“We have taken up the issue of using usernames because there is a serious possibility of impersonations and there is the kind of encouragement that facilitates to commit cybercrime, which is a very serious issue. This is another dimension of the way that cybercrimes can be committed, which is the reason why we have directed WhatsApp to explain why they have this feature. Similarly, we have sought explanations from others,” said Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s (MeitY) S Krishnan at a brief press interaction. Watch the video clip on ANI’s X handle.
Krishnan made this comment after MeitY reportedly sent notices to Signal, Telegram and Zoho-owned Arattai over their username features, days after directing WhatsApp to halt the public rollout of a similar feature until the “satisfaction of the Government.”
Since MeitY did not make these notices public, leaks through the media have become the primary source for understanding exactly what the government’s demands are from the platforms. You can read MeitY’s notice to WhatsApp here: [Full notice (image) | Text file].
Zoho’s Arattai to remove the username feature: While notices to Signal and Telegram are being reported in the media, Zoho-owned messaging platform Arattai said it will disable the username feature to “comply with the regulatory change.” Zoho’s Founder and CEO Sridhar Vembu announced this on X.
Why did MeitY send notices to Signal and Telegram now?
- Telegram has had a usernames feature since 2014 that allows users to contact each other without necessarily knowing their phone numbers.
- Similarly, Signal announced usernames in 2024 to ensure users’ phone numbers do not become the primary public-facing way to connect with each other.
Both features are similar to how WhatsApp intends to implement usernames. So why did MeitY send notices to these messaging platforms immediately after issuing one to WhatsApp? We don’t know.
MediaNama’s take: As both the state and Central governments attempt to strengthen their online censorship powers, these recent notices to messaging platforms, when read alongside the Delhi High Court ruling that sided with the government’s argument based on the Ministry of Home Affairs’ report on Telegram, appear to show that MeitY is expanding its authority beyond takedown or blocking orders to demanding feature-level changes from platforms. It is doing so by leveraging the threat of withdrawal of safe harbour protections under Section 79 of the IT Act to the government’s advantage, rather than using the provision for its intended purpose of protecting intermediaries from liability.
If MeitY’s misuse of the IT Act and Rules continues, platforms may have to seek a green signal from the ministry before publicly rolling out any new feature. This would amount to the digital equivalent to India’s pre-1990s licence raj.
Apart from the government’s stated public-interest cyber-safety…
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]
