#FactCheck-No, This Video Does Not Show Soldiers Travelling to Delhi to Support CJP Protest

The Digital Covenant: Aligning Communication with SDG Goals

“Rethinking Communication, Cyber Responsibility, and Sustainability in a Connected World”

Introduction

It is rightly said by Antonio Guterres, United Nations Secretary General, “Everyone should be able to express themselves freely without fear of attack. Everyone should be able to access a range of views and information sources.”  In 2024, when the Global Alliance for PR and Communication Management asserted that it aligns with the era of digital transformation, where technology is moving at terminal velocity and bringing various risks and threats, it called on the global leaders and stakeholders to proclaim ‘Responsible Communication’ as the 18th Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). On May 17th, as we celebrate World Telecommunication and Information Society Day (WTISD) 2025, we must align our personal, professional, and virtual spaces with a safe and sustainable information age. 

In terms of digital growth, it is indubitable that India is growing at a brisk pace consistently in alignment with its South Asian and Western counterparts and has incorporated international covenants on digital personal data and cyber crimes within its domestic regime. 

UN Global Principles for Information Integrity 

The United Nations has displayed its constant commitment to the achievement of the seventeen SDGs that were adopted at the United Nations Conference in 2012 in Rio de Janeiro. It recognises that you cannot isolate the digital transformation, technology, and digitisation from other areas that are included within the SDGs, such as health, education, and poverty. The UN released Policy Brief 8 in June 2023 by the UN Secretary-General that seeks to empirically derive data on the threats posed to information integrity and then come up with norms that help guide the member states, the digital platforms, and other stakeholders. The norms must be in conformity with the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to information access. 

In line with its agenda, it has formulated Global Principles of Information Integrity, which include “Societal Trust and Resilience”, “Healthy Incentives”, “Public Empowerment”, “Independent, Free and Pluralistic Media” and “Transparency and Research”. The principles recognise the harm caused by hatred, misinformation, and disinformation propagated by the misuse of advances in  Artificial Intelligence Technology (AI).

Breaking the Binary: Bridging the Gender Digital Divide

The reflection of how far we have come and how far we have to go can be deciphered with a single sentence, i.e., using digital technologies to promote gender equality. This can be seen both as a paradox and a pressing call to action. As we celebrate WTISD 2025, the day highlights the fundamental role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in accelerating progress and bringing those not included in this digital transformation to become a part of this change, especially the female population that remains isolated from mainstream growth. As per the data given by ITU, “Out of the world population, 70 per cent of men are using the internet, compared with 65 per cent of women.”

This exclusion is not merely a technical gap but a societal and economic chasm, reinforcing existing inequalities. By including such an important goal in the theme of this day, it marks a critical moment towards the formation of gender-sensitive digital policies, promoting digital literacy among women and girls, and ensuring safe, affordable, and meaningful connectivity. We can explore the future potential where technology is the true instrument for gender parity, not a mirror of old hierarchies. 

India and its courts have time and again proven their commitment to cultivating digital transformation as an inherent strength to bridge this digital divide, and the recent judgement where the court declared the right to digital access an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty is a single instance among many.

CyberPeace Resolution on World Telecommunication and Information Society Day 

CyberPeace is actively bridging the gap between digital safety and sustainable development through its initiatives, aligning with the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The ‘CyberPeace Corps’ empowers communities by fostering cyber hygiene awareness and building digital resilience. The ‘CyberPeace Initiative’, a project with Google.org, tackles digital misinformation, promoting informed online engagement. Additionally, Digital Shakti, now in its fifth phase, empowers women by enhancing their digital literacy and safety. These are just a few of the many impactful initiatives by CyberPeace, aimed at creating a safer and more inclusive digital future. Together, we are spreading awareness and strengthening the foundation for a safer and more inclusive digital future and promoting responsible tech use. Let us be resolute on this World Telecommunication and Information Society Day for “Clean Data. Safe Clicks. Stronger Future. Pledge to Cyber Hygiene Today!”

References

• https://www.un.org/en/observances/telecommunication-day

‍

Introduction

Discussions took place focused on cybersecurity measures, specifically addressing cybercrime in the context of emerging technologies such as Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and the Metaverse. Session 5 of the conference focused on the interconnectedness between the darknet and cryptocurrency and the challenges it poses for law enforcement agencies and regulators. They discussed that Understanding AI is necessary for enterprises. AI models have difficulties, but we are looking forward to trustworthy AIs. and AI technology must be transparent.

Darknet and Cryptocurrency

The darknet refers to the hidden part of the internet where illicit activities have proliferated in recent years. It was initially developed to provide anonymity, privacy, and protection to specific individuals such as journalists, activists, and whistleblowers. However, it has now become a playground for criminal activities. Cryptocurrency, particularly Bitcoin, has been widely adopted on the darknet due to its anonymous nature, enabling anti-money laundering and unlawful transactions.

Three major points emerge from this relationship: the integrated nature of the darknet and cryptocurrency, the need for regulations to prevent darknet-based crimes, and the importance of striking a balance between privacy and security.

Key Challenges:

1. Integrated Relations: The darknet and cryptocurrency have evolved independently, with different motives and purposes. It is crucial to understand the integrated relationship between them and how criminals exploit this connection.
2. Regulatory Frameworks: There is a need for effective regulations to prevent crimes facilitated through the darknet and cryptocurrency while striking a balance between privacy and security.
3. Privacy and Security: Privacy is a fundamental right, and any measures taken to enhance security should not infringe upon individual privacy. A multistakeholder approach involving tech companies and regulators is necessary to find this delicate balance.

Challenges Associated with Cryptocurrency Use:

The use of cryptocurrency on the darknet poses several challenges. The risks associated with darknet-based cryptocurrency crimes are a significant concern. Additionally, regulatory challenges arise due to the decentralised and borderless nature of cryptocurrencies. Mitigating these challenges requires innovative approaches utilising emerging technologies.

Preventing Misuse of Technologies:

The discussion emphasised that we can step ahead of the people who wish to use these beautiful technologies meant and developed for a different purpose, to prevent from using them for crime.

Monitoring the Darknet:

The darknet, as explained, is an elusive part of the internet that necessitates the use of a special browser for access. Initially designed for secure communication by the US government, its purpose has drastically changed over time. The darknet’s evolution has given rise to significant challenges for law enforcement agencies striving to monitor its activities.

Around 95% of the activities carried out on the dark net are associated with criminal acts. Estimates suggest that over 50% of the global cybercrime revenue originates from the dark net. This implies that approximately half of all cybercrimes are facilitated through the darknet.

The exploitation of the darknet has raised concerns regarding the need for effective regulation. Monitoring the darknet is crucial for law enforcement, national agencies, and cybersecurity companies. The challenges associated with the darknet’s exploitation and the criminal activities facilitated by cryptocurrency emphasise the pressing need for regulations to ensure a secure digital landscape.

Use of Cryptocurrency on the Darknet

Cryptocurrency plays a central role in the activities taking place on the darknet. The discussion highlighted its involvement in various illicit practices, including ransomware attacks, terrorist financing, extortion, theft, and the operation of darknet marketplaces. These applications leverage cryptocurrency’s anonymous features to enable illegal transactions and maintain anonymity.

AI's Role in De-Anonymizing the Darknet and Monitoring Challenges:

1.AI’s Potential in De-Anonymizing the Darknet

During the discussion, it was highlighted how AI could be utilised to help in de-anonymizing the darknet. AI’s pattern recognition capabilities can aid in identifying and analysing patterns of behaviour within the darknet, enabling law enforcement agencies and cybersecurity experts to gain insights into its operations. However, there are limitations to what AI can accomplish in this context. AI cannot break encryption or directly associate patterns with specific users, but it can assist in identifying illegal marketplaces and facilitating their takedown. The dynamic nature of the darknet, with new marketplaces quickly emerging, adds further complexity to monitoring efforts.

2.Challenges in Darknet Monitoring

Monitoring the darknet poses various challenges due to its vast amount of data, anonymous and encrypted nature, dynamically evolving landscape, and the need for specialised access. These challenges make it difficult for law enforcement agencies and cybersecurity professionals to effectively track and prevent illicit activities.

3.Possible Ways Forward

To address the challenges, several potential avenues were discussed. Ethical considerations, striking a balance between privacy and security, must be taken into account. Cross-border collaboration, involving the development of relevant laws and policies, can enhance efforts to combat darknet-related crimes. Additionally, education and awareness initiatives, driven by collaboration among law enforcement, government entities, and academia, can play a crucial role in combating darknet activities.

The panel also addressed the questions from the audience

• How law enforcement agencies and regulators can use AI to detect and prevent crimes on the darknet and cryptocurrency? The panel answered that- Law enforcement officers should also be AI and technology ready, and that kind of upskilling program should be there in place.
• How should lawyers and the judiciary understand the problem and regulate it? The panel answered that AI should only be applied by looking at the outcomes. And Law has to be clear as to what is acceptable and what is not.
• Aligning AI with human intention? Whether it’s possible? Whether can we create an ethical AI instead of talking about using AI ethically? The panel answered that we have to understand how to behave ethically. AI can beat any human. We have to learn AI. Step one is to focus on our ethical behaviour. And step two is bringing the ethical aspect to the software and technologies. Aligning AI with human intention and creating ethical AI is a challenge. The focus should be on ethical behaviour both in humans and in the development of AI technologies.

Conclusion

The G20 Conference on Crime and Security shed light on the intertwined relationship between the darknet and cryptocurrency and the challenges it presents to cybersecurity. The discussions emphasised the need for effective regulations, privacy-security balance, AI integration, and cross-border collaboration to tackle the rising cybercrime activities associated with the darknet and cryptocurrency. Addressing these challenges will require the combined efforts of governments, law enforcement agencies, technology companies, and individuals committed to building a safer digital landscape.

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