#FactCheck: Old clip of Greenland tsunami depicts as tsunami in Japan
Executive Summary:
A viral video depicting a powerful tsunami wave destroying coastal infrastructure is being falsely associated with the recent tsunami warning in Japan following an earthquake in Russia. Fact-checking through reverse image search reveals that the footage is from a 2017 tsunami in Greenland, triggered by a massive landslide in the Karrat Fjord.
Claim:
A viral video circulating on social media shows a massive tsunami wave crashing into the coastline, destroying boats and surrounding infrastructure. The footage is being falsely linked to the recent tsunami warning issued in Japan following an earthquake in Russia. However, initial verification suggests that the video is unrelated to the current event and may be from a previous incident.
Fact Check:
The video, which shows water forcefully inundating a coastal area, is neither recent nor related to the current tsunami event in Japan. A reverse image search conducted using keyframes extracted from the viral footage confirms that it is being misrepresented. The video actually originates from a tsunami that struck Greenland in 2017. The original footage is available on YouTube and has no connection to the recent earthquake-induced tsunami warning in Japan
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) confirmed in a blog post on June 19, 2017, that the deadly Greenland tsunami on June 17, 2017, was caused by a massive landslide. Millions of cubic meters of rock were dumped into the Karrat Fjord by the landslide, creating a wave that was more than 90 meters high and destroying the village of Nuugaatsiaq. A similar news article from The Guardian can be found.
Conclusion:
Videos purporting to depict the effects of a recent tsunami in Japan are deceptive and repurposed from unrelated incidents. Users of social media are urged to confirm the legitimacy of such content before sharing it, particularly during natural disasters when false information can exacerbate public anxiety and confusion.
- Claim: Recent natural disasters in Russia are being censored
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
.webp)
Introduction
The rapid advancement of technology, including generative AI, offers immense benefits but also raises concerns about misuse. The Internet Watch Foundation reported that, as of July 2024, over 3,500 new AI-generated child sexual abuse images appeared on the dark web. The UK’s National Crime Agency records 800 monthly arrests for online child threats and estimates 840,000 adults as potential offenders. In response, the UK is introducing legislation to criminalise AI-generated child exploitation imagery, which will be a part of the Crime and Policing Bill when it comes to parliament in the next few weeks, aligning with global AI regulations like the EU AI Act and the US AI Initiative Act. This policy shift strengthens efforts to combat online child exploitation and sets a global precedent for responsible AI governance.
Current Legal Landscape and the Policy Gap
The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 aims to combat CSAM and deepfake pornography by holding social media and search platforms accountable for user safety. It mandates these platforms to prevent children from accessing harmful content, remove illegal material, and offer clear reporting mechanisms. For adults, major platforms must be transparent about harmful content policies and provide users control over what they see.
However, the Act has notable limitations, including concerns over content moderation overreach, potential censorship of legitimate debates, and challenges in defining "harmful" content. It may disproportionately impact smaller platforms and raise concerns about protecting journalistic content and politically significant discussions. While intended to enhance online safety, these challenges highlight the complexities of balancing regulation with digital rights and free expression.
The Proposed Criminalisation of AI-Generated Sexual Abuse Content
The proposed law by the UK criminalises the creation, distribution, and possession of AI-generated CSAM and deepfake pornography. It mandates enforcement agencies and digital platforms to identify and remove such content, with penalties for non-compliance. Perpetrators may face up to two years in prison for taking intimate images without consent or installing equipment to facilitate such offences. Currently, sharing or threatening to share intimate images, including deepfakes, is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, amended by the Online Safety Act 2023. The government plans to repeal certain voyeurism offences, replacing them with broader provisions covering unauthorised intimate recordings. This aligns with its September 2024 decision to classify sharing intimate images as a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, reinforcing its commitment to balancing free expression with harm prevention.
