#FactCheck - Video falsely links a man slapping a cleric to Iran protests

Introduction

Intricate and winding are the passageways of the modern digital age, a place where the reverberations of truth effortlessly blend, yet hauntingly contrast, with the echoes of falsehood. Within this complex realm, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has illuminated the darkened corners with its powerful spotlight, revealing the festering, insidious network of misinformation and disinformation that snakes through the virtual and physical worlds alike. Gravely identified by the “WEF's Global Risks Report 2024” as the most formidable and immediate threats to our collective well-being, this malignant duo—misinformation and disinformation. 

The report published with the solemn tone suitable for the prelude to such a grand international gathering as the Annual Summit in Davos, the report presents a vivid tableau of our shared global landscape—one that is dominated by the treacherous pitfalls of deceits and unverified claims. These perils, if unrecognised and unchecked by societal checks and balances, possess the force to rip apart the intricate tapestry of our liberal institutions, shaking the pillars of democracies and endangering the vulnerable fabric of social cohesion.

Election Mania 

As we find ourselves perched on the edge of a future, one where the voices of nearly three billion human beings make their mark on the annals of history—within the varied electoral processes of nations such as Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. However, the spectre of misinformation can potentially corrode the integrity of the governing entities that will emerge from these democratic processes. The warning issued by the WEF is unambiguous: we are flirting with the possibility of disorder and turmoil, where the unchecked dispersion of fabrications and lies could kindle flames of unrest, manifesting in violent protests, hate-driven crimes, civil unrest, and the scourge of terrorism.

Derived from the collective wisdom of over 1,400 experts in global risk, esteemed policymakers, and industry leaders, the report crafts a sobering depiction of our world's journey. It paints an ominous future that increasingly endows governments with formidable power—to brandish the weapon of censorship, to unilaterally declare what is deemed 'true' and what ought to be obscured or eliminated in the virtual world of sharing information. This trend signals a looming potential for wider and more comprehensive repression, hindering the freedoms traditionally associated with the Internet, journalism, and unhindered access to a panoply of information sources—vital fora for the exchange of ideas and knowledge in a myriad of countries across the globe.

Prominence of AI 

When the gaze of the report extends further over a decade-long horizon, the prominence of environmental challenges such as the erosion of biodiversity and alarming shifts in the Earth's life-support systems ascend to the pinnacle of concern. Yet, trailing closely, the digital risks continue to pulsate—perpetuated by the distortions of misinformation, the echoing falsities of disinformation, and the unpredictable repercussions stemming from the utilization and, at times, the malevolent deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). These ethereal digital entities, far from being illusory shades, are the precursors of a disintegrating world order, a stage on which regional powers move to assert and maintain their influence, instituting their own unique standards and norms.

The prophecies set forth by the WEF should not be dismissed as mere academic conjecture; they are instead a trumpet's urgent call to mobilize. With a startling 30 percent of surveyed global experts bracing for the prospect of international calamities within the mere span of the coming two years, and an even more significant portion—nearly two-thirds—envisaging such crises within the forthcoming decade, it is unmistakable that the time to confront and tackle these looming risks is now. The clarion is sounding, and the message is clear: inaction is no longer an available luxury.

Maldives and India Row

To pluck precise examples from the boundless field of misinformation, we might observe the Lakshadweep-Malé incident wherein an ordinary boat accident off the coast of Kerala was grotesquely transformed into a vessel for the far-reaching tendrils of fabricated narratives, erroneously implicating Lakshadweep in the spectacle. Similarly, the tension-laden India-Maldives diplomatic exchange becomes a harrowing testament to how strained international relations may become fertile ground for the rampant spread of misleading content. The suspension of Maldivian deputy ministers following offensive remarks, the immediate tumult that followed on social media, and the explosive proliferation of counterfeit news targeting both nations paint a stark and intricate picture of how intertwined are the threads of politics, the digital platforms of social media, and the virulent propagation of falsehoods.

Yet, these are mere fragments within the extensive and elaborate weave of misinformation that threatens to enmesh our globe. As we venture forth into this dangerous and murky topography, it becomes our collective responsibility to maintain a sense of heightened vigilance, to consistently question and verify the sources and content of the information that assails us from all directions, and to cultivate an enduring culture anchored in critical thinking and discernment. The stakes are colossal—for it is not merely truth itself that we defend, but rather the underlying tenets of our societies and the sanctity of our cherished democratic institutions.

Conclusion 

In this fraught era, marked indelibly by uncertainty and perched precariously on the cusp of numerous pivotal electoral ventures, let us refuse the role of passive bystanders to unraveling our collective reality. We must embrace our role as active participants in the relentless pursuit of truth, fortified with the stark awareness that our entwined futures rest precariously on our willingness and ability to distinguish the veritable from the spurious within the perilous lattice of falsehoods of misinformation. We must continually remind ourselves that, in the quest for a stable and just global order, the unerring discernment of fact from fiction becomes not only an act of intellectual integrity but a deed of civic and moral imperative.

References 

• https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/election-fuelled-misinformation-is-serious-global-risk-in-2024-says-wef/articleshow/106727033.cms
• https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/100124/misinformation-tops-global-risks-2024.html
• https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/fact-check-in-lakshadweep-male-row-kerala-boat-accident-becomes-vessel-for-fake-news/ar-AA1mOJqY
• https://www.boomlive.in/news/india-maldives-muizzu-pm-modi-lakshadweep-fact-check-24085
• https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/01/global-risks-report-2024-press-release/

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

Quantum mechanics is not a new field. It finds its roots in the works of physicists such as Niels Bohr in the 1920s, and has informed the development of technologies like nuclear power in the past. But with developments in science and engineering, we are at the cusp of harnessing quantum mechanics for a new wave of real-world uses in sensing and metrology, computing, networking, security, and more. While at different stages of development, quantum technologies have the potential to revolutionise global security, economic systems, and digital infrastructure. The science is dazzling, but it is equally urgent to start preparing for its broader impact on society, especially regarding privacy and digital security. This article explores quantum computing, its threat to information integrity, and global interdependencies as they exist today, and discusses policy areas that should be addressed.

