Digitally Altered Photo of Rowan Atkinson Circulates on Social Media

Introduction

Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) was established by the Ministry of Home Affairs  (MHA) to provide a framework for law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to deal with cybercrime in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. The Indian Ministry of Home Affairs approved a scheme for the establishment of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) in October 2018.  I4C is actively working towards initiatives to combat the emerging threats in cyberspace and it has become a strong pillar of India’s cyber security and cybercrime prevention. The ‘National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal’ equipped with a 24x7 helpline number 1930,  is one of the key components of the I4C.

On 10 September 2024, I4Ccelebrated its foundation day for the first time at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi.  This celebration marked a major milestone in India’s efforts against cybercrimes and in enhancing its cybersecurity infrastructure. Union Home Minister and Minister of Cooperation, Shri Amit Shah, launched key initiatives aimed at strengthening the country’s cybersecurity landscape.

Launch of Key Initiatives to Strengthen Cybersecurity

1. Cyber ​​Fraud Mitigation Centre (CFMC): As a     product of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi’s vision, the Cyber Fraud     Mitigation Centre (CFMC), was incorporated to bring together banks,     financial institutions, telecom companies, Internet Service Providers, and     law enforcement agencies on a single platform to tackle online financial     crimes efficiently. This integrated approach is     expected to minimise the time required to streamline operations and to     track and neutralise cyber fraud.
2. Cyber ​​Commando: The Cyber Commandos Program is an initiative in which     a specialised wing of trained Cyber Commandos will be established in     states, Union Territories, and Central Police Organizations. These     commandos will work to secure the nation’s digital space and counter     rising cyber threats. They will form the first line of defence in     safeguarding India from the growing cyber threats.
3. Samanvay Platform: The Samanvay platform is a web-based Joint Cybercrime     Investigation Facility System that was introduced as a one-stop data     repository for cybercrime. It facilitates cybercrime mapping, data     analytics, and cooperation among law enforcement agencies across the     country. This will play a pivotal role in fostering collaborations in     combating cybercrimes. Mr. Shah recognised the Samanvay platform as a     crucial step in fostering data sharing and collaboration. He called for a     shift from the “need to know” principle to a “duty to share” mindset in     dealing with cyber threats. The Samanvay platform will serve as India’s     first shared data repository, significantly enhancing the country’s     cybercrime response.
4. Suspect Registry: The Suspect Registry Portal is a national-level     platform that has been designed to track cybercriminals. The portal     registry will be connected to the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal     (NCRP) which aims to help banks, financial intermediaries, and law enforcement     agencies strengthen fraud risk management. The     initiative is expected to improve the real-time tracking of cyber     suspects, preventing repeat offences and improving fraud detection     mechanisms.

Rising Digitalization: Prioritizing Cybersecurity

The number of internet users in India has grown from 25 crores in 2014 to 95 crores in 2024, accompanied by a 78-foldincrease in data consumption. This growth is echoed in the number of growing cybersecurity challenges in the digital era. With the rise of digital transactions through Jan Dhan accounts, Rupay debit cards, and UPI systems, Shri Shah underscored the growing threat of digital fraud. He emphasised the need to protect personal data, prevent online harassment, and counter misinformation, fake news, and child abuse in the digital space.

The three new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which aim to strengthen India’s legal framework for cybercrime prevention, were also referred to in the address bythe Home Minister. These laws incorporate tech-driven solutions that will ensure investigations are conducted scientifically and effectively.

Mr. Shah emphasised popularising the 1930Cyber Crime Helpline. Additionally, he noted that I4C has issued over 600advisories, blocked numerous websites and social media pages operated by cybercriminals, and established a National Cyber Forensic Laboratory in Delhi. Over 1,100 officers have already received cyber forensics training under theI4C umbrella.

In response to the regional cybercrime challenges, the formation of Joint Cyber Coordination Teams in cybercrime hotspot areas like Mewat, Jamtara, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Chandigarh, Visakhapatnam and Guwahati was highlighted as a coordinated response to local cybercrime hotspot issues.

Conclusion

With the launch of initiatives like the Cyber Fraud Mitigation Centre, the Samanvay platform, and the Cyber Commandos Program, I4C is positioned to play a crucial role in combating cybercrime. The I4C is moving forward with a clear vision for a secure digital future and safeguarding India's digital ecosystem.

References:

●     https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2053438

‍

Introduction

The fast-paced development of technology and the wider use of social media platforms have led to the rapid dissemination of misinformation with characteristics such as diffusion, fast propagation speed, wide influence, and deep impact through these platforms. Social Media Algorithms and their decisions are often perceived as a black box introduction that makes it impossible for users to understand and recognise how the decision-making process works. 

Social media algorithms may unintentionally promote false narratives that garner more interactions, further reinforcing the misinformation cycle and making it harder to control its spread within vast, interconnected networks. Algorithms judge the content based on the metrics, which is user engagement. It is the prerequisite for algorithms to serve you the best. Hence, algorithms or search engines enlist relevant items you are more likely to enjoy. This process, initially, was created to cut the clutter and provide you with the best information. However, sometimes it results in unknowingly widespread misinformation due to the viral nature of information and user interactions. 

Analysing the Algorithmic Architecture of Misinformation

Social media algorithms, designed to maximize user engagement, can inadvertently promote misinformation due to their tendency to trigger strong emotions, creating echo chambers and filter bubbles. These algorithms prioritize content based on user behaviour, leading to the promotion of emotionally charged misinformation. Additionally, the algorithms prioritize content that has the potential to go viral, which can lead to the spread of false or misleading content faster than corrections or factual content.

Additionally, popular content is amplified by platforms, which spreads it faster by presenting it to more users. Limited fact-checking efforts are particularly difficult since, by the time they are reported or corrected, erroneous claims may have gained widespread acceptance due to delayed responses. Social media algorithms find it difficult to distinguish between real people and organized networks of troll farms or bots that propagate false information. This creates a vicious loop where users are constantly exposed to inaccurate or misleading material, which strengthens their convictions and disseminates erroneous information through networks.

Though algorithms, primarily, aim to enhance user engagement by curating content that aligns with the user's previous behaviour and preferences. Sometimes this process leads to "echo chambers," where individuals are exposed mainly to information that reaffirms their beliefs which existed prior, effectively silencing dissenting voices and opposing viewpoints. This curated experience reduces exposure to diverse opinions and amplifies biased and polarising content, making it arduous for users to discern credible information from misinformation. Algorithms feed into a feedback loop that continuously gathers data from users' activities across digital platforms, including websites, social media, and apps. This data is analysed to optimise user experiences, making platforms more attractive. While this process drives innovation and improves user satisfaction from a business standpoint, it also poses a danger in the context of misinformation. The repetitive reinforcement of user preferences leads to the entrenchment of false beliefs, as users are less likely to encounter fact-checks or corrective information.

Moreover, social networks and their sheer size and complexity today exacerbate the issue. With billions of users participating in online spaces, misinformation spreads rapidly, and attempting to contain it—such as by inspecting messages or URLs for false information—can be computationally challenging and inefficient. The extensive amount of content that is shared daily means that misinformation can be propagated far quicker than it can get fact-checked or debunked.

Understanding how algorithms influence user behaviour is important to tackling misinformation. The personalisation of content, feedback loops, the complexity of network structures, and the role of superspreaders all work together to create a challenging environment where misinformation thrives. Hence, highlighting the importance of countering misinformation through robust measures. 

The Role of Regulations in Curbing Algorithmic Misinformation

The EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) applicable in the EU is one of the regulations that aims to increase the responsibilities of tech companies and ensure that their algorithms do not promote harmful content. These regulatory frameworks play an important role they can be used to establish mechanisms for users to appeal against the algorithmic decisions and ensure that these systems do not disproportionately suppress legitimate voices. Independent oversight and periodic audits can ensure that algorithms are not biased or used maliciously. Self-regulation and Platform regulation are the first steps that can be taken to regulate misinformation. By fostering a more transparent and accountable ecosystem, regulations help mitigate the negative effects of algorithmic misinformation, thereby protecting the integrity of information that is shared online. In the Indian context, the Intermediary Guidelines, 2023, Rule 3(1)(b)(v) explicitly prohibits the dissemination of misinformation on digital platforms. The ‘Intermediaries’ are obliged to ensure reasonable efforts to prevent users from hosting, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, transmitting, storing, updating, or sharing any information related to the 11 listed user harms or prohibited content. This rule aims to ensure platforms identify and swiftly remove misinformation, and false or misleading content.

Cyberpeace Outlook

Understanding how algorithms prioritise content will enable users to critically evaluate the information they encounter and recognise potential biases. Such cognitive defenses can empower individuals to question the sources of the information and report misleading content effectively. In the future of algorithms in information moderation, platforms should evolve toward more transparent, user-driven systems where algorithms are optimised not just for engagement but for accuracy and fairness. Incorporating advanced AI moderation tools, coupled with human oversight can improve the detection and reduction of harmful and misleading content. Collaboration between regulatory bodies, tech companies, and users will help shape the algorithms landscape to promote a healthier, more informed digital environment.

References:

• https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/misformation-spreads-like-a-nuclear-reaction-on-the-internet/
• https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/09/want-to-fight-misinformation-teach-people-how-algorithms-work/ 
• Press Release: Press Information Bureau (pib.gov.in) 

‍

Introduction

Google is set to change its storage and access of users' "Location History" in Google Maps, reducing the data retention period and making it impossible for the company to access it. This change will significantly impact "geofence warrants," a controversial legal tool used by authorities to force Google to hand over information about all users within a given location during a specific timeframe. This decision is a significant win for privacy advocates and criminal defense attorneys who have long decried these warrants.

The company aims to protect people's privacy by removing the repository of location data dating back months or years. Geofence warrants, which provide police with sensitive data on individuals, are considered dangerous and could turn innocent people into suspects. 

Understanding Geofence Warrants

Geofence warrants, also known as reverse-location warrants, are used by law enforcement agencies to obtain locational data stored by tech companies within a specified geographical area and timeframe to identify devices near a crime scene. In contrast to general warrants, which allow law enforcement agencies to obtain data of one individual (usually the suspect), geofence warrants enable law enforcement authorities to obtain data for all individuals in a specific location and subsequently track and trace any device that may be linked to a crime scene. Geofence warrants have become a major issue, with law enforcement agencies utilising them to obtain location data from tech companies.

Privacy Concerns of Geofence Warrants

While Geofence warrants allow law enforcement agencies to determine and identify potential suspects, these warrants have sparked controversy for their invasive characteristics. Civil rights activities and various technology companies have raised concerns over the impact of these warrants on the rights of data principals. It is noted that geofence warrants mark a rise in cases of state surveillance and police harassment. Not only is any data principal in the vicinity of the crime scene classified as a potential suspect, but companies are also compelled to submit identifying personal data on every device/phone in a marked geographic space.

From Surveillance to Safeguards

Geofence warrants have become a contentious tool for law enforcement worldwide, with concerns over privacy and civil liberties, especially in sensitive situations like protests and healthcare. Google is considering allowing users to store their location data on their devices, potentially ending the use of geofence warrants, which law enforcement agencies use to obtain location data from tech companies.

Google is changing its handling of Location History data, moving it on-device instead of on its servers. The default data retention period will be reduced. Google Maps' product director, Marlo McGriff, stated that the company will automatically encrypt backed-up data for cloud backups, preventing anyone from reading it. When these changes are implemented, Google will have no geodata fishing options for users. Google confirmed that it will no longer be able to respond to new geofence warrants once these changes are implemented, as it will not have access to the relevant data. The changes were designed to put an end to dragnet searches of location data.

Conclusion

Google's decision to change storage and access policies for users' location history in Google Maps marks a pivotal step in the ongoing narrative of law enforcement's misuse of geofence warrants. This move aims to safeguard individual privacy by significantly restricting the data retention period and limiting Google's ability to comply with geofence warrants. This change is welcomed by privacy advocates and legal professionals who express concerns over the intrusive nature of these warrants, which may potentially turn innocent individuals into suspects based on their proximity to a crime scene. As technology companies take steps to enhance user privacy, the evolving landscape calls for a balance between law enforcement needs and protecting individual rights in an era of increasing digital surveillance.  

References:

• https://techobserver.in/news/policy/will-googles-transition-to-on-device-location-storage-end-geofence-warrants-abuse-280852/

• https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/google-to-end-geofence-warrant-requests-for-users-location-data/106081499
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2023/12/14/google-just-killed-geofence-warrants-police-location-data/?sh=313da3c32c86
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-how-google-maps-is-preventing-authorities-from-accessing-users-location-history-data/articleshow/106086639.cms

‍