#FactCheck -Deepfake Audio Misuses Old Jaishankar Podcast to Fabricate False Claims About “Operation Sindoor”

Introduction

In the digital landscape, there is a rapid advancement of technologies such as generative AI(Artificial Intelligence), deepfake, machine learning, etc. Such technologies offer convenience to users in performing several tasks and are capable of assisting individuals and business entities. Certain regulatory mechanisms are also established for the ethical and reasonable use of such advanced technologies. However, these technologies are easily accessible; hence, cyber-criminals leverage AI tools and technologies for malicious activities or for committing various cyber frauds. By such misuse of advanced technologies, new cyber threats have emerged. 

Deepfake Scams 

Deepfake is an AI-based technology. Deepfake is capable of creating realistic images or videos which in actuality are created by machine algorithms. Deepfake technology, since easily accessible, is misused by fraudsters to commit various cyber crimes or deceive and scam people through fake images or videos that look realistic. By using the Deepfake technology, cybercriminals manipulate audio and video content, which looks very realistic but, in actuality, is fake. 

Voice cloning 

To create a voice clone of anyone's, audio can be deepfaked too, which closely resembles a real one but, in actuality, is a fake voice created through deepfake technology. Recently, in Kerala, a man fell victim to an AI-based video call on WhatsApp. He received a video call from a person claiming to be his former colleague. The scammer, using AI deepfake technology, impersonated the face of his former colleague and asked for financial help of 40,000. 

Uttarakhand Police issues warning admitting the rising trend of AI-based scams

Recently, Uttarakhand police’s Special Task Force (STF) has issued a warning admitting the widespread of AI technology-based scams such as deepfake or voice cloning scams targeting innocent people. Police expressed concern that several incidents have been reported where innocent people are lured by cybercriminals. Cybercriminals exploit advanced technologies and manipulate innocent people to believe that they are talking to their close ones or friends, but in actuality, they are fake voice clones or deepfake video calls. In this way, cybercriminals ask for immediate financial help, which ultimately leads to financial losses for victims of such scams. 

Tamil Nadu Police Issues advisory on deepfake scams

To deceive people, cyber criminals misuse deepfake technologies and target them for financial gain. Recently, Tamilnadu Police Cyberwing have issued an advisory on rising deepfake scams. Fraudsters are creating highly convincing images, videos or voice clones to defraud innocent people and make them victims of financial fraud. The advisory states that you limit the personal data you share you share online and adjust privacy settings. Advisory says to promptly report any suspicious activity or cyber crimes to 1930 or the National Cyber Crime Reporting portal.

Best practices 

1. Pay attention if you notice compromised video quality because deepfake videos often have compromised or poor video quality and unusual blur resolution, which poses a question to its genuineness. Deepfake videos often loop or unusually freeze, which indicates that the video content might be fabricated.

1. Whenever you receive requests for any immediate financial help, act responsively and verify the situation by directly contacting the person on his primary contact number.
2. You need to be vigilant and cautious, since scammers often possess a sense of urgency, leading to giving no time for the victim to think about it and deceiving them by making a quick decision. Scammers pose sudden emergencies and demand financial support on an urgent basis. 
3. Be aware of the recent scams and follow the best practices to stay protected from rising cyber frauds. 
4. Verify the identity of unknown callers.
5. Utilise privacy settings on your social media.
6. Pay attention if you notice any suspicious nature, and avoid sharing voice notes with unknown users because scammers might use them as voice samples and create your voice clone. 
7. If you fall victim to such frauds, one powerful resource available is the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (www.cybercrime.gov.in) and the 1930 toll-free helpline number where you can report cyber fraud, including any financial crimes.

‍

Conclusion

AI-powered technologies are leveraged by cybercriminals to commit cyber crimes such as deepfake scams, voice clone scams, etc. Where innocent people are lured by scammers. Hence there is a need for awareness and caution among the people.  We should be vigilant and aware of the growing incidents of AI-based cyber scams. Must follow the best practices to stay protected.

References: 

• https://www.the420.in/ai-voice-cloning-cyber-crime-alert-uttarakhand-police/
• https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/cybercrime-and-digital-threats/exploiting-ai-how-cybercriminals-misuse-abuse-ai-and-ml#:~:text=AI%20and%20ML%20Misuses%20and%20Abuses%20in%20the%20Future&text=Through%20the%20use%20of%20AI,and%20business%20processes%20are%20compromised.
• https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kerala-man-loses-rs-40-000-to-ai-based-deepfake-scam-heres-what-it-is-4217841
• https://news.bharattimes.co.in/t-n-cybercrime-police-issue-advisory-on-deepfake-scams/

‍

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

Emerging technologies in the digital era have made their inroads in manifold domains and locations, including the “Aviation industry”. A 2022 Cranfield University and Inmarsat report has made the point for digitalization powering a reviving age for the aviation industry. Several airport authorities are presently mobilizing power of emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) across the airport bedrock to provide travelers with a plain sailing and expeditious air travel experience.

