TRAI on Promotional Messages & Calls

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

‍

Introduction:

This Op-ed sheds light on the perspectives of the US and China regarding cyber espionage. Additionally, it seeks to analyze China's response to the US accusation regarding cyber espionage.

What is Cyber espionage?

Cyber espionage or cyber spying is the act of obtaining personal, sensitive, or proprietary information from individuals without their knowledge or consent. In an increasingly transparent and technological society, the ability to control the private information an individual reveals on the Internet and the ability of others to access that information are a growing concern. This includes storage and retrieval of e-mail by third parties, social media, search engines, data mining, GPS tracking, the explosion of smartphone usage, and many other technology considerations. In the age of big data, there is a growing concern for privacy issues surrounding the storage and misuse of personal data and non-consensual mining of private information by companies, criminals, and governments. 

Cyber espionage aims for economic, political, and technological gain. Fox example Stuxnet (2010) cyber-attack by the US and its allies Israel against Iran’s Nuclear facilities. Three espionage tools were discovered connected to Stuxnet, such as Gauss, FLAME and DuQu, for stealing data such as passwords, screenshots, Bluetooth, Skype functions, etc.

Cyber espionage is one of the most significant and intriguing international challenges globally. Many nations and international bodies, such as the US and China, have created their definitions and have always struggled over cyber espionage norms.

The US Perspective

In 2009, US officials (along with other allied countries) mentioned that cyber espionage was acceptable if it safeguarded national security, although they condemned economically motivated cyber espionage. Even the Director of National Intelligence said in 2013 that foreign intelligence capabilities cannot steal foreign companies' trade secrets to benefit their firms. This stance is consistent with the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996, particularly Section 1831, which prohibits economic espionage. This includes the theft of a trade secret that "will benefit any foreign government, foreign agent or foreign instrumentality. 

Second, the US advocates for cybersecurity market standards and strongly opposes transferring personal data extracted from the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to cybercrime markets. Furthermore, China has been reported to sell OPM data on illicit markets. It became a grave concern for the US government when the Chinese government managed to acquire sensitive details of 22.1 million US government workers through cyber intrusions in 2014.

Third, Cyber-espionage is acceptable unless it’s utilized for Doxing, which involves disclosing personal information about someone online without their consent and using it as a tool for political influence operations. However, Western academics and scholars have endeavoured to distinguish between doxing and whistleblowing. They argue that whistleblowing, exemplified by events like the Snowden Leaks and Vault 7 disclosures, serves the interests of US citizens. In the US, being regarded as an open society, certain disclosures are not promoted but rather required by mandate.

Fourth, the US argues that there is no cyber espionage against critical infrastructure during peacetime. According to the US, there are 16 critical infrastructure sectors, including chemical, nuclear, energy, defence, food, water, and so on. These sectors are considered essential to the US, and any disruption or harm would impact security, national public health and national economic security.

The US concern regarding China’s cyber espionage

According to James Lewis (a senior vice president at the Center for US-China Economic and Security Review Commission), the US faces losses between $ 20 billion and $30 billion annually due to China’s cyberespionage. The 2018 U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Section 301 report highlighted instances, where the Chinese government and executives from Chinese companies engaged in clandestine cyber intrusions to obtaining commercially valuable information from the U.S. businesses, such as in 2018 where officials from China’s Ministry of State Security, stole trade from General Electric aviation and other aerospace companies.    

China's response to the US accusations of cyber espionage

China's perspective on cyber espionage is outlined by its 2014 anti-espionage law, which was revised in 2023. Article 1 of this legislation is formulated to prevent, halt, and punish espionage actions to maintain national security. Article 4 addresses the act of espionage and does not differentiate between state-sponsored cyber espionage for economic purposes and state-sponsored cyber espionage for national security purposes. However, China doesn't make a clear difference between government-to-government hacking (spying) and government-to-corporate sector hacking, unlike the US. This distinction is less apparent in China due to its strong state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector. However, military spying is considered part of the national interest in the US, while corporate spying is considered a crime.

China asserts that the US has established cyber norms concerning cyber espionage to normalize public attribution as acceptable conduct. This is achieved by targeting China for cyber operations, imposing sanctions on accused Chinese individuals, and making political accusations, such as blaming China and Russia for meddling in US elections. Despite all this, Washington D.C has never taken responsibility for the infamous Flame and Stuxnet cyber operations, which were widely recognized as part of a broader collaborative initiative known as Operation Olympic Games between the US and Israel. Additionally, the US takes the lead in surveillance activities conducted against China, Russia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, and several French presidents. Surveillance programs such as Irritant Horn, Stellar Wind, Bvp47, the Hive, and PRISM are recognized as tools used by the US to monitor both allies and adversaries to maintain global hegemony.

China urges the US to cease its smear campaign associated with Volt Typhoon’s cyberattack for cyber espionage, citing the publication of a report titled “Volt Typhoon: A Conspiratorial Swindling Campaign Targets with U.S. Congress and Taxpayers Conducted by U.S. Intelligence Community” by China's National Computer Virus Emergency Response Centre and the 360 Digital Security Group on 15 April. According to the report, 'Volt Typhoon' is a ransomware cyber criminal group self-identified as the 'Dark Power' and is not affiliated with any state or region. Multiple cybersecurity authorities in the US collaborated to fabricate this story just for more budgets from Congress. In the meantime, Microsoft and other U.S. cybersecurity firms are seeking more big contracts from US cybersecurity authorities. The reality behind “Volt Typhoon '' is a conspiratorial swindling campaign to achieve two objectives by amplifying the "China threat theory" and cheating money from the U.S. Congress and taxpayers.

