#FactCheck-AI-Generated Image Falsely Shows Iranian Soldiers Near Downed Helicopter

Introduction

The ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Hamas/ Palestine is in the news all across the world. The latest conflict was triggered by unprecedented attacks against Israel by Hamas militants on October 7, killing thousands of people. Israel has launched a massive counter-offensive against the Islamic militant group. Amid the war, the bad information and propaganda spreading on various social media platforms, tech researchers have detected a network of 67 accounts that posted false content about the war and received millions of views. The ‘European Commission’ has sent a letter to Elon Musk, directing them to remove illegal content and disinformation; otherwise, penalties can be imposed. The European Commission has formally requested information from several social media giants on their handling of content related to the Israel-Hamas war. This widespread disinformation impacts and triggers the nature of war and also impacts the world and affects the goodwill of the citizens. The bad group, in this way, weaponise the information and fuels online hate activity, terrorism and extremism, flooding political polarisation with hateful content on social media. Online misinformation about the war is inciting extremism, violence, hate and different propaganda-based ideologies. The online information environment surrounding this conflict is being flooded with disinformation and misinformation, which amplifies the nature of war and too many fake narratives and videos are flooded on social media platforms.

Response of social media platforms 

As there is a proliferation of online misinformation and violent content surrounding the war, It imposes a question on social media companies in terms of content moderation and other policy shifts.  It is notable that Instagram, Facebook and X(Formerly Twitter) all have certain features in place giving users the ability to decide what content they want to view. They also allow for limiting the potentially sensitive content from being displayed in search results.

The experts say that It is of paramount importance to get a sort of control in this regard and define what is permissible online and what is not, Hence, what is required is expertise to determine the situation, and most importantly, It requires robust content moderation policies. 

During wartime, people who are aggrieved or provoked are often targeted by this internet disinformation that blends ideological beliefs and spreads conspiracy theories and hatred. This is not a new phenomenon, it is often observed that disinformation-spreading groups emerged and became active during such war and emergency times and spread disinformation and propaganda-based ideologies and influence the society at large by misrepresenting the facts and planted stories. Social media has made it easier to post user-generated content without properly moderating it. However, it is a shared responsibility of tech companies, users, government guidelines and policies to collectively define and follow certain mechanisms to fight against disinformation and misinformation.  

Digital Services Act (DSA)

The newly enacted EU law, i.e. Digital Services Act, pushes various larger online platforms to prevent posts containing illegal content and also puts limits on targeted advertising. DSA enables to challenge the of illegal online content and also poses requirements to prevent misinformation and disinformation and ensure more transparency over what the users see on the platforms. Rules under the DSA cover everything from content moderation & user privacy to transparency in operations. DSA is a landmark EU legislation moderating online platforms.  Large tech platforms are now subject to content-related regulation under this new EU law ‘The Digital Services Act’, which also requires them to prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation and overall ensure a safer online environment.

Indian Scenario

The Indian government introduced the Intermediary Guidelines (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, updated in 2023 which talks about the establishment of a "fact check unit" to identify false or misleading online content. Digital Personal Data Protection, 2023 has also been enacted which aims to protect personal data. The upcoming Digital India bill is also proposed to be tabled in the parliament, this act will replace the current Information & Technology Act, of 2000. The upcoming Digital India bill can be seen as future-ready legislation to strengthen India’s current cybersecurity posture. It will comprehensively deal with the aspects of ensuring privacy, data protection, and fighting growing cyber crimes in the evolving digital landscape and ensuring a safe digital environment. Certain other entities including civil societies are also actively engaged in fighting misinformation and spreading awareness for safe and responsible use of the Internet. 

Conclusion:

The widespread disinformation and misinformation content amid the Israel-Hamas war showcases how user-generated content on social media shows you the illusion of reality. There is widespread misinformation, misleading content or posts on social media platforms, and misuse of new advanced AI technologies that even make it easier for bad actors to create synthetic media content. It is also notable that social media has connected us like never before. Social media is a great platform with billions of active social media users around the globe, it offers various conveniences and opportunities to individuals and businesses. It is just certain aspects that require the attention of all of us to prevent the bad use of social media. The social media platforms and regulatory authorities need to be vigilant and active in clearly defining and improving the policies for content regulation and safe and responsible use of social media which can effectively combat and curtail the bad actors from misusing social media for their bad motives. As a user, it's the responsibility of users to exercise certain duties and promote responsible use of social media. With the increasing penetration of social media and the internet, misinformation is rampant all across the world and remains a global issue which needs to be addressed properly by implementing strict policies and adopting best practices to fight the misinformation. Users are encouraged to flag and report misinformative or misleading content on social media and should always verify it from authentic sources. Hence creating a safer Internet environment for everyone.

