#FactCheck: AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as Footage of Vehicles Swept Away in Floods on Tibet-Nepal Border

Introduction
‍

In April 2026, there was a fascinating example of the risks of generative artificial intelligence (AI). An Indian medical student, aged 22, developed a fake AI-driven influencer "Emily Hart" and leveraged the persona to amass a substantial social media following, engagement and revenue. 

It isn't just a case of online fraud. It is a turning point in the nature of influence, veracity, and profitability in the digital world. Ultimately, it poses a troubling question. If users can't tell the difference between real and fake people, then what is online trust?
‍

The Making of a Synthetic Influencer

‍

“Emily Hart” was a young, conservative American nurse. The identity was completely made-up, created with the help of AI programs that produced eerily realistic images, captions and engagement techniques.

The creator did not work with random content. They crafted the influencer to cater to a particular audience. With this in mind, the account was able to target conservatives in the United States who are politically active. It is reported that some of its posts have achieved millions of views, and within a few months, the influencer had thousands of followers.

Monetisation followed naturally. The account owner monetised through subscriptions and the sale of merchandise, reportedly earning thousands of dollars a month with fewer than an hour a day of "work" on the account.

The disproportionate effort and reward is what is interesting about this case. This is a unique example of how people can now use very little capital to create digital personas that attract value.

‍

Why It Worked: Engagement, Identity, and Algorithmic Incentives

‍

The "Emily Hart" case was no accident. It was enabled by three complementary factors.

First, identity targeting was crucial. The persona was constructed to fit a particular worldview and culture, making it more relevant and resonating with the target audience. AI platforms were even deployed to better target and position the persona, and it is suggested that micro-targeting would increase engagement.

Second, it was amplified by algorithms. Social media algorithms favour engagement, sometimes favouring emotional and divisive content. The account exploited this by producing visually appealing content with a strong political message, what the creator called "engageable" content.

Third, the authenticity of the AI content minimised distrust. Generative models have become so realistic that it is hard to tell if images are real or not. Specialists point out that AI increases the credibility and scalability of fake profiles, increasing their influence and reach.

All of this combined to make deception profitable. 

‍

The Blurring of Authenticity in Digital Spaces
‍

The "Emily Hart" phenomenon is emblematic of a broader shift in authenticity. Historically, influence was correlated with human personalities who establish trust over time. But AI upends this paradigm by allowing the creation of entirely fabricated personalities capable of mimicking, and even surpassing, human influencers.

This has two immediate consequences.

First, the truth is harder to discern. While platforms might require that AI-generated content be disclosed, there are inconsistencies in how this is policed. Here, the account apparently didn't disclose until it was banned for fraud.

Second, authenticity may not be as important to consumers. Consumers may view content for ideological or emotional reasons, rather than for its accuracy. This indicates that the rise of synthetic influencers is not just a technical problem but also a behavioural one.

The implication is stark. The internet is evolving into a place where authenticity is more important than truth.
‍

Economic Incentives and the Rise of Synthetic Monetisation
‍

The key difference between this fraud and previous ones is the business model. This creator didn't break into a computer or steal personal information. He cultivated an audience and sold attention.

This is an example of how the internet economy works. Attention is a commodity and platforms aim to generate it. AI reduces the cost of creating attention-generating artefacts, enabling people to amplify their reach.

This gives rise to synthetic monetisation. Online characters can be developed, fine-tuned and leveraged as money-spinning assets. In this case, identity is a product.

This raises regulatory challenges. Current laws on fraud, advertising and consumer protection may not be sufficient to cover cases of deceptive content sourced from an identity.
‍

Platform Responsibility and Enforcement Gaps
‍

The role of platforms in enabling such scenarios cannot be overlooked. Although platforms have policy guidelines on disclosure of AI-generated content, these are inconsistently applied.

In the case of "Emily Hart", the account apparently existed for some time before being shut down for scamming. This implies that either the ability to detect such accounts is weak or the tools used are reactive.

The challenge is structural. Companies are rewarded for engagement, and fake accounts can help to achieve this. But they must also promote authenticity and protect against fraud.

This presents a challenge between commercial interests and user safety. Without enforcement, synthetic influencers will become more prevalent. 
‍

Policy Implications: Rethinking Trust and Verification
‍

^{The "Emi}ly Hart" incident highlights a number of policy issues.

First, disclosure policies must be improved and harmonised. Consumers need to be clear when content is generated by AI, and platforms need to police this.

Second, identity verification needs to be updated. Classic forms of verification may not hold up in an era of imaginary characters amassing legions of fans. Alternative digital verification may be needed.

Third, new regulations should apply to synthetic identities. This means clarifying distinctions between art, commerce and fraud.

