#FactCheck-A manipulated image showing Indian cricketer Virat Kohli allegedly watching Rahul Gandhi's media briefing on his mobile phone has been widely shared online.

Introduction

‍

The recent cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), one of the world's best-known car makers, has revealed extensive weaknesses in the interlinked character of international supply chains. The incident highlights the increasing cybersecurity issues of industries going through digital transformation. With its production stopped in several UK factories, supply chain disruptions, and service delays to its customers worldwide, this cyber-attack shows how cyber events can ripple into operation, finance, and reputation risks for large businesses.

The Anatomy of a Breakdown

‍

Jaguar Land Rover, a Tata Motors subsidiary, was forced to disable its IT infrastructure because of a cyber-attack over the weekend. This shut down was already an emergency shut down to mitigate damage and the disruption to business was serious. 

• No Production - The car plants at Halewood (Merseyside) and Solihull (West Midlands) and the engine plant (Wolverhampton) were all completely shut down.
• Sales and Distribution: Car sales were significantly impaired during a high-volume registration period in September, although certain transactions still passed through manual procedures.
• Global Effect: The breakdown did not reach only the UK, dealers and fix experts across the world, including in Australia, suffered with inaccessible parts databases.

JLR called the recovery process "extremely complex" as it involved a controlled recovery of systems and implementing alternative workarounds for offline services. The overall effects include the immediate and massive impact to their suppliers and customers, and has raised larger questions regarding the sustainability of digital ecosystems in the automobile value chain.

‍

The Human Impact: Beyond JLR's Factories

‍

The implications of the cyber-attack have extended beyond the production lines of JLR:

• Independent Garages: Repair centres such as Nyewood Express of West Sussex indicated that they could not use vital parts databases, which brought repair activities to a standstill and left clients waiting indefinitely.
• Global Dealers: Land Rover experts as distant as Tasmania indicated total system crashes, highlighting global dependency on centralized IT systems.
• Customer Frustration: Regular customers in need of urgent repairs were stranded by the inability to order replacement parts from original manufacturers.

This attack is an example of the cascading effect of cyber disruptions among interconnected industries, a single point of failure paralyzing complete ecosystems.

‍

The Culprit: The Hacker Collective

‍

The hack is justifiably claimed by a so-called hacker collective "Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters." The so-called hacking collective says that it consists of young English-speaking hackers and has previously targeted blue-chip brands like Marks & Spencer. While the attackers seem not to have publicly declared whether they exfiltrated sensitive information or deployed ransomware, they went ahead and posted screenshots of internal JLR documents-the kind of documents that probably are not supposed to see the light of day, including troubleshooting guides and system logs-implicating what can only be described as grossly unauthorized access into some of Jaguar Land Rover's core IT systems.

Jaguar Land Rover had gone on record to claim with no apropos proof or evidence that it probably did not see anyone getting into customer data; however, the very occurrence of this attack raises some very serious questions on insider threats, social engineering concepts, and how efficient cybersecurity governance architectures really are.

‍

Cybersecurity Weaknesses and Lessons Learned

‍

The JLR attack depicts some of the common weaknesses associated with large-scale manufacturing organizations:

1. Centralized IT Dependencies: Today's auto firms are based on worldwide IT systems for operations, logistics, and customer care. Compromise can lead to broad outages.
2. Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: Tier-2 and Tier-1 suppliers use OEM systems for placing and tracing components. Interrupting at the OEM level automatically stops their processes.
3. Inadequate Incident Visibility: Several suppliers complained about no clear information from JLR, which increased uncertainty and financial loss.
4. Rise of Youth Hacking Groups: Involvement of youth hacker groups highlight the necessity for active monitoring and community-level cybersecurity awareness initiatives.

‍

Broader Industry Context

‍

With ever-increasing cyber-attacks on the automotive industry, an area currently being rapidly digitalised through connected cars, IoT-based factories, and cloud-based operations, this series of incidents falls within such a context. In 2023, JLR awarded an £800 million contract to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for services in support of the company's digital transformation and cybersecurity enhancement. This attack shows that, no matter how much is spent, poorly conceptualised security programs can never stand up to ever-changing cyber threats.

‍

What Can Organizations Do? – Cyberpeace Recommendations

‍

To contain risks and develop a resilience against such events, organizations need to implement a multi-layered approach to cybersecurity:

1. Adopt Zero Trust Architecture - Presume breach as the new normal. Verify each user, device, and application before access is given, even inside the internal network.
2. Enhance Supply Chain Security - Perform targeted assessments on a routine basis to identify risk factors in diminishing suppliers. Include rigorous cybersecurity provisions in the agreements with suppliers, namely disclosure of vulnerabilities and the agreed period for incident response.
3. Durable Backups and Their Restoration - Backward hampers are kept isolated and encrypted to continue operations in case of ransomware incidents or any other occur in system compromise.
4. Periodic Red Team Exercises - Simulate cyber-attacks on IT and OT systems to examine if vulnerabilities exist and evaluate current incident response measures.
5. Employee Training and Insider Threat Monitoring - Social engineering being the forefront of attack vectors, continuous training and behavioural monitoring will have to be done to avoid credential disposal.
6. Public-Private Partnership - Interact with several government agencies and cybersecurity groups for sharing threat intelligence and enforcing best practices complementary to ISO/IEC 27001 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework.

