Deepfake Alert: Sachin Tendulkar's Warning Against Technology Misuse

Executive Summary

‍

A volcano erupted at Indonesia’s Anak Krakatau on the night of September 4, 2026. A video is being shared on social media in connection with the eruption. The video shows lava rising high into the air following a volcanic eruption, with people seen fleeing the area. Some social media users are sharing the video claiming that it shows the eruption of Indonesia’s Anak Krakatau volcano. Research by CyberPeace found that the viral video is AI-generated. The video was created with the help of AI tools. However, four volcanoes, including Anak Krakatau, have erupted in Indonesia.

‍

Claim

‍

An Instagram user shared the viral video with the caption: “Indonesia’s Anak Krakatau volcano erupted Friday night. According to MAGMA Indonesia, lava fountains were seen rising from the volcano’s crater, while ash plumes reached a height of up to 400 metres. The volcano remains at Level III, with authorities enforcing a 3-kilometre exclusion zone around the crater.”

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DdBfQprThPA/ 

https://archive.ph/hvd0G 

Fact Check

‍

To investigate the viral video, we examined it closely and noticed several inconsistencies. At the beginning of the video, people can be seen standing calmly as the volcanic eruption takes place. Shortly afterward, the vehicles parked there suddenly begin moving. In one of the cars, no driver is visible. Meanwhile, the legs of a person running on the road disappear, and the person appears to merge into the background. These visual inconsistencies raised suspicions that the viral video had been created using AI tools.

‍

‍

We checked the video using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation, which indicated that there was a more than 94 percent likelihood that the video was AI-generated.

‍

‍

We checked the keyframes of the video using the AI detection tool Was It AI, which identified the video as 97 percent likely to be AI-generated.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Anak Krakatau volcano in Indonesia erupted on the night of September 4, 2026. However, our research found that the video being shared in connection with the eruption was created using AI tools. Visual inconsistencies in the footage, along with the results of AI detection tools, indicate that the video is AI-generated and does not show genuine footage of the Anak Krakatau eruption. Therefore, the claim that the viral video shows the September 4 eruption of Indonesia’s Anak Krakatau volcano is false.

‍

Introduction
‍

In June 2026, the Government of India temporarily restricted access to Telegram amid concerns that the platform had been used to facilitate examination related malpractice, including the alleged circulation of leaked question papers during the NEET UG re examination. The move reignited a familiar debate about the responsibility of digital platforms for unlawful activities carried out through them.

Critics of such restrictions raise a fundamental question: if a traffic accident occurs on a road, do we shut down the road? If theft takes place inside a shopping mall, do we close the entire mall? By the same logic, is it reasonable to block a communication platform because some individuals misuse it? These questions lie at the heart of a broader conflict between state interests in maintaining public order and the protection of digital rights, privacy, and freedom of communication in an increasingly interconnected world.

The controversy surrounding Telegram therefore extends beyond a single examination or messaging application. It raises a deeper and more pressing question: who should bear responsibility for illegal acts committed through encrypted digital platforms, and where should the law draw the line between effective enforcement and the preservation of fundamental digital freedoms?

Beyond mere communication for millions of students in India, Telegram is a classroom in the digital sense, an archive for their notes, practice papers, lecture recordings, and community groups that hundreds of millions of candidates refer to every single day. Therefore, why on a routine day in June 2026 did the messaging app top every other channel? Temporary internet restriction on the platform had become necessary to stop examination-related malpractice like leakage of question papers and was temporarily suspended, with reports suggesting that this move by the government was on the occasion of the NEET-UG re-examination.

This ban once again brings up a bigger question that cannot be contained within one particular examination. When has it become okay to hold a communication platform responsible and accountable for illegal acts committed over it? Or are the perpetrators solely to blame, and the service can be prohibited? Ultimately, where is the line drawn between public interest, law enforcement, and digital rights and privacy? 

‍

End-to-End Encryption: Architecture and Benefits
‍

At the heart of these discussions of Telegram and other apps lies a technology referred to as "end-to-end encryption" or "E2EE." Quite literally, it means a message is locked with cryptography on the sender's device and can only be unlocked by the intended recipient. Not even the tech platform running the communication app can decipher it for everyone else; it just looks like random gibberish.

‍

The Process
‍

This kind of modern communication relies on public key cryptography. Each person has a public key they can share with anyone and a private key that stays only on their devices. When they send you a message, it is scrambled with crypto that can be unlocked by only your private key. WhatsApp and Signal, for example, use the Signal Protocol, which features "perfect forward secrecy" and is designed to protect communications from ever being unlocked even if one key is compromised. Telegram's approach is a bit unique. By default, Telegram messages aren't encrypted with end-to-end crypto; this only comes via an optional feature called "Secret Chats," a key difference in the regulatory debate.

‍

The Dark Side: Crime, Misuse, and the Moderation Dilemma

‍

The very features that make end-to-end messaging popular among everyday people are privacy, speed, anonymity, and mass reach which also make end-to-end messaging popular among criminals. That, unfortunately, is the catch for policymakers globally: The technology designed to protect innocent users is also the technology that facilitates criminal activity.

‍

3.1 Criminal Abuse

Telegram, in particular, has frequently come under fire for its role in hosting a spectrum of criminal activities, most notably in the recent controversy in India regarding NEET-UG 2026 examination papers where channels allegedly advertised leaked question papers for enormous sums, convincing desperate candidates. In these instances, messages could be altered or deleted using Telegram’s message editing feature, fabricating evidence of prior leaks. However, this extends to illicit marketplaces, drug trafficking, financial fraud, money laundering, and distributing other prohibited content. Telegram's usage in disseminating extremist propaganda and aiding criminal organizations is also frequently cited, leading to bans or restrictions in countries ranging from Brazil to Nepal to Somalia to Vietnam.

‍

3.2 The Moderation Dilemma

But the difficulty is not just with misuse; it’s also about effective moderation. Moderation, however, requires content transparency. Strong encryption is built to obscure just that. Many end-to-end messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp emphasize that even if they wanted to, they would have been able to decipher the content of a user’s message due to their architecture. Telegram has been in scrutiny for years due to its limited cooperation with law enforcement agencies because its default chats are not completely end-to-end encrypted, though there has been an attempt by Pavel Durov, the platform’s founder, to increase cooperation following his 2024 arrest in France.

This gives policymakers the following challenge: How can governments require increased access to fight crime without forcing tech companies to weaken security for everyone? As cryptographers point out, a specific "backdoor" intended to allow access to law enforcement officials can be easily exploited by hackers, foreign governments, and any other actor with nefarious intent.

‍

Comparison of Regulatory Approaches Worldwide

‍

4.1 Authoritarian Countries' Responses

‍

China, for instance, has had the app blocked as part of its strategy to control access to the internet since 2015, and Iran did so in 2018 when the app was used to help organize protests against the government. An infamous Russian bid to block Telegram in 2018 turned into a cautionary story. Trying to censor the service disrupted the IPs of millions of computers, including significant services like those run by Amazon and Google. The move was met by a surge of users turning to VPNs to get access. It’s an expensive, disruptive, and incomplete form of censorship.

‍

4.2 Democratic Countries' Approaches

‍

Democratic jurisdictions generally prefer targeted interventions. Telegram was suspended in Brazil in 2022 and 2023, though again, only in response to a judge’s order in relation to particular investigations, and was lifted when it came into compliance. The EU’s approach has been to build on an established approach of regulation by use of a broader legislative framework, including the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, aimed at platform liability rather than outlawing encryption outright.

 Meanwhile, the proposed scanning of encrypted communications has run into strong judicial headwinds, with the European courts stressing the danger of backdoors to privacy.

