#Factcheck-Allu Arjun visits Shiva temple after success of Pushpa 2? No, image is from 2017

Executive Summary:

‍

A viral video  (archive link) claims General Upendra Dwivedi, Chief of Army Staff (COAS), admitted to losing six Air Force jets and 250 soldiers during clashes with Pakistan. Verification revealed the footage is from an IIT Madras speech, with no such statement made. AI detection confirmed parts of the audio were artificially generated.

‍

Claim:

‍

The claim in question is that General Upendra Dwivedi, Chief of Army Staff (COAS), admitted to losing six Indian Air Force jets and 250 soldiers during recent clashes with Pakistan.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

Upon conducting a reverse image search on key frames from the video, it was found that the original footage is from IIT Madras, where the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) was delivering a speech. The video is available on the official YouTube channel of ADGPI – Indian Army, published on 9 August 2025, with the description:

“Watch COAS address the faculty and students on ‘Operation Sindoor – A New Chapter in India’s Fight Against Terrorism,’ highlighting it as a calibrated, intelligence-led operation reflecting a doctrinal shift. On the occasion, he also focused on the major strides made in technology absorption and capability development by the Indian Army, while urging young minds to strive for excellence in their future endeavours.”

A review of the full speech revealed no reference to the destruction of six jets or the loss of 250 Army personnel. This indicates that the circulating claim is not supported by the original source and may contribute to the spread of misinformation.

‍

‍

‍

Further using AI Detection tools like Hive Moderation we found that the voice is AI generated in between the lines.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The claim is baseless. The video is a manipulated creation that combines genuine footage of General Dwivedi’s IIT Madras address with AI-generated audio to fabricate a false narrative. No credible source corroborates the alleged military losses.

‍

• Claim: AI-Generated Audio Falsely Claims COAS Admitted to Loss of 6 Jets and 250 Soldiers
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

‍

Introduction

In recent years, the city of Hyderabad/Cyberabad has emerged as a technology hub, a place with the strong presence of multi corporations, Startups, and research institutions, Hyderabad has become a hub of innovations and technological advancement. However, this growing land of cyber opportunities has also become a hub for cybercriminals as well. In this blog post, we shall explore the reasons why professionals are being targeted and the effects of cyber fraud on techies. Through this investigation, we hope to raise awareness about the seriousness of the problem as well as give vital insights and techniques for Cyberabad’s computer workers to defend themselves against cyber theft. We can work together to make Cyberabad’s technology ecosystem safer and more secure.

Defining Cyber Fraud

In today’s age, where everything has an interconnected digital world, cyber fraud cases are increasing daily. Cyber fraud encompasses a wide range of threats and techniques employed by bad actors, such as Phishing, Ransomware, identity theft, online scams, data breaches, and fake websites designed for users. The sophistication of cyber fraud techniques is constantly evolving, making it challenging for individuals and organisations to stay ahead. Cybercriminals use software vulnerabilities, social engineering tactics, and flaws in cybersecurity defences to carry out their harmful operations. Individuals and organisations must grasp these dangers and tactics to protect themselves against cyber fraud.

Impact of Cyber Frauds

The consequences of Falling victim to cyber fraud can be devastating, both personally and professionally. The emotional and financial toll on individuals may be a challenge. Identity theft may lead to damaged credit scores, fraudulent transactions, and years of recovery work to rehabilitate one’s image. Financial fraud can result in depleted bank accounts, unauthorised charges, and substantial monetary losses. Furthermore, being tricked and violated in the digital environment can generate anxiety, tension, and a lack of confidence.

The impact of cyber fraud goes beyond immediate financial losses and can have long-term consequences for individuals’ and organisations’ entire well-being and stability. As the threat environment evolves, it is critical for people and organisations to recognise the gravity of these repercussions and take proactive actions to protect themselves against cyber theft.

Why are Cyberabad Tech Professionals Targeted?

Tech professionals in Cyberabad are particularly vulnerable to cyber due to various factors. Firstly, their expertise and knowledge in technology make them attractive targets for cybercrooks. These professionals possess valuable coding, Software, and administration skills, making them attractive to cybercriminals.