Implications for AI Regulation and Platform Responsibility
The UK's move aligns with its AI Safety Summit commitments, placing responsibility on platforms to remove AI-generated sexual abuse content or face Ofcom enforcement. The Crime and Policing Bill is expected to tighten AI regulations, requiring developers to integrate safeguards against misuse, and the licensing frameworks may enforce ethical AI standards, restricting access to synthetic media tools. Given AI-generated abuse's cross-border nature, enforcement will necessitate global cooperation with platforms, law enforcement, and regulators. Bilateral and multilateral agreements could help harmonise legal frameworks, enabling swift content takedown, evidence sharing, and extradition of offenders, strengthening international efforts against AI-enabled exploitation.
Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
The Crime and Policing Bill marks a crucial step in criminalising AI-generated CSAM and deepfake pornography, strengthening online safety and platform accountability. However, balancing digital rights and enforcement remains a challenge. For effective implementation, industry cooperation is essential, with platforms integrating detection tools and transparent reporting systems. AI ethics frameworks should prevent misuse while allowing innovation, and victim support mechanisms must be prioritised. Given AI-driven abuse's global nature, international regulatory alignment is key for harmonised laws, evidence sharing, and cross-border enforcement. This legislation sets a global precedent, emphasising proactive regulation to ensure digital safety, ethical AI development, and the protection of human dignity.
References
- https://www.iwf.org.uk/about-us/why-we-exist/our-research/how-ai-is-being-abused-to-create-child-sexual-abuse-imagery/
- https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/uk-makes-use-ai-tools-create-child-abuse-material-crime-2025-02-01/
- https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-uk-set-to-ban-ai-tools-for-creating-child-sexual-abuse-images-with-new-laws-3735296/
- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-crime-agency-annual-report-and-accounts-2023-to-2024/national-crime-agency-annual-report-and-accounts-2023-to-2024-accessible#part-1--performance-report
Introduction
In today’s digital world, data has emerged as the new currency that influences global politics, markets, and societies. Companies, governments, and tech behemoths aim to control data because it accords them influence and power. However, a fundamental challenge brought about by this increased reliance on data is how to strike a balance between privacy protection and innovation and utility.
In recognition of these dangers, more than 200 Nobel laureates, scientists, and world leaders have recently signed the Global Call for AI Red Lines. Governments are urged by this initiative to create legally binding international regulations on artificial intelligence by 2026. Its goal is to stop AI from going beyond moral and security bounds, particularly in areas like political manipulation, mass surveillance, cyberattacks, and dangers to democratic institutions.
One way to address the threat to privacy is through pseudonymization, which makes it possible to use data valuable for research and innovation by substituting personal identifiers for artificial ones. Pseudonymization thus directly advances the AI Red Lines initiative's mission of facilitating technological advancement while lowering the risks of data misuse and privacy violations.
The Red Lines of AI: Why do they matter?
The Global Call for AI Red Lines initiative represents a collective attempt to impose precaution before catastrophe, which was done with the objective of recognising the Red Lines in the use of AI tools. Thus, anything that unites the risks of using AI is due to the absence of global safeguards. Some of these Red Lines can be understood as;
- Cybersecurity breaches in the form of exposure of financial and personal data due to AI-driven hacking and surveillance.
- Occurrence of privacy invasions due to endless tracking.
- Generative AI can also help to create realistic fake content, undermining the trust of public discourses, leading to misinformation.
- Algorithmic amplification of polarising content can also threaten civic stability, leading to a demographic disruption.
Legal Frameworks and Regulatory Landscape
The regulations of Artificial Intelligence stand fragmented across jurisdictions, leaving significant loopholes aside. Some of the frameworks already provide partial guidance. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act 2024 bans “unacceptable” AI practices, whereas the US-China Agreement also ensures that nuclear weapons remain under human, not machine-controlled. The UN General Assembly has adopted resolutions urging safe and ethical AI usage, with a binding and elusive global treaty.
On the front of data protection, the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) of EU offers a clear definition of Pseudonymisation under Article 4(5). It also describes a process where personal data is altered in a way that it cannot be attributed to an individual without additional information, which must be stored securely and separately. Importantly, pseudonymised data still qualifies as “personal data” under GDPR. However, India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) 2023 adopts a similar stance. It does not explicitly define pseudonymisation in broad terms, such as “personal data” by including potentially reversible identifiers. According to Section 8(4) of the Act, companies are meant to adopt appropriate technical or organisational measures. International bodies and conventions like the OECD Principles on AI or the Council of Europe Convention 108+ emphasize accountability, transparency, and data minimisation. Collectively, these instruments point towards pseudonymization as a best practice, though interpretations of its scope differ.
