#FactCheck - Bangladeshi Migrant’s Arrest Misrepresented as Indian in Viral Video!

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

‍

In real-time warfare scenarios of this modern age, where actions occur without delay, the relevance of edge computing emerges as paramount. By processing data close to the source in the battlefield with the help of a drone or through video imaging from any military vehicle or aircraft, the concept of edge computing allows the military to point targets faster and strike with accuracy. It also enables local processing to relay central data, helping ground troops get intelligence inputs to act rapidly in critical mission scenarios.  

As the global security landscape experiences a significant transformation in different corners of the world, it presents unprecedented challenges in the present scenario. In this article, we will try to understand how countries can maintain their military capabilities with the help of advanced technologies like edge computing. 

‍

Edge Computing in Modern Warfare

‍

Edge computing involves the processing and storage of data at the point of collection on the battlefield, for example, through vehicles and drones, instead of relying on centralized data centers. This enables faster decision-making in real-time. This approach creates a resilient and secure network by reducing reliance on potentially compromised external connections, supporting autonomous systems, precision-based targeting, and data sharing among military personnel, drones, and command centers amidst a challenging environment.

A report released by the US Department of Defence in March 2025 found a crucial reality surrounding the operation of hardware relying on outdated industrial-age processes in the digital era. In the case of applications with video, edge computing helps to deliver significant advantages to a wide range of crucial military operations, which include: 

• Situational awareness with real-time data processing that provides improved battlefield visibility and proper threat detection. 
• Autonomous warfare systems such as drones, which use a tactical edge cloud computing to get the capability to navigate faster. 
• Developing a strong communication and networking capability to secure low-latency communication for troops to stay connected in challenging environments. 
• Ensuring predictive maintenance with the help of effective sensors to carry out edge detection and attrition at an early point, thereby reducing equipment failures. 
• Developing effective targeting and weapons systems to ensure faster processing to enable precision-based targeting and response, besides a strong logistics and supply chain that can provide real-time tracking to improve delivery accuracy and resource management. 

This report also highlighted that the DoD is rapidly updating its software and investing in AI enablers like data sets or MLOps tools. This also stresses the breaking down of integration barriers by enforcing MOSA (Modular Open Systems Approaches), APIs (Application Programming Interface), and modular interfaces to ensure interoperability across platforms, sensors, and networks to make software-defined warfare an effective strategy.  

‍

Developing Edge with Artificial Intelligence for Future Warfare

‍

A significant insight from the work of the US Department of Defense is its emphasis on the importance of edge computing in shaping the future of warfare. In that context, the Annual Threat Assessment Report highlights a key limitation of traditional AI strategies that rely on centralised cloud computing, since these might not be suitable for modern battlefields with congested networks and limited bandwidth. The need for real-time data processing requires a distributed and edge-based AI solution to address contemporary threats. This report also directly supports the deployment of effective edge with AI in a defined, disrupted, intermittent, and limited-bandwidth (DDIL) environment. In that case, when the communication networks fail, the edge servers at the edge of the network offer crucial advantages that cloud-dependent systems cannot. This ability to analyse data and make decisions without consistent connectivity and operate with limited computational resources is a strategic necessity. 

The scenario of warfare is a phenomenon that requires maintaining a strong strategic and tactical approach, which, in the present times, is being examined through the domain of digital platforms. Modern warfare patterns demand faster decision-making and edge computing deliveries by shifting the power of distant servers to the frontlines. The US military is already moving in the direction of deploying edge-enabled systems to prove the nature of sensors and networks to compute at the tactical edge to transform warfighting.

However, it can be understood with the help of an example, as creating fusion in the skies with F-35s. As they have showcased the capability of edge computing by fusing sensor data with MADL (Multi-Functional Advanced Data Link) to create a unified picture, making the squadrons a force multiplier. An example of this was visible when an F-35 relayed real-time tracking data, enabling a navy ship to neutralise a missile beyond its range.

‍

Conclusion: The Way Ahead 

‍

As the changing nature of warfare moves towards adopting software-defined systems, where edge computing thrives as a futuristic military technology, it calls for the need for integration across all domains of warfighting. But at the same time, several imperatives do emerge, such as: 

• Developing an open architecture that enables both flexibility and innovation. 
• Ensuring an effective connectivity that actually combines a confluence of legacy systems. 
• Developing interoperability among the systems that can function in synergy with all platforms and can function across all domains. 
• Prioritising edge-native AI development systems, where it is also necessary to ensure the shift to adopting cloud-based AI models to create solutions optimised from the ground up for edge deployment. 
• Investing in edge infrastructure to establish a robust edge computing infrastructure that enables rapid deployment by testing and updating AI capabilities across diverse hardware platforms. Like the way the military training academies in India are developing training infrastructures for training officer cadets or personnel to handle drones and all forms of advanced warfare tactics emerging in this age. 
• Fostering talent and expertise by embracing commercial solutions where software talent could be enabled across the enterprises with expertise in edge computing capabilities and AI. In this case, the role of the commercial sector can help to drive innovations in edge AI, and the only way to move in this direction is by leveraging these advances through partnerships and collaborative efforts. 

