Barbie malware

Introduction: Reasons Why These Amendments Have Been Suggested.

The suggested changes in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are the much-needed regulatory reaction to the blistering emergence of synthetic information and deepfakes. These reforms are due to the pressing necessity to govern risks within the digital ecosystem as opposed to regular reformation.

‍

The Emergence of the Digital Menace

‍

Generative AI tools have also facilitated the generation of very realistic images, videos, audio, and text in recent years. Such artificial media have been abused to portray people in situations they are not in or in statements they have never said. The market size is expected to have a compound annual growth rate(CAGR) from 2025 to 2031 of 37.57%, resulting in a market volume of US$400.00 bn by 2031. Therefore, tight regulatory controls are necessary to curb a high prevalence of harm in the Indian digital world.

‍

The Gap in Law and Institution

‍

None of the IT Rules, 2021, clearly addressed synthetic content. Although the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealt with identity theft, impersonation and violation of privacy, the intermediaries were not explicitly obligated on artificial media. This left a loophole in enforcement, particularly since AI-generated content might get around the old system of moderation. These amendments bring India closer to the international standards, including the EU AI Act, which requires transparency and labelling of AI-driven content. India addresses such requirements and adapts to local constitutional and digital ecosystem needs.

‍

II. Explanation of the Amendments

The amendments of 2025 present five alternative changes in the current IT Rules framework, which address various areas of synthetic media regulation. 

‍

A. Definitional Clarification: Synthetic Generation of Information Introduction.

‍

Rule 2(1)(wa) Amendment:

The amendments provide an all-inclusive definition of what is meant by “synthetically generated information” as information, which is created, or produced, changed or distorted with the use of a computer resource, in a way that such information can reasonably be perceived to be genuine. This definition is intentionally broad and is not limited to deepfakes in the strict sense but to any artificial media that has gone through algorithmic manipulation in order to have a semblance of authenticity.

Expansion of Legal Scope:

Rule 2(1A) also makes it clear that any mention of information in the context of unlawful acts, namely, including categories listed in Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(1)(d), Rule 4(2), and Rule 4(4), should be understood to mean synthetically generated information. This is a pivotal interpretative protection that does not allow intermediaries to purport that synthetic versions of illegal material are not under the control of the regulation since they are algorithmic creations and not descriptions of what actually occurred.

‍

B. Safe Harbour Protection and Content Removal Requirements

‍

Amendment, rule 3(1)(b)- Safe Harbour Clarification:

The amendments add a certain proviso to the Rule (3) (1)(b) that explains a deletion or facilitation of access of synthetically produced information (or any information falling within specified categories) which the intermediaries have made in good faith as part of reasonable endeavours or at the receipt of a complaint shall not be considered a breach of the Section 79(2) (a) or (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This coverage is relevant especially since it insures the intermediaries against liability in situations where they censor the synthetic contents in advance of a court ruling or governmental warnings.

‍

C. Labelling and Metadata Requirements that are mandatory on Intermediaries that enable the creation of synthetic content

‍

The amendments establish a new framework of due diligence in Rule 3(3) on the case of intermediaries that offer tools to generate, modify, or alter the synthetically generated information. Two fundamental requirements are laid down. 

1. The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:

1. Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
2. It should cover at least 10% of the surface of the visual display or, in the case of audio content, during the initial 10% of its duration.
3. It can be used to immediately identify that such information is synthetically generated information which has been created, generated, modified, or altered using the computer resource of the intermediary. 

2. The intermediary in clause (a) shall not enable modification, suppression or removal of such label, permanent unique metadata or identifier, by whatever name called.

‍

D. Important Social Media Intermediaries- Pre-Publication Checking Responsibilities

‍

The amendments present a three-step verification mechanism, under Rule 4(1A), to Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), which enables displaying, uploading or publishing on its computer resource before such display, uploading, or publication has to follow three steps. 

Step 1- User Declaration: It should compel the users to indicate whether the materials they are posting are synthetically created. This puts the first burden on users. 

