#FactCheck - AI-Generated Image Falsely Linked to Mira–Bhayandar Bridge

Executive Summary:

A viral photo on social media claims to show a ruined bridge in Kerala, India. But, a reality check shows that the bridge is in Amtali, Barguna district, Bangladesh. The reverse image search of this picture led to a Bengali news article detailing the bridge's critical condition. This bridge was built-in 2002 to 2006 over Jugia Khal in Arpangashia Union. It has not been repaired and experiences recurrent accidents and has the potential to collapse, which would disrupt local connectivity. Thus, the social media claims are false and misleading.

Claims:

Social Media users share a photo that shows a ruined bridge in Kerala, India. 

Fact Check:

On receiving the posts, we reverse searched the image which leads to a Bengali News website named Manavjamin where the title displays, “19 dangerous bridges in Amtali, lakhs of people in fear”. We found the picture on this website similar to the viral image. On reading the whole article, we found that the bridge is located in Bangladesh's Amtali sub-district of Barguna district.

Taking a cue from this, we then searched for the bridge in that region. We found a similar bridge at the same location in Amtali, Bangladesh.

According to the article, The 40-meter bridge over Jugia Khal in Arpangashia Union, Amtali, was built in 2002 to 2006 and was never repaired. It is in a critical condition, causing frequent accidents and risking collapse. If the bridge collapses it will disrupt communication between multiple villages and the upazila town. Residents have made temporary repairs. 

Hence, the claims made by social media users are fake and misleading.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the viral photo claiming to show a ruined bridge in Kerala is actually from Amtali, Barguna district, Bangladesh. The bridge is in a critical state, with frequent accidents and the risk of collapse threatening local connectivity. Therefore, the claims made by social media users are false and misleading.

• Claim: A viral image shows a ruined bridge in Kerala, India. 
• Claimed on: Facebook
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍

‍Brief Overview of the EU AI Act

The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies.  The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.

The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI  use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.

In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions

• The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
• Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
• The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.

Application & Timeline of Act

The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:

• August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
• February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
• August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models. 
• August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
•  August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.

The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).

In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers. 

CyberPeace Outlook 

The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.

The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount. 

At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.

References: 

1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
2. https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
3. https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
4. https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
5. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
6. https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide

‍

Introduction

‍

Cyber-attacks are another threat in this digital world, not exclusive to a single country, that could significantly disrupt global movements, commerce, and international relations all of which experienced first-hand when a cyber-attack occurred at Heathrow, the busiest airport in Europe, which threw their electronic check-in and baggage systems into a state of chaos. Not only were there chaos and delays at Heathrow, airports across Europe including Brussels, Berlin, and Dublin experienced delay and had to conduct manual check-ins for some flights further indicating just how interconnected the world of aviation is in today's world. Though Heathrow assured passengers that the "vast majority of flights" would operate, hundreds were delayed or postponed for hours as those passengers stood in a queue while nearly every European airport's flying schedule was also negatively impacted.

The Anatomy of the Attack

‍

The attack specifically targeted Muse software by Collins Aerospace, a software built to allow various airlines to share check-in desks and boarding gates. The disruption initially perceived to be technical issues soon turned into a logistical nightmare, with airlines relying on Muse having to engage in horror-movie-worthy manual steps hand-tagging luggage, verifying boarding passes over the phone, and manually boarding passengers. While British Airways managed to revert to a backup system, most other carriers across Heathrow and partner airports elsewhere in Europe had to resort to improvised manual solutions.

The trauma was largely borne by the passengers. Stories emerged about travelers stranded on the tarmac, old folks left barely able to walk without assistance, and even families missing important connections. It served to remind everyone that the aviation world, with its schedules interlocked tightly across borders, can see even a localized system failure snowball into a continental-level crisis.

Cybersecurity Meets Aviation Infrastructure

‍

In the last two decades, aviation has become one of the more digitally dependent industries in the world. From booking systems and baggage handling issues to navigation and air traffic control, digital systems are the invisible scaffold on which flight operations are supported. Though this digitalization has increased the scale of operations and enhanced efficiency, it must have also created many avenues for cyber threats. Cyber attackers increasingly realize that to target aviation is not just about money but about leverage. Just interfering with the check-in system of a major hub like Heathrow is more than just financial disruption; it causes panic and hits the headlines, making it much more attractive for criminal gangs and state-sponsored threat actors.

The Heathrow incident is like the worldwide IT crash in July 2024-thwarting activities of flights caused by a botched Crowdstrike update. Both prove the brittleness of digital dependencies in aviation, where one failure point triggering uncontrollable ripple effects spanning multiple countries. Unlike conventional cyber incidents contained within corporate networks, cyber-attacks in aviation spill on to the public sphere in real time, disturbing millions of lives.

