. https://thehealthcaretechnologyreport.com/privacy-data-security-concerns-rise-as-healthcare-wearables-gain-popularity/ 
2. https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000104
3. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/wearable-electronics-market-983.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwgMqSBhDCARIsAIIVN1V0sqrk6SpYSga3rcDtWcwh8npZ08L0_s4X91gh7yPAa6QmsctB-lMaAlpqEALw_wcB 
4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-information-management/article/health-data-on-the-go-navigating-privacy-concerns-with-wearable-technologies/05DAF11EFA807051362BB39260C4814C

‍