References:

• https://abcnews.go.com/US/experts-fear-hate-extremism-social-media-israel-hamas-war/story?id=104221215
• https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/14/tech/social-media-misinformation-israel-hamas/index.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/business/israel-hamas-misinformation-social-media-x.html
• https://www.africanews.com/2023/10/24/fact-check-misinformation-about-the-israel-hamas-war-is-flooding-social-media-here-are-the//
• https://www.theverge.com/23845672/eu-digital-services-act-explained

‍

Forensic Reality Check

A screenshot shows what appeared on a screen. It does not automatically prove who created the content, whether it was altered, or what happened outside the frame.

Introduction

In today's period of time ,we observe that a screenshot seems like evidence. A screenshot can feel like proof. The screenshot comes with a name, a timestamp, a profile picture and a message all neatly placed inside an app we know well. In cases involving fraud, harassment, workplace conflicts or cybercrime individuals often send a screenshot first to the police, a company or a lawyer. This makes sense. When something troubling shows up on a phone or computer taking a screenshot feels like the thing to do. The screenshot captures the moment like a photo.

There is another side to evidence. A screenshot only shows what was on the screen at that moment. The screenshot does not tell us where the content came from. The screenshot does not show who had control of the account. The screenshot does not say if the image was edited. The screenshot does not reveal what happened before or after the screenshot was taken. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 recognizes records. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam also sets out rules for proving them. That means the real question is not just "Is this screenshot real?" The bigger question is, "Can we explain and verify the story behind it?”

A screenshot is evidence - but not automatically the whole story

Think of a common situation. A person receives a screenshot of a chat in which someone appears to demand money and threaten to publish private documents. The image looks genuine. Yet an investigator would still ask: Was the message actually sent? From which account or device? Does the date and time match the service records? Is the conversation complete?

Those questions do not make the screenshot useless. They make the investigation stronger.

Digital information can be copied, compressed, cropped, forwarded, or edited with little visible sign. NIST describes digital evidence as information of probative value stored or transmitted in binary form and emphasises preservation because digital files are easy to change. [3][4] The forensic mindset is simple: ask whether an image’s origin, context and integrity can be explained.

What makes a screenshot more reliable?

‍

A stronger evidence package normally answers five practical questions:

• Source - Where did the image come from: a phone, laptop, messaging application, email client, cloud account, or another person?

• Context - Does it preserve the relevant username, number, URL, date, time, surrounding messages, and sequence?

• Integrity - Has the original file been retained, and can later changes be detected?

• Corroboration - Do other records support the same event, such as device artifacts, email headers, transaction data, or witness accounts?

• Chain of custody - Who collected it, when, how was it transferred, and where was it stored?

Hashing helps with integrity. A cryptographic hash acts like a digital fingerprint for a file. If the file changes, its hash value changes. NIST recommends hashing digital images and other evidence objects and securely preserving the resulting hash values. [4][5] A hash does not prove the content is truthful; it helps show that the file examined is the file that was preserved.

The Indian legal angle: admissibility is not the same as authenticity

India’s current evidence framework is equally important. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 61 says an electronic or digital record cannot be denied admissibility merely because it is electronic, subject to the Act. Section 62 directs that electronic records are proved in accordance with Section 63. [1]

Section 63 sets out conditions for admissibility and, where it applies, requires a certificate to accompany the electronic record when submitted for admission. The Schedule includes device details and fields for the relevant hash value and algorithm. [2]

‍

There is an important practical nuance: not every screenshot automatically requires the same proof route. Treatment can depend on what is produced, how it was obtained, and how it is tendered. Investigators should preserve the underlying source wherever lawfully possible rather than treat a screenshot as a self-proving substitute for the original record.

In Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 10 March 2026, the Supreme Court considered call detail records rather than screenshots and held, in that case, that the certificate requirement under Section 63 was mandatory for the electronic record relied upon there. [6] The broader lesson is that digital evidence must be presented through the legal proof framework that applies to it.

REALISTIC EXAMPLE  A screenshot arrives. The investigation starts.

Consider a realistic cyber-fraud complaint. A victim receives a screenshot showing what appears to be a message from a senior company executive asking an employee to transfer money urgently. The safest response is not to decide immediately whether it “looks genuine.” The investigator can preserve the original image, record its source, calculate a hash, and look for supporting material: the actual chat or email, device data, account identifiers, timestamps, transaction records, or login history.

