#FactCheck-16-Year-Old Bronx Fire Rescue Video Misrepresented as Lucknow Incident
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media after a fire incident in Aliganj, Lucknow. The approximately 15-second clip shows a building engulfed in flames, where a woman is seen hanging her small child outside a window while desperately seeking help. The video is being circulated as if it shows the recent Lucknow fire incident. CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be misleading. The viral video is not related to the Lucknow fire incident. In fact, the clip is around 16 years old and originates from a completely different incident in the United States. It is being falsely shared on social media with a misleading context.
Claim:
A Facebook user shared the viral video on June 22, 2026, claiming: “A mother’s love is so powerful that even in front of death, she goes to any extent to save her child.” The post link, archived link, and screenshots are provided below.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1168968548755052
Factcheck
To verify the claim, we conducted a reverse image search of the video keyframes using Google Lens. During the research, we found the same visuals published in a HuffPost report dated 2010. According to the report, the incident shows a fire in an apartment in the Bronx, New York, USA. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/photo-captures-baby-dangl_n_463780
Further research led us to another report published by Gothamist in 2010, which also confirmed that the footage is related to a fire incident in the Bronx apartment building in New York. https://gothamist.com/news/baby-held-out-window-in-bronx-fire-is-healthy-adorable
According to a report by Dainik Bhaskar, a fire incident at a coaching center in Aliganj, Lucknow resulted in the death of around 15 people. The government suspended four officials and police arrested four accused in connection with the incident. However, it was confirmed that the actual footage from the Lucknow coaching center fire is different from the viral video and has no relation to it. https://www.bhaskar.com/local/uttar-pradesh/lucknow/news/lucknow-coaching-center-fire-children-rescue-effort-138258629.html
Conclusion:
Our research confirms that the viral video is not related to the Lucknow fire incident. The footage is actually from a 16-year-old fire incident in the Bronx, New York, USA, and is being falsely shared with a misleading context on social media.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary:
The claim of a video of US President Joe Biden dozing off during a television interview is digitally manipulated . The original video is from a 2011 incident involving actor and singer Harry Belafonte. He seems to fall asleep during a live satellite interview with KBAK – KBFX - Eyewitness News. Upon thorough analysis of keyframes from the viral video, it reveals that US President Joe Biden’s image was altered in Harry Belafonte's video. This confirms that the viral video is manipulated and does not show an actual event involving President Biden.
Claims:
A video shows US President Joe Biden dozing off during a television interview while the anchor tries to wake him up.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the posts, we watched the video then divided the video into keyframes using the inVid tool, and reverse-searched one of the frames from the video.
We found another video uploaded on Oct 18, 2011 by the official channel of KBAK - KBFX - Eye Witness News. The title of the video reads, “Official Station Video: Is Harry Belafonte asleep during live TV interview?”
The video looks similar to the recent viral one, the TV anchor could be heard saying the same thing as in the viral video. Taking a cue from this we also did some keyword searches to find any credible sources. We found a news article posted by Yahoo Entertainment of the same video uploaded by KBAK - KBFX - Eyewitness News.
Upon thorough investigation from reverse image search and keyword search reveals that the recent viral video of US President Joe Biden dozing off during a TV interview is digitally altered to misrepresent the context. The original video dated back to 2011, where American Singer and actor Harry Belafonte was the actual person in the TV interview but not US President Joe Biden.
Hence, the claim made in the viral video is false and misleading.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the viral video claiming to show US President Joe Biden dozing off during a television interview is digitally manipulated and inauthentic. The video is originally from a 2011 incident involving American singer and actor Harry Belafonte. It has been altered to falsely show US President Joe Biden. It is a reminder to verify the authenticity of online content before accepting or sharing it as truth.
- Claim: A viral video shows in a television interview US President Joe Biden dozing off while the anchor tries to wake him up.
- Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter)
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
For years, Malaysia governed artificial intelligence the way most countries did before they had to, with guidelines nobody could be fined for ignoring. The National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics, published by Malaysia's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation back in September 2024, told developers and deployers what "responsible AI" should look like. It just never made anyone legally responsible for anything.
Malaysia is now attempting to change that. On 10 July 2026, the National AI Office (NAIO), operating under the Ministry of Digital, released a Public Consultation Paper for what would become Malaysia's first horizontal AI statute: a single law covering AI across every sector, rather than a patchwork of guidelines, data protection rules, and whatever a particular regulator happens to think about algorithms this year. Written submissions closed on 31 July 2026, and the government has said it wants the Bill tabled and completed before the year is out. That is an aggressive timeline for a law this broad, and it tells you something about how urgently Putrajaya wants this on the books.
Why "horizontal" matters here
Most of the world's AI rules so far have been vertical. A banking regulator handles AI in banking, a health authority handles AI in diagnostics, and everything in between is grey space. Malaysia's own consultation paper is refreshingly candid about the problem this creates: it warns of "differing standards and approaches" building up across sectors, and notes that existing tools only really respond after something has already gone wrong.
The Bill tries to fix that by sitting above the sector specific rules rather than replacing them. It rests on three pillars.
