#FactCheck: False Claims of Fireworks in Dubai International Stadium celebrating India’s Champions Trophy Victory 2025

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

In the boundless world of the internet—a digital frontier rife with both the promise of connectivity and the peril of deception—a new spectre stealthily traverses the electronic pathways, casting a shadow of fear and uncertainty. This insidious entity, cloaked in the mantle of supposed authority, preys upon the unsuspecting populace navigating the virtual expanse. And in the heart of India's vibrant tapestry of diverse cultures and ceaseless activity, Mumbai stands out—a sprawling metropolis of dreams and dynamism, yet also the stage for a chilling saga, a cyber charade of foul play and fraud.

The city's relentless buzz and hum were punctuated by a harrowing tale that unwound within the unassuming confines of a Kharghar residence, where a 46-year-old individual's brush with this digital demon would unfold. His typical day veered into the remarkable as his laptop screen lit up with an ominous pop-up, infusing his routine with shock and dread. This deceiving popup, masquerading as an official communication from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), demanded an exorbitant fine of Rs 33,850 for ostensibly browsing adult content—an offence he had not committed.

The Cyber Deception

This tale of deceit and psychological warfare is not unique, nor is it the first of its kind. It finds echoes in the tragic narrative that unfurled in September 2023, far south in the verdant land of Kerala, where a young life was tragically cut short. A 17-year-old boy from Kozhikode, caught in the snare of similar fraudulent claims of NCRB admonishment, was driven to the extreme despair of taking his own life after being coerced to dispense Rs 30,000 for visiting an unauthorised website, as the pop-up falsely alleged.

Sewn with a seam of dread and finesse, the pop-up which appeared in another recent case from Navi Mumbai, highlights the virtual tapestry of psychological manipulation, woven with threatening threads designed to entrap and frighten. In this recent incident a 46-year-old Kharghar resident was left in shock when he got a pop-up on a laptop screen warning him to pay Rs 33,850 fine for surfing a porn website. This message appeared from fake website of NCRB created to dupe people. Pronouncing that the user has engaged in browsing the Internet for some activities, it delivers an ultimatum: Pay the fine within six hours, or face the critical implications of a criminal case. The panacea it offers is simple—settle the demanded amount and the shackles on the browser shall be lifted.

It was amidst this web of lies that the man from Kharghar found himself entangled. The story, as retold by his brother, an IT professional, reveals the close brush with disaster that was narrowly averted. His brother's panicked call, and the rush of relief upon realising the scam, underscores the ruthless efficiency of these cyber predators. They leverage sophisticated deceptive tactics, even specifying convenient online payment methods to ensnare their prey into swift compliance.

A glimmer of reason pierced through the narrative as Maharashtra State cyber cell special inspector general Yashasvi Yadav illuminated the fraudulent nature of such claims. With authoritative clarity, he revealed that no legitimate government agency would solicit fines in such an underhanded fashion. Rather, official procedures involve FIRs or court trials—a structured route distant from the scaremongering of these online hoaxes.

Expert Take

Concurring with this perspective, cyber experts facsimiles. By tapping into primal fears and conjuring up grave consequences, the fraudsters follow a time-worn strategy, cloaking their ill intentions in the guise of governmental or legal authority—a phantasm of legitimacy that prompts hasty financial decisions.

To pierce the veil of this deception, D. Sivanandhan, the former Mumbai police commissioner, categorically denounced the absurdity of the hoax. With a voice tinged by experience and authority, he made it abundantly clear that the NCRB's role did not encompass the imposition of fines without due process of law—a cornerstone of justice grossly misrepresented by the scam's premise.

New Lesson 

This scam, a devilish masquerade given weight by deceit, might surge with the pretence of novelty, but its underpinnings are far from new. The manufactured pop-ups that propagate across corners of the internet issue fabricated pronouncements, feigned lockdowns of browsers, and the spectre of being implicated in taboo behaviours. The elaborate ruse doesn't halt at mere declarations; it painstakingly fabricates a semblance of procedural legitimacy by preemptively setting penalties and detailing methods for immediate financial redress.

Yet another dimension of the scam further bolsters the illusion—the ominous ticking clock set for payment, endowing the fraud with an urgency that can disorient and push victims towards rash action. With a spurious 'Payment Details' section, complete with options to pay through widely accepted credit networks like Visa or MasterCard, the sham dangles the false promise of restored access, should the victim acquiesce to their demands.

Conclusion 

In an era where the demarcation between illusion and reality is nebulous, the impetus for individual vigilance and scepticism is ever-critical. The collective consciousness, the shared responsibility we hold as inhabitants of the digital domain, becomes paramount to withstand the temptation of fear-inducing claims and to dispel the shadows cast by digital deception. It is only through informed caution, critical scrutiny, and a steadfast refusal to capitulate to intimidation that we may successfully unmask these virtual masquerades and safeguard the integrity of our digital existence.

References:

• https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2023/09/29/kozhikode-boy-dies-by-suicide-after-online-fraud-threatens-him-for-visiting-unauthorised-website.html
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/pay-rs-33-8k-fine-for-surfing-porn-warns-fake-ncrb-pop-up-on-screen/articleshow/106610006.cms
• https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/people-who-watch-porn-receiving-a-warning-pop-up-do-not-pay-it-is-a-scam-1903829-2022-01-24

Introduction

Microsoft has unveiled its ambitious roadmap for developing a quantum supercomputer with AI features, acknowledging the transformative power of quantum computing in solving complex societal challenges. Quantum computing has the potential to revolutionise AI by enhancing its capabilities and enabling breakthroughs in different fields. Microsoft’s groundbreaking announcement of its plans to develop a quantum supercomputer, its potential applications, and the implications for the future of artificial intelligence (AI). However, there is a need for regulation in the realms of quantum computing and AI and significant policies and considerations associated with these transformative technologies. This technological advancement will help in the successful development and deployment of quantum computing, along with the potential benefits and challenges associated with its implementation.

What isQuantum computing?

Quantum computing is an emerging field of computer science and technology that utilises principles from quantum mechanics to perform complex calculations and solve certain types of problems more efficiently than classical computers. While classical computers store and process information using bits, quantum computers use quantum bits or qubits.

‍Interconnected Future  

Quantum computing promises to significantly expand AI’s capabilities beyond its current limitations. Integrating these two technologies could lead to profound advancements in various sectors, including healthcare, finance, and cybersecurity. Quantum computing and artificial intelligence (AI) are two rapidly evolving fields that have the potential to revolutionise technology and reshape various industries. This section explores the interdependence of quantum computing and AI, highlighting how integrating these two technologies could lead to profound advancements across sectors such as healthcare, finance, and cybersecurity.

1. Enhancing AI Capabilities:

Quantum computing holds the promise of significantly expanding the capabilities of AI systems. Traditional computers, based on classical physics and binary logic, need help solving complex problems due to the exponential growth of computational requirements. Quantum computing, on the other hand, leverages the principles of quantum mechanics to perform computations on quantum bits or qubits, which can exist in multiple states simultaneously. This inherent parallelism and superposition property of qubits could potentially accelerate AI algorithms and enable more efficient processing of vast amounts of data.

1. Solving Complex Problems:

The integration of quantum computing and AI has the potential to tackle complex problems that are currently beyond the reach of classical computing methods. Quantum machine learning algorithms, for example, could leverage quantum superposition and entanglement to analyse and classify large datasets more effectively. This could have significant applications in healthcare, where AI-powered quantum systems could aid in drug discovery, disease diagnosis, and personalised medicine by processing vast amounts of genomic and clinical data.

1. Advancements in Finance and Optimisation:

The financial sector can benefit significantly from integrating quantum computing and AI. Quantum algorithms can be employed to optimise portfolios, improve risk analysis models, and enhance trading strategies. By harnessing the power of quantum machine learning, financial institutions can make more accurate predictions and informed decisions, leading to increased efficiency and reduced risks.

1. Strengthening Cybersecurity:

Quantum computing can also play a pivotal role in bolstering cybersecurity defences. Quantum techniques can be employed to develop new cryptographic protocols that are resistant to quantum attacks. In conjunction with quantum computing, AI can further enhance cybersecurity by analysing massive amounts of network traffic and identifying potential vulnerabilities or anomalies in real time, enabling proactive threat mitigation.

1. Quantum-Inspired AI:

Beyond the direct integration of quantum computing and AI, quantum-inspired algorithms are also being explored. These algorithms, designed to run on classical computers, draw inspiration from quantum principles and can improve performance in specific AI tasks. Quantum-inspired optimisation algorithms, for instance, can help solve complex optimisation problems more efficiently, enabling better resource allocation, supply chain management, and scheduling in various industries.

How Quantum Computing and AI Should be Regulated-

As quantum computing and artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance, questions arise regarding the need for regulations to govern these technologies. There is debate surrounding the regulation of quantum computing and AI, considering the potential risks, ethical implications, and the balance between innovation and societal protection.

1. Assessing Potential Risks: Quantum computing and AI bring unprecedented capabilities that can significantly impact various aspects of society. However, they also pose potential risks, such as unintended consequences, privacy breaches, and algorithmic biases. Regulation can help identify and mitigate these risks, ensuring these technologies’ responsible development and deployment.
2. Ethical Implications: AI and quantum computing raise ethical concerns related to privacy, bias, accountability, and the impact on human autonomy. For AI, issues such as algorithmic fairness, transparency, and decision-making accountability must be addressed. Quantum computing, with its potential to break current encryption methods, requires regulatory measures to protect sensitive information. Ethical guidelines and regulations can provide a framework to address these concerns and promote responsible innovation.
3. Balancing Innovation and Regulation: Regulating quantum computing and AI involves balancing fostering innovation and protecting society’s interests. Excessive regulation could stifle technological advancements, hinder research, and impede economic growth. On the other hand, a lack of regulation may lead to the proliferation of unsafe or unethical applications. A thoughtful and adaptive regulatory approach is necessary, considering the dynamic nature of these technologies and allowing for iterative improvements based on evolving understanding and risks.
4. International Collaboration: Given the global nature of quantum computing and AI, international collaboration in regulation is essential. Harmonising regulatory frameworks can avoid fragmented approaches, ensure consistency, and facilitate ethical and responsible practices across borders. Collaborative efforts can also address data privacy, security, and cross-border data flow challenges, enabling a more unified and cooperative approach towards regulation.
5. Regulatory Strategies: Regulatory strategies for quantum computing and AI should adopt a multidisciplinary approach involving stakeholders from academia, industry, policymakers, and the public. Key considerations include:

1. Risk-based Approach: Regulations should focus on high-risk applications while allowing low-risk experimentation and development space.
2. Transparency and Explainability: AI systems should be transparent and explainable to enable accountability and address concerns about bias, discrimination, and decision-making processes.
3. Privacy Protection: Regulations should safeguard individual privacy rights, especially in quantum computing, where current encryption methods may be vulnerable.
4. Testing and Certification: Establishing standards for the testing and certification of AI systems can ensure their reliability, safety, and adherence to ethical principles.
5. Continuous Monitoring and Adaptation: Regulatory frameworks should be dynamic, regularly reviewed, and adapted to keep pace with the evolving landscape of quantum computing and AI.

Conclusion:

‍Integrating quantum computing and AI holds immense potential for advancing technology across diverse domains. Quantum computing can enhance the capabilities of AI systems, enabling the solution of complex problems, accelerating data processing, and revolutionising industries such as healthcare, finance, and cybersecurity. As research and development in these fields progress, collaborative efforts among researchers, industry experts, and policymakers will be crucial in harnessing the synergies between quantum computing and AI to drive innovation and shape a transformative future.The regulation of quantum computing and AI is a complex and ongoing discussion. Striking the right balance between fostering innovation, protecting societal interests, and addressing ethical concerns is crucial. A collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to regulation, considering international cooperation, risk assessment, transparency, privacy protection, and continuous monitoring, is necessary to ensure these transformative technologies' responsible development and deployment.