Investigation into the deepfake video case involving Rashmika Mandanna has reportedly encountered a setback, according to information provided by the Delhi Police. It is revealed that despite requests, tech companies based in the United States are not sharing data to advance the examination. When a link was sent to the websites seeking data, they responded by stating that they do not have access to historical records.
Shopping Alert: Get up to a 65% discount on headphones and party speakers—check it out now.
As per sources within the police, the examination into Rashmika Mandanna’s deepfake video has faced delays. The reason cited is the reluctance of American tech companies, particularly those involved in AI and deepfake creation, to share information to further the investigation.
The Indian Express report highlights that the police initiated an inquiry into the matter on November 10th after the Special Cell of the Delhi Police started examining the case following the upload of deepfake videos on social media. In these videos, artificial intelligence (AI) tools were used to edit the face of Rashmika Mandanna onto footage of another woman. The release of these videos caused a social media uproar, leading to widespread criticism.
Meta and Tech Company Did Not Share Information: According to sources from the Cyber Cell, both social media giant Meta and tech company GoDaddy were approached multiple times with requests, but they did not share any information regarding the investigation.
Rashmika Mandanna expressed distress over the viral deepfake videos, stating that she was deeply hurt. Even Bollywood icon Amitabh Bachchan commented on the matter, emphasizing the need for legal action.
A senior police officer revealed that a youth from Bihar was taken into custody, and his phone was seized. The Cyber Cell obtained information about an Instagram Reel URL, raising suspicions that the perpetrator used AI tools to create the video.
Regarding three appeals made by the police, Meta responded to the first and second appeals but did not accept the third, which included a URL. The officer further explained that Meta claimed the account and information had been deleted by the accused. When old data was requested, Meta was uncooperative.
The officer stated that such companies typically store historical data, but in this case, GoDaddy.com provided a URL hosted on their platform, and when contacted for assistance, they asserted having no records related to the URL.