‍

4.3 The United Kingdom Approach

‍

The UK offers a middle way. With its Investigatory Powers Act, the government can oblige tech companies to collaborate in legitimate investigations. But this came to a head earlier this year with the case of Apple and the government's attempts to force it to unlock encrypted iCloud backups. Apple not only refused to reduce its encryption but also decided instead to disable some of its features for British users. This has created a problem for democracies across the world: how to balance access for investigators against the need to maintain the security that makes our systems safer.

‍

Judicial and Legislative Perspectives: India and Beyond

‍

In the Indian context, to have a perspective about the legal frameworks concerning content moderation, let’s explore some of the foundational decisions from the Supreme Court. Three decisions have laid the building block for digital rights laws: the first being Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), where Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, was upheld, but only by laying rigorous conditions on the review process and chance of challenging the said decision. Another important decision in this sphere is Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) which stated that the right to privacy is fundamental in nature under Article 21 of the Constitution and stipulated the constitutional requirements of legality, legitimacy, and proportionality against the state’s interventions in fundamental rights. The most recent important case law to consider, in this context, would be Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) which set certain limitations, such as any internet shut-downs or orders have to be temporary, proportional, and have scope for appeal. Further, the Supreme Court demanded transparency around any and all orders of blocking.

These principles of proportionality and legal limitations are highly pertinent to the Telegram issue, especially since Section 69A confers powers to block information in case of concerns about public order, national security, etc., but activists often cite this power to target specific content rather than entire platforms like Telegram. The ban on Telegram in June 2026 and disabling of message editing will force authorities to justify not only their statutory authority but also the need for proportionate means.

These aspects are amplified by IT Rules, 2021, which mandate that some instant messaging platforms may require identification of the ‘first originator’ of messages, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to protect digital personal data by ensuring it does not undermine national security exceptions to this end. 

Moreover, the use of encryption to ensure secure and private communications is becoming an important point of legal discourse globally. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights in Podchasov v. Russia (2024) held that mandating decryption on devices as a tool of investigative power constituted a disproportionate interference with an individual's right to privacy implying that while states may indeed have authority to regulate communication and digital services, any such measures limiting the scope of encryption will have to meet strict requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality to be legally justifiable.

‍

Constitutional Validity of the Ban

‍

The government's case for a constitutional ban on Telegram rests upon its ability to satisfy the proportionality framework established by Puttaswamy and Anuradha Bhasin.

1. Legitimate aim:  The state's strong suit. This is the government's best argument. Protection of the integrity of NEET-UG, a high-stakes test with close to 2.4 million students, can indeed be a legitimate state objective. Given that there is evidence of channels that allegedly were involved in selling leaked question papers, the action is presumably justifiable under section 69A for preventing the incitement or occurrence of public disorder or preventing cognizable offenses.
2. Necessity: The National Testing Agency (NTA) itself admitted that localized removal of suspicious accounts on Telegram had already mitigated the risks, while Telegram insisted that it had independently taken down numerous channels. The fact that the block affected more than 150 million users in India, where the medium is widely used for personal communication and is also utilized on other platforms like WhatsApp, Discord, and Instagram to a similar or higher extent, raises the responsibility to justify a strict platform-wide ban. Moreover, there is a significant legal question regarding the state’s authority under section 69A to direct Telegram to disable its message-editing capability.
3. Proportionality and process: The block, even though it was temporary and intended to ensure fairness in the examination system, severely undermined legitimate uses of the platform by students who used it to share educational materials and organize study groups. Moreover, the opaqueness around the section 69A order is itself hard to reconcile with the transparency requirements set out in Anuradha Bhasin. 

Thus, while the objectives of preventing exam fraud may be legitimate, the necessity and proportionality of single platform-wide bans remain highly suspect under Indian constitutional law.

