#FactCheck -Misleading Social Media Claim Targets University Over Viral Video

Introduction

Discussions took place focused on cybersecurity measures, specifically addressing cybercrime in the context of emerging technologies such as Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and the Metaverse. Session 5 of the conference focused on the interconnectedness between the darknet and cryptocurrency and the challenges it poses for law enforcement agencies and regulators. They discussed that Understanding AI is necessary for enterprises. AI models have difficulties, but we are looking forward to trustworthy AIs. and AI technology must be transparent.

Darknet and Cryptocurrency

The darknet refers to the hidden part of the internet where illicit activities have proliferated in recent years. It was initially developed to provide anonymity, privacy, and protection to specific individuals such as journalists, activists, and whistleblowers. However, it has now become a playground for criminal activities. Cryptocurrency, particularly Bitcoin, has been widely adopted on the darknet due to its anonymous nature, enabling anti-money laundering and unlawful transactions.

Three major points emerge from this relationship: the integrated nature of the darknet and cryptocurrency, the need for regulations to prevent darknet-based crimes, and the importance of striking a balance between privacy and security.

Key Challenges:

1. Integrated Relations: The darknet and cryptocurrency have evolved independently, with different motives and purposes. It is crucial to understand the integrated relationship between them and how criminals exploit this connection.
2. Regulatory Frameworks: There is a need for effective regulations to prevent crimes facilitated through the darknet and cryptocurrency while striking a balance between privacy and security.
3. Privacy and Security: Privacy is a fundamental right, and any measures taken to enhance security should not infringe upon individual privacy. A multistakeholder approach involving tech companies and regulators is necessary to find this delicate balance.

Challenges Associated with Cryptocurrency Use:

The use of cryptocurrency on the darknet poses several challenges. The risks associated with darknet-based cryptocurrency crimes are a significant concern. Additionally, regulatory challenges arise due to the decentralised and borderless nature of cryptocurrencies. Mitigating these challenges requires innovative approaches utilising emerging technologies.

Preventing Misuse of Technologies:

The discussion emphasised that we can step ahead of the people who wish to use these beautiful technologies meant and developed for a different purpose, to prevent from using them for crime.

Monitoring the Darknet:

The darknet, as explained, is an elusive part of the internet that necessitates the use of a special browser for access. Initially designed for secure communication by the US government, its purpose has drastically changed over time. The darknet’s evolution has given rise to significant challenges for law enforcement agencies striving to monitor its activities.

Around 95% of the activities carried out on the dark net are associated with criminal acts. Estimates suggest that over 50% of the global cybercrime revenue originates from the dark net. This implies that approximately half of all cybercrimes are facilitated through the darknet.

The exploitation of the darknet has raised concerns regarding the need for effective regulation. Monitoring the darknet is crucial for law enforcement, national agencies, and cybersecurity companies. The challenges associated with the darknet’s exploitation and the criminal activities facilitated by cryptocurrency emphasise the pressing need for regulations to ensure a secure digital landscape.

Use of Cryptocurrency on the Darknet

Cryptocurrency plays a central role in the activities taking place on the darknet. The discussion highlighted its involvement in various illicit practices, including ransomware attacks, terrorist financing, extortion, theft, and the operation of darknet marketplaces. These applications leverage cryptocurrency’s anonymous features to enable illegal transactions and maintain anonymity.

AI's Role in De-Anonymizing the Darknet and Monitoring Challenges:

1.AI’s Potential in De-Anonymizing the Darknet

During the discussion, it was highlighted how AI could be utilised to help in de-anonymizing the darknet. AI’s pattern recognition capabilities can aid in identifying and analysing patterns of behaviour within the darknet, enabling law enforcement agencies and cybersecurity experts to gain insights into its operations. However, there are limitations to what AI can accomplish in this context. AI cannot break encryption or directly associate patterns with specific users, but it can assist in identifying illegal marketplaces and facilitating their takedown. The dynamic nature of the darknet, with new marketplaces quickly emerging, adds further complexity to monitoring efforts.

