#FactCheck - AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as Iran’s Attack on Israeli Nuclear Site

The World Wide Web was created as a portal for communication, to connect people from far away, and while it started with electronic mail, mail moved to instant messaging, which let people have conversations and interact with each other from afar in real-time. But now, the new paradigm is the Internet of Things and how machines can communicate with one another. Now one can use a wearable gadget that can unlock the front door upon arrival at home and can message the air conditioner so that it switches on. This is IoT.

WHAT EXACTLY IS IoT?

The term ‘Internet of Things’ was coined in 1999 by Kevin Ashton, a computer scientist who put Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips on products in order to track them in the supply chain, while he worked at Proctor & Gamble (P&G). And after the launch of the iPhone in 2007, there were already more connected devices than people on the planet.

Fast forward to today and we live in a more connected world than ever. So much so that even our handheld devices and household appliances can now connect and communicate through a vast network that has been built so that data can be transferred and received between devices. There are currently more IoT devices than users in the world and according to the WEF’s report on State of the Connected World, by 2025 there will be more than 40 billion such devices that will record data so it can be analyzed.

IoT finds use in many parts of our lives. It has helped businesses streamline their operations, reduce costs, and improve productivity. IoT also helped during the Covid-19 pandemic, with devices that could help with contact tracing and wearables that could be used for health monitoring. All of these devices are able to gather, store and share data so that it can be analyzed. The information is gathered according to rules set by the people who build these systems.

APPLICATION OF IoT

IoT is used by both consumers and the industry.

Some of the widely used examples of CIoT (Consumer IoT) are wearables like health and fitness trackers, smart rings with near-field communication (NFC), and smartwatches. Smartwatches gather a lot of personal data. Smart clothing, with sensors on it, can monitor the wearer’s vital signs. There are even smart jewelry, which can monitor sleeping patterns and also stress levels.

With the advent of virtual and augmented reality, the gaming industry can now make the experience even more immersive and engrossing. Smart glasses and headsets are used, along with armbands fitted with sensors that can detect the movement of arms and replicate the movement in the game.

At home, there are smart TVs, security cameras, smart bulbs, home control devices, and other IoT-enabled ‘smart’ appliances like coffee makers, that can be turned on through an app, or at a particular time in the morning so that it acts as an alarm. There are also voice-command assistants like Alexa and Siri, and these work with software written by manufacturers that can understand simple instructions.

Industrial IoT (IIoT) mainly uses connected machines for the purposes of synchronization, efficiency, and cost-cutting. For example, smart factories gather and analyze data as the work is being done. Sensors are also used in agriculture to check soil moisture levels, and these then automatically run the irrigation system without the need for human intervention.

Statistics

• The IoT device market is poised to reach $1.4 trillion by 2027, according to Fortune Business Insight.
• The number of cellular IoT connections is expected to reach 3.5 billion by 2023. (Forbes)
• The amount of data generated by IoT devices is expected to reach 73.1 ZB (zettabytes) by 2025.
• 94% of retailers agree that the benefits of implementing IoT outweigh the risk.
• 55% of companies believe that 3^rd party IoT providers should have to comply with IoT security and privacy regulations.
• 53% of all users acknowledge that wearable devices will be vulnerable to data breaches, viruses,
• Companies could invest up to 15 trillion dollars in IoT by 2025 (Gigabit)

CONCERNS AND SOLUTIONS

• Two of the biggest concerns with IoT devices are the privacy of users and the devices being secure in order to prevent attacks by bad actors. This makes knowledge of how these things work absolutely imperative.
• It is worth noting that these devices all work with a central hub, like a smartphone. This means that it pairs with the smartphone through an app and acts as a gateway, which could compromise the smartphone as well if a hacker were to target that IoT device.
• With technology like smart television sets that have cameras and microphones, the major concern is that hackers could hack and take over the functioning of the television as these are not adequately secured by the manufacturer.
• A hacker could control the camera and cyberstalk the victim, and therefore it is very important to become familiar with the features of a device and ensure that it is well protected from any unauthorized usage. Even simple things, like keeping the camera covered when it is not being used.
• There is also the concern that since IoT devices gather and share data without human intervention, they could be transmitting data that the user does not want to share. This is true of health trackers. Users who wear heart and blood pressure monitors have their data sent to the insurance company, who may then decide to raise the premium on their life insurance based on the data they get.
• IoT devices often keep functioning as normal even if they have been compromised. Most devices do not log an attack or alert the user, and changes like higher power or bandwidth usage go unnoticed after the attack. It is therefore very important to make sure the device is properly protected.
• It is also important to keep the software of the device updated as vulnerabilities are found in the code and fixes are provided by the manufacturer. Some IoT devices, however, lack the capability to be patched and are therefore permanently ‘at risk’.

