Advisory for APS School Students

Introduction

Google is set to change its storage and access of users' "Location History" in Google Maps, reducing the data retention period and making it impossible for the company to access it. This change will significantly impact "geofence warrants," a controversial legal tool used by authorities to force Google to hand over information about all users within a given location during a specific timeframe. This decision is a significant win for privacy advocates and criminal defense attorneys who have long decried these warrants.

The company aims to protect people's privacy by removing the repository of location data dating back months or years. Geofence warrants, which provide police with sensitive data on individuals, are considered dangerous and could turn innocent people into suspects. 

Understanding Geofence Warrants

Geofence warrants, also known as reverse-location warrants, are used by law enforcement agencies to obtain locational data stored by tech companies within a specified geographical area and timeframe to identify devices near a crime scene. In contrast to general warrants, which allow law enforcement agencies to obtain data of one individual (usually the suspect), geofence warrants enable law enforcement authorities to obtain data for all individuals in a specific location and subsequently track and trace any device that may be linked to a crime scene. Geofence warrants have become a major issue, with law enforcement agencies utilising them to obtain location data from tech companies.

Privacy Concerns of Geofence Warrants

While Geofence warrants allow law enforcement agencies to determine and identify potential suspects, these warrants have sparked controversy for their invasive characteristics. Civil rights activities and various technology companies have raised concerns over the impact of these warrants on the rights of data principals. It is noted that geofence warrants mark a rise in cases of state surveillance and police harassment. Not only is any data principal in the vicinity of the crime scene classified as a potential suspect, but companies are also compelled to submit identifying personal data on every device/phone in a marked geographic space.

From Surveillance to Safeguards

Geofence warrants have become a contentious tool for law enforcement worldwide, with concerns over privacy and civil liberties, especially in sensitive situations like protests and healthcare. Google is considering allowing users to store their location data on their devices, potentially ending the use of geofence warrants, which law enforcement agencies use to obtain location data from tech companies.

Google is changing its handling of Location History data, moving it on-device instead of on its servers. The default data retention period will be reduced. Google Maps' product director, Marlo McGriff, stated that the company will automatically encrypt backed-up data for cloud backups, preventing anyone from reading it. When these changes are implemented, Google will have no geodata fishing options for users. Google confirmed that it will no longer be able to respond to new geofence warrants once these changes are implemented, as it will not have access to the relevant data. The changes were designed to put an end to dragnet searches of location data.

Conclusion

Google's decision to change storage and access policies for users' location history in Google Maps marks a pivotal step in the ongoing narrative of law enforcement's misuse of geofence warrants. This move aims to safeguard individual privacy by significantly restricting the data retention period and limiting Google's ability to comply with geofence warrants. This change is welcomed by privacy advocates and legal professionals who express concerns over the intrusive nature of these warrants, which may potentially turn innocent individuals into suspects based on their proximity to a crime scene. As technology companies take steps to enhance user privacy, the evolving landscape calls for a balance between law enforcement needs and protecting individual rights in an era of increasing digital surveillance.  

References:

• https://techobserver.in/news/policy/will-googles-transition-to-on-device-location-storage-end-geofence-warrants-abuse-280852/

• https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/google-to-end-geofence-warrant-requests-for-users-location-data/106081499
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2023/12/14/google-just-killed-geofence-warrants-police-location-data/?sh=313da3c32c86
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-how-google-maps-is-preventing-authorities-from-accessing-users-location-history-data/articleshow/106086639.cms

‍

Introduction

Misinformation spreads differently with respect to different host environments, making localised cultural narratives and practices major factors in how an individual deals with it when presented in a certain place and to a certain group. In the digital age, with time-sensitive data, an overload of information creates a lot of noise which makes it harder to make informed decisions. There are also cases where customary beliefs, biases, and cultural narratives are presented in ways that are untrue. These instances often include misinformation related to health and superstitions, historical distortions, and natural disasters and myths. Such narratives, when shared on social media, can lead to widespread misconceptions and even harmful behaviours. For example, it may also include misinformation that goes against scientific consensus or misinformation that contradicts simple, objectively true facts. In such ambiguous situations, there is a higher probability of people falling back on patterns in determining what information is right or wrong. Here, cultural narratives and cognitive biases come into play.

