#FactCheck-Video falsely links Lt Gen Rajiv Ghai to party dance clip; actually shows content creator’s father

Introduction

‍

Over the last few years, several public data breaches in Venezuela have revealed a lack of cohesion and progress in its data privacy system and left many people susceptible to fraud, identity theft and long-term harm via the internet. It is clear from these data breaches that when organizations fail to adequately protect their data, both through cybersecurity failures and weak legal protections, they can lead to problems throughout an entire system through which all individuals in the system could potentially suffer.

Among the more notable breaches are the Movistar Venezuela data breach from 2025 and the Cashea App data leak from earlier this year. Each of these examples demonstrates to some extent how the absence of an adequate privacy regulatory scheme can worsen the results of a data breach.

‍

The Movistar Breach: A Regulatory Warning (2025)

‍

Venezuelan digital rights group VE Sin Filtro published a report late in April 2025, which found a database revealed to have been opened onto the internet containing personal information belonging to over 3.2 million Movistar customers. The initial breach contained personal, and confidential, data of Venezuelan citizens such as national identification numbers, full names, city of residence, and phone numbers which could have been exploited to commit identity theft, SIM-swap fraud, and targeted scams.

One significant issue with this situation was that Movistar failed to disclose the breach publicly or contact impacted customers at the time of the disclosure. As a result, there appears to be a significant gap in Sanctions / Other Means of Enforcing Security Countermeasures Laws. Since there are numerous countries that enforce GDPR-style regulations and as such, this matter should lead to a complete investigation and possible fines against those responsible but in Venezuela there is still a lack of accountability.

‍

Cashea App Leak: A 2026 Data Shock

‍

A second alleged data breach came to light in February of 2026. It involved a Venezuelan buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) fintech called Cashea App, which is typically heavily utilized domestically. Reports have circulated that threat actors have been offering a database, believed to hold more than 79 million transaction records. This is more than double the size and sensitivity of the data involved in the Movistar Breach.

According to reports, the leaked data included:

1. Bank account details and payment methods
2. Merchant profiles and internal business identifiers
3. Detailed transaction histories with names, national ID numbers, timestamps, and installment data

This level of exposure goes far beyond basic identifiers. Financial transaction histories combined with personal identifiers enable sophisticated fraud, targeted social engineering, and long-term misuse of financial identities. As with the Movistar breach, no official acknowledgment or notification was issued by Cashea at the time of reporting, again underscoring Venezuela’s weak enforcement environment.

‍

Why These Breaches Matter: The Legal Dimension

‍

The incidents show us that there is a bigger problem with the way Venezuela has set up its framework for protecting data. For instance, the Venezuelan Constitution recognises the principles of data protection and privacy; however, these rights only exist in a theoretical manner; they lack implementing legislation, procedural clarity, and institutional enforcement.

‍

Constitutional Basis of Data Protection

‍

The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) stated the core principles for protecting data are found in the Venezuelan Constitution. After the TSJ issued its 2011 ruling, Article 28 of the Venezuelan Constitution gives individuals the right to know what data the state has about them, how the state uses that data, and to correct or delete any harmful data. Article 60 of the Venezuelan Constitution protects individuals' privacy and restricts excessive data collection by the state.

The Constitutional Chamber also put into place additional guiding principles for how to protect personal data, including:

1. The data subject must give prior informed and revocable consent.
2. The purpose for which the data is collected must be specified and only the minimum amount of information necessary can be collected.
3. The data collected must be accurate and of good quality.
4. There are confidentiality obligations for third parties regarding the use of the data.
5. It is the government's responsibility to put into place procedures and mechanisms to monitor compliance with the data protection laws.
6. There are civil, criminal and administrative liabilities for individuals and legal entities that violate the data protection laws.

But, in a civil law country, when courts make rulings, they usually are persuasive only as opposed to being legally binding, and even constitutional rulings cannot be implemented until enabling legislation is passed.

‍

Absence of a Comprehensive Data Protection Law

‍

In contrast to the European Union's GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), the United States' sectoral approach, and emerging Latin American data protection systems such as the ones in Brazil, Chile and Colombia, Venezuela has no independent data protection law. This lack of law leads to numerous types of uncertainty in the realm of data protection laws:

1. No defined data controller or processor obligations
2. No standardized lawful bases for processing
3. No clear breach notification timelines
4. No independent data protection authority
5. No procedural pathway for individuals to seek redress

As a result, data protection in Venezuela is not treated as an independent legal discipline but instead becomes derivative, arising incidentally within constitutional litigation or sector-specific disputes.

