#Fact Check: Old Photo Misused to Claim Israeli Helicopter Downed in Lebanon!

Introduction

In September 2024, the Australian government announced the  Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 ( CLA Bill 2024 hereon), to provide new powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the statutory regulatory body for Australia's communications and media infrastructure, to combat online misinformation and disinformation. It proposed allowing the ACMA to hold digital platforms accountable for the “seriously harmful mis- and disinformation” being spread on their platforms and their response to it, while also balancing freedom of expression. However, the Bill was subsequently withdrawn, primarily over concerns regarding the possibility of censorship by the government. This development is reflective of the global contention on the balance between misinformation regulation and freedom of speech. 

Background and Key Features of the Bill

According to the BBC’s Global Minds Survey of 2023, nearly 73% of Australians struggled to identify fake news and AI-generated misinformation. There has been a substantial rise in misinformation on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok since the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during major events like the bushfires of 2020 and the 2022 federal elections. The government’s campaign against misinformation was launched against this background, with the launch of The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation in 2021. The main provisions of the CLA Bill, 2024 were: 

1. Core Transparency Obligations of Digital Media Platforms: Publishing current media literacy plans,  risk assessment reports, and policies or information on their approach to addressing mis- and disinformation. The ACMA would also be allowed to make additional rules regarding complaints and dispute-handling processes.
2. Information Gathering and Record-Keeping Powers: The ACMA would form rules allowing it to gather consistent information across platforms and publish it. However, it would not have been empowered to gather and publish user information except in limited circumstances.
3. Approving Codes and Making Standards: The ACMA would have powers to approve codes developed by the industry and make standards regarding reporting tools, links to authoritative information, support for fact-checking, and demonetisation of disinformation. This would make compliance mandatory for relevant sections of the industry. 
4. Parliamentary Oversight: The transparency obligations, codes approved and standards set by ACMA under the Bill would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. ACMA would be required to report to the Parliament annually. 
5. Freedom of Speech Protections: End-users would not be required to produce information for ACMA unless they are a person providing services to the platform, such as its employees or fact-checkers. Further,  it would not be allowed to call for removing content from platforms unless it involved inauthentic behavior such as bots. 
6. Penalties for Non-Compliance: ACMA would be required to employ a “graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach” to non-compliance and enforcement in the form of formal warnings, remedial directions, injunctions, or significant civil penalties as decided by the courts, subject to review by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). No criminal penalties would be imposed.

Key Concerns

• Inadequacy of Freedom of Speech Protections: The biggest contention on this Bill has been regarding the issue of possible censorship, particularly of alternative opinions that are crucial to the health of a democratic system. To protect the freedom of speech, the Bill defined mis- and disinformation, what constitutes “serious harm” (election interference, harming public health, etc.), and what would be excluded from its scope. However, reservations among the Opposition persisted due to the lack of a clear mechanism to protect divergent opinions from the purview of this Bill. 
• Efficacy of Regulatory Measures: Many argue that by allowing the digital platform industry to make its codes, this law lets it self-police. Big Tech companies have no incentive to curb misinformation effectively since their business models allow them to reap financial benefits from the rampant spread of misinformation. Unless there are financial non- or dis- incentives to curb misinformation, Big Tech is not likely to address the situation at war footing.  Thus, this law would run the risk of being toothless. Secondly, the Bill did not require platforms to report on the “prevalence of” false content which, along with other metrics,  is crucial for researchers and legislators to track the efficacy of the current misinformation-curbing practices employed by platforms.  
• Threat of Government Overreach:  The Bill sought to expand the ACMA’s compliance and enforcement powers concerning misinformation and disinformation on online communication platforms by giving it powers to form rules on information gathering, code registration, standard-making powers, and core transparency obligations. However, even though the ACMA as a regulatory authority is answerable to the Parliament, the Bill was unclear in defining limits to these powers. This raised concerns from civil society about potential government overreach in a domain filled with contextual ambiguities regarding information.

Conclusion

While the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill sought to equip the ACMA with tools to hold digital platforms accountable and mitigate the harm caused by false information, its critique highlights the complexities of regulating such content without infringing on freedom of speech. Legislations and proposals regarding the matter all over the world are having to contend with this challenge. Globally, legislation and proposals addressing this issue face similar challenges, emphasizing the need for a continuous discourse at the intersection of platform accountability, regulatory restraint, and the protection of diverse viewpoints.

To regulate Big Tech effectively, governments can benefit from adopting a consultative, incremental, and cooperative approach, as exemplified by the European Union’s Digital Services Act 2023. Such a framework provides for a balanced response, fostering accountability while safeguarding democratic freedoms.

Resources

• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-misinformation-disinformation-bill.pdf 
• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation 
• https://www.mi-3.com.au/07-02-2024/over-80-australians-feel-they-may-have-fallen-fake-news-says-bbc 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/misinformation-inquiry 
• https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2024 
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-is-the-misinformation-bill-and-why-has-it-triggered-worries-about-freedom-of-speech/4n3ijebde 
• https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-work-no-pay-no-food/internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic#:~:text=The%20Telegraph%20Act%20allows%20authorities,preventing%20incitement%20to%20the%20commission 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/submissions/2024/11/8/submission-combatting-misinformation?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation&utm_content=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation+Preview+CID_31c6d7200ed9bd2f7f6f596ba2a8b1fb&utm_source=Email%20campaign&utm_term=Read%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Law%20Centres%20submission%20to%20the%20inquiry

‍

Data localisation refers to restrictions in the data flow by limiting the physical storage and processing of data within a given jurisdiction’s boundaries.  

An obvious benefit contributing to the importance of data localisation is the privacy benefits it offers. In addition to this, data localisation also has the potential to safeguard sensitive data and decrease the probability of cyber-attacks. In India, data localisation has become a key issue in the last decade due to the increase in the discourse for data privacy. 

The Legal Framework in India

India passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 which directs the data fiduciaries (collectors and processors of digital personal data) to store the data of Indian citizens within India. This push for data localisation aligns with India’s position to enhance privacy, national security and regulatory control. It further requires data fiduciaries to adhere to the principles of data minimisation, purposeful limitation and consent of the data principles. Further, Section 17 of the Act prohibits the transfer of sensitive personal data to foreign jurisdictions unless they meet satisfactory privacy protection standards. 

The Reserve Bank of India, via a circular for Payments Data Regulation in 2018, has mandated that all payment data be stored in India, though it can be processed abroad. It requires the telecom sector to ensure local storage and local processing of subscriber information. It further prohibits the transferring of subscribers’ account information overseas.

MeitY’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, emphasise data localisation, specifically when it involves government or critical data. The main idea behind this is that data related to Indian citizens or government activities should remain accessible to Indian law enforcement agencies and is not subject to external jurisdiction.

Common Misinformation about Data Localisation and its Impact

Misconceptions fuel misinformation and influence public perception and policy debates. A common misconception is that all data must be stored in India. It should be noted that non-critical and non-sensitive data are not subject to localisation, and can be cleared for cross-border transfers under specific circumstances.

Another misconception is that data localisation alone ensures complete security. A robust cybersecurity approach, infrastructure and capabilities are what guarantee security and this holds true regardless of the location of where the data is stored. 

The notion that small businesses and startups will suffer the most is untrue. While data localisation policies may lead to increased costs, they foster innovation in the domestic infrastructure and services. This potentially fuels development and innovation in these small businesses and startups. Claims that data localisation will stifle global business are unfounded. 

Proper regulations for data transfers can help balance data flows, enabling international trade while ensuring data sovereignty.

Real Impact of Data Localisation

Data localisation impacts several domains and has both positive and negative outcomes.

• It can be a driver for investment in local data centres and infrastructure, thereby inducing employment generation and boosting the domestic economy. And in contrast, the compliance costs may rise especially for MNCs that need to maintain multiple data storage systems. 
• It can expedite the growth of local technology ecosystems while encouraging innovation in cloud computing and data storage solutions. On the other hand, small businesses might face struggles to afford the required infrastructure updates and upgrades.
• Law enforcement agencies will be able to gain access to data more swiftly while avoiding lengthy processes such as the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs). However, it should be noted that storing data locally does not automatically ensure that they are immune from attacks and breaches.
• A balance between sovereignty and global partnerships is a challenge that emerges with data localisation. International Trade Relationships are vulnerable to data localisations where countries favour a free data flow. This can hamper foreign collaborations with companies that rely on global data systems.

CyberPeace Outlook

It is important to clear misinformation about data localisation, some strategies that can be undertaken are:

• Launching public awareness campaigns to educate the stakeholders about the real requirements and the benefits of data localisation. Misinformation about data restrictions and security guarantees should be tackled fairly quickly. 
• A balanced approach that promotes local economic development while at the same time allowing for the necessary cross-border data flows and creating a flexible and friendly business environment is important.
• India should work on international frameworks to streamline the process of data-sharing with other nations. This would protect national interests while making global cooperation easier.

Conclusion

Data localisation in India presents a valuable opportunity to enhance privacy, bolster national security, and stimulate economic growth through local infrastructure investment. Yet, addressing common misconceptions is crucial; the belief that all data must be stored domestically or that localisation alone ensures security is misleading. 

It’s vital to pair local data storage with robust cybersecurity measures and foster international cooperation. Supporting small businesses, which may face challenges due to localisation requirements, is equally important. By addressing misinformation, promoting flexible regulations, and working towards global data-sharing frameworks, India can effectively manage the complexities of data localisation, safeguarding national interests while encouraging innovation and economic development. 

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/are-data-localisation-requirements-necessary-and-proportionate/article66131957.ece 
• https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/04/how-would-data-localization-benefit-india?lang=en
• https://www.rbi.org.in/commonperson/English/Scripts/FAQs.aspx?Id=2995
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Information%20Technology%20%28Intermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital%20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20%28updated%2006.04.2023%29-.pdf 

Executive Summary

‍
A newspaper clipping is being widely shared on social media with the claim that more than 200 bullets were fired at actor Salman Khan’s vehicle, two of which allegedly hit him and left him seriously injured. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the viral claim to be false. The research revealed that Salman Khan is safe and healthy, and there is no credible information confirming any such firing incident. The probe further found that the alleged newspaper clipping circulating on social media was created using Artificial Intelligence (AI).

‍

Claim

‍

An Instagram user shared the viral newspaper clipping on July 11, 2026, claiming that more than 200 bullets were fired at Salman Khan’s vehicle, two bullets hit him, and he was seriously injured.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaqNtAfSGyI/ 

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/81qpF 

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the viral claim, we conducted a keyword-based search on Google. However, we did not find any credible media report confirming that Salman Khan was injured in any such firing incident.

During further research, we found a report published by Dainik Bhaskar on July 11, 2026. According to the report, actor Salman Khan sold another apartment located in Bandra, Mumbai. The report did not mention any incident involving an attack or injury.

https://www.bhaskar.com/g/entertainment/bollywood/news/salman-khan-sells-bandra-west-shiv-asthan-heights-apartment-for-crore-property-deal-138416826.html
‍

‍

In the next step of the research, we analysed the viral newspaper clipping using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. The tool’s analysis indicated an 80% probability that the newspaper clipping was AI-generated.

‍

‍

For further verification, the viral image was also checked using another AI detection tool, Sightengine. The tool’s result showed a 99% probability that the image was AI-generated.
‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research found that the viral claim is false. There is no evidence that actor Salman Khan was injured in a firing incident or that more than 200 bullets were fired at his vehicle. The alleged newspaper clipping being circulated on social media was found to be AI-generated and is being shared with a false narrative

‍