#FactCheck: A viral claim suggests that by turning on Advance Chat Privacy, Meta AI can avoid reading Whatsapp chats.

Introduction

In an alarming event, one of India’s premier healthcare institutes, AIIMS Delhi, has fallen victim to a malicious cyberattack for the second time in the year. The Incident serves as a clear-cut reminder of the escalating threat landscape faced by the healthcare organisation in this digital age. In the attack, which unfolded with grave implications, the attackers not only explored the vulnerabilities present in the healthcare sector, but this also raised the concern about the security of patient data and the uninterrupted delivery of critical healthcare services. In this blog post, we will explore the incident, what happened, and what safety measures can be taken.

Backdrop

The cyber-security systems deployed in AIIMS, New Delhi, recently detected a malware attack. The nature and scope of the attack were both sophisticated and targeted. This second hack acts as a wake-up call for healthcare organisations nationwide. As the healthcare business increasingly depends on digital technology to improve patient care and operational efficiency, cybersecurity must be prioritised to protect sensitive data. To minimise cyber-attack dangers, healthcare organisations must invest in robust defences such as multi-factor authentication, network security, frequent system upgrades, and employee training.

The attempt was successfully prevented, and the deployed cyber-security systems neutralised the threat. The e-Hospital services remain to be fully secure and are functioning normally.

Impact on AIIMS

Healthcare services have been under hackers’ radar worldwide, and the healthcare sector has been impacted badly. The attack on AIIMS Delhi’s effects has been both immediate and far-reaching. The organisation, which is recognised for delivering excellent healthcare services and performing breakthrough medical research, faced significant interruptions in its everyday operations. Patient care and treatment processes were considerably impeded, resulting in delays, cancellations, and the inability to access essential medical documents. The stolen data raises serious concerns about patient privacy and confidentiality, raising doubts about the institution’s capacity to protect sensitive information. Furthermore, the financial ramifications of the assault, such as the cost of recovery, deploying more robust cybersecurity measures, and potential legal penalties and forensic analyses, contribute to the scale of the effect. The event has also generated public concerns about the institution’s ability to preserve personal information, undermining confidence and degrading AIIMS Delhi’s image.

Impact on Patients: The attacks not only impact the institutes but also have serious implications for the patients and here are some key highlights:

Healthcare Service Disruption: The hack has affected the seamless delivery of healthcare services at AIIMS Delhi. Appointments, surgeries, and other medical treatments may be delayed, cancelled, or rescheduled. This disturbance can result in longer wait times, longer treatment periods, and potential problems from delayed or interrupted therapy.

Patient Privacy and Confidentiality are jeopardised because of the breach of sensitive patient data. Medical data, test findings, and treatment plans may have been compromised. This breach may diminish patient faith in the institution’s capacity to safeguard their personal information, discouraging them from seeking care or submitting sensitive information in the future.

As a result of the cyberattack, patients may endure mental anguish and worry. Fear of possible exploitation of personal health information, confusion about the scope of the breach, and concerns about the security of their healthcare data can all have a negative impact on their mental health. This stress might aggravate pre-existing medical issues and impede total recovery.

Trust at stake: A data breach may harm patients’ faith and confidence in AIIMS Delhi and the healthcare system. Patients rely on healthcare facilities to keep their information secure and confidential while providing safe, high-quality care. A hack can doubt the institution’s ability to safeguard patient data, affecting patients’ overall faith in the organisation and potentially leading to patients seeking care elsewhere.

Cybersecurity Measures

To avoid future hacks and protect patient data, AIIMS Delhi must prioritize enhancing its cybersecurity procedures. The institution can strengthen its resistance to changing threats by establishing strong security practices. The following steps can be considered.

Using Multi-factor Authentication: By forcing users to submit several forms of identity to access systems and data, multi-factor authentication offers an extra layer of protection. AIIMS Delhi may considerably lower the danger of unauthorised access by applying this precaution, even in the case of leaked passwords or credentials. Biometrics and one-time passwords, for example, should be integrated into the institution’s authentication systems.

Improving Network Security and Firewalls: AIIMS Delhi should improve network security by implementing strong firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and network segmentation. These techniques serve to construct barriers between internal systems and external threats, reducing attackers’ lateral movement within the network. Regular network traffic monitoring and analysis can assist in recognising and mitigating any security breaches.

Risk Assessment: Regular penetration testing and vulnerability assessments are required to uncover possible flaws and vulnerabilities in AIIMS Delhi’s systems and infrastructure. Security professionals can detect vulnerabilities and offer remedial solutions by carrying out controlled simulated assaults. This proactive strategy assists in identifying and addressing any security flaws before attackers exploit them.