‍

Regulatory Fragmentation and Institutional Weakness

‍

Due to the TSJ decisions made in 2011, there has been a lack of regulatory action taken in a systematic fashion and instead most actions have been done on a case by case basis as valid incidents arise. The National Cybersecurity Council was established in 2024; however, its function is to support the establishment of cybersecurity infrastructure and has no defined powers regarding the enforcement of privacy.

This creates a fragmented institutional landscape where:

1. Authorities lack clear jurisdiction over privacy violations
2. Companies face minimal compliance guidance
3. Individuals struggle to understand or enforce their rights

The Movistar and Cashea incidents highlight how this fragmentation translates into practical impunity following major data exposures.

‍

What’s Next? A Legal Opportunity for Reform

‍

The repercussions of insufficient safeguards for data protection extend past the damage incurred to a person's privacy:

1. Loss of trust in both financial and digital services
2. Heightened likelihood of financial fraud and crime
3. Lack of willingness from foreign companies to conduct business with Venezuela’s platforms.
4. Long-term negative impact on the reputation of domestic companies.
5. Possible inability to access cross-border transfer of data due to other jurisdictions’ decisions to restrict transfers into jurisdictions without cutting-edge enforcement of protections for privacy.

In a digital economy that increasingly requires robust data protection to function successfully, a lack of action to create strong protections will cause a significant economic impact.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Major data breaches such as the ones at Movistar in 2025 and Cashea App in 2026 show that constitutional privacy rights alone are insufficient without enforceable legal framework. Privacy laws must move from being just a principle to being a law that has institutions, procedures, and accountability to make sure the privacy of the users is protected.

Now with the global digital economy being so interconnected, not having regulations creates openings for vulnerabilities for people. If Venezuela hopes to protect their citizens, create an innovation-friendly environment, and compete in the global market, they must implement comprehensive data privacy reforms as soon as possible.

‍

REFERENCES 

‍

1. https://iapp.org/news/a/venezuela-data-breach-highlights-scattered-privacy-regulation
2. https://www.apolocybersecurity.com/en/blog-posts/ciberataque-a-movistar-que-ha-pasado-a-quien-afecta-y-como-proteger-tus-datos
3. https://darknetsearch.com/knowledge/news/en/cashea-app-data-leak-79m-records-exposed-in-venezuela/
4. https://www.binance.com/en-IN/square/post/294369884695410

‍

Introduction

The United Nations (UN) has unveiled a set of principles, known as the 'Global Principles for Information Integrity', to combat the spread of online misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech. These guidelines aim to address the widespread harm caused by false information on digital platforms. The UN's Global Principles are based on five core principles: social trust and resilience, independent, free, and pluralistic media, healthy incentives, transparency and research, and public empowerment. The UN chief emphasized that the threats to information integrity are not new but are now spreading at unprecedented speeds due to digital platforms and artificial intelligence technologies.

These principles aim to enhance global cooperation in order to create a safer online environment. It was further highlighted that the spread of misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, and other risks in the information environment poses threats to democracy, human rights, climate action, and public health. This impact is intensified by the emergence of rapidly advancing Artificial Intelligence Technology (AI tech) that poses a growing threat to vulnerable groups in information environments.

The Highlights of Key Principles

1. Societal Trust and Resilience: Trust in information sources and the ability and resilience to handle disruptions are critical for maintaining information integrity. Both are at risk from state and non-state actors exploiting the information ecosystem.
2. Healthy Incentives: Current business models reliant on targeted advertising threaten information integrity. The complex, opaque nature of digital advertising benefits large tech companies and it requires reforms to ensure transparency and accountability.
3. Public Empowerment: People require the capability to manage their online interactions, the availability of varied and trustworthy information, and the capacity to make informed decisions. Media and digital literacy are crucial, particularly for marginalized populations.
4. Independent, Free, and Pluralistic Media: A free press supports democracy by fostering informed discourse, holding power accountable, and safeguarding human rights. Journalists must operate safely and freely, with access to diverse news sources.
5. Transparency and research: Technology companies must be transparent about how information is propagated and how personal data is used. Research and privacy-preserving data access should be encouraged to address information integrity gaps while protecting those investigating and reporting on these issues.

