#FactCheck - Bangladesh video falsely shared as BSF arresting an infiltrator at Bengal border
Executive Summary
A video showing security personnel overpowering a man is being widely shared on social media with the claim that it shows the Border Security Force (BSF) arresting an infiltrator attempting to cross the India-Bangladesh border in West Bengal. However, research by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the claim is false. The viral video is from Bangladesh and is unrelated to India or the BSF.
Claim
An X user shared the viral video claiming: “He was crossing the Bengal border from beneath the barbed fencing when the BSF caught him on the spot.”
The post was circulated as an incident from the India-Bangladesh border in West Bengal.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. During the research, we found the same video posted on 21 March 2026 by an X handle named “Niru Nahar.”
According to the caption of that post, the video showed Bangladesh Border Guards arresting BNP leader Mizan, also known as “Baba Mizan,” near the border.
Further research led us to a Facebook post uploaded on 22 March 2026 by Bangladeshi news platform Jono Pulse. The post identified the detained individual as “Juel,” an alleged drug trafficker from Chapainawabganj, and stated that he had been arrested by the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB).
Chapainawabganj is located in Bangladesh, confirming that the video is unrelated to West Bengal or the BSF.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video does not show the BSF arresting an infiltrator at the Bengal border. It is actually from Bangladesh and depicts a separate incident involving Border Guard Bangladesh personnel.
Related Blogs
In recent months, conversations around the possible shortage of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), a basic cooking fuel in Indian households, have quietly resurfaced across the country. From whispers in local markets to viral messages circulating on social media, concerns about LPG availability began to take hold in the public imagination. Though the immediacy of the situation has since faded, its echoes remain, reminding us how quickly uncertainty can spread. Like a ripple across still water, a single rumour can travel far, gathering force as it moves and blurring the line between perception and reality.
Against this backdrop, in April 2026, reports began circulating about a potential LPG shortage. The Union Government moved quickly to counter what it identified as misinformation, emphasising that supply remained stable and urging citizens not to engage in panic buying. A noticeable disconnect emerged between official communication and public perception. Across different regions, signs of anxiety-driven behaviour became evident. Instances of panic buying and hoarding increased, law enforcement agencies conducted raids to address such actions, and opportunistic thefts were reported, often exploiting widespread concern. These incidents highlight how misinformation, even when addressed promptly, can continue to shape public behaviour.
It is worth noting that rising prices also played a role in shaping public response, as increases in LPG rates contributed to a sense of urgency among consumers. Therefore, the surge in panic buying cannot be attributed solely to misinformation, but rather to a combination of economic pressures and perceived scarcity.
Misinformation Ecosystem - From Rumours to Behaviour
The spread of misinformation is occurring at an unprecedented pace and is, in large part, driven by the viral nature of social media. Digital platforms not only enable the rapid dissemination of information but also allow it to be amplified in ways that would not be possible through traditional media outlets. Often, the drive for virality outweighs any concern for accuracy, meaning that many individuals who spread misinformation are motivated more by the pursuit of attention than by any ideological agenda. Recent arrests of individuals involved in spreading misinformation about LPG and petrol shortages, much of which went viral, suggest that misinformation today is frequently driven by the desire for visibility rather than ideological motives. The information being circulated has largely followed a similar pattern, focusing on fears of an LPG shortage, expectations of price increases, and concerns about supply disruptions. Even though this information has not been verified, it has triggered behavioural responses among individuals. In several areas, including parts of Uttar Pradesh and Goa, the spread of misinformation through social media has led to panic buying, despite official assurances that there would be sufficient LPG supply to meet demand.
The impact of panic buying, and its associated misinformation, has already been seen in multiple sectors; these increased demands have placed pressure on the distribution network, leading to disruptions in access, as well as being out of stock of certain products. In many cases, commercial users of products (especially restaurants) have experienced significant disruption, threatening their continued operations, and industry representatives have alerted others about the inconsistent supply of commercial cylinders; likewise, consumers (households) are beginning to switch to alternative products (e.g., induction cooking) as a reflection of the anticipatory mindset to address the uncertainty created through perceptions of Product Scarcity.
State Response: Managing Misinformation or Behaviour?
The government has taken a variety of approaches, from advisories and enforcement actions to communicating with citizens indirectly. For example, State Governments have been directed to combat misinformation, monitor supply chains and take action against hoarding and black market activity. There has been a significant increase in the level of large- scale enforcement activity, with over 3,700 raids carried out to crack down on hoarding and black marketing related to LPG, in addition to confiscating cylinders and issuing penalties to those who break the law. In addition, the authorities have also focused on maintaining regular communication with the public in order to reassure them about the supply of LPG and fuel stability.
