Digital Beauty or Digital Risk? Understanding Privacy, Deepfake & Ethics in Google Gemini Trends
A viral photo trend can be playful — a retro-Bollywood makeover, a stylised 3D figurine of your selfie — but in the age of powerful image-editing AI it also raises urgent questions about privacy, consent and misuse. The recent surge in popularity of Google Gemini’s “Nano Banana” image tools and associated “AI saree / retro portrait” trends has made those questions mainstream in India. Users love the creativity; police advisories, privacy experts and reporters warn against treating these experiences as harmless. This piece explains what’s happening, what the risks are, how Google says it is responding, and what Indian users and policymakers should watch for.
What is the Gemini photo trend — and why did it explode?
Google’s Gemini app recently introduced an image-editing capability nicknamed “Nano Banana” that can generate stylised portraits — from high-gloss 1990s Bollywood looks to miniature 3D figurines — from user photos or prompts. The tool quickly went viral on social platforms in India, pushing Gemini to the top of app-store rankings as users shared dramatic edits and prompting plenty of “how-to” coverage. The lightning growth reflects both the novelty of the styles and the app’s seamless mobile experience.
Real risks behind the polished pictures
While the outputs look attractive, several concrete risks have surfaced:
1. Inaccurate or unexpected edits. Users have reported edits that altered facial details (for example, creating moles or features not present in the original), underlining that AI systems can hallucinate — introducing misleading elements into a person’s image. Such errors can be upsetting or damaging if images are shared widely.
2. Privacy and data handling concerns. Uploading personal photos to any cloud service means those images — or metadata derived from them — may be processed and stored. Law-enforcement notices in India have cautioned users to consider the risks of uploading sensitive personal images and urged careful privacy settings. Experts warn that once an image circulates, controlling its downstream use is difficult.
3. Deepfake and impersonation risks. Generative image tools can create realistic likenesses that might be used for impersonation, harassment, political disinformation or fraud. While Google and other providers limit person-image generation in various ways, security researchers have repeatedly shown that loopholes and user workarounds can enable problematic outputs.
4. Commercial and copyright pitfalls. AI image generators can sometimes reproduce recognisable copyrighted elements or trademarks, creating potential legal headaches for users or the platform. Google’s policies stress user responsibility for not creating copyrighted or infringing content, but enforcement in a viral trend is a persistent challenge.
How Google says it is trying to reduce harm
Google has published safety and policy guidelines for Gemini that aim to avoid outputs that “cause real-world harm or offence,” and the company highlights technical measures such as watermarks and other metadata to signal AI-generated images. Google’s blog posts showcase example edits and say they built in guardrails to reduce problematic content. However, experience shows that policies and protections are imperfect in practice: companies regularly revise guidelines after problematic outputs are reported.
India’s response: advisories, debate and the law gap
Indian agencies and experts have reacted quickly. Police and senior officials have issued public warnings advising caution about uploading personal photos to AI tools and highlighting the risk of data misuse. At the same time, legal experts note that India presently handles deepfake-related harms through existing criminal and data-protection frameworks rather than a single dedicated law. The government’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and other cybercrime statutes provide partial cover, but many commentators argue India still needs clearer rules specifically targeting synthetic media and clear liability pathways for platforms and bad actors.
For people who want to try Gemini or similar apps but reduce risk, experts recommend straightforward steps:
- Limit what you upload. Avoid sharing highly sensitive images (IDs, intimate photos) with AI tools whose storage and reuse policies you don’t fully control.
- Check app permissions & privacy settings. Know whether the app stores uploaded images, for how long, and whether you can delete them.
- Look for watermarks and provenance metadata. Watermarks or machine-readable provenance tags help downstream viewers know an image is AI-generated (though they are not foolproof).
- Think before you share. Even stylised edits can be misused when shared publicly — consider audience, context and permanence.
What businesses, creators and policymakers must consider
Media organisations and influencers should adopt clear disclosure rules for AI-generated images. Brands using such tools must establish legal and ethical review processes to avoid copyright or reputation risks. For policymakers, the issue is twofold: protecting citizens from malicious misuse (fraud, defamation, political deepfakes) while not stifling innovation. Many experts in India are now calling for targeted regulation that defines liability for synthesized media, mandates provenance, and sets standards for platform transparency — rather than a blanket ban.
An evergreen takeaway
AI image-editing trends like Google Gemini’s Nano Banana show how generative tools can democratise creativity and produce delightful results — but they also make visible longstanding social and legal problems around likeness, consent and data control. For India, the task is practical: educate users on privacy hygiene; encourage platforms to adopt provenance tagging, robust safety testing and transparent policies; and build targeted legal tools to deter malicious use while allowing legitimate creative and commercial activity to flourish. Treating polished AI photos as mere entertainment risks underestimating the persistent, cross-cutting harms that can flow from them.
Selected references and further reading
- Google blog — “10 examples of our new native image editing in the Gemini app.”
- Times of India — reporting on Nano Banana / AI saree trend and safety concerns.
- LiveMint / Hindustan Times / Indian Express — coverage of user experiences and how the trend spread on social media.
- Reuters & AP — previous reporting on Gemini image-generation issues and industry responses.
- Analysis of India’s legal framework for deepfakes and AI governance.
Also read;Ellison’s Epic Eclipse: Oracle’s $101B Surge Removes Musk as Richest Man
Last Updated on: Monday, September 15, 2025 4:23 pm by News Vent Team | Published by: News Vent Team on Monday, September 15, 2025 4:22 pm | News Categories: Technology
About The Author
