Shah Muhammad-Tech-Cyb-Esp-Oped thumbnail-May-2024- Op 3

In the traditional modes of warfare and intelligence, espionage was an exclusive domain of spies working covertly to gain access to an enemy’s sensitive information. However, greater leaps in technology over the years have raised the significance of cyber domain for intelligence, paving the way for cyber espionage. Cyber espionage could be deemed as a covert attempt by government actors, individuals or non-state actors to gain access to unauthorised or sensitive information of another foreign state, its associations, corporations etc. through the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), aimed at gaining economic, political, or military advantage. Cyberespionage is quite widespread and has become a significant concern globally.

The latest emerging technologies encompass colossal capability to infiltrate cryptographic protocols, hence, decrypting encrypted, sensitive data at a faster rate, often at a much lower cost and with resources that are more easily accessible than traditional espionage. Cryptographic tools were deployed heavily by Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) that were instrumental for the Allied victory during World War II. Envisaged as an equivalent to GCHQ, the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) was established in 1952 and both collaborated extensively during the Cold War. Documents leaked in 2013 by Edward J. Snowden, a former NSA contractor, revealed that the NSA was able to decrypt large amounts of unauthorised and sensitive data globally by acquiring keys or gaining access through back doors. Founded in 1983, China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) is primarily responsible for intelligence and counterintelligence. The MSS regularly warns the Chinese population of the persistent threat posed by foreign espionage.

Countries identified as ‘cryptographic superpowers’ are those that have significantly advanced their technological capabilities, particularly in the areas of supercomputing and quantum computing. These advances give them a substantial edge in both cybersecurity and cyberespionage. In fact, there is widespread speculation that these systems will soon be able to break encryption across almost all systems over the internet; and efforts are underway to build cyber defences as well as quantum-resistant protocols.

Given their cryptographic and geopolitical significance, supercomputers are one of the major determinants of Sino-US technological competition. According to the most recent data available, China is at the forefront globally with 173 supercomputers, while the US follows with 128 machines. These technological advancements provide these nations with a considerable advantage in cyber operations. They are better equipped to conduct advanced persistent threats (APTs), which are sophisticated, long-term cyberespionage or cyber warfare campaigns typically attributed to state actors. Notably, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been elevating tech-oriented individuals to higher echelons of power, e.g. of the 11 newly inducted members of the Politburo Committee in 2022, 5 were from a science and technology background. This integration suggests a deliberate approach to harnessing their technological capabilities not only for national security and global competitiveness but also in shaping state policy decisions.

Apart from advanced machines, the digital terrain of cyber espionage is characterised by a nexus between intelligence agencies and big tech corporations. Alfred McCoy, in his book ‘In the Shadows of the American Century,’ disclosed that the NSA possesses one of the largest home field advantage by virtue of its linkages with prominent American big tech corporations. Revelations surrounding the Prism Program showed how the NSA colluded with companies like Microsoft, Google and Facebook for years and gained access to their servers. The traditional military-industrial complex in the US is undergoing a paradigm shift as a new political economy is on the horizon, characterised by Silicon Valley giants receiving lucrative contracts from the Pentagon. Under this shift, Chinese tech giants have repeatedly been accused by the US of colluding with Beijing in cyber espionage. In this regard, the American noose of scrutiny has been tightening around Huawei and TikTok. The House of Representatives recently passed a bill, compelling TikTok’s developer ByteDance to disassociate from TikTok or face ban. The US deems espionage, technological growth and military modernisation as essential features of the evolving Chinese military-industrial complex.

The ethos of privacy, inclusivity and fairness have always been cherished ideals in democratic societies. The mounting power of big tech could compromise these ideals by establishing monopolies and exceeding their corporate boundaries. On the other hand, states now regard big tech corporations as a source of their power and prestige because the latter are at the forefront of critical innovations in the digital age, besides enabling governments to access international markets. Both the US and China are engaged in a Tech Cold War to secure relative gains against each other where the tech giants of both countries seem to be tools as well as victims of a geopolitical zero-sum game.

As nations continue to enhance their cryptographic capabilities, the landscape of global cybersecurity is becoming increasingly complex. This raises critical questions about the balance between democratic norms, security and privacy issues, and whether any data can truly remain secret in an age dominated by digital surveillance and advanced cyber operations.

Shah Muhammad is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS) in Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »