#FactCheck - Viral Photos Falsely Linked to Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi's Helicopter Crash

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/ 

Introduction

‍

The banking and finance sector worldwide is among the most vulnerable to cybersecurity attacks. Moreover, traditional threats such as DDoS attacks, ransomware, supply chain attacks, phishing, and Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) are becoming increasingly potent with the growing adoption of AI. It is crucial for banking and financial institutions to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to their cybersecurity posture, something that is possible only through a systematic approach to security. In this context, the Reserve Bank of India’s latest Financial Stability Report (June 2025) acknowledges that cybersecurity risks are systemic to the sector, particularly the securities market, and have to be treated as such. 

What the Financial Stability Report June 2025 Says

‍

The report notes that the increasing scale of digital financial services, cloud-based architecture, and interconnected systems has expanded the cyberattack surface across sectors.   It calls for building cybersecurity resilience by improving Security Operations Center (SOC) efficacy, undertaking “risk-based supervision”, implementing “zero-trust approaches”, and “AI-aware defense strategies”. It also recommends the implementation of graded monitoring systems, employing behavioral analytics for threat detection, building adequate skill through hands-on training, engaging in continuous learning and simulation-based exercises like Continuous Assessment-Based Red Teaming (CART), conducting scenario-based resilience drills, and establishing consistent incident reporting frameworks. In addition, it suggests that organizations need to adopt quantifiable benchmarks like SOC Efficacy and Cyber Capability Index to guarantee efficient governance and readiness.

Implications

‍

Firstly, even though the report doesn’t break new ground in identifying cyber risk,  it does sharpen its urgency and lays the groundwork for giving more weight to cybersecurity in macroprudential supervision. In the face of emerging threats, it positions cyberattacks as a systemic financial risk that can affect India’s financial stability with the same seriousness as traditional threats like NPAs and capital inadequacy. 

Secondly, by calling to “ensure cyber resilience”, it reflects the RBI’s dedication to  values-based compliance to cybersecurity policies where effectiveness and adaptability matter more than box-ticking. This approach caters to an organisation’s/ sector’s unique nature, governance requirements, and updates to rising risks. It checks not only if certain measures were used, but also if they were effective, through constant self-assessment, scenario-based training, cyber drills, dynamic risk management, and value-driven audits. In the face of a rapidly expanding digital transactions ecosystem with integration of new technologies such as AI, this approach is imperative to building cyber resilience. The RBI’s report suggests exactly this need for banks and NBFCs to update its parameters for resilience.

Conclusion 

‍

While the RBI’s 2016 guidelines focus on core cybersecurity concerns and has issued guidelines on IT governance, outsourcing, and digital payment security, none explicitly codify “AI-aware,” “zero-trust,” or a full “risk-based supervision” mechanism. The more recent emphasis on these concepts comes from the 2025 Financial Stability Report, which uses them as forward-looking policy orientations. How the RBI chooses to operationalize these frameworks is yet to be seen. Further,  RBI’s vision cannot operate in a silo. Cross-sector regulators like SEBI, IRDAI, and DoT must align on cyber standards and incident reporting protocols.

In the meanwhile, highly vulnerable sectors like education and healthcare, which have weaker cybersecurity capabilities, can take a leaf from RBI’s book by ensuring that cybersecurity is treated as a continuously evolving issue . Many institutions in these sectors are known to perform goals-based compliance through a simple checklist approach. Institutions that take the lead in implementing zero-trust, diversifying vendor dependencies, and investing in cyber resilience will not only meet regulatory expectations but build long-term competitive advantage.

References

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/adopt-risk-based-supervision-zero-trust-approach-to-curb-cyberfrauds-rbi/articleshow/122164631.cms?from=mdr-%20500
• https://paramountassure.com/blog/value-driven-cybersecurity/ 
• https://www.rbi.org.in/commonman/english/Scripts/Notification.aspx?Id=1721 ‍
• https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs//PublicationReport/Pdfs/0FSRJUNE20253006258AE798B4484642AD861CC35BC2CB3D8E.PDF

Introduction

Recently the Indian Government banned the import of Laptops and tablets in India under the computers of HSN 8471. According to the notification of the government, Directorate General of foreign trade, there will be restrictions on the import of Laptops, tablets, and other electronic items from 1^st November 2023. The government advised the Domestic companies to apply for the license within three months. As the process is simple, and many local companies have already applied for the license. The government will require a valid license for the import of laptops and other electronic items.

The Government imposed restrictions on the Import of Laptops & other electronic products

The DGFT (The directorate General of foreign trade) imposed restrictions on the import of electronic items in India. And, there has been the final date has also been given that the companies only have 3 months to apply for a valid license, from November 1^st 2023there will be a requirement for a valid license for the import, and there will be a proper ban on the import of laptops & tablets, and other electronic items. The ban is on the HSN-8471. These are the products that indicate that they are taxable. It is a classification code to identify the taxable items. India has sufficient capacity and capability to manufacture their own IT hardware devices and boost production.

The government has notified production linked incentive, PLI Scheme 2.0, for the IT devices, which will soon be disclosed, and the scheme is expected to lead to a total of 29 thousand crore rupees worth of IT hardware nearly. And this will create future job opportunities in the five to six years.

The pros & cons of the import

Banning import has two sides. The positive one is that, it will promote the domestic manufacturers, local companies will able to grow, and there will be job opportunities, but if we talk about the negative side of the import, then the prices will be high for the consumers. One aspect is making India’s digital infrastructure stable, and the other side is affecting consumers.

Reasons Behind the ban on the Import of electronic items

There are the following reasons behind the ban on the Import of laptops and tablets,

• The primary reason why the government banned the import of laptops and other electronic items is because of security concerns about the data. And to prevent data theft a step has been taken by the Government.
• The banning will help the domestic manufacturer to grow and will provide opportunities to the local companies in India.
• It will help in the creation of Job vacancies in the country.
• There will be a curb down of selling of Chinese products.

The government will promote the digital infrastructure of India by putting a ban on imports. Such as there are domestic companies like Reliance recently launched a laptop by the name of Jio Book, and there is a company that sells the cheapest tablet called Aakash, so the import ban will promote these types of electronic items of the local companies. This step will soon result in digital advancement in India.

Conclusion

The laptop, tablets, and other electronic products that have been banned in India will make a substantial move with the implications. The objective of the ban is to encourage domestic manufacturing and to secure the data, however, it will also affect the consumers which can not be ignored. The other future effects are yet to be seen. But the one scenario is clear, that the policy will significantly make a change in India’s Technology industry.