#FactCheck -Ravi Kishan’s Viral Postcard Claim Debunked; Original Navbharat Times Post Shows Different Statement
Executive Summary
A social media post featuring a graphic attributed to Navbharat Times and BJP MP Ravi Kishan is being widely circulated. The post falsely claims that Ravi Kishan made a controversial statement saying, “Narendra Modi should be ashamed, Meloni is of his granddaughter’s age.” CyberPeace Research Wing investigation found that the claim is false. In the original Navbharat Times postcard, Ravi Kishan is seen saying that people should stop criticising the Prime Minister, otherwise they may have to face consequences.
Claim
An X (formerly Twitter) user named “Prem Jai Moolnivasi Paswan” shared the viral post and alleged that Ravi Kishan made objectionable remarks targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
- https://www.facebook.com/premjaymulnivasi.paswan/posts/pfbid02Drv387K2ugesnP9vvbJXgqU7yTZkrUhVAB5y9euzHuxpigWa8uDEnu3E2T6oox8Wl?rdid=4VbtbVi1G8bgo12d
- https://archive.ph/NHBXP
Fact Check
During the investigation, we searched for the alleged statement using relevant keywords but found no credible reports or evidence supporting the claim. We then examined Navbharat Times’ official social media handles. A similar-looking but authentic postcard was found on the official Facebook page of Navbharat Times (Uttar Pradesh) dated May 18, 2026.
The original post quoted Ravi Kishan differently, stating that criticism of the Prime Minister should be avoided, or else consequences may follow. Nowhere in the authentic post is the viral controversial remark mentioned.
Further investigation revealed that Navbharat Times itself issued a clarification on its official X handle, stating that the viral post is fake and that legal action would be taken against misuse of its name.
Conclusion
The viral claim is false. The authentic Navbharat Times postcard shows Ravi Kishan saying that criticism of the Prime Minister should be stopped, or there would be consequences. The viral graphic has been altered to spread misinformation.
Related Blogs
With AI touching new milestones everyday an increasing need for making it secure is also arising. As these AI companies increase their operations and position in the market as providers of powerful tools in the market. A recent concern due to Anthropic's recent privacy policy update which will be effective from July 8, 2026 shows how companies have begun expanding the amount of personal information they collect in the name of safety, compliance, and trust. While they are being demonstrated as measures to improve safety of users and prevent abuse, it raises important questions about privacy, biometric data, surveillance, data retention, and user autonomy, some of which we will be addressing in this article.
Identity Verification of consumers
One of the most notable update to Anthropic's privacy policy is the category of "Verification Data." According to the policy, users may be asked to verify their age or identity in certain circumstances. Depending on the verification method, Anthropic may collect:
- Images of government-issued identity documents;
- Information appearing on those documents, including identification numbers and date of birth for age verification;
- Photographs or videos of the user;
- Facial geometry templates, which may constitute biometric data under certain legal frameworks; and
- The outcome of the verification process.
At first, this may appear similar to the Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures employed by banks or financial institutions but Claude is not a banking service. It is a consumer AI platform. The issue is not that verification exists, but that the circumstances under which it may be required remain undefined.
THE PROBLEM WITH “CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES”
The policy refers to verification being required in "certain circumstances." The public notification from Anthropic mentions that these circumstances may include access to particular features, routine platform integrity checks, abuse prevention mechanisms, policy enforcement activities, or legal compliance obligations. The ambiguity of this phrase raises important concerns. From a user perspective, it is difficult to determine, When verification may be triggered ? Whether verification applies only to suspicious accounts ? Whether access to future features may depend upon verification ? Whether users in particular regions will face more frequent verification requirements ? Whether verification requests may increase as AI regulation expands ? This broad language and discretionary power that the company has along with flexibility in the hands of the company creates uncertainty for users who may have initially joined a platform expecting only an email address and payment information to be required.
Government IDs collection: A new risk category
Almost all AI services have operated without collecting government-issued identity documents. Once a company begins processing such information, the privacy implications change dramatically. Because government issued IDs contain: Full legal names, Dates of birth, Identification numbers, Addresses, Photographs and information regarding nationality. When companies collect these documents, they will have an important database of highly sensitive personal information. Even if the company itself does not retain the documents indefinitely, the existence of a verification process introduces additional privacy and security risks. As per Anthropic has stated that identity verification is conducted through third-party providers such as Persona. According to article on the official site titled ‘Identity verification on Claude’, Persona stores the identity documents and selfie data, while Anthropic retains access to verification records when necessary. From the user's perspective, several important realities remain: First, the data still exists somewhere. Second, another third party organization is now involved in processing highly sensitive personal information. Third, Anthropic retains the ability to access verification records under certain circumstances. Therefore, although Anthropic may not directly maintain copies of every uploaded identity document, the practical result remains that sensitive information enters a broader ecosystem of entities and systems. Identity documents today are among the most valuable forms of personal information from the perspective of fraudsters, cybercriminals, and malicious actors. Therefore, any system that handles such documents becomes an attractive target for attack.
More information on persona’s government ID verification- https://withpersona.com/blog/what-is-government-id-verification
The Biometric Dimension
Another significant aspect of the update is the reference to facial geometry templates. Unlike passwords, biometric identifiers cannot easily be changed if compromised. A person can replace a password or even obtain a new identification card, but they cannot simply obtain a new face. Facial geometry templates are sensitive because they enable automated identity matching. Although these templates, as claimed, are not equivalent to photographs, they are nevertheless derived from unique physical characteristics of a person. In many jurisdictions, including parts of the European Union and several U.S. states, biometric data receives enhanced legal protection because of its permanence and sensitivity, let us see how it unfolds in these jurisdictions.
