#FactCheck: Fake Claim on Delhi Authority Culling Dogs After Supreme Court Stray Dog Ban Directive 11 Aug 2025

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/

‍

Introduction

In India, the rights of children with regard to protection of their personal data are enshrined under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 which is the newly enacted digital personal data protection law of India. The DPDP Act requires that for the processing of children's personal data, verifiable consent of parents or legal guardians is a necessary requirement. If the consent of parents or legal guardians is not obtained then it constitutes a violation under the DPDP Act. Under section 2(f) of the DPDP act, a “child” means an individual who has not completed the age of eighteen years. 

Section 9 under the DPDP Act, 2023

With reference to the collection of children's data section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023 provides that for children below 18 years of age, consent from Parents/Legal Guardians is required. The Data Fiduciary shall, before processing any personal data of a child or a person with a disability who has a lawful guardian, obtain verifiable consent from the parent or the lawful guardian. Section 9 aims to create a safer online environment for children by limiting the exploitation of their data for commercial purposes or otherwise. By virtue of this section, the parents and guardians will have more control over their children's data and privacy and they are empowered to make choices as to how they manage their children's online activities and the permissions they grant to various online services. 

Section 9 sub-section (3) specifies that a Data Fiduciary shall not undertake tracking or behavioural monitoring of children or targeted advertising directed at children. However, section 9 sub-section (5) further provides room for exemption from this prohibition by empowering the Central Government which may notify exemption to specific data fiduciaries or data processors from the behavioural tracking or target advertising prohibition under the future DPDP Rules which are yet to be announced or released. 

Impact on social media platforms

Social media companies are raising concerns about Section 9 of the DPDP Act and upcoming Rules for the DPDP Act. Section 9 prohibits behavioural tracking or targeted advertising directed at children on digital platforms. By prohibiting intermediaries from tracking a ‘child's internet activities’ and ‘targeted advertising’ - this law aims to preserve children's privacy. However, social media corporations contended that this limitation adversely affects the efficacy of safety measures intended to safeguard young users, highlighting the necessity of monitoring specific user signals, including from minors, to guarantee the efficacy of safety measures designed for them.

Social media companies assert that tracking teenagers' behaviour is essential for safeguarding them from predators and harmful interactions. They believe that a complete ban on behavioural tracking is counterproductive to the government's objectives of protecting children. The scope to grant exemption leaves the door open for further advocacy on this issue. Hence it necessitates coordination with the concerned ministry and relevant stakeholders to find a balanced approach that maintains both privacy and safety for young users.

Furthermore, the impact on social media platforms also extends to the user experience and the operational costs required to implement the functioning of the changes created by regulations. This also involves significant changes to their algorithms and data-handling processes. Implementing robust age verification systems to identify young users and protect their data will also be a technically challenging step for the various scales of platforms. Ensuring that children’s data is not used for targeted advertising or behavioural monitoring also requires sophisticated data management systems. The blanket ban on targeted advertising and behavioural tracking may also affect the personalisation of content for young users, which may reduce their engagement with the platform.

For globally operating platforms, aligning their practices with the DPDP Act in India while also complying with data protection laws in other countries (such as GDPR in Europe or COPPA in the US) can be complex and resource-intensive. Platforms might choose to implement uniform global policies for simplicity, which could impact their operations in regions not governed by similar laws. On the same page, competitive dynamics such as market shifts where smaller or niche platforms that cater specifically to children and comply with these regulations may gain a competitive edge. There may be a drive towards developing new, compliant ways of monetizing user interactions that do not rely on behavioural tracking.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

A balanced strategy should be taken into account which gives weightage to the contentions of social media companies as well as to the protection of children's personal information. Instead of a blanket ban, platforms can be obliged to follow and encourage openness in advertising practices, ensuring that children are not exposed to any misleading or manipulative marketing techniques. Self-regulation techniques can be implemented to support ethical behaviour, responsibility, and the safety of young users’ online personal information through the platform’s practices. Additionally, verifiable consent should be examined and put forward in a manner which is practical and the platforms have a say in designing the said verification. Ultimately, this should be dealt with in a manner that behavioural tracking and targeted advertising are not affecting the children's well-being, safety and data protection in any way. 

Final Words

Under section 9 of the DPDP Act, the prohibition of behavioural tracking and targeted advertising in case of processing children's personal data - will compel social media platforms to overhaul their data collection and advertising practices, ensuring compliance with stricter privacy regulations. The legislative intent behind this provision is to enhance and strengthen the protection of children's digital personal data security and privacy. As children are particularly vulnerable to digital threats due to their still-evolving maturity and cognitive capacities, the protection of their privacy stands as a priority. The innocence of children is a major cause for concern when it comes to digital access because children simply do not possess the discernment and caution required to be able to navigate the Internet safely. Furthermore, a balanced approach needs to be adopted which maintains both ‘privacy’ and ‘safety’ for young users.

References

• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.firstpost.com/tech/as-govt-of-india-starts-preparing-rules-for-dpdp-act-social-media-platforms-worried-13789134.html#google_vignette
• https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/social-media-platforms-worry-new-data-law-could-affect-child-safety-ads-124070400673_1.html

‍

Introduction

Misinformation poses a significant challenge to public health policymaking since it undermines efforts to promote effective health interventions and protect public well-being. The spread of inaccurate information, particularly through online channels such as social media and internet platforms, further complicates the decision-making process for policymakers since it perpetuates public confusion and distrust. This misinformation can lead to resistance against health initiatives, such as vaccination programs, and fuels scepticism towards scientifically-backed health guidelines.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation surrounding healthcare largely encompassed the effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption, marijuana use, eating habits, physical exercise etc. However, there has been a marked shift in the years since. One such example is the outcry against palm oil in 2024: it is an ingredient prevalent in numerous food and cosmetic products, and came under the scanner after a number of claims that palmitic acid, which is present in palm oil, is detrimental to our health. However, scientific research by reputable institutions globally established that there is no cause for concern regarding the health risks posed by palmitic acid. Such trends and commentaries tend to create a parallel unscientific discourse that has the potential to not only impact individual choices but also public opinion and as a result, market developments and policy conversations. 

A prevailing narrative during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic was that the virus had been engineered to control society and boost hospital profits. The extensive misinformation surrounding COVID-19 and its management and care increased vaccine hesitancy amongst people worldwide. It is worth noting that vaccine hesitancy has been a consistent trend historically; the World Health Organisation flagged vaccine hesitancy as one of the main threats to global health, and there have been other instances where a majority of the population refused to get vaccinated anticipating unverified, long-lasting side effects. For example, research from 2016 observed a significant level of public skepticism regarding the development and approval process of the Zika vaccine in Africa. Further studies emphasised the urgent need to disseminate accurate information about the Zika virus on online platforms to help curb the spread of the pandemic. 

In India during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite multiple official advisories, notifications and guidelines issued by the government and ICMR, people continued to remain opposed to vaccination, which resulted in inflated mortality rates within the country. Vaccination hesitancy was also compounded by anti-vaccination celebrities who claimed that vaccines were dangerous and contributed in large part to the conspiracy theories doing the rounds. Similar hesitation was noted in misinformation surrounding the MMR vaccines and their likely role in causing autism was examined.  At the time of the crisis, the Indian government also had to tackle disinformation-induced fraud surrounding the supply of oxygens in hospitals. Many critically-ill patients relied on fake news and unverified sources that falsely portrayed the availability of beds, oxygen cylinders and even home set-ups, only to be cheated out of money. 

The above examples highlight the difficulty health officials face in administering adequate healthcare. The special case of the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted how current legal frameworks failed to address misinformation and disinformation, which impedes effective policymaking. It also highlights how taking corrective measures against health-related misinformation becomes difficult since such corrective action creates an uncomfortable gap in an individual’s mind, and it is seen that people ignore accurate information that may help bridge the gap. Misinformation, coupled with the infodemic trend, also leads to false memory syndrome, whereby people fail to differentiate between authentic information and fake narratives. Simple efforts to correct misperceptions usually backfire and even strengthen initial beliefs, especially in the context of complex issues like healthcare. Policymakers thus struggle with balancing policy making and making people receptive to said policies in the backdrop of their tendencies to reject/suspect authoritative action. Examples of the same can be observed on both the domestic front and internationally. In the US, for example, the traditional healthcare system rations access to healthcare through a combination of insurance costs and options versus out-of-pocket essential expenses. While this has been a subject of debate for a long time, it hadn’t created a large scale public healthcare crisis because the incentives offered to the medical professionals and public trust in the delivery of essential services helped balance the conversation. In recent times, however, there has been a narrative shift that sensationalises the system as an issue of deliberate “denial of care,” which has led to concerns about harms to patients.

Policy Recommendations

The hindrances posed by misinformation in policymaking are further exacerbated against the backdrop of policymakers relying on social media as a method to measure public sentiment, consensus and opinions. If misinformation about an outbreak is not effectively addressed, it could hinder individuals from adopting necessary protective measures and potentially worsen the spread of the epidemic. To improve healthcare policymaking amidst the challenges posed by health misinformation, policymakers must take a multifaceted approach. This includes convening a broad coalition of central, state, local, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, and research partners to assess the impact of misinformation and develop effective preventive measures. Intergovernmental collaborations such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should be encouraged whereby doctors debunk online medical misinformation, in the backdrop of the increased reliance on online forums for medical advice. Furthermore, increasing investment in research dedicated to understanding misinformation, along with the ongoing modernization of public health communications, is essential. Enhancing the resources and technical support available to state and local public health agencies will also enable them to better address public queries and concerns, as well as counteract misinformation. Additionally, expanding efforts to build long-term resilience against misinformation through comprehensive educational programs is crucial for fostering a well-informed public capable of critically evaluating health information.

From an individual perspective, since almost half a billion people use WhatsApp it has become a platform where false health claims can spread rapidly. This has led to a rise in the use of fake health news. Viral WhatsApp messages containing fake health warnings can be dangerous, hence it is always recommended to check such messages with vigilance. This highlights the growing concern about the potential dangers of misinformation and the need for more accurate information on medical matters.

Conclusion

The proliferation of misinformation in healthcare poses significant challenges to effective policymaking and public health management. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the role of misinformation in vaccine hesitancy, fraud, and increased mortality rates. There is an urgent need for robust strategies to counteract false information and build public trust in health interventions; this includes policymakers engaging in comprehensive efforts, including intergovernmental collaboration, enhanced research, and public health communication modernization, to combat misinformation. By fostering a well-informed public through education and vigilance, we can mitigate the impact of misinformation and promote healthier communities.

References

1. van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Jin, Y. (2019), “Seeking Formula for Misinformation Treatment in Public Health Crises: The Effects of Corrective Information Type and Source” Health Communication, 35(5), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295 
2. “Health Misinformation”, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/health-misinformation/index.html 
3. Mechanic, David, “The Managed Care Backlash: Perceptions and Rhetoric in Health Care Policy and the Potential for Health Care Reform”, Rutgers University. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751184/pdf/milq_195.pdf 
4. “Bad actors are weaponising health misinformation in India”, Financial Express, April 2024.

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-bad-actors-are-weaponising-health-misinformation-in-india-3448871/ 

5. “Role of doctors in eradicating misinformation in the medical sector.”, Times of India, 1 July 2024. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/national-doctors-day-role-of-doctors-in-eradicating-misinformation-in-the-healthcare-sector/articleshow/111399098.cms 

‍