#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows Mishandling of Baggage at Indian Airport

Executive Summary

‍

‍
A video of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being widely shared on social media, in which he appears to say that every woman would receive 1 gram of gold free against one Aadhaar card. The clip is being circulated with misleading claims suggesting a government scheme. Research by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the audio of Prime Minister Modi’s 2019 video was manipulated using AI technology and shared with a misleading claim.

‍

Claim

‍

An Instagram user shared the viral video claiming that PM Modi announced free gold for women.

• https://www.instagram.com/reels/DXt5tFak02F/
• https://archive.ph/EDSZS 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we conducted a keyword search on Google but found no credible media reports or official announcements supporting such a scheme. We then extracted keyframes from the viral clip and performed a reverse image search. This led us to the original video uploaded by DD News on February 24, 2019. In the authentic footage, PM Modi was addressing a public rally in Gorakhpur. At no point did he mention distributing gold to women.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zFha2Z-pR8

‍

‍

Further examination of the viral clip raised suspicions of audio manipulation. We analyzed the speech using AI detection tool Hive Moderation, which indicated a 99% probability that the speech was AI-generated.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research found that the viral claim is false. The video uses footage from PM Modi’s 2019 speech, while the original audio appears to have been replaced using AI-generated voice technology to spread a misleading claim about free gold distribution.

‍

With AI touching new milestones everyday an increasing need for making it secure is also arising. As these AI companies increase their operations and position in the market as providers of powerful tools in the market. A recent concern due to Anthropic's recent privacy policy update which will be effective from July 8, 2026 shows how companies have begun expanding the amount of personal information they collect in the name of safety, compliance, and trust. While they are being demonstrated as measures to improve safety of users and prevent abuse, it raises important questions about privacy, biometric data, surveillance, data retention, and user autonomy, some of which we will be addressing in this article.

‍

Identity Verification of consumers

‍

One of the most notable update to Anthropic's privacy policy is the category of "Verification Data." According to the policy, users may be asked to verify their age or identity in certain circumstances. Depending on the verification method, Anthropic may collect:

• Images of government-issued identity documents;
• Information appearing on those documents, including identification numbers and date of birth for age verification;
• Photographs or videos of the user;
• Facial geometry templates, which may constitute biometric data under certain legal frameworks; and
• The outcome of the verification process.

At first, this may appear similar to the Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures employed by banks or financial institutions but Claude is not a banking service. It is a consumer AI platform. The issue is not that verification exists, but that the circumstances under which it may be required remain undefined.

‍

THE PROBLEM WITH “CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES”

‍

The policy refers to verification being required in "certain circumstances." The public notification from Anthropic mentions that these circumstances may include access to particular features, routine platform integrity checks, abuse prevention mechanisms, policy enforcement activities, or legal compliance obligations. The ambiguity of this phrase raises important concerns. From a user perspective, it is difficult to determine, When verification may be triggered ? Whether verification applies only to suspicious accounts ? Whether access to future features may depend upon verification ? Whether users in particular regions will face more frequent verification requirements ? Whether verification requests may increase as AI regulation expands ? This broad language and discretionary power that the company has along with flexibility in the hands of the company creates uncertainty for users who may have initially joined a platform expecting only an email address and payment information to be required.

‍

Government IDs collection: A new risk category

‍

Almost all AI services have operated without collecting government-issued identity documents. Once a company begins processing such information, the privacy implications change dramatically. Because government issued IDs contain: Full legal names, Dates of birth, Identification numbers, Addresses, Photographs and information regarding nationality. When companies collect these documents, they will have an important database of highly sensitive personal information. Even if the company itself does not retain the documents indefinitely, the existence of a verification process introduces additional privacy and security risks. As per Anthropic has stated that identity verification is conducted through third-party providers such as Persona. According to article on the official site titled ‘Identity verification on Claude’, Persona stores the identity documents and selfie data, while Anthropic retains access to verification records when necessary.  From the user's perspective, several important realities remain: First, the data still exists somewhere. Second, another third party organization is now involved in processing highly sensitive personal information. Third, Anthropic retains the ability to access verification records under certain circumstances. Therefore, although Anthropic may not directly maintain copies of every uploaded identity document, the practical result remains that sensitive information enters a broader ecosystem of entities and systems. Identity documents today are among the most valuable forms of personal information from the perspective of fraudsters, cybercriminals, and malicious actors. Therefore, any system that handles such documents becomes an attractive target for attack.

More information on persona’s government ID verification- https://withpersona.com/blog/what-is-government-id-verification 

‍

The Biometric Dimension

‍

Another significant aspect of the update is the reference to facial geometry templates. Unlike passwords, biometric identifiers cannot easily be changed if compromised. A person can replace a password or even obtain a new identification card, but they cannot simply obtain a new face. Facial geometry templates are sensitive because they enable automated identity matching. Although these templates, as claimed, are not equivalent to photographs, they are nevertheless derived from unique physical characteristics of a person. In many jurisdictions, including parts of the European Union and several U.S. states, biometric data receives enhanced legal protection because of its permanence and sensitivity, let us see how it unfolds in these jurisdictions.

