#FactCheck: Viral video blast of fuel tank in UAE Al Hariyah Port portray as Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Introduction

On May 21st, 2025, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) launched the Financial Risk Indicator (FRI) feature, marking an important step towards safeguarding mobile phone users from the risks of financial fraud. This was developed as a part of the Digital Intelligence Platform (DIP), which facilitates coordination between stakeholders to curb the misuse of telecom services for conducting cyber crimes.

What is the Financial Risk Indicator (FRI)?

The FRI is a risk-based metric feature that categorises phone numbers into risk, medium risk, and high risk based on their association with financial fraud in the past. The data pool enabling this intelligence sharing includes the Digital Intelligence Unit (DIU) of the DoT, which engages and sends a list of Mobile Numbers that were disconnected (Mobile Number Revocation List - MNRL) to the following stakeholders, creating a network of checks and balances. They are:

1. Intelligence from Non-Banking Finance Companies, and UPI (Unified Payment Interface) gateways.
2. The Chakshu facility- a feature on the Sanchar Saathi portal that enables users to report suspected fraudulent communication (Calls, SMS, WhatsApp messages), which has also been roped in.
3. Complaints from the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP) through the I4C (Indian Cyber Coordination Center).

Some other initiatives taken up concerning securing against digital financial fraud are the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System, the International Incoming Spoofed Calls Prevention System, among others.

A United Stance

The ease of payment and increasing digitisation might have enabled the increasing usage of UPI platforms. However, post-adoption, the responsibility of securing the digital payments infrastructure becomes essential. As per a report by CNBC TV18, UPI fraud cases surged by 85% in FY24. The number of incidents have increased from 7.25 lakh in FY23 to 13.42 lakh in FY24. These cases involved a total value of ₹1,087 crore, compared to ₹573 crore in the previous year, and the number continues to increase. 

Nevertheless, UPI platforms are taking their own initiative to combat such crimes. PhonePe, one of the most used digital payment interface as of January 2025 (Statista) has already incorporated the FRI into its PhonePe Protect feature; this blocks transactions with high-risk numbers and issues a warning prior to engaging with numbers that are categorised to be of medium risk. 

CyberPeace Insights

The launch of a feature addressing the growing threat of financial fraud is crucial for creating a network of stakeholders to coordinate with law enforcement to better track and prevent crimes. Publicity of these measures will raise public awareness and keep end-users informed. A secure infrastructure for digital payments is necessary in this age, with a robust base mechanism that can adapt to both current and future threats.

References

• https://www.thehawk.in/news/economy-and-business/centre-launches-financial-fraud-risk-indicator-to-safeguard-mobile-users
• https://telanganatoday.com/government-launches-financial-fraud-risk-indicator-to-safeguard-mobile-users
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2130249#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20%E2%80%9CFinancial%20Fraud,High%20risk%20of%20financial%20fraud
• https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/dot-launches-financial-fraud-risk-indicator-to-aid-cybercrime-detection-125052101912_1.html 
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/finance/upi-fraud-cases-rise-85-pc-in-fy24-increase-parliament-reply-data-19514295.htm
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034443/india-upi-usage-by-platform/#:~:text=In%20January%202025%2C%20PhonePe%20held%20the%20highest,key%20drivers%20of%20UPI%20adoption%20in%20India
• https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/news/policy/centre-notifies-draft-rules-for-delicensing-lower-6-ghz-band/121260887?nt

‍

Introduction: Reasons Why These Amendments Have Been Suggested.

The suggested changes in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are the much-needed regulatory reaction to the blistering emergence of synthetic information and deepfakes. These reforms are due to the pressing necessity to govern risks within the digital ecosystem as opposed to regular reformation.

‍

The Emergence of the Digital Menace

‍

Generative AI tools have also facilitated the generation of very realistic images, videos, audio, and text in recent years. Such artificial media have been abused to portray people in situations they are not in or in statements they have never said. The market size is expected to have a compound annual growth rate(CAGR) from 2025 to 2031 of 37.57%, resulting in a market volume of US$400.00 bn by 2031. Therefore, tight regulatory controls are necessary to curb a high prevalence of harm in the Indian digital world.

‍

The Gap in Law and Institution

‍

None of the IT Rules, 2021, clearly addressed synthetic content. Although the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealt with identity theft, impersonation and violation of privacy, the intermediaries were not explicitly obligated on artificial media. This left a loophole in enforcement, particularly since AI-generated content might get around the old system of moderation. These amendments bring India closer to the international standards, including the EU AI Act, which requires transparency and labelling of AI-driven content. India addresses such requirements and adapts to local constitutional and digital ecosystem needs.