CONCLUSION

Humanity inhabits this world that is made up of all these nodes that talk to each other and get things done. Users can harmonize their devices so that everything runs like a tandem bike – completely in sync with all other parts. But while we make use of all the benefits, it is also very important that one understands what they are using, how it is functioning, and how one can tackle issues should they come up. This is also important to understand because once people get used to IoT, it will be that much more difficult to give up the comfort and ease that these systems provide, and therefore it would make more sense to be prepared for any eventuality. A lot of times, good and sensible usage alone can keep devices safe and services intact. But users should be aware of any issues because forewarned is forearmed.

Introduction

‍

युद्धे सूर्यास्ते युध्यन्तः समाप्तयन्ति, In ancient times, after the day’s battle had ended and the sun had set, warriors would lay down their arms and rest, allowing their minds and bodies to recover before facing the next challenge, and giving warriors time to rest and prepare mentally and physically for the next day. Today, as we remain endlessly connected to work through screens and notifications, the Right to Disconnect bill seeks to restore that same rhythm of rest and renewal in the digital age. By giving individuals the space to disconnect, it aims to restores balance, protects psychological health, and acknowledges that human resilience is not limitless, even in a world dominated by technology.

The Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025, was recently introduced in the lower house of Parliament during the winter session, which began on 1st December 2025, as a private member’s bill by Ms. Supriya Sule, Lok Sabha MP.

‍

Understanding the Psychology Behind the Proposed Right to disconnect Bill

‍

The purpose of this law is based on neuroscience for humans. When workers are always in a state of being "always on", the situation of their bodies gets to the chronic stress response state where they are getting overwhelmed with cortisol, which is the main human stress hormone. The constant vigilance that the body and mind are under forces the nervous system into always being in a state of sympathetic activation, while depriving it of the restorative (parasympathetic) states that are necessary for genuine recovery. Neuroscience studies show that 96% of heavy users of technology suffer from anxiety and lack of sleep due to technology. This phenomenon is known medically as "bytemares." The brain tries to attend to several things at once, and this way its cognitive capacity becomes thinner, so there is a reduction in focus, productivity is decreased, and the stress level is increased considerably.

Increasingly, the mental suffering that people get through is not only the physical and psychological aspects of it. The digital fatigue generated by the "always-on culture" getting chronic takes its toll on the emotional capacity of the staff, interrupts their sleep cycles (particularly depriving them of REM sleep), and leads to lower melatonin secretion.

Employees in such environments have a 23% increased chance of suffering from burnout, which the World Health Organisation defines as an occupational syndrome consisting of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and downgrading of performance. Mental health is the silent destruction that goes on without anyone noticing; the individuals who are affected show productive performance while their neuroendocrine systems are dying little by little.

Hence, the intent of the Indian legislature is clear, which is to prioritize the human dimension, allowing employees, the warriors of the digital age, to pause and recover, fostering work‑life balance without compromising commitment or productivity, and reflecting a thoughtful, humane approach in the modern technology driven world. 

The proposed Right to Disconnect Bill takes position as a law that can greatly help with the mental health of employees and therefore keep them healthy. The bill allows employees to legally disconnect from electronic communication related to their jobs outside of the working hours set by the employer; this way, it recognises more or less that the human brain was never meant to be always connected.

‍

The Need for Digital Detox from a Scientific Perspective

‍

Digital detoxification is the process through which the brain resets its dopamine receptors, hence stopping the process of instant gratification that is constantly reinforced through notifications. The employees who cut off their connection can focus better, remain emotionally stable, and lead healthier lives, the effect of which is measurable. Not only on single persons, but also the World Health Organisation, through its studies, has declared that mental health interventions in workplaces can yield a return of 4:1 on investment through increased productivity and decline in absenteeism.

‍

Digital Detox: Structured Disconnection, Not Digital Rejection

‍

One of the most important aspects of the proposed bill is the acknowledgment of digital detox as a supportive tool. However, it is very important to note that digital detox does not mean completely cutting off technology. It is the rule-based disengagement that brings back cognitive balance. Measures like limiting notifications after work hours, protecting weekends and holidays from routine communication and creating offline time zones facilitate the brain's resetting process. Psychological studies associate such practices with better concentration, emotional control, sleep quality and finally productivity in the long run. The initiative of having digital detox centres and offering counselling services is an indication that the issue of overexposure is not just a matter of personal lack of discipline, but rather a problem of modern working designs.

‍

Positioning Mental Well-Being as Core 

‍

The fundamental aspect of the bill is based on the constitutional assurance provided by Article 21 (Constitution of India), the Right to Life and personal Liberty, which has been interpreted by the courts to cover health of mind and body as well as time for leisure. This law reform grants a right to not be available at work, which means that employers will not be able to require constant availability at work without suffering legal consequences. The Right to Disconnect Bill finally illustrates society's unanimity that, amidst our digital age, mental well-being protection is no more a nice-to-have it is a must-have. The bill permits the guarding of the recovery periods, and at the same time, it recognises that the productivity that is sustainable comes from employees who are rested and mentally healthy, not from the constantly depleted workforce in the digital chains.

