#FactCheck - "Deep fake video falsely circulated as of a Syrian prisoner who saw sunlight for the first time in 13 years”
Executive Summary:
A viral online video claims to show a Syrian prisoner experiencing sunlight for the first time in 13 years. However, the CyberPeace Research Team has confirmed that the video is a deep fake, created using AI technology to manipulate the prisoner’s facial expressions and surroundings. The original footage is unrelated to the claim that the prisoner has been held in solitary confinement for 13 years. The assertion that this video depicts a Syrian prisoner seeing sunlight for the first time is false and misleading.

Claim A viral video falsely claims that a Syrian prisoner is seeing sunlight for the first time in 13 years.


Factcheck:
Upon receiving the viral posts, we conducted a Google Lens search on keyframes from the video. The search led us to various legitimate sources featuring real reports about Syrian prisoners, but none of them included any mention of such an incident. The viral video exhibited several signs of digital manipulation, prompting further investigation.

We used AI detection tools, such as TrueMedia, to analyze the video. The analysis confirmed with 97.0% confidence that the video was a deepfake. The tools identified “substantial evidence of manipulation,” particularly in the prisoner’s facial movements and the lighting conditions, both of which appeared artificially generated.


Additionally, a thorough review of news sources and official reports related to Syrian prisoners revealed no evidence of a prisoner being released from solitary confinement after 13 years, or experiencing sunlight for the first time in such a manner. No credible reports supported the viral video’s claim, further confirming its inauthenticity.
Conclusion:
The viral video claiming that a Syrian prisoner is seeing sunlight for the first time in 13 years is a deep fake. Investigations using tools like Hive AI detection confirm that the video was digitally manipulated using AI technology. Furthermore, there is no supporting information in any reliable sources. The CyberPeace Research Team confirms that the video was fabricated, and the claim is false and misleading.
- Claim: Syrian prisoner sees sunlight for the first time in 13 years, viral on social media.
- Claimed on: Facebook and X(Formerly Twitter)
- Fact Check: False & Misleading
Related Blogs

