#FactCheck- Manhattan Fire Video Falsely Shared as Hezbollah Attack on Israel

Introduction

Social media platforms have begun to shape the public understanding of history in today’s digital landscape. You may have encountered videos, images, and posts that claim to reveal an untold story about our past. For example, you might have seen a post on your feed that has a painted or black and white image of a princess and labelled as "the most beautiful princess of Rajasthan who fought countless wars but has been erased from history.” Such emotionally charged narratives spread quickly, without any academic scrutiny or citation. Unfortunately, the originator believes it to be true. 

Such unverified content may look harmless. But it profoundly contributes to the systematic distortion of historical information. Such misinformation reoccurs on feeds and becomes embedded in popular memory. It misguides the public discourse and undermines the scholarly research on the relevant topic.  Sometimes, it also contributes to communal outrage and social tensions. It is time to recognise that protecting the integrity of our cultural and historical narratives is not only an academic concern but a legal and institutional responsibility. This is where the role of the Ministry of Culture becomes critical.

‍

Pseudohistorical News Information in India

Fake news and misinformation are frequently disseminated via images, pictures, and videos on various messaging applications, which is referred to as “WhatsApp University” in a derogatory way. WhatsApp has become India’s favourite method of communication, while users have to stay very conscious about what they are consuming from forwarded messages. Academic historians strive to understand the past in its context to differentiate it from the present, whereas pseudo-historians try to manipulate history to satisfy their political agendas. Unfortunately, this wave of pseudo-history is expanding rapidly, with platforms like 'WhatsApp University' playing a significant role in amplifying its spread. This has led to an increase in fake historical news and paid journalism. Unlike pseudo-history, academic history is created by professional historians in academic contexts, adhering to strict disciplinary guidelines, including peer review and expert examination of justifications, assertions, and publications.

‍

How to Identify Pseudo-Historic Misinformation 

1. Lack of Credible Sources: There is a lack of reliable primary and secondary sources. Instead, pseudohistorical works depend on hearsay and unreliable eyewitness accounts.

2. Selective Use of Evidence: Misinformative posts portray only those facts that support their argument and minimise the facts which is contradictory to their assertions.  

3. Incorporation of Conspiracy Theories: They often include conspiracy theories, which postulate secret groups, repressed knowledge. They might mention that evil powers influenced the historical events. Such hypotheses frequently lack any supporting data. 

4. Extravagant Claims: Pseudo-historic tales sometimes present unbelievable assertions about historic persons or events. 

5. Lack of Peer Review: Such work is generally never published on authentic academic platforms. You would not find them on platforms like LinkedIn, but on platforms like Instagram and Facebook, as they do not pitch for academic publications. Authentic historical research is examined by subject-matter authorities. 

6. Neglect of Established Historiographical Methods: Such posts lack knowledge of a recognised methodology and procedures, like the critical study of sources.

7. Ideologically Driven Narratives: Political, communal, ideological, and personal opinions are prioritised in such posts. The author has a prior goal, instead of finding the truth.

8. Exploitation of Gaps in the Historical Record: Pseudo-historians often use missing or unclear parts of history to suggest that regular historians are hiding important secrets. They make the story sound more mysterious than it is. 

9. Rejection of Scholarly Consensus: Pseudo-historians often reject the views of experts and historians, choosing instead to believe and promote their strange ideas.

10. Emphasis on Sensationalism: Pseudo-historical works may put more emphasis on sensationalism than academic rigour to pique public interest rather than offer a fair and thorough account of the history.

‍

Legal and Institutional Responsibility

Public opinion is the heart of democracy. It should not be affected by any misinformation or disinformation. Vested interests cannot be allowed to sabotage this public opinion. Specifically, when it concerns academia, it cannot be shared unverified without any fact-checking. Such unverified claims can be called out, and action can be taken only if the authorities take over the charge. In India, the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) regulates the historical academia. As per the official website, their stated aim is to “take all such measures as may be found necessary from time to time to promote historical research and its utilisation in the country,”. However, it is now essential to modernise the functioning of the ICHR to meet the demands of the digital era. Concerned authorities can run campaigns and awareness programmes to question the validity and research of such misinformative posts. Just as there are fact-checking mechanisms for news, there must also be an institutional push to fact-check and regulate historical content online. The following measures can be taken by authorities to strike down such misinformation online: 

1. Launch a nationwide awareness campaign about historical misinformation.
2. Work with scholars, historians, and digital platforms to promote verified content.
3. Encourage social media platforms to introduce fact-check labels for historical posts.
4. Consider legal frameworks that penalise the deliberate spread of false historical narratives.

