#FactCheck -AI-Generated Video Falsely Claims Iran Unveiled B-2-Like Drone During War

Introduction:

Cybercriminals can hack your phone using or exploiting some public charging stations such as at airports, Malls, hotel rooms, etc. When you plug in your phone or laptop devices into a power charger using USB, you may be plugging into a hacker. Juice jacking poses a security threat at public charging stations at airports, shopping malls and other public places that provide free charging stations for mobile, tablet, and laptop devices. 

Cybercriminals can either hack into the public charging spot or download malware or viruses through the USB port into your system. When you plug your phone, laptop, tablet or other such devices for charging at public charging stations, it can download malware to your phone and other such devices, and then hackers can access your personal information or passwords, It is really a problem since hackers can even get access to your bank account for unauthorised transactions by accessing your passwords and personal information. 

Hence it is important to think twice before using public charging spots, as it might lead to serious consequences such as malware, data leak and hacking. Hacking can gain unauthorised access to your personal information by installing malware in your device and they might monitor your device by installing monitor software or spyware to your device. This scam is referred to as juice jacking. 

FBI issued an advisory  warning about using public charging stations:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), In May 2023, advised users to avoid using free charging stations in airports, hotels, or shopping centres. The warning comes as threat actors have figured out ways to inject malware into devices attached to publicly installed USB ports.

Updated Security measures:

We all must have seen public charging points such as airports, shopping malls, metro, and other public places that provide charging stations for mobile devices. But it can be a threat to your stored data on your device. During the charging process, your data can be transferred which can ultimately lead to a data breach. Hence utmost care should be taken to protect your information and data. iPhones and other devices have security measures in place, When you plug your phone into a charging power source, a pop-up appears to ask permission to allow or disallow the transfer of Data. There is also a default setting in the phones where data transfer is disabled. In the latest models, when you plug your device into a new port or a computer, a pop-up appears asking whether the device is trusted or not. 

Two major risks involved in the threat of Juice jacking: 

1. Malware installation: – Malware apps can be used by bad actors to clone your phone data to their device, Your personal data is transferred leading to a data breach. Some types of malware include Trojans, adware, spyware, crypto-miners, etc. Once this malware is injected into your device, It is easy for cybercriminals to extort a ransom to restore the information they have unauthorized access to.
2. Data Theft: It is important to give emphasis to the question of whether your data is protected at public charging stations? When we use a USB cable and connect to a public charging station port, cyber-criminals by injecting malware into the charging port system, can inject the malware into your device or your data can be transferred to the bad actors. USB cords can be exploited by cybercriminals to commit malicious activities.

‍

Best practices: 

• Avoid using public charging stations: Using public charging stations is not safe. It is very possible for a cybercriminal to load malware into a charging station with a USB cord. Hence It is advisable not to use public charging spots, try to make sure you charge your phone, and laptop devices in your car, at home or office so it will help you to avoid public charging stations.
• Alternative method of charging: You can carry a power bank along with you to avoid the use of public charging stations.
• Lock your phone: Lock your phone once connected to the charging port. Locking your device once connected to the charging station will prevent it from being able to sync or transfer data.
• Software update: It is important to enable and use your device’s software security measures. Mobile devices have certain technical protections against such vulnerabilities and security threats. 
• Review Settings: Disable your device’s option to automatically transfer data when a charging cable is connected. This is the default on iOS devices. Android users should disable this option in the Settings app. If your device displays a prompt asking you to “trust this computer,” it means you are connected to another device, not simply a power outlet. Deny the permission, as trusting the computer will enable data transfers to and from your device.  So when you plug your device into a USB port and a prompt appears asking permission to "share data" or “trust this computer” or “charge only,” always select “charge only.”

Conclusion:

Cybercriminals or bad actors exploit public charging stations. There have been incidents where malware was planted in the system by the use of a USB cord, During the charging process, the USB cord opens a path into your device that a cybercriminal can exploit, which means the devices can exchange data. That's called juice jacking. Hence avoid using public charging stations, our safety is in our hands and it is significantly important to give priority to best practices and stay protected in the evolving digital landscape. 

References: 

• https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/fbi-issue-warning-about-juice-jacking-when-using-free-cell-phone-charging-kiosks/
• https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/juice-jacking/#:~:text=Avoid%20public%20charging%20stations,guaranteed%20success%20with%20this%20method
• https://www.fcc.gov/juice-jacking-tips-to-avoid-it

‍

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:

A social media viral post claims to show a mosque being set on fire in India, contributing to growing communal tensions and misinformation. However, a detailed fact-check has revealed that the footage actually comes from Indonesia. The spread of such misleading content can dangerously escalate social unrest, making it crucial to rely on verified facts to prevent further division and harm.

Claim:

The viral video claims to show a mosque being set on fire in India, suggesting it is linked to communal violence.

‍

Fact Check

The investigation revealed that the video was originally posted on 8th December 2024. A reverse image search allowed us to trace the source and confirm that the footage is not linked to any recent incidents. The original post, written in Indonesian, explained that the fire took place at the Central Market in Luwuk, Banggai, Indonesia, not in India.

‍

‍

Conclusion: The viral claim that a mosque was set on fire in India isn’t True. The video is actually from Indonesia and has been intentionally misrepresented to circulate false information. This event underscores the need to verify information before spreading it. Misinformation can spread quickly and cause harm. By taking the time to check facts and rely on credible sources, we can prevent false information from escalating and protect harmony in our communities.

• Claim:  The video shows a mosque set on fire in India
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