#FactCheck - Viral Photo of Dilapidated Bridge Misattributed to Kerala, Originally from Bangladesh
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
Related Blogs

Introduction
On March 12, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) proposed the Bill to curb anti-competitive practices of tech giants through ex-ante regulation. The Draft Digital Competition Bill is to apply to ‘Core Digital Services,’ with the Central Government having the authority to update the list periodically. The proposed list in the Bill encompasses online search engines, online social networking services, video-sharing platforms, interpersonal communications services, operating systems, web browsers, cloud services, advertising services, and online intermediation services.
The primary highlight of the Digital Competition Law Report created by the Committee on Digital Competition Law presented to the Parliament in the 2nd week of March 2024 involves a recommendation to introduce new legislation called the ‘Digital Competition Act,’ intended to strike a balance between certainty and flexibility. The report identified ten anti-competitive practices relevant to digital enterprises in India. These are anti-steering, platform neutrality/self-preferencing, bundling and tying, data usage (use of non-public data), pricing/ deep discounting, exclusive tie-ups, search and ranking preferencing, restricting third-party applications and finally advertising Policies.
Key Take-Aways: Digital Competition Bill, 2024
- Qualitative and quantitative criteria for identifying Systematically Significant Digital Enterprises, if it meets any of the specified thresholds.
- Financial thresholds in each of the immediately preceding three financial years like turnover in India, global turnover, gross merchandise value in India, or global market capitalization.
- User thresholds in each of the immediately preceding 3 financial years in India like the core digital service provided by the enterprise has at least 1 crore end users, or it has at least 10,000 business users.
- The Commission may make the designation based on other factors such as the size and resources of an enterprise, number of business or end users, market structure and size, scale and scope of activities of an enterprise and any other relevant factor.
- A period of 90 days is provided to notify the CCI of qualification as an SSDE. Additionally, the enterprise must also notify the Commission of other enterprises within the group that are directly or indirectly involved in the provision of Core Digital Services, as Associate Digital Enterprises (ADE) and the qualification shall be for 3 years.
- It prescribes obligations for SSDEs and their ADEs upon designation. The enterprise must comply with certain obligations regarding Core Digital Services, and non-compliance with the same shall result in penalties. Enterprises must not directly or indirectly prevent or restrict business users or end users from raising any issue of non-compliance with the enterprise’s obligations under the Act.
- Avoidance of favouritism in product offerings by SSDE, its related parties, or third parties for the manufacture and sale of products or provision of services over those offered by third-party business users on the Core Digital Service in any manner.
- The Commission will be having the same powers as vested to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when trying a suit.
- Penalty for non-compliance without reasonable cause may extend to Rs 1 lakh for each day during which such non-compliance occurs (max. of Rs 10 crore). It may extend to 3 years or with a fine, which may extend to Rs 25 crore or with both. The Commission may also pass an order imposing a penalty on an enterprise (not exceeding 1% of the global turnover) in case it provides incorrect, incomplete, misleading information or fails to provide information.
Suggestions and Recommendations
- The ex-ante model of regulation needs to be examined for the Indian scenario and studies need to be conducted on it has worked previously in different jurisdictions like the EU.
- The Bill should be aimed at prioritising the fostering of fair competition by preventing monopolistic practices in digital markets exclusively. A clear distinction from the already existing Competition Act, 2002 in its functioning needs to be created so that there is no overlap in the regulations and double jeopardy is not created for enterprises.
- Restrictions on tying and bundling and data usage have been shown to negatively impact MSMEs that rely significantly on big tech to reduce operational costs and enhance customer outreach.
- Clear definitions of "dominant position" and "anti-competitive behaviour" are essential for effective enforcement in terms of digital competition need to be defined.
- Encouraging innovation while safeguarding consumer data privacy in consonance with the DPDP Act should be the aim. Promoting interoperability and transparency in algorithms can prevent discriminatory practices.
- Regular reviews and stakeholder consultations will ensure the law adapts to rapidly evolving technologies.
- Collaboration with global antitrust bodies which is aimed at enhancing cross-border regulatory coherence and effectiveness.
Conclusion
The need for a competition law that is focused exclusively on Digital Enterprises is the need of the hour and hence the Committee recommended enacting the Digital Competition Act to enable CCI to selectively regulate large digital enterprises. The proposed legislation should be restricted to regulate only those enterprises that have a significant presence and ability to influence the Indian digital market. The impact of the law needs to be restrictive to digital enterprises and it should not encroach upon matters not influenced by the digital arena. India's proposed Digital Competition Bill aims to promote competition and fairness in the digital market by addressing anti-competitive practices and dominant position abuses prevalent in the digital business space. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has received 41-page public feedback on the draft which is expected to be tabled next year in front of the Parliament.
