#FactCheck - Edited Video of ‘India-India’ Chants at Republican National Convention

Introduction

AI has transformed the way we look at advanced technologies. As the use of AI is evolving, it also raises a concern about AI-based deepfake scams. Where scammers use AI technologies to create deep fake videos, images and audio to deceive people and commit AI-based crimes. Recently a Kerala man fall victim to such a scam. He received a WhatsApp video call, the scammer impersonated the face of the victim’s known friend using AI-based deep fake technology. There is a need for awareness and vigilance to safeguard ourselves from such incidents.

Unveiling the Kerala deep fake video call Scam

The man in Kerala received a WhatsApp video call from a person claiming to be his former colleague in Andhra Pradesh. In actuality, he was the scammer. He asked for help of 40,000 rupees from the Kerala man via google pay. Scammer to gain the trust even mentioned some common friends with the victim. The scammer said that he is at the Dubai airport and urgently need the money for the medical emergency of his sister.

As AI is capable of analysing and processing data such as facial images, videos, and audio creating a realistic deep fake of the same which closely resembles as real one. In the Kerala Deepfake video call scam the scammer made a video call that featured a convincingly similar facial appearance and voice as same to the victim’s colleague which the scammer was impersonating. The Kerala man believing that he was genuinely communicating with his colleague, transferred the money without hesitation. The Kerala man then called his former colleague on the number he had saved earlier in his contact list, and his former colleague said that he has not called him.  Kerala man realised that he had been cheated by a scammer, who has used AI-based deep-fake technology to impersonate his former colleague.

Recognising Deepfake Red Flags

Deepfake-based scams are on the rise, as they pose challenges that really make it difficult to distinguish between genuine and fabricated audio, videos and images. Deepfake technology is capable of creating entirely fictional photos and videos from scratch. In fact, audio can be deepfaked too, to create “voice clones” of anyone.

However, there are some red flags which can indicate the authenticity of the content:

• Video quality- Deepfake videos often have compromised or poor video quality, and unusual blur resolution, which might pose a question to its genuineness.
• Looping videos: Deepfake videos often loop or unusually freeze or where the footage repeats itself, indicating that the video content might be fabricated.
• Verify Separately: Whenever you receive requests for such as financial help, verify the situation by directly contacting the person through a separate channel such as a phone call on his primary contact number.
• Be vigilant: Scammers often possess a sense of urgency leading to giving no time to the victim to think upon it and deceiving them by making a quick decision. So be vigilant and cautious when receiving and entertaining such a sudden emergency which demands financial support from you on an urgent basis.
• Report suspicious activity: If you encounter such activities on your social media accounts or through such calls report it to the platform or to the relevant authority.

Conclusion

The advanced nature of AI deepfake technology has introduced challenges in combatting such AI-based cyber crimes. The Kerala man’s case of falling victim to an AI-based deepfake video call and losing Rs 40,000 serves as an alarming need to remain extra vigilant and cautious in the digital age. So in the reported incident where Kerala man received a call from a person appearing as his former colleague but in actuality, he was a scammer and tricking the victim by using AI-based deepfake technology. By being aware of such types of rising scams and following precautionary measures we can protect ourselves from falling victim to such AI-based cyber crimes. And stay protected from such malicious scammers who exploit these technologies for their financial gain. Stay cautious and safe in the ever-evolving digital landscape.

Introduction

‍

In January 2026, the Basic Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of a Foundation for Trustworthiness came into effect in South Korea, establishing one of the first national AI laws in the world. The bill, enacted by the National Assembly of Korea in December 2024 and implemented from January 22, 2026, aims to strike a balance between the rapid advancement of technology and clear safeguards against risks, as well as transparency, accountability, and responsible AI use. It puts Seoul and the European Union on the frontline of developing legal systems for artificial intelligence and indicates a long-term goal of becoming an AI power on the global stage.

‍

What the AI Basic Act Covers

‍

The AI Basic Act consists of 19 separate AI bills that are merged into a single piece of legislation that covers the lifecycle of AI, including research and development, deployment, and utilisation. It is very wide in its coverage: it refers to any AI system that influences the Korean market or users inside the country, irrespective of the country in which it is created. The law does not apply to national defence and security applications.

The law defines key concepts like artificial intelligence, generative AI, and high-impact AI and establishes the principles of ethical AI, safety, user rights, industry support, and national policy coordination. It also offers a legal foundation for the activities of the government to promote AI innovation without jeopardising the common good.

Fundamentally, the AI Basic Act is designed to establish a culture of trust between businesses and the government/citizens. It does not prohibit AI technologies and does not excessively limit innovation. Instead, it creates the framework of responsible development and economic growth.

‍

Guardrails for Safety and Accountability

‍

One of the defining features of the AI Basic Act is its risk-based approach. Rather than considering all AI systems as similar, it makes a distinction between ordinary and high-impact AI systems, the ones applied in sectors where the wrong or unsafe decision can have a major impact on the safety, rights, or critical infrastructure of the population. Some of them can be seen in healthcare, transportation, financial services, education, and public services.

