#FactCheck -Old Karnataka Video Falsely Linked to Holi Celebrations on Eid in Delhi

Digitisation in Agriculture

The traditional way of doing agriculture has undergone massive digitization in recent years, whereby several agricultural processes have been linked to the Internet. This globally prevalent transformation, driven by smart technology, encompasses the use of sensors, IoT devices, and data analytics to optimize and automate labour-intensive farming practices. Smart farmers in the country and abroad now leverage real-time data to monitor soil conditions, weather patterns, and crop health, enabling precise resource management and improved yields. The integration of smart technology in agriculture not only enhances productivity but also promotes sustainable practices by reducing waste and conserving resources. As a result, the agricultural sector is becoming more efficient, resilient, and capable of meeting the growing global demand for food.

Digitisation of Food Supply Chains

There has also been an increase in the digitisation of food supply chains across the globe since it enables both suppliers and consumers to keep track of the stage of food processing from farm to table and ensures the authenticity of the food product. The latest generation of agricultural robots is being tested to minimise human intervention. It is thought that AI-run processes can mitigate labour shortage, improve warehousing and storage and make transportation more efficient by running continuous evaluations and adjusting the conditions real-time while increasing yield. The company Muddy Machines is currently trialling an autonomous asparagus-harvesting robot called Sprout that not only addresses labour shortages but also selectively harvests green asparagus, which traditionally requires careful picking. However, Chris Chavasse, co-founder of Muddy Machines, highlights that hackers and malicious actors could potentially hack into the robot's servers and prevent it from operating by driving it into a ditch or a hedge, thereby impending core crop activities like seeding and harvesting. Hacking agricultural pieces of machinery also implies damaging a farmer’s produce and in turn profitability for the season.

Case Study: Muddy Machines and Cybersecurity Risks

A cyber attack on digitised agricultural processes has a cascading impact on online food supply chains. Risks are non-exhaustive and spill over to poor protection of cargo in transit, increased manufacturing of counterfeit products, manipulation of data, poor warehousing facilities and product-specific fraud, amongst others. Additional impacts on suppliers are also seen, whereby suppliers have supplied the food products but fail to receive their payments. These cyber-threats may include malware(primarily ransomware) that accounts for 38% of attacks, Internet of Things (IoT) attacks that comprise 29%, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, SQL Injections, phishing attacks etc. 

Prominent Cyber Attacks and Their Impacts

Ransomware attacks are the most popular form of cyber threats to food supply chains and may include malicious contaminations, deliberate damage and destruction of tangible assets (like infrastructure) or intangible assets (like reputation and brand). In 2017, NotPetya malware disrupted the world’s largest logistics giant Maersk and destroyed all end-user devices in more than 60 countries. Interestingly, NotPetya was also linked to the malfunction of freezers connected to control systems. The attack led to these control systems being compromised, resulting in freezer failures and potential spoilage of food, highlighting the vulnerability of industrial control systems to cyber threats.

Further Case Studies

NotPetya also impacted Mondelez, the maker of Oreos but disrupting its email systems, file access and logistics for weeks. Mondelez’s insurance claim was also denied since NotPetya malware was described as a “war-like” action, falling outside the purview of the insurance coverage. In April 2021, over the Easter weekend, Bakker Logistiek, a logistics company based in the Netherlands that offers air-conditioned warehousing and food transportation for Dutch supermarkets, experienced a ransomware attack. This incident disrupted their supply chain for several days, resulting in empty shelves at Albert Heijn supermarkets, particularly for products such as packed and grated cheese. Despite the severity of the attack, the company successfully restored their operations within a week by utilizing backups. JBS, one of the world’s biggest meat processing companies, also had to pay $11 million in ransom via Bitcoin to resolve a cyber attack in the same year, whereby computer networks at JBS were hacked, temporarily shutting down their operations and endangering consumer data. The disruption threatened food supplies and risked higher food prices for consumers. Additional cascading impacts also include low food security and hindrances in processing payments at retail stores. 

Credible Threat Agents and Their Targets

Any cyber-attack is usually carried out by credible threat agents that can be classified as either internal or external threat agents. Internal threat agents may include contractors, visitors to business sites, former/current employees, and individuals who work for suppliers. External threat agents may include activists, cyber-criminals, terror cells etc. These threat agents target large organisations owing to their larger ransom-paying capacity, but may also target small companies due to their vulnerability and low experience, especially when such companies are migrating from analogous methods to digitised processes.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation warns that the food and agricultural systems are most vulnerable to cyber-security threats during critical planting and harvesting seasons. It noted an increase in cyber-attacks against six agricultural co-operatives in 2021, with ancillary core functions such as food supply and distribution being impacted. Resultantly, cyber-attacks may lead to a mass shortage of food not only meant for human consumption but also for animals.

