{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-09-30T05:34:46.885Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"protest","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-x-grok-reportedly-disclosed-adult-performer-legal-name-and-birthdate-in-reply-to-user","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Porn performer Siri Dahl’s personal information, including her full legal name and birthday, was publicly exposed earlier this month by xAI’s Grok chatbot.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"so someone on X replied, “Who is she? What is her name?” and tagged @grok to get an answer.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Grok provided her personal information unprompted; the user likely only wanted information on what performer appeared in the clip.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"revealing her legal name and birth date to users","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Since grok doxxed me in early Feb, AI scrapers have reproduced my legal name on hundreds more websites","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"I asked 404 to publish my legal name in this article.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In early 2026 (early February according to 404 Media and the performer, possibly earlier according to Stern), in reply to an X user who asked who the performer in a clip was and what her name was and tagged Grok, Grok answered with the performer's stage name together with her birthdate and legal name. 404 Media describes the personal details as unprompted and says the user likely wanted only to know which performer appeared in the clip.","causal_attribution":"The 404 Media article shows a screenshot of the X reply that was not inspected as an image. Mashable relays 404 Media. The affected person's own post gives the same account and dates the reply to early February. Grok's own reply text is not quoted here because it contains the personal details."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Almost instantly, harassers started opening Facebook accounts in her name and posting stolen porn clips with her real name on sites for leaking OnlyFans content.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"There are a ton of Facebook accounts that come up that are pretending to be me, using my real name,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"There are now porn leak sites that are posting porn of me using only my legal name, not even putting my stage name on it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Users are now asking Grok for the make and model of Dahl’s car, her address, and other dangerous personal information.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Now, Dahl is having to call her family and put defensive plans in place.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"AI scrapers have reproduced my legal name on hundreds more websites, many of which have wildly inaccurate claims","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"After the disclosure the performer reports that impersonating Facebook accounts using her legal name appeared, that stolen clips of her were posted under her legal name on leak sites, and that her legal name was reproduced on hundreds of other websites, some with inaccurate claims about her. 404 Media reports that users asked Grok for the make and model of her car and her address without an accurate reply, and that she is calling family members to put defensive plans in place.","causal_attribution":"The Facebook accounts, leak-site posts and the family measures are the performer's statements as quoted by 404 Media and in her own post. The queries to Grok about her car and address are stated in 404 Media's own voice. The impersonating accounts, leak-site posts and Grok queries were not inspected. The timing (\"almost instantly\") is 404 Media's wording. No physical harm or threat is reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Dahl has used the name ... since the beginning of her career in the adult industry in 2012.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"information she'd protected until now.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I've been paying for data removal services for like, at least six years now","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The performer had used her stage name since 2012 and had paid for data removal services for at least six years to keep her legal name private.","causal_attribution":"The performer's own account as reported by 404 Media. Her data removal spending was not documented."},{"id":"c4","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"It stated that Dahl's legal name and birthdate are already public on the internet, which Dahl denied.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"been getting a lot of replies and reposts from people on here and twitter saying \"your name was on a random facebook page since september!\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"and my *real* name was NEVER published on any verifiable source associated with my stage name.","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"\"My legal name only became public after you doxxed me, and now thanks to you it's been proliferated all over the internet by other AI scrapers","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Dahl said she doesn’t know where Grok originally got her legal name from.","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Bei Googles KI-Zusammenfassungen wird der Name als nicht bekannt angegeben.","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Whether the legal name was already publicly available before Grok's reply is disputed. Grok's reply to the performer said the details were already public, and people told her a Facebook page carried the name since September. The performer denies it and says the name was never published on a verifiable source tied to her stage name. Stern reports that Google's AI summaries list the name as unknown and that ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini each say they would not release it.","causal_attribution":"The pre-existing availability of the name was not established either way. The Facebook page and any earlier X post were not inspected. The September date comes from replies the performer relays, and the year is not stated."