#FactCheck: Fake Claim that US has used Indian Airspace to attack Iran

Introduction

Emerging technologies in the digital era have made their inroads in manifold domains and locations, including the “Aviation industry”. A 2022 Cranfield University and Inmarsat report has made the point for digitalization powering a reviving age for the aviation industry. Several airport authorities are presently mobilizing power of emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) across the airport bedrock to provide travelers with a plain sailing and expeditious air travel experience.

The Perils of Juice-Jacking

Today, Universal Serial Bus (USB) charging ports are ubiquitous and a convenient way for travelers to keep their devices powered up. In their busy, mundane lives, people use the public charging facility while travelling. However, cybersecurity experts have warned that charging in public areas could wipe off data from an electronic device or install malware, and they have urged people to stay away from USB charging ports at airports and other public areas. This leads to the possibility that fraudsters may manipulate susceptible users via juice jacking.

Investigative journalist Brian Krebs in 2011 coined the term "Juice Jacking". It isa form of cyber attack where a public USB charging port is fiddled with and infected using hardware and software changes to pocket data or install malware on devices connected to it. The term “juice jacking” is a slang representation for electric power or energy, and “hijacking” indicates an unauthorized key toa device.

While the preliminary purpose of juice jacking is usually to pilfer sensitive information from corresponding devices, such as passwords and payment card details, attackers can exploit this stolen information to attain unauthorized to your financial accounts. If the adversary attacker installs malware in the electronic device during the juice jacking strategy, the attacker may further observe the individual's movements even after one has disconnected the device from the USB port. However, the hazards of Juice Jacking include malware infection, data heist, economic loss and damage to the reputation of an individual.

RedFlags from Agencies

In2023, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) forewarned travelers against using charging stations in public zones such as hotels, airports, and shopping malls due to malicious actors attempting to use the public USB to introduce monitoring software and malware into devices. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also administered a new advisory regarding “juice jacking "and its possibility of launching a hushed cyber attack against a mobile gadget while one is charging the phone with a USB cord. Similarly, according to new research from International Business Machines (IBM) Security, many nation-state hackers are currently training their eyes on travelers.

RBI Advisory

Recently in 2024, The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has likewise administered a warning statement to mobile phone users urging them against charging their devices using public ports. RBI has additionally accentuated the importance of safeguarding private and financial data while using mobile devices. Juice jacking is further cited as one of the scams in the RBI booklet on the modus operandi of financial fraudsters in the financial space.

Preventing juice jacking attacks

The routes to avoid Juice Jacking are to keep a tab on the USB devices, not use the public charging ports, update the phone software regularly, enable and utilize the software security measures of the device, use a USB pass-through device, a wall outlet, or a backup battery; never use unknown charging cables and use only the trusted security apps. It is further important to avoid using cables that are left behind by other travelers in any public space. Users can correspondingly turn off their devices before connecting to a wary charging port. Nevertheless, the absence of documented cases does not necessarily imply that users cannot be a target of such an attack and a warning is still recommended when securing personal gadgets with susceptible user data while using standard cables. Also, using a virtual private network (VPN) and assuring that devices have the updated security updates established can aid in mitigating the danger of cyber attacks. It is equally important to utilize the security features of your device, such as passcodes, fingerprints, or facial recognition, enabled to count as a supplementary layer of safeguard.

Conclusion

In the contemporary digital age, individuals, on the whole, need to be vigilant about “Cybersecurity hygiene” and avoid accessing susceptible data or conducting financial transactions on unsecured networks. Mobile phones or devices should run on the latest operating system, and antivirus software should be revamped to mitigate conceivable security susceptibilities.

References

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2023/04/20/juice-jacking-malware-phone-airports-hotels/?sh=47adab7e82ed
• https://www.businessairportinternational.com/features/how-ai-is-improving-business-aviation-operations.html
• https://www.news18.com/business/juice-jacking-attack-scam-bank-frauds-india-8412037.html
• https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/juice-jacking/
• https://blogs.blackberry.com/en/2023/04/juice-jacking-advisory
• https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/juice-jacking-rbi-issues-warning-against-charging-mobile-phones-using-public-ports/article67895091.ece
• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/juice-jacking-how-hackers-target-smartphones-tethered-to-public-charging-points/article67026433.ece
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2019/05/21/why-you-should-never-use-airport-usb-charging-stations/?sh=630f026a5955
• https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/12/tech/fbi-public-charging-port-warning/index.html
• https://social-innovation.hitachi/en-in/knowledge-hub/hitachi-voice/digital-transformation/
• https://www.inmarsat.com/en/insights/aviation/2022/future-aviation-connectivity.html

Executive Summary:

Viral pictures featuring US Secret Service agents smiling while protecting former President Donald Trump during a planned attempt to kill him in Pittsburgh have been clarified as photoshopped pictures. The pictures making the rounds on social media were produced by AI-manipulated tools. The original image shows no smiling agents found on several websites. The event happened with Thomas Mathew Crooks firing bullets at Trump at an event in Butler, PA on July 13, 2024. During the incident one was deceased and two were critically injured. The Secret Service stopped the shooter, and circulating photos in which smiles were faked have stirred up suspicion. The verification of the face-manipulated image was debunked by the CyberPeace Research Team.

Claims:

Viral photos allegedly show United States Secret Service agents smiling while rushing to protect former President Donald Trump during an attempted assassination in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the posts, we searched for any credible source that supports the claim made, we found several articles and images of the incident but in those the images were different. 

This image was published by CNN news media, in this image we can see the US Secret Service protecting Donald Trump but not smiling. We then checked for AI Manipulation in the image using the AI Image Detection tool, True Media.

We then checked with another AI Image detection tool named, contentatscale AI image detection, which also found it to be AI Manipulated.

Comparison of both photos:

‍

‍

Hence, upon lack of credible sources and detection of AI Manipulation concluded that the image is fake and misleading.

Conclusion:

The viral photos claiming to show Secret Service agents smiling when protecting former President Donald Trump during an assassination attempt have been proven to be digitally manipulated. The original image found on CNN Media shows no agents smiling. The spread of these altered photos resulted in misinformation. The CyberPeace Research Team's investigation and comparison of the original and manipulated images confirm that the viral claims are false.

• Claim: Viral photos allegedly show United States Secret Service agents smiling while rushing to protect former President Donald Trump during an attempted assassination in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
• Claimed on: X, Thread
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

Introduction

In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.

Brief Analysis of Prebunking 

Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation. 

The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it. 

The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.

There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution. 

Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions. 

Brief Analysis of Debunking 

Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem. 

Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.

Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts.  Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation.  Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.

Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis

Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms

With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions. 

1. Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions. 
2. Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
3. User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
4. Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.

Conclusion

The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential.  Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape. 

References

1. https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
2. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
3. https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
4. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/

‍