#FactCheck-Old 2020 Lockdown Video of PM Modi Resurfaces as Recent

Introduction

Meta's bet that smart glasses will succeed the smartphone as the dominant personal computing device is, commercially, already paying off. EssilorLuxottica, the eyewear manufacturer that builds the Ray-Ban and Oakley Meta product lines, reported selling more than seven million pairs of AI-enabled glasses in 2025 alone, more than tripling the previous year's sales. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has framed the shift as inevitable, comparing it in a recent interview to the transition from flip phones to smartphones and predicting that within a few years, eyewear without embedded AI will put its wearer at a disadvantage.

Yet as adoption accelerates, two features in various stages of internal testing have pulled Meta back into a familiar and uncomfortable position: at the centre of a privacy controversy over exactly how much a camera- and microphone-equipped wearable can quietly learn about the people around it.

NameTag and the return of facial recognition

In June 2026, the technology publication Wired reported that it had found dormant code for a facial-recognition system, internally called NameTag, embedded inside the Meta AI companion app that pairs with the company's smart glasses – an app that had by then been downloaded more than 50 million times. According to that reporting, the system relies on a pipeline of on-device AI models that detect a face, store it locally on the wearer's phone, and match it against previously saved "faceprints", alerting the wearer when it recognises someone they met before. Meta's Chief Technology Officer, Andrew Bosworth, has described the intended design as privacy-conscious: identification data would be encrypted locally, accessible only while the glasses are being worn, and would not populate a centralised company database. He has pitched the feature as a solution to the everyday difficulty of recalling names and past conversations.

Privacy researchers and advocacy groups have been considerably less reassured. One technologist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Threat Lab who analysed the code concluded that despite having been deactivated, it appeared to be near-complete, and more recent reporting connected a portion of Meta’s facial recognition software licensing to Rank One Computing, a vendor that has also licensed similar tech to both U.S. law enforcement and military groups. Meta took the code down immediately after the story’s publication and claims no decision has been made regarding a public rollout.

"Super sensing" and always-on capture

A second, less publicised effort has drawn similar concern. The Financial Times reported in July 2026 that Meta is internally prototyping glasses, under the working concept "super-sensing", designed to capture ambient audio continuously and take still images every few seconds throughout the day, building a searchable log that a wearer's AI assistant could later query to recall where an item was left or what was discussed earlier. Notably, that reporting indicated Meta had discussed shipping the feature without activating the small LED indicator that currently signals when the glasses' camera is capturing photos or video the very light Meta had just reinforced against tampering on its existing hardware. Critics point out that the indicator is already a limited safeguard, since it is easily missed and unfamiliar to most bystanders; removing it during continuous, always-on capture would eliminate the one visible cue currently available to people nearby.

A pattern regulators are watching closely

Both features have emerged against a backdrop of substantial legal exposure. Meta has previously paid roughly two billion dollars combined in biometric-privacy settlements tied to earlier facial-recognition systems on Facebook, including $650 million under Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act and $1.4 billion to the state of Texas. 

A separate class action filed in early 2026 alleges that footage captured by smart-glasses users, including intimate recordings from inside private homes, was reviewed by outside contractors in Kenya for AI-training purposes, a claim that prompted an inquiry from the United Kingdom's Information Commissioner's Office. The Texas Attorney General has opened its own civil investigation into the glasses' data practices. Because U.S. federal privacy law remains fragmented, enforcement of claims like these is likely to continue playing out state by state through statutes such as BIPA, which allow individuals to sue directly, even as the European Union's AI Act imposes separate restrictions on biometric processing within Europe.

Why this matters beyond Meta

For readers focused on cybersecurity and digital privacy, the common thread running through NameTag and super sensing is consent architecture. The smart glasses take in not just what you’re up to but also the location, face, clothes and conversation patterns of anyone within the glasses’ field of vision – all without their consent. Where raising a smartphone to take a photo leaves no ambiguity to nearby observers, glasses made to look like normal eyewear leaves fewer visual and verbal tells of what is actually occurring behind a set of seemingly average lenses. According to security experts and law professors, wiretap laws and the patchwork of existing statutes addressing biometric data aren't prepared for the kind of invisible monitoring that AI-enabled eyeglasses from Meta, and eventually others, are capable of. It's that imbalance between a technology’s unseen power and the limitations of the average person’s awareness that is sure to be the main source of conflict.