Educating and training Healthcare Professionals: Education and training have a crucial role in enhancing cybersecurity practices in healthcare facilities. Healthcare workers, including physicians, nurses, administrators, and support staff, must be well-informed about the importance of cybersecurity and trained in risk-mitigation best practices. This will empower healthcare professionals to actively contribute to protecting the patient’s data and maintaining the trust and confidence of patients.

Learnings from Incidents

AIIMS Delhi should embrace cyber-attacks as learning opportunities to strengthen its security posture. Following each event, a detailed post-incident study should be performed to identify areas for improvement, update security policies and procedures, and improve employee training programs. This iterative strategy contributes to the institution’s overall resilience and preparation for future cyber-attacks. AIIMS Delhi can effectively respond to cyber incidents, minimise the impact on operations, and protect patient data by establishing an effective incident response and recovery plan, implementing data backup and recovery mechanisms, conducting forensic analysis, and promoting open communication. Proactive measures, constant review, and regular revisions to incident response plans are critical for staying ahead of developing cyber threats and ensuring the institution’s resilience in the face of potential future assaults.

Conclusion

To summarise, developing robust healthcare systems in the digital era is a key challenge that healthcare organisations must prioritise. Healthcare organisations can secure patient data, assure the continuation of key services, and maintain patients’ trust and confidence by adopting comprehensive cybersecurity measures, building incident response plans, training healthcare personnel, and cultivating a security culture. Adopting a proactive and holistic strategy for cybersecurity is critical to developing a healthcare system capable of withstanding and successfully responding to digital-age problems.

The Expanding Governance Challenge of Artificial Intelligence
‍

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly embedded in economic and social infrastructure. They are being adopted in financial services, healthcare diagnostics, hiring systems, and public administration. But while these systems improve efficiency and decision-making, they also introduce new forms of technological risk. 

Unlike conventional software, AI systems learn patterns from data and continue to evolve as they run. This poses governance issues since risks can arise throughout the AI life cycle, whether at the coding level or in their implementation.

The latest regulatory frameworks, such as the European Union’s AI Act (EU AI Act) and the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, note that responsible AI governance depends on the realisation of where risks emerge across the development process. 

This article maps the AI system lifecycle, identifies the risks that emerge at each stage and evaluates the policy tools used to mitigate them using the lifecycle framework developed by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
‍

The Lifecycle of an AI System
‍

AI systems are developed through a structured process that includes problem definition, dataset collection and preparation, model development, testing and validation, deployment, and monitoring.

The OECD conceptualises this development process as the AI system lifecycle. Each stage entails various technical and administrative procedures, since choices made during these stages will dictate the goals and limits of an AI system. Further, the quality and representativeness of training sets will have a strong effect on the behaviour of models after implementation.

Since this is an iterative and not a linear procedure, risks can be introduced at each stage of the AI lifecycle. New data can be retrained into different models, and systems are regularly updated once they have been deployed, to address performance degradation, model errors, or unintended outputs. This iterative process means governance must address risks across the entire lifecycle, not just at deployment.

‍

Where AI Risks Emerge
‍

AI risks usually emerge earlier in the development process, especially in the phases when system objectives are formulated and training data are chosen. The EU AI Act and the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI outline the following risks:  bias and discrimination, privacy and data security violations, the absence of transparency in automated decision-making, and risks to fundamental rights.

‍

AI Governance Risk Landscape: Core Risk Categories Under International Frameworks
‍

 Risk categories jointly identified by the EU AI Act and UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

Outlining the risks throughout the AI lifecycle helps understand the areas where governance interventions are most necessary. For example, discriminatory outcomes often result from biased or unrepresentative training data, while safety failures are typically linked to inadequate testing before deployment. Risks such as misinformation arise post the development process, when generative AI systems are deployed at scale on digital platforms. 
‍

AI System Lifecycle: Key Risks at Each Stage
‍

Risks identified per the EU AI Act and UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI

Understanding where risks emerge across the lifecycle explains why governance frameworks classify AI systems by risk and apply oversight at multiple stages.
‍

Policy Tools for Mitigating AI Risks
‍

Governments and international organisations have developed regulatory tools to help mitigate AI risks in the lifecycle. These tools are meant to make sure that AI technologies are identified as up to standard in safety, accountability and fairness prior to and after deployment. 

For example, the OECD AI Policy Observatory recommends that governments adopt policy instruments such as risk evaluations, algorithmic auditing necessities, regulatory sandboxes, and transparency necessities of AI systems. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is one of the most comprehensive systems of governance that introduces a risk-oriented regulation strategy. It mandates adherence to requirements concerning data governance, documentation, human oversight, and robustness, and cybersecurity. Such requirements bring regulatory checkpoints to the lifecycle of AI systems.

