#FactCheck- Viral video falsely linked to Bangladeshi infiltrator killed at Tripura border; actually shows militant killed in Kulgam encounter

Introduction

In an era where digitalization is transforming every facet of life, ensuring that personal data is protected becomes crucial. The enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) is a significant step that has been taken by the Indian Parliament which sets forth a comprehensive framework for Digital Personal Data. The Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 has recently been released for public consultation to supplement the Act and ensure its smooth implementation once finalised. Though noting certain positive aspects, there is still room for addressing certain gaps and multiple aspects under the draft rules that require attention. The DPDP Act, 2023 recognises the individual’s right to protect their personal data providing control over the processing of personal data for lawful purposes. This Act applies to data which is available in digital form as well as data which is not in digital form but is digitalised subsequently. While the Act is intended to offer wide control to the individuals (Data Principal) over their personal information, its impact on vulnerable groups such as ‘Persons with Disabilities’ requires closer scrutiny. 

Person with Disabilities as data principal

The term ‘data principal’ has been defined under the DPDP Act under Section 2(j) as a person to whom the personal data is related to, which also includes a person with a disability. A lawful guardian acting on behalf of such person with disability has also been included under the ambit of this definition of Data Principal. As a result, a lawful guardian acting on behalf of a person with disability will have the same rights and responsibilities as a data principal under the Act. 

• Section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023 states that before processing the personal data of a person with a disability who has a lawful guardian, the data fiduciary must obtain verifiable consent from that guardian, ensuring proper protection of the person with disability's data privacy.
• The data principal has the right to access information about personal data under Section 11 which is being processed by the data fiduciary.
• Section 12 provides the right to correction and erasure of personal data by making a request in a manner prescribed by the data fiduciary. 
• A right to grievance redressal must be provided to the data principal in respect of any act or omission of performance of obligations by the data fiduciary or the consent manager. 
• Under Section 14, the data principal has the right to nominate any other person to exercise the rights provided under the Act in case of death or incapacity. 

Provision of consent and its implication

The three key components of Consent that can be identified under the DPDP Act, are:

• Explicit and Informed Consent: Consent given for the processing of data by the data principal or a lawful guardian in case of persons with disabilities must be clear, free and informed as per section 6 of the Act. The data fiduciary must specify the itemised description of the personal data required along with the specified purpose and description of the goods or services that would be provided by such processing of data. (Rule 3 under Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules)

• Verifiable Consent: Section 9 of the DPDP Act provides that the data fiduciary needs to obtain verifiable consent of the lawful guardian before processing any personal data of such a person with a disability.  Rule 10 of the Draft Rules obligates the data fiduciary to adopt measures to ensure that the consent given by the lawful guardian is verifiable before the is processed. 
• Withdrawal of Consent: Data principal or such lawful guardian has the option to withdraw consent for the processing of data at any point by making a request to the data fiduciary.   

Although the Act includes certain provisions that focus on the inclusivity of persons with disability, the interpretation of such sections says otherwise. 

Concerns related to provisions for Persons with Disabilities under the DPDP Act:

• Lack of definition of ‘person with disabilities’: The DPDP Act or the Draft Rules does not define the term ‘persons with disabilities’. This will create confusion as to which categories of disability are included and up to what percentage.  The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 clearly defines ‘person with benchmark disability’, ‘person with disability’ and ‘person with disability having high support needs’. This categorisation is essential to determine up to what extent a person with disability needs a lawful guardian which is missing under the DPDP Act.   
• Lack of autonomy: Though the definition of data principal includes persons with disabilities however the decision-making authority has been given to the lawful guardian of such individuals. The section creates ambiguity for people who have a lower percentage of disability and are capable of making their own decisions and have no autonomy in making decisions related to the processing of their personal data because of the lack of clarity in the definition of ‘persons with disabilities’. 
• Safeguards for abuse of power by lawful guardian: The lawful guardian once verified by the data fiduciary can make decisions for the persons with disabilities. This raises concerns regarding the potential abuse of power by lawful guardians in relation to the handling of personal data. The DPDP Act does not provide any specific protection against such abuse.
• Difficulty in verification of consent: The consent obtained by the Data Fiduciary must be verified. The process that will be adopted for verification is at the discretion of the data fiduciary according to Rule 10 of the Draft Data Protection Rules. The authenticity of consent is difficult to determine as it is a complex process which lacks a standard format. Also, with the technological advancements, it would be challenging to identify whether the information given to verify the consent is actually true. 

CyberPeace Recommendations

The DPDP Act, 2023 is a major step towards making the data protection framework more comprehensive, however, the provisions related to persons with disabilities and powers given to lawful guardians acting on their behalf still need certain clarity and refinement within the DPDP Act framework. 

