#FactCheck - Old Video of Khamenei Manipulated With AI Voice, Viral Claim Misleading
Executive Summary
Claims are circulating that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in a major attack allegedly carried out by Israel and the United States. Amid these claims, a video is being widely shared on social media in which Khamenei can be heard saying, “Beware of fake news, I am alive.” Research conducted by CyberPeace has found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the video being shared is old and that Khamenei’s voice has been altered using artificial intelligence to support a misleading narrative.
Claim
On March 1, 2026, an Instagram user shared the viral video in which Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is heard saying, “Beware of fake news, I am alive.” The link to the post and its archived version are provided above along with a screenshot.
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the claim, we extracted key frames from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found the same video on the YouTube channel of Sky News Australia, published on June 19, 2025. In the approximately 43-minute-long video, the portion used in the viral clip appears around the 10-minute mark.
According to Sky News Australia’s report, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had rejected US President Donald Trump’s demand for unconditional surrender. The Ayatollah regime also warned that any American military intervention would be accompanied by “irreparable damage.” Upon closely listening to the viral clip, we noticed that Khamenei’s voice sounded robotic, raising suspicion that it may have been AI-generated. We then analyzed the video using the AI detection tool AURGIN AI. The results indicated that the viral clip had been generated using artificial intelligence.
Conclusion
Our research establishes that the viral video is old and has been digitally manipulated. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s voice has been altered using artificial intelligence and the clip is being shared with a misleading claim.
Related Blogs
A few of us were sitting together, talking shop - which, for moms, inevitably circles back to children, their health and education. Mothers of teenagers were concerned that their children seemed to spend an excessive amount of time online and had significantly reduced verbal communication at home.
Reena shared that she was struggling to understand her two boys, who had suddenly transformed from talkative, lively children into quiet, withdrawn teenagers.
Naaz nodded. “My daughter is glued to her device. I just can’t get her off it! What do I do, girls? Any suggestions?”
Mou sighed, “And what about the rising scams? I keep warning my kids about online threats, but I’m not sure I’m doing enough.”
Not just scams, those come later. What worries me more are the videos and photos of unsuspecting children being edited and misused on digital platforms,” added Reena.
The Digital Parenting Dilemma
For parents, it’s a constant challenge—allowing children internet access means exposing them to potential risks while restricting it invites criticism for being overly strict.
‘What do I do?’ is a question that troubles many parents, as they know how addictive phones and gaming devices can be. (Fun fact: Even parents sometimes struggle to resist endlessly scrolling through social media!)
‘What should I tell them, and when?’ This becomes a pressing concern when parents hear about cyberbullying, online grooming, or even cyberabduction.
‘How do I ensure they stay cybersafe?’ This remains an ongoing worry, as children grow and their online activities evolve.
Whether it’s a single-child, dual-income household, a two-child, single-income family, or any other combination, parents have their hands full managing work, chores, and home life. Sometimes, children have to be left alone—with grandparents, caregivers, or even by themselves for a few hours—making it difficult to monitor their digital lives. While smartphones help parents stay connected and track their child’s location, they can also expose children to risks if not used responsibly.
Breaking It Down
Start cybersafety discussions early and tailor them to your child’s age.
For simplicity, let’s categorize learning into five key age groups:
- 0 – 2 years
- 3 – 7 years
- 8 – 12 years
- 13 – 16 years
- 16 – 19 years
Let’s explore the key safety messages for each stage.
Reminder:
Children will always test boundaries and may resist rules. The key is to lead by example—practice cybersafety as a family.
0 – 2 Years: Newborns & Infants
Pediatricians recommend avoiding screen exposure for children under two years old. If you occasionally allow screen time (for example, while changing them), keep it to a minimum. Children are easily distracted—use this to your advantage.
What can you do?
- Avoid watching TV or using mobile devices in front of them.
- Keep activity books, empty boxes, pots, and ladles handy to engage them.
3 – 7 Years: Toddlers & Preschoolers
Cybersafety education should ideally begin when a child starts engaging with screens. At this stage, parents have complete control over what their child watches and for how long.
What can you do?
- Keep screen time limited and fully supervised.
- Introduce basic cybersecurity concepts, such as stranger danger and good picture vs. bad picture.
- Encourage offline activities—educational toys, books, and games.
- Restrict your own screen time when your child is awake to set a good example.
- Set up parental controls and create child-specific accounts on devices.Secure all devices with comprehensive security software.
8 – 12 Years: Primary & Preteens
Cyber-discipline should start now. Strengthen rules, set clear boundaries, and establish consequences for rule violations.
What can you do?
- Increase screen time gradually to accommodate studies, communication, and entertainment.
- Teach them about privacy and the dangers of oversharing personal information.