2.Challenges in Darknet Monitoring

Monitoring the darknet poses various challenges due to its vast amount of data, anonymous and encrypted nature, dynamically evolving landscape, and the need for specialised access. These challenges make it difficult for law enforcement agencies and cybersecurity professionals to effectively track and prevent illicit activities.

3.Possible Ways Forward

To address the challenges, several potential avenues were discussed. Ethical considerations, striking a balance between privacy and security, must be taken into account. Cross-border collaboration, involving the development of relevant laws and policies, can enhance efforts to combat darknet-related crimes. Additionally, education and awareness initiatives, driven by collaboration among law enforcement, government entities, and academia, can play a crucial role in combating darknet activities.

The panel also addressed the questions from the audience

• How law enforcement agencies and regulators can use AI to detect and prevent crimes on the darknet and cryptocurrency? The panel answered that- Law enforcement officers should also be AI and technology ready, and that kind of upskilling program should be there in place.
• How should lawyers and the judiciary understand the problem and regulate it? The panel answered that AI should only be applied by looking at the outcomes. And Law has to be clear as to what is acceptable and what is not.
• Aligning AI with human intention? Whether it’s possible? Whether can we create an ethical AI instead of talking about using AI ethically? The panel answered that we have to understand how to behave ethically. AI can beat any human. We have to learn AI. Step one is to focus on our ethical behaviour. And step two is bringing the ethical aspect to the software and technologies. Aligning AI with human intention and creating ethical AI is a challenge. The focus should be on ethical behaviour both in humans and in the development of AI technologies.

Conclusion

The G20 Conference on Crime and Security shed light on the intertwined relationship between the darknet and cryptocurrency and the challenges it presents to cybersecurity. The discussions emphasised the need for effective regulations, privacy-security balance, AI integration, and cross-border collaboration to tackle the rising cybercrime activities associated with the darknet and cryptocurrency. Addressing these challenges will require the combined efforts of governments, law enforcement agencies, technology companies, and individuals committed to building a safer digital landscape.

Procedural History: 

‍

The case started with a 2011 Madras High Court ruling that included the appellant’s personal information. In the case discussed, the court decided in 2024, the appellant went to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to request that his name and other identifying information from that previous ruling be redacted. He argued that his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was violated by the ongoing release of such private information into the public arena. He claimed that the revelation had hurt him in real ways, such as having his application for an Australian visa denied. Therefore, without compromising the ideals of open justice, the current procedures aimed to have the court recognize a person’s “Right to be Forgotten” within a broader framework of privacy and data protection.

‍

Background and Factual Matrix

‍

The appellant was charged under Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC. The trial court convicted him in 201, but later, the High Court in 2014 fully, completely and unconditionally acquitted him, which was not based on the benefit of doubt. Following the acquittal, he remarried and has three children. The judgment of both the High Court and the Trial Court has personal and intimate details about him. Being available in the public domain has caused him significant repercussions, as he was denied a visa to travel to Australia by authorities, citing the criminal cases. The appellant has filed a plea seeking a mandamus directing the Registrar General, Additional Registrar General, and Registrar (IT-Statistics) as R1, R2, R3 to redact his name and other identities from the acquittal judgment. He has sought a direction from Ikanoon Software Development Private Limited (R4) to reflect the redaction in its publication. 

‍

Issue 

‍

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can lie against a High Court for redaction of personal details from its own judgment, or does such a prayer tantamount to a High Court issuing a writ against itself?
2. Whether the High Court, being a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, is entitled to preserve its record for perpetuity in its original form without any modification or redaction?
3. Whether the ‘Right to be Forgotten' can be recognised and enforced in the absence of a specific statutory provision or Supreme Court direction, given that it constitutes an exception to the fundamental principle of open courts and open justice?

