Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Amendment Rules, 2023

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

Introduction

India’s digital growth journey has been moving at a tremendous pace. According to MeitY’s report, India’s digital economy is expected to rise to US$ 500 billion by 2025, up from US$ 200 billion in 2019. The digitisation drive that we are experiencing is likely to foster and boost a favourable business environment that will attract rapid investment and augment economic growth across sectors. This will, in turn, compel businesses to adopt digital platforms as solutions to meet customer expectations. Due to accelerated digitisation, cyber risks often deter business growth. Cybercrimes are becoming more rampant and complex and the costs associated with such breaches are not only increasing but also becoming more systemic.

Development of the Cyber Insurance Landscape

Digitization of businesses started in the 1980s with the use of mainframes. Personal computers entered the game and further modified the landscape from the 2000s along with LANs, the internet and the dot-com boom of the 2000s. In the late 1990s, cyber-insurance was developed as a risk management tool to ensure information security. Coverage was limited, and clients included SMEs in need of insurance to qualify for tenders, or community banks too small to hedge the risks of their online banking operations. The first cyber insurance policy was written in 1997 through AIG, against hacking as a third-party liability policy. 

The current trends in the cyber insurance space are focused on the prevention of cyber risks, which by nature are hard to outline and constantly evolving. The result is that the buyers have limited clarity on the types of cyber risks covered under cyber insurance, and even lesser visibility on the scope and amount of optimum coverage. Unfamiliarity with the claim procedure and resolutions, ambiguous claim thresholds during settlements, and confusion around exclusions and coverage of regulatory fines and penalties under a purchased scheme further discourage potential buyers from seriously investing in cyber insurance products. 

Key Factors in Cyber Insurance Evolution and Its Role in Risk Management

The cyber insurance market in India has three key influencing factors, namely the speed of achieving digital maturity, government initiatives to digitise and enforce stringent cyber laws, and the evolving landscape with technology giants and MNCs entering the cyber insurance domain. The latter  are the catalyst for intensifying competition in this market. 

Advancements in technology in terms of AI, machine learning, big data, robotics, blockchain, augmented and virtual reality, and IoT are expected to reshape the insurance industry and help reach untapped audiences in a more digital-forward manner. With the absence of a standard cyber insurance policy, regulators need to take the following variables into consideration while developing cyber insurance policies: the risk insured against, the scope of the loss covered and the limits/ sub-limits.

Challenges 

With the complexity of cyber risks increasing exponentially the challenges to counter the same are growing too which is leading to gaps in the coverage offered for cyber threats. Resultantly, the compliance regulations are dependent on the risks which exist and cyber threat actors adopt new technologies faster and exploit them to their benefit. A lack of historical data and predictability in future cyber risks, the possibility of large overwhelming loss events, uncertainties among market participants about what is specifically covered under such policies, and legal battles over fundamental issues are some of the challenges identified.

Future Outlook/ Recommendations

India's cyber infrastructure requires a multi-faceted approach that involves collaboration between government, industry, and academia should be developed. Some recommendations are:

• Risk assessments should be a general practice and the cyber insurance policies should be simplified, clearing the mismatch between the premium paid and insurance coverage and there should be standard verbosity across cyber policy language.
• Promoting R&D tailored to India focused on education programs that have public-private partnerships and global collaborations to share threat intelligence, best practices, and expertise in critical infrastructure protection.
• Cyber insurance can also be promoted as compliance with the DPDP Act, which would lead to better development of cyber infrastructure and cyber hygiene practices.
• Regular updates to cyber insurance policies to ensure relevance and effectiveness. Insurers could create and offer holistic cyber insurance risk management plans.

Conclusion

According to a report by Deloitte in 2023, the cyber insurance market in India is expected to grow by 27-30 per cent in the coming years and it is currently valued at USD 50-60 million, while maintaining a steady 27-30 per cent CAGR in the past three years. The Indian cyber infrastructure’s nature is challenging, however, it offers opportunities for growth, innovation, and collaboration. A proactive approach, supported by robust policies, advanced technologies, and skilled professionals, will be essential to building a resilient cyber infrastructure capable of withstanding evolving threats.

Reference

• https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/nl/Documents/financial-services/deloitte-nl-fsi-demystifying-cyber-insurance-coverage-report.pdf
• https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-what-s-cyber-liablity-insurance-and-why-you-may-need-it-2136556‍
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/insure/cyber-insurance-gains-momentum-in-india-set-to-witness-exponential-growth-deloitte/articleshow/104189297.cms?from=mdr

About Global Commission on Internet Governance 

The Global Commission on Internet Governance was established in January 2014 with the goal of formulating and advancing a strategic vision for Internet governance going forward. Independent research on Internet-related issues of international public policy is carried out and supported over the two-year initiative. An official commission report with particular policy recommendations for the future of Internet governance will be made available as a result of this initiative.

