#FactCheck: IAF Shivangi Singh was captured by Pakistan army after her Rafale fighter jet was shot down

Introduction

A policy, no matter how artfully conceived, is like a timeless idiom, its truth self-evident, its purpose undeniable, standing in silent witness before those it vows to protect, yet trapped in the stillness of inaction, where every moment of delay erodes the very justice it was meant to serve. This is the case of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which holds in its promise a resolution to all the issues related to data protection and a protection framework at par with GDPR and Global Best Practices. While debates on its substantive efficacy are inevitable, its execution has emerged as a site of acute contention. The roll-out and the decision-making have been making headlines since late July on various fronts. The government is being questioned by industry stakeholders, media and independent analysts on certain grounds, be it “slow policy execution”, “centralisation of power” or “arbitrary amendments”. The act is now entrenched in a never-ending dilemma of competing interests under the DPDP Act.

The change to the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, made possible by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, has become a focal point of debate. This amendment is viewed by some as an attack on weakening the hard-won transparency architecture of Indian democracy by substituting an absolute exemption for personal information for the “public interest override” in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 

The Lag Ledger: Tracking the Delays in DPDP Enforcement 

As per a news report of July 28, 2025, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information and Communications Technology has expressed its concern over the delayed implementation and has urged the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to ensure that data privacy is adequately ensured in the nation. In the report submitted to the Lok Sabha on July 24, the committee reviewed the government’s reaction to the previous recommendations and concluded that MeitY had only been able to hold nine consultations and twenty awareness workshops about the Draft DPDP Rules, 2025. In addition, four brainstorming sessions with academic specialists were conducted to examine the needs for research and development. The ministry acknowledges that this is a specialised field that urgently needs industrial involvement. Another news report dated 30th July, 2025, of a day-long consultation held where representatives from civil society groups, campaigns, social movements, senior lawyers, retired judges, journalists, and lawmakers participated on the contentious and chilling effects of the Draft Rules that were notified in January this year. The organisers said in a press statement the DPDP Act may have a negative impact on the freedom of the press and people’s right to information and the activists, journalists, attorneys, political parties, groups and organisations “who collect, analyse, and disseminate critical information as they become ‘data fiduciaries’ under the law.” 

The DPDP Act has thus been caught up in an uncomfortable paradox: praised as a significant legislative achievement for India’s digital future, but caught in a transitional phase between enactment and enforcement, where every day not only postpones protection but also feeds worries about the dwindling amount of room for accountability and transparency. 

The Muzzling Effect: Diluting Whistleblower Protections

The DPDP framework raises a number of subtle but significant issues, one of which is the possibility that it would weaken safeguards for whistleblowers. Critics argue that the Act runs the risk of trapping journalists, activists, and public interest actors who handle sensitive material while exposing wrongdoing because it expands the definition of “personal data” and places strict compliance requirements on “data fiduciaries.”One of the most important checks on state overreach may be silenced if those who speak truth to power are subject to legal retaliation in the absence of clear exclusions of robust public-interest protections.

Noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan has criticised the law for failing to protect whistleblowers, warning that “If someone exposes corruption and names officials, they could now be prosecuted for violating the DPDP Act.”

Consent Management under the DPDP Act

In June 2025, the National e-Governance Division (NeGD) under MeitY released a Business Requirement Document (BRD) for developing consent management systems under the DPDP Act, 2023. The document supports the idea of “Consent Manager”, which acts as a single point of contact between Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries. This idea is fundamental to the Act, which is now being operationalised with the help of MeitY’s “Code for Consent: The DPDP Innovation Challenge.” The government has established a collaborative ecosystem to construct consent management systems (CMS) that can serve as a single, standardised interface between Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries by choosing six distinct entities, such as Jio Platforms, IDfy, and Zoop. Such a framework could enable people to have meaningful control over their personal data, lessen consent fatigue, and move India’s consent architecture closer to international standards if it is implemented precisely and transparently. 

There is no debate to the importance of this development however, there are various concerns associated with this advancement that must be considered. Although effective, a centralised consent management system may end up being a single point of failure in terms of political overreach and technical cybersecurity flaws. Concerns are raised over the concentration of power over the framing, seeking, and recording of consent when big corporate entities like Jio are chosen as key innovators. Critics contend that the organisations responsible for generating revenue from user data should not be given the responsibility for designing the gatekeeping systems. Furthermore, the CMS can create opaque channels for data access, compromising user autonomy and whistleblower protections, in the absence of strong safeguards, transparency mechanisms and independent oversight. 

Conclusion

Despite being hailed as a turning point in India’s digital governance, the DPDP Act is still stuck in a delayed and unequal transition from promise to reality. Its goals are indisputable, but so are the conundrum it poses to accountability, openness, and civil liberties. Every delay increases public mistrust, and every safeguard that remains unsolved. The true test of a policy intended to safeguard the digital rights of millions lies not in how it was drafted, but in the integrity, pace, and transparency with which it is to be implemented. In the digital age, the true cost of delay is measured not in time, but in trust. CyberPeace calls for transparent, inclusive, and timely execution that balances innovation with the protection of digital rights.

References

• https://www.storyboard18.com/how-it-works/parliamentary-committee-raises-concern-with-meity-over-dpdp-act-implementation-lag-77105.htm 
• https://thewire.in/law/excessive-centralisation-of-power-lawyers-activists-journalists-mps-express-fear-on-dpdp-act
• https://www.medianama.com/2025/08/223-jio-idfy-meity-consent-management-systems-dpdpa/ ‍
• https://www.downtoearth.org.in/governance/centre-refuses-to-amend-dpdp-act-to-protect-journalists-whistleblowers-and-rti-activists

Recognizing As the Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology (MeitY) continues to invite proposals from academicians, institutions, and industry experts to develop frameworks and tools for AI-related issues through the IndiaAI Mission, it has also funded two AI projects that will deal with matters related to deepfakes as per a status report submitted on 21st November 2024. The Delhi court also ordered the nomination of the members of a nine-member Committee constituted by the MeitY on 20th November 2024 (to address deepfake issues) and asked for a report within three months.‍

Funded AI projects :

The two projects funded by MeitY are:

1. Fake Speech Detection Using Deep Learning Framework- The project was initiated in December 2021 and focuses on detecting fake speech by creating a web interface for detection software this also includes investing in creating a speech verification software platform that is specifically designed for testing fake speech detection systems. It is set to end in December 2024. 
2. Design and Development of Software for Detecting Deepfake Videos and Images- This project was funded by MeitY from January 2022 to March 2024. It also involved the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Kolkata and Hyderabad as they have developed a prototype tool capable of detecting deepfakes. Named FakeCheck, it is designed as a desktop application and a web portal aiming to detect deepfakes without the use of the internet. Reports suggest that it is currently undergoing the testing phase and awaiting feedback.

‍

Apart from these projects, MeitY has released their expression of interest for proposals in four other areas which include: 

• Tools that detect AI-generated content along with traceable markers,
• Tools that develop an ethical AI framework for AI systems to be transparent and respect human values,
• An AI risk management and assessment tool that analyses threats and precarious situations of AI-specific risks in public AI use cases and;
• Tools that can assess the resilience of AI in stressful situations such as cyberattacks, national disasters, operational failures, etc. 

CyberPeace Outlook

Deepfakes pose significant challenges to critical sectors in India, such as healthcare and education, where manipulated content can lead to crimes like digital impersonation, misinformation, and fraud. The rapid advancement of AI, with developments (regarding regulation) that can’t keep pace, continues to fuel such threats. Recognising these risks, MeitY’s IndiaAI mission, promoting investments and encouraging educational institutions to undertake AI projects that strengthen the country's digital infrastructure comes in as a guiding light. A part of the mission focuses on developing indigenous solutions, including tools for assessment and regulation, to address AI-related threats effectively. While India is making strides in this direction, the global AI landscape is evolving rapidly, with many nations advancing regulations to mitigate AI-driven challenges. Consistent steps, including inviting proposals and funding projects provide the much-needed impetus for the mission to be realized.

References

1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/meity-dot-at-work-on-projects-for-fair-ai-development/articleshow/115777713.cms?from=mdr
2. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/meity-seeks-tools-to-detect-deepfakes-label-ai-generated-content-101734410291642.html
3. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/meity-funds-two-ai-projects-to-detect-fake-media-forms-committee-on-deepfakes/ar-AA1vMAlJ
4. https://indiaai.gov.in/

‍

Introduction

‍

Over the last few years, several public data breaches in Venezuela have revealed a lack of cohesion and progress in its data privacy system and left many people susceptible to fraud, identity theft and long-term harm via the internet. It is clear from these data breaches that when organizations fail to adequately protect their data, both through cybersecurity failures and weak legal protections, they can lead to problems throughout an entire system through which all individuals in the system could potentially suffer.

Among the more notable breaches are the Movistar Venezuela data breach from 2025 and the Cashea App data leak from earlier this year. Each of these examples demonstrates to some extent how the absence of an adequate privacy regulatory scheme can worsen the results of a data breach.

‍

The Movistar Breach: A Regulatory Warning (2025)

‍

Venezuelan digital rights group VE Sin Filtro published a report late in April 2025, which found a database revealed to have been opened onto the internet containing personal information belonging to over 3.2 million Movistar customers. The initial breach contained personal, and confidential, data of Venezuelan citizens such as national identification numbers, full names, city of residence, and phone numbers which could have been exploited to commit identity theft, SIM-swap fraud, and targeted scams.

One significant issue with this situation was that Movistar failed to disclose the breach publicly or contact impacted customers at the time of the disclosure. As a result, there appears to be a significant gap in Sanctions / Other Means of Enforcing Security Countermeasures Laws. Since there are numerous countries that enforce GDPR-style regulations and as such, this matter should lead to a complete investigation and possible fines against those responsible but in Venezuela there is still a lack of accountability.

‍

Cashea App Leak: A 2026 Data Shock

‍

A second alleged data breach came to light in February of 2026. It involved a Venezuelan buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) fintech called Cashea App, which is typically heavily utilized domestically. Reports have circulated that threat actors have been offering a database, believed to hold more than 79 million transaction records. This is more than double the size and sensitivity of the data involved in the Movistar Breach.