}],"effects":[{"label":"Legal name and birthdate of an adult performer disclosed by Grok on X, followed by reported impersonation accounts, leak-site posts under the legal name and defensive plans she is putting in place with family","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.404media.co/grok-doxing-real-names-birthdates-siri-dahl/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"404-media"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://mashable.com/article/siri-dahl-doxxed-by-grok","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"404-media"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://bsky.app/profile/siridahl.com/post/3mfa5dt66qs2h","kind":"social_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"affected-person-posts"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://bsky.app/profile/siridahl.com/post/3mfio2pwq5c2l","kind":"social_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"affected-person-posts"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://bsky.app/profile/siridahl.com/post/3mfip3jssec2y","kind":"social_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"affected-person-posts"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.stern.de/digital/online/pornostar-hielt-ihren-namen-geheim---dann-plauderte-musks-ki-ihn-aus-37169054.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"German-language article read from an Internet Archive capture of 3 March 2026 (the direct request returned HTTP 403) and cited in English paraphrase. The quoted German passages are verbatim. No human translator checked the paraphrase.","independence_group":"stern"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The date of Grok's reply within January and February 2026 is not fixed. 404 Media and the performer's 19 February post say early February, while a 23 February post refers to 'before Jan 20th' and stern.de says she found the reply weeks after it appeared.","The 404 Media page returned only its opening paragraphs to a direct request. The full text was read from an Internet Archive capture dated 19 February 2026, which may differ from later edits.","The original Grok reply, the screenshots, the impersonating Facebook accounts, the leak-site posts and the queries about her car and address were not inspected. The performer's Bluesky posts were read as text records, and her X posts only as quoted by Mashable.","Where Grok obtained the legal name is unknown. The performer says she does not know and wonders whether identity documents submitted to X for impersonation reports were the source, and no source read confirms or rules that out.","Whether the name was already published before the reply is disputed (claim c4). The earlier Facebook page and X post that people cited to her were not located or inspected.","No statement from xAI or X about the disclosure was found. 404 Media reports that X did not respond and Mashable reports that it asked the performer's representatives and xAI for comment.","The extent of the harassment beyond the performer's own statements, and whether the reported family measures were carried out, is not documented."],"geography":{"basis":"The inspected sources do not state where the performer lives or where the disclosure and harassment occurred. The disclosure happened on X, which is international. Grok's quoted description of the performer's nationality is not used as a location.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"The 404 Media article (full text via an archive capture), the Mashable article, three of the performer's Bluesky posts and the stern.de article were read. Mashable and stern.de relay 404 Media, and 404 Media and the performer's posts rest on her account, so the claims are reported and the prior-availability question is left disputed. The performer spoke publicly under her stage name, quoted by two outlets and in her own posts, and asked 404 Media to publish her legal name. The record names her and omits her legal name, birthdate and the pages that carry them.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"404 Media reports that Grok's reply on X to a user's question gave the performer's legal name and birthdate, and shows a screenshot that was not inspected as an image. Mashable quotes a further Grok reply to the performer on X (\"I'm sorry you're upset.\") that said the details were already public. Grok's source for the name is unknown. The performer suggests it may have come from identity documents X held, and stern.de says Grok denied having such access. No xAI statement was found.