Growing Cyber Threats in India: Policy, Technology, and Public Awareness Solutions

Introduction

Misinformation poses a significant challenge to public health policymaking since it undermines efforts to promote effective health interventions and protect public well-being. The spread of inaccurate information, particularly through online channels such as social media and internet platforms, further complicates the decision-making process for policymakers since it perpetuates public confusion and distrust. This misinformation can lead to resistance against health initiatives, such as vaccination programs, and fuels scepticism towards scientifically-backed health guidelines.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation surrounding healthcare largely encompassed the effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption, marijuana use, eating habits, physical exercise etc. However, there has been a marked shift in the years since. One such example is the outcry against palm oil in 2024: it is an ingredient prevalent in numerous food and cosmetic products, and came under the scanner after a number of claims that palmitic acid, which is present in palm oil, is detrimental to our health. However, scientific research by reputable institutions globally established that there is no cause for concern regarding the health risks posed by palmitic acid. Such trends and commentaries tend to create a parallel unscientific discourse that has the potential to not only impact individual choices but also public opinion and as a result, market developments and policy conversations. 

A prevailing narrative during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic was that the virus had been engineered to control society and boost hospital profits. The extensive misinformation surrounding COVID-19 and its management and care increased vaccine hesitancy amongst people worldwide. It is worth noting that vaccine hesitancy has been a consistent trend historically; the World Health Organisation flagged vaccine hesitancy as one of the main threats to global health, and there have been other instances where a majority of the population refused to get vaccinated anticipating unverified, long-lasting side effects. For example, research from 2016 observed a significant level of public skepticism regarding the development and approval process of the Zika vaccine in Africa. Further studies emphasised the urgent need to disseminate accurate information about the Zika virus on online platforms to help curb the spread of the pandemic. 

In India during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite multiple official advisories, notifications and guidelines issued by the government and ICMR, people continued to remain opposed to vaccination, which resulted in inflated mortality rates within the country. Vaccination hesitancy was also compounded by anti-vaccination celebrities who claimed that vaccines were dangerous and contributed in large part to the conspiracy theories doing the rounds. Similar hesitation was noted in misinformation surrounding the MMR vaccines and their likely role in causing autism was examined.  At the time of the crisis, the Indian government also had to tackle disinformation-induced fraud surrounding the supply of oxygens in hospitals. Many critically-ill patients relied on fake news and unverified sources that falsely portrayed the availability of beds, oxygen cylinders and even home set-ups, only to be cheated out of money. 

The above examples highlight the difficulty health officials face in administering adequate healthcare. The special case of the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted how current legal frameworks failed to address misinformation and disinformation, which impedes effective policymaking. It also highlights how taking corrective measures against health-related misinformation becomes difficult since such corrective action creates an uncomfortable gap in an individual’s mind, and it is seen that people ignore accurate information that may help bridge the gap. Misinformation, coupled with the infodemic trend, also leads to false memory syndrome, whereby people fail to differentiate between authentic information and fake narratives. Simple efforts to correct misperceptions usually backfire and even strengthen initial beliefs, especially in the context of complex issues like healthcare. Policymakers thus struggle with balancing policy making and making people receptive to said policies in the backdrop of their tendencies to reject/suspect authoritative action. Examples of the same can be observed on both the domestic front and internationally. In the US, for example, the traditional healthcare system rations access to healthcare through a combination of insurance costs and options versus out-of-pocket essential expenses. While this has been a subject of debate for a long time, it hadn’t created a large scale public healthcare crisis because the incentives offered to the medical professionals and public trust in the delivery of essential services helped balance the conversation. In recent times, however, there has been a narrative shift that sensationalises the system as an issue of deliberate “denial of care,” which has led to concerns about harms to patients.

Policy Recommendations

The hindrances posed by misinformation in policymaking are further exacerbated against the backdrop of policymakers relying on social media as a method to measure public sentiment, consensus and opinions. If misinformation about an outbreak is not effectively addressed, it could hinder individuals from adopting necessary protective measures and potentially worsen the spread of the epidemic. To improve healthcare policymaking amidst the challenges posed by health misinformation, policymakers must take a multifaceted approach. This includes convening a broad coalition of central, state, local, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, and research partners to assess the impact of misinformation and develop effective preventive measures. Intergovernmental collaborations such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should be encouraged whereby doctors debunk online medical misinformation, in the backdrop of the increased reliance on online forums for medical advice. Furthermore, increasing investment in research dedicated to understanding misinformation, along with the ongoing modernization of public health communications, is essential. Enhancing the resources and technical support available to state and local public health agencies will also enable them to better address public queries and concerns, as well as counteract misinformation. Additionally, expanding efforts to build long-term resilience against misinformation through comprehensive educational programs is crucial for fostering a well-informed public capable of critically evaluating health information.

