#FactCheck - Out-of-Context Clip of PM Modi Misused to Claim He Insulted India

Introduction

For two decades, cybercrime enforcement was built around a simple assumption: criminals hide behind screens, but they still operate mostly within reachable borders. That assumption has collapsed. Today's fraud economy runs through industrial-scale scam compounds in Myanmar and Cambodia, laundering networks spanning a dozen jurisdictions, and trafficked labour forced to defraud victims thousands of miles away. INTERPOL's own trend reporting has tracked victims from more than 60 countries pulled into scam operations that now stretch well beyond Southeast Asia into Africa, the Gulf, and Latin America. Global losses from this activity are estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and the networks rebuild faster than any single government can dismantle them.

A Threat That Outran the Old Playbook

The mismatch is the real story behind a wave of policy moves in 2025 and 2026. The August 12, 2026 U.S. National Security Presidential Memorandum authorising vetted private companies to conduct government-supervised offensive cyber operations against transnational criminal organisations is one data point in that wave, not the whole story. Washington's move sits alongside a broader, still-unfinished experiment: can the international system build cooperative machinery fast enough to match a threat that treats borders as an inconvenience rather than a barrier?

Three Tracks of International Response

Three distinct but overlapping tracks have emerged.

The treaty: The most consequential recent development is the UN Convention against Cybercrime, adopted by the General Assembly in December 2024 and opened for signature in Hanoi in October 2025, where 71 states and the EU signed on. It is the first comprehensive global treaty addressing cybercrime and cross-border evidence sharing, building on the older Budapest Convention framework that has anchored cooperation since 2004. The Hanoi Convention needs 40 ratifications to enter into force; as of mid-2026, only three states (Qatar, Azerbaijan, and Vietnam) had ratified it, and human rights groups continue to warn that its broad scope could be used by authoritarian governments to justify surveillance and cross-border data requests dressed up as cybercrime cooperation. The treaty's fate will hinge on a Conference of States Parties process now being negotiated, where democracies are pushing for genuine multi-stakeholder oversight rather than a rubber stamp.

The operational track: While treaty diplomacy moves slowly, police-to-police cooperation has scaled up dramatically. INTERPOL's Operation First Light, now an annual standing initiative, illustrates the trajectory: its 2026 iteration spanned January to April, generated over 5,800 arrests and roughly $293 million in intercepted funds, and made heavy use of the Global Rapid Intervention of Payments mechanism to freeze illicit transfers before they disappeared into crypto wallets. A parallel operation led by Dubai Police with the FBI and Chinese authorities dismantled nine pig-butchering compounds across Myanmar, Indonesia, Cambodia, and Thailand, seizing more than $701 million. In Europe, Europol's EMPACT framework has entered a new 2026–2029 cycle, deepening ties with Frontex, Eurojust, and regional partners like Ameripol and the EL PACTTO programme in Latin America, effectively building a lattice of standing coordination bodies rather than one-off task forces. These operations demonstrate real capacity, but they also expose the "whack-a-mole" problem: raided compounds in Myanmar's Myawaddy region simply relocated, reconnected via satellite internet, and resumed operations within weeks, according to regional reporting.

The public-private track: This is where the U.S. memorandum fits into a genuinely global pattern rather than standing alone. The United Kingdom's 2026–2029 Fraud Strategy centres on a £31 million Online Crime Centre, opening in 2026, that fuses data from the National Crime Agency, the intelligence community, and private partners across banking, telecoms, and technology into a single coordination hub building on existing arrangements like Stop Scams UK, where telecom operators and banks already share suspicious SIM and account data in near real time. In the U.S., a June 2026 joint action involving the Justice Department, Meta, Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Coinbase froze $3.8 billion in cryptocurrency and disrupted 1.4 million fraud-linked accounts, showing that platform cooperation can move faster than formal treaty processes. Singapore has positioned itself as a hub for this model too, anchoring the Global Anti-Scam Alliance, which now includes ASEAN's own foundation as a member, bringing governments, banks, and tech platforms into shared intelligence loops. What distinguishes the U.S. memorandum is that it goes a step further than data-sharing: it authorises companies to take disruptive technical action, not just contribute intelligence, under a legal theory that folds them into the government's own authority under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act's law-enforcement exception.

