#FactCheck: AI-manipulated image falsely shows Indian High Commission official at PoK-related protest in UK

Introduction

In today’s time, everything is online, and the world is interconnected. Cases of data breaches and cyberattacks have been a reality for various organisations and industries, In the recent case (of SAS), Scandinavian Airlines experienced a cyberattack that resulted in the exposure of customer details, highlighting the critical importance of preventing customer privacy. The incident is a wake-up call for Airlines and businesses to evaluate their cyber security measures and learn valuable lessons to safeguard customers’ data. In this blog, we will explore the incident and discuss the strategies for protecting customers’ privacy in this age of digitalisation.

Analysing the backdrop

The incident has been a shocker for the aviation industry, SAS Scandinavian Airlines has been a victim of a cyberattack that compromised consumer data. Let’s understand the motive of cyber crooks and the technique they used :

Motive Behind the Attack: Understanding the reasons that may have driven the criminals is critical to comprehending the context of the Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault. Financial gain, geopolitical conflicts, activism, or personal vendettas are common motivators for cybercriminals. Identifying the purpose of the assault can provide insight into the attacker’s aims and the possible impact on both the targeted organisation and its consumers. Understanding the attack vector and strategies used by cyber attackers reveals the amount of complexity and possible weaknesses in an organisation’s cybersecurity defences. Scandinavian Airlines’ cyber assault might have included phishing, spyware, ransomware, or exploiting software weaknesses. Analysing these tactics allows organisations to strengthen their security against similar assaults.

Impact on Victims: The Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) cyber attack victims, including customers and individuals related to the company, have suffered substantial consequences. Data breaches and cyber-attack have serious consequences due to the leak of personal information.

1)Financial Losses and Fraudulent Activities: One of the most immediate and upsetting consequences of a cyber assault is the possibility of financial loss. Exposed personal information, such as credit card numbers, can be used by hackers to carry out illegal activities such as unauthorised transactions and identity theft. Victims may experience financial difficulties and the need to spend time and money resolving these concerns.

2)Concerns about privacy and personal security: A breach of personal data can significantly impact the privacy and personal security of victims. The disclosed information, including names, addresses, and contact information, might be exploited for nefarious reasons, such as targeted phishing or physical harassment. Victims may have increased anxiety about their safety and privacy, which can interrupt their everyday life and create mental pain.

3) Reputational Damage and Trust Issues: The cyber attack may cause reputational harm to persons linked with Scandinavian Airlines, such as workers or partners. The breach may diminish consumers’ and stakeholders’ faith in the organisation, leading to a bad view of its capacity to protect personal information. This lack of trust might have long-term consequences for the impacted people’s professional and personal relationships.

4) Emotional Stress and Psychological Impact: The psychological impact of a cyber assault can be severe. Fear, worry, and a sense of violation induced by having personal information exposed can create emotional stress and psychological suffering. Victims may experience emotions of vulnerability, loss of control, and distrust toward digital platforms, potentially harming their overall quality of life.

5) Time and Effort Required for Remediation: Addressing the repercussions of a cyber assault demands significant time and effort from the victims. They may need to call financial institutions, reset passwords, monitor accounts for unusual activity, and use credit monitoring services. Resolving the consequences of a data breach may be a difficult and time-consuming process, adding stress and inconvenience to the victims’ lives.

6) Secondary Impacts: The impacts of an online attack could continue beyond the immediate implications. Future repercussions for victims may include trouble acquiring credit or insurance, difficulties finding future work, and continuous worry about exploiting their personal information. These secondary effects can seriously affect victims’ financial and general well-being.

Apart from this, the trust lost would take time to rebuild.

Takeaways from this attack

The cyber-attack on Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) is a sharp reminder of cybercrime’s ever-present and increasing menace. This event provides crucial insights that businesses and people may use to strengthen cybersecurity defences. In the lessons that were learned from the Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault and examine the steps that may be taken to improve cybersecurity and reduce future risks. Some of the key points that can be considered are as follows:

Proactive Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Management: The cyber assault on Scandinavian Airlines emphasises the significance of regular risk assessments and vulnerability management. Organisations must proactively identify and fix possible system and network vulnerabilities. Regular security audits, penetration testing, and vulnerability assessments can help identify flaws before bad actors exploit them.

Strong security measures and best practices: To guard against cyber attacks, it is necessary to implement effective security measures and follow cybersecurity best practices. Lessons from the Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault emphasise the importance of effective firewalls, up-to-date antivirus software, secure setups, frequent software patching, and strong password rules. Using multi-factor authentication and encryption technologies for sensitive data can also considerably improve security.

