#FactCheck - Viral image circulating on social media depicts a natural optical illusion from Epirus, Greece.
Executive Summary:
A viral image circulating on social media claims it to be a natural optical illusion from Epirus, Greece. However, upon fact-checking, it was found that the image is an AI-generated artwork created by Iranian artist Hamidreza Edalatnia using the Stable Diffusion AI tool. CyberPeace Research Team found it through reverse image search and analysis with an AI content detection tool named HIVE Detection, which indicated a 100% likelihood of AI generation. The claim of the image being a natural phenomenon from Epirus, Greece, is false, as no evidence of such optical illusions in the region was found.
Claims:
The viral image circulating on social media depicts a natural optical illusion from Epirus, Greece. Users share on X (formerly known as Twitter), YouTube Video, and Facebook. It’s spreading very fast across Social Media.
Similar Posts:
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the Posts, the CyberPeace Research Team first checked for any Synthetic Media detection, and the Hive AI Detection tool found it to be 100% AI generated, which is proof that the Image is AI Generated. Then, we checked for the source of the image and did a reverse image search for it. We landed on similar Posts from where an Instagram account is linked, and the account of similar visuals was made by the creator named hamidreza.edalatnia. The account we landed posted a photo of similar types of visuals.
We searched for the viral image in his account, and it was confirmed that the viral image was created by this person.
The Photo was posted on 10th December, 2023 and he mentioned using AI Stable Diffusion the image was generated . Hence, the Claim made in the Viral image of the optical illusion from Epirus, Greece is Misleading.
Conclusion:
The image claiming to show a natural optical illusion in Epirus, Greece, is not genuine, and it's False. It is an artificial artwork created by Hamidreza Edalatnia, an artist from Iran, using the artificial intelligence tool Stable Diffusion. Hence the claim is false.
Related Blogs
Introduction
Law grows by confronting its absences, it heals through its own gaps. States often find themselves navigating a shared frontier without a mutual guide or lines of law in an era of expanding digital boundaries and growing cyber damages. The United Nations General Assembly ratified the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime on December 24, 2024, and more than sixty governments were in attendance in the signing ceremony on 24th & 25th October this year, marking a moment of institutional regeneration and global commitment.
A new Lexicon for Global Order
The old liberal order is being strained by growing nationalism, economic fracturing, populism, and great-power competition as often emphasised in the works of scholars like G. John Iken berry and John Mearsheimer. Multilateral arrangements become more brittle in such circumstances. Therefore, the new cybercrimes convention represents not only a legal tool but also a resurgence of international promise, a significant win for collective governance in an uncertain time. It serves as a reminder that institutions can be rebuilt even after they have been damaged.
In Discussion: The Fabric of the Digital Polis
The digital sphere has become a contentious area. On the one hand, the US and its allies support stakeholder governance, robust individual rights, and open data flows. On the other hand, nations like China and Russia describe a “post-liberal cyber order” based on state mediation, heavily regulated flows, and sovereignty. Instead of focusing on ideological dichotomies, India, which is positioned as both a rising power and a voice of the Global South, has offered a viewpoint based on supply-chain security, data localisation, and capacity creation. Thus, rather than being merely a regulation, the treaty arises from a framework of strategic recalibration.
What Changed & Why it Matters
There have been regional cybercrime accords up to this point, such as the Budapest Convention. The goal of this new international convention, which is accessible to all UN members, is to standardise definitions, evidence sharing and investigation instruments. 72 states signed the Hanoi signature event in October, 2025, demonstrating an unparalleled level of scope and determination. In addition to establishing structures for cooperative investigations, extradition, and the sharing of electronic evidence, it requires signatories to criminalise acts such as fraud, unlawful access to systems, data interference, and online child exploitation.
For the first time, a legally obligatory global architecture aims to harmonise cross-border evidence flows, mutual legal assistance, and national procedural laws. Cybercrime offers genuine promise for community defence at a time when it is no longer incidental but existential, attacks on hospitals, schools and infrastructure are now common, according to the Global Observatory.