History is part of our national heritage, and preserving its accuracy is a matter of public interest. Misinformation and pseudo-history are a combination that misleads the public and weakens the foundation of shared cultural identity. In this digital era, false narratives spread rapidly, and it is important to promote critical thinking, encourage responsible academic work, and ensure that the public has access to accurate and well-researched historical information. Protecting the integrity of history is not just the work of historians — it is a collective responsibility that serves the future of our democracy.

‍

References:

1. https://kuey.net/index.php/kuey/article/view/4091 
2. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-editorials/social-media-and-the-menace-of-false-information 

‍

Introduction

Global cybersecurity spending is expected to breach USD 210 billion in 2025, a ~10% increase from 2024 (Gartner). This is a result of an evolving and increasingly critical threat landscape enabled by factors such as the proliferation of IoT devices, the adoption of cloud networks, and the increasing size of the internet itself.  Yet, breaches, misuse, and resistance persist. In 2025, global attack pressure rose ~21% Y-o-Y ( Q2 averages) (CheckPoint) and confirmed breaches climbed ~15%( Verizon DBIR). This means that rising investment in cybersecurity may not be yielding proportionate reductions in risk. But while mechanisms to strengthen technical defences and regulatory frameworks are constantly evolving, the social element of trust and how to embed it into cybersecurity systems remain largely overlooked.   

‍

Human Error and Digital Trust  (Individual Trust) 

‍

Human error is consistently recognised as the weakest link in cybersecurity. While campaigns focusing on phishing prevention, urging password updates and using two-factor authentication (2FA) exist, relying solely on awareness measures to address human error in cyberspace is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Rather, it needs to be examined through the lens of digital trust. As Chui (2022) notes, digital trust rests on security,  dependability, integrity, and authenticity. These factors determine whether users comply with cybersecurity protocols. When people view rules as opaque, inconvenient, or imposed without accountability, they are more likely to cut corners, which creates vulnerabilities. Therefore, building digital trust means shifting from blaming people to design: embedding transparency, usability, and shared responsibility towards a culture of cybersecurity so that users are incentivised to make secure choices. 

‍

Organisational Trust and Insider Threats (Institutional Trust)

At the organisational level, compliance with cybersecurity protocols is significantly tied to whether employees trust employers/platforms to safeguard their data and treat them with integrity. Insider threats, stemming from both malicious and non-malicious actors, account for nearly 60% of all corporate breaches (Verizon DBIR 2024). A lack of trust in leadership may cause employees to feel disengaged or even act maliciously.  Further, a 2022 study by Harvard Business Review finds that adhering to cybersecurity protocols adds to employee workload. When they are perceived as hindering productivity, employees are more likely to intentionally violate these protocols.  The stress of working under surveillance systems that feel cumbersome or unreasonable, especially when working remotely, also reduces employee trust and, hence, compliance.  

‍

Trust, Inequality, and Vulnerability (Structural Trust)

Cyberspace encompasses a social system of its own since it involves patterned interactions and relationships between human beings. It also reproduces the social structures and resultant vulnerabilities of the physical world. As a result,  different sections of society place varying levels of trust in digital systems.  Women, rural, and marginalised groups often distrust existing digital security provisions more, and with reason. They are targeted disproportionately by cyber attackers, and yet are underprotected by systems, since these are designed prioritising urban/ male/ elite users.  This leads to citizens adopting workarounds like password sharing for “safety” and disengaging from cyber safety discourse, as they find existing systems inaccessible or irrelevant to their realities. Cybersecurity governance that ignores these divides deepens exclusion and mistrust.

‍

Laws and Compliances (Regulatory Trust)

Cybersecurity governance is operationalised in the form of laws, rules, and guidelines. However, these may often backfire due to inadequate design, reducing overall trust in governance mechanisms. For example, CERT-In’s mandate to report breaches within six hours of “noticing” it has been criticised as the steep timeframe being insufficient to generate an effective breach analysis report. Further, the multiplicity of regulatory frameworks in cross-border interactions can be costly and lead to compliance fatigue for organisations. Such factors can undermine organisational and user trust in the regulation’s ability to protect them from cyber attacks, fuelling a check-box-ticking culture for cybersecurity.  

‍

Conclusion 

Cybersecurity is addressed primarily through code, firewall, and compliance today. But evidence suggests that technological and regulatory fixes, while essential, are insufficient to guarantee secure behaviour and resilient systems. Without trust in institutions, technologies, laws or each other, cybersecurity governance will remain a cat-and-mouse game.  Building a trust-based architecture requires mechanisms to improve accountability, reliability, and transparency.  It requires participatory designs of security systems and the recognition of unequal vulnerabilities. Thus, unless cybersecurity governance acknowledges that cyberspace is deeply social,  investment may not be able to prevent the harms it seeks to curb. 

