#FactCheck: Viral video claims BSF personnel thrashing a person selling Bangladesh National Flag in West Bengal

Introduction

In the labyrinthine world of digital currencies, a new chapter unfolds as India intensifies its scrutiny over the ethereal realm of offshore cryptocurrency exchanges. With nuance and determination that virtually mirrors the Byzantine complexities of the very currencies they seek to regulate, Indian authorities embark on a course of stringent oversight, bringing to the fore an ever-evolving narrative of control and compliance in the fintech sector. The government's latest manoeuvre—a directive to Apple Inc. to excise the apps of certain platforms, including the colossus Binance, from its App Store in India—signals a crescendo in the nation's efforts to rein in the unbridled digital bazaar that had hitherto thrived in a semi-autonomous expanse of cyberspace.

The directive, with ramifications as significant and intricate as the cryptographic algorithms that underpin the blockchain, stems from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, which has cast eight exchanges, including Bitfinex, HTX, and Kucoin, into the shadows, rendering their apps as elusive as the Higgs boson in the vast App Store universe. The movement of these exchanges from visibility to obscurity in the digital storefront is cloaked in secrecy, with sources privy to this development remaining cloaked in anonymity, their identities as guarded as the cryptographic keys that secure blockchain transactions.

The Contention 

This escalation, however, did not manifest from the vacuum of the ether; it is the culmination of a series of precipitating actions that began unfolding on December 28th, when the Indian authorities unfurled a net over nine exchanges, ensnaring them with suspicions of malfeasance. The spectre of inaccessible funds, a byproduct of this entanglement, has since haunted Indian crypto traders, prompting a migration of deposits to local exchanges that operate within the nation's regulatory framework—a fortress against the uncertainties of the offshore crypto tempest.

The extent of the authorities' reach manifests further, beckoning Alphabet Inc.'s Google to follow in Apple's footsteps. Yet, in a display of the unpredictable nature of enforcement, the Google Play Store in India still played host to the very apps that Apple's digital Eden had forsaken as of a nondescript Wednesday afternoon, marked by the relentless march of time. The triad of power-brokers—Apple, Google, and India's technology ministry—has maintained a stance as enigmatic as the Sphinx, their communications as impenetrable as the vaults that secure the nation's precious monetary reserves.

Compounding the tightening of this digital noose, the Financial Intelligence Unit of India, a sentinel ever vigilant at the gates of financial propriety, unfurled a compliance show-cause notice to the nine offshore platforms, an ultimatum demanding they justify their elusive presence in Indian cyberspace. The FIU's decree echoed with clarity amidst the cacophony of regulatory overtures: these digital entities were tethered to operations sequestered in the shadows, skirting the reach of India's anti-money laundering edicts, their websites lingering in cyberspace like forbidden fruit, tantalisingly within reach yet potentially laced with the cyanide of non-compliance.

In this chaotic tableau of constraint and control, a glimmer of presence remains—only Bitstamp has managed to brave the regulatory storm, maintaining its presence on the Indian App Store, a lone beacon amid the turbulent sea of regimentation. Kraken, another leviathan of crypto depths, presented only its Pro version to the Indian connoisseurs of the digital marketplace. An aura of silence envelops industry giants such as Binance, Bitfinex, and KuCoin, their absence forming a void as profound as the dark side of the moon in the consciousness of Indian users. HTX, formerly known as Huobi, has announced a departure from Indian operations with the detached finality of a distant celestial body, cold and indifferent to the gravitational pull of India's regulatory orbit.

Compliances

In compliance with the provisions of the Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 and the recent uproar on crypto assessment apps, Apple store finally removed these apps namely Binance and Kucoin from the store after receiving show cause notice. The alleged illegal operation and failure to comply with existing money laundering laws are major reasons for their removal. 

The Indian Narrative 

The overarching narrative of India's embrace of rigid oversight aligns with a broader global paradigm shift, where digital financial assets are increasingly subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as their physical analogues. The persistence in imposing anti-money laundering provisions upon the crypto sector reflects this shift, with India positioning its regulatory lens in alignment with the stars of international accountability. The preceding year bore witness to seismic shifts as Indian authorities imposed a tax upon crypto transactions, a move that precipitated a downfall in trading volumes, reminiscent of Icarus's fateful flight—hubris personified as his waxen appendages succumbed to the unrelenting kiss of the sun.