Finally, digital literacy becomes critical. Consumers need to be equipped to operate in a space where virtual personas aren't always human.

Conclusion
‍

The rise of "Emily Hart" is not just an example of one person using AI to make money. It is a glimpse of a digital revolution.

AI is redefining how influence can be generated, trust can be established and value can be monetized. As digital personas become more realistic, the distinction between human and machine will remain unclear.

The challenge will not be to stop AI being used to generate content. It is to ensure that the systems that mediate our online interactions are able to tell the difference, and that we are not left on our own to sort it all out.

When anyone can make a convincing identity for themselves, trust will no longer be a given. It will need to be engineered, policed and protected. 

‍

Introduction

India’s digital growth journey has been moving at a tremendous pace. According to MeitY’s report, India’s digital economy is expected to rise to US$ 500 billion by 2025, up from US$ 200 billion in 2019. The digitisation drive that we are experiencing is likely to foster and boost a favourable business environment that will attract rapid investment and augment economic growth across sectors. This will, in turn, compel businesses to adopt digital platforms as solutions to meet customer expectations. Due to accelerated digitisation, cyber risks often deter business growth. Cybercrimes are becoming more rampant and complex and the costs associated with such breaches are not only increasing but also becoming more systemic.

Development of the Cyber Insurance Landscape

Digitization of businesses started in the 1980s with the use of mainframes. Personal computers entered the game and further modified the landscape from the 2000s along with LANs, the internet and the dot-com boom of the 2000s. In the late 1990s, cyber-insurance was developed as a risk management tool to ensure information security. Coverage was limited, and clients included SMEs in need of insurance to qualify for tenders, or community banks too small to hedge the risks of their online banking operations. The first cyber insurance policy was written in 1997 through AIG, against hacking as a third-party liability policy. 

The current trends in the cyber insurance space are focused on the prevention of cyber risks, which by nature are hard to outline and constantly evolving. The result is that the buyers have limited clarity on the types of cyber risks covered under cyber insurance, and even lesser visibility on the scope and amount of optimum coverage. Unfamiliarity with the claim procedure and resolutions, ambiguous claim thresholds during settlements, and confusion around exclusions and coverage of regulatory fines and penalties under a purchased scheme further discourage potential buyers from seriously investing in cyber insurance products. 

Key Factors in Cyber Insurance Evolution and Its Role in Risk Management

The cyber insurance market in India has three key influencing factors, namely the speed of achieving digital maturity, government initiatives to digitise and enforce stringent cyber laws, and the evolving landscape with technology giants and MNCs entering the cyber insurance domain. The latter  are the catalyst for intensifying competition in this market. 

Advancements in technology in terms of AI, machine learning, big data, robotics, blockchain, augmented and virtual reality, and IoT are expected to reshape the insurance industry and help reach untapped audiences in a more digital-forward manner. With the absence of a standard cyber insurance policy, regulators need to take the following variables into consideration while developing cyber insurance policies: the risk insured against, the scope of the loss covered and the limits/ sub-limits.

Challenges 

With the complexity of cyber risks increasing exponentially the challenges to counter the same are growing too which is leading to gaps in the coverage offered for cyber threats. Resultantly, the compliance regulations are dependent on the risks which exist and cyber threat actors adopt new technologies faster and exploit them to their benefit. A lack of historical data and predictability in future cyber risks, the possibility of large overwhelming loss events, uncertainties among market participants about what is specifically covered under such policies, and legal battles over fundamental issues are some of the challenges identified.

Future Outlook/ Recommendations

India's cyber infrastructure requires a multi-faceted approach that involves collaboration between government, industry, and academia should be developed. Some recommendations are:

• Risk assessments should be a general practice and the cyber insurance policies should be simplified, clearing the mismatch between the premium paid and insurance coverage and there should be standard verbosity across cyber policy language.
• Promoting R&D tailored to India focused on education programs that have public-private partnerships and global collaborations to share threat intelligence, best practices, and expertise in critical infrastructure protection.
• Cyber insurance can also be promoted as compliance with the DPDP Act, which would lead to better development of cyber infrastructure and cyber hygiene practices.
• Regular updates to cyber insurance policies to ensure relevance and effectiveness. Insurers could create and offer holistic cyber insurance risk management plans.

Conclusion

According to a report by Deloitte in 2023, the cyber insurance market in India is expected to grow by 27-30 per cent in the coming years and it is currently valued at USD 50-60 million, while maintaining a steady 27-30 per cent CAGR in the past three years. The Indian cyber infrastructure’s nature is challenging, however, it offers opportunities for growth, innovation, and collaboration. A proactive approach, supported by robust policies, advanced technologies, and skilled professionals, will be essential to building a resilient cyber infrastructure capable of withstanding evolving threats.

