#FactCheck - Viral Images of Indian Army Eating Near Border area Revealed as AI-Generated Fabrication

Introduction

In an era where digital connectivity drives employment, investment, and communication, the most potent weapon of cybercriminals is ‘gaining trust’ with their sophisticated tactics. Prayagraj has been a recent battleground in India's cybercrime landscape. Within a one-year crackdown, over 10,400 SIM cards, 612 mobile device IMEIs, and 59 bank accounts were blocked, exposing a sprawling international fraud network. These activities primarily targeted unsuspecting individuals through Telegram job postings, fake investment tips, and mobile app scams, highlighting the darker side of convenience in cyberspace. With India now experiencing a wave of scams enabled by technology, this crackdown establishes a precedent for concerted cyber policing and awareness among citizens. 

Digital Deceit: How the Scams Operated

SIM cards that have been issued through fake or stolen identities are increasingly being used by cybercriminals in Prayagraj and elsewhere. These SIMs were the initial weapon in a highly organised fraud system, allowing criminals to conduct themselves anonymously while abusing messaging services like WhatsApp and Telegram. The gangs involved in these scams, some of which have been linked by reports to nations like Nepal, Pakistan, China, Dubai, and Myanmar, enticed their victims with rich-yielding stock market advice, remote employment offers, and weekend employment promises. After getting a target engaged, victims were slowly manipulated into sending money in the name of application fees, verification fees, or investment contributions.

API Abuse and OTP Interception

What's more alarming about these scams is their tech-savviness. From Prayagraj's cybercrime squad, several syndicates are reported to have employed API-based mobile applications to intercept OTPs (One-Time Passwords) sent to Indian numbers. Such apps, cleverly disguised as genuine services or work-from-home software, collected personal details like bank account credentials and payment card data, allowing wrongdoers to carry out unauthorised transactions in a matter of minutes. The pilfered funds were then quickly transferred through several mule accounts, rendering the money trail almost untraceable.

The Human Impact: How Citizens Were Trapped

Victims tended to come from job-hunting groups, students, or housewives seeking to earn additional income. Often, the scammers persuaded users to join Telegram channels providing free investment advice or job-referral-based schemes, creating an illusion of authenticity. Once on board, victims were sometimes even paid small commissions initially, creating a false sense of success. This tactic, known as “advance-fee confidence building,” made victims more likely to invest larger sums later, ultimately leading to complete financial loss.

Digital Arrest Threats and Bitcoin Ransom Scams

Aside from investment and job scam complaints, the cybercrime cell also saw several "digital arrest" scams, where victims were forced to send money under the threat of engaging in criminal activities. Bitcoin extortion schemes were also used in some cases, with perpetrators threatening exposure of victims' personal information or browsing history on the internet unless they were paid in cryptocurrency.

Law Enforcement’s Cyber Shield: Local Action, Global Impact

Identifying the extent of the threat, Prayagraj authorities implemented strategic measures to enable local policing. Cyber Units have been formed in each of the 43 police stations in the district, each made up of a sub-inspector, head constable, constable, lady constable, and computer operator. This decentralised model enables response in real-time, improved victim support, and quicker forensic analysis of hacked devices. The nodal officer for cyber operations said that this multi-level action is not punitive but preventive, meant to break syndicates before more harm is caused.

CyberPeace Recommendations: Prevention is Power

As cybercrime gets advanced, citizens will also have to keep pace with it. Prayagraj's experience highlights the importance of public awareness, digital literacy, and instant response processes. To assist in preventing people from falling victim to such scams, CyberPeace advises the following:

• Don't click on dubious APK links sent on WhatsApp or Telegram.
• Do not share OTPs or confidential details, even if the source appears to be familiar.
• Never download unfamiliar apps that demand access to SMS or financial information.
• Block your SIM card, payment cards, and bank accounts at once if your phone is stolen.
• Report all cyber frauds to cybercrime.gov.in or your local Cyber Cell.
• Never join investment or job groups on social sites without verification.
• Refuse video calls from unknown numbers; some scammers use this method of recording or blackmailing victims.

