Using incognito mode and VPN may still not ensure total privacy, according to expert

Introduction

In the labyrinthine world of digital currencies, a new chapter unfolds as India intensifies its scrutiny over the ethereal realm of offshore cryptocurrency exchanges. With nuance and determination that virtually mirrors the Byzantine complexities of the very currencies they seek to regulate, Indian authorities embark on a course of stringent oversight, bringing to the fore an ever-evolving narrative of control and compliance in the fintech sector. The government's latest manoeuvre—a directive to Apple Inc. to excise the apps of certain platforms, including the colossus Binance, from its App Store in India—signals a crescendo in the nation's efforts to rein in the unbridled digital bazaar that had hitherto thrived in a semi-autonomous expanse of cyberspace.

The directive, with ramifications as significant and intricate as the cryptographic algorithms that underpin the blockchain, stems from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, which has cast eight exchanges, including Bitfinex, HTX, and Kucoin, into the shadows, rendering their apps as elusive as the Higgs boson in the vast App Store universe. The movement of these exchanges from visibility to obscurity in the digital storefront is cloaked in secrecy, with sources privy to this development remaining cloaked in anonymity, their identities as guarded as the cryptographic keys that secure blockchain transactions.

The Contention 

This escalation, however, did not manifest from the vacuum of the ether; it is the culmination of a series of precipitating actions that began unfolding on December 28th, when the Indian authorities unfurled a net over nine exchanges, ensnaring them with suspicions of malfeasance. The spectre of inaccessible funds, a byproduct of this entanglement, has since haunted Indian crypto traders, prompting a migration of deposits to local exchanges that operate within the nation's regulatory framework—a fortress against the uncertainties of the offshore crypto tempest.

The extent of the authorities' reach manifests further, beckoning Alphabet Inc.'s Google to follow in Apple's footsteps. Yet, in a display of the unpredictable nature of enforcement, the Google Play Store in India still played host to the very apps that Apple's digital Eden had forsaken as of a nondescript Wednesday afternoon, marked by the relentless march of time. The triad of power-brokers—Apple, Google, and India's technology ministry—has maintained a stance as enigmatic as the Sphinx, their communications as impenetrable as the vaults that secure the nation's precious monetary reserves.

Compounding the tightening of this digital noose, the Financial Intelligence Unit of India, a sentinel ever vigilant at the gates of financial propriety, unfurled a compliance show-cause notice to the nine offshore platforms, an ultimatum demanding they justify their elusive presence in Indian cyberspace. The FIU's decree echoed with clarity amidst the cacophony of regulatory overtures: these digital entities were tethered to operations sequestered in the shadows, skirting the reach of India's anti-money laundering edicts, their websites lingering in cyberspace like forbidden fruit, tantalisingly within reach yet potentially laced with the cyanide of non-compliance.

In this chaotic tableau of constraint and control, a glimmer of presence remains—only Bitstamp has managed to brave the regulatory storm, maintaining its presence on the Indian App Store, a lone beacon amid the turbulent sea of regimentation. Kraken, another leviathan of crypto depths, presented only its Pro version to the Indian connoisseurs of the digital marketplace. An aura of silence envelops industry giants such as Binance, Bitfinex, and KuCoin, their absence forming a void as profound as the dark side of the moon in the consciousness of Indian users. HTX, formerly known as Huobi, has announced a departure from Indian operations with the detached finality of a distant celestial body, cold and indifferent to the gravitational pull of India's regulatory orbit.

Compliances

In compliance with the provisions of the Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 and the recent uproar on crypto assessment apps, Apple store finally removed these apps namely Binance and Kucoin from the store after receiving show cause notice. The alleged illegal operation and failure to comply with existing money laundering laws are major reasons for their removal. 