Where the System Still Breaks Down

Despite this activity, structural gaps, like jurisdiction, are the deepest ones. Scam compounds deliberately locate in special economic zones and border regions precisely because territorial control there is contested or weak, leaving no single government with clean authority to act. ASEAN's own policy work acknowledges that nearly every stage of the regional scam value chain crosses at least one border, which is why the bloc has shifted toward standing coordination bodies like its Working Group on Anti-Online Scams rather than relying on bilateral requests.

Attribution and accountability lag behind operational tempo. Financial intelligence and blockchain analytics have improved enforcement precision, but identifying the human traffickers and financiers sitting above front-line scam operators remains slow, uneven, and dependent on political will in host countries.

Governance of the newer public-private authorities is also unsettled. Human rights advocates flag that expanding both the Hanoi Convention's surveillance-adjacent powers and unilateral hack-back authorities like the U.S. memorandum could, without careful oversight, blur the line between fighting organised fraud and enabling broader digital overreach. The U.S. memorandum's own guardrails, which are a ban on operations causing serious injury or rising to a use of force, mandatory federal sign-off, and a $1 million forfeitable bond, reflect an awareness of that risk, but its implementing procedures remain classified, and comparable transparency gaps exist in several other national programs.

The Emerging Consensus

What's notable is not any single instrument but the convergence: nearly every serious national or regional response now combines the same three ingredients deeper platform and financial-sector data sharing, standing multilateral operational coordination, and a cautious expansion of what non-state actors are permitted to do. The countries and blocs making the fastest progress, from the UK's Online Crime Centre to INTERPOL's payment-interdiction tools to ASEAN's regional information-sharing arrangement, are the ones treating cyber-enabled transnational crime as a persistent infrastructure problem rather than a series of discrete crimes to be prosecuted after the fact. Whether that convergence produces durable results or simply better-coordinated whack-a-mole will depend on the unglamorous work still ahead: ratifying treaties, writing classified rulebooks, and building the cross-border trust that lets financial and technical data move as fast as the criminals do.

Conclusion 

Transnational cybercrime has outgrown fragmented national enforcement. The emerging combination of international treaties, operational cooperation, and public-private partnerships offers a stronger response, but serious gaps in jurisdiction, accountability, and oversight remain. Ultimately, success will depend on whether states can build cooperation and safeguards capable of matching criminals’ speed, adaptability, and global reach.

Sources

• Presidential Memorandum: Expanding Capabilities to Combat Transnational Cyber-Enabled Crime — The White House
• United Nations Convention against Cybercrime — UNODC
• The Promise and Peril of the U.N. Convention Against Cybercrime — Just Security
• Moving Forward with the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime — ICCLR
• Growing threat of transnational scam centres highlighted at INTERPOL General Assembly
• Over 5,800 arrests, USD 293 million intercepted in global fraud bust — INTERPOL
• Operation First Light 2026: 276 Arrested, $701M Seized — Breached.Company

‍

Introduction 
‍

Freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to democracy and is constitutionally entrenched in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The explosion of online spaces, brought about by the digital age, in the form of social media, blogs, and messaging apps, has reinterpreted how information is authored, disseminated, and consumed. This digital revolution has galvanised individuals to engage further inclusively in public debate, but has also fanatically magnified the risks of misinformation, hate speech, and threats to public order. Against this background, the judiciary is increasingly called upon to determine the limits of free speech, primarily where state regulation seeks to infringe upon constitutional protection.
‍

