#FactCheck- Viral video of UP Police patrolling on e-rickshaw is AI-generated

Executive Summary

‍

A video circulating on social media allegedly shows Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath criticizing Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan and asking people not to watch his films. Users sharing the clip claim that these statements are recent. CyberPeace’s research has found the claim to be misleading. research  revealed that the video is from 2015, long before Yogi Adityanath became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. At that time, he was serving as a Member of Parliament from Gorakhpur.

‍

Claim

‍

On January 13, 2026, a Facebook user shared the video with the caption: "A clear message from the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Param Pujya Mahant Yogi Adityanath, urging people not to watch Shah Rukh Khan’s movie. Share this message widely, send it to all groups you are part of, and inform the youth in your family."

‍

• https://www.facebook.com/shifujrajpal.bishwas.5/posts/887830496942213/ 
• https://archive.ph/fHPb4 

‍

‍

Fact Check: 

‍

To verify the claim, keyframes from the viral video were extracted and reverse-searched using Google Lens. The same video was found in a Facebook post dated March 28, 2022, where it was shared with the caption: "Baba Ji’s message to not watch Shah Rukh Khan’s ‘Pathaan’ movie."

‍

• https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=5491945904168889&id=100000606025317 

‍

‍

Further research traced the video to Aaj Tak’s website, which reported on November 4, 2015, that then-BJP MP Yogi Adityanath criticized Shah Rukh Khan, comparing his language to that of terrorist Hafiz Saeed, stating that there was no difference in their statements.

‍

• https://www.aajtak.in/india/story/yogi-aditya-nath-targets-shahrukh-khan-says-no-difference-in-language-of-srk-and-hafiz-sayeed-317760-2015-11-04 

‍

‍

A Live Hindustan report from the same date confirmed that Yogi Adityanath had strongly reacted to Shah Rukh Khan’s comments on rising intolerance in India and Hafiz Saeed’s invitation for him to stay in Pakistan. The reports make it clear that Yogi Adityanath criticized Shah Rukh Khan in 2015 by highlighting the similarity between his statements and those of Hafiz Saeed. At the same time, Shah Rukh Khan had highlighted growing intolerance in the country, citing incidents where filmmakers, scientists, and authors were returning awards, describing it as a sign of “deep intolerance” in India.

• https://www.livehindustan.com/news/national/article1-story--39-502923.html 

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

Our research  found that the statement attributed to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath circulating on social media is not recent. The video dates back to 2015, a time when Yogi Adityanath was not yet the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.

‍

A Foray into the Digital Labyrinth

In our digital age, the silhouette of truth is often obfuscated by a fog of technological prowess and cunning deception. With each passing moment, the digital expanse sprawls wider, and within it, synthetic media, known most infamously as 'deepfakes', emerge like phantoms from the machine. These adept forgeries, melding authenticity with fabrication, represent a new frontier in the malleable narrative of understood reality. Grappling with the specter of such virtual deceit, social media behemoths Facebook and YouTube have embarked on a prodigious quest. Their mission? To formulate robust bulwarks around the sanctity of fact and fiction, all the while fostering seamless communication across channels that billions consider an inextricable part of their daily lives.

In an exploration of this digital fortress besieged by illusion, we unpeel the layers of strategy that Facebook and YouTube have unfurled in their bid to stymie the proliferation of these insidious technical marvels. Though each platform approaches the issue through markedly different prisms, a shared undercurrent of necessity and urgency harmonizes their efforts.

The Detailing of Facebook's Strategic

Facebook's encampment against these modern-day chimaeras teems with algorithmic sentinels and human overseers alike—a union of steel and soul. The company’s layer upon layer of sophisticated artificial intelligence is designed to scrupulously survey, identify, and flag potential deepfake content with a precision that borders on the prophetic. Employing advanced AI systems, Facebook endeavours to preempt the chaos sown by manipulated media by detecting even the slightest signs of digital tampering.  

However, in an expression of profound acumen, Facebook also serves reminder of AI's fallibility by entwining human discernment into its fabric. Each flagged video wages its battle for existence within the realm of these custodians of reality—individuals entrusted with the hefty responsibility of parsing truth from technologically enabled fiction.

