#FactCheck-Old Dehradun Video Falsely Shared as Police Assault on Women Protesters at Jantar Mantar

Introduction

‍

In today's era, where the threat from the digital world is growing rapidly, good developments in the war against cybercrimes cannot be ignored when they do happen. The state, which was notorious for being one of the most notorious criminal states in the country concerning digital crimes, has brought about remarkable changes in the law and order situation in the country in the last few years. According to the most recent data released by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, Assam recorded only 408 cybercrimes in the year 2024, while the figure for the previous year was 909, which means a decline of over 55% in one year. But what is even more notable about the feat is the fact that, on the other hand, the country as a whole witnessed a rise of nearly 18% in the cybercrimes recorded. 

‍

 Assam's Cybercrime Journey

‍

To understand where Assam is today can only achieve this by understanding how far it has come. In 2021, it was ranked the 5^th highest state or union territory in India in the realm of cybercrime, with a staggering number of 4846 cases. The state kept the worrisome numbers continuing in the year 2022, as it ranked 9^th with 1,733 cases before sliding down to 13^th place in 2023 with 909 cases. However, the steep fall to a minuscule 408 cases in 2024 is an amazing narrative of how a state managed to completely eradicate the cybercrime infrastructure.

This is not a mere coincidence in statistics. This has proved to be a sustained, systematic operation by the law-enforcing agencies. Police sources say the decline is the result of consistent law enforcement action against cybercrime networks and the positive effect of awareness campaigns. Assam recorded 360 arrests under cybercrime-related offences and charge-sheeted 285 in the year 2024.

‍

The National Picture: A Troubling Contrast
‍

While the case of Assam is inspiring, the numbers on a pan-Indian level look bleak. India saw as many as 101,928 cybercrimes registered on its soil in the year 2024; a sharp rise from 2023, when 86,420 incidents had been reported. And it's not just in the number of cases that have seen an alarming rise; the economic implications are equally devastating. As many as 19.18 lakh complaints were lodged on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal in 2024. These complaints were an outcome of the financial losses to the tune of almost Rs 22,811.95 crore, according to a statement by the Home Ministry.

In 2024, the states that stood out at the top were Telangana (27,230), Karnataka (21,993), Uttar Pradesh (11,073), Maharashtra (9,922), and Bihar (6,380), among others. This clearly goes on to prove how the occurrences of cybercrime are not uniform across all states in the country due to various local and state-specific factors like the enforcement provided by state police forces, literacy levels of the general public, and the range of awareness campaigns carried out.

Even within Assam, the trend is not uniform, as almost every other Northeastern state has recorded a rise in cybercrimes this year, the figures being Arunachal Pradesh 24 to 78, Mizoram 31 to 50, Meghalaya 64 to 97, and Nagaland 2 to 14. It is only Tripura that saw a dip in reported cybercrimes, from 36 to 33. Considering these statistics, it becomes even more crucial to study and emulate Assam's success.
‍

The Drivers and Disrupters of Cybercrime
‍

It is in understanding how cybercrimes in Assam are committed that one might derive how these should be combatted. Of the 408 cases registered so far in 2024, 253 were registered for transmitting, or publishing, electronically, any obscene or sexually explicit material, and 115 cases were under computer-related offences. As for motive, they vary widely; 121 cases were registered out of revenge, 55 for fraud, 43 for extortion, and 42 for sexual exploitation. Sadly, out of 408 crimes reported so far in 2024, 196 victims are women, and 20 are children; in essence, the real impact is on society's most vulnerable.

This is a useful categorisation for the policymakers. It would not be beneficial if it were an all-encompassing strategy against cybercrimes when the motives and mechanisms behind them differ so widely. Customised campaigns educating women on cyberbullying, educating children on online security, and cautioning the public against online fraudulent schemes would be much more effective than general advice.