Introduction
On March 12, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) proposed the Bill to curb anti-competitive practices of tech giants through ex-ante regulation. The Draft Digital Competition Bill is to apply to ‘Core Digital Services,’ with the Central Government having the authority to update the list periodically. The proposed list in the Bill encompasses online search engines, online social networking services, video-sharing platforms, interpersonal communications services, operating systems, web browsers, cloud services, advertising services, and online intermediation services.
The primary highlight of the Digital Competition Law Report created by the Committee on Digital Competition Law presented to the Parliament in the 2nd week of March 2024 involves a recommendation to introduce new legislation called the ‘Digital Competition Act,’ intended to strike a balance between certainty and flexibility. The report identified ten anti-competitive practices relevant to digital enterprises in India. These are anti-steering, platform neutrality/self-preferencing, bundling and tying, data usage (use of non-public data), pricing/ deep discounting, exclusive tie-ups, search and ranking preferencing, restricting third-party applications and finally advertising Policies.
Key Take-Aways: Digital Competition Bill, 2024
- Qualitative and quantitative criteria for identifying Systematically Significant Digital Enterprises, if it meets any of the specified thresholds.
- Financial thresholds in each of the immediately preceding three financial years like turnover in India, global turnover, gross merchandise value in India, or global market capitalization.
- User thresholds in each of the immediately preceding 3 financial years in India like the core digital service provided by the enterprise has at least 1 crore end users, or it has at least 10,000 business users.
- The Commission may make the designation based on other factors such as the size and resources of an enterprise, number of business or end users, market structure and size, scale and scope of activities of an enterprise and any other relevant factor.
- A period of 90 days is provided to notify the CCI of qualification as an SSDE. Additionally, the enterprise must also notify the Commission of other enterprises within the group that are directly or indirectly involved in the provision of Core Digital Services, as Associate Digital Enterprises (ADE) and the qualification shall be for 3 years.
- It prescribes obligations for SSDEs and their ADEs upon designation. The enterprise must comply with certain obligations regarding Core Digital Services, and non-compliance with the same shall result in penalties. Enterprises must not directly or indirectly prevent or restrict business users or end users from raising any issue of non-compliance with the enterprise’s obligations under the Act.
- Avoidance of favouritism in product offerings by SSDE, its related parties, or third parties for the manufacture and sale of products or provision of services over those offered by third-party business users on the Core Digital Service in any manner.
- The Commission will be having the same powers as vested to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when trying a suit.
- Penalty for non-compliance without reasonable cause may extend to Rs 1 lakh for each day during which such non-compliance occurs (max. of Rs 10 crore). It may extend to 3 years or with a fine, which may extend to Rs 25 crore or with both. The Commission may also pass an order imposing a penalty on an enterprise (not exceeding 1% of the global turnover) in case it provides incorrect, incomplete, misleading information or fails to provide information.
Suggestions and Recommendations
- The ex-ante model of regulation needs to be examined for the Indian scenario and studies need to be conducted on it has worked previously in different jurisdictions like the EU.
- The Bill should be aimed at prioritising the fostering of fair competition by preventing monopolistic practices in digital markets exclusively. A clear distinction from the already existing Competition Act, 2002 in its functioning needs to be created so that there is no overlap in the regulations and double jeopardy is not created for enterprises.
- Restrictions on tying and bundling and data usage have been shown to negatively impact MSMEs that rely significantly on big tech to reduce operational costs and enhance customer outreach.
- Clear definitions of "dominant position" and "anti-competitive behaviour" are essential for effective enforcement in terms of digital competition need to be defined.
- Encouraging innovation while safeguarding consumer data privacy in consonance with the DPDP Act should be the aim. Promoting interoperability and transparency in algorithms can prevent discriminatory practices.
- Regular reviews and stakeholder consultations will ensure the law adapts to rapidly evolving technologies.
- Collaboration with global antitrust bodies which is aimed at enhancing cross-border regulatory coherence and effectiveness.
Conclusion
The need for a competition law that is focused exclusively on Digital Enterprises is the need of the hour and hence the Committee recommended enacting the Digital Competition Act to enable CCI to selectively regulate large digital enterprises. The proposed legislation should be restricted to regulate only those enterprises that have a significant presence and ability to influence the Indian digital market. The impact of the law needs to be restrictive to digital enterprises and it should not encroach upon matters not influenced by the digital arena. India's proposed Digital Competition Bill aims to promote competition and fairness in the digital market by addressing anti-competitive practices and dominant position abuses prevalent in the digital business space. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has received 41-page public feedback on the draft which is expected to be tabled next year in front of the Parliament.
References
- https://www.medianama.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DRAFT-DIGITAL-COMPETITION-BILL-2024.pdf
- https://prsindia.org/files/policy/policy_committee_reports/Report_Summary-Digital_Competition_Law.pdf
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/meity-meets-india-inc-to-hear-out-digital-competition-law-concerns/articleshow/111091837.cms?from=mdr
- https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/dms/getdocument?mds=gzGtvSkE3zIVhAuBe2pbow%253D%253D&type=open
- https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/digital-competition-laws-beginning-of-a-new-era
- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/policy-explainer-digital-competition-bill-nimisha-srivastava-lhltc/
- https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5722a078-1839-4ece-aec9-49336ff53b6c