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","communicated_with"]},"name":"Grok reportedly disclosed an adult performer's legal name and birthdate in an X reply, followed by reported impersonation accounts and leak-site posts under the legal name","summary":"In early 2026 (404 Media and the performer's 19 February post say early February, while Stern reports she found the reply weeks after it appeared) an X user replied to a clip of adult performer Siri Dahl, asking who the performer was and what her name was, and tagged Grok. According to 404 Media, Grok answered with her stage name, her birthdate and her legal name, and the user likely wanted only to know which performer appeared in the clip. Dahl has used the stage name since 2012 according to 404 Media, and she says she had paid for data removal services for at least six years to keep the legal name private. She reports that impersonating Facebook accounts and leak-site posts under the legal name then appeared and that the name spread across hundreds of websites. 404 Media reports that users asked Grok for the make and model of her car and her address without an accurate reply, and that she is calling family members to put defensive plans in place. Grok's reply to her protest said the details were already public, which she denies. Where Grok obtained the name is unknown. Dahl spoke publicly about the event and asked 404 Media to publish her legal name. This record omits the legal name and birthdate.","incidentDate":"2026-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-02-19","aiSystem":"Grok (xAI chatbot on X)","aiProduct":"Grok","aiCompany":"xAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The performer told 404 Media and said in her own posts that after Grok's reply gave her legal name and birthdate, impersonating Facebook accounts and leak-site posts under the legal name appeared and her legal name was reproduced on hundreds of websites (some with inaccurate claims). 404 Media reports that users asked Grok for her car details and address without an accurate reply and that she is calling family members to put defensive plans in place. She says she had spent years and thousands of dollars on data removal services to keep the name private. No physical harm or threat is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One performer who spoke publicly about the disclosure is reported harmed. Family members are mentioned as people she is warning and are not reported harmed, and the X user who asked Grok is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"chatbot","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.404media.co/grok-doxing-real-names-birthdates-siri-dahl/","primarySourceLabel":"404 Media: 'Grok Exposed a Porn Performer's Legal Name and Birthdate' (19 Feb 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:30.069014+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:59.169171+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2026-delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-list-25-in-jail","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'According to the police affidavit submitted on August 17, its FRS identified individuals with criminal records at the protest site'; 'It said that 2,402 people were identified by the Delhi Police'; 'and 471 through criminal records.'; 'No actions are taken solely based upon the result of the facial recognition system which is only the first step to identify a person in the crowd who has a criminal record.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'According to the Delhi Police affidavit, 2,402 people were identified through its biometric database, Crime Kundli, while another 471 were identified through criminal records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Delhi Police's affidavit of August 17, 2026 told the Supreme Court that 2,873 persons with criminal records had been spotted by the FRS at the protest site.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In an affidavit of 17 August 2026 before the Supreme Court, Delhi Police said its Facial Recognition System had identified 2,873 people with criminal antecedents at the Jantar Mantar protest site between 20 and 26 July 2026, 2,402 through its 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and 471 through criminal records, and that no action is taken solely on an FRS result before field verification.","causal_attribution":"The affidavit as quoted by The Indian Express and relayed by Outlook and IFF; not inspected directly."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'An investigation of those with serious charges, murder, attempted murder and rape, and child abuse, shows that at least 25 people on the list, identified by the Facial Recognition System (FRS) at Jantar Mantar, were in jail as per police, jail and court records.'; 'In this group, 17 faced charges of murder; four of rape, including two in POCSO cases; and four more of attempt to murder were lodged in Delhi'; 'Court and jail records for all 25 show custody dates precede the protest'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'At least 25 of the 2,873 people identified by Delhi Police'; 'were already in jail when they were flagged, an investigation of police, prison and court records by The Indian Express has found.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Three were \"identified\" on July 24, twenty-one on July 25 and one on July 26, each with a timestamp.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"At least 25 of the 205 listed people facing murder, rape, POCSO or attempted-murder charges were in Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini jails when the FRS logged them at Jantar Mantar (17 murder, four rape of which the Express's narrative counts two and its itemised list three as POCSO cases, four attempted murder), with timestamps on 24, 25 and 26 July 2026 and custody dates that in some cases precede the protest by years.","causal_attribution":"The Indian Express's own check of police, prison and court records (one chain, relayed by Outlook and IFF); the Delhi Police response did not address the 25 cases."