#FactCheck - AI Generated Photo Circulating Online Misleads About BARC Building Redesign

Introduction

Assisted Reproductive Technology (“ART”) refers to a diverse set of medical procedures designed to aid individuals or couples in achieving pregnancy when conventional methods are unsuccessful. This umbrella term encompasses various fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), and gamete and embryo manipulation. ART procedures involve the manipulation of both male and female reproductive components to facilitate conception.

The dynamic landscape of data flows within the healthcare sector, notably in the realm of ART, demands a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between privacy regulations and medical practices. In this context, the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011, play a pivotal role, designating health information as "sensitive personal data or information" and underscoring the importance of safeguarding individuals' privacy. This sensitivity is particularly pronounced in the ART sector, where an array of personal data, ranging from medical records to genetic information, is collected and processed. The recent Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, in conjunction with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, establishes a framework for the regulation of ART clinics and banks, presenting a layered approach to data protection.

A note on data generated by ART

Data flows in any sector are scarcely uniform and often not easily classified under straight-jacket categories. Consequently, mapping and identifying data and its types become pivotal. It is believed that most data flows in the healthcare sector are highly sensitive and personal in nature, which may severely compromise the privacy and safety of an individual if breached. The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules”) categorizes any information pertaining to physical, physiological, mental conditions or medical records and history as “sensitive personal data or information”; this definition is broad enough to encompass any data collected by any ART facility or equipment. These include any information collected during the screening of patients, pertaining to ovulation and menstrual cycles, follicle and sperm count, ultrasound results, blood work etc. It also includes pre-implantation genetic testing on embryos to detect any genetic abnormality. 

But data flows extend beyond mere medical procedures and technology. Health data also involves any medical procedures undertaken, the amount of medicine and drugs administered during any procedure, its resultant side effects, recovery etc. Any processing of the above-mentioned information, in turn, may generate more personal data points relating to an individual’s political affiliations, race, ethnicity, genetic data such as biometrics and DNA etc.; It is seen that different ethnicities and races react differently to the same/similar medication and have different propensities to genetic diseases. Further, it is to be noted that data is not only collected by professionals but also by intelligent equipment like AI which may be employed by any facility to render their service. Additionally, dissemination of information under exceptional circumstances (e.g. medical emergency) also affects how data may be classified. Considerations are further nuanced when the fundamental right to identity of a child conceived and born via ART may be in conflict with the fundamental right to privacy of a donor to remain anonymous. 

Intersection of Privacy laws and ART laws: 

In India, ART technology is regulated by the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (“ART Act”). With this, the Union aims to regulate and supervise assisted reproductive technology clinics and ART banks, prevent misuse and ensure safe and ethical practice of assisted reproductive technology services. When read with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and other ancillary guidelines, the two legislations provide some framework regulations for the digital privacy of health-based apps.

The ART Act establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Registry (“National Registry”) which acts as a central database for all clinics and banks and their nature of services. The Act also establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board (“National Board”)  under the Surrogacy Act to monitor the implementation of the act and advise the central government on policy matters. It also supervises the functioning of the National Registry, liaises with State Boards and curates a code of conduct for professionals working in ART clinics and banks. Under the DPDP Act, these bodies (i.e. National Board, State Board, ART clinics and banks) are most likely classified as data fiduciaries (primarily clinics and banks), data processors (these may include National Board and State boards) or an amalgamation of both (these include any appropriate authority established under the ART Act for investigation of complaints, suspend or cancellation of registration of clinics etc.) depending on the nature of work undertaken by them. If so classified, then the duties and liabilities of data fiduciaries and processors would necessarily apply to these bodies. As a result, all bodies would necessarily have to adopt Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) and other organizational measures to ensure compliance with privacy laws in place. This may be considered one of the most critical considerations of any ART facility since any data collected by them would be sensitive personal data pertaining to health, regulated by the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules 2011”). These rules provide for how sensitive personal data or information are to be collected, handled and processed by anyone.

The ART Act independently also provides for the duties of ART clinics and banks in the country. ART clinics and banks are required to inform the commissioning couple/woman of all procedures undertaken and all costs, risks, advantages, and side effects of their selected procedure. It mandatorily ensures that all information collected by such clinics and banks to not informed to anyone except the database established by the National Registry or in cases of medical emergency or on order of court. Data collected by clinics and banks (these include details on donor oocytes, sperm or embryos used or unused) are required to be detailed and must be submitted to the National Registry online. ART banks are also required to collect personal information of donors including name, Aadhar number, address and any other details. By mandating online submission, the ART Act is harmonized with the DPDP Act, which regulates all digital personal data and emphasises free, informed consent.