Facebook does not rest on the laurels of established defense mechanisms. The platform is in a perpetual state of flux, with policies and AI models adapting to the serpentine nature of the digital threat landscape. By fostering its cyclical metamorphosis, Facebook not only sharpens its detection tools but also weaves a more resilient protective web, one capable of absorbing the shockwaves of an evolving battlefield.

YouTube’s Overture of Transparency and the Exposition of AI

Turning to the amphitheatre of YouTube, the stage is set for an overt commitment to candour. Against the stark backdrop of deepfake dilemmas, YouTube demands the unveiling of the strings that guide the puppets, insisting on full disclosure whenever AI's invisible hands sculpt the content that engages its diverse viewership.

YouTube's doctrine is straightforward: creators must lift the curtains and reveal any artificial manipulation's role behind the scenes. With clarity as its vanguard, this requirement is not just procedural but an ethical invocation to showcase veracity—a beacon to guide viewers through the murky waters of potential deceit.

The iron fist within the velvet glove of YouTube's policy manifests through a graded punitive protocol. Should a creator falter in disclosing the machine's influence, repercussions follow, ensuring that the ecosystem remains vigilant against hidden manipulation.

But YouTube's policy is one that distinguishes between malevolence and benign use. Artistic endeavours, satirical commentary, and other legitimate expositions are spared the policy's wrath, provided they adhere to the overarching principle of transparency.

The Symbiosis of Technology and Policy in a Morphing Domain

YouTube's commitment to refining its coordination between human insight and computerized examination is unwavering. As AI's role in both the generation and moderation of content deepens, YouTube—which, like a skilled cartographer, must redraw its policies increasingly—traverses this ever-mutating landscape with a proactive stance.

In a Comparative Light: Tracing the Convergence of Giants

Although Facebook and YouTube choreograph their steps to different rhythms, together they compose an intricate dance aimed at nurturing trust and authenticity. Facebook leans into the proactive might of their AI algorithms, reinforced by updates and human interjection, while YouTube wields the virtue of transparency as its sword, cutting through masquerades and empowering its users to partake in storylines that are continually rewritten.

Together on the Stage of Our Digital Epoch

The sum of Facebook and YouTube's policies is integral to the pastiche of our digital experience, a multifarious quilt shielding the sanctum of factuality from the interloping specters of deception. As humanity treads the line between the veracious and the fantastic, these platforms stand as vigilant sentinels, guiding us in our pursuit of an old-age treasure within our novel digital bazaar—the treasure of truth. In this labyrinthine quest, it is not merely about unmasking deceivers but nurturing a wisdom that appreciates the shimmering possibilities—and inherent risks—of our evolving connection with the machine. 

Conclusion 

The struggle against deepfakes is a complex, many-headed challenge that will necessitate a united front spanning technologists, lawmakers, and the public. In this digital epoch, where the veneer of authenticity is perilously thin, the valiant endeavours of these tech goliaths serve as a lighthouse in a storm-tossed sea. These efforts echo the importance of evergreen vigilance in discerning truth from artfully crafted deception. 

References 

• https://about.fb.com/news/2020/01/enforcing-against-manipulated-media/
• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/google-sheds-light-on-how-its-fighting-deep-fakes-and-ai-generated-misinformation-in-india-9047211/
• https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/14/youtube-adapts-its-policies-for-the-coming-surge-of-ai-videos/
• https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/cybercrime-and-digital-threats/youtube-twitter-hunt-down-deepfakes
  

Introduction

Data Breaches have taken over cyberspace as one of the rising issues, these data breaches result in personal data making its way toward cybercriminals who use this data for no good. As netizens, it's our digital responsibility to be cognizant of our data and the data of one's organization. The increase in internet and technology penetration has made people move to cyberspace at a rapid pace, however, awareness regarding the same needs to be inculcated to maximise the data safety of netizens. The recent AIIMS cyber breach has got many organisations worried about their cyber safety and security. According to the HIPPA Journal, 66% of healthcare organizations reported ransomware attacks on them. Data management and security is the prime aspect of clients all across the industry and is now growing into a concern for many. The data is primarily classified into three broad terms-

• Personal Identified Information (PII) - Any representation of information that permits the identity of an individual to whom the information applies to be reasonably inferred by either direct or indirect means.
• Non-Public Information (NPI) - The personal information of an individual that is not and should not be available to the public. This includes Social Security Numbers, bank information, other personal identifiable financial information, and certain transactions with financial institutions.
• Material Non-Public Information (MNPI) - Data relating to a company that has not been made public but could have an impact on its share price. It is against the law for holders of nonpublic material information to use the information to their advantage in trading stocks.

