#FactCheck: Beware of Fake Emails Distributing Fraudulent e-PAN Cards

Introduction

The integration of Artificial Intelligence into our daily workflows has compelled global policymakers to develop legislative frameworks to govern its impact efficiently. The question that we arrive at here is: While AI is undoubtedly transforming global economies, who governs the transformation? The EU AI Act was the first of its kind legislation to govern Artificial Intelligence, making the EU a pioneer in the emerging technology regulation space. This blog analyses the EU's Draft AI Rules and Code of Practice, exploring their implications for ethics, innovation, and governance.

Background: The Need for AI Regulation

AI adoption has been happening at a rapid pace and is projected to contribute  $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030. The AI market size is expected to grow by at least 120% year-over-year. Both of these statistics have been stated in arguments citing concrete examples of AI risks (e.g., bias in recruitment tools, misinformation spread through deepfakes). Unlike the U.S., which relies on sector-specific regulations, the EU proposes a unified framework to address AI's challenges comprehensively, especially with the vacuum that exists in the governance of emerging technologies such as AI. It should be noted that the GDPR or the General Data Protection Regulation has been a success with its global influence on data privacy laws and has started a domino effect for the creation of privacy regulations all over the world. This precedent emphasises the EU's proactive approach towards regulations which are population-centric. 

Overview of the Draft EU AI Rules

This Draft General Purpose AI Code of Practice details the AI rules for the AI Act rules and the providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risks. The European AI Office facilitated the drawing up of the code, and was chaired by independent experts and involved nearly 1000 stakeholders and EU member state representatives and observers both European and international observers.

14th November 2024 marks the publishing of the first draft of the EU’s General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, established by the EU AI Act. As per Article 56 of the EU AI Act, the code outlines the rules that operationalise the requirements, set out for General-Purpose AI (GPAI) model under Article 53 and GPAI models with systemic risks under Article 55. The AI Act is legislation that finds its base in product safety and relies on setting harmonised standards in order to support compliance. These harmonised standards are essentially sets of operational rules that have been established by the European Standardisation bodies, such as the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute. Industry experts, civil society and trade unions are translating the requirements set out by the EU sectoral legislation into the specific mandates set by the European Commission. The AI Act obligates the developers, deployers and users of AI on mandates for transparency, risk management and compliance mechanisms 

The Code of Practice for General Purpose AI

The most popular applications of GPAI include ChatGPT and other foundational models such as CoPilot from Microsoft, BERT  from Google, Llama from Meta AI and many others and they are under constant development and upgradation.  The 36-pages long draft Code of Practice for General Purpose AI is meant to serve as a roadmap for tech companies to comply with the AI Act and avoid paying penalties. It focuses on transparency, copyright compliance, risk assessment, and technical/governance risk mitigation as the core areas for the companies that are developing GPAIs. It also lays down guidelines that look to enable greater transparency on what goes into developing GPAIs. 

The Draft Code's provisions for risk assessment focus on preventing cyber attacks, large-scale discrimination, nuclear and misinformation risks, and the risk of the models acting autonomously without oversight. 

Policy Implications

The EU’s Draft AI Rules and Code of Practice represent a bold step in shaping the governance of general-purpose AI, positioning the EU as a global pioneer in responsible AI regulation. By prioritising harmonised standards, ethical safeguards, and risk mitigation, these rules aim to ensure AI benefits society while addressing its inherent risks. While the code is a welcome step, the compliance burdens on MSMEs and startups could hinder innovation, whereas, the voluntary nature of the Code raises concerns about accountability. Additionally, harmonising these ambitious standards with varying global frameworks, especially in regions like the U.S. and India, presents a significant challenge to achieving a cohesive global approach.

Conclusion

The EU’s initiative to regulate general-purpose AI aligns with its legacy of proactive governance, setting the stage for a transformative approach to balancing innovation with ethical accountability. However, challenges remain. Striking the right balance is crucial to avoid stifling innovation while ensuring robust enforcement and inclusivity for smaller players. Global collaboration is the next frontier. As the EU leads, the world must respond by building bridges between regional regulations and fostering a unified vision for AI governance. This demands active stakeholder engagement, adaptive frameworks, and a shared commitment to addressing emerging challenges in AI. The EU’s Draft AI Rules are not just about regulation, they are about leading a global conversation. 

