#FactCheck-Viral Rescue Video From Prayagraj Falsely Shared as Nepal Flood Footage

Introduction

For years, when Meta's automated systems flagged suspected child sexual abuse material on Facebook or Instagram involving an Indian child, that information did not go straight to an Indian police station. It went first to a private, US based nonprofit, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), which would then decide how and when to route the relevant details back to law enforcement in the country where the crime actually happened. That indirect chain has now been shortened. In mid September 2026, senior Indian government officials confirmed that Meta had agreed, for the first time among major social media platforms operating in India, to report child sexual abuse cases and details of repeat offenders directly to the cybercrime division of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, commonly known as I4C, under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Google followed within days with a similar commitment of its own.

How the reporting actually worked before this

Under US federal law, Meta and every other American headquartered platform is legally obligated to report CSAM instances to NCMEC, facing criminal liability, financial penalties, and the loss of legal safe harbour protections if they fail to do so. NCMEC would then coordinate with law enforcement agencies in the relevant country. In India's case, that meant a 2019 memorandum of understanding between NCMEC and the National Crime Records Bureau, through which more than 69 lakh CyberTipline reports had reportedly been shared with Indian states and union territories by early 2024. The structural problem was not the volume of reports; it was the layer of institutional distance built into every single one of them. As one government official put it plainly, an Indian law enforcement agency was, in effect, made to wait on a private American nonprofit for information about a crime committed on Indian soil against an Indian child, and NCMEC itself has little to no operational presence in India to manage that handoff quickly.

That distance had real, documented costs. Officials directly linked slow data sharing to delayed CSAM investigations, describing situations where exploitation was actively ongoing while Indian agencies remained one step removed from the account level details, IP addresses, and identifying information that could have accelerated a rescue or an arrest.

What actually changed, and why now

This shift did not emerge from a routine policy review. It followed sustained government pressure through 2026, including a formal inquiry launched by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights into Meta India's child safety policies, multiple summons issued to Meta India head, and a July 2026 controversy in which Meta was found to have run paid Instagram advertisements allegedly directing users toward Telegram channels distributing CSAM. 

Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw directly raised the direct reporting demand with Meta's Chief of Global Affairs, Joel Kaplan, during a visit to New Delhi in August 2026, and separately questioned whether Meta could still claim to be a "simple intermediary" given that it profits from advertisement placement and exercises systems level control over ad distribution. Under the new arrangement, account level details, including names, associated email addresses, and IP addresses, will now flow directly to I4C, which officials say should meaningfully compress the time between detection and actionable law enforcement response.

Why this is a welcome step, but not a solved problem

There is genuine reason to treat this as meaningful progress. For years, reporting routed through NCMEC meant Indian agencies were effectively once removed from data concerning crimes committed on Indian soil, against Indian children. Direct reporting to I4C shortens that distance and gives investigators quicker access to information that matters most in time sensitive cases, where every day of delay can mean continued access, continued distribution, or a victim who remains unidentified.

That said, this should not be described as a finished problem, and its real value will depend on at least three things.

The first is the depth of data actually shared. Account level details, a name, an email address, an IP address, are a starting point for an investigation, not an end point. Whether the new arrangement includes the kind of contextual detail investigators actually need to build a prosecutable case, rather than simply a faster version of the same limited data packet previously routed through NCMEC, remains to be seen in practice rather than in the announcement itself.

The second is institutional capacity on the receiving end. I4C and state cyber cells will now be positioned to receive a higher volume of reports arriving faster than before, but a faster pipeline only produces better outcomes if the infrastructure receiving it can actually convert that inflow into timely, actionable results on the ground. India's cyber cells have historically been understaffed and unevenly resourced across states, with some districts operating with only a handful of trained personnel handling cybercrime alongside a broad range of other digital offences. A genuinely improved reporting channel could, in that context, simply shift the bottleneck downstream from Washington to a district cyber cell rather than eliminate it, unless the surge in report volume is matched by a corresponding investment in trained staff, forensic capacity, and case management systems capable of prioritising the most time sensitive reports first.

The third is consistency across the industry. Meta and Google have now committed to this model, but whether it extends reliably across every major platform operating in India, rather than remaining an arrangement secured through targeted pressure on one or two companies at a time, will determine whether this becomes a systemic fix or a set of isolated exceptions.

The quieter tension nobody has fully resolved

There is also a more technical reality worth naming honestly. As platforms adopt end to end encryption more broadly, extending it across messaging services and, in some cases, considering it for other content types, the pool of CSAM content that can actually be automatically detected narrows, even as the reporting pipeline for whatever is detected improves. WhatsApp itself has argued in Indian courts, including in its ongoing challenge to the IT Rules' traceability requirements, that end to end encryption and message traceability are close to mutually exclusive, a position echoed by cryptography experts including Signal's Moxie Marlinspike, who has stated plainly that identifying a message's originator at the very least undermines, and likely breaks, the purpose of end to end encryption altogether. Faster reporting channels do not, by themselves, compensate for reduced visibility into content that a platform's own encryption prevents it from scanning in the first place. That tension, between strengthening user privacy through encryption and strengthening child safety through detection, sits underneath this entire announcement and deserves sustained attention from technologists, platforms, and child safety practitioners alike, rather than being treated as resolved simply because reporting speed has improved.

India's National Human Rights Commission has already flagged this directly in its own advisory, recommending that platforms using end to end encryption be required to devise additional protocols or technology specifically to monitor CSAM circulation, an unresolved and technically difficult ask that sits alongside, rather than instead of, the reporting improvements announced this month.

What this actually represents

The most accurate way to characterise this development is as a meaningful first step in platform accountability toward children in India, not a finish line. Meta agreeing to report directly, rather than through a private American intermediary, closes a real structural gap that officials say genuinely delayed investigations. But the task now shifts to India itself: building the institutional capacity at I4C and in state cyber cells to make full use of what is finally being offered, extending the same commitment across the rest of the industry rather than platform by platform, and confronting the encryption question honestly rather than treating faster reporting as a substitute for solving it.

A judicial note worth remembering

It is worth noting that Indian courts pushed for this same sensitivity well before it became routine practice. The Supreme Court, in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024, directed that the term "child pornography" be replaced with "child sexual abuse and exploitation material" across legal and public usage, holding that the word "pornography" wrongly implies consent and normalises what is, in fact, a recorded act of abuse. That judicial insistence on precise language is a useful reminder that reporting frameworks like this one will ultimately be judged not just on speed, but on whether they treat the material, and the children in it, with the gravity courts have already demanded.

References

1. https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/meta-agrees-to-share-csam-details-with-indian-law-enforcement-agencies-125091500052_1.html
2. https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/google-india-to-share-csam-case-details-with-govt-cybercrime-division-126092101062_1.html
3. https://www.storyboard18.com/advertising/ncpcr-summons-meta-india-md-again-over-child-abuse-ads-ws-l-110781.htm
4. https://www.superprep.io/current-affairs/meta-report-csam-directly-to-indias-cybercrime-portal
5. https://theprint.in/india/specialised-central-police-unit-use-of-technology-to-proactively-detect-csam-nhrc-advisory/1822223/
6. https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/whatsapp-delhi-high-court-traceability-end-to-end-encryption-privacy-risk-174743
7. https://www.forbesindia.com/article/take-one-big-story-of-the-day/traceability-and-endtoend-encryption-cannot-coexist-on-digital-messaging-platforms-experts/66969/1

‍

Executive Summary:

In recent times an image showing the President of AIMIM, Asaduddin Owaisi holding a portrait of Hindu deity Lord Rama, has gone viral on different social media platforms. After conducting a reverse image search, CyberPeace Research Team then found that the picture was fake. The screenshot of the Facebook post made by Asaduddin Owaisi in 2018 reveals him holding Ambedkar’s picture. But the photo which has been morphed shows Asaduddin Owaisi holding a picture of Lord Rama with a distorted message gives totally different connotations in the political realm because in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Asaduddin Owaisi is a candidate from Hyderabad. This means there is a need to ensure that before sharing any information one must check it is original in order to eliminate fake news.

Claims:

AIMIM Party leader Asaduddin Owaisi standing with the painting of Hindu god Rama and the caption that reads his interest towards Hindu religion.

Fact Check:

In order to investigate the posts, we ran a reverse search of the image. We identified a photo that was shared on the official Facebook wall of the AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi on 7th April 2018.

Comparing the two photos we found that the painting Asaduddin Owaisi is holding is of B.R Ambedkar whereas the viral image is of Lord Rama, and the original photo was posted in the year 2018.

Hence, it was concluded that the viral image was digitally modified to spread false propaganda.

Conclusion:

The photograph of AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi holding up one painting of Lord Rama is fake as it has been morphed. The photo that Asaduddin Owaisi uploaded on a Facebook page on 7 Apr 2018 depicted him holding a picture of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. This photograph was digitally altered and the false captions were written to give an altogether different message of Asaduddin Owaisi. It has even highlighted the necessity of fighting fake news that has spread widely through social media platforms especially during the political realm.

• Claim:  AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi was holding a painting of the Hindu god Lord Rama in his hand.
• Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter)
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍

‍

Introduction

A 33-year-old MBA graduate and 36-year-old software engineer set up the cybercrime hub in one bedroom. They formed the nameless private enterprise two years ago and hired the two youngsters as employees. The police revealed that the fraudsters moved Rs 854 crore rapidly through 84 bank accounts in the last two years. They were using eight mobile phones active during the day and night for their malicious operations. This bad actors group came in the eyes of the police when a 26-year-old woman filed a complaint, she was lured and cheated for Rs 8.5 lakh on the pretext of making small investments for high returns. It led to cyber crime police on their doorstep. The police discovered that they were operating a massive cyber fraud network from that single room, targeting a large number of people for committing cyber fraud through offering investment schemes and luring innocent people. 

How cybercrime fraudsters lured the victims?

The Bangalore police have busted a cyber fraud scam worth 854 Crore rupees. And police have arrested 6 accused. These bad actors illegally deceived numerous victims on the pretext of investment schemes. The gang used to lure them through WhatsApp and Telegram. Initially, the people were asked to invest small amounts, promising daily profits ranging from 1 thousand to 5 thousand rupees. As the trust grew, thousands of victims indulged in investments ranging from 1 lack to 10 lack rupees. This Money luring modus operandi was used by the fraudsters to attract them and get the victims to invest more and more. The amount invested by the victims was deposited into various bank accounts by the fraudsters. When the victims tried to withdraw their amount after depositing they were unable to do so. Soon after the amount was received, the accused gang would launder the money and divert it to other accounts. 

Be cautious of online investment fraud 

It concerns all of us who used to invest online. The Bangalore police have busted cyber crime or cyber investment fraud of 854 crore rupees. The 6 members of the gang that the police have arrested used to approach victims through WhatsApp and telegram to convince them to invest small amounts, from 1 thousand to 10 thousand at the bare minimum and promising them returns or profit amount per day and later lock this amount and diverting it into different bank accounts, ensuring that those get invested never get access to it again.  Now, this went on in the country receiving a large number of cases that have been registered from various states in the country. 

Advisory and best practices

• It is important to mention that there could be several other cybercrime investment frauds like this that you may not even be aware of. Hence, this incident of massive online investment fraud operated from the IT capital of the country definitely acts as an eye-opener for all of us. We urge people to be cautious and raise the alarm about any such cyber crime or investment fraud that they see in the cyber world today. 
• In the age of the internet, where there is a large number of mobile users in the country, and users look for a source of income on the internet and use it to invest their money, it is important to be aware of such fraud and be cautious and take proper precautions before investing in any such online scheme. It is always advisable to invest only in legitimate sources and after conducting due diligence.
• Be cautious and do your research: Whenever you are investing in any scheme or in digital currency, make sure to verify the authenticity or legitimacy of the person or company who is offering such service. Check the reviews, official website, and feedback from authentic sources. Find out whether the agents or brokers who contact you are licensed to operate in your state and are compliant with regulators or other investors. 
• Verify the credentials: Check the genuineness by checking the licenses, registration and certification of the person or company offering such services, whether he is authorised or not.
• Be Skeptical of offers which seem to be too good: If it sounds too good, be cautious and inquire about its authenticity, such as unsolicited offers. Be especially careful if you receive an unsolicited pitch to invest in a particular company or see it praised online but if you could not find current financial information about it from independent sources. It could be a fraudulent scheme. It is advisable to compare promised yields with current returns on well-known stock indexes.
• Seek Expert Advice: If you are a beginner in online investment, you may seek advice from reliable resources such as financial advisors who can provide more clarity on aspects of investment and guidance to help you make informed decisions.
• Avoid Unreliable Platforms: Be cautious and stick to authorised established agencies. Be cautious when dealing with a person or company lacking sufficient user reviews and credible security measures.
• Protect yourself online: Protect yourself online. Fraudsters target users on online and social marketing sites and commit various online frauds; hence, it's important to be cautious and protect yourself online. So be cautious and make your own sound decision after all analysis while investing in any such services. 
• Report Suspicious Accounts: If you encounter any social media accounts, social media groups or profiles which seem suspicious and engaged in fraudulent services, you must report such profiles to the respective platform immediately.
• Report cyber crimes to law enforcement agencies: A powerful resource available to victims of cybercrime is the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, equipped with a 24x7 helpline number, 1930. This portal serves as a centralised platform for reporting cybercrimes, including financial fraud.

Conclusion:

This recent cyber investment fraud worth Rs 854 Crore, orchestrated by a group of fraudsters operating from a single room, serves as a stark reminder of the risks posed by bad actors. This incident underscores the importance of being vigilant when it comes to online investments and financial transactions. As we navigate the vast and interconnected landscape of the internet, it is imperative that we exercise due diligence and employ best practices to protect ourselves. We need to be cautious and protected from falling victim to these fraudulent schemes, actively reporting suspicious accounts and cybercrimes to relevant authorities through resources like the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal will contribute to helping stop these types of cyber crimes. Knowledge and awareness are some of the biggest factors we have in fighting back against such cyber frauds in this digital age and making a safer digital environment for everyone.

References

• https://www.news18.com/india/bengaluru-cyber-crime-rs-854-crore-84-banks-accounts-fraud-network-one-bedroom-house-yelahanka-karnataka-8618426.html
• https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/cyber-crime-bengaluru-links-over-5000-cases-india-8982753/lite/

‍

‍