#FactCheck - Debunking the AI-Generated Image of an Alleged Israeli Army Dog Attack

AI-generated content has been taking up space in the ever-changing dynamics of today's tech landscape. Generative AI has emerged as a powerful tool that has enabled the creation of hyper-realistic audio, video, and images. While advantageous, this ability has some downsides, too, particularly in content authenticity and manipulation. 

The impact of this content is varied in the areas of ethical, psychological and social harms seen in the past couple of years. A major concern is the creation of non-consensual explicit content, including nudes. This content includes content where an individual’s face gets superimposed onto explicit images or videos without their consent. This is not just a violation of privacy for individuals, and can have humongous consequences for their professional and personal lives. This blog examines the existing laws and whether they are equipped to deal with the challenges that this content poses. 

Understanding the Deepfake Technology

Deepfake technology is a media file (image, video, or speech) that typically represents a human subject that is altered deceptively using deep neural networks (DNNs). It is used to alter a person’s identity, and it usually takes the form of a “face swap” where the identity of a source subject is transferred onto a destination subject. The destination’s facial expressions and head movements remain the same, but the appearance in the video is that of the source. In the case of videos, the identities can be substituted by way of replacement or reenactment.

This superimposed content creates realistic content, such as fake nudes. Presently, creating a deepfake is not a costly endeavour. It requires a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), software that is free, open-source, and easy to download, and graphics editing and audio-dubbing skills.  Some of the common apps to create deepfakes are DeepFaceLab and FaceSwap, which are both public and open source and are supported by thousands of users who actively participate in the evolution and development of these software and models. 

Legal Gaps and Challenges

Multiple gaps and challenges exist in the legal space for deepfakes and their regulation. They are:

1. The inadequate definitions governing AI-generated explicit content often lead to enforcement challenges.
2. Jurisdictional challenges due to the cross-border nature of crimes and the difficulties caused by international cooperation measures are in the early stages for AI content. 
3. There is a gap between the current consent-based and harassment laws for AI-generated nudes. 
4. Providing evidence or providing proof for the intent and identification of perpetrators in digital crimes is a challenge that is yet to be overcome. 

Policy Responses and Global Trends 

Presently, the global response to deepfakes is developing. The UK has developed the Online Safety Bill, the EU has the AI Act, the US has some federal laws such as the National AI Initiative Act of 2020 and India is currently developing the India AI Act as the specific legislation dealing with AI and its correlating issues. 

The IT Rules, 2021, and the DPDP Act, 2023, regulate digital platforms by mandating content governance, privacy policies, grievance redressal, and compliance with removal orders. Emphasising intermediary liability and safe harbour protections, these laws play a crucial role in tackling harmful content like AI-generated nudes, while the DPDP Act focuses on safeguarding privacy and personal data rights.

Bridging the Gap: CyberPeace Recommendations 

1. Initiate legislative reforms by advocating for clear and precise definitions for the consent frameworks and instituting high penalties for AI-based offences, particularly those which are aimed at sexually explicit material.
2. Advocate for global cooperation and collaborations by setting up international standards and bilateral and multilateral treaties that address the cross-border nature of these offences.
3. Platforms should push for accountability by pushing for stricter platform responsibility for the detection and removal of harmful AI-generated content. Platforms should introduce strong screening mechanisms to counter the huge influx of harmful content.  
4. Public campaigns which spread awareness and educate users about their rights and the resources available to them in case such an act takes place with them. 

Conclusion 

The rapid advancement of AI-generated explicit content demands immediate and decisive action. As this technology evolves, the gaps in existing legal frameworks become increasingly apparent, leaving individuals vulnerable to profound privacy violations and societal harm. Addressing this challenge requires adaptive, forward-thinking legislation that prioritises individual safety while fostering technological progress. Collaborative policymaking is essential and requires uniting governments, tech platforms, and civil society to develop globally harmonised standards. By striking a balance between innovation and societal well-being, we can ensure that the digital age is not only transformative but also secure and respectful of human dignity. Let’s act now to create a safer future!

References

• https://etedge-insights.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/deepfakes-and-the-future-of-digital-security-are-we-ready/
• https://odsc.medium.com/the-rise-of-deepfakes-understanding-the-challenges-and-opportunities-7724efb0d981 ‍
• https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/how-easy-is-it-to-make-and-detect-a-deepfake/

Overview:

It is worth stating that millions of Windows users around the world are facing the Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) problem that makes systems shutdown or restart. This has been attributed to a CrowdStrike update that was released recently and has impacted many organizations, financial institutions, and government agencies across the globe. Indian airlines have also reported disruptions on X (formerly Twitter), informing passengers about the issue.

Understanding Blue Screen of Death:

Blue Screen errors, also known as black screen errors or STOP code errors, can occur due to critical issues forcing Windows to shut down or restart. You may encounter messages like "Windows has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer." These errors can be caused by hardware or software problems.

