#FactCheck: False Claims of Fireworks in Dubai International Stadium celebrating India’s Champions Trophy Victory 2025

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.

‍

The 2020s mark the emergence of deepfakes in general media discourse. The rise in deepfake technology is defined by a very simple yet concerning fact: it is now possible to create perfect imitations of anyone using AI tools that can create audio in any person's voice and generate realistic images and videos of almost anyone doing pretty much anything. The proliferation of deepfake content in the media poses great challenges to the functioning of democracies. especially as such materials can deprive the public of the accurate information it needs to make informed decisions in elections. Deepfakes are created using AI, which combines different technologies to produce synthetic content.

Understanding Deepfakes 

Deepfakes are synthetically generated content created using artificial intelligence (AI). This technology works on an advanced algorithm that creates hyper-realistic videos by using a person’s face, voice or likeness utilising techniques such as machine learning. The utilisation and progression of deepfake technology holds vast potential, both benign and malicious. 

An example is when the NGO Malaria No More which had used deepfake technology in 2019 to sync David Beckham’s lip movements with different voices in nine languages, amplified its anti-malaria message.

Deepfakes have a dark side too. They have been used to spread false information, manipulate public opinion, and damage reputations. They can harm mental health and have significant social impacts. The ease of creating deepfakes makes it difficult to verify media authenticity, eroding trust in journalism and creating confusion about what is true and what is not. Their potential to cause harm has made it necessary to consider legal and regulatory approaches.

India’s Legal Landscape Surrounding Deepfakes

India presently lacks a specific law dealing with deepfakes, but the existing legal provisions offer some safeguards against mischief caused. 

• Deepfakes created with the intent of spreading misinformation or damaging someone’s reputation can be prosecuted under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023. It deals with the consequences of such acts under Section 356, governing defamation law.
• The Information Technology Act of 2000, the primary law that regulates Indian cyberspace. Any unauthorised disclosure of personal information which is used to create deepfakes for harassment or voyeurism is a violation of the act.
• The unauthorised use of a person's likeness in a deepfake can become a violation of their intellectual property rights and lead to copyright infringement.
• India’s privacy law, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, regulates and limits the misuse of personal data. It has the potential to address deepfakes by ensuring that individuals’ likenesses are not used without their consent in digital contexts.

India, at present, needs legislation that can specifically address the challenges deepfakes pose. The proposed legislation, aptly titled, ‘the Digital India Act’ aims to tackle various digital issues, including the misuse of deepfake technology and the spread of misinformation. Additionally, states like Maharashtra have proposed laws targeting deepfakes used for defamation or fraud, highlighting growing concerns about their impact on the digital landscape.

Policy Approaches to Regulation of Deepfakes

• Criminalising and penalising the making, creation and distribution of harmful deepfakes as illegal will act as a deterrent.
• There should be a process that mandates the disclosures for synthetic media. This would be to inform viewers that the content has been created using AI. 
• Encouraging tech companies to implement stricter policies on deepfake content moderation can enhance accountability and reduce harmful misinformation.
• The public’s understanding of deepfakes should be promoted. Especially, via awareness campaigns that will empower citizens to critically evaluate digital content and make informed decisions.

Deepfake, Global Overview

There has been an increase in the momentum to regulate deepfakes globally. In October 2023, US President Biden signed an executive order on AI risks instructing the US Commerce Department to form labelling standards for AI-generated content. California and Texas have passed laws against the dangerous distribution of deepfake images that affect electoral contexts and Virginia has targeted a law on the non-consensual distribution of deepfake pornography. 

China promulgated regulations requiring explicit marking of doctored content. The European Union has tightened its Code of Practice on Disinformation by requiring social media to flag deepfakes, otherwise they risk facing hefty fines and proposed transparency mandates under the EU AI Act. These measures highlight a global recognition of the risks that deepfakes pose and the need for a robust regulatory framework.

Conclusion 

With deepfakes being a significant source of risk to trust and democratic processes, a multi-pronged approach to regulation is in order. From enshrining measures against deepfake technology in specific laws and penalising the same, mandating transparency and enabling public awareness, the legislators have a challenge ahead of them. National and international efforts have highlighted the urgent need for a comprehensive framework to enable measures to curb the misuse and also promote responsible innovation. Cooperation during these trying times will be important to shield truth and integrity in the digital age. 

References

• https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2245&context=jss
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/regulating-deepfakes-generative-ai-in-india-explained/article67591640.ece
• https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena
• https://www.responsible.ai/a-look-at-global-deepfake-regulation-approaches/
• https://thesecretariat.in/article/wake-up-call-for-law-making-on-deepfakes-and-misinformation 

‍

Overview:

It is worth stating that millions of Windows users around the world are facing the Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) problem that makes systems shutdown or restart. This has been attributed to a CrowdStrike update that was released recently and has impacted many organizations, financial institutions, and government agencies across the globe. Indian airlines have also reported disruptions on X (formerly Twitter), informing passengers about the issue.

Understanding Blue Screen of Death:

Blue Screen errors, also known as black screen errors or STOP code errors, can occur due to critical issues forcing Windows to shut down or restart. You may encounter messages like "Windows has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer." These errors can be caused by hardware or software problems.

