#FactCheck - False Claim of Italian PM Congratulating on Ram Temple, Reveals Birthday Thanks

Introduction

Intricate and winding are the passageways of the modern digital age, a place where the reverberations of truth effortlessly blend, yet hauntingly contrast, with the echoes of falsehood. The latest thread in this fabric of misinformation is a claim that has scurried through the virtual windows of social media platforms, gaining the kind of traction that is both revelatory and alarming of our times. It is a narrative that speaks to the heart of India's cultural and religious fabric—the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, a project enshrined in the collective consciousness of a nation and steeped in historical significance.

The claim in question, a spectre of misinformation, suggests that the Ram Temple's construction has been covertly shifted 3 kilometres from its original, hallowed ground—the birthplace, as it were, of Lord Ram. This assertion, which spread through the echo chambers of social media, has been bolstered by a screenshot of Google Maps, a digital cartographer that has accidentally become a pawn in this game of truth and deception. The image purports to showcase the location of Ram Mandir as distinct and distant from the site where the Babri Masjid once stood, a claim went viral on social media and has caught the public's reactions.

The Viral Tempest 

In the face of such a viral tempest, IndiaTV's fact-checking arm, IndiaTVFactCheck, has stepped into the fray, wielding the sword of veracity against the Goliath of falsehood. Their investigation into this viral claim was meticulous, a deep dive into the digital representations that have fueled this controversy. Upon examining the viral Google Maps screenshot, they noticed markings at two locations: one labelled as Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and the other as Babri Masjid. The latter, upon closer inspection and with the aid of Google's satellite prowess, was revealed to be the Shri Sita-Ram Birla Temple, a place of worship that stands in quiet dignity, far removed from the contentious whispers of social media.

The truth, as it often does, lay buried beneath layers of user-generated content on Google Maps, where the ability to tag any location with a name has sometimes led to the dissemination of incorrect information. This can be corrected, of course, but not before it has woven itself into the fabric of public discourse. The fact-check by IndiaTV revealed that the location mentioned in the viral screenshot is, indeed, the Shri Sita-Ram Birla Temple and the Ram Temple is being constructed at its original, intended site.

This revelation is not merely a victory for truth over falsehood but also a testament to the resilience of facts in the face of a relentless onslaught of misinformation. It is a reminder that the digital realm, for all its wonders, is also a shadowy theatre where narratives are constructed and deconstructed with alarming ease. The very basis of all the fake narratives that spread around significant events, such as the consecration ceremony of the Ram Temple, is the manipulation of truth, the distortion of reality to serve nefarious ends of spreading misinformation.

Fake Narratives; Misinformation

Consider the elaborate fake narratives spun around the ceremony, where hours have been spent on the internet building a web of deceit. Claims such as 'Mandir wahan nahin banaya gaya' (The temple is not being built at the site of the demolition) and the issuance of new Rs 500 notes for the Ram Mandir were some pieces of misinformation that went viral on social media amid the preparations for the consecration ceremony. These repetitive claims, albeit differently worded, were spread to further a single narrative on the internet, a phenomenon that a study published in Nature said could be attributed to people taking some peripheral cues as signals for truth, which can increase with repetition.

The misinformation incidents surrounding the Ram Temple in Ayodhya are a microcosm of the larger battle between truth and misinformation. The false claims circulating online assert that the ongoing construction is not taking place at the original Babri Masjid site but rather 3 kilometres away. This misinformation, shared widely on social media has been debunked upon closer examination. The claim is based on a screenshot of Google Maps showing two locations: the construction site of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and another spot labeled 'Babar Masjid permanently closed' situated 3 kilometers away. The assertion questions the legitimacy of demolishing the Babri Masjid if the temple is being built elsewhere. However, a thorough fact-check reveals the claim to be entirely unfounded.

