#FactCheck - AI Artwork Misattributed: Mahendra Singh Dhoni Sand Sculptures Exposed as AI-Generated

Introduction

In a world where social media dictates public perception and content created by AI dilutes the difference between fact and fiction, mis/disinformation has become a national cybersecurity threat. Today, disinformation campaigns are designed for their effect, with political manipulation, interference in public health, financial fraud, and even community violence. India, with its 900+ million internet users, is especially susceptible to this distortion online. The advent of deep fakes, AI-text, and hyper-personalised propaganda has made disinformation more plausible and more difficult to identify than ever. 

What is Misinformation?

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information provided without intent to deceive. Disinformation, on the other hand, is content intentionally designed to mislead and created and disseminated to harm or manipulate. Both are responsible for what experts have termed an "infodemic", overwhelming people with a deluge of false information that hinders their ability to make decisions. 

Examples of impactful mis/disinformation are:

• COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (e.g., infertility or microchips)
• Election-related false news (e.g., EVM hacking so-called)
• Social disinformation (e.g., manipulated videos of riots)
• Financial scams (e.g., bogus UPI cashbacks or RBI refund plans)

How Misinformation Spreads

Misinformation goes viral because of both technology design and human psychology. Social media sites such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and WhatsApp are designed to amplify messages that elicit high levels of emotional reactions are usually polarising, sensationalistic, or fear-mongering posts. This causes falsehoods or misinformation to get much more attention and activity than authentic facts, and therefore prioritises virality over truth.

Another major consideration is the misuse of generative AI and deep fakes. Applications like ChatGPT, Midjourney, and ElevenLabs can be used to generate highly convincing fake news stories, audio recordings, or videos imitating public figures. These synthetic media assets are increasingly being misused by bad actors for political impersonation, propagating fabricated news reports, and even carrying out voice-based scams.

To this danger are added coordinated disinformation efforts that are commonly operated by foreign or domestic players with certain political or ideological objectives. These efforts employ networks of bot networks on social media, deceptive hashtags, and fabricated images to sway public opinion, especially during politically sensitive events such as elections, protests, or foreign wars. Such efforts are usually automated with the help of bots and meme-driven propaganda, which makes them scalable and traceless.

Why Misinformation is Dangerous

Mis/disinformation is a significant threat to democratic stability, public health, and personal security. Perhaps one of the most pernicious threats is that it undermines public trust. If it goes unchecked, then it destroys trust in core institutions like the media, judiciary, and electoral system. This erosion of public trust has the potential to destabilise democracies and heighten political polarisation.

In India, false information has had terrible real-world outcomes, especially in terms of creating violence. Misleading messages regarding child kidnappers on WhatsApp have resulted in rural mob lynching. As well, communal riots have been sparked due to manipulated religious videos, and false terrorist warnings have created public panic.

The pandemic of COVID-19 also showed us how misinformation can be lethal. Misinformation regarding vaccine safety, miracle cures, and the source of viruses resulted in mass vaccine hesitancy, utilisation of dangerous treatments, and even avoidable deaths.

Aside from health and safety, mis/disinformation has also been used in financial scams. Cybercriminals take advantage of the fear and curiosity of the people by promoting false investment opportunities, phishing URLs, and impersonation cons. Victims get tricked into sharing confidential information or remitting money using seemingly official government or bank websites, leading to losses in crypto Ponzi schemes, UPI scams, and others.

India’s Response to Misinformation

1. PIB Fact Check Unit

The Press Information Bureau (PIB) operates a fact-checking service to debunk viral false information, particularly on government policies. In 3 years, the unit identified more than 1,500 misinformation posts across media.

2. Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C)

Working under MHA, I4C has collaborated with social media platforms to identify sources of viral misinformation. Through the Cyber Tipline, citizens can report misleading content through 1930 or cybercrime.gov.in.

