Centre Proposes New Bills for Criminal Law

Introduction

Words come easily, but not necessarily the consequences that follow. Imagine a 15-year-old child on the internet hoping that the world will be nice to him and help him gain confidence, but instead, someone chooses to be mean on the internet, or the child becomes the victim of a new kind of cyberbullying, i.e., online trolling. The consequences of trolling can have serious repercussions, including eating disorders, substance abuse, conduct issues, body dysmorphia, negative self-esteem, and, in tragic cases, self-harm and suicide attempts in vulnerable individuals. The effects of online trolling can include anxiety, depression, and social isolation. This is one example, and hate speech and online abuse can touch anyone, regardless of age, background, or status. The damage may take different forms, but its impact is far-reaching. In today’s digital age, hate speech spreads rapidly through online platforms, often amplified by AI algorithms. 

As we celebrate today, i.e., 18th June, the International Day for Countering Hate Speech, if we have ever been mean to someone on the internet, we pledge never to repeat that kind of behaviour, and if we have been the victim, we will stand against the perpetrator and report it. 

This year, the theme for the International Day for Countering Hate Speech is “Hate Speech and Artificial Intelligence Nexus: Building coalitions to reclaim inclusive and secure environments free of hatred. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in his statement, said, “Today, as this year’s theme reminds us, hate speech travels faster and farther than ever, amplified by Artificial Intelligence. Biased algorithms and digital platforms are spreading toxic content and creating new spaces for harassment and abuse."

Coded Convictions: How AI Reflects and Reinforces Ideologies

Algorithms have swiftly taken the place of feelings; they tamper with your taste, and they do so with a lighter foot, invisibly. They are becoming an important component of social media user interaction and content distribution. While these tools are designed to improve user experience, they frequently inadvertently spread divisive ideologies and push extremist propaganda. This amplification can strengthen the power of extremist organisations, spread misinformation, and deepen societal tensions. This phenomenon, known as “algorithmic radicalisation,” demonstrates how social media companies may utilise a discriminating content selection approach to entice people down ideological rabbit holes and shape their ideas. AI-driven algorithms often prioritise engagement over ethics, enabling divisive and toxic content to trend and placing vulnerable groups, especially youth and minorities, at risk. The UN’s Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, launched on June 18, 2019, recognises that while AI holds promise for early detection and prevention of harmful speech, it also demands stringent human rights safeguards. Without regulation, these tools can themselves become purveyors of bias and exclusion. 

India’s Constitutional Resolve and Civilizational Ethos against Hate

India has always taken pride in being inclusive and united rather than divided. As far as hate speech is concerned, India's stand is no different. The United Nations, India believes in the same values as its international counterpart. Although India has won many battles against hate speech, the war is not over and is now more prominent than ever due to the advancement in communication technologies. In India, while the right to freedom of speech and expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a), its exercise is limited subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Landmark rulings such as Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. and Amish Devgan v. UOI have clarified that speech can be curbed if it incites violence or undermines public order. Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, empowers the government to block content, and these principles are also reflected in Section 196 of the BNS, 2023 (153A IPC) and Section 299 of the BNS, 2023 (295A IPC). Platforms are also required to track down the creators of harmful content and remove it within a reasonable hour and fulfil their due diligence requirements under IT rules.

While there is no denying that India needs to be well-equipped and prepared normatively to tackle hate propaganda and divisive forces. India’s rich culture and history, rooted in philosophies of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and pluralistic traditions, have long stood as a beacon of tolerance and coexistence. By revisiting these civilizational values, we can resist divisive forces and renew our collective journey toward harmony and peaceful living.

CyberPeace Message

The ultimate goal is to create internet and social media platforms that are better, safer and more harmonious for each individual, irrespective of his/her/their social and cultural background. CyberPeace stands resolute on promoting digital media literacy, cyber resilience, and consistently pushing for greater accountability for social media platforms. 

‍

References

‍

• https://www.un.org/en/observances/countering-hate-speech 
• https://www.artemishospitals.com/blog/the-impact-of-trolling-on-teen-mental-health 
• https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/from-clicks-to-chaos-how-social-media-algorithms-amplify-extremism ‍
• https://www.techpolicy.press/indias-courts-must-hold-social-media-platforms-accountable-for-hate-speech/

Executive Summary:

Given that AI technologies are evolving at a fast pace in 2024, an AI-oriented phishing attack on a large Indian financial institution illustrated the threats. The documentation of the attack specifics involves the identification of attack techniques, ramifications to the institution, intervention conducted, and resultant effects. The case study also turns to the challenges connected with the development of better protection and sensibilisation of automatized threats. 