On a local scale, trading powerhouses lament the imposition of a 1% levy, colloquially known as Tax Deducted at Source. This fiscal shackle drove an exodus of Indian crypto traders into the waiting, seemingly benevolent arms of offshore financial Edens, absolved of such taxational rites. As Sumit Gupta, CEO of CoinDCX, recounted, this fiscal migration witnessed the haemorrhaging of revenue. His estimation that a staggering 95% of trading volume abandoned local shores for the tranquil harbours of offshore havens punctuates the magnitude of this phenomenon.

Conclusion 

Ultimately, the story of India's proactive clampdown on offshore crypto exchanges resembles a meticulously woven tapestry of regulatory ardour, financial prudence, and the inexorable progression towards a future where digital incarnations mirror the scrutinised tangibility of physical assets. It is a saga delineating a nation's valiant navigation through the tempestuous, cryptic waters of cryptocurrency, helming its ship with unwavering determination, with eyes keenly trained on the farthest reaches of the horizon. Here, amidst the fusion of digital and corporeal realms, India charts its destiny, setting its sails towards an inextricably linked future that promises to shape the contour of the global financial landscape.

References 

• https://www.business-standard.com/markets/cryptocurrency/govt-escalates-clampdown-on-offshore-crypto-venues-like-binance-report-124011000586_1.html
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/india-escalates-clampdown-on-offshore-crypto-exchanges-like-binance-18763111.htm
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/centre-blocks-web-platforms-of-offshore-crypto-apps-binance-kucoin-and-others/articleshow/106783697.cms?from=mdr

Introduction

Misinformation and disinformation are significant issues in today's digital age. The challenge is not limited to any one sector or industry, and has been seen to affect everyone that deals with data of any sort. In recent times, we have seen a rise in misinformation about all manner of subjects, from product and corporate misinformation to manipulated content about regulatory or policy developments.  

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) play an important role in economies, particularly in developing nations, by promoting employment, innovation, and growth. However, in the evolving digital landscape, they also confront tremendous hurdles, such as the dissemination of mis/disinformation which may harm reputations, disrupt businesses, and reduce consumer trust. MSMEs are particularly susceptible since they have minimal resources at their disposal and cannot afford to invest in the kind of talent, technology and training that is needed for a business to be able to protect itself in today’s digital-first ecosystem. Mis/disinformation for MSMEs can arise from internal communications, supply chain partners, social media, competitors, etc. To address these dangers, MSMEs must take proactive steps such as adopting frameworks to counter misinformation and prioritising best practices like digital literacy and training, monitoring and social listening, transparency protocols and robust communication practices.

Assessing the Impact of Misinformation on MSMEs

To assess the impact of misinformation on MSMEs, it is essential to get a full sense of the challenges. To begin with, one must consider the categories of damage which can include financial loss, reputational damage, operational damages, and regulatory noncompliance. Various assessment methodologies can be used to analyze the impact of misinformation, including surveys, interviews, case studies, social media and news data analysis, and risk analysis practices.

Policy Framework and Gaps in Addressing Misinformation

The Digital India Initiative, a flagship program of the Government of India, aims to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the rules made therein govern the technology space and serve as the legal framework for cyber security and data protection. The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 also contains provisions regarding ‘fake news’. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is a brand new law aimed at protecting personal data. Fact-check units (FCUs) are government and private independent bodies that verify claims about government policies, regulations, announcements, and measures. However, these policy measures are not sector-specific and lack specific guidelines, which have limited impact on their awareness initiatives on misinformation and insufficient support structure for MSMEs to verify information and protect themselves.

Recommendations for Countering Misinformation in the MSME Sector

To counter misinformation for MSMEs, recommendations include creating a dedicated Misinformation Helpline, promoting awareness campaigns, creating regulatory support and guidelines, and collaborating with tech platforms and expert organisations for the identification and curbing of misinformation. 

Organisational recommendations include the Information Verification Protocols for the consumers of Information for the verification of critical information before acting upon it, engaging in employee training for regular training on the identification and management of misinformation, creating a crisis management plan to deal with misinformation crisis, form collaboration networks with other MSMEs to share verified information and best practices. 

Engage with technological solutions like AI and ML tools for the detection and flagging of potential misinformation along with fact-checking tools and engaging with cyber security measures to prevent misinformation via digital channels.

Conclusion: Developing a Vulnerability Assessment Framework for MSMEs

Creating a vulnerability assessment framework for misinformation in Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in India involves several key components which include the understanding of the sources and types of misinformation, assessing the impact on MSMEs, identifying the current policies and gaps, and providing actionable recommendations. The implementation strategy for policies to counter misinformation in the MSME sector can be by starting with pilot programs in key MSME clusters, and stakeholder engagement by involving industry associations, tech companies and government bodies. Initiating a feedback mechanism for constant improvement of the framework and finally, developing a plan to scale successful initiatives across the country.