‍

II. Explanation of the Amendments

The amendments of 2025 present five alternative changes in the current IT Rules framework, which address various areas of synthetic media regulation. 

‍

A. Definitional Clarification: Synthetic Generation of Information Introduction.

‍

Rule 2(1)(wa) Amendment:

The amendments provide an all-inclusive definition of what is meant by “synthetically generated information” as information, which is created, or produced, changed or distorted with the use of a computer resource, in a way that such information can reasonably be perceived to be genuine. This definition is intentionally broad and is not limited to deepfakes in the strict sense but to any artificial media that has gone through algorithmic manipulation in order to have a semblance of authenticity.

Expansion of Legal Scope:

Rule 2(1A) also makes it clear that any mention of information in the context of unlawful acts, namely, including categories listed in Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(1)(d), Rule 4(2), and Rule 4(4), should be understood to mean synthetically generated information. This is a pivotal interpretative protection that does not allow intermediaries to purport that synthetic versions of illegal material are not under the control of the regulation since they are algorithmic creations and not descriptions of what actually occurred.

‍

B. Safe Harbour Protection and Content Removal Requirements

‍

Amendment, rule 3(1)(b)- Safe Harbour Clarification:

The amendments add a certain proviso to the Rule (3) (1)(b) that explains a deletion or facilitation of access of synthetically produced information (or any information falling within specified categories) which the intermediaries have made in good faith as part of reasonable endeavours or at the receipt of a complaint shall not be considered a breach of the Section 79(2) (a) or (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This coverage is relevant especially since it insures the intermediaries against liability in situations where they censor the synthetic contents in advance of a court ruling or governmental warnings.

‍

C. Labelling and Metadata Requirements that are mandatory on Intermediaries that enable the creation of synthetic content

‍

The amendments establish a new framework of due diligence in Rule 3(3) on the case of intermediaries that offer tools to generate, modify, or alter the synthetically generated information. Two fundamental requirements are laid down. 

1. The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:

1. Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
2. It should cover at least 10% of the surface of the visual display or, in the case of audio content, during the initial 10% of its duration.
3. It can be used to immediately identify that such information is synthetically generated information which has been created, generated, modified, or altered using the computer resource of the intermediary. 

2. The intermediary in clause (a) shall not enable modification, suppression or removal of such label, permanent unique metadata or identifier, by whatever name called.

‍

D. Important Social Media Intermediaries- Pre-Publication Checking Responsibilities

‍

The amendments present a three-step verification mechanism, under Rule 4(1A), to Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), which enables displaying, uploading or publishing on its computer resource before such display, uploading, or publication has to follow three steps. 

Step 1- User Declaration: It should compel the users to indicate whether the materials they are posting are synthetically created. This puts the first burden on users. 

Step 2-Technical Verification: To ensure that the user is truly valid, the SSMIs need to provide reasonable technical means, such as automated tools or other applications. This duty is contextual and would be based on the nature, format and source of content. It does not allow intermediaries to escape when it is known that not every type of content can be verified using the same standards.

Step 3- Prominent Labelling: In case the synthetic origin is verified by user declaration or technical verification, SSMIs should have a notice or label that is prominently displayed to be seen by users before publication.

The amendments provide a better system of accountability and set that intermediaries will be found to have failed due diligence in a case where it is established that they either knowingly permitted, encouraged or otherwise failed to act on synthetically produced information in contravention of these requirements. This brings in an aspect of knowledge, and intermediaries cannot use accidental errors as an excuse for non-compliance. 

An explanation clause makes it clear that SSMIs should also make reasonable and proportionate technical measures to check user declarations and keep no synthetic content published without adequate declaration or labelling. This eliminates confusion on the role of the intermediaries with respect to making declarations.

‍

III. Attributes of The Amendment Framework

‍

1. Precision in Balancing Innovation and Accountability.

The amendments have commendably balanced two extreme regulatory postures by neither prohibiting nor allowing the synthetic media to run out of control. It has recognised the legitimate use of synthetic media creation in entertainment, education, research and artistic expression by adopting a transparent and traceable mandate that preserves innovation while ensuring accountability. 