Step 2-Technical Verification: To ensure that the user is truly valid, the SSMIs need to provide reasonable technical means, such as automated tools or other applications. This duty is contextual and would be based on the nature, format and source of content. It does not allow intermediaries to escape when it is known that not every type of content can be verified using the same standards.

Step 3- Prominent Labelling: In case the synthetic origin is verified by user declaration or technical verification, SSMIs should have a notice or label that is prominently displayed to be seen by users before publication.

The amendments provide a better system of accountability and set that intermediaries will be found to have failed due diligence in a case where it is established that they either knowingly permitted, encouraged or otherwise failed to act on synthetically produced information in contravention of these requirements. This brings in an aspect of knowledge, and intermediaries cannot use accidental errors as an excuse for non-compliance. 

An explanation clause makes it clear that SSMIs should also make reasonable and proportionate technical measures to check user declarations and keep no synthetic content published without adequate declaration or labelling. This eliminates confusion on the role of the intermediaries with respect to making declarations.

‍

III. Attributes of The Amendment Framework

‍

1. Precision in Balancing Innovation and Accountability.

The amendments have commendably balanced two extreme regulatory postures by neither prohibiting nor allowing the synthetic media to run out of control. It has recognised the legitimate use of synthetic media creation in entertainment, education, research and artistic expression by adopting a transparent and traceable mandate that preserves innovation while ensuring accountability. 

2. Overt Acceptance of the Intermediary Liability and Reverse Onus of Knowledge

Rule 4(1A) gives a highly significant deeming rule; in cases where the intermediary permits or refrains from acting with respect to the synthetic content knowing that the rules are violated, it will be considered as having failed to comply with the due diligence provisions. This description closes any loopholes in unscrupulous supervision where intermediaries can be able to argue that they did so. Standard of scienter promotes material investment in the detection devices and censor mechanisms that have been in place to offer security to the platforms that have sound systems, albeit the fact that the tools fail to capture violations at times.

3. Clarity Through Definition and Interpretive Guidance

The cautious definition of the term “synthetically generated information” and the guidance that is provided in Rule 2(1A) is an admirable attempt to solve confusion in the previous regulatory framework. Instead of having to go through conflicting case law or regulatory direction, the amendments give specific definitional limits. The purposefully broad formulation (artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered) makes sure that the framework is not avoided by semantic games over what is considered to be a real synthetic content versus a slight algorithmic alteration.

4. Insurance of non-accountability but encourages preventative moderation

The safe harbour clarification of the Rule 3(1)(b) amendment clearly safeguards the intermediaries who voluntarily dismiss the synthetic content without a court order or government notification. It is an important incentive scheme that prompts platforms to implement sound self-regulation measures. In the absence of such protection, platforms may also make rational decisions to stay in a passive stance of compliance, only deleting content under the pressure of an external authority, thus making them more effective in keeping users safe against dangerous synthetic media.

‍

IV. Conclusion

‍

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2025 suggest a structured, transparent, and accountable execution of curbing the rising predicaments of synthetic media and deepfakes. The amendments deal with the regulatory and interpretative gaps that have always existed in determining what should be considered as synthetically generated information, the intermediary liabilities and the mandatory labelling and metadata requirement. Safe-harbour protection will encourage the moderation proactively, and a scienter-based liability rule will not permit the intermediaries to escape liability when they are aware of the non-compliance but tolerate such non-compliance. The idea to introduce pre-publication verification of Significant Social Media Intermediaries adds the responsibility to users and due diligence to the platform. Overall, the amendments provide a reasonable balance between innovation and regulation, make the process more open with its proper definitions, promote responsible conduct on the platform and transform India and the new standards in the sphere of synthetic media regulation. They collaborate to enhance the verisimilitude, defence of the users, and visibility of the systems of the digital ecosystem of India.

‍

V. References 

‍

1. Amendments To The Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021 It Rules 2021 | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide 

‍

Introduction

The world has been riding the wave of technological advancements, and the fruits it has born have impacted our lives. Technology, by its virtue, cannot be quantified as safe or unsafe it is the application and use of technology which creates the threats. Its times like this, the importance and significance of policy framework are seen in cyberspace. Any technology can be governed by means of policies and laws only. In this blog, we explore the issues raised by the EU for the tech giants and why the Indian Govt is looking into probing Whatsapp.