 On the national front, significant investments have been made by the central government for developing cybercrime-fighting infrastructure. Since the I4C was established in 2018, the launch of NCRP in 2019 provides a reporting and coordination framework against cybercrimes, and it is reported that over 5,489 crore have been saved by freezing illegal transactions, stemming from over 17.88 lakh complaints, through these platforms. Over 9.42 lakh SIM cards and 263,248 International Mobile Equipment Identities (IMEI) numbers have been blocked due to involvement in cybercrime.
‍

The Role of Awareness and Enforcement
‍

The biggest, and perhaps most transferable, lesson learned from Assam is the importance of both enforcement and awareness. Alone, neither proves useful: an enforcement operation without public knowledge leaves the public at risk for the next offence, while a purely informational approach gives criminals the license to proceed. Assam seems to have a more pragmatic approach; at least the statistics support this notion.

As the most persistent weakness, cyber hygiene is still a critical issue for India's cybersecurity. The core problem is the limited public knowledge on the importance of safer online practices, and it has been one of the primary hurdles to reducing crimes online; in instances where crimes were committed and reported, insufficient processes and infrastructure remained challenges in their investigation. Therefore, institutional investment in resources such as local police cyber cells and national coordinating agencies is an integral component to overcoming these challenges.z

‍

Conclusion
‍

By decreasing the rate of cybercrime in Assam by 55%, the successful combination of vigorous prosecution, constant pressure to uphold the law, and thorough public awareness campaigns has demonstrated a viable solution to ever-increasing online threats throughout India. Assam presents an attainable blueprint to diminish cybercrime, although the criminals of this evolving landscape cannot be constrained by individual state borders. To successfully achieve an e-economy that thrives on security and trust, India must adapt and expand the same law enforcement and awareness campaign strategies.

‍

References
‍

1. https://assamtribune.com/assam/assam-records-over-55-decline-in-cyber-crime-cases-in-2024-mha-1611895
   
   
2. https://ddnews.gov.in/en/cybercrime-complaints-cross-19-lakh-in-2024-97-drop-in-spoofed-calls-post-new-measures/
   
   
3. https://www.medianama.com/2025/08/223-india-cybercrime-500-percent-increase-2021-2024/
   
   
4. https://statista.com/topics/5054/cyber-crime-in-india‍
5. https://i4c.mha.gov.in
   

Introduction

‍

On June 2, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order called "Promoting Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security." The order tells federal agencies to improve cyber defences against AI-based threats and creates a system where AI companies can choose to let the government access powerful new models before they are released to the public. This happens as the U.S. and China are in a heated competition to lead the next generation of AI. While the order only affects the United States, its impact could reach the global AI industry, including India.

‍

What Does the Executive Order Do?

‍

The White House order focuses on three areas: First, it aims to upgrade government cyber security. Federal agencies must strengthen their information systems with AI-enabled defences within 30 days. Cyber Security and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) will issue new guidelines for civilian agencies, and an AI Cyber security Clearinghouse will be established for the government and private companies to share and resolve software vulnerabilities. 

Second, the order introduces a voluntary pre-release review process for advanced AI models. Before a new model is publicly available, AI companies can give the government up to 30 days to evaluate it for cyber security risks. An earlier draft proposed a 90-day review period, but this was cut back due to feedback from the technology industry. The government will also create classified benchmarks to figure out which models qualify as a “covered frontier model” and are therefore subject to this review process. 

Finally, the order emphasises criminal enforcement. It prioritises legal action against those who use AI tools to commit cybercrimes. 

According to the White House, the aim is to promote AI innovation and security by collaborating with the private sector to modernise government and private information systems and protect them from external threats.

‍

Why Does This Matter Globally?

‍

1. AI Is Now a National Security Issue Until recently, most governments viewed AI as an economic or scientific issue. This order officially changes that for the United States, placing advanced AI alongside other sensitive technologies that need government oversight before deployment.  When the world's largest military makes this change, other governments pay attention. Countries allied with or partnering with the U.S. will likely revisit their own AI governance frameworks in the months ahead. 

