#FactCheck - Debunking Manipulated Photos of Smiling Secret Service Agents During Trump Assassination Attempt

Introduction

In 2022, Oxfam’s India Inequality report revealed the worsening digital divide, highlighting that only 38% of households in the country are digitally literate. Further, only 31% of the rural population uses the internet, as compared to 67% of the urban population. Over time, with the increasing awareness about the importance of digital privacy globally, the definition of digital divide has translated into a digital privacy divide, whereby different levels of privacy are afforded to different sections of society. This further promotes social inequalities and impedes access to fundamental rights.

Digital Privacy Divide: A by-product of the digital divide

The digital divide has evolved into a multi-level issue from its earlier interpretations; level I implies the lack of physical access to technologies, level II refers to the lack of digital literacy and skills and recently, level III relates to the impacts of digital access. Digital Privacy Divide (DPD) refers to the various gaps in digital privacy protection provided to users based on their socio-demographic patterns. It forms a subset of the digital divide, which involves uneven distribution, access and usage of information and communication technology (ICTs). Typically, DPD exists when ICT users receive distinct levels of digital privacy protection. As such, it forms a part of the conversation on digital inequality. 

Contrary to popular perceptions, DPD, which is based on notions of privacy, is not always based on ideas of  individualism and collectivism and may constitute internal and external factors at the national level. A study on the impacts of DPD conducted in the U.S., India, Bangladesh and Germany highlighted that respondents in Germany and Bangladesh expressed more concerns about their privacy compared to respondents in the U.S. and India. This suggests that despite the U.S. having a strong tradition of individualistic rights, that is reflected in internal regulatory frameworks such as the Fourth Amendment, the topic of data privacy has not garnered enough interest from the population. Most individuals consider forgoing the right to privacy as a necessary evil to access many services, and schemes and to stay abreast with technological advances. Research shows that 62%- 63% of Americans believe that companies and the government collecting data have become an inescapable necessary evil in modern life. Additionally, 81% believe that they have very little control over what data companies collect and about 81% of Americans believe that the risk of data collection outweighs the benefits. Similarly, in Japan, data privacy is thought to be an adopted concept emerging from international pressure to regulate, rather than as an ascribed right, since collectivism and collective decision-making are more valued in Japan, positioning the concept of privacy as subjective, timeserving and an idea imported from the West.

Regardless, inequality in privacy preservation often reinforces social inequality. Practices like surveillance that are geared towards a specific group highlight that marginalised communities are more likely to have less data privacy. As an example, migrants, labourers, persons with a conviction history and marginalised racial groups are often subject to extremely invasive surveillance under suspicions of posing threats and are thus forced to flee their place of birth or residence. This also highlights the fact that focus on DPD is not limited to those who lack data privacy but also to those who have (either by design or by force) excess privacy. While on one end, excessive surveillance, carried out by both governments and private entities, forces immigrants to wait in deportation centres during the pendency of their case, the other end of the privacy extreme hosts a vast number of undocumented individuals who avoid government contact for fear of deportation, despite noting high rates of crime victimization.

DPD is also noted among groups with differential knowledge and skills in cyber security. For example, in India, data privacy laws mandate that information be provided on order of a court or any enforcement agency. However, individuals with knowledge of advanced encryption are adopting communication channels that have encryption protocols that the provider cannot control (and resultantly able to exercise their right to privacy more effectively),  in contrast with individuals who have little knowledge of encryption, implying a security as well as an intellectual divide. While several options for secure communication exist, like Pretty Good Privacy, which enables encrypted emailing, they are complex and not easy to use in addition to having negative reputations, like the Tor Browser. Cost considerations also are a major factor in propelling DPD since users who cannot afford devices like those by Apple, which have privacy by default, are forced to opt for devices that have relatively poor in-built encryption. 

Children remain the most vulnerable group. During the pandemic, it was noted that only 24% of Indian households had internet facilities to access e-education and several reported needing to access free internet outside of their homes. These public networks are known for their lack of security and privacy, as traffic can be monitored by the hotspot operator or others on the network if proper encryption measures are not in place. Elsewhere, students without access to devices for remote learning have limited alternatives and are often forced to rely on Chromebooks and associated Google services. In response to this issue, Google provided free Chromebooks and mobile hotspots to students in need during the pandemic, aiming to address the digital divide. However, in 2024, New Mexico was reported to be suing Google for allegedly collecting children’s data through its educational products provided to the state's schools, claiming that it tracks students' activities on their personal devices outside of the classroom. It signified the problems in ensuring the privacy of lower-income students while accessing basic education.

