#FactCheck: Old Video of BJP MLA Bhupesh Chaubey Performing Sit-Ups During 2022 Party Workers’ Meeting Falsely Shared as Recent

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.

‍

What are Deepfakes? 

A deepfake is essentially a video of a person in which their face or body has been digitally altered so that they appear to be someone else, typically used maliciously or to spread false information. Deepfake technology is a method for manipulating videos, images, and audio utilising powerful computers and deep learning. It is used to generate fake news and commit financial fraud, among other wrongdoings. It overlays a digital composite over an already-existing video, picture, or audio; cybercriminals use Artificial Intelligence technology. The term deepfake was coined first time in 2017 by an anonymous Reddit user, who called himself deepfake. 

Deepfakes works on a combination of AI and ML, which makes the technology hard to detect by Web 2.0 applications, and it is almost impossible for a layman to see if an image or video is fake or has been created using deepfakes. In recent times, we have seen a wave of AI-driven tools which have impacted all industries and professions across the globe. Deepfakes are often created to spread misinformation. There lies a key difference between image morphing and deepfakes. Image morphing is primarily used for evading facial recognition, but deepfakes are created to spread misinformation and propaganda. 

Issues Pertaining to Deepfakes in India 

Deepfakes are a threat to any nation as the impact can be divesting in terms of monetary losses, social and cultural unrest, and actions against the sovereignty of India by anti-national elements. Deepfake detection is difficult but not impossible. The following threats/issues are seen to be originating out of deep fakes: 

• Misinformation: One of the biggest issues of Deepfake is misinformation, the same was seen during the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where in a deepfake of Ukraine’s president, Mr Zelensky, surfaced on the internet and caused mass confusion and propaganda-based misappropriation among the Ukrainians. 
• Instigation against the Union of India: Deepfake poses a massive threat to the integrity of the Union of India, as this is one of the easiest ways for anti-national elements to propagate violence or instigate people against the nation and its interests. As India grows, so do the possibilities of anti-national attacks against the nation. 
• Cyberbullying/ Harassment: Deepfakes can be used by bad actors to harass and bully people online in order to extort money from them. 
• Exposure to Illicit Content: Deepfakes can be easily used to create illicit content, and oftentimes, it is seen that it is being circulated on online gaming platforms where children engage the most. 
• Threat to Digital Privacy: Deepfakes are created by using existing videos. Hence, bad actors often use photos and videos from Social media accounts to create deepfakes, this directly poses a threat to the digital privacy of a netizen.  
• Lack of Grievance Redressal Mechanism: In the contemporary world, the majority of nations lack a concrete policy to address the aspects of deepfake. Hence, it is of paramount importance to establish legal and industry-based grievance redressal mechanisms for the victims. 
• Lack of Digital Literacy: Despite of high internet and technology penetration rates in India, digital literacy lags behind, this is a massive concern for the Indian netizens as it takes them far from understanding the tech, which results in the under-reporting of crimes. Large-scale awareness and sensitisation campaigns need to be undertaken in India to address misinformation and the influence of deepfakes. 

How to spot deepfakes? 

Deepfakes look like the original video at first look, but as we progress into the digital world, it is pertinent to establish identifying deepfakes in our digital routine and netiquettes in order to stay protected in the future and to address this issue before it is too late. The following aspects can be kept in mind while differentiating between a real video and a deepfake

• Look for facial expressions and irregularities: Whenever differentiating between an original video and deepfake, always look for changes in facial expressions and irregularities, it can be seen that the facial expressions, such as eye movement and a temporary twitch on the face, are all signs of a video being a deepfake. 
• Listen to the audio: The audio in deepfake also has variations as it is imposed on an existing video, so keep a check on the sound effects coming from a video in congruence with the actions or gestures in the video. 
• Pay attention to the background: The most easiest way to spot a deepfake is to pay attention to the background, in all deepfakes, you can spot irregularities in the background as, in most cases, its created using virtual effects so that all deepfakes will have an element of artificialness in the background. 
• Context and Content: Most of the instances of deepfake have been focused towards creating or spreading misinformation hence, the context and content of any video is an integral part of differentiating between an original video and deepfake. 
• Fact-Checking: As a basic cyber safety and digital hygiene protocol, one should always make sure to fact-check each and every piece of information they come across on social media. As a preventive measure, always make sure to fact-check any information or post sharing it with your known ones.  
• AI Tools: When in doubt, check it out, and never refrain from using Deepfake detection tools like- Sentinel, Intel’s real-time deepfake detector - Fake catcher, We Verify, and Microsoft’s Video Authenticator tool to analyze the videos and combating technology with technology. 

Recent Instance 

A deepfake video of actress Rashmika Mandanna recently went viral on social media, creating quite a stir. The video showed a woman entering an elevator who looked remarkably like Mandanna. However, it was later revealed that the woman in the video was not Mandanna, but rather, her face was superimposed using AI tools. Some social media users were deceived into believing that the woman was indeed Mandanna, while others identified it as an AI-generated deepfake. The original video was actually of a British-Indian girl named Zara Patel, who has a substantial following on Instagram. This incident sparked criticism from social media users towards those who created and shared the video merely for views, and there were calls for strict action against the uploaders. The rapid changes in the digital world pose a threat to personal privacy; hence, caution is advised when sharing personal items on social media​​.

