#Fact Check-Misleading Newspaper from Kerala stating ban on paper currency

Executive Summary

The IT giant Apple has alerted customers to the impending threat of "mercenary spyware" assaults in 92 countries, including India. These highly skilled attacks, which are frequently linked to both private and state actors  (such as the NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware), target specific individuals, including politicians, journalists, activists and diplomats. In sharp contrast to consumer-grade malware, these attacks are in a league unto themselves: highly-customized to fit the individual target and involving significant resources to create and use.

As the incidence of such attacks rises, it is important that all persons, businesses, and officials equip themselves with information about how such mercenary spyware programs work, what are the most-used methods, how these attacks can be prevented and what one must do if targeted. Individuals and organizations can begin protecting themselves against these attacks by enabling "Lockdown Mode" to provide an extra layer of security to their devices and by frequently changing passwords and by not visiting the suspicious URLs or attachments. 

Introduction: Understanding Mercenary Spyware

Mercenary spyware is a special kind of spyware that is developed exclusively for law enforcement and government organizations. These kinds of spywares are not available in app stores, and are developed for attacking a particular individual and require a significant investment of resources and advanced technologies. Mercenary spyware hackers infiltrate systems by means of techniques such as phishing (by sending malicious links or attachments), pretexting (by manipulating the individuals to share personal information) or baiting (using tempting offers). They often intend to use Advanced Persistent Threats (APT)  where the hackers remain undetected for a prolonged period of time to steal data by continuous stealthy infiltration of the target’s network. The other method to gain access is through zero-day vulnerabilities, which is the process of gaining access to mobile devices using vulnerabilities existing in software. A well-known example of mercenary spyware includes the infamous Pegasus by the NSO Group.

Actions:  By Apple against Mercenary Spyware

Apple has introduced an advanced, optional protection feature in its newer product versions (including iOS 16, iPadOS 16, and macOS Ventura) to combat mercenary spyware attacks. These features have been provided to the users who are at risk of targeted cyber attacks.

Apple released a statement on the matter, sharing, “mercenary spyware attackers apply exceptional resources to target a very small number of specific individuals and their devices. Mercenary spyware attacks cost millions of dollars and often have a short shelf life, making them much harder to detect and prevent.”

When Apple's internal threat intelligence and investigations detect these highly-targeted attacks, they take immediate action to notify the affected users. The notification process involves:

• Displaying a "Threat Notification" at the top of the user's Apple ID page after they sign in.

• Sending an email and iMessage alert to the addresses and phone numbers associated with the user's Apple ID.
• Providing clear instructions on steps the user should take to protect their devices, including enabling "Lockdown Mode" for the strongest available security.
• Apple stresses that these threat notifications are "high-confidence alerts" - meaning they have strong evidence that the user has been deliberately targeted by mercenary spyware. As such, these alerts should be taken extremely seriously by recipients.

Modus Operandi of Mercenary Spyware

1. Installing advanced surveillance equipment remotely and covertly.

2. Using zero-click or one-click attacks to take advantage of device vulnerabilities.

3. Gain access to a variety of data on the device, including location tracking, call logs, text messages, passwords, microphone, camera, and app information.

4. Installation by utilizing many system vulnerabilities on devices running particular iOS and Android versions.

5. Defense by patching vulnerabilities with security updates (e.g., CVE-2023-41991, CVE-2023-41992, CVE-2023-41993).

6. Utilizing defensive DNS services, non-signature-based endpoint technologies, and frequent device reboots as mitigation techniques.

Prevention Measures: Safeguarding Your Devices

1. Turn on security measures: Make use of the security features that the device maker has supplied, such as Apple's Lockdown Mode, which is intended to prevent viruses of all types from infecting Apple products, such as iPhones.

2. Frequent software upgrades: Make sure the newest security and software updates are installed on your devices. This aids in patching holes that mercenary malware could exploit.

3. Steer clear of misleading connections: Exercise caution while opening attachments or accessing links from unidentified sources. Installing mercenary spyware is possible via phishing links or attachments.

4. Limit app permissions: Reassess and restrict app permissions to avoid unwanted access to private information.

5. Use secure networks: To reduce the chance of data interception, connect to secure Wi-Fi networks and stay away from public or unprotected connections.

6. Install security applications: To identify and stop any spyware attacks, think about installing reliable security programs from reliable sources.