Impact on Industries

Some of the large U. S. airlines such as American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and United Airlines had to issue ground stops because of communication problems. Also, several airports on Friday suffered a massive technical issue in check-in kiosks for IndiGo, Akasa Air, SpiceJet, and Air India Express.

The Widespread Issue

The issue seems widespread and is causing disruption across the board as Windows PCs are deployed at workplaces and other public entities like airlines, banks, and even media companies. It has been pointed out that Windows PCs use a special cybersecurity solution from a company called CrowdStrike that seems to be the culprit for this outage, affecting most Windows PC users out there.

Microsoft's Response

The issue was acknowledged by Microsoft and the mitigations are underway. The company in its verified X handle Microsoft 365 status has shared a series information on the latest outage and they are looking into the matter. The issue is under investigation.

In one of the posts from Microsoft Azure, it is mentioned that they have become aware of an issue affecting Virtual Machines (VMs) running Windows Client and Windows Server with the CrowdStrike Falcon agent installed. These VMs may encounter a bug check (BSOD) and become stuck in a restarting state. Their analysis indicates that this issue started approximately at 19:00 UTC on July 18th. They have provided recommendations as follows:

Restore from Backup:   In case customers have available backups prior to 19:00 UTC on July 18th, they should recover VM data from the backups. If the customer is using Azure Backup, they can get exact steps on how to restore VM data in the Azure portal. here.

Offline OS Disk Repair: Alternatively, customers can attempt offline repair of the OS disk by attaching an unmanaged disk to the affected VM. Encrypted disks may require additional steps to unlock before repair. Once attached, delete the following file:

Windows/System/System32/Drivers/CrowdStrike/C00000291*.sys 

After deletion, reattach the disk to the original VM.

Microsoft Azure is actively investigating additional mitigation options for affected customers. We will provide updates as we gather more information.

Resolving Blue Screen Errors in Windows

Windows 11 & Windows 10:

Blue Screen errors can stem from both hardware and software issues. If new hardware was added before the error, try removing it and restarting your PC. If restarting is difficult, start your PC in Safe Mode.

To Start in Safe Mode:

From Settings:

Open Settings > Update & Security > Recovery.

Under "Advanced startup," select Restart now.

After your PC restarts to the Choose an option screen, select Troubleshoot > Advanced options > Startup Settings > Restart.

After your PC restarts, you'll see a list of options. Select 4 or press F4 to start in Safe Mode. If you need to use the internet, select 5 or press F5 for Safe Mode with Networking.

From the Sign-in Screen:

Restart your PC. When you get to the sign-in screen, hold the Shift key down while you select Power > Restart.

After your PC restarts, follow the steps above.

From a Black or Blank Screen:

Press the power button to turn off your device, then turn it back on. Repeat this two more times.

After the third time, your device will start in the Windows Recovery Environment (WinRE).

From the Choose an option screen, follow the steps to enter Safe Mode.

Additional Help:

Windows Update: Ensure your system has the latest patches.

Blue Screen Troubleshooter: In Windows, open Get Help, type Troubleshoot BSOD error, and follow the guided walkthrough.

Online Troubleshooting: Visit Microsoft's support page and follow the recommendations under "Recommended Help."

If none of those steps help to resolve your Blue Screen error, please try the Blue Screen Troubleshooter in the Get Help app:

• In Windows, open Get Help.
• In the Get Help app, type Troubleshoot BSOD error.
• Follow the guided walkthrough in the Get Help app.

[Note: If you're not on a Windows device, you can run the Blue Screen Troubleshooter on your browser by going to Contact Microsoft Support and typing Troubleshoot BSOD error. Then follow the guided walkthrough under "Recommended Help."]

For detailed steps and further assistance, please refer to the Microsoft support portal or contact their support team.

CrowdStrike’s Response:

In the statement given by CrowdStrike, they have clearly mentioned it is not any cyberattack and their resources are working to fix the issue on Windows. Further, they have identified the deployment issue and fixed the same. Crowdstrike mentions about their problematic versions as follows:

• “Channel file "C-00000291*.sys" with timestamp of 0527 UTC or later is the reverted (good) version.
• Channel file "C-00000291*.sys" with timestamp of 0409 UTC is the problematic version.

Note: It is normal for multiple "C-00000291*.sys files to be present in the CrowdStrike directory - as long as one of the files in the folder has a timestamp of 0527 UTC or later, that will be the active content.”

The CrowdStrike will be providing latest updates on the same and advises their customers and organizations to contact their officials officially to get latest updates and accurate information. It is encouraged to refer to customer’s support portal for further help.

Stay safe and ensure regular backups to mitigate the impact of such issues.

