#FactCheck - Edited Video Falsely Claims as an attack on PM Netanyahu in the Israeli Senate

‍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

‍

Executive Summary:

A viral clip where the Indian batsman Virat Kohli is shown endorsing an online casino and declaring a Rs 50,000 jackpot in three days as a guarantee has been proved a fake. In the clip that is accompanied by manipulated captions, Kohli is said to have admitted to being involved in the launch of an online casino during the interview with Graham Bensinger but this is not true. Nevertheless, an investigation showed that the original interview, which was published on YouTube in the last quarter of 2023 by Bensinger, did not have the mentioned words spoken by Kohli. Besides, another AI deepfake analysis tool called Deepware labelled the viral video as a deepfake.

‍

Claims:

The viral video states that cricket star Virat Kohli gets involved in the promotion of an online casino and ensures that the users of the site can make a profit of Rs 50,000 within three days. Conversely, the CyberPeace Research Team has just revealed that the video is a deepfake and not the original and there is no credible evidence suggesting Kohli's participation in such endorsements. A lot of the users are sharing the videos with the wrong info title over different Social Media platforms.

        Post link

Post link

Fact Check:

As soon as we were informed about the news, we made use of Keyword Search to see any news report that could be considered credible about Virat Kohli promoting any Casino app and we found nothing. Therefore, we also used Reverse Image Search for Virat Kohli wearing a Black T-shirt as seen in the video to find out more about the subject. We landed on a YouTube Video by Graham Bensinger, an American Journalist. The clip of the viral video was taken from this original video.

‍

Video link

In this video, he discussed his childhood, his diet, his cricket training, his marriage, etc. but did not mention anything regarding a newly launched Casino app by the cricketer.

Through close scrutiny of the viral video we have noticed some inconsistencies in the lip-sync and voice. Subsequently, we executed Deepfake Detection in Deepware tool and identified it to be Deepfake Detected.

‍

‍

Finally, we affirm that the Viral Video Is Deepfakes Video and the statement made is False.

Conclusion:

The video has gone viral and claims that cricketer Virat Kohli is the one endorsing an online casino and assuring you that in three days time you will be a guaranteed winner of Rs 50,000. This is all a fake story. This incident demonstrates the necessity of checking facts and a source before believing any information, as well as remaining sceptical about deepfakes and AI (artificial intelligence), which is a new technology used nowadays for spreading misinformation.

‍

Introduction

India’s telecommunications infrastructure is one of the world’s largest and most complex, serving over a billion users across urban and rural landscapes. With rampant digitisation and mobile penetration, the vulnerability of telecom networks to cyber threats has grown exponentially. On April 24, 2025, the Ministry of Communications (MOC) released a draft of the “Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Amendment Rules, 2025,” to update the prior Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024, to improve cybersecurity in India's telecom industry and fortify network security. Public comments and recommendations regarding these draft rules can be sent to the department by July 24, 2025, after they have been made available for public comment. These rules are enacted under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, to enhance national cybersecurity in the telecom domain. These rules aim to prevent misuse of telecom networks and reinforce data and infrastructure protection mechanisms across service providers. 

‍

Safeguarding the Spectrum: Unpacking the 2025 Cybersecurity Revisions

‍

The menace of fraudulent SIM cards deals the issue of cyber threats a fresh hand. The rising number of digital scams can also be attributed to unverified or fake mobile numbers. Fraudulent SIM cards have often been linked to various cybercrimes such as phishing, vishing, SIM swapping and identity theft. The situation has worsened in the face of easy availability of pre-activated SIM cards and weak KYC enforcement. In a recent example, as per reports of June 28, 2025, the Special Task Force (STF) found that the accused was operating a criminal nexus where he utilised fake documents and the Aadhaar credentials of law-abiding locals to activate numerous SIM cards. Following activation, the SIMs were either transferred to other telecom carriers for additional exploitation or sold illegally. This poses a serious concern for the data protection of vulnerable individuals, especially those in rural areas, whose credentials have been compromised. 

Given the adverse state of cybersecurity in the telecom industry, the Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024, were passed on 22nd November, 2024, which put various telecom entities under an obligation to actively prevent cybersecurity threats by adopting such policies that mitigate cybersecurity risks and notify the same to the Central Government. The 2024 Telecom Cybersecurity Rules were a significant step in fortifying India’s telecom infrastructure against cyber threats, but they primarily focused on licensed telecom service providers, leaving behind a large segment of digital platforms operating outside the traditional telecom framework largely unregulated. 

‍

Expanding the Net: Key Revisions Under the 2025 Cybersecurity Amendment Rules

‍

The amended rules of 2025 adequately address the regulatory blind spot that is created by the rapid expansion of online services, fintech apps, OTT platforms and social media networks, as these platforms often rely on telecom identifiers such as mobile numbers for user onboarding and service delivery. This regulatory blind spot was exploited for fraud, impersonation and other cybercrimes, especially in the absence of standardised identity verification mechanisms. The proposed regulations would give the government the authority to require private companies’ clients to provide identification if they use a mobile number. For a fee, businesses can also undertake this kind of verification on their own. “ The draft rules introduce a new category called “Telecommunication Identifier User Entities’ (TIUEs), extending cybersecurity compliance obligations to a broad category that now captures any entity using telecom identifiers to deliver digital services. It also creates a unified, government-backed verification framework, enabling better interoperability and uniform user identification norms across sectors. 

‍

While strengthening national digital security is the goal of the Telecom Cybersecurity (Amendment) Rules, 2025, the proposed rules create a great deal of uncertainty and compliance difficulties, especially for private digital platforms. A broad definition of Telecommunication Identifier User businesses (TIUEs) may include a variety of businesses, including e-commerce services, fintech apps and OTT platforms, under the purview of required mobile number verification. Given that many platforms already have advanced internal processes in place to verify users, this scope uncertainty creates significant concerns regarding operational clarity. 

‍

Conclusion

The Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Amendment Rules, 2025, represent a necessary evolution in India’s quest to secure its telecom ecosystem amid growing cyber threats. The draft regulations recognise the evolving landscape of digital services by broadening the legal scope to encompass Telecommunication Identifier User Entities (TIUEs). Though the goal of creating a strong, transparent and accountable framework is admirable, more clarification and stakeholder involvement are required due to the scope’s vagueness and the possible compliance burden on digital platforms. A truly durable telecom cybersecurity regime will require striking the correct balance between security, viability and privacy. 

‍

References 

‍

• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/the-government-enforces-key-sections-of-the-telecommunication-act-2023
• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/govt-notifies-the-telecommunications-telecom-cyber-security-rules-2024 
• https://the420.in/uttarakhand-stf-busts-fake-sim-racket-linked-to-cyber-crimes-and-nepal-network/ 
• https://www.thehindu.com/business/dot-puts-out-draft-rules-to-enable-mobile-user-validation/article69741367.ece ‍
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/28/dot-telecom-cyber-security-draft-policy-update/