‍

The psychological Rationale

‍

Psychological analysis indicates that this always-on condition impacts productivity in measurable ways. The human brain may get overloaded to distinguish between important and unimportant information due to the uninterrupted flow of alerts and communications. The whole process leads to a situation, continuous exposure to alerts diminishes the ability to notice the really important events thus allowing the critical ones to go unnoticed. Burnout results as a natural consequence. Research shows that the psychological state resulting from digital overstimulation is anxiety, sleep problems, tiredness, and inability to focus. 

‍

Work Culture in the Cybersecurity Realm and Analysis of the Right to Disconnect

‍

Although every sector today demands high productivity and significant commitment from its workforce, the Cybersecurity professionals, IT engineers, SOC analysts, incident responders, cyberseucrity researchers, cyber lawyers and digital operations teams are often engage in 24x7 loop because they deal with uniquely critical responsibilities, if ignored or delayed, can compromise sensitive systems, data integrity, and national security. 

It is notable that the flow of activities has been silently but significantly changing the paradigm. Availability has replaced accountability, and often responsiveness is regarded as performance. The “on duty” and “off duty” line blurs when a client escalation or a suspected breach alert calls the phone at midnight. This way, an unspoken rule develops that the worker has to be reachable irrespective of the time as being reachable has become part of the job.

In India, the 48-hour work week that is already among the world's most demanding has been made even more intense by digital connectivity. The work intensity of remote and hybrid models has further crossed spatial and temporal boundaries producing a psychologically endless workday. Hence, the cyber workforce lives in a constant state of low-grade alertness, i.e., never fully sleeping, never fully offline. For professionals working in cyber security, this issue of wellbeing is not just a personal issue but also a business issue. Mental fatigue may lead to poor decision making, slower response time in case of incidents, and more errors being made unintentionally  by people.

Hence comes the relevance of the proposed Right to Disconnect bill, Implementing it in the cybersecurity realm may require employers to plan for additional task forces so that productivity remains unaffected, while ensuring that employees receive the rest and balance they need. This approach not only protects mental well‑being but also creates opportunities for new roles, distributes workloads fairly, and strengthens the overall resilience and efficiency of the organization.

‍

Legislature Intent - The Right to Disconnect as a preventive control

‍

In this scenario, the Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025, which was presented in the Lok Sabha as a private member's bill, can be seen as a precautionary measure in the digital risk ecosystem instead of merely as a employee welfare initiative. It intends to create legally enforceable lines of demarcation between the demands of a job and one's personal life. The bill provisions, like the right not to answer work calls and texts after office hours, protection from being fired, pay for overtime, and agreed-upon emergency protocols, are all tools to set new norms rather than to impose restrictions on the output. 

This can be seen as security logic that has been established in the cyber governance sphere. Even the best systems require planned downtimes for patching, upgrading, and recovery. Humans cannot be treated differently. Loss of operation without recovery will only increase the likelihood of failure. The Right to Disconnect works as a human-layer security, which reduces the risk of incidents caused by fatigue and burnout among employees.

‍

The Legislative Recognition of Human Needs

‍

The Right to Disconnect Bill is a landmark change of thinking, moving from the perception of disconnection as unprofessional to the acknowledgement of it as a basic requirement for human dignity and health. The Indian legislation, which was passed through a private member's bill, clearly defines the limits of professional and personal time. By providing the employees with the legal right to disconnect, the bill affirms what psychological science has been telling us for a long time: people need real breaks to be at their best.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Proposed Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025, is a progressive move in law, which, among others confirms that a digital world, constant connectivity may undermines both individual health and company/orgnisation’s buisness continuity. A balanced approach is essential, with clearly agreed-upon emergency norms to guide situations where employees may need to work extra hours in a reasonable and lawful manner. It recognises that people are the backbone of the digital ecosystem and need time off to work effectively and securely. In a connected economy, protecting mental bandwidth is as crucial as protecting technical networks, making the Right to Disconnect a key element of sustainable resilience. 

From a cybersecurity perspective, no secure digital future can emerge from exhausted minds. A strong digital and cyber‑India will have laws like the Right to Disconnect Bill, signaling a shift in policy thinking. This law moves the burden from individuals having to adapt to always-on technologies onto systems, organisations, and governance structures to respect human limits. By recognising mental well-being as an essential factor of employee’s wellbeing, the bill reinforces that resilient work ecosystems depend not only on robust infrastructure and controls but also on well-rested, focused, and secure individuals.

