#FactCheck- Viral video of massive fire falsely linked to Israel-Iran conflict; actually from Dagestan gas pipeline blast

A photo circulating on social media claims to show Indian cricketer Mohammed Siraj offering namaz during net practice, while teammates Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and Shubman Gill are seen taking a selfie with him. Several users are sharing the image as a “beautiful moment,” portraying it as a symbol of faith, unity and sportsmanship. However, research by the Cyber Peace Foundation has found that the viral image is not genuine and has been AI-generated.

‍

Claim

‍

On January 14, 2026, multiple Facebook users shared the viral image with captions describing it as a touching scene from Rajkot’s Saurashtra Stadium. The posts claim that Mohammed Siraj took time out during net practice to offer prayers, reflecting his strong faith, while fellow cricketers Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and Shubman Gill respectfully captured the moment on camera.

Users praised the image as a rare blend of spirituality, discipline, teamwork and mutual respect, calling it a “beautiful confluence of sport and faith.”(Links to the post, archived version and screenshots are provided below.)

• https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=4437845333095160&set=a.1510003369212719 

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

On closely examining the viral image, several visual inconsistencies and unnatural elements were observed, raising suspicion that the picture may not be authentic.To verify this, the Cyber Peace Foundation analysed the image using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. According to the tool’s assessment, the image showed a 99% likelihood of being AI-generated.

‍

To further strengthen the verification, the image was also scanned using another AI detection platform, Sightengine. The results indicated a 96% probability that the image was generated using artificial intelligence.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The research confirms that the viral image claiming to show Mohammed Siraj offering namaz during net practice, with Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and Shubman Gill taking a selfie, is not real.The photograph has been created using AI tools and falsely shared on social media, misleading users by presenting a fabricated scene as an authentic moment.

‍

In an exciting milestone achieved by CyberPeace, an ICANN APRALO At-Large organization, in collaboration with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), has successfully deployed and made operational an L-root server instance in Ranchi, Jharkhand. This initiative marks a significant step toward enhancing the resilience, speed, and security of internet connectivity in eastern India.

Understanding the DNS hierarchy – Starting from Root

Internet users access online information through different domain names and interactions with any web browser takes place through IP (Internet Protocol) addresses. Domain Name System (DNS) functions as the internet's equivalent of Yellow Pages or the phonebook of cyberspace. When a person uses a domain name like www.cyberpeace.org to access a website, their browser communicates with the internet protocol, and DNS converts the domain name to the corresponding IP address so that web browsers may load the web pages. The function of a DNS is to convert domain names to Internet Protocol addresses. It enables the respective browsers to load the resources from the Internet.

When a user types a domain name into your browser, a DNS query works behind the scenes to find the website’s IP address. First, your device asks a DNS resolver—often provided by your ISP or a third-party service—for the address. The resolver checks its cache for a match, and if none is found, it queries a root server to locate the top-level domain (TLD) server (like .com or .org). The resolver then asks the TLD server for the Authoritative nameserver responsible for the particular domain, which provides the specific IP address. Finally, the resolver sends this address back to your device, enabling it to connect to the website’s server and load the page. The entire process happens in milliseconds, ensuring seamless browsing.

Special focus on Root Server:

A root server is a name server that directly answers queries for records in the root zone and redirects requests for more specific domains to the appropriate top-level domain (TLD) servers. Root servers are an integral part of this system, acting as the first step in resolving a domain name into its corresponding IP address. They provide the initial direction needed to locate the authoritative servers for any domain.

The DNS root zone is served by 13 unique IP addresses, supported by hundreds of redundant root servers distributed worldwide connected through Anycast Routing to manage requests efficiently. As of January 8, 2025, the global root server system consists of 1921 instances operated by 12 independent root server operators. These servers ensure the smooth functioning of the internet by managing the backbone of DNS queries.

Type of Root Server Instances:

Well, in this regard,  there are two types of root server instances that can be found– Global instance and Local instance. 

Global root server instances are the primary root servers distributed strategically around the world. Local instances, on the other hand, are replicas of these global servers deployed in specific regions to handle local DNS traffic more efficiently. In each operator's list of sites, some instances are marked as global (globe icon) and some are marked as local (flag icon). The difference is in how widely available that instance will be, because of how routing for that instance is done. Recall that the routes for an instance are announced by BGP, the inter-domain routing protocol.

For global instances, the route advertisement is permitted to spread throughout the Internet, i.e., any router on the Internet could know the path to that instance. Of course, for a particular source, the route to that instance may not be the optimal route, so some other instance could be chosen as the destination.

With a local instance, however, the route advertisement is limited to only nearby networks. For example, the instance may be visible to just one ISP, or to ISPs that connect at a particular exchange point. Sources from farther away will not be able to see and query that local instance.

