#FactCheck - Old Japanese Earthquake Footage Falsely Linked to Tibet

Executive Summary: 

‍

A purported media release allegedly issued in the name of the International Cricket Council (ICC) is being widely circulated on social media. The release claims that the ICC has decided to impose a one-year ban on Pakistan cricket. CyberPeace’s research found this claim to be false.The research  revealed that the media release circulating on social media is fake, and no such letter or official statement has been issued by the ICC.

‍

Claim:

‍

On social media platform X (formerly Twitter), a user shared the viral letter on February 3, 2026, claiming that an ICC meeting was held in which board members voted on issues related to Pakistan. The post alleged that 14 out of 16 votes were cast in favour of the BCCI. The user further claimed that Pakistan’s share of ICC revenue would be reduced and that Pakistan might be asked to compensate for losses incurred by the ICC.

The viral letter, written in English, stated that matters related to Pakistan were discussed in an ICC meeting and that a 14–2 majority vote led to the decision to impose a one-year ban on Pakistan cricket. It further claimed that the Pakistan Super League (PSL) would be suspended for one year, Pakistan’s annual revenue share would be reduced from 5.75 percent to 2.25 percent, and Pakistan would not be allowed to host any ICC tournaments until 2040. The letter also claimed that these decisions were taken to safeguard the integrity and spirit of the game. Links to the viral post, archive link, and screenshots can be seen below.

‍

• https://x.com/Jitendr62858659/status/2018675523442937953 

‍

‍

Fact Check: 

‍

To verify the viral claim, CyberPeace conducted a Google search using relevant keywords. However, no credible or reliable media reports supporting the claim were found. In the next step of the research , an official press release uploaded on DD Sports’ Facebook page on February 2, 2026, was found. The press release responded to Pakistan’s decision not to play against India in a Group A match. The DD Sports statement said that the Pakistan Cricket Board should consider the long-term and serious implications of such a decision, as it could impact the global cricket ecosystem—of which Pakistan is itself a member and beneficiary.

‍

‍

‍

Notably, the official press release made no mention of any ban on Pakistan cricket, reduction in revenue share, suspension of the PSL, or restrictions on hosting ICC tournaments, contrary to the claims made in the viral letter. Further, the same official statement was found published on the ICC’s website on February 1, 2026. This release also did not mention any decision related to banning Pakistan cricket or barring the country from hosting ICC tournaments for the next 40 years.

‍

• https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/icc-statement-on-icc-men-s-t20-world-cup-2026

‍

Conclusion

‍

CyberPeace concludes that the media release circulating on social media is fake. The ICC has not issued any official letter or statement announcing a one-year ban on Pakistan cricket, revenue cuts, or restrictions on hosting ICC tournaments.

‍

Introduction: 

The G7 Summit is an international forum that includes member states from France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and the European Union (EU). The annual G7 meeting that is held every year was hosted by Japan this year in May 2023. It took place in Hiroshima. Artificial Intelligence (AI) was the major theme of this G7 summit. Key takeaways from this G7 summit highlight that leaders together focused on escalating the adoption of AI for beneficial use cases across the economy and the government and improving the governing structure to mitigate the potential risks of AI. 

Need for fair and responsible use of AI:

The G7 recognises that they really need to work together to ensure the responsible and fair use of AI to help establish technical standards for the same. Members of the G7 countries agreed to adopt an open and enabling environment for the development of AI technologies.  They also emphasized that AI regulations should be based on democratic values. G7 summit calls for the responsible use of AI. The ministers discussed the risks involved in AI technology programs like ChatGPT. They came up with an action plan for promoting responsible use of AI with human beings leading the efforts. 

Further Ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the US, and the EU) met virtually on 7 September 2023 and committed to creating ‘international guiding principles applicable for all AI actors’, and a code of conduct for organisations developing ‘advanced’ AI systems. 