Introduction

Due to the advancement in AI technology, its uses in cybercrimes across the world have emerged significant in financial institutions. In this report a serious incident that happened in early 2024 is analysed, according to which a leading Indian bank was hit by a highly complex, highly intelligent AI-supported phishing operation. Attack made use of AI’s innate characteristic of data analysis and data persuasion which led into a severe compromise of the bank’s internal structures.

Background

The chosen financial institution, one of the largest banks in India, had a good background regarding the extremity of its cybersecurity policies. However, these global cyberattacks opened up new threats that AI-based methods posed that earlier forms of security could not entirely counter efficiently. The attackers concentrated on the top managers of the bank because it is evident that controlling such persons gives the option of entering the inner systems as well as financial information. 

Attack Execution

The attackers utilised AI in sending the messages that were an exact look alike of internal messages sent between employees. From Facebook and Twitter content, blog entries, and lastly, LinkedIn connection history and email tenor of the bank’s executives, the AI used to create these emails was highly specific. Some of these emails possessed official formatting, specific internal language, and the CEO’s writing; this made them very realistic. 

 It also used that link in phishing emails that led the users to a pseudo internal portal in an attempt to obtain the login credentials. Due to sophistication, the targeted individuals thought the received emails were genuine, and entered their log in details easily to the bank’s network, thus allowing the attackers access. 

Impact

It caused quite an impact to the bank in every aspect. Numerous executives of the company lost their passwords to the fake emails and compromised several financial databases with information from customer accounts and transactions. The break-in permitted the criminals to cease a number of the financial’s internet services hence disrupting its functions and those of its customers for a number of days. 

 They also suffered a devastating blow to their customer trust because the breach revealed the bank’s weakness against contemporary cyber threats. Apart from managing the immediate operations which dealt with mitigating the breach, the financial institution was also toppling a long-term reputational hit. 

Technical Analysis and Findings

1. The AI techniques that are used in generation of the phishing emails are as follows: 

•  The attack used powerful NLP technology, which was most probably developed using the large-scaled transformer, such as GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer). Since these models are learned from large data samples they used the examples of the conversation pieces from social networks, emails and PC language to create quite credible emails. 

 Key Technical Features: 

•  Contextual Understanding: The AI was able to take into account the nature of prior interactions and thus write follow up emails that were perfectly in line with prior discourse. 
•  Style Mimicry: The AI replicated the writing of the CEO given the emails of the CEO and then extrapolated from the data given such elements as the tone, the language, and the format of the signature line. 
•  Adaptive Learning: The AI actively adapted from the mistakes, and feedback to tweak the generated emails for other tries and this made it difficult to detect. 

2. Sophisticated Spear-Phishing Techniques

Unlike ordinary phishing scams, this attack was phishing using spear-phishing where the attackers would directly target specific people using emails. The AI used social engineering techniques that significantly increased the chances of certain individuals replying to certain emails based on algorithms which machine learning furnished. 

 Key Technical Features: 

•  Targeted Data Harvesting: Cyborgs found out the employees of the organisation and targeted messages via the public profiles and messengers were scraped. 
•  Behavioural Analysis: The latest behaviour pattern concerning the users of the social networking sites and other online platforms were used by the AI to forecast the courses of action expected to be taken by the end users such as clicking on the links or opening of the attachments. 
•  Real-Time Adjustments: These are times when it was determined that the response to the phishing email was necessary and the use of AI adjusted the consequent emails’ timing and content. 

3. Advanced Evasion Techniques

The attackers were able to pull off this attack by leveraging AI in their evasion from the normal filters placed in emails. These techniques therefore entailed a modification of the contents of the emails in a manner that would not be easily detected by the spam filters while at the same time preserving the content of the message. 

Key Technical Features: 

•  Dynamic Content Alteration: The AI merely changed the different aspects of the email message slightly to develop several versions of the phishing email that would compromise different algorithms. 
•  Polymorphic Attacks: In this case, polymorphic code was used in the phishing attack which implies that the actual payloads of the links changed frequently, which means that it was difficult for the AV tools to block them as they were perceived as threats. 
•  Phantom Domains: Another tactic employed was that of using AI in generating and disseminating phantom domains, that are actual web sites that appear to be legitimate but are in fact short lived specially created for this phishing attack, adding to the difficulty of detection. 