Policy Recommendations

Digital literacy is one of the critical components in bridging the DPD. It enables individuals to gain skills, which in turn effectively addresses privacy violations. Studies show that low-income users remain less confident in their ability to manage their privacy settings as compared to high-income individuals. Thus, emphasis should be placed not only on educating on technology usage but also on privacy practices since it aims to improve people’s Internet skills and take informed control of their digital identities.

In the U.S., scholars have noted the role of libraries and librarians in safeguarding intellectual privacy. The Library Freedom Project, for example, has sought to ensure that the skills and knowledge required to ensure internet freedoms are available to all. The Project channelled one of the core values of the library profession i.e. intellectual freedom, literacy, equity of access to recorded knowledge and information, privacy and democracy. As a result, the Project successfully conducted workshops on internet privacy for the public and also openly objected to the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to shut down the use of encryption technologies in libraries. The International Federation of Library Association adopted a Statement of Privacy in the Library Environment in 2015 that specified “when libraries and information services provide access to resources, services or technologies that may compromise users’ privacy, libraries should encourage users to be aware of the implications and provide guidance in data protection and privacy.” The above should be used as an indicative case study for setting up similar protocols in inclusive public institutions like Anganwadis, local libraries, skill development centres and non-government/non-profit organisations in India, where free education is disseminated. The workshops conducted must inculcate two critical aspects; firstly, enhancing the know-how of using public digital infrastructure and popular technologies (thereby de-alienating technology) and secondly, shifting the viewpoint of privacy as a right an individual has and not something that they own.

However, digital literacy should not be wholly relied on, since it shifts the responsibility of privacy protection to the individual, who may not either be aware or cannot be controlled. Data literacy also does not address the larger issue of data brokers, consumer profiling, surveillance etc. Resultantly, an obligation on companies to provide simplified privacy summaries, in addition to creating accessible, easy-to-use technical products and privacy tools,  should be necessitated. Most notable legislations address this problem by mandating notices and consent for collecting personal data of users, despite slow enforcement. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in India aims to address DPD by not only mandating valid consent but also ensuring that privacy policies remain accessible in local languages, given the diversity of the population.

References

• https://idronline.org/article/inequality/indias-digital-divide-from-bad-to-worse/ 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02669 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.07936#:~:text=The%20DPD%20index%20is%20a,(33%20years%20and%20over). 
• https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• /https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6265&context=law_lawreview 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• https://bosniaca.nub.ba/index.php/bosniaca/article/view/488/pdf 
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/just-24-of-indian-households-have-internet-facility-to-access-e-education-unicef/story-a1g7DqjP6lJRSh6D6yLJjL.html 
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/05/the-pandemic-has-unmasked-the-digital-privacy-divide/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/Privacy%20protection%20in%20Japan.pdf 
• https://socialchangenyu.com/review/the-surveillance-gap-the-harms-of-extreme-privacy-and-data-marginalization/ 

Introduction 

In recent years, the online gaming sector has seen tremendous growth and is one of the fastest-growing components of the creative economy, contributing significantly to innovation, employment generation and export earnings. India possesses a large pool of skilled young professionals, strong technological capabilities and a rapidly growing domestic market, which together provide an opportunity for the country to assume a leadership role in the global value chain of online gaming. With this, the online gaming industry has also faced an environment of exploitation, abuse, with notable cases of fraud, money laundering, and other emerging cybercrimes. In order to protect the interests of players, ensure fair play and competition, safe and secure online gaming environment, the need for introducing and establishing dedicated gaming regulation was a need of the hour. 

On 20 August 2025, the Union government introduced a new bill, ‘Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025’ in Lok Sabha that seeks to prohibit online money gaming, including advertisements and financial transactions related to such platforms. From the introduction, the said bill was passed at 5 PM on the same date. Further, the upper house of parliament (Rajya Sabha) passed the bill on 21st August 2025. The bill can be seen as a progressive step towards building safer online gaming spaces for everyone, especially for our youth and combating the emerging cybercrime threats present in the online gaming landscape.

Key Highlights of the Bill

The Bill extends to the whole of India. It also applies to any online money gaming service offered within India or operated from outside the country but accessible in India.

