Using incognito mode and VPN may still not ensure total privacy, according to expert

Introduction

The rise in start-up culture, increasing investments, and technological breakthroughs are being encouraged alongside innovations and the incorporation of generative Artificial Intelligence elements. Witnessing the growing focus on human-centred AI, its potential to transform industries like education remains undeniable. Enhancing experiences and inculcating new ways of learning, there is much to be explored. Recently, a Delhi-based non-profit called Rocket Learning, in collaboration with Google.org, launched Appu- a personalised AI educational tool providing a multilingual and conversational learning experience for kids between 3 and 6.

AI Appu

Developed in 6 months, along with the help of dedicated Google.org fellows, interactive Appu has resonated with those the founders call “super-users,” i.e. parents and caregivers. Instead of redirecting students to standard content and instructional videos, it operates on the idea of conversational learning, one equally important for children in the targeted age bracket. Designed in the form of an elephant, Appu is supposed to be a personalised tutor, helping both children and parents understand concepts through dialogue. AI enables the generation of different explanations in case of doubt, aiding in understanding. If children were to answer in mixed languages instead of one complete sentence in a single language (eg, Hindi and English), the AI would still consider it as a response. The AI lessons are two minutes long and are inculcated with real-world examples. The emphasis on interactive and fun learning of concepts through innovation enhances the learning experience. Currently only available in Hindi, it is being worked on to include 20 other languages such as Punjabi and Marathi. 

UNESCO, AI, and Education

It is important to note that such innovations also find encouragement in UNESCO’s mandate as AI in education contributes to achieving the 2030 Agenda of Sustainable Development Goals (here; SDG 4- focusing on quality education). Within the ambit of the Beijing Consensus held in 2019, UNESCO encourages a human-centred approach to AI, and has also developed the “Artificial Intelligence and Education: Guidance for Policymakers” aiming towards understanding its potential and opportunities in education as well as the core competencies it needs to work on. Another publication was launched during one of the flagship events of UNESCO- (Digital Learning Week, 2024) - AI competency frameworks for both, students and teachers which provide a roadmap for assessing the potential and risks of AI, each covering common aspects such as AI ethics, and human-centred mindset and even certain distinct options such as AI system design for students and AI pedagogy for teachers.

Potential Challenges

While AI holds immense promise in education, innovation with regard to learning is contentious as several risks must be carefully managed. Depending on the innovation, AI’s struggle with multitasking beyond the classroom, such as administrative duties and tedious grading, which require highly detailed role descriptions could prove to be a challenge. This can become exhausting for developers managing innovative AI systems, as they would have to fit various responses owing to the inherent nature of AI needing to be trained to produce output. Security concerns are another major issue, as data breaches could compromise sensitive student information. Implementation costs also present challenges, as access to AI-driven tools depends on financial resources. Furthermore, AI-driven personalised learning, while beneficial, may inadvertently reduce student motivation, also compromising students' soft skills, such as teamwork and communication, which are crucial for real-world success. These risks highlight the need for a balanced approach to AI integration in education.

Conclusion

Innovations related to education, especially the ones that focus on a human-centred AI approach, have immense potential in not only enhancing learning experiences but also reshaping how knowledge is accessed, understood, and applied. Untapped potential using other services is also encouraged in this sector. However, maintaining a balance between fostering intrigue and ensuring the inculcation of ethical and secure AI remains imperative.

References

• https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-unescos-new-ai-competency-frameworks-students-and-teachers?hub=32618
• https://www.unesco.org/en/digital-education/artificial-intelligence
• https://www.deccanherald.com/technology/google-backed-rocket-learning-launches-appu-an-ai-powered-tutor-for-kids-3455078
• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/how-this-google-backed-ai-tool-is-reshaping-education-appu-9896391/
• https://www.thehindu.com/business/ai-appu-to-tutor-children-in-india/article69354145.ece
• https://www.velvetech.com/blog/ai-in-education-risks-and-concerns/ 

‍

Pretext

On 20th October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android Mobile device ecosystem, apart from issuing cease and desist orders. The CCI also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline.  Smart mobile devices need an operating system (OS) to run applications (apps) and programs. Android is one such mobile operating system that Google acquired in 2005. In the instant matter, the CCI examined various practices of Google w.r.t. licensing of this Android mobile operating system and various proprietary mobile applications of Google (e.g., Play Store, Google Search, Google Chrome, YouTube, etc.).

