#FactCheck-9/11 Footage Falsely Shared as Iran’s Attack on Israel

Introduction

‍

‍"Artificial Intelligence may be the new charlatan in town"

‍

There is something almost wonderfully Indian about our current relationship with artificial intelligence. We are simultaneously afraid of it, fascinated by it, regulating it, funding it, using it and occasionally asking it to write the regulation meant to control it. In contrast, artificial intelligence seems to have figured out the oldest trick in the book: create an issue and then figure out how to solve it. Both the deepfake and the deepfake detector can be produced by it. It has the ability to  both generate and detect false information. It can both authenticate and mimic your voice. It can create a fake image and determine if it is fake. The machine ,in other words, is increasingly becoming both the burglar and the security system. We now refer to this as innovation.  Perhaps nothing better captures this peculiar moment than India’s most recent regulatory actions. The government has strengthened regulations pertaining to synthetic content such as requiring labelling and expediting the removal of illegal AI-generated information. After a legitimate government or court order, platforms are expected to take action within three hours, significantly reducing the removal window for some content. It took years for the internet to become ubiquitous. There are  now three hours for the law to become transitory. This is the first great paradox of AI governance. Technology operates at the speed of creation. Law operates at the speed of procedure. The citizen is seated between the two. 

‍

The Age of the Digital Double

‍

Indian courts are already dealing with this issue in more tangible ways. Cricket player Yuvraj Singh recently received relief from the Delhi High Court in a personality-rights case involving deepfakes created by AI and unlawful use of his identity. Courts have intervened against AI-generated and modified content in similar cases involving other public individuals. As a result, the law faces an odd dilemma: What exactly belongs to a person?  In the past, humans used comparatively stable identifiers to understand identity, such as a name, portrait, signature, or voice. That simplicity has been disrupted by AI. You can now detach your face from your body. You may separate your throat from your voice. It is possible to distinguish between your emotions and your expressions. It is possible to fabricate your political beliefs without engaging in politics. The legitimacy of a person's existence is being requested to be protected by the law, not just their property which is a far more difficult issue.

‍

When Artificial Intelligence Enters the Courtroom

‍

The irony becomes richer when AI enters the courtroom itself. Courts are creating guidelines for the use of  AI in the courtroom, just as they are being challenged to decide what happens when AI creates reality outside of it. Human primacy, accountability, transparency, data protection and judicial independence are highlighted in the Supreme Court’s proposed rules on the use of AI in courts. After all, there is one situation in which the justification that “the AI said so” should never be accepted. A hallucinated judgment is more than just a mistake in technology. It may turn into a mistake of authority in a legal system. A precedent can be confidently created by a machine. It can be cited with confidence by a lawyer and maybe then brought before a court for consideration.  All of a sudden, we have created a flawless little bureaucratic ecology where everyone has been duped despite no one's intention to do so. It's not inevitable that machines will turn malevolent, but rather that people will grow unduly reliant on machines that seem authoritative.

‍

The Great AI Contradiction

‍

We asked, "What can AI do?" for years.What can AI do for us, we then enquired? We are starting to wonder what AI might do to humans. The following query ought to be more challenging: When it does, who is at fault? Because AI systems don't cleanly fit into the legal frames we inherited, that question becomes very challenging. Developers, model providers, data providers, deployers, platforms, and end users are among them. There may occasionally be a middleman. There is a victim occasionally. Surprisingly, there can occasionally be multiple roles at once. This point is made in a recent working paper on AI and consumer rights in India: while current consumer protection laws may apply to AI harms, the conventional division of accountability among manufacturers, sellers, and service providers becomes challenging when AI systems involve a much more dispersed value chain.

‍

The Misunderstanding on AI’s Intelligence

‍

This is the point at which our sense for policy sometimes fails. We are concerned that AI will develop superintelligence. The more imminent threat can be much less dramatic. It is not necessary for AI to surpass human intelligence in order to wreak great harm. All it needs to do is become more convincing, quicker, and less expensive than human verification. Artificial general intelligence is not necessary for a fraudster to con an elderly person. A supercomputer is not necessary for a political manipulator to create a candidate's voice. A stalker can create an intimate deepfake without being conscious. A pupil can file a hallucinated case citation without the assistance of a robot attorney. Ordinary human wrongdoing magnified by incredible technical magnitude is what it is.

‍

The Real Test of AI Governance

‍

The number of standards we create, the number of committees we form, or the number of compliance boxes platforms check will not ultimately determine the success of AI regulation. Something considerably simpler will be used to measure it. Can the legal system advise a regular citizen where to go, what to do, and who will be held accountable when an AI system impersonates, defrauds, surveils, manipulates, or denies them a service?

The presence of accountability following failure, not the absence of failure.

Sometimes the most advanced piece of technology in the room is still an old-fashioned institution: a law that works, a regulator that responds, a court that understands the technology and a human being willing to take responsibility. Because if AI is going to be both the fire and the fire extinguisher, we should at least make sure that someone other than the machine owns the building.

‍

References

‍

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/government-tightens-deepfake-rules-mandates-ai-content-labels-and-three-hour-takedown-timeline/articleshow/133011656.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com&from=mdr 
• https://theleaflet.in/law-and-technology/explained-the-supreme-court-of-indias-draft-regulations-for-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-courts-2026 
• https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/yuvraj-singh-personality-rights-ai-deepfakes-delhi-high-court/

‍

Executive Summary: A video circulating on social media claims that retired Lieutenant General P.R. Shankar questioned the capability of newly appointed Army Chief Lt Gen Dhiraj Seth, suggesting he may not be able to effectively counter Pakistan or China. The clip further alleges that the appointment involved political influence and favoritism. CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be false and misleading. The original video contains no such remarks regarding the new Army Chief or his appointment.

