#FactCheck - "Viral Video Misleadingly Claims Surrender to Indian Army, Actually Shows Bangladesh Army”

INTRODUCTION:

The Ministry of Defence has recently designated the Additional Directorate General of Strategic Communication in the Indian Army as the nodal officer now authorised to send removal requests and notices to social media intermediaries regarding posts consisting of illegal content with respect to the Army. Earlier, this process was followed through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). The recent designation gives the Army the autonomy of circumnavigating the old process and enables them to send direct notices (as deemed appropriate by the government and its agency). Let us look at the legal framework that allows them to do so and its policy implications. 

BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK:

Section 69 of the IT Act 2000 gives the government the power to issue directions for interception, monitoring or decryption of any data/information through any computer resource. This is done so under six reasons related to:

• Upholding the sovereignty or integrity of India
• Security of the state
• Defence of India
• Friendly relations with foreign states
• Public order or for preventing incitement of any cognisable offence
• Investigations of offences related to the aforementioned reasons 

Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act 2000 is another aspect of the law related to the removal of data on notification. It allows for all intermediaries (including internet service providers and social media platforms) to have safety harbours from the liability of the content put out by third parties/users on their platforms. This, however, is only applicable when the intermediary has either received a notification or actual knowledge by the appropriate government or its agency of the data on their platform being used for unlawful acts and complies promptly by removing the data from their platform without tampering with evidence.

PLAUSIBLE REASONS FOR POLICY DECISION:

Cases related to the Indian Army are sensitive for a number of reasons, rooted in the fact that they directly pertain to the nation's security, integrity and sovereignty. The impact of the spread of misinformation and disinformation is almost instantaneous and the stakes are high in any circumstance, but exceptionally so when it comes to the Armed Forces and the nation’s security status. A mechanism to tackle cases of such a security level should allow for quick action from the authorities. Owing to the change in the ability to notify directly rather than through another ministry, the army can now promptly deal with these concerns as and when they arise. One immediate benefit of this change is that the forces can now quickly respond to instances where foreign states and actors with malicious intent put out information that can cause harm to the nation’s interests, image and integrity. 

This step helps the forces deal with countering misinformation, ensuring national security and even addressing issues of online propaganda. An example of sensitive content about the army leading to legal intervention is the case of Delhi-based magazine The Caravan. The Defence Ministry, along with the Intelligence Bureau and the Jammu and Kashmir police ordered the Delhi-based publication to remove an article claiming the murder and torture of civilians by the Indian army in Jammu and Kashmir citing the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The instruction was challenged by the magazine in the courts.

CONCLUSION:

This move brings with it potential benefits along with risks and the focus should always be on maintaining a balanced approach. Transparency and accountability are imperative and checks on related guidelines so as to prevent misuse while simultaneously protecting national security should be at the centre of the objective of the policy approach. Misinformation in and about the armed forces must be dealt with immediately.

REFERENCES:

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/army-can-now-directly-issue-notices-to-remove-online-posts-101730313177838.html
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/inside-79-3-b-the-content-blocking-provision-with-many-legal-grey-areas-101706987924882.html
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-orders-magazine-to-take-down-article-on-army-torture-and-murder-in-jammu/article67840790.ece
• https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/army-gains-authority-to-directly-issue-notice-to-take-down-online-posts

‍

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.

‍

On March 02, 2023, the Biden-Harris Administration unveiled the National Cybersecurity Plan to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the advantages of a secure digital environment. In this pivotal decade, the United States will reimagine cyberspace as a tool to achieve our goals in a way that is consistent with our values. These values include a commitment to economic security and prosperity, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, faith in our democracy and its institutions, and a commitment to creating a fair and diverse society. This goal cannot be achieved without a dramatic reorganisation of the United States’ cyberspace responsibilities, roles, and resources.

VISION- AIM

A more planned, organised, and well-resourced strategy to cyber protection is necessary for today’s rapidly developing world. State and non-state actors alike are launching creative new initiatives to challenge the United States. New avenues for innovation are opening up as next-generation technologies attain maturity and digital interdependencies are expanding. Thus, this Plan lays forth a plan to counter these dangers and protect the digital future. Putting it into effect can safeguard spending on things like infrastructure, clean energy, and the re-shoring of American industry.

The USA will create its digital environment by:

• Defensible if the cyber defence is comparatively easier, more effective, cheaper
• Resilient, where the impacts of cyberattacks and operator mistakes are lasting and little widespread.
• Values-aligned, where our most cherished values shape—and are in turn reinforced by— our digital world.