Mapping these policy tools across the lifecycle illustrates how governance mechanisms can intervene at different stages of AI development. 
‍

‍

Governance Overlay: Policy Interventions Across the AI Lifecycle
‍

Regulatory tools mapped at each stage of AI development per the EU AI Act and UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI

Several policy tools are directed at the risks that occur in the pre-developmental stages. In one example, algorithmic impact assessment has been applied in various jurisdictions to measure the possible consequences of automated decision systems on society before implementation. On the same note, the requirements of dataset documentation, including dataset transparency requirements and model cards, are aimed at enhancing accountability during the training and development stages of the AI systems. Therefore, lifecycle-based policy design allows regulators to intervene before harmful outcomes occur, rather than responding only after AI systems have caused damage in real-world environments.
‍

The Policy Gap in AI Governance
‍

The misalignment between risks and governance tools across the AI lifecycle indicates a critical structural gap in existing regulations. Numerous governance processes become activated after AI systems are classified as “high risk” or after they are implemented in the real world. But the most serious sources of damage have their roots in earlier stages of the development procedure.

An example is that prejudiced or unbalanced training data is almost inevitably a source of discriminative results in automated decision systems. When these types of models are applied in areas like staffing, credit rating, or in providing services to the public, such biases can quickly spread to large populations and undermine democratic rights. In the same way, the lack of transparency in model design might result in the fact that the regulator or individuals are affected by the decision-making process. This reflects a broader timing gap in AI governance, where risks originate during design and development, but regulatory intervention typically occurs only after deployment. 

Analysis
‍

1. Key risks originate before deployment: As depicted in the lifecycle mapping, the data collection and model development phase presents several significant governance risks as opposed to the deployment phase. Structural issues can be entrenched within AI systems even before they are deployed in practice due to bias in data sets, incomplete reporting of training sets, and obscured network designs.

2. Data governance is a primary point of vulnerability: Most of the instances of algorithmic discrimination listed above are associated with training material that is not representative of some population groups or is historical. Since machine learning models are optimisations of patterns that exist in datasets, these biases can be carried through the whole lifecycle and reproduced after deployment. 

3. Regulatory approaches remain mismatched across jurisdictions: Different countries adopt varying approaches to AI governance, ranging from risk-based frameworks such as the EU AI Act to more sector-specific or voluntary guidelines in other regions. This divergence creates inconsistencies in safety, accountability, and enforcement standards, allowing risks to persist across borders and potentially undermining the protection of users in globally deployed AI systems. 

4. Governance interventions remain uneven across the lifecycle: Whereas the various regulatory instruments aim at deployment and monitoring, fewer instruments systematically tackle the risks that are posed by the previous design and development phases.
‍

Recommendations
‍

1. Introduce mandatory lifecycle risk assessments: The regulatory systems need to demand systemic risk evaluation at the beginning of AI development, especially at the problem design and dataset selection phases. This would assist in detecting possible harmful applications in advance, before systems are constructed and installed.

2. Strengthen dataset governance standards: Training datasets must be supplemented with documentation as to their provenance, composition and limitations. Standardised documentation frameworks of data sets can assist in the discovery by regulators and auditors of the potential sources of bias or privacy threats.

3. Expand independent algorithmic auditing: AI systems can be assessed by regular third-party audits based on fairness, strength, and security weaknesses. The auditing mechanisms especially apply to high-risk systems employed in employment, finance or the public services.

4. Integrate continuous monitoring requirements: AI systems may be monitored regularly after implementation to identify model drift, unforeseen consequences, or abuse. Reporting systems can facilitate the process where the regulators can see the emerging risks and modify the governance systems.
‍

Conclusion - The Need for Global AI Governance
‍

Despite growing regulatory attention, global air governance remains fragmented. Different jurisdictions adopt varying approaches to risk classification, oversight, and enforcement, leading to inconsistencies in safety and accountability standards. Given that AI systems are often developed, deployed, and used across borders, this lack of coordination allows risks to persist beyond national regulatory frameworks.

Addressing these challenges requires a shift towards greater international cooperation and lifecycle-based governance. Developing shared standards, improving cross-border regulatory alignment, and embedding oversight across all stages of AI development will be essential to ensuring that AI systems are safe, transparent, and accountable in a globally interconnected environment.
‍

References
‍

• OECD AI lifecycle
• OECD AI system lifecycle description
• OECD AI governance lifecycle framework
• EU AI Act overview
• EU AI Act risk categories
• UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI
• AI governance lifecycle analysis
• OECD AI policy tools database

‍

Introduction

The judiciary as an institution has always been kept on a pedestal and is often seen as the embodiment of justice. From Dictatorship to Democracy, the judiciary plays a central role; even where the judiciary is controlled, the legitimacy of the policies, in one sense or another, is derived from it. In democracies around the world, the independence and well-being of the judiciary are seen as the barometer of democracy’s strength. In this global age, where technology is omnipresent, it seems the judiciary is no exception. Now more than ever, when the judiciary is at the centre of evaluative focus, it becomes imperative to make the judiciary transparent. Digitisation of the judiciary is not just an administrative reform; it is an extension of constitutionalism into the technological realm, an effort to ensure that justice is accessible, transparent, and efficient. On July 25, which is the International Day on Judicial Well-being, is commemorated every year with a clear message that judicial well-being supports “anti-corruption, access to justice, and sustainable peace.”

