#FactCheck : Old images of US sailors falsely linked to ongoing Iran tensions
Executive Summary
After Donald Trump said that US Navy ships would soon begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, several old images resurfaced on social media with claims that they show American sailors recently captured by Iran amid the ongoing Middle East tensions. Research by CyberPeace found that the viral posts are misleading. The images being circulated are nearly a decade old and have no connection to the ongoing situation in the Middle East.
Claim:
Posts circulating on Facebook alleged that Iran had captured 10 US Navy personnel — nine men and one woman — and detained them at a military base on Farsi Island. The caption further claimed that the incident was reported by Iranian official Ali Larijani and denied by Donald Trump.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1381610870661566&set=pcb.1381611363994850
Fact Check
A reverse image search revealed that the viral images are not recent. They were published as early as January 13, 2016, by ABC News in a report titled “Iran Releases 10 Navy Sailors Held After Drifting Into Iranian Waters.”
Further checks showed that the same images were distributed by AFP, with credits to Sepah News, the media wing of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
Context
The images relate to a 2016 incident in which two US Navy patrol boats accidentally entered Iranian waters. The crew was detained and taken to Farsi Island. Iran later released the sailors after determining that the intrusion was unintentional and that there was no hostile intent.
Conclusion
The viral posts are misleading. The images being shared are nearly a decade old and unrelated to the ongoing situation in the Middle East.
Related Blogs
Introduction
In June 2026, the Government of India temporarily restricted access to Telegram amid concerns that the platform had been used to facilitate examination related malpractice, including the alleged circulation of leaked question papers during the NEET UG re examination. The move reignited a familiar debate about the responsibility of digital platforms for unlawful activities carried out through them.
Critics of such restrictions raise a fundamental question: if a traffic accident occurs on a road, do we shut down the road? If theft takes place inside a shopping mall, do we close the entire mall? By the same logic, is it reasonable to block a communication platform because some individuals misuse it? These questions lie at the heart of a broader conflict between state interests in maintaining public order and the protection of digital rights, privacy, and freedom of communication in an increasingly interconnected world.
The controversy surrounding Telegram therefore extends beyond a single examination or messaging application. It raises a deeper and more pressing question: who should bear responsibility for illegal acts committed through encrypted digital platforms, and where should the law draw the line between effective enforcement and the preservation of fundamental digital freedoms?
Beyond mere communication for millions of students in India, Telegram is a classroom in the digital sense, an archive for their notes, practice papers, lecture recordings, and community groups that hundreds of millions of candidates refer to every single day. Therefore, why on a routine day in June 2026 did the messaging app top every other channel? Temporary internet restriction on the platform had become necessary to stop examination-related malpractice like leakage of question papers and was temporarily suspended, with reports suggesting that this move by the government was on the occasion of the NEET-UG re-examination.
This ban once again brings up a bigger question that cannot be contained within one particular examination. When has it become okay to hold a communication platform responsible and accountable for illegal acts committed over it? Or are the perpetrators solely to blame, and the service can be prohibited? Ultimately, where is the line drawn between public interest, law enforcement, and digital rights and privacy?
End-to-End Encryption: Architecture and Benefits
At the heart of these discussions of Telegram and other apps lies a technology referred to as "end-to-end encryption" or "E2EE." Quite literally, it means a message is locked with cryptography on the sender's device and can only be unlocked by the intended recipient. Not even the tech platform running the communication app can decipher it for everyone else; it just looks like random gibberish.
The Process
This kind of modern communication relies on public key cryptography. Each person has a public key they can share with anyone and a private key that stays only on their devices. When they send you a message, it is scrambled with crypto that can be unlocked by only your private key. WhatsApp and Signal, for example, use the Signal Protocol, which features "perfect forward secrecy" and is designed to protect communications from ever being unlocked even if one key is compromised. Telegram's approach is a bit unique. By default, Telegram messages aren't encrypted with end-to-end crypto; this only comes via an optional feature called "Secret Chats," a key difference in the regulatory debate.
The Dark Side: Crime, Misuse, and the Moderation Dilemma
The very features that make end-to-end messaging popular among everyday people are privacy, speed, anonymity, and mass reach which also make end-to-end messaging popular among criminals. That, unfortunately, is the catch for policymakers globally: The technology designed to protect innocent users is also the technology that facilitates criminal activity.
