#FactCheck - Digitally Altered Video of Olympic Medalist, Arshad Nadeem’s Independence Day Message

Executive Summary:

False information spread on social media that Flight Lieutenant Shivangi Singh, India’s first female Rafale pilot, had been captured by Pakistan during “Operation Sindoor”. The allegations are untrue and baseless as no credible or official confirmation supports the claim, and Singh is confirmed to be safe and actively serving. The rumor, likely originating from unverified sources, sparked public concern and underscored the serious threat fake news poses to national security. 

‍

Claim:

‍

An X user posted stating that “ Initial image released of a female Indian Shivani singh Rafale pilot shot down in Pakistan”. It was falsely claimed that Flight Lieutenant Shivangi Singh had been captured, and that the Rafale aircraft was shot down by Pakistan. 

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

After doing reverse image search, we found an instagram post stating the two Indian Air Force pilots—Wing Commander Tejpal (50) and trainee Bhoomika (28)—who had ejected from a Kiran Jet Trainer during a routine training sortie from Bengaluru before it crashed near Bhogapuram village in Karnataka. The aircraft exploded upon impact, but both pilots were later found alive, though injured and exhausted. 

‍

Also we found a youtube channel which is showing the video from the past and not what it was claimed to be. 

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The false claims about Flight Lieutenant Shivangi Singh being captured by Pakistan and her Rafale jet being shot down have been debunked. The image used was unrelated and showed IAF pilots from a separate training incident. Several media also confirmed that its video made no mention of Ms. Singh’s arrest. This highlights the dangers of misinformation, especially concerning national security. Verifying facts through credible sources and avoiding the spread of unverified content is essential to maintain public trust and protect the reputation of those serving in the armed forces.

• Claim: False claims about Flight Lieutenant Shivangi Singh being captured by Pakistan and her Rafale jet being shot down
• Claimed On:  Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

‍Brief Overview of the EU AI Act

The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies.  The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.

The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI  use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.

In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions

• The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
• Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
• The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.

Application & Timeline of Act

The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:

• August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
• February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
• August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models. 
• August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
•  August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.

The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).

In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers. 

CyberPeace Outlook 

The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.

The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount. 

At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.

References: 

1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
2. https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
3. https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
4. https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
5. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
6. https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide

‍

Introduction

The Government of India has initiated a cybercrime crackdown that has resulted in the blocking of 781,000 SIM cards and 208,469 IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) numbers that are associated with digital fraud as of February 2025. This data was released as a written response by the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Bandi Sanjay Kumar, with respect to a query presented in the Lok Sabha. A significant jump from the 669,000 SIM cards blocked in the past year, efforts aimed at combating digital fraud are in full swing, considering the increasing cases. The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) is proactively blocking other platform accounts found suspicious, such as WhatsApp Accounts (83,668) and Skype IDs (3,962) on its part, aiding in eliminating identified threat actors.

Increasing Digital Fraud And The Current Combative Measures

According to the data tabled by the Ministry of Finance in the Rajya Sabha, the first 10 months of the Financial year 2024-2025 have recorded around 2.4 million incidents covering an amount of Rs. 4,245 crore involving cases of digital Financial Fraud cases. Apart from the evident financial loss, such incidents also take an emotional toll as people are targeted regardless of their background and age, leaving everyone equally vulnerable. To address this growing problem, various government departments have dedicated measures to combat and reduce such incidents. Some of the notable initiatives/steps are as follows:

• The Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System- This includes reporting Cybercrimes through the nationwide toll-free (1930) number and registration on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. On being a victim of digital fraud, one can call the toll-free number, describing details of the incident, which would further help in the investigation. After reporting the incident, the complainant receives a generated login ID/acknowledgement number that they can use for further reference.
• International Incoming Spoofed Calls Prevention System- This is a mechanism developed to counter fraudulent calls that appear to originate from within India but are actually made from international locations. This system prevents the misuse of the Calling Line Identity (CLI), which is manipulated to deceive recipients in order to carry out financial crimes like digital arrests, among other things. Coordinating with the Department of Telecommunication (DoT), private telecommunication service providers (TSPs) are being encouraged to check with their ILD (International Long-Distance) network as a measure. Airtel has recently started categorising such numbers as International numbers on their part.
• Chakshu Facility at Sanchar Saathi platform- A citizen-centric initiative, created by the Department of Telecommunications, to empower mobile subscribers. It focuses on reporting unsolicited commercial communication (spam messages) and reporting suspected fraudulent communication. (https://sancharsaathi.gov.in/). 
• Aadhaar-based verification of SIM cards- A directive issued by the Prime Minister's Office to the Department of Telecommunications mandates an Aadhaar-based biometric verification for the issuance of new SIM cards. This has been done so in an effort to prevent fraud and cybercrime through mobile connections obtained using fake documents. Legal action against non-compliant retailers in the form of FIRs is also being taken.

On the part of the public, awareness of the following steps could encourage them on how to deal with such situations:

• Awareness regarding types of crimes and the tell-tale signs of the modus operandi of a criminal: A general awareness and a cautionary approach to how such crimes take place could help better prepare and respond to such malicious scams. Some important signs on the part of the offender include pressuring the victim into immediate action, insistence on video calls, and the threat of arrest in case of non-compliance. It is also important to note that no official authority, in any legal capacity, allows for enabling a digital/online arrest.
• Knowing the support channels: Awareness regarding reporting mechanisms and cyber safety hygiene tips can help in building cyber resilience amongst netizens. 

Conclusion

As cybercrooks continue to find new ways of duping people of their hard-earned money, both government and netizens must make efforts to combat such crimes and increase awareness on both ends (systematic and public). Increasing developments in AI, deepfakes, and other technology often render the public inept at assessing the veracity of the source, making them susceptible to such crime. A cautionary yet proactive approach is need of the hour. 

References

• https://mobileidworld.com/india-blocks-781000-sim-cards-in-major-cybercrime-crackdown/
• https://www.storyboard18.com/how-it-works/over-83k-whatsapp-accounts-used-for-digital-arrest-blocked-home-ministry-60292.htm
• https://www.business-standard.com/finance/news/digital-financial-frauds-touch-rs-4-245-crore-in-the-apr-jan-period-of-fy25-125032001214_1.html
• https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/govt-blocked-781k-sims-3k-skype-ids-83k-whatsapp-accounts-till-feb-125032500965_1.html
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2042130
• https://mobileidworld.com/india-mandates-aadhaar-biometric-verification-for-new-sim-cards-to-combat-fraud/ 
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2067113 

‍