#FactCheck - Old Video Misleadingly Claimed as Footage of Iranian President Before Crash

Introduction:

This Op-ed sheds light on the perspectives of the US and China regarding cyber espionage. Additionally, it seeks to analyze China's response to the US accusation regarding cyber espionage.

What is Cyber espionage?

Cyber espionage or cyber spying is the act of obtaining personal, sensitive, or proprietary information from individuals without their knowledge or consent. In an increasingly transparent and technological society, the ability to control the private information an individual reveals on the Internet and the ability of others to access that information are a growing concern. This includes storage and retrieval of e-mail by third parties, social media, search engines, data mining, GPS tracking, the explosion of smartphone usage, and many other technology considerations. In the age of big data, there is a growing concern for privacy issues surrounding the storage and misuse of personal data and non-consensual mining of private information by companies, criminals, and governments. 

Cyber espionage aims for economic, political, and technological gain. Fox example Stuxnet (2010) cyber-attack by the US and its allies Israel against Iran’s Nuclear facilities. Three espionage tools were discovered connected to Stuxnet, such as Gauss, FLAME and DuQu, for stealing data such as passwords, screenshots, Bluetooth, Skype functions, etc.

Cyber espionage is one of the most significant and intriguing international challenges globally. Many nations and international bodies, such as the US and China, have created their definitions and have always struggled over cyber espionage norms.

The US Perspective

In 2009, US officials (along with other allied countries) mentioned that cyber espionage was acceptable if it safeguarded national security, although they condemned economically motivated cyber espionage. Even the Director of National Intelligence said in 2013 that foreign intelligence capabilities cannot steal foreign companies' trade secrets to benefit their firms. This stance is consistent with the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996, particularly Section 1831, which prohibits economic espionage. This includes the theft of a trade secret that "will benefit any foreign government, foreign agent or foreign instrumentality. 

Second, the US advocates for cybersecurity market standards and strongly opposes transferring personal data extracted from the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to cybercrime markets. Furthermore, China has been reported to sell OPM data on illicit markets. It became a grave concern for the US government when the Chinese government managed to acquire sensitive details of 22.1 million US government workers through cyber intrusions in 2014.

Third, Cyber-espionage is acceptable unless it’s utilized for Doxing, which involves disclosing personal information about someone online without their consent and using it as a tool for political influence operations. However, Western academics and scholars have endeavoured to distinguish between doxing and whistleblowing. They argue that whistleblowing, exemplified by events like the Snowden Leaks and Vault 7 disclosures, serves the interests of US citizens. In the US, being regarded as an open society, certain disclosures are not promoted but rather required by mandate.

Fourth, the US argues that there is no cyber espionage against critical infrastructure during peacetime. According to the US, there are 16 critical infrastructure sectors, including chemical, nuclear, energy, defence, food, water, and so on. These sectors are considered essential to the US, and any disruption or harm would impact security, national public health and national economic security.

The US concern regarding China’s cyber espionage

According to James Lewis (a senior vice president at the Center for US-China Economic and Security Review Commission), the US faces losses between $ 20 billion and $30 billion annually due to China’s cyberespionage. The 2018 U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Section 301 report highlighted instances, where the Chinese government and executives from Chinese companies engaged in clandestine cyber intrusions to obtaining commercially valuable information from the U.S. businesses, such as in 2018 where officials from China’s Ministry of State Security, stole trade from General Electric aviation and other aerospace companies.    

China's response to the US accusations of cyber espionage

China's perspective on cyber espionage is outlined by its 2014 anti-espionage law, which was revised in 2023. Article 1 of this legislation is formulated to prevent, halt, and punish espionage actions to maintain national security. Article 4 addresses the act of espionage and does not differentiate between state-sponsored cyber espionage for economic purposes and state-sponsored cyber espionage for national security purposes. However, China doesn't make a clear difference between government-to-government hacking (spying) and government-to-corporate sector hacking, unlike the US. This distinction is less apparent in China due to its strong state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector. However, military spying is considered part of the national interest in the US, while corporate spying is considered a crime.

China asserts that the US has established cyber norms concerning cyber espionage to normalize public attribution as acceptable conduct. This is achieved by targeting China for cyber operations, imposing sanctions on accused Chinese individuals, and making political accusations, such as blaming China and Russia for meddling in US elections. Despite all this, Washington D.C has never taken responsibility for the infamous Flame and Stuxnet cyber operations, which were widely recognized as part of a broader collaborative initiative known as Operation Olympic Games between the US and Israel. Additionally, the US takes the lead in surveillance activities conducted against China, Russia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, and several French presidents. Surveillance programs such as Irritant Horn, Stellar Wind, Bvp47, the Hive, and PRISM are recognized as tools used by the US to monitor both allies and adversaries to maintain global hegemony.

China urges the US to cease its smear campaign associated with Volt Typhoon’s cyberattack for cyber espionage, citing the publication of a report titled “Volt Typhoon: A Conspiratorial Swindling Campaign Targets with U.S. Congress and Taxpayers Conducted by U.S. Intelligence Community” by China's National Computer Virus Emergency Response Centre and the 360 Digital Security Group on 15 April. According to the report, 'Volt Typhoon' is a ransomware cyber criminal group self-identified as the 'Dark Power' and is not affiliated with any state or region. Multiple cybersecurity authorities in the US collaborated to fabricate this story just for more budgets from Congress. In the meantime, Microsoft and other U.S. cybersecurity firms are seeking more big contracts from US cybersecurity authorities. The reality behind “Volt Typhoon '' is a conspiratorial swindling campaign to achieve two objectives by amplifying the "China threat theory" and cheating money from the U.S. Congress and taxpayers.

Beijing condemned the US claims of cyber espionage without any solid evidence. China also blames the US for economic espionage by citing the European Parliament report that the National Security Agency (NSA) was also involved in assisting Boeing in beating Airbus for a multi-billion dollar contract. Furthermore, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff also accused the US authorities of spying against the state-owned oil company “Petrobras” for economic reasons.

Conclusion

In 2015, the US and China marked a milestone as both President Xi Jinping and Barack Obama signed an agreement, committing that neither country's government would conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of trade secrets, intellectual property, or other confidential business information to grant competitive advantages to firms or commercial sectors. However, the China Cybersecurity Industry Alliance (CCIA) published a report titled 'US Threats and Sabotage to the Security and Development of Global Cyberspace' in 2024, highlighting the US escalating cyber-attack and espionage activities against China and other nations. Additionally, there has been a considerable increase in the volume and sophistication of Chinese hacking since 2016. According to a survey by the Center for International and Strategic Studies, out of 224 cyber espionage incidents reported since 2000, 69% occurred after Xi assumed office. Therefore, China and the US must address cybersecurity issues through dialogue and cooperation, utilizing bilateral and multilateral agreements.

‍

Introduction

The first activity one engages in while using social media is scrolling through their feed and liking or reacting to posts. Social media users' online activity is passive, involving merely reading and observing, while active use occurs when a user consciously decides to share information or comment after actively analysing it. We often "like" photos, posts, and tweets reflexively, hardly stopping to think about why we do it and what information it contains. This act of "liking" or "reacting" is a passive activity that can spark an active discourse. Frequently, we encounter misinformation on social media in various forms, which could be identified as false at first glance if we exercise caution and avoid validating it with our likes.

Passive engagement, such as liking or reacting to a post, triggers social media algorithms to amplify its reach, exposing it to a broader audience. This amplification increases the likelihood of misinformation spreading quickly as more people interact with it. As the content circulates, it gains credibility through repeated exposure, reinforcing false narratives and expanding its impact.

Social media platforms are designed to facilitate communication and conversations for various purposes. However, this design also enables the sharing, exchange, distribution, and reception of content, including misinformation. This can lead to the widespread spread of false information, influencing public opinion and behaviour. Misinformation has been identified as a contributing factor in various contentious events, ranging from elections and referenda to political or religious persecution, as well as the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Mechanics of Passive Sharing

Sharing a post without checking the facts mentioned or sharing it without providing any context can create situations where misinformation can be knowingly or unknowingly spread. The problem with sharing and forwarding information on social media without fact-checking is that it usually starts in small, trusted networks before going on to be widely seen across the internet. This web which begins is infinite and cutting it from the roots is necessary. The rapid spread of information on social media is driven by algorithms that prioritise engagement and often they amplify misleading or false content and contribute to the spread of misinformation.  The algorithm optimises the feed and ensures that the posts that are most likely to engage with appear at the top of the timeline, thus encouraging a cycle of liking and posting that keeps users active and scrolling.

