#FactCheck - Viral Photo of Dilapidated Bridge Misattributed to Kerala, Originally from Bangladesh

Executive Summary: 

A viral post on X (formerly Twitter) has been spreading misleading captions about a video that falsely claims to depict severe wildfires in Los Angeles similar to the real wildfire happening in Los Angeles. Using AI Content Detection tools we confirmed that the footage shown is entirely AI-generated and not authentic. In this report, we’ll break down the claims, fact-check the information, and provide a clear summary of the misinformation that has emerged with this viral clip.

Claim:

A video shared across social media platforms and messaging apps alleges to show wildfires ravaging Los Angeles, suggesting an ongoing natural disaster.

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

After taking a close look at the video, we noticed some discrepancy such as the flames seem unnatural, the lighting is off, some glitches etc. which are usually seen in any AI generated video. Further we checked the video with an online AI content detection tool hive moderation, which says the video is AI generated, meaning that the video was deliberately created to mislead viewers. It’s crucial to stay alert to such deceptions, especially concerning serious topics like wildfires. Being well-informed allows us to navigate the complex information landscape and distinguish between real events and falsehoods.

‍

Conclusion: 

This video claiming to display wildfires in Los Angeles is AI generated, the case again reflects the importance of taking a minute to check if the information given is correct or not, especially when the matter is of severe importance, for example, a natural disaster. By being careful and cross-checking of the sources, we are able to minimize the spreading of misinformation and ensure that proper information reaches those who need it most.

• Claim: The video shows real footage of the ongoing wildfires in Los Angeles, California
• Claimed On: X (Formerly Known As Twitter)
• Fact Check: Fake Video

Introduction

Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) was established by the Ministry of Home Affairs  (MHA) to provide a framework and eco-system for law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to deal with cybercrime in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. The Indian Ministry of Home Affairs approved a scheme for the establishment of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) in October2018, which was inaugurated by Home Minister Amit Shah in January 2020. I4C is envisaged to act as the nodal point to curb Cybercrime in the country. Recently, on 13th March2024, the Centre designated the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) as an agency of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to perform the functions under the Information Technology Act, 2000, to inform about unlawful cyber activities.

The gazetted notification dated 13th March 2024 read as follows:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000, Central Government being the appropriate government hereby designate the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), to be the agency of the Ministry of Home Affairs to perform the functions under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section79 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and to notify the instances of information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary being used to commit the unlawful act.”

Impact

Now, the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) is empowered to issue direct takedown orders under 79(b)(3) of the IT Act, 2000. Any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by any intermediary being used to commit unlawful acts can be notified by the I4C to the intermediary. If an intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to a material after being notified, it will no longer be eligible for protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000.

Safe Harbour Provision

Section79 of the IT Act also serves as a safe harbour provision for the Intermediaries. The safe harbour provision under Section 79 of the IT Act states that "an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him". However, it is notable that this legal immunity cannot be granted if the intermediary "fails to expeditiously" take down a post or remove a particular content after the government or its agencies flag that the information is being used to commit something unlawful. Furthermore, Intermediaries are also obliged to perform due diligence on their platforms and comply with the rules & regulations and maintain and promote a safe digital environment on the respective platforms.

Under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, The government has also mandated that a ‘significant social media intermediary’ must appoint a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), Resident Grievance Officer (RGO), and Nodal Contact Person and publish periodic compliance report every month mentioning the details of complaints received and action taken thereon.

I4C's Role in Safeguarding Cyberspace

The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) is actively working towards initiatives to combat the emerging threats in cyberspace. I4C is one of the crucial extensions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, working extensively to combat cyber crimes and ensure the overall safety of netizens. The ‘National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal’ equipped with a 24x7 helpline number 1930,  is one of the key component of the I4C.

Components Of The I4C

1. National Cyber Crime Threat Analytics Unit
2. National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal
3. National Cyber Crime Training Centre
4. Cyber Crime Ecosystem Management Unit
5. National Cyber Crime Research and Innovation Centre
6. National Cyber Crime Forensic Laboratory Ecosystem
7. Platform for Joint Cyber Crime Investigation Team.

‍

Conclusion

I4C, through its initiatives and collaborative efforts, plays a pivotal role in safeguarding cyberspace and ensuring the safety of netizens. I4C reinforces India's commitment to combatting cybercrime and promoting a secure digital environment. The recent development by designating the I4C as an agency to notify the instances of unlawful activities in cyberspace serves as a significant step to counter cybercrime and promote an ethical and safe digital environment for netizens.

References

• https://www.deccanherald.com/india/centre-designates-i4c-as-agency-of-mha-to-notify-unlawful-activities-in-cyber-world-2936976
• https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/home-ministry-authorises-i4c-to-issue-takedown-notices-under-it-act-124031500844_1.html
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/it-ministry-empowers-i4c-to-notify-instances-of-cybercrime-101710443217873.html
• https://i4c.mha.gov.in/about.aspx#:~:text=Objectives%20of%20I4C,identifying%20Cybercrime%20trends%20and%20patterns

‍

Introduction 

In today’s digital world, data has emerged as the new currency that influences global politics, markets, and societies. Companies, governments, and tech behemoths aim to control data because it accords them influence and power. However, a fundamental challenge brought about by this increased reliance on data is how to strike a balance between privacy protection and innovation and utility.