References
- https://www.medianama.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DRAFT-DIGITAL-COMPETITION-BILL-2024.pdf
- https://prsindia.org/files/policy/policy_committee_reports/Report_Summary-Digital_Competition_Law.pdf
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/meity-meets-india-inc-to-hear-out-digital-competition-law-concerns/articleshow/111091837.cms?from=mdr
- https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/dms/getdocument?mds=gzGtvSkE3zIVhAuBe2pbow%253D%253D&type=open
- https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/digital-competition-laws-beginning-of-a-new-era
- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/policy-explainer-digital-competition-bill-nimisha-srivastava-lhltc/
- https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5722a078-1839-4ece-aec9-49336ff53b6c

Executive Summary:
Traditional Business Email Compromise(BEC) attacks have become smarter, using advanced technologies to enhance their capability. Another such technology which is on the rise is WormGPT, which is a generative AI tool that is being leveraged by the cybercriminals for the purpose of BEC. This research aims at discussing WormGPT and its features as well as the risks associated with the application of the WormGPT in criminal activities. The purpose is to give a general overview of how WormGPT is involved in BEC attacks and give some advice on how to prevent it.
Introduction
BEC(Business Email Compromise) in simple terms can be defined as a kind of cybercrime whereby the attackers target the business in an effort to defraud through the use of emails. Earlier on, BEC attacks were executed through simple email scams and phishing. However, in recent days due to the advancement of AI tools like WormGPT such malicious activities have become sophisticated and difficult to identify. This paper seeks to discuss WormGPT, a generative artificial intelligence, and how it is used in the BEC attacks to make the attacks more effective.
What is WormGPT?
Definition and Overview
WormGPT is a generative AI model designed to create human-like text. It is built on advanced machine learning algorithms, specifically leveraging large language models (LLMs). These models are trained on vast amounts of text data to generate coherent and contextually relevant content. WormGPT is notable for its ability to produce highly convincing and personalised email content, making it a potent tool in the hands of cybercriminals.
How WormGPT Works
1. Training Data: Here the WormGPT is trained with the arrays of data sets, like emails, articles, and other writing material. This extensive training enables it to understand and to mimic different writing styles and recognizable textual content.
2. Generative Capabilities: Upon training, WormGPT can then generate text based on specific prompts, as in the following examples in response to prompts. For example, if a cybercriminal comes up with a prompt concerning the company’s financial information, WormGPT is capable of releasing an appearance of a genuine email asking for more details.
3. Customization: WormGPT can be retrained any time with an industry or an organisation of interest in mind. This customization enables the attackers to make their emails resemble the business activities of the target thus enhancing the chances for an attack to succeed.
Enhanced Phishing Techniques
Traditional phishing emails are often identifiable by their generic and unconvincing content. WormGPT improves upon this by generating highly personalised and contextually accurate emails. This personalization makes it harder for recipients to identify malicious intent.
Automation of Email Crafting
Previously, creating convincing phishing emails required significant manual effort. WormGPT automates this process, allowing attackers to generate large volumes of realistic emails quickly. This automation increases the scale and frequency of BEC attacks.
Exploitation of Contextual Information
WormGPT can be fed with contextual information about the target, such as recent company news or employee details. This capability enables the generation of emails that appear highly relevant and urgent, further deceiving recipients into taking harmful actions.
Implications for Cybersecurity
Challenges in Detection
The use of WormGPT complicates the detection of BEC attacks. Traditional email security solutions may struggle to identify malicious emails generated by advanced AI, as they can closely mimic legitimate correspondence. This necessitates the development of more sophisticated detection mechanisms.
Need for Enhanced Training
Organisations must invest in training their employees to recognize signs of BEC attacks. Awareness programs should emphasise the importance of verifying email requests for sensitive information, especially when such requests come from unfamiliar or unexpected sources.
Implementation of Robust Security Measures
- Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): MFA can add an additional layer of security, making it harder for attackers to gain unauthorised access even if they successfully deceive an employee.
- Email Filtering Solutions: Advanced email filtering solutions that use AI and machine learning to detect anomalies and suspicious patterns can help identify and block malicious emails.
- Regular Security Audits: Conducting regular security audits can help identify vulnerabilities and ensure that security measures are up to date.
Case Studies
Case Study 1: Financial Institution
A financial institution fell victim to a BEC attack orchestrated using WormGPT. The attacker used the tool to craft a convincing email that appeared to come from the institution’s CEO, requesting a large wire transfer. The email’s convincing nature led to the transfer of funds before the scam was discovered.
Case Study 2: Manufacturing Company
In another instance, a manufacturing company was targeted by a BEC attack using WormGPT. The attacker generated emails that appeared to come from a key supplier, requesting sensitive business information. The attack exploited the company’s lack of awareness about BEC threats, resulting in a significant data breach.