The Perils of Juice-Jacking

Today, Universal Serial Bus (USB) charging ports are ubiquitous and a convenient way for travelers to keep their devices powered up. In their busy, mundane lives, people use the public charging facility while travelling. However, cybersecurity experts have warned that charging in public areas could wipe off data from an electronic device or install malware, and they have urged people to stay away from USB charging ports at airports and other public areas. This leads to the possibility that fraudsters may manipulate susceptible users via juice jacking.

Investigative journalist Brian Krebs in 2011 coined the term "Juice Jacking". It isa form of cyber attack where a public USB charging port is fiddled with and infected using hardware and software changes to pocket data or install malware on devices connected to it. The term “juice jacking” is a slang representation for electric power or energy, and “hijacking” indicates an unauthorized key toa device.

While the preliminary purpose of juice jacking is usually to pilfer sensitive information from corresponding devices, such as passwords and payment card details, attackers can exploit this stolen information to attain unauthorized to your financial accounts. If the adversary attacker installs malware in the electronic device during the juice jacking strategy, the attacker may further observe the individual's movements even after one has disconnected the device from the USB port. However, the hazards of Juice Jacking include malware infection, data heist, economic loss and damage to the reputation of an individual.

RedFlags from Agencies

In2023, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) forewarned travelers against using charging stations in public zones such as hotels, airports, and shopping malls due to malicious actors attempting to use the public USB to introduce monitoring software and malware into devices. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also administered a new advisory regarding “juice jacking "and its possibility of launching a hushed cyber attack against a mobile gadget while one is charging the phone with a USB cord. Similarly, according to new research from International Business Machines (IBM) Security, many nation-state hackers are currently training their eyes on travelers.

RBI Advisory

Recently in 2024, The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has likewise administered a warning statement to mobile phone users urging them against charging their devices using public ports. RBI has additionally accentuated the importance of safeguarding private and financial data while using mobile devices. Juice jacking is further cited as one of the scams in the RBI booklet on the modus operandi of financial fraudsters in the financial space.

Preventing juice jacking attacks

The routes to avoid Juice Jacking are to keep a tab on the USB devices, not use the public charging ports, update the phone software regularly, enable and utilize the software security measures of the device, use a USB pass-through device, a wall outlet, or a backup battery; never use unknown charging cables and use only the trusted security apps. It is further important to avoid using cables that are left behind by other travelers in any public space. Users can correspondingly turn off their devices before connecting to a wary charging port. Nevertheless, the absence of documented cases does not necessarily imply that users cannot be a target of such an attack and a warning is still recommended when securing personal gadgets with susceptible user data while using standard cables. Also, using a virtual private network (VPN) and assuring that devices have the updated security updates established can aid in mitigating the danger of cyber attacks. It is equally important to utilize the security features of your device, such as passcodes, fingerprints, or facial recognition, enabled to count as a supplementary layer of safeguard.

Conclusion

In the contemporary digital age, individuals, on the whole, need to be vigilant about “Cybersecurity hygiene” and avoid accessing susceptible data or conducting financial transactions on unsecured networks. Mobile phones or devices should run on the latest operating system, and antivirus software should be revamped to mitigate conceivable security susceptibilities.

References

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2023/04/20/juice-jacking-malware-phone-airports-hotels/?sh=47adab7e82ed
• https://www.businessairportinternational.com/features/how-ai-is-improving-business-aviation-operations.html
• https://www.news18.com/business/juice-jacking-attack-scam-bank-frauds-india-8412037.html
• https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/juice-jacking/
• https://blogs.blackberry.com/en/2023/04/juice-jacking-advisory
• https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/juice-jacking-rbi-issues-warning-against-charging-mobile-phones-using-public-ports/article67895091.ece
• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/juice-jacking-how-hackers-target-smartphones-tethered-to-public-charging-points/article67026433.ece
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2019/05/21/why-you-should-never-use-airport-usb-charging-stations/?sh=630f026a5955
• https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/12/tech/fbi-public-charging-port-warning/index.html
• https://social-innovation.hitachi/en-in/knowledge-hub/hitachi-voice/digital-transformation/
• https://www.inmarsat.com/en/insights/aviation/2022/future-aviation-connectivity.html