The internet reaches billions of individuals and enables them to tailor persuasive messages to the specific profiles of individual users. The internet because of its reach is an ideal medium for the fast spread of falsehoods at the expense of accurate information. 

Recommendations for Combating Passive Sharing

The need to combat passive sharing that we indulge in is important and some ways in which we can do so are as follows:

• We need to critically evaluate the sources before sharing any content. This will ensure that the information source is not corrupted and used as a means to cause disruptions. The medium should not be used to spread misinformation due to the source's ulterior motives. Tools such as crowdsourcing and AI methods have been used in the past to evaluate the sources and have been successful to an extent.
• Engaging with fact-checking tools and verifying the information is also crucial. The information that has been shared on the post needs to be verified through authenticated sources before indulging in the practice of sharing. 
• Being mindful of the potential impact of online activity, including likes and shares is important. The kind of reach that social media users have today is due to several reasons ranging from the content they create, the rate at which they engage with other users etc.  Liking and sharing content might not seem much for an individual user but the impact it has collectively is huge.

Conclusion 

Passive sharing of misinformation, like liking or sharing without verification, amplifies false information, erodes trust in legitimate sources, and deepens social and political divides. It can lead to real-world harm and ethical dilemmas. To combat this, critical evaluation, fact-checking, and mindful online engagement are essential to mitigating this passive spread of misinformation. The small act of “like” or “share” has a much more far-reaching effect than we anticipate and we should be mindful of all our activities on the digital platform. 

References

• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049530.2022.2113340#summary-abstract 
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thane/badlapur-protest-police-warn-against-spreading-fake-news/articleshow/112750638.cms

‍

Introduction

The Kerala High Court banned the use of mobile phones during office hours on the 2nd of December 2024, and issued an Official Memorandum titled, ‘Indulgence In Online Gaming And Watching Social Media Content During Office Hours’. This memorandum, issued by the Registrar General, prohibits mobile phone usage for personal activities such as gaming and social media during working hours. This memorandum aims to curb the productivity woes and reinforce professional discipline and further ensure the smooth functioning of the office operations. 

The memorandum reiterated its earlier notices from 2009 and 2013, where the High Court had emphasised that violations would be taken seriously. This reflects the High Court’s commitment to maintaining efficiency and professionalism in the workplace.  According to the memorandum, controlling officers will monitor the staff for violations and strict actions will be taken if the rules are flouted. 

Background

The circumstances that led to the Kerala HC’s decision are as follows: staff engaged in playing online games, browsing social media, watching videos or movies and even engaging in online shopping or trading during work hours, excluding the allocated lunch recess (as per the memorandum). 

As mentioned earlier, this memorandum is not the first of its kind. There were similar directives that were issued in 2009 and 2013 to target the poor productivity standards, rooted in the staff members' behaviours. The present memorandum is unlike the previously mentioned ones as, it specifically addresses the rise in mobile-based distractions, like online gaming and trading. The present directive does not outline any exceptions to senior officials with designated responsibilities, and emphasises universal adherence for all levels of the workforce. 

According to Cell Phones at Workplace Statistics, around 97% of workers use their smartphones during work hours, mixing personal and job-related activities. And more than 55% of managers say that cell phones are a major reason for lower productivity among employees.

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that even though smartphones have become indispensable tools for communication, their misuse has wider implications for overall organisational productivity. 

CyberPeace Outlook

The Kerala High Court's decision to restrict personal mobile phone usage during work hours underscores the importance of fostering a disciplined and focused workplace environment. While smartphones are vital for communication, their misuse poses significant productivity challenges. Some proactive steps that employers can take are implementing clear policies, conducting regular training sessions and promoting a culture of accountability. Balancing digital freedom and professional responsibility is the key to ensuring that technological tools serve as enablers of efficiency rather than distractions in the workplace.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/kerala-high-court-issues-memo-banning-staff-from-gaming-and-social-media-during-work-hours/article68963949.ece
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/kerala-high-court-bans-mobile-gaming-and-social-media-for-staff-during-work-hours/articleshow/116101149.cms 
• https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2024-12-05/1hiq8ffv/Kerala_High_Court_OM.pdf 
• https://www.coolest-gadgets.com/cell-phones-at-workplace-statistics/