Recommendations for Mitigation
- Strengthen Email Security Protocols: Implement advanced email security solutions that incorporate AI-driven threat detection.
- Promote Cyber Hygiene: Educate employees on recognizing phishing attempts and practising safe email habits.
- Invest in AI for Defense: Explore the use of AI and machine learning in developing defences against generative AI-driven attacks.
- Implement Verification Procedures: Establish procedures for verifying the authenticity of sensitive requests, especially those received via email.
Conclusion
WormGPT is a new tool in the arsenal of cybercriminals which improved their options to perform Business Email Compromise attacks more effectively and effectively. Therefore, it is critical to provide the defence community with information regarding the potential of WormGPT and its implications for enhancing the threat landscape and strengthening the protection systems against advanced and constantly evolving threats.
This means the development of rigorous security protocols, general awareness of security solutions, and incorporating technologies such as artificial intelligence to mitigate the risk factors that arise from generative AI tools to the best extent possible.

Introduction
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has unanimously adopted the first global resolution on Artificial Intelligence (AI), encouraging countries to take into consideration human rights, keeping personal data safe, and further monitoring the threats associated with AI. This non-binding resolution proposed by the United States and co-sponsored by China and over 120 other nations advocates the strengthening of privacy policies. This step is crucial for governments across the world to shape how AI grows because of the dangers it carries that could undermine the protection, promotion, and right to human dignity and fundamental freedoms. The resolution emphasizes the importance of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the life cycle of AI systems, highlighting the benefits of digital transformation and safe AI systems.
Key highlights
● This is indeed a landmark move by the UNGA, which adopted the first global resolution on AI. This resolution encourages member countries to safeguard human rights, protect personal data, and monitor AI for risks.
● Global leaders have shown their consensus for safe, secure, trustworthy AI systems that advance sustainable development and respect fundamental freedom.
● Resolution is the latest in a series of initiatives by governments around the world to shape AI. Therefore, AI will have to be created and deployed through the lens of humanity and dignity, Safety and Security, human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the life cycle of AI systems.
● UN resolution encourages global cooperation, warns against improper AI use, and emphasizes the issues of human rights.
● The resolution aims to protect from potential harm and ensure that everyone can enjoy its benefits. The United States has worked with over 120 countries at the United Nations, including Russia, China, and Cuba, to negotiate the text of the resolution adopted.
Brief Analysis
AI has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, with chatbots such as the Chat GPT taking the world by storm. AI has been steadily attempting to replicate human-like thinking and solve problems. Furthermore, machine learning, a key aspect of AI, involves learning from experience and identifying patterns to solve problems autonomously. The contemporary emergence of AI has, however, raised questions about its ethical implications, potential negative impact on society, and whether it is too late to control it.
While AI is capable of solving problems quickly and performing various tasks with ease, it also has its own set of problems. As AI continues to grow, global leaders have called for regulations to prevent significant harm due to the unregulated AI landscape to the world and encourage the use of trustworthy AI. The European Union (EU) has come up with an AI act called the “European AI Act”. Recently, a Senate bill called “The AI Consent Bill” was introduced in the US. Similarly, India is also proactively working towards setting the stage for a more regulated Al landscape by fostering dialogues and taking significant measures. Recently, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an advisory on AI, which requires explicit permission to deploy under-testing or unreliable AI models related to India's Internet. The following advisory also indicates measures advocating to combat deepfakes or misinformation.
AI has thus become a powerful tool that has raised concerns about its ethical implications and the potential negative influence on society. Governments worldwide are taking action to regulate AI and ensure that it remains safe and effective. Now, the groundbreaking move of the UNGA, which adopted the global resolution on AI, with the support of all 193 U.N. member nations, shows the true potential of efforts by countries to regulate AI and promote safe and responsible use globally.
New AI tools have emerged in the public sphere, which may threaten humanity in an unexpected direction. AI is able to learn by itself through machine learning to improve itself, and developers often are surprised by the emergent abilities and qualities of these tools. The ability to manipulate and generate language, whether with words, images, or sounds, is the most important aspect of the current phase of the ongoing AI Revolution. In the future, AI can have several implications. Hence, it is high time to regulate AI and promote the safe, secure and responsible use of it.
Conclusion
The UNGA has approved its global resolution on AI, marking significant progress towards creating global standards for the responsible development and employment of AI. The resolution underscores the critical need to protect human rights, safeguard personal data, and closely monitor AI technologies for potential hazards. It calls for more robust privacy regulations and recognises the dangers associated with improper AI systems. This profound resolution reflects a unified stance among UN member countries on overseeing AI to prevent possible negative effects and promote safe, secure and trustworthy AI.
References