3. IT Rules  (The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [updated as on 6.4.2023]

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules were updated to enable the government to following aspects:

• Removal of unlawful content
• Platform accountability

4. Detection Tools

There are certain detection tool that works as shields in assisting fact-checkers and enforcement bodies to:

• Identify synthetic voice and video scams through technical measures.
• Track misinformation networks.
• Label manipulated media in real-time.

CyberPeace View: Solutions for a Misinformation-Resilient Bharat

1. Scale Digital Literacy

"Think Before You Share" programs for rural schools to teach students to check sources, identify clickbait, and not reshare fake news. 

2. Platform Accountability

Technology platforms need to:

• Flag manipulated media.
• Offer algorithmic transparency.
• Mark AI-created media.
• Provide localised fact-checking across diverse Indian languages.

3. Community-Led Verification

Establish WhatsApp and Telegram "Fact Check Hubs" headed by expert organisations, industry experts,  journalists, and digital volunteers who can report at the grassroots level fake content.

4. Legal Framework for Deepfakes

Formulate targeted legislation under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and other relevant laws to make malicious deepfake and synthetic media use a criminal offense for:

• Electoral manipulation.
• Defamation.
• Financial scams.

5. AI Counter-Misinformation Infrastructure

Invest in public sector AI models trained specifically to identify:

• Coordinated disinformation patterns.
• Botnet-driven hashtag campaigns.
• Real-time viral fake news bursts.

‍

Conclusion

Mis/disinformation is more than just a content issue, it's a public health, cybersecurity, and democratic stability challenge. As India enters the digitally empowered world, making a secure, informed, and resilient information ecosystem is no longer a choice; now, it's imperative. Fighting misinformation demands a whole-of-society effort with AI innovation, public education, regulatory overhaul, and tech responsibility. The danger is there, but so is the opportunity to guide the world toward a fact-first, trust-based digital age. It's time to act.

References

• https://www.pib.gov.in/factcheck.aspx
• https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/02/Information-Technology-Intermediary-Guidelines-and-Digital-Media-Ethics-Code-Rules-2021-updated-06.04.2023-.pdf
• https://www.cyberpeace.org
• https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cezwr3d2085t
• https://www.logically.ai
• https://www.altnews.in

‍

Introduction

For years, Indian companies could get away with vague privacy promises. That window closed on 13 November 2025, when the government notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, giving teeth to the broad principles Parliament had passed back in 2023 under the DPDP Act. The Rules turned soft commitments into specific, auditable duties, and a lot of organisations are only now realising how much that actually changes.

Start with Section 8(4). It requires every Data Fiduciary to put "appropriate technical and organisational measures" in place. Most readers skim past "organisational" and focus on the technical half, but that's a mistake, because the word is doing real work. It's asking for defined roles, written policies, staff training, and someone actually watching whether any of it holds up over time, not just firewalls and encryption keys. Section 8(5) goes further, demanding reasonable security safeguards against breaches, and Rule 6 spells out exactly what that phrase means in practice: encrypt data at rest and in transit, restrict access on a need to know basis, require multi factor authentication, log and monitor activity, run regular vulnerability checks, bind your data processors contractually to the same standard, and keep relevant logs for at least a year.

Then there's Rule 7, and this is where the clock starts running. Once a Data Fiduciary becomes aware of a breach, the Data Protection Board must be told without delay, and a full report has to follow within 72 hours covering what happened, when, why, what's being done about it, and confirmation that affected individuals were notified. Unlike GDPR, there's no minimum severity threshold here. A breach affecting ten people triggers the same obligation as one affecting ten million. And CERT-In's existing six hour reporting window under its 2022 Directions still applies separately, which means a serious incident can trigger two overlapping regulatory clocks running side by side.

Put all of this together and a pattern emerges. The law assumes an organisation already knows what it's protecting, has actually protected it, kept usable records the whole way through, and can explain clearly what happened the moment something breaks. That coordination job belongs to Governance, Risk and Compliance, or GRC for short. GRC decides who's accountable, which risks actually matter, which controls address them, and how anyone checks whether compliance is real rather than assumed. Skip that structure and security work tends to splinter into a pile of disconnected tasks nobody truly owns.