EU on Big Techs

Eu has always been seen to be a strong policy maker for cyberspace, and the same can be seen from the scope, extent and compliance of GDPR. This data protection bill is the holy grail for worldwide data protection bills. Apart from the GDPR, the EU has always maintained strong compliance demographics for the big tech as most of them have originated outside of Europe, and the rights of EU citizens come into priority above anything else.

New Draft Notification

According to the draft of the new notification, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and other non-European Union cloud service providers looking to secure an EU cybersecurity label to handle sensitive data can only do so via a joint venture with an EU-based company. The document adds that the cloud service must be operated and maintained from the EU, all customer data must be stored and processed in the EU, and EU laws take precedence over non-EU laws regarding the cloud service provider. Certified cloud services are operated only by companies based in the EU, with no entity from outside the EU having effective control over the CSP (cloud service provider) to mitigate the risk of non-EU interfering powers undermining EU regulations, norms and values.

This move from the EU is still in the draft phase however, it is expected to come into action soon as issues related to data breaches of EU citizens have been reported on numerous occasions. The document said the tougher rules would apply to personal and non-personal data of particular sensitivity where a breach may have a negative impact on public order, public safety, human life or health, or the protection of intellectual property.

How will it secure the netizens?

Since the EU has been the leading policy maker in cyberspace, it is often seen that the rules and policies of the EU are often replicated around the world. Hence this move comes at a critical time as the EU is looking towards safeguarding the EU netizens and the Cyber security industry in the EU by allowing them to collaborate with big tech while maintaining compliance. Cloud services can be protected by this mechanism, thus ensuring fewer instances of data breaches, thus contributing to a dip in cyber crimes and attacks.

The Indian Govt on WhatsApp

The Indian Govt has decided to probe Whatsapp and its privacy settings. One of the Indian Whatsapp users tweeted a screenshot of WhatsApp accessing the phone’s mic even when the phone was not in use, and the app was not open even in the background. The meta-owned Social messaging platform enjoys nearly 487 million users in India, making it their biggest market. The 2018 judgement on Whatsapp and its privacy issues was a landmark judgement, but the platform is in violation of the same.

The MoS, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Rajeev Chandrashekhar, has already tweeted that the issue will be looked into and that they will be punished if the platform is seen violating the guidelines. The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill is yet to be tabled at the parliament. Still, despite the draft bill being public, big platforms must maintain the code of conduct to maintain compliance when the bill turns into an Act.

Threats for Indian Users

The Indian Whatsapp user contributes to the biggest user base un the world, and still, they are vulnerable to attacks on WhatsApp and now WhatsApp itself. The netizens are under the following potential threats –

• Data breaches
• Identity theft
• Phishing scams
• Unconsented data utilisation
• Violation of Right to Privacy
• Unauthorised flow of data outside India
• Selling of data to a third party without consent

The Indian netizen needs to stay vary of such issues and many more by practising basic cyber safety and security protocols and keeping a check on the permissions granted to apps, to keep track of one’s digital footprint.

Conclusion

Whether it’s the EU or Indian Government, it is pertinent to understand that the world powers are all working towards creating a safe and secured cyberspace for its netizens. The move made by the EU will act as a catalyst for change at a global level, as once the EU enforces the policy, the world will soon replicate it to safeguard their cyber interests, assets and netizens. The proactive stance of the Indian Government is a crucial sign that the things will not remain the same in the Indian Cyber ecosystem, and its upon the platforms and companies to ensure compliance, even in the absence of a strong legislation for cyberspace. The government is taking all steps to safeguard the Indian netizen, as the same lies in the souls and spirit of the new Digital India Bill, which will govern cyberspace in the near future. Still, till then, in order to maintain the synergy and equilibrium, it is pertinent for the platforms to be in compliance with the laws of natural justice.

