#FactCheck - Deepfake Video Falsely Claims visuals of a massive rally held in Manipur

Executive Summary:

‍

An online claim alleging that U.S. bombers used Indian airspace to strike Iran has been widely circulated, particularly on Pakistani social media. However, official briefings from the U.S. Department of Defense and visuals shared by the Pentagon confirm that the bombers flew over Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Indian authorities have also refuted the claim, and the Press Information Bureau (PIB) has issued a fact-check dismissing it as false. The available evidence clearly indicates that Indian airspace was not involved in the operation.

‍

Claim:

‍

Various Pakistani social media users [archived here and here] have alleged that U.S. bombers used Indian airspace to carry out airstrikes on Iran. One widely circulated post claimed, “CONFIRMED: Indian airspace was used by U.S. forces to strike Iran. New Delhi’s quiet complicity now places it on the wrong side of history. Iran will not forget.” 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

Contrary to viral social media claims, official details from U.S. authorities confirm that American B2 bombers used a Middle Eastern flight path specifically flying over Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq to reach Iran during Operation Midnight Hammer. 

‍

‍

The Pentagon released visuals and unclassified briefings showing this route, with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine explained that the bombers coordinated with support aircraft over the Middle East in a highly synchronized operation. 

‍

‍

Additionally, Indian authorities have denied any involvement, and India’s Press Information Bureau (PIB) issued a fact-check debunking the false narrative that Indian airspace was used.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

In conclusion, official U.S. briefings and visuals confirm that B-2 bombers flew over the Middle East not India to strike Iran. Both the Pentagon and Indian authorities have denied any use of Indian airspace, and the Press Information Bureau has labeled the viral claims as false.

‍

• Claim: Fake Claim that US has used Indian Airspace to attack Iran‍
• Claimed On: Social Media‍
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

The United Nations in December 2019 passed a resolution that established an open-ended ad hoc committee. This committee was tasked to develop a ‘comprehensive international convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes’. The UN Convention on Cybercrime is an initiative of the UN member states to foster the principles of international cooperation and establish legal frameworks to provide mechanisms for combating cybercrime. The negotiations for the convention had started in early 2022. It became the first binding international criminal justice treaty to have been negotiated in over 20 years upon its adoption by the UN General Assembly.  

This convention addresses the limitations of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime by encircling a broader range of issues and perspectives from the member states. The UN Convention against Cybercrime will open for signature at a formal ceremony hosted in Hanoi, Viet Nam, in 2025. The convention will finally enter into force 90 days after being ratified by the 40th signatory.

Objectives and Features of the Convention

• The UN Convention against Cybercrime addresses various aspects of cybercrime. These include prevention, investigation, prosecution and international cooperation. 
• The convention aims to establish common standards for criminalising cyber offences. These include offences like hacking, identity theft, online fraud, distribution of illegal content, etc. It outlines procedural and technical measures for law enforcement agencies for effective investigation and prosecution while ensuring due process and privacy protection. 
• Emphasising the importance of cross-border collaboration among member states, the convention provides mechanisms for mutual legal assistance, extradition and sharing of information and expertise. The convention aims to enhance the capacity of developing countries to combat cybercrime through technical assistance, training, and resources. 
• It seeks to balance security measures with the protection of fundamental rights. The convention highlights the importance of safeguarding human rights and privacy in cybercrime investigations and enforcement.
• The Convention emphasises the importance of prevention through awareness campaigns, education, and the promotion of a culture of cybersecurity. It encourages collaborations through public-private partnerships to enhance cybersecurity measures and raise awareness, such as protecting vulnerable groups like children, from cyber threats and exploitation.

Key Provisions of the UN Cybercrime Convention

Some key provisions of the Convention are as follows:

• The convention differentiates cyber-dependent crimes like hacking from cyber-enabled crimes like online fraud. It defines digital evidence and establishes standards for its collection, preservation, and admissibility in legal proceedings.
• It defines offences against confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and includes unauthorised access, interference with data, and system sabotage. Further, content-related offences include provisions against distributing illegal content, such as CSAM and hate speech. It criminalises offences like identity theft, online fraud and intellectual property violations.
• LEAs are provided with tools for electronic surveillance, data interception, and access to stored data, subject to judicial oversight. It outlines the mechanisms for cross-border investigations, extradition, and mutual legal assistance.
• The establishment of a central body to coordinate international efforts, share intelligence, and provide technical assistance includes the involvement of experts from various fields to advise on emerging threats, legal developments, and best practices.

Comparisons with the Budapest Convention

The Budapest Convention was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe at the 109th Session on 8 November 2001. This Convention was the first international treaty that addressed internet and computer crimes. A comparison between the two Conventions is as follows:

• The global participation in the UNCC is inclusive of all UN member states whereas the latter had primarily European with some non-European signatories. 
• The scope of the UNCC is broader and covers a wide range of cyber threats and cybercrimes, whereas the Budapest convention is focused on specific offences like hacking and fraud. 
• UNCC strongly focuses on privacy and human rights protections and the Budapest Convention had limited focus on human rights.
• UNCC has extensive provisions for assistance to developing countries and this is in contrast to the Budapest Convention which did not focus much on capacity building.

Future Outlook

The development of the UNCC was a complex process. The diverse views on key issues have been noted and balancing different legal systems, cultural perspectives and policy priorities has been a challenge. The rapid technology evolution that is taking place requires the Convention to be adaptable to effectively address emerging cyber threats. Striking a balance remains a critical concern. The Convention aims to provide a blended approach to tackling cybercrime by addressing the needs of countries, both developed and developing.

Conclusion

The resolution containing the UN Convention against Cybercrime is a step in global cooperation to combat cybercrime. It was adopted without a vote by the 193-member General Assembly and is expected to enter into force 90 days after ratification by the 40th signatory. The negotiations and consultations are finalised for the Convention and it is open for adoption and ratification by member states. It seeks to provide a comprehensive legal framework that addresses the challenges posed by cyber threats while respecting human rights and promoting international collaboration. 

References

• https://consultation.dpmc.govt.nz/un-cybercrime-convention/principlesandobjectives/supporting_documents/Background.pdf 
• https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/12/1158521 
• https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2024/INTERPOL-welcomes-adoption-of-UN-convention-against-cybercrime#:~:text=The%20UN%20convention%20establishes%20a,and%20grooming%3B%20and%20money%20laundering 
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/united-nations-adopts-landmark-global-treaty-to-combat-cybercrime-19529854.htm 

‍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

‍