#FactCheck-Mosque fire in India? False, it's from Indonesia

Introduction:

Technology has become a vital part of everyone’s life nowadays, it occupies essential activities of a person’s life whether we are working or playing and studying. I would say from education to corporate, technology makes everything easier and simpler to achieve the goals for a particular thing.  Corporate companies are using technology for their day-to-day work and there are many law-based foundations that are publishing blogs and papers for legal awareness, many lawyers use internet technology for promoting themselves which amounts to growth in their work. Some legal work can now be done by machines, which was previously unthinkable. Large disputes frequently have many documents to review. Armies of young lawyers and paralegals are typically assigned to review these documents. This work can be done by a properly trained machine. Machine drafting of documents is also gaining popularity. We’ve also seen systems that can forecast the outcome of a dispute. We are starting to see machines take on many tasks that we once thought was solely the domain of lawyers.

How to expand law firms and the corporate world with the help of technology?

If we talk about how lawyers’ lives will be impacted by technology then I would explain about law students first. Students are the one who is utilizing the technology at its best for their work, tech could be helpful in students’ lives. as law students use SCC online and manupatra, which are used for case laws. And during their law internships, they use it to help their seniors to find appropriate cases for them. and use it as well for their college research work. SCC and manupatra are very big platforms by which we can say if students use technology for their careers, it will impact their law career in the best ways.

A lawyer running a law firm is not a small task, and there are plenty of obstacles to that, such as a lack of tech solutions, failure to fulfil demands, and inability to innovate, these obstacles prevent the growth of some firms. The right legal tech can grow an organization or a law firm and there will be fewer obstacles.

Technology can be proven as a good mechanism to grow the law firm, as everything depends on tech, from court work to corporate. If we talk about covid during 2020, everything shifted towards the virtual world, court hearings switched to online mode due to covid which proved as a bone to the legal system as the case hearings were speedy and there was no physical contact due to that.

Legal automation is also helping law firms to grow in a competitive world. And it has other benefits also like shifting tedious tasks from humans to machines, allowing the lawyer to work on more valuable work. I would say that small firms should also need to embrace automation for competition in the corporate sector. Today, artificial intelligence offers a solution to solve or at least make the access-to-justice issue better and completely transform our traditional legal system.

There was a world-cited author, Richard Susskind, OBE, who talked about the future of law and lawyers and he wrote a book, Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Richard argues that technology is going to bring about a fascinating decade of change in the legal sector and transform our court system. Although automating our old ways of working plays a part in this, even more, critical is that artificial intelligence and technology will help give more individuals access to justice.

The rise of big data has also resulted in rapid identification systems, which allow police officers to quickly see an individual’s criminal history through a simple search.The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) system matches individuals with their criminal history information using biometrics such as fingerprints, palm prints, iris recognition, and facial recognition. The NGI’s current technologies are constantly being updated, and new ones are being added, to make the NGI the most comprehensive way to gather up-to-date information on the person being examined

During covid, there were e-courts services in courts, and lawyers and judges were taking cases online. After the covid, the use of technology increased in the law field also from litigation to corporate. As technology can also safeguard confidential information between parties and lawyers. There was ODR, (online dispute resolution) happening meetings that were taking place online mode.

File sharing is inevitable in the practice of law. Yet sometimes the most common ways of sharing (think email) are not always the most secure. With the remote office, the boom has come an increased need for alternate file-sharing solutions. There is data encryption to protect data as it is a reliable method to protect confidential data and information.

Conclusion-

Technology has been playing a vital role in the legal industry and has increased the efficiency of legal offices and the productivity of clerical workers. With the advent of legal tech, there is greater transparency between legal firms and clients. Clients know how many fees they must pay and can keep track of the day-to-day progress of the lawyer on their case. Also, there is no doubt that technology, if used correctly, is fast and efficient – more than any human individual. This can prove to be of great assistance to any law firm.  Lawyers of the future will be the ones who create the systems that will solve their client’s problems. These legal professionals will include legal knowledge engineers, legal risk managers, system developers, design thinking experts, and others. These people will use technology to create new ways of solving legal problems. In many ways, the legal sector is experiencing the same digitization that other industries have, and because it is so document-intensive, it is actually an industry that stands to benefit greatly from what technology has to offer.