References:

https://status.cloud.microsoft/

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/resolving-blue-screen-errors-in-windows-60b01860-58f2-be66-7516-5c45a66ae3c6

https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/start-your-pc-in-safe-mode-in-windows-92c27cff-db89-8644-1ce4-b3e5e56fe234

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/statement-on-falcon-content-update-for-windows-hosts/ 

‍

‍

‍

‍

Introduction

‍

The courts in India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of “enhanced customer protection” and “limited liability” on their part. The rationale behind such imperatives is to extend security against exploitation by institutions that are equipped with all the means to manipulate customers. India, with its looming financial literacy gaps that have to be addressed, needs to curb any manipulation on the part of banking institutions. Various studies have highlighted this gap in recent times; for example, according to the National Centre for Financial Education, only 27% of Indian people are financially literate, which is much less than the 42% global average. With only 19% of millennials exhibiting sufficient financial awareness yet expressing high trust in their financial skills, the issue is very worrisome. Thus, the increasing number of financial frauds intensifies the issue. 

Zero Liability in Cyber Frauds: Regulatory Safeguards for Digital Banking Customers

‍

In light of the growing emphasis on financial inclusion and consumer protection, and in response to the recent rise in complaints regarding unauthorised debits from customer accounts and cards, the framework for assessing customer liability in such cases has been re-evaluated. The RBI’s circular dated July 6, 2017 titled “Customer Protection-Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions”  serves as the foundation for regulatory protections for Indian customers of digital banking. A clear and organised framework for determining customer accountability is outlined in the circular, which acknowledges the exponential increase in electronic transactions and related scams. It assigns proportional obligations for unauthorised transactions resulting from system-level breaches, client carelessness, and bank contributory negligence. Most importantly it establishes the zero responsibility concept, which protects clients from monetary losses in cases when the bank or another system component is at fault and the client promptly reports the breach. 

This directive’s sophisticated approach to consumer protection is what makes it unique. It requires banks to set up strong fraud prevention systems, proactive alerting systems, and round-the-clock reporting systems. Furthermore, it significantly alters the power dynamics between financial institutions and customers by placing the onus of demonstrating customer negligence completely on the bank. The circular emphasises prompt reversal of funds to impacted customers and requires banks to implement Board-approved policies on liability to redress. As a result, it is a consumer rights charter rather than just a compliance document, promoting confidence and financial accountability in India’s digital banking sector. 

Judicial Endorsement in Reinforcing the Zero Liability Principle

‍

 In the case of Suresh Chandra Negi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Writ (C) No. 24192 of 2022) The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving consumer accountability rests firmly on the banking institution, hence reaffirming the zero liability concept in circumstances of unapproved electronic banking transactions. The Division bench emphasised the regulatory requirement that banks provide adequate proof before assigning blame to customers, citing Clause 12 of the RBI’s circular dated June 6, 2017, Customer Protection—Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions. In a similar scenario, the Bombay HC held that a customer is entitled to zero liability when an authorized transaction occurs due to a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor the customer, provided the fraud is promptly reported. 

The zero liability principle, as envisaged under Clause 8 of the RBI circular, has emerged as a cornerstone of consumer protection in India’s digital banking ecosystem.  

Another landmark judgment that has given this principle the front stage in addressing banking frauds is Hare Ram Singh vs RBI &Ors. (W.P. (C) 13497/2022) laid down by Delhi HC which is an important legal turning point in the development of the zero liability principle under the RBI’s 2017 framework. The court reiterated the need to evaluate customer diligence in light of new fraud tactics like phishing and vishing by holding the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for a cyber fraud incident even though the transactions were authenticated by OTP. The ruling made it clear that when complex social engineering or technical manipulation is used, banks are nonetheless accountable even if they only rely on OTP validation. The legal protection provided to victims of unauthorised electronic banking transactions is strengthened by the court’s emphasis on the bank having the burden of evidence in accordance with RBI standards. 

Importantly, this ruling lays the full burden of securing digital banking systems on financial organisations and supports the judiciary’s increasing acknowledgement of the digital asymmetry between banks and consumers. It emphasises that prompt consumer reporting, banks’ failure to disclose important credentials, and their own operational errors must all be taken into consideration when determining culpability. As a result, this decision establishes a strong precedent that will increase consumer confidence, promote systemic advancements in digital risk management, and better integrate the zero liability standard into Indian digital banking law. In a time when cyber vulnerabilities are growing, it acts as a beacon for financial accountability. 

Conclusion

‍

The Zero Liability Principle serves as a vital safety net for customers navigating an increasingly intricate and precarious financial environment in a time when digital transactions are the foundation of contemporary banking. In addition to codifying strong safeguards against unauthorized electronic transactions, the RBI’s 2017 framework rebalanced  the fiduciary relationship by putting financial institutions squarely in charge. Through significant rulings, the courts have upheld this protective culture and emphasised that banks, not the victims of cybercrime, bear the burden of proof. 

It would be crucial to execute these principles consistently, review them frequently, and raise public awareness as India transitions to a more digital economy. In order to ensure that consumers are not only protected but also empowered must become more than just a policy on paper. 

‍

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/making-money-vs-managing-money-india-s-critical-financial-literacy-gap-125021900786_1.html 
• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-ruling-bank-liability-unauthorized-electronic-transaction-and-customer-fault-297962 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1635616/cyber-law-series-2-issue-10-the-zero-liability-principle-in-cyber-fraud-hare-ram-singh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-ors-case 

‍