Geopolitical Context: Why Rumours Are Believable
Understanding today’s panic requires an understanding of the global environment: i.e., due to the ongoing conflict in West Asia, the energy markets are unstable, and energy supply is uncertain not only in West Asia but across a large part of the world. Even if domestic supply remains stable, public perception is affected by global instability. A clear example of this can be seen in neighbouring countries to India; Pakistan has seen significant increases in the cost of fuel, implemented measures such as reducing the number of days individuals work each week, and has created public support mechanisms; Bangladesh has imposed restrictions on the use of energy, has shortened the number of hours individuals can operate businesses each day, and has restricted the total amount of energy used; Sri Lanka has begun to ration fuel, and to increase the price of petrol; and Nepal has reduced the numbers of days individuals may work each week, and has adjusted supply.
All of these examples are not isolated instances, but are markers of a common regional environment. As we live in a global community that is connected in many ways, these developments will quickly affect public expectations everywhere. Therefore, for consumers in India, seeing evidence of rationing of fuel and shortages of fuel in neighbouring countries increases their belief that these types of problems could occur in their country.
Critical Perspective: Between Panic and Precaution
The LPG incident has brought about questions surrounding the nature of misinformation in terms of its definition & regulation. One of the main concerns is whether or not "misinformation" is being cast too widely. To be sure, false claims need to be addressed; however, not everything that is responded to publicly is based on untrue facts, as many times public responses are based on perceived risk via global and/or local incidents that occur. Perhaps the greatest challenge is the difficulty in differentiating precaution and panic. People’s memories of the COVID-19 pandemic are fresh in their minds and will serve to influence their behaviours moving onward, in that many people are stockpiling or preparing for uncertainty not out of irrational fear, but as an anticipatory response to their prior experiences.
Conclusion
The Indian LPG "crisis" is not so much a problem with actual supply chain breakdown as it is a result of how information and behaviour are connected through perception. This cohabitating environment of panic buying, law enforcement, and government assurance demonstrates an evident disconnect and gap between how governments present a narrative and how the public responds. While there is some role of misinformation within this discourse, the misinformation itself extends beyond any or all false claims about LPG supply and operates within a greater ecosystem of global uncertainty and personal experience. As such, and because of this, perception becomes an incredibly strong force in itself that produces true economic consequences.
Reference
- https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2248640&utm_source®=3&lang=2
- https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pm-addresses-the-lok-sabha-on-the-ongoing-conflict-in-west-asia/
- https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/iran-war-middle-east-conflict-why-the-lpg-crisis-is-forcing-migrants-to-quietly-leave-delhi-11313629
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bareilly/thieves-steal-108-lpg-cylinders-from-godown-in-up/articleshow/130035518.cms
- https://indianexpress.com/article/india/arrested-rumours-lpg-petrol-shortage-police-chasing-views-10614193/
- https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/social-media-rumours-fuel-panic-buying-in-some-up-districts-situation-normal-in-lucknow-101774465353107.html
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/fear-of-shortage-price-rise-fuels-panic-buying-across-goa/articleshow/129810144.cms
- https://www.news18.com/cities/new-delhi-news/online-rumours-offline-rush-panic-buying-sweeps-petrol-pumps-across-cities-whats-the-truth-ws-ln-9995684.html
- https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/3700-raids-conducted-across-country-to-wipe-out-lpg-black-marketing-says-centre/articleshow/130025232.cms
- https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/induction-stoves-fly-off-shelves-india-gas-shortage-fears-spark-panic-buying-2026-03-12/
- https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/restaurant-body-warns-of-closures-over-commercial-lpg-supply-concerns-writes-to-minister-11194418
- https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/fpj-dialogue-we-are-getting-only-1-cylinder-instead-of-10-says-ahar-president-vijay-shetty-on-mumbai-lpg-crisis
- https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/fuel-cuts-wfh-and-more-how-indias-neighbours-are-dealing-with-global-energy-crisis-triggered-by-us-iran-war-101775397199941.html
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-30/four-step-fuel-supply-plan-national-cabinet-fuel-crisis/106512706
- https://tribune.net.ph/2026/04/07/philippines-scrambles-as-regional-oil-crisis-hits
Introduction
How Generative Artificial Intelligence, or GenAI, is changing the employee workday is no longer limited to writing emails or debugging code, but now also includes analysing contracts, generating reports, and much more. The use of AI tools in everyday work has become commonplace, but the speed at which companies have adopted these technologies has created a new kind of risk. Unlike threats that come from an outside attacker, Shadow AI is created inside an organisation by a legitimate employee who uses unapproved AI tools to make their work more efficient and productive. In many cases, the employee is unaware of the potential security, data privacy, and compliance risks involved in using such tools to perform their job duties.