Conclusion

With the increase in active opt-ins for ART, data privacy becomes a vital consideration for all healthcare facilities and professionals. Safeguard measures are not only required on a corporate level but also on a governmental level. It is to be noted that in the 262 Session of the Rajya Sabha, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology reported 165 data breach incidents involving citizen data from January 2018 to October 2023 from the Central Identities Data Repository despite publicly denying. This discovery puts into question the safety and integrity of data that may be submitted to the National Registry database, especially given the type of data (both personal and sensitive information) it aims to collate. At present the ART Act is well supported by the DPDP Act. However, further judicial and legislative deliberations are required to effectively regulate and balance the interests of all stakeholders.

References

• The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011
• Caring for Intimate Data in Fertility Technologies https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3411764.3445132 
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
• https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/pharmacogenomics-and-race-can-heritage-affect-drug-disposition  

Executive Summary:

Amid the ongoing conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, a video circulating widely on social media claims to show American soldiers kneeling and surrendering to Iranian forces. In the clip, several soldiers appear to be sitting on their knees in front of armed personnel, creating the impression that they have been captured on the battlefield.

The video is being shared with the claim that the Iranian military has taken US soldiers prisoner during the war.

However, an research by the CyberPeace found that the claim is false. The viral clip is not authentic and has been generated using artificial intelligence. There is no credible evidence to support the claim that American soldiers have been captured by Iranian forces.

‍

Claim

‍

A Facebook user named “News Tick” shared the video on March 12, 2026, claiming that Iran had released footage of captured US soldiers. In the clip, the soldiers can be seen kneeling while armed personnel stand around them, giving the scene a highly dramatic appearance.

• https://www.facebook.com/reel/1619184822538210 

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we first searched the internet using relevant keywords. We found no credible reports from reputable news organizations confirming that US soldiers had been captured by Iran during the conflict. A closer examination of the video revealed several visual inconsistencies. The weapons carried by the soldiers appear unclear and oddly shaped. Additionally, the background looks unusually blurred and overly dramatic. The lighting and textures in the footage also appear artificial—common indicators of AI-generated visuals.

To confirm this suspicion, we analyzed the clip using multiple AI detection tools. The tool Hive Moderation indicated a 99% probability that the video was created using artificial intelligence.

‍

‍

‍

Further analysis using Sightengine also suggested that the video was likely AI-generated, estimating an 80% probability of AI creation.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research shows that the viral video claiming to depict American soldiers surrendering and being captured by Iranian forces is fake. The footage has been generated using AI and does not represent a real incident.

‍

Introduction

In 2025, the internet is entering a new paradigm and it is hard not to witness it. The internet as we know it is rapidly changing into a treasure trove of hyper-optimised material over which vast bot armies battle to the death, thanks to the amazing advancements in artificial intelligence. All of that advancement, however, has a price, primarily in human lives. It turns out that releasing highly personalised chatbots on a populace that is already struggling with economic stagnation, terminal loneliness, and the ongoing destruction of our planet isn’t exactly a formula for improved mental health. This is the truth of 75% of the kids and teen population who have had chats with chatbot-generated fictitious characters. AI, or artificial intelligence, Chatbots are becoming more and more integrated into our daily lives, assisting us with customer service, entertainment, healthcare, and education. But as the impact of these instruments grows, accountability and moral behaviour become more important. An investigation of the internal policies of a major international tech firm last year exposed alarming gaps: AI chatbots were allowed to create content with child romantic roleplaying, racially discriminatory reasoning, and spurious medical claims. Although the firm has since amended aspects of these rules, the exposé underscores an underlying global dilemma - how can we regulate AI to maintain child safety, guard against misinformation, and adhere to ethical considerations without suppressing innovation? 

The Guidelines and Their Gaps

The tech giants like Meta and Google are often reprimanded for overlooking Child Safety and the overall increase in Mental health issues in children and adolescents. According to reports, Google introduced Gemini AI kids, a kid-friendly version of its Gemini AI chatbot, which represents a major advancement in the incorporation of generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI) into early schooling. Users under the age of thirteen can use supervised accounts on the Family Link app to access this version of Gemini AI Kids.

