#FactCheck - Philadelphia Plane Crash Video Falsely Shared as INS Vikrant Attack on Karachi Port
Executive Summary:
A video currently circulating on social media falsely claims to show the aftermath of an Indian Navy attack on Karachi Port, allegedly involving the INS Vikrant. Upon verification, it has been confirmed that the video is unrelated to any naval activity and in fact depicts a plane crash that occurred in Philadelphia, USA. This misrepresentation underscores the importance of verifying information through credible sources before drawing conclusions or sharing content.
Claim:
Social media accounts shared a video claiming that the Indian Navy’s aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, attacked Karachi Port amid rising India-Pakistan tensions. Captions such as “INDIAN NAVY HAS DESTROYED KARACHI PORT” accompanied the footage, which shows a crash site with debris and small fires.
Fact Check:
After reverse image search we found that the viral video to earlier uploads on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) dated February 2, 2025. The footage is from a plane crash in Philadelphia, USA, involving a Mexican-registered Learjet 55 (tail number XA-UCI) that crashed near Roosevelt Mall.
Major American news outlets, including ABC7, reported the incident on February 1, 2025. According to NBC10 Philadelphia, the crash resulted in the deaths of seven individuals, including one child.
Conclusion:
The viral video claiming to show an Indian Navy strike on Karachi Port involving INS Vikrant is entirely misleading. The footage is from a civilian plane crash that occurred in Philadelphia, USA, and has no connection to any military activity or recent developments involving the Indian Navy. Verified news reports confirm the incident involved a Mexican-registered Learjet and resulted in civilian casualties. This case highlights the ongoing issue of misinformation on social media and emphasizes the need to rely on credible sources and verified facts before accepting or sharing sensitive content, especially on matters of national security or international relations.
- Claim: INS Vikrant, attacked Karachi Port amid rising India-Pakistan tensions
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
Introduction
We consume news from various sources such as news channels, social media platforms and the Internet etc. In the age of the Internet and social media, the concern of misinformation has become a common issue as there is widespread misinformation or fake news on the Internet and social media platforms.
Misinformation on social media platforms
The wide availability of user-provided content on online social media platforms facilitates the spread of misinformation. With the vast population on social media platforms, the information gets viral and spreads all over the internet. It has become a serious concern as such misinformation, including rumours, morphed images, unverified information, fake news, and planted stories, spread easily on the internet, leading to severe consequences such as public riots, lynching, communal tensions, misconception about facts, defamation etc.
Platform-centric measures to mitigate the spread of misinformation
- Google introduced the ‘About this result’ feature’. This allows the users to help with better understand the search results and websites at a glance.
- During the covid-19 pandemic, there were huge cases of misinformation being shared. Google, in April 2020, invested $6.5 million in funding to fact-checkers and non-profits fighting misinformation around the world, including a check on information related to coronavirus or on issues related to the treatment, prevention, and transmission of Covid-19.
- YouTube also have its Medical Misinformation Policy which prevents the spread of information or content which is in contravention of the World Health Organization (WHO) or local health authorities.
- At the time of the Covid-19 pandemic, major social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have started showing awareness pop-ups which connected people to information directly from the WHO and regional authorities.
- WhatsApp has a limit on the number of times a WhatsApp message can be forwarded to prevent the spread of fake news. And also shows on top of the message that it is forwarded many times. WhatsApp has also partnered with fact-checking organisations to make sure to have access to accurate information.
- On Instagram as well, when content has been rated as false or partly false, Instagram either removes it or reduces its distribution by reducing its visibility in Feeds.
Fight Against Misinformation
Misinformation is rampant all across the world, and the same needs to be addressed at the earliest. Multiple developed nations have synergised with tech bases companies to address this issue, and with the increasing penetration of social media and the internet, this remains a global issue. Big tech companies such as Meta and Google have undertaken various initiatives globally to address this issue. Google has taken up the initiative to address this issue in India and, in collaboration with Civil Society Organisations, multiple avenues for mass-scale awareness and upskilling campaigns have been piloted to make an impact on the ground.
How to prevent the spread of misinformation?
Conclusion
In the digital media space, there is a widespread of misinformative content and information. Platforms like Google and other social media platforms have taken proactive steps to prevent the spread of misinformation. Users should also act responsibly while sharing any information. Hence creating a safe digital environment for everyone.
Modern international trade heavily relies on data transfers for the exchange of digital goods and services. User data travels across multiple jurisdictions and legal regimes, each with different rules for processing it. Since international treaties and standards for data protection are inadequate, states, in an effort to protect their citizens' data, have begun extending their domestic privacy laws beyond their borders. However, this opens a Pandora's box of legal and administrative complexities for both, the data protection authorities and data processors. The former must balance the harmonization of domestic data protection laws with their extraterritorial enforcement, without overreaching into the sovereignty of other states. The latter must comply with the data privacy laws in all states where it collects, stores, and processes data. While the international legal community continues to grapple with these challenges, India can draw valuable lessons to refine the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP) in a way that effectively addresses these complexities.
Why Extraterritorial Application?
Since data moves freely across borders and entities collecting such data from users in multiple states can misuse it or use it to gain an unfair competitive advantage in local markets, data privacy laws carry a clause on their extraterritorial application. Thus, this principle is utilized by states to frame laws that can ensure comprehensive data protection for their citizens, irrespective of the data’s location. The foremost example of this is the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 2016, which applies to any entity that processes the personal data of its citizens, regardless of its location. Recently, India has enacted the DPDP Act of 2023, which includes a clause on extraterritorial application.