Secondly, the nature of work often involves enormous use of technology, including regular internet contacts, email exchanges, and access to private information. This expanded digital presence exposes them to possible cyber dangers and makes them more vulnerable to fraudsters’ social engineering efforts. Furthermore, the fast-moving nature of the tech industry, with many deadlines and work pressure to deliver, can create a distraction. This can let them click on some malicious links or share sensitive information unknowingly all these factors let the cyber criminals exploit vulnerabilities.

Unveiling the Statistics

According to various reports, 80% of cyber fraud victims in Hyderabad are techies; the rest are the public targeted by cyber crooks. This surprising number emphasises the critical need to address the vulnerabilities and threats this specific segment within the IT community faces.

Going further into the data, we can acquire insights into the many forms of cyber fraud targeting tech workers, the strategies used by cybercriminals, and the impact these occurrences have on individuals and organisations. Examining precise features and patterns within data might give important information for developing successful preventative and protection methods.

Factors Contributing

Several reasons contribute to the elevated risk of cyber fraud among ICT professionals in Cyberabad. Understanding these aspects helps explain why this group is specifically targeted and may be more vulnerable to such assaults.

Technical Expertise: Tech workers frequently have specialised technical knowledge, but this knowledge may only sometimes extend to cybersecurity. Their primary concentration is writing software, designing systems, or implementing technologies, which may result in missing possible vulnerabilities or a lack of overall cybersecurity understanding.

Confidence in Technology: IT workers have a higher level of confidence in technology because of their knowledge and dependence on technology. This trust can sometimes make individuals more vulnerable to sophisticated frauds or social engineering approaches that prey on their faith in the services they utilise.

Time Constraints and Pressure: Tech workers frequently operate under tight deadlines and tremendous pressure to reach project milestones. This may result in hurried decision-making or disregarding possible warning signals of cyber fraud, rendering them more exposed to assaults that prey on time-sensitive circumstances.

Cybercriminals know that technology workers have valuable knowledge, trade secrets, and intellectual property that may be economically profitable. As a result, they are attractive targets for attacks aiming at stealing sensitive data or gaining unauthorised access to critical systems.

The best practices that cyber techies can apply to safeguard their personal and professional data by following these simple tips:

Strong Passwords: create a strong password, using passwords for all your online accounts and changing them regularly. Remember to use unique combinations!

MFA (Multi-Factor Authentication): Enable MFA wherever possible. This provides an extra degree of protection by requiring a second form of verification, such as a code texted to your mobile device and your password.

Use Secured WiFi: Use secure and encrypted Wi-Fi networks, especially while viewing sensitive information. Avoid connecting to public or unprotected networks, as they can be readily exploited. Recognising Red Flags and Staying Ahead

Social Engineering: Be sceptical of unwanted solicitations or offers, both online and offline. Cybercriminals may try to persuade or fool you using social engineering tactics. Before revealing any personal or private information, think critically and confirm the veracity of the request.

Secure Web Browsing: Only browse trustworthy websites with valid SSL certificates (look for “https://” in the URL). Avoid clicking on strange links or downloading files from unknown sources since they may contain malware or ransomware.

Report Suspicious actions: If you encounter any suspicious or fraudulent actions, report them to the relevant authorities, such as the Cyber Crime Police or your organisation’s IT department. Reporting events can assist in avoiding additional harm and aid in identifying and apprehending hackers.

Stay Current on Security Practises: Stay up to speed on the newest cybersecurity risks and best practices. Follow credible sources, participate in cybersecurity forums or seminars, and remain current on new threats and preventative measures.

Conclusion

The rise in cybercrimes and fraud cases among tech experts in Cyberabad is a disturbing trend that requires prompt intervention. We can establish a safer tech cluster that lives on creativity, trust, and resilience by adopting proactive actions, raising awareness, and encouraging cooperation. Let us work together to prevent cybercrime and ensure the future of Cyberabad’s IT ecosystem.

