#FactCheck- Viral ‘Prison Torture’ Video Not from Israel, Taken from Iraqi TV Show

Introduction

India’s telecommunications infrastructure is one of the world’s largest and most complex, serving over a billion users across urban and rural landscapes. With rampant digitisation and mobile penetration, the vulnerability of telecom networks to cyber threats has grown exponentially. On April 24, 2025, the Ministry of Communications (MOC) released a draft of the “Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Amendment Rules, 2025,” to update the prior Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024, to improve cybersecurity in India's telecom industry and fortify network security. Public comments and recommendations regarding these draft rules can be sent to the department by July 24, 2025, after they have been made available for public comment. These rules are enacted under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, to enhance national cybersecurity in the telecom domain. These rules aim to prevent misuse of telecom networks and reinforce data and infrastructure protection mechanisms across service providers. 

‍

Safeguarding the Spectrum: Unpacking the 2025 Cybersecurity Revisions

‍

The menace of fraudulent SIM cards deals the issue of cyber threats a fresh hand. The rising number of digital scams can also be attributed to unverified or fake mobile numbers. Fraudulent SIM cards have often been linked to various cybercrimes such as phishing, vishing, SIM swapping and identity theft. The situation has worsened in the face of easy availability of pre-activated SIM cards and weak KYC enforcement. In a recent example, as per reports of June 28, 2025, the Special Task Force (STF) found that the accused was operating a criminal nexus where he utilised fake documents and the Aadhaar credentials of law-abiding locals to activate numerous SIM cards. Following activation, the SIMs were either transferred to other telecom carriers for additional exploitation or sold illegally. This poses a serious concern for the data protection of vulnerable individuals, especially those in rural areas, whose credentials have been compromised. 

Given the adverse state of cybersecurity in the telecom industry, the Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024, were passed on 22nd November, 2024, which put various telecom entities under an obligation to actively prevent cybersecurity threats by adopting such policies that mitigate cybersecurity risks and notify the same to the Central Government. The 2024 Telecom Cybersecurity Rules were a significant step in fortifying India’s telecom infrastructure against cyber threats, but they primarily focused on licensed telecom service providers, leaving behind a large segment of digital platforms operating outside the traditional telecom framework largely unregulated. 

‍

Expanding the Net: Key Revisions Under the 2025 Cybersecurity Amendment Rules

‍

The amended rules of 2025 adequately address the regulatory blind spot that is created by the rapid expansion of online services, fintech apps, OTT platforms and social media networks, as these platforms often rely on telecom identifiers such as mobile numbers for user onboarding and service delivery. This regulatory blind spot was exploited for fraud, impersonation and other cybercrimes, especially in the absence of standardised identity verification mechanisms. The proposed regulations would give the government the authority to require private companies’ clients to provide identification if they use a mobile number. For a fee, businesses can also undertake this kind of verification on their own. “ The draft rules introduce a new category called “Telecommunication Identifier User Entities’ (TIUEs), extending cybersecurity compliance obligations to a broad category that now captures any entity using telecom identifiers to deliver digital services. It also creates a unified, government-backed verification framework, enabling better interoperability and uniform user identification norms across sectors. 

‍

While strengthening national digital security is the goal of the Telecom Cybersecurity (Amendment) Rules, 2025, the proposed rules create a great deal of uncertainty and compliance difficulties, especially for private digital platforms. A broad definition of Telecommunication Identifier User businesses (TIUEs) may include a variety of businesses, including e-commerce services, fintech apps and OTT platforms, under the purview of required mobile number verification. Given that many platforms already have advanced internal processes in place to verify users, this scope uncertainty creates significant concerns regarding operational clarity. 

‍

Conclusion

The Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Amendment Rules, 2025, represent a necessary evolution in India’s quest to secure its telecom ecosystem amid growing cyber threats. The draft regulations recognise the evolving landscape of digital services by broadening the legal scope to encompass Telecommunication Identifier User Entities (TIUEs). Though the goal of creating a strong, transparent and accountable framework is admirable, more clarification and stakeholder involvement are required due to the scope’s vagueness and the possible compliance burden on digital platforms. A truly durable telecom cybersecurity regime will require striking the correct balance between security, viability and privacy. 

‍

References 

‍

• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/the-government-enforces-key-sections-of-the-telecommunication-act-2023
• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/govt-notifies-the-telecommunications-telecom-cyber-security-rules-2024 
• https://the420.in/uttarakhand-stf-busts-fake-sim-racket-linked-to-cyber-crimes-and-nepal-network/ 
• https://www.thehindu.com/business/dot-puts-out-draft-rules-to-enable-mobile-user-validation/article69741367.ece ‍
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/28/dot-telecom-cyber-security-draft-policy-update/

Introduction

In September 2024, the Australian government announced the  Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 ( CLA Bill 2024 hereon), to provide new powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the statutory regulatory body for Australia's communications and media infrastructure, to combat online misinformation and disinformation. It proposed allowing the ACMA to hold digital platforms accountable for the “seriously harmful mis- and disinformation” being spread on their platforms and their response to it, while also balancing freedom of expression. However, the Bill was subsequently withdrawn, primarily over concerns regarding the possibility of censorship by the government. This development is reflective of the global contention on the balance between misinformation regulation and freedom of speech. 

Background and Key Features of the Bill

According to the BBC’s Global Minds Survey of 2023, nearly 73% of Australians struggled to identify fake news and AI-generated misinformation. There has been a substantial rise in misinformation on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok since the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during major events like the bushfires of 2020 and the 2022 federal elections. The government’s campaign against misinformation was launched against this background, with the launch of The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation in 2021. The main provisions of the CLA Bill, 2024 were: 

1. Core Transparency Obligations of Digital Media Platforms: Publishing current media literacy plans,  risk assessment reports, and policies or information on their approach to addressing mis- and disinformation. The ACMA would also be allowed to make additional rules regarding complaints and dispute-handling processes.
2. Information Gathering and Record-Keeping Powers: The ACMA would form rules allowing it to gather consistent information across platforms and publish it. However, it would not have been empowered to gather and publish user information except in limited circumstances.
3. Approving Codes and Making Standards: The ACMA would have powers to approve codes developed by the industry and make standards regarding reporting tools, links to authoritative information, support for fact-checking, and demonetisation of disinformation. This would make compliance mandatory for relevant sections of the industry. 
4. Parliamentary Oversight: The transparency obligations, codes approved and standards set by ACMA under the Bill would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. ACMA would be required to report to the Parliament annually. 
5. Freedom of Speech Protections: End-users would not be required to produce information for ACMA unless they are a person providing services to the platform, such as its employees or fact-checkers. Further,  it would not be allowed to call for removing content from platforms unless it involved inauthentic behavior such as bots. 
6. Penalties for Non-Compliance: ACMA would be required to employ a “graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach” to non-compliance and enforcement in the form of formal warnings, remedial directions, injunctions, or significant civil penalties as decided by the courts, subject to review by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). No criminal penalties would be imposed.

Key Concerns

• Inadequacy of Freedom of Speech Protections: The biggest contention on this Bill has been regarding the issue of possible censorship, particularly of alternative opinions that are crucial to the health of a democratic system. To protect the freedom of speech, the Bill defined mis- and disinformation, what constitutes “serious harm” (election interference, harming public health, etc.), and what would be excluded from its scope. However, reservations among the Opposition persisted due to the lack of a clear mechanism to protect divergent opinions from the purview of this Bill. 
• Efficacy of Regulatory Measures: Many argue that by allowing the digital platform industry to make its codes, this law lets it self-police. Big Tech companies have no incentive to curb misinformation effectively since their business models allow them to reap financial benefits from the rampant spread of misinformation. Unless there are financial non- or dis- incentives to curb misinformation, Big Tech is not likely to address the situation at war footing.  Thus, this law would run the risk of being toothless. Secondly, the Bill did not require platforms to report on the “prevalence of” false content which, along with other metrics,  is crucial for researchers and legislators to track the efficacy of the current misinformation-curbing practices employed by platforms.  
• Threat of Government Overreach:  The Bill sought to expand the ACMA’s compliance and enforcement powers concerning misinformation and disinformation on online communication platforms by giving it powers to form rules on information gathering, code registration, standard-making powers, and core transparency obligations. However, even though the ACMA as a regulatory authority is answerable to the Parliament, the Bill was unclear in defining limits to these powers. This raised concerns from civil society about potential government overreach in a domain filled with contextual ambiguities regarding information.

Conclusion

While the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill sought to equip the ACMA with tools to hold digital platforms accountable and mitigate the harm caused by false information, its critique highlights the complexities of regulating such content without infringing on freedom of speech. Legislations and proposals regarding the matter all over the world are having to contend with this challenge. Globally, legislation and proposals addressing this issue face similar challenges, emphasizing the need for a continuous discourse at the intersection of platform accountability, regulatory restraint, and the protection of diverse viewpoints.

To regulate Big Tech effectively, governments can benefit from adopting a consultative, incremental, and cooperative approach, as exemplified by the European Union’s Digital Services Act 2023. Such a framework provides for a balanced response, fostering accountability while safeguarding democratic freedoms.

Resources

• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-misinformation-disinformation-bill.pdf 
• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation 
• https://www.mi-3.com.au/07-02-2024/over-80-australians-feel-they-may-have-fallen-fake-news-says-bbc 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/misinformation-inquiry 
• https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2024 
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-is-the-misinformation-bill-and-why-has-it-triggered-worries-about-freedom-of-speech/4n3ijebde 
• https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-work-no-pay-no-food/internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic#:~:text=The%20Telegraph%20Act%20allows%20authorities,preventing%20incitement%20to%20the%20commission 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/submissions/2024/11/8/submission-combatting-misinformation?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation&utm_content=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation+Preview+CID_31c6d7200ed9bd2f7f6f596ba2a8b1fb&utm_source=Email%20campaign&utm_term=Read%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Law%20Centres%20submission%20to%20the%20inquiry

‍

Executive Summary:

‍

Our team has come across a recent social media post highlighting a report on fraudulent activities involving deceptive websites and emails impersonating India’s Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs). These phishing scams falsely promise LPG distributorships and retail outlet dealerships, aiming to extract money and personal information from unsuspecting individuals. We strongly urge the public to exercise caution and verify all information exclusively through official OMC channels to avoid falling victim to such fraudulent schemes.

‍

‍

‍

Claim:

‍

It has been reported that fraudsters are impersonating Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum, and Hindustan Petroleum through fake websites and emails, promising LPG distributorships and seeking money from victims.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

‍

After our research, we came upon more information about this topic and found out that the Press Information Bureau (PIB) has released an official notice confirming that fraudulent websites and emails are impersonating India's Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), which include Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The scams falsely promise LPG distributorships and retail outlet dealerships while demanding large sums of money from unsuspecting individuals. On June 19, 2019, this was confirmed. The PIB highlighted that OMCs have not allowed any person or organization to charge a fee for dealership selection. All authentic information on these offers is available at the websites of the OMCs: www.iocl.com, www.bharatpetroleum.com, and www.hindustanpetroleum.com. The general public is cautioned to rely only on these sources and report suspicious approaches to the offices of concerned OMCs. If someone finds such an approach, he should immediately contact the cybercrime branch. HPCL has issued alerts on fake websites and emails that promise LPG distributorships and jobs, mimicking official HPCL sites to deceive people.

‍

‍

‍

On the official website of HPCL list down the malicious URLs. They are mentioned below:

• https://kskdealerchayan.com/
• bajajgas.com/index
• hindustanbiofuel.in
• petrolpumpchayanonline.com
• dealerchayanpetrolpump.in
• petrolpumpdealarchayan.com
• petrolpumpsdealerchayan.co.in
• petrolpumpdealershipchayan.org.in
• petrolpumpdealerchayangov.in
• petrolpumpdealership.info
• petrolpumpsdealershipchayan.in
• allindiagasdealership.com
• hindustanpetroleum.online
• hindustanpetroleumcorp.com
• hpcldelership.com
• ujjwalalpgvitarak.org
• ujjwaladealership.com
• lpgvitrakkendra.com
• kissansevakendra.org
• lpgvitarakchayanltd.org
• petrolpumpdelerchayan.in
• petrolpumpdealerschayan.in
• petrolepumpsdelearchayan.in
• kissansevakendra.org
• petrolpumpdealerchayanpro.com
• petrolpumchayanweb.com
• onlinepetrolpumpdealerchayan.com/

‍

HPCL also shared an advisory for their applicants regarding Beware Of Fraudsters.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

It has been proven that fraud offers for LPG distributorships and retail outlet dealerships are being made through fake websites and emails. To avoid such scams, people are advised to be more vigilant, verify all information through official OMC platforms, and immediately report any suspicious activities to the concerned authorities. Being alert and informed is the key to preventing financial loss and protecting personal data from exploitation.

• Claim: Is this HPCL approval letter for an LPG agency dealership legit?
• Claimed On: Social Media 
• Fact Check: False and Misleading