Policy Recommendations

To safeguard against digital food supply chains, Food defence emerges as one of the top countermeasures to prevent and mitigate the effects of intentional incidents and threats to the food chain. While earlier, food defence vulnerability assessments focused on product adulteration and food fraud, including vulnerability assessments of agriculture technology now be more relevant.  

Food supply organisations must prioritise regular backups of data using air-gapped and password-protected offline copies, and ensure critical data copies are not modifiable or deletable from the main system.  For this, blockchain-based food supply chain solutions may be deployed, which are not only resilient to hacking, but also allow suppliers and even consumers to track produce. Companies like Ripe.io, Walmart Global Tech, Nestle and Wholechain deploy blockchain for food supply management since it provides overall process transparency, improves trust issues in the transactions, enables traceable and tamper-resistant records and allows accessibility and visibility of data provenance. Extensive recovery plans with multiple copies of essential data and servers in secure, physically separated locations, such as hard drives, storage devices, cloud or distributed ledgers should be adopted in addition to deploying operations plans for critical functions in case of system outages. For core processes which are not labour-intensive,  including manual operation methods may be used to reduce digital dependence. Network segmentation, updates or patches for operating systems, software, and firmware are additional steps which can be taken to secure smart agricultural technologies. 

References

1. Muddy Machines website, Accessed 26 July 2024.  https://www.muddymachines.com/ 
2. “Meat giant JBS pays $11m in ransom to resolve cyber-attack”, BBC, 10 June 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57423008 
3. Marshall, Claire & Prior, Malcolm, “Cyber security: Global food supply chain at risk from malicious hackers.”, BBC, 20 May 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61336659 
4. “Ransomware Attacks on Agricultural Cooperatives Potentially Timed to Critical Seasons.”, Private Industry Notification, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 20 April  https://www.ic3.gov/Media/News/2022/220420-2.pdf. 
5. Manning, Louise & Kowalska, Aleksandra. (2023). “The threat of ransomware in the food supply chain: a challenge for food defence”, Trends in Organized Crime. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-023-09516-y 
6. “NotPetya: the cyberattack that shook the world”, Economic Times, 5 March 2022. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/newsletters/ettech-unwrapped/notpetya-the-cyberattack-that-shook-the-world/articleshow/89997076.cms?from=mdr 
7. Abrams, Lawrence, “Dutch supermarkets run out of cheese after ransomware attack.”, Bleeping Computer, 12 April 2021. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dutch-supermarkets-run-out-of-cheese-after-ransomware-attack/ 
8. Pandey, Shipra; Gunasekaran, Angappa; Kumar Singh, Rajesh & Kaushik, Anjali, “Cyber security risks in globalised supply chains: conceptual framework”, Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, January 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shipra-Pandey/publication/338668641_Cyber_security_risks_in_globalized_supply_chains_conceptual_framework/links/5e2678ae92851c89c9b5ac66/Cyber-security-risks-in-globalized-supply-chains-conceptual-framework.pdf 
9. Daley, Sam, “Blockchain for Food: 10 examples to know”, Builin, 22 March 2023 https://builtin.com/blockchain/food-safety-supply-chain 

‍

Introduction

Two videos are being widely circulated on social media with the claim that Chinese troops have entered Arunachal Pradesh, India. The first video shows a large group of soldiers marching in formation, while the second shows armed personnel disembarking from military trucks. Social media users claim that the footage shows Chinese soldiers advancing into Indian territory. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the claim to be false. The two viral videos are unrelated to India and actually show Thai Army personnel during military training exercises. Both the Government of India and the Indian Army have also dismissed the claim of any recent Chinese intrusion into Indian territory.

‍

Claim

‍

An Instagram user, "mtkv.ideo," shared the viral videos on July 7, 2026, with the caption,"Chinese army has entered 60 km inside India."

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaehrgExzUl/

https://perma.cc/ZQV9-C6KJ 

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted several keyframes from the viral videos and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens.

During the research, we found one of the videos posted on June 16, 2026, on the Facebook page "Liangpha Kha Khaeng."

https://www.facebook.com/reel/992963226961409 

https://perma.cc/6YJB-RT9Z

‍

According to the information provided with the post, the video shows a training exercise of Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) from the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Regiment of the Royal Thai Army. The page also contains several other posts featuring Thai military drills and training activities. We further reviewed the Facebook page and found multiple training videos featuring the same flag carried by soldiers in the viral footage, confirming that the personnel shown belong to the Thai Army, not the Chinese military.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61588894033585&locale=hi_IN

‍

‍

We also found a report published by The Times of India, quoting Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, who dismissed claims of any Chinese intrusion into Arunachal Pradesh. Rijiju clarified that no intrusion had taken place, adding that occasional movement across undemarcated areas occurs because the boundary has not been fully delineated. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/no-intrusion-transgression-in-absence-of-demarcation-kiran-rijiju/articleshow/132101410.cms

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research found that the viral claim is false. The videos being shared as evidence of Chinese troops entering Arunachal Pradesh actually show Royal Thai Army personnel participating in military training exercises in Thailand. There is no evidence that the footage is related to India or that it depicts any recent Chinese military intrusion into Indian territory. Government officials have also rejected the viral claim.