GRC gives a legal duty somewhere to live. Forensic readiness is what lets an organisation prove, months or years later, that the duty was actually being met.

The Role of Governance, Risk and Compliance

On paper, most cybersecurity programmes look fine. There's an incident response plan somewhere, access control rules exist, logging is "in place," and someone has a title that says they're responsible for security. None of that gets tested until something actually breaks. A phishing compromise, a ransomware infection, a leaked database, a hijacked admin account, whatever the trigger, the questions that follow are always the same, and they're not comfortable ones. What happened, exactly, and when did it start? Which systems, which data, were actually touched? Were the controls the organisation claims to run genuinely functioning at that moment, or just described in a slide deck somewhere? And can anyone produce records solid enough to answer those questions with confidence rather than a shrug?

This is the exact seam where GRC and digital forensics meet. GRC lays out what's expected, who's responsible, and what evidence a control should be generating in the background. Digital forensics is the craft of taking whatever technical traces actually exist and turning them into an account of events that will hold up to scrutiny. Passing an audit was never really the point. Being able to stand in front of a regulator, mid incident, and show that the processes described on paper were real, active, and generating trustworthy evidence, that's the actual bar.

Why Compliance Alone Falls Short

Compliance, in the narrow sense, just means meeting whatever legal, contractual, or internal requirement applies. But a policy sitting in a document repository proves nothing about what actually happens on a Tuesday afternoon when someone requests admin access. A written incident response plan says nothing about whether the team can actually execute it under real pressure, at 2am, with a ransomware note on every screen. A logging policy is close to worthless if the logs it promises were switched off somewhere along the way, or overwritten, or scattered across systems that were never synchronised to the same clock.

NIST's Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 essentially built this concern into its core structure, placing "Govern" alongside Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover as one of five equal functions rather than background paperwork sitting off to the side. India's own regulatory posture pushes in the same direction. CERT-In's 2022 Directions require certain incidents to be reported within six hours of discovery, and its guidance for government entities leans heavily on documented incident handling and disciplined evidence practices. The underlying message from both is identical: figure out, before anything goes wrong, whether the evidence you'll eventually need is actually going to exist when someone asks for it.

Where GRC and Forensics Actually Connect

A good GRC programme spells out what's supposed to happen. Forensic readiness is what lets you later prove what actually did.

Access control is a useful example here. On the GRC side, an organisation might require least privilege access, multi factor authentication, periodic reviews of who holds privileged accounts, and prompt removal of access once someone leaves or changes roles. On the forensic side, none of that means anything without the underlying records that let investigators actually test it, authentication logs, MFA usage history, privilege change records, and account activity trails. The table below lines up a few common GRC controls against the specific evidence needed to show they were genuinely operating.

‍

A Practical Scenario: After a Ransomware Incident

Picture a mid-sized company waking up to find half its file servers encrypted. There's an incident response plan somewhere in the shared drive, technically, but nobody's actually run through it in over a year. The security team isolates the obviously compromised endpoint and starts escalating. Now the forensic side of the house has to reconstruct what happened, working backward through endpoint telemetry, authentication logs, firewall events, email traffic, and file activity, hunting for the original point of entry, how the attacker escalated privileges, how they moved sideways through the network, what data they actually touched, and finally how the ransomware got deployed.

This is where the quality of everything collected beforehand suddenly matters a great deal. If server clocks were never properly synchronised, the timeline investigators build might not line up cleanly enough to trust. If logs only ever lived locally on individual machines rather than being pulled centrally, some of them are probably gone by now. If nobody ever bothered logging administrator actions, there are going to be real, unexplained gaps in the story. And if whatever evidence does exist wasn't collected the right way, its integrity can be challenged later, sometimes fatally, in a legal or regulatory proceeding. CERT-In actually ran a programme on exactly this in July 2026, "Inside the Breach," covering system artefacts, investigative technique, and chain of custody requirements, precisely because this is where real investigations tend to succeed or quietly fall apart.

