#FactCheck -Edited Newspaper Clipping Falsely Linked to Indira Gandhi’s Appeal Against Buying Gold

Executive Summary

‍
‍
An image is being widely shared on social media claiming that during the 2026 FIFA World Cup match between Iran and Egypt in Seattle, Washington, the stadium hosted a “Pride Match,” with massive LGBTQ rainbow flags spread across the pitch before kickoff. Users claim the image shows FIFA allowing rainbow flags inside the stadium during the match. CyberPeace Research Wing's research found the claim to be misleading. There is no evidence that FIFA or the official organizers displayed giant rainbow flags across the pitch during the pre-match ceremony. The viral image has been digitally altered and does not depict an actual scene from the event.

‍

Claim

‍

On June 27, 2026, an X (formerly Twitter) user shared the image with the caption, “Seattle trolled Egypt and Iran so hard.” Similar posts were also circulated on Facebook and other social media platforms in Spanish and Arabic. https://perma.cc/9QUF-Y7LG ,https://x.com/zachleft/status/2070727350288068687/

‍

‍

FactCheck

‍

The image began circulating after the June 26 FIFA World Cup match between Iran and Egypt ended in a 1-1 draw. Iran (Team Melli) had a stoppage-time goal disallowed, leaving the team short of qualifying for the tournament’s 32-team knockout stage, while Egypt advanced alongside Belgium from the top of Group G. https://www.abs-cbn.com/sports/othersports/2026/6/29/iran-team-to-fly-home-monday-following-world-cup-exit-1334

‍

‍

Further research found that Egyptian and Iranian officials had objected to pro-LGBTQ celebrations surrounding the fixture. Seattle authorities had designated the match as part of the city's Pride celebrations well before the World Cup draw determined which teams would play there. Under Iranian Islamic law, homosexuality is illegal and can be punishable by death. In Egypt, same-sex relations are often prosecuted under broadly worded laws relating to "debauchery" or "immorality. https://www.barrons.com/news/in-seattle-lgbtq-and-world-cup-are-feted-except-by-iran-egypt-f6d970dc.

‍

‍

We also examined the viral image using OpenAI’s image verification tool, which detected the presence of SynthID—an invisible watermark embedded by Google in AI-generated content. This indicates that the image was created or modified using AI tools.

‍

‍

In addition, we reviewed the live broadcasts of the match by Fox Sports and Universo. Both broadcasts showed only the national flags of Iran and Egypt displayed on the pitch before kickoff. No giant rainbow flags appeared during the pre-match ceremony.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research found the viral claim to be misleading. There is no evidence that FIFA or the official organizers displayed massive rainbow flags across the pitch during the Iran vs Egypt World Cup match. The viral image is digitally altered, contains indicators of AI generation, and does not represent an actual moment from the event.

‍

Introduction

In 2022, Oxfam’s India Inequality report revealed the worsening digital divide, highlighting that only 38% of households in the country are digitally literate. Further, only 31% of the rural population uses the internet, as compared to 67% of the urban population. Over time, with the increasing awareness about the importance of digital privacy globally, the definition of digital divide has translated into a digital privacy divide, whereby different levels of privacy are afforded to different sections of society. This further promotes social inequalities and impedes access to fundamental rights.

Digital Privacy Divide: A by-product of the digital divide

The digital divide has evolved into a multi-level issue from its earlier interpretations; level I implies the lack of physical access to technologies, level II refers to the lack of digital literacy and skills and recently, level III relates to the impacts of digital access. Digital Privacy Divide (DPD) refers to the various gaps in digital privacy protection provided to users based on their socio-demographic patterns. It forms a subset of the digital divide, which involves uneven distribution, access and usage of information and communication technology (ICTs). Typically, DPD exists when ICT users receive distinct levels of digital privacy protection. As such, it forms a part of the conversation on digital inequality. 

Contrary to popular perceptions, DPD, which is based on notions of privacy, is not always based on ideas of  individualism and collectivism and may constitute internal and external factors at the national level. A study on the impacts of DPD conducted in the U.S., India, Bangladesh and Germany highlighted that respondents in Germany and Bangladesh expressed more concerns about their privacy compared to respondents in the U.S. and India. This suggests that despite the U.S. having a strong tradition of individualistic rights, that is reflected in internal regulatory frameworks such as the Fourth Amendment, the topic of data privacy has not garnered enough interest from the population. Most individuals consider forgoing the right to privacy as a necessary evil to access many services, and schemes and to stay abreast with technological advances. Research shows that 62%- 63% of Americans believe that companies and the government collecting data have become an inescapable necessary evil in modern life. Additionally, 81% believe that they have very little control over what data companies collect and about 81% of Americans believe that the risk of data collection outweighs the benefits. Similarly, in Japan, data privacy is thought to be an adopted concept emerging from international pressure to regulate, rather than as an ascribed right, since collectivism and collective decision-making are more valued in Japan, positioning the concept of privacy as subjective, timeserving and an idea imported from the West.

