#FactCheck-PM Narendra Modi’s Viral Statement Linking His Father to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is Fake

Introduction

Social media is the new platform for free speech and expressing one’s opinions. The latest news breaks out on social media and is often used by political parties to propagate their parties during the elections. Hashtag (#)is the new weapon, a powerful hashtag that goes a long way in making an impact in society that so at a global level. Various hashtags have gained popularity in the last years, such as – #blacklivesmatter, #metoo, #pride, #cybersecurity, and many more, which were influential in spreading awareness among the people regarding various social issues and taboos, which then were removed from multiple cultures. Social media is strengthened by social media influencers who are famous personalities with a massive following as they create regular content that the users consume and share with their friends. Social media is all about the message and its speed, and hence issues like misinformation and disinformation are widespread on nearly all social media platforms, so the influencers play a keen role in making sure the content on social media is in compliance with its community and privacy guidelines.

The Know-How

The Department of Consumer Affairs under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution released a guide, ‘Endorsements Know-hows!’ for celebrities, influencers, and virtual influencers on social media platforms, The guide aims to ensure that individuals do not mislead their audiences when endorsing products or services and that they are in compliance with the Consumer Protection Act and any associated rules or guidelines. Advertisements are no longer limited to traditional media like print, television, or radio, with the increasing reach of digital platforms and social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, there has been a rise in the influence of virtual influencers, celebrities, and social media influencers. This has led to an increased risk of consumers being misled by advertisements and unfair trade practices by these individuals on social media platforms. Endorsements must be made in simple, clear language, and terms such as “advertisement,” “sponsored,” or “paid promotion” can be used. They should not endorse any product or service and service in which they have done due diligence or that they have not personally used or experienced. The Act established guidelines for protecting consumers from unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements. The Department of Consumer Affairs published Guidelines for prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, on 9th June 2022. These guidelines outline the criteria for valid advertisements and the responsibilities of manufacturers, service providers, advertisers, and advertising agencies. These guidelines also touched upon celebrities and endorsers. It states that misleading advertisements in any form, format, or medium are prohibited by law.

The guidelines apply to social media influencers as well as virtual avatars promoting products and services online. The disclosures should be easy to notice in post descriptions, where you can usually find hashtags or links. It should also be prominent enough to be noticeable in the content,

Changes Expected

The new guidelines will bring about uniformity in social media content in respect of privacy and the opinions of different people. The primary issue being addressed is misinformation, which was at its peak during the Covid-19 pandemic and impacted millions of people worldwide. The aspect of digital literacy and digital etiquette is a fundamental art of social media ethics, and hence social media influencers and celebrities can go a long way in spreading awareness about the same among common people and regular social media users. The increasing threats of cybercrimes and various exploitations over cyberspace can be eradicated with the help of efficient awareness and education among the youth and the vulnerable population, and the influencers can easily do the same, so its time that the influencers understand their responsibility of leading the masses online and create a healthy secure cyber ecosystem. Failing to follow the guidelines will make social media influencers liable for a fine of up to Rs 10 lakh. In the case of repeated offenders, the penalty can go up to Rs 50 lakh.

Conclusion

The size of the social media influencer market in India in 2022 was $157 million. It could reach as much as $345 million by 2025. Indian advertising industry’s self-regulatory body Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), shared that Influencer violations comprise almost 30% of ads taken up by ASCI, hence this legal backing for disclosure requirements is a welcome step. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs had been in touch with ASCI to review the various global guidelines on influencers. The social media guidelines from Clairfirnia and San Fransisco share the same basis, and hence guidelines inspired by different countries will allow the user and the influencer to understand the global perspective and work towards securing the bigger picture. As we know that cyberspace has no geographical boundaries and limitations; hence now is the time to think beyond conventional borders and start contributing towards securing and safeguarding global cyberspace.

Introduction

In this age, when our data stands as the key to all resources, espionage has moved from dark alleys and trench coats to keyboards and code. In this era of active digital espionage, where intelligence is stolen through invisible cyberattacks that target computer networks. Cyber espionage and spying have become the most critical threat in the hyper-connected world of today. As governments, corporations, and individuals store an immense amount of confidential information online, the grounds of espionage have shifted from land and sea to the silent realm of cyberspace. 

What is Cyber Espionage? 

Cyber espionage refers to the unauthorised access of confidential data for strategic, political, military, and financial gain, unlike cybercrime, which is mostly about money. Cyber espionage is about gaining information power. The very first documented case dates back to 1986-87, when a group of German hackers breached the US military establishment and the defence systems and sold that stolen data to the Soviets and the KGB. This was the beginning of a new era where classified intelligence could be gathered even without entering a building. 

Cyber espionage is mostly carried out by trained espionage professionals, elite hackers, and corporate spies whose sole purpose is to target the government, research organisations, military establishments, and other critical infrastructures.   

