Twitter Verification Backlash: Blue Tick Controversy
Introduction
Twitter is a popular social media plate form with millions of users all around the world. Twitter’s blue tick system, which verifies the identity of high-profile accounts, has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. The platform must face backlash from its users and brands who have accused it of basis, inaccuracy, and inconsistency in its verification process. This blog post will explore the questions raised on the verification process and its impact on users and big brands.
What is Twitter’s blue trick System?
The blue tick system was introduced in 2009 to help users identify the authenticity of well-known public figures, Politicians, celebrities, sportspeople, and big brands. The Twitter blue Tick system verifies the identity of high-profile accounts to display a blue badge next to your username.
According to a survey, roughly there are 294,000 verified Twitter Accounts which means they have a blue tick badge with them and have also paid the subscription for the service, which is nearly $7.99 monthly, so think about those subscribers who have paid the amount and have also lost their blue badge won’t they feel cheated?
The Controversy
Despite its initial aim, the blue tick system has received much criticism from consumers and brands. Twitter’s irregular and non-transparent verification procedure has sparked accusations of prejudice and inaccuracy. Many Twitter users have complained that the network’s verification process is random and favours account with huge followings or celebrity status. In contrast, others have criticised the platform for certifying accounts that promote harmful or controversial content.
Furthermore, the verification mechanism has generated user confusion, as many need to understand the significance of the blue tick badge. Some users have concluded that the blue tick symbol represents a Twitter endorsement or that the account is trustworthy. This confusion has resulted in users following and engaging with verified accounts that promote misleading or inaccurate data, undermining the platform’s credibility.
How did the Blue Tick Row start in India?
On 21 May 2021, when the government asked Twitter to remove the blue badge from several profiles of high-profile Indian politicians, including the Indian National Congress Party Vice-President Mr Rahul Ghandhi.
The blue badge gives the users an authenticated identity. Many celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan, popularly known as Big B, Vir Das, Prakash Raj, Virat Kohli, and Rohit Sharma, have lost their blue tick despite being verified handles.
What is the Twitter policy on blue tick?
To Twitter’s policy, blue verification badges may be removed from accounts if the account holder violates the company’s verification policy or terms of service. In such circumstances, Twitter typically notifies the account holder of the removal of the verification badge and the reason for the removal. In the instance of the “Twitter blue badge row” in India, however, it appears that Twitter did not notify the impacted politicians or their representatives before revoking their verification badges. Twitter’s lack of communication has exacerbated the controversy around the episode, with some critics accusing the company of acting arbitrarily and not following due process.
Is there a solution?
The “Twitter blue badge row” has no simple answer since it involves a complex convergence of concerns about free expression, social media policies, and government laws. However, here are some alternatives:
- Establish clear guidelines: Twitter should develop and constantly implement clear guidelines and policies for the verification process. All users, including politicians and government officials, would benefit from greater transparency and clarity.
- Increase transparency: Twitter’s decision-making process for deleting or restoring verification badges should be more open. This could include providing explicit reasons for badge removal, notifying impacted users promptly, and offering an appeals mechanism for those who believe their credentials were removed unfairly.
- Engage in constructive dialogue: Twitter should engage in constructive dialogue with government authorities and other stakeholders to address concerns about the platform’s content moderation procedures. This could contribute to a more collaborative approach to managing online content, leading to more effective and accepted policies.
- Follow local rules and regulations: Twitter should collaborate with the Indian government to ensure it conforms to local laws and regulations while maintaining freedom of expression. This could involve adopting more precise standards for handling requests for material removal or other actions from governments and other organisations.
Conclusion
To sum up, the “Twitter blue tick row” in India has highlighted the complex challenges that Social media faces daily in handling the conflicting interests of free expression, government rules, and their own content moderation procedures. While Twitter’s decision to withdraw the blue verification badges of several prominent Indian politicians garnered anger from the government and some public members, it also raised questions about the transparency and uniformity of Twitter’s verification procedure. In order to deal with this issue, Twitter must establish clear verification procedures and norms, promote transparency in its decision-making process, participate in constructive communication with stakeholders, and adhere to local laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Indian government should collaborate with social media platforms to create more effective and acceptable laws that balance the necessity for free expression and the protection of citizens’ rights. The “Twitter blue tick row” is just one example of the complex challenges that social media platforms face in managing online content, and it emphasises the need for greater collaboration among platforms, governments, and civil society organisations to develop effective solutions that protect both free expression and citizens’ rights.