Employee Training and Awareness: Human mistake is frequently a big component in cyber assaults. Organisations should prioritise employee training and awareness programs to educate employees about phishing schemes, social engineering methods, and safe internet practices. Employees may become the first line of defence against possible attacks by cultivating a culture of cybersecurity awareness.

Data Protection and Privacy Measures: Protecting consumer data should be a key priority for businesses. Lessons from the Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault emphasise the significance of having effective data protection measures, such as encryption and access limits. Adhering to data privacy standards and maintaining safe data storage and transfer can reduce the risks connected with data breaches.

Collaboration and Information Sharing: The Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault emphasises the need for collaboration and information sharing among the cybersecurity community. Organisations should actively share threat intelligence, cooperate with industry partners, and stay current on developing cyber threats. Sharing information and experiences can help to build the collective defence against cybercrime.

Conclusion

The Scandinavian Airlines cyber assault is a reminder that cybersecurity must be a key concern for organisations and people. Organisations may improve their cybersecurity safeguards, proactively discover vulnerabilities, and respond effectively to prospective attacks by learning from this occurrence and adopting the lessons learned. Building a strong cybersecurity culture, frequently upgrading security practices, and encouraging cooperation within the cybersecurity community are all critical steps toward a more robust digital world. We may aim to keep one step ahead of thieves and preserve our important information assets by constantly monitoring and taking proactive actions.

Introduction

‍

Two of the most influential voices offered strikingly divergent visions of humanity’s technological future in May 2026. On one side of the equation was Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, who spoke of a future in which intelligence would be a "service like  electricity or water," available on a metered basis and powered by massive AI infrastructure. On the other side was Leo XIV, the Pope of the Catholic Church, whose encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, presented the Church's most substantial response to AI, presenting the technology not simply as a technical innovation but also as a crucial moral, social, and civilizational challenge.

The differences in their views run much deeper than merely those regarding control and development. At issue is a conflict in understanding intelligence, the purpose of technology, and the dignity of man. While Altman saw intelligence as an abundant economic factor, one that could be produced, distributed, and consumed, Leo XIV emphasized that intelligence is indissociable from the person and that we should be wary of turning human potential into mere merchandise. Their clash of visions can essentially be understood as two different answers to the question: What is a human being, and to whose service should technology be devoted?

‍

Intelligence as Infrastructure

‍

Altman implies that artificial intelligence will follow the trajectory of electricity in industrial society, where the utility became available everywhere as part of the bedrock of society. The ultimate goal is to generate abundance. Cognitive ability will become cheaper and more readily available until it is so inexpensive that it is built into everything.

From the perspective of the business, this is compelling. In many ways modern AI already has infrastructure-like properties. Programmers, businesses, governments, and even individuals are using intelligence as a commodity delivered by a centralized platform and API in a way similar to how previous generations would have used the electricity grid. Altman is essentially predicting that this trend will reach its ultimate form, where intelligence becomes a utility.

There are several assumptions inherent in this utility metaphor; however, utilities are never neutral technologies; they are all forms of governance, ownership, and control. It is not merely the resource being delivered that makes electricity grids, telephone systems, and water infrastructure powerful but the institutions that mediate access to those resources. In Altman's statement "people will buy it from us," there is a political question inherent: Who does the infrastructure of cognition belong to?

Altman himself is also concerned with these issues, often reiterating that this technology could lead to an unprecedented concentration of power and wealth. Yet this concern is a paradox, as truly democratized artificial intelligence does not appear possible without immense capital investment, colossal data centers, proprietary models, and a monopolization of talent. The path to making intelligence universally available appears to lie through unprecedented centralization.

‍

The Vatican's Response: Beyond Technology

‍

Magnifica Humanitas approaches this from a different perspective. It is not, fundamentally, a document on AI policy but on social philosophy, rooted in the Catholic tradition of social teaching. Just as Rerum Novarum, published in 1891, had explored the social implications of industrial capitalism, Leo XIV views AI as a new juncture in humankind's engagement with technology and power.

Two biblical images are recurring throughout the encyclical: Babel and Jerusalem. Babel, the archetype of technical ambition without purpose or moral intent, is an effort to reorder and recenter human society based on conformity, centralization, and the delusion of self-sufficiency. Jerusalem, rebuilt under Nehemiah, is an image of collective reconstruction based on participation and responsibility.

The symbolic weight is critical. Leo XIV is not arguing that technology in itself is inherently dangerous. He is, rather, suggesting that the tools of technology will inherently contain and perpetuate whatever values, incentives, and priorities of the architects and wielders of these technologies. The question is not therefore whether AI should exist, but rather whether it increases human flourishing or enhances systems of control.

This provides what is likely the most significant realization within the encyclical that AI and human intelligence are categories distinct in kind, not in degree. AI can simulate, calculate, and compute, but it can never possess awareness, ethical responsibility, embodiment, or meaningful relationships. As such, decisions impacting human life can no longer be deferred to algorithms in a manner that negates the human good.

‍

The Problem of Power

‍

The most evident clash between Altman's vision and Magnifica Humanitas lies in power dynamics.

The utility model of Altman places the assumption that intelligence can be centrally controlled and widely disseminated. However, the Vatican perceives major political consequences from the concentration of cognitive ability. According to the encyclical, this kind of concentration can lead to major political problems because small groups are given immense power over the economy, public debate, and democracy by possessing the necessary control over data, computation, and the network.

This idea is becoming more prominent in recent research. Experts like Kate Crawford, for instance, have described AI as 'a registry of power' in which systems build up hierarchies of social, political, and economic power. Digital colonialism scholars also show that the control of the network of intelligence under a few transnational corporations may diminish power that would otherwise reside with local authorities and democratic institutions.

The problem, seen from this point of view, does not simply address technology but sovereignty itself. If intelligence is provided as a metered service within private platforms, the access to knowledge, reason, and decision-making tools might rest with entities outside the public sphere, unconcerned with democracy.

The Vatican's solution relies on the principle of subsidiarity; decisions should be taken at the lowest possible levels, respecting the autonomy of individuals, communities, and local institutions. This principle directly contradicts the proposals that see cognitive infrastructure located within a few multinational organizations.

‍

The Hidden Labour Behind AI

‍

A particularly important segment of Magnifica Humanitas addresses the invisible labor of the AI economy. 

While discourse on AI frequently conceptualizes it as an intangible or ethereal technology residing within "the cloud," the opposite is in fact the case. AI relies on the unseen labors of data annotators, content moderators, miners harvesting rare earth metals, construction workers creating data centers, and technicians repairing digital infrastructure. In many cases, these workers exist in marginal situations; investigations have revealed poor wages, minimal rights, and psychologically damaging working conditions, especially for content moderators and data annotators in the Global South. Critics contend that the AI of today exists on the backbone of an unacknowledged global workforce that is shielded from consumers of AI technology. In the encyclical, this idea of the AI economy is framed in terms of human dignity, the standard by which all progress, technological or otherwise, must be measured. Progress cannot be defined solely in terms of efficiency and productivity but must be defined by its consequences for workers, society, and human relationships. While the technology of AI may confer tremendous value to a few, it must not do so at the expense of the humanity of others. It gives a key critique of Altman’s utility model that the appeal of abundant intelligence often focuses on products while neglecting the social and material conditions in which it is produced.

‍

A Clash of Anthropologies

‍

The deepest philosophical disagreement of Altman's and Leo XIV's is over anthropology, i.e., who human beings actually are. 

Altman’s view presumes an ability to quantify and allocate the human capacity for intelligence. The more intelligent the society, the better the society; and intelligence becomes the prime causal factor whose production must be maximized by the machine.

The Vatican rejects this fundamental principle. According to the argument of Magnifica Humanitas, human value is not located in intelligent productivity or efficiency or economic productivity. Dignity is non-conditional and cannot be reduced to measures of performance. One has dignity not because one can compute, produce, and optimize, but because one is a person.

The implications of this difference are vast. If intelligence is principally treated as an economic asset, then humans will constantly have to deal with being judged as being of greater or lesser use compared to the machine. If dignity is intrinsic, machines must remain instruments of the flourishing of the human, irrespective of machine efficiency. In sum, this is not a debate over machines. It is a debate over whether society is going to be defined according to an ideology of optimization or an ideology of humanity.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The juxtaposition of Sam Altman’s model of utility and Leo XIV’s idea of Magnifica Humanitas defines one of the key intellectual arguments of our times. Altman presents a vision of abundance, efficiency, and humanly impossible intellectual capacity. Leo XIV represents what happens when intelligence is divorced from the demands of ethics, democracy, and human dignity; when the demands they represent only contribute to its ultimate capacity to wound the needs it serves. 

It is not whether we will build machines more and more intelligent; it is what politics and values will govern these machines. When intelligence becomes a service, whose interests will govern the machine, who will write the rules, and who will be the direct beneficiaries? When dignity is the source from which man and machine alike emerge, the service must not be judged on what the machine does best but on what it can do for man. The ultimate question is whether we will be able to maintain a view of ourselves that is larger than just our capacity to engineer.

‍

References:

1. Atlas of AI, Crawford, Kate. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021.
2. Pope Leo XIV. Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. Vatican City: Holy See, 2026.
3. Pope Leo XIII. Rerum Novarum. Vatican City: Holy See, 1891.
4. Pope John Paul II. Laborem Exercens. Vatican City: Holy See, 1981.
5. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Dignitas Infinita. Vatican City: Holy See, 2024.
6. International Theological Commission. Quo Vadis, Humanitas? Thinking About Christian Anthropology in the Face of Some Scenarios on the Future of Humanity. Vatican City, 2026.
7. Nick Lichtenberg. "Sam Altman Admits AI Is Killing the Labor-Capital Balance—and Says Nobody Knows What to Do About It." Fortune, 12 March 2026.

‍

Introduction

AI-generated fake videos are proliferating on the Internet indeed becoming more common by the day. There is a use of sophisticated AI algorithms that help manipulate or generate multimedia content such as videos, audio, and images. As a result, it has become increasingly difficult to differentiate between genuine, altered, or fake content, and these AI-manipulated videos look realistic. A recent study has shown that 98% of deepfake-generated videos have adult content featuring young girls, women, and children, with India ranking 6th among the nations that suffer from misuse of deepfake technology. This practice has dangerous consequences and could harm an individual's reputation, and criminals could use this technology to create a false narrative about a candidate or a political party during elections.

The working of deepfake videos is based on algorithms that refine the fake content, and the generators are built and trained in such a way as to get the desired output. The process is repeated several times, allowing the generator to improve the content until it seems realistic, making it more flawless. Deepfake videos are created by specific approaches some of them are: -

• Lip syncing: This is the most common technique used in deepfake. Here, the voice recordings of the video, make it appear as to what was originally said by the person appearing in the video.
• Audio deepfake:  For Audio-generated deepfake, a generative adversarial network (GAN) is used to colon a person’s voice, based on the vocal patterns and refine it till the desired output is generated.

• Deepfake has become so serious that the technology could be used by bad actors or by cyber-terrorist squads to set their Geo-political agendas.  Looking at the present situation in the past few the number of cases has just doubled, targeting children, women and popular faces. 

• Greater Risk: in the last few years the cases of deep fake have risen. by the end of the year 2022, the number of cases has risen to 96% against women and children according to a survey.
• Every 60 seconds, a deepfake pornographic video is created, now quicker and more affordable than ever, it takes less than 25 minutes and costs using just one clean face image.  
• The connection to deepfakes is that people can become targets of "revenge porn" without the publisher having sexually explicit photographs or films of the victim. They may be made using any number of random pictures or images collected from the internet to obtain the same result. This means that almost everyone who has taken a selfie or shared a photograph of oneself online faces the possibility of a deepfake being constructed in their image.

Deepfake-related security concerns

As deepfakes proliferate, more people are realising that they can be used not only to create non-consensual porn but also as part of disinformation and fake news campaigns with the potential to sway elections and rekindle frozen or low-intensity conflicts.

Deepfakes have three security implications: at the international level, strategic deepfakes have the potential to destroy precarious peace; at the national level, deepfakes may be used to unduly influence elections, and the political process, or discredit opposition, which is a national security concern, and at the personal level, the scope for using Women suffer disproportionately from exposure to sexually explicit content as compared to males, and they are more frequently threatened. 

Policy Consideration

Looking at the present situation where the cases of deepfake are on the rise against women and children, the policymakers need to be aware that deepfakes are utilized for a variety of valid objectives, including artistic and satirical works, which policymakers should be aware of. Therefore, simply banning deepfakes is not a way consistent with fundamental liberties. One conceivable legislative option is to require a content warning or disclaimer. Deepfake is an advanced technology and misuse of deepfake technology is a crime.

What are the existing rules to combat deepfakes?

It's worth noting that both the IT Act of 2000 and the IT Rules of 2021 require social media intermediaries to remove deep-fake videos or images as soon as feasible. Failure to follow these guidelines can result in up to three years in jail and a Rs 1 lakh fine. Rule 3(1)(b)(vii) requires social media intermediaries to guarantee that its users do not host content that impersonates another person, and Rule 3(2)(b) requires such content to be withdrawn within 24 hours of receiving a complaint. Furthermore, the government has stipulated that any post must be removed within 36 hours of being published online. Recently government has also issued an advisory to social media intermediaries to identify misinformation and deepfakes.

Conclusion

It is important to foster ethical and responsible consumption of technology. This can only be achieved by creating standards for both the creators and users, educating individuals about content limits, and providing information. Internet-based platforms should also devise techniques to deter the uploading of inappropriate information. We can reduce the negative and misleading impacts of deepfakes by collaborating and ensuring technology can be used in a better manner.  

References

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/parenting/moments/how-social-media-scandals-like-deepfake-impact-minors-and-students-mental-health/articleshow/105168380.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.aa.com.tr/en/science-technology/deepfake-technology-putting-children-at-risk-say-experts/2980880
• https://wiisglobal.org/deepfakes-as-a-security-issue-why-gender-matters/