The Issue

Google was found to be misusing its dominant position in the tech market, and the same was the reason behind the penalty. Google argued about the competitive constraints being faced from Apple. In relation to understanding the extent of competition between Google’s Android ecosystem and Apple’s iOS ecosystem, the CCI noted the differences in the two business models, which affect the underlying incentives of business decisions. Apple’s business is primarily based on a vertically integrated smart device ecosystem that focuses on the sale of high-end smart devices with state-of-the-art software components. In contrast, Google’s business was found to be driven by the ultimate intent of increasing users on its platforms so that they interact with its revenue-earning service, i.e., online searches, which directly affects the sale of online advertising services by Google. It was seen that google had created a dominant position among the android phone manufacturers as they were made to have a set of google apps preinstalled in the device to increase the user’s dependency on google services. The CCI felt that Google had created a dominant position to which they replied that the same operations are done by Apple as well, to which the commission responded that apple is a phone and app manufacturer and they have Apple-owned apps in Apple devices only, but Google here in had made a pseudo mandate for android manufactures to have the google apps pre-installed which is, in turn, a possible way of disrupting the market equilibrium and violative of market practices. The CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in India, CCI delineated the following five relevant markets in the present matter –

• The market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India
• The market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India
• The market for general web search services in India
• The market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India
• The market for online video hosting platforms (OVHP) in India.

Supreme Courts Opinion

In October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Google, owned by Alphabet Inc, exploited its dominant position in Android and told it to remove restrictions on device makers, including those related to the pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. Google lost a challenge in the Supreme Court to block the directives, as the learned court refused to put a stay on the imposed penalty, further giving seven days to comply. The Supreme Court has said a lower tribunal—where Google first challenged the Android directives—can continue to hear the company’s appeal and must rule by March 31.

Counterpoint Research estimates that about 97% of 600 million smartphones in India run on Android. Apple has just a 3% share. Hoping to block the implementation of the CCI directives, Google challenged the CCI order in the Supreme Court by warning it could stall the growth of the Android ecosystem. It also said it would be forced to alter arrangements with more than 1,100 device manufacturers and thousands of app developers if the directives kick in. Google has been concerned about India’s decision as the steps are seen as more sweeping than those imposed in the European Commission’s 2018 ruling. There it was fined for putting in place what the Commission called unlawful restrictions on Android mobile device makers. Google is still challenging the record $4.3 billion fine in that case. In Europe, Google made changes later, including letting Android device users pick their default search engine, and said device makers would be able to license the Google mobile application suite separately from the Google Search App or the Chrome browser.

‍

Conclusion

As the world goes deeper into cyberspace, the big tech companies have more control over the industry and the markets, but the same should not turn into anarchy in the global markets. The Tech giants need to be made aware that compliance is the utmost duty for all companies, and enforcement of the law of the land will be maintained no matter what. Earlier India lacked policies and legislation to govern cyberspace, but in the recent proactive stance by the govt, a lot of new bills have been tabled, one of them being the Intermediary Rules 2021, which has laid down the obligations nand duties of the companies by setting up an intermediary in the country. Such bills coupled with such crucial judgments on tech giants will act as a test and barrier for other tech companies who try to flaunt the rules and avoid compliance.

Introduction

The automobile business is fast expanding, with vehicles becoming sophisticated, interconnected gadgets equipped with cutting-edge digital technology. This integration improves convenience, safety, and efficiency while also exposing automobiles to a new set of cyber risks. Electric vehicles (EVs) are equipped with sophisticated computer systems that manage various functions, such as acceleration, braking, and steering. If these systems are compromised, it could result in hazardous situations, including the remote control of the vehicle or unauthorized access to sensitive data. The automotive sector is evolving with the rise of connected car stakeholders, exposing new vulnerabilities for hackers to exploit. 