3.1 Criminal Abuse
Telegram, in particular, has frequently come under fire for its role in hosting a spectrum of criminal activities, most notably in the recent controversy in India regarding NEET-UG 2026 examination papers where channels allegedly advertised leaked question papers for enormous sums, convincing desperate candidates. In these instances, messages could be altered or deleted using Telegram’s message editing feature, fabricating evidence of prior leaks. However, this extends to illicit marketplaces, drug trafficking, financial fraud, money laundering, and distributing other prohibited content. Telegram's usage in disseminating extremist propaganda and aiding criminal organizations is also frequently cited, leading to bans or restrictions in countries ranging from Brazil to Nepal to Somalia to Vietnam.
3.2 The Moderation Dilemma
But the difficulty is not just with misuse; it’s also about effective moderation. Moderation, however, requires content transparency. Strong encryption is built to obscure just that. Many end-to-end messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp emphasize that even if they wanted to, they would have been able to decipher the content of a user’s message due to their architecture. Telegram has been in scrutiny for years due to its limited cooperation with law enforcement agencies because its default chats are not completely end-to-end encrypted, though there has been an attempt by Pavel Durov, the platform’s founder, to increase cooperation following his 2024 arrest in France.
This gives policymakers the following challenge: How can governments require increased access to fight crime without forcing tech companies to weaken security for everyone? As cryptographers point out, a specific "backdoor" intended to allow access to law enforcement officials can be easily exploited by hackers, foreign governments, and any other actor with nefarious intent.
Comparison of Regulatory Approaches Worldwide
4.1 Authoritarian Countries' Responses
China, for instance, has had the app blocked as part of its strategy to control access to the internet since 2015, and Iran did so in 2018 when the app was used to help organize protests against the government. An infamous Russian bid to block Telegram in 2018 turned into a cautionary story. Trying to censor the service disrupted the IPs of millions of computers, including significant services like those run by Amazon and Google. The move was met by a surge of users turning to VPNs to get access. It’s an expensive, disruptive, and incomplete form of censorship.
4.2 Democratic Countries' Approaches
Democratic jurisdictions generally prefer targeted interventions. Telegram was suspended in Brazil in 2022 and 2023, though again, only in response to a judge’s order in relation to particular investigations, and was lifted when it came into compliance. The EU’s approach has been to build on an established approach of regulation by use of a broader legislative framework, including the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, aimed at platform liability rather than outlawing encryption outright.
Meanwhile, the proposed scanning of encrypted communications has run into strong judicial headwinds, with the European courts stressing the danger of backdoors to privacy.
4.3 The United Kingdom Approach
The UK offers a middle way. With its Investigatory Powers Act, the government can oblige tech companies to collaborate in legitimate investigations. But this came to a head earlier this year with the case of Apple and the government's attempts to force it to unlock encrypted iCloud backups. Apple not only refused to reduce its encryption but also decided instead to disable some of its features for British users. This has created a problem for democracies across the world: how to balance access for investigators against the need to maintain the security that makes our systems safer.
Judicial and Legislative Perspectives: India and Beyond
In the Indian context, to have a perspective about the legal frameworks concerning content moderation, let’s explore some of the foundational decisions from the Supreme Court. Three decisions have laid the building block for digital rights laws: the first being Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), where Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, was upheld, but only by laying rigorous conditions on the review process and chance of challenging the said decision. Another important decision in this sphere is Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) which stated that the right to privacy is fundamental in nature under Article 21 of the Constitution and stipulated the constitutional requirements of legality, legitimacy, and proportionality against the state’s interventions in fundamental rights. The most recent important case law to consider, in this context, would be Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) which set certain limitations, such as any internet shut-downs or orders have to be temporary, proportional, and have scope for appeal. Further, the Supreme Court demanded transparency around any and all orders of blocking.
These principles of proportionality and legal limitations are highly pertinent to the Telegram issue, especially since Section 69A confers powers to block information in case of concerns about public order, national security, etc., but activists often cite this power to target specific content rather than entire platforms like Telegram. The ban on Telegram in June 2026 and disabling of message editing will force authorities to justify not only their statutory authority but also the need for proportionate means.
These aspects are amplified by IT Rules, 2021, which mandate that some instant messaging platforms may require identification of the ‘first originator’ of messages, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to protect digital personal data by ensuring it does not undermine national security exceptions to this end.
Moreover, the use of encryption to ensure secure and private communications is becoming an important point of legal discourse globally. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights in Podchasov v. Russia (2024) held that mandating decryption on devices as a tool of investigative power constituted a disproportionate interference with an individual's right to privacy implying that while states may indeed have authority to regulate communication and digital services, any such measures limiting the scope of encryption will have to meet strict requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality to be legally justifiable.