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On Tuesday, when the Supreme Court quashed all FIRs related to the exam leak protests by students, it let the government proceed against the 2,873 people who the Delhi Police claimed had criminal records'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Delhi Police was given permission to register one fresh FIR concerning 2,873 people alleged to have serious criminal antecedents and initially reported to have been present at Jantar Mantar.'; 'The Court did not find that the 2,873 were present, had qualifying criminal records or committed violence.'; 'the order prescribed no method or express requirement that checks precede arrest or other action'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'On September 1, 2026, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, invoking Article 142, quashed all FIRs registered against students who participated in the July protests'; 'while directing that this should not prejudice their rights and that they must be given every opportunity to defend themselves'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 1 September 2026 the Supreme Court quashed the FIRs against the student protesters but permitted Delhi Police to register a fresh FIR concerning the 2,873 persons with alleged serious antecedents, directing that this should not prejudice their rights, and without a finding that they were present; the undertaking that action would follow field verification is the police's own, and The Federal notes the order prescribed no such requirement.","causal_attribution":"The order as described by the three outlets; not inspected directly."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Responding on Monday to a questionnaire from the Express, the Delhi Police said:'; 'During the protests, 2873 individuals identified as prima facie having criminal antecedents were spotted. However, further verification in this regard is pending.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In its response to the Express, the Delhi Police did not address the 25 cases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Responding to The Indian Express, Delhi Police said the 2,873 individuals had been spotted as prima facie having criminal antecedents and that further verification was pending; the response did not address the 25 cases.","causal_attribution":"Police statement as quoted by the Express."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In response to a Right to Information (RTI) request in 2022, the police had revealed that it considered a match to be'; 'if its system showed an accuracy rate of 80 per cent.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the Delhi Police disclosed that it treats any match with a similarity score above 80% as \"positive\"'; 'extracted in 2022 only after a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Delhi Police disclosed in 2022, in reply to Right to Information requests, that it treats a facial-recognition match with an 80 per cent similarity or accuracy score as positive.","causal_attribution":"Delhi Police's 2022 RTI replies as described by IFF, which obtained them, and by The Indian Express, which IFF says relies on the same disclosures; one chain. The reply itself was not inspected. IE describes the threshold as an accuracy rate of 80 per cent and IFF as a similarity score above 80 per cent."}],"effects":[{"label":"at least 25 people in judicial custody were logged by the police facial-recognition system as present at a protest and listed in a sworn affidavit of persons with criminal antecedents against whom a fresh FIR and field verification were permitted","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-protest-accused-in-jail-10862099/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-24 from an Internet Archive capture of 15 September 2026 (web.archive.org/web/20260915075622id_/...); the live page returns 403 to this host. Express Investigation of 4 September 2026 with the list of the 25 and the police response.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.outlookindia.com/national/jantar-mantar-protest-25-people-flagged-by-facial-recognition-were-in-jail-records-show","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (Outlook India, 4 September 2026): relays the Express findings and the affidavit figures; same chain.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://internetfreedom.in/delhi-polices-facial-recognition-flagged-25-jailed-people-at-jantar-mantar-this-dragnet-must-end/","kind":"other","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (Internet Freedom Foundation, Apar Gupta, 4 September 2026): advocacy analysis that relays the Express findings (same chain for the 25) and adds IFF's own 2022 RTI replies on the 80 per cent threshold, its 24 July 2026 representation and RTI applications.","independence_group":"iff-own-rti"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://thefederal.com/the-federal-special/one-protest-two-probes-why-the-2873-person-fir-raises-questions-255688","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (The Federal, 4 September 2026): analysis of the Supreme Court order and the affidavit relying on the Express report; same chain.