#FactCheck: Old clip of Greenland tsunami depicts as tsunami in Japan

Disclaimer:

‍

This report is the collaborative outcome of insights derived from the CyberPeace Helpline’s operational statistics and the CyberPeace Research Team, covering the monthly helpline case trends of May 2025, the report identifies recurring trends, operational challenges, and strategic opportunities. The objective is to foster research-driven solutions that enhance the overall efficacy of the helpline. 

‍

Executive Summary:

‍

This report summarizes the cybercrime cases reported in May, offering insights into case types, gender distribution, resolution status, and geographic trends.

As per our analysis, out of various Cyber Frauds Financial Fraud was the most reported issue, making up 43% of cases, followed by Cyberbullying (26%) and Impersonation (14%). Less frequent but serious issues included Sexual Harassment, Sextortion, Hacking, Data Tampering, and Cyber Defamation, each accounting for 3–6%, highlighting a mix of financial and behavioral threats.The gender distribution was fairly balanced, with 51% male and 49% female respondents. While both genders were affected by major crimes like financial fraud and cyber bullying, some categories—such as sexual harassment—reflected more gender-specific risks, indicating the need for gender-responsive policies and support.

Regarding case status, 60% remain under follow-up while 40% have been resolved, reflecting strong case-handling efforts by the team.

The location-wise data shows higher case concentrations in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and West Bengal, with significant reports also from Delhi, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Odisha. Reports from the northeastern and eastern states confirm the nationwide spread of cyber incidents.In conclusion, the findings point to a growing need for enhanced cybersecurity awareness, preventive strategies, and robust digital safeguards to address the evolving cyber threat landscape across India.

‍

Cases Received in May:

‍

As per the given dataset, the following types of cases were reported to our team during the month of May:

‍

• 💰 Financial Fraud – 43%
• 💬 Cyber Bullying – 26%
• 🕵️‍♂️ Impersonation – 14%
• 🚫 Sexual Harassment – 6%
• 📸 Sextortion – 3%
• 💻 Hacking – 3%
• 📝 Data Tampering – 3%
• 🗣️ Cyber Defamation – 3%

‍

‍

‍

The chart illustrates various cybercrime categories and their occurrence rates. Financial Fraud emerges as the most common, accounting for 43% of cases, highlighting the critical need for stronger digital financial security. This is followed by Cyber Bullying at 26%, reflecting growing concerns around online harassment, especially among youth. Impersonation ranks third with 14%, involving identity misuse for deceitful purposes. Less frequent but still serious crimes such as Sexual Harassment (6%), Sextortion, Hacking, Data Tampering, and Cyber Defamation (each 3%) also pose significant risks to users’ privacy and safety. Overall, the data underscores the need for improved cybersecurity awareness, legal safeguards, and preventive measures to address both financial and behavioral threats in the digital space.

‍

Gender-Wise Distribution:

‍

• 👨 Male – 51%
• 👩 Female – 49%

‍

‍

‍

The chart illustrates the distribution of respondents by gender. The data shows that Male participants make up 51% of the total, while Female participants account for 49%. This indicates a fairly balanced representation of both genders, with a slight majority of male respondents.

‍

Gender-Wise Case Distribution:

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

1. The chart presents a gender-wise distribution of various cybercrime cases, offering a comparative view of how different types of cyber incidents affect males and females.
2. It highlights that both genders are significantly impacted by cybercrimes such as financial fraud and cyber bullying, indicating a widespread risk across the board.
3. Certain categories, including sexual harassment, cyber defamation, and hacking, show more gender-specific patterns of victimization, pointing to differing vulnerabilities.
4. The data suggests the need for gender-sensitive policies and preventive measures to effectively address the unique risks faced by males and females in the digital space.
5. These insights can inform the design of tailored awareness programs, support services, and intervention strategies aimed at improving cybersecurity for all individuals.

‍

‍Major Location Wise Distribution:

‍

The map visualization displays location-wise distribution of reported cases across India. The cases reflect the cyber-related incidents or cases mapped geographically.

‍

‍

The map highlights the regional distribution of cybercrime cases across Indian states, with a higher concentration in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and West Bengal. States like Delhi, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Odisha also show notable activity, indicating widespread cyber threats. Regions including Assam, Tripura, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Jammu & Kashmir further reflect the pan-India spread of such incidents. This distribution stresses the need for targeted cybersecurity awareness and stronger digital safeguards nationwide

‍

CyberPeace Advisory:

‍

• Use Strong and Unique Passwords: Create complex passwords using a mix of letters, numbers, and symbols. Avoid reusing the same password across multiple platforms.
  
