The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is working on common standards for messaging platforms operating in India as it moves to formally oppose WhatsApp’s proposed username feature, a government official told Hindustan Times.
The ministry opposes the feature over concerns it could fuel impersonation, online fraud, and digital arrest scams while making law enforcement investigations harder. “We are not in favour of WhatsApp introducing this feature. Given its massive user base in India, usernames could make impersonation, digital arrest scams, online fraud and even investigations by law enforcement more difficult,” the official told the publication.
Why does MeitY want common standards? The ministry has stopped one platform’s feature while rivals offer the same thing, with no rule that explicitly permits or denies such action. “It cannot be that we stop one platform from rolling out a feature while allowing others to continue offering the same thing. The rules have to be uniform for everyone. We will discuss this with all messaging platforms before taking a final decision,” the official said. The stated aim is legal backing for decisions the ministry is already taking.
MediaNama’s Take:
- Has MeitY even defined what a “messaging platform” is? The justification for the standards is that rules should cover everyone, not just WhatsApp. Yet the IT Rules contain no such category. When MeitY moved to regulate real-money gaming in 2023, it amended the Rules to define “online gaming intermediary” and attach obligations to it. It has taken no such step for messaging. Connecting with strangers without sharing a phone number is not unique to messaging apps. It is how email has always worked, and how Discord, Roblox, Xbox and PlayStation work too, all of which carry the same impersonation risk MeitY cites for WhatsApp. A standard narrow enough to spare them is not uniform. One wide enough to catch them reaches email and gaming networks the ministry has never treated as messaging platforms. Either way, “uniform for everyone” rests on a category the ministry has not drawn.
- Does MeitY have the legal power to do this? MeitY already issues binding directions to intermediaries under Rule 3(4) of the IT Rules, with non-compliance risking safe harbour. But Section 87(1) of the IT Act confines the government to making rules that “carry out the provisions” of the Act. It does not let the ministry hand itself a standing power to create new obligations through advisories and standards that never reach Parliament. A feature-approval regime built on that base rests on contested ground, the same overreach as MeitY’s 2024 advisory requiring government sign-off before deploying certain artificial intelligence (AI) models, which it withdrew within a fortnight.
- Can consulting platforms make it lawful? MeitY says it will discuss the standards with all messaging apps first. That decides what the…
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]