Introduction

The integration of Artificial Intelligence into our daily workflows has compelled global policymakers to develop legislative frameworks to govern its impact efficiently. The question that we arrive at here is: While AI is undoubtedly transforming global economies, who governs the transformation? The EU AI Act was the first of its kind legislation to govern Artificial Intelligence, making the EU a pioneer in the emerging technology regulation space. This blog analyses the EU's Draft AI Rules and Code of Practice, exploring their implications for ethics, innovation, and governance.

Background: The Need for AI Regulation

AI adoption has been happening at a rapid pace and is projected to contribute  $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030. The AI market size is expected to grow by at least 120% year-over-year. Both of these statistics have been stated in arguments citing concrete examples of AI risks (e.g., bias in recruitment tools, misinformation spread through deepfakes). Unlike the U.S., which relies on sector-specific regulations, the EU proposes a unified framework to address AI's challenges comprehensively, especially with the vacuum that exists in the governance of emerging technologies such as AI. It should be noted that the GDPR or the General Data Protection Regulation has been a success with its global influence on data privacy laws and has started a domino effect for the creation of privacy regulations all over the world. This precedent emphasises the EU's proactive approach towards regulations which are population-centric. 

Overview of the Draft EU AI Rules

This Draft General Purpose AI Code of Practice details the AI rules for the AI Act rules and the providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risks. The European AI Office facilitated the drawing up of the code, and was chaired by independent experts and involved nearly 1000 stakeholders and EU member state representatives and observers both European and international observers.

14th November 2024 marks the publishing of the first draft of the EU’s General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, established by the EU AI Act. As per Article 56 of the EU AI Act, the code outlines the rules that operationalise the requirements, set out for General-Purpose AI (GPAI) model under Article 53 and GPAI models with systemic risks under Article 55. The AI Act is legislation that finds its base in product safety and relies on setting harmonised standards in order to support compliance. These harmonised standards are essentially sets of operational rules that have been established by the European Standardisation bodies, such as the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute. Industry experts, civil society and trade unions are translating the requirements set out by the EU sectoral legislation into the specific mandates set by the European Commission. The AI Act obligates the developers, deployers and users of AI on mandates for transparency, risk management and compliance mechanisms 

The Code of Practice for General Purpose AI

The most popular applications of GPAI include ChatGPT and other foundational models such as CoPilot from Microsoft, BERT  from Google, Llama from Meta AI and many others and they are under constant development and upgradation.  The 36-pages long draft Code of Practice for General Purpose AI is meant to serve as a roadmap for tech companies to comply with the AI Act and avoid paying penalties. It focuses on transparency, copyright compliance, risk assessment, and technical/governance risk mitigation as the core areas for the companies that are developing GPAIs. It also lays down guidelines that look to enable greater transparency on what goes into developing GPAIs. 

The Draft Code's provisions for risk assessment focus on preventing cyber attacks, large-scale discrimination, nuclear and misinformation risks, and the risk of the models acting autonomously without oversight. 

Policy Implications

The EU’s Draft AI Rules and Code of Practice represent a bold step in shaping the governance of general-purpose AI, positioning the EU as a global pioneer in responsible AI regulation. By prioritising harmonised standards, ethical safeguards, and risk mitigation, these rules aim to ensure AI benefits society while addressing its inherent risks. While the code is a welcome step, the compliance burdens on MSMEs and startups could hinder innovation, whereas, the voluntary nature of the Code raises concerns about accountability. Additionally, harmonising these ambitious standards with varying global frameworks, especially in regions like the U.S. and India, presents a significant challenge to achieving a cohesive global approach.