- Continue stranger-danger education, including safe/unsafe websites and apps.
- Emphasize reviewing T&Cs before downloading apps.Introduce concepts like scams, phishing, deepfakes, and virus attacks using real-life examples.
- Keep banking and credit card credentials private—children may unintentionally share sensitive information.
Cyber Safety Mantras:
- STOP. THINK. ACT.
- Do Not Trust Blindly Online.
13 – 16 Years: The Teenage Phase
Teenagers are likely to resist rules and demand independence, but if cybersecurity has been a part of their upbringing, they will tolerate parental oversight.
What can you do?
- Continue parental controls but allow greater access to previously restricted content.
- Encourage open conversations about digital safety and online threats.
- Respect their need for privacy but remain involved as a silent observer.
- Discuss cyberbullying, harassment, and online reputation management.
- Keep phones out of bedrooms at night and maintain device-free zones during family time.
- Address online relationships and risks like dating scams, sextortion, and trafficking.
16 – 19 Years: The Transition to Adulthood
By this stage, children have developed a sense of responsibility and maturity. It’s time to gradually loosen control while reinforcing good digital habits.
What can you do?
- Monitor their online presence without being intrusive.Maintain open discussions—teens still value parental advice.
- Stay updated on digital trends so you can offer relevant guidance.
- Encourage digital balance by planning device-free family outings.
Final Thoughts
As a parent, your role is not just to set rules but to empower your child to navigate the digital world safely. Lead by example, encourage responsible usage, and create an environment where your child feels comfortable discussing online challenges with you.
Wishing you a safe and successful digital parenting journey!
.webp)
Introduction
The rise of unreliable social media newsgroups on online platforms has significantly altered the way people consume and interact with news, contributing to the spread of misinformation and leading to sources of unverified and misleading content. Unlike traditional news outlets that adhere to journalistic standards, these newsgroups often lack proper fact-checking and editorial oversight, leading to the rapid dissemination of false or distorted information. Social media transformed individuals into active content creators. Social media newsgroups (SMNs) are social media platforms used as sources of news and information. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center (July-August 2024), 54% of U.S. adults now rely on social media for news. This rise in SMNs has raised concerns over the integrity of online news and undermines trust in legitimate news sources. Social media users are advised to consume information and news from authentic sources or channels available on social media platforms.
The Growing Issue of Misinformation in Social Media Newsgroups
Social media newsgroups have become both a source of vital information and a conduit for misinformation. While these platforms allow rapid news sharing and facilitate political and social campaigns, they also pose significant risks of unverified information. Misleading information, often driven by algorithms designed to maximise user engagement, proliferates in these spaces. This has led to increasing challenges, as SMNs cater to diverse communities with varying political affiliations, gender demographics, and interests. This sometimes results in the creation of echo chambers where information is not critically assessed, amplifying the confirmation bias and enabling the unchecked spread of misinformation. A prominent example is the false narratives surrounding COVID-19 vaccines that spread across SMNs, contributing to widespread vaccine hesitancy and public health risks.
Understanding the Susceptibility of Online Newsgroups to Misinformation
Several factors make social media newsgroups particularly susceptible to misinformation. Some of the factors are listed below:
- The lack of robust fact-checking mechanisms in social media news groups can lead to false narratives which can spread easily.
- The lack of expertise from admins of online newsgroups, who are often regular users without journalism knowledge, can result in the spreading of inaccurate information. Their primary goal of increasing engagement may overshadow concerns about accuracy and credibility.
- The anonymity of users exacerbates the problem of misinformation. It allows users to share unverified or misleading content without accountability.
- The viral nature of social media also leads to the vast spread of misinformation to audiences instantly, often outpacing efforts to correct it.
- Unlike traditional media outlets, online newsgroups often lack formal fact-checking processes. This absence allows misinformation to circulate without verification, making it easier for inaccuracies to go unchallenged.
- The sheer volume of user engagement in the form of posts has created the struggle to moderate content effectively imposing significant challenges.
- Social Media Platforms have algorithms designed to enhance user engagement and inadvertently amplify sensational or emotionally charged content, which is more likely to be false.
Consequences of Misinformation in Newsgroups
The societal impacts of misinformation in SMNs are profound. Political polarisation can fuel one-sided views and create deep divides in democratic societies. Health risks emerge when false information spreads about critical issues, such as the anti-vaccine movements or misinformation related to public health crises. Misinformation has dire long-term implications and has the potential to destabilise governments and erode trust in media, in both traditional and social media leading to undermining democracy. If unaddressed, the consequences could continue to ripple through society, perpetuating false narratives that shape public opinion.
Steps to Mitigate Misinformation in Social Media Newsgroups
- Educating users in social media literacy education can empower critical assessment of the information encountered, reducing the spread of false narratives.
