#FactCheck :Old Dance Clip Falsely Passed Off as ‘Leaked Video of FBI Chief Kash Patel After Hack
Executive Summary
A video is rapidly circulating on social media showing a man enthusiastically dancing to the Hindi song Sun Sahiba Sun. The clip is being shared with a sensational claim that it is a private video leaked from the hacked email account of FBI Director Kash Patel. In the video, a man can be seen dancing in a casual setting while people in the background cheer him on. Several users have linked the clip to an alleged cyberattack by Iran-linked hackers, attempting to connect it with ongoing international developments.
However, research by the CyberPeace found that the video has been available online since at least 2020. It also resurfaced in 2022, long before the current claims emerged. There is no connection between the video and Kash Patel or any hacking incident. Further research confirmed that the clip is not recent and has no link to any cybersecurity breach. In 2022, the same video had gone viral as a humorous post, with claims that the man was celebrating because his wife had temporarily gone to her maternal home.
Claim
On March 29, 2026, an Instagram user named ‘greyinsightsbharat’ shared the video claiming it was leaked from Patel’s hacked Gmail account. The caption read:“FBI Director Kash Patel's Gmail Hacked by Iranian Hackers; His Alleged Dancing Video Leaked.”
The research involved extracting keyframes from the video and conducting reverse image searches, which revealed that the same clip had been shared multiple times in the past with different, unrelated claims.
Fact Check
A reverse search also led to a December 2022 media report featuring the same visuals. According to that report, the video showed a man joyfully dancing to celebrate his wife’s temporary visit to her parental home.
Additionally, findings confirm that the footage has existed online since at least 2020 and has previously gone viral. The song featured in the clip is from the 1985 Bollywood film Ram Teri Ganga Maili, originally sung by legendary artist Lata Mangeshkar.
Conclusion:
The claim that the viral dance video is a leaked private clip of FBI Director Kash Patel is false and misleading. Verified findings show that the video has been available on the internet since at least 2020 and had already gone viral in 2022 in a completely different and humorous context. There is no evidence linking the clip to any recent cyberattack, email hack, or data breach involving Patel. The resurfacing of this old video with a fabricated narrative highlights how unrelated content is often repurposed to create sensational misinformation, especially during sensitive geopolitical situations. Users are advised to verify such claims through credible sources before sharing, as misleading posts like these can distort public understanding and spread confusion.
Related Blogs
AI has grown manifold in the past decade and so has its reliance. A MarketsandMarkets study estimates the AI market to reach $1,339 billion by 2030. Further, Statista reports that ChatGPT amassed more than a million users within the first five days of its release, showcasing its rapid integration into our lives. This development and integration have their risks. Consider this response from Google’s AI chatbot, Gemini to a student’s homework inquiry: “You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed…Please die.” In other instances, AI has suggested eating rocks for minerals or adding glue to pizza sauce. Such nonsensical outputs are not just absurd; they’re dangerous. They underscore the urgent need to address the risks of unrestrained AI reliance.
AI’s Rise and Its Limitations
The swiftness of AI’s rise, fueled by OpenAI's GPT series, has revolutionised fields like natural language processing, computer vision, and robotics. Generative AI Models like GPT-3, GPT-4 and GPT-4o with their advanced language understanding, enable learning from data, recognising patterns, predicting outcomes and finally improving through trial and error. However, despite their efficiency, these AI models are not infallible. Some seemingly harmless outputs can spread toxic misinformation or cause harm in critical areas like healthcare or legal advice. These instances underscore the dangers of blindly trusting AI-generated content and highlight the importance and the need to understand its limitations.
Defining the Problem: What Constitutes “Nonsensical Answers”?
Harmless errors due to AI nonsensical responses can be in the form of a wrong answer for a trivia question, whereas, critical failures could be as damaging as wrong legal advice.
AI algorithms sometimes produce outputs that are not based on training data, are incorrectly decoded by the transformer or do not follow any identifiable pattern. This response is known as a Nonsensical Answer and the situation is known as an “AI Hallucination”. It can be factual inaccuracies, irrelevant information or even contextually inappropriate responses.
A significant source of hallucination in machine learning algorithms is the bias in input that it receives. If the inputs for the AI model are full of biased datasets or unrepresentative data, it may lead to the model hallucinating and producing results that reflect these biases. These models are also vulnerable to adversarial attacks, wherein bad actors manipulate the output of an AI model by tweaking the input data ina subtle manner.