2. Overt Acceptance of the Intermediary Liability and Reverse Onus of Knowledge

Rule 4(1A) gives a highly significant deeming rule; in cases where the intermediary permits or refrains from acting with respect to the synthetic content knowing that the rules are violated, it will be considered as having failed to comply with the due diligence provisions. This description closes any loopholes in unscrupulous supervision where intermediaries can be able to argue that they did so. Standard of scienter promotes material investment in the detection devices and censor mechanisms that have been in place to offer security to the platforms that have sound systems, albeit the fact that the tools fail to capture violations at times.

3. Clarity Through Definition and Interpretive Guidance

The cautious definition of the term “synthetically generated information” and the guidance that is provided in Rule 2(1A) is an admirable attempt to solve confusion in the previous regulatory framework. Instead of having to go through conflicting case law or regulatory direction, the amendments give specific definitional limits. The purposefully broad formulation (artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered) makes sure that the framework is not avoided by semantic games over what is considered to be a real synthetic content versus a slight algorithmic alteration.

4. Insurance of non-accountability but encourages preventative moderation

The safe harbour clarification of the Rule 3(1)(b) amendment clearly safeguards the intermediaries who voluntarily dismiss the synthetic content without a court order or government notification. It is an important incentive scheme that prompts platforms to implement sound self-regulation measures. In the absence of such protection, platforms may also make rational decisions to stay in a passive stance of compliance, only deleting content under the pressure of an external authority, thus making them more effective in keeping users safe against dangerous synthetic media.

‍

IV. Conclusion

‍

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2025 suggest a structured, transparent, and accountable execution of curbing the rising predicaments of synthetic media and deepfakes. The amendments deal with the regulatory and interpretative gaps that have always existed in determining what should be considered as synthetically generated information, the intermediary liabilities and the mandatory labelling and metadata requirement. Safe-harbour protection will encourage the moderation proactively, and a scienter-based liability rule will not permit the intermediaries to escape liability when they are aware of the non-compliance but tolerate such non-compliance. The idea to introduce pre-publication verification of Significant Social Media Intermediaries adds the responsibility to users and due diligence to the platform. Overall, the amendments provide a reasonable balance between innovation and regulation, make the process more open with its proper definitions, promote responsible conduct on the platform and transform India and the new standards in the sphere of synthetic media regulation. They collaborate to enhance the verisimilitude, defence of the users, and visibility of the systems of the digital ecosystem of India.

‍

V. References 

‍

1. Amendments To The Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021 It Rules 2021 | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide 

‍

Introduction

The G7 nations, a group of the most powerful economies, have recently turned their attention to the critical issue of cybercrimes and (AI) Artificial Intelligence. G7 summit has provided an essential platform for discussing the threats and crimes occurring from AI and lack of cybersecurity. These nations have united to share their expertise, resources, diplomatic efforts and strategies to fight against cybercrimes. In this blog, we shall investigate the recent development and initiatives undertaken by G7 nations, exploring their joint efforts to combat cybercrime and navigate the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence. We shall also explore the new and emerging trends in cybersecurity, providing insights into ongoing challenges and innovative approaches adopted by the G7 nations and the wider international community.

G7 Nations and AI

Each of these nations have launched cooperative efforts and measures to combat cybercrime successfully. They intend to increase their collective capacities in detecting, preventing, and responding to cyber assaults by exchanging intelligence, best practices, and experience. G7 nations are attempting to develop a strong cybersecurity architecture capable of countering increasingly complex cyber-attacks through information-sharing platforms, collaborative training programs, and joint exercises.

The G7 Summit provided an important forum for in-depth debates on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in cybersecurity. Recognising AI’s transformational potential, the G7 nations have participated in extensive discussions to investigate its advantages and address the related concerns, guaranteeing responsible research and use. The nation also recognises the ethical, legal, and security considerations of deploying AI cybersecurity.

Worldwide Rise of Ransomware

High-profile ransomware attacks have drawn global attention, emphasising the need to combat this expanding threat. These attacks have harmed organisations of all sizes and industries, leading to data breaches, operational outages, and, in some circumstances, the loss of sensitive information. The implications of such assaults go beyond financial loss, frequently resulting in reputational harm, legal penalties, and service delays that affect consumers, clients, and the public. The increase in high-profile ransomware incidents has garnered attention worldwide, Cybercriminals have adopted a multi-faceted approach to ransomware attacks, combining techniques such as phishing, exploit kits, and supply chain Using spear-phishing, exploit kits, and supply chain hacks to obtain unauthorised access to networks and spread the ransomware. This degree of expertise and flexibility presents a substantial challenge to organisations attempting to protect against such attacks.