From an individual perspective, since almost half a billion people use WhatsApp it has become a platform where false health claims can spread rapidly. This has led to a rise in the use of fake health news. Viral WhatsApp messages containing fake health warnings can be dangerous, hence it is always recommended to check such messages with vigilance. This highlights the growing concern about the potential dangers of misinformation and the need for more accurate information on medical matters.

Conclusion

The proliferation of misinformation in healthcare poses significant challenges to effective policymaking and public health management. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the role of misinformation in vaccine hesitancy, fraud, and increased mortality rates. There is an urgent need for robust strategies to counteract false information and build public trust in health interventions; this includes policymakers engaging in comprehensive efforts, including intergovernmental collaboration, enhanced research, and public health communication modernization, to combat misinformation. By fostering a well-informed public through education and vigilance, we can mitigate the impact of misinformation and promote healthier communities.

References

1. van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Jin, Y. (2019), “Seeking Formula for Misinformation Treatment in Public Health Crises: The Effects of Corrective Information Type and Source” Health Communication, 35(5), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295 
2. “Health Misinformation”, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/health-misinformation/index.html 
3. Mechanic, David, “The Managed Care Backlash: Perceptions and Rhetoric in Health Care Policy and the Potential for Health Care Reform”, Rutgers University. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751184/pdf/milq_195.pdf 
4. “Bad actors are weaponising health misinformation in India”, Financial Express, April 2024.

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-bad-actors-are-weaponising-health-misinformation-in-india-3448871/ 

5. “Role of doctors in eradicating misinformation in the medical sector.”, Times of India, 1 July 2024. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/national-doctors-day-role-of-doctors-in-eradicating-misinformation-in-the-healthcare-sector/articleshow/111399098.cms 

‍

Introduction

‍

Online dating platforms have become a common way for individuals to connect in today’s digital age. For many in the LGBTQ+ community, especially in environments where offline meeting spaces are limited, these platforms offer a way to find companionship and support. However, alongside these opportunities come serious risks. Users are increasingly being targeted by cybercrimes such as blackmail, sextortion, identity theft, and online harassment. These incidents often go unreported due to stigma and concerns about privacy. The impact of such crimes can be both emotional and financial, highlighting the need for greater awareness and digital safety.

‍

Cybercrime On LGBTQ+ Dating Apps: A Threat Landscape

‍

According to the NCRB 2022 report, there has been a 24.4% increase in cybercrimes. But unfortunately, the queer community-specific data is not available.  Cybercrimes that target LGBTQ+ users in very organised and predatory. In several Indian cities, gangs actively monitor dating platforms to the point that potential victims, especially young queers and those who seem discreet about their identity, become targets. Once the contact is established, perpetrators use a standard operating process, building false trust, forcing private exchanges, and then gradually starting blackmail and financial exploitation. Many queer victims are blackmailed with threats of exposure to families or workplaces, often by fake police demanding bribes. Fear of stigma and insensitive policing discourages reporting. Cyber criminal gangs exploit these gaps on dating apps. Despite some arrests, under-reporting persists, and activists call for stronger platform safety.

‍

Types of Cyber Crimes against Queer Community on Dating Apps

‍

1. Romance scam or “Lonely hearts scam”: Scammers build trust with false stories (military, doctors, NGO workers) and quickly express strong romantic interest. They later request money, claiming emergencies. They often try to create multiple accounts to avoid profile bans. 
2. Sugar daddy scam: In this type of scam, the fraudster offers money or allowance in exchange for things like chatting, sending photos, or other interactions. They usually offer a specific amount and want to use some uncommon payment gateways. After telling you they will send you a lot of money, they often make up a story like: “My last sugar baby cheated me, so now you must first send me a small amount to prove you are trustworthy.” This is just a trick to make you send them money first.
3. Sextortion / Blackmail scam: Scammers record explicit chats or pretend to be underage, then threaten exposure unless you pay. Some target discreet users. Never send explicit content or pay blackmailers. 
4. Investment Scams: Scammers posing as traders or bankers convince victims to invest in fake opportunities. Some "flip" small amounts to build trust, then disappear with larger sums. Real investors won’t approach you on dating apps. Don’t share financial info or transfer money.
5. Pay-Before-You-Meet scam: Scammer demands upfront payment (gift cards, gas money, membership fees) before meeting, then vanishes. Never pay anyone before meeting in person.
6. Security app registration scam: Scammers ask you to register on fake "security apps" to steal your info, claiming it ensures your safety. Research apps before registering. Be wary of quick link requests.
7. The Verification code scam: Scammers trick you into giving them SMS verification codes, allowing them to hijack your accounts. Never share verification codes with anyone.
8. Third-party app links: Mass spam messages with suspicious links that steal info or infect devices. Don’t click suspicious links or “Google me” messages.
9. Support message scam: Messages pretending to be from application support, offering prizes or fake shows to lure you to malicious sites. 

