Feb 2026JerseyUnidentified video tool
In February 2026 a TikTok account that used the name, badge and branding of a school in Jersey, and presented itself as "official", uploaded five videos depicting teachers at the school. The Jersey Evening Post (JEP) described the videos as AI-generated deepfakes made with a free app and reported that they showed teachers in humiliating, compromising and sexualised scenarios: in one, two male teachers dance beneath a caption insinuating sexual interest in young girls; a montage shows a teacher barking and eating from a dog bowl and teachers firing guns, while other clips ridicule the appearance of specific staff members. The JEP reported the videos were viewed nearly 20,000 times within days. Education Minister Rob Ward described the content as "deeply inappropriate", confirmed it had been reported to TikTok and the States of Jersey Police, and said his department was working with the school to support staff and students; he said it appeared to be an isolated incident. The account was removed from TikTok. No arrest, charge or identification of the account holder is reported, and no teacher is quoted.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 11/10/2026
Sept 2026ParaguayUnidentified image tool
According to Hoy (21 September 2026) and El Nacional (22 September), students of the architecture faculty of the Universidad Nacional de Asunción reported an anonymous website that shared intimate images of students, teachers and staff without authorisation, including real photographs and material altered with AI. El Nacional reports that at least about twenty students complained, that some posts used photographs taken from social media, and that related content later appeared in Telegram and WhatsApp groups. The Minister of Women said her ministry had seen messages in which UNA students raised concern about content of them held without consent, and that in some cases AI-generated images of sexual content were shared (La Nación, 22 September). La Tribuna, reporting the findings of the police cybercrime department, describes the portal as used for the non-consensual distribution of intimate photographs and AI-altered content; according to a memorandum signed by the head of the department, a Paraguay section exposes full names, images and phone numbers of students (24 September). The university referred the case to prosecutors and police, and police suggested that prosecutors seek a court order to block the site in Paraguay. No person responsible has been publicly identified.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 05/10/2026
6 Jan 2026IndiaUnidentified voice-cloning tool (suspected)
The New Indian Express (9 January 2026) reported that a woman who runs a small play school in Indore said that on the night of 6 January a call came from an unknown number close to a cousin's number, in a voice that sounded exactly like the cousin's. The caller said a close friend needed urgent cardiac surgery at a private hospital in Indore and asked for money to be forwarded to a QR code. A total of Rs 97,500 was sent in four transactions. None of the money the caller had said was being credited arrived, the cousin denied making the call, and the calling number has been switched off. An Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) in Indore said preliminary investigations strongly suggest AI-based voice modulation technology was used. The Free Press Journal, The420 and Malwa Abhi Tak reported the same call. All four outlets appear to rest on the woman's account and police statements, no audio analysis or AI tool is reported, and the police case against unidentified persons was described as ongoing.
Core concern Medium reported severity
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 30/09/2026
Jul 2026South KoreaUnidentified image tool
Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun there were more victim teachers than the one first reported but withheld the number to avoid secondary harm, and that no student at the school was a victim; the Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full scope of harm had been established. According to the union, two months on the victim teachers were receiving hospital treatment and counselling while teaching daily, gave police statements on 14 September without a lawyer, attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee on 17 September without institutional support, wrote the criminal complaint themselves, and were offered 3.3 million won in legal fees for all of them together, payable after the case ends; two requests to meet the superintendent were not accepted. On 29 September one of the victim teachers gave a press interview at the Jeju Teachers' Union office. She said that early in the investigation she had seen on the student's phone material showing other teachers and current students, had made a list of the people and types of harm, and that the material shown to her at the police victim examination was considerably less than what she had seen; Yonhap-chain outlets quote her as saying the students she recognised numbered 10 to 20 and that a graduate had suffered worse deepfakes. She said investigators asked the school only to identify the perpetrator and never requested material to identify the students in the footage, and that the school sent parents a letter premised on there being no student victims. Police replied that phone forensics had been thorough, that every act beyond social norms had been identified and proven, and that one student victim had been confirmed, a student at a different school. The teachers were notified on 22 September that the case had gone to the prosecution and on 24 September that it had been sent to the court's juvenile division as a juvenile protection case, before they had submitted further evidence and a victim opinion. The teacher said the original complaint had also asked police to examine whether physical contact in 2025 was forcible molestation and whether repeated approaching and waiting in 2026 was stalking, and Halla Ilbo reports that such conduct is said to date from 2025. Yonhap-chain reports describe the charged victims as five teachers. The same day the education office briefed on legal-aid rules (up to 6.6 million won per instance when a teacher is sued, 3.3 million won per case when a teacher files a complaint; office lawyers cannot act as a teacher's private counsel), said it had linked the teachers to the national Digital Sexual Crime Victim Support Center, announced an integrated support system through a hotline, and its section head said the office was sorry that early support had not been felt. The KTU Jeju branch (28 September) and the Jeju Teachers' Union (14 and 29 September) demand a victim-support system, per-teacher legal fees paid in advance and a dedicated support team. On 6 October 2026 Seogwipo Broadcasting reported, citing people in education and a tipster, that the education authority had finally rejected the victim teachers' application for lawyer fees for an additional criminal complaint, saying in a written opinion that with a police investigation already under way a further complaint could hardly stop or prevent the infringement of their teaching, so the support requirements were not met; critics contrast this with full legal-cost support in earlier sexual-offence cases.
Core concern High reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 12 sources, 7 underlying accounts · Added 23/09/2026