#FactCheck: Old Video of Priest Being Assaulted Misleadingly Shared With False Harassment Claim

On 25 September 2026, at UN Headquarters in New York, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar signed the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime on the sidelines of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly, calling it a step that "strengthens international cooperation for a safer digital future."

 The signature places India among the growing list of nations joining what is officially the first comprehensive global treaty dedicated to cybercrime. What Jaishankar's brief statement did not mention is that this same treaty has spent the better part of three years drawing sustained, detailed criticism from human rights organisations, technology companies, and digital rights groups, who argue it risks becoming a tool for surveillance rather than a tool against crime.

A Conversation CyberPeace Has Been Having for Years

For CyberPeace, India’s signature is not an isolated development but the latest chapter in a conversation the organisation has been following since the Convention was still being negotiated.

In December 2024, CyberPeace published its analysis of the emerging UN Convention against Cybercrime, examining its objectives, proposed offences, mechanisms for international cooperation, electronic evidence and its relationship with the Budapest Convention. The analysis also highlighted an important principle embedded in the emerging framework: that stronger cybercrime enforcement must operate alongside due process, privacy and human-rights safeguards.

That conversation continued in October 2025, when CyberPeace published The Digital Leviathan: The UN Cybercrime Treaty and the Future of Global Governance. The piece examined the Convention not merely as a cybercrime instrument, but as part of a larger evolution in global digital governance, particularly around cross-border evidence, international cooperation and the changing architecture of cyber sovereignty.

And in August 2026, CyberPeace returned to the question from the operational side in The World Is Rewriting the Rules Against Cyber-Enabled Transnational Crime. The analysis placed the Convention alongside the wider international response to transnational cyber-enabled crime, including scam networks, financial fraud and increasingly sophisticated criminal ecosystems that operate across multiple jurisdictions.

What the Convention actually is

The treaty's full, formal title is unusually descriptive for a UN instrument: the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, Strengthening International Cooperation for Combating Certain Crimes Committed by Means of Information and Communications Technology Systems and for the Sharing of Evidence in Electronic Form of Serious Crimes. The UN General Assembly adopted it unanimously on 24 December 2024, following three years of negotiation, and it opened for signature at a ceremony in Hanoi, Vietnam, in October 2025. It will remain open for signature at UN Headquarters through 31 December 2026, and comes into force ninety days after the fortieth country ratifies it.

At its core, the Convention gives signatory states a shared legal framework for two things: preventing and prosecuting offences committed through digital systems, and cooperating across borders when evidence, offenders, or victims of a crime are scattered across multiple jurisdictions, a structural problem that has long frustrated cybercrime investigations. It also includes provisions specifically addressing the recovery of criminal proceeds, adding a financial dimension that lets states cooperate not just on prosecuting offenders but on tracing and reclaiming stolen money that has moved across borders, often through mule accounts and shell transactions designed to outrun any single country's jurisdiction.

Why India signed, in its own words

Jaishankar's public reasoning was concise. Cybercrime, in the government's framing, does not respect national boundaries, and India's own cybercrime caseload, spanning cross-border financial fraud, romance scams, and organised online extortion networks often operating from outside India's borders, has repeatedly run into exactly the jurisdictional walls this Convention is designed to lower. Prof. Triveni Singh, a well known cybercrime expert and former IPS officer, put the practical case plainly: "Cybercrime does not stop at national borders. Criminals can operate from one country and target victims in another. This convention can help countries share evidence and work together faster. For India, stronger international cooperation can make it easier to investigate cross-border cyber fraud and trace stolen money." 

The part the announcement leaves out

Here is where the story gets considerably more complicated than a signing ceremony photo suggests. Since before the Convention's text was even finalised, a wide coalition of digital rights organisations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch, the Global Network Initiative, and Privacy International, has warned that the treaty's language is dangerously broad, and that its safeguards against misuse are considerably weaker than they need to be.

Cisco, one of the few major technology companies to comment publicly, stated the Convention does not do enough to "sufficiently protect basic human rights." UN Secretary-General António Guterres, notably, has himself urged countries to sign and ratify the Convention while simultaneously calling for its implementation to be "rooted in human rights," a somewhat unusual dual message from the very institution that produced the text, and one that implicitly acknowledges the concerns raised against it.

Where this leaves India

None of this means India's signature was unwarranted. The jurisdictional friction Prof. Triveni Singh described is real and well documented, and a shared international framework for evidence sharing genuinely could accelerate investigations that currently stall for months while agencies wait on slow, bilateral mutual legal assistance requests. India's existing domestic cybercrime coordination architecture is already substantial, spanning I4C, the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal, and newer mechanisms like the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System and the Sahyog platform, and a global treaty that maps onto this existing infrastructure could genuinely close gaps that purely domestic tools cannot reach, particularly in cases where the perpetrator, the server, and the victim all sit in different countries, a pattern that has become close to the default in organised online financial fraud rather than the exception.

But the criticisms levelled at the Convention are not fringe objections; they come from some of the most established digital rights organisations in the world, and they focus specifically on the treaty's most powerful surveillance and cross-border cooperation provisions, the very mechanisms India will now need to operationalise domestically. Signing the Convention is also only the first procedural step; India's obligations under it will not take practical effect until the instrument is ratified domestically, a process that typically allows room for a signatory state to clarify how broadly or narrowly it intends to apply the treaty's more expansive provisions. How India chooses to implement those provisions, whether through the kind of judicial oversight and narrow, offence-specific application human rights groups have called for, or through the broader interpretation the treaty's text technically permits, will likely determine whether this Convention becomes a genuine tool against fraud and organised cybercrime, or a broader instrument whose reach eventually extends well past the digital offences it was signed to address.

References

• The420.in, "India Signs UN Cybercrime Convention to Strengthen Global Fight Against Digital Crime." ANI, "EAM Jaishankar signs UN Convention against Cybercrime on UNGA sidelines." https://aninews.in/news/world/us/eam-jaishankar-signs-un-convention-against-cybercrime-on-unga-sidelines20260926063207/
• Ministry of Cyber Affairs, "India signs UN Convention against Cybercrime at UNGA 81." https://ministryofcyberaffairs.com/news/india-signs-un-convention-against-cybercrime-at-unga-81-95b7e43b-7e29-4722-a4a7-304bca55b71c
•  Electronic Frontier Foundation, "UN Cybercrime Convention Negotiations Enter Final Phase With Troubling Surveillance Powers Still on the Table."  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/un-cybercrime-convention-negotiations-enter-final-phase-troubling-surveillance
• Electronic Frontier Foundation, "First Draft of UN Cybercrime Convention Drops Troubling Provisions, But Dangerous And Open-Ended Cross Border Surveillance Powers Are Still on the Table."
• https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/07/first-draft-un-cybercrime-treaty-drops-troubling-provisions-dangerous-and-open
• Global Network Initiative, "GNI Calls on Member States Not to Support the UN Cybercrime Convention." https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/gni-statement-on-uncc/
• Just Security, "The UN Cybercrime Convention: Analyzing the Risks to Human Rights and Global Privacy." https://www.justsecurity.org/98738/cybercrime-convention-human-rights/
• TechRadar Pro, "UN cybercrime convention inadequate, says Human Rights Watch." https://techradar.com/pro/un-cybercrime-convention-inadequate-says-human-rights-watch
• Digital Watch Observatory, "Comparative analysis: the Budapest Convention vs the UN Convention Against Cybercrime." https://dig.watch/updates/comparative-analysis-the-budapest-convention-vs-the-un-convention-against-cybercrime
• epicenter.works, "Cybercrime Convention: Cross-Border Human Rights Violations." https://epicenter.works/en/content/cybercrime-convention-cross-border-human-rights-violations
• UN Press, "Secretary-General Urges All Countries to Sign, Ratify New UN Convention against Cybercrime, Calls for Solutions Rooted in Human Rights." https://press.un.org/en/2025/sgsm22961.doc.htm
• https://cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/the-digital-leviathan-the-un-cybercrime-treaty-and-the-future-of-global-governance 
• https://cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/the-world-is-rewriting-the-rules-against-cyber-enabled-transnational-crime 

‍

One of the best forums for many video producers is YouTube. It also has a great chance of generating huge profits. YouTube content producers need assistance to get the most views, likes, comments, and subscribers for their videos and channels. As a result, some people could use YouTube bots to unnaturally raise their ranks on the YouTube site, which might help them get more organic views and reach a larger audience. However, this strategy is typically seen as unfair and can violate the YouTube platform’s terms of service.

