#FactCheck - Misleading Video Allegedly Depicting Trampling of Indian Tri-colour in Kerala or Tamil Nadu Circulates on Social Media

Research Wing

Innovation and Research

PUBLISHED ON

May 18, 2024

Executive Summary:

The video that allegedly showed cars running into an Indian flag while Pakistan flags flying in the air in Indian states, went viral on social media but it has been established to be misleading. The video posted is neither from Kerala nor Tamil Nadu as claimed, instead from Karachi, Pakistan. There are specific details like the shop's name, Pakistani flags, car’s number plate, geolocation analyses that locate where the video comes from. The false information underscores the importance of verifying information before sharing it.

Claims:

A video circulating on social media shows cars trampling the Indian Tricolour painted on a road, as Pakistani flags are raised in pride, with the incident allegedly taking place in Tamil Nadu or Kerala.

‍

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the post we closely watched the video, and found several signs that indicated the video was from Pakistan but not from any place in India.

We divided the video into keyframes and found a shop name near the road.

We enhanced the image quality to see the shop name clearly.

We can see that it’s written as ‘Sanam’, also we can see Pakistan flags waving on the road. Taking a cue from this we did some keyword searches with the shop name. We found some shops with the name and one of the shop's name ‘Sanam Boutique’ located in Karachi, Pakistan, was found to be similar when analyzed using geospatial Techniques.

‍

‍

We also found a similar structure of the building while geolocating the place with the viral video.

‍

‍

Additional confirmation of the place is the car’s number plate found in the keyframes of the video.

We found a website that shows the details of the number Plate in Karachi, Pakistan.

‍

Upon thorough investigation, it was found that the location in the viral video is from Karachi, Pakistan, but not from Kerala or Tamil Nadu as claimed by different users in Social Media. Hence, the claim made is false and misleading.

Conclusion:

The video circulating on social media, claiming to show cars trampling the Indian Tricolour on a road while Pakistani flags are waved, does not depict an incident in Kerala or Tamil Nadu as claimed. By fact-checking methodologies, it has been confirmed now that the location in the video is actually from Karachi, Pakistan. The misrepresentation shows the importance of verifying the source of any information before sharing it on social media to prevent the spread of false narratives.

Claim: A video shows cars trampling the Indian Tricolour painted on a road, as Pakistani flags are raised in pride, taking place in Tamil Nadu or Kerala.
Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter)
Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍

PUBLISHED ON

May 18, 2024

Related Blogs

Survivors Unveil the Dark Reality of Cyber Slavery

December 11, 2024

Introduction

Cyber slavery has emerged as a serious menace. Offenders target innocent individuals, luring them with false promises of employment, only to capture them and subject them to horrific torture and forced labour. According to reports, hundreds of Indians have been imprisoned in 'Cyber Slavery' in certain Southeast Asian countries. Indians who have travelled to South Asian nations such as Cambodia in the hopes of finding work and establishing themselves have fallen victim to the illusion of internet slavery. According to reports, 30,000 Indians who travelled to this region on tourist visas between 2022 and 2024 did not return. India Today’s coverage demonstrated how survivors of cyber slavery who have somehow escaped and returned to India have talked about the terrifying experiences they had while being coerced into engaging in cyber slavery.

Tricked by a Job Offer, Trapped in Cyber Slavery

India Today aired testimonials of cyber slavery victims who described how they were trapped. One individual shared that he had applied for a well-paying job as an electrician in Cambodia through an agent in Delhi. However, upon arriving in Cambodia, he was offered a job with a Chinese company where he was forced to participate in cyber scam operations and online fraudulent activities.

He revealed that a personal system and mobile phone were provided, and they were compelled to cheat Indian individuals using these devices and commit cyber fraud. They were forced to work 12-hour shifts. After working there for several months, he repeatedly requested his agent to help him escape. In response, the Chinese group violently loaded him into a truck, assaulted him, and left him for dead on the side of the road. Despite this, he managed to survive. He contacted locals and eventually got in touch with his brother in India, and somehow, he managed to return home.