Building a Forensic Ready GRC Programme

For an organisation starting more or less from scratch, forensic readiness doesn't need to be bolted on as some separate initiative. It can be built straight into the GRC programme that already exists. Start by identifying the systems, applications, cloud services, and privileged accounts that actually matter. Map the real risks and regulatory requirements onto the controls meant to address them. Then get specific about what evidence each control should be generating, and how that evidence gets protected and kept over time. Time synchronisation, centralised logging, tightly controlled access to security records, and clear ownership of preservation, escalation, and investigation all need to exist well before an incident, not be improvised during one. And none of it means much until it's actually been tested, through tabletop exercises and simulated incidents rather than assumed to work because it's written down somewhere. NIST SP 800-61 Revision 3 frames incident response as one continuous loop of preparation, detection, response, recovery, and improvement, rather than a series of separate boxes to check.

There's one question worth asking of every important control an organisation runs: could you actually prove this was working at the moment an incident happened? If the honest answer is no, what you have is a compliance process on paper, and a forensic readiness gap sitting quietly underneath it.

Conclusion

Cyber readiness was never really about how many policies sit in a binder or how many boxes get ticked in an audit. It shows up, or doesn't, in the hours right after something breaks, when an organisation has to move fast, preserve evidence that can actually stand up to scrutiny, explain clearly what happened, and prove that governance and technical controls were genuinely working together rather than just coexisting on paper. GRC sets the direction, the accountability, the risk priorities, and the compliance expectations. Digital forensics does the work of preserving and interpreting the technical evidence once something actually happens. Forensic readiness sits in between the two, making sure they're actually talking to each other long before an incident forces the conversation. The practical task for most organisations comes down to something simple to say, if not always simple to build: design controls that hold up under real incident response, not just an auditor's checklist. The strongest compliance posture was never the one with the thickest binder. It's the one that can back every document up with evidence, on the day it actually matters.

References

1. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Sections 8(4), 8(5), 8(6). https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf
2. Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, Rules 6 and 7, notified 13 November 2025. https://www.meity.gov.in
3. National Institute of Standards and Technology, The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0, CSWP 29, 2024. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/cswp/29/the-nist-cybersecurity-framework-csf-20/final
4. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), Directions under Section 70B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, dated 28 April 2022. https://www.cert-in.org.in/Directions70B.jsp
5. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), Guidelines on Information Security Practices for Government Entities. https://www.cert-in.org.in/Downloader?fileName=CIPS-2026-0014.pdf&pageid=5&type=2
6. National Institute of Standards and Technology, SP 800-86: Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response, 2006. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/86/final
7. International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 27037:2012, Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence. CERT-In, "Inside the Breach: Advanced Cyber Forensics & Incident Investigation," 31 July 2026. https://www.cert-in.org.in/s2cMainServlet?pageid=PRSTNVIEW03&reCode=CIWS-2026-3569
8. National Institute of Standards and Technology, SP 800-61 Rev. 3: Incident Response Recommendations and Considerations for Cybersecurity Risk Management, 2025. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/61/r3/final
9. Matters.ai, "DPDP Breach Notification: 72-Hour Rule & ₹200 Cr Penalty." https://www.matters.ai/article/dpdp-breach-notification MediaNama, "Data Breach Reporting Timeline of DPDP Rules 2025 Explained." https://www.medianama.com/2025/11/223-data-breach-reporting-timeline-of-dpdp-rules-2025-explained/

‍

Introduction

Twitter is a popular social media plate form with millions of users all around the world. Twitter’s blue tick system, which verifies the identity of high-profile accounts, has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. The platform must face backlash from its users and brands who have accused it of basis, inaccuracy, and inconsistency in its verification process. This blog post will explore the questions raised on the verification process and its impact on users and big brands.

What is Twitter’s blue trick System?