The high-impact AI operators must integrate risk management plans, human controls, and surveillance systems. In critical decision-making situations, human control should be available at all times; that is, machines can help but not override human control where human safety or other human rights are involved.

The law enables the regulators to perform on-site checks, demand documentation, and conduct compliance investigations. Fines for breaches may go up to 30 million Korean won (approximately 21,000 US dollars). It has a one-year period of transition that is based on guidance but not enforcement, thus allowing companies time to implement compliance measures before imposing fines.

These requirements contribute to enhancing accountability by defining who is accountable for the safety outcomes. The law in South Korea is placed in the ecosystem, as opposed to the methods in which industry self-governance alone is utilised. 

‍

Transparency and Labelling Requirements

‍

The AI Basic Act is based on transparency. The legislation ensures that users are notified before an AI system is operating, particularly with the generation of AI outputs that could be confused with human-created material. As an example, AI-generated text, images, video, or audio that may be difficult to distinguish between reality and fake must have obvious labels or watermarks to allow users to understand the source of the content.

The necessity to label is meant to fight misinformation, misleading activities, and unintended influence on the perception of the people. It is based on international anxiety regarding AI-generated content, such as deepfakes, manipulated media, and misleading online advertisements that have already been addressed separately in policy by South Korea, as well as discussions of data governance.

The transparency is also applied to the process of decision-making in AI systems. Developers and operators should be able to give explicit information about the way in which high-impact systems make their conclusions so that those who are victims of automated decisions can seek meaningful explanations. Although specific explainability criteria are in the process of being developed, the law grounds the principle that AI cannot act behind the scenes in situations where crucial decisions are being made.

‍

Data Privacy and User Protection

‍

The AI governance practice in South Korea is complementary to its current data protection laws, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which is broadly regarded as equivalent to major international data protection regulations like the GDPR in regard to personal data laws. The AI Basic Act provides an explanation as to how the data can be gathered, processed, and utilised within AI systems with regard to privacy rights, particularly in areas of high impact.

The law does not supersede the personal data protection policies, but it sets certain conditions on how AI developers must address the data to be utilised in training, testing, and running AIs. Operators will be required to document their data workflows and demonstrate how they guard the privacy of their users, including by transparency and consent mechanisms where necessary. This can assist in ensuring that the information that is utilised in AI functions is regulated by definite norms, and it is more difficult to avoid privacy requirements in the name of innovation.

‍

Accountability and Governance Infrastructure

‍

The AI Basic Act establishes a national policy framework of AI governance. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy Committee, chaired by the President, is at the top and proposes the overall AI policy and aligns it with national objectives. The organisations that would support this are the specialised organisations that deal with safety, risk assessment, and research and the policy centre that would analyse the effects of AI on society and assist in its adoption by the industry.

This institutional structure facilitates strategic guidance as well as operational control. It is through incorporating AI governance in the administration of the people, but not into the market forces, that South Korea wishes to have the ethical and societal concerns become part of the sectors and agencies.

‍

Promoting Innovation and Industrial Support

‍

Although the AI Basic Act does not disregard regulation, it is not a law of restrictions. It also offers legal justification for research and development, human capital, and the growth of the AI industry, with special consideration for startups and small and medium-sized businesses. The legislation promotes AI clusters, long-term funding programmes, and policies to bring foreign talent to the Korean AI ecosystem.

This bidimensional approach of compliance and support is indicative of the broader desire of Korea to become one of the leading AI powers in the world, along with the US and China. The government has pointed out that it will encourage trust by having clear and predictable rules that will attract investment and maintain innovation and not stifle it.

‍

What This Means Globally

‍

The AI Basic Act of South Korea is not only interesting in its contents but also in its timing. It is also among the first thorough AI legislations to come into force in the world, and it beats the gradual regulatory implementations in other parts of the globe, like the European Union. Its system incorporates a principle-based framework, transparency requirements, accountability regulations, and industrial support, which reflects a contrasting model to either pure prescriptive risk regulation or lax self-regulation models elsewhere.

Other critics, such as industry groups and civil society organisations, have suggested that some of the protections may be more explicit, in particular to those who are harmed by AI systems, or to establish high-impact categories. Nonetheless, the framework sets a benchmark upon which most nations will pay close attention when they establish their own AI regimes.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The AI Basic Act puts South Korea at the forefront of national AI regulation, including very well-developed guardrails that enforce transparency, ethical control, accountability, and data protection in addition to fostering innovation. It recognises that AI could lead to economic and social advantages, yet also actual risks, particularly when systems are opaque, autonomous, or widely implemented. South Korea has gone holistically in responsible AI governance by integrating human oversight, labelling requirements, risk management planning, and governance infrastructure into law to be emulated by other countries in the years to come.

Sources

‍

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/29/south-korea-world-first-ai-regulation-laws 
• https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-labour-market-in-korea_af668423/68ab1a5a-en.pdf 
• https://asianintelligence.ai/south-korea 
• https://aibasicact.kr/ 
• https://aibusinessweekly.net/p/south-korea-ai-basic-act-takes-effect-jan22-2026 
• https://asiadaily.org/news/12112/ 

‍

Introduction

In an age where the lines between truth and fiction blur with an alarming regularity, we stand at the precipice of a new and dangerous era. Amidst the wealth of information that characterizes the digital age, deep fakes and disinformation rise like ghosts, haunting our shared reality. These manifestations of a technological revolution that promised enlightenment instead threaten the foundations upon which our societies are built: trust, truth, and collective understanding.

These digital doppelgängers, enabled by advanced artificial intelligence, and their deceitful companion—disinformation—are not mere ghosts in the machine. They are active agents of chaos, capable of undermining the core of democratic values, human rights, and even the safety of individuals who dare to question the status quo.

The Perils of False Narratives in the Digital Age

As a society, we often throw around terms such as 'fake news' with a mixture of disdain and a weary acceptance of their omnipresence. However, we must not understate their gravity. Misinformation and disinformation represent the vanguard of the digital duplicitous tide, a phenomenon growing more complex and dire each day. Misinformation, often spread without malicious intent but with no less damage, can be likened to a digital 'slip of the tongue' — an error in dissemination or interpretation. Disinformation, its darker counterpart, is born of deliberate intent to deceive, a calculated move in the chess game of information warfare.

Their arsenal is varied and ever-evolving: from misleading memes and misattributed quotations to wholesale fabrications in the form of bogus news sites and carefully crafted narratives. Among these weapons of deceit, deepfakes stand out for their audacity and the striking challenge they pose to the concept of seeing to believe. Through the unwelcome alchemy of algorithms, these video and audio forgeries place public figures, celebrities, and even everyday individuals into scenarios they never experienced, uttering words they never said.

The Human Cost: Threats to Rights and Liberties

The impact of this disinformation campaign transcends inconvenience or mere confusion; it strikes at the heart of human rights and civil liberties. It particularly festers at the crossroads of major democratic exercises, such as elections, where the right to a truthful, unmanipulated narrative is not just a political nicety but a fundamental human right, enshrined in Article 25 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In moments of political change, whether during elections or pivotal referenda, the deliberate seeding of false narratives is a direct assault on the electorate's ability to make informed decisions. This subversion of truth infects the electoral process, rendering hollow the promise of democratic choice.

This era of computational propaganda has especially chilling implications for those at the frontline of accountability—journalists and human rights defenders. They find themselves targets of character assassinations and smear campaigns that not only put their safety at risk but also threaten to silence the crucial voices of dissent.

It should not be overlooked that the term 'fake news' has, paradoxically, been weaponized by governments and political entities against their detractors. In a perverse twist, this label becomes a tool to shut down legitimate debate and shield human rights violations from scrutiny, allowing for censorship and the suppression of opposition under the guise of combatting disinformation.

Deepening the societal schisms, a significant portion of this digital deceit traffic in hate speech. Its contents are laden with xenophobia, racism, and calls to violence, all given a megaphone through the anonymity and reach the internet so readily provides, feeding a cycle of intolerance and violence vastly disproportionate to that seen in traditional media.

Legislative and Technological Countermeasures: The Ongoing Struggle

The fight against this pervasive threat, as illustrated by recent actions and statements by the Indian government, is multifaceted. Notably, Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar's commitment to safeguarding the Indian populace from the dangers of AI-generated misinformation signals an important step in the legislative and policy framework necessary to combat deepfakes.

Likewise, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's personal experience with a deepfake video accentuates the urgency with which policymakers, technologists, and citizens alike must view this evolving threat. The disconcerting experience of actor Rashmika Mandanna serves as a sobering reminder of the individual harm these false narratives can inflict and reinforces the necessity of a robust response.

In their pursuit to negate these virtual apparitions, policymakers have explored various avenues ranging from legislative action to penalizing offenders and advancing digital watermarks. However, it is not merely in the realm of technology that solutions must be sought. Rather, the confrontation with deepfakes and disinformation is also a battle for the collective soul of societies across the globe.

As technological advancements continue to reshape the battleground, figures like Kris Gopalakrishnan and Manish Gangwar posit that only a mix of rigorous regulatory frameworks and savvy technological innovation can hold the front line against this rising tidal wave of digital distrust.

This narrative is not a dystopian vision of a distant future - it is the stark reality of our present. And as we navigate this new terrain, our best defenses are not just technological safeguards, but also the nurturing of an informed and critical citizenry. It is essential to foster media literacy, to temper the human inclination to accept narratives at face value and to embolden the values that encourage transparency and the robust exchange of ideas.

As we peer into the shadowy recesses of our increasingly digital existence, may we hold fast to our dedication to the truth, and in doing so, preserve the essence of our democratic societies. For at stake is not just a technological arms race, but the very quality of our democratic discourse and the universal human rights that give it credibility and strength.

Conclusion  

In this age of digital deceit, it is crucial to remember that the battle against deep fakes and disinformation is not just a technological one. It is also a battle for our collective consciousness, a battle to preserve the sanctity of truth in an era of falsehoods. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of the digital world, let us arm ourselves with the weapons of awareness, critical thinking, and a steadfast commitment to truth. In the end, it is not just about winning the battle against deep fakes and disinformation, but about preserving the very essence of our democratic societies and the human rights that underpin them.