The Objective

The act of Cyber Espionage is being driven by three major objectives, such as;

• Stealing of Intellectual Property- Starting from information and data related to military establishments to pharmaceutical patents, stealing innovation is cheaper than funding R&D. 
• Political and Diplomatic Advantage- As government networks are hacked to access state secrets, negotiation strategies, and classified communications.
• Military Intelligence- Cyber spies also work to steal data on weapons troop movements, defence systems, and war systems, often years before conflict breaks out. 

In a world being shaped by digital power, information is not just about knowledge. Rather, it is all about ensuring dominance. 

The arsenal of modern digital spies is more sophisticated, and most importantly, they are used covertly rather than the spy gadgets that are shown in spy movies. Some of the tactics resorted to by the cyber spies can be recognised as; 

• Phishing Attacks through fake emails that lure victims to click on malicious links or sharing of passwords. 
• Persisting Advanced Threats through long-term stealth attacks in a network for more than a month or a year. 
• Malware and Spyware are invisible software that logs keystrokes, records screens, or steals files silently. 
• Deepfake Manipulations by creating AI-generated fake videos that can influence political developments in the country. 

Anything that makes cyber espionage terrifying is not just the theft, but the fact that it goes undetected. 

What Differentiates Cyber Espionage and Cyber Warfare

Cyber espionage is a silent and stealthy tactic that is carried out with utmost secrecy, being a long-term effort for intelligence gathering. It mostly focuses on the stealing of data, whereas Cyber warfare is an open and destructive tactic that is used to create an immediate and visible impact to create disruption. However, espionage is an act that prepares the battlefield for the warfare of the future. 

Taking instances of real instances of cyber espionage, we can refer to examples such as; 

• Operation Aurora was conducted in 2010, where Chinese Hackers based in Beijing tried to steal IP data from Google and American tech giants. 
• The Stuxnet attack in 2010 was another cyber weapon that was developed to sabotage Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. 
•  SolarWinds Attack of 2020 was an instance of cyber espionage where a supply chain hack was carried out to target multiple US federal government agencies. 

As most of these instances reflect that they were battles without guns, but with the use of codes. Several sources raise the question of whether cyber-attacks can be stopped. The answer lies in the fact that they cannot be stopped completely, but can be minimised to some extent, by developing capabilities to counter and deter cyber-attacks with the help of equal cyber defence capabilities. 

Conclusion 

From the Cold War era to the present Code War, espionage has evolved with technology. An effort that was once taken solely by spies and human assets, with the passing of time enhancement of technologies it is now expanded to malware, phishing, social engineering, and remote digital inflation. In this age of information warfare, espionage is faster, cheaper, and harder to trace than ever before. The enemies of a nation may never cross its borders, but they may already be inside its systems. However, the world has now officially entered a new battlefield, without boundaries, uniforms, and bombs. It is now being fought through bytes, breaches, and invisible enemies.  

References

• https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/threat-intelligence/cyber-espionage/
• https://www.espiamos.com/en/content/espionage-in-the-digital-world-threats-and-opportunities.html
• https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/information-technology/resources/what-is-cyber-warfare/
• https://pride-security.co.uk/the-rise-of-digital-warfare-understanding-the-evolution-of-cyber-espionage/

‍

Introduction

‍

In January 2026, the Basic Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of a Foundation for Trustworthiness came into effect in South Korea, establishing one of the first national AI laws in the world. The bill, enacted by the National Assembly of Korea in December 2024 and implemented from January 22, 2026, aims to strike a balance between the rapid advancement of technology and clear safeguards against risks, as well as transparency, accountability, and responsible AI use. It puts Seoul and the European Union on the frontline of developing legal systems for artificial intelligence and indicates a long-term goal of becoming an AI power on the global stage.

‍

What the AI Basic Act Covers

‍

The AI Basic Act consists of 19 separate AI bills that are merged into a single piece of legislation that covers the lifecycle of AI, including research and development, deployment, and utilisation. It is very wide in its coverage: it refers to any AI system that influences the Korean market or users inside the country, irrespective of the country in which it is created. The law does not apply to national defence and security applications.

The law defines key concepts like artificial intelligence, generative AI, and high-impact AI and establishes the principles of ethical AI, safety, user rights, industry support, and national policy coordination. It also offers a legal foundation for the activities of the government to promote AI innovation without jeopardising the common good.

Fundamentally, the AI Basic Act is designed to establish a culture of trust between businesses and the government/citizens. It does not prohibit AI technologies and does not excessively limit innovation. Instead, it creates the framework of responsible development and economic growth.

‍

Guardrails for Safety and Accountability

‍

One of the defining features of the AI Basic Act is its risk-based approach. Rather than considering all AI systems as similar, it makes a distinction between ordinary and high-impact AI systems, the ones applied in sectors where the wrong or unsafe decision can have a major impact on the safety, rights, or critical infrastructure of the population. Some of them can be seen in healthcare, transportation, financial services, education, and public services.

The high-impact AI operators must integrate risk management plans, human controls, and surveillance systems. In critical decision-making situations, human control should be available at all times; that is, machines can help but not override human control where human safety or other human rights are involved.

The law enables the regulators to perform on-site checks, demand documentation, and conduct compliance investigations. Fines for breaches may go up to 30 million Korean won (approximately 21,000 US dollars). It has a one-year period of transition that is based on guidance but not enforcement, thus allowing companies time to implement compliance measures before imposing fines.

These requirements contribute to enhancing accountability by defining who is accountable for the safety outcomes. The law in South Korea is placed in the ecosystem, as opposed to the methods in which industry self-governance alone is utilised. 

‍

Transparency and Labelling Requirements

‍

The AI Basic Act is based on transparency. The legislation ensures that users are notified before an AI system is operating, particularly with the generation of AI outputs that could be confused with human-created material. As an example, AI-generated text, images, video, or audio that may be difficult to distinguish between reality and fake must have obvious labels or watermarks to allow users to understand the source of the content.

The necessity to label is meant to fight misinformation, misleading activities, and unintended influence on the perception of the people. It is based on international anxiety regarding AI-generated content, such as deepfakes, manipulated media, and misleading online advertisements that have already been addressed separately in policy by South Korea, as well as discussions of data governance.

The transparency is also applied to the process of decision-making in AI systems. Developers and operators should be able to give explicit information about the way in which high-impact systems make their conclusions so that those who are victims of automated decisions can seek meaningful explanations. Although specific explainability criteria are in the process of being developed, the law grounds the principle that AI cannot act behind the scenes in situations where crucial decisions are being made.

‍

Data Privacy and User Protection

‍

The AI governance practice in South Korea is complementary to its current data protection laws, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which is broadly regarded as equivalent to major international data protection regulations like the GDPR in regard to personal data laws. The AI Basic Act provides an explanation as to how the data can be gathered, processed, and utilised within AI systems with regard to privacy rights, particularly in areas of high impact.

The law does not supersede the personal data protection policies, but it sets certain conditions on how AI developers must address the data to be utilised in training, testing, and running AIs. Operators will be required to document their data workflows and demonstrate how they guard the privacy of their users, including by transparency and consent mechanisms where necessary. This can assist in ensuring that the information that is utilised in AI functions is regulated by definite norms, and it is more difficult to avoid privacy requirements in the name of innovation.

‍

Accountability and Governance Infrastructure

‍

The AI Basic Act establishes a national policy framework of AI governance. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy Committee, chaired by the President, is at the top and proposes the overall AI policy and aligns it with national objectives. The organisations that would support this are the specialised organisations that deal with safety, risk assessment, and research and the policy centre that would analyse the effects of AI on society and assist in its adoption by the industry.

This institutional structure facilitates strategic guidance as well as operational control. It is through incorporating AI governance in the administration of the people, but not into the market forces, that South Korea wishes to have the ethical and societal concerns become part of the sectors and agencies.

‍

Promoting Innovation and Industrial Support

‍

Although the AI Basic Act does not disregard regulation, it is not a law of restrictions. It also offers legal justification for research and development, human capital, and the growth of the AI industry, with special consideration for startups and small and medium-sized businesses. The legislation promotes AI clusters, long-term funding programmes, and policies to bring foreign talent to the Korean AI ecosystem.

This bidimensional approach of compliance and support is indicative of the broader desire of Korea to become one of the leading AI powers in the world, along with the US and China. The government has pointed out that it will encourage trust by having clear and predictable rules that will attract investment and maintain innovation and not stifle it.

‍

What This Means Globally

‍

The AI Basic Act of South Korea is not only interesting in its contents but also in its timing. It is also among the first thorough AI legislations to come into force in the world, and it beats the gradual regulatory implementations in other parts of the globe, like the European Union. Its system incorporates a principle-based framework, transparency requirements, accountability regulations, and industrial support, which reflects a contrasting model to either pure prescriptive risk regulation or lax self-regulation models elsewhere.

Other critics, such as industry groups and civil society organisations, have suggested that some of the protections may be more explicit, in particular to those who are harmed by AI systems, or to establish high-impact categories. Nonetheless, the framework sets a benchmark upon which most nations will pay close attention when they establish their own AI regimes.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The AI Basic Act puts South Korea at the forefront of national AI regulation, including very well-developed guardrails that enforce transparency, ethical control, accountability, and data protection in addition to fostering innovation. It recognises that AI could lead to economic and social advantages, yet also actual risks, particularly when systems are opaque, autonomous, or widely implemented. South Korea has gone holistically in responsible AI governance by integrating human oversight, labelling requirements, risk management planning, and governance infrastructure into law to be emulated by other countries in the years to come.

Sources

‍

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/29/south-korea-world-first-ai-regulation-laws 
• https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-labour-market-in-korea_af668423/68ab1a5a-en.pdf 
• https://asianintelligence.ai/south-korea 
• https://aibasicact.kr/ 
• https://aibusinessweekly.net/p/south-korea-ai-basic-act-takes-effect-jan22-2026 
• https://asiadaily.org/news/12112/ 

‍