Deployment in Ranchi - The Journey & Significance:

CyberPeace in Collaboration with ICANN has successfully deployed an L-root server instance in Ranchi, marking a significant milestone in enhancing regional Internet infrastructure. This deployment, part of a global network of root servers, ensures faster and more reliable DNS query resolution for the region, reducing latency and enhancing cybersecurity. 

‍
The Journey of deploying the L-Root instance in Collaboration with ICANN followed the steps-
‍

• Signing the Agreement: Finalized the L-SINGLE Hosting Agreement with ICANN to formalize the partnership.
• Procuring the Hardware: Acquired the required hardware appliance to meet technical standards for hosting the L-root server.
• Setup and Installation: Configured and installed the appliance to prepare it for seamless operation.
• Joining the Anycast Network: Integrated the server into ICANN's global Anycast network using BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) for efficient DNS traffic management.

The deployment of the L-root server in Ranchi marks a significant boost to the region’s digital ecosystem. It accelerates DNS query resolution, reducing latency and enhancing internet speed and reliability for users.

This instance strengthens cyber defenses by mitigating Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) risks and managing local traffic efficiently. It also underscores Eastern India’s advanced digital infrastructure, aligning with initiatives like Digital India to meet evolving digital demands.

By handling local queries, the L-root server eases the load on global servers, contributing to a more stable and resilient global internet.

CyberPeace’s Commitment to a Secure and resilient Cyberspace

As an organization dedicated to promoting peace, security and resilience in cyberspace, CyberPeace views this collaboration with ICANN as a significant achievement in its mission. By strengthening the internet’s backbone in eastern India, this deployment underscores our commitment to enabling a secure, accessible, and resilient digital ecosystem. 

Way forward and Roadmap for Strengthening India’s DNS Infrastructure:

The successful deployment of the L-root instance in Ranchi is a stepping stone toward bolstering India's digital ecosystem. CyberPeace aims to promote awareness about DNS infrastructure through workshops and seminars, emphasizing its critical role in a resilient digital future.

With plans to deploy more such root server instances across India, the focus is on expanding local DNS infrastructure to enhance efficiency and security. Collaborative efforts with government agencies, ISPs, and tech organizations will drive this vision forward. A robust monitoring framework will ensure optimal performance and long-term sustainability of these initiatives.

Conclusion

The deployment of the L-root server instance in Eastern India represents a monumental step toward strengthening the region’s digital foundation. As Ranchi joins the network of cities hosting root server instances, the benefits will extend not only to the local community but also to the global internet ecosystem. With this milestone, CyberPeace reaffirms its commitment to driving innovation and resilience in cyberspace, paving the way for a more connected and secure future.

‍

With AI touching new milestones everyday an increasing need for making it secure is also arising. As these AI companies increase their operations and position in the market as providers of powerful tools in the market. A recent concern due to Anthropic's recent privacy policy update which will be effective from July 8, 2026 shows how companies have begun expanding the amount of personal information they collect in the name of safety, compliance, and trust. While they are being demonstrated as measures to improve safety of users and prevent abuse, it raises important questions about privacy, biometric data, surveillance, data retention, and user autonomy, some of which we will be addressing in this article.

‍

Identity Verification of consumers

‍

One of the most notable update to Anthropic's privacy policy is the category of "Verification Data." According to the policy, users may be asked to verify their age or identity in certain circumstances. Depending on the verification method, Anthropic may collect:

• Images of government-issued identity documents;
• Information appearing on those documents, including identification numbers and date of birth for age verification;
• Photographs or videos of the user;
• Facial geometry templates, which may constitute biometric data under certain legal frameworks; and
• The outcome of the verification process.

At first, this may appear similar to the Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures employed by banks or financial institutions but Claude is not a banking service. It is a consumer AI platform. The issue is not that verification exists, but that the circumstances under which it may be required remain undefined.

‍

THE PROBLEM WITH “CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES”

‍

The policy refers to verification being required in "certain circumstances." The public notification from Anthropic mentions that these circumstances may include access to particular features, routine platform integrity checks, abuse prevention mechanisms, policy enforcement activities, or legal compliance obligations. The ambiguity of this phrase raises important concerns. From a user perspective, it is difficult to determine, When verification may be triggered ? Whether verification applies only to suspicious accounts ? Whether access to future features may depend upon verification ? Whether users in particular regions will face more frequent verification requirements ? Whether verification requests may increase as AI regulation expands ? This broad language and discretionary power that the company has along with flexibility in the hands of the company creates uncertainty for users who may have initially joined a platform expecting only an email address and payment information to be required.