Taking the example of the ARPANET, which once seeded the modern internet, edge computing can also help to create a transformative network effect within the digital battlespace. In conclusion, future conflicts will be defined by the speed and accuracy provided by the edge, as nations integrating AI and robust edge infrastructures can hold a strong advantage in the multi-domain battlefields in the future.

‍

References 

‍

• https://www.idsa.in/mpidsanews/rk-narangs-article-what-the-regions-first-drone-warfare-taught-us-published-in-the-new-indian-express
• https://latentai.com/blog/software-defined-warfare-why-edge-ai-is-critical-to-americas-defense-future/
• https://www.boozallen.com/s/insight/blog/how-the-us-military-is-using-edge-computing.html
• https://capsindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/RK-Narang-3.pdf
• https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2025/May/12/what-the-regions-first-drone-warfare-taught-us
• https://www.maris-tech.com/blog/edge-computing-in-the-military-challenges-and-solutions/#:~:text=In%20modern%20warfare%2C%20decisions%20need,enables%20precision%20targeting%20and%20response ‍
• https://cassindia.com/digital-soldiers/

Introduction

Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) Announces to Centre Government to Plan to Certify Permissible Online Games.

In a recent update to the notification released by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on April 6, MeitY has requested gaming entities to establish self-regulatory organisations (SROs) within a timeframe of 30 days or a maximum of 90 days from the date of the notification, which is April 6, 2023. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has further announced that the central government will certify which online games are permissible until the SROs are officially established. The intention behind establishing SROs is to assist intermediaries, such as Apple or Google, in determining what constitutes a permitted online game, but the SRO will take 2-3 months to complete. In the meanwhile, the Central government will step in and determine what is a permissible online game.

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 & Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Amendment Rules, 2023

By enacting these rules, the Indian government has taken decisive action to protect Indian gamers and their financial resources against scams and fraud. The rules also serve to promote responsible gaming while preventing young and vulnerable users from being exposed to indecent or abusive content.

Amendment Rules developed the concept of a “Permissible online real money game.” This designation is reserved for games that have passed a review process conducted by a self-regulatory body (SRB).  Amendment rules indicate that Online Gaming Intermediaries must ensure that they do not permit any third party to host non-permissible online real money games on their platforms. This development is important because it empowers us to distinguish between legitimate and illicit real money games.

The Amendment Rules define an online gaming provider as an “intermediary” under the Information Technology Act of 2000, creating a separate classification called ‘Online Gaming Intermediary’.

Central government to certify what is an ‘Online Permissible Game’

The industry has been wondering what games come under wagering and will be banned. So, until the SROs are officially established, the government, in the interim, will certify what is a permissible game, what is wagering, and what is not wagering. Games that involve elements of wagering are going to be barred. The new regulations prohibit wagering on any outcome, whether in skill-based or chance-based games. Hence gaming applications involving wagering and betting apps will be barred.

Self-Regulatory Organizations (SROs)

According to the new regulations by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), online gaming intermediaries must establish a Self-Regulatory Body (SRO) to approve games offered to users over the Internet. The SRO must be registered with the Ministry and develop a framework to ensure compliance with the IT Rules 2021 objectives. An ‘online game’ can be registered by the SRO if it meets specific criteria, which include that the game is offered by an online gaming intermediary that is a member of the self-regulatory body, the game is not containing any content harmful to India’s interests, and complying with all relevant Indian regulations. If these requirements are met, the intermediary can display a visible registration mark indicating its registration with the self-regulatory authority.

Conclusion

MeitY found that with the rapid growth of the gaming industry, the real money gaming (RMG) sector had to be regulated properly. Rules framed must be properly implemented to stop gambling, betting, and wagering apps.

The IT Rules 2021, along with the Amendment Rules 2023, are created to take concrete action to curb the proliferation of gambling, betting, and wagering apps in India. These rules empower to issue of directives to ban specific apps that facilitate or promote such activities. The app ban directive allows the government to take decisive action by blocking access to these apps, making them unavailable for download or use within the country. This measure is aimed at curbing the negative impact of gambling, betting, and wagering on individuals and society, including issues related to addiction, financial loss, and illegal activities. Rules aim to actively combat the spread and influence of such apps and provide a safer online environment for gaming users.

The self-regulatory body in the context of online gaming will have the authority to grant membership to gaming intermediaries, register online games, develop a framework for regulation, interact with the Central Government, address user complaints, report instances of non-compliance, and take necessary actions to safeguard online gaming users.