4. Exploitation of Human Vulnerabilities

This kind of attack’s success was not only in AI but also in the vulnerability of people, trust in familiar language and the tendency to obey authorities. 

Key Technical Features: 

•  Social Engineering: As for the second factor, AI determined specific psychological principles that should be used in order to maximise the chance of the targeted recipients opening the phishing emails, namely the principles of urgency and familiarity. 
•  Multi-Layered Deception: The AI was successfully able to have a two tiered approach of the emails being sent as once the targeted individuals opened the first mail, later the second one by pretext of being a follow up by a genuine company/personality. 

Response

On sighting the breach, the bank’s cybersecurity personnel spring into action to try and limit the fallout. They reported the matter to the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) to find who originated the attack and how to block any other intrusion. The bank also immediately started taking measures to strengthen its security a bit further, for instance, in filtering emails, and increasing the authentication procedures. 

 Knowing the risks, the bank realised that actions should be taken in order to enhance the cybersecurity level and implement a new wide-scale cybersecurity awareness program. This programme consisted of increasing the awareness of employees about possible AI-phishing in the organisation’s info space and the necessity of checking the sender’s identity beforehand.

Outcome

Despite the fact and evidence that this bank was able to regain its functionality after the attack without critical impacts with regards to its operations, the following issues were raised. Some of the losses that the financial institution reported include losses in form of compensation of the affected customers and costs of implementing measures to enhance the financial institution’s cybersecurity. However, the principle of the incident was significantly critical of the bank as customers and shareholders began to doubt the organisation’s capacity to safeguard information in the modern digital era of advanced artificial intelligence cyber threats. 

 This case depicts the importance for the financial firms to align their security plan in a way that fights the new security threats. The attack is also a message to other organisations in that they are not immune from such analysis attacks with AI and should take proper measures against such threats.

Conclusion

The recent AI-phishing attack on an Indian bank in 2024 is one of the indicators of potential modern attackers’ capabilities. Since the AI technology is still progressing, so are the advances of the cyberattacks. Financial institutions and several other organisations can only go as far as adopting adequate AI-aware cybersecurity solutions for their systems and data. 

 Moreover, this case raises awareness of how important it is to train the employees to be properly prepared to avoid the successful cyberattacks. The organisation’s cybersecurity awareness and secure employee behaviours, as well as practices that enable them to understand and report any likely artificial intelligence offences, helps the organisation to minimise risks from any AI attack.

Recommendations

1. Enhanced AI-Based Defences: Financial institutions should employ AI-driven detection and response products that are capable of mitigating AI-operation-based cyber threats in real-time. 
2.  Employee Training Programs: CYBER SECURITY: All employees should undergo frequent cybersecurity awareness training; here they should be trained on how to identify AI-populated phishing. 
3.  Stricter Authentication Protocols: For more specific accounts, ID and other security procedures should be tight in order to get into sensitive ones. 
4.  Collaboration with CERT-In: Continued engagement and coordination with authorities such as the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) and other equivalents to constantly monitor new threats and valid recommendations. 
5.  Public Communication Strategies: It is also important to establish effective communication plans to address the customers of the organisations and ensure that they remain trusted even when an organisation is facing a cyber threat. 

Through implementing these, financial institutions have an opportunity for being ready with new threats that come with AI and cyber terrorism on essential financial assets in today’s complex IT environments.

‍

‍

The UN established its first permanent Global Mechanism for cybersecurity which will begin operations in March 2026. The policy framework for Western countries exists because their current strategies are being developed. The situation in India presents greater complexity and higher levels of interest than any other country.

‍

The Fence That Became a Vantage Point
‍

The United Nations cybersecurity talks have seen India actively participate since their start. India brought its proposal for an open and inclusive multilateral framework which was supported by Western states who wanted to establish universal norms and responsible state behaviour but India did not accept their geopolitical viewpoint.

India did not support the Russia-led bloc which wanted a permanent open-ended working group that would focus only on plenary meetings and the country also rejected the European Union's Program of Action. India maintained its previous stance by supporting multilateralism as a general principle while showing hesitation about backing specific power structures.

The fence now provides an advantage because it no longer serves as a point of vulnerability. India's non-alignment provides him with operational power because the body operates through decision-making which requires all members to agree.

