#FactCheck-RBI's Alleged Guidelines on Ink Colour for Cheque Writing

Executive Summary:

The video that allegedly showed cars running into an Indian flag while Pakistan flags flying in the air in Indian states,  went viral on social media but it has been established to be misleading. The video posted is neither from Kerala nor Tamil Nadu as claimed, instead from Karachi, Pakistan. There are specific details like the shop's name, Pakistani flags, car’s number plate, geolocation analyses that  locate where the video comes from. The false information underscores the importance of verifying information before sharing it.

Claims:

A video circulating on social media shows cars trampling the Indian Tricolour painted on a road, as Pakistani flags are raised in pride, with the incident allegedly taking place in Tamil Nadu or Kerala.

‍

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the post we closely watched the video, and found several signs that indicated the video was from Pakistan but not from any place in India.

We divided the video into keyframes and found a shop name near the road.

We enhanced the image quality to see the shop name clearly.

We can see that it’s written as ‘Sanam’, also we can see Pakistan flags waving on the road. Taking a cue from this we did some keyword searches with the shop name. We found some shops with the name and one of the shop's name ‘Sanam Boutique’ located in Karachi, Pakistan,  was found to be similar when analyzed using geospatial Techniques.

‍

‍

We also found a similar structure of the building while geolocating the place with the viral video.

‍

‍

Additional confirmation of the place is the car’s number plate found in the keyframes of the video. 

We found a website that shows the details of the number Plate in Karachi, Pakistan.

‍

Upon thorough investigation, it was found that the location in the  viral video is from Karachi, Pakistan, but not from Kerala or Tamil Nadu as claimed by different users in Social Media. Hence, the claim made is false and misleading.

Conclusion:

The video circulating on social media, claiming to show cars trampling the Indian Tricolour on a road while Pakistani flags are waved, does not depict an incident in Kerala or Tamil Nadu as claimed. By fact-checking methodologies, it has been confirmed now that the location in the video is actually  from Karachi, Pakistan. The misrepresentation shows the importance of verifying the source of any information before sharing it on social media to prevent the spread of false narratives.

• Claim: A video shows cars trampling the Indian Tricolour painted on a road, as Pakistani flags are raised in pride, taking place in Tamil Nadu or Kerala.
• Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter)
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍

Introduction

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) recently issued the “Email Policy of Government of India, 2024.” It is an updated email policy for central government employees, requiring the exclusive use of official government emails managed by the National Informatics Centre (NIC) for public duties. The policy replaces 2015 guidelines and prohibits government employees, contractors, and consultants from using their official email addresses on social media or other websites unless authorised for official functions. The policy aims to reinforce cybersecurity measures and protocols, maintain secure communications, and ensure compliance across departments. It is not legally binding, but its gazette notification ensures compliance and maintains cyber resilience in communications. The updated policy is also aligned with the newly enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Brief Highlights of Email Policy of Government of India, 2024

• The Email Policy of the Government of India, 2024 is divided into three parts namely, Part I: Introduction, Part II: Terms of Use, Part III: Functions, duties and Responsibilities, and with an annexe attached to it defining the meaning of certain organisation types in relation to this policy.
• The policy direct to not use NICeMail address for registering on any social media or other websites or mobile applications, save for the performance of official duties or with due authorisation from the authority competent.
• Under this new policy, “core use organisations” (central government departments and other government-controlled entities that do not provide goods or services on commercial terms) and its users shall use only NICeMail for official purposes. 

• However, where the Core Use Organisation has an office or establishment outside India, to ensure availability of local communication channels under exigent circumstances may use alternative email services hosted outside India with all due approval.
• Core Use Organisations, including those dealing with national security, have their own independent email servers and can continue operating their independent email servers provided the servers are hosted in India. They should also consider migrating their email services to NICeMail Services for security and uniform policy enforcement.
• The policy also requires departments that currently use @gov.in or @nic.in to instead migrate to @departmentname.gov.in mail domains so that information sanctity and integrity can be maintained when officials are transferred from one department/ministry to another, and so that the ministry/department doesn’t lose access to the official communication. For this, the department or ministry in question must register the domain name with NIC. For instance, MeitY has registered the mail domain @meity.gov.in. The policy gives government departments six months time period complete this migration.
• The policy also makes distinction between (1) Organisation-linked email addresses and (2) Service-linked email addresses. The policy in respect of “organisation-linked email addresses” is laid down in paragraphs 5.3.2(a) and 5.4 to 5.6.3. And the policy in respect of “service-linked email addresses” is laid down in paragraphs 5.3.2(b) and 5.7 to 5.7.2 under the official document of said policy. 

• Further, the new policy includes specific directives on separating the email addresses of regular government employees from those of contractors or consultants to improve operational clarity.

CyberPeace Policy Outlook 

The revised Email Policy of the Government of India reflects the government’s proactive response to countering the evolving cybersecurity challenges and aims to maintain cyber resilience across the government department’s email communications. The policy represents a significant step towards securing inter government and intra-government communications. We as a cybersecurity expert organisation emphasise the importance of protecting sensitive data against cyber threats, particularly in a world increasingly targeted by sophisticated phishing and malware attacks, and we advocate for safe and secure online communication and information exchange. Email communications hold sensitive information and therefore require robust policies and mechanisms in place to safeguard the communications and ensure that sensitive data is shielded through regulated and secure email usage with technical capabilities for safe use. The proactive step taken by MeitY is commendable and aligned with securing governmental communication channels.

References:

1. https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Email-policy-30-10-2024.pdf-(Official document for Email Policy of Government of India, 2024.
2. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/dont-use-govt-email-ids-for-social-media-central-govt-policy-for-employees-101730312997936.html#:~:text=Government%20employees%20must%20not%20use,email%20policy%20issued%20on%20Wednesday
3. https://bwpeople.in/article/new-email-policy-issued-for-central-govt-employees-to-strengthen-cybersecurity-measures-537805
4. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/centre-notifies-email-policy-for-ministries-central-departments/article68815537.ece

‍

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/