AI operates on the premise of data collection and analysis. To safeguard children’s personal information in the digital world, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) introduces particular safeguards. According to Section 9, before processing the data of children, who are defined as people under the age of 18, Data Fiduciaries, entities that decide the goals and methods of processing personal data, must get verified consent from a parent or legal guardian. Furthermore, the Act expressly forbids processing activities that could endanger a child’s welfare, such as behavioural surveillance and child-targeted advertising. According to court interpretations, a child's well-being includes not just medical care but also their moral, ethical, and emotional growth. 

While the DPDP Act is a big start in the right direction, there are still important lacunae in how it addresses AI and Child Safety. Age-gating systems, thorough risk rating, and limitations specific to AI-driven platforms are absent from the Act, which largely concentrates on consent and damage prevention in data protection. Furthermore, it ignores the threats to children’s emotional safety or the long-term psychological effects of interacting with generative AI models. Current safeguards are self-regulatory in nature and dispersed across several laws, such as the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. These include platform disclaimers, technology-based detection of child-sexual abuse content, and measures under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. 

Child Safety and AI

• The Risks of Romantic Roleplay - Enabling chatbots to engage in romantic roleplaying with youngsters is among the most concerning discoveries. These interactions can result in grooming, psychological trauma, and relaxation to inappropriate behaviour, even if they are not explicitly sexual. Having illicit or sexual conversations with kids in cyberspace is unacceptable, according to child protection experts. However, permitting even "flirtatious" conversation could normalise risky boundaries.
•  International Standards and Best Practices - The concept of "safety by design" is highly valued in child online safety guidelines from around the world, including UNICEF's Child Online Protection Guidelines and the UK's Online Safety Bill. This mandating of platforms and developers to proactively remove risks, not reactively to respond to harms, is the bare minimum standard that any AI guidelines must meet if they provide loopholes for child-directed roleplay.

Misinformation and Racism in AI Outputs

• The Disinformation Dilemma - The regulations also allowed AI to create fictional narratives with disclaimers. For example, chatbots were able to write articles promulgating false health claims or smears against public officials, as long as they were labelled as "untrue." While disclaimers might give thin legal cover, they add to the proliferation of misleading information. Indeed, misinformation tends to spread extensively because users disregard caveat labels in favour of provocative assertions.

•   Ethical Lines and Discriminatory Content - It is ethically questionable to allow AI systems to generate racist arguments, even when requested. Though scholarly research into prejudice and bias may necessitate such examples, unregulated generation has the potential to normalise damaging stereotypes. Researchers warn that such practice brings platforms from being passive hosts of offensive speech to active generators of discriminatory content. It is a difference that makes a difference, as it places responsibility squarely on developers and corporations.

The Broader Governance Challenge

• Corporate Responsibility and AI Material generated by AI is not equivalent to user speech—it is a direct reflection of corporate training, policy decisions, and system engineering. This fact requires a greater level of accountability. Although companies can update guidelines following public criticism, that there were such allowances in the first place indicates a lack of strong ethical regulation.
•  Regulatory Gaps Regulatory regimes for AI are currently in disarray. The EU AI Act, the OECD AI Principles, and national policies all emphasise human rights, transparency, and accountability. The few, though, specify clear guidelines for content risks such as child roleplay or hate narratives. This absence of harmonised international rules leaves companies acting in the shadows, establishing their own limits until contradicted.

An active way forward would include

• Express Child Protection Requirements: AI systems must categorically prohibit interactions with children involving flirting or romance.
• Misinformation Protections: Generative AI must not be allowed to generate knowingly false material, disclaimers being irrelevant.
• Bias Reduction: Developers need to proactively train systems against generating discriminatory accounts, not merely tag them as optional outputs.
• Independent Regulation: External audit and ethics review boards can supply transparency and accountability independent of internal company regulations.

Conclusion

The guidelines that are often contentious are more than the internal folly of just one firm; they point to a deeper systemic issue in AI regulation. The stakes rise as generative AI becomes more and more integrated into politics, healthcare, education, and social interaction. Racism, false information, and inadequate child safety measures are severe issues that require quick resolution. Corporate regulation is only one aspect of the future; other elements include multi-stakeholder participation, stronger global systems, and ethical standards. In the end, rather than just corporate interests, trust in artificial neural networks will be based on their ability to preserve the truth, protect the weak, and represent universal human values.

References

• https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/blogs/ai-chatbots-and-companions-risks-to-children-and-young-people 
•   https://www.lakshmisri.com/insights/articles/ai-for-children/# 
•   https://the420.in/meta-ai-chatbot-guidelines-child-safety-racism-misinformation/
• https://www.unicef.org/documents/guidelines-industry-online-child-protection
•  https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/ai-principles.html
• https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/

‍