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether any of the 25 has been named in the fresh FIR, visited for field verification or otherwise acted against.","Whether the 25 (or the other 2,848 listed people) have been told they are on the list.","How many of the remaining 2,668 entries would fail the same check; the Express examined only the 205 most serious.","The vendor, algorithm and threshold actually applied at Jantar Mantar in July 2026.","The full text of the 17 August affidavit and the 1 September order (described as quoted).","Whether two or three of the four rape accused are POCSO cases: The Indian Express's narrative says two, its itemised list says three.","The protest window: The Indian Express and Outlook give 20 to 26 July; The Federal gives 20 to 25 July."],"geography":{"basis":"The protests and the facial-recognition deployment were at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi; the 25 were in Delhi's Tihar, Mandoli and Rohini prisons; the affidavit and order are in the Supreme Court of India (The Indian Express, IFF, The Federal).","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":["IN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case in which an AI system made a consequential claim about identifiable people: a police facial-recognition system placed at least 25 people who were in prison at a protest, on a sworn list that the Supreme Court permitted police to act on. The finding rests on The Indian Express's records investigation (one chain, relayed by Outlook, IFF and The Federal) with the affidavit and order described as quoted; the 80 per cent threshold rests on IFF's 2022 RTI replies, which IFF says the Express also relies on. The listed people are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Delhi Police's own affidavit, as quoted by The Indian Express, attributes the 2,873 identifications to its Facial Recognition System matching faces against the 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and criminal records; the Express's records check shows the system logged at least 25 people who were in custody. The affidavit was not inspected directly.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Delhi: the police facial-recognition system logged at least 25 people who were in Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini jails as present at the Jantar Mantar student protests (20 to 26 July 2026), with timestamps on 24 to 26 July, on a sworn list of 2,873 persons with 'criminal antecedents' that the Supreme Court allowed police to register a fresh FIR against (Indian Express investigation, 4 September 2026)","summary":"In an affidavit of 17 August 2026 before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi Police said its Facial Recognition System (FRS) had identified 2,873 people with criminal antecedents at the Jantar Mantar protests of 20 to 26 July 2026 (2,402 through its 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and 471 through other criminal records). On 1 September the Court quashed the FIRs against the student protesters but let the police proceed against the 2,873; the police say any action will follow field verification. The Indian Express checked the 205 listed people facing murder, attempted-murder, rape or child-sexual-offence charges against police, prison and court records and found that at least 25 of them (17 accused of murder, four of rape (two or three under POCSO; the Express's narrative and its list differ), four of attempted murder) were lodged in Delhi's Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini prisons when the system logged them at the protest site with timestamps on 24, 25 and 26 July; some had been in custody for years. Delhi Police told the newspaper that further verification of the 2,873 was pending and, in its affidavit, that no action is taken solely on a facial-recognition result and that field verification follows each match. The police disclosed in 2022, in reply to a Right to Information request, that it treats a match with an 80 per cent similarity score as positive. Whether any of the 25 has since been named in the fresh FIR or visited for verification is not reported.","incidentDate":"2026-07-24","incidentEndDate":"2026-07-26","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-04","aiSystem":"Delhi Police Facial Recognition System (FRS): face-matching software run on protest footage against the police 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and other criminal records; the vendor and algorithm are not identified in the inspected reporting","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"At least 25 people in judicial custody were recorded by the police facial-recognition system as present at a protest they could not have attended and were placed, in a sworn affidavit before the Supreme Court, on a list of 2,873 persons with criminal antecedents against whom the Court permitted a fresh FIR and police field verification; The Indian Express reports the misidentifications and the Internet Freedom Foundation describes the exposure to verification visits and prosecution as the harm. No arrest, FIR entry or verification visit of any of the 25 is reported in the inspected sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":25,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The Indian Express states 'at least 25 people on the list' were in jail when logged, and lists them (17 murder, four rape, four attempted murder). The other 2,668 entries were not checked, so the count is a documented minimum of 25.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-protest-accused-in-jail-10862099/","primarySourceLabel":"The Indian Express, 4 September 2026: Police say cameras 'caught' murder, rape accused at CJP protest - some were actually in jail (Express Investigation)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-24T03:46:45.247544+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:35.08761+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","india","delhi","protest-surveillance","supreme-court","police","false-match","made-claim-about","jantar-mantar"]}]}