Constitutional Validity of the Ban
The government's case for a constitutional ban on Telegram rests upon its ability to satisfy the proportionality framework established by Puttaswamy and Anuradha Bhasin.
- Legitimate aim: The state's strong suit. This is the government's best argument. Protection of the integrity of NEET-UG, a high-stakes test with close to 2.4 million students, can indeed be a legitimate state objective. Given that there is evidence of channels that allegedly were involved in selling leaked question papers, the action is presumably justifiable under section 69A for preventing the incitement or occurrence of public disorder or preventing cognizable offenses.
- Necessity: The National Testing Agency (NTA) itself admitted that localized removal of suspicious accounts on Telegram had already mitigated the risks, while Telegram insisted that it had independently taken down numerous channels. The fact that the block affected more than 150 million users in India, where the medium is widely used for personal communication and is also utilized on other platforms like WhatsApp, Discord, and Instagram to a similar or higher extent, raises the responsibility to justify a strict platform-wide ban. Moreover, there is a significant legal question regarding the state’s authority under section 69A to direct Telegram to disable its message-editing capability.
- Proportionality and process: The block, even though it was temporary and intended to ensure fairness in the examination system, severely undermined legitimate uses of the platform by students who used it to share educational materials and organize study groups. Moreover, the opaqueness around the section 69A order is itself hard to reconcile with the transparency requirements set out in Anuradha Bhasin.
Thus, while the objectives of preventing exam fraud may be legitimate, the necessity and proportionality of single platform-wide bans remain highly suspect under Indian constitutional law.
Policy Recommendations and the Path Forward
The Telegram controversy points to the need for a better balancing act in platform governance in India. Firstly, instead of blanket platform shutdowns, action should target specific channels, bots, or URLs, as may be the case. Secondly, any attempt to dictate changes to features, such as disabling message editing, should be based on specific statutory provisions, not an expansive reading of Section 69A. Furthermore, there is a dire need for increased transparency; blocking orders must state the justification for the order, what is being blocked, and for how long, as far as possible. In the long run, stricter cross-border cooperation via streamlined MLATs, or through the appointment of local legal representatives by foreign platforms, would facilitate easier enforcement. Ultimately, all major blocking decisions must be accompanied by proportionality assessments. Lastly, India must resist pressure to provide access to encryption backdoors; while this might ease investigative burdens, doing so would severely jeopardise the cybersecurity of India, its businesses, and citizens.
Conclusion
The Telegram ban is an example of the tricky equilibrium between protection of public interest and protection of digital liberties in our hyper-connected world. While the intent to counter exam fraud is justifiable, a blanket ban on any platform has much broader implications on questions of necessity, proportionality and transparency. India has a well-developed constitutional and legal framework to deal with this issue already, and the challenge will be to see if those powers are used appropriately.
References
Cases:
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Bench)
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 — Supreme Court of India
- Podchasov v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 33696/19, February 2024)
- Apple Inc. v. United States (In re Search of an Apple iPhone, C.D. Cal. 2016)
- Telegram Messenger Inc. v. Union of India & Anr., Delhi High Court (June 2026) — Sub judice
Legislation & Rules:
- Information Technology Act, 2000 (India) — Sections 69A, 79
- IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009
- IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India) & DPDP Rules, 2025
- EU Digital Services Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/2065)
- EU Digital Markets Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/1925)
- EU Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) Proposal — In Trilogue, June 2026
- UK Investigatory Powers Act, 2016
Policy Sources:
- Internet Freedom Foundation, Statement on Telegram Block, 16 June 2026
- European Commission, ProtectEU Security Strategy, June 2025
- MeitY Section 69A Blocking Order re: Telegram (June 2026)
- NTA Press Release on NEET-UG 2026 Re-Examination, 16 June 2026
Introduction
As technology advances, global connectivity becomes increasingly vital. Meta's "Project Waterworth" once completed, will reach five major continents and span over 50,000 km, making it the world’s longest subsea cable project using the highest-capacity technology available. This project is expected to bring industry-leading connectivity to the U.S., India, Brazil, South Africa, and other key regions. It will enable greater economic cooperation, facilitate digital inclusion, and open opportunities for technological development in these regions.