There are two goals for the Global Commission on Internet Governance. First, it will encourage a broad and inclusive public discussion on how Internet governance will develop globally. Second, through its comprehensive policy-oriented report and the subsequent marketing of this final report, the Global Commission on Internet Governance will present its findings to key stakeholders at major Internet governance events.‍

‍The Internet: exploring the world wide web and the deep web

The Internet can be thought of as a vast networking infrastructure, or network of networks. By linking millions of computers worldwide, it creates a network that allows any two computers, provided they are both online, to speak with one another.

The Hypertext Transfer Protocol is the only language spoken over the Internet and is used by the Web to transfer data. Email, which depends on File Transfer Protocol, Usenet newsgroups, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, and instant messaging, is also used on the Internet—not the Web. Thus, even though it's a sizable chunk, the Web is only a part of the Internet [1]. In summary, the deep Web is the portion of the Internet that is not visible to the naked eye. It is stuff from the World Wide Web that isn't available on the main Web. Standard search engines cannot reach it. More than 500 times larger than the visible Web is this enormous subset of the Internet [1-2].

The Global Commission on Internet Governance will concentrate on four principal themes:

• Improving the legitimacy of government, including standards and methods for regulation;

• Promoting economic innovation and expansion, including the development of infrastructure, competition laws, and vital Internet resources; 

• Safeguarding online human rights, including establishing the idea of technological neutrality for rights to privacy, human rights, and freedom of expression;

• Preventing systemic risk includes setting standards for state behaviour, cooperating with law enforcement to combat cybercrime, preventing its spread, fostering confidence, and addressing disarmament-related issues.

Dark Web 

The part of the deep Web that has been purposefully concealed and is unreachable using conventional Web browsers is known as the "dark Web." Dark Web sites are a platform for Internet users who value their anonymity since they shield users from prying eyes and typically utilize encryption to thwart monitoring. The Tor network is a well-known source for content that may be discovered on the dark web. Only a unique Web browser known as the Tor browser is required to access the anonymous Tor network (Tor 2014). It was a technique for anonymous online communication that the US Naval Research Laboratory first introduced as The Onion Routing (Tor) project in 2002. Many of the functionality offered by Tor are also available on I2P, another network. On the other hand, I2P was intended to function as a network inside the Internet, with traffic contained within its boundaries. Better anonymous access to the open Internet is offered by Tor, while a more dependable and stable "network within the network" is provided by I2P [3].

Cybersecurity in the dark web

Cyber crime is not any different than crime in the real world — it is just executed in a new medium: “Virtual criminality’ is basically the same as the terrestrial crime with which we are familiar. To be sure, some of the manifestations are new. But a great deal of crime committed with or against computers differs only in terms of the medium. While the technology of implementation, and particularly its efficiency, may be without precedent, the crime is fundamentally familiar. It is less a question of something completely different than a recognizable crime committed in a completely different way [4].”

Dark web monitoring

The dark Web, in general, and the Tor network, in particular, offer a secure platform for cybercriminals to support a vast amount of illegal activities — from anonymous marketplaces to secure means of communication, to an untraceable and difficult to shut down infrastructure for deploying malware and botnets.

As such, it has become increasingly important for security agencies to track and monitor the activities in the dark Web, focusing today on Tor networks, but possibly extending to other technologies in the near future. Due to its intricate webbing and design, monitoring the dark Web will continue to pose significant challenges. Efforts to address it should be focused on the areas discussed below [5].

Hidden service directory of dark web

A domain database used by both Tor and I2P is based on a distributed system called a "distributed hash table," or DHT. In order for a DHT to function, its nodes must cooperate to store and manage a portion of the database, which takes the shape of a key-value store. Owing to the distributed character of the domain resolution process for hidden services, nodes inside the DHT can be positioned to track requests originating from a certain domain [6].

Conclusion

The deep Web, and especially dark Web networks like Tor (2004), offer bad actors a practical means of transacting in products anonymously and lawfully.

The absence of discernible activity in non-traditional dark web networks is not evidence of their nonexistence. As per the guiding philosophy of the dark web, the actions are actually harder to identify and monitor. Critical mass is one of the market's driving forces. It seems unlikely that operators on the black Web will require a great degree of stealth until the repercussions are severe enough, should they be caught. It is possible that certain websites might go down, have a short trading window, and then reappear, which would make it harder to look into them.

References

1. Ciancaglini, Vincenzo, Marco Balduzzi, Max Goncharov and Robert McArdle. 2013. “Deepweb and Cybercrime: It’s Not All About TOR.” Trend Micro Research Paper. October. 
2. Coughlin, Con. 2014. “How Social Media Is Helping Islamic State to Spread Its Poison.” The Telegraph, November 5. 
3. Dahl, Julia. 2014. “Identity Theft Ensnares Millions while the Law Plays Catch Up.” CBS News, July 14. 
4. Dean, Matt. 2014. “Digital Currencies Fueling Crime on the Dark Side of the Internet.” Fox Business, December 18.
5. Falconer, Joel. 2012. “A Journey into the Dark Corners of the Deep Web.” The Next Web, October 8. 
6. Gehl, Robert W. 2014. “Power/Freedom on the Dark Web: A Digital Ethnography of the Dark Web Social Network.” New Media & Society, October 15. http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/ 10/16/1461444814554900.full#ref-38.

‍