References

• https://publications.ut-capitole.fr/id/eprint/48849/1/wp_tse_1516.pdf 
• https://techinformed.com/how-misinformation-can-impact-businesses/ 
• https://pib.gov.in/aboutfactchecke.aspx 

‍

In a recent ruling, a U.S. federal judge sided with Meta in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of prominent authors who alleged that their works were illegally used to train Meta’s LLaMA language model. While this seems like a significant legal victory for the tech giant, it may not be so. Rather, this is a good case study for creators in the USA to refine their legal strategies and for policymakers worldwide to act quickly to shape the rules of engagement between AI and intellectual property.

The Case: Meta vs. Authors

In Kadrey v. Meta, the plaintiffs alleged that Meta trained its LLaMA models on pirated copies of their books, violating copyright law. However, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the authors failed to prove two critical things: that their copyrighted works had been used in a way that harmed their market and that such use was not “transformative.” In fact, the judge ruled that converting text into numerical representations to train an AI was sufficiently transformative under the U.S. fair use doctrine. He also noted that the authors’ failure to demonstrate economic harm undermined their claims. Importantly, he clarified that this ruling does not mean that all AI training data usage is lawful, only that the plaintiffs didn’t make a strong enough case.

Meta even admitted that some data was sourced from pirate sites like LibGen, but the Judge still found that fair use could apply because the usage was transformative and non-exploitative.

A Tenuous Win

Chhabria’s decision emphasised that this is not a blanket endorsement of using copyrighted content in AI training. The judgment leaned heavily on the procedural weakness of the case and not necessarily on the inherent legality of Meta’s practices.

Policy experts are warning that U.S. courts are currently interpreting AI training as fair use in narrow cases, but the rulings may not set the strongest judicial precedent. The application of law could change with clearer evidence of commercial harm or a more direct use of content. 

Moreover, the ruling does not address whether authors or publishers should have the right to opt out of AI model training, a concern that is gaining momentum globally.

Implications for India

The case highlights a glaring gap in India’s copyright regime: it is outdated. Since most AI companies are located in the U.S., courts have had the opportunity to examine copyright in the context of AI-generated content. India has yet to start. Recently, news agency ANI filed a case alleging copyright infringement against OpenAI for training on its copyrighted material. However, the case is only at an interim stage. The final outcome of the case will have a significant impact on the legality of these language models being able to use copyrighted material for training.

Considering that India aims to develop “state-of-the-art foundational AI models trained on Indian datasets” under the IndiaAI Mission, the lack of clear legal guidance on what constitutes fair dealing when using copyrighted material for AI training is a significant gap.  

Thus, key points of consideration for policymakers include: 

• Need for Fair Dealing Clarity: India’s fair-dealing provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, are narrower than U.S. fair use. The doctrine may have to be reviewed to strike a balance between this law and the requirement of diverse datasets to develop foundational models rooted in Indian contexts. A parallel concern regarding data privacy also arises. 
• Push for Opt-Out or Licensing Mechanisms: India should consider whether to introduce a framework that requires companies to license training data or provide an opt-out system for creators, especially given the volume of Indian content being scraped by global AI systems.
• Digital Public Infrastructure for AI: India’s policymakers could take this opportunity to invest in public datasets, especially in regional languages, that are both high quality and legally safe for AI training.
• Protecting Local Creators: India needs to ensure that its authors, filmmakers, educators and journalists are protected from having their work repurposed without compensation, since power asymmetries between Big Tech and local creators can lead to exploitation of the latter.

Conclusion

The ruling in Meta’s favour is just one win for the developer. The real questions about consent, compensation and creative control remain unanswered. Meanwhile, the lesson for India is urgent: it needs AI policies that balance innovation with creator rights and provide legal certainty and ethical safeguards as it accelerates its AI ecosystem. Further, as global tech firms race ahead, India must not remain a passive data source; it must set the terms of its digital future. This will help the country move a step closer to achieving its goal of building sovereign AI capacity and becoming a hub for digital innovation.

References

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/26/meta-wins-ai-copyright-lawsuit-as-us-judge-rules-against-authors 
• https://www.wired.com/story/meta-scores-victory-ai-copyright-case/ 
• https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/25/meta-llama-ai-copyright-ruling.html 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348352/what-is-fair-use-of-copyright-doctrine 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2113095#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20key%20pillars,models%20trained%20on%20Indian%20datasets. ‍
• https://www.ndtvprofit.com/law-and-policy/ani-vs-openai-delhi-high-court-seeks-responses-on-copyright-infringement-charges-against-chatgpt