The blue tick system was introduced in 2009 to help users identify the authenticity of well-known public figures, Politicians, celebrities, sportspeople, and big brands. The Twitter blue Tick system verifies the identity of high-profile accounts to display a blue badge next to your username.

According to a survey, roughly there are 294,000 verified Twitter Accounts which means they have a blue tick badge with them and have also paid the subscription for the service, which is nearly $7.99 monthly, so think about those subscribers who have paid the amount and have also lost their blue badge won’t they feel cheated?

The Controversy

Despite its initial aim, the blue tick system has received much criticism from consumers and brands. Twitter’s irregular and non-transparent verification procedure has sparked accusations of prejudice and inaccuracy. Many Twitter users have complained that the network’s verification process is random and favours account with huge followings or celebrity status. In contrast, others have criticised the platform for certifying accounts that promote harmful or controversial content.

Furthermore, the verification mechanism has generated user confusion, as many need to understand the significance of the blue tick badge. Some users have concluded that the blue tick symbol represents a Twitter endorsement or that the account is trustworthy. This confusion has resulted in users following and engaging with verified accounts that promote misleading or inaccurate data, undermining the platform’s credibility.

How did the Blue Tick Row start in India?

On 21 May 2021, when the government asked Twitter to remove the blue badge from several profiles of high-profile Indian politicians, including the Indian National Congress Party Vice-President Mr Rahul Ghandhi.

The blue badge gives the users an authenticated identity. Many celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan, popularly known as Big B, Vir Das, Prakash Raj, Virat Kohli, and Rohit Sharma, have lost their blue tick despite being verified handles.

What is the Twitter policy on blue tick?

To Twitter’s policy, blue verification badges may be removed from accounts if the account holder violates the company’s verification policy or terms of service. In such circumstances, Twitter typically notifies the account holder of the removal of the verification badge and the reason for the removal. In the instance of the “Twitter blue badge row” in India, however, it appears that Twitter did not notify the impacted politicians or their representatives before revoking their verification badges. Twitter’s lack of communication has exacerbated the controversy around the episode, with some critics accusing the company of acting arbitrarily and not following due process.

Is there a solution?

The “Twitter blue badge row” has no simple answer since it involves a complex convergence of concerns about free expression, social media policies, and government laws. However, here are some alternatives:

• Establish clear guidelines: Twitter should develop and constantly implement clear guidelines and policies for the verification process. All users, including politicians and government officials, would benefit from greater transparency and clarity.
• Increase transparency: Twitter’s decision-making process for deleting or restoring verification badges should be more open. This could include providing explicit reasons for badge removal, notifying impacted users promptly, and offering an appeals mechanism for those who believe their credentials were removed unfairly.
• Engage in constructive dialogue: Twitter should engage in constructive dialogue with government authorities and other stakeholders to address concerns about the platform’s content moderation procedures. This could contribute to a more collaborative approach to managing online content, leading to more effective and accepted policies.
• Follow local rules and regulations: Twitter should collaborate with the Indian government to ensure it conforms to local laws and regulations while maintaining freedom of expression. This could involve adopting more precise standards for handling requests for material removal or other actions from governments and other organisations.

Conclusion

To sum up, the “Twitter blue tick row” in India has highlighted the complex challenges that Social media faces daily in handling the conflicting interests of free expression, government rules, and their own content moderation procedures. While Twitter’s decision to withdraw the blue verification badges of several prominent Indian politicians garnered anger from the government and some public members, it also raised questions about the transparency and uniformity of Twitter’s verification procedure. In order to deal with this issue, Twitter must establish clear verification procedures and norms, promote transparency in its decision-making process, participate in constructive communication with stakeholders, and adhere to local laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Indian government should collaborate with social media platforms to create more effective and acceptable laws that balance the necessity for free expression and the protection of citizens’ rights. The “Twitter blue tick row” is just one example of the complex challenges that social media platforms face in managing online content, and it emphasises the need for greater collaboration among platforms, governments, and civil society organisations to develop effective solutions that protect both free expression and citizens’ rights.