#FactCheck: AI-Generated Audio Falsely Claims COAS Admitted to Loss of 6 Jets and 250 Soldiers

Along with the loss of important files and information, data loss can result in downtime and lost revenue. Unexpected occurrences, including natural catastrophes, cyber-attacks, hardware malfunctions, and human mistakes, can result in the loss of crucial data. Recovery from these without a backup plan may be difficult, if not impossible.

The fact is that the largest threat to the continuation of your organization today is cyberattacks. Because of this, disaster recovery planning should be approached from a data security standpoint. If not, you run the risk of leaving your vital systems exposed to a cyberattack. Cybercrime has been more frequent and violent over the past few years. In the past, major organizations and global businesses were the main targets of these attacks by criminals. But nowadays, businesses of all sizes need to be cautious of digital risks.

Many firms might suffer a financial hit even from a brief interruption to regular business operations. But imagine if a situation forced a company to close for a few days or perhaps weeks! The consequences would be disastrous.

One must have a comprehensive disaster recovery plan in place that is connected with the cybersecurity strategy, given the growing danger of cybercrime.

Let’s look at why having a solid data security plan and a dependable backup solution are essential for safeguarding a company from external digital threats.

1. Apply layered approaches

One must specifically use precautionary measures like antivirus software and firewalls. One must also implement strict access control procedures to restrict who may access the network.

One must also implement strict access control procedures to restrict who may access the network.

2. Understand the threat situation

If someone is unaware of the difficulties one should be prepared for, how can they possibly expect to develop a successful cybersecurity strategy? They can’t, is the simple response.

Without a solid understanding of the threat landscape, developing the plan will require a lot too much speculation. With this strategy, one can allocate resources poorly or perhaps completely miss a threat.

Because of this, one should educate themselves on the many cyber risks that businesses now must contend with.

3. Adopt a proactive security stance

Every effective cybersecurity plan includes a number of reactive processes that aren’t activated until an attack occurs. Although these reactive strategies will always be useful in cybersecurity, the main focus of your plan should be proactiveness.

There are several methods to be proactive, but the most crucial one is to analyze your network for possible threats regularly. your network securely. Having a SaaS Security Posture Management (SSPM) solution in place is beneficial for SaaS applications, in particular.

A preventive approach can lessen the effects of a data breach and aid in keeping data away from attackers.

4. Evaluate your ability to respond to incidents

Test your cybersecurity disaster recovery plan’s effectiveness by conducting exercises and evaluating the outcomes. Track pertinent data during the exercise to see if your plan is working as expected.

Meet with your team after each drill to evaluate what went well and what didn’t. This strategy enables you to continuously strengthen your plan and solve weaknesses. This procedure may be repeated endlessly and should be.

You must include cybersecurity protections in your entire disaster recovery plan if you want to make sure that your business is resilient in the face of cyber threats. You may strengthen data security and recover from data loss and corruption by putting in place a plan that focuses on both the essential components of proactive data protection and automated data backup and recovery.

For instance, Google distributes all data among several computers in various places while storing each user’s data on a single machine or collection of machines. To prevent a single point of failure, chunk the data and duplicate it across several platforms. As an additional security safeguard, they give these data chunks random names that are unreadable to the human eye.^[1]

The process of creating and storing copies of data that may be used to safeguard organizations against data loss is referred to as backup and recovery. In the case of a main data failure, the backup’s goal is to make a duplicate of the data that can be restored.

5. Take zero-trust principles

Don’t presume that anything or anybody can be trusted; zero trust is a new label for an old idea. Check each device, user, service, or other entity’s trustworthiness before providing it access, then periodically recheck trustworthiness while access is allowed to make sure the entity hasn’t been hacked. Reduce the consequences of any breach of confidence by granting each entity access to only the resources it requires. The number of events and the severity of those that do happen can both be decreased by using zero-trust principles.

6. Understand the dangers posed by supply networks

A nation-state can effectively penetrate a single business, and that business may provide thousands of other businesses with tainted technological goods or services. These businesses will then become compromised, which might disclose their own customers’ data to the original attackers or result in compromised services being offered to customers. Millions of businesses and people might be harmed as a result of what began with one infiltrating corporation.

In conclusion, a defense-in-depth approach to cybersecurity won’t vanish. Organizations may never be able to totally eliminate the danger of a cyberattack, but having a variety of technologies and procedures in place can assist in guaranteeing that the risks are kept to a minimum.

References:

• https://www.comparitech.com/vpn/cybersecurity-cyber-crime-statistics-facts-trends/
• https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/data-security/
• https://www.ibm.com/in-en/topics/cybersecurity
• https://www.cybersecurityforme.com/what-is-the-future-of-cybersecurity/

[1] https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/data-security/

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

Executive Summary:

The viral image in the social media which depicts fake injuries on the face of the MP(Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha) Kangana Ranaut alleged to have been beaten by a CISF officer at the Chandigarh airport. The reverse search of the viral image taken back to 2006, was part of an anti-mosquito commercial and does not feature the MP,  Kangana Ranaut. The findings contradict the claim that the photos are evidence of injuries resulting from the incident involving the MP, Kangana Ranaut. It is always important to verify the truthfulness of  visual content before sharing it, to prevent misinformation.

Claims:

The images circulating on social media platforms claiming the injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut’s face were because of an assault incident by a female CISF officer at Chandigarh airport. This claim hinted that the photos are evidence of the physical quarrel and resulting injuries suffered by  the MP, Kangana Ranaut.

‍

Fact Check:

When we received the posts, we reverse-searched the image and found another photo that looked similar to the viral one. We could verify through the earring in the viral image with the new image. 

The reverse image search revealed that the photo was originally uploaded in 2006 and is unrelated to the MP, Kangana Ranaut. It depicts a model in an advertisement for an anti-mosquito spray campaign.

We can validate this from the earrings in the photo after the comparison   between the two photos.

‍

Hence, we can confirm that the viral image of the injury mark of the MP, Kangana Ranaut has been debunked as fake and misleading, instead it has been cropped out from the original photo to misrepresent the context.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the viral photos on social media which claimed to be the results of injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut’s face after being assaulted allegedly by a CISF officer at the airport in Chandigarh were fake. Detailed analysis of the pictures provided the fact that the pictures have no connection with Ranaut; the picture was a 2006 anti-mosquito spray advertisement; therefore, the allegations that show these images as that of Ranaut’s injury are fake and misleading.

• Claim:  photos circulating on social media claiming to show injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut's face following an assault incident by a female CISF officer at Chandigarh airport.
• Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter), thread, Facebook
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