#FactCheck- AI-Generated Train Video Falsely Shows Muslims Praying in Japan A video purportedly showing
Executive Summary
Muslims offering prayers inside a crowded train in Japan is being widely shared on social media, amid ongoing discussions around the country’s alleged rise in anti-immigration sentiment. The clip is being presented as a recent and real incident. However, an research reveals that the video is not authentic. Experts noted that the prayer postures shown in the clip do not align with standard Islamic practices, raising doubts about its credibility. Further analysis indicates that the video has been generated using artificial intelligence (AI).
Claim
A user shared the viral video on YouTube, showing a group of men—mostly dressed in long tunics and skullcaps—appearing to offer prayers inside a moving subway train. Passengers can be seen seated on both sides of the carriage. In the clip, two men are kneeling on the floor and bowing their heads onto a small mat placed in front of them, with their heads coming very close to the knees of seated passengers. Another man is seen bending forward at the waist while standing, and a fourth appears to be standing upright with his eyes closed.
- Link: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cZHMCUgbDIA
,
Fact Check
A closer examination of the video reveals several visual inconsistencies. One passenger appears to be fused with the seat rails, creating a distorted overlap. Others seem to be seated in areas where seats do not normally exist, such as directly in front of a door. Additionally, an advertisement visible in the background appears blurred and oddly shaped—another common indicator of AI-generated content. An analysis conducted using the Hive Moderation tool found that the video is “likely to contain AI-generated or deepfake content.”
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video does not depict a real incident in Japan. Instead, it is likely AI-generated content being circulated with a false narrative, misrepresenting both the context and religious practices shown in the clip.
Related Blogs
A war in the twenty-first century does not start when the first bullet or missile is fired. It begins much earlier, covertly, and without any official announcement. Cyberspace is this new battlefield. States now use a variety of ransomware, malicious codes, and disinformation campaigns to undermine their enemies' capabilities before launching an offensive. These pre-conflict cyber operations are now the primary frontline of contemporary hybrid warfare, which is changing how conflicts are fought and conducted.
The Birth of a Digital Battlefield
Hybrid Warfare is a blend of conventional military force with nonmilitary tactics like economic coercion, disinformation, and cyberattacks that have evolved rapidly in recent decades. Hybrid methods of warfare are nothing new, as the scale and sophistication of cyber operations in modern conflicts are unprecedented. Russia’s actions in Ukraine demonstrated the capability of digital tools to paralyse the critical systems before its heavy munitions could be deployed for combat operations. Within days of the 2022 invasions, Ukraine faced massive Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks targeting banks, government websites, and energy infrastructures. The digital frontlines have softened the physical defences long before the conventional warfare began.
According to the FP Analytics’ “Digital Front Lines” Project, cyber operations are no longer an auxiliary tactic but a core component of hybrid warfare, blurring the boundary between peace and war. They enable states to exert pressure, gather intelligence, and disrupt adversaries, often without being attributed or held accountable.
Cyber Operations: The modern Prelude to War
The use of digital technologies for surveillance, information network disruption, or critical infrastructure destruction is known as cyber operations. They are especially useful instruments for pre-conflict manipulation because of their ambiguity and stealth. Cyberattacks, in contrast to conventional military strikes, can accomplish strategic goals while providing plausible deniability.
Coordinated cyberattacks that spread misinformation and damaged public confidence disrupted government communication systems prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. These sorts of incidents highlight the integrated nature of cyber and kinetic operations, where digital assaults often serve as the initial phases of modern wars.
The Expanding Spectrum of Actors or Threat
Cyberspace has democratized warfare, which once required an army, can now be initiated by a handful of skilled programmers with access to the right tools. The cyber landscape of the present times features a wide spectrum of threat actors, which can be understood as;
- State actors like intelligence or military agencies conduct cyber operations as part of official foreign policy.
- Cybercriminals pursue financial gains, often overlapping with political motives.
- Terrorist groups use cyberspace to spread propaganda for coordinated attacks.
- Cyber mercenaries being hired by both the state and nonstate clients can blur the ethical and legal boundaries.