‍

Adjudication and Reasoning

The division bench has allowed the Writ appeal and granted the following relief:

1. R4 directed to take down the judgment in Crl.A. (MD) No.321 of 2011 dated 30.04.2014 forthwith.
2. R1 to R3 directed to redact the name and other details of the Writ Petitioner relating to his identity from the judgment dated 30.04.2014 in Crl.A.(MD) No. 321 of 2011 and ensure that only the redacted judgment is available for publication or for uploading.

‍

Rule 

‍

1. Courts have a wide discretion in deciding whether to allow redaction or not. Such discretion can either be granted at the request of the party seeking redaction or, in appropriate cases, even suo moto by the court.
2. The accused who have earned full, complete and unconditional acquittal without any benefit of doubt have a legitimate claim to move forward for redaction of personal information.
3. The open Court doesn’t require absolute disclosure of all personal information, and the courts, while deciding the concern of privacy and the right to ensure that in litigations to leave behind parts of their past which are no longer relevant, have to balance the concept of open Court on the one hand and privacy concerns of a citizen on the other.
4. As the High Court is the repository of a wide range of information and is entitled to preserve the original record in perpetuity. However, without diluting the sanctity of the original record, the public reflection of that record can be moderated to preserve the privacy of the person to whom that record pertains.

‍

Reasoning 

‍

1. Drawing on the judgment K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court found Article 21 to protect not only informational privacy but also the "right to be forgotten," which gives individuals the right to request the deletion of any personal data when there is no longer any legitimate public interest in retaining such information. Such irreparable reputational damage is thus an infringement on constitutional privacy that demands judicial redaction. 
2. The court rejected the argument that a writ against its own order is impermissible, drawing a distinction between challenging the legal correctness of a judgment and seeking redaction of personal information. Allowing redaction will not question the validity of the judgment; rather, it will simply change its public appearance to ensure privacy.
3. Since a High Court is a Court of Record with an obligation to preserve its judgments in their unaltered form forever, the court held here that such internal maintenance of complete records was not incompatible with the issuance of a redacted public version. Institutional integrity is maintained when the original kept in the archives is supplemented with a public version that masks the privacy areas.
4. Open justice principles work to establish transparency, accountability, and public confidence, but these are not absolute. The court took a proportionality stance: personal identifiers, where they neither educate nor have precedential value and continue to inflict harm, may be expunged without affecting the established legal principles of judgment.
5. Although the DPDP Act exempts courts from several statutory obligations, the court held that it can, by virtue of its inherent discretion, protect personal data, and in so doing, exercise that power without the need for any legislative command. Traditionally the Madras High Court rules provide for the possibility of restriction of certified copies, thus establishing redaction as feasible both legally and administratively.

‍

Introduction

The advent of frontier AI has significantly widened the range of actors who can launch cyberattacks, extending beyond state actors with immense capabilities or organized professional cybercriminal rings. In its most critical advisory, CIAD-2026-0020, titled "Defending against frontier AI-driven cyber risks," which was released on April 26, 2026, the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) officially stated that AI can now carry out autonomous cyber activities of unprecedented scale and speed. The advisory highlights that these frontier AI models can perform automated reconnaissance, phishing, malware creation, vulnerability identification, and social engineering with minimal human involvement, thus "lowering the barrier to orchestrating complex cyber attacks." The risks that such AI models pose are not restricted to state actors and corporate entities anymore and also extend to MSMEs, public organizations, and individuals.