Legal Remedies

Although Deepfake is not recognised by law in India, it is indirectly addressed by Sec. 66 E of the IT Act, which makes it illegal to capture, publish, or transmit someone's image in the media without that person's consent, thus violating their privacy. The maximum penalty for this violation is ₹2 lakh in fines or three years in prison. The DPDP Act's applicability in 2023 means that the creation of deepfakes will directly affect an individual's right to digital privacy and will also violate the IT guidelines under the Intermediary Guidelines, as platforms will be required to exercise caution while disseminating and publishing misinformation through deepfakes. The indirect provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which cover the sale and dissemination of derogatory publications, songs and actions, deception in the delivery of property, cheating and dishonestly influencing the delivery of property, and forgery with the intent to defame, are the only legal remedies available for deepfakes. Deep fakes must be recognized legally due to the growing power of misinformation. The Data Protection Board and the soon-to-be-established fact-checking body must recognize crimes related to deepfakes and provide an efficient system for filing complaints.

Conclusion 

Deepfake is an aftermath of the advancements of Web 3.0 and, hence is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the issues/threats from emerging technologies. It is pertinent to upskill and educate the netizens about the keen aspects of deepfakes to stay safe in the future. At the same time, developing and developed nations need to create policies and laws to efficiently regulate deepfake and to set up redressal mechanisms for victims and industry. As we move ahead, it is pertinent to address the threats originating out of the emerging techs and, at the same time, create a robust resilience for the same. 

References 

• https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/deepfake-technology
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-what-are-deepfakes-and-how-to-spot-one/articleshow/90916962.cms
• https://www.unite.ai/best-deepfake-detector-tools-and-techniques/

Recently, Apple has pushed away the Advanced Data Protection feature for its customers in the UK. This was done due to a request by the UK’s Home Office, which demanded access to encrypted data stored in its cloud service, empowered by the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA). The Act compels firms to provide information to law enforcement. This move and its subsequent result, however, have raised concerns—bringing out different perspectives regarding the balance between privacy and security, along with the involvement of higher authorities and tech firms.

What is Advanced Data Protection?

Advanced Data Protection is an opt-in feature and doesn’t necessarily require activation. It is Apple’s strongest data tool, which provides end-to-end encryption for the data that the user chooses to protect. This is different from the standard (default) encrypted data services that Apple provides for photos, back-ups, and notes, among other things. The flip side of having such a strong security feature from a user perspective is that if the Apple account holder were to lose access to the account, they would lose their data as well since there are no recovery paths.

Doing away with the feature altogether, the sign-ups have been currently halted, and the company is working on removing existing user access at a later date (which is yet to be confirmed). For the UK users who hadn’t availed of this feature, there would be no change. However, for the ones who are currently trying to avail it are met with a notification on the Advanced Data Protection settings page that states that the feature cannot be enabled anymore. Consequently, there is no clarity whether the data stored by the UK users who availed the former facility would now cease to exist as even Apple doesn’t have access to it.  It is important to note that withdrawing the feature does not ensure compliance with the Investigative Powers Act (IPA) as it is applicable to tech firms worldwide that have a UK market. Similar requests to access data have been previously shut down by Apple in the US. 

Apple’s Stand on Encryption and Government Requests

The Tech giant has resisted court orders, rejecting requests to write software that would allow officials to access and enable identification of iPhones operated by gunmen (made in 2016 and 2020). It is said that the supposed reasons for such a demand by the UK Home Office have been made owing to the elusive role of end-to-end encryption in hiding criminal activities such as child sexual abuse and terrorism, hampering the efforts of security officials in catching them. Over the years, Apple has emphasised time and again its reluctance to create a backdoor to its encrypted data, stating the consequences of it being more vulnerable to attackers once a pathway is created. The Salt Typhoon attack on the US Telecommunication system is a recent example that has alerted officials, who now encourage the use of end-to-end encryption. Barring this, such requests could set a dangerous precedent for how tech firms and governments operate together. This comes against the backdrop of the Paris AI Action Summit, where US Vice President J.D. Vance raised concerns regarding regulation. As per reports, Apple has now filed a legal complaint against the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the UK’s judicial body that handles complaints with respect to surveillance power usage by public authorities. 

The Broader Debate on Privacy vs. Security

This standoff raises critical questions about how tech firms and governments should collaborate without compromising fundamental rights. Striking the right balance between privacy and regulation is imperative, ensuring security concerns are addressed without dismantling individual data protection. The outcome of Apple’s legal challenge against the IPA may set a significant precedent for how encryption policies evolve in the future.

References

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20g288yldko 
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj54eq4vejo
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn524lx9445o
• https://www.yahoo.com/tech/apple-advanced-data-protection-why-184822119.html
• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/apple-advanced-data-protection-removal-uk-9851486/
• https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/366619638/Apple-pulls-Advanced-Data-Protection-in-UK-sparking-concerns
• https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366619614/Apple-withdraws-encrypted-iCloud-storage-from-UK-after-government-demands-back-door-access?_gl=1*1p1xpm0*_ga*NTE3NDk1NzQxLjE3MzEzMDA2NTc.*_ga_TQKE4GS5P9*MTc0MDc0MTA4Mi4zMS4xLjE3NDA3NDEwODMuMC4wLjA. 
• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/21/apple-removes-advanced-data-protection-tool-uk-government 
• https://proton.me/blog/protect-data-apple-adp-uk#:~:text=Proton-,Apple%20revoked%20advanced%20data%20protection%20
• https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/05/apple_reportedly_ipt_complaint/ 
• https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366616972/Government-agencies-urged-to-use-encrypted-messaging-after-Chinese-Salt-Typhoon-hack

‍