As YouTube grows in popularity, so does the usage of YouTube bots. These bots are software programs that may automate operations on the YouTube platform, such as watching, liking, or disliking videos, subscribing to or unsubscribing from channels, making comments, and adding videos to playlists, among others. There have been YouTube bots around for a while. Many YouTubers widely use these computer codes to increase the number of views on their videos and accounts, which helps them rank higher in YouTube’s algorithm. Researchers discovered a new bot that takes private information from YouTube users’ accounts.

CRIL (Cyble Research and Intelligence Labs) has been monitoring new and active malware families CRIL has discovered a new YouTube bot virus capable of viewing, liking, and commenting on YouTube videos. Furthermore, it is capable of stealing sensitive information from browsers and acting as a bot that accepts orders from the Command and Control (C&C) server to carry out other harmful operations.

The Bot Insight

This YouTube bot has the same capabilities as all other YouTube bots, including the ability to view, like, and comment on videos. Additionally, it has the ability to steal private data from browsers and act as a bot that takes commands from a Command and Control (C&C) server for various malicious purposes. Researchers from Cyble discovered the inner workings of this information breach the Youtube bot uses the sample hash(SHA256) e9dac8b677a670e70919730ee65ab66cc27730378b9233d944ad7879c530d312.They discovered that it was created using the.NET compiler and is an executable file with a 32-bit size.

• The virus runs an AntiVM check as soon as it is executed to thwart researchers’ attempts to find and analyze malware in a virtual environment.
• It stops the execution if it finds that it is operating in a regulated setting. If not, it will carry out the tasks listed in the argument strings.
• Additionally, the virus creates a mutex, copies itself to the %appdata% folder as AvastSecurity.exe, and then uses cmd.exe to run.
• The new mutex makes a task scheduler entry and aids in ensuring
• The victim’s system’s installed Chromium browsers are used to harvest cookies, autofill information, and login information by the AvastSecurity.exe program.
• In order to view the chosen video, the virus runs the YouTube Playwright function, passing the previously indicated arguments along with the browser’s path and cookie data.
• YouTube bot uses the YouTube Playwright function to launch the browser environment with the specified parameters and automate actions like watching, liking, and commenting on YouTube videos. The feature is dependent on Microsoft. playwright’s kit.
• The malware establishes a connection to a C2 server and gets instructions to erase the entry for the scheduled task and end its own process, extract log files to the C2 server, download and run other files, and start/stop watching a YouTube movie.
• Additionally, it verifies that the victim’s PC has the required dependencies, including the Playwright package and the Chrome browser, installed. When it gets the command “view,” it will download and install these dependencies if they are missing.

Recommendations

The following is a list of some of the most critical cybersecurity best practices that serve as the first line of defense against intruders. We propose that our readers follow the advice provided below:

• Downloading pirated software from warez/torrent websites should be avoided. Such a virus is commonly found in “Hack Tools” available on websites such as YouTube, pirate sites, etc.
• When feasible, use strong passwords and impose multi-factor authentication.
• Enable automatic software updates on your laptop, smartphone, and other linked devices.
• Use a reputable antivirus and internet security software package on your linked devices, such as your computer, laptop, and smartphone.
• Avoid clicking on suspicious links and opening email attachments without verifying they are legitimate.Inform staff members on how to guard against dangers like phishing and unsafe URLs.
• Block URLs like Torrent/Warez that might be used to propagate malware.To prevent malware or TAs from stealing data, keep an eye on the beacon at the network level.

Conclusion

Using YouTube bots may be a seductive strategy for content producers looking to increase their ranks and expand their viewership on the site. However, the employment of bots is typically regarded as unfair and may violate YouTube’s terms of service. Utilizing YouTube bots carries additional risk because they might be identified, which could lead to account suspension or termination for the user. Mitigating this pressing issue through awareness drives and surveys to determine the bone of contention is best. NonProfits and civil society organizations can bridge the gap between the tech giant and the end user to facilitate better know-how about these unknown bots.