‍

Platform Accountability & Challenges 

‍

The issue of online dating platforms in India is characterised by weak grievance redressal, poor takedown of abusive profiles, and limited moderation practices. Most platforms appoint grievance officers or offer an in-app complaint portal, but complaints are often unanswered or receive only automated and AI-generated responses. This highlights the gap between policy and enforcement on the ground.

Abusive or fake profiles, often used for scams, hate crimes, and outing LGBTQ+ individuals, remain active long after being reported. In India, organised extortion gangs have exploited such profiles to lure, assault, rob, and blackmail queer men. Moderation teams often struggle with backlogs and lack the resources needed to handle even the most serious complaints.

Despite offering privacy settings and restricting profile visibility, moderation practices in India are still weak, leaving large segments of users vulnerable to impersonation, catfishing, and fraud. The concept of pseudonymisation can help protect vulnerable communities, but it is difficult to distinguish authentic users from malicious actors without robust, privacy-respecting verification systems. 

Since many LGBTQ+ individuals prefer to maintain their confidentiality, while others are more vocal about their identities, in either case, the data shared by an individual with an online dating platform must be vigilantly protected. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, mandates the protection of personal data. Section 8(4) provides: “A Data Fiduciary shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure effective observance of the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.” Accordingly, digital platforms collecting such data should adopt the necessary technical and organisational measures to comply with data protection laws.

Recommendations

‍

The Supreme Court has been proactive in this regard, through decisions like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalised same-sex relationships. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors., acknowledged the right to privacy as a fundamental right, and, most recently, the 2025 affirmation of the right to digital access. However, to protect LGBTQ+ people online, more robust legal frameworks are still required.

There is a requirement for a dedicated commission or an empowered LGBTQ+ cell. Like the National Commission for Women (NCW), which works to safeguard the rights of women, a similar commission would address community-specific issues, including cybercrime, privacy violations, and discrimination on digital platforms. It may serve as an institutional link between the victim, the digital platforms, the government, and the police. Dating Platforms must enhance their security features and grievance mechanisms to safeguard the users.

Best Practices

‍

Scammers use data sets and plans to target individuals seeking specific interests, such as love, sex, money, or association. Do not make financial transactions, such as signing up for third-party platforms or services. Scammers may attempt to create accounts for others, which can be used to access dating platforms and harm legitimate users. Users should be vigilant about sharing sensitive information, such as private images, contact information, or addresses, as scammers can use this information to threaten users. Stay smart, stay cyber safe. 

‍

References

1. https://www.hindustantimes.com/htcity/cinema/16yearold-queer-child-pranshu-dies-by-suicide-due-to-bullying-did-we-fail-as-a-society-mental-health-expert-opines-101701172202794.html#google_vignette
2. https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v11i6/SR22617213031.pdf
3. https://help.grindr.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500009328241-Scam-awareness-guide
4. http://meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf
5. https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-02/IT%28Intermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital%20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20English.pdf

‍

According to Statista, the number of users in India's digital assets market is expected to reach 107.30m users by 2025 (Impacts of Inflation on Financial Markets, August 2023). India's digital asset market has been experiencing exponential growth fueled by the increased adoption of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology. This furthers the need for its regulation. Digital assets include cryptocurrencies, NFTs, asset-backed tokens, and tokenised real estate. 

India has defined Digital Assets under Section 47(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Finance Act 2022-23 has added the word 'virtual' to make it “Virtual Digital Assets”. A “virtual digital asset” is any information or code, number, or token, created through cryptographic methods or otherwise, by any name, giving a digital representation of value exchanged with or without consideration. A VDA should contain an inherent value and represent a store of value or unit of account, functional in any financial transaction or investment. These can be stored,  transferred, or traded in electronic format. 

Digital Asset Governance: Update and Future Outlook

Indian regulators have been conservative in their approach towards digital assets, with the Reserve Bank of India first issuing directions against cryptocurrency transactions in 2018. This ban was removed by the Supreme Court through a court order in 2020. The presentation of the Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill of 2021 is a fairly important milestone in its attempts to lay down the framework for issuing an official digital currency by the Reserve Bank of India. While some digital assets seem to have potential, like the Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and blockchain-based financial applications, a blanket prohibition has been enforced on private cryptocurrencies.

However, in more recent trends, the landscape is changing as the RBI's CBDC is to provide a state-backed digital alternative to cash under a more structured regulatory framework. This move seeks to balance state control with innovation on investor safety and compliance, expecting to reduce risk and enhance security for investors by enacting strict anti-money laundering and know-your-customer laws. