#FactCheck: Fake video falsely claims FM Sitharaman endorsed investment scheme

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 rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has sparked intense debates and concerns about its potential impact on humanity. Sam Altman, CEO of AI research laboratory OpenAI, and Altman, known as the father of ChatGPT, an AI chatbot, hold a complex position, recognising both the existential risks AI poses and its potential benefits. In a world tour to raise awareness about AI risks, Altman advocates for global cooperation to establish responsible guidelines for AI development. Artificial intelligence has become a topic of increasing interest and concern as technology advances. Developing sophisticated AI systems raises many ethical questions, including whether they will ultimately save or destroy humanity.

Addressing Concerns

Altman engages with various stakeholders, including protesters who voice concerns about the race toward artificial general intelligence (AGI). Critics argue that focusing on safety rather than pushing AGI development would be a more responsible approach. Altman acknowledges the importance of safety progress but believes capability progress is necessary to ensure safety. He advocates for a global regulatory framework similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would coordinate research efforts, establish safety standards, monitor computing power dedicated to AI training, and possibly restrict specific approaches.

Risks of AI Systems

While AI holds tremendous promise, it also presents risks that must be carefully considered. One of the major concerns is the development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) without sufficient safety precautions. AGI systems with unchecked capabilities could potentially pose existential risks to humanity if they surpass human intelligence and become difficult to control. These risks include the concentration of power, misuse of technology, and potential for unintended consequences.

There are also fears surrounding AI systems’ impact on employment. As machines become more intelligent and capable of performing complex tasks, there is a risk that many jobs will become obsolete. This could lead to widespread unemployment and economic instability if steps are not taken to prepare for this shift in the labour market.

While these risks are certainly caused for concern, it is important to remember that AI systems also have tremendous potential to do good in the world. By carefully designing these technologies with ethics and human values in mind, we can mitigate many of the risks while still reaping the benefits of this exciting new frontier in technology.

Open AI Systems and Chatbots

Open AI systems like ChatGPT and chatbots have gained popularity due to their ability to engage in natural language conversations. However, they also come with risks. The reliance on large-scale training data can lead to biases, misinformation, and unethical use of AI. Ensuring open AI systems’ safety and responsible development mitigates potential harm and maintains public trust.

The Need for Global Cooperation

Sam Altman and other tech leaders emphasise the need for global cooperation to address the risks associated with AI development. They advocate for establishing a global regulatory framework for superintelligence. Superintelligence refers to AGI operating at an exceptionally advanced level, capable of solving complex problems that have eluded human comprehension. Such a framework would coordinate research efforts, enforce safety standards, monitor computing power, and potentially restrict specific approaches. International collaboration is essential to ensure responsible and beneficial AI development while minimising the risks of misuse or unintended consequences.

Can AI Systems Make the World a Better Place: Benefits of AI Systems

AI systems hold many benefits that can greatly improve human life. One of the most significant advantages of AI is its ability to process large amounts of data at a rapid pace. In industries such as healthcare, this has allowed for faster diagnoses and more effective treatments. Another benefit of AI systems is their capacity to learn and adapt over time. This allows for more personalised experiences in areas such as customer service, where AI-powered chatbots can provide tailored solutions based on an individual’s needs. Additionally, AI can potentially increase efficiency in various industries, from manufacturing to transportation. By automating repetitive tasks, human workers can focus on higher-level tasks that require creativity and problem-solving skills. Overall, the benefits of AI systems are numerous and promising for improving human life in various ways.

We must remember the impact of AI on education. It has already started to show its potential by providing personalised learning experiences for students at all levels. With the help of AI-driven systems like intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), adaptive learning technologies (ALT), and educational chatbots, students can learn at their own pace without feeling overwhelmed or left behind.

While there are certain risks associated with the development of AI systems, there are also numerous opportunities for them to make our world a better place. By harnessing the power of these technologies for good, we can create a brighter future for ourselves and generations to come.

Conclusion

The AI revolution presents both extraordinary opportunities and significant challenges for humanity. The benefits of AI, when developed responsibly, have the potential to uplift societies, improve quality of life, and address long-standing global issues. However, the risks associated with AGI demand careful attention and international cooperation. Governments, researchers, and industry leaders must work together to establish guidelines, safety measures, and ethical standards to navigate the path toward AI systems that serve humanity’s best interests and safeguard against potential risks. By taking a balanced approach, we can strive for a future where AI systems save humanity rather than destroy it.