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/new-eu-ai-code-of-practice-draft-rules-9671152/ 
• https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-code-practice 
• https://www.csis.org/analysis/eu-code-practice-general-purpose-ai-key-takeaways-first-draft#:~:text=Drafting%20of%20the%20Code%20of%20Practice%20is%20taking%20place%20under,the%20drafting%20of%20the%20code. 
• https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/12/16/first-draft-of-the-general-purpose-ai-code-of-practice-has-been-released/

Introduction

In the labyrinthine expanse of the digital age, where the ethereal threads of our connections weave a tapestry of virtual existence, there lies a sinister phenomenon that preys upon the vulnerabilities of human emotion and trust. This phenomenon, known as cyber kidnapping, recently ensnared a 17-year-old Chinese exchange student, Kai Zhuang, in its deceptive grip, leading to an $80,000 extortion from his distraught parents. The chilling narrative of Zhuang found cold and scared in a tent in the Utah wilderness, serves as a stark reminder of the pernicious reach of cybercrime.

The Cyber Kidnapping 

The term 'cyber kidnapping' typically denotes a form of cybercrime where malefactors gain unauthorised access to computer systems or data, holding it hostage for ransom. Yet, in the context of Zhuang's ordeal, it took on a more harrowing dimension—a psychological manipulation through online communication that convinced his family of his peril, despite his physical safety before the scam.

The Incident 

The incident unfolded like a modern-day thriller, with Zhuang's parents in China alerting officials at his host high school in Riverdale, Utah, of his disappearance on 28 December 2023. A meticulous investigation ensued, tracing bank records, purchases, and phone data, leading authorities to Zhuang's isolated encampment, 25 miles north of Brigham City. In the frigid embrace of Utah's winter, Zhuang awaited rescue, armed only with a heat blanket, a sleeping bag, limited provisions, and the very phones used to orchestrate his cyber kidnapping.

Upon his rescue, Zhuang's first requests were poignantly human—a warm cheeseburger and a conversation with his family, who had been manipulated into paying the hefty ransom during the cyber-kidnapping scam. This incident not only highlights the emotional toll of such crimes but also the urgent need for awareness and preventative measures.

The Aftermath

To navigate the treacherous waters of cyber threats, one must adopt the scepticism of a seasoned detective when confronted with unsolicited messages that reek of urgency or threat. The verification of identities becomes a crucial shield, a bulwark against deception. Sharing sensitive information online is akin to casting pearls before swine, where once relinquished, control is lost forever. Privacy settings on social media are the ramparts that must be fortified, and the education of family and friends becomes a communal armour against the onslaught of cyber threats.

The Chinese embassy in Washington has sounded the alarm, warning its citizens in the U.S. about the risks of 'virtual kidnapping' and other online frauds. This scam fragments a larger criminal mosaic that threatens to ensnare parents worldwide.

Kai Zhuang's story, while unique in its details, is not an isolated event. Experts warn that technological advancements have made it easier for criminals to pursue cyber kidnapping schemes. The impersonation of loved ones' voices using artificial intelligence, the mining of social media for personal data, and the spoofing of phone numbers are all tools in the cyber kidnapper's arsenal.

The Way Forward

The crimes have evolved, targeting not just the vulnerable but also those who might seem beyond reach, demanding larger ransoms and leaving a trail of psychological devastation in their wake. Cybercrime, as one expert chillingly notes, may well be the most lucrative of crimes, transcending borders, languages, and identities.

In the face of such threats, awareness is the first line of defense. Reporting suspicious activity to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center, verifying the whereabouts of loved ones, and establishing emergency protocols are all steps that can fortify one's digital fortress. Telecommunications companies and law enforcement agencies also have a role to play in authenticating and tracing the source of calls, adding another layer of protection.

Conclusion

The surreal experience of reading about cyber kidnapping belies the very real danger it poses. It is a crime that thrives in the shadows of our interconnected world, a reminder that our digital lives are as vulnerable as our physical ones. As we navigate this complex web, let us arm ourselves with knowledge, vigilance, and the resolve to protect not just our data, but the very essence of our human connections.