2. Two Competing Models for the World The U.S. and EU represent two different approaches to AI governance. The EU AI Act lays down strict rules, is focused on ethics, and requires heavy compliance. The US approach is lighter on ethics, promoting voluntary cooperation, prioritising security, and encouraging innovation. Countries developing their own AI policies will either continue to align with one of these models or take ideas from both.  The Atlantic Council has pointed out that if the U.S. model is successful, it could influence international security standards for AI development, even without formal global agreements. 

3. The China Factor  Trump initially delayed signing the order, worried it would slow down American companies and give China an edge. The final version avoids mandatory licensing requirements but clearly indicates that the U.S. aims to lead, not only in building AI but also in securing it. China is likely to respond by speeding up its own evaluation systems, creating another global framework.

‍

What Could This Mean for India?

‍

India has taken a careful, non-mandatory approach to AI governance. MeitY's India AI Governance Guidelines, issued in November 2025, are based on principles and are not binding. India's AI Safety Institute has been announced but is not fully operational.  Efforts to create binding regulation have been seen in actions like the Private Member's Bill, the AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, 2025, introduced in the Lok Sabha. This bill suggests mandatory reviews for high-risk AI systems but has not been passed yet. It's important to note that groups like the AI Governance Expert Group (AIGEG) and the Technology and Policy Expert Committee (TPEC) serve only in an advisory role; they do not have legislative power. As a result, nothing binding has been implemented so far.  The Trump order puts additional pressure on India to pass measurable, binding AI-security-related measures. As AI use increases in banking, healthcare, telecommunications, and government services and frontier AI models continue to evolve without global oversight, stronger security evaluation methods are becoming necessary, especially in critical sectors.

Recent events prove this need. In June 2026, a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack hit the CBSE's On-Screen Marking portal. It saw 1.5 million requests in two minutes and over one lakh unauthorised file access attempts targeting a system used by millions of students. Similar attacks have impacted AIIMS Delhi and other public digital infrastructure. As AI tools make these attacks easier to carry out, security testing before deployment can no longer be seen as optional.

For Indian AI companies aiming at global markets, the U.S. framework is also important for business. Standards that are set voluntarily in Washington often become necessary for international partnerships and contracts.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Trump's AI cyber security order signals a shift. A government that resisted regulating AI has now recognised that powerful models need oversight before they reach the public. Its immediate impact affects U.S. agencies and developers. However, the broader message is that advanced AI is a national security concern. This will influence policy conversations around the world. For India, the priority is to develop its own security evaluation capacity now, rather than waiting to adopt frameworks created for other contexts.

‍

References

‍

• White House Executive Order, "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security," June 2, 2026
• Federal Register — Executive Order Publication, June 5, 2026
• Council on Foreign Relations — Assessing Trump's Executive Order on AI Oversight, June 4, 2026
• Atlantic Council — Reading Between the Lines of Trump's New Executive Order on AI, June 3, 2026
• Times of India — Donald Trump Passes AI Cyber security Order
• MeitY India AI Governance Guidelines, November 2025
• AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, 2025 — Explained
• NPR — Trump Signs EO Seeking Early Government Access to Powerful AI Models

‍

Misinformation is a scourge in the digital world, making the most mundane experiences fraught with risk. The threat is considerably heightened in conflict settings, especially in the modern era, where geographical borders blur and civilians and conflict actors alike can take to the online realm to discuss -and influence- conflict events. Propaganda can complicate the narrative and distract from the humanitarian crises affecting civilians, while also posing a serious threat to security operations and law and order efforts. Sensationalised reports of casualties and manipulated portrayals of military actions contribute to a cycle of violence and suffering. 

A study conducted by MIT found the mere thought of sharing news on social media reduced the ability to judge whether a story was true or false; the urge to share outweighed the consideration of accuracy (2023).  Cross-border misinformation has become a critical issue in today's interconnected world, driven by the rise of digital communication platforms. To effectively combat misinformation, coordinated international policy frameworks and cooperation between governments, platforms, and global institutions are created.

The Global Nature of Misinformation

Cross-border misinformation is false or misleading information that spreads across countries. Out-of-border creators amplify information through social media and digital platforms and are a key source of misinformation. Misinformation can interfere with elections, and create serious misconceptions about health concerns such as those witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, or even lead to military conflicts. 

