#FactCheck-RBI's Alleged Guidelines on Ink Colour for Cheque Writing

Introduction

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) serves as the backbone of e-governance, enabling governments to deliver services more efficiently, transparently, and inclusively. By leveraging information and communication technology (ICT), digital governance systems reconfigure traditional administrative processes, making them more accessible and citizen-centric. However, the successful implementation of such systems hinges on overcoming several challenges, from ensuring data security to fostering digital literacy and addressing infrastructural gaps.

This article delves into the key enablers that drive effective DPI and outlines the measures already undertaken by the government to enhance its functionality. Furthermore, it outlines strategies for their enhancement, emphasizing the need for a collaborative, secure, and adaptive approach to building robust e-governance systems.

Key Enablers of DPI

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), the foundation for e-governance,  relies on common design, robust governance, and private sector participation for efficiency and inclusivity. This requires common principles, frameworks for collaboration, capacity building, and the development of common standards. Some of the key measures undertaken by the government in this regard include: 

1. Data Protection Framework: The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023 establishes a framework to ensure consent-based data sharing and regulate the processing of digital personal data. It delineates the responsibilities of data fiduciaries in safeguarding users' digital personal data.
2. Increasing Public-Private Partnerships: Refining collaboration between the government and the private sector has accelerated the development, maintenance, expansion, and trust of the infrastructure of DPIs, such as the AADHAR, UPI, and  Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture (DEPA). For example, the Asian Development Bank attributes the success of UPI to its “consortium ownership structure”, which enables the wide participation of major financial stakeholders in the country.
3. Coordinated Planning: The PM-Gati Shakti establishes a clear coordination framework involving various inter-governmental stakeholders at the state and union levels. This aims to significantly reduce project duplications, delays, and cost escalations by streamlining communication, harmonizing project appraisal and approval processes, and providing a comprehensive database of major infrastructure projects in the country. This database called the National Master Plan, is jointly accessible by various government stakeholders through APIs.
4. Capacity Building for Government Employees:  The National e-Governance Division of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology routinely rolls out multiple training programs to build the technological and managerial skills required by government employees to manage Digital Public Goods (DPGs). For instance, it recently held a program on “Managing Large Digital Transformative Projects”. Additionally, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions has launched the Integrated Government Online Training platform  (iGOT) Karmayogi for the continuous learning of civil servants across various domains. 

Digital Governance; Way Forward

E-governance utilizes information and communication technology (ICT) such as Wide Area Networks, the Internet, and mobile computing to implement existing government activities, reconfiguring the structures and processes of governance systems. This warrants addressing certain inter-related challenges such as : 

1. Data Security: The dynamic and ever-changing landscape of cyber threats necessitates regular advancements in data and information security technologies, policy frameworks, and legal provisions. Consequently, the digital public ecosystem must incorporate robust data cybersecurity measures, advanced encryption technologies, and stringent privacy compliance standards to safeguard against data breaches.
2. Creating Feedback Loops: Regular feedback surveys will help government agencies improve the quality, efficiency, and accessibility of digital governance services by tailoring them to be more user-friendly and enhancing administrative design. This is necessary to build trust in government services and improve their uptake among beneficiaries. Conducting the decennial census is essential to gather updated data that can serve as a foundation for more informed and effective decision-making.
3. Capacity Building for End-Users: The beneficiaries of key e-governance projects like Aadhar and UPI may have inadequate technological skills, especially in regions with weak internet network infrastructure like hilly or rural areas. This can present challenges in the access to and usage of technological solutions.  Robust capacity-building campaigns for beneficiaries can provide an impetus to the digital inclusion efforts of the government.
4. Increasing the Availability of Real-Time Data: By prioritizing the availability of up-to-date information, governments and third-party enterprises can enable quick and informed decision-making.  They can effectively track service usage, assess quality, and monitor key metrics by leveraging real-time data. This approach is essential for enhancing operational efficiency and delivering improved user experience.
5. Resistance to Change: Any resistance among beneficiaries or government employees to adopt digital governance goods may stem from a limited understanding of digital processes and a lack of experience with transitioning from legacy systems.  Hand-holding employees during the transitionary phase can help create more trust in the process and strengthen the new systems. 