‍

Policy Recommendations and the Path Forward

‍

The Telegram controversy points to the need for a better balancing act in platform governance in India. Firstly, instead of blanket platform shutdowns, action should target specific channels, bots, or URLs, as may be the case. Secondly, any attempt to dictate changes to features, such as disabling message editing, should be based on specific statutory provisions, not an expansive reading of Section 69A. Furthermore, there is a dire need for increased transparency; blocking orders must state the justification for the order, what is being blocked, and for how long, as far as possible. In the long run, stricter cross-border cooperation via streamlined MLATs, or through the appointment of local legal representatives by foreign platforms, would facilitate easier enforcement. Ultimately, all major blocking decisions must be accompanied by proportionality assessments. Lastly, India must resist pressure to provide access to encryption backdoors; while this might ease investigative burdens, doing so would severely jeopardise the cybersecurity of India, its businesses, and citizens.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Telegram ban is an example of the tricky equilibrium between protection of public interest and protection of digital liberties in our hyper-connected world. While the intent to counter exam fraud is justifiable, a blanket ban on any platform has much broader implications on questions of necessity, proportionality and transparency. India has a well-developed constitutional and legal framework to deal with this issue already, and the challenge will be to see if those powers are used appropriately.

‍

References

‍

Cases:

‍

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Bench)
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 — Supreme Court of India
• Podchasov v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 33696/19, February 2024)
• Apple Inc. v. United States (In re Search of an Apple iPhone, C.D. Cal. 2016)
• Telegram Messenger Inc. v. Union of India & Anr., Delhi High Court (June 2026) — Sub judice

‍

Legislation & Rules:

‍

• Information Technology Act, 2000 (India) — Sections 69A, 79
• IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009
• IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India) & DPDP Rules, 2025
• EU Digital Services Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/2065)
• EU Digital Markets Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/1925)
• EU Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) Proposal — In Trilogue, June 2026
• UK Investigatory Powers Act, 2016

‍

Policy Sources:

‍

• Internet Freedom Foundation, Statement on Telegram Block, 16 June 2026
•  European Commission, ProtectEU Security Strategy, June 2025
•  MeitY Section 69A Blocking Order re: Telegram (June 2026)
•  NTA Press Release on NEET-UG 2026 Re-Examination, 16 June 2026

‍

Introduction

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has launched the 'Digital Intelligence Platform (DIP)'and the 'Chakshu' facility on the Sanchar Saathi portal to combat cybercrimes and financial frauds. Union telecom, IT and railways minister Ashwini Vaishnaw announced the initiatives, stating that the government has been working to counter cyber frauds at national, organizational, and individual levels. The Sanchar Saathi portal has successfully tackled such attacks, and the two new portals will further enhance the capacity to check any kind of cyber security threat.

The Digital Intelligence Platform is a secure and integrated platform for real-time intelligence sharing, information exchange, and coordination among stakeholders, including telecom operators, law enforcement agencies, banks, financial institutions, social media platforms, and identity document issuing authorities. It also contains information regarding cases detected as misuse of telecom resources.

The 'Chakshu' facility allows citizens to report suspected fraud communication received over call, SMS, or WhatsApp with the intention of defrauding, such as KYC expiry, bank account/payment wallet/SIM/gas connection/electricity connection, sextortion, impersonations a government official/relative for sending money, and disconnection of all mobile numbers by the Department of Telecommunications.

The launch of these proactive initiatives or steps represents another significant stride by the Ministry of Communications and the Department of Telecommunications in combating cybersecurity threats to citizens' digital assets.

In this age of technology, there is a reason to be concerned about the threats posed by cybercrooks to individuals and organizations. The risk of using digital means for communication, e-commerce, and critical infrastructure has increased significantly. It is important to have proper measures in place to prevent cybercrime and destructive behavior. The Department of Telecommunication has unveiled "Chakshu," a digital intelligence portal aimed at combating cybercrimes. This platform seeks to enhance the country's cyber defense capabilities by providing enforcement agencies with effective tools and actionable intelligence for countering cybercrimes, including financial frauds.