Conclusion

‍

The hacking at Jaguar Land Rover is perhaps one of a thousand reminders that cybersecurity can no longer be seen as a back-office job but rather as an issue of business continuity at the very core of the organization. In the process of digital transformation, the attack surface grows, making the entities targeted by cybercriminals. Operation security demands that cybersecurity be ensured on a proactive basis through resilient supply chains and stakeholders working together. The JLR attack is not an isolated event; it is a warning for the entire automobile sector to maintain security at every level of digitalization.

‍

References

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jzl1lw4y1o
• https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/07/disruption-to-jaguar-land-rover-after-cyber-attack-may-last-until-october
• https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/jaguar-factory-workers-told-stay-073458122.html

‍

Introduction:  The Internet’s Foundational Ideal of Openness

The Internet was built as a decentralised network to foster open communication and global collaboration. Unlike traditional media or state infrastructure, no single government, company, or institution controls the Internet. Instead, it has historically been governed by a consensus of the multiple communities, like universities, independent researchers, and engineers, who were involved in building it. This bottom-up, cooperative approach was the foundation of Internet governance and ensured that the Internet remained open, interoperable, and accessible to all. As the Internet began to influence every aspect of life, including commerce, culture, education, and politics, it required a more organised governance model.  This compelled the rise of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model in the early 2000s. 

The Rise of Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Representatives from governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector congregated at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Per this Agenda, internet governance was defined as “… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Internet issues are cross-cutting across technical, political, economic, and social domains, and no one actor can manage them alone. Thus, stakeholders with varying interests are meant to come together to give direction to issues in the digital environment, like data privacy, child safety, cybersecurity,  freedom of expression, and more, while upholding human rights. 

Internet Governance in Practice: A History of Power Shifts

While the idea of democratizing Internet governance is a noble one, the Tunis Agenda has been criticised for reflecting geopolitical asymmetries and relegating the roles of technical communities and civil society to the sidelines.  Throughout the history of the internet, certain players have wielded more power in shaping how it is managed. Accordingly, internet governance can be said to have undergone three broad phases.

In the first phase,  the Internet was managed primarily by technical experts in universities and private companies, which contributed to building and scaling it up.  The standards and protocols set during this phase are in use today and make the Internet function the way it does. This was the time when the Internet was a transformative invention and optimistically hailed as the harbinger of a utopian society, especially in the USA, where it was invented. 

In the second phase, the ideal of multistakeholderism was promoted, in which all those who benefit from the Internet work together to create processes that will govern it democratically. This model also aims to reduce the Internet’s vulnerability to unilateral decision-making, an ideal that has been under threat because this phase has seen the growth of Big Tech. What started as platforms enabling access to information, free speech, and creativity has turned into a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, cybercrime, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and privacy concerns. The rise of generative AI only compounds these challenges. Tech giants like Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have amassed vast financial capital, technological monopoly, and user datasets. This gives them unprecedented influence not only over communications but also culture, society, and technology governance. 

The anxieties surrounding Big Tech have fed into the third phase, with increasing calls for government regulation and digital nationalism. Governments worldwide are scrambling to regulate AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity, often through processes that lack transparency. An example is India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was passed without parliamentary debate. Governments are also pressuring platforms to take down content through opaque takedown orders. Laws like the UK’s  Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, are criticised for giving the government the power to indirectly mandate encryption backdoors, compromising the strength of end-to-end encryption systems. Further, the internet itself is fragmenting into the “splinternet” amid rising geopolitical tensions, in the form of Russia’s “sovereign internet” or through China’s Great Firewall. 

Conclusion

While multistakeholderism is an ideal, Internet governance is a playground of contesting power relations in practice. As governments assert digital sovereignty and Big Tech consolidates influence, the space for meaningful participation of other stakeholders has been negligible. Consultation processes have often been symbolic. The principles of openness, inclusivity, and networked decision-making are once again at risk of being sidelined in favour of nationalism or profit. The promise of a decentralised, rights-respecting, and interoperable internet will only be fulfilled if we recommit to the spirit of Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance, not just its structure. Efficient internet governance requires that the multiple stakeholders be empowered to carry out their roles, not just talk about them. 