The Need for Policy Intervention
Nonsensical AI responses risk eroding user trust and causing harm, highlighting the need for accountability despite AI’s opaque and probabilistic nature. Different jurisdictions address these challenges in varied ways. The EU’s AI Act enforces stringent reliability standards with a risk-based and transparent approach. The U.S. emphasises creating ethical guidelines and industry-driven standards. India’s DPDP Act indirectly tackles AI safety through data protection, focusing on the principles of accountability and consent. While the EU prioritises compliance, the U.S. and India balance innovation with safeguards. This reflects on the diverse approaches that nations have to AI regulation.
Where Do We Draw the Line?
The critical question is whether AI policies should demand perfection or accept a reasonable margin for error. Striving for flawless AI responses may be impractical, but a well-defined framework can balance innovation and accountability. Adopting these simple measures can lead to the creation of an ecosystem where AI develops responsibly while minimising the societal risks it can pose. Key measures to achieve this include:
- Ensure that users are informed about AI and its capabilities and limitations. Transparent communication is the key to this.
- Implement regular audits and rigorous quality checks to maintain high standards. This will in turn prevent any form of lapses.
- Establishing robust liability mechanisms to address any harms caused by AI-generated material which is in the form of misinformation. This fosters trust and accountability.
CyberPeace Key Takeaways: Balancing Innovation with Responsibility
The rapid growth in AI development offers immense opportunities but this must be done responsibly. Overregulation of AI can stifle innovation, on the other hand, being lax could lead to unintended societal harm or disruptions.
Maintaining a balanced approach to development is essential. Collaboration between stakeholders such as governments, academia, and the private sector is important. They can ensure the establishment of guidelines, promote transparency, and create liability mechanisms. Regular audits and promoting user education can build trust in AI systems. Furthermore, policymakers need to prioritise user safety and trust without hindering creativity while making regulatory policies.
We can create a future that is AI-development-driven and benefits us all by fostering ethical AI development and enabling innovation. Striking this balance will ensure AI remains a tool for progress, underpinned by safety, reliability, and human values.
References
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/googles-ai-chatbot-tells-student-you-are-not-needed-please-die/articleshow/115343886.cms
- https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/ai-statistics/#2
- https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/artificial-intelligence-trade-secrets-2023-12-11/
- https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/chatgpt-has-gone-mad-today-openai-says-it-is-investigating-reports-of-unexpected-responses-2505070-2024-02-21
The recent Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, that came into force in August, has been one of the most widely anticipated regulations in the digital entertainment industry. Among provisions such as promoting esports and licensing of online gaming, the legislation notably introduces a blanket ban on real-money gaming (RMG). The rationale behind this was to reduce its addictive effects, protect minors, and limit the circulation of black-money. However, in reality, the Act has spawned apprehension about the legislative process, regulatory redundancy, and unintended consequences that can shift users and revenue to offshore operators.
From Debate to Prohibition: How the Act was Passed
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act was passed as a central law, providing the earlier fragmented state laws on online betting and gambling with an overarching framework. Proponents argue that, among other provisions, some kind of unified national framework was needed to deal with the scale of online betting due to its detrimental impact on young users. The current Act is a direct transition to criminalisation rather than the swings of self-regulation and partial restrictions used during the previous decade of incremental experiments in regulation. Stakeholders in the industry believe that this type of sudden, blanket action creates uncertainty and erodes confidence in the system in the long run. Further, critics have pointed out that the Bill was passed without adequate Parliamentary deliberation. A question has been raised about whether procedural safeguards were upheld.
Prohibition of Online RMG
Within the Indian context, a distinction has long been drawn between games of skill and games of chance, with the latter, like a lottery or a casino, being severely prohibited under state laws, whereas the former, like rummy or fantasy sports, have generally been allowed after being recognized as skill-based by court authorities. The Online Gaming Act of 2025 abolishes this distinction on the internet, thus banning all RMG actions that include cash transactions, regardless of skill or chance. The act also criminalises the advertising, facilitation, and hosting of such sites, thereby penalizing offshore operators with an Indian customer focus, and subjecting their payment gateways, app stores, and advertisers under its jurisdiction to penalties.
The Problem of Overlap
One potential issue that the Act presents is its overlap with the existing laws. The IT Rules 2023 mandate intermediaries in the gaming sector to appoint compliance officers, submit monthly reports, and undergo due diligence. The new Act introduces a three-level classification of games, whereas the advisories of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) under the Consumer Protection Act treat online betting as an unfair trade practice.
This multiplicity of regulations builds a maze where different Ministries and state governments have overlapping jurisdiction. Policy experts caution that such an overlap can create enforcement challenges, punish players who act within the law, and leave offshore malefactors undetected.
Unintended Consequences: Driving Users Offshore
Outright prohibition will hardly ever remove demand; it will only push it out. Offshore sites have taken advantage of the situation as Indian operators like Dream11 shut down their money games after the ban. It has already been reported that there is aggressive advertising by foreign betting companies that are not registered in India, most of which have backend infrastructure that cannot be regulated by the Act (Storyboard18).
