#FactCheck-AI-generated video falsely links ethanol blended fuel (E85) to bees swarming on motorcycle tank

Introduction

In an era where digitalization is transforming every facet of life, ensuring that personal data is protected becomes crucial. The enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) is a significant step that has been taken by the Indian Parliament which sets forth a comprehensive framework for Digital Personal Data. The Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 has recently been released for public consultation to supplement the Act and ensure its smooth implementation once finalised. Though noting certain positive aspects, there is still room for addressing certain gaps and multiple aspects under the draft rules that require attention. The DPDP Act, 2023 recognises the individual’s right to protect their personal data providing control over the processing of personal data for lawful purposes. This Act applies to data which is available in digital form as well as data which is not in digital form but is digitalised subsequently. While the Act is intended to offer wide control to the individuals (Data Principal) over their personal information, its impact on vulnerable groups such as ‘Persons with Disabilities’ requires closer scrutiny. 

Person with Disabilities as data principal

The term ‘data principal’ has been defined under the DPDP Act under Section 2(j) as a person to whom the personal data is related to, which also includes a person with a disability. A lawful guardian acting on behalf of such person with disability has also been included under the ambit of this definition of Data Principal. As a result, a lawful guardian acting on behalf of a person with disability will have the same rights and responsibilities as a data principal under the Act. 

• Section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023 states that before processing the personal data of a person with a disability who has a lawful guardian, the data fiduciary must obtain verifiable consent from that guardian, ensuring proper protection of the person with disability's data privacy.
• The data principal has the right to access information about personal data under Section 11 which is being processed by the data fiduciary.
• Section 12 provides the right to correction and erasure of personal data by making a request in a manner prescribed by the data fiduciary. 
• A right to grievance redressal must be provided to the data principal in respect of any act or omission of performance of obligations by the data fiduciary or the consent manager. 
• Under Section 14, the data principal has the right to nominate any other person to exercise the rights provided under the Act in case of death or incapacity. 

Provision of consent and its implication

The three key components of Consent that can be identified under the DPDP Act, are:

• Explicit and Informed Consent: Consent given for the processing of data by the data principal or a lawful guardian in case of persons with disabilities must be clear, free and informed as per section 6 of the Act. The data fiduciary must specify the itemised description of the personal data required along with the specified purpose and description of the goods or services that would be provided by such processing of data. (Rule 3 under Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules)

• Verifiable Consent: Section 9 of the DPDP Act provides that the data fiduciary needs to obtain verifiable consent of the lawful guardian before processing any personal data of such a person with a disability.  Rule 10 of the Draft Rules obligates the data fiduciary to adopt measures to ensure that the consent given by the lawful guardian is verifiable before the is processed. 
• Withdrawal of Consent: Data principal or such lawful guardian has the option to withdraw consent for the processing of data at any point by making a request to the data fiduciary.   

Although the Act includes certain provisions that focus on the inclusivity of persons with disability, the interpretation of such sections says otherwise. 

Concerns related to provisions for Persons with Disabilities under the DPDP Act:

• Lack of definition of ‘person with disabilities’: The DPDP Act or the Draft Rules does not define the term ‘persons with disabilities’. This will create confusion as to which categories of disability are included and up to what percentage.  The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 clearly defines ‘person with benchmark disability’, ‘person with disability’ and ‘person with disability having high support needs’. This categorisation is essential to determine up to what extent a person with disability needs a lawful guardian which is missing under the DPDP Act.   
• Lack of autonomy: Though the definition of data principal includes persons with disabilities however the decision-making authority has been given to the lawful guardian of such individuals. The section creates ambiguity for people who have a lower percentage of disability and are capable of making their own decisions and have no autonomy in making decisions related to the processing of their personal data because of the lack of clarity in the definition of ‘persons with disabilities’. 
• Safeguards for abuse of power by lawful guardian: The lawful guardian once verified by the data fiduciary can make decisions for the persons with disabilities. This raises concerns regarding the potential abuse of power by lawful guardians in relation to the handling of personal data. The DPDP Act does not provide any specific protection against such abuse.
• Difficulty in verification of consent: The consent obtained by the Data Fiduciary must be verified. The process that will be adopted for verification is at the discretion of the data fiduciary according to Rule 10 of the Draft Data Protection Rules. The authenticity of consent is difficult to determine as it is a complex process which lacks a standard format. Also, with the technological advancements, it would be challenging to identify whether the information given to verify the consent is actually true. 

