#FactCheck - Viral Video of Salman Khan and Govinda Falsely Linked to Mithun Chakraborty’s Death

Introduction
‍

The recent advisory issued by CERT, issued on April 26^th, 2026, titled “Defending Against Frontier AI-Driven Cyber Risks”, on AI-driven cyber threats does not merely add to the list of routine cybersecurity warnings. Instead, it marks a shift in how cyber risk itself is understood. The concern, here, is not just that attacks are increasing, but also that their nature is changing. Artificial intelligence is no longer assisting cyber operations- whether legitimate or malicious, in fragments; it is beginning to organise and execute them at scale. 

What is emerging is a situation where capability is no longer tied to human skill alone. Systems can now identify vulnerabilities, generate exploits, and carry out coordinated attacks with limited intervention. This alters the baseline assumption of cybersecurity, that attacks require effort, time, and expertise.
‍

The Essence: Automation and Capability
‍

At the core of the advisory lies the recognition that AI has introduced speed and autonomy into cyber operations. Tasks such as analysing code, identifying vulnerabilities, or crafting phishing content are no longer sequential processes. They can happen almost simultaneously and at scale. 

This is not simply a matter of efficiency. It changes the structure of the threat itself. When attacks can be automated, they become repeatable and less dependent on specialised actors. The advisory also points to the ability of AI systems to conduct multi-stage attacks, moving across networks and adapting strategies in real time. 

In a way, the threat is no longer just external. It is embedded within the logics of the technology being used.

Significance: Lower Barriers, Wider Exposure

One of the more important aspects of the advisory is its emphasis on ‘accessibility’. AI lowers the barrier of complexity in the commission of cybercrimes. Activities that once required coordinated teams can now be performed by individuals with access to advanced tools. 

This has two consequences. First, the number of potential attackers increases. Second, the scale at which attacks can be carried out expands significantly. Systems that were previously considered low risk may become viable targets simply because automated tools can scan, test, and exploit them rapidly.

There is also a broader anxiety reflected in what is being described as “Mythos concerns”, a shorthand for uncertainty around frontier AI systems and their unpredictable capabilities. This signals that the risk is not fully mapped yet and that regulatory responses are still catching up.

Element of Continuous Risk

The advisory outlines impacts such as unauthorised access, data breaches, identity theft, and financial fraud. These are familiar categories. What is less explicit, but more important, is the shift in how these harms occur.

When AI enables rapid and repeated exploitation, risk becomes continuous. Systems are not attacked once and then secured. They are exposed to ongoing attempts. This creates pressure not only on technical infrastructure but also on legal frameworks that are designed around discrete incidents.

For instance, obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000 or even emerging data protection frameworks often assume identifiable breaches and reportable events. Continuous probing complicates that model!

Response Framework: From Compliance to Vigilance

CERT-In’s recommendations reflect this change in threat perception. There is a clear emphasis on vigilance rather than mere compliance. Organisations are advised to adopt zero-trust approaches, reduce exposure surfaces, and treat vulnerabilities as immediately exploitable.

The insistence on rapid patching within short timeframes is particularly telling. It acknowledges that the window between vulnerability disclosure and exploitation is shrinking.

There is also a noticeable expansion of responsibility. The advisory does not limit itself to large organisations. It extends guidance to the MSMEs and individuals, recognising that cyber risk is now distributed across the entire digital ecosystem.

A Subtle Legal Shift

Although the advisory itself is not binding in law, it operates within the framework of Section 70B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which empowers CERT-In to issue directions on cybersecurity best practices and guidelines.

So, while the advisory does not create liability directly, it influences what may later be considered ‘reasonable security practice’. In that sense, it serves as soft law, gradually informing standards of due diligence.

At the same time, there remains a gap. The advisory focuses on defensive measures, but it does not fully address attribution and accountability in AI driven attacks. When actions are automated and anonymised, identifying responsibility and imposing liability becomes more complex.
‍

Conclusion
‍

The CERT In advisory is not just a warning about new threats. It is an acknowledgement of a transition. Cyber risk is moving from being occasional and targeted to being constant and scalable. AI is not simply adding to existing threats; it is restructuring and advancing them.

For cyber vigilance frameworks, this suggests a need to rethink priorities. Static compliance measures are no longer sufficient. It has become necessary to adopt continuous monitoring, adaptive responses, and a clearer understanding of how technology is reshaping risk.

While the advisory does not resolve these questions, it does bring them into focus. And that, in itself, is significant.

‍

References
‍

1. CERT-In issues advisory against AI driven cyber attacks for MSMEs, organisations and individuals, Moneycontrol (Apr. 27, 2026), https://www.moneycontrol.com/technology/cert-in-issues-advisory-against-ai-driven-cyber-attacks-for-msmes-organisations-and-individuals-article-13899942.html.
2. CERT-In warns of rising AI driven cyber threats amid Mythos concerns, Ommcom News (2026), https://ommcomnews.com/science-tech/cert-in-warns-of-rising-ai-driven-cyber-threats-amid-mythos-concerns/.
3. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), Defending Against Frontier AI Driven Cyber Risks, Advisory No. CIAD-2026-0020 (Apr. 26, 2026)
4. Information Technology Act, 2000, § 70B (India).

