#FactCheck -AI-Manipulated Video Falsely Claims ₹50 Crore Deal Involving Bhupen Bora

Executive Summary:

‍
A viral video claiming the crash site of Air India Flight AI-171 in Ahmedabad has misled many people online. The video has been confirmed not to be from India or a recent crash, but was filmed at Universal Studios Hollywood on a TV or movie set meant to look like a plane crash set piece for a movie.

‍

Claim:

‍
A video that purportedly shows the wreckage of Air India Flight AI-171 after crashing in Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025, has circulated among social media users. The video shows a large amount of aircraft wreckage as well as destroyed homes and a scene reminiscent of an emergency, making it look genuine.

‍

‍

Fact check:

‍
In our research, we took screenshots from the viral video and used reverse image search, which matched visuals from Universal Studios Hollywood. It became apparent that the video is actually from the most famous “War of the Worlds" set, located in Universal Studios Hollywood. The set features a 747 crash scene that was constructed permanently for Steven Spielberg's movie in 2005. We also found a YouTube video. The set has fake smoke poured on it, with debris scattered about and additional fake faceless structures built to represent a scene with a larger crisis. Multiple videos on YouTube here, here, and here can be found from the past with pictures of the tour at Universal Studios Hollywood, the Boeing 747 crash site, made for a movie.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

The Universal Studios Hollywood tour includes a visit to a staged crash site featuring a Boeing 747, which has unfortunately been misused in viral posts to spread false information.

‍

‍

While doing research, we were able to locate imagery indicating that the video that went viral, along with the Universal Studios tour footage, provided an exact match and therefore verified that the video had no connection to the Ahmedabad incident. A side-by-side comparison tells us all we need to know to uncover the truth.

                                                                        

‍

Conclusion:

‍

‍
The viral video claiming to show the aftermath of the Air India crash in Ahmedabad is entirely misleading and false. The video is showing a fictitious movie set from Universal Studios Hollywood, not a real disaster scene in India. Spreading misinformation like this can create unnecessary panic and confusion in sensitive situations. We urge viewers to only trust verified news and double-check claims before sharing any content online.

• Claim: Massive explosion and debris shown in viral video after Air India crash.‍
• Claimed On: Social Media‍
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

Introduction  

The emergence of deepfake technology has become a significant problem in an era driven by technological growth and power. The government has reacted proactively as a result of concerns about the exploitation of this technology due to its extraordinary realism in manipulating information. The national government is in the vanguard of defending national interests, public trust, and security as the digital world changes. On the 26th of December 2023, the central government issued an advisory to businesses, highlighting how urgent it is to confront this growing threat.

The directive aims to directly address the growing concerns around Deepfakes, or misinformation driven by AI. This advice represents the result of talks that Union Minister Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar, had with intermediaries during the course of a month-long Digital India dialogue. The main aim of the advisory is to accurately and clearly inform users about information that is forbidden, especially those listed under Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules. 

Advisory

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has sent a formal recommendation to all intermediaries, requesting adherence to current IT regulations and emphasizing the need to address issues with misinformation, specifically those driven by artificial intelligence (AI), such as Deepfakes. Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar released the recommendation, which highlights the necessity of communicating forbidden information in a clear and understandable manner, particularly in light of Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules.

Advise on Prohibited Content Communication

According to MeitY's advice, intermediaries must transmit content that is prohibited by Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules in a clear and accurate manner. This involves giving users precise details during enrollment, login, and content sharing/uploading on the website, as well as including such information in customer contracts and terms of service.

Ensuring Users Are Aware of the Rules

Digital platform suppliers are required to inform their users of the laws that are relevant to them. This covers provisions found in the IT Act of 2000 and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Corporations should inform users of the potential consequences of breaking the restrictions outlined in Rule 3(1)(b) and should also urge users to notify any illegal activity to law enforcement.

Talks Concerning Deepfakes

For more than a month, Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar had a significant talk with various platforms where they addressed the issue of "deepfakes," or computer-generated fake videos. The meeting emphasized how crucial it is that everyone abides by the laws and regulations in effect, particularly the IT Rules to prevent deepfakes from spreading.  