This diversity can complicate the attribution by determining that anyone who is actively working behind conducting cyberattacks can be notoriously difficult, allowing the states to hide behind “plausible deniability.” This ‘Gray Zone’ of conflict below the threshold of a declared war, above mere diplomacy, has become the preferred arena for modern power struggles.
Civilian Involvement and Ethical Dilemmas
Unlike traditional warfare, where the cyber domain entangles civilians as both participants and targets. Much of the nation’s critical infrastructure, which includes energy grids, hospitals, transportation, and communication systems, is owned and operated by private entities. As a result, the civilian industries and experts are becoming central to both cyber defence and offence.
During the Russia–Ukraine War, the volunteer hackers from around the world were many of whom are being coordinated through the app Telegram, which is termed as ‘IT Army of Ukraine’, are known for conducting digital strikes on Russian networks. Conversely, the Russia-affiliated hacker groups like Conti had vowed to retaliate against any nations that supported Ukraine.
This civilian participation raises profound legal and moral questions, over a private company’s role in defending their networks of becoming a combatant, or the impact of retaliatory cyberattacks on civilian infrastructure war crimes. International law has yet to provide a clear answer, which can leave dangerous gaps in the governance to counter cybercrimes.
Susceptibility of Contemporary Society to Cyber Warfare
Cyberwarfare can impact an entire global digital ecosystem due to its interconnectedness. Power grids, hospitals, air traffic systems, and even automation devices can be compromised. While the NotPetya ransomware, which was cloaked as ransomware, caused billions of losses and caused worldwide economic damage from shipping companies to pharmaceutical companies, the WannaCry ransomware attacks in 2017 paralysed hospitals throughout the UK's National Health Service.
When taken as a whole, these incidents have also shown that cyberattacks are no longer limited to espionage situations and can have real-world consequences comparable to those of conventional warfare. The consequences of cyberattacks could increase dramatically as our dependence on technology increases. Because these effects are profoundly psychological in nature and seek to sow fear, mistrust, and social disintegration, they are not merely technical or economic in nature.
The Future: Permanent Cyber Frontlines
Technological developments have made cyberspace a permanent theatre of conflict, joining the land, sea, air, and space. Countries are currently making significant investments in cyber capabilities for deterrence as well as defence. According to security experts like Eriksson and Giacomello, societies are now inherently fragile due to our increasing reliance on information technologies.
Cyber operations in this context are about strategic dominance in a globalised world, not just digital espionage. Who controls the networks and algorithms that run contemporary civilisation will determine the future of war, not just who controls the skies or the seas. As per the new reality, before the drop of the first bomb, a silent war in cyberspace will already be underway.
References
- https://digitalfrontlines.io/2023/05/25/the-evolution-of-cyber-operations-in-armed-conflict/
- https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/server/api/core/bitstreams/9d74149e-fb9a-402f-aa65-a90445ad7603/content
- https://cybersecurityguide.org/resources/cyberwarfare/
- https://re.public.polimi.it/retrieve/e0c31c0b-ce6c-4599-e053-1705fe0aef77/21%20Century%20Cyber%20Warfare.pdf
Starting in mid-December, 2024, a series of attacks have targeted Chrome browser extensions. A data protection company called Cyberhaven, California, fell victim to one of these attacks. Though identified in the U.S., the geographical extent and potential of the attack are yet to be determined. Assessment of these cases can help us to be better prepared for such instances if they occur in the near future.
The Attack
Browser extensions are small software applications that add and enable functionality or a capacity (feature) to a web browser. These are written in CSS, HTML, or JavaScript and like other software, can be coded to deliver malware. Also known as plug-ins, they have access to their own set of Application Programming Interface (APIs). They can also be used to remove unwanted elements as per customisation, such as pop-up advertisements and auto-play videos, when one lands on a website. Some examples of browser extensions include Ad-blockers (for blocking ads and content filtering) and StayFocusd (which limits the time of the users on a particular website).
In the aforementioned attack, the publisher of the browser at Cyberhaven received a phishing mail from an attacker posing to be from the Google Chrome Web Store Developer Support. It mentioned that their browser policies were not compatible and encouraged the user to click on the “Go to Policy”action item, which led the user to a page that enabled permissions for a malicious OAuth called Privacy Policy Extension (Open Authorisation is an adopted standard that is used to authorise secure access for temporary tokens). Once the permission was granted, the attacker was able to inject malicious code into the target’s Chrome browser extension and steal user access tokens and session cookies. Further investigation revealed that logins of certain AI and social media platforms were targeted.