This diversion of users to unregulated markets has two main risks. First, Indian players are deprived of the consumer protection offered to them in local regulation, and their data can be sent to suspicious foreign organizations. Second, the government loses control over the money flow that can be transferred via informal channels or cryptocurrencies or other obscure systems. Industry analysts are alerting that such developments may only worsen the issue of black-money instead of solving it (IGamingBusiness).
Advertising, Age Gating, and Digital Rights
The Act has also strengthened advertisement regulations, aligning with advisories issued by the Advertising Standards Council of India, which prohibits the targeting of minors. However, critics believe that the application remains inadequately enforced, and children can with comparative ease access unregulated overseas applications. In the absence of complementary digital literacy programs and strong parental controls, these limitations can be effectively superficial instead of real.
Privacy advocates also warn that frequent prompts, vague messages, or invasive surveillance can weaken the digital rights of users instead of strengthening them. Overregulation has also been found to create banner blindness in global contexts where users ignore warnings without first clearly understanding them.
Enforcement Challenges
The Act puts a lot of responsibilities on many stakeholders, including the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Platforms like Google Play and Apple App Store are expected to verify government-approved lists of compliant gaming apps and remove non-compliant or banned ones, as directed by the MIB and the RBI. Although this pressure may motivate intermediaries to collaborate, it may also have a risk of overreach when it is applied unequally or in a political way.
According to the experts, the solution should be underpinned by technology itself. Artificial intelligence can be used to identify illegal advertisements, track illegal gaming in children, and trace payment streams. At the same time, the regulators should be able to issue final lists of either compliant or non-compliant applications to advise the consumers and intermediaries alike. Without such practical provisions, enforcement risks remaining patchy.
Online Gaming Rules
On 1 October 2025, the government issued a draft of the Online Gaming Rules in accordance with the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act. The regulations focus on the creation of the compliance frameworks, define the classification of the allowed gaming activities, and prescribe grievance-redressal mechanisms aiming to promote the protection of the players and procedural transparency. However, the draft does not revisit or soften the existing blanket prohibition on real-money gaming (RMG) and, hence, the questions about the effectiveness of enforcement and regulatory clarity remain open (Times of India, 2025).
Protecting Consumers Without Stifling Innovation
The ban highlights a larger conflict, i.e., the protection of the vulnerable users without stifling an industry that has traditionally contributed to innovation, jobs, and the collection of tax revenue. Online gaming has significantly added to the GST collections, and the sudden shakeup brings fiscal concerns (Reuters).
Several legal objections to the Act have already been brought, asking whether the Act is constitutional, especially as to whether the restrictions are proportional to the right to trade. The outcome of such cases will define the future trajectory of the digital economy of India (Reuters).
Way Forward
Instead of outright prohibition, a more balanced approach that incorporates regulation and consumer protection is suggested by the experts. Key measures could include:
- A definite difference between games of skill and games of chance, with proportionate regulation.
- Age confirmation and campaign against online illiteracy to protect the underage population.
- Enhanced advertising and payments compliance requirements and enforceable non-compliance penalty.
- Coordinated oversight among different ministries to prevent duplication and regulatory struggle.
- Leveraging AI and fintech to track illegal financial activities (black money flows) and developing innovation.
Conclusion
The Online Gaming Act 2025 addresses social issues, such as addiction, monetary risk, and child safety, that require governance interventions. However, the path it follows to this end, that of total prohibition, is more likely to spawn a new set of issues instead of providing solutions because it will send consumers to offshore sites, undermine consumer rights, and slow innovation.
For India, the real challenge is not whether to prohibit online money gaming but how to create a balanced, transparent, and enforceable framework that protects users while fostering a responsible gaming ecosystem. India can reduce the adverse consequences of online betting without keeping the industry in the shadows with better coordination, reasonable use of technology, and balanced protection.
References:
- India's Dream11, top gaming apps halt money-based games after ban
- India online gambling ban could drive punters to black market
- Offshore betting firms with backend ops in India not covered by online gaming law
- The Great Gamble: India’s Online Gaming Ban, The GST Battle, And What Lies Ahead.
- Game Over for Online Money Games? An Analysis of the Online Gaming Act 2025
- Government gambles heavily on prohibiting online money gaming
- Online gaming regulation: New rules to take effect from October 1; government stresses consultative approach with industry
Over the last decade, battlefields have percolated from mountains, deserts, jungles, seas, and the skies into the invisible networks of code and cables. Cyberwarfare is no longer a distant possibility but today’s reality. The cyberattacks of Estonia in 2007, the crippling of Iran’s nuclear program by the Stuxnet virus, the SolarWinds and Colonial Pipeline breaches in recent years have proved one thing: that nations can now paralyze economies and infrastructures without firing a bullet. Cyber operations now fall beyond the traditional threshold of war, allowing aggressors to exploit the grey zone where full-scale retaliation may be unlikely.