CyberPeace Recommendations

The DPDP Act, 2023 is a major step towards making the data protection framework more comprehensive, however, the provisions related to persons with disabilities and powers given to lawful guardians acting on their behalf still need certain clarity and refinement within the DPDP Act framework. 

• Consonance of DPDP with Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016: The RPWD and DPDP Act should supplement each other and can be used to clear the existing ambiguities. Such as the definition of ‘persons with disabilities’ under the RPWD Act can be used in the context of the DPDP Act, 2023. 
• Also, there must be certain mechanisms and safeguards within the Act to prevent abuse of power by the lawful guardian. The affected individual in case of suspected abuse of power should have an option to file a complaint with the Data Protection Board and the Board can further take necessary actions to determine whether there is abuse of power or not. 
• Regulatory oversight and additional safeguards are required to ensure that consent is obtained in a manner that respects the rights of all individuals, including those with disabilities. 

References:

• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/259889.pdf 
• https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15939/1/the_rights_of_persons_with_disabilities_act%2C_2016.pdf 
• https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/consent-disability-rights-and-data-protection-3143441
• https://www.pacta.in/digital-data-protection-consent-protocols-for-disability.pdf
• https://www.snrlaw.in/indias-new-data-protection-regime-tracking-updates-and-preparing-for-compliance/ 

‍

Introduction

With the advent of the internet, the world revealed the promise of boundless connection and the ability to bridge vast distances with a single click. However, as we wade through the complex layers of the digital age, we find ourselves facing a paradoxical realm where anonymity offers both liberation and a potential for unforeseen dangers. Omegle, a chat and video messaging platform, epitomizes this modern conundrum. Launched over a decade ago in 2009, it has burgeoned into a popular avenue for digital interaction, especially amidst the heightened need for human connection spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic's social distancing requirements. Yet, this seemingly benign tool of camaraderie, tragically, doubles as a contemporary incarnation of Pandora's box, unleashing untold risks upon the online privacy and security landscape. Omegle shuts down its operations permanently after 14 years of its service.

The Rise of Omegle 

The foundations of this nebulous virtual dominion can be traced back to the very architecture of Omegle. Introduced to the world as a simple, anonymous chat service, Omegle has since evolved, encapsulating the essence of unpredictable human interaction. Users enter this digital arena, often with the innocent desire to alleviate the pangs of isolation or simply to satiate curiosity; yet they remain blissfully unaware of the potential cybersecurity maelstrom that awaits them.

As we commence a thorough inquiry into the psyche of Omegle's vast user base, we observe a digital diaspora with staggering figures. The platform, in May 2022, counted 51.7 million unique visitors, a testament to its sprawling reach across the globe. Delve a bit deeper, and you will uncover that approximately 29.89% of these digital nomads originate from the United States. Others, in varying percentages, flock from India, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and Germany, revealing a vast, intricate mosaic of international engagement.

Such statistics beguile the uninformed observer with the lie of demographic diversity. Yet we must proceed with caution, for while the platform boasts an impressive 63.91% male patronage, we cannot overlook the notable surge in female participation, which has climbed to 36.09% during the pandemic era. More alarming still is the revelation, borne out of a BBC investigation in February 2021, that children as young as seven have trespassed into Omegle's adult sections—a section purportedly guarded by a minimum age limit of thirteen. How we must ask, has underage presence burgeoned on this platform? A sobering pointer finger towards the platform's inadvertent marketing on TikTok, where youthful influencers, with abandon, promote their Omegle exploits under the #omegle hashtag.

The Omegle Allure

Omegle's allure is further compounded by its array of chat opportunities. It flaunts an adult section awash with explicit content, a moderated chat section that, despite the platform's own admissions, remains imperfectly patrolled, and an unmoderated section, its entry pasted with forewarnings of an 18+ audience. Beyond these lies the college chat option, a seemingly exclusive territory that only admits individuals armed with a verified '.edu' email address.

The effervescent charm of Omegle's interface, however, belies its underlying treacheries. Herein lies a digital wilderness where online predators and nefarious entities prowl, emboldened by the absence of requisite registration protocols. No email address, no unique identifier—pestilence to any notion of accountability or safeguarding. Within this unchecked reality, the young and unwary stand vulnerable, a hapless game for exploitation. 

Threat to Users 

Venture even further into Omegle's data fiefdom, and the spectre of compromise looms larger. Users, particularly the youth, risk exposure to unsuitable content, and their naivety might lead to the inadvertent divulgence of personal information. Skulking behind the facade of connection, opportunities abound for coercion, blackmail, and stalking—perils rendered more potent as every video exchange and text can be captured, and recorded by an unseen adversary. The platform acts as a quasi-familiar confidante, all the while harvesting chat logs, cookies, IP addresses, and even sensory data, which, instead of being ephemeral, endure within Omegle's databases, readily handed to law enforcement and partnered entities under the guise of due diligence.

How to Combat the threat 

In mitigating these online gorgons, a multi-faceted approach is necessary. To thwart incursion into your digital footprint, adults, seeking the thrills of Omegle's roulette, would do well to cloak their activities with a Virtual Private Network (VPN), diligently pore over the privacy policy, deploy robust cybersecurity tools, and maintain an iron-clad reticence on personal disclosures. For children, the recommendation gravitates towards outright avoidance. There, a constellation of parental control mechanisms await the vigilant guardian, ready to shield their progeny from the internet's darker alcoves.

Conclusion 

In the final analysis, Omegle emerges as a microcosm of the greater web—a vast, paradoxical construct proffering solace and sociability, yet riddled with malevolent traps for the uninformed. As digital denizens, our traverse through this interconnected cosmos necessitates a relentless guarding of our private spheres and the sober acknowledgement that amidst the keystrokes and clicks, we must tread with caution lest we unseal the perils of this digital Pandora's box.

References:

https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/omegle-shuts-down-operations-permanently-after-14-years-of-its-service-123110900743_1.html

‍

Executive Summary 

‍

A video of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being shared on social media with the claim that he disrespected the national anthem by continuing to walk while it was being played. The CyberPeace Research Wing’s investigation found that the claim is false. The audio heard in the viral clip has been added separately to the original footage, creating a misleading impression about what was happening in the video.

‍

Claim

‍

An X user shared the video claiming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi continued walking during the national anthem, thereby disrespecting it.

https://x.com/sudhirkummar123/status/2089044275665535414?s=20

https://archive.is/dZ1Lj 

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, the Desk conducted a reverse image search using keyframes from the viral video. The search led us to a longer version of the footage uploaded on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s official YouTube channel on June 21, 2025. We reviewed the longer video and found that the audio in the viral clip does not match the original footage. The original video does not feature the national anthem being played. Instead, a female announcer on the stage can be heard asking the gathering to welcome Prime Minister Modi upon his arrival in Siwan, Bihar. The description accompanying the original video also states that people gave Prime Minister Modi a warm welcome upon his arrival in Siwan.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YhBryZZwlIk

‍

‍

The investigation also found several media reports published on June 20, 2025, which reported that Modi had visited Siwan ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections and inaugurated or laid the foundation stones for development projects worth around Rs 5,900 crore. News18 report on PM Modi’s Siwan visit

https://hindi.news18.com/news/bihar/siwan-28-projects-worth-rs-5900-crore-pm-modi-gift-to-bihar-share-open-vehicle-with-nitish-kumar-in-siwan-9323473.html

‍

‍

The original footage therefore establishes that the scene was related to Modi’s welcome in Siwan and not to the playing of the national anthem.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi disrespected the national anthem by walking during its rendition is false. The original footage does not contain the national anthem. The audio heard in the viral clip has been added separately to the video, creating a false impression about the incident.

‍