This case highlights how cyber-criminal groups deceive innocent individuals with the false promise of employment and then coerce them into committing cyber fraud against their own country. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs' Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Center (I4C), there has been a significant rise in cybercrimes targeting Indians, with approximately 45% of these cases originating from Southeast Asia.

CyberPeace Recommendations

Cyber slavery has developed as a serious problem, beginning with digital deception and progressing to physical torture and violent actions to commit fraudulent online acts. It is a serious issue that also violates human rights. The government has already taken note of the situation, and the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) is taking proactive steps to address it. It is important for netizens to exercise due care and caution, as awareness is the first line of defence. By remaining vigilant, they can oppose and detect the digital deceit of phony job opportunities in foreign nations and the manipulative techniques of scammers. Netizens can protect themselves from significant threats that could harm their lives by staying watchful and double-checking information from reliable sources.

References

‍

Fact-Checkers vs. The Crowd: The Future of Misinformation Control on Social Media

April 10, 2025

Introduction

The link between social media and misinformation is undeniable. Misinformation, particularly the kind that evokes emotion, spreads like wildfire on social media and has serious consequences, like undermining democratic processes, discrediting science, and promulgating hateful discourses which may incite physical violence. If left unchecked, misinformation propagated through social media has the potential to incite social disorder, as seen in countless ethnic clashes worldwide. This is why social media platforms have been under growing pressure to combat misinformation and have been developing models such as fact-checking services and community notes to check its spread. This article explores the pros and cons of the models and evaluates their broader implications for online information integrity.

How the Models Work

Third-Party Fact-Checking Model (formerly used by Meta) Meta initiated this program in 2016 after claims of extraterritorial election tampering through dis/misinformation on its platforms. It entered partnerships with third-party organizations like AFP and specialist sites like Lead Stories and PolitiFact, which are certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) for meeting neutrality, independence, and editorial quality standards. These fact-checkers identify misleading claims that go viral on platforms and publish verified articles on their websites, providing correct information. They also submit this to Meta through an interface, which may link the fact-checked article to the social media post that contains factually incorrect claims. The post then gets flagged for false or misleading content, and a link to the article appears under the post for users to refer to. This content will be demoted in the platform algorithm, though not removed entirely unless it violates Community Standards. However, in January 2025, Meta announced it was scrapping this program and beginning to test X’s Community Notes Model in the USA, before rolling it out in the rest of the world. It alleges that the independent fact-checking model is riddled with personal biases, lacks transparency in decision-making, and has evolved into a censoring tool.
Community Notes Model ( Used by X and being tested by Meta): This model relies on crowdsourced contributors who can sign up for the program, write contextual notes on posts and rate the notes made by other users on X. The platform uses a bridging algorithm to display those notes publicly, which receive cross-ideological consensus from voters across the political spectrum. It does this by boosting those notes that receive support despite the political leaning of the voters, which it measures through their engagements with previous notes. The benefit of this system is that it is less likely for biases to creep into the flagging mechanism. Further, the process is relatively more transparent than an independent fact-checking mechanism since all Community Notes contributions are publicly available for inspection, and the ranking algorithm can be accessed by anyone, allowing for external evaluation of the system by anyone.

CyberPeace Insights

Meta’s uptake of a crowdsourced model signals social media’s shift toward decentralized content moderation, giving users more influence in what gets flagged and why. However, the model’s reliance on diverse agreements can be a time-consuming process. A study (by Wirtschafter & Majumder, 2023) shows that only about 12.5 per cent of all submitted notes are seen by the public, making most misleading content go unchecked. Further, many notes on divisive issues like politics and elections may not see the light of day since reaching a consensus on such topics is hard. This means that many misleading posts may not be publicly flagged at all, thereby hindering risk mitigation efforts. This casts aspersions on the model’s ability to check the virality of posts which can have adverse societal impacts, especially on vulnerable communities. On the other hand, the fact-checking model suffers from a lack of transparency, which has damaged user trust and led to allegations of bias.

Since both models have their advantages and disadvantages, the future of misinformation control will require a hybrid approach. Data accuracy and polarization through social media are issues bigger than an exclusive tool or model can effectively handle. Thus, platforms can combine expert validation with crowdsourced input to allow for accuracy, transparency, and scalability.

Conclusion

Meta’s shift to a crowdsourced model of fact-checking is likely to have bigger implications on public discourse since social media platforms hold immense power in terms of how their policies affect politics, the economy, and societal relations at large. This change comes against the background of sweeping cost-cutting in the tech industry, political changes in the USA and abroad, and increasing attempts to make Big Tech platforms more accountable in jurisdictions like the EU and Australia, which are known for their welfare-oriented policies. These co-occurring contestations are likely to inform the direction the development of misinformation-countering tactics will take. Until then, the crowdsourcing model is still in development, and its efficacy is yet to be seen, especially regarding polarizing topics.

References

‍

Shadow AI - The Hidden Risk Undermining Organisational Security

February 16, 2026

Introduction
‍

How Generative Artificial Intelligence, or GenAI, is changing the employee workday is no longer limited to writing emails or debugging code, but now also includes analysing contracts, generating reports, and much more. The use of AI tools in everyday work has become commonplace, but the speed at which companies have adopted these technologies has created a new kind of risk. Unlike threats that come from an outside attacker, Shadow AI is created inside an organisation by a legitimate employee who uses unapproved AI tools to make their work more efficient and productive. In many cases, the employee is unaware of the potential security, data privacy, and compliance risks involved in using such tools to perform their job duties.
‍

What Is Shadow AI?

‍

Shadow AI is when individuals use AI tools at work that aren’t provided by the company, like tools or other software programs, without the knowledge or permission of the employer. Examples of shadow AI include:

‍

Using personal ChatGPT or other chatbot accounts to complete tasks at the office
Uploading business-related documents to online AI technologies for analysis or summarisation.
Copying proprietary source code into an online AI model for debugging
Installing browser extensions and add-ons that are not approved by IT or Security personnel.

‍

How Shadow AI Is Harmful

‍

1. Uncontrolled Data Exposure

When employees access or input information into their user-created AI, it becomes outside the controls of the company, such as both employee personal information and any third-party personal information, private company information (such as source code or contracts), and company internal strategies. After a user enters data into their user-created AIs, the company loses all ability to monitor how that data is stored, processed, or maintained. A data leak situation exists without a malicious cyberattack. The biggest risk of a data leak is not maliciousness but rather the loss of control and governance over sensitive data.

‍

2. Regulatory and Legal Non-Compliance

Data protection laws like GDPR, India’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, HIPAA, and other relevant sectoral laws require businesses to process data in accordance with the law, to minimise the amount of data they use, and to be accountable for their actions. Shadow AI often results in the unlawful use of personal data due to a lack of a legal basis for the processing, unauthorised cross-border data transfers, and not having appropriate contractual protections in place with their AI service providers. Regulators do not see the convenience of employees as an excuse for not complying with the law, and therefore, the organisation is ultimately responsible for any violations that occur.

‍

3. Loss of Intellectual Property

Employees frequently use AI tools to speed up tasks involving proprietary information—debugging code, reviewing contracts, or summarising internal research. When done using unapproved AI platforms, this can expose trade secrets and intellectual property, eroding competitive advantage and creating long-term business risk.

‍

Real-Life Example: Samsung’s ChatGPT Data Leak

‍

In 2023, a case study exemplifying the Shadow AI risk occurred when Samsung Electronics placed a temporary ban on employee access to ChatGPT and other AI tools after reports from engineers revealed they were using ChatGPT to create debugging processes for internal source code and to summarise meeting notes. Consequently, confidential source code related to semiconductors was inadvertently uploaded onto a public AI platform. While there were no known incursions into the company’s system due to this incident, Samsung faced a significant challenge: once sensitive information is input into a public AI tool, it exists on external servers that are outside of the company’s purview or control.

As a result of this incident, Samsung restricted employee use of ChatGPT on corporate devices, issued a series of internal communications prohibiting the sharing of corporate data with public AI tools, and increased the urgency of their discussions regarding the adoption of secure, enterprise-level AI (artificial intelligence) solutions.

‍

What Organisations Are Doing Today

‍

Many organisations respond to Shadow AI risk by:

‍

Blocking access at the network level
Circulating warning emails or policies

‍

While these actions may reduce immediate exposure, they fail to address the root cause: employees still need AI to perform their jobs efficiently. As a result, bans often push AI usage underground, increasing Shadow AI rather than eliminating it.

‍

Why Blocking AI Does Not Work—Governance Does

‍

History has demonstrated that prohibition does not work - we see this when trying to block access to cloud storage, instant messaging and collaboration tools. Employees are forced to use personal devices and/or accounts when their employers block AI, which means employers do not have real-time visibility into how their employees are using these technologies, and creates friction with the security and compliance team as they try to enforce the types of tools their employees can use. Prohibiting AI adoption will not stop it from being adopted; it will just create a challenge for employers regarding how safe and responsible it is. The challenge for effective organisations is therefore to shift from denial and develop governance-first AI strategies aimed at controlling data usage, protection and security, rather than merely restricting access to a list of specific tools.

‍

Shadow AI: A Silent Legal Liability Under the GDPR

‍

Shadow AI isn't a problem for the Information Technology Department; it is a failure of Governance, Compliance and Law. By using AI tools that have not been approved as a result, the organisation processes personal data without a lawful basis (Article 6 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)), repurposes data for use beyond its original intent and in breach of the Purpose Limitation (Article 5(1)(b)), and routinely exceeds necessity and in breach of Data Minimisation (Article 5(1)(c)). The outcome of these actions is the use of tools that involve International Data Transfers Without Authorisation and are therefore in breach of Chapter V, and violate Article 32 because there are no enforceable safeguards in place. Most significantly, the failure to demonstrate Oversight, Logging and Control under Articles 5(2) and 24 constitutes a failure in Accountability. Therefore, from a Regulatory perspective, Shadow AI is not accidental and is not defensible.

The Right Solution: Secure and Governed AI Adoption

‍

1. Provide Approved AI Tools

‍

Employers have an obligation to supply business-approved AI technology for helping workers to be productive while maintaining maximum protections, like storing data separately and not using employees' data for training a model; defining how long data is kept, and the rules around deleting that data. When employees are provided with verified and secure AI options that align with their work processes, they will rely significantly less on Shadow AI.

‍

2. Enforce Zero-Trust Data Access

‍

The governance of AI systems must follow the principles of "zero trust," granting access to data only through the principle of "least privilege," which means that data access will only be allowed by the system user, and providing continuous verification of user-identity and context; this supports and helps establish context-aware controls to monitor and track all user activities, which will be especially important as agent-like AI systems become increasingly autonomous and are capable of operating at machine-speed where even small errors in configuration, will result in rapid and large expose to data.

‍

3. Apply DLP and Audit Logging

‍

It is important to have robust data loss prevention measures in place to protect sensitive data that is sent outside an organisation. The first end user or machine that accesses the data should be detailed in a comprehensive audit log that indicates when and how the data is accessed. In combination with other controls, these measures create accountability, comply with regulations, and assist with appropriately detecting and responding to incidents.

‍

4. Maintain Visibility Across AI, Cloud, and SaaS

‍

Security teams need unified visibility across AI tools, personal cloud applications, and SaaS platforms. Risks move across systems, and controls must follow the data wherever it flows.

Conclusion

‍

This new threat exposes an organisation to the risk of data loss through leaks, regulatory fines, liability for the loss of intellectual property, and reputational damage, all of which can occur without any intent to cause harm. The way forward is not to block AI, but to adopt a clear framework built on governance, visibility, and secure enablement. This approach allows organisations to use AI with confidence, while ensuring trust, accountability, and effective oversight to protect data and support AI in reaching its full transformative potential. AI use is encouraged, but it must be done responsibly, ethically, and securely.

‍

References

‍