Why Automotive Cybersecurity is required

Cybersecurity threats to automotives result from hardware, software and overall systems redundancy. Additional concerns include general privacy clauses that justify collecting and transferring data to “third-party vendors”, without explicitly disclosing who such third parties are and the manner of processing personal data. For example, infotainment platform data may show popular music and the user’s preferences, which may be used by the music industry to improve marketing strategies. Similarly, it is lesser known that any data relating to behavioural tracking data, such as driving patterns etc., are also logged by the original equipment manufacturer.

Hacking is not limited to attackers gaining control of an electronic automobile; it includes malicious actors hacking charging stations to manipulate the systems. In Russia, EV charging stations were hacked in Moscow to display pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin messages such as “Glory to Ukraine” and “Death to the enemy” in the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine war. Other examples include instances from the Isle of Wight, where hackers controlled the EV monitor to show inappropriate content and display high voltage fault codes to EV owners, preventing them from charging their vehicles with empty batteries.

UN Economic Commission for Europe releases Regulation 155 for Automobiles

UN Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 155 lays down uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to cybersecurity and cybersecurity management systems (CSMS). This was originally a part of the Commission.s Work Paper (W.P.) 29 that aimed to harmonise vehicular regulations for vehicles and vehicle equipment. Regulation 155 has a two-prong objective; first, to ensure cybersecurity at the organisational level and second, to ensure adequate designs of the vehicle architecture. A critical aspect in this context is the implementation of a certified CSMS by all companies that bring vehicles to market. Notably, this requirement alters the perspective of manufacturers; their responsibilities no longer conclude with the start of production (SOP). Instead, manufacturers are now required to continuously monitor and assess the safety systems throughout the entire life cycle of a vehicle, including making any necessary improvements.

This Regulation reflects the highly dynamic nature of software development and assurance. Moreover, the management system is designed to ensure compliance with safety requirements across the entire supply chain. This is a significant challenge, considering that suppliers currently account for over 70 per cent of the software volume.

The Regulation, which is binding in nature for 64 member countries, came into force in 2021. UNECE countries were required to be compliant with the Regulations by July 2022 for all new vehicles and by July 2024, the Regulation was set to apply to all vehicles. It is believed that the Regulation will become a de facto global standard, since vehicles authorised in a particular country may not be brought into the global market or the market of any UNECE member country based on any other authorisation. In such a scenario, OEMs of non-member countries may be required to give a “self-declaration”, declaring the equipment’s conformity with cybersecurity standards.

Conclusion

To compete and ensure trust, global car makers must deliver a robust cybersecurity framework that meets evolving regulations. The UNECE regulations in this regard are driving this direction by requiring automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to integrate vehicle cybersecurity throughout the entire value chain. The ‘security by design' approach aims to build a connected car that is trusted by all.  Automotive cybersecurity involves measures and technologies to protect connected vehicles and their onboard systems from growing digital threats.

References:

1. “Electric vehicle cyber security risks and best practices (2023)”, Cyber Talk, 1 August 2023. https://www.cybertalk.org/2023/08/01/electric-vehicle-cyber-security-risks-and-best-practices-2023/#:~:text=EVs%20are%20equipped%20with%20complex,unauthorized%20access%20to%20sensitive%20data. 
2. Gordon, Aaron, “Russian Electric Vehicle Chargers Hacked, Tell Users “PUTIN IS A D*******D”, Vice, 28 February 2022. https://www.vice.com/en/article/russian-electric-vehicle-chargers-hacked-tell-users-putin-is-a-dickhead/ 
3. “Isle of Wight: Council’s electric vehicle chargers hacked to show porn site”, BBC, 6 April 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-61006816 
4. Sandler, Manuel, “UN Regulation No. 155: What You Need to Know about UN R155”, Cyres Consulting, 1 June 2022. https://www.cyres-consulting.com/un-regulation-no-155-requirements-what-you-need-to-know/?srsltid=AfmBOopV1pH1mg6M2Nn439N1-EyiU-gPwH2L4vq5tmP0Y2vUpQR-yfP7#A_short_overview_Background_knowledge_on_UN_Regulation_No_155 
5. https://unece.org/wp29-introduction?__cf_chl_tk=ZYt.Sq4MrXvTwSiYURi_essxUCGCysfPq7eSCg1oXLA-1724839918-0.0.1.1-13972

‍