#FactCheck -Old Image from Iraq Falsely Linked to Alleged Attack on Iran’s Water Treatment Plant

Most laws regulate what people do. This one regulates what clock everyone is doing it by, and once you sit with that idea for a moment, it stops sounding like a bureaucratic footnote and starts sounding like something genuinely foundational.

On 27 August 2026, India's Department of Consumer Affairs notified the Legal Metrology (Indian Standard Time) Rules, 2026, making Indian Standard Time the single legally binding reference for every legal, administrative, commercial, and official purpose across the country. The Rules will come into force 180 days after their publication in the Official Gazette, giving government departments, businesses, and institutions a compliance runway to align their systems before the requirement actually bites.

Why time needed a law at all

It might seem strange that a country needs legislation to tell everyone what time it is. India has used IST, a single time zone five and a half hours ahead of Coordinated Universal Time, since 1947. But using a time zone informally and legally mandating it as the sole authoritative reference for every official and commercial transaction are two very different things, and the gap between them is exactly where this rule lives.

The government's own reasoning, laid out in its official statement, centres on a shift most people experience daily without ever thinking about its plumbing. Banking and digital payments, telecommunications networks, railways, power grids, and government record systems all depend on accurate, synchronised time stamps to function correctly. When different systems quietly draw their time from different sources, even by fractions of a second, the resulting inconsistencies can affect the coordination and recording of transactions in ways that are invisible until something goes wrong. A trade executed on a stock exchange, a UPI payment cleared between banks, a railway signal handoff between two junctions, and an emergency service dispatch all depend on every clock in the chain agreeing with every other clock, and until now, India had no single rule compelling that agreement.

The quieter, more interesting part of the rule

Buried inside the announcement is a detail that matters more than the headline. The Rules do not simply declare IST the law of the land; they also authorise the use of NavIC, India's own satellite navigation system, alongside other approved domestic timing sources, as legitimate means of disseminating that time. The government's stated rationale is candid about the current state of affairs: several critical Indian systems presently draw their time from foreign satellite based sources, and building domestic timing infrastructure through NavIC and legal metrology laboratories is intended to reduce that dependence going forward.

That single sentence carries real weight once you consider how global positioning and timing systems actually work. Most of the world's precise digital time synchronisation ultimately traces back to GPS, the American satellite constellation, whose signals also happen to be notoriously easy to disrupt. GPS and other satellite navigation signals arrive at receivers on Earth as extremely weak radio transmissions, weak enough that they can be jammed with cheap equipment or spoofed, meaning an attacker broadcasts a counterfeit signal that mimics a legitimate one closely enough to fool a receiver into accepting false position or timing data. Researchers and government reports going back years have flagged that a large share of critical infrastructure sectors, power grids, financial markets, telecommunications, and transport among them, carry meaningful dependence on GPS derived timing, and a 2017 UK government assessment specifically warned that systematic satellite signal jamming could cause serious disruption to a country's financial, electricity, and communications systems all at once. Cybersecurity researchers have separately demonstrated proof of concept attacks where a deliberately falsified timing signal, rather than a falsified position, was enough to destabilise systems that assumed their clock could always be trusted.

Seen against that backdrop, embedding NavIC as an approved domestic timing source inside a legal metrology framework is not merely a nationalistic footnote about self reliance. It is a genuine resilience decision. A country that can generate, verify, and distribute its own trusted time signal, independent of a foreign satellite constellation that it does not control and cannot secure on its own, has a meaningfully smaller attack surface for an entire category of infrastructure disruption that rarely makes headlines until it actually happens.

Who actually built this, and why that composition matters

The drafting process itself offers a useful clue about how seriously this was treated. Reports on the rule making process indicate the Rules were shaped by a high powered inter ministerial committee chaired by the Secretary of Consumer Affairs, with representation from the National Physical Laboratory and the Indian Space Research Organisation for the underlying science and satellites, IIT Kanpur for engineering expertise, the National Informatics Centre and CERT In for network infrastructure and its security, the Securities and Exchange Board of India for financial market implications, and the Railways, Telecom, and Financial Services departments for the systems that will actually have to run on this new standard day to day. That is not a committee assembled around a single ministry's convenience; it is a committee assembled around the actual shape of the problem, spanning physics, engineering, finance, and network security together. As part of the broader One Nation, One Time initiative, a White Rabbit Technology based IST Dissemination Demonstration Network was already commissioned at the Regional Reference Standard Laboratory in Bengaluru back in July 2026, suggesting the infrastructure groundwork was underway well before the legal framework caught up to it.