Impact on Industries

Some of the large U. S. airlines such as American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and United Airlines had to issue ground stops because of communication problems. Also, several airports on Friday suffered a massive technical issue in check-in kiosks for IndiGo, Akasa Air, SpiceJet, and Air India Express.

The Widespread Issue

The issue seems widespread and is causing disruption across the board as Windows PCs are deployed at workplaces and other public entities like airlines, banks, and even media companies. It has been pointed out that Windows PCs use a special cybersecurity solution from a company called CrowdStrike that seems to be the culprit for this outage, affecting most Windows PC users out there.

Microsoft's Response

The issue was acknowledged by Microsoft and the mitigations are underway. The company in its verified X handle Microsoft 365 status has shared a series information on the latest outage and they are looking into the matter. The issue is under investigation.

In one of the posts from Microsoft Azure, it is mentioned that they have become aware of an issue affecting Virtual Machines (VMs) running Windows Client and Windows Server with the CrowdStrike Falcon agent installed. These VMs may encounter a bug check (BSOD) and become stuck in a restarting state. Their analysis indicates that this issue started approximately at 19:00 UTC on July 18th. They have provided recommendations as follows:

Restore from Backup:   In case customers have available backups prior to 19:00 UTC on July 18th, they should recover VM data from the backups. If the customer is using Azure Backup, they can get exact steps on how to restore VM data in the Azure portal. here.

Offline OS Disk Repair: Alternatively, customers can attempt offline repair of the OS disk by attaching an unmanaged disk to the affected VM. Encrypted disks may require additional steps to unlock before repair. Once attached, delete the following file:

Windows/System/System32/Drivers/CrowdStrike/C00000291*.sys 

After deletion, reattach the disk to the original VM.

Microsoft Azure is actively investigating additional mitigation options for affected customers. We will provide updates as we gather more information.

Resolving Blue Screen Errors in Windows

Windows 11 & Windows 10:

Blue Screen errors can stem from both hardware and software issues. If new hardware was added before the error, try removing it and restarting your PC. If restarting is difficult, start your PC in Safe Mode.

To Start in Safe Mode:

From Settings:

Open Settings > Update & Security > Recovery.

Under "Advanced startup," select Restart now.

After your PC restarts to the Choose an option screen, select Troubleshoot > Advanced options > Startup Settings > Restart.

After your PC restarts, you'll see a list of options. Select 4 or press F4 to start in Safe Mode. If you need to use the internet, select 5 or press F5 for Safe Mode with Networking.

From the Sign-in Screen:

Restart your PC. When you get to the sign-in screen, hold the Shift key down while you select Power > Restart.

After your PC restarts, follow the steps above.

From a Black or Blank Screen:

Press the power button to turn off your device, then turn it back on. Repeat this two more times.

After the third time, your device will start in the Windows Recovery Environment (WinRE).

From the Choose an option screen, follow the steps to enter Safe Mode.

Additional Help:

Windows Update: Ensure your system has the latest patches.

Blue Screen Troubleshooter: In Windows, open Get Help, type Troubleshoot BSOD error, and follow the guided walkthrough.

Online Troubleshooting: Visit Microsoft's support page and follow the recommendations under "Recommended Help."

If none of those steps help to resolve your Blue Screen error, please try the Blue Screen Troubleshooter in the Get Help app:

• In Windows, open Get Help.
• In the Get Help app, type Troubleshoot BSOD error.
• Follow the guided walkthrough in the Get Help app.

[Note: If you're not on a Windows device, you can run the Blue Screen Troubleshooter on your browser by going to Contact Microsoft Support and typing Troubleshoot BSOD error. Then follow the guided walkthrough under "Recommended Help."]

For detailed steps and further assistance, please refer to the Microsoft support portal or contact their support team.

CrowdStrike’s Response:

In the statement given by CrowdStrike, they have clearly mentioned it is not any cyberattack and their resources are working to fix the issue on Windows. Further, they have identified the deployment issue and fixed the same. Crowdstrike mentions about their problematic versions as follows:

• “Channel file "C-00000291*.sys" with timestamp of 0527 UTC or later is the reverted (good) version.
• Channel file "C-00000291*.sys" with timestamp of 0409 UTC is the problematic version.

Note: It is normal for multiple "C-00000291*.sys files to be present in the CrowdStrike directory - as long as one of the files in the folder has a timestamp of 0527 UTC or later, that will be the active content.”

The CrowdStrike will be providing latest updates on the same and advises their customers and organizations to contact their officials officially to get latest updates and accurate information. It is encouraged to refer to customer’s support portal for further help.

Stay safe and ensure regular backups to mitigate the impact of such issues.

References:

https://status.cloud.microsoft/

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/resolving-blue-screen-errors-in-windows-60b01860-58f2-be66-7516-5c45a66ae3c6

https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/start-your-pc-in-safe-mode-in-windows-92c27cff-db89-8644-1ce4-b3e5e56fe234

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/statement-on-falcon-content-update-for-windows-hosts/ 

‍

‍

‍

‍