Already, the National Security Strategy, Executive Order 14028 (Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity), National Security Memorandum 5 (Improving Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems), M-22-09 (Moving the U.S. Government Toward Zero-Trust Cybersecurity Principles), and National Security Memorandum 10 (Improving Cybersecurity for Federal Information Systems) have all been issued to help secure cyberspace and our digital ecosystem (Promoting United States Leadership in Quantum Computing While Mitigating Risks to Vulnerable Cryptographic Systems). The Strategy builds upon previous efforts by acknowledging that the Internet serves not as an end in itself but as a means to a goal—the achievement of our highest ideals.

There are five key points that constitute the National Cybersecurity Strategy:

1. Defend Critical Infrastructure –

Defend critical infrastructure by, among other things: i) enacting cybersecurity regulations to secure essential infrastructure; (ii) boosting public-private sector collaboration; (iii) integrating federal cybersecurity centres; (iv) updating federal incident response plans and processes; and (v) modernising federal systems in accordance with zero trust principles.

2. Disrupt and Dismantle Threat Actors

Disrupt and dismantle threat actors, including by i) integrating military, diplomatic, information, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement competence, (ii) strengthening public-private sector collaborations, (iii) increasing the speed and scale of intelligence sharing and victim information, (iv) preventing the abuse of U.S.-based infrastructure, and (v) increasing disruption campaigns and other endeavours against ransomware operators;

3. Shape Market Forces to Drive Security and Resilience

The federal government can help shape market forces that drive security and resilience by doing the following: i) supporting legislative efforts to limit organisations’ ability to collect, use, transfer, and maintain personal information and providing strong protections for sensitive data (such as geolocation and health data), (ii) boosting IoT device security via federal research, development, sourcing, risk management efforts, and IoT security labelling programs, and (iii) instituting legislation establishing standards for the security of IoT devices. (iv) strengthening cybersecurity contract standards with government suppliers, (v) studying a federal cyber insurance framework, and (vi) using federal grants and other incentives to invest in efforts to secure critical infrastructure.

4. Invest in a Resilient Future

Invest in a resilient future by doing things like i) securing the Internet’s underlying infrastructure, (ii) funding federal cybersecurity R&D in areas like artificial intelligence, cloud computing, telecommunications, and data analytics used in critical infrastructure, (iii) migrating vulnerable public networks and systems to quantum-resistant cryptography-based environments, and (iv) investing hardware and software systems that strengthen the resiliency, safety, and security of these areas, (v) enhancing and expanding the nation’s cyber workforce; and (vi) investing in verifiable, strong digital identity solutions that promote security, interoperability, and accessibility.

5. Forge International Partnerships to Pursue Shared Goals

The United States should work with other countries to advance common interests, such as i) forming international coalitions to counter threats to the digital ecosystem; (ii) increasing the scope of U.S. assistance to allies and partners in strengthening cybersecurity; (iii) forming international coalitions to reinforce global norms of responsible state behaviour; and (v) securing global supply chains for information, communications, and operational technologies.

Conclusion:

The Strategy results from months of work by the Office of the National Cyber Director (“ONCD”), the primary cybersecurity policy and strategy advisor to President Biden and coordinates cybersecurity engagement with business and international partners. The National Security Council will oversee the Strategy’s implementation through ONCD and the Office of Management and Budget.

In conclusion, we can say that the National Cybersecurity Plan of the Biden administration lays out an ambitious goal for American cybersecurity that is to be accomplished by the end of the decade. The administration aims to shift tasks and responsibilities to those organisations in the best position to safeguard systems and software and to encourage incentives for long-term investment in cybersecurity to build a more cyber-secure future.

It is impossible to assess the cyber strategy in a vacuum. It’s critical to consider the previous efforts and acknowledge the ones that still need to be made. The implementation specifics for several aspects of the approach are left up to a yet-to-be-written plan.

Given these difficulties, it would be simple to voice some pessimism at this stage regarding the next effort that will be required. Yet, the Biden administration has established a vision for cybersecurity oriented towards the future, with novel projects that could fundamentally alter how the United States handles and maintains cybersecurity. The Biden administration raised the bar for cybersecurity by outlining this robust plan, which will be challenging for succeeding administrations to let go. Also, it has alerted Congress to areas where it will need to act.

References:

• https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/02/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-national-cybersecurity-strategy/
• https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2023/03/02/white-house-releases-national-cybersecurity-strategy/
• https://www.lawfareblog.com/biden-harris-administration-releases-new-national-cybersecurity-strategy