Constitutional and Statutory Framework related to Freedom of Speech 
‍

The judiciary plays an integral role in balancing the fundamental right of freedom of speech with the regulation of online content, especially during the fast-paced evolution of the digital world. In India, with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, the courts bear the critical responsibility of protecting this liberty while recognising the State's legitimate interests in restricting harmful or unlawful content on a digital scale. This adjudicatory dilemma is even trickier because the said right has been held by the Supreme Court not to be an absolute one and is subject to "reasonable restrictions" as in Article 19(2), which recognises restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, decency, and morality.  Freedom of speech, being the cornerstone of democracy in India, does have an umbrella of reasonable restrictions under which the state can regulate any form of speech that infringes upon other equally compelling societal interests. However, with the coming of the internet and other digital communication arrangements, there was a need to develop new statutory instruments, i.e., Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and Rules made thereunder, including Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021. These enactments attempt to regulate digital content, confronting issues such as hate speech, misinformation, and content that threatens public order. The judiciary's mandate is to interpret the enactments within the constitutional precincts, thus ensuring that the arbitrariness of State action is not aggravated or that the regulation is not overbroad. Judicial Landmark Decisions Affirming Balance The judiciary has played a front-ranking role in elaborating a jurisprudence protecting free speech in delineating legitimate regulation thereof. The Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015, is seminal. Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down as it was vague and overly broad, causing a chilling effect on online speech. The Court has emphasised that any limitation on speech must be precise and fall strictly within the parameters laid down in Article 19(2). While the Court recognises that harmful online content needs to be addressed, the remedy must not encroach upon free political debate, satire, and criticism vital for democracy. 

Following this, the Anuradha Bhasin case clarified the convergence of free speech and online access. The court held that the right to free speech had a vital medium in the form of the internet and that it would have to be an inevitable, proportionate shutdown, and transparent for challenge before the judiciary for any shutdown of the internet. This reaffirmed that restrictions on online speech must be rigorously tested.

Subsequent cases involve limitations on the 2021 IT Rules, whereby such government bodies can demand that “fake” or “misleading” material be taken off the internet. Courts move with circumspection, recognising the government's interest in fighting bogus information but remaining vigilant against over-regulation that can be code for pre-emptive censorship and threatening healthy discourses. 

The virtual world raises particular and deeper questions: the viral nature of online speech multiplies its impact, distributing both democratic ideas and abusive material instantaneously. The courts recognise this twinning. While pressurising the legislature and executive to formulate clearer, more precise rules, courts simultaneously act as constitutional Guardians, avoiding breaches of the right with executive excess or vague laws. There is a strain between judicial activism, which promotes constitutional rights aggressively, and the fear of judicial paternalism, courts overreaching into policy arenas. But there is a need for vigilance by the judiciary due to the rapidly changing nature of digital technologies and threats to the freedoms of democracy. The judiciary continues to give contours to free speech and online regulation. There are enforcement issues, such as ongoing abuse of struck-down provisions, such as Section 66A, that the court counters with reaffirmation of constitutional directives. The evolving jurisprudence balances on thin stilts, upholding the democratic spirit of India by securing speech on online spaces and sanctioning reasonable, transparent moderation of harmful speech.

‍

Conclusion
‍

The Indian judiciary's leadership in balancing online content regulation with the freedom of speech is central and refined. The courts continually emphasise that speech on the digital medium is highly constitutionally protected and that restrictions must be legally valid, specific, essential, and proportionate. By classical decisions and constant review of new regulating actions, courts safeguard democratic participation in the digital public domain from unmeritorious censorship. Concurrently, the courts recognize the responsibility of the state in regulating digital ills such as mis recipe and hate speech, demanding parameters that uphold constitutional freedoms and the due process. The balancing act of the judiciary continues to be fundamental in defining India's digital democracy so that free speech can thrive even as the state upholds public order and human dignity in the digital communication age.

‍

Introduction

The digital expanse of the metaverse has recently come under scrutiny following a gruesome incident. In a digital realm crafted for connection and exploration, a 16-year-old girl’s avatar falls victim to an agonising assault that kindled the fire of ethno-legal and societal discourse. The incident is a stark reminder that the cyberverse, offering endless possibilities and experiences, also has glaring challenges that require serious consideration. The incident involves a sixteen-year-old teen girl being raped through her digital avatar by a few members of Metaverse. 