- First, a Central AI Authority, which would still lean on existing regulators (think Bank Negara Malaysia for financial services or the Securities Commission for capital markets) through what the paper calls "Sectoral Leads."
- Second, a set of baseline principles written into law rather than left as suggestions: human dignity, transparency and explainability, accountability, safety and security, and data governance.
- Third, a structure that scales obligations to how dangerous a given AI system actually is, instead of regulating a spam filter and a hospital triage algorithm with the same rulebook.
The mechanics: three tiers, two roles, one authority
The risk framework itself splits into three tiers: Tier 1 for unacceptable risk, Tier 2 for high risk, and Tier 3 for low risk, with obligations scaling up as the potential for harm does. Obligations fall on two kinds of actors: Developers, who materially shape what a system can do, and Deployers, who actually run it in the real world. A single company can be both. This split deliberately echoes the controller and processor distinction from Malaysia's Personal Data Protection Act, though not perfectly, a point several legal commentators have already flagged as a source of future confusion, since a Deployer processing personal data will usually be a controller under the PDPA, while a Developer offering a hosted model might only be a processor.
The Central AI Authority itself is proposed to run three functions: an AI Safety function that maintains the risk framework and oversees testing and incident reporting; an Investigation and Enforcement function with power to demand fact finding and issue directions after incidents; and an AI Enablement function that produces guidance, templates, training, and runs the AI Sandbox, a controlled testing environment meant to let companies experiment before the full weight of compliance lands on them. For smaller businesses without in house compliance teams, that enablement mandate may end up mattering more day to day than the enforcement powers do.
Two more features round out the design. An incident reporting mechanism would require Developers and Deployers to flag not just failures but near misses and unexpected effects, with the public also able to lodge complaints directly. And the Bill's territorial reach is broad by design: it would apply to any AI system designed, developed, or used in Malaysia, regardless of where the underlying infrastructure sits, carving out exemptions only for personal use and national security matters.
How this stacks up against the EU AI Act
Malaysia's drafters have clearly been reading Brussels' homework, and it shows in the structure: a tiered risk model, a central authority, mandatory obligations tied to risk level. But the resemblance is more skeletal than skin deep once you look at the details.
The EU AI Act is a fully codified regulation running to hundreds of pages, with named prohibited practices spelled out in an annex, specific high risk categories listed by sector, and detailed conformity assessment procedures before a system ever reaches the market. Malaysia's Bill, at consultation stage, is still working from principles and a harm list rather than an exhaustive catalogue of prohibited or high risk use cases, closer in spirit to a framework law that leaves the granular detail to subsidiary guidelines and Sectoral Leads. That's partly a function of timeline: the EU spent roughly three years negotiating its Act before adoption, while Malaysia is trying to move from consultation paper to finished statute inside a single year.
Enforcement philosophy differs too. Brussels built the AI Act around compliance that happens before deployment: conformity assessments, technical documentation, and sign off procedures similar to product safety certification, particularly for high risk systems. Malaysia's design leans more on an enablement first posture, with sandboxes, guidance, and incident reporting sitting alongside enforcement powers rather than in front of them, at least as currently framed. Whether that survives contact with the final legislative text is an open question. The consultation drew real pushback from law firms wanting harsher penalty ranges and clearer thresholds, so the version tabled in Parliament may look tougher than the one made public in July.
There's also a jurisdictional difference worth flagging. The EU AI Act has genuine extraterritorial teeth backed by the largest single market in the developed world, which is why companies far outside Europe still comply with it. Malaysia's Bill claims similarly broad reach on paper, covering any system used in Malaysia regardless of where it's hosted, but the practical leverage to enforce that against a foreign Developer is a different question entirely, and one the Edwin Lee and Partners (Law firm based in malaysia) submission specifically raised as a gap needing an international cooperation mechanism.
India and AI Regulation
India has spent the past year deliberately walking in the evolving direction. Through MeitY's India AI Governance Guidelines, released in November 2025 ahead of the India AI Impact Summit, explicitly reject a standalone AI statute in favour of what officials have repeatedly called a "light touch" model: seven guiding principles, trust, people first, innovation, fairness, accountability, transparency, and safety, layered on top of existing law rather than a new one. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the IT Act, 2000 with amendment rules, do most of the actual legal work, with sector regulators like the RBI and SEBI handling the specifics for their own industries.
The contrast with Malaysia is almost a case study in two governance philosophies. Where Malaysia is building a central authority with enforcement teeth from day one, India has so far preferred advisory bodies, an AI Governance Group and a proposed AI Safety Institute, that shape norms without imposing binding cross sectoral obligations.
Where Malaysia's Bill would be justiciable law with penalties attached, India's framework is closer to a philosophy statement with sandboxes and a national incident database bolted on. That is not a weaker approach so much as a different, and arguably shrewd, bet. India is the world's largest testing ground for AI adoption at scale, from welfare delivery to vernacular language tools, and a heavy compliance regime risks slowing exactly the kind of grassroots experimentation the government is trying to encourage. Betting on existing law and institutional judgment, at least for now, keeps that door open, and it has let India move fast without waiting for a perfect law first.
That said, India's position has been visibly shifting. In July 2026, MeitY Secretary S. Krishnan signalled the government is now exploring dedicated AI legislation after all, a notable departure from the "no early regulation" stance the ministry had held in 2023, and this is likely accelerated by growing concern over deepfakes and synthetic media, which already prompted binding traceability and labelling obligations under amended intermediary rules earlier this year.
The stakes for the next few months
None of this is finished. Malaysia's Bill is still a consultation paper, not enacted law, and the gap between what NAIO proposed in July and what Parliament eventually passes could be significant. Several submissions are already pushing for a wider harm list, sharper enforcement thresholds, and clearer rules for foreign Developers who never set foot in Kuala Lumpur. But the direction is set. Malaysia has decided AI governance can no longer run on goodwill and voluntary guidelines, and it now attempts to write enforceable AI law on a real deadline rather than settling for guidelines. However, the final Bill lives up to that ambition, or gets watered down in the process, is something only the next few months will show.
References
- Ministry of Digital. "Kementerian Digital Mulakan Libat Urus Cadangan Rang Undang Undang Tadbir Urus Kecerdasan Buatan (AI)." 10 July 2026. https://www.digital.gov.my/en-GB/siaran/Kementerian-Digital-Mulakan-Libat-Urus-Cadangan-Rang-Undang-Undang-Tadbir-Urus-Kecerdasan-Buatan-(AI)
- Digital Watch Observatory. "Malaysia launches consultations on AI Governance Bill." July 2026. https://dig.watch/updates/malaysia-ai-governance-bill-consultation
- Baker McKenzie, Wong and Partners. "Malaysia: Public Consultation on the AI Governance Bill." July 2026. https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2026/07/malaysia-public-consultation-on-the-ai-governance-bill
- Digital Policy Alert. "Testing requirements in AI Governance Bill" and related entries on the National AI Office consultation. https://digitalpolicyalert.org
- Rahmat Lim and Partners. "National AI Office issues public consultation paper on proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Bill." https://www.rahmatlim.com/perspectives/articles/33264/mykh-national-ai-office-issues-public-consultation-paper-on-proposed-artificial-intelligence-ai-governance-bill
- Edwin Lee and Partners. "Malaysia's AI Governance Bill: Our Submission to the Consultation." https://lpplaw.my/ai-governance-malaysia/
- Kiizen. "Overview of the Proposed Malaysia's AI Governance Bill." https://www.kiizen.com.my/proposed-malaysias-ai-governance-bill/
- Zicelegal. "Consultation Alert: Public Consultation on Malaysia's AI Governance Bill." https://www.ziclegal.com/resources/consultation-alert-public-consultation-on-malaysias-ai-governance-bill
- Welcome.AI. "Malaysia's AI Governance Bill Expands Regulation and Accountability for Businesses." July 2026. https://www.welcome.ai/content/malaysias-ai-governance-bill-expands-regulation-and-accountability-for-businesses
- Regulations.ai. "Malaysia AI Regulation Overview." https://regulations.ai/regulations/RAI-MY-NA-SUMMARY-2026
- w.media. "Malaysia to enact AI law." https://w.media/malaysia-to-enact-ai-law/
- VisionIAS. "India's New AI Governance Guidelines Push Hands Off Approach." November 2025. https://visionias.in/blog/current-affairs/indias-new-ai-governance-guidelines-push-hands-off-approach
- EY India. "AI governance guidelines: A bet on innovation." https://www.ey.com/en_in/insights/ai/ai-governance-guidelines-a-bet-on-innovation
- TechnoSports. "Airegulation: Indian Government Finalizes AI Regulation." May 2026. https://technosports.co.in/airegulation-india-framework/
- The AI Track. "India AI Governance Guidelines Released for 2025 to 26." https://theaitrack.com/india-ai-governance-guidelines-2025/
- Lexology, contributed by a law firm. "India's AI Governance Model: MeitY's AI Guidelines and The Evolving Copyright Landscape." March 2026. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ffc0c58c-3727-4472-9914-5fa6a33ffffd
- Srishti IAS. "India's First AI Governance Framework 2026: Principles, Oversight, and Inclusive Growth Strategy." February 2026. https://srishtiias.com/india-first-ai-governance-framework-ahead-of-impact-summit-2026/
- Whalesbook. "India Plans Dedicated AI Law, Shifting From Light Touch Approach." July 2026. https://www.whalesbook.com/news/English/other/India-Plans-Dedicated-AI-Law-Shifting-From-Light-Touch-Approach/6a4811c9c7db2a6cf1650f24
- Saikrishna and Associates. "Decoding the India AI Governance Guidelines." November 2025. https://www.saikrishnaassociates.com/decoding-the-india-ai-governance-guidelines/
- News on Air. "MeitY Unveils India AI Governance Guidelines to Promote Safe and Responsible AI Adoption." 5 November 2025. https://www.newsonair.gov.in/meity-unveils-india-ai-governance-guidelines-to-promote-safe-and-responsible-ai-adoption
Contributors
- Maj. Vineet Kumar, Founder & Global President, CyberPeace
- Mr. Neeraj Soni, Senior Research Analyst, Policy & Advocacy, CyberPeace
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.)
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.