Related Blogs
Introduction
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), on March 13 2023, published a new rule to regulate telemarketing firms. Trai has demonstrated strictness when it comes to bombarding users with intrusive marketing pitches. In a report, TRAI stated that 10-digit mobile numbers could not be utilised for advertising. In reality, different phone numbers are given out for regular calls and telemarketing calls. Hence, it is an appropriate and much-required move in order to suppress and eradicate phishing scammers and secure the Indian Cyber-ecosystem at large.
What are the new rules?
The rules state that now 10-digit unregistered mobile numbers for promotional purposes would be shut down over the following five days. The rule claim that calling from unregistered mobile numbers had been banned was published on February 16. In this case, using 10-digit promotional messages for promotional calling will end within the following five days. This step by TRAI has been seen after nearly 6-8 months of releasing the Telecommunication Bill, 2022, which has focused towards creating a stable Indian Telecom market and reducing the phoney calls/messages by bad actors to reduce cyber crimes like phishing. This is done to distinguish between legitimate and promotional calls. According to certain reports, some telecom firms allegedly break the law by using 10-digit mobile numbers to make unwanted calls and send promotional messages. All telecom service providers must execute the requirements under the recent TRAI directive within five days.
How will the new rules help?
The promotional use of a cellphone number with 10 digits was allowed since the start, however, with the latest NCRB report on cyber crimes and the rising instances and reporting of cyber crimes primarily focused towards frauds related to monetary gains by the bad actors points to the issue of unregulated promotional messages. This move will act as a critical step towards eradicating scammers from the cyber-ecosystem, TRAI has been very critical in understanding the dynamics and shortcomings in the regulation of the telecom spectrum and network in India and has shown keen interest towards suppressing the modes of technology used by the scammers. It is a fact that the invention of the technology does not define its use, the policy of the technology does, hence it is important to draft ad enact policies which better regulate the existing and emerging technologies.
What to avoid?
In pursuance of the rules enacted by TRAI, the business owners involved in promotional services through 10-digit numbers will have to follow these steps-
- It is against the law to utilise a 10-digit cellphone number for promotional calls.
- You should stop doing so right now.
- Your mobile number will be blocked in the following five days if not.
- Users employed by telemarketing firms are encouraged to refrain from using the system in such circumstances.
- Those working for telemarketing firms are encouraged not to call from their mobile numbers.
- Users should phone the company’s registered mobile number for promotional purposes.
Conclusion
The Indian netizen has been exposed to the technology a little later than the western world. However, this changed drastically during the Covid-19 pandemic as the internet and technology penetration rates increased exponentially in just a couple of months. Although this has been used as an advantage by the bad actors, it was pertinent for the government and its institutions to take an effective and efficient step to safeguard the people from financial fraud. Although these frauds occur in high numbers due to a lack of knowledge and awareness, we need to work on preventive solutions rather than precautionary steps and the new rules by TRAI point towards a safe, secured and sustainable future of cyberspace in India.
Introduction
Assisted Reproductive Technology (“ART”) refers to a diverse set of medical procedures designed to aid individuals or couples in achieving pregnancy when conventional methods are unsuccessful. This umbrella term encompasses various fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), and gamete and embryo manipulation. ART procedures involve the manipulation of both male and female reproductive components to facilitate conception.
The dynamic landscape of data flows within the healthcare sector, notably in the realm of ART, demands a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between privacy regulations and medical practices. In this context, the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011, play a pivotal role, designating health information as "sensitive personal data or information" and underscoring the importance of safeguarding individuals' privacy. This sensitivity is particularly pronounced in the ART sector, where an array of personal data, ranging from medical records to genetic information, is collected and processed. The recent Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, in conjunction with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, establishes a framework for the regulation of ART clinics and banks, presenting a layered approach to data protection.