- Introducing stricter platform policies, including penalties for deliberately sharing misinformation, may act as a deterrent against sharing unverified information.
- Collaborative fact-checking initiatives with involvement from social media platforms, independent journalists, and expert organisations can provide a unified front against the spread of false information.
- From a policy perspective, a holistic approach that combines platform responsibility with user education and governmental and industry oversight is essential to curbing the spread of misinformation in social media newsgroups.
Conclusion
The emergence of Social media newsgroups has revolutionised the dissemination of information. This rapid spread of misinformation poses a significant challenge to the integrity of news in the digital age. It gets further amplified by algorithmic echo chambers unchecked user engagement and profound societal implications. A multi-faceted approach is required to tackle these issues, combining stringent platform policies, AI-driven moderation, and collaborative fact-checking initiatives. User empowerment concerning media literacy is an important factor in promoting critical thinking and building cognitive defences. By adopting these measures, we can better navigate the complexities of consuming news from social media newsgroups and preserve the reliability of online information. Furthermore, users need to consume news from authoritative sources available on social media platforms.
References
Introduction
India’s new Policy for Data Sharing from the National Transport Repository (NTR) released by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) in August, 2025, can be seen as a constitutional turning point and a milestone in administrative efficiency. The state has established an unprecedentedly large unified infrastructure by combining the records of 390 million vehicles, 220 million driver’s licenses, and the streams from the e-challan, e-DAR, and FASTag systems. Its supporters hail its promise of private-sector innovation, data-driven research, and smooth governance. However, there is a troubling paradox beneath this facade of advancement: the very structures intended to improve citizen mobility may simultaneously strengthen widespread surveillance. Without strict protections, the NTR runs the risk of violating the constitutional trifecta of need, proportionality, and legality as stated in Puttaswamy v. UOI, which brings to light important issues at the nexus of liberty, law, and data.
The other pertinent question to be addressed is as India unifies one of its comprehensive datasets on citizen mobility the question becomes more pressing: while motorised citizens are now in the spotlight for accountability, what about the millions of other datasets that are still dispersed, unregulated, and shared inconsistently in the areas of health, education, telecom, and welfare?
The Legal Backdrop
MoRTH grounds its new policy in Sections 25A and 62B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Data is consolidated into a single repository since states are required by Section 136A to electronically monitor road safety. According to the policy, it complies with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
The DPDP Act itself, however, is rife with state exclusions, particularly Sections 7 and 17, which give government organisations access to personal information for “any function under any law” or for law enforcement purposes. This is where the constitutional issue lies. Prior judicial supervision, warrants, or independent checks are not necessary. With legislative approval, MoRTH is essentially creating a national vehicle database without any constitutional protections.
Data, Domination and the New Privacy Paradigm
As an efficiency and governance reform, VAHAN, SARATHI, e-challan, eDAR, and FASTag are being consolidated into a single National Transport Repository (NTR). However, centralising extensive mobility and identity-linked records on a large scale is more than just a technical advancement; it also changes how the state and private life interact. The NTR must therefore be interpreted through a more comprehensive privacy paradigm, one that acknowledges that data aggregation is a means of enhancing administrative capacity and has the potential to develop into a long-lasting tool of social control and surveillance unless both technological and constitutional restrictions are placed at the same time.
Two recent doctrinal developments sharpen this concern. First, the Supreme Court’s foundational ruling that privacy is a fundamental right remains the constitutional lodestar, any state interference must satisfy legality, necessity and proportionality (KS Puttaswamy & Anr. vs UOI). Second, as seen by the court’s most recent refusals to normalise ongoing, warrantless location monitoring, such as the ruling overturning bail requirements that required accused individuals to provide a Google maps pin, as movement tracking necessitates closer examination (Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors.,).When taken as a whole, these authorities maintain that unrestricted, ongoing access to mobility and toll-transaction records is a constitutional issue and cannot be handled as an administrative convenience.
Structural Fault Lines in the NTR Framework
Fundamentally, the NTR policy generates structural vulnerabilities by providing nearly unrestricted access through APIs and even mass transfers on physical media to a broad range of parties, including insurance companies, law enforcement, and intelligence services. This design undermines constitutional protections in three ways: first, it makes it possible to draw conclusions about private life patterns that the Supreme Court has identified as one of the most sensitive data categories by exposing rich mobility trails like FASTag logs and vehicle-linked identities; Second, it allows bulk datasets to circulate outside the ministry’s custodial boundary, which creates the possibility of function creep, secondary use, and monetisation risks reminiscent of the bulk sharing regime that the government itself once abandoned; and third, it introduces coercive exclusion by tying private sector access to Aadhaar-based OTP consent.
Reference