Conclusion

Digital governance is crucial to transforming public services, ensuring transparency, and fostering inclusivity in a rapidly digitizing world. The successful implementation of such projects requires addressing challenges like data security, skill gaps, infrastructural limitations, feedback mechanisms, and resistance to change. Addressing these challenges with a strategic, multi-stakeholder approach can ensure the successful execution and long-term impact of large digital governance projects. By adopting robust cybersecurity frameworks, fostering public-private partnerships, and emphasizing capacity building, governments can create efficient and resilient systems that are user-centric, secure, and accessible to all. 

References

• https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/865106/adbi-wp1363.pdf 
• https://www.jotform.com/blog/government-digital-transformation-challenges/ 
• https://aapti.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AaptixONI-DPIGovernancePlaybook_compressed.pdf 
• https://community.nasscom.in/sites/default/files/publicreport/Digital%20Public%20Infrastructure%2022-2-2024_compressed.pdf 
• https://proteantech.in/articles/Decoding-Digital-Public-Infrastructure-in-India/ 

‍

‍

Introduction

The first activity one engages in while using social media is scrolling through their feed and liking or reacting to posts. Social media users' online activity is passive, involving merely reading and observing, while active use occurs when a user consciously decides to share information or comment after actively analysing it. We often "like" photos, posts, and tweets reflexively, hardly stopping to think about why we do it and what information it contains. This act of "liking" or "reacting" is a passive activity that can spark an active discourse. Frequently, we encounter misinformation on social media in various forms, which could be identified as false at first glance if we exercise caution and avoid validating it with our likes.

Passive engagement, such as liking or reacting to a post, triggers social media algorithms to amplify its reach, exposing it to a broader audience. This amplification increases the likelihood of misinformation spreading quickly as more people interact with it. As the content circulates, it gains credibility through repeated exposure, reinforcing false narratives and expanding its impact.

Social media platforms are designed to facilitate communication and conversations for various purposes. However, this design also enables the sharing, exchange, distribution, and reception of content, including misinformation. This can lead to the widespread spread of false information, influencing public opinion and behaviour. Misinformation has been identified as a contributing factor in various contentious events, ranging from elections and referenda to political or religious persecution, as well as the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Mechanics of Passive Sharing

Sharing a post without checking the facts mentioned or sharing it without providing any context can create situations where misinformation can be knowingly or unknowingly spread. The problem with sharing and forwarding information on social media without fact-checking is that it usually starts in small, trusted networks before going on to be widely seen across the internet. This web which begins is infinite and cutting it from the roots is necessary. The rapid spread of information on social media is driven by algorithms that prioritise engagement and often they amplify misleading or false content and contribute to the spread of misinformation.  The algorithm optimises the feed and ensures that the posts that are most likely to engage with appear at the top of the timeline, thus encouraging a cycle of liking and posting that keeps users active and scrolling.

The internet reaches billions of individuals and enables them to tailor persuasive messages to the specific profiles of individual users. The internet because of its reach is an ideal medium for the fast spread of falsehoods at the expense of accurate information. 

Recommendations for Combating Passive Sharing

The need to combat passive sharing that we indulge in is important and some ways in which we can do so are as follows:

• We need to critically evaluate the sources before sharing any content. This will ensure that the information source is not corrupted and used as a means to cause disruptions. The medium should not be used to spread misinformation due to the source's ulterior motives. Tools such as crowdsourcing and AI methods have been used in the past to evaluate the sources and have been successful to an extent.
• Engaging with fact-checking tools and verifying the information is also crucial. The information that has been shared on the post needs to be verified through authenticated sources before indulging in the practice of sharing. 
• Being mindful of the potential impact of online activity, including likes and shares is important. The kind of reach that social media users have today is due to several reasons ranging from the content they create, the rate at which they engage with other users etc.  Liking and sharing content might not seem much for an individual user but the impact it has collectively is huge.

Conclusion 

Passive sharing of misinformation, like liking or sharing without verification, amplifies false information, erodes trust in legitimate sources, and deepens social and political divides. It can lead to real-world harm and ethical dilemmas. To combat this, critical evaluation, fact-checking, and mindful online engagement are essential to mitigating this passive spread of misinformation. The small act of “like” or “share” has a much more far-reaching effect than we anticipate and we should be mindful of all our activities on the digital platform. 

References

• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049530.2022.2113340#summary-abstract 
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thane/badlapur-protest-police-warn-against-spreading-fake-news/articleshow/112750638.cms

‍

Introduction 

The geographical world has physical boundaries, but the digital one has a different architecture and institutions are underprepared when it comes to addressing cybersecurity breaches. Cybercrime, which may lead to economic losses, privacy violations, national security threats and have psycho-social consequences,  is forecast to continuously increase between 2024 and 2029, reaching an estimated cost of at least 6.4 trillion U.S. dollars (Statista). As cyber threats become persistent and ubiquitous, they are becoming a critical governance challenge. Lawmakers around the world need to collaborate on addressing this emerging issue.