Addressing the Danger of Disinformation

Minister Chandrasekhar underlined the grave issue of disinformation, particularly in the context of deepfakes, which are false pieces of content produced using the latest developments such as artificial intelligence. He emphasized the dangers this deceptive data posed to internet users' security and confidence. The Minister emphasized the efficiency of the IT regulations in addressing this issue and cited the Prime Minister's caution about the risks of deepfakes.

Rule Against Spreading False Information

The Minister referred particularly to Rule 3(1)(b)(v), which states unequivocally that it is forbidden to disseminate false information, even when doing so involves cutting-edge technology like deepfakes. He called on intermediaries—the businesses that offer digital platforms—to take prompt action to take such content down from their systems. Additionally, he ensured that everyone is aware that breaking such rules has legal implications.

Analysis 

The Central Government's latest advisory on deepfake technology demonstrates a proactive strategy to deal with new issues. It also highlights the necessity of comprehensive legislation to directly regulate AI material, particularly with regard to user interests.

There is a wider regulatory vacuum for content produced by artificial intelligence, even though the current guideline concentrates on the precision and lucidity of information distribution. While some limitations are mentioned in the existing laws, there are no clear guidelines for controlling or differentiating AI-generated content.

Positively, it is laudable that the government has recognized the dangers posed by deepfakes and is making appropriate efforts to counter them. As AI technology develops, there is a chance to create thorough laws that not only solve problems but also create a supportive environment for the creation of ethical AI content. User protection, accountability, openness, and moral AI use would all benefit from such laws. This offers an opportunity for regulatory development to guarantee the successful and advantageous incorporation of AI into our digital environment.

Conclusion 

The Central Government's preemptive advice on deepfake technology shows a great dedication to tackling new risks in the digital sphere. The advice highlights the urgent need to combat deepfakes, but it also highlights the necessity for extensive legislation on content produced by artificial intelligence. The lack of clear norms offers a chance for constructive regulatory development to protect the interests of users. The advancement of AI technology necessitates the adoption of rules that promote the creation of ethical AI content, guaranteeing user protection, accountability, and transparency. This is a turning point in the evolution of regulations, making it easier to responsibly incorporate AI into our changing digital landscape.

References

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/deepfake-menace-govt-issues-advisory-to-intermediaries-to-comply-with-existing-it-rules/articleshow/106297813.cms
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1990542#:~:text=Ministry%20of%20Electronics%20and%20Information,misinformation%20powered%20by%20AI%20%E2%80%93%20Deepfakes.
• https://www.timesnownews.com/india/centres-deepfake-warning-to-it-firms-ensure-users-dont-violate-content-rules-article-106298282#:~:text=The%20Union%20government%20on%20Tuesday,actors%2C%20businesspersons%20and%20other%20celebrities

Introduction

Assisted Reproductive Technology (“ART”) refers to a diverse set of medical procedures designed to aid individuals or couples in achieving pregnancy when conventional methods are unsuccessful. This umbrella term encompasses various fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), and gamete and embryo manipulation. ART procedures involve the manipulation of both male and female reproductive components to facilitate conception.

The dynamic landscape of data flows within the healthcare sector, notably in the realm of ART, demands a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between privacy regulations and medical practices. In this context, the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011, play a pivotal role, designating health information as "sensitive personal data or information" and underscoring the importance of safeguarding individuals' privacy. This sensitivity is particularly pronounced in the ART sector, where an array of personal data, ranging from medical records to genetic information, is collected and processed. The recent Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, in conjunction with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, establishes a framework for the regulation of ART clinics and banks, presenting a layered approach to data protection.

A note on data generated by ART

Data flows in any sector are scarcely uniform and often not easily classified under straight-jacket categories. Consequently, mapping and identifying data and its types become pivotal. It is believed that most data flows in the healthcare sector are highly sensitive and personal in nature, which may severely compromise the privacy and safety of an individual if breached. The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules”) categorizes any information pertaining to physical, physiological, mental conditions or medical records and history as “sensitive personal data or information”; this definition is broad enough to encompass any data collected by any ART facility or equipment. These include any information collected during the screening of patients, pertaining to ovulation and menstrual cycles, follicle and sperm count, ultrasound results, blood work etc. It also includes pre-implantation genetic testing on embryos to detect any genetic abnormality. 

But data flows extend beyond mere medical procedures and technology. Health data also involves any medical procedures undertaken, the amount of medicine and drugs administered during any procedure, its resultant side effects, recovery etc. Any processing of the above-mentioned information, in turn, may generate more personal data points relating to an individual’s political affiliations, race, ethnicity, genetic data such as biometrics and DNA etc.; It is seen that different ethnicities and races react differently to the same/similar medication and have different propensities to genetic diseases. Further, it is to be noted that data is not only collected by professionals but also by intelligent equipment like AI which may be employed by any facility to render their service. Additionally, dissemination of information under exceptional circumstances (e.g. medical emergency) also affects how data may be classified. Considerations are further nuanced when the fundamental right to identity of a child conceived and born via ART may be in conflict with the fundamental right to privacy of a donor to remain anonymous. 

Intersection of Privacy laws and ART laws: 

In India, ART technology is regulated by the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (“ART Act”). With this, the Union aims to regulate and supervise assisted reproductive technology clinics and ART banks, prevent misuse and ensure safe and ethical practice of assisted reproductive technology services. When read with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and other ancillary guidelines, the two legislations provide some framework regulations for the digital privacy of health-based apps.

The ART Act establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Registry (“National Registry”) which acts as a central database for all clinics and banks and their nature of services. The Act also establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board (“National Board”)  under the Surrogacy Act to monitor the implementation of the act and advise the central government on policy matters. It also supervises the functioning of the National Registry, liaises with State Boards and curates a code of conduct for professionals working in ART clinics and banks. Under the DPDP Act, these bodies (i.e. National Board, State Board, ART clinics and banks) are most likely classified as data fiduciaries (primarily clinics and banks), data processors (these may include National Board and State boards) or an amalgamation of both (these include any appropriate authority established under the ART Act for investigation of complaints, suspend or cancellation of registration of clinics etc.) depending on the nature of work undertaken by them. If so classified, then the duties and liabilities of data fiduciaries and processors would necessarily apply to these bodies. As a result, all bodies would necessarily have to adopt Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) and other organizational measures to ensure compliance with privacy laws in place. This may be considered one of the most critical considerations of any ART facility since any data collected by them would be sensitive personal data pertaining to health, regulated by the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules 2011”). These rules provide for how sensitive personal data or information are to be collected, handled and processed by anyone.

The ART Act independently also provides for the duties of ART clinics and banks in the country. ART clinics and banks are required to inform the commissioning couple/woman of all procedures undertaken and all costs, risks, advantages, and side effects of their selected procedure. It mandatorily ensures that all information collected by such clinics and banks to not informed to anyone except the database established by the National Registry or in cases of medical emergency or on order of court. Data collected by clinics and banks (these include details on donor oocytes, sperm or embryos used or unused) are required to be detailed and must be submitted to the National Registry online. ART banks are also required to collect personal information of donors including name, Aadhar number, address and any other details. By mandating online submission, the ART Act is harmonized with the DPDP Act, which regulates all digital personal data and emphasises free, informed consent.

Conclusion

With the increase in active opt-ins for ART, data privacy becomes a vital consideration for all healthcare facilities and professionals. Safeguard measures are not only required on a corporate level but also on a governmental level. It is to be noted that in the 262 Session of the Rajya Sabha, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology reported 165 data breach incidents involving citizen data from January 2018 to October 2023 from the Central Identities Data Repository despite publicly denying. This discovery puts into question the safety and integrity of data that may be submitted to the National Registry database, especially given the type of data (both personal and sensitive information) it aims to collate. At present the ART Act is well supported by the DPDP Act. However, further judicial and legislative deliberations are required to effectively regulate and balance the interests of all stakeholders.

References

• The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011
• Caring for Intimate Data in Fertility Technologies https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3411764.3445132 
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
• https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/pharmacogenomics-and-race-can-heritage-affect-drug-disposition