What is HAP (Hiroshima AI Process)

Hiroshima AI Process (HAP) aims to establish trustworthy AI technical standards at the international level. The G7 agreed on creating a ministerial forum to prompt the fair use of AI. Hiroshima AI Process (HAP) is an effort by G7 to determine a way forward to regulate AI. The HAP establishes a forum for international discussions on inclusive AI governance and interoperability to achieve a common vision and goal of trustworthy AI at the global level.

The HAP will be operating in close connection with organisations including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI).

This Hiroshima AI Process (HAP) initiated at the Annual G7 Summit held in Hiroshima, Japan is a significant step towards regulating AI and the Hiroshima AI Process (HAP) is likely to conclude by December 2023.

G7 leaders emphasized fostering an environment where trustworthy AI systems are designed, developed and deployed for the common good worldwide. They advocated for international standards and interoperable tools for trustworthy AI that enable Innovation by creating a comprehensive policy framework, including overall guiding principles for all AI actors in the AI ecosystem.

Stressing upon fair use of advanced technologies:

The impact and misuse of generative AI was also discussed by the G7 leaders. The G7 members also stressed misinformation and disinformation in the realm of generative AI models. As they are capable of creating synthetic content such as deepfakes. In particular, they noted that the next generation of interactive generative media will leverage targeted influence content that is highly personalized, localized, and conversational. 

In the digital landscape, there is a rapid advancement of technologies such as generative 

Artificial Intelligence (AI), deepfake, machine learning, etc. Such technologies offer convenience to users in performing several tasks and are capable of assisting individuals and business entities. Since these technologies are easily accessible, cyber-criminals leverage AI tools and technologies for malicious activities, hence certain regulatory mechanisms at the global level will ensure and advocate for the ethical, reasonable and fair use of such advanced technologies. 

Conclusion: 

The G7 summit held in May 2023 focused on advanced international discussions on inclusive AI governance and interoperability to achieve a common vision and goal of trustworthy AI, in line with shared democratic values. AI governance has become a global issue, countries around the world are coming forward and advocating for the responsible and fair use of AI and influence on global AI governance and standards. It is significant to establish a regulatory framework that defines AI capabilities and identifies areas prone to misuse. And set forth reasonable technical standards while also fostering innovations. Hence overall prioritizing data privacy, integrity, and security in the evolving nature of advanced technologies. 

References:

• https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/07/3e39b82d-464d-403a-b6cb-dc0e1bdec642-230906_Ministerial-clean-Draft-Hiroshima-Ministers-Statement68.pdf
• https://www.g7hiroshima.go.jp/en/summit/about/
• https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/the-hiroshima-ai-process-for-global-ai-governance
• https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/hiroshima-ai-process-g7-calls-for-adoption-of-international-technical-standards-for-ai-382121-2023-05-20

‍

Modern international trade heavily relies on data transfers for the exchange of digital goods and services. User data travels across multiple jurisdictions and legal regimes, each with different rules for processing it. Since international treaties and standards for data protection are inadequate, states, in an effort to protect their citizens' data, have begun extending their domestic privacy laws beyond their borders. However, this opens a Pandora's box of legal and administrative complexities for both, the data protection authorities and data processors. The former must balance the harmonization of domestic data protection laws with their extraterritorial enforcement, without overreaching into the sovereignty of other states. The latter must comply with the data privacy laws in all states where it collects, stores, and processes data. While the international legal community continues to grapple with these challenges, India can draw valuable lessons to refine the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP) in a way that effectively addresses these complexities.

Why Extraterritorial Application? 

Since data moves freely across borders and entities collecting such data from users in multiple states can misuse it or use it to gain an unfair competitive advantage in local markets, data privacy laws carry a clause on their extraterritorial application. Thus, this principle is utilized by states to frame laws that can ensure comprehensive data protection for their citizens, irrespective of the data’s location.  The foremost example of this is the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 2016,  which applies to any entity that processes the personal data of its citizens, regardless of its location. Recently, India has enacted the DPDP Act of 2023, which includes a clause on extraterritorial application.

The Extraterritorial Approach: GDPR and DPDP Act

The GDPR is considered the toughest data privacy law in the world and sets a global standard in data protection. According to Article 3, its provisions apply not only to data processors within the EU but also to those established outside its territory, if they offer goods and services to and conduct behavioural monitoring of data subjects within the EU. The enforcement of this regulation relies on heavy penalties for non-compliance in the form of fines up to €20 million or 4% of the company’s global turnover, whichever is higher, in case of severe violations. As a result, corporations based in the USA, like Meta and Clearview AI, have been fined over  €1.5 billion and €5.5 million respectively, under the GDPR. 

Like the GDPR, the DPDP Act extends its jurisdiction to foreign companies dealing with personal data of data principles within Indian territory under section 3(b). It has a similar extraterritorial reach and prescribes a penalty of up to Rs 250 crores in case of breaches. However, the Act or DPDP Rules, 2025, which are currently under deliberation, do not elaborate on an enforcement mechanism through which foreign companies can be held accountable. 

Lessons for India’s DPDP on Managing Extraterritorial Application 

1. Clarity in Definitions: GDPR clearly defines ‘personal data’, covering direct information such as name and identification number,  indirect identifiers like location data, and, online identifiers that can be used to identify the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity of a natural person. It also prohibits revealing special categories of personal data like religious beliefs and biometric data to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the subjects. On the other hand, the DPDP Act/ Rules define ‘personal data’ vaguely, leaving a broad scope for Big Tech and ad-tech firms to bypass obligations. 
2. International Cooperation: Compliance is complex for companies due to varying data protection laws in different countries. The success of regulatory measures in such a scenario depends on international cooperation for governing cross-border data flows and enforcement. For DPDP to be effective, India will have to foster cooperation frameworks with other nations. 
3. Adequate Safeguards for Data Transfers: The GDPR regulates data transfers outside the EU via pre-approved legal mechanisms such as standard contractual clauses or binding corporate rules to ensure that the same level of protection applies to EU citizens’ data even when it is processed outside the EU. The DPDP should adopt similar safeguards to ensure that Indian citizens’ data is protected when processed abroad.
4. Revised Penalty Structure: The GDPR mandates a penalty structure that must be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. The supervisory authority in each member state has the power to impose administrative fines as per these principles, up to an upper limit set by the GDPR. On the other hand, the DPDP’s penalty structure is simplistic and will disproportionately impact smaller businesses. It must take into regard factors such as nature, gravity, and duration of the infringement, its consequences, compliance measures taken, etc.
5. Governance Structure: The GDPR envisages a multi-tiered governance structure comprising of   

• National-level Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) for enforcing national data protection laws and the GDPR, 
• European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) for monitoring the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies,  
• European Commission (EC) for developing GDPR legislation
• European Data Protection Board (EDPB) for enabling coordination between the EC, EDPS, and DPAs

In contrast, the Data Protection Board (DPB) under DPDP will be a single, centralized body overseeing compliance and enforcement. Since its members are to be appointed by the Central Government, it raises questions about the Board’s autonomy and ability to apply regulations consistently. Further, its investigative and enforcement capabilities are not well defined.

Conclusion 

The protection of the human right to privacy ( under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) in today’s increasingly interconnected digital economy warrants international standard-setting on cross-border data protection. In the meantime, States relying on the extraterritorial application of domestic laws is unavoidable. While India’s DPDP takes measures towards this, they must be refined to ensure clarity regarding implementation mechanisms. They should push for alignment with data protection laws of other States, and account for the complexity of enforcement in cases involving extraterritorial jurisdiction. As India sets out to position itself as a global digital leader, a well-crafted extraterritorial framework under the DPDP Act will be essential to promote international trust in India’s data governance regime.

Sources

• https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ 
• https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-150/ 
• https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-51/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf 
• https://www.eqs.com/compliance-blog/biggest-gdpr-fines/#:~:text=ease%20the%20burden.-,At%20a%20glance,In%20summary 
• https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ 
• https://www.legal500.com/developments/thought-leadership/gdpr-v-indias-dpdpa-key-differences-and-compliance-implications/#:~:text=Both%20laws%20cover%20'personal%20data,of%20personal%20data%20as%20sensitive. 

‍