#FactCheck - Philadelphia Plane Crash Video Falsely Shared as INS Vikrant Attack on Karachi Port

Executive Summary
‍

A video showing a massive blaze is going viral on social media with the claim that it captures an “attack” in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, suggesting that the city is witnessing a civil war-like situation.  However, a fact-check by the CyberPeace Research Wing  has found the claim to be false and misleading.

‍

Claim

‍

The viral post was shared by an X (formerly Twitter) user ‘@hitorisenshi142’ on April 15, 2026, with an English caption alleging unrest and violence in Lucknow.

• https://x.com/hitorisenshi142/status/2044423836712767698 
• https://perma.cc/QCA4-FXQQm 

‍

‍

‍

To verify the claim, keyframes from the video were extracted and subjected to a reverse image search. This led to a report published by News18 on April 16, 2026, which featured visuals matching the viral clip.

‍

• https://hindi.news18.com/news/uttar-pradesh/lucknow-lucknow-vikas-nagar-slum-fire-100-cylinders-exploded-ws-l-10375848.html 

‍

‍

According to the report, the video actually shows a devastating fire that broke out in a slum settlement near Ring Road in Sector-12 of Vikas Nagar, Lucknow. The fire rapidly escalated, engulfing around 1,200 huts and leaving over 200 families affected in the nearly three-bigha area. Firefighting operations were extensive, with 22 fire tenders deployed to control the blaze. The situation was further aggravated as nearly 100 LPG cylinders stored in the huts exploded one after another, intensifying the fire and sending thick black smoke across the area.

Further confirmation came from the official X account of Lucknow Police, which shared an update on April 16, 2026. The police clarified that the incident was a fire outbreak in the Vikas Nagar area and that the situation had been brought under control.

• https://x.com/lkopolice/status/2044633511584567415?s=20

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The viral claim suggesting that the video depicts an attack or civil war-like situation in Lucknow is false. The footage is from a fire incident in a slum area and is being circulated with misleading context to spread misinformation.

‍

Introduction

The Senate bill introduced on 19 March 2024 in the United States would require online platforms to obtain consumer consent before using their data for Artificial Intelligence (AI) model training. If a company fails to obtain this consent, it would be considered a deceptive or unfair practice and result in enforcement action from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the AI consumer opt-in, notification standards, and ethical norms for training (AI Consent) bill. The legislation aims to strengthen consumer protection and give Americans the power to determine how their data is used by online platforms. 

The proposed bill also seeks to create standards for disclosures, including requiring platforms to provide instructions to consumers on how they can affirm or rescind their consent. The option to grant or revoke consent should be made available at any time through an accessible and easily navigable mechanism, and the selection to withhold or reverse consent must be at least as prominent as the option to accept while taking the same number of steps or fewer as the option to accept.

The AI Consent bill directs the FTC to implement regulations to improve transparency by requiring companies to disclose when the data of individuals will be used to train AI and receive consumer opt-in to this use. 
The bill also commissions an FTC report on the technical feasibility of de-identifying data, given the rapid advancements in AI technologies, evaluating potential measures companies could take to effectively de-identify user data.

The definition of ‘Artificial Intelligence System’ under the proposed bill

ARTIFICIALINTELLIGENCE SYSTEM- The term artificial intelligence system“ means a machine-based system that—

1. Is capable of influencing the environment by producing an output, including predictions, recommendations or decisions, for a given set of objectives; and
2. 2. Uses machine or human-based data and inputs to

(i) Perceive real or virtual environments;

(ii) Abstract these perceptions into models through analysis in an automated manner (such as by using machine learning) or manually; and

(iii) Use model inference to formulate options for outcomes.

Importance of the proposed AI Consent Bill USA

1. Consumer Data Protection: The AI Consent bill primarily upholds the privacy rights of an individual. Consent is necessitated from the consumer before data is used for AI Training; the bill aims to empower individuals with unhinged autonomy over the use of personal information. The scope of the bill aligns with the greater objective of data protection laws globally, stressing the criticality of privacy rights and autonomy.

2. Prohibition Measures: The proposed bill intends to prohibit covered entities from exploiting the data of consumers for training purposes without their consent. This prohibition extends to the sale of data, transfer to third parties and usage. Such measures aim to prevent data misuse and exploitation of personal information. The bill aims to ensure companies are leveraged by consumer information for the development of AI without a transparent process of consent.

3. Transparent Consent Procedures: The bill calls for clear and conspicuous disclosures to be provided by the companies for the intended use of consumer data for AI training. The entities must provide a comprehensive explanation of data processing and its implications for consumers. The transparency fostered by the proposed bill allows consumers to make sound decisions about their data and its management, hence nurturing a sense of accountability and trust in data-driven practices.

4. Regulatory Compliance: The bill's guidelines call for strict requirements for procuring the consent of an individual. The entities must follow a prescribed mechanism for content solicitation, making the process streamlined and accessible for consumers. Moreover, the acquisition of content must be independent, i.e. without terms of service and other contractual obligations. These provisions underscore the importance of active and informed consent in data processing activities, reinforcing the principles of data protection and privacy.