CyberPeace Insights

Wearable AI holds real promise for accessibility and everyday convenience, and Meta's continued investment reflects where personal computing is headed. At the same time, features like NameTag and "super-sensing" show why privacy-by-design must stay foundational, not incidental, as this space matures. The core issue isn't innovation itself but consent — ensuring bystanders retain visible, reliable cues when a device is active. Meta's stated moves toward on-device processing and encryption are worth acknowledging as steps in the right direction. CyberPeace believes continued dialogue between industry, regulators, and researchers, rather than adversarial scrutiny alone, is the surest path to public trust.

Conclusion

Meta maintains that both NameTag and Super Sensing remain unreleased and unconfirmed for commercial launch and are subject to further internal review. Executives have publicly disputed characterisations suggesting either feature is further along than the company has described. Even so, the recurring pattern of infrastructure for sensitive capabilities surfacing through independent reporting rather than company disclosure is what has kept privacy advocates, journalists, and regulators paying close attention. It suggests that as smart glasses move from novelty item to mass-market device, the terms of that transition will be shaped as much by courts, regulators, and public pressure as by Meta's own product roadmap.

References

1. https://www.magzter.com/stories/newspaper/Mint-Mumbai/METAS-FLOOD-OF-SMARTGLASSES-HAS-PRIVACY-ADVOCATES-UP-IN-ARMS 
2. Engadget — Wired found code for an unreleased facial recognition feature in Meta's AI app
3. Malwarebytes Labs — Meta's face-recognition code raises new concerns about smart glasses
4. Kaspersky Daily — What's wrong with Meta's NameTag feature and why you should be wary of it
5. Biometric Update — AI glasses reveal widening gap between Meta's privacy safeguards and AI ambitions
6. Fortune — Meta added a privacy-safety feature to its AI glasses but is reportedly testing a 'super-sensing' prototype
7. MacRumors — Meta's 'Super Sensing' Prototype Glasses Quietly Record Everything
8. TechCrunch — Meta sued over AI smart glasses' privacy concerns, after workers reviewed nudity, sex, and other footage

‍

Misinformation is a scourge in the digital world, making the most mundane experiences fraught with risk. The threat is considerably heightened in conflict settings, especially in the modern era, where geographical borders blur and civilians and conflict actors alike can take to the online realm to discuss -and influence- conflict events. Propaganda can complicate the narrative and distract from the humanitarian crises affecting civilians, while also posing a serious threat to security operations and law and order efforts. Sensationalised reports of casualties and manipulated portrayals of military actions contribute to a cycle of violence and suffering. 

A study conducted by MIT found the mere thought of sharing news on social media reduced the ability to judge whether a story was true or false; the urge to share outweighed the consideration of accuracy (2023).  Cross-border misinformation has become a critical issue in today's interconnected world, driven by the rise of digital communication platforms. To effectively combat misinformation, coordinated international policy frameworks and cooperation between governments, platforms, and global institutions are created.

The Global Nature of Misinformation

Cross-border misinformation is false or misleading information that spreads across countries. Out-of-border creators amplify information through social media and digital platforms and are a key source of misinformation. Misinformation can interfere with elections, and create serious misconceptions about health concerns such as those witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, or even lead to military conflicts. 

The primary challenge in countering cross-border misinformation is the difference in national policies, legal frameworks and governance policies of social media platforms across various jurisdictions. Examining the existing international frameworks, such as cybersecurity treaties and data-sharing agreements used for financial crimes might be helpful to effectively address cross-border misinformation. Adapting these approaches to the digital information ecosystem, nations could strengthen their collective response to the spread of misinformation across borders. Global institutions like the United Nations or regional bodies like the EU and ASEAN can work together to set a unified response and uniform international standards for regulation dealing with misinformation specifically. 