This classification of data allows the industry to manage and secure data effectively and efficiently and at the same time, this allows the user to understand the uses of their data and its intensity in case of breach of data. Organisations process data that is a combination of the above-mentioned classifications and hence in instances of data breach this becomes a critical aspect. Coming back to the AIIMS data breach, it is a known fact that AIIMS is also an educational and research institution. So, one might assume that the reason for any attack on AIIMS could be either to exfiltrate patient data or could be to obtain hands-on the R & D data including research-related intellectual properties. If we postulate the latter, we could also imagine that other educational institutes of higher learning such as IITs, IISc, ISI, IISERs, IIITs, NITs, and some of the significant state universities could also be targeted. In 2021, the Ministry of Home Affairs through the Ministry of Education sent a directive to IITs and many other institutes to take certain steps related to cyber security measures and to create SoPs to establish efficient data management practices. The following sectors are critical in terms of data protection-

• Health sector
• Financial sector
• Education sector
• Automobile sector

These sectors are generally targeted by bad actors and often data breach from these sectors result in cyber crimes as the data is soon made available on Darkweb. These institutions need to practice compliance like any other corporate house as the end user here is the netizen and his/her data is of utmost importance in terms of protection.Organisations in today's time need to be in coherence to the advancement in cyberspace to find out keen shortcomings and vulnerabilities they may face and subsequently create safeguards for the same. The AIIMS breach is an example to learn from so that we can protect other organisations from such cyber attacks. To showcase strong and impenetrable cyber security every organisation should be able to answer these questions-

• Do you have a centralized cyber asset inventory?
• Do you have human resources that are trained to model possible cyber threats and cyber risk assessment?
• Have you ever undertaken a business continuity and resilience study of your institutional digitalized business processes?
• Do you have a formal vulnerability management system that enumerates vulnerabilities in your cyber assets and a patch management system that patches freshly discovered vulnerabilities?
• Do you have a formal configuration assessment and management system that checks the configuration of all your cyber assets and security tools (firewalls, antivirus management, proxy services) regularly to ensure they are most securely configured?
• Do have a segmented network such that your most critical assets (servers, databases, HPC resources, etc.) are in a separate network that is access-controlled and only people with proper permission can access?
• Do you have a cyber security policy that spells out the policies regarding the usage of cyber assets, protection of cyber assets, monitoring of cyber assets, authentication and access control policies, and asset lifecycle management strategies?
• Do you have a business continuity and cyber crisis management plan in place which is regularly exercised like fire drills so that in cases of exigencies such plans can easily be followed, and all stakeholders are properly trained to do their part during such emergencies?
• Do you have multi-factor authentication for all users implemented?
• Do you have a supply chain security policy for applications that are supplied by vendors? Do you have a vendor access policy that disallows providing network access to vendors for configuration, updates, etc?
• Do you have regular penetration testing of the cyberinfrastructure of the organization with proper red-teaming?
• Do you have a bug-bounty program for students who could report vulnerabilities they discover in your cyber infrastructure and get rewarded?
• Do you have an endpoint security monitoring tool mandatory for all critical endpoints such as database servers, application servers, and other important cyber assets?
• Do have a continuous network monitoring and alert generation tool installed?
• Do you have a comprehensive cyber security strategy that is reflected in your cyber security policy document?
• Do you regularly receive cyber security incidents (including small, medium, or high severity incidents, network scanning, etc) updates from your cyber security team in order to ensure that top management is aware of the situation on the ground?
• Do you have regular cyber security skills training for your cyber security team and your IT/OT engineers and employees?
• Do your top management show adequate support, and hold the cyber security team accountable on a regular basis?
• Do you have a proper and vetted backup and restoration policy and practice?

If any organisation has definite answers to these questions, it is safe to say that they have strong cyber security, these questions should not be taken as a comparison but as a checklist by various organisations to be up to date in regard to the technical measures and policies related to cyber security. Having a strong cyber security posture does not drive the cyber security risk to zero but it helps to reduce the risk and improves the fighting chance. Further, if a proper risk assessment is regularly carried out and high-risk cyber assets are properly protected, then the damages resulting from cyber attacks can be contained to a large extent.