Reference

• https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/nl/Documents/financial-services/deloitte-nl-fsi-demystifying-cyber-insurance-coverage-report.pdf
• https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-what-s-cyber-liablity-insurance-and-why-you-may-need-it-2136556‍
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/insure/cyber-insurance-gains-momentum-in-india-set-to-witness-exponential-growth-deloitte/articleshow/104189297.cms?from=mdr

Executive Summary:

In the recent advisory the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) has released a high severity warning in the older versions of the software across Apple devices. This high severity rating is because of the multiple vulnerabilities reported in Apple products which could allow the attacker to unfold the sensitive information, and execute arbitrary code on the targeted system. This warning is extremely useful to remind of the necessity to have the software up to date to prevent threats of a cybernature. It is important to update the software to the latest versions and cyber hygiene practices.

Devices Affected:

CERT-In advisory highlights significant risks associated with outdated software on the following Apple devices:

• iPhones and iPads: iOS versions that are below 18 and the 17.7 release.
• Mac Computers: All macOS builds before 14.7 (20G71), 13.7 (20H34), and  earlier 20.2 for Sonoma, Ventura, Sequoia, respectively.
• Apple Watches: watchOS versions prior to 11
• Apple TVs: tvOS versions prior to 18
• Safari Browsers: versions prior to 18
• Xcode: versions prior to 16
• visionOS: versions prior to 2

Details of the Vulnerabilities:

The vulnerabilities discovered in these Apple products could potentially allow attackers to perform the following malicious activities:

1. Access sensitive information: The attackers could easily access the sensitive information stored in other parts of the violated gadgets.
2. Execute arbitrary code: The web page could be compromised with malcode and run on the targeted system which in the worst scenario would give the intruder full Administrator privileges on the device.
3. Bypass security restrictions: Measures agreed to safeguard the device and information contained on it may be easily bypassed and the system left open to more proliferation.
4. Cause denial-of-service (DoS) attacks: The vulnerabilities could be used to cause the targeted device or service to be unavailable to the rightful users.
5. Perform spoofing attacks: There could be a situation where the attackers created fake entities or users or accounts to have a way into important information or do other unauthorized activities.
6. Elevate privileges: It is also stated that weaknesses might be exploited to authorize the attacker a higher level of privileges in the system they are targets.
7. Engage in cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks: Some of them make the associated Web applications/sites prone to XSS attacks by injecting hostile scripts into Web page code.

‍

Vulnerabilities:

CVE-2023-42824

• Attack vector could allow a local attacker to elevate their privileges and potentially execute arbitrary code.

Affected System

• Apple's iOS and iPadOS software

CVE-2023-42916

• To improve the out of bounds read it was mitigated with improved input validation which was resolved later.

Affected System

• Safari, iOS, iPadOS, macOS, and Apple Watch Series 4 and later devices running watchOS 10.2

CVE-2023-42917

• leads to arbitrary code execution, and there have been reports of it being exploited in earlier versions of iOS.

Affected System

• Apple's Safari browser, iOS, iPadOS, and macOS Sonoma systems

Recommended Actions for Users:

To mitigate these risks, that users take immediate action:

• Update Software: Ensure all your devices are on the most current version of the operating systems they use. Repetitive updates have important security updates that fix identified weaknesses or flaws within the system.
• Monitor Device Activity: Stay vigilant if something doesn’t seem right; if your gadgets are accessed by someone who isn’t you.
• Always use strong, distinct passwords and use two-factor authentication.
• Install and update the antivirus and Firewall softwares.
• Avoid downloading any applications or clicking   link from unknown sources 

Conclusion:

The advisory from CERT-In, clearly demonstrates the fundamental need of keeping the software on all Apple devices up to date. Consumers need to act right away to patch their devices and apply best security measures like using multiple factors for login and system scanning.  This advisory has come out when Apple has just released new products into the market such as the iPhone 16 series in India. When consumers embrace new technologies it is important for them to observe relevant measures of security precautions. Maintaining good cyber hygiene is a critical process for the protection against new threats.

Reference:

• https://www.cert-in.org.in/s2cMainServlet?pageid=PUBVLNOTES02&VLCODE=CIAD-2023-0043
• https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-42916
• https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-42917
• https://www.bizzbuzz.news/technology/gadjets/cert-in-issues-advisory-on-vulnerabilities-affecting-iphones-ipads-and-macs-1337253#google_vignette
• https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-warns-apple-users-of-high-severity-security-risks-in-older-software-761396

‍

‍