The Extraterritorial Approach: GDPR and DPDP Act
The GDPR is considered the toughest data privacy law in the world and sets a global standard in data protection. According to Article 3, its provisions apply not only to data processors within the EU but also to those established outside its territory, if they offer goods and services to and conduct behavioural monitoring of data subjects within the EU. The enforcement of this regulation relies on heavy penalties for non-compliance in the form of fines up to €20 million or 4% of the company’s global turnover, whichever is higher, in case of severe violations. As a result, corporations based in the USA, like Meta and Clearview AI, have been fined over €1.5 billion and €5.5 million respectively, under the GDPR.
Like the GDPR, the DPDP Act extends its jurisdiction to foreign companies dealing with personal data of data principles within Indian territory under section 3(b). It has a similar extraterritorial reach and prescribes a penalty of up to Rs 250 crores in case of breaches. However, the Act or DPDP Rules, 2025, which are currently under deliberation, do not elaborate on an enforcement mechanism through which foreign companies can be held accountable.
Lessons for India’s DPDP on Managing Extraterritorial Application
- Clarity in Definitions: GDPR clearly defines ‘personal data’, covering direct information such as name and identification number, indirect identifiers like location data, and, online identifiers that can be used to identify the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity of a natural person. It also prohibits revealing special categories of personal data like religious beliefs and biometric data to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the subjects. On the other hand, the DPDP Act/ Rules define ‘personal data’ vaguely, leaving a broad scope for Big Tech and ad-tech firms to bypass obligations.
- International Cooperation: Compliance is complex for companies due to varying data protection laws in different countries. The success of regulatory measures in such a scenario depends on international cooperation for governing cross-border data flows and enforcement. For DPDP to be effective, India will have to foster cooperation frameworks with other nations.
- Adequate Safeguards for Data Transfers: The GDPR regulates data transfers outside the EU via pre-approved legal mechanisms such as standard contractual clauses or binding corporate rules to ensure that the same level of protection applies to EU citizens’ data even when it is processed outside the EU. The DPDP should adopt similar safeguards to ensure that Indian citizens’ data is protected when processed abroad.
- Revised Penalty Structure: The GDPR mandates a penalty structure that must be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. The supervisory authority in each member state has the power to impose administrative fines as per these principles, up to an upper limit set by the GDPR. On the other hand, the DPDP’s penalty structure is simplistic and will disproportionately impact smaller businesses. It must take into regard factors such as nature, gravity, and duration of the infringement, its consequences, compliance measures taken, etc.
- Governance Structure: The GDPR envisages a multi-tiered governance structure comprising of
- National-level Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) for enforcing national data protection laws and the GDPR,
- European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) for monitoring the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies,
- European Commission (EC) for developing GDPR legislation
- European Data Protection Board (EDPB) for enabling coordination between the EC, EDPS, and DPAs
In contrast, the Data Protection Board (DPB) under DPDP will be a single, centralized body overseeing compliance and enforcement. Since its members are to be appointed by the Central Government, it raises questions about the Board’s autonomy and ability to apply regulations consistently. Further, its investigative and enforcement capabilities are not well defined.
Conclusion
The protection of the human right to privacy ( under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) in today’s increasingly interconnected digital economy warrants international standard-setting on cross-border data protection. In the meantime, States relying on the extraterritorial application of domestic laws is unavoidable. While India’s DPDP takes measures towards this, they must be refined to ensure clarity regarding implementation mechanisms. They should push for alignment with data protection laws of other States, and account for the complexity of enforcement in cases involving extraterritorial jurisdiction. As India sets out to position itself as a global digital leader, a well-crafted extraterritorial framework under the DPDP Act will be essential to promote international trust in India’s data governance regime.
Sources
- https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/
- https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-150/
- https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-51/
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf
- https://www.eqs.com/compliance-blog/biggest-gdpr-fines/#:~:text=ease%20the%20burden.-,At%20a%20glance,In%20summary
- https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/
- https://www.legal500.com/developments/thought-leadership/gdpr-v-indias-dpdpa-key-differences-and-compliance-implications/#:~:text=Both%20laws%20cover%20'personal%20data,of%20personal%20data%20as%20sensitive.
Executive Summary:
A viral post on X (formerly Twitter) gained much attention, creating a false narrative of recent damage caused by the earthquake in Tibet. Our findings confirmed that the clip was not filmed in Tibet, instead it came from an earthquake that occurred in Japan in the past. The origin of the claim is traced in this report. More to this, analysis and verified findings regarding the evidence have been put in place for further clarification of the misinformation around the video.
Claim:
The viral video shows collapsed infrastructure and significant destruction, with the caption or claims suggesting it is evidence of a recent earthquake in Tibet. Similar claims can be found here and here
Fact Check:
The widely circulated clip, initially claimed to depict the aftermath of the most recent earthquake in Tibet, has been rigorously analyzed and proven to be misattributed. A reverse image search based on the Keyframes of the claimed video revealed that the footage originated from a devastating earthquake in Japan in the past. According to an article published by a Japanese news website, the incident occurred in February 2024. The video was authenticated by news agencies, as it accurately depicted the scenes of destruction reported during that event.
Moreover, the same video was already uploaded on a YouTube channel, which proves that the video was not recent. The architecture, the signboards written in Japanese script, and the vehicles appearing in the video also prove that the footage belongs to Japan, not Tibet. The video shows news from Japan that occurred in the past, proving the video was shared with different context to spread false information.
The video was uploaded on February 2nd, 2024.
Snap from viral video
Snap from Youtube video
Conclusion:
The video viral about the earthquake recently experienced by Tibet is, therefore, wrong as it appears to be old footage from Japan, a previous earthquake experienced by this nation. Thus, the need for information verification, such that doing this helps the spreading of true information to avoid giving false data.
- Claim: A viral video claims to show recent earthquake destruction in Tibet.
- Claimed On: X (Formerly Known As Twitter)
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