‍

Government IDs collection: A new risk category

‍

Almost all AI services have operated without collecting government-issued identity documents. Once a company begins processing such information, the privacy implications change dramatically. Because government issued IDs contain: Full legal names, Dates of birth, Identification numbers, Addresses, Photographs and information regarding nationality. When companies collect these documents, they will have an important database of highly sensitive personal information. Even if the company itself does not retain the documents indefinitely, the existence of a verification process introduces additional privacy and security risks. As per Anthropic has stated that identity verification is conducted through third-party providers such as Persona. According to article on the official site titled ‘Identity verification on Claude’, Persona stores the identity documents and selfie data, while Anthropic retains access to verification records when necessary.  From the user's perspective, several important realities remain: First, the data still exists somewhere. Second, another third party organization is now involved in processing highly sensitive personal information. Third, Anthropic retains the ability to access verification records under certain circumstances. Therefore, although Anthropic may not directly maintain copies of every uploaded identity document, the practical result remains that sensitive information enters a broader ecosystem of entities and systems. Identity documents today are among the most valuable forms of personal information from the perspective of fraudsters, cybercriminals, and malicious actors. Therefore, any system that handles such documents becomes an attractive target for attack.

More information on persona’s government ID verification- https://withpersona.com/blog/what-is-government-id-verification 

‍

The Biometric Dimension

‍

Another significant aspect of the update is the reference to facial geometry templates. Unlike passwords, biometric identifiers cannot easily be changed if compromised. A person can replace a password or even obtain a new identification card, but they cannot simply obtain a new face. Facial geometry templates are sensitive because they enable automated identity matching. Although these templates, as claimed, are not equivalent to photographs, they are nevertheless derived from unique physical characteristics of a person. In many jurisdictions, including parts of the European Union and several U.S. states, biometric data receives enhanced legal protection because of its permanence and sensitivity, let us see how it unfolds in these jurisdictions.

‍

The Unanswered Retention Question

‍

It is unclear in the policy as to how long the data will be retained because retention limits serve as one of the most important safeguards in modern privacy law, they have given another vague answer that “They're bound to protect it with industry-standard security controls and delete it in line with the retention limits we've set and applicable law.” The longer sensitive information remains stored, the greater the likelihood of unauthorized access, misuse, accidental disclosure, or legal compulsion.

‍

Court Orders and Government Access

‍

Anthropic may be required to disclose information pursuant to valid legal processes such as subpoenas, court orders, warrants, or regulatory directives. The existence of identity verification records means that future requests could potentially be linked to verified identities rather than pseudonymous accounts. This does not mean governments receive unrestricted access to user data. However, it does mean that once identity verification information exists within a company's ecosystem, it may become subject to lawful disclosure requirements. The privacy implications are therefore materially different from those associated with anonymous or pseudonymous AI usage.

‍

Shifting Responsibility onto Users

‍

Another concern is that the privacy policy states that users are responsible for ensuring they possess the necessary rights, permissions, or authority when uploading files, connecting third-party services, or instructing Claude to retrieve information. Anthropic is effectively informing users that they bear responsibility for ensuring that uploaded or connected data is lawfully accessible. As AI assistants gain greater capabilities, this transfer of responsibility from platform to user is likely to become increasingly common. Beyond individual privacy, Anthropic's verification policy also raises larger questions about data sovereignty and the cross-border movement of sensitive personal information. In India, the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India judgment recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, affirming that individuals have the right to informational self-determination and control over their personal data. Yet, under Anthropic's verification framework, an Indian user may be required to upload a government-issued identity document and biometric information, which are processed by Persona, a U.S.-based identity verification company acting on behalf of Anthropic. Although users voluntarily consent to this process, it nevertheless results in highly sensitive identity information crossing national borders and entering the control of foreign private entities governed primarily by foreign contractual arrangements and multiple legal regimes. While governments issue identity documents as sovereign instruments of citizenship, their verification and processing are increasingly outsourced to multinational technology companies. Questions arise not only about how securely such information is handled, but also about which country's laws ultimately govern access, retention, disclosure, and accountability when personal data leaves the jurisdiction in which it originated. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, cross-border transfer of personal data is generally permitted unless the Central Government specifically restricts transfers to certain jurisdictions. Therefore, a foreign company processing identity documents is not, by itself, unlawful but this legality does not eliminate legitimate concerns. Users realistically have limited bargaining power and little practical understanding of how long their identity documents, biometric templates, or verification records will be retained, who within the corporate ecosystem may access them, or how they may be disclosed pursuant to foreign legal processes. 

‍

Conclusion

‍

The policy is commendable in some respects because it openly identifies the categories of information that may be collected rather than obscuring them behind vague terminology. However, important concerns remain regarding the extent of verification triggers, the handling of biometric information, the absence of clearly disclosed retention periods, and the long-term implications of linking AI accounts to government-issued identities. As AI systems become more integrated into daily life, these questions will likely become central issues in debates about digital privacy, surveillance, autonomy, and the future governance of artificial intelligence.

‍