Conclusion

The EU’s initiative to regulate general-purpose AI aligns with its legacy of proactive governance, setting the stage for a transformative approach to balancing innovation with ethical accountability. However, challenges remain. Striking the right balance is crucial to avoid stifling innovation while ensuring robust enforcement and inclusivity for smaller players. Global collaboration is the next frontier. As the EU leads, the world must respond by building bridges between regional regulations and fostering a unified vision for AI governance. This demands active stakeholder engagement, adaptive frameworks, and a shared commitment to addressing emerging challenges in AI. The EU’s Draft AI Rules are not just about regulation, they are about leading a global conversation. 

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/new-eu-ai-code-of-practice-draft-rules-9671152/ 
• https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-code-practice 
• https://www.csis.org/analysis/eu-code-practice-general-purpose-ai-key-takeaways-first-draft#:~:text=Drafting%20of%20the%20Code%20of%20Practice%20is%20taking%20place%20under,the%20drafting%20of%20the%20code. 
• https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/12/16/first-draft-of-the-general-purpose-ai-code-of-practice-has-been-released/

Introduction

‍

Over the last few years, several public data breaches in Venezuela have revealed a lack of cohesion and progress in its data privacy system and left many people susceptible to fraud, identity theft and long-term harm via the internet. It is clear from these data breaches that when organizations fail to adequately protect their data, both through cybersecurity failures and weak legal protections, they can lead to problems throughout an entire system through which all individuals in the system could potentially suffer.

Among the more notable breaches are the Movistar Venezuela data breach from 2025 and the Cashea App data leak from earlier this year. Each of these examples demonstrates to some extent how the absence of an adequate privacy regulatory scheme can worsen the results of a data breach.

‍

The Movistar Breach: A Regulatory Warning (2025)

‍

Venezuelan digital rights group VE Sin Filtro published a report late in April 2025, which found a database revealed to have been opened onto the internet containing personal information belonging to over 3.2 million Movistar customers. The initial breach contained personal, and confidential, data of Venezuelan citizens such as national identification numbers, full names, city of residence, and phone numbers which could have been exploited to commit identity theft, SIM-swap fraud, and targeted scams.

One significant issue with this situation was that Movistar failed to disclose the breach publicly or contact impacted customers at the time of the disclosure. As a result, there appears to be a significant gap in Sanctions / Other Means of Enforcing Security Countermeasures Laws. Since there are numerous countries that enforce GDPR-style regulations and as such, this matter should lead to a complete investigation and possible fines against those responsible but in Venezuela there is still a lack of accountability.

‍

Cashea App Leak: A 2026 Data Shock

‍

A second alleged data breach came to light in February of 2026. It involved a Venezuelan buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) fintech called Cashea App, which is typically heavily utilized domestically. Reports have circulated that threat actors have been offering a database, believed to hold more than 79 million transaction records. This is more than double the size and sensitivity of the data involved in the Movistar Breach.

According to reports, the leaked data included:

1. Bank account details and payment methods
2. Merchant profiles and internal business identifiers
3. Detailed transaction histories with names, national ID numbers, timestamps, and installment data

This level of exposure goes far beyond basic identifiers. Financial transaction histories combined with personal identifiers enable sophisticated fraud, targeted social engineering, and long-term misuse of financial identities. As with the Movistar breach, no official acknowledgment or notification was issued by Cashea at the time of reporting, again underscoring Venezuela’s weak enforcement environment.

‍

Why These Breaches Matter: The Legal Dimension

‍

The incidents show us that there is a bigger problem with the way Venezuela has set up its framework for protecting data. For instance, the Venezuelan Constitution recognises the principles of data protection and privacy; however, these rights only exist in a theoretical manner; they lack implementing legislation, procedural clarity, and institutional enforcement.