‍

Suppose the screenshot says 3:14 p.m., but the underlying account record shows the message was never sent. That contradiction becomes an investigative lead. If the screenshot matches the original device data and independent records, its evidentiary value becomes stronger.

The human side matters too. A victim should not be criticised for taking a screenshot. In many incidents, it is the quickest way to show another person what happened. The forensic response is simply to go one step further: preserve first, verify next, interpret last.

A small checklist can prevent a big evidentiary problem

‍

The bigger lesson

Screenshots are valuable because they can preserve a moment that may later disappear: a threat, a suspicious payment instruction, a spoofed webpage, or a social-media post. But a convincing image is not the same thing as a complete digital record.

Good digital forensics connects the artifact to a source, a timeline, a method of collection, and independent facts. NIST’s work on digital evidence emphasises preservation, controlled handling, and awareness of the limits of forensic conclusions. [3][4] Confidence should follow the evidence, not replace it.

Conclusion

So, can a screenshot be evidence? The important question is whether the screenshot can be verified, put into context and backed up by evidence when the case needs it. For citizens the practical advice is clear: keep the screenshot, do not delete the screenshot, keep the screenshot and do not rely only on a forwarded copy. Preserving the source device or original platform record were lawful and possible.

For investigators and organisations, the standard is higher. Record the source and collection details preserve the screenshot, calculate and document hashes, maintain chain of custody and seek corroboration. A screenshot can open the door to an investigation. Good forensic practice is what helps establish what happened on the side of that door.

References

[1] India Code, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Sections 61-62; commencement from 1 July 2024. Source

[2] India Code, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 63 and Schedule - certificate for electronic records, including device particulars and hash value fields. Source

[3] NIST, Digital Evidence, overview of digital evidence and forensic challenges. Source

[4] NIST, Digital Evidence Preservation: Considerations for Evidence Handlers, NISTIR 8387, 2022. Source

[5] NIST / OSAC Lexicon, “Hash, Hash Value,” 2025. Source

[6] Supreme Court of India, Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2026 INSC 217, judgment dated 10 March 2026. Source

[7] NIST, ANSI/ASTM E3016-18 Standard Guide for Establishing Confidence in Digital and Multimedia Evidence Forensic Results by Error Mitigation Analysis. Source

‍

Introduction

‍

Over the last few years, several public data breaches in Venezuela have revealed a lack of cohesion and progress in its data privacy system and left many people susceptible to fraud, identity theft and long-term harm via the internet. It is clear from these data breaches that when organizations fail to adequately protect their data, both through cybersecurity failures and weak legal protections, they can lead to problems throughout an entire system through which all individuals in the system could potentially suffer.

Among the more notable breaches are the Movistar Venezuela data breach from 2025 and the Cashea App data leak from earlier this year. Each of these examples demonstrates to some extent how the absence of an adequate privacy regulatory scheme can worsen the results of a data breach.

‍

The Movistar Breach: A Regulatory Warning (2025)

‍

Venezuelan digital rights group VE Sin Filtro published a report late in April 2025, which found a database revealed to have been opened onto the internet containing personal information belonging to over 3.2 million Movistar customers. The initial breach contained personal, and confidential, data of Venezuelan citizens such as national identification numbers, full names, city of residence, and phone numbers which could have been exploited to commit identity theft, SIM-swap fraud, and targeted scams.

One significant issue with this situation was that Movistar failed to disclose the breach publicly or contact impacted customers at the time of the disclosure. As a result, there appears to be a significant gap in Sanctions / Other Means of Enforcing Security Countermeasures Laws. Since there are numerous countries that enforce GDPR-style regulations and as such, this matter should lead to a complete investigation and possible fines against those responsible but in Venezuela there is still a lack of accountability.

‍

Cashea App Leak: A 2026 Data Shock

‍

A second alleged data breach came to light in February of 2026. It involved a Venezuelan buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) fintech called Cashea App, which is typically heavily utilized domestically. Reports have circulated that threat actors have been offering a database, believed to hold more than 79 million transaction records. This is more than double the size and sensitivity of the data involved in the Movistar Breach.

According to reports, the leaked data included:

1. Bank account details and payment methods
2. Merchant profiles and internal business identifiers
3. Detailed transaction histories with names, national ID numbers, timestamps, and installment data

This level of exposure goes far beyond basic identifiers. Financial transaction histories combined with personal identifiers enable sophisticated fraud, targeted social engineering, and long-term misuse of financial identities. As with the Movistar breach, no official acknowledgment or notification was issued by Cashea at the time of reporting, again underscoring Venezuela’s weak enforcement environment.