In recognition of these dangers, more than 200 Nobel laureates, scientists, and world leaders have recently signed the Global Call for AI Red Lines. Governments are urged by this initiative to create legally binding international regulations on artificial intelligence by 2026. Its goal is to stop AI from going beyond moral and security bounds, particularly in areas like political manipulation, mass surveillance, cyberattacks, and dangers to democratic institutions.

One way to address the threat to privacy is through pseudonymization, which makes it possible to use data valuable for research and innovation by substituting personal identifiers for artificial ones. Pseudonymization thus directly advances the AI Red Lines initiative's mission of facilitating technological advancement while lowering the risks of data misuse and privacy violations.

‍

The Red Lines of AI: Why do they matter?

The Global Call for AI Red Lines initiative represents a collective attempt to impose precaution before catastrophe, which was done with the objective of recognising the Red Lines in the use of AI tools. Thus, anything that unites the risks of using AI is due to the absence of global safeguards. Some of these Red Lines can be understood as; 

• Cybersecurity breaches in the form of exposure of financial and personal data due to AI-driven hacking and surveillance. 
• Occurrence of privacy invasions due to endless tracking.
• Generative AI can also help to create realistic fake content, undermining the trust of public discourses, leading to misinformation. 
• Algorithmic amplification of polarising content can also threaten civic stability, leading to a demographic disruption. 

‍

Legal Frameworks and Regulatory Landscape

The regulations of Artificial Intelligence stand fragmented across jurisdictions, leaving significant loopholes aside. Some of the frameworks already provide partial guidance. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act 2024 bans “unacceptable” AI practices, whereas the US-China Agreement also ensures that nuclear weapons remain under human, not machine-controlled. The UN General Assembly has adopted resolutions urging safe and ethical AI usage, with a binding and elusive global treaty. 

On the front of data protection, the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) of EU offers a clear definition of Pseudonymisation under Article 4(5). It also describes a process where personal data is altered in a way that it cannot be attributed to an individual without additional information, which must be stored securely and separately. Importantly, pseudonymised data still qualifies as “personal data” under GDPR.  However, India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) 2023 adopts a similar stance. It does not explicitly define pseudonymisation in broad terms, such as “personal data” by including potentially reversible identifiers. According to Section 8(4) of the Act, companies are meant to adopt appropriate technical or organisational measures. International bodies and conventions like the OECD Principles on AI or the Council of Europe Convention 108+ emphasize accountability, transparency, and data minimisation. Collectively, these instruments point towards pseudonymization as a best practice, though interpretations of its scope differ. 

‍

Strategies for Corporate Implementation 

For a company, pseudonymisation is not just about compliance, it is also a practical solution that offers measurable benefits. By pseudonymising data, businesses can get benefits, such as; 

• Enhancing Privacy protection by masking identifiers like names or IDs by reducing the impact of data breaches. 
• Preserving Data Utility, unlike having a full anonymisation, pseudonymisation also retains patterns that are essential for analytical innovation. 
• Facilitating data sharing can allow organizations to collaborate with their partners and researchers while maintaining proper trust.  

According to these benefits, competitive advantages get translated to clauses where customers find it more likely to trust organizations that prioritise data protection, while pseudonymisation further enables the firms to engage in cross-border collaboration without violating local data laws. 

‍

Balancing Privacy Rights and Data Utility

Balancing is a central dilemma; on one side lies the case of necessity over data utility, where companies, researchers and governments rely on large datasets to enhance the scale of AI innovation. On the other hand lies the question of the right to privacy, which is a non-negotiable principle protected under the international human rights law. 

Pseudonymisation offers a practical compromise by enabling the use of sensitive data while reducing the privacy risks. Taking examples of different domains, such as healthcare, it allows the researchers to work with patient information without exposing identities, whereas in finance, it supports fraud detection without revealing the customer details. 

Conclusion

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence has led to the outpacing of regulations, raising urgent questions related to safety, fairness and accountability. The global call for recognising the AI red lines is a bold step that looks in the direction of setting universal boundaries. Yet, alongside the remaining global treaties, practical safeguards are also needed. Pseudonymisation exemplifies such a safeguard, which is legally recognised under the GDPR and increasingly relevant in India’s DPDP Act. It balances the twin imperatives of privacy, protection, and data utility. For organizations, adopting pseudonymisation is not only about ensuring regulatory compliance, rather, it is also about building trust, ensuring resilience, and aligning with the broader ethical responsibilities in this digital age. As the future of AI is debatable, the guiding principles also need to be clear. By embedding techniques for preserving privacy, like pseudonymisation, into AI systems, we can take a significant step towards developing a sustainable, ethical and innovation-driven digital ecosystem. 

‍

References 

https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/782752/ai-global-red-lines-extreme-risk-united-nations

https://www.techaheadcorp.com/blog/shadow-ai-the-risks-of-unregulated-ai-usage-in-enterprises/

https://planetmainframe.com/2024/11/the-risks-of-unregulated-ai-what-to-know/

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/dangers-unregulated-artificial-intelligence

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/06/02/the-15-biggest-risks-of-artificial-intelligence/ 

https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/the-act/