The Unanswered Retention Question
It is unclear in the policy as to how long the data will be retained because retention limits serve as one of the most important safeguards in modern privacy law, they have given another vague answer that “They're bound to protect it with industry-standard security controls and delete it in line with the retention limits we've set and applicable law.” The longer sensitive information remains stored, the greater the likelihood of unauthorized access, misuse, accidental disclosure, or legal compulsion.
Court Orders and Government Access
Anthropic may be required to disclose information pursuant to valid legal processes such as subpoenas, court orders, warrants, or regulatory directives. The existence of identity verification records means that future requests could potentially be linked to verified identities rather than pseudonymous accounts. This does not mean governments receive unrestricted access to user data. However, it does mean that once identity verification information exists within a company's ecosystem, it may become subject to lawful disclosure requirements. The privacy implications are therefore materially different from those associated with anonymous or pseudonymous AI usage.
Shifting Responsibility onto Users
Another concern is that the privacy policy states that users are responsible for ensuring they possess the necessary rights, permissions, or authority when uploading files, connecting third-party services, or instructing Claude to retrieve information. Anthropic is effectively informing users that they bear responsibility for ensuring that uploaded or connected data is lawfully accessible. As AI assistants gain greater capabilities, this transfer of responsibility from platform to user is likely to become increasingly common. Beyond individual privacy, Anthropic's verification policy also raises larger questions about data sovereignty and the cross-border movement of sensitive personal information. In India, the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India judgment recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, affirming that individuals have the right to informational self-determination and control over their personal data. Yet, under Anthropic's verification framework, an Indian user may be required to upload a government-issued identity document and biometric information, which are processed by Persona, a U.S.-based identity verification company acting on behalf of Anthropic. Although users voluntarily consent to this process, it nevertheless results in highly sensitive identity information crossing national borders and entering the control of foreign private entities governed primarily by foreign contractual arrangements and multiple legal regimes. While governments issue identity documents as sovereign instruments of citizenship, their verification and processing are increasingly outsourced to multinational technology companies. Questions arise not only about how securely such information is handled, but also about which country's laws ultimately govern access, retention, disclosure, and accountability when personal data leaves the jurisdiction in which it originated. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, cross-border transfer of personal data is generally permitted unless the Central Government specifically restricts transfers to certain jurisdictions. Therefore, a foreign company processing identity documents is not, by itself, unlawful but this legality does not eliminate legitimate concerns. Users realistically have limited bargaining power and little practical understanding of how long their identity documents, biometric templates, or verification records will be retained, who within the corporate ecosystem may access them, or how they may be disclosed pursuant to foreign legal processes.
Conclusion
The policy is commendable in some respects because it openly identifies the categories of information that may be collected rather than obscuring them behind vague terminology. However, important concerns remain regarding the extent of verification triggers, the handling of biometric information, the absence of clearly disclosed retention periods, and the long-term implications of linking AI accounts to government-issued identities. As AI systems become more integrated into daily life, these questions will likely become central issues in debates about digital privacy, surveillance, autonomy, and the future governance of artificial intelligence.
Executive Summary:
A short video clip of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is going viral on social media. In the clip, he can be heard saying, “What sins did we commit in our previous life that we were born in India?” Users are sharing this video claiming that the Prime Minister insulted India and its people during a foreign visit. However, an research by the CyberPeace found that the claim is misleading. The viral clip is taken out of context from a longer speech delivered by Modi during his visit to Shanghai, China, in 2015
Claim:
A Facebook user named “Bittu Yadav” shared the reel, portraying the statement as anti-India. The caption reads:“Look at this, and you supporters—see how your ‘leader’ is praising the country.”
Post link and archive link:
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we searched relevant keywords on Google and found the full video uploaded on May 16, 2015, on the official YouTube channel of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The video shows Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressing the Indian community in Shanghai, China.
In the 57-minute speech, at around 51 minutes 25 seconds, Modi was referring to the pessimistic atmosphere in India before 2014. He said: “Within a year… people used to say, ‘Leave it, nothing will happen now. Who knows what sins we committed in our previous life that we were born in India’… From that mindset, today the world says that if there is a country growing at the fastest pace, it is India.”
This clearly shows that Modi was citing a past sentiment to highlight how perceptions about India have changed over time, not expressing his personal view. Media reports from his May 2015 China visit also noted that he addressed around 5,000 members of the Indian community in Shanghai, where he spoke about India’s economic growth and initiatives like “Make in India.”
Conclusion:
The viral claim is false. The video has been edited and shared out of context. In reality, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was referring to a past mindset before 2014 while highlighting the change in India’s global perception.
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media linking it to the ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran. The clip shows multiple fighter jets flying across the sky, while massive flames appear to be rising from tall buildings below. The visuals are dramatic and alarming, creating the impression of a large-scale military strike. Users sharing the video claim that after Israel carried out an attack, Iran launched a retaliatory strike on Israel, and that the viral footage captures the aftermath of this counterattack. However, research conducted by the CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the viral video is not authentic but AI-generated.
Claim
On the social media platform Facebook, a user shared the viral video with the caption: “Iran has also carried out a retaliatory attack on Israel.”
(Post link and archive link provided above.)
Factcheck
Upon closely examining the video, we noticed several irregularities in the visuals and motion patterns, which raised suspicion that the footage may have been generated using artificial intelligence. To verify this, we analyzed the video using the AI detection tool developed by Hive Moderation. According to the analysis report, there is a 62 percent likelihood that the viral video is AI-generated.
As part of further verification, we also scanned the video using Sightengine. The results indicated an even stronger probability, suggesting that the video is 99 percent AI-generated.
Conclusion
Our research confirms that the viral video does not depict a real military attack. It is AI-generated content being falsely shared in the context of Israel-Iran tensions.