Regardless, inequality in privacy preservation often reinforces social inequality. Practices like surveillance that are geared towards a specific group highlight that marginalised communities are more likely to have less data privacy. As an example, migrants, labourers, persons with a conviction history and marginalised racial groups are often subject to extremely invasive surveillance under suspicions of posing threats and are thus forced to flee their place of birth or residence. This also highlights the fact that focus on DPD is not limited to those who lack data privacy but also to those who have (either by design or by force) excess privacy. While on one end, excessive surveillance, carried out by both governments and private entities, forces immigrants to wait in deportation centres during the pendency of their case, the other end of the privacy extreme hosts a vast number of undocumented individuals who avoid government contact for fear of deportation, despite noting high rates of crime victimization.

DPD is also noted among groups with differential knowledge and skills in cyber security. For example, in India, data privacy laws mandate that information be provided on order of a court or any enforcement agency. However, individuals with knowledge of advanced encryption are adopting communication channels that have encryption protocols that the provider cannot control (and resultantly able to exercise their right to privacy more effectively),  in contrast with individuals who have little knowledge of encryption, implying a security as well as an intellectual divide. While several options for secure communication exist, like Pretty Good Privacy, which enables encrypted emailing, they are complex and not easy to use in addition to having negative reputations, like the Tor Browser. Cost considerations also are a major factor in propelling DPD since users who cannot afford devices like those by Apple, which have privacy by default, are forced to opt for devices that have relatively poor in-built encryption. 

Children remain the most vulnerable group. During the pandemic, it was noted that only 24% of Indian households had internet facilities to access e-education and several reported needing to access free internet outside of their homes. These public networks are known for their lack of security and privacy, as traffic can be monitored by the hotspot operator or others on the network if proper encryption measures are not in place. Elsewhere, students without access to devices for remote learning have limited alternatives and are often forced to rely on Chromebooks and associated Google services. In response to this issue, Google provided free Chromebooks and mobile hotspots to students in need during the pandemic, aiming to address the digital divide. However, in 2024, New Mexico was reported to be suing Google for allegedly collecting children’s data through its educational products provided to the state's schools, claiming that it tracks students' activities on their personal devices outside of the classroom. It signified the problems in ensuring the privacy of lower-income students while accessing basic education.

Policy Recommendations

Digital literacy is one of the critical components in bridging the DPD. It enables individuals to gain skills, which in turn effectively addresses privacy violations. Studies show that low-income users remain less confident in their ability to manage their privacy settings as compared to high-income individuals. Thus, emphasis should be placed not only on educating on technology usage but also on privacy practices since it aims to improve people’s Internet skills and take informed control of their digital identities.

In the U.S., scholars have noted the role of libraries and librarians in safeguarding intellectual privacy. The Library Freedom Project, for example, has sought to ensure that the skills and knowledge required to ensure internet freedoms are available to all. The Project channelled one of the core values of the library profession i.e. intellectual freedom, literacy, equity of access to recorded knowledge and information, privacy and democracy. As a result, the Project successfully conducted workshops on internet privacy for the public and also openly objected to the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to shut down the use of encryption technologies in libraries. The International Federation of Library Association adopted a Statement of Privacy in the Library Environment in 2015 that specified “when libraries and information services provide access to resources, services or technologies that may compromise users’ privacy, libraries should encourage users to be aware of the implications and provide guidance in data protection and privacy.” The above should be used as an indicative case study for setting up similar protocols in inclusive public institutions like Anganwadis, local libraries, skill development centres and non-government/non-profit organisations in India, where free education is disseminated. The workshops conducted must inculcate two critical aspects; firstly, enhancing the know-how of using public digital infrastructure and popular technologies (thereby de-alienating technology) and secondly, shifting the viewpoint of privacy as a right an individual has and not something that they own.

However, digital literacy should not be wholly relied on, since it shifts the responsibility of privacy protection to the individual, who may not either be aware or cannot be controlled. Data literacy also does not address the larger issue of data brokers, consumer profiling, surveillance etc. Resultantly, an obligation on companies to provide simplified privacy summaries, in addition to creating accessible, easy-to-use technical products and privacy tools,  should be necessitated. Most notable legislations address this problem by mandating notices and consent for collecting personal data of users, despite slow enforcement. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in India aims to address DPD by not only mandating valid consent but also ensuring that privacy policies remain accessible in local languages, given the diversity of the population.

References

• https://idronline.org/article/inequality/indias-digital-divide-from-bad-to-worse/ 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02669 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.07936#:~:text=The%20DPD%20index%20is%20a,(33%20years%20and%20over). 
• https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• /https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6265&context=law_lawreview 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• https://bosniaca.nub.ba/index.php/bosniaca/article/view/488/pdf 
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/just-24-of-indian-households-have-internet-facility-to-access-e-education-unicef/story-a1g7DqjP6lJRSh6D6yLJjL.html 
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/05/the-pandemic-has-unmasked-the-digital-privacy-divide/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/Privacy%20protection%20in%20Japan.pdf 
• https://socialchangenyu.com/review/the-surveillance-gap-the-harms-of-extreme-privacy-and-data-marginalization/ 

Introduction

The recent inauguration of the Google Safety Engineering Centre (GSEC) in Hyderabad on 18th June, 2025, marks a pivotal moment not just for India, but for the entire Asia-Pacific region’s digital future. As only the fourth such centre in the world after Munich, Dublin, and Málaga, its presence signals a shift in how AI safety, cybersecurity, and digital trust are being decentralised, leading to a more globalised and inclusive tech ecosystem. India’s digitisation over the years has grown at a rapid scale, introducing millions of first-time internet users, who, depending on their awareness, are susceptible to online scams, phishing, deepfakes, and AI-driven fraud. The establishment of GSEC is not just about launching a facility but a step towards addressing AI readiness, user protection, and ecosystem resilience.

Building a Safer Digital Future in the Global South

The GSEC is set to operationalise the Google Safety Charter, designed around three core pillars: empowering users by protecting them from online fraud, strengthening government cybersecurity and enterprise, and advancing responsible AI in the platform design and execution. This represents a shift from the standard reactive safety responses to proactive, AI-driven risk mitigation. The goal is to make safety tools not only effective, but tailored to threats unique to the Global South, from multilingual phishing to financial fraud via unofficial lending apps. This centre is expected to stimulate regional cybersecurity ecosystems by creating jobs, fostering public-private partnerships, and enabling collaboration across academia, law enforcement, civil society, and startups. In doing so, it positions Asia-Pacific not as a consumer of the standard Western safety solutions but as an active contributor to the next generation of digital safeguards and customised solutions.

Previous piloted solutions by Google include DigiKavach, a real-time fraud detection framework, and tools like spam protection in mobile operating systems and app vetting mechanisms. What GSEC might aid with is the scaling and integration of these efforts into systems-level responses, where threat detection, safety warnings, and reporting mechanisms, etc., would ensure seamless coordination and response across platforms. This reimagines safety as a core design principle in India’s digital public infrastructure rather than focusing on attack-based response. 

CyberPeace Insights

The launch aligns with events such as the AI Readiness Methodology Conference recently held in New Delhi, which brought together researchers, policymakers, and industry leaders to discuss ethical, secure, and inclusive AI implementation. As the world grapples with how to deal with AI technologies ranging from generative content to algorithmic decisions, centres like GSEC can play a critical role in defining the safeguards and governance structures that can support rapid innovation without compromising public trust and safety. The region’s experiences and innovations in AI governance must shape global norms, and the role of Tech firms in doing so is significant. Apart from this, efforts with respect to creating digital infrastructure and safety centres addressing their protection resonate with India’s vision of becoming a global leader in AI. 

References

‍

• https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/google-safety-engineering-centre-india-inaugurated-in-hyderabad/article69708279.ece 
• https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/google-launches-safety-charter-to-secure-indias-ai-future-flags-online-fraud-and-cyber-threats-480718-2025-06-17?utm_source=recengine&utm_medium=web&referral=yes&utm_content=footerstrip-1&t_source=recengine&t_medium=web&t_content=footerstrip-1&t_psl=False
• https://blog.google/intl/en-in/partnering-indias-success-in-a-new-digital-paradigm/ 
• https://blog.google/intl/en-in/company-news/googles-safety-charter-for-indias-ai-led-transformation/
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/google-rolls-out-hyderabad-hub-for-online-safety-launches-first-indian-google-safety-engineering-centre/articleshow/121928037.cms?from=mdr

‍