Cybersecurity Governance and its Structural Elements

Cybersecurity governance refers to the strategies, policies, laws, and institutional frameworks that guide national and international preparedness and responses to cyber threats to governments, private entities, and individuals. Effective cybersecurity governance ensures that digital risks are managed proactively while balancing security with fundamental rights like privacy and internet freedom. It includes, but is not limited to :

1. Policies and Legal Frameworks: Laws that define the scope of cybercrime, cybersecurity responsibilities, and mechanisms for data protection. Eg: India’s National Cybersecurity Policy (NCSP) of 2013, Information Technology Act, 2000, and Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, EU’s Cybersecurity Act (2019), Cyber Resilience Act (2024), Cyber Solidarity Act (2025), and NIS2 Directive (2022), South Africa’s Cyber Crimes Act (2021), etc.
2. Regulatory Bodies: Government agencies such as data protection authorities, cybersecurity task forces, and other sector-specific bodies. Eg: India’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Europe’s  European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), and others.
3. Public-Private Knowledge Sharing: The sharing of the private sector’s expertise and the government’s resources plays a crucial role in improving enforcement and securing critical infrastructure. This model of collaboration is followed in the EU, Japan, Turkey, and the USA. 
4. Research and Development: Apart from the technical, the cyber domain also includes military, politics, economy, law, culture, society, and other elements. Robust, multi-sectoral research is necessary for formulating international and regional frameworks on cybersecurity. 

Challenges to Cybersecurity Governance 

Governments face several challenges in securing cyberspace and protecting critical assets and individuals despite the growing focus on cybersecurity. This is because so far the focus has been on cybersecurity management, which, considering the scale of attacks in the recent past, is not enough. Stakeholders must start deliberating on the aspect of governance in cyberspace while ensuring that this process is multi-consultative. (Savaş & Karataş 2022). Prominent challenges which need to be addressed are: 

• Dynamic Threat Landscape: The threat landscape in cyberspace is ever-evolving.  Bad actors are constantly coming up with new ways to carry out attacks, using elements of surprise, adaptability, and asymmetry aided by AI and quantum computing. While cybersecurity measures help mitigate risks and minimize damage, they can’t always provide definitive solutions. E.g., the pace of malware development is much faster than that of legal norms, legislation, and security strategies for the protection of information technology (IT). (Efe and Bensghir 2019).
• Regulatory Fragmentation and Compliance Challenges: Different countries, industries, or jurisdictions may enforce varying or conflicting cybersecurity laws and standards, which are still evolving and require rapid upgrades. This makes it harder for businesses to comply with regulations, increases compliance costs, and jeopardizes the security posture of the organization. 
• Trans-National Enforcement Challenges: Cybercriminals operate across jurisdictions, making threat intelligence collection, incident response, evidence-gathering, and prosecution difficult.  Without cross-border agreements between law enforcement agencies and standardized compliance frameworks for organizations, bad actors have an advantage in getting away with attacks. 
• Balancing Security with Digital Rights: Striking a balance between cybersecurity laws and privacy concerns (e.g., surveillance laws vs. data protection) remains a profound challenge,  especially in areas of CSAM prevention and identifying terrorist activities. Without a system of checks and balances, it is difficult to prevent government overreach into domains like journalism, which are necessary for a healthy democracy, and Big Tech’s invasion of user privacy. 

The Road Ahead: Strengthening Cybersecurity Governance 

All domains of human life- economy, culture, politics, and society- occur in digital and cyber environments now. It follows naturally, that governance in the physical world translates into governance in cyberspace. It must be underpinned by features consistent with the principles of openness, transparency, participation, and accountability, while also protecting human rights. In cyberspace, the world is stateless and threats are rapidly evolving with innovations in modern computing. Thus, cybersecurity governance requires a global, multi-sectoral approach utilizing the rules of international law, to chart out problems, and solutions, and carry out detailed risk analyses. (Savaş & Karataş 2022). 

References

• https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1280009/cost-cybercrime-worldwide#statisticContainer
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1365/s43439-021-00045-4#citeas 
• https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cybersecurity-policies#ecl-inpage-cybersecurity-strategy 

‍