Current National and Regional Efforts

Many countries have taken action to deal with misinformation within their borders. Some examples include:

• The EU’s Digital Services Act has been instrumental in regulating online intermediaries and platforms including marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, etc. The legislation aims to prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation.
• The primary legislation that governs cyberspace in India is the IT Act of 2000 and its corresponding rules (IT Rules, 2023), which impose strict requirements on social media platforms to counter misinformation content and enable the traceability of the creator responsible for the origin of misinformation. Platforms have to conduct due diligence, failing which they risk losing their safe harbour protection. The recently-enacted DPDP Act of 2023 indirectly addresses personal data misuse that can be used to contribute to the creation and spread of misinformation. Also, the proposed Digital India Act is expected to focus on “user harms” specific to the online world. 
• In the U.S., the Right to Editorial Discretion and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act place the responsibility for regulating misinformation on private actors like social media platforms and social media regulations. The US government has not created a specific framework addressing misinformation and has rather encouraged voluntary measures by SMPs to have independent policies to regulate misinformation on their platforms.

The common gap area across these policies is the absence of a standardised, global framework for addressing cross-border misinformation which results in uneven enforcement and dependence on national regulations.

Key Challenges in Achieving International Cooperation

Some of the key challenges identified in achieving international cooperation to address cross-border misinformation are as follows:

• Geopolitical tensions can emerge due to the differences in political systems, priorities, and trust issues between countries that hinder attempts to cooperate and create a universal regulation.
• The diversity in approaches to internet governance and freedom of speech across countries complicates the matters further.
• Further complications arise due to technical and legal obstacles around the issues of sovereignty, jurisdiction and enforcement, further complicating matters relating to the monitoring and removal of cross-border misinformation. 

CyberPeace Recommendations 

• The UN Global Principles For Information Integrity Recommendations for Multi-stakeholder Action, unveiled on 24 June 2024, are a welcome step for addressing cross-border misinformation. This can act as the stepping stone for developing a framework for international cooperation on misinformation, drawing inspiration from other successful models like climate change agreements, international criminal law framework etc. 
• Collaborations like public-private partnerships between government, tech companies and civil societies can help enhance transparency, data sharing and accountability in tackling cross-border misinformation. 
• Engaging in capacity building and technology transfers in less developed countries would help to create a global front against misinformation. 

Conclusion

We are in an era where misinformation knows no borders and the need for international cooperation has never been more urgent. Global democracies are exploring solutions, both regulatory and legislative, to limit the spread of misinformation, however, these fragmented efforts fall short of addressing the global scale of the problem. Establishing a standardised, international framework, backed by multilateral bodies like the UN and regional alliances, can foster accountability and facilitate shared resources in this fight. Through collaborative action, transparent regulations, and support for developing nations, the world can create a united front to curb misinformation and protect democratic values, ensuring information integrity across borders.

References

• https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2023-10/A%20Model%20of%20Online%20Misinformation.pdf 
• https://www.indiatoday.in/global/story/in-the-crosshairs-manufacturing-consent-and-the-erosion-of-public-trust-2620734-2024-10-21 
• https://laweconcenter.org/resources/knowledge-and-decisions-in-the-information-age-the-law-economics-of-regulating-misinformation-on-social-media-platforms/ ‍
• https://www.article19.org/resources/un-article-19-global-principles-for-information-integrity/

A video claiming to show a Hatha yogi performing extreme penance on a snow-covered mountain amid strong icy winds is going viral on social media. In the clip, the ascetic is seen balancing on one hand in a yoga posture, while users portray the visuals as a rare example of extraordinary spiritual endurance in harsh climatic conditions.

However, an investigation by the CyberPeace Foundation has found the claim to be false. Our analysis confirms that the viral video is AI-generated and does not depict a real person or an actual event.

‍

Claim:

‍

A Instagram user shared the video with the caption:

“Hatha yogi, what kind of soil are these people made of?” The post suggests that the visuals show a real yogi performing intense meditation on a frozen mountain.

• https://www.instagram.com/reels/DTK32TvDGIJ/
• (Archive link as provided) https://perma.cc/H84M-MGXZ

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the claim, the CyberPeace Foundation conducted a detailed examination of the viral video.No credible or verifiable news reports were found to support the claim that such an incident ever occurred.

The viral video was analysed using the AI detection tool Deepfake-O-Meter.Its AVSRDD (2025) module flagged the video as AI-generated, confirming that the visuals were digitally created and not recorded in real life.

Multiple indicators within the footage,such as unnatural body balance, environmental inconsistencies, and visual artifacts are consistent with AI-generated content.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral video purportedly showing a yogi meditating on a frozen mountain is not real. It has been created using artificial intelligence and is being circulated on social media with a misleading narrative. Users are advised to exercise caution and verify content before sharing such sensational claims.

‍