References 

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67869517
• https://www.ndtv.com/feature/what-is-cyber-kidnapping-and-how-it-can-be-avoided-4792135

Introduction

As the sun rises on the Indian subcontinent, a nation teeters on the precipice of a democratic exercise of colossal magnitude. The Lok Sabha elections, a quadrennial event that mobilises the will of over a billion souls, is not just a testament to the robustness of India's democratic fabric but also a crucible where the veracity of information is put to the sternest of tests. In this context, the World Economic Forum's 'Global Risks Report 2024' emerges as a harbinger of a disconcerting trend: the spectre of misinformation and disinformation that threatens to distort the electoral landscape.

The report, a carefully crafted document that shares the insights of 1,490 experts from the interests of academia, government, business and civil society, paints a tableau of the global risks that loom large over the next decade. These risks, spawned by the churning cauldron of rapid technological change, economic uncertainty, a warming planet, and simmering conflict, are not just abstract threats but tangible realities that could shape the future of nations.

India’s Electoral Malice

India, as it strides towards the general elections scheduled in the spring of 2024, finds itself in the vortex of this hailstorm. The WEF survey positions India at the zenith of vulnerability to disinformation and misinformation, a dubious distinction that underscores the challenges facing the world's largest democracy. The report depicts misinformation and disinformation as the chimaeras of false information—whether inadvertent or deliberate—that are dispersed through the arteries of media networks, skewing public opinion towards a pervasive distrust in facts and authority. This encompasses a panoply of deceptive content: fabricated, false, manipulated and imposter.

The United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom too, are ensnared in this web of varying degrees of misinformation. South Africa, another nation on the cusp of its own electoral journey, is ranked 22nd, a reflection of the global reach of this phenomenon. The findings, derived from a survey conducted over the autumnal weeks of September to October 2023, reveal a world grappling with the shadowy forces of untruth.

Global Scenario

The report prognosticates that as close to three billion individuals across diverse economies—Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and the United States—prepare to exercise their electoral rights, the rampant use of misinformation and disinformation, and the tools that propagate them, could erode the legitimacy of the governments they elect. The repercussions could be dire, ranging from violent protests and hate crimes to civil confrontation and terrorism.

Beyond the electoral arena, the fabric of reality itself is at risk of becoming increasingly polarised, seeping into the public discourse on issues as varied as public health and social justice. As the bedrock of truth is undermined, the spectre of domestic propaganda and censorship looms large, potentially empowering governments to wield control over information based on their own interpretation of 'truth.'

The report further warns that disinformation will become increasingly personalised and targeted, honing in on specific groups such as minority communities and disseminating through more opaque messaging platforms like WhatsApp or WeChat. This tailored approach to deception signifies a new frontier in the battle against misinformation.

In a world where societal polarisation and economic downturn are seen as central risks in an interconnected 'risks network,' misinformation and disinformation have ascended rapidly to the top of the threat hierarchy. The report's respondents—two-thirds of them—cite extreme weather, AI-generated misinformation and disinformation, and societal and/or political polarisation as the most pressing global risks, followed closely by the 'cost-of-living crisis,' 'cyberattacks,' and 'economic downturn.'

Current Situation

In this unprecedented year for elections, the spectre of false information looms as one of the major threats to the global populace, according to the experts surveyed for the WEF's 2024 Global Risk Report. The report offers a nuanced analysis of the degrees to which misinformation and disinformation are perceived as problems for a selection of countries over the next two years, based on a ranking of 34 economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal, and technological risks.

India, the land of ancient wisdom and modern innovation, stands at the crossroads where the risk of disinformation and misinformation is ranked highest. Out of all the risks, these twin scourges were most frequently selected as the number one risk for the country by the experts, eclipsing infectious diseases, illicit economic activity, inequality, and labor shortages. The South Asian nation's next general election, set to unfurl between April and May 2024, will be a litmus test for its 1.4 billion people.

The spectre of fake news is not a novel adversary for India. The 2019 election was rife with misinformation, with reports of political parties weaponising platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook to spread incendiary messages, stoking fears that online vitriol could spill over into real-world violence. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated the issue, with misinformation once again proliferating through WhatsApp.