‍

Claim: An X user shared the viral video on June 16, 2026, alleging that Lt Gen P.R. Shankar raised concerns over the appointment of the new Army Chief and questioned his competence in handling threats from Pakistan and China. https://x.com/indiain24hr/status/2066916021982908502 , https://archive.ph/vAnjo

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check: A Google search using relevant keywords did not yield any credible media reports supporting the claim, raising initial doubts about its authenticity. A reverse image search of keyframes from the viral video led to a YouTube livestream uploaded on June 13, 2026. The original video showed Lt Gen P.R. Shankar discussing modern military concepts such as drone warfare, rocket systems, artillery and missile warfare (DRaM Warfare), with no reference to Lt Gen Dhiraj Seth or his appointment.

https://www.youtube.com/live/60JMMlHRmjA

‍

‍

Further verification revealed that Lt Gen P.R. Shankar himself has labelled the circulating clip as fake on his official X account and has stated that a formal complaint has been filed against such manipulated content.

https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/2066826145707024778

‍

‍

Additionally, AI detection analysis using Hive Moderation indicated that the audio in the viral video has a 99% probability of being AI-generated.

‍

‍

Conclusion: The research confirms that the viral video is an AI-generated deepfake. The original video does not contain any remarks about Lt Gen Dhiraj Seth or his appointment. The content has been digitally manipulated and is being circulated with a misleading narrative.

‍

Executive Summary:

The internet is a nest of scams and there's much need to be careful with predatory ideas that prey on the naïve people. Within the recent days, a malicious campaign has emerged falsely alleging 28 day free recharge by courtesy of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This blog seeks to analyze the tactics used by this scam in luring the victims and give an overview on how one can identify and keep away from such fraudulent activities.

Claim:

In view of the increasing support for the BJP 2024 election, a rumor has allegedly claimed that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi offering a free recharge with a validity period of up-to twenty eight days at cost of ₹239  to all Indian users. The message encourages the users to click on a given link in order to redeem the free recharge, pointing out that this offer is valid until January 26th of 2024.

The Deceptive Journey:

• Insecure Links:The research begins with a suspicious link (http://offerintro[.]com/BJP2024), without any credibility that honest sites use to protect the user information. We should keep in mind that the links which aren’t secure may easily lead to phishing and other  cyber threats.
• Multiple Redirects:When users click the link, they are immediately directed through a series of links. This common tactic used by scammers is designed to hide the true origin of their fraudulent scheme, making it difficult for users' efforts to identify the malicious activity.
• False Promises and Fake Comments:The landing page has a banner of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi that makes it look like this is an official channel and hence authentic. Further, false comments can be also included to compliment the alleged initiative. But remember that genuine government announcements are made through legal channels, not by the shady websites.
• Mobile Number Request:As the next step, the users enter their mobile numbers in the specified field. True initiatives never really need the personal information to pass through unofficial lines. This is actually a trick that scammers use to acquire the important information.
• Share to Activate:Once a user has entered the mobile number, he/she is prompted to share the link with others in order to “activate” promised free recharge. This method is most often used by scammers for spreading their fraudulent message beyond the targeted victim.
• Fake Progress Display:When the users have done their part by sharing the link, a false recharge in progress  bar is shown to make them believe that it has started. But the consumers are unwittingly playing a part in the fraud.
• Recharge Completion Pop-up:The last stage of fraud includes a pop-up saying that the recharge is done; leaving users with the false belief that they have benefited from a legitimate government initiative.

What we Analyze :

• It is important to note that at this particular point, there has not been any official declaration or a proper confirmation of an offer made by the Prime Minister or from their government. So, people must be very careful when encountering such messages because they are often employed as lures in phishing attacks or misinformation campaigns. Before engaging or transmitting such claims, it is always advisable to authenticate the information from trustworthy sources in order to protect oneself online and prevent the spread of wrongful information.
• The campaign is hosted on a third party domain instead of any official Government Website, this raised suspicion. Also the domain has been registered in very recent times.

‍

‍

• Domain Name: offerintro[.]com
• Registry Domain ID: 2791466714_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
• Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy[.]com
• Registrar URL: https://www.godaddy[.]com
• ‍Registrar: GoDaddy[.]com, LLC
• Registrar IANA ID: 146
• Updated Date: 2023-06-18T20:37:20Z
• Creation Date: 2023-06-18T20:37:20Z
• Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2024-06-18T20:37:20Z
• Name Server: ANAHI.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
• Name Server: GARRETT.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM

CyberPeace Advisory:

• Stay Informed: Beware of the scams and keep yourself updated through authentic government platforms.
• Verify Website Security: Do not get engaged with any insecure HTTP links but focus on URLs that have secure encryption (HTTPS).
• Protect Personal Information: However, be cautious when sharing personal information – especially in a non-official channel.
• Report Suspicious Activity: If you discover any scams or fraudulent activities, report it and the relevant sites to help avoid others from being defrauded of their hard earned money.

Conclusion:

Summing up, Prime Minister Narendra Modi Free Recharge fraud is an excellent illustration that there is always some danger within cyberspace. The way of the method, from insecure links and also multiple redirects to false promises and really data collection make it clear that internet users should be more careful. The importance of staying up-to-date with what is happening in this new digital world, verifying credibility and also privacy are paramount. By being cautiously aware, the people can keep themselves safe from such fraudulent acts and also play a role in ensuring security even for an online world. Remember that an offer which is in a perfect world should be illegal. Therefore, after doing a thorough research we found this campaign to be fake.

‍