Misinformation and Cultural Narratives

Cultural narratives include deep-seated cultural beliefs, folklore, and national myths. These narratives can also be used to manipulate public opinion as political and social groups often leverage them to proceed with their agenda. Lack of digital literacy and increasing information online along with social media platforms and their focus on generating algorithms for engagement aids this process. The consequences can even prove to be fatal.

During COVID-19, false claims targeted certain groups as being virus spreaders fueled stigmatisation and eroded trust. Similarly, vaccine misinformation, rooted in cultural fears, spurred hesitancy and outbreaks. Beyond health, manipulated narratives about parts of history are spread depending on the sentiments of the people. These instances exploit emotional and cultural sensitivities, emphasizing the urgent need for media literacy and awareness to counter their harmful effects.

CyberPeace Recommendations

As cultural narratives may lead to knowingly or unknowingly spreading misinformation on social media platforms, netizens must consider preventive measures that can help them build resilience against any biased misinformation they may encounter. The social media platforms must also develop strategies to counter such types of misinformation.

• Digital and Information Literacy: Netizens must encourage developing digital and information literacy in a time of information overload on social media platforms. 
• The Role Of Media: The media outlets can play an active role, by strictly providing fact-based information and not feeding into narratives to garner eyeballs. Social media platforms also need to be careful while creating algorithms focused on consistent engagement.
• Community Fact-Checking: As localised information prevails in such cases, owing to the time-sensitive nature, immediate debunking of precarious information by authorities at the ground level is encouraged.
• Scientifically Correct Information: Starting early and addressing myths and biases through factual and scientifically correct information is also encouraged. 

Conclusion

Cultural narratives are an ingrained part of society, and they might affect how misinformation spreads and what we end up believing. Acknowledging this process and taking counter measures will allow us to move further and take steps for intervention regarding tackling the spread of misinformation specifically aided by cultural narratives. Efforts to raise awareness and educate the public to seek sound information, practice verification checks, and visit official channels are of the utmost importance.

References

• https://www.icf.com/insights/cybersecurity/developing-effective-responses-to-fake-new
• https://www.dw.com/en/india-fake-news-problem-fueled-by-digital-illiteracy/a-56746776
• https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/how-why-misinformation-spreads

‍

Introduction 

Prebunking is a technique that shifts the focus from directly challenging falsehoods or telling people what they need to believe to understanding how people are manipulated and misled online to begin with. It is a growing field of research that aims to help people resist persuasion by misinformation. Prebunking, or "attitudinal inoculation," is a way to teach people to spot and resist manipulative messages before they happen.  The crux of the approach is rooted in taking a step backwards and nipping the problem in the bud by deepening our understanding of it, instead of designing redressal mechanisms to tackle it after the fact. It has been proven effective in helping a wide range of people build resilience to misleading information.

Prebunking is a psychological strategy for countering the effect of misinformation with the goal of assisting individuals in identifying and resisting deceptive content, hence increasing resilience against future misinformation. Online manipulation is a complex issue, and multiple approaches are needed to curb its worst effects. Prebunking provides an opportunity to get ahead of online manipulation, providing a layer of protection before individuals encounter malicious content. Prebunking aids individuals in discerning and refuting misleading arguments, thus enabling them to resist a variety of online manipulations. 

Prebunking builds mental defenses for misinformation by providing warnings and counterarguments before people encounter malicious content. Inoculating people against false or misleading information is a powerful and effective method for building trust and understanding along with a personal capacity for discernment and fact-checking. Prebunking teaches people how to separate facts from myths by teaching them the importance of thinking in terms of ‘how you know what you know’ and consensus-building. Prebunking uses examples and case studies to explain the types and risks of misinformation so that individuals can apply these learnings to reject false claims and manipulation in the future as well. 