Conclusion

Prayagraj crackdown uncovers both the magnitude and versatility of cybercrime in the present. From trans-border cartels to Telegram job scams, the cyber front is as intricate as ever. But this incident also illustrates what can be achieved when technology, law enforcement, and public awareness come together. To stay safe from cyber threats, a cyber-conscious citizenry is as important as an effective cyber cell for India. At CyberPeace, we know that defending cyberspace begins with cyber resilience, and the story of Prayagraj should encourage communities everywhere to take active digital precautions. 

References

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/over-10k-sims-blocked-as-job-investment-frauds-rise-in-prayagraj-101753715061234.html
• https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-recognize-and-avoid-phishing-scams
• https://faq.whatsapp.com/2286952358121083
• https://education.vikaspedia.in/viewcontent/education/digital-litercy/information-security/preventing-online-scams-cert-in-advisory?lgn=en
• https://cybercrime.gov.in/Accept.aspx
• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/perils-advance-fee-fraud-protecting-yourself-from-scammers-sharma/

‍

Introduction

In today’s digital world, where everything is related to data, the more data you own, the more control and compliance you have over the market, which is why companies are looking for ways to use data to improve their business. But at the same time, they have to make sure they are protecting people’s privacy. It is very tricky to strike a balance between both of them. Imagine you are trying to bake a cake where you need to use all the ingredients to make it taste great, but you also have to make sure no one can tell what’s in it. That’s kind of what companies are dealing with when it comes to data. Here, ‘Pseudonymisation’ emerges as a critical technical and legal mechanism that offers a middle ground between data anonymisation and unrestricted data processing. 

Legal Framework and Regulatory Landscape 

Pseudonymisation, as defined by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Article 4(5), refers to “the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person”. This technique represents a paradigm shift in data protection strategy, enabling organisations to preserve data utility while significantly reducing privacy risks. The growing importance of this balance is evident in the proliferation of data protection laws worldwide, from GDPR in Europe to India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) of 2023. 

Its legal treatment varies across jurisdictions, but a convergent approach is emerging that recognises its value as a data protection safeguard while maintaining that the pseudonymised data remains personal data. Article 25(1) of GDPR recognises it as “an appropriate technical and organisational measure” and emphasises its role in reducing risks to data subjects. It protects personal data by reducing the risk of identifying individuals during data processing. The European Data Protection Board’s (EDPB) 2025 Guidelines on Pseudonymisation provide detailed guidance emphasising the importance of defining the “pseudonymisation domain”. It defines who is prevented from attributing data to specific individuals and ensures that the technical and organised measures are in place to block unauthorised linkage of pseudonymised data to the original data subjects. In India, while the DPDP Act does not explicitly define pseudonymisation, legal scholars argue that such data would still fall under the definition of personal data, as it remains potentially identifiable. The Act defines personal data defined in section 2(t) broadly as “any data about an individual who is identifiable by or in relation to such data,” suggesting that the pseudonymised information, being reversible, would continue to require compliance with data protection obligations. 

Further, the DPDP  Act, 2023 also includes principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation. Section 8(4) says that a “Data Fiduciary shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure effective observance of the provisions of this Act and the Rules made under it.” The concept of Pseudonymization fits here because it is a recognised technical safeguard, which means companies can use pseudonymization as one of the methods or part of their compliance toolkit under Section 8(4) of the DPDP Act. However, its use should be assessed on a case to case basis, since ‘encryption’ is also considered one of the strongest methods for protecting personal data. The suitability of pseudonymization depends on the nature of the processing activity, the type of data involved, and the level of risk that needs to be mitigated. In practice, organisations may use pseudonymization in combination with other safeguards to strengthen overall compliance and security.

