#FactCheck - Viral video attributed to the Australian Prime Minister is AI-generated; claim of cancelling Pakistani visas is false

‍Brief Overview of the EU AI Act

The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies.  The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.

The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI  use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.

In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions

• The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
• Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
• The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.

Application & Timeline of Act

The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:

• August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
• February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
• August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models. 
• August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
•  August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.

The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).

In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers. 

CyberPeace Outlook 

The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.

The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount. 

At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.

References: 

1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
2. https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
3. https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
4. https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
5. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
6. https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide

‍

Introduction

Beginning with the premise that the advent of the internet has woven a rich but daunting digital web, intertwining the very fabric of technology with the variegated hues of human interaction, the EU has stepped in as the custodian of this ever-evolving tableau. It is within this sprawling network—a veritable digital Minotaur's labyrinth—that the European Union has launched a vigilant quest, seeking not merely to chart its enigmatic corridors but to instil a sense of order in its inherent chaos.

The Digital Services Act (DSA) is the EU's latest testament to this determined pilgrimage, a voyage to assert dominion over the nebulous realms of cyberspace. In its latest sagacious move, the EU has levelled its regulatory lance at the behemoths of digital indulgence—Pornhub, XVideos, and Stripchat—monarchs in the realm of adult entertainment, each commanding millions of devoted followers.

Applicability of DSA

Graced with the moniker of Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), these titans of titillation are now facing the complex weave of duties delineated by the DSA, a legislative leviathan whose coils envelop the shadowy expanses of the internet with an aim to safeguard its citizens from the snares and pitfalls ensconced within. Like a vigilant Minotaur, the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, stands steadfast, enforcing compliance with an unwavering gaze.

The DSA is more than a mere compilation of edicts; it encapsulates a deeper, more profound ethos—a clarion call announcing that the wild frontiers of the digital domain shall be tamed, transforming into enclaves where the sanctity of individual dignity and rights is zealously championed. The three corporations, singled out as the pioneers to be ensnared by the DSA's intricate net, are now beckoned to embark on an odyssey of transformation, realigning their operations with the EU's noble envisioning of a safeguarded internet ecosystem.

The Paradigm Shift

In a resolute succession, following its first decree addressing 19 Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines, the Commission has now ensconced the trinity of adult content purveyors within the DSA's embrace. The act demands that these platforms establish intuitive user mechanisms for reporting illicit content, prioritize communications from entities bestowed with the 'trusted flaggers' title, and elucidate to users the rationale behind actions taken to restrict or remove content. Paramount to the DSA's ethos, they are also tasked with constructing internal mechanisms to address complaints, forthwith apprising law enforcement of content hinting at criminal infractions, and revising their operational underpinnings to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and security of minors.

But the aspirations of the DSA stretch farther, encompassing a realm where platforms are agents against deception and manipulation of users, categorically eschewing targeted advertisement that exploits sensitive profiling data or is aimed at impressionable minors. The platforms must operate with an air of diligence and equitable objectivity, deftly applying their terms of use, and are compelled to reveal their content moderation practices through annual declarations of transparency.

The DSA bestows upon the designated VLOPs an even more intensive catalogue of obligations. Within a scant four months of their designation, Pornhub, XVideos, and Stripchat are mandated to implement measures that both empower and shield their users—especially the most vulnerable, minors—from harms that traverse their digital portals. Augmented content moderation measures are requisite, with critical risk analyses and mitigation strategies directed at halting the spread of unlawful content, such as child exploitation material or the non-consensual circulation of intimate imagery, as well as curbing the proliferation and repercussions of deepfake-generated pornography.

The New Rules

The DSA enshrines the preeminence of protecting minors, with a staunch requirement for VLOPs to contrive their services so as to anticipate and enfeeble any potential threats to the welfare of young internet navigators. They must enact operational measures to deter access to pornographic content by minors, including the utilization of robust age verification systems. The themes of transparency and accountability are amplified under the DSA's auspices, with VLOPs subject to external audits of their risk assessments and adherence to stipulations, the obligation to maintain accessible advertising repositories, and the provision of data access to rigorously vetted researchers.

Coordinated by the Commission in concert with the Member States' Digital Services Coordinators, vigilant supervision will be maintained to ensure the scrupulous compliance of Pornhub, Stripchat, and XVideos with the DSA's stringent directives. The Commission's services are poised to engage with the newly designated platforms diligently, affirming that initiatives aimed at shielding minors from pernicious content, as well as curbing the distribution of illegal content, are effectively addressed.

The EU's monumental crusade, distilled into the DSA, symbolises a pledge—a testament to its steadfast resolve to shepherd cyberspace, ensuring the Minotaur of regulation keeps the bedlam at a manageable compass and the sacrosanctity of the digital realm inviolate for all who meander through its infinite expanses. As we cast our gazes toward February 17, 2024—the cusp of the DSA's comprehensive application—it is palpable that this legislative milestone is not simply a set of guidelines; it stands as a bold, unflinching manifesto. It beckons the advent of a novel digital age, where every online platform, barring small and micro-enterprises, will be enshrined in the lofty ideals imparted by the DSA.

Conclusion

As we teeter on the edge of this nascent digital horizon, it becomes unequivocally clear: the European Union's Digital Services Act is more than a mundane policy—it is a pledge, a resolute statement of purpose, asserting that amid the vast, interwoven tapestry of the internet, each user's safety, dignity, and freedoms are enshrined and hold the intrinsic significance meriting the force of the EU's legislative guard. Although the labyrinth of the digital domain may be convoluted with complexity, guided by the DSA's insightful thread, the march toward a more secure, conscientious online sphere forges on—resolute, unerring, one deliberate stride at a time.

References

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6763https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/three-of-the-biggest-porn-sites-must-verify-ages-under-eus-new-digital-law-1566874.html

Executive Summary

‍
A video featuring Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that he issued a strict warning against student protesters. In the viral clip, Singh is allegedly heard saying that the government would not tolerate “anarchy” and that strict action would be taken against those blocking roads, disturbing public order, or damaging government property. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the claim to be false. The research revealed that the original video available on Rajnath Singh’s official YouTube channel was digitally altered by adding AI-generated audio. The statement heard in the viral video is not genuine and was created using artificial intelligence.

‍

Claim:

‍

An account on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), with the username @ForumDefence, shared a video on July 22, 2026, claiming that Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh had issued a warning regarding the ongoing student protest. The video features an AI-generated voice attributed to Rajnath Singh, in which he is allegedly heard saying: “Taking advantage of the student movement, the unrest and violence being spread over the past few days are strongly condemned by the government. Expressing one’s views is a democratic right, but breaking the law and creating difficulties for the public in its name will not be tolerated. The government will not tolerate such anarchy. Anyone attempting to block roads, disturb peace, or damage government property will face strict action.”

The link, archive link and screenshot of the post are provided below:

https://x.com/ForumDefence/status/2079960247888756775

https://archive.ph/2DkSj

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the viral claim, the Desk conducted a keyword search on Google. However, no credible news report or official statement was found confirming that Rajnath Singh had made such remarks regarding the student protest.

‍

‍

During further research, the Desk found the original video on the official YouTube channel of Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. A comparison between the viral clip and the original video showed that the statements attributed to Singh in the viral video did not match his actual remarks. In the original video, Rajnath Singh was speaking about the ongoing protests in Delhi. He said that the protests were a matter of serious concern and expressed that it was unfortunate that some people were attempting to use students and youth as a political tool for their own interests.

He further stated that the government was committed to addressing the concerns of students and youth, and that dialogue and discussion were the appropriate ways to resolve issues in a democracy.

The original video from Rajnath Singh’s official YouTube channel can be accessed here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w73iPTEfKCA

‍

‍

Further analysis of the viral video’s audio was conducted using the AI detection tool Resemble AI. The analysis indicated that the audio had a 99.10 per cent probability of being AI-generated.

‍

‍

The Desk also examined the viral video using the AI detection tool HIVE Moderation. The analysis suggested that the speech used in the video had an 88.1 per cent probability of being AI-generated.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The research established that the viral video featuring Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has been digitally manipulated by adding AI-generated audio. The statement attributed to Singh regarding strict action against student protesters is not genuine. The original video available on Rajnath Singh’s official YouTube channel contains different remarks, and the viral clip has been circulated with a false and misleading claim.

‍