‍

References

• https://www.shankariasparliament.com/blogs/pdf/right-to-disconnect-bill-2025
• https://ijlr.iledu.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/V5I653.pdf
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/no-calls-and-emails-after-office-hours-right-to-disconnect-bill-introduced-in-lok-sabha-to-set-workplace-boundaries/articleshow/125806984.cms
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/what-is-right-to-disconnect-bill-introduced-in-lok-sabha-and-can-it-clear-parliament-101765025582585.html

‍

In a recent ruling, a U.S. federal judge sided with Meta in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of prominent authors who alleged that their works were illegally used to train Meta’s LLaMA language model. While this seems like a significant legal victory for the tech giant, it may not be so. Rather, this is a good case study for creators in the USA to refine their legal strategies and for policymakers worldwide to act quickly to shape the rules of engagement between AI and intellectual property.

The Case: Meta vs. Authors

In Kadrey v. Meta, the plaintiffs alleged that Meta trained its LLaMA models on pirated copies of their books, violating copyright law. However, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the authors failed to prove two critical things: that their copyrighted works had been used in a way that harmed their market and that such use was not “transformative.” In fact, the judge ruled that converting text into numerical representations to train an AI was sufficiently transformative under the U.S. fair use doctrine. He also noted that the authors’ failure to demonstrate economic harm undermined their claims. Importantly, he clarified that this ruling does not mean that all AI training data usage is lawful, only that the plaintiffs didn’t make a strong enough case.

Meta even admitted that some data was sourced from pirate sites like LibGen, but the Judge still found that fair use could apply because the usage was transformative and non-exploitative.

A Tenuous Win

Chhabria’s decision emphasised that this is not a blanket endorsement of using copyrighted content in AI training. The judgment leaned heavily on the procedural weakness of the case and not necessarily on the inherent legality of Meta’s practices.

Policy experts are warning that U.S. courts are currently interpreting AI training as fair use in narrow cases, but the rulings may not set the strongest judicial precedent. The application of law could change with clearer evidence of commercial harm or a more direct use of content. 

Moreover, the ruling does not address whether authors or publishers should have the right to opt out of AI model training, a concern that is gaining momentum globally.

Implications for India

The case highlights a glaring gap in India’s copyright regime: it is outdated. Since most AI companies are located in the U.S., courts have had the opportunity to examine copyright in the context of AI-generated content. India has yet to start. Recently, news agency ANI filed a case alleging copyright infringement against OpenAI for training on its copyrighted material. However, the case is only at an interim stage. The final outcome of the case will have a significant impact on the legality of these language models being able to use copyrighted material for training.

Considering that India aims to develop “state-of-the-art foundational AI models trained on Indian datasets” under the IndiaAI Mission, the lack of clear legal guidance on what constitutes fair dealing when using copyrighted material for AI training is a significant gap.  

Thus, key points of consideration for policymakers include: 

• Need for Fair Dealing Clarity: India’s fair-dealing provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, are narrower than U.S. fair use. The doctrine may have to be reviewed to strike a balance between this law and the requirement of diverse datasets to develop foundational models rooted in Indian contexts. A parallel concern regarding data privacy also arises. 
• Push for Opt-Out or Licensing Mechanisms: India should consider whether to introduce a framework that requires companies to license training data or provide an opt-out system for creators, especially given the volume of Indian content being scraped by global AI systems.
• Digital Public Infrastructure for AI: India’s policymakers could take this opportunity to invest in public datasets, especially in regional languages, that are both high quality and legally safe for AI training.
• Protecting Local Creators: India needs to ensure that its authors, filmmakers, educators and journalists are protected from having their work repurposed without compensation, since power asymmetries between Big Tech and local creators can lead to exploitation of the latter.

Conclusion

The ruling in Meta’s favour is just one win for the developer. The real questions about consent, compensation and creative control remain unanswered. Meanwhile, the lesson for India is urgent: it needs AI policies that balance innovation with creator rights and provide legal certainty and ethical safeguards as it accelerates its AI ecosystem. Further, as global tech firms race ahead, India must not remain a passive data source; it must set the terms of its digital future. This will help the country move a step closer to achieving its goal of building sovereign AI capacity and becoming a hub for digital innovation.

References

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/26/meta-wins-ai-copyright-lawsuit-as-us-judge-rules-against-authors 
• https://www.wired.com/story/meta-scores-victory-ai-copyright-case/ 
• https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/25/meta-llama-ai-copyright-ruling.html 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348352/what-is-fair-use-of-copyright-doctrine 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2113095#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20key%20pillars,models%20trained%20on%20Indian%20datasets. ‍
• https://www.ndtvprofit.com/law-and-policy/ani-vs-openai-delhi-high-court-seeks-responses-on-copyright-infringement-charges-against-chatgpt