#FactCheck - Viral Claim About Anti-Trump Protests in the US Is Misleading
A photograph showing a massive crowd on a road is being widely shared on social media. The image is being circulated with the claim that people in the United States are staging large-scale protests against President Donald Trump.
However, CyberPeace Foundation’s research has found this claim to be misleading. Our fact-check reveals that the viral photograph is nearly eight years old and has been falsely linked to recent political developments.
Claim:
Social media users are sharing a photograph and claiming that it shows people protesting against US President Donald Trump.An X (formerly Twitter) user, Salman Khan Gauri (@khansalman88177), shared the image with the caption:“Today, a massive protest is taking place in America against Donald Trump.”
The post can be viewed here, and its archived version is available here.
FactCheck:
To verify the claim, we conducted a reverse image search of the viral photograph using Google. This led us to a report published by The Mercury News on April 6, 2018.
The report features the same image and states that the photograph was taken on March 24, 2018, during the ‘March for Our Lives’ rally in Washington, DC. The rally was organized to demand stricter gun control laws in the United States. The image shows a large crowd gathered on Pennsylvania Avenue in support of gun reform.
The report further notes that the Associated Press, on March 30, 2018, debunked false claims circulating online which alleged that liberal billionaire George Soros and his organizations had paid protesters $300 each to participate in the rally.
Further research led us to a report published by The Hindu on March 25, 2018, which also carries the same photograph. According to the report, thousands of Americans across the country participated in ‘March for Our Lives’ rallies following a mass shooting at a school in Florida. The protests were led by survivors and victims, demanding stronger gun laws.
The objective of these demonstrations was to break the legislative deadlock that has long hindered efforts to tighten firearm regulations in a country frequently rocked by mass shootings in schools and colleges.
Conclusion
The viral photograph is nearly eight years old and is unrelated to any recent protests against President Donald Trump.The image actually depicts a gun control protest held in 2018 and is being falsely shared with a misleading political claim.By circulating this outdated image with an incorrect context, social media users are spreading misinformation.
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!
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 video showing a monkey dramatically rescuing a child hanging from a balcony is being widely shared on social media. In the clip, a small child appears to be on the verge of falling when a monkey suddenly arrives, grabs the child, and saves them from falling. Many users praised the monkey’s bravery, while some even described it as a miracle. Research by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the viral video is not real and was created using AI technology before being shared with misleading claims.
Claim
An X user shared the video claiming that a monkey saved a child from falling off a balcony just in time, astonishing onlookers with its intelligence and quick action. The post described the monkey’s act as heroic and compassionate.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During this process, we found the same video uploaded on April 16, 2026 by an Instagram account named Instagram user mojilo_vandro. The caption described the scene as a “miracle of God.”
A closer review of the account revealed several similar monkey-themed videos. More importantly, the account bio clearly states that it creates AI-based fictional content. We also analyzed the clip using AI detection tool Hive Moderation, which assessed the video as having a 97.6% probability of being AI-generated
Conclusion
Our research confirms that the viral video of a monkey saving a child hanging from a balcony does not depict a real incident. It was digitally created using AI and shared online with misleading claims.