How Prebunking Helps Individuals Spot Manipulative Messages

Prebunking helps individuals identify manipulative messages by providing them with the necessary tools and knowledge to recognize common techniques used to spread misinformation. Successful prebunking strategies include;

1. Warnings;
2. Preemptive Refutation: It explains the narrative/technique and how particular information is manipulative in structure. The Inoculation treatment messages typically include 2-3 counterarguments and their refutations. An effective rebuttal provides the viewer with skills to fight any erroneous or misleading information they may encounter in the future.
3. Micro-dosing: A weakened or practical example of misinformation that is innocuous. 

All these alert individuals to potential manipulation attempts. Prebunking also offers weakened examples of misinformation, allowing individuals to practice identifying deceptive content. It activates mental defenses, preparing individuals to resist persuasion attempts. Misinformation can exploit cognitive biases: people tend to put a lot of faith in things they’ve heard repeatedly - a fact that malicious actors manipulate by flooding the Internet with their claims to help legitimise them by creating familiarity. The ‘prebunking’ technique helps to create resilience against misinformation and protects our minds from the harmful effects of misinformation. 

Prebunking essentially helps people control the information they consume by teaching them how to discern between accurate and deceptive content. It enables one to develop critical thinking skills, evaluate sources adequately and identify red flags. By incorporating these components and strategies, prebunking enhances the ability to spot manipulative messages, resist deceptive narratives, and make informed decisions when navigating the very dynamic and complex information landscape online.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

• Preventing and fighting misinformation necessitates joint efforts between different stakeholders. The government and policymakers should sponsor prebunking initiatives and information literacy programmes to counter misinformation and adopt systematic approaches. Regulatory frameworks should encourage accountability in the dissemination of online information on various platforms. Collaboration with educational institutions, technological companies and civil society organisations can assist in the implementation of prebunking techniques in a variety of areas.
• Higher educational institutions should support prebunking and media literacy and offer professional development opportunities for educators, and scholars by working with academics and professionals on the subject of misinformation by producing research studies on the grey areas and challenges associated with misinformation.
• Technological companies and social media platforms should improve algorithm transparency, create user-friendly tools and resources, and work with fact-checking organisations to incorporate fact-check labels and tools.
• Civil society organisations and NGOs should promote digital literacy campaigns to spread awareness on misinformation and teach prebunking strategies and critical information evaluation. Training programmes should be available to help people recognise and resist deceptive information using prebunking tactics. Advocacy efforts should support legislation or guidelines that support and encourage prebunking efforts and promote media literacy as a basic skill in the digital landscape. 
• Media outlets and journalists including print & social media should follow high journalistic standards and engage in fact-checking activities to ensure information accuracy before release. Collaboration with prebunking professionals, cyber security experts, researchers and advocacy analysts can result in instructional content and initiatives that promote media literacy, prebunking strategies and misinformation awareness.

Final Words

The World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2024 identifies misinformation and disinformation as the top most significant risks for the next two years. Misinformation and disinformation are rampant in today’s digital-first reality, and the ever-growing popularity of social media is only going to see the challenges compound further. It is absolutely imperative for all netizens and stakeholders  to adopt proactive approaches to counter the growing problem of misinformation. Prebunking is a powerful problem-solving tool in this regard because it aims at ‘protection through prevention’ instead of limiting the strategy to harm reduction and redressal.  We can draw parallels with the concept of vaccination or inoculation, reducing the probability of a misinformation infection. Prebunking exposes us to a weakened form of misinformation and provides ways to identify it, reducing the chance false information takes root in our psyches.

The most compelling attribute of this approach is that the focus is not only on preventing damage but also creating widespread ownership and citizen participation in the problem-solving process. Every empowered individual creates an additional layer of protection against the scourge of misinformation, not only making safer choices for themselves but also lowering the risk of spreading false claims to others.  

References

• [1] https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2024.pdf
• [2] https://prebunking.withgoogle.com/docs/A_Practical_Guide_to_Prebunking_Misinformation.pdf
• [3] https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/17634/3565

‍