What Is Shadow AI?
Shadow AI is when individuals use AI tools at work that aren’t provided by the company, like tools or other software programs, without the knowledge or permission of the employer. Examples of shadow AI include:
- Using personal ChatGPT or other chatbot accounts to complete tasks at the office
- Uploading business-related documents to online AI technologies for analysis or summarisation.
- Copying proprietary source code into an online AI model for debugging
- Installing browser extensions and add-ons that are not approved by IT or Security personnel.
How Shadow AI Is Harmful
1. Uncontrolled Data Exposure
When employees access or input information into their user-created AI, it becomes outside the controls of the company, such as both employee personal information and any third-party personal information, private company information (such as source code or contracts), and company internal strategies. After a user enters data into their user-created AIs, the company loses all ability to monitor how that data is stored, processed, or maintained. A data leak situation exists without a malicious cyberattack. The biggest risk of a data leak is not maliciousness but rather the loss of control and governance over sensitive data.
2. Regulatory and Legal Non-Compliance
Data protection laws like GDPR, India’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, HIPAA, and other relevant sectoral laws require businesses to process data in accordance with the law, to minimise the amount of data they use, and to be accountable for their actions. Shadow AI often results in the unlawful use of personal data due to a lack of a legal basis for the processing, unauthorised cross-border data transfers, and not having appropriate contractual protections in place with their AI service providers. Regulators do not see the convenience of employees as an excuse for not complying with the law, and therefore, the organisation is ultimately responsible for any violations that occur.
3. Loss of Intellectual Property
Employees frequently use AI tools to speed up tasks involving proprietary information—debugging code, reviewing contracts, or summarising internal research. When done using unapproved AI platforms, this can expose trade secrets and intellectual property, eroding competitive advantage and creating long-term business risk.
Real-Life Example: Samsung’s ChatGPT Data Leak
In 2023, a case study exemplifying the Shadow AI risk occurred when Samsung Electronics placed a temporary ban on employee access to ChatGPT and other AI tools after reports from engineers revealed they were using ChatGPT to create debugging processes for internal source code and to summarise meeting notes. Consequently, confidential source code related to semiconductors was inadvertently uploaded onto a public AI platform. While there were no known incursions into the company’s system due to this incident, Samsung faced a significant challenge: once sensitive information is input into a public AI tool, it exists on external servers that are outside of the company’s purview or control.
As a result of this incident, Samsung restricted employee use of ChatGPT on corporate devices, issued a series of internal communications prohibiting the sharing of corporate data with public AI tools, and increased the urgency of their discussions regarding the adoption of secure, enterprise-level AI (artificial intelligence) solutions.
What Organisations Are Doing Today
Many organisations respond to Shadow AI risk by:
- Blocking access at the network level
- Circulating warning emails or policies
While these actions may reduce immediate exposure, they fail to address the root cause: employees still need AI to perform their jobs efficiently. As a result, bans often push AI usage underground, increasing Shadow AI rather than eliminating it.
Why Blocking AI Does Not Work—Governance Does
History has demonstrated that prohibition does not work - we see this when trying to block access to cloud storage, instant messaging and collaboration tools. Employees are forced to use personal devices and/or accounts when their employers block AI, which means employers do not have real-time visibility into how their employees are using these technologies, and creates friction with the security and compliance team as they try to enforce the types of tools their employees can use. Prohibiting AI adoption will not stop it from being adopted; it will just create a challenge for employers regarding how safe and responsible it is. The challenge for effective organisations is therefore to shift from denial and develop governance-first AI strategies aimed at controlling data usage, protection and security, rather than merely restricting access to a list of specific tools.