The Indian Narrative 

The overarching narrative of India's embrace of rigid oversight aligns with a broader global paradigm shift, where digital financial assets are increasingly subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as their physical analogues. The persistence in imposing anti-money laundering provisions upon the crypto sector reflects this shift, with India positioning its regulatory lens in alignment with the stars of international accountability. The preceding year bore witness to seismic shifts as Indian authorities imposed a tax upon crypto transactions, a move that precipitated a downfall in trading volumes, reminiscent of Icarus's fateful flight—hubris personified as his waxen appendages succumbed to the unrelenting kiss of the sun.

On a local scale, trading powerhouses lament the imposition of a 1% levy, colloquially known as Tax Deducted at Source. This fiscal shackle drove an exodus of Indian crypto traders into the waiting, seemingly benevolent arms of offshore financial Edens, absolved of such taxational rites. As Sumit Gupta, CEO of CoinDCX, recounted, this fiscal migration witnessed the haemorrhaging of revenue. His estimation that a staggering 95% of trading volume abandoned local shores for the tranquil harbours of offshore havens punctuates the magnitude of this phenomenon.

Conclusion 

Ultimately, the story of India's proactive clampdown on offshore crypto exchanges resembles a meticulously woven tapestry of regulatory ardour, financial prudence, and the inexorable progression towards a future where digital incarnations mirror the scrutinised tangibility of physical assets. It is a saga delineating a nation's valiant navigation through the tempestuous, cryptic waters of cryptocurrency, helming its ship with unwavering determination, with eyes keenly trained on the farthest reaches of the horizon. Here, amidst the fusion of digital and corporeal realms, India charts its destiny, setting its sails towards an inextricably linked future that promises to shape the contour of the global financial landscape.

References 

• https://www.business-standard.com/markets/cryptocurrency/govt-escalates-clampdown-on-offshore-crypto-venues-like-binance-report-124011000586_1.html
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/india-escalates-clampdown-on-offshore-crypto-exchanges-like-binance-18763111.htm
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/centre-blocks-web-platforms-of-offshore-crypto-apps-binance-kucoin-and-others/articleshow/106783697.cms?from=mdr

Starting on 16th February 2025, Google changed its advertisement platform program policy. It will permit advertisers to employ device fingerprinting techniques for user tracking. Organizations that use their advertising services are now permitted to use fingerprinting techniques for tracking their users' data. Originally announced on 18th December 2024, this rule change has sparked yet another debate regarding privacy and profits.

The Issue

Fingerprinting is a technique that allows for the collection of information about a user’s device and browser details, ultimately enabling the creation of a profile of the user. Not only used for or limited to targeting advertisements, data procured in such a manner can be used by private entities and even government organizations to identify individuals who access their services. If information on customization options, such as language settings and a user’s screen size, is collected, it becomes easier to identify an individual when combined with data points like browser type, time zone, battery status, and even IP address.

What makes this technique contentious at the moment is the lack of awareness regarding the information being collected from the user and the inability to opt out once permissions are granted.

This is unlike Google’s standard system of data collection through permission requests, such as accepting website cookies—small text files sent to the browser when a user visits a particular website. While contextual and first-party cookies limit data collection to enhance user experience, third-party cookies enable the display of irrelevant advertisements while users browse different platforms. Due to this functionality, companies can engage in targeted advertising.

This issue has been addressed in laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU) and the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 (India), which mandate strict rules and regulations regarding advertising, data collection, and consent, among other things. One of the major requirements in both laws is obtaining clear, unambiguous consent. This also includes the option to opt out of previously granted permissions for cookies.

However, in the case of fingerprinting, the mechanism of data collection relies on signals that users cannot easily erase. While clearing all data from the browser or refusing cookies might seem like appropriate steps to take, they do not prevent tracking through fingerprinting, as users can still be identified using system details that a website has already collected. This applies to all IoT products as well. People usually do not frequently change the devices they use, and once a system is identified, there are no available options to stop tracking, as fingerprinting relies on device characteristics rather than data-collecting text files that could otherwise be blocked.

