#FactCheck - MS Dhoni Sculpture Falsely Portrayed as Chanakya 3D Recreation
Executive Summary:
A widely used news on social media is that a 3D model of Chanakya, supposedly made by Magadha DS University matches with MS Dhoni. However, fact-checking reveals that it is a 3D model of MS Dhoni not Chanakya. This MS Dhoni-3D model was created by artist Ankur Khatri and Magadha DS University does not appear to exist in the World. Khatri uploaded the model on ArtStation, calling it an MS Dhoni similarity study.
Claims:
The image being shared is claimed to be a 3D rendering of the ancient philosopher Chanakya created by Magadha DS University. However, people are noticing a striking similarity to the Indian cricketer MS Dhoni in the image.
Fact Check:
After receiving the post, we ran a reverse image search on the image. We landed on a Portfolio of a freelance character model named Ankur Khatri. We found the viral image over there and he gave a headline to the work as “MS Dhoni likeness study”. We also found some other character models in his portfolio.
Subsequently, we searched for the mentioned University which was named as Magadha DS University. But found no University with the same name, instead the name is Magadh University and it is located in Bodhgaya, Bihar. We searched the internet for any model, made by Magadh University but found nothing. The next step was to conduct an analysis on the Freelance Character artist profile, where we found that he has a dedicated Instagram channel where he posted a detailed video of his creative process that resulted in the MS Dhoni character model.
We concluded that the viral image is not a reconstruction of Indian philosopher Chanakya but a reconstruction of Cricketer MS Dhoni created by an artist named Ankur Khatri, not any University named Magadha DS.
Conclusion:
The viral claim that the 3D model is a recreation of the ancient philosopher Chanakya by a university called Magadha DS University is False and Misleading. In reality, the model is a digital artwork of former Indian cricket captain MS Dhoni, created by artist Ankur Khatri. There is no evidence of a Magadha DS University existence. There is a university named Magadh University in Bodh Gaya, Bihar despite its similar name, we found no evidence in the model's creation. Therefore, the claim is debunked, and the image is confirmed to be a depiction of MS Dhoni, not Chanakya.
Related Blogs
Introduction
The world has been surfing the wave of technological advancements and innovations for the past decade, and it all pins down to one device – our mobile phone. For all mobile users, the primary choices of operating systems are Android and iOS. Android is an OS created by google in 2008 and is supported by most brands like – One+, Mi, OPPO, VIVO, Motorola, and many more and is one of the most used operating systems. iOS is an OS that was developed by Apple and was introduced in their first phone – The iPhone, in 2007. Both OS came into existence when mobile phone penetration was slow globally, and so the scope of expansion and advancements was always in favor of such operating systems.
The Evolution
iOS
Ever since the advent of the iPhone, iOS has seen many changes since 2007. The current version of iOs is iOS 16. However, in the course of creating new iOS and updating the old ones, Apple has come out with various advancements like the App Store, Touch ID & Face ID, Apple Music, Podcasts, Augmented reality, Contact exposure, and many more, which have later become part of features of Android phone as well. Apple is one of the oldest tech and gadget developers in the world, most of the devices manufactured by Apple have received global recognition, and hence Apple enjoys providing services to a huge global user base.
Android
The OS has been famous for using the software version names on the food items like – Pie, Oreo, Nougat, KitKat, Eclairs, etc. From Android 10 onwards, the new versions were demoted by number. The most recent Android OS is Android 13; this OS is known for its practicality and flexibility. In 2012 Android became the most popular operating system for mobile devices, surpassing Apple’s iOS, and as of 2020, about 75 percent of mobile devices run Android.
Android vs. iOS
1. USER INTERFACE
One of the most noticeable differences between Android and iPhone is their user interface. Android devices have a more customizable interface, with options to change the home screen, app icons, and overall theme. The iPhone, on the other hand, has a more uniform interface with less room for customization. Android allows users to customize their home screen by adding widgets and changing the layout of their app icons. This can be useful for people who want quick access to certain functions or information on their home screen. IOS does not have this feature, but it does allow users to organize their app icons into folders for easier navigation.
2. APP SELECTION
Another factor to consider when choosing between Android and iOS is the app selection. Both platforms have a wide range of apps available, but there are some differences to consider. Android has a larger selection of apps overall, including a larger selection of free apps. However, some popular apps, such as certain music streaming apps and games, may be released first or only available on iPhone. iOS also has a more curated app store, meaning that all apps must go through a review process before being accepted for download. This can result in a higher quality of apps overall, but it can also mean that it takes longer for new apps to become available on the platform. iPhone devices tend to have less processing power and RAM. But they are generally more efficient in their use of resources. This can result in longer battery life, but it may also mean that iPhones are slower at handling multiple tasks or running resource-intensive apps.
3. PERFORMANCE
When it comes to performance, both Android and iPhone have their own strengths and weaknesses. Android devices tend to have more processing power and RAM. This can make them faster and more capable of handling multiple tasks simultaneously. However, this can also lead to Android devices having shorter battery life compared to iPhones.