‍

References

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/can-the-internet-be-governed 
• https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-PolicyBrief-InternetGovernance-20151030-nb.pdf 
• https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf\
• https://nrs.help/post/internet-governance-and-its-importance/
• https://daidac.thecjid.org/how-data-power-is-skewing-internet-governance-to-big-tech-companies-and-ai-tech-guys/ 

‍

Introduction

Twitter is a popular social media plate form with millions of users all around the world. Twitter’s blue tick system, which verifies the identity of high-profile accounts, has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. The platform must face backlash from its users and brands who have accused it of basis, inaccuracy, and inconsistency in its verification process. This blog post will explore the questions raised on the verification process and its impact on users and big brands.

What is Twitter’s blue trick System?

The blue tick system was introduced in 2009 to help users identify the authenticity of well-known public figures, Politicians, celebrities, sportspeople, and big brands. The Twitter blue Tick system verifies the identity of high-profile accounts to display a blue badge next to your username.

According to a survey, roughly there are 294,000 verified Twitter Accounts which means they have a blue tick badge with them and have also paid the subscription for the service, which is nearly $7.99 monthly, so think about those subscribers who have paid the amount and have also lost their blue badge won’t they feel cheated?

The Controversy

Despite its initial aim, the blue tick system has received much criticism from consumers and brands. Twitter’s irregular and non-transparent verification procedure has sparked accusations of prejudice and inaccuracy. Many Twitter users have complained that the network’s verification process is random and favours account with huge followings or celebrity status. In contrast, others have criticised the platform for certifying accounts that promote harmful or controversial content.

Furthermore, the verification mechanism has generated user confusion, as many need to understand the significance of the blue tick badge. Some users have concluded that the blue tick symbol represents a Twitter endorsement or that the account is trustworthy. This confusion has resulted in users following and engaging with verified accounts that promote misleading or inaccurate data, undermining the platform’s credibility.

How did the Blue Tick Row start in India?

On 21 May 2021, when the government asked Twitter to remove the blue badge from several profiles of high-profile Indian politicians, including the Indian National Congress Party Vice-President Mr Rahul Ghandhi.

The blue badge gives the users an authenticated identity. Many celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan, popularly known as Big B, Vir Das, Prakash Raj, Virat Kohli, and Rohit Sharma, have lost their blue tick despite being verified handles.

What is the Twitter policy on blue tick?

To Twitter’s policy, blue verification badges may be removed from accounts if the account holder violates the company’s verification policy or terms of service. In such circumstances, Twitter typically notifies the account holder of the removal of the verification badge and the reason for the removal. In the instance of the “Twitter blue badge row” in India, however, it appears that Twitter did not notify the impacted politicians or their representatives before revoking their verification badges. Twitter’s lack of communication has exacerbated the controversy around the episode, with some critics accusing the company of acting arbitrarily and not following due process.

Is there a solution?

The “Twitter blue badge row” has no simple answer since it involves a complex convergence of concerns about free expression, social media policies, and government laws. However, here are some alternatives:

• Establish clear guidelines: Twitter should develop and constantly implement clear guidelines and policies for the verification process. All users, including politicians and government officials, would benefit from greater transparency and clarity.
• Increase transparency: Twitter’s decision-making process for deleting or restoring verification badges should be more open. This could include providing explicit reasons for badge removal, notifying impacted users promptly, and offering an appeals mechanism for those who believe their credentials were removed unfairly.
• Engage in constructive dialogue: Twitter should engage in constructive dialogue with government authorities and other stakeholders to address concerns about the platform’s content moderation procedures. This could contribute to a more collaborative approach to managing online content, leading to more effective and accepted policies.
• Follow local rules and regulations: Twitter should collaborate with the Indian government to ensure it conforms to local laws and regulations while maintaining freedom of expression. This could involve adopting more precise standards for handling requests for material removal or other actions from governments and other organisations.

Conclusion

To sum up, the “Twitter blue tick row” in India has highlighted the complex challenges that Social media faces daily in handling the conflicting interests of free expression, government rules, and their own content moderation procedures. While Twitter’s decision to withdraw the blue verification badges of several prominent Indian politicians garnered anger from the government and some public members, it also raised questions about the transparency and uniformity of Twitter’s verification procedure. In order to deal with this issue, Twitter must establish clear verification procedures and norms, promote transparency in its decision-making process, participate in constructive communication with stakeholders, and adhere to local laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Indian government should collaborate with social media platforms to create more effective and acceptable laws that balance the necessity for free expression and the protection of citizens’ rights. The “Twitter blue tick row” is just one example of the complex challenges that social media platforms face in managing online content, and it emphasises the need for greater collaboration among platforms, governments, and civil society organisations to develop effective solutions that protect both free expression and citizens’ rights.