Generative AI, which includes technologies like GPT-4, DALL-E, and other advanced machine learning models, has shown immense potential in creating content, automating tasks, and enhancing decision-making processes.
These technologies can generate human-like text, create realistic images, and even compose music, making them valuable tools across industries such as healthcare, finance, marketing, and entertainment.
However, the capabilities of generative AI also raise significant data privacy concerns. As these models require vast amounts of data to train and improve, the risk of mishandling sensitive information increases. This has led to heightened scrutiny from both regulatory bodies and the public.
Data Collection and Usage: Generative AI systems often rely on large datasets that may include personal and sensitive information. The collection, storage, and usage of this data must comply with stringent privacy regulations such as GDPR and CCPA. Organizations must ensure that data is anonymized and used ethically to prevent misuse.
Transparency and Accountability: One of the major concerns is the lack of transparency in how generative AI models operate. Users and stakeholders need to understand how their data is being used and the decisions being made by these systems. Establishing clear accountability mechanisms is crucial to build trust and ensure ethical use.
Bias and Discrimination: Generative AI models can inadvertently perpetuate biases present in the training data. This can lead to discriminatory outcomes, particularly in sensitive areas like hiring, lending, and law enforcement. Addressing these biases requires continuous monitoring and updating of the models to ensure fairness and equity.
Security Risks: The integration of generative AI into various systems can introduce new security vulnerabilities. Cyberattacks targeting AI systems can lead to data breaches, exposing sensitive information. Robust security measures and regular audits are essential to safeguard against such threats.
80% of respondents are required to complete mandatory technology ethics training, marking a 7% increase since 2022. Nearly three-quarters of IT and business professionals rank data privacy among their top three ethical concerns related to generative AI:
Threat actors see healthcare systems as lucrative targets for cybercrime because they hold crucial financial, health, and personal data. A 2023 survey research in health and IT professionals revealed that 88% of organizations had suffered around 40% of attacks in the past year.
One major flaw is the rise of complexity in IT systems, says Hüseyin Tanriverdi, associate professor of information, risk, and operations management at Texas McCombs. He believes it's due to years of mergers and acquisitions that have made large-scale multi-hospital systems.
After mergers, healthcare providers don’t standardize their tech and security operations, which results in causing major complexity in the health systems- different IT systems, different care processes, and different command structures.
But his new research shows complexity can also offer solutions to these issues. “A good kind of complexity,” Tanriverdi believes can support communication across different systems, governance structures, and care processes, and combat against cyber incidents.
The research team found two similar-sounding IT terms that link to the problem. In “complicatedness,” an abundance of elements interconnect in a system for sharing info in structured ways. Whereas “complexity” happens when many elements interconnect to share information in unstructured ways- integrating systems following a merger and acquisition.
Tanrivedi believes complicated structures are better because they are structured, despite being difficult, one can control them. Such is not the case with complex systems as they are unstructured networks. He believes healthcare systems got more vulnerable as they got more complex, 29% were more likely to get hit than average.
Complex systems offer hackers more data transfer points to attack, and a higher risk for human errors, making it a bigger problem.
The solution lies in following a centralized approach for handling the data. “With fewer access points and simplified and hardened cybersecurity controls, unauthorized parties are less likely to gain unauthorized access to patient data,” says Tanrivedi. “Technology reduces cybersecurity risks if it is organized and governed well.”
Among those filed recently is one from Ford for a system that gathers driver data to personalise in-car advertisements, which raises lots of concerns over privacy. This technological advancement can collect types of information from a car's GPS location to its driving habits and even conversations inside the vehicle. It aims to give targeted ads, real-time, which has raised issues among some privacy advocates over the level of surveillance this system will introduce.
While Ford explains patenting something does not equate to its actual implementation, the idea of the system raises some red flags. It shines a light on at least some of the dangers with gathering vast amounts of data and how that impacts any and all privacy concerns related to targeting consumers at the wheel.
What Does Ford's Patent Explain?
The patent explains the way in which information would be gathered and used by the system for delivering specific ads:
1. GPS Location: This one would identify where the car is and then which advertisements to pop up based on where various shops are in the area. Thus, if a driver is close to a fast food, then they may see an ad for that specific chain on the car's infotainment system.
2. Driving Situations: Ads can be targeted based on traffic conditions and speed of driving as well. When a driver is caught in heavy traffic, for example, ads might be displayed related to entertainment tools like audiobooks or podcasts.
3. Historical Data: Targeted on the basis of earlier behaviour such as which places one has earlier visited or what kind of music he prefers, historical data can be used.