Strategies for Corporate Implementation
For a company, pseudonymisation is not just about compliance, it is also a practical solution that offers measurable benefits. By pseudonymising data, businesses can get benefits, such as;
- Enhancing Privacy protection by masking identifiers like names or IDs by reducing the impact of data breaches.
- Preserving Data Utility, unlike having a full anonymisation, pseudonymisation also retains patterns that are essential for analytical innovation.
- Facilitating data sharing can allow organizations to collaborate with their partners and researchers while maintaining proper trust.
According to these benefits, competitive advantages get translated to clauses where customers find it more likely to trust organizations that prioritise data protection, while pseudonymisation further enables the firms to engage in cross-border collaboration without violating local data laws.
Balancing Privacy Rights and Data Utility
Balancing is a central dilemma; on one side lies the case of necessity over data utility, where companies, researchers and governments rely on large datasets to enhance the scale of AI innovation. On the other hand lies the question of the right to privacy, which is a non-negotiable principle protected under the international human rights law.
Pseudonymisation offers a practical compromise by enabling the use of sensitive data while reducing the privacy risks. Taking examples of different domains, such as healthcare, it allows the researchers to work with patient information without exposing identities, whereas in finance, it supports fraud detection without revealing the customer details.
Conclusion
The rapid rise of artificial intelligence has led to the outpacing of regulations, raising urgent questions related to safety, fairness and accountability. The global call for recognising the AI red lines is a bold step that looks in the direction of setting universal boundaries. Yet, alongside the remaining global treaties, practical safeguards are also needed. Pseudonymisation exemplifies such a safeguard, which is legally recognised under the GDPR and increasingly relevant in India’s DPDP Act. It balances the twin imperatives of privacy, protection, and data utility. For organizations, adopting pseudonymisation is not only about ensuring regulatory compliance, rather, it is also about building trust, ensuring resilience, and aligning with the broader ethical responsibilities in this digital age. As the future of AI is debatable, the guiding principles also need to be clear. By embedding techniques for preserving privacy, like pseudonymisation, into AI systems, we can take a significant step towards developing a sustainable, ethical and innovation-driven digital ecosystem.
References
https://www.techaheadcorp.com/blog/shadow-ai-the-risks-of-unregulated-ai-usage-in-enterprises/
https://planetmainframe.com/2024/11/the-risks-of-unregulated-ai-what-to-know/
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/dangers-unregulated-artificial-intelligence
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/06/02/the-15-biggest-risks-of-artificial-intelligence/
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media with the claim that Baloch people celebrated by dancing after Pakistan’s crushing defeat to India in the T20 World Cup. However, research by the CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The video is actually from a Lohri celebration held on January 23 at Government College University in Lahore, and is unrelated to any cricket match. India defeated Pakistan by 61 runs in the T20 World Cup 2026 match held in Colombo last Sunday. India scored 175 runs for the loss of seven wickets in 20 overs, while Pakistan were bowled out for 114 runs in 18 overs.
Claim
The 30-second video was shared on X with the caption, “Baloch people celebrate India’s victory.” The footage shows a group of men dressed in traditional attire dancing around a fire, while a large crowd gathers around and applauds.
Fact Check
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, key frames from the video were extracted and subjected to reverse image search. The search led to an Instagram post uploaded on January 26, 2026, by an account associated with Government College University Lahore. The caption described the performance as a Balochistan cultural dance held at the university’s amphitheatre.
Further research also uncovered another video of the same event, recorded from a different angle and uploaded on January 24, 2026, on Instagram. The caption again confirmed that the event took place at Government College University Lahore.
Conclusion
The evidence confirms that the viral video does not show Baloch people celebrating Pakistan’s defeat in the T20 World Cup. Instead, it depicts a cultural dance performance during a Lohri celebration at Government College University Lahore, and has been shared with a misleading claim.