Response and Coordination

‍

Heathrow Airport first added extra employees to assist with manual check-in and told passengers to check flight statuses before traveling. The UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) collaborated with Collins Aerospace, the Department for Transport, and law enforcement agencies to investigate the extent and source of the breach. Meanwhile, the European Commission published a statement that they are "closely following the development" of the cyber incident while assuring passengers that no evidence of a "widespread or serious" breach has been observed.

According to passengers, the reality was quite different. Massive passenger queues, bewildering announcements, and departure time confirmations cultivated an atmosphere of chaos. The wrenching dissonance between the reassurances from official channel and Kirby needs to be resolved about what really happens in passenger experiences. During such incidents, technical restoration and communication flow are strategies for retaining public trust in incidents.

Attribution and the Shadow of Ransomware

‍

As with many cyber-attacks, questions on its attribution arose quite promptly. Rumours of hackers allegedly working for the Kremlin escaped into the air quite possibly inside seconds of the realization, Cybersecurity experts justifiably advise against making conclusions hastily. Extortion ransomware gangs stand the last chance to hold the culprits, whereas state actors cannot be ruled out, especially considering Russian military activity under European airspace. Meanwhile, Collins Aerospace has refused to comment on the attack, its precise nature, or where it originated, emphasizing an inherent difficulty in cyberattribution.

What is clear is the way these attacks bestow criminal leverage and dollars. In previous ransomware attacks against critical infrastructure, cybercriminal gangs have extorted millions of dollars from their victims. In aviation terms, the stakes grow exponentially, not only in terms of money but national security and diplomatic relations as well as human safety.

Broader Implications for Aviation Cybersecurity

‍

This incident brings to consideration several core resilience issues within aviation systems. Traditionally, the airports and airlines had placed premium on physical security, but today, the equally important concept of digital resilience has come into being. Systems such as Muse, which bind multiple airlines into shared infrastructure, offer efficiency but, at the same time, also concentrate that risk. A cyber disruption in one place will cascade across dozens of carriers and multiple airports, thereby amplifying the scale of that disruption. 

The case also brings forth redundancy and contingency planning as an urgent concern. While BA systems were able to stand on backups, most other airlines could not claim that advantage. It is about time that digital redundancies, be it in the form of parallel systems or isolated backups or even AI-driven incident response frameworks, are built into aviation as standard practice and soon. 

On the policy plane, this incident draws attention to the necessity for international collaboration. Aviation is therefore transnational, and cyber incidents standing on this domain cannot possibly be handled by national agencies only. Eurocontrol, the European Commission, and cross-border cybersecurity task forces must spearhead this initiative to ensure aviation-wide resilience.

Human Stories Amid a Digital Crisis

‍

Beyond technical jargon and policy response, the human stories had perhaps the greatest impact coming from Heathrow. Passengers spoke of hours spent queuing, heading to funerals, and being hungry and exhausted as they waited for their flights. For many, the cyber-attack was no mere headline; instead, it was ¬ a living reality of disruption.

These stories reflect the fact that cybersecurity is no hunger strike; it touches people's lives. In critical sectors such as aviation, one hour of disruption means missed connections for passengers, lost revenue for airlines, and inculcates immense emotional stress. Crisis management must therefore entail technical recovery and passenger care, communication, and support on the ground.

Conclusion

‍

The cybersecurity crisis of Heathrow and other European airports emphasizes the threat of cyber disruption on the modern legitimacy of aviation. The use of increased connectivity for airport processes means that any cyber disruption present, no matter how small, can affect scheduling issues regionally or on other continents, even threatening lives. The occurrences confirm a few things: a resilient solution should provide redundancy not efficiency; international networking and collaboration is paramount; and communicating with the traveling public is just as important (if not more) as the technical recovery process. 

As governments, airlines, and technology providers analyse the disruption, the question is longer if aviation can withstand cyber threats, but to what extent it will be prepared to defend itself against those attacks. The Heathrow crisis is a reminder that the stake of cybersecurity is not just about a data breach or outright stealing of money but also about stealing the very systems that keep global mobility in motion. Now, the aviation industry is tested to make this disruption an opportunity to fortify the digital defences and start preparing for the next inevitable production.

References

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3drpgv33pxo
• https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/21/delays-continue-at-heathrow-brussels-and-berlin-airports-after-alleged-cyber-attack
• https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/eu-agency-says-third-party-ransomware-behind-airport-disruptions-2025-09-22/

‍