A note on data generated by ART
Data flows in any sector are scarcely uniform and often not easily classified under straight-jacket categories. Consequently, mapping and identifying data and its types become pivotal. It is believed that most data flows in the healthcare sector are highly sensitive and personal in nature, which may severely compromise the privacy and safety of an individual if breached. The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules”) categorizes any information pertaining to physical, physiological, mental conditions or medical records and history as “sensitive personal data or information”; this definition is broad enough to encompass any data collected by any ART facility or equipment. These include any information collected during the screening of patients, pertaining to ovulation and menstrual cycles, follicle and sperm count, ultrasound results, blood work etc. It also includes pre-implantation genetic testing on embryos to detect any genetic abnormality.
But data flows extend beyond mere medical procedures and technology. Health data also involves any medical procedures undertaken, the amount of medicine and drugs administered during any procedure, its resultant side effects, recovery etc. Any processing of the above-mentioned information, in turn, may generate more personal data points relating to an individual’s political affiliations, race, ethnicity, genetic data such as biometrics and DNA etc.; It is seen that different ethnicities and races react differently to the same/similar medication and have different propensities to genetic diseases. Further, it is to be noted that data is not only collected by professionals but also by intelligent equipment like AI which may be employed by any facility to render their service. Additionally, dissemination of information under exceptional circumstances (e.g. medical emergency) also affects how data may be classified. Considerations are further nuanced when the fundamental right to identity of a child conceived and born via ART may be in conflict with the fundamental right to privacy of a donor to remain anonymous.
Intersection of Privacy laws and ART laws:
In India, ART technology is regulated by the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (“ART Act”). With this, the Union aims to regulate and supervise assisted reproductive technology clinics and ART banks, prevent misuse and ensure safe and ethical practice of assisted reproductive technology services. When read with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and other ancillary guidelines, the two legislations provide some framework regulations for the digital privacy of health-based apps.
The ART Act establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Registry (“National Registry”) which acts as a central database for all clinics and banks and their nature of services. The Act also establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board (“National Board”) under the Surrogacy Act to monitor the implementation of the act and advise the central government on policy matters. It also supervises the functioning of the National Registry, liaises with State Boards and curates a code of conduct for professionals working in ART clinics and banks. Under the DPDP Act, these bodies (i.e. National Board, State Board, ART clinics and banks) are most likely classified as data fiduciaries (primarily clinics and banks), data processors (these may include National Board and State boards) or an amalgamation of both (these include any appropriate authority established under the ART Act for investigation of complaints, suspend or cancellation of registration of clinics etc.) depending on the nature of work undertaken by them. If so classified, then the duties and liabilities of data fiduciaries and processors would necessarily apply to these bodies. As a result, all bodies would necessarily have to adopt Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) and other organizational measures to ensure compliance with privacy laws in place. This may be considered one of the most critical considerations of any ART facility since any data collected by them would be sensitive personal data pertaining to health, regulated by the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules 2011”). These rules provide for how sensitive personal data or information are to be collected, handled and processed by anyone.
The ART Act independently also provides for the duties of ART clinics and banks in the country. ART clinics and banks are required to inform the commissioning couple/woman of all procedures undertaken and all costs, risks, advantages, and side effects of their selected procedure. It mandatorily ensures that all information collected by such clinics and banks to not informed to anyone except the database established by the National Registry or in cases of medical emergency or on order of court. Data collected by clinics and banks (these include details on donor oocytes, sperm or embryos used or unused) are required to be detailed and must be submitted to the National Registry online. ART banks are also required to collect personal information of donors including name, Aadhar number, address and any other details. By mandating online submission, the ART Act is harmonized with the DPDP Act, which regulates all digital personal data and emphasises free, informed consent.
Conclusion
With the increase in active opt-ins for ART, data privacy becomes a vital consideration for all healthcare facilities and professionals. Safeguard measures are not only required on a corporate level but also on a governmental level. It is to be noted that in the 262 Session of the Rajya Sabha, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology reported 165 data breach incidents involving citizen data from January 2018 to October 2023 from the Central Identities Data Repository despite publicly denying. This discovery puts into question the safety and integrity of data that may be submitted to the National Registry database, especially given the type of data (both personal and sensitive information) it aims to collate. At present the ART Act is well supported by the DPDP Act. However, further judicial and legislative deliberations are required to effectively regulate and balance the interests of all stakeholders.
References
- The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011
- Caring for Intimate Data in Fertility Technologies https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3411764.3445132
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
- https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/pharmacogenomics-and-race-can-heritage-affect-drug-disposition
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