The European Court of Justice’s recent jurisprudence has introduced nuanced considerations about when pseudonymised data might not constitute personal data for certain entities. In cases where only the original controller possesses the means to re-identify individuals, third parties processing such data may not be subject to the full scope of data protection obligations, provided they cannot reasonably identify the data subjects. The “means reasonably likely” assessment represents a significant development in understanding the boundaries of data protection law. 

Corporate Implementation Strategies 

Companies find that pseudonymisation is not just about following rules, but it also brings real benefits. By using this technique, businesses can keep their data more secure and reduce the damage in the event of a breach. Customers feel more confident knowing that their information is protected, which builds trust. Additionally, companies can utilise this data for their research or other important purposes without compromising user privacy. 

Key Benefits of Pseudonymisation:

1. Enhanced Privacy Protection: It hides personal details like names or IDs with fake ones (with artificial values or codes), making it harder for accidental privacy breaches.
2. Preserved Data Utility: Unlike completely anonymous data, pseudonymised data keeps its usefulness by maintaining important patterns and relationships within datasets.
3. Facilitate Data Sharing: It’s easier to share pseudonymised data with partners or researchers because it protects privacy while still being useful.

However, using pseudonymisation is not as easy as companies have to deal with tricky technical issues like choosing the right methods, such as encryption or tokenisation and managing security keys safely. They have to implement strong policies to stop anyone from figuring out who the data belongs to. This can get expensive and complicated, especially when dealing with a large amount of data, and it often requires expert help and regular upkeep. 

Balancing Privacy Rights and Data Utility

The primary challenge in pseudonymisation is striking the right balance between protecting individuals' privacy and maintaining the utility of the data. To get this right, companies need to consider several factors, such as why they are using the data, the potential hacker's level of skill, and the type of data being used.

Conclusion 

Pseudonymisation offers a practical middle ground between full anonymisation and restricted data use, enabling organisations to harness the value of data while protecting individual privacy. Legally, it is recognised as a safeguard but still treated as personal data, requiring compliance under frameworks like GDPR and India’s DPDP Act. For companies, it is not only regulatory adherence but also ensuring that it builds trust and enhances data security. However, its effectiveness depends on robust technical methods, governance, and vigilance. Striking the right balance between privacy and data utility is crucial for sustainable, ethical, and innovation-driven data practices.

References:

1. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/
2. https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf
3. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-25-gdpr/
4. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2025-01/edpb_guidelines_202501_pseudonymisation_en.pdf
5. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=303863&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=16466915
6. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=303863&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=16466915

‍

Executive Summary:

A viral picture on social media showing UK police officers bowing to a group of social media leads to debates and discussions. The investigation by CyberPeace Research team found that the image is AI generated. The viral claim is false and misleading.

Claims:

A viral image on social media depicting that UK police officers bowing to a group of Muslim people on the street.

Fact Check:

The reverse image search was conducted on the viral image. It did not lead to any credible news resource or original posts that acknowledged the authenticity of the image. In the image analysis, we have found the number of anomalies that are usually found in AI generated images such as the uniform and facial expressions of the police officers image. The other anomalies such as the shadows and reflections on the officers' uniforms did not match the lighting of the scene and the facial features of the individuals in the image appeared unnaturally smooth and lacked the detail expected in real photographs.

We then analysed the image using an AI detection tool named True Media. The tools indicated that the image was highly likely to have been generated by AI.

We also checked official UK police channels and news outlets for any records or reports of such an event. No credible sources reported or documented any instance of UK police officers bowing to a group of Muslims, further confirming that the image is not based on a real event.

Conclusion:

The viral image of UK police officers bowing to a group of Muslims is AI-generated. CyberPeace Research Team confirms that the picture was artificially created, and the viral claim is misleading and false.

• Claim: UK police officers were photographed bowing to a group of Muslims.
• Claimed on: X, Website
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading