#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows Mishandling of Baggage at Indian Airport

Introduction

‍

India is seeing a major change due to the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) across all sectors of government, business, and the digital economy with regard to areas such as governance, healthcare, finance, and the infrastructure. The large scale and rapid pace of AI implementation are expected to lead to efficiency gains, innovations in products and services, and to drive economic growth; however, the growth of AI also creates many serious concerns regarding ethics, legality, and societal ramifications. Issues such as algorithmic bias in the use of algorithms by AI, a lack of transparency in decision-making algorithms, data protection risks resulting from AI employments, and unclear frameworks for determining accountability for AI-related action; bring issues of how we will govern AI in a responsible manner to the forefront of public policy discourse.

India wants to become an AI superpower and leader in technology on the world stage. As such, India has a dual responsibility to fuel innovation without discounting democratic ideals, human rights, and public trust. UNESCO's AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) is a global tool for AI governance, created to provide concrete policy guidance on how to make ethical AI a reality. The India AI RAM Report is set to be formally released by UNESCO during the India AI Impact Summit 2026, taking place in New Delhi, as a major milestone in India's developing AI governance journey.

‍

What is UNESCO’s AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM)?

‍

UNESCO has created a simple yet effective tool, called the AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM), that can assist governments in determining how well they are prepared to develop, deploy and manage Artificial Intelligence ethically, responsibly and trustworthily. RAM provides a framework for diagnosing and self-assessing the state of a country’s ability to govern AI on the basis of evidence-based decision making rather than serving as a regulatory framework or ranking system.

The most important goal of RAM is to assess a country’s overall state of readiness to govern AI based on four dimensions: institutionally, legally, socially and technologically. In doing so, RAM examines how institutions function, their maturity level and the extent to which various policies align with one another; thereby giving governments an overview of strengths, weaknesses and priorities for reform.

Unlike other frameworks, RAM does not prescribe any one-size-fits-all solutions; instead, it uses a context sensitive approach when implementing the concepts of AI governance due to differing national realities, developmental priorities and social/economic conditions. Using the ethical principles established by UNESCO, RAM converts these principles into practical actions that can guide countries in their transition from abstract commitments to concrete strategies for governing AI.

‍

Key Dimensions Assessed Under RAM

‍

UNESCO's AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) is a tool used to assess a country's readiness to implement ethical Artificial Intelligence through five interconnected dimensions. These include: the legal and regulatory dimension (which looks at the laws, rules, and safeguards that are currently in place related to AI), the social and cultural dimension (which looks at whether the public is aware of AI, whether it trusts AI, whether AI is an inclusive experience for all people who use AI and whether AI has affected society in various ways), and the economic dimension (which looks at innovation, participation from industry, and readiness of the market for AI).

Also included in the framework/functionality of the RAM are: scientific and educational dimension (which examines a country’s capacity to conduct serious scientific research, including research activities that prepare persons to be employable in AI jobs); and technological and infrastructure dimension (which examines the availability of data, digital infrastructure, and computing capabilities for AI projects in a country).

All five of these dimensions consider the entirety of the scope of an AI readiness evaluation to ensure that AI Governance is more than just a technical issue; rather, it is a condition of a country’s capacity to generate laws, create policy and maintain social equality in relation to all forms of Artificial Intelligence.

‍

Methodology and Nationwide Consultative Process

‍

RAM takes both qualitative and quantitative characteristics together to create an overall understanding of how ready any nation is for AI capabilities. It is designed with flexibility so nations can define their assessments with respect to their own institutional capabilities and development agenda.

Normally, RAM is implemented by an independent expert who is assisted by a national team consisting of various stakeholders. With respect to the RAM process used in India, it was conducted as a national consultation where representatives from across all sectors of society (government, private sector, academia, civil society, and young people) participated in the assessment's creation. This consultation process made sure there were many different viewpoints present, which increased the legitimacy of the assessment results and how relevant they are in each country. The consultation process also yields policy recommendations based on real life governing situations or challenges that are specific to different sectors.

‍

Institutional Partnerships Behind India’s RAM

‍

The India RAM Initiative was developed by the UNESCO South Asia Regional Office (as a partner of IndiaAI Mission and the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology) and implemented by Ikigai Law with the help of The Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. This demonstrated the need for and importance of partnership in developing governance frameworks for Artificial Intelligence (AI). The result of the RAM process is a collaborative effort that includes evidence-based international norm-setting capabilities from around the world; government policies under the guidance of national political leadership; independent legal-technical implementation; input from civil society; all with the goal of empowering (increasing) India's ability to establish and implement both a consistent (i.e., coherent) and comprehensive (i.e., inclusive) AI Governance Framework.

‍

Significance of the India AI RAM Report and Its Launch

‍

The India AI RAM Report provides a complete initial assessment of India’s AI ecosystem and includes key insights into AI readiness, governance strengths/weaknesses, and potential opportunities across multiple sectors. It identifies priority areas to promote a responsible and trustworthy AI ecosystem in India.

The report will be officially released during the India AI Impact Summit (February 16, 2026 at Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi) where Mr. Abhishek Venkateswaran (National Project Officer-Social and Human Sciences at UNESCO South Asia) offered additional insight into the consultative process and the overall importance of this launch on India's future AI policy path.

‍

Policy Relevance and the Road Ahead

‍

The RAM Framework gives the government a structure and roadmap for developing and implementing AI Governance. In doing this, RAM reinforces the alignment of IndiaAI Mission, which includes safety and trust in AI as one of the pillars. However, the results from this Assessment will not automatically translate to reforming institutions, issuing guidelines specific to sectors, or developing a mechanism for continued evaluation. Implementation will require strong and sustained commitment from political leaders, as well as the commitment of institutions involved in the reforms made possible by RAM's implementation.

‍

Conclusion

‍

UNESCO has developed an AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (AI-RAM) that can greatly advance the way India approaches governance with respect to artificial intelligence (AI). By focusing on "readiness" (doing what needs to be done), "responsibility" (being or having good moral principles) and "inclusivity" (including everyone), the AI-RAM will enable India to become an active participant in discussions around ethical use of AI at a global level. India is now positioned to take on a leadership role in the world by adopting this methodology, which provides a platform for establishing global standards for AI development. The real benefit of the AI-RAM will come from policy measures that will ensure future AI development in India is 'human-centered', 'trustworthy' and 'aligns with democratic values'.

‍

References

‍

1. https://icaire.org/files/UNESCORam-en.pdf
2. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2134492&reg=3&lang=2 
3. https://www.facebook.com/unesconewdelhi/videos/unesco-is-set-to-launch-the-india-ai-readiness-assessment-methodology-ram-report/25955631820699516/
4. https://www.unesco.org/ethics-ai/en/ram
5. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/unesco-meity-launch-exercise-to-assess-india-s-ai-readiness-101749188341803.html#
6. https://www.manoramayearbook.in/current-affairs/india/2025/06/09/unesco-ai-readiness-assessment-methodology-ram.html

‍

Introduction

The ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Hamas/ Palestine is in the news all across the world. The latest conflict was triggered by unprecedented attacks against Israel by Hamas militants on October 7, killing thousands of people. Israel has launched a massive counter-offensive against the Islamic militant group. Amid the war, the bad information and propaganda spreading on various social media platforms, tech researchers have detected a network of 67 accounts that posted false content about the war and received millions of views. The ‘European Commission’ has sent a letter to Elon Musk, directing them to remove illegal content and disinformation; otherwise, penalties can be imposed. The European Commission has formally requested information from several social media giants on their handling of content related to the Israel-Hamas war. This widespread disinformation impacts and triggers the nature of war and also impacts the world and affects the goodwill of the citizens. The bad group, in this way, weaponise the information and fuels online hate activity, terrorism and extremism, flooding political polarisation with hateful content on social media. Online misinformation about the war is inciting extremism, violence, hate and different propaganda-based ideologies. The online information environment surrounding this conflict is being flooded with disinformation and misinformation, which amplifies the nature of war and too many fake narratives and videos are flooded on social media platforms.

Response of social media platforms 

As there is a proliferation of online misinformation and violent content surrounding the war, It imposes a question on social media companies in terms of content moderation and other policy shifts.  It is notable that Instagram, Facebook and X(Formerly Twitter) all have certain features in place giving users the ability to decide what content they want to view. They also allow for limiting the potentially sensitive content from being displayed in search results.

The experts say that It is of paramount importance to get a sort of control in this regard and define what is permissible online and what is not, Hence, what is required is expertise to determine the situation, and most importantly, It requires robust content moderation policies. 

During wartime, people who are aggrieved or provoked are often targeted by this internet disinformation that blends ideological beliefs and spreads conspiracy theories and hatred. This is not a new phenomenon, it is often observed that disinformation-spreading groups emerged and became active during such war and emergency times and spread disinformation and propaganda-based ideologies and influence the society at large by misrepresenting the facts and planted stories. Social media has made it easier to post user-generated content without properly moderating it. However, it is a shared responsibility of tech companies, users, government guidelines and policies to collectively define and follow certain mechanisms to fight against disinformation and misinformation.  

Digital Services Act (DSA)

The newly enacted EU law, i.e. Digital Services Act, pushes various larger online platforms to prevent posts containing illegal content and also puts limits on targeted advertising. DSA enables to challenge the of illegal online content and also poses requirements to prevent misinformation and disinformation and ensure more transparency over what the users see on the platforms. Rules under the DSA cover everything from content moderation & user privacy to transparency in operations. DSA is a landmark EU legislation moderating online platforms.  Large tech platforms are now subject to content-related regulation under this new EU law ‘The Digital Services Act’, which also requires them to prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation and overall ensure a safer online environment.

Indian Scenario

The Indian government introduced the Intermediary Guidelines (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, updated in 2023 which talks about the establishment of a "fact check unit" to identify false or misleading online content. Digital Personal Data Protection, 2023 has also been enacted which aims to protect personal data. The upcoming Digital India bill is also proposed to be tabled in the parliament, this act will replace the current Information & Technology Act, of 2000. The upcoming Digital India bill can be seen as future-ready legislation to strengthen India’s current cybersecurity posture. It will comprehensively deal with the aspects of ensuring privacy, data protection, and fighting growing cyber crimes in the evolving digital landscape and ensuring a safe digital environment. Certain other entities including civil societies are also actively engaged in fighting misinformation and spreading awareness for safe and responsible use of the Internet. 

Conclusion:

The widespread disinformation and misinformation content amid the Israel-Hamas war showcases how user-generated content on social media shows you the illusion of reality. There is widespread misinformation, misleading content or posts on social media platforms, and misuse of new advanced AI technologies that even make it easier for bad actors to create synthetic media content. It is also notable that social media has connected us like never before. Social media is a great platform with billions of active social media users around the globe, it offers various conveniences and opportunities to individuals and businesses. It is just certain aspects that require the attention of all of us to prevent the bad use of social media. The social media platforms and regulatory authorities need to be vigilant and active in clearly defining and improving the policies for content regulation and safe and responsible use of social media which can effectively combat and curtail the bad actors from misusing social media for their bad motives. As a user, it's the responsibility of users to exercise certain duties and promote responsible use of social media. With the increasing penetration of social media and the internet, misinformation is rampant all across the world and remains a global issue which needs to be addressed properly by implementing strict policies and adopting best practices to fight the misinformation. Users are encouraged to flag and report misinformative or misleading content on social media and should always verify it from authentic sources. Hence creating a safer Internet environment for everyone.

References:

• https://abcnews.go.com/US/experts-fear-hate-extremism-social-media-israel-hamas-war/story?id=104221215
• https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/14/tech/social-media-misinformation-israel-hamas/index.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/business/israel-hamas-misinformation-social-media-x.html
• https://www.africanews.com/2023/10/24/fact-check-misinformation-about-the-israel-hamas-war-is-flooding-social-media-here-are-the//
• https://www.theverge.com/23845672/eu-digital-services-act-explained

‍

A dark screen has always meant one thing to most of us: the television is off, and whatever we say in the room is ours again. A new investigation into LG's smart TVs suggests that assumption may no longer hold, and the findings are detailed enough, and corroborated widely enough, that they deserve a careful look rather than a shrug.

What the investigation actually found

On 7 September 2026, hardware review outlet Gamers Nexus published a 135 minute video investigation, the product of more than 500 hours of testing and roughly 70,000 dollars in resources, conducted alongside hardware channel Level1Techs and independent security researchers. The team tested retail LG OLED televisions, including the current flagship G5 model, using Wireshark, a widely used network packet analysis tool that lets researchers see exactly what data a device is sending and receiving.

What they reported was substantial. Using the UPnP protocol, a standard that lets devices on a network automatically discover one another, the televisions were found actively sweeping the entire home network, mapping phones, smartwatches, laptops, and other connected hardware that had nothing to do with the television itself, including devices belonging to people who were not part of the testing. The sets also collected information about neighbouring Wi-Fi networks, their names and signal strength, data that combined with other signals can help build a fairly precise picture of where a television physically sits and who else shares its environment.

The audio findings drew the most attention, and for good reason. Researchers reported pulling clear microphone audio from a television with a dark screen, in standby mode, and repeated the test after physically disconnecting the set's Ethernet cable. According to the investigation, speech spoken near the television during that disconnected period was stored locally and then uploaded automatically the moment connectivity was restored, with researchers reporting audio pickup from roughly 60 feet away through a wall. Muting the television's primary microphone through its settings menu reportedly did not fully solve the problem either, since the team said they were able to pull a usable recording from a second, less obvious microphone that the mute control did not appear to govern. Voice input, according to the reporting, was also converted into plain text and saved in on device logs, with the microphone said to remain active for ten to fifteen seconds after speech ended.

Separately, the investigation also examined Automatic Content Recognition, commonly called ACR, a longstanding smart TV feature that samples audio or video snippets and matches them against a reference database to identify what is being watched. Gamers Nexus reported that LG's implementation continued functioning even when the television was used purely as an HDMI monitor for a laptop or game console, meaning switching inputs away from the TV's own smart platform did not switch ACR off. The team also said security researchers identified unpatched remote access vulnerabilities in LG's webOS software, and separately found code associated with residential proxy functionality, which, if accurate, could theoretically allow a device's internet connection to be quietly used to route other people's traffic.

What LG has said

LG's public position predates this specific investigation and has not changed since. Responding earlier this year to a Texas lawsuit targeting several television manufacturers over ACR practices, the company stated that LG Electronics reaffirms that LG TVs do not collect, record, or store ambient conversations, describing voice recognition as an optional, user initiated feature that only processes voice data when a user activates it for a specific request. LG has reportedly not issued a specific response addressing the Gamers Nexus findings directly, though multiple outlets note the company was approached for comment. It is worth noting LG had already settled with Texas regulators earlier this year, agreeing to stop collecting viewing data without informed consent, a separate matter concerning ACR rather than the standby microphone claims raised in this newer investigation.

The commercial context that makes this matter

None of this data collection happens in a vacuum. LG Ad Solutions, the company's advertising division, openly markets first party ACR data and cross device advertising reach to advertisers, citing access to 49 million LG smart TVs in the United States and 363 million connected devices reachable through them. That figure confirms the scale of commercial value sitting inside the largest screen in most homes, though it is worth being precise here: that statistic describes LG's advertising reach broadly, and does not by itself prove that every one of those secondary devices was specifically discovered through a television's own local network scanning, a distinction some careful reporting on this story has been right to preserve rather than collapse into a single alarming number. Multiple LG Ad Solutions executives, according to footage referenced in coverage of the investigation, have spoken candidly about tying a household's viewing habits to the other devices under the same roof, describing the underlying business model in terms that leave little ambiguity about how central this data pipeline is to the company's advertising strategy. This is not a hidden side project; it is a openly promoted revenue stream built on exactly the kind of information the Gamers Nexus investigation says a television collects well beyond what a customer would reasonably expect from a screen they believe is switched off.

Why this extends well past the living room

Smart televisions and large connected displays are not confined to homes. They sit in hospital waiting rooms and patient areas, hotel rooms, corporate boardrooms, and office common areas, environments where the conversations happening nearby, and the information displayed on screen, frequently carry a genuine expectation of confidentiality. A device capable of logging speech and identifying on screen content in a home is the same device, running the same software, in every one of those settings.

What LG owes an honest answer to

Several questions remain squarely LG's to answer, and general reassurance language will not resolve them. Which specific models and firmware versions were affected, and under what settings. What precisely activates the microphone, and for how long it stays active. What is stored locally on the device, what gets transmitted externally, and under what circumstances. Whether any of this collection continues while the display is in standby rather than actively in use. And critically, whether an ordinary user, without specialised network analysis tools, has any reliable way to independently verify that microphone access, ACR, and cross device tracking are genuinely disabled once turned off in a settings menu.

CyberPeace Advisory 

What owners can do while those answers are pending

Until LG addresses the specific findings in detail, several practical steps meaningfully reduce exposure. 

1. Disable voice recognition and ACR through the television's settings menu, even knowing the investigation raises questions about whether every microphone path is fully governed by that toggle. 
2. Review all privacy and data sharing permissions the television requests, and install the latest available security updates, since some of the vulnerabilities reported concern webOS software flaws LG could patch. 
3. Place the television on a separate guest or IoT network segment, isolated from computers, phones, and other sensitive devices, so that even if the TV's own network behaviour cannot be fully controlled, it cannot see or map everything else in the home. 
4. For genuinely sensitive environments, hospitals, boardrooms, and similar settings, the more reliable option is disconnecting the television from the network entirely and routing all content through a separately secured streaming device instead.

A dark screen has never meant a device is truly powered down in any technical sense, but this investigation is a useful, concrete reminder that the gap between how a device appears and what it is actually doing can be considerably wider than most people assume. Confirming exactly how wide that gap is, model by model and setting by setting, is now squarely LG's responsibility to demonstrate, not simply assert.

References

1. Notebookcheck, "LG smart TVs caught logging audio with screen off and snooping on local devices." https://www.notebookcheck.net/LG-smart-TVs-caught-logging-audio-with-screen-off-and-snooping-on-local-devices.1391214.0.html
2. Cybernews, "LG smart TVs may log voice commands and scan homes." https://cybernews.com/privacy/up-to-200m-lg-smart-tvs-could-be-secretly-listening-in-on-conversations/
3. All About Cookies, "LG Smart TVs Caught Listening With the Screen Off and Snooping Around Your Wi-Fi." https://allaboutcookies.org/lg-smart-tvs-snooping
4. Decrypt, "Your LG TV Might Still Be Listening to You, Even When It Looks Like It's Off." https://decrypt.co/377637/lg-tv-might-be-listening-even-when-off
5. Yahoo Tech, "Your LG TV Might Still Be Listening to You, Even When It Looks Like It's Off." https://tech.yahoo.com/cybersecurity/articles/lg-tv-might-still-listening-214604684.html
6. TechRadar, "LG's gaming monitors and TVs are facing a user revolt." https://www.techradar.com/televisions/lgs-gaming-monitors-and-tvs-are-facing-a-user-revolt
7. Quest Review Center, "LG faces renewed privacy backlash over smart TV data collection and monitor practices." https://questreviewcenter.com/smart-home-tech/lg-faces-renewed-privacy-backlash-over-smart-tv-data-collection-and-monitor-practices/
8. The CyberSec Guru, "LG Smart TV Spying Exposed: 216M TVs, Full Breakdown." https://thecybersecguru.com/news/lg-smart-tv-spying-investigation/
9. Ynetnews, "Your LG TV may be listening: Researchers uncover audio recording and network scanning." https://www.ynetnews.com/tech-and-digital/article/bydiqhhume
10. UNILAD Tech, "Major TV brand accused of snooping on customers while devices are supposed to be off." https://www.uniladtech.com/gadgets/lg-tv-accused-snooping-customers-devices-off-021514-20260907

‍