In India, a project such as this will help accelerate this progress and support the country’s ambitious plans for its digital economy in cohesion with the significant growth and investment in digital infrastructure that is already underway. Subsea cable projects, such as Project Waterworth, are the backbone of global digital infrastructure, accounting for more than 95% of intercontinental traffic across the world’s oceans to seamlessly enable digital communication, video experiences, online transactions, and more.
Enhancing India's Digital Infrastructure
A subsea cable, or submarine cable, enhances global internet speed and reliability by carrying massive data volumes across ocean floors, connecting countries and continents. Compared to satellites, these cables offer greater stability and minimal disruptions.
Project Waterworth aims to build the world's longest 24-fibre pair cable, improving resilience and deployment speed. The project is expected to prevent the damages in high-risk areas, through the use of innovative routing with maximising deep-water placement (up to 7,000 meters) and enhanced burial techniques. This project will play a crucial role in the advancement of AI and emerging technologies, ensuring widespread access to their benefits in India.
CyberPeace Takeaways
The said project has the potential to have manifold implications ranging from economic and policy to India-US relations, data privacy and security concerns emerging from the increase in the data flows and others. A segregated list of takeaways is as follows:
- Economic and policy implications: The project can lead to economic growth as it has the potential for job creation, and investment opportunities and can lead to positioning India as a digital hub globally. The creation of regulatory frameworks that can support and secure a large-scale infrastructure project such as this is necessary.
- India- US Relations: This project will align with the commitments that were made in the US-India joint statement on undersea technology collaboration and strengthen them. It will further serve as a model for future collaborations between the nations’ tech entities.
- Concerns for Data Privacy and Security: A robust cybersecurity mechanism which can combat the potential risks associated with the increased data flows is required. The concerned authorities need to be vigilant in monitoring and ensuring compliance with the applicable data protection standards set such as the IT Act of 2000, the DPDP Act of 2023 and its rules(once finalised).
Conclusion
India has been provided with a transformative opportunity to bolster its digital landscape by the advent of Project Waterworth. The enhancement of internet speed, stability, and capacity, will strengthen the country’s digital infrastructure and support economic growth. This project is also projected to accelerate AI-driven advancements in India. Moreover, this technological collaboration between India-US will strengthen their relations and set the stage for India to negotiate future global partnerships. A well-defined regulatory framework and strong cybersecurity measures will be crucial to proactively address data privacy, security, and governance challenges to ensure safe and equitable digital progress. As India continues its rapid digital expansion, engaging in informed discussions, policy planning, and strategic investments will be key to maximise Project Waterworth’s impact and propel India toward a more connected, innovative, and resilient digital future.
References
Executive Summary
A video of a soldier is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that an Indian Army Air Defence officer named Anurag Thakur resigned, alleging that soldiers martyred during “Operation Sindoor” were ignored by the government. However, research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be false. The viral video has been manipulated with AI-generated audio and is being shared with a misleading narrative.
Claim:
Instagram users shared the clip claiming: “Indian Army Air Defence officer Anurag Thakur has resigned. He said the Government of India did not even acknowledge the deaths of soldiers.”
Fact Check:
The research began with keyword searches related to the alleged resignation of an “Indian Army Air Defence JCO Anurag Thakur.” No credible or reputed media report was found supporting such a claim. A reverse image search of a frame from the viral video led to the original footage posted by news agency ANI on its official X account on March 22, 2026. The original video runs for 1 minute and 42 seconds A comparison of both videos showed that in the viral clip, the soldier appears to be speaking in English, whereas in ANI’s authentic video, the same soldier is speaking in Hindi while addressing the media.
In the original video, shared by ANI from Bhuj, Gujarat, the JCO explained that on the morning of May 7, 2025, they learned that Indian armed forces had destroyed enemy terror launch pads, marking the beginning of “Operation Sindoor.” He said he motivated his unit and they were prepared to respond. He further stated that on May 8, an enemy drone heading toward a vital location was detected and shot down using minimal ammunition. Two more drones were sent the following day and were also neutralised. He added that “Operation Sindoor” demonstrated the capability of the Indian Army and Air Defence units.
ANI had also summarised the same remarks in English in its post, which further confirmed that the viral version had been tampered with. For additional verification, the audio from the viral clip was examined using AI-based detection tools. Hiya Deepfake Voice Detector flagged it as likely fake, while Resemble AI also identified the audio as manipulated.
Conclusion:
The viral video claiming that an Indian Army Air Defence JCO resigned over ignored martyrs of “Operation Sindoor” is false. The original footage has been altered and artificial AI-generated audio was added to create a misleading narrative.