Holding the Line: India’s Deliberate Path in the Age of Cyber Multilateralism
India takes a contemplative rather than a reluctant stance towards the UN Cybercrime Treaty. Though it played an active role during the drafting sessions and lent its voice to the shaping of global cyber norms, New Delhi is yet to sign the convention. Subtle but intentional, the reluctance suggests a more comprehensive reflection, an evaluation of how international obligations correspond with domestic constitutional protections, especially the right to privacy upheld by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017).
Prudence is the reason for this halt. Policy circles speculate that the government is still assessing the treaty’s consequences for national data protection, surveillance regimes, and territorial sovereignty. Officials have not provided explicit justifications for India’s refusal to join. India’s position has frequently been characterised by striking a careful balance between digital sovereignty and taking part in cooperative international regimes. In earlier negotiations, India had even proposed including clauses to penalise “offensive messages” on social media, echoing the erstwhile Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, but the suggestion found little international traction.
Advocates for digital rights such as Raman Jit Singh Chima of Access Now have warned that ensuring that the treaty’s implementation upholds constitutional privacy principles may be necessary for India to eventually endorse it. He contends that the treaty’s wording might not entirely meet India’s legal requirements in the absence of such voluntary pledges.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres praised the agreement as “a powerful, legally binding instrument to strengthen our collective defences against “cybercrime” during its signing in Hanoi. The issue for India is to make sure that multilateral collaboration develops in accordance with constitutional values rather than to reject that vision. Therefore, the path forward is one of assertion rather than absence, careful march towards a cyber future that protects freedom and sovereignty.
Sources:
Introduction
The geographical world has physical boundaries, but the digital one has a different architecture and institutions are underprepared when it comes to addressing cybersecurity breaches. Cybercrime, which may lead to economic losses, privacy violations, national security threats and have psycho-social consequences, is forecast to continuously increase between 2024 and 2029, reaching an estimated cost of at least 6.4 trillion U.S. dollars (Statista). As cyber threats become persistent and ubiquitous, they are becoming a critical governance challenge. Lawmakers around the world need to collaborate on addressing this emerging issue.
Cybersecurity Governance and its Structural Elements
Cybersecurity governance refers to the strategies, policies, laws, and institutional frameworks that guide national and international preparedness and responses to cyber threats to governments, private entities, and individuals. Effective cybersecurity governance ensures that digital risks are managed proactively while balancing security with fundamental rights like privacy and internet freedom. It includes, but is not limited to :
- Policies and Legal Frameworks: Laws that define the scope of cybercrime, cybersecurity responsibilities, and mechanisms for data protection. Eg: India’s National Cybersecurity Policy (NCSP) of 2013, Information Technology Act, 2000, and Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, EU’s Cybersecurity Act (2019), Cyber Resilience Act (2024), Cyber Solidarity Act (2025), and NIS2 Directive (2022), South Africa’s Cyber Crimes Act (2021), etc.
- Regulatory Bodies: Government agencies such as data protection authorities, cybersecurity task forces, and other sector-specific bodies. Eg: India’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Europe’s European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), and others.
- Public-Private Knowledge Sharing: The sharing of the private sector’s expertise and the government’s resources plays a crucial role in improving enforcement and securing critical infrastructure. This model of collaboration is followed in the EU, Japan, Turkey, and the USA.
- Research and Development: Apart from the technical, the cyber domain also includes military, politics, economy, law, culture, society, and other elements. Robust, multi-sectoral research is necessary for formulating international and regional frameworks on cybersecurity.
Challenges to Cybersecurity Governance
Governments face several challenges in securing cyberspace and protecting critical assets and individuals despite the growing focus on cybersecurity. This is because so far the focus has been on cybersecurity management, which, considering the scale of attacks in the recent past, is not enough. Stakeholders must start deliberating on the aspect of governance in cyberspace while ensuring that this process is multi-consultative. (Savaş & Karataş 2022). Prominent challenges which need to be addressed are:
- Dynamic Threat Landscape: The threat landscape in cyberspace is ever-evolving. Bad actors are constantly coming up with new ways to carry out attacks, using elements of surprise, adaptability, and asymmetry aided by AI and quantum computing. While cybersecurity measures help mitigate risks and minimize damage, they can’t always provide definitive solutions. E.g., the pace of malware development is much faster than that of legal norms, legislation, and security strategies for the protection of information technology (IT). (Efe and Bensghir 2019).