‍

The Unanswered Retention Question

‍

It is unclear in the policy as to how long the data will be retained because retention limits serve as one of the most important safeguards in modern privacy law, they have given another vague answer that “They're bound to protect it with industry-standard security controls and delete it in line with the retention limits we've set and applicable law.” The longer sensitive information remains stored, the greater the likelihood of unauthorized access, misuse, accidental disclosure, or legal compulsion.

‍

Court Orders and Government Access

‍

Anthropic may be required to disclose information pursuant to valid legal processes such as subpoenas, court orders, warrants, or regulatory directives. The existence of identity verification records means that future requests could potentially be linked to verified identities rather than pseudonymous accounts. This does not mean governments receive unrestricted access to user data. However, it does mean that once identity verification information exists within a company's ecosystem, it may become subject to lawful disclosure requirements. The privacy implications are therefore materially different from those associated with anonymous or pseudonymous AI usage.

‍

Shifting Responsibility onto Users

‍

Another concern is that the privacy policy states that users are responsible for ensuring they possess the necessary rights, permissions, or authority when uploading files, connecting third-party services, or instructing Claude to retrieve information. Anthropic is effectively informing users that they bear responsibility for ensuring that uploaded or connected data is lawfully accessible. As AI assistants gain greater capabilities, this transfer of responsibility from platform to user is likely to become increasingly common. Beyond individual privacy, Anthropic's verification policy also raises larger questions about data sovereignty and the cross-border movement of sensitive personal information. In India, the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India judgment recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, affirming that individuals have the right to informational self-determination and control over their personal data. Yet, under Anthropic's verification framework, an Indian user may be required to upload a government-issued identity document and biometric information, which are processed by Persona, a U.S.-based identity verification company acting on behalf of Anthropic. Although users voluntarily consent to this process, it nevertheless results in highly sensitive identity information crossing national borders and entering the control of foreign private entities governed primarily by foreign contractual arrangements and multiple legal regimes. While governments issue identity documents as sovereign instruments of citizenship, their verification and processing are increasingly outsourced to multinational technology companies. Questions arise not only about how securely such information is handled, but also about which country's laws ultimately govern access, retention, disclosure, and accountability when personal data leaves the jurisdiction in which it originated. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, cross-border transfer of personal data is generally permitted unless the Central Government specifically restricts transfers to certain jurisdictions. Therefore, a foreign company processing identity documents is not, by itself, unlawful but this legality does not eliminate legitimate concerns. Users realistically have limited bargaining power and little practical understanding of how long their identity documents, biometric templates, or verification records will be retained, who within the corporate ecosystem may access them, or how they may be disclosed pursuant to foreign legal processes. 

‍

Conclusion

‍

The policy is commendable in some respects because it openly identifies the categories of information that may be collected rather than obscuring them behind vague terminology. However, important concerns remain regarding the extent of verification triggers, the handling of biometric information, the absence of clearly disclosed retention periods, and the long-term implications of linking AI accounts to government-issued identities. As AI systems become more integrated into daily life, these questions will likely become central issues in debates about digital privacy, surveillance, autonomy, and the future governance of artificial intelligence.

‍

Executive Summary:

A video showing a car catching fire is rapidly going viral on social media. In the clip, a family can be seen bursting firecrackers in front of a newly purchased car. Moments later, the vehicle also appears to catch fire. The video is being shared with the claim that the family was celebrating the purchase of a new car with fireworks, which accidentally led to the vehicle going up in flames. Many users are circulating the clip as footage of a real incident. However, an research by the CyberPeace found that the video is not from a real-life event but has been created using Artificial Intelligence (AI).

‍

Claim

‍

On February 25, 2026, an X user named “Mamta Rajgarh” shared the viral video with the caption:“This was supposed to be a grand celebration for buying a new car, but it turned into a ceremony of burning the car. What do you say? Comment below.”

‍

• Post link: https://x.com/rajgarh_mamta1/status/2026696175311786408?s=20
• Archived link: https://perma.cc/22AA-KBS4

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the claim, we conducted a keyword search on Google but found no credible news reports supporting the alleged incident. Upon closely examining the video, we noticed several technical inconsistencies. The car’s number plate is unclear, a common flaw often seen in AI-generated content. Additionally, the sequence of events appears unnatural — the firecrackers seem to extinguish first, and only after a delay does the car suddenly catch fire. These irregularities raised suspicion that the video may have been artificially generated. To further verify, we analyzed the clip using AI detection tools. Hive Moderation indicated a 98.7 percent likelihood that the video was generated using Artificial Intelligence.

‍

Another AI detection tool, Undetectable.ai, suggested a 77 percent probability that the video was AI-generated.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research confirms that the viral video does not depict a real incident. It has been created using Artificial Intelligence and is being misleadingly shared as genuine footage.

‍