Deep Scrutiny

Upon scrutiny, the screenshot indicates that the second location marked as 'Babar Masjid' is, in fact, the Sita-Ram Birla Temple in Ayodhya. This is verified by comparing the Google Maps satellite image with the actual structure of the Birla Temple. Notably, the viral screenshot misspells 'Babri Masjid' as 'Babar Masjid,' casting doubt on its credibility. Satellite images from Google Earth Pro clearly depict the construction of a temple-like structure at the precise coordinates of the original Babri Masjid demolition site (26°47'43.74'N 82°11'38.77'E). Comparing old and new satellite images further confirms that major construction activities began in 2011, aligning with the initiation of the Ram Temple construction.

Moreover, existing photographs of the Babri Masjid, though challenging to precisely match, share essential structural elements with the current construction site, reinforcing the location as the original site of the mosque. Hence the viral claim that the Ram Temple is being constructed 3 kilometers away from the Babri Masjid site is indubitably false. Evidence from historical photographs, satellite images and google images conclusively refute this misinformation, attesting that the temple construction is indeed taking place at the same location as the original Babri Masjid.

Viral Misinformation: A false claim based on a misleading Google Maps screenshot suggests the Ram Temple construction in Ayodhya has been covertly shifted 3 kilometres away from its original Babri Masjid site.

Fact Check Revealed: IndiaTVFactCheck debunked the misinformation, confirming that the viral screenshot actually showed the Shri Sita-Ram Birla Temple, not the Babri Masjid site. The Ram Temple is indeed being constructed at its original, intended location, exposing the falsehood of the claim.

Conclusion 

The case of the Ram Temple is a pitiful reminder of the power of misinformation and the significance of fact-checking in preserving the integrity of truth. It is a clarion call to question, to uphold the integrity of facts in a world increasingly stymied in the murky waters of falsehoods. Widespread misinformation highlights the critical role of fact-checking in dispelling false narratives. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing battle between truth and misinformation in the digital age, emphasising the importance of upholding the integrity of facts for a more informed society. 

References 

• https://www.indiatvnews.com/fact-check/fact-check-is-ram-temple-being-built-3-km-away-from-the-birthplace-here-truth-behind-viral-claim-2024-01-19-912633
• https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/misinformation-spread-around-events-ayodhya-ram-mandir-g20-elections-bharat-jodo-yatra

‍

SVIMS Director and Vice-Chancellor B. Vengamma lighting a lamp to formally launch the cybercrime awareness programme conducted by the police department for the medical students in Tirupati on Wednesday.

An awareness meet on safe Internet practices was held for the students of Sri Venkateswara University University (SVU) and Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences (SVIMS) here on Wednesday.

“Cyber criminals on the prowl can easily track our digital footprint, steal our identity and resort to impersonation,” cyber expert I.L. Narasimha Rao cautioned the college students.

Addressing the students in two sessions, Mr. Narasimha Rao, who is a Senior Manager with CyberPeace Foundation, said seemingly common acts like browsing a website, and liking and commenting on posts on social media platforms could be used by impersonators to recreate an account in our name.

Turning to the youth, Mr. Narasimha Rao said the incognito mode and Virtual Private Network (VPN) used as a protected network connection do not ensure total privacy as third parties could still snoop over the websites being visited by the users. He also cautioned them tactics like ‘phishing’, ‘vishing’ and ‘smishing’ being used by cybercriminals to steal our passwords and gain access to our accounts.

“After cracking the whip on websites and apps that could potentially compromise our security, the Government of India has recently banned 232 more apps,” he noted.

Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime) B.H. Vimala Kumari appealed to cyber victims to call 1930 or the Cyber Mitra’s helpline 9121211100. SVIMS Director B. Vengamma stressed the need for caution with smartphones becoming an indispensable tool for students, be it for online education, seeking information, entertainment or for conducting digital transactions.

Reference Link: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/students-cautioned-against-leaving-digital-footprint-at-cybercrime-awareness-meet-in-tirupati/article66486031.ece

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/ 

‍