According to reports, the leaked data included:

1. Bank account details and payment methods
2. Merchant profiles and internal business identifiers
3. Detailed transaction histories with names, national ID numbers, timestamps, and installment data

This level of exposure goes far beyond basic identifiers. Financial transaction histories combined with personal identifiers enable sophisticated fraud, targeted social engineering, and long-term misuse of financial identities. As with the Movistar breach, no official acknowledgment or notification was issued by Cashea at the time of reporting, again underscoring Venezuela’s weak enforcement environment.

‍

Why These Breaches Matter: The Legal Dimension

‍

The incidents show us that there is a bigger problem with the way Venezuela has set up its framework for protecting data. For instance, the Venezuelan Constitution recognises the principles of data protection and privacy; however, these rights only exist in a theoretical manner; they lack implementing legislation, procedural clarity, and institutional enforcement.

‍

Constitutional Basis of Data Protection

‍

The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) stated the core principles for protecting data are found in the Venezuelan Constitution. After the TSJ issued its 2011 ruling, Article 28 of the Venezuelan Constitution gives individuals the right to know what data the state has about them, how the state uses that data, and to correct or delete any harmful data. Article 60 of the Venezuelan Constitution protects individuals' privacy and restricts excessive data collection by the state.

The Constitutional Chamber also put into place additional guiding principles for how to protect personal data, including:

1. The data subject must give prior informed and revocable consent.
2. The purpose for which the data is collected must be specified and only the minimum amount of information necessary can be collected.
3. The data collected must be accurate and of good quality.
4. There are confidentiality obligations for third parties regarding the use of the data.
5. It is the government's responsibility to put into place procedures and mechanisms to monitor compliance with the data protection laws.
6. There are civil, criminal and administrative liabilities for individuals and legal entities that violate the data protection laws.

But, in a civil law country, when courts make rulings, they usually are persuasive only as opposed to being legally binding, and even constitutional rulings cannot be implemented until enabling legislation is passed.

‍

Absence of a Comprehensive Data Protection Law

‍

In contrast to the European Union's GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), the United States' sectoral approach, and emerging Latin American data protection systems such as the ones in Brazil, Chile and Colombia, Venezuela has no independent data protection law. This lack of law leads to numerous types of uncertainty in the realm of data protection laws:

1. No defined data controller or processor obligations
2. No standardized lawful bases for processing
3. No clear breach notification timelines
4. No independent data protection authority
5. No procedural pathway for individuals to seek redress

As a result, data protection in Venezuela is not treated as an independent legal discipline but instead becomes derivative, arising incidentally within constitutional litigation or sector-specific disputes.

‍

Regulatory Fragmentation and Institutional Weakness

‍

Due to the TSJ decisions made in 2011, there has been a lack of regulatory action taken in a systematic fashion and instead most actions have been done on a case by case basis as valid incidents arise. The National Cybersecurity Council was established in 2024; however, its function is to support the establishment of cybersecurity infrastructure and has no defined powers regarding the enforcement of privacy.

This creates a fragmented institutional landscape where:

1. Authorities lack clear jurisdiction over privacy violations
2. Companies face minimal compliance guidance
3. Individuals struggle to understand or enforce their rights

The Movistar and Cashea incidents highlight how this fragmentation translates into practical impunity following major data exposures.

‍

What’s Next? A Legal Opportunity for Reform

‍

The repercussions of insufficient safeguards for data protection extend past the damage incurred to a person's privacy:

1. Loss of trust in both financial and digital services
2. Heightened likelihood of financial fraud and crime
3. Lack of willingness from foreign companies to conduct business with Venezuela’s platforms.
4. Long-term negative impact on the reputation of domestic companies.
5. Possible inability to access cross-border transfer of data due to other jurisdictions’ decisions to restrict transfers into jurisdictions without cutting-edge enforcement of protections for privacy.

In a digital economy that increasingly requires robust data protection to function successfully, a lack of action to create strong protections will cause a significant economic impact.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Major data breaches such as the ones at Movistar in 2025 and Cashea App in 2026 show that constitutional privacy rights alone are insufficient without enforceable legal framework. Privacy laws must move from being just a principle to being a law that has institutions, procedures, and accountability to make sure the privacy of the users is protected.

Now with the global digital economy being so interconnected, not having regulations creates openings for vulnerabilities for people. If Venezuela hopes to protect their citizens, create an innovation-friendly environment, and compete in the global market, they must implement comprehensive data privacy reforms as soon as possible.

‍

REFERENCES 

‍

1. https://iapp.org/news/a/venezuela-data-breach-highlights-scattered-privacy-regulation
2. https://www.apolocybersecurity.com/en/blog-posts/ciberataque-a-movistar-que-ha-pasado-a-quien-afecta-y-como-proteger-tus-datos
3. https://darknetsearch.com/knowledge/news/en/cashea-app-data-leak-79m-records-exposed-in-venezuela/
4. https://www.binance.com/en-IN/square/post/294369884695410

‍