Introduction
The whole world is shifting towards a cashless economy, with innovative payment transaction systems such as UPI payments, card payments, etc. These payment systems require processing, storage, and movement of millions of cardholders data which is crucial for any successful transaction.
And therefore to maintain the credibility of this payment ecosystem, security or secure movement and processing of cardholders data becomes paramount. Entities involved in a payment ecosystem are responsible for the security of cardholders data. Security is also important because if breaches happen in cardholders data it would amount to financial loss. Fraudsters are attempting smart ways to leverage any kind of security loopholes in the payment system.
So these entities which are involved in the payment ecosystem need to maintain some security standards set by one council of network providers in the payment industry popularly known as the Payment Card Industry Security Standard Council.
Overview of what is PCI and PCI DSS Compliance
Earlier every network providers in the payment industry have their own set of security standards but later they all together i.e., Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover, and JCB constituted an independent body to come up with comprehensive security standards like PCI DSS, PA DSS, PCI-PTS, etc. And these network providers ensure the enforcement of the security standards by putting conditions on services being provided to the merchant or acquirer bank.
In other words, PCI DSS particularly is the global standard that provides a baseline of technical and operational requirements designed to protect account data. PCI DSS is a security standard specially designed for merchants and service providers in the payment ecosystem to protect the cardholders data against any fraud or theft.
It applies to all the entities including third-party vendors which are involved in processing storing and transmitting cardholders data. In organization, even all CDE (Card Holder Data Environment) including system components or network component that stores and process cardholders data, has to comply with all the requirements of PCI compliance. Recently PCI has released a new version of PCI DSS v4.0 a few months ago with certain changes from the previous version after three years of the review cycle.
12 Requirements of PCI DSS
This is the most important part of PCI DSS as following these requirements can make any organization to some extent PCI compliant. So what are these requirements:
- Installing firewalls or maintaining security controls in the networks
- Use strong password in order to secure the CDE( Card holders data environment)
- Protection of cardholder data
- Encrypting the cardholder data during transmission over an open and public network.
- Timely detection and protection of the cardholders data environment from any malicious activity or software.
- Regular updating the software thereby maintaining a secure system.
- Rule of business need to know should apply to access the cardholders data
- Identification and authentication of the user are important to access the system components.
- Physical access to cardholders data should be restricted.
- Monitoring or screening of system components to know the malicious activity internally in real-time.
- Regular auditing of security control and finding any vulnerabilities available in the systems.
- Make policies and programs accordingly in order to support information security.
How organization can become PCI compliant
- Scope: First step is to determine all the system components or networks storing and processing cardholders data i.e., Cardholders Data Environment.
- Assess: Then test whether these systems or networks are complying with all the requirements of PCI DSS COMPLIANCE.
- Report: Documenting all the assessment through self assessment questionnaire by answering following questions like whether the requirements are met or not? Whether the requirements are met with customized approach.
- Attest: Then the next step is to complete the attestation process available on the website of PCI SSC.
- Submit: Then organization can submit all the documents including reports and other supporting documents if it is requested by other entities such as payment brands, merchant or acquirer.
- Remediate: Then the organisation should take remedial action for the requirements which are not in place on the system components or networks.
Conclusion
One of the most important issues facing those involved in the digital payment ecosystem is cybersecurity. The likelihood of being exposed to cybersecurity hazards including online fraud, information theft, and virus assaults is rising as more and more users prefer using digital payments.
And thus complying and adopting with these security standards is the need of the hour. And moreover RBI has also mandated all the regulated entities ( NBFCs Banks etc) under one recent notification to comply with these standards.

Introduction
On April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that cast a sharp light on one of the most overlooked yet pressing issues in modern governance—digital inequity. In a country that has a staggering 900 million Internet users, the ruling highlights a disheartening reality, a paradox that brings the “digital divide” to centre stage. While India may be the world’s second-largest online market, a significant segment of its population remains digitally disenfranchised. The judgment, delivered in response to two interconnected petitions, underscored that access to the internet is no longer a luxury but a lifeline integral to exercising fundamental rights. The court pointed out in clear terms that the government must build a digital ecosystem that is inclusive and accessible to all and attributed the right to digital access as an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 as enshrined under the Indian Constitution.
Understanding the Context: What Prompted the Petitions?
The judgment springs out of two writ petitions, which sought instructions or guidelines for people with blindness or limited vision and acid attack survivors, respectively, to conduct digital Know Your Customer (KYC)/e-KYC/video KYC mandated by RBI’s KYC Master Directions, 2016, which were reserved for judgment on January 28. The court delivered the judgment on April 30, 2025, emphasising the fact that true inclusion in this digital era is confounded in an inclusive digital infrastructure, and it must provide reasonable accommodation to those who face impediments due to any disability or disfigurement.
In consonance with its view, it laid down various guidelines that ensure that all persons with disabilities or acid attack survivors are treated even when digital processes are involved in accordance with the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “RPwD Act”)
Another major observation made by the Honourable SC judges is that the mode of facilitation of government services is through digital platforms, i.e., e-governance, and access to all these welfare schemes is the right of every citizen, irrespective of the fact that they suffer from any disability. The failure of the provisioning of e-governance of these facilities to these individuals is a gross failure of the objectives of these schemes.
Key Observations and Directives
The court directed the government to release fresh guidelines that establish alternative methods to conduct digital KYC/e-KYC for all persons who suffer any impairment, low vision, or disfigurement with greater sensitivity, particularly for acid-attack survivors. The court made its intention very clear that the right to digital access is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty. All the tasks that are included within the ambit of digital KYC, such as pen-on-paper signatures, screen signatures, and the brief window for OTP entry, create an inaccessible and exclusionary framework, violating not just the dignity but the legal rights granted protection under the RPwD Act, 2016. The ruling directs a fundamental reimagining of digital governance through the lens of inclusion, equality, and dignity.
Conclusion
The court is not mincing its words when it declares digital accessibility as a constitutional imperative; it has made it clear that bridging the digital divide is no longer optional but a legal duty. The decision marks the new beginning and a propeller of digital transformation, and a delightful amalgamation of digital access and the rights of people. The effect of this judgment will not be restricted to one class of people. Still, it will cater to all those individuals who face these obstacles on a daily basis due to the exclusionary nature of digital platforms.
References