5. Enforcement and Oversight: To enforce compliance with the provisions of the bill, robust mechanisms for oversight and enforcement are established. Violations of the prescribed regulations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts under its provisions. Empowering regulatory bodies like the FTC to ensure adherence to data privacy standards. By holding covered entities accountable for compliance, the bill fosters a culture of accountability and responsibility in data handling practices, thereby enhancing consumer trust and confidence in the digital ecosystem.

Importance of Data Anonymization

Data Anonymization is the process of concealing or removing personal or private information from the data set to safeguard the privacy of the individual associated with it. Anonymised data is a sort of information sanitisation in which data anonymisation techniques encrypt or delete personally identifying information from datasets to protect data privacy of the subject. This reduces the danger of unintentional exposure during information transfer across borders and allows for easier assessment and analytics after anonymisation. When personal information is compromised, the organisation suffers not just a security breach but also a breach of confidence from the client or consumer. Such assaults can result in a wide range of privacy infractions, including breach of contract, discrimination, and identity theft.

The AI consent bill asks the FTC to study data de-identification methods. Data anonymisation is critical to improving privacy protection since it reduces the danger of re-identification and unauthorised access to personal information. Regulatory bodies can increase privacy safeguards and reduce privacy risks connected with data processing operations by investigating and perhaps implementing anonymisation procedures.

The AI consent bill emphasises de-identification methods, as well as the DPDP Act 2023 in India, while not specifically talking about data de-identification, but it emphasises the data minimisation principles, which highlights the potential future focus on data anonymisation processes or techniques in India.

Conclusion

The proposed AI Consent bill in the US represents a significant step towards enhancing consumer privacy rights and data protection in the context of AI development. Through its stringent prohibitions, transparent consent procedures, regulatory compliance measures, and robust enforcement mechanisms, the bill strives to strike a balance between fostering innovation in AI technologies while safeguarding the privacy and autonomy of individuals.

References:

• https://fedscoop.com/consumer-data-consent-training-ai-models-senate-bill/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20AI%20CONSENT%20Act%20gives,Welch%20said%20in%20a%20statement
• https://www.dataguidance.com/news/usa-bill-ai-consent-act-introduced-house#:~:text=USA%3A%20Bill%20for%20the%20AI%20Consent%20Act%20introduced%20to%20House%20of%20Representatives,-ConsentPrivacy%20Law&text=On%20March%2019%2C%202024%2C%20US,the%20U.S.%20House%20of%20Representatives
• https://datenrecht.ch/en/usa-ai-consent-act-vorgeschlagen/
• https://www.lujan.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/lujan-welch-introduce-billto-require-online-platforms-receive-consumers-consent-before-using-their-personal-data-to-train-ai-models/

‍

Introduction

Twitter Inc.’s appeal against barring orders for specific accounts issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was denied by a single judge on the Karnataka High Court. Twitter Inc. was also given an Rs. 50 lakh fine by Justice Krishna Dixit, who claimed the social media corporation had approached the court defying government directives.

As a foreign corporation, Twitter’s locus standi had been called into doubt by the government, which said they were ineligible to apply Articles 19 and 21 to their situation. Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.

The Issue

In accordance with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the Ministry issued the directives. Nevertheless, Twitter had argued in its appeal that the orders “fall foul of Section 69A both substantially and procedurally.” Twitter argued that in accordance with 69A, account holders were to be notified before having their tweets and accounts deleted. However, the Ministry failed to provide these account holders with any notices.

On June 4, 2022, and again on June 6, 2022, the government sent letters to Twitter’s compliance officer requesting that they come before them and provide an explanation for why the Blocking Orders were not followed and why no action should be taken against them.

Twitter replied on June 9 that the content against which it had not followed the blocking orders does not seem to be a violation of Section 69A. On June 27, 2022, the Government issued another notice stating Twitter was violating its directions. On June 29, Twitter replied, asking the Government to reconsider the direction on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality. On June 30, 2022, the Government withdrew blocking orders on ten account-level URLs but gave an additional list of 27 URLs to be blocked. On July 10, more accounts were blocked. Compiling the orders “under protest,” Twitter approached the HC with the petition challenging the orders.

Legality

Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.

Government attorney Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan argued that tweets mentioning “Indian Occupied Kashmir” and the survival of LTTE commander Velupillai Prabhakaran were serious enough to undermine the integrity of the nation.

Twitter, on the other hand, claimed that its users have pushed for these rights. Additionally, Twitter maintained that under Article 14 of the Constitution, even as a foreign company, they were entitled to certain rights, such as the right to equality. They also argued that the reason for the account blocking in each case was not stated and that Section 69a’s provision for blocking a URL should only apply to the offending URL rather than the entire account because blocking the entire account would prevent the creation of information while blocking the offending tweet only applied to already-created information.

Conclusion

The evolution of cyberspace has been substantiated by big tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and many more. These companies have been instrumental in leading the spectrum of emerging technologies and creating a blanket of ease and accessibility for users. Compliance with laws and policies is of utmost priority for the government, and the new bills and policies are empowering the Indian cyberspace. Non Compliance will be taken very seriously, and the same is legalised under the Intermediary Guidelines 2021 and 2022 by Meity. Referring to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which pertains to an exemption from liability of intermediary in some instances, it was said, “Intermediary is bound to obey the orders which the designate authority/agency which the government fixes from time to time.”