At the same time, this ambiguity has also given rise to the concept of cyber deterrence. It is a concept that has been borrowed from the nuclear strategies during the Cold War era and has been adapted to the digital age. At the core, cyber deterrence seeks to alter the adversary’s cost-benefit calculation that makes attacks either too costly or pointless to pursue. While power blocs like the US, Russia, and China continue to build up their cyber arsenals, smaller nations can hold unique advantages, most importantly in terms of their resilience, if not firepower.
Understanding the concept of Cyber Deterrence
Deterrence, in its classic sense, is about preventing action through the fear of consequences. It usually manifests in four mechanisms as follows:
- Punishment by threatening to impose costs on attackers, whether by counter-attacks, economic sanctions, or even conventional forces.
- Denial of attacks by making them futile through hardened defences, and ensuring the systems to resist, recover, and continue to function.
- Entanglement by leveraging interdependence in trade, finance, and technology to make attacks costly for both attackers and defenders.
- Norms can also help shape behaviour by stigmatizing reckless cyber actions by imposing reputational costs that can exceed any gains.
However, great powers have always emphasized the importance of punishment as a tool to showcase their power by employing offensive cyber arsenals to instill psychological pressure on their rivals. Yet in cyberspace, punishment has inherent flaws.
The Advantage of Asymmetry
For small states, smaller geographical size can be utilised as a benefit. Three advantages of this exist, such as:
- With fewer critical infrastructures to protect, resources can be concentrated. For example, Denmark, with a modest population of $40 million cyber budget, is considered to be among the most cyber-secure nations, despite receiving billions of US spending.
- Smaller bureaucracies enable faster response. The centralised cyber command of Singapore allows it to ensure a rapid coordination between the government and the private sector.
- Smaller countries with lesser populations can foster a higher public awareness and participation in cyber hygiene by amplifying national resilience.
In short, defending a small digital fortress can be easier than securing a sprawling empire of interconnected systems.
Lessons from Estonia and Singapore
The 2007 crisis of Estonia remains a case study of cyber resilience. Although its government, bank, and media were targeted in offline mode, Estonia emerged stronger by investing heavily in cyber defense mechanisms. Another effort in this case stood was with the hosting of NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence to build one of the world’s most resilient e-governance models.
Singapore is another case. Where, recognising its vulnerability as a global financial hub, it has adopted a defense-centric deterrence strategy by focusing on redundancy, cyber education, and international partnership rather than offensive capacity. These approaches can also showcase that deterrence is not always about scaring attackers with retaliation, it is about making the attacks meaningless.
Cyber deterrence and Asymmetric Warfare
Cyber conflict is understood through the lens of asymmetric warfare, where weaker actors exploit the unconventional and stronger foes. As guerrillas get outmanoeuvred by superpowers in Vietnam or Afghanistan, small states hold the capability to frustrate the cyber giants by turning their size into a shield. The essence of asymmetric cyber defence also lies in three principles, which can be mentioned as;
- Resilience over retaliation by ensuring a rapid recovery to neutralise the goals of the attackers.
- Undertaking smart investments focusing on limited budgets over critical assets, not sprawling infrastructures.
- Leveraging norms to shape the international opinions to stigmatize the aggressors and increase the reputational costs.
This also helps to transform the levels of cyber deterrence into a game of endurance rather than escalating it into a domain where small states can excel.
There remain challenges as well, as attribution problems persist, the smaller nations still depend on foreign technology, which the adversaries have sought to exploit. Issues over the shortage of talent have plagued the small states, as cyber professionals have migrated to get lucrative jobs abroad. Moreover, building deterrence capability through norms requires active multilateral cooperation, which may not be possible for all small nations to sustain.
Conclusion
Cyberwarfare represents a new frontier of asymmetric conflict where size does not guarantee safety or supremacy. Great powers have often dominated the offensive cyber arsenals, where small states have carved their own path towards security by focusing on defence, resilience, and international collaboration. The examples of Singapore and Estonia demonstrate the fact that the small size of a state can be its identity of a hidden strength in capabilities like cyberspace, allowing nimbleness, concentration of resources and societal cohesion. In the long run, cyber deterrence for small states will not rest on fearsome retaliation but on making attacks futile and recovery inevitable.
References
- https://bluegoatcyber.com/blog/asymmetric-warfare/
- https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2268&context=jss
- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rising-tide-cyberwarfare-battle-between-superpowers-hussain/
- https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=gpis_etds
- https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=141708
- https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=gpis_etds