Digitisation by Design: Justice in the Age of Transformation

The Prime Minister of India envisioned the future of the Indian legal system in alignment with the digitised world, as when he said, “Technology will integrate police, forensics, jails, and courts, and will speed up their work as well. We are moving towards a justice system that will be fully future-ready,” he said, almost predicting the future. Although there are many challenges in the face of this future, there are various initiatives that ease the transition. To clarify, India is streamlining operations, reducing delays, and enhancing access to justice for all by integrating AI into legal research, case management, judicial procedures, and law enforcement. Machine Learning (ML), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Optical Character Recognition (OCR), and predictive analytics are just a few of the AI-powered technologies that are currently being used to increase crime prevention, automate administrative duties, and improve case monitoring. 

The digitisation of Indian courts is a structural necessity rather than just a question of contemporary convenience. Miscarriages of justice have frequently resulted from the growing backlog of cases, challenges with maintaining records, and the loss of physical files. In the seminal case of State of U.P. v. Abhay Raj Singh, the courts acknowledged that a conviction could be overturned by missing records alone. With millions of legal documents at risk, digitisation becomes a shield against such a collapse and a tool for preserving judicial memory. 

Judicial Digitalisation in India: Institutional Initiatives and Infrastructural Advancements

For centuries, towering bundles of courtroom files stood as dusty monuments to knowledge, sacred, chaotic, and accessible to a select few. But as we now stand in 2025, the physical boundaries of a traditional courtroom have blurred, and the Indian government is actively working towards transforming the legal system. The e-Courts Mission Mode Project is a flagship initiative that aims to utilise Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to modernise and advance the Indian judiciary. This groundbreaking effort, led by the Department of Justice, Government of India, is being carried out in close coordination with the Supreme Court of India’s e-Committee. As a news report suggests, the Supreme Court (SC) held 7.5 lakh hearings through video conferencing between 2020 and 2024, as stated by the Ministry of Law and Justice, responding to a query in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday. Technological tools such as the Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS), the Case Information Software (CIS), and the Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency (SUPACE) were established to make all pertinent case facts easily available. In another move, the Registry, SC, in close coordination with IIT, Madras, has created and implemented AI and ML-based technologies that are integrated with the Registry’s electronic filing software. This serves as a statement to the fact that cybersecurity and digital infrastructure are no longer administrative add-ons but essential building blocks for ensuring judicial transparency, efficiency, and resilience. 

E-Governance and Integrity: The Judiciary in Transition

The United Nations recognises the fundamentals of the judiciary’s well-being and how corruption acts like water to the rust and taints the integrity of not a single judge in general but creates a perception of the whole institution. This threat of corruption is recognised by the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), particularly Article 11, which urges the protection of the judiciary’s independence and integrity. Digitisation, while it cannot operate in a vacuum, acts as a structural antidote to corruption by embedding transparency into the fabric of justice delivery as automated registry systems, e-filing, and real-time access to case data drastically reduce discretionary power and the potential for behind-the-scenes manipulation. However, digital systems are only as ethical as the people who design, maintain, and oversee them, bringing their own limitations.

Conclusion: CyberPeace and the Future of Ethical Digital Justice 

The potential of digitalisation resides not just in efficiency but also in equity, as India’s judiciary balances tradition and change. A robust democracy, where justice is lit by code rather than hidden under files, is built on a foundation of an open, accessible, and technologically advanced court. This change is not risk-free, though. Secure justice must also be a component of digital justice. The very values that digitisation seeks to preserve are at risk from algorithmic opacity, data breaches, and insecure technologies. 

Our vision is not just of a digitalised court system but of a digitally just society, one where judicial data is protected, legal processes are democratised, and innovation upholds constitutionalism. Therefore, as a step forward, CyberPeace resolves to support AI upskilling for legal professionals, advocate for secure-by-design court infrastructure, and facilitate dialogue between technologists and judicial actors to build trust in the digital justice ecosystem. CyberPeace is dedicated to cyber transparency, privacy protection, and ethical AI.

References 

1. https://www.un.org/en/observances/judicial-well-being 
2. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2106239 
3. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2106239 
4. https://www.barandbench.com/view-point/facilitating-legal-access-digitalization-of-supreme-court-high-court-records 
5. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2085127 ‍
6. https://www.medianama.com/2024/12/223-supreme-court-seven-lakh-video-conferences-four-year-rajya-sabha/