Introduction

The digital expanse of the metaverse has recently come under scrutiny following a gruesome incident. In a digital realm crafted for connection and exploration, a 16-year-old girl’s avatar falls victim to an agonising assault that kindled the fire of ethno-legal and societal discourse. The incident is a stark reminder that the cyberverse, offering endless possibilities and experiences, also has glaring challenges that require serious consideration. The incident involves a sixteen-year-old teen girl being raped through her digital avatar by a few members of Metaverse. 

This incident has sparked a critical question of genuine psychological trauma inflicted by virtual experiences. The incident with a 16-year-old girl highlights the strong emotional repercussions caused by illicit virtual actions. While the physical realm remains unharmed, the digital assault can leave permanent scars on the psyche of the girl. This issue raises a critical question about the ethical implications of virtual interactions and the responsibilities of service providers to protect users' well-being on their platforms. 

The Judicial Quagmire 

The digital nature of these assaults gives impetus to complex jurisdictions which are profound in cyber offences. We are still novices in navigating the digital labyrinth where avatars have the ability to transcend borders with just a click of a mouse. The current legal structure is not equipped to tackle virtual crimes, calling for urgent reforms in critical legal structure. The Policymakers and legal Professionals must define virtual offenses first with clear and defined jurisdictional boundaries ensuring justice isn’t hampered due to geographical restrictions. 

Meta’s Accountability 

Meta, a platform where this gruesome incident occurred, finds itself at the crossroads of ethical dilemma. The company implemented plenty of safeguards that proved futile in preventing such harrowing acts. The incident has raised several questions about the broader role and responsibilities of tech juggernauts. Some of the questions demanding immediate answers as how a company can strike a balance between innovation and the protection of its users.  

The Tightrope of Ethics 

Metaverse is the epitome of innovation, yet this harrowing incident highlights a fundamental ethical contention. The real challenge is to harness the power of virtual reality while addressing the risks of digital hostilities. Society is still facing this conundrum, stakeholders must work in tandem to formulate robust and effective legal structures to protect the rights and well-being of users. This also includes balancing technological development and ethical challenges which require collective effort.  

Reflections of Society 

Beyond legal and ethical considerations, this act calls for wider societal reflections. It emphasises the pressing need for a cultural shift fostering empathy, digital civility and respect. As we tread deeper into the virtual realm, we must strive to cultivate ethos upholding dignity in both the digital and real world. This shift is only possible through awareness campaigns, educational initiatives and strong community engagement to foster a culture of respect and responsibility. 

Safer and Ethical Way Forward

A multidimensional approach is essential to address the complicated challenges cyber violence poses. Several measures can pave the way for safer cyberspace for netizens. 

• Legislative Reforms - There’s an urgent need to revamp legislative frameworks to mitigate and effectively address the complexities of these new and emerging virtual offences. The tech companies must collaborate with the government on formulating best practices and help develop standard security measures prioritising user protection.

• Public Awareness and Engagement - Initiating public awareness campaigns to educate users on crucial issues such as cyber resilience, ethics, digital detox and responsible online behaviour play a critical role in making netizens vigilant to avoid cyber hostilities and help fellow netizens in distress. Civil society organisations and think tanks such as CyberPeace Foundation are the pioneers of cyber safety campaigns in the country, working in tandem with governments across the globe to curb the evil of cyber hostilities. 
• Interdisciplinary Research: The policymakers should delve deeper into the ethical, psychological and societal ramifications of digital interactions. The multidisciplinary approach in research is crucial for formulating policy based on evidence. 

Conclusion 

The digital Gang Rape is a wake-up call, demanding the bold measure to confront the intricate legal, societal and ethical pitfalls of the metaverse. As we navigate digital labyrinth, our collective decisions will help shape the metaverse's future. By nurturing the culture of empathy, responsibility and innovation, we can forge a path honouring the dignity of netizens, upholding ethical principles and fostering a vibrant and safe cyberverse. In this significant movement, ethical vigilance, diligence and active collaboration are indispensable.

References:

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/virtual-gang-rape-reported-in-the-metaverse-probe-underway/article67705164.ece
• https://thesouthfirst.com/news/teen-uk-girl-virtually-gang-raped-in-metaverse-are-indian-laws-equipped-to-handle-similar-cases/