7. Be alert: If Apple or other device makers send you a threat notice, consider it carefully and take the advised security precautions.

8. Two-factor authentication: To provide an extra degree of protection against unwanted access, enable two-factor authentication (2FA) on your Apple ID and other significant accounts.

9. Consider additional security measures: For high-risk individuals, consider using additional security measures, such as encrypted communication apps and secure file storage services

Way Forward: Strengthening Digital Defenses, Strengthening Democracy

People, businesses and administrations must prioritize cyber security measures and keep up with emerging dangers as mercenary spyware attacks continue to develop and spread. To effectively address the growing threat of digital espionage, cooperation between government agencies, cybersecurity specialists, and technology businesses is essential.

In the Indian context, the update carries significant policy implications and must inspire a discussion on legal frameworks for government surveillance practices and cyber security protocols in the nation. As the public becomes more informed about such sophisticated cyber threats, we can expect a greater push for oversight mechanisms and regulatory protocols. The misuse of surveillance technology poses a significant threat to individuals and institutions alike. Policy reforms concerning surveillance tech must be tailored to address the specific concerns of the use of such methods by state actors vs. private players. 

There is a pressing need for electoral reforms that help safeguard democratic processes in the current digital age. There has been a paradigm shift in how political activities are conducted in current times: the advent of the digital domain has seen parties and leaders pivot their campaigning efforts to favor the online audience as enthusiastically as they campaign offline. Given that this is an election year, quite possibly the most significant one in modern Indian history, digital outreach and online public engagement are expected to be at an all-time high. And so, it is imperative to protect the electoral process against cyber threats so that public trust in the legitimacy of India’s democratic is rewarded and the digital domain is an asset, and not a threat, to good governance.

‍

Introduction

In July 2025, the Digital Trust & Safety Partnership (DTSP) achieved a significant milestone with the formal acceptance of its Safe Framework Specification as an international standard, ISO/IEC 25389. This is the first globally recognised standard that is exclusively concerned with guaranteeing a secure online experience for the general public's use of digital goods and services.

Significance of the New Framework

Fundamentally, ISO/IEC 25389 provides organisations with an organised framework for recognising, controlling, and reducing risks associated with conduct or content. This standard, which was created under the direction of ISO/IEC's Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC 1), integrates the best practices of DTSP and offers a precise way to evaluate organisational maturity in terms of safety and trust.  Crucially, it offers the first unified international benchmark, allowing organisations globally to coordinate on common safety pledges and regularly assess progress.

Other Noteworthy Standards and Frameworks

While ISO/IEC 25389 is pioneering, it’s not the only framework shaping digital trust and safety:

• One of the main outcomes of the United Nations’ 2024 Summit for the Future was the UN's Global Digital Compact, which describes cross-border cooperation on secure and reliable digital environments with an emphasis on countering harmful content, upholding online human rights, and creating accountability standards. 
• The World Economic Forum’s Digital Trust Framework defines the goals and values, such as cybersecurity, privacy, transparency, redressability, auditability, fairness, interoperability and safety, implicit to the concept of digital trust. It also provides a roadmap to digital trustworthiness that imbibes these dimensions. 
• The Framework for Integrity, Security and Trust (FIST) launched at the Cybereace Summit 2023 at USI of India in New Delhi, calls for a multistakeholder approach to co-create solutions and best practices for digital trust and safety.
• While still in the finalisation stage for implementation rollout, India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and its Rules (2025) aim to strike a balance between individual rights and data processing needs by establishing a groundwork for data security and privacy.
• India is developing frameworks in cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence. Using a hub-and-spoke model under the IndiaAI Mission, the AI Safety Institute was established in early 2025 with the goal of creating standards for trustworthy, moral, and safe AI systems. Furthermore, AI standards with an emphasis on safety and dependability are being drafted by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). 
• Google's DigiKavach program (2023) and Google Safety Engineering Centre (GSEC) in Hyderabad are concrete efforts to support digital safety and fraud prevention in India's tech sector.

What It Means for India

India is already claiming its place in discussions about safety and trust around the world. Google's June 2025 safety charter for India, for example, highlights how India's distinct digital scale, diversity, and vast threat landscape provide insights that inform global cybersecurity strategies. 

For India's digital ecosystem, ISO/IEC 25389 comes at a critical juncture. Global best practices in safety and trust are desperately needed as a result of the rapid adoption of digital technologies, including the growth of digital payments, e-governance, and artificial intelligence and a concomitant rise in instances of digital harms. Through its guidelines, ISO/IEC 25389 provides a reference benchmark that Indian startups, government agencies, and tech companies can use to improve their safety standards.

Conclusion 

A global trust-and-safety standard like ISO/IEC 25389 is essential for making technology safer for people, even as we discuss the broader adoption of security and safety-by-design principles integrated into the processes of technological product development. India can improve user protection, build its reputation globally, and solidify its position as a key player in the creation of a safer, more resilient digital future by implementing this framework in tandem with its growing domestic regulatory framework (such as the DPDP Act and AI Safety policies).

References 

• https://dtspartnership.org/the-safe-framework-specification/
• https://dtspartnership.org/press-releases/dtsps-safe-framework-published-as-an-international-standard/?
• https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/united-nations-global-digital-compact-trust-security/?
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/google-releases-safety-charter-for-india-senior-exec-details-top-cyber-threat-actors-in-the-country/articleshow/121903651.cms? 
• https://initiatives.weforum.org/digital-trust/framework 
• https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/secure-india/the-launch-of-fist-framework-for-integrity-security-and-trust/103302090 

‍

Introduction

In 2022, Oxfam’s India Inequality report revealed the worsening digital divide, highlighting that only 38% of households in the country are digitally literate. Further, only 31% of the rural population uses the internet, as compared to 67% of the urban population. Over time, with the increasing awareness about the importance of digital privacy globally, the definition of digital divide has translated into a digital privacy divide, whereby different levels of privacy are afforded to different sections of society. This further promotes social inequalities and impedes access to fundamental rights.

Digital Privacy Divide: A by-product of the digital divide

The digital divide has evolved into a multi-level issue from its earlier interpretations; level I implies the lack of physical access to technologies, level II refers to the lack of digital literacy and skills and recently, level III relates to the impacts of digital access. Digital Privacy Divide (DPD) refers to the various gaps in digital privacy protection provided to users based on their socio-demographic patterns. It forms a subset of the digital divide, which involves uneven distribution, access and usage of information and communication technology (ICTs). Typically, DPD exists when ICT users receive distinct levels of digital privacy protection. As such, it forms a part of the conversation on digital inequality. 

Contrary to popular perceptions, DPD, which is based on notions of privacy, is not always based on ideas of  individualism and collectivism and may constitute internal and external factors at the national level. A study on the impacts of DPD conducted in the U.S., India, Bangladesh and Germany highlighted that respondents in Germany and Bangladesh expressed more concerns about their privacy compared to respondents in the U.S. and India. This suggests that despite the U.S. having a strong tradition of individualistic rights, that is reflected in internal regulatory frameworks such as the Fourth Amendment, the topic of data privacy has not garnered enough interest from the population. Most individuals consider forgoing the right to privacy as a necessary evil to access many services, and schemes and to stay abreast with technological advances. Research shows that 62%- 63% of Americans believe that companies and the government collecting data have become an inescapable necessary evil in modern life. Additionally, 81% believe that they have very little control over what data companies collect and about 81% of Americans believe that the risk of data collection outweighs the benefits. Similarly, in Japan, data privacy is thought to be an adopted concept emerging from international pressure to regulate, rather than as an ascribed right, since collectivism and collective decision-making are more valued in Japan, positioning the concept of privacy as subjective, timeserving and an idea imported from the West.

Regardless, inequality in privacy preservation often reinforces social inequality. Practices like surveillance that are geared towards a specific group highlight that marginalised communities are more likely to have less data privacy. As an example, migrants, labourers, persons with a conviction history and marginalised racial groups are often subject to extremely invasive surveillance under suspicions of posing threats and are thus forced to flee their place of birth or residence. This also highlights the fact that focus on DPD is not limited to those who lack data privacy but also to those who have (either by design or by force) excess privacy. While on one end, excessive surveillance, carried out by both governments and private entities, forces immigrants to wait in deportation centres during the pendency of their case, the other end of the privacy extreme hosts a vast number of undocumented individuals who avoid government contact for fear of deportation, despite noting high rates of crime victimization.

DPD is also noted among groups with differential knowledge and skills in cyber security. For example, in India, data privacy laws mandate that information be provided on order of a court or any enforcement agency. However, individuals with knowledge of advanced encryption are adopting communication channels that have encryption protocols that the provider cannot control (and resultantly able to exercise their right to privacy more effectively),  in contrast with individuals who have little knowledge of encryption, implying a security as well as an intellectual divide. While several options for secure communication exist, like Pretty Good Privacy, which enables encrypted emailing, they are complex and not easy to use in addition to having negative reputations, like the Tor Browser. Cost considerations also are a major factor in propelling DPD since users who cannot afford devices like those by Apple, which have privacy by default, are forced to opt for devices that have relatively poor in-built encryption. 

Children remain the most vulnerable group. During the pandemic, it was noted that only 24% of Indian households had internet facilities to access e-education and several reported needing to access free internet outside of their homes. These public networks are known for their lack of security and privacy, as traffic can be monitored by the hotspot operator or others on the network if proper encryption measures are not in place. Elsewhere, students without access to devices for remote learning have limited alternatives and are often forced to rely on Chromebooks and associated Google services. In response to this issue, Google provided free Chromebooks and mobile hotspots to students in need during the pandemic, aiming to address the digital divide. However, in 2024, New Mexico was reported to be suing Google for allegedly collecting children’s data through its educational products provided to the state's schools, claiming that it tracks students' activities on their personal devices outside of the classroom. It signified the problems in ensuring the privacy of lower-income students while accessing basic education.

Policy Recommendations

Digital literacy is one of the critical components in bridging the DPD. It enables individuals to gain skills, which in turn effectively addresses privacy violations. Studies show that low-income users remain less confident in their ability to manage their privacy settings as compared to high-income individuals. Thus, emphasis should be placed not only on educating on technology usage but also on privacy practices since it aims to improve people’s Internet skills and take informed control of their digital identities.

In the U.S., scholars have noted the role of libraries and librarians in safeguarding intellectual privacy. The Library Freedom Project, for example, has sought to ensure that the skills and knowledge required to ensure internet freedoms are available to all. The Project channelled one of the core values of the library profession i.e. intellectual freedom, literacy, equity of access to recorded knowledge and information, privacy and democracy. As a result, the Project successfully conducted workshops on internet privacy for the public and also openly objected to the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to shut down the use of encryption technologies in libraries. The International Federation of Library Association adopted a Statement of Privacy in the Library Environment in 2015 that specified “when libraries and information services provide access to resources, services or technologies that may compromise users’ privacy, libraries should encourage users to be aware of the implications and provide guidance in data protection and privacy.” The above should be used as an indicative case study for setting up similar protocols in inclusive public institutions like Anganwadis, local libraries, skill development centres and non-government/non-profit organisations in India, where free education is disseminated. The workshops conducted must inculcate two critical aspects; firstly, enhancing the know-how of using public digital infrastructure and popular technologies (thereby de-alienating technology) and secondly, shifting the viewpoint of privacy as a right an individual has and not something that they own.

However, digital literacy should not be wholly relied on, since it shifts the responsibility of privacy protection to the individual, who may not either be aware or cannot be controlled. Data literacy also does not address the larger issue of data brokers, consumer profiling, surveillance etc. Resultantly, an obligation on companies to provide simplified privacy summaries, in addition to creating accessible, easy-to-use technical products and privacy tools,  should be necessitated. Most notable legislations address this problem by mandating notices and consent for collecting personal data of users, despite slow enforcement. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in India aims to address DPD by not only mandating valid consent but also ensuring that privacy policies remain accessible in local languages, given the diversity of the population.

References

• https://idronline.org/article/inequality/indias-digital-divide-from-bad-to-worse/ 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02669 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.07936#:~:text=The%20DPD%20index%20is%20a,(33%20years%20and%20over). 
• https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• /https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6265&context=law_lawreview 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• https://bosniaca.nub.ba/index.php/bosniaca/article/view/488/pdf 
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/just-24-of-indian-households-have-internet-facility-to-access-e-education-unicef/story-a1g7DqjP6lJRSh6D6yLJjL.html 
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/05/the-pandemic-has-unmasked-the-digital-privacy-divide/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/Privacy%20protection%20in%20Japan.pdf 
• https://socialchangenyu.com/review/the-surveillance-gap-the-harms-of-extreme-privacy-and-data-marginalization/