This incident has sparked a critical question of genuine psychological trauma inflicted by virtual experiences. The incident with a 16-year-old girl highlights the strong emotional repercussions caused by illicit virtual actions. While the physical realm remains unharmed, the digital assault can leave permanent scars on the psyche of the girl. This issue raises a critical question about the ethical implications of virtual interactions and the responsibilities of service providers to protect users' well-being on their platforms. 

The Judicial Quagmire 

The digital nature of these assaults gives impetus to complex jurisdictions which are profound in cyber offences. We are still novices in navigating the digital labyrinth where avatars have the ability to transcend borders with just a click of a mouse. The current legal structure is not equipped to tackle virtual crimes, calling for urgent reforms in critical legal structure. The Policymakers and legal Professionals must define virtual offenses first with clear and defined jurisdictional boundaries ensuring justice isn’t hampered due to geographical restrictions. 

Meta’s Accountability 

Meta, a platform where this gruesome incident occurred, finds itself at the crossroads of ethical dilemma. The company implemented plenty of safeguards that proved futile in preventing such harrowing acts. The incident has raised several questions about the broader role and responsibilities of tech juggernauts. Some of the questions demanding immediate answers as how a company can strike a balance between innovation and the protection of its users.  

The Tightrope of Ethics 

Metaverse is the epitome of innovation, yet this harrowing incident highlights a fundamental ethical contention. The real challenge is to harness the power of virtual reality while addressing the risks of digital hostilities. Society is still facing this conundrum, stakeholders must work in tandem to formulate robust and effective legal structures to protect the rights and well-being of users. This also includes balancing technological development and ethical challenges which require collective effort.  

Reflections of Society 

Beyond legal and ethical considerations, this act calls for wider societal reflections. It emphasises the pressing need for a cultural shift fostering empathy, digital civility and respect. As we tread deeper into the virtual realm, we must strive to cultivate ethos upholding dignity in both the digital and real world. This shift is only possible through awareness campaigns, educational initiatives and strong community engagement to foster a culture of respect and responsibility. 

Safer and Ethical Way Forward

A multidimensional approach is essential to address the complicated challenges cyber violence poses. Several measures can pave the way for safer cyberspace for netizens. 

• Legislative Reforms - There’s an urgent need to revamp legislative frameworks to mitigate and effectively address the complexities of these new and emerging virtual offences. The tech companies must collaborate with the government on formulating best practices and help develop standard security measures prioritising user protection.

• Public Awareness and Engagement - Initiating public awareness campaigns to educate users on crucial issues such as cyber resilience, ethics, digital detox and responsible online behaviour play a critical role in making netizens vigilant to avoid cyber hostilities and help fellow netizens in distress. Civil society organisations and think tanks such as CyberPeace Foundation are the pioneers of cyber safety campaigns in the country, working in tandem with governments across the globe to curb the evil of cyber hostilities. 
• Interdisciplinary Research: The policymakers should delve deeper into the ethical, psychological and societal ramifications of digital interactions. The multidisciplinary approach in research is crucial for formulating policy based on evidence. 

Conclusion 

The digital Gang Rape is a wake-up call, demanding the bold measure to confront the intricate legal, societal and ethical pitfalls of the metaverse. As we navigate digital labyrinth, our collective decisions will help shape the metaverse's future. By nurturing the culture of empathy, responsibility and innovation, we can forge a path honouring the dignity of netizens, upholding ethical principles and fostering a vibrant and safe cyberverse. In this significant movement, ethical vigilance, diligence and active collaboration are indispensable.

References:

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/virtual-gang-rape-reported-in-the-metaverse-probe-underway/article67705164.ece
• https://thesouthfirst.com/news/teen-uk-girl-virtually-gang-raped-in-metaverse-are-indian-laws-equipped-to-handle-similar-cases/