‍

References 

• https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-07-29
• https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/global-cyber-attacks-surge-21-in-q2-2025
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2024-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2025-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://insights2techinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Building-Digital-Trust-Challenges-and-Strategies-in-Cybersecurity.pdf 
• https://www.coe.int/en/web/cyberviolence/cyberviolence-against-women 
• https://www.upguard.com/blog/indias-6-hour-data-breach-reporting-rule 

‍

Introduction

In this age, when our data stands as the key to all resources, espionage has moved from dark alleys and trench coats to keyboards and code. In this era of active digital espionage, where intelligence is stolen through invisible cyberattacks that target computer networks. Cyber espionage and spying have become the most critical threat in the hyper-connected world of today. As governments, corporations, and individuals store an immense amount of confidential information online, the grounds of espionage have shifted from land and sea to the silent realm of cyberspace. 

What is Cyber Espionage? 

Cyber espionage refers to the unauthorised access of confidential data for strategic, political, military, and financial gain, unlike cybercrime, which is mostly about money. Cyber espionage is about gaining information power. The very first documented case dates back to 1986-87, when a group of German hackers breached the US military establishment and the defence systems and sold that stolen data to the Soviets and the KGB. This was the beginning of a new era where classified intelligence could be gathered even without entering a building. 

Cyber espionage is mostly carried out by trained espionage professionals, elite hackers, and corporate spies whose sole purpose is to target the government, research organisations, military establishments, and other critical infrastructures.   

The Objective

The act of Cyber Espionage is being driven by three major objectives, such as;

• Stealing of Intellectual Property- Starting from information and data related to military establishments to pharmaceutical patents, stealing innovation is cheaper than funding R&D. 
• Political and Diplomatic Advantage- As government networks are hacked to access state secrets, negotiation strategies, and classified communications.
• Military Intelligence- Cyber spies also work to steal data on weapons troop movements, defence systems, and war systems, often years before conflict breaks out. 

In a world being shaped by digital power, information is not just about knowledge. Rather, it is all about ensuring dominance. 

The arsenal of modern digital spies is more sophisticated, and most importantly, they are used covertly rather than the spy gadgets that are shown in spy movies. Some of the tactics resorted to by the cyber spies can be recognised as; 

• Phishing Attacks through fake emails that lure victims to click on malicious links or sharing of passwords. 
• Persisting Advanced Threats through long-term stealth attacks in a network for more than a month or a year. 
• Malware and Spyware are invisible software that logs keystrokes, records screens, or steals files silently. 
• Deepfake Manipulations by creating AI-generated fake videos that can influence political developments in the country. 

Anything that makes cyber espionage terrifying is not just the theft, but the fact that it goes undetected. 

What Differentiates Cyber Espionage and Cyber Warfare

Cyber espionage is a silent and stealthy tactic that is carried out with utmost secrecy, being a long-term effort for intelligence gathering. It mostly focuses on the stealing of data, whereas Cyber warfare is an open and destructive tactic that is used to create an immediate and visible impact to create disruption. However, espionage is an act that prepares the battlefield for the warfare of the future. 

Taking instances of real instances of cyber espionage, we can refer to examples such as; 

• Operation Aurora was conducted in 2010, where Chinese Hackers based in Beijing tried to steal IP data from Google and American tech giants. 
• The Stuxnet attack in 2010 was another cyber weapon that was developed to sabotage Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. 
•  SolarWinds Attack of 2020 was an instance of cyber espionage where a supply chain hack was carried out to target multiple US federal government agencies. 

As most of these instances reflect that they were battles without guns, but with the use of codes. Several sources raise the question of whether cyber-attacks can be stopped. The answer lies in the fact that they cannot be stopped completely, but can be minimised to some extent, by developing capabilities to counter and deter cyber-attacks with the help of equal cyber defence capabilities. 

Conclusion 

From the Cold War era to the present Code War, espionage has evolved with technology. An effort that was once taken solely by spies and human assets, with the passing of time enhancement of technologies it is now expanded to malware, phishing, social engineering, and remote digital inflation. In this age of information warfare, espionage is faster, cheaper, and harder to trace than ever before. The enemies of a nation may never cross its borders, but they may already be inside its systems. However, the world has now officially entered a new battlefield, without boundaries, uniforms, and bombs. It is now being fought through bytes, breaches, and invisible enemies.  

References

• https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/threat-intelligence/cyber-espionage/
• https://www.espiamos.com/en/content/espionage-in-the-digital-world-threats-and-opportunities.html
• https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/information-technology/resources/what-is-cyber-warfare/
• https://pride-security.co.uk/the-rise-of-digital-warfare-understanding-the-evolution-of-cyber-espionage/

‍