About Customs Scam:

The Customs Scam is a type of fraud where the scammers pretend to be from the renowned courier office company (DTDC, etc.), or customs department or other government entities. They try to deceive the targets to transfer the money to resolve the fake customs related concerns.  The Research Wing at CyberPeace along with the Research Wing of Autobot Infosec Private Ltd. delved into this case through Open Source Intelligence methods and undercover interactions with the scammers and concluded with some credible information.

Case Study:

The victim receives a phone call posing as a renowned courier office (DTDC, etc.) employee (in some case custom’s officer) that a parcel in the name of the victim has been taken into custody because of inappropriate content. The scammer provides the victim an employee ID, FIR number to prove the authenticity of the case and also they show empathy towards the victim. The scammer pretends to help the victim to connect with a police officer for further action. This so-called police officer shows transparency in his work. He asks him to join a skype video call and he even provides time to install the skype app. He instructs the victim to connect with the skype id provided by the fake police officer where the scammer created a fake police station environment. He also claims that he contacted the headquarters and the victim’s phone number is associated with many illegal activities to create panic to the victim.  Then the scammers also ask the victim to give their personal details such as home address, office address, aadhar card number, PAN card number and screenshot of their bank accounts along with their available account balance for the sake of so-called investigation. Sometimes scammers also demand a high amount of money to resolve the issue and create fake urgency to trap the victim in making the payment. He sternly warns the victim not to contact any other police officials or professionals, making it clear that doing so would only lead to more trouble.

Analysis & Findings: 

After receiving these kinds of complaints from multiple sources, the analysis was done on the collection of phone numbers from where the calls originated. These phone numbers were analysed for alias name, location, Telecom operator,  etc.  Further, we have verified the number to check whether the number is linked with any social media account on reputed platforms like Google, Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter, Instagram, Linkedin, and other classified platforms such as Locanto.

• Phone Number Analysis: Each phone number looks authentic, cleverly concealing the fraud. Sometimes scammers use virtual/temporary phone numbers for these kinds of scams. In this case the victim was from Delhi, so the scammer posed themselves from Delhi Police station, while the phone numbers belong to a different place.

• Undercover Interactions:  The interactions with the suspects reveals their chilling way of modus operandi. These scammers are masters of psychological manipulation. They threaten the victims and act as if they are genuine LEA officers. 
• Exploitation Tactics: They target unsuspecting individuals and create fear and fake urgency among the targets to extract sensitive information such as Aadhaar, PAN card and bank account details.

• Fraud Execution: The scammers demand for the payment to resolve this issue and they make use of the stolen personally identifiable information. Once the victims transfer the money, the fraudsters cut off all the communication.
• Outcome for Victims:  The scammers act so genuine and they frame the incidents so realistic, victims don't realise that they are trapped in this scam. They suffer severe financial loss and psychological trauma.

Recommendations:

• Verify Identities: It is important to verify the identity of any individual, especially if they demand personal information or payment. Contact the official agency directly using verified contact details to confirm the authenticity of the communication.
• Education on Personal Information: Provide education to people to protect their personal identity numbers like Aadhaar and PAN card number. Always emphasise the possible dangers connected to sharing such data in the course of phone conversations.
• Report Suspicious Activity: Prompt reporting of suspicious phone calls or messages to relevant authorities and consumer protection agencies helps in tracking down scammers and prevents people from falling. Report to https://cybercrime.gov.in or reach out to helpline@cyberpeace.net for further assistance. 
• Enhanced Cybersecurity Measures: Implement robust cybersecurity measures to detect and mitigate phishing attempts and fraudulent activities. This includes monitoring and blocking suspicious phone numbers and IP addresses associated with scams.

Conclusion:

In the Customs Scam fraud, the scammers pretend to be a custom or any government official and sometimes threaten the targets to get the details such as Aadhaar, PAN card details, screenshot of their bank accounts along with their available balance in their account. The phone numbers used for these kinds of scams were analysed for any suspicious activity. It is found that all the phone numbers look authentic concealing the fraudentent activities. The interactions made with them reveals that they create fearness and urgency between the individuals. They act as if they are genuine officer’s and ask for money to resolve this issue. It is important to stay vigilant and not to share any personal or financial information. When facing these kinds of scams, report and spread awareness among individuals.

‍