‍

India’s Escalating Cybercrisis

The Indian digital economy has been developing at a very fast pace, but the same cannot be said about its cybersecurity. Having a base of over 850 million internet users and a digital payment sector that records a massive 22,495 crore in monthly transaction volumes, coupled with the fastest-growing cloud sector in the world, India continues to remain a lucrative prey for cybercriminals. There were over 265 million attempts reported in the last year, 2025, alone, where close to 46% of all incidents detected were in enterprises with fewer than 1,000 employees, a very grave reality for MSMEs. MHA confirmed there were 28.15 lakh reported cybercrime complaints in 2025 as compared to 2024, with a jump of 24%. In this worsening environment the advisory is a breakthrough in Indian cyber governance. Where previously advisories covered only conventional threats like phishing and malware, the new warning names frontier agentic AI systems as autonomous multipliers of threats, capable of conducting operations at scale and speed with significantly reduced human oversight.

‍

What is “Frontier AI” and why does it matter?

CERT-In’s decision to adopt the term "Frontier AI" is deliberate and meaningful. The advisory’s scope is a new category of agentic AI, which moves well beyond traditional chatbot-style AI, having the capacity to reason, plan, perform multiple actions in a single task autonomously, and carry out complicated tasks with minimal or no human guidance. CERT-In highlights that these tools now possess the capabilities that were "previously carried out by a coordinated team of skilled cybersecurity professionals." The advisory clearly flags the risk that these advanced models have the capability to generate malicious code, conduct network scans, probe systems for vulnerabilities, and even orchestrate intricate multi-stage cyberattacks in a single session. Their capacity to analyse a vast number of source code libraries to identify vulnerabilities, even unknown zero-day ones, and then develop proof-of-concept exploits at high speed. This means that the historical lead time to turn a vulnerability discovery into an exploit tool has reduced from weeks to just hours.

‍

Six Core Threat Vectors identified by CERT-In

1. AI-driven Automatic Zero-Day Discovery: AI-based solutions discover zero-day vulnerabilities and automatically create exploits in minutes, reducing the time taken by defenders.
2. AI-driven Autonomous Reconnaissance: AI-driven agents scan cloud infra, APIs, and enterprise networks and outline attack vectors.
3. AI-driven phishing & deepfakes: Multilingual, highly targeted phishing emails, deepfake audio, and deepfake voice/video calls bring sophistication to social engineering.
4. Deepfake Financial Fraud: AI creates deepfake executives for high-value money transfers. For example, reports have indicated crore-level fund loss cases in India.
5. AI-powered Autonomous Attack Chains: Advanced AI models are able to automatically perform multiple malicious stages like privilege escalation, lateral movement, data exfiltration, and data extraction.
6. Cascading failures of interconnected systems: A single AI-supported security breach can have catastrophic domino effects on connected digital systems and critical infrastructures.

‍

Why are MSMEs a target?

CERT-In’s warning is specifically targeted toward the weakness of the Indian MSMEs. Contributing almost 30% to India's GDP and employing over 110 million individuals, most MSMEs have failed to adequately prepare themselves against contemporary cyber threats. While a large corporation would have a full-time cybersecurity team, a security operation centre, and frequent vulnerability assessments, the majority of MSMEs lack such infrastructure due to budget constraints, out-of-date software, etc. This lack of security has proved to be quite disadvantageous for smaller businesses, as India was identified as one of the top global targets for cyberattacks, where approximately 46% of the total breaches worldwide targeted organizations having fewer than 1000 employees. The advisory claims that frontier AI systems have significantly increased the threats, for the skills necessary to carry out advanced cyberattacks have dramatically decreased. Ransomware, phishing and data exfiltration can be executed by even unsophisticated attackers. The aftermath could result in critical financial, operational, and compliance impact on these MSMEs.

‍

The Global Context

These developments seem to validate CERT-In's warning about threats posed by frontier AI. In its 2026 State of Cybersecurity Report, ISACA listed AI-related threats as the top concern of cybersecurity professionals; 61% of those surveyed reported generative AI/large language models as the top technology trend impacting cyber risk. Worryingly, in 2026 only 7% were confident in their organizations' defenses against ransomware. Check Point Software's Cyber Security Report 2026 corroborates this; in 2025 the report stated that in a single year, the trend of combined social engineering-based campaigns with automated operational execution has risen considerably. In all phases of the lifecycle of a cyberattack reconnaissance, social engineering, and tactical decision-making AI is being applied. KPMG is warning of deepfake-enabled fraud now "spreading at a faster rate than that experienced at the beginning of the phishing era, which is currently still the leading type of attack in the world."