‍

1. Definition of E-sports:

Section 2(1)(c) of the Bill defines e-sports as:-

(i)  is played as part of multi-sports events; 

(ii) involves organised competitive events between individuals or teams, conducted in multiplayer formats governed by predefined rules; 

(iii) is duly recognised under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, and registered with the Authority or agency under section 3; 

(iv) has outcome determined solely by factors such as physical dexterity, mental agility, strategic thinking or other similar skills of users as players; 

(v) may include payment of registration or participation fees solely for the purpose of entering the competition or covering administrative costs and may include performance-based prize money by the player; and 

(vi)shall not involve the placing of bets, wagers or any other stakes by any person, whether or not such person is a participant, including any winning out of such bets, wagers or any other stakes; 

2. Prohibition of Online Money Gaming and Advertisement thereof
   The Bill prohibits the offering of online money games and online money gaming services. It also bans all forms of advertisements or promotions connected to online money games. This includes endorsements by individuals or entities.
3. Financial Transactions
   Banks, financial institutions, and other intermediaries are barred from facilitating transactions related to online money gaming services.
4. Criminal Liability
   Violation of the provisions on online money gaming can result in imprisonment for up to three years, or a fine of up to ₹1 crore, or both. Repeat offenders face stricter punishment with higher fines and longer jail terms.
5. Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offences
   Offences relating to offering online money gaming services and facilitating financial transactions for such games are categorised as cognizable and non-bailable. This gives law enforcement agencies greater power to act without requiring prior approval.

‍

In conversation with CyberPeace ~

Shailendra Vikram Singh, Former Deputy Secretary (Cyber & Information Security), Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI . He highlighted that

"The passage of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha highlights the government’s growing priority on national security, public safety, and health in digital regulation. Unfortunately, the real money gaming industry, despite its growth and promise, did not take proactive steps to address these concerns. The absence of safeguards and engagement left the government with no choice but to adopt a blanket ban."Having worked on this issue from both the government and industry side, the clear lesson is that in sensitive digital sectors, early regulatory alignment and constructive dialogue are not optional but essential. Going forward, collaboration is the only way to achieve a balance between innovation and responsibility.”

‍

CyberPeace Outlook

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, marks a decisive policy shift by simultaneously fostering the growth of e-sports, educational and social gaming, and imposing an absolute prohibition on online money games. By recognising e-sports as legitimate, skill-based competitive sports under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, and establishing a central Authority for oversight, registration, and regulation, the Bill creates an institutional framework for safe and responsible development of the sector.  The Bill completely bans real money games (RMGs), regardless of whether they are skill-based or chance-based or both, hence it poses significant questions on RMG companies' legal standing, upon which the gaming industry has raised its conundrum. Further, it addresses urgent threats such as cybercrime, gaming addiction, online betting, money laundering, and the misuse of gaming platforms for illicit activities. The move reflects a balanced approach, encouraging innovation and digital skill-building, while safeguarding public order, consumer interests, and financial integrity.

References

1. https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2025/Bill_Text-Online_Gaming_Bill_2025.pdf
2. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-promotion-and-regulation-of-online-gaming-bill-2025
3. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rajya-sabha-clears-online-gaming-bill-a-day-after-lok-sabha-approval-101755766847840.html

‍

‍

Executive Summary

A recent viral message on social media such as X and Facebook, claims that the Indian Government will start charging an 18% GST on "good morning" texts from April 1, 2024. This news is misinformation. The message includes a newspaper clipping and a video that was actually part of a fake news report from 2018. The newspaper article from Navbharat Times, published on March 2, 2018, was clearly intended as a joke. In addition to this, we also found a video of ABP News, originally aired on March 20, 2018, was part of a fact-checking segment that debunked the rumor of a GST on greetings.

‍

Claims:

The claim circulating online suggests that the Government will start applying a 18% of GST on all "Good Morning" texts sent through mobile phones from 1st of April, this year. This tax would be added to the monthly mobile bills. 

‍

Fact Check:

When we received the news, we first did some relevant keyword searches regarding the news. We found a Facebook Video by ABP News titled Viral Sach: ‘Govt to impose 18% GST on sending good morning messages on WhatsApp?’

‍

We have watched the full video and found out that the News is 6 years old. The  Research Wing of CyberPeace Foundation also found the full version of the widely shared ABP News clip on its website, dated March 20, 2018. The video showed a newspaper clipping from Navbharat Times, published on March 2, 2018, which had a humorous article with the saying "Bura na mano, Holi hain." The recent viral image is a cutout image from ABP News that dates back to the year 2018. 

Hence, the recent image that is spreading widely is Fake and Misleading.

Conclusion:

The viral message claiming that the government will impose GST (Goods and Services Tax) on "Good morning" messages is completely fake. The newspaper clipping used in the message is from an old comic article published by Navbharat Times, while the clip and image from ABP News have been taken out of context to spread false information.

Claim: India will introduce a Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 18% on all "good morning" messages sent through mobile phones from April 1, 2024.

Claimed on: Facebook, X

Fact Check: Fake, made as Comic article by Navbharat Times on 2 March 2018