Digital Intelligence Platform (DIP)

Digital Intelligence Platform (DIP) developed by the Department of Telecommunications is a secure and integrated platform for real-time intelligence sharing, information exchange and coordination among the stakeholders i.e. Telecom Service Providers(TSPs), law enforcement agencies (LEAs), banks and financial institutions(FIs), social media platforms, identity document issuing authorities etc. The portal also contains information regarding the cases detected as misuse of telecom resources. The shared information could be useful to the stakeholders in their respective domains. It also works as a backend repository for the citizen-initiated requests on the Sanchar Saathi portal for action by the stakeholders. The DIP is accessible to the stakeholders through secure connectivity, and the relevant information is shared based on their respective roles. However, the platform is not accessible to citizens.‍

What is Chakshu?

Chakshu, which means “eye” in Hindi, is a new feature on the Sanchar Saathi portal. This citizen-friendly platform allows you to report suspicious communication you receive via calls, SMS, or WhatsApp. “Chakshu” is a new advanced tool to safeguard against modern-day cybercriminal activities. Chakshu is a sophisticated design that uses the latest technologies for assembling and analyzing digital information and provides law enforcement agencies with useful data on what should be done next. Below are some of its attributes.

Here are some examples of what you can report:

-       Fraudulent messages claiming your KYC (Know Your Customer)details need to be updated.

-       Fraudulent requests to update your bank account, payment wallet, or SIM card details.

-       Phishing attempts impersonating government officials or relatives asking for money.

-       Fraudulent threats of disconnection of your sim connections.

How Chakshu Aims to crackdown Cybercrime and Financial Frauds

Chakshu is a new tool on the Sanchar Saathi platform that invites individuals to report suspected fraudulent communications received by phone, SMS, or WhatsApp. These fraudulent activities may include attempts to deceive individuals through schemes such as KYC expiry or update requests for bank accounts, payment wallets, SIM cards, gas connections, and electricity connections, sextortion, impersonation of government officials or relatives for financial gain, or false claims of mobile number disconnection by the Department of Telecommunications.

The tool is well-designed and equipped to help the investigators with actionable intelligence and insights, enabling LEAs to conduct targeted investigations on financial frauds and cyber-crimes; the tool helps in gathering a comprehensive data analysis and evidence collection capability by mapping out the connection between individuals, organizations and illicit activities, it, therefore, allows the law enforcement agencies in dismantling criminal activities and help the law enforcement agencies.

Chakshu’s Impact

India has launched Chakshu, a digital intelligence tool that strengthens the country's cybersecurity policy. Chakshu employs modern technology and real-time data analysis to enhance India's cyber defenses. Law enforcement can detect and neutralize possible threats by taking proactive approach to threat analysis and prevention before they become significant crises. Chakshu also improves the resilience of critical infrastructure and digital ecosystems, safeguarding them against cyber-attacks. Overall, Chakshu plays an important role in India's cybersecurity posture and the protection of national interests in the digital era.

Where can Chaksu be accessed?

Chakshu can be accessed through the government's Sanchar Saathi web portal:https://sancharsaathi.gov.in

Conclusion

The launch of the Digital Intelligence Platform and Chakshu facility is a step forward in safeguarding citizens from cybercrimes and financial fraud. These initiatives use advanced technology and stakeholder collaboration to empower law enforcement agencies. The Department of Telecommunications' proactive approach demonstrates the government's commitment to cybersecurity defenses and protecting digital assets, ensuring a safer digital environment for citizens and critical infrastructure.

References

• https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/policy/dot-launches-digital-intelligence-portal-chakshu-facility-to-curb-cybercrimes-financial-frauds/108220814
• https://bankingfrontiers.com/digital-intelligence-platform-launched-to-curb-cybercrime-financial-fraud/
• https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/calcutta-hc-justice-abhijit-gangopadhyay-sends-his-resignation-to-prez-cji-124030500367_1.html
• https://www.the420.in/dip-chakshu-government-launches-powerful-weapons-against-cybercrime/
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2011383

‍