#FactCheck-Protest Video from Nagrota Falsely Linked to Opposition Against Indian Army

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.

‍

Introduction

‍

The digital ecosystem has undergone a profound transformation due to the rapid growth of artificial intelligence, especially through its generative applications. While this progress has introduced innovative technologies, it has also intensified the risks of deepfakes, misinformation, and identity theft. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, introduced by the Government of India, mark an important step toward stronger digital governance and greater oversight of online activities. These latest amendments establish new regulatory standards and represent India’s most comprehensive effort so far to address synthetically generated information, including AI created audio, video, and images that closely imitate reality.

‍

Understanding the Core Shift: From Reactive to Proactive Regulation

‍

The 2026 amendment establishes its main characteristic through its shift from a reactive compliance system to a proactive due diligence system. Intermediaries must now operate as active participants who take responsibility for detecting, marking and controlling dangerous material instead of functioning as neutral channels.  The rules establish an official definition for stands for Synthetically Generated Information(SGI), which they protect through legal regulations, while they address issues such as impersonation scams, election manipulation and non-consensual deepfake content.  The current transition represents a worldwide pattern that shows that governments are starting to make online platforms responsible for the material they display.

‍

Key Provisions of the IT Amendment Rules, 2026

‍

1. Mandatory Labelling of AI-Generated Content 

‍

Platforms must ensure that all AI-generated content is clearly labelled or watermarked to distinguish it from authentic media. Users must reveal their uploaded content's synthetic origin while platforms must confirm the information.

‍

2. The 3-Hour Takedown Rule

‍

The most contentious aspect of this regulation establishes new rules that require content removal to be processed within much shorter timeframes.:

‍

• The government and courts grant three-hour time limits for removing unlawful content.
• The two-hour deadline applies to media that includes non-consensual intimate imagery.

‍

The current time frame allows content removal within three hours, which represents a major decrease from the previous content removal time, which lasted between 24 and 36 hours, because online misinformation needs urgent attention.

‍

3. Traceability and Metadata Requirements

‍

The rules require AI-generated content to include both digital fingerprints and metadata, which enables traceability and accountability through their embedded digital fingerprints. The provision serves as an essential tool for law enforcement to investigate cases while it helps identify which parties generated harmful content.

‍

4. Safe Harbour Conditionality

‍

Intermediaries who do not meet the following three conditions risk losing their safe harbour protection through Section 79 of the IT Act:

‍

• The first requirement demands that intermediaries must implement proper labelling. 
• The second requirement demands that intermediaries must complete their takedown responsibilities within specific timeframes 
• The third requirement demands that intermediaries must complete their due diligence tasks. 

‍

This development represents a major transition for digital platforms, which will face increased responsibility for their actions.

‍

5. Strengthened Grievance Redressal

‍

The amendment establishes two new requirements for platforms. The amendment requires platforms to create systems that operate at all times to monitor their compliance with regulations.

‍

Significance: Why These Rules Matter

‍

The 2026 amendments are significant for multiple reasons:

‍

• The rules require labelling and rapid content removal, which helps to stop the viral dissemination of misleading information.
• The framework provides better identity protection, defamation defence and protection against non-consensual imagery.
• The new rules make intermediaries responsible for their own compliance failures.
• The regulation of AI-generated misinformation protects democratic processes during electoral periods and public discussions.

‍

The rules demonstrate India's goal to establish international standards for AI governance and digital responsibility.

‍

Challenges and Concerns

‍

The amendments present key issues that exist despite their positive aspects:

‍

• The process of removing content at high speed creates risks for legitimate expression because safeguards need to be established through careful planning. 
• The technical and infrastructural requirements governing compliance create financial burdens for smaller platforms that operate as intermediaries. 

‍

The existing challenges demonstrate the necessity for a solution that protects both human rights and security needs.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The IT Amendment Rules, 2026, establish a critical turning point for India's progress toward digital governance. The framework aims to establish a more secure digital environment through its solution of AI-generated content and deepfake detection problems, which create transparency and accountability issues. The rules will achieve their goals through proper implementation, which requires creating quick enforcement methods that protect both legal processes and free speech rights. The ongoing development of AI technology requires regulatory systems to keep changing while including all citizens and upholding democratic principles. 

‍

References

‍

• https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/it-rules-amendment-2026
• https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/indias-new-3-hour-deepfake-removal-rule-experts-urge-strict-compliance-10528122
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/governments-new-it-rules-make-ai-content-labelling-mandatory-give-google-youtube-instagram-and-other-platforms-3-hours-for-takedowns/articleshow/128157496.cms
• https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/information-technology-amendment-rules-2026
• https://visionias.in/current-affairs/news-today/2026-02-11/science-and-technology/government-notified-the-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-media-ethics-code-amendment-rules-2026

‍

Introduction

‍

The use of AI in content production, especially images and videos, is changing the foundations of evidence. AI-generated videos and images can mirror a person’s facial features, voice, or actions with a level of fidelity to which the average individual may not be able to distinguish real from fake. The ability to provide creative solutions is indeed a beneficial aspect of this technology. However, its misuse has been rapidly escalating over recent years. This creates threats to privacy and dignity, and facilitates the creation of dis/misinformation. Its real-world consequences are the manipulation of elections, national security threats, and the erosion of trust in society. 

‍

Why India Needs Deepfake Regulation

‍

Deepfake regulation is urgently needed in India, evidenced by the recent Rashmika Mandanna incident, where a hoax deepfake of an actress created a scandal throughout the country. This was the first time that an individual's image was superimposed on the body of another woman in a viral deepfake video that fooled many viewers and created outrage among those who were deceived by the video. The incident even led to law enforcement agencies issuing warnings to the public about the dangers of manipulated media.

This was not an isolated incident; many influencers, actors, leaders and common people have fallen victim to deepfake pornography, deepfake speech scams, defraudations, and other malicious uses of deepfake technology. The rapid proliferation of deepfake technology is outpacing any efforts by lawmakers to regulate its widespread use. In this regard, a Private Member’s Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in its Winter Session. This proposal was presented to the Lok Sabha as an individual MP's Private Member's Bill. Even though these have had a low rate of success in being passed into law historically, they do provide an opportunity for the government to take notice of and respond to emerging issues. In fact, Private Member's Bills have been the catalyst for government action on many important matters and have also provided an avenue for parliamentary discussion and future policy creation. The introduction of this Bill demonstrates the importance of addressing the public concern surrounding digital impersonation and demonstrates that the Parliament acknowledges digital deepfakes to be a significant concern and, therefore, in need of a legislative framework to combat them.

‍

Key Features Proposed by the New Deepfake Regulation Bill

‍

The proposed legislation aims to create a strong legal structure around the creation, distribution and use of deepfake content in India. Its five core proposals  are: 

1. Prior Consent Requirement: individuals must give their written approval before producing or distributing deepfake media, including digital representations of themselves, as well as their faces, images, likenesses and voices. This aims to protect women, celebrities, minors, and everyday citizens against the use of their identities with the intent to harm them or their reputations or to harass them through the production of deepfakes.

2. Penalties for Malicious Deepfakes: Serious criminal consequences should be placed for creating or sharing deepfake media, particularly when it is intended to cause harm (defame, harass, impersonate, deceive or manipulate another person). The Bill also addresses financially fraudulent use of deepfakes, political misinformation, interfering with elections and other types of explicit AI-generated media. 

3. Establishment of a Deepfake Task Force: To look at the potential impact of deepfakes on national security, elections and public order, as well as on public safety and privacy. This group will work with academic institutions, AI research labs and technology companies to create advanced tools for the detection of deepfakes and establish best practices for the safe and responsible use of generative AI. 

4. Creation of a Deepfake Detection and Awareness Fund: To assist with the development of tools for detecting deepfakes, increasing the capacity of law enforcement agencies to investigate cybercrime, promoting public awareness of deepfakes through national campaigns, and funding research on artificial intelligence safety and misinformation.

‍

How Other Countries Are Handling Deepfakes

‍

1. United States
Many States in the United States, including California and Texas, have enacted laws to prohibit the use of politically deceptive deepfakes during elections. Additionally, the Federal Government is currently developing regulations requiring that AI-generated content be clearly labelled. Social Media Platforms are also being encouraged to implement a requirement for users to disclose deepfakes.

2. United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to create or distribute intimate deepfake images without consent; violators face jail time. The Online Safety Act emphasises the accountability of digital media providers by requiring them to identify, eliminate, and avert harmful synthetic content, which makes their role in curating safe environments all the more important.

3. European Union:
The EU has enacted the EU AI Act, which governs the use of deepfakes by requiring an explicit label to be affixed to any AI-generated content. The absence of a label would subject an offending party to potentially severe regulatory consequences; therefore, any platform wishing to do business in the EU should evaluate the risks associated with deepfakes and adhere strictly to the EU's guidelines for transparency regarding manipulated media.

4. China:
China has among the most rigorous regulations regarding deepfakes anywhere on the planet. All AI-manipulated media will have to be marked with a visible watermark, users will have to authenticate their identities prior to being allowed to use advanced AI tools, and online platforms have a legal requirement to take proactive measures to identify and remove synthetic materials from circulation.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Deepfake technology has the potential to be one of the greatest (and most dangerous) innovations of AI technology. There is much to learn from incidents such as that involving Rashmika Mandanna, as well as the proliferation of deepfake technology that abuses globally, demonstrating how easily truth can be altered in the digital realm. The new Private Member's Bill created by India seeks to provide for a comprehensive framework to address these abuses based on prior consent, penalties that actually work, technical preparedness, and public education/awareness. With other nations of the world moving towards increased regulation of AI technology, proposals such as this provide a direction for India to become a leader in the field of responsible digital governance.

‍

References 

‍

1. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/lok-sabha-introduces-bill-to-regulate-deepfake-content-with-consent-rules-9761943
2. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/shiv-sena-mp-introduces-private-members-bill-to-regulate-deepfakes/articleshow/125802794.cms
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-67305557
4. https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/ag-data-dive/california-deepfake-laws-first-in-country-to-take-effect
5. https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-21-165/ 
6. https://www.mishcon.com/news/when-ai-impersonates-taking-action-against-deepfakes-in-the-uk#:~:text=As%20of%2031%20January%202024,of%20intimate%20deepfakes%20without%20consent. 
7. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-tech-ai-deepfakes-labeling-rules-images-elections-iti-c2pa/ 
8. https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/china-seeks-to-root-out-fake-news-and-deepfakes-with-new-online-content-rules-idUSKBN1Y30VT/

‍