‍

CERT-In Recommendations

‍

For Large Organisations:

‍

1. The use of security monitoring, threat detection, and log analysis should be increased.
2. DDoS protection systems and multi-factor authentication (MFA) should be implemented on all internet-facing devices and assets.
3. Critical security patches should be installed within 24 hours of release.
4. Old VPN and remote-access infrastructure should be updated or replaced.
5. AI-driven cyber drills and incident response simulations should be regularly performed.

‍For MSMEs:

‍

1. Software and security updates should be automatically enabled on all devices and systems.
2. MFA should be enabled on organisational accounts and sensitive platforms.
3. MSMEs should utilize MSSPs for specialized support and monitoring.
4. Detailed inventories of IT assets and system logs should be kept for fast incident response.
5. Staff should be educated about identifying AI-generated phishing, deepfakes, and scams.

‍

For Individuals:

‍

• Independent communication channels should be used to verify any dubious message or money request.
• Software from unverified sources or unauthorised channels should not be downloaded.
• The use of strong and unique passwords along with MFA wherever possible should be enforced.

‍

From Advisory to Action

The May 2026 cybersecurity road map released by CERT-In signals a departure from identification of threats to enabling operations against frontier AI-led cyber threat landscapes. This initiative builds on their April advice and delineates a clearly articulated three-phase roadmap comprising immediate cyber readiness, AI governance controls, and deep integration of AI-driven defenses. It also provides for the establishment of a focused AI Cyber Defense Center and various multisector governance provisions. A prominent area is the increased threat of impersonation via deepfakes, and companies are encouraged to institute executive verification procedures prior to approving high-value transactions. The framework also emphasizes the establishment of an AI asset register requiring formal accounting and governance of all AI systems utilized in an enterprise. Meanwhile, CERT-In also recognizes the twin-use nature of frontier AI: for every threat, the same technology can bolster security with automated threat detection, phishing, and log analysis in real time.  However, the deployment of state-of-the-art defenses is uneven, especially with MSMEs, where there isn’t the requisite domain expertise and funding for this infrastructure. Accordingly, the road map puts the emphasis on immediate and stronger cyber hygiene, compulsory incident reporting, enhancing AI literacy, and proper implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act for long-term security investment and resilience.

‍

Conclusion

The CERT-In advisory CIAD-2026-0020 signifies a vital acknowledgment of AI's transformational impact on the cybersecurity ecosystem. Capabilities formerly exclusive to elite state actors are being deployed by low-skilled users, leveraging state-of-the-art frontier AI tools. India’s MSMEs, enterprises, and digital citizens are experiencing a rapidly accelerating threat milieu. In this context, the CERT-In advisory and the ensuing blueprint can no longer be dismissed as ordinary government pronouncements but as critical operational imperatives. It is the country’s ability over the next few years to shore up its collective cyber resilience to the ever-increasing scale and sophistication of AI-powered attacks that will prove crucial.

‍

References:

1. https://www.cert-in.org.in/s2cMainServlet?pageid=PUBVLNOTES02&VLCODE=CIAD-2026-0020
2. https://www.zeebiz.com/technology/news-cert-in-flags-high-severity-ai-cyber-risks-amid-claude-mythos-concerns-394448
3. https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/cert-in-warning-ai-scams-frontier-models-mythos-gpt-5-5-what-it-means-126042800988_1.html
4. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20251020612551/en/
5. https://corporate.indiamart.com/2025/07/29/staying-ahead-of-cyber-threats/
6. https://kpmg.com/kpmg-us/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2025/deepfakes-real-threat.pdf

‍