‍

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

Cyber, is the new weapon today! Cyber Violence is violence in cyber-space that has led to violation of cyber rights of individuals, especially those of children and women. Online violence and harassment have been overlooked laying more emphasis on offline or physical violence.

New Delhi [India], November 12 (ANI/NewsVoir): Cyber, is the new weapon today! Cyber Violence is violence in cyber-space that has led to violation of cyber rights of individuals, especially those of children and women. Online violence and harassment have been overlooked laying more emphasis on offline or physical violence. Cyber violence very often permanently, psychologically impacts the victims and their families. Various forms of threats ranging from morphing, stalking, solicitation of children for sexual purposes, online grooming, have grave consequences on the victims disturbing their mental well-being. Maintaining mental well-being in cyber space is a challenge we wish to promote and advocate for, in order to build responsible netizens.

Together, we stand against violation of cyber rights and strongly believe; it is critical to allow everyone to feel safe online. Netizen’s safety rights must be protected from all kinds of abuse and violence. Setting a mission of ‘Making India Cyber Safe for Children and Women’, Responsible Netism a social purpose organization in association with CyberPeace Foundation, an award-winning Cyber Security think tank working towards bringing CyberPeace in CyberSpace for more than two decades, host its 6th Annual National Conference on Cyber Psychology themed “India Fights Cyber Violence”, scheduled for Saturday, January 22, 2022. Ta advocate on the theme, the campaign #IndiaFightsCyberViolence was launched on November 11, 2021 by Vinay Sahasrabuddhe – President ICCR, Member of Parliament, Priyank Kanoongo – Chairperson, NCPCR and Rekha Sharma, Chairperson NCW at the ICCR Auditorium Delhi. The session was also attended by the CyberPeace Foundation team members.

Vinay Sahasrabuddhe has been a strong advocate of online safety of children, he shared his visionary words and focused on 3 R’s, Research, Reform and Reshape. He recommended extensive research was necessary to strongly voice concerns and remedies based on evidence-based research which would help us reform intervention strategies and the reshape the existing framework to best suit the needs to protect women and children in cyber space. The NCW Chairperson Rekha Sharma shared how critical it is to create awareness about online safety rights of women and reiterated the need for spreading awareness about online safety to reach the last mile in order to build collective action and bring change. She also mentioned the need to conducting nationwide trainings for the police personal to handle and report online distress.

Priyank Kanoongo, the Chairperson of NCPCR has been very proactively advocating for the cause of child online protection and has been instrumental in voicing critical in fiercely voicing his thoughts on protecting online safety rights of children across India. He shared the following thoughts at the launch. He said there is dire need to educate parents about online safety in order to let the information trickle down to their children. He said NCPCR does not hold any inhibitions in naming and shaming violators of child rights be it offline or online and will always raise a strong voice against platform ‘s inability to protect children in cyber space.

Vineet Kumar, Founder and Global President, CyberPeace Foundation, the partnering organization shared that this nationwide movement will build great momentum on the cause of online protection of children and women cross the country and urged organizations across India to pledge their support to the cause. The more people joining this movement would build collective pressure to formulate guidelines and policies the make cyber space safe for children and women. Sonali Patankar – Founder Responsible Netism shared the objective of the campaign was to let online safety reach the last mile and build on aggressive reporting of online content. The movement was an effort to make the campaign India Fights Cyber Violence to make India cyber safe for children.

She shared that the campaign launch would be followed by a nationwide research conducted to understand parents perspectives on cyber violence which would be handy in representing recommendations on women and child safety protocols through commoners. There would be a round table for organizations working with children chaired by Priyank Kanoongo on November 22 followed by a round table held for organizations working with Women chaired by Rekha Sharma Madam on December 22, 2021. The campaign would culminate in the Responsible Netism 6th National Cyber Psychology Conference scheduled for January 22, 2022 that would witness a compilation of the research and the work done throughout the campaign.

The launch was attended by Sujay Patki – Social Activist and Advisor Responsible Netism and Shilpa Chandolikar trustee Responsible Netism, Adv Khushbu Jain Advocate Supreme Court of India followed by the vote of thanks by Unmesh Joshi – Co-founder Responsible Netism. With the success of the launch and the support of NCPCR and NCW, we are sure to make this a nation-wide movement to protect cyber safety rights of netizens and strongly believe in collective action to make India Cyber Safe for Women and Children.

This story is provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/NewsVoir)(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Source: https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/business/1804283-cyberpeace-foundation-and-responsible-netism-launches-campaign-india-fights-cyber-violence-against-women-and-children