The primary challenge in countering cross-border misinformation is the difference in national policies, legal frameworks and governance policies of social media platforms across various jurisdictions. Examining the existing international frameworks, such as cybersecurity treaties and data-sharing agreements used for financial crimes might be helpful to effectively address cross-border misinformation. Adapting these approaches to the digital information ecosystem, nations could strengthen their collective response to the spread of misinformation across borders. Global institutions like the United Nations or regional bodies like the EU and ASEAN can work together to set a unified response and uniform international standards for regulation dealing with misinformation specifically. 

Current National and Regional Efforts

Many countries have taken action to deal with misinformation within their borders. Some examples include:

• The EU’s Digital Services Act has been instrumental in regulating online intermediaries and platforms including marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, etc. The legislation aims to prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation.
• The primary legislation that governs cyberspace in India is the IT Act of 2000 and its corresponding rules (IT Rules, 2023), which impose strict requirements on social media platforms to counter misinformation content and enable the traceability of the creator responsible for the origin of misinformation. Platforms have to conduct due diligence, failing which they risk losing their safe harbour protection. The recently-enacted DPDP Act of 2023 indirectly addresses personal data misuse that can be used to contribute to the creation and spread of misinformation. Also, the proposed Digital India Act is expected to focus on “user harms” specific to the online world. 
• In the U.S., the Right to Editorial Discretion and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act place the responsibility for regulating misinformation on private actors like social media platforms and social media regulations. The US government has not created a specific framework addressing misinformation and has rather encouraged voluntary measures by SMPs to have independent policies to regulate misinformation on their platforms.

The common gap area across these policies is the absence of a standardised, global framework for addressing cross-border misinformation which results in uneven enforcement and dependence on national regulations.

Key Challenges in Achieving International Cooperation

Some of the key challenges identified in achieving international cooperation to address cross-border misinformation are as follows:

• Geopolitical tensions can emerge due to the differences in political systems, priorities, and trust issues between countries that hinder attempts to cooperate and create a universal regulation.
• The diversity in approaches to internet governance and freedom of speech across countries complicates the matters further.
• Further complications arise due to technical and legal obstacles around the issues of sovereignty, jurisdiction and enforcement, further complicating matters relating to the monitoring and removal of cross-border misinformation. 

CyberPeace Recommendations 

• The UN Global Principles For Information Integrity Recommendations for Multi-stakeholder Action, unveiled on 24 June 2024, are a welcome step for addressing cross-border misinformation. This can act as the stepping stone for developing a framework for international cooperation on misinformation, drawing inspiration from other successful models like climate change agreements, international criminal law framework etc. 
• Collaborations like public-private partnerships between government, tech companies and civil societies can help enhance transparency, data sharing and accountability in tackling cross-border misinformation. 
• Engaging in capacity building and technology transfers in less developed countries would help to create a global front against misinformation. 

Conclusion

We are in an era where misinformation knows no borders and the need for international cooperation has never been more urgent. Global democracies are exploring solutions, both regulatory and legislative, to limit the spread of misinformation, however, these fragmented efforts fall short of addressing the global scale of the problem. Establishing a standardised, international framework, backed by multilateral bodies like the UN and regional alliances, can foster accountability and facilitate shared resources in this fight. Through collaborative action, transparent regulations, and support for developing nations, the world can create a united front to curb misinformation and protect democratic values, ensuring information integrity across borders.

References

• https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2023-10/A%20Model%20of%20Online%20Misinformation.pdf 
• https://www.indiatoday.in/global/story/in-the-crosshairs-manufacturing-consent-and-the-erosion-of-public-trust-2620734-2024-10-21 
• https://laweconcenter.org/resources/knowledge-and-decisions-in-the-information-age-the-law-economics-of-regulating-misinformation-on-social-media-platforms/ ‍
• https://www.article19.org/resources/un-article-19-global-principles-for-information-integrity/