Google’s Changing Stance

According to Statista, Google’s revenue is largely made up of the advertisement services it provides (amounting to 264.59 billion U.S. dollars in 2024). Any change in its advertisement program policies draws significant attention due to its economic impact.

In 2019, Google claimed in a blog post that fingerprinting was a technique that “subverts user choice and is wrong.” It is in this context that the recent policy shift comes as a surprise. In response, the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office), the UK’s data privacy watchdog, has stated that this change is irresponsible. Google, however, is eager to have further discussions with the ICO regarding the policy change.

Conclusion

The debate regarding privacy in targeted advertising has been ongoing for quite some time. Concerns about digital data collection and storage have led to new and evolving laws that mandate strict fines for non-compliance.

Google’s shift in policy raises pressing concerns about user privacy and transparency. Fingerprinting, unlike cookies, offers no opt-out mechanism, leaving users vulnerable to continuous tracking without consent. This move contradicts Google’s previous stance and challenges global regulations like the GDPR and DPDP Act, which emphasize clear user consent.

With regulators like the ICO expressing disapproval, the debate between corporate profits and individual privacy intensifies. As digital footprints become harder to erase, users, lawmakers, and watchdogs must scrutinize such changes to ensure that innovation does not come at the cost of fundamental privacy rights

References

• https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/profit-over-privacy-google-gives-advertisers-more-personal-info-in-major-fingerprinting-u-turn
• https://www.ccn.com/news/technology/googles-new-fingerprinting-policy-sparks-privacy-backlash-as-ads-become-harder-to-avoid/
• https://www.emarketer.com/content/google-pivot-digital-fingerprinting-enable-better-cross-device-measurement
• https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2025/01/16/google-adopts-new-stance-on-device-fingerprinting-102ju7b
• https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2025/01/16/ico-consults-on-storage-and-access-cookies-guidance-102ju62
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm21g0052dno 
• https://www.techradar.com/features/browser-fingerprinting-explained
• https://fingerprint.com/blog/canvas-fingerprinting/
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-global-revenue/#:~:text=In%20the%20most%20recently%20reported,billion%20U.S.%20dollars%20in%202024

‍

Executive Summary:

A circulating picture which is said to be of United States President Joe Biden wearing military uniform during a meeting with military officials has been found out to be AI-generated. This viral image however falsely claims to show President Biden authorizing US military action in the Middle East. The Cyberpeace Research Team has identified that the photo is generated by generative AI and not real. Multiple visual discrepancies in the picture mark it as a product of AI.

Claims:

A viral image claiming to be US President Joe Biden wearing a military outfit during a meeting with military officials has been created using artificial intelligence. This picture is being shared on social media with the false claim that it is of President Biden convening to authorize the use of the US military in the Middle East.

Similar Post:

‍

Fact Check:

CyberPeace Research Team discovered that the photo of US President Joe Biden in a military uniform at a meeting with military officials was made using generative-AI and is not authentic. There are some obvious visual differences that plainly suggest this is an AI-generated shot.

‍

Firstly, the eyes of US President Joe Biden are full black, secondly the military officials face is blended, thirdly the phone is standing without any support.

We then put the image in Image AI Detection tool

‍

‍

The tool predicted 4% human and 96% AI, Which tells that it’s a deep fake content.

Let’s do it with another tool named Hive Detector.

‍

‍

Hive Detector predicted to be as 100% AI Detected, Which likely to be a Deep Fake Content.

Conclusion:

Thus, the growth of AI-produced content is a challenge in determining fact from fiction, particularly in the sphere of social media. In the case of the fake photo supposedly showing President Joe Biden, the need for critical thinking and verification of information online is emphasized. With technology constantly evolving, it is of great importance that people be watchful and use verified sources to fight the spread of disinformation. Furthermore, initiatives to make people aware of the existence and impact of AI-produced content should be undertaken in order to promote a more aware and digitally literate society.

• Claim: A circulating picture which is said to be of United States President Joe Biden wearing military uniform during a meeting with military officials
• Claimed on: X
• Fact Check: Fake

‍