‍

Sovereignty First, Norms Second
‍

The digital sovereignty framework which defines India's long-standing cybersecurity diplomatic activities serves as the country's fundamental cybersecurity diplomatic framework. New Delhi has been reluctant to endorse frameworks that could constrain how it manages its own cyberspace, whether through content regulation, surveillance architecture, or incident response. The Indian government establishes its control over internet governance through its implementation of VPN regulations and CERT-In reporting requirements and data localization discussions. 

The new Global Mechanism creates a situation which India must handle because it creates an uncommon diplomatic situation. The framework's five pillars, threats, norms, international law, confidence-building measures, and capacity-building, each carry embedded assumptions that don't sit neatly with India's domestic policy posture. India supports the norm which prohibits countries from attacking each other's critical infrastructure while developing offensive cyber abilities and keeping its cyber response strategies secret.

‍

The Capacity-Building Opening
‍

The Indian government has a definite interest in dedicated thematic group 2 which focuses on building cybersecurity capacity. India exists in two opposing states because it operates as a developing nation which lacks basic national cybersecurity systems while also maintaining advanced cyber defense capabilities. The donor table exists as a platform which gives India both funding rights and complete rights to speak for developing nations. India should serve as a connecting force for DTG 2 by sharing its experience with CERT-In development and its sectoral frameworks for finance and telecom and its National Cyber Coordination Centre programs which train cybersecurity professionals while requesting capacity-building programs that follow demand-based needs assessment and local context understanding and which do not include the typical restrictions that accompany Western technical assistance.

India has done this before in other multilateral settings. The organization maintains its independence through its role as a credible Global South representative which it uses to speak for the Global South without aligning with any particular alliance.

‍

The DTG 1 Question: Critical Infrastructure and Strategic Ambiguity
‍

The DTG 1 study about ICT security challenges shows how resilience and cooperation and stability work together as different themes but creates complex challenges for India.

The 2020 Mumbai power grid incident which some researchers attribute to Chinese state-linked actors has become one of three major attacks against India's critical infrastructure together with AIIMS Delhi incidents in 2022 and ongoing cyber intrusions into defence and government networks. The international standards which govern critical infrastructure protection require actual implementation from India because the country possesses vital national assets.

India has not yet established formal processes for cyberattack attribution while its officials avoid the norm-enforcement diplomacy which Western countries practice through their coordinated attribution and sanction procedures. 

India must either develop deeper transparency about its operations or create specialized operational plans which can keep its needed information undercover if it wants to participate in DTG 1 about cross-border interdependencies and incident response collaboration. India will likely engage selectively, supporting the idea of critical infrastructure norms while resisting mechanisms that operationalise accountability.

‍

Geopolitical Triangulation
‍

The new Global Mechanism needs countries to implement their national policies because states must stop merely restating their positions. Multilateral cybersecurity forums operate as Geopolitical triangulation platforms for India. India's security system must protect its interests against its two main cyber adversaries which include China and Pakistan-based groups. 

The US and EU strategic partnership between India and these Western governments requires India to show closer ties with democratic nations through its participation in international forums. The new Global Mechanism will require India to pursue its current position by participating in capacity-building activities while developing common norms through its work on general norms language. 

India will maintain its current position between Western liberal order enforcement and Russia-China sovereignty-maximalist counter-narrative through its capacity-building activities and general norms language work.

‍

What India Should Actually Do
‍

The document establishes core argument which states early DTG development needs to be established for proper assessment of future results which applies to Indian territory and European territory. India has the credibility and technical foundation and diplomatic ties which enable it to establish itself as an agenda-setter who takes proactive actions instead of following others. India should take the following actions to achieve its goals: lead or co-lead DTG 2 discussions which focus on the capacity requirements of the Global South while advancing DG 1 areas that protect developing nations from actual threats and establish South-South cybersecurity agreements through this system which will help them bypass Western capacity development restrictions. The Global Mechanism offers an essential multilateral platform which provides advantages to countries that take initial actions. India has the ability to make an impact because it possesses strategic advantages which will be activated through its choice between active participation and total disengagement.

‍

References
‍

• http://interface-eu.org/publications/the-new-united-nations-mechanism-on-cybersecurity#a-european-strategy-for-the-dtgs
• https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/emerging-challenges/developments-field-information-and-telecommunications-context
• https://www.recordedfuture.com/research/redecho-targeting-indian-power-sector
• https://www.saikrishnaassociates.com/cert-in-issues-directions-for-information-security-practices-procedure-prevention-response-and-reporting-of-cyber-incidents/

‍