Shadow AI: A Silent Legal Liability Under the GDPR
Shadow AI isn't a problem for the Information Technology Department; it is a failure of Governance, Compliance and Law. By using AI tools that have not been approved as a result, the organisation processes personal data without a lawful basis (Article 6 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)), repurposes data for use beyond its original intent and in breach of the Purpose Limitation (Article 5(1)(b)), and routinely exceeds necessity and in breach of Data Minimisation (Article 5(1)(c)). The outcome of these actions is the use of tools that involve International Data Transfers Without Authorisation and are therefore in breach of Chapter V, and violate Article 32 because there are no enforceable safeguards in place. Most significantly, the failure to demonstrate Oversight, Logging and Control under Articles 5(2) and 24 constitutes a failure in Accountability. Therefore, from a Regulatory perspective, Shadow AI is not accidental and is not defensible.
The Right Solution: Secure and Governed AI Adoption
1. Provide Approved AI Tools
Employers have an obligation to supply business-approved AI technology for helping workers to be productive while maintaining maximum protections, like storing data separately and not using employees' data for training a model; defining how long data is kept, and the rules around deleting that data. When employees are provided with verified and secure AI options that align with their work processes, they will rely significantly less on Shadow AI.
2. Enforce Zero-Trust Data Access
The governance of AI systems must follow the principles of "zero trust," granting access to data only through the principle of "least privilege," which means that data access will only be allowed by the system user, and providing continuous verification of user-identity and context; this supports and helps establish context-aware controls to monitor and track all user activities, which will be especially important as agent-like AI systems become increasingly autonomous and are capable of operating at machine-speed where even small errors in configuration, will result in rapid and large expose to data.
3. Apply DLP and Audit Logging
It is important to have robust data loss prevention measures in place to protect sensitive data that is sent outside an organisation. The first end user or machine that accesses the data should be detailed in a comprehensive audit log that indicates when and how the data is accessed. In combination with other controls, these measures create accountability, comply with regulations, and assist with appropriately detecting and responding to incidents.
4. Maintain Visibility Across AI, Cloud, and SaaS
Security teams need unified visibility across AI tools, personal cloud applications, and SaaS platforms. Risks move across systems, and controls must follow the data wherever it flows.
Conclusion
This new threat exposes an organisation to the risk of data loss through leaks, regulatory fines, liability for the loss of intellectual property, and reputational damage, all of which can occur without any intent to cause harm. The way forward is not to block AI, but to adopt a clear framework built on governance, visibility, and secure enablement. This approach allows organisations to use AI with confidence, while ensuring trust, accountability, and effective oversight to protect data and support AI in reaching its full transformative potential. AI use is encouraged, but it must be done responsibly, ethically, and securely.
References
- https://bronson.ai/resources/shadow-ai/
- https://www.varonis.com/blog/shadow-ai
- https://www.waymakeros.com/learn/gdpr-hipaa-shadow-ai-compliance-nightmare
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/05/02/samsung-bans-chatgpt-and-other-chatbots-for-employees-after-sensitive-code-leak/
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/special/contributor-content/2025/05/23/shadow-ai-the-hidden-risk-in-todays-workplace/83822081007
Executive Summary:
A fake photo claiming to show the cricketer Virat Kohli watching a press conference by Rahul Gandhi before a match, has been widely shared on social media. The original photo shows Kohli on his phone with no trace of Gandhi. The incident is claimed to have happened on March 21, 2024, before Kohli's team, Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB), played Chennai Super Kings (CSK) in the Indian Premier League (IPL). Many Social Media accounts spread the false image and made it viral.
Claims:
The viral photo falsely claims Indian cricketer Virat Kohli was watching a press conference by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on his phone before an IPL match. Many Social media handlers shared it to suggest Kohli's interest in politics. The photo was shared on various platforms including some online news websites.
Fact Check:
After we came across the viral image posted by social media users, we ran a reverse image search of the viral image. Then we landed on the original image posted by an Instagram account named virat__.forever_ on 21 March.
The caption of the Instagram post reads, “VIRAT KOHLI CHILLING BEFORE THE SHOOT FOR JIO ADVERTISEMENT COMMENCE.❤️”
Evidently, there is no image of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi on the Phone of Virat Kohli. Moreover, the viral image was published after the original image, which was posted on March 21.
Therefore, it’s apparent that the viral image has been altered, borrowing the original image which was shared on March 21.
Conclusion:
To sum up, the Viral Image is altered from the original image, the original image caption tells Cricketer Virat Kohli chilling Before the Jio Advertisement commences but not watching any politician Interview. This shows that in the age of social media, where false information can spread quickly, critical thinking and fact-checking are more important than ever. It is crucial to check if something is real before sharing it, to avoid spreading false stories.