What the 180 day window actually means in practice

It is worth being precise about what compliance actually requires here. This is not a deadline demanding new hardware overnight; for most organisations, it means auditing which internal systems currently reference time from an unverified or foreign source and ensuring they align with certified IST going forward, alongside institutions preparing to receive that certified time through the domestic infrastructure the government is simultaneously building out. The six month runway exists precisely because this touches an unusually wide spread of sectors at once, and forcing an abrupt cutover would create more operational risk than the rule is designed to remove.

The bigger picture

A rule about what time it is legally does not sound like cybersecurity news, and on the surface, it is not. But underneath the administrative language sits a genuinely forward looking recognition: as more of daily life, banking, communication, transport, and governance runs on systems that must agree, down to the second, on a shared reference point, the integrity of that reference point becomes critical infrastructure in its own right. India choosing to build, verify, and legally anchor its own trusted time source, rather than continuing to quietly rely on a foreign satellite system it cannot secure independently, is less about symbolism and more about closing a vulnerability most people never knew existed until they were asked to think about it.

References

1. OpenGov Asia, "India Issues Rules to Standardise National Time Reference Systems." https://opengovasia.com/india-issues-rules-to-standardise-national-time-reference-systems/?c=us
2. Daily Excelsior, "Centre notifies rules mandating IST as common time reference; 180 day window for compliance." https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/centre-notifies-rules-mandating-ist-as-common-time-reference-180-day-window-for-compliance/
3. Greater Kashmir, "Department of Consumer Affairs notifies Legal Metrology Rules, 2026." https://www.greaterkashmir.com/national/department-of-consumer-affairs-notifies-legal-metrology-rules-2026-12454447
4. Insights on India, "Legal Metrology (Indian Standard Time) Rules, 2026." https://www.insightsonindia.com/2026/08/31/legal-metrology-indian-standard-time-rules-2026/
5. Blitz India Media, "Indian Standard Time Rules 2026: NavIC, Legal Metrology." https://blitzindiamedia.com/news/indian-standard-time-rules-2026-navic-legal-metrology/
6. Observer Voice, "India Establishes Legal Framework for Standard Time." https://observervoice.com/india-establishes-legal-framework-for-standard-time-225958/
7. The Live Nagpur, "Govt notifies rules to make IST the common time reference." https://thelivenagpur.com/2026/08/31/govt-notifies-rules-to-make-ist-the-common-time-reference/
8. Safran Navigation and Timing, "GNSS Security and Cybersecurity: What are the Parallels?" https://safran-navigation-timing.com/gnss-security-and-cybersecurity-what-are-the-parallels/
9. Safran Navigation and Timing, "Securing Critical Infrastructures from Jamming and Spoofing Cyberattacks." https://safran-navigation-timing.com/securing-critical-infrastructures-from-jamming-and-spoofing-cyberattacks/
10. Combain, "The Silent Threat In The Sky: GPS Jamming, GPS Spoofing." https://combain.com/gps-jamming-spoofing/

‍

When your digital identity becomes raw material for someone else’s imagination, who really owns your face?

On July 7, 2026, Meta launched Muse Image, the first standalone image-generation model developed by Meta Superintelligence Labs under Alexandr Wang. Positioned as a competitor to OpenAI’s GPT Images 2.0 and Google’s Nano Banana 2, the launch highlights Meta’s growing ambitions in the generative AI race. Yet beneath the technical advancements lies a far more consequential question than what AI can create, but about who gets to decide what it creates with?

That ambition of generative AI comes with a cost, and one of Muse Image's most controversial design choices is its integration with Instagram, which allows public profiles to become creative references for AI-generated images. Users can tag public Instagram accounts in prompts and generate AI images inspired by that person’s publicly available content. Meta presents this as a new form of personalization and creativity. However, critics argue that the feature transforms years of personal photographs into a massive library of AI-ready human identities, where non-action automatically becomes permission. The concern is not just that AI can generate realistic images. The concern is that consent itself is being manipulated in a way.

‍

 The opt-out system most users never asked for

Muse Image operates through Meta AI’s integration with Instagram. A user can reference a public Instagram profile in a prompt, allowing the system to generate images influenced by that person’s existing content and likeness. Under the default arrangement, the person whose profile is being referenced may not necessarily approve the generation beforehand.