‍

Introduction

The integration of Artificial Intelligence into our daily workflows has compelled global policymakers to develop legislative frameworks to govern its impact efficiently. The question that we arrive at here is: While AI is undoubtedly transforming global economies, who governs the transformation? The EU AI Act was the first of its kind legislation to govern Artificial Intelligence, making the EU a pioneer in the emerging technology regulation space. This blog analyses the EU's Draft AI Rules and Code of Practice, exploring their implications for ethics, innovation, and governance.

Background: The Need for AI Regulation

AI adoption has been happening at a rapid pace and is projected to contribute  $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030. The AI market size is expected to grow by at least 120% year-over-year. Both of these statistics have been stated in arguments citing concrete examples of AI risks (e.g., bias in recruitment tools, misinformation spread through deepfakes). Unlike the U.S., which relies on sector-specific regulations, the EU proposes a unified framework to address AI's challenges comprehensively, especially with the vacuum that exists in the governance of emerging technologies such as AI. It should be noted that the GDPR or the General Data Protection Regulation has been a success with its global influence on data privacy laws and has started a domino effect for the creation of privacy regulations all over the world. This precedent emphasises the EU's proactive approach towards regulations which are population-centric. 

Overview of the Draft EU AI Rules

This Draft General Purpose AI Code of Practice details the AI rules for the AI Act rules and the providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risks. The European AI Office facilitated the drawing up of the code, and was chaired by independent experts and involved nearly 1000 stakeholders and EU member state representatives and observers both European and international observers.

14th November 2024 marks the publishing of the first draft of the EU’s General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, established by the EU AI Act. As per Article 56 of the EU AI Act, the code outlines the rules that operationalise the requirements, set out for General-Purpose AI (GPAI) model under Article 53 and GPAI models with systemic risks under Article 55. The AI Act is legislation that finds its base in product safety and relies on setting harmonised standards in order to support compliance. These harmonised standards are essentially sets of operational rules that have been established by the European Standardisation bodies, such as the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute. Industry experts, civil society and trade unions are translating the requirements set out by the EU sectoral legislation into the specific mandates set by the European Commission. The AI Act obligates the developers, deployers and users of AI on mandates for transparency, risk management and compliance mechanisms 

The Code of Practice for General Purpose AI

The most popular applications of GPAI include ChatGPT and other foundational models such as CoPilot from Microsoft, BERT  from Google, Llama from Meta AI and many others and they are under constant development and upgradation.  The 36-pages long draft Code of Practice for General Purpose AI is meant to serve as a roadmap for tech companies to comply with the AI Act and avoid paying penalties. It focuses on transparency, copyright compliance, risk assessment, and technical/governance risk mitigation as the core areas for the companies that are developing GPAIs. It also lays down guidelines that look to enable greater transparency on what goes into developing GPAIs. 

The Draft Code's provisions for risk assessment focus on preventing cyber attacks, large-scale discrimination, nuclear and misinformation risks, and the risk of the models acting autonomously without oversight. 

Policy Implications

The EU’s Draft AI Rules and Code of Practice represent a bold step in shaping the governance of general-purpose AI, positioning the EU as a global pioneer in responsible AI regulation. By prioritising harmonised standards, ethical safeguards, and risk mitigation, these rules aim to ensure AI benefits society while addressing its inherent risks. While the code is a welcome step, the compliance burdens on MSMEs and startups could hinder innovation, whereas, the voluntary nature of the Code raises concerns about accountability. Additionally, harmonising these ambitious standards with varying global frameworks, especially in regions like the U.S. and India, presents a significant challenge to achieving a cohesive global approach.

Conclusion

The EU’s initiative to regulate general-purpose AI aligns with its legacy of proactive governance, setting the stage for a transformative approach to balancing innovation with ethical accountability. However, challenges remain. Striking the right balance is crucial to avoid stifling innovation while ensuring robust enforcement and inclusivity for smaller players. Global collaboration is the next frontier. As the EU leads, the world must respond by building bridges between regional regulations and fostering a unified vision for AI governance. This demands active stakeholder engagement, adaptive frameworks, and a shared commitment to addressing emerging challenges in AI. The EU’s Draft AI Rules are not just about regulation, they are about leading a global conversation. 

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/new-eu-ai-code-of-practice-draft-rules-9671152/ 
• https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-code-practice 
• https://www.csis.org/analysis/eu-code-practice-general-purpose-ai-key-takeaways-first-draft#:~:text=Drafting%20of%20the%20Code%20of%20Practice%20is%20taking%20place%20under,the%20drafting%20of%20the%20code. 
• https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/12/16/first-draft-of-the-general-purpose-ai-code-of-practice-has-been-released/