Introduction

The year, 2022 has been a year of transition and change for the gaming industry. This year esports and gaming including the industry’s greater increased acceptance by the sports authorities and higher prize pools for top players,  has been more commercial than ever, according to research by the year 2025 the industry will witness growth by 5 million dollars and around 420 million active gamers from India. Since, India is on the way to become world’s largest gaming market, with revenue earned in 2021 increasing by up to 28%, or 1.2 billion dollars, and predicted to reach 2 billion dollars by 2024 as a result of the COVID-19 expanding internet access throughout the country.

After a lengthy debate, the government has finally decided to bring online gaming under the purview of the law. The President of India has changed the rules governing e-sports and requested that the Sports Ministry and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) include e-sports in multi-sport competitions. India’s gaming sector has reached new heights this year, with the country winning its first bronze medal in the first esports event organized by this year’s Commonwealth Games, and this is only the beginning.

Indian government takes on E-sports

The Indian government has given esports a huge boost. It has been introduced into the traditional sports disciplines of the nation. Droupadi Murmu, the President of India, changed the regulations governing eSports using the authority “conferred by clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution,” and requested that “e-Sports be included as part of multi-sports events” from the Ministries of Electronics and Information Technology and Sports. Some crucial points will clarify the government’s position on e-sports.

• E-sports were added as a demonstration sport to the 2018 Asian Games in Jakarta, which meant that medals earned in the sport were not counted in the official total of medals.
• There is a greater desire for Esports to be integrated with school curricula.
• E-Sports (Electronic Sports) have been acknowledged by the Indian government as a component of multi-sport tournaments.

Why is e-sports important?

The Indian Esports Industry has worked hard to distinguish Esports from the broader category of “Gaming.” Esports is a competitive sport in which esports athletes compete in specific video game genres in a virtual, electronic environment using their physical and mental prowess, according to the industry.

According to studies, as individuals have gotten more screen aware and online gaming has become a part of their life, internet gaming not only improves fine motor skills but also sharpens the mind. The industry has the most users and stakeholders, and it has become critical to governing it; consequently, legislation is required to regulate it.

The online regulation bill 2022

The Online Gaming (Regulations) Bill, 2022, was recently filed in the Lok Sabha to create an effective regulatory mechanism for the online gaming business to prevent fraud and misuse of things related to or incidental to it. There are 20 sections spread throughout three chapters. It intends to establish an Online Gaming Commission, the authority, mandate, and jurisdiction of which will be specified by the Bill. An online gaming server will be licensed, relinquished, revoked, or suspended by the Commission’s key highlights of the bill to make it more clear

• The Bill establishes a regulating agency, the Online Gaming Commission (“OGC”), comprised of five members chosen by the Central Government, each with at least one specialist in the fields of law, cyber technology, and law enforcement experience.
• The OGC will be able to oversee the functions of online gaming websites, issue periodic or special reports on Online Gaming issues, recommend appropriate measures to control and curb illegal Online Gaming, grant, suspend, and revoke licenses for online gaming websites, and set fees for license applications and renewals.
• Without a website and a non-transferable and non-assignable license, the Bill proposes to make online gambling illegal. Anyone operating an online gaming server or website without a license risks up to three years in prison and a fine. The permission will be good for a six-year term.
• The license intended to be given under the Bill may be terminated or canceled if the licensee violates any of the license’s requirements or any of Bill’s provisions. However, the Bill does not apply to anybody providing backend services in India, including hosting and maintenance for any international gaming website situated outside of India.
• The bill also mentions the Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Collaboration in Online Gaming

Few misses in the bill that can be addressed to make it stronger and a better version

• The law does not address Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, customer complaint procedures, advertising and marketing restrictions, user data protection, responsible gaming guidelines, and other concerns.
• In the bill, there is no clear distinction between money involved in the game. This is a matter of concern and needs to be addressed so the money laundering aspect can be determined.
• The distinction between “games of chance” and “games of skill” is not addressed in the Bill. Furthermore, the Bill does not specify whether its prohibitions apply only to for-real-money games or to free games.‍

Conclusion

Despite the bill’s flaws, it has offered optimism to the burgeoning gaming sector, which desperately needs a robust regulatory and legal framework free of ambiguity, allowing players to play safely, and encouraging entrepreneurs to enter the field with safety and security. An improved regulatory framework will increase job prospects while also assisting the government. A transparent framework will also aid in the protection of the rights of actors and stakeholders.