4. SECURITY
Security is an important consideration for any smartphone user, and Android and iPhone have their own measures to protect user data. Android devices are generally seen as being less secure than iPhones due to their open nature. Android allows users to install apps from sources other than the Google Play Store, which can increase the risk of downloading malicious apps. However, Android has made improvements in recent years to address this issue. Including the introduction of Google Play Protect, which scans apps for malware before they are downloaded. On the other hand, iPhone devices have a more closed ecosystem, with all apps required to go through Apple‘s review process before being available for download. This helps reduce the risk of downloading malicious apps, but it can also limit the platform’s flexibility.
Conclusion
The debate about the better OS has been going on for some time now, and it looks like it will get more comprehensive in the times to come, as netizens go deeper into cyberspace, they will get more aware and critical of their uses and demands, which will allow them to opt for the best OS for their convenience. Although the Andriod OS, due to its integration, stands more vulnerable to security threats as compared to iOS, no software is secure in today’s time, what is secure is its use and application hence the netizen and the platforms need to increase their awareness and knowledge to safeguard themselves and the wholesome cyberspace.
Introduction
The Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications notified the Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024 on 22nd November 2024. These rules were notified to overcome the vulnerabilities that rapid technological advancements pose. The evolving nature of cyber threats has contributed to strengthening and enhancing telecom cyber security. These rules empower the central government to seek traffic data and any other data (other than the content of messages) from service providers.
Background Context
The Telecommunications Act of 2023 was passed by Parliament in December, receiving the President's assent and being published in the official Gazette on December 24, 2023. The act is divided into 11 chapters 62 sections and 3 schedules. The said act has repealed the old legislation viz. Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1933. The government has enforced the act in phases. Sections 1, 2, 10-30, 42-44, 46, 47, 50-58, 61, and 62 came into force on June 26, 2024. While, sections 6-8, 48, and 59(b) were notified to be effective from July 05, 2024.
These rules have been notified under the powers granted by Section 22(1) and Section 56(2)(v) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.
Key Provisions of the Rules
These rules collectively aim to reinforce telecom cyber security and ensure the reliability of telecommunication networks and services. They are as follows:
The Central Government agency authorized by it may request traffic or other data from a telecommunication entity through the Central Government portal to safeguard and ensure telecom cyber security. In addition, the Central Govt. can instruct telecommunication entities to establish the necessary infrastructure and equipment for data collection, processing, and storage from designated points.
● Obligations Relating To Telecom Cybersecurity:
Telecom entities must adhere to various obligations to prevent cyber security risks. Telecommunication cyber security must not be endangered, and no one is allowed to send messages that could harm it. Misuse of telecommunication equipment such as identifiers, networks, or services is prohibited. Telecommunication entities are also required to comply with directions and standards issued by the Central Govt. and furnish detailed reports of actions taken on the government portal.
● Compulsory Measures To Be Taken By Every Telecommunication Entity:
Telecom entities must adopt and notify the Central Govt. of a telecom cyber security policy to enhance cybersecurity. They have to identify and mitigate risks of security incidents, ensure timely responses, and take appropriate measures to address such incidents and minimize their impact. Periodic telecom cyber security audits must be conducted to assess network resilience against potential threats for telecom entities. They must report security incidents promptly to the Central Govt. and establish facilities like a Security Operations Centre.
● Reporting of Security Incidents:
- Telecommunication entities must report the detection of security incidents affecting their network or services within six hours.
- 24 hours are provided for submitting detailed information about the incident, including the number of affected users, the duration, geographical scope, the impact on services, and the remedial measures implemented.
The Central Govt. may require the affected entity to provide further information, such as its cyber security policy, or conduct a security audit.
CyberPeace Policy Analysis
The notified rules reflect critical updates from their draft version, including the obligation to report incidents immediately upon awareness. This ensures greater privacy for consumers while still enabling robust cybersecurity oversight. Importantly, individuals whose telecom identifiers are suspended or disconnected due to security concerns must be given a copy of the order and a chance to appeal, ensuring procedural fairness. The notified rules have removed "traffic data" and "message content" definitions that may lead to operational ambiguities. While the rules establish a solid foundation for protecting telecom networks, they pose significant compliance challenges, particularly for smaller operators who may struggle with costs associated with audits, infrastructure, and reporting requirements.
Conclusion
The Telecom Cyber Security Rules, 2024 represent a comprehensive approach to securing India’s communication networks against cyber threats. Mandating robust cybersecurity policies, rapid incident reporting, and procedural safeguards allows the rules to balance national security with privacy and fairness. However, addressing implementation challenges through stakeholder collaboration and detailed guidelines will be key to ensuring compliance without overburdening telecom operators. With adaptive execution, these rules have the potential to enhance the resilience of India’s telecom sector and also position the country as a global leader in digital security standards.
References
● Telecommunications Act, 2023 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:767484b8-4d05-40b3-9c3d-30c5642c3bac
● CyberPeace First Read of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/the-government-enforces-key-sections-of-the-telecommunication-act-2023
● Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024
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.
