#FactCheck: Viral video claims Ahmedabad plane crash but actually a Hollywood Movie Clip

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.

‍

Executive Summary

‍

‍
A photo of Donald Trump is going viral on social media, showing him raising his fist. Users claim the image was taken during a press event in Washington, when security personnel were escorting him out amid reports of gunfire. Research by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the viral image is AI-generated and is being shared with misleading claims.

‍

Claim

‍

On April 26, 2026, an X user shared the image with the caption: “Thank You, Lord our God, for protecting our President.” The post suggests that Trump made the gesture during a chaotic evacuation at a Washington event.

• https://perma.cc/4A4P-YGAL
• https://x.com/itsrosesm/status/2048342486205206577?s=20 

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

Reports confirm that Trump and senior officials were hurried away from the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on April 25 after gunshots were reportedly heard from a floor above the ballroom. However, no authentic visuals show Trump raising his fist during the evacuation.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/arts/design/trump-photo-raised-fist.html
• https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/11/politics/trump-obama-portrait-white-house 

‍

‍

‍

Further analysis of the viral image indicates signs of digital manipulation. Google’s SynthID detection tool flagged the file as containing SynthID—an invisible watermark embedded in content generated using Google’s AI tools.

‍

Additionally, AI detection platform Hive Moderation assessed that the image is likely AI-generated or a deepfake.
‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The research confirms that the viral image of Donald Trump raising his fist during a Washington incident is not real. It was created using AI and is being circulated with a misleading narrative.

‍

Introduction

‍

There has been a recent surge of misinformation all over social media, claiming that every Indian ought to receive an allowance of ₹2,000 under some "Prime Minister's scheme." The message, which has been circulated far and wide on almost all platforms-WhatsApp, Facebook, Telegram, etc.-has urged users to click on an unfamiliar link to claim the allowance in their bank accounts.

It would seem like a very attractive offer, especially at a time when common citizens are coping with rising costs of living. But upon further examination, it turns out to be an outright online scam. NewsMobile fact-checked the claim and confirmed that no such scheme exists. Thus, the message circulating is a scam that aims to mislead common citizens.

Such an incident is not isolated. Over the years, fraudulent posts falsely offering benefits in the name of the government or well-known brands have been on the rise. These scams are not just about misinformation-they take advantage of trust, lure people into clicking, and sharing personal info that poses serious risks to financial and personal security.

‍

Anatomy of the Viral PM Scheme Scam

‍

The viral message received attention and was written in Hindi. It read:

“सभी नागरिकों को PM योजना के तहत दो हज़ार रुपए का भत्ता प्रदान किया गया है अपने bank खाते में प्राप्त करने के लिए click करें."

(English: “All citizens have been provided an allowance of ₹2000 under the PM scheme. Click to receive it in your bank account.”)

Beneath this was an odd link that, upon clicking through investigation, turned out to be not working and invalid. An examination of government sites, official handle accounts, and other such was done and no announcement for any such allowance was found.

This provides a neat explanation of a phishing attempt by which a scammer induces urgency and temptation in order to lure citizens into clicking a malicious link. While the link may no longer be active, it could very well have once redirected users to websites that harvest personal information such as Aadhaar numbers, bank details, or login credentials.

‍

The Broader Problem: Fake Government Scheme Scams

‍

Some scams have been exploiting the hoax gimmick of the ₹2,000 PM scheme into the wider trend. How do the con men work? They leverage the credibility of governmental initiatives to scam citizens. In the past, fake promises were made concerning free gas cylinders, cash allowances, subsidised rations, or even job opportunities. 

During the COVID times, for instance, fake vaccination registration links and so-called relief scheme offers went viral, preying on the fears and vulnerabilities of ill-informed citizens. Likewise, false schemes associated with reputed companies such as Amazon, Flipkart, TATA Group, and Hermès have also gone viral, promising free gifts or allowances. 

The one thing that makes scams associated with the government very dangerous is the exploitation of people's trust in authority. The common citizen is predisposed to believe the PM scheme or the Government Yojana because of the social credibility accorded to these announcements.

‍

How These Scams Operate

‍

These are scams where the creators intend deception and in the end, gain from defrauding a person. Fraudsters first create clickbait messages that are duly recorded to resemble official communications and often bear the government logos and bear a mix of Hindi-English text with the phrase "Pradhan Mantri Yojana" to make it sound legitimate. The messages then redirect users to bogus websites that really look very much like the government's portals, asking sick persons to enter personal information. Finally, as soon as they have obtained this data, the scammer uses it for identity theft, bank fraud, or sells it on the dark web. Social engineering does play a large role in these scams: here terms of urgency like limited time, last chance, and whatnot get created with the aim of pushing the targets to act on these without thinking. For maximum reach, victims are also asked to forward the message to their friends and family, causing the scammer to go viral across WhatsApp, Facebook, and Telegram.

‍

Risks to Citizens

‍

Risks are serious and manifold to falling prey to these scams. The immediate kind of risk is financial loss: divulging bank account details, an OTP, or credentials may constitute providing attackers the power to drain funds therefrom. Another prevalent kind of identity theft occurs through hijacked Aadhaar, PAN, or personal information that subsequently finds its way into fake loans or SIM activations. Apart from monetary losses, opening malicious links might also make devices infected with spyware or ransomware, thereby invading privacy and security. Victims tend to experience a form of psychological trauma due to feelings of betrayal or humiliation of being deceived, thus discouraging them from reporting, which in turn enables such scams to go undetected.

‍

Best Practices for Prevention

‍

It is prudent to exercise good cyber hygiene and be on the lookout for such scams. The citizens should verify each statement against government-authorised websites like https://www.mygov.in or through press statements of the ministries prior to believing it. One should not click on suspicious links offering money, gifts, or subsidies. Red flags like poor grammar, an unofficial domain name, or too-good-to-be-true offers can enable one to identify the scam in time. Two-factor authentication, antivirus software updates, and securing devices can drastically lower the threat from the technical angle. Equally important is the reporting of issues: always report any suspicious activities to cybercrime.gov.in or to the nearest cyber cell so that the authorities may trace some pattern and issue advisories accordingly. Finally, one can do some good by sharing verified fact checks within their circles to build added strength against misinformation and scams.

‍

Policy and Community Role

‍

While individual awareness is important, collective action must be taken against these fake government scheme scams. Platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and X (Twitter) must tune up fraudsters' message detection mechanisms. In the meantime, Government Bodies must alert citizens periodically on new scams through their official handles/schemes and through community outreach. 

Civil society and fact-checking agencies play an important role in dispelling frequently viral hoaxes. This work must be amplified to reach people's consciousness in regional languages for the very reason that in these terrain zones, forwarded messages are much more trusted.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral ₹2,000 PM scheme scam is a reminder that everything that is viral online cannot be trusted in toto. The scammers of the day are inventing newer scams to gain trust, spread misinformation, and extort innocent citizens.

The best defence will be awareness and alertness. Citizens must verify any claims through official channels before clicking on a link, sharing their data, or even acting upon it in any way. With proper cyber hygiene and avoiding suspicious messages, we can counterattack by reducing the percentage of impact that these scams may have and collaboratively build a secure digital environment. 

As India pushes itself further into a digital ecosystem, both empowering and being resilient to cyber fraud is not a state of individual security, but a national agenda.

‍

References

‍

• https://www.newsmobile.in/nm-fact-checker/fact-check-viral-post-claiming-pm-scheme-offering-rs-2000-allowance-is-a-scam/
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/financial-literacy/investing/beware-of-deepfake-scams-fraudsters-using-ai-videos-to-push-schemes-promising-unrealistic-returns-red-flags-to-watch-out-for/articleshow/124085155.cms
• https://www.business-standard.com/finance/personal-finance/invest-rs-21-000-to-earn-rs-20-lakh-monthly-viral-videos-of-fm-are-fake-125082000517_1.html
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2124728

‍