‍

Why These Breaches Matter: The Legal Dimension

‍

The incidents show us that there is a bigger problem with the way Venezuela has set up its framework for protecting data. For instance, the Venezuelan Constitution recognises the principles of data protection and privacy; however, these rights only exist in a theoretical manner; they lack implementing legislation, procedural clarity, and institutional enforcement.

‍

Constitutional Basis of Data Protection

‍

The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) stated the core principles for protecting data are found in the Venezuelan Constitution. After the TSJ issued its 2011 ruling, Article 28 of the Venezuelan Constitution gives individuals the right to know what data the state has about them, how the state uses that data, and to correct or delete any harmful data. Article 60 of the Venezuelan Constitution protects individuals' privacy and restricts excessive data collection by the state.

The Constitutional Chamber also put into place additional guiding principles for how to protect personal data, including:

1. The data subject must give prior informed and revocable consent.
2. The purpose for which the data is collected must be specified and only the minimum amount of information necessary can be collected.
3. The data collected must be accurate and of good quality.
4. There are confidentiality obligations for third parties regarding the use of the data.
5. It is the government's responsibility to put into place procedures and mechanisms to monitor compliance with the data protection laws.
6. There are civil, criminal and administrative liabilities for individuals and legal entities that violate the data protection laws.

But, in a civil law country, when courts make rulings, they usually are persuasive only as opposed to being legally binding, and even constitutional rulings cannot be implemented until enabling legislation is passed.

‍

Absence of a Comprehensive Data Protection Law

‍

In contrast to the European Union's GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), the United States' sectoral approach, and emerging Latin American data protection systems such as the ones in Brazil, Chile and Colombia, Venezuela has no independent data protection law. This lack of law leads to numerous types of uncertainty in the realm of data protection laws:

1. No defined data controller or processor obligations
2. No standardized lawful bases for processing
3. No clear breach notification timelines
4. No independent data protection authority
5. No procedural pathway for individuals to seek redress

As a result, data protection in Venezuela is not treated as an independent legal discipline but instead becomes derivative, arising incidentally within constitutional litigation or sector-specific disputes.

‍

Regulatory Fragmentation and Institutional Weakness

‍

Due to the TSJ decisions made in 2011, there has been a lack of regulatory action taken in a systematic fashion and instead most actions have been done on a case by case basis as valid incidents arise. The National Cybersecurity Council was established in 2024; however, its function is to support the establishment of cybersecurity infrastructure and has no defined powers regarding the enforcement of privacy.

This creates a fragmented institutional landscape where:

1. Authorities lack clear jurisdiction over privacy violations
2. Companies face minimal compliance guidance
3. Individuals struggle to understand or enforce their rights

The Movistar and Cashea incidents highlight how this fragmentation translates into practical impunity following major data exposures.

‍

What’s Next? A Legal Opportunity for Reform

‍

The repercussions of insufficient safeguards for data protection extend past the damage incurred to a person's privacy:

1. Loss of trust in both financial and digital services
2. Heightened likelihood of financial fraud and crime
3. Lack of willingness from foreign companies to conduct business with Venezuela’s platforms.
4. Long-term negative impact on the reputation of domestic companies.
5. Possible inability to access cross-border transfer of data due to other jurisdictions’ decisions to restrict transfers into jurisdictions without cutting-edge enforcement of protections for privacy.

In a digital economy that increasingly requires robust data protection to function successfully, a lack of action to create strong protections will cause a significant economic impact.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Major data breaches such as the ones at Movistar in 2025 and Cashea App in 2026 show that constitutional privacy rights alone are insufficient without enforceable legal framework. Privacy laws must move from being just a principle to being a law that has institutions, procedures, and accountability to make sure the privacy of the users is protected.

Now with the global digital economy being so interconnected, not having regulations creates openings for vulnerabilities for people. If Venezuela hopes to protect their citizens, create an innovation-friendly environment, and compete in the global market, they must implement comprehensive data privacy reforms as soon as possible.

‍

REFERENCES 

‍

1. https://iapp.org/news/a/venezuela-data-breach-highlights-scattered-privacy-regulation
2. https://www.apolocybersecurity.com/en/blog-posts/ciberataque-a-movistar-que-ha-pasado-a-quien-afecta-y-como-proteger-tus-datos
3. https://darknetsearch.com/knowledge/news/en/cashea-app-data-leak-79m-records-exposed-in-venezuela/
4. https://www.binance.com/en-IN/square/post/294369884695410

‍