Stakeholders Called for Action

Stakeholders, including technology companies, AI actors, advertisers, media, researchers, civil society organizations, state and political actors, and the UN, have been called to take action under the UN Global Principles for Information Integrity. These principles should be used to build and participate in broad cross-sector coalitions that bring together diverse expertise from civil society, academia, media, government, and the international private sector, focussing on capacity-building and meaningful youth engagement through dedicated advisory groups. Additionally, collaboration is required to develop multi-stakeholder action plans at regional, national, and local levels, engaging communities in grassroots initiatives and ensuring that youth are fully and meaningfully involved in the process.

Implementation and Monitoring

To effectively implement the UN Global Principles at large requires developing a multi-stakeholder action plan at various levels such as at the regional, national, and local levels. These plans should be informed and created by advice and counsel from an extensive range of communities including any of the grassroots initiatives having a deep understanding of regional challenges and their specific needs. Monitoring and evaluation are also regarded as essential components of the implementation process. Regular assessments of the progress, combined with the flexibility to adapt strategies as needed, will help ensure that the principles are effectively translated into practice.

Challenges and Considerations

Implementing these Global Principles of the UN will have certain challenges. The complexities that the digital landscape faces with the rapid pace of technological revamp, and alterations in the diversity of cultural and political contexts all present significant hurdles. Furthermore, the efforts to combat misinformation must be balanced with protecting fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression and privacy. Addressing these challenges to counter informational integrity will require continuous and ongoing collaboration with constant dialogue among stakeholders towards a commitment to innovation and continuous learning. It is also important to recognise and address the power imbalance within the information ecosystem, ensuring that all voices are heard and that any person, specifically, the marginalised communities is not cast aside.

Conclusion

The UN Global Principles for Online Misinformation and Information Integrity provide a comprehensive framework for addressing the critical challenges that are present while facing information integrity today. Advocating and promoting societal trust, healthy incentives, public empowerment, independent media, and transparency, these principles offer a passage towards a more resilient and trustworthy digital environment. The future success of these principles depends upon the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders, working together to safeguard the integrity of information for everyone.

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/un-unveils-global-principles-to-combat-online-misinformation-hate-speech-124062500317_1.html
• https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2024/06/global-principles-information-integrity-launch/ 
• https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/un-global-principles-for-information-integrity-en.pdf
• https://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/assets/pdf/Common_Agenda_Report_English.pdf 

‍

Executive Summary

Amid rising tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran, a video is circulating on social media claiming that Burj Khalifa in Dubai has been attacked. The clip is being widely shared with users alleging that a strike took place near the iconic skyscraper. However, research by CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the viral video is not real and was generated using artificial intelligence.

‍

Claim

‍

On March 1, 2026, a Facebook user shared the viral clip claiming that an attack had taken place in Dubai. The post was shared with the caption: “Dubai has been attacked.” The link to the post and its archive is provided below along with a screenshot.

• https://www.facebook.com/reel/869024935969589 
• https://archive.ph/GTpU2 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

To verify the claim, we first searched Google using relevant keywords. During this process, we found a report published on March 1, 2026, by the Indian news outlet Dainik Bhaskar.

• https://www.bhaskar.com/g/international/news/dubai-airport-attack-flights-cancelled-israel-iran-war-137327408.html 

‍

‍

According to the report, tensions in the Middle East escalated amid the Israel–Iran conflict, impacting several countries in the region. A drone incident reportedly occurred near Burj Khalifa, prompting authorities to evacuate the building as a precautionary measure and temporarily switch off its lights. However, the visuals seen in the viral video do not match the details or imagery described in the report. Upon closely examining the viral clip, we noticed several technical inconsistencies and unusual visual elements, raising suspicions that the video might have been generated using artificial intelligence. To verify this, we analyzed the video using the AI detection tool Sightengine. The results indicated a 99% probability that the video was AI-generated.

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research found that the viral video circulating on social media is not authentic. The footage was created using artificial intelligence and does not depict a real attack on Burj Khalifa.

‍