‍

Constitutional Basis of Data Protection

‍

The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) stated the core principles for protecting data are found in the Venezuelan Constitution. After the TSJ issued its 2011 ruling, Article 28 of the Venezuelan Constitution gives individuals the right to know what data the state has about them, how the state uses that data, and to correct or delete any harmful data. Article 60 of the Venezuelan Constitution protects individuals' privacy and restricts excessive data collection by the state.

The Constitutional Chamber also put into place additional guiding principles for how to protect personal data, including:

1. The data subject must give prior informed and revocable consent.
2. The purpose for which the data is collected must be specified and only the minimum amount of information necessary can be collected.
3. The data collected must be accurate and of good quality.
4. There are confidentiality obligations for third parties regarding the use of the data.
5. It is the government's responsibility to put into place procedures and mechanisms to monitor compliance with the data protection laws.
6. There are civil, criminal and administrative liabilities for individuals and legal entities that violate the data protection laws.

But, in a civil law country, when courts make rulings, they usually are persuasive only as opposed to being legally binding, and even constitutional rulings cannot be implemented until enabling legislation is passed.

‍

Absence of a Comprehensive Data Protection Law

‍

In contrast to the European Union's GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), the United States' sectoral approach, and emerging Latin American data protection systems such as the ones in Brazil, Chile and Colombia, Venezuela has no independent data protection law. This lack of law leads to numerous types of uncertainty in the realm of data protection laws:

1. No defined data controller or processor obligations
2. No standardized lawful bases for processing
3. No clear breach notification timelines
4. No independent data protection authority
5. No procedural pathway for individuals to seek redress

As a result, data protection in Venezuela is not treated as an independent legal discipline but instead becomes derivative, arising incidentally within constitutional litigation or sector-specific disputes.

‍

Regulatory Fragmentation and Institutional Weakness

‍

Due to the TSJ decisions made in 2011, there has been a lack of regulatory action taken in a systematic fashion and instead most actions have been done on a case by case basis as valid incidents arise. The National Cybersecurity Council was established in 2024; however, its function is to support the establishment of cybersecurity infrastructure and has no defined powers regarding the enforcement of privacy.

This creates a fragmented institutional landscape where:

1. Authorities lack clear jurisdiction over privacy violations
2. Companies face minimal compliance guidance
3. Individuals struggle to understand or enforce their rights

The Movistar and Cashea incidents highlight how this fragmentation translates into practical impunity following major data exposures.

‍

What’s Next? A Legal Opportunity for Reform

‍

The repercussions of insufficient safeguards for data protection extend past the damage incurred to a person's privacy:

1. Loss of trust in both financial and digital services
2. Heightened likelihood of financial fraud and crime
3. Lack of willingness from foreign companies to conduct business with Venezuela’s platforms.
4. Long-term negative impact on the reputation of domestic companies.
5. Possible inability to access cross-border transfer of data due to other jurisdictions’ decisions to restrict transfers into jurisdictions without cutting-edge enforcement of protections for privacy.

In a digital economy that increasingly requires robust data protection to function successfully, a lack of action to create strong protections will cause a significant economic impact.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Major data breaches such as the ones at Movistar in 2025 and Cashea App in 2026 show that constitutional privacy rights alone are insufficient without enforceable legal framework. Privacy laws must move from being just a principle to being a law that has institutions, procedures, and accountability to make sure the privacy of the users is protected.

Now with the global digital economy being so interconnected, not having regulations creates openings for vulnerabilities for people. If Venezuela hopes to protect their citizens, create an innovation-friendly environment, and compete in the global market, they must implement comprehensive data privacy reforms as soon as possible.

‍

REFERENCES 

‍

1. https://iapp.org/news/a/venezuela-data-breach-highlights-scattered-privacy-regulation
2. https://www.apolocybersecurity.com/en/blog-posts/ciberataque-a-movistar-que-ha-pasado-a-quien-afecta-y-como-proteger-tus-datos
3. https://darknetsearch.com/knowledge/news/en/cashea-app-data-leak-79m-records-exposed-in-venezuela/
4. https://www.binance.com/en-IN/square/post/294369884695410

‍