CyberPeace Recommendations
As attacks of such range continue to occur, it is encouraged that companies and developers take active measures that would make their browser extensions less susceptible to such attacks. Google also has a few guidelines on how developers can safeguard their extensions from their end. These include:
- Minimal Permissions For Extensions- It is encouraged that minimal permissions for extensions barring the required APIs and websites that it depends on are acquired as limiting extension privileges limits the surface area an attacker can exploit.
- Prioritising Protection Of Developer Accounts- A security breach on this end could lead to compromising all users' data as this would allow attackers to mess with extensions via their malicious codes. A 2FA (2-factor authentication) by setting a security key is endorsed.
- HTTPS over HTTP- HTTPS should be preferred over HTTP as it requires a Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)/ transport layer security(TLS) certificate from an independent certificate authority (CA). This creates an encrypted connection between the server and the web browser.
Lastly, as was done in the case of the attack at Cyberhaven, it is encouraged to promote the practice of transparency when such incidents take place to better deal with them.
References
- https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/hackers-hijack-companies-chrome-extensions-cyberhaven-9748454/
- https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/google-chrome-extensions-hack-safety-tips-9751656/
- https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/browser-extension
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2024/12/31/google-chrome-2fa-bypass-attack-confirmed-what-you-need-to-know/
- https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/why-use-https/
Introduction
According to a draft of the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023, the Indian government may have the authority to reduce the age at which users can agree to data processing to 14 years. Companies requesting consent to process children’s data, on the other hand, must demonstrate that the information is handled in a “verifiably safe” manner.
The Central Government might change the age limit for consent
The proposed Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2022 in India attempts to protect child’s personal data under the age of 14 through several provisions. The proposed lower age of consent in India under the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2022 is to loosen relevant norms and fulfil the demands of Internet corporations. After a year, the government may reconsider the definition of a child with the goal of expanding coverage to children under the age of 14. The proposed shift in the age of consent has elicited varied views, with some experts suggesting that it might potentially expose children to data processing concerns.
The definition of a child is understood to have been amended in the data protection Bill, which is anticipated to be submitted in Parliament’s Monsoon session, to an “individual who has not completed the age of eighteen years or such lower age as the central government may notify.” A child was defined as an “individual who has not completed eighteen years of age” in the 2022 draft.
Under deemed consent, the government has also added the 'legitimate business interest' clause
This clause allows businesses to process personal data without obtaining explicit consent if it is required for their legitimate business interests. The measure recognises that corporations have legitimate objectives, such as innovation, that can be pursued without jeopardising privacy.
Change in Data Protection Boards
The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2022, India’s new plan to secure personal data, represents a significant shift in strategy by emphasising outcomes rather than legislative compliance. This amendment will strengthen the Data Protection Board’s position, as its judgments on noncompliance complaints will establish India’s first systematic jurisprudence on data protection. The Cabinet has approved the bill and may be introduced in Parliament in the Monsoon session starting on July 20.
The draft law leaves the selection of the Data Protection Board’s chairperson and members solely to the discretion of the central government, making it a central government set-up board. The government retains control over the board’s composition, terms of service, and so on. The bill does specify, however, that the Data Protection Board would be completely independent and will have a strictly adjudicatory procedure to adjudicate data breaches. It has the same status as a civil court, and its rulings can be appealed.
India's first regulatory body in Charge of preserving privacy
Some expected amendments to the law include a blacklist of countries to which Indian data cannot be transferred and fewer penalties for data breaches. The bill’s scope is limited to processing digital personal data within Indian territory, which means that any offline personal data and anything not digitised will be exempt from the legislation’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the measure is silent on the governance of digital paper records.
Conclusion
The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2022 is a much-needed piece of legislation that will replace India’s current data protection regime and assist in preserving individuals’ rights. Central Government is looking for a change in the age for consent from 18 to 14 years. The bill underlines the need for verifiable parental consent before processing a child’s personal data, including those under 18. This section seeks to ensure that parents or legal guardians have a say in the processing of their child’s personal data.
