Tourist leaves iPhone unattended in India as safety experiment. What happened next
iPhone safety experiment
Zarou filmed a video where he put an iPhone on a bench in a crowded market and walked away. From a hidden spot somewhere close by, he filmed what happened next.
His experiment began around 4.30pm in the evening. Over the next few minutes, several large groups walked by the bench. Some glanced at the iPhone lying unattended, others barely noticed it. Nobody made a move to pick it up.
By 5.30pm, dozens of people had walked past the iPhone – a device that is expensive enough to be out of the reach for millions of Indians. Even so, nobody pocketed the unattended phone.
Around 6pm, with the iPhone still lying safely on the bench, Zarou ended the experiment. He walked up to the phone and held it up for the camera to show that nobody had stolen it.
Watch the video below:
Zarou's experiment lasted a little over one-and-a-half hours. In that time, nobody bothered to steal his iPhone.
Social media users were divided about whether that spoke to India's safety or whether people were just wary of stealing on camera.
'If you keep a big tripod and big camera in front.. Then nobody will rob your phone.. Also i am 100% sure if someone had taken your phone then this video would never come, i know you want to show a clean side of India to gain more Indian audience but at least show some reality,' wrote one Instagram user.
'Don't try this in Bihar,' another advised.
Who is Younes Zarou?
Younes Zarou is a German influencer who has been travelling through India. He began his journey on TikTok in 2019, creating illusion-style videos that quickly gained widespread attention.
Last month, Zarou was briefly held by Bengaluru Police for going to Church Street without obtaining prior approval for a public event.
(Also read: Who is Younes Zarou? German influencer detained in Bengaluru after gathering crowd at Church Street)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
19 minutes ago
- News18
Human Rights Vs Dog Rights: Activist Ire Over SC Order Missing The Point?
Far too many are mauled by packs of prowling dogs on the capital's streets. Most of the victims are toddlers and the aged who can't look out for themselves The Supreme Court deserves a pat on its back. By ordering the Delhi government and civic bodies to begin removing stray dogs from streets and housing them in shelters, it has sunk its legal canines into the stray dog menace. Far too many are mauled by packs of prowling dogs on the capital's streets. Most of the victims are toddlers and the aged who can't look out for themselves. In standing up for the most vulnerable, the Supreme Court has firmly put their rights, human rights, first. No sooner had the top court passed the order than activists lashed out, alleging that the verdict is a veritable dog's breakfast of callous inhumanity dressed up as justice for dog bite victims. Perhaps anticipating the backlash, the SC bench chided activists in open court, asking, 'All these animal activists, will they be able to bring back those who have fallen prey to rabies?" But the rhetoric hasn't tempered the emotionalism of the PETA-led animal rights lobby. But does their sentimental advocacy for what they call their 'heartbeat" miss the point and the facts? Public safety first. Delhi records over 2,000 dog bites daily. That's about 7.3 lakh a year. Rabies kills 20,000 Indians annually. In the hierarchy of rights, shouldn't the right of a five-year-old not to be mauled or die from rabies outweigh a street dog's 'right" to roam free? Second, ABC has failed in practice. After nearly two decades of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme, Delhi's stray population has ballooned to 6-7 lakh. The rule mandating sterilised dogs be returned to their original location is a logistical absurdity in a city of 1,484 sq km. Tracking each animal is impossible; in practice, many 'sterilised" dogs are not even tagged properly. Third, we've overshot cost-effective solutions. In 2024-25, the MCD spent Rs 30 crore on ABC and feeding contracts. Yet municipal shelters remain under-capacity, unhygienic, and poorly supervised. Ironically, some of the loudest critics of the SC order are NGOs paid to run these facilities—the very entities whose inefficiency has allowed the crisis to spiral. Fourth, many point to foreign models, but they don't fit. The Netherlands, Singapore, and parts of Australia eliminated strays starting with small populations, deep pockets, and strict enforcement. Delhi's scale, six lakh-plus dogs, and lower municipal resources make these comparisons irrelevant. Fifth, the SC plan is humane. But the capture, sterilisation, vaccination, and sheltering, with CCTV oversight and penalties for obstruction, is workable only on paper. The questions that no one has an answer to, not even the SC, is where will Delhi house 6 lakh dogs? How will overcrowded, underfunded shelters cope? Who will feed, clean, and provide veterinary care at scale? Who will foot the Rs 15,000 crore bill? Without realistic capacity building, the SC's plan risks becoming another ABC—high on intent, low on results. Which leads to the hard truth: in some countries—including parts of the US, Australia, and the UK—unadoptable, aggressive strays are humanely euthanised. It is neither cruel nor 'anti-animal"; it is a public health necessity when all else fails. Delhi's stray dog crisis has reached a point where the truth has begun to hurt—or should one say bite. view comments First Published: August 12, 2025, 18:08 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
20 minutes ago
- News18
OCI card of convicted persons to be cancelled: MHA
Agency: PTI Last Updated: New Delhi, Aug 12 (PTI) The Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card, which allows Indian-origin foreign nationals to visit India without any visa, will be cancelled if anyone is sentenced to jail for a term not less than two years or has been named in a charge sheet for an offence entailing punishment of imprisonment for seven years or more, the home ministry has said. This was notified by the ministry through a gazette notification. 'In exercise of the powers conferred by the clause (da) of section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955), the central government hereby states that an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration shall be liable to get cancelled when a person has been sentenced to imprisonment for term of not less than two years or has been charge-sheeted for an offence entailing punishment of imprisonment for seven years or more," the notification said. view comments First Published: August 12, 2025, 18:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
33 minutes ago
- NDTV
Possessing Aadhaar, Voter ID Doesn't Make One Indian Citizen: Bombay High Court
Mumbai: A person does not become a citizen of India merely by possessing documents like Aadhaar card, PAN card or a voter ID, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday said while refusing bail to a man, allegedly from Bangladesh, for entering India illegally. The man is accused of staying in India for more than a decade with forged and fabricated documents. A bench of Justice Amit Borkar said provisions of the Citizenship Act lay down who can be a citizen of India and how citizenship can be acquired and documents such as the Aadhaar card, PAN card and voter ID are only meant for identification or availing services. The court refused bail to Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, alleged to be a Bangladeshi national, who entered India illegally without a valid passport or travel documents. He allegedly procured forged Indian documents such as Aadhaar card, PAN card, voter ID and also an Indian passport. In 1955, Parliament passed the Citizenship Act which created a permanent and complete system for acquiring citizenship, Justice Borkar noted. "In my opinion, the Citizenship Act of 1955 is the main and controlling law for deciding questions about nationality in India today. This is the statute that lays down who can be a citizen, how citizenship can be acquired and in what situations it can be lost," he said. "Merely having documents such as Aadhaar card, PAN card or voter ID does not, by itself, make someone a citizen of India. These documents are meant for identification or availing services, but they do not override the basic legal requirements of citizenship as prescribed in the Citizenship Act," the High Court said. The law draws a clear line between lawful citizens and illegal migrants, the bench said. People falling in the category of illegal migrants are barred from obtaining citizenship through most of the legal routes mentioned in the Citizenship Act, it added. "This distinction is important because it protects the sovereignty of the country and ensures that benefits and rights meant for citizens are not wrongfully taken by those who have no legal status to stay in India," the court said. The bench, while refusing bail to Sardar, noted that verification of his documents was still on and the investigation was also still continuing, and the police's fear that he may abscond if granted bail is a genuine apprehension. The allegations in the case are not small and it is not just about staying in India without permission or overstaying, but it is about making and using fake and forged identity documents with the aim of pretending to be an Indian citizen, the High Court said. Sardar was charged under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Passport (Entry to India) Act and the Foreigners Order. The court noted the investigation in the case is still going on with regard to genuineness of the Aadhaar card, which is being verified by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Sardar in his bail plea said he was a bona fide citizen of India and that there was no conclusive or reliable evidence to prove he is a national of Bangladesh. He further claimed his documents are linked with his income tax records and business registration and that he has been residing in Mumbai's neighbouring Thane district since 2013. The prosecution opposed the plea, claiming if the accused was released on bail, he may abscond. The police further said a probe was on to ascertain if there was a larger organised network involving illegal immigration and identity fraud. The court in its order noted the allegations against Sardar are not limited to a mere technical violation of immigration norms, but indicate a case of deliberate concealment of identity and creation of forged documents for obtaining the Indian citizenship benefits. When the Constitution of India was being drafted, the country had just gone through a historic transformation and the partition at the time caused a massive movement of people across borders, creating a need to decide who would be accepted as citizens of the new nation, it noted. Keeping this in mind, framers of the Constitution decided to make an arrangement for deciding citizenship, the high court said. The Constitution laid down provisions which gave immediate clarity on who would be considered a citizen at the very beginning of the Republic and it gave the elected Parliament the powers to make laws on citizenship in future, the court noted.