Beijing condemned the US claims of cyber espionage without any solid evidence. China also blames the US for economic espionage by citing the European Parliament report that the National Security Agency (NSA) was also involved in assisting Boeing in beating Airbus for a multi-billion dollar contract. Furthermore, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff also accused the US authorities of spying against the state-owned oil company “Petrobras” for economic reasons.

Conclusion

In 2015, the US and China marked a milestone as both President Xi Jinping and Barack Obama signed an agreement, committing that neither country's government would conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of trade secrets, intellectual property, or other confidential business information to grant competitive advantages to firms or commercial sectors. However, the China Cybersecurity Industry Alliance (CCIA) published a report titled 'US Threats and Sabotage to the Security and Development of Global Cyberspace' in 2024, highlighting the US escalating cyber-attack and espionage activities against China and other nations. Additionally, there has been a considerable increase in the volume and sophistication of Chinese hacking since 2016. According to a survey by the Center for International and Strategic Studies, out of 224 cyber espionage incidents reported since 2000, 69% occurred after Xi assumed office. Therefore, China and the US must address cybersecurity issues through dialogue and cooperation, utilizing bilateral and multilateral agreements.

‍

Introduction

Cert-In (Indian Computer Emergency Response Team) has recently issued the “Guidelines on Information Security Practices” for Government Entities for Safe & Trusted Internet. The guideline has come at a critical time when the Draft Digital India Bill is about to be released, which is aimed at revamping the legal aspects of Indian cyberspace. These guidelines lay down the policy framework and the requirements for critical infrastructure for all government organisations and institutions to improve the overall cyber security of the nation.

What is Cert-In?

A Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) is a group of information security experts responsible for the protection against, detection of and response to an organisation’s cybersecurity incidents. A CERT may focus on resolving data breaches and denial-of-service attacks and providing alerts and incident handling guidelines. CERTs also conduct ongoing public awareness campaigns and engage in research aimed at improving security systems. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) oversees CERT-In. It regularly releases alerts to help individuals and companies safeguard their data, information, and ICT (Information and Communications Technology) infrastructure.

Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) has been established and appointed as national agency in respect of cyber incidents and cyber security incidents in terms of the provisions of section 70B of Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.

CERT-In requests information from service providers, intermediaries, data centres, and body corporates to coordinate reaction actions and emergency procedures regarding cyber security incidents. It is a focal point for incident reporting and offers round-the-clock security services.  It manages cyber occurrences that are tracked and reported while continuously analysing cyber risks. It strengthens the security barriers for the Indian Internet domain.

Background

India is fast becoming one of the world’s largest connected nations – with over 80 Crore Indians  (Digital Nagriks) presently connected and using the Internet and cyberspace – and with this number is expected to touch 120 Crores in the coming few years. The Digital Nagriks of the country are using the Internet for business, education, finance and various applications and services including Digital Government services. Internet provides growth and innovation and at the same time it has seen rise in cybercrimes, user harm and other challenges to online safety. The policies of the Government are aimed at ensuring an Open, Safe & Trusted and Accountable Internet for its users. Government is fully cognizant and aware of the growing cyber security threats and attacks.

It is the Government of India’s objective to ensure that Digital Nagriks experience a Safe & Trusted Internet. Along with ubiquitous applications of Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) in almost all facets of service delivery and operations, continuously evolving cyber threats have become a concern for the Government. Cyber-attacks can come in the form of malware, ransomware, phishing, data breach etc., that adversely affect an organisation’s information and systems. Cyber threats leading to cyber-attacks or incidents can compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of an organisation’s information and systems and can have far reaching impact on essential services and national interests. To protect against cyber threats, it is important for government entities to implement strong  cybersecurity measures and follow best practices. As ICT infrastructure of the Government entities is one of the preferred targets of the malicious actors, responsibility of implementing good cyber security practices for protecting computers, servers, applications, electronic systems, networks, and data from digital attacks, also remain with the ICT assets’ owner i.e. Government entity.

What are the new Guidelines about?

The Government of India (distribution of business) Rules, 1961’s First Schedule lists a number of Ministries, Departments, Secretariats, and Offices, along with their affiliated and subordinate offices, which are all subject to the rules. They also comprise all governmental organisations, businesses operating in the public sector, and other governmental entities under their administrative control.

“The government has launched a number of steps to guarantee an accessible, trustworthy, and accountable digital environment. With a focus on capabilities, systems, human resources, and awareness, we are extending and speeding our work in the area of cyber security, according to Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Minister of State for Electronics, Information Technology, Skill Development, and Entrepreneurship.

The Recommendations

• Various security domains are covered in the standards, including network security, identity and access management, application security, data security, third-party outsourcing, hardening procedures, security monitoring, incident management, and security audits.
• For instance, the rules advise using only a Standard User (non-administrator) account to use computers and laptops for regular work regarding desktop, laptop, and printer security in the workplace. Users may only be granted administrative access with the CISO’s consent.
• The usage of lengthy passwords containing at least eight characters that combine capital letters, tiny letters, numerals, and special characters; Never save any usernames or passwords in your web browser. Likewise, never save any payment-related data there.
• They include guidelines created by the National Informatics Centre for Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) and staff members of Central government Ministries/Departments to improve cyber security and cyber hygiene in addition to adhering to industry best practises.

Conclusion

The government has been proactive in the contemporary times to eradicate the menace of cybercrimes and therreats from the Indian cyberspace and hence now we have seen a series of new bills and polices introduced by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, and various other government organisations like Cert-In and TRAI. These policies have been aimed towards being relevant to time and current technologies. The threats from emerging technologies like web 3.0 cannot be ignored and hence with active netizen participation and synergy between government and corporates will lead to a better and improved cyber ecosystem in India.