• Enable Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Add an extra layer of security by using a second verification step like an OTP or authentication app.
  
• Keep Software Updated: Regularly update your operating system, apps, and security tools to protect against known vulnerabilities.
  
• Install Trusted Security Software: Use reliable antivirus and anti-malware programs to detect and block threats.
  
• Limit Information Sharing: Be cautious about sharing personal or sensitive details, especially on social media or public platforms.
  
• Secure Your Network: Protect your Wi-Fi with a strong password and encryption. Avoid accessing confidential information on public networks.
  
• Back Up Important Data: Regularly save copies of important files in secure storage to prevent data loss in case of an attack.
  
• Stay Informed with Cybersecurity Training: Learn how to identify scams, phishing attempts, and other online threats through regular awareness sessions.
  
• Control Access to Data: Give access to sensitive information only to those who need it, based on their job roles.
• ‍Monitor and Respond to Threats: Continuously monitor systems for unusual activity and have a clear response plan for handling security incidents.

‍

• CyberPeace Helpline mail ID:  helpline@cyberpeace.net
• CyberPeace Helpline Number:  9570000066
• Central Government Helpline: https://cybercrime.gov.in/
• Central Government Helpline Number: 1930

‍

Conclusion

The cybercrime cases reported in May highlight a diverse and evolving threat landscape across India. Financial fraud, cyber bullying, and impersonation are the most prevalent, affecting both genders almost equally, though some crimes like sexual harassment call for targeted gender-sensitive measures. With 60% of cases still under follow-up, the team’s efforts in investigation and resolution remain strong. Geographically, cyber incidents are widespread, with higher concentrations in several key states, demonstrating that no region is immune. These findings underscore the urgent need to enhance cybersecurity awareness, strengthen preventive strategies, and build robust digital safeguards. Proactive and inclusive approaches are essential to protect individuals and communities and to address the growing challenges posed by cybercrime nationwide.

‍

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

Recently, a Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanisms for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services was published by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The paper explores several OTT regulation-related challenges and solicits input from stakeholders on a suggested regulatory framework. We’ll summarise the paper’s main conclusions in this blog.

Structure of the Paper

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanism for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services and Selective Banning of OTT Services intends to solicit comments and recommendations from stakeholders about the regulation of OTT services in India. The paper is broken up into five chapters that cover the introduction and background, issues with regulatory mechanisms for OTT communication services, issues with the selective banning of OTT services, a summary of the issues for consultation, and an overview of international practices on the topic. Written comments from interested parties are requested and may be sent electronically to the Advisor (Networks, Spectrum and Licencing) at TRAI. These comments will also be posted on the TRAI website.

Overview of the Paper

• Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

• The first chapter of the essay introduces the subject of OTT communication services and argues why regulatory frameworks are necessary. The chapter also gives a general outline of the topics and the paper’s organisation that will be covered in the following chapters.

• Chapter 2: Examination of the Issues Related to Regulatory Mechanism for Over-The-Top Communication Services

• The second chapter of the essay looks at the problems with OTT communication service regulation. It talks about the many kinds of OTT services and how they affect the conventional telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the regulatory issues raised by OTT services and the various strategies used by various nations to address them.

• Chapter 3: Examination of the Issues Related to Selective Banning of OTT Services

• The final chapter of the essay looks at the problems of selectively outlawing OTT services. It analyses the justifications for government restrictions on OTT services as well as the possible effects of such restrictions on consumers and the telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the legal and regulatory structures that determine how OTT services are prohibited in various nations.

• Chapter 4: International Practices

• An overview of global OTT communication service best practices is given in the paper’s fourth chapter. It talks about the various regulatory strategies used by nations throughout the world and how they affect consumers and the telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the difficulties regulators encounter when trying to create efficient regulatory frameworks for OTT services.

• Chapter 5: Issues for Consultation

• This chapter is the spirit of the consultation paper as it covers the points and questions for consultation. This chapter has been classified into two sub-sections – Issues Related to Regulatory Mechanisms for OTT Communication Services and Issues Related to the Selective Banning of OTT Services. The inputs will be entirely focused on these sub headers, and the scope, extent, and ambit of the consultation paper rests on these questions and necessary inputs.

Conclusion

An important publication that aims to address the regulatory issues raised by OTT services is the Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanisms for Over-The-Top Communication Services. The paper offers a thorough analysis of the problems with OTT service regulation and requests input from stakeholders on the suggested regulatory structure. In order to make sure that the regulatory framework is efficient and advantageous for everyone, it is crucial for all stakeholders to offer their opinion on the document.