#FactCheck: Viral Deepfake Video of Modi, Shah, Jaishankar Apologize for Operation Sindoor Blunder

18th November 2022 CyberPeace Foundation in association with Universal Acceptance has successfully conducted the workshop on Universal Acceptance and Multilingual Internet for the students and faculties of Royal Global University under CyberPeace Center of Excellence (CCoE). CyberPeace Foundation has always been engaged towards the aim of spreading awareness regarding the various developments, avenues, opportunities and threats regarding cyberspace. The same has  been the keen principle of the CyberPeace Centre of Excellence setup in collaboration with various esteemed educational institutes. We at CyberPeace Foundation would like to take the collaborations and our efforts to a new height of knowledge and awareness by proposing a workshop on UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE AND MULTILINGUAL INTERNET. This workshop was instrumental in providing the academia and research community a wholesome outlook towards the multilingual spectrum of internet including Internationalized domain names and email address Internationalization.

‍Date –18th November 2022

‍Time – 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM

‍Duration – 2 hours

‍Mode - Online

‍Audience – Academia and Research Community

‍Participants Joined- 130

‍Crowd Classification - Engineering students (1st and 4th year, all streams) and Faculties members

‍Organizer : Mr. Harish Chowdhary : UA Ambassador Moderator: Ms. Pooja Tomar, Project coordinator cum trainer

‍GuestSpeakers:Mr. Abdalmonem Galila, Abdalmonem: Vice Chair , Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG) ,Mr. Mahesh D Kulkarni: Director, Evaris Systems and Former Senior Director, CDAC, Government of India, Mr. Akshat Joshi, Founder Think Trans First session was delivered by Mr. Abdalmonem Galila, Abdalmonem: Vice Chair , Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG) “Universal Acceptance( UA) and why UA matters?”

• What is universal acceptance?
• UA is cornerstone to a digitally inclusive internet by ensuring all domain names and email addresses in all languages, script and character length.
• Achieving UA ensures that every person has the ability to navigate the internet.
• Different UA issues were also discussed and explained.
• Tagated systems by the UA and implication were discussed in detail.

Second Session was delivered by Mr. Akshat Joshi, Founder Think Trans on “Universal Acceptance to the IDNsand the economic Landscape”

• What is Universal Acceptance?
• The internet has had standards that allow people to use domain names and email addresses in their native scripts. Software developers need to bring their applications up-to-date so that consumers can use their chosen identity.
• A typical problem is that an IDN email address is not recognised by a website form as a valid email address.
• The importance of adopting IDNs z Enable citizens to use their own identity online (correct spelling, native language) z Relates to language, culture and content z Promotes local and regional content z Allows businesses and politicians to better target their messages.

Third session was delivered by Mr. Mahesh D Kulkarni, ES Director Evaris on the topic of “IDNs in Indian languages perspective- challenges and solutions”.

• The multilingual diversity of India was focused on and its impact.
• Most students were not aware of what Unicode, IDNS is and their usage.
• Students were briefed by giving real time examples on IDN, Domain name implementation using local language.
• In depth knowledge of and practical exposure of Universal Acceptance and Multilingual Internet has been served to the students.
• Tools and Resources for Domain Name and Domain Languages were explained.
• Languages nuances of Multilingual diversity of India explained with real time facts and figures.
• Given the idea of IDN Email,Homograph attack,Homographic variant with proper real time examples.
• Explained about the security threats and IDNA protocols.
• Given the explanation on ABNF.
• Explained the stages of Universal Acceptance.

Executive Summary:

‍
A widely circulated claim on social media indicates that six soldiers of the Assam Rifles were killed during a retaliatory attack carried out by a Myanmar-based breakaway faction of the United Liberation Front of Asom (Independent), or ULFA (I). The post included a photograph of coffins covered in Indian flags with reference to soldiers who were part of the incident where ULFA (I) killed six soldiers. The post was widely shared, however, the fact-check confirms that the photograph is old, not related, and there are no trustworthy reports to indicate that any such incident took place. This claim is therefore false and misleading.

‍

‍

Claim:

‍
Social media users claimed that the banned militant outfit ULFA (I) killed six Assam Rifles personnel in retaliation for an alleged drone and missile strike by Indian forces on their camp in Myanmar with captions on it “Six Indian Army Assam Rifles soldiers have reportedly been killed in a retaliatory attack by the Myanmar-based ULFA group.”. The claim was accompanied by a viral post showing coffins of Indian soldiers, which added emotional weight and perceived authenticity to the narrative. 

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍
We began our research with a reverse image search of the image of coffins in Indian flags, which we saw was shared with the viral claim. We found the image can be traced to August 2013. We found the traces in  The Washington Post,  which confirms the fact that the viral snap is from the Past incident where five Indian Army soldiers were killed by Pakistani intruders in Poonch, Jammu, and Kashmir, on August 6, 2013. 

‍

‍

Also, The Hindu and India Today offered no confirmation of the death of six Assam Rifles personnel. However, ULFA (I) did issue a statement dated July 13, 2025, claiming that three of its leaders had been killed in a drone strike by Indian forces. 

‍

‍

However, by using Shutterstock, it depicts that the coffin's image is old and not representative of any current actions by the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA).

‍

‍

The Indian Army denied it, with Defence PRO Lt Col Mahendra Rawat telling reporters there were "no inputs" of such an operation. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma also rejected that there was cross-border military action whatsoever. Therefore, the viral claim is false and misleading.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍
The assertion that ULFA (I) killed six soldiers from the 6th Assam Rifles in a retaliation strike is incorrect. The viral image used in these posts is from 2013 in Jammu & Kashmir and has no relevance to the present. There have been no verified reports of any such killings, and both the Indian Army and the Assam government have categorically denied having conducted or knowing of any cross-border operation. This faulty narrative is circulating, and it looks like it is only inciting fear and misinformation therefore, please ignore it.

• Claim: Report confirms the death of six Assam Rifles personnel in an ULFA-led attack.
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

‍Brief Overview of the EU AI Act

The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies.  The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.

The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI  use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.

In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions

• The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
• Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
• The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.

Application & Timeline of Act

The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:

• August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
• February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
• August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models. 
• August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
•  August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.

The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).

In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers. 

CyberPeace Outlook 

The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.

The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount. 

At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.

References: 

1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
2. https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
3. https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
4. https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
5. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
6. https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide

‍