#FactCheck – Debunked: Dhoni's Viral Picture Misinterpreted as Political Support

Executive Summary:

‍

A viral claim alleges that following the Supreme Court of India’s August 11, 2025 order on relocating stray dogs, authorities in Delhi NCR have begun mass culling. However, verification reveals the claim to be false and misleading. A reverse image search of the viral video traced it to older posts from outside India, probably linked to Haiti or Vietnam, as indicated by the use of Haitian Creole and Vietnamese language respectively. While the exact location cannot be independently verified, it is confirmed that the video is not from Delhi NCR and has no connection to the Supreme Court’s directive. Therefore, the claim lacks authenticity and is misleading

Claim:

‍

There have been several claims circulating after the Supreme Court of India on 11th August 2025 ordered the relocation of stray dogs to shelters. The primary claim suggests that authorities, following the order, have begun mass killing or culling of stray dogs, particularly in areas like Delhi and the National Capital Region. This narrative intensified after several videos purporting to show dead or mistreated dogs allegedly linked to the Supreme Court’s directive—began circulating online.

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check: 

‍

After conducting a reverse image search using a keyframe from the viral video, we found similar videos circulating on Facebook. Upon analyzing the language used in one of the posts, it appears to be Haitian Creole (Kreyòl Ayisyen), which is primarily spoken in Haiti. Another similar video was also found on Facebook, where the language used is Vietnamese, suggesting that the post associates the incident with Vietnam.

However, it is important to note that while these posts point towards different locations, the exact origin of the video cannot be independently verified. What can be established with certainty is that the video is not from Delhi NCR, India, as is being claimed. Therefore, the viral claim is misleading and lacks authenticity.

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The viral claim linking the Supreme Court’s August 11, 2025 order on stray dogs to mass culling in Delhi NCR is false and misleading. Reverse image search confirms the video originated outside India, with evidence of Haitian Creole and Vietnamese captions. While the exact source remains unverified, it is clear the video is not from Delhi NCR and has no relation to the Court’s directive. Hence, the claim lacks credibility and authenticity.

Claim: Viral fake claim of Delhi Authority culling dogs after the Supreme Court directive on the ban of stray dogs as on 11th August 2025

Claimed On: Social Media

Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

Introduction

With the increasing reliance on digital technologies in the banking industry, cyber threats have become a significant concern. Cyberlaw plays a crucial role in safeguarding the banking sector from cybercrimes and ensuring the security and integrity of financial systems.

The banking industry has witnessed a rapid digital transformation, enabling convenient services and greater access to financial resources. However, this digitalisation also exposes the industry to cyber threats, necessitating the formulation and implementation of effective cyber law frameworks.

Recent Trends in the Banking Industry

Digital Transformation: The banking industry has embraced digital technologies, such as mobile banking, internet banking, and financial apps, to enhance customer experience and operational efficiency.

Open Banking: The concept of open banking has gained prominence, enabling data sharing between banks and third-party service providers, which introduces new cyber risks.

How Cyber Law Helps the Banking Sector

The banking sector and cyber crime share an unspoken synergy due to the mass digitisation of banking services. Thanks to QR codes, UPI and online banking payments, India is now home to 40% of global online banking transactions. Some critical aspects of the cyber law and banking sector are as follows:

Data Protection: Cyberlaw mandates banks to implement robust data protection measures, including encryption, access controls, and regular security audits, to safeguard customer data.

Incident Response and Reporting: Cyberlaw requires banks to establish incident response plans, promptly report cyber incidents to regulatory authorities, and cooperate in investigations.

Customer Protection: Cyberlaw enforces regulations related to online banking fraud, identity theft, and unauthorised transactions, ensuring that customers are protected from cybercrimes.

Legal Framework: Cyberlaw provides a legal foundation for digitalisation in the banking sector, assuring customers that regulations protect their digital transactions and data.

Cybersecurity Training and Awareness: Cyberlaw encourages banks to conduct regular training programs and create awareness among employees and customers about cyber threats, safe digital practices, and reporting procedures.

RBI Guidelines

The RBI, as India’s central banking institution, has issued comprehensive guidelines to enhance cyber resilience in the banking industry. These guidelines address various aspects, including:

Technology Risk Management

Cyber Security Framework

IT Governance

Cyber Crisis Management Plan

Incident Reporting and Response

Recent Trends in Banking Sector Frauds and the Role of Cyber Law

Phishing Attacks: Cyberlaw helps banks combat phishing attacks by imposing penalties on perpetrators and mandating preventive measures like two-factor authentication.

Insider Threats: Cyberlaw regulations emphasise the need for stringent access controls, employee background checks, and legal consequences for insiders involved in fraudulent activities.

Ransomware Attacks: Cyberlaw frameworks assist banks in dealing with ransomware attacks by enabling legal actions against hackers and promoting preventive measures, such as regular software updates and data backups.

Master Directions on Cyber Resilience and Digital Payment Security Controls for Payment System Operators (PSOs)

Draft of Master Directions on Cyber Resilience and Digital Payment Security Controls for Payment System Operators (PSOs) issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The directions provide guidelines and requirements for PSOs to improve the safety and security of their payment systems, with a focus on cyber resilience. These guidelines for PSOs include mobile payment service providers like Paytm or digital wallet payment platforms.

Here are the highlights-

The Directions aim to improve the safety and security of payment systems operated by PSOs by providing a framework for overall information security preparedness, with an emphasis on cyber resilience.

The Directions apply to all authorised non-bank PSOs.

PSOs must ensure adherence to these Directions by unregulated entities in their digital payments ecosystem, such as payment gateways, third-party service providers, vendors, and merchants.

The PSO’s Board of Directors is responsible for ensuring adequate oversight over information security risks, including cyber risk and cyber resilience. A sub-committee of the Board may be delegated with primary oversight responsibilities.

PSOs must formulate a Board-approved Information Security (IS) policy that covers roles and responsibilities, measures to identify and manage cyber security risks, training and awareness programs, and more.

PSOs should have a distinct Board-approved Cyber Crisis Management Plan (CCMP) to detect, contain, respond, and recover from cyber threats and attacks.

A senior-level executive, such as a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), should be responsible for implementing the IS policy and the cyber resilience framework and assessing the overall information security posture of the PSO.

PSOs need to define Key Risk Indicators (KRIs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to identify potential risk events and assess the effectiveness of security controls. The sub-committee of the Board is responsible for monitoring these indicators.

PSOs should conduct a cyber risk assessment when launching new products, services, technologies, or significant changes to existing infrastructure or processes.

PSOs, including inventory management, identity and access management, network security, application security life cycle, security testing, vendor risk management, data security, patch and change management life cycle, incident response, business continuity planning, API security, employee awareness and training, and other security measures should implement various baseline information security measures and controls.

PSOs should ensure that payment transactions involving debit to accounts conducted electronically are permitted only through multi-factor authentication, except where explicitly permitted/relaxed.

Conclusion

The relationship between cyber law and the banking industry is crucial in ensuring a secure and trusted digital environment. Recent trends indicate that cyber threats are evolving and becoming more sophisticated. Compliance with cyber law provisions and adherence to guidelines such as those provided by the RBI is essential for banks to protect themselves and their customers from cybercrimes. By embracing robust cyber law frameworks, the banking industry can foster a resilient ecosystem that enables innovation while safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders or users.