Meta does provide users with controls to restrict this functionality. The setting exists under Instagram’s “Sharing and reuse” options, where users can disable permissions related to the use of their posts and reels with Meta’s AI features. But the larger issue is the direction in which responsibility flows. Instead of requiring active permission before someone’s likeness becomes available for AI-generated content, the burden is placed on individuals to discover the feature, understand the implications, locate the setting, and disable it. In a digital environment where users already navigate endless privacy menus, cookie banners, and terms of service agreements, expecting meaningful awareness from billions of people becomes unrealistic. Consent that depends on finding the exit door is very different from consent that begins with a choice.

‍

A guide for opting-out

One way of opting out is to have a private account. As verified, Meta does not encroach on private accounts as of now for image-generation.

But if you have a public account, here are the steps that can be followed to secure yourself from Meta’s Muse automatic consent:

On your profile, tap the menu bar which is on the top right (≡), you will enter into ‘setting and activity’, after that you will see an option of ‘sharing and refuse’ and then disable the options under it, namely- Allow people to reuse your content on Instagram and with AI features at Meta. Notably, the changes made will be only for your future content not the already existing content on your public profile.

‍

 Why “public” does not mean “available for anything”

The debate around Muse Image highlights a deeper misunderstanding at the center of modern digital platforms: the difference between visibility and reuse. When someone makes an Instagram account public, they are generally making a decision about the audience. They are allowing others to view their photos, discover their profile, or engage with their content. That decision was never traditionally understood as permission for their face, appearance, personal moments, or identity markers to become reusable components in AI-generated media. A photograph posted online has context. It represents a specific moment, purpose, relationship, or expression. Generative AI changes that equation because it separates identity from context. A person’s likeness can be extracted from its original context and placed into entirely new situations created by someone else. Muse Image does not just expand who can see your content. It expands what can be done with it. That distinction is what scales the problem for every public user on the app. The privacy implications become significantly larger because of Instagram’s global reach. With billions of users worldwide, even a small percentage of affected public accounts represents an enormous number of people. Many public profiles do not belong to celebrities, influencers, or creators who intentionally operate as public brands. They belong to students, professionals, small businesses, artists, photographers, and everyday users who simply chose visibility within a social network.

For years, platforms encouraged people to share more, build audiences, and maintain a public digital presence. Now, the meaning of that public presence is changing after the fact. The question becomes: should a decision made years ago to share photos socially automatically extend into permission for generative AI systems built years later?

There is also a catch while opting out. Changing these settings only protects your content from being used in future AI generations,  it does not undo anything that has already happened. Any AI images previously created using your public profile will remain unaffected. Essentially, the opt-out works as a shield for what comes next, not a reset button for what has already been created.

‍

 A familiar pattern in the AI era

Muse Image reflects a broader pattern emerging across the technology industry. New AI capabilities are introduced at massive scale, participation becomes the default, and individual control arrives afterward through settings that many users may never find. The same debates that once surrounded targeted advertising, data collection, and algorithmic profiling are now moving into a far more personal territory, the human identity itself. Faces are not ordinary data points. Unlike a username, password, or preference setting, a person cannot simply replace their appearance once it has been widely replicated.

Technical solutions such as AI watermarking and content labels may help identify generated material, but they address authenticity after creation. They do not answer the question of whether the generation should have happened in the first place.

‍

 Innovation cannot replace consent

The technological progress behind Muse Image is significant. Better image generation, improved text rendering, and more personalized creative tools represent genuine advances in artificial intelligence. But capability alone cannot determine acceptability. The future of AI will not only depend on how realistic images become, how powerful models become, or how quickly companies can deploy new features. It will also depend on whether people feel they have meaningful control over their own digital identities. Muse Image is therefore more than another AI product launch. It represents a defining question for the next phase of the internet: Will our online presence remain something we control, or will it become something others can generate?

‍

Introduction

In the labyrinthine corridors of the digital age, where information zips across the globe with the ferocity of a tempest, the truth often finds itself ensnared in a web of deception. It is within this intricate tapestry of reality and falsehood that we find ourselves examining two distinct yet equally compelling cases of misinformation, each a testament to the pervasive challenges that beset our interconnected world.

Case 1: The Deceptive Video: Originating in Malaysia, Misattributed to Indian Railway Development

A misleading video claiming to showcase Indian railway construction has been debunked as footage from Malaysia's East Coast Rail Link (ECRL). Fact-checking efforts by India TV traced the video's origin to Malaysia, revealing deceptive captions in Tamil and Hindi. The video was initially posted on Twitter on January 9, 2024, announcing the commencement of track-laying for Malaysia's East Coast Railway. Further investigation reveals the ECRL as a joint venture between Malaysia and China, involving the laying of tracks along the east coast, challenging assertions of Indian railway development. The ECRL's track-laying initiative, initiated in December 2023, is part of China's Belt and Road initiative, covering 665 kilometers across states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, and Selangor, with a completion target set for 2025.

The video in question, a digital chameleon, had its origins not in the bustling landscapes of India but within the verdant bounds of Malaysia. Specifically, it was a scene captured from the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project, a monumental joint venture between Malaysia and China, unfurling across 665 kilometers of Malaysian terrain. This ambitious endeavor, part of the grand Belt and Road initiative, is a testament to the collaborative spirit that defines our era, with tracks stretching from Kelantan to Selangor, and a completion horizon set for the year 2025.

The unveiling of this grand project was graced by none other than Malaysia’s King Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, in Pahang, underscoring the strategic alliance with China and the infrastructural significance of the ECRL. Yet, despite the clarity of its origins, the video found itself cloaked in a narrative of Indian development, a falsehood that spread like wildfire across the digital savannah.

Through the meticulous application of keyframe analysis and reverse image searches, the truth was laid bare. Reports from reputable sources such as the Associated Press and the Global Times, featuring the very same machinery, corroborated the video's true lineage. This revelation not only highlighted the ECRL's geopolitical import but also served as a clarion call for the critical role of fact-checking in an era where misinformation proliferates with reckless abandon.

Case 2: Kerala's Incident: Investigating Fake Narratives

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has registered 53 cases related to spreading fake narratives on social media to incite communal sentiments following the blasts at a Christian religious gathering in October 2023. Vijayan said cases have been registered against online news portals, editors, and Malayalam television channels. The state police chief has issued directions to monitor social media to stop fake news spread and take appropriate actions.

In a different corner of the world, the serene backdrop of Kerala was shattered by an event that would ripple through the fabric of its society. The Kalamassery blast, a tragic occurrence at a Christian religious gathering, claimed the lives of eight individuals and left over fifty wounded. In the wake of this calamity, a man named Dominic Martin surrendered, claiming responsibility for the heinous act.

Yet, as the investigation unfolded, a different kind of violence emerged—one that was waged not with explosives but with words. A barrage of fake narratives began to circulate through social media, igniting communal tensions and distorting the narrative of the incident. The Kerala Chief Minister, Pinarayi Vijayan, informed the Assembly that 53 cases had been registered across the state, targeting individuals and entities that had fanned the flames of discord through their digital utterances.

The Kerala police, vigilant guardians of truth, embarked on a digital crusade to quell the spread of these communally instigative messages. With a particular concentration of cases in Malappuram district, the authorities worked tirelessly to dismantle the network of fake profiles that propagated religious hatred. Social media platforms were directed to assist in this endeavor, revealing the IP addresses of the culprits and enabling the cyber cell divisions to take decisive action.

In the aftermath of the blasts, the Chief Minister and the state police chief ordered special instructions to monitor social media platforms for content that could spark communal uproar. Cyber patrolling became the order of the day, as a 20-member probe team was constituted to  deeply investigate the incident. 

Conclusion

These two cases, disparate in their nature and geography, converge on a singular point: the fragility of truth in the digital age. They highlight the imperative for vigilance and the pursuit of accuracy in a world where misinformation can spread like wildfire. As we navigate this intricate cyberscape, it is imperative to be mindful of the power of fact-checking and the importance of media literacy, for they are the light that guides us through the fog of falsehoods to the shores of veracity. 

These narratives are not merely stories of deception thwarted; they are a call to action, a reminder of our collective responsibility to safeguard the integrity of our shared reality. Let us, therefore, remain steadfast in our quest for the truth, for it is only through such diligence that we can hope to preserve the sanctity of our discourse and the cohesion of our societies.

References:

1. https://www.indiatvnews.com/fact-check/fact-check-misleading-video-claims-malaysian-rail-project-indian-truth-ecrl-india-railway-development-pm-modi-2024-01-29-914282
2. https://sahilonline.org/kalamasserry-blast-53-cases-registered-across-kerala-for-spreading-fake-news

‍