If WhatsApp has the most cybercrime-related cases, then why not pass the SIM Binding directive to only WhatsApp? Or to the app with the most cybercrime cases, instead of a selective or blanket order to all number-using app-based communication apps?
Notably, WhatsApp accounted for more cybercrime complaints than any other platform during the first quarter of 2024. For context, it recorded more than twice the number of complaints seen on Telegram, Instagram, or Facebook, as per official data provided by the Union Home Ministry’s Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C).
Furthermore, WhatsApp witnessed over 11 times the complaints linked to fraud originating from YouTube.
But the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), which also issued the now-revoked Sanchar Saathi mandate, mandated the SIM binding directive to only two of the above-mentioned platforms: WhatsApp and Telegram.
Additionally, the DoT also mandated this directive for apps like Signal, Arattai, Snapchat, Sharechat, Jiochat, and Josh. Specifically, ShareChat and Josh are not messaging services primarily; rather, they operate as short-video-based social networking platforms that offer private messaging features, just like Instagram or Facebook, which were excluded from serving the SIM binding directive.
Nikhil Pahwa, Editor and Founder of MediaNama, questioned the DoT’s lack of clarity on whom SIM binding should apply to during MediaNama’s recent discussion on the “Impact of SIM Binding on Social Media.”
Then, the question remains: What clear criterion is the DoT using to bring only certain applications under the SIM binding directive while excluding others?
More importantly, why not target the applications where the most fraud occurs, instead of issuing blanket directives to all mobile number-using app-based communication services?
Why Not Only Regulate ‘The Most Fraud-Prone’ App?
“Now, if you are just going to target one platform, I don’t think it will stand scrutiny. That would then be a case of discriminating against one platform while others [that] are offering similar kinds of services [are exempted],” Prasanth Sugathan, Legal Director at SFLC.in, remarked when Pahwa asked why regulators shouldn’t focus solely on the platforms with the highest number of cybercrimes.
Kamya Pandey, the moderator of the discussion, addressed the uncertainty around the SIM binding directive’s applicability to companies that did not receive the notice and asked, “Does it still apply to app-based communication service providers beyond the companies listed [in the directive] as well? Let’s say I run an app-based communication service that is not one of the companies listed. Can I then claim that my company was not listed?”
Meanwhile, Sugathan said that, “It’s like any other order: just because it doesn’t mention you by name or the company by name, that doesn’t mean it is not applicable to you.”
“The main…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