Focusing On AI and Upcoming Threats

During the G7 summit, one of the key topics for discussion on the role of AI (Artificial Intelligence) in shaping the future, Leaders and policymakers discuss the benefits and dangers of AI adoption in cybersecurity. Recognising AI’s revolutionary capacity, they investigate its potential to improve defence capabilities, predict future threats, and secure vital infrastructure. Furthermore, the G7 countries emphasise the necessity of international collaboration in reaping the advantages of AI while reducing the hazards. They recognise that cyber dangers transcend national borders and must be combated together. Collaboration in areas such as exchanging threat intelligence, developing shared standards, and promoting best practices is emphasised to boost global cybersecurity defences. The G7 conference hopes to set a global agenda that encourages responsible AI research and deployment by emphasising the role of AI in cybersecurity. The summit’s sessions present a path for maximising AI’s promise while tackling the problems and dangers connected with its implementation.

As the G7 countries traverse the complicated convergence of AI and cybersecurity, their emphasis on collaboration, responsible practices, and innovation lays the groundwork for international collaboration in confronting growing cyber threats. The G7 countries aspire to establish robust and secure digital environments that defend essential infrastructure, protect individuals’ privacy, and encourage trust in the digital sphere by collaboratively leveraging the potential of AI.

Promoting Responsible Al development and usage

The G7 conference will focus on developing frameworks that encourage ethical AI development. This includes fostering openness, accountability, and justice in AI systems. The emphasis is on eliminating biases in data and algorithms and ensuring that AI technologies are inclusive and do not perpetuate or magnify existing societal imbalances.

Furthermore, the G7 nations recognise the necessity of privacy protection in the context of AI. Because AI systems frequently rely on massive volumes of personal data, summit speakers emphasise the importance of stringent data privacy legislation and protections. Discussions centre around finding the correct balance between using data for AI innovation, respecting individuals’ privacy rights, and protecting data security. In addition to responsible development, the G7 meeting emphasises the importance of responsible AI use. Leaders emphasise the importance of transparent and responsible AI governance frameworks, which may include regulatory measures and standards to ensure AI technology’s ethical and legal application. The goal is to defend individuals’ rights, limit the potential exploitation of AI, and retain public trust in AI-driven solutions.

The G7 nations support collaboration among governments, businesses, academia, and civil society to foster responsible AI development and use. They stress the significance of sharing best practices, exchanging information, and developing international standards to promote ethical AI concepts and responsible practices across boundaries. The G7 nations hope to build the global AI environment in a way that prioritises human values, protects individual rights, and develops trust in AI technology by fostering responsible AI development and usage. They work together to guarantee that AI is a force for a good while reducing risks and resolving social issues related to its implementation.

Challenges on the way

During the summit, the nations, while the G7 countries are committed to combating cybercrime and developing responsible AI development, they confront several hurdles in their efforts. Some of them are:

A Rapidly Changing Cyber Threat Environment: Cybercriminals’ strategies and methods are always developing, as is the nature of cyber threats. The G7 countries must keep up with new threats and ensure their cybersecurity safeguards remain effective and adaptable.

Cross-Border Coordination: Cybercrime knows no borders, and successful cybersecurity necessitates international collaboration. On the other hand, coordinating activities among nations with various legal structures, regulatory environments, and agendas can be difficult. Harmonising rules, exchanging information, and developing confidence across states are crucial for effective collaboration.

Talent Shortage and Skills Gap: The field of cybersecurity and AI knowledge necessitates highly qualified personnel. However, skilled individuals in these fields need more supply. The G7 nations must attract and nurture people, provide training programs, and support research and innovation to narrow the skills gap.

Keeping Up with Technological Advancements: Technology changes at a rapid rate, and cyber-attacks become more complex. The G7 nations must ensure that their laws, legislation, and cybersecurity plans stay relevant and adaptive to keep up with future technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and IoT, which may both empower and challenge cybersecurity efforts.

Conclusion

To combat cyber threats effectively, support responsible AI development, and establish a robust cybersecurity ecosystem, the G7 nations must constantly analyse and adjust their strategy. By aggressively tackling these concerns, the G7 nations can improve their collective cybersecurity capabilities and defend their citizens’ and global stakeholders’ digital infrastructure and interests.