• Consonance of DPDP with Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016: The RPWD and DPDP Act should supplement each other and can be used to clear the existing ambiguities. Such as the definition of ‘persons with disabilities’ under the RPWD Act can be used in the context of the DPDP Act, 2023. 
• Also, there must be certain mechanisms and safeguards within the Act to prevent abuse of power by the lawful guardian. The affected individual in case of suspected abuse of power should have an option to file a complaint with the Data Protection Board and the Board can further take necessary actions to determine whether there is abuse of power or not. 
• Regulatory oversight and additional safeguards are required to ensure that consent is obtained in a manner that respects the rights of all individuals, including those with disabilities. 

References:

• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/259889.pdf 
• https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15939/1/the_rights_of_persons_with_disabilities_act%2C_2016.pdf 
• https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/consent-disability-rights-and-data-protection-3143441
• https://www.pacta.in/digital-data-protection-consent-protocols-for-disability.pdf
• https://www.snrlaw.in/indias-new-data-protection-regime-tracking-updates-and-preparing-for-compliance/ 

‍

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

Monopolies in any sector can have a great impact on economic efficiency and, by extension, on the market and the larger economy. Data monopolies hurt both small startups and large, established companies, and it is typically the biggest corporate players who have the biggest data advantage. Google has recently lost a major antitrust case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, which focused on the company's search engine dominance and expensive partnerships to promote its products. The lawsuit accused Google of using its dominant position in the search engine market to maintain a monopoly. The case has had a significant impact on consumers and the tech industry as a whole. This dominance allowed Google to raise prices on advertisers without consequences, and delay innovations and privacy features that consumers want when they search online.

Antitrust Allegations Against Google in the US and EU

In the case filed by the US Department of Justice, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google was monopolistic. In the 10-week-long trial, Google lost the major antitrust lawsuit, and it was established that the tech giant had a monopoly in the web search and advertising sectors. The lawsuit accused Google of using its dominant position in the search engine market to elbow out rivals and maintain a monopoly. The tech giant’s exclusive deals with handset makers were brought before the court as evidence. Additionally, the European Commission has fined Google €1.49 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules in 2019.

The Impact of Big Tech Monopolies on the Digital Ecosystem and Beyond 

• Big-tech companies collect vast amounts of personal data, raising concerns about how this data is used and protected. The concentration of data in the hands of a few companies can lead to privacy breaches and misuse of personal information.
• The dominance of a few tech giants in digital advertising markets can stifle competition, leading to higher prices for advertisers and fewer choices for consumers. This concentration also allows these companies to exert major control over what ads are shown and to whom.
• Big-tech platforms have substantial power over the dissemination of information. Their algorithms and policies on content moderation can influence public discourse and may spread misinformation. The lack of competition means fewer alternatives are accessible for users seeking different content moderation policies. In 2021 Google paid $26.3 billion to ensure its search engine is the default on smartphones and browsers and to keep control of its dominant market share.

Regulatory Mechanisms in the Indian Context

In India, antitrust issues are governed by the Competition Act of 2002 and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) checks monopolistic practices. In 2022, the CCI imposed a penalty of Rs 1,337.76 crore on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets for 'anti-competitive practices' in the Android mobile device ecosystem. The Draft Digital Competition Bill, 2024, has been proposed as a legislative reform to regulate a wide range of digital services, including online search engines, social networking platforms, video-sharing sites, interpersonal communication services, operating systems, web browsers, cloud services, advertising services, and online intermediation services. The bill aims to promote competition and fairness in the digital market by addressing anti-competitive practices and dominant position abuses in the digital business space.

Conclusion

Big-tech companies are increasingly under scrutiny from regulators due to concerns over their monopolistic practices, data privacy issues, and the immense influence on markets and public discourse. The U.S. Department of Justice's victory against Google and the European Commission's hefty fines are indicators of a global paradigm shift towards more aggressive regulation to foster competition and protect consumer interests. The combined efforts of regulators across different jurisdictions underscore the recognition that monopolistic practices by such big tech giants can stifle innovation, harm consumers’ interests, and create barriers for new entrants, thus necessitating strong legal frameworks to ensure fair and contestable markets. Overall, the increasing regulatory pressure signifies a pivotal moment for big-tech companies, as they face the challenge of adapting to a more tightly controlled environment where their market dominance and business practices are under intense examination.

References

• https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/googles-future-siege-u-s-court-explores-breaking-up-company-after-landmark-ruling-11723648047735.html
• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/what-is-the-google-monopoly-antitrust-case-and-how-does-it-affect-consumers/article68495551.ece 
• https://indianexpress.com/article/business/google-has-an-illegal-monopoly-on-search-us-judge-finds-9497318/

‍