- Regulatory Fragmentation and Compliance Challenges: Different countries, industries, or jurisdictions may enforce varying or conflicting cybersecurity laws and standards, which are still evolving and require rapid upgrades. This makes it harder for businesses to comply with regulations, increases compliance costs, and jeopardizes the security posture of the organization.
- Trans-National Enforcement Challenges: Cybercriminals operate across jurisdictions, making threat intelligence collection, incident response, evidence-gathering, and prosecution difficult. Without cross-border agreements between law enforcement agencies and standardized compliance frameworks for organizations, bad actors have an advantage in getting away with attacks.
- Balancing Security with Digital Rights: Striking a balance between cybersecurity laws and privacy concerns (e.g., surveillance laws vs. data protection) remains a profound challenge, especially in areas of CSAM prevention and identifying terrorist activities. Without a system of checks and balances, it is difficult to prevent government overreach into domains like journalism, which are necessary for a healthy democracy, and Big Tech’s invasion of user privacy.
The Road Ahead: Strengthening Cybersecurity Governance
All domains of human life- economy, culture, politics, and society- occur in digital and cyber environments now. It follows naturally, that governance in the physical world translates into governance in cyberspace. It must be underpinned by features consistent with the principles of openness, transparency, participation, and accountability, while also protecting human rights. In cyberspace, the world is stateless and threats are rapidly evolving with innovations in modern computing. Thus, cybersecurity governance requires a global, multi-sectoral approach utilizing the rules of international law, to chart out problems, and solutions, and carry out detailed risk analyses. (Savaş & Karataş 2022).
References
- https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1280009/cost-cybercrime-worldwide#statisticContainer
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1365/s43439-021-00045-4#citeas
- https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cybersecurity-policies#ecl-inpage-cybersecurity-strategy
An image showing a damaged statue of Mahatma Gandhi, broken into two pieces, is being widely shared on social media. The image shows Gandhi’s statue with its head separated from the body, prompting strong reactions online.
Social media users are claiming that the incident occurred in Bangladesh, alleging that Mahatma Gandhi’s statue was deliberately vandalised there. The image is being described as a recent incident and is being circulated across platforms with provocative and inflammatory captions.
Cyber Peace Foundation’s research and verification found that the claim being shared online is misleading. Our rsearch revealed that the viral image is not from Bangladesh. The image is actually from Chakulia in Uttar Dinajpur district of West Bengal, India
Claim:
Social media users claim that Mahatma Gandhi’s statue was vandalised in Bangladesh, and that the viral image shows a recent incident from the country.One Facebook user shared the video on 19 January 2026, making derogatory remarks and falsely linking the incident to Bangladesh. The post has since been widely shared on social media platforms. (Archived links and screenshots are available.)
Fact Check:
Our research revealed that the viral image is not from Bangladesh. The image is actually from Chakulia in Uttar Dinajpur district of West Bengal, India. To verify the claim, we conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens on key frames from the viral video. This led us to a report published by ABP Live Bangla on 16 January 2026, which featured the same visuals. Link and screenshot
According to ABP Live Bangla, the statue of Mahatma Gandhi was damaged during a protest in Chakulia. The statue’s head was found separated from the body. While a portion of the broken statue remained at the site on Thursday night, it was reported missing by Friday morning. The report further stated that extensive damage was observed at BDO Office No. 2 in Golpokhar. Gandhi’s statue, located at the entrance of the administrative building, was found broken, and ashes were discovered near the premises. Government staff were seen clearing scattered debris from the site.
The incident reportedly occurred during a SIR (Special Intensive Revision) hearing at the BDO office, which was disrupted due to vandalism. In connection with the violence and damage to government property, 21 people have been arrested so far. In the next stage of verification, we found the same footage in a 16 January 2026 report by local Bengali news channel K TV, which also showed clear visuals of the damaged Mahatma Gandhi statue. Link and screenshot.
Conclusion:
The viral image of Mahatma Gandhi’s broken statue does not depict an incident from Bangladesh. The image is from Chakulia in West Bengal’s Uttar Dinajpur district, where the statue was damaged during a protest.