4. In-Car Dialogue: The most contentious part of the patent is how the system will listen to dialogues going on inside the car, be it between the passengers or even among family members. If they are discussing going grocery shopping, the system could automatically point out nearby supermarkets.
Such data collection, particularly the dialogues, has been widely criticised as overly intrusive and a serious concern for privacy.
Privacy Concerns and a Backlash
As such, quite a few privacy advocates view this patent as a threat. Recording in-car conversations, even for the purpose of delivering ads, is a huge violation of privacy. If monitored at such levels, critics argue, it might lead to manipulations through advertisements and raise further worries regarding the usage and protection of data.
It's getting a little too intimate," says Daryl Killian, an automotive influencer discussing the issue. "We're so used to stuff popping up on our devices based on what we're doing online. For a car to be listening and sharing conversations is a bit much. It will send those consumers away who don't like the fact that companies collect this much data already.".
There are also concerns over safety, in that too many commercials can divert focus from driving.
Too much advertisement during driving may expose the driver to probable safety problems during very congested situations.
Ford Position and General Industry Trends
Ford has come out to explain that for them, patenting is just a ritual that does not mean the technology will be developed. The company has reported that this patent is part of the exploration of new ideas and should not be misconstrued as an expression of immediate implementation.
Ford has dabbled in personalised advertising before through a technology that would enable digital variations of signs to display on the windshield of a car for drivers as they drive by. But they are not alone in that. General Motors and many others have experimented with similar technology, which suggests an entire shift toward data-driven, personalised in-car experience.
The Dynamic Between Innovation and Privacy
While exciting with great potential in applications such as tailored navigation or real-time traffic updates, personalised in-car technology should be balanced with strong protections of privacy. Ability for drivers to opt out of data collection and advertising are all crucial to maintaining user trust.
There are several concerns that must be grappled with as this technology continues to evolve:
1. Transparency: Drivers should be told what data is being collected and for what purpose. There must be options that are clear for the users to control or opt-out from such collection of data.
2. Data Security: As more personal data is collected, robust security measures are crucial to protect against unauthorised access or breaches.
3. Regulatory Oversight: Governments may have to evolve and make clearer regulations about how the data of drivers is collected, used, and secured in order to help better protect consumer privacy.
Essentially, as such innovations promise convenience with personalised advertising, it is similarly very important to balance these innovations with necessary protective layers on the side of privacy. Car manufacturers will have to ensure that new technologies improve the driving experience without derailing user trust.
Hacktivism, a blend of hacking and activism, has become a major threat in the digital landscape. Hacktivists are driven by political, religious, and social aims, they use different strategies to achieve their goals, and their primary targets include oppressive institutions or governments.
Hacktivists are known for using their technical expertise to drive change and have diverse aspirations, from free speech advocacy and protesting human rights violations to anti-censorship and religious discrimination.
A recent report by CYFIRMA reveals that hacktivists believe themselves to be digital activists and work for the cause of justice, attacking organizations that they think should be held responsible for their malpractices. “Operation ‘Hamsaupdate’ has been active since early December 2023, where the hacktivist group Handala has been using phishing campaigns to gain access to Israel-based organizations. After breaching the systems, they deploy wipers to destroy data and cause significant disruption.”
While few target local, regional, or national issues, other groups are involved in larger campaigns that expand to multiple nations and continents.
A general tactic hacktivists use involves DDoS attacks. These attacks stuff websites with heavy traffic, disrupting servers and making sites inaccessible. Hacktivists employ diverse DDoS tools, ranging from botnet services and web-based IP stressors, to attack different layers of the OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) model.
Hacktivists modify the website content in Web defacement to show ideological or political agendas. The motive is to humiliate the website owners and spread the idea to a larger audience.
Hacktivists can easily deface websites by exploiting flaws like SQL injection or cross-site scripting.
Hacktivists also indulge in data leaks, where they steal sensitive data and leak it publicly. This includes personal info, confidential corporate data, or government documents. The aim here is to expose corruption or wrongdoings and hold the accused responsible in the eyes of the public.
Hacktivist campaigns are sometimes driven by geopolitical tensions, racial conflicts, and religious battles. The hacktivists are sometimes involved in #OP operations, the CYFIRMA report mentions.
For instance, “#OpIndia is a popular hashtag, used by hacktivist groups from countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco, and other Muslim-majority countries (as well as Sweden) that engage in DDoS attacks or deface Indian websites, and target government, individuals, or educational institutions.”