Other countries facing a high risk of the impacts of misinformation and disinformation include El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Romania, Ireland, Czechia, the United States, Sierra Leone, France, and Finland, all of which consider the threat to be one of the top six most dangerous risks out of 34 in the coming two years. In the United Kingdom, misinformation/disinformation is ranked 11th among perceived threats.

The WEF analysts conclude that the presence of misinformation and disinformation in these electoral processes could seriously destabilise the real and perceived legitimacy of newly elected governments, risking political unrest, violence, and terrorism, and a longer-term erosion of democratic processes.

The 'Global Risks Report 2024' of the World Economic Forum ranks India first in facing the highest risk of misinformation and disinformation in the world at a time when it faces general elections this year. The report, released in early January with the 19th edition of its Global Risks Report and Global Risk Perception Survey, claims to reveal the varying degrees to which misinformation and disinformation are rated as problems for a selection of analyzed countries in the next two years, based on a ranking of 34 economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal, and technological risks.

Some governments and platforms aiming to protect free speech and civil liberties may fail to act effectively to curb falsified information and harmful content, making the definition of 'truth' increasingly contentious across societies. State and non-state actors alike may leverage false information to widen fractures in societal views, erode public confidence in political institutions, and threaten national cohesion and coherence.

Trust in specific leaders will confer trust in information, and the authority of these actors—from conspiracy theorists, including politicians, and extremist groups to influencers and business leaders—could be amplified as they become arbiters of truth.

False information could not only be used as a source of societal disruption but also of control by domestic actors in pursuit of political agendas. The erosion of political checks and balances and the growth in tools that spread and control information could amplify the efficacy of domestic disinformation over the next two years.

Global internet freedom is already in decline, and access to more comprehensive sets of information has dropped in numerous countries. The implication: Falls in press freedoms in recent years and a related lack of strong investigative media are significant vulnerabilities set to grow.

Advisory

Here are specific best practices for citizens to help prevent the spread of misinformation during electoral processes:

• Verify Information:Double-check the accuracy of information before sharing it. Use reliable sources and fact-checking websites to verify claims.

• Cross-Check Multiple Sources:Consult multiple reputable news sources to ensure that the information is consistent across different platforms.

• Be Wary of Social Media:Social media platforms are susceptible to misinformation. Be cautious about sharing or believing information solely based on social media posts.

• Check Dates and Context:Ensure that information is current and consider the context in which it is presented. Misinformation often thrives when details are taken out of context.

• Promote Media Literacy:Educate yourself and others on media literacy to discern reliable sources from unreliable ones. Be skeptical of sensational headlines and clickbait.

• Report False Information:Report instances of misinformation to the platform hosting the content and encourage others to do the same. Utilise fact-checking organisations or tools to report and debunk false information.

• Critical Thinking:Foster critical thinking skills among your community members. Encourage them to question information and think critically before accepting or sharing it.

• Share Official Information:Share official statements and information from reputable sources, such as government election commissions, to ensure accuracy.

• Avoid Echo Chambers:Engage with diverse sources of information to avoid being in an 'echo chamber' where misinformation can thrive.

• Be Responsible in Sharing:Before sharing information, consider the potential impact it may have. Refrain from sharing unverified or sensational content that can contribute to misinformation.

• Promote Open Dialogue:Open discussions should be promoted amongst their community about the significance of factual information and the dangers of misinformation. 

• Stay Calm and Informed:During critical periods, such as election days, stay calm and rely on official sources for updates. Avoid spreading unverified information that can contribute to panic or confusion.

• Support Media Literacy Programs:Media Literacy Programs in schools should be promoted to provide individuals with essential skills to sail through the information sea properly.

Conclusion

Preventing misinformation requires a collective effort from individuals, communities, and platforms. By adopting these best practices, citizens can play a vital role in reducing the impact of misinformation during electoral processes.

References:

• https://thewire.in/media/survey-finds-false-information-risk-highest-in-india 
• https://thesouthfirst.com/pti/india-faces-highest-risk-of-disinformation-in-general-elections-world-economic-forum/

‍