What Is Quantum Computing?

Classical computers use binary bits (0 or 1) to represent and process information. This binary system forms the base of modern computing. But quantum computers use qubits (quantum bits) as a basic unit, which can exist in multiple states ( 0, 1, both, or with other qubits) simultaneously due to quantum principles like superposition and entanglement. This creates an infinite range of possibilities in information processing and allows quantum machines to perform complex computations at speeds impossible for traditional computers. While still in their early stages, large-scale quantum computers could eventually:

1. Break modern encryption systems
2. Model complex molecules for drug discovery
3. Optimise global logistics and financial systems
4. Accelerate AI and machine learning

While this could eventually present significant opportunities in fields such as health innovation, material sciences, climate modelling, and cybersecurity, challenges will continue to arise even before the technology is ready for commercial application. Policymakers must start anticipating their impact.

Threats

Policy solutions surrounding quantum technologies will depend on the pace of development of the elements of the quantum ecosystem. However, the most urgent concerns regarding quantum computing applications are the risk to encryption and the impact on market competition.

1. Cybersecurity Threat: Digital infrastructure today (e.g., cloud services, networks, servers, etc.) across sectors such as government, banking and finance, healthcare, energy, etc., depends on encryption for secure data handling and communications. Threat actors can utilise quantum computers to break this encryption. Widely used asymmetric encryption keys, such as RSA or ECC, are particularly susceptible to being broken. Threat actors could "harvest now, decrypt later”- steal encrypted data now and decrypt it later when quantum capabilities mature. Although AES-256, a symmetric encryption standard, is currently considered resistant to quantum decryption, it only protects data after a secure connection is established through a process that today relies on RSA or ECC. This is why governments and companies are racing to adopt Post- Quantum Cryptography (PQC) and quantum key distribution (QKD) to protect security and privacy in digital infrastructure.

2. Market Monopoly: Quantum computing demands significant investments in infrastructure, talent, and research, which only a handful of countries and companies currently possess. As a result, firms that develop early quantum advantage may gain unprecedented competitive leverage through offerings such as quantum-as-a-service, disrupting encryption-dependent industries, or accelerating innovation in pharmaceuticals, finance, and logistics. This could reinforce the existing power asymmetries in the global digital economy. Given these challenges, proactive and forward-looking policy frameworks are critical.

What Should Quantum Computing Policy Cover?

Commercial quantum computing will transform many industries. Policy will have to be flexible and be developed in iterations to account for fast-paced developments in the field. It will also require enduring international collaboration to effectively address a broad range of concerns, including ethics, security, privacy, competition, and workforce implications.

1. Cybersecurity and Encryption: Quantum policy should prioritise the development and standardisation of quantum-resistant encryption methods. This includes ongoing research into Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) algorithms and their integration into digital infrastructure. Global policy will need to align national efforts with international standards to create unified quantum-safe encryption protocols.

2. Market Competition and Access: Given the high barriers to entry, regulatory frameworks should promote fair competition, enabling smaller players like startups and developing economies to participate meaningfully in the quantum economy. Frameworks to ensure equitable access, interoperability, and fair competition will become imperative as the quantum ecosystem matures so that society can reap its benefits as a whole.

4. Ethical Considerations: Policymakers will have to consider the impact on privacy and security, and push for the responsible use of quantum capabilities. This includes ensuring that quantum advances do not contribute to cybercrime, disproportionate surveillance, or human rights violations.

5. International Standard-Setting: Setting benchmarks, shared terminologies, and measurement standards will ensure interoperability and security across diverse stakeholders and facilitate global collaboration in quantum research and infrastructure.

6. Military and Defence Implications: Militarisation of quantum technologies is a growing concern, and national security affairs related to quantum espionage are being urgently explored. Nations will have to develop regulations to protect sensitive data and intellectual property from quantum-enabled attacks.

7. Workforce Development and Education: Policies should encourage quantum computing education at various levels to ensure a steady pipeline of talent and foster cross-disciplinary programs that blend quantum computing with fields like machine learning, AI, and engineering.

8. Environmental and Societal Impact: Quantum computing hardware requires specialised conditions such as extreme cooling. Policy will have to address the environmental footprint of the infrastructure and energy consumption of large-scale quantum systems. Broader societal impacts of quantum computing, including potential job displacement, accessibility issues, and the equitable distribution of quantum computing benefits, will have to be explored.

Conclusion

Like nuclear power and AI, the new wave of quantum technologies is expected to be an exciting paradigm shift for society. While they can bring numerous benefits to commercial operations and address societal challenges, they also pose significant risks to global information security. Quantum policy will require regulatory, strategic, and ethical frameworks to govern the rise of these technologies, especially as they intersect with national security, global competition, and privacy. Policymakers must act in collaboration to mitigate unethical use of these technologies and the entrenchment of digital divides across countries. The OECD’s Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies provides a framework of essential values like respect for human rights, privacy, and sustainable development, which can be used to set a baseline, so that quantum computing and related technologies benefit society as a whole.

References

• https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/07/explainer-what-is-quantum-technology/
• https://www.paconsulting.com/insights/what-is-quantum-technology
• https://delinea.com/blog/quantum-safe-encryption#:~:text=This%20can%20result%20in%20AES,%2D128%20to%20AES%2D256.
• https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/a-quantum-technologies-policy-primer_fd1153c3-en.html

‍