Introduction

As our experiments with Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) continue, companies and individuals look for new ways to incorporate and capitalise on it. This also includes big tech companies betting on their potential through investments. This process also sheds light on how such innovations are being carried out, used, and affect other stakeholders. Google’s AI overview feature has raised concerns from various website publishers and regulators. Recently, Chegg, a US-based tech education company that provides online resources for high school and college students, has filed a lawsuit against Google alleging abuse of monopoly over the searching mechanism.

Legal Background

Google’s AI Overview/Search Generative Experience (SGE) is a feature that incorporates AI into its standard search tool and helps summarise search results. This is then presented at the top, over the other published websites, when one looks for the search result. Although the sources of the information present are linked, they are half-covered, and it is ambiguous to tell which claims made by the AI come from which link. This creates an additional step for the searcher as, to find out the latter, their user interface requires the searcher to click on a drop-down box. Individual publishers and companies like Chegg have argued that such summaries deter their potential traffic and lead to losses as they continue to bid higher for advertisement services that Google offers, only to have their target audience discouraged from visiting their websites. What is unique about the lawsuit that has been filed by Chegg, is that it is based on anti-trust law rather than copyright law, which it has dealt with previously. In August 2024, a US Federal Judge had ruled that Google had an illegal monopoly over internet search and search text advertising markets, and by November, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its proposed remedy. Some of them were giving advertisers and publishers more control of their data flowing through Google’s products, opening Google’s search index to the rest of the market, and imposing public oversight over Google’s AI investments. Currently, the DOJ has emphasised its stand on dismantling the search monopoly through structural separations, i.e., divesting Google of Chrome. The company is slated to defend itself before the DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta starting April 20, 2025.

CyberPeace Insights

As per a report by Statista (Global market share of leading search engines 2015-2025), Google, as the market leader, held a search traffic share of around 89.62 per cent. It is also stated that its advertising services account for the majority of its revenue, which amounted to a total of 305.63 billion U.S. dollars in 2023. The inclusion of the AI feature is undoubtedly changing how we search for things online. Benefits for users include an immediate, convenient scan of general information pertaining to the looked-up subject, but it may also raise concerns on the part of the website publishers and their loss of ad revenue owing to fewer impressions/clicks. Even though links (sources) are mentioned, they are usually buried. Such a searching mechanism questions the incentive on both ends- the user to explore various viewpoints, as people are now satisfied with the first few results that pop up, and the incentive for a creator/publisher to create new content as well as generate an income out of it. There might be a shift to more passive consumption rather than an active one, where one looks up/or is genuinely searching for information.

Conclusion

AI might make life more convenient, but in this case, it might also take away from small businesses, their finances, and the results of their hard work. It is also necessary for regulators, publishers, and users to continue asking such critical questions to keep the accountability of big tech giants in check, whilst not compromising their creations and publications.

References

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/05/13/google-ai-search-io-sge/
• https://www.theverge.com/news/619051/chegg-google-ai-overviews-monopoly
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/google-leans-further-into-ai-generated-overviews-for-its-search-engine/articleshow/118742139.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/03/technology/google-search-antitrust-judge.html
• https://www.odinhalvorson.com/monopoly-and-misuse-googles-strategic-ai-narrative/
• https://cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/artificial-intelligence/google-leans-further-into-ai-generated-overviews-for-its-search-engine/118748621
• https://www.techpolicy.press/the-elephant-in-the-room-in-the-google-search-case-generative-ai/
• https://www.karooya.com/blog/proposed-remedies-break-googles-monopoly-antitrust/
• https://getellipsis.com/blog/googles-monopoly-and-the-hidden-brake-on-ai-innovation/
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google/#:~:text=Google:%20annual%20advertising%20revenue%202001,local%20products%20are%20more%20preferred.
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/1381664/worldwide-all-devices-market-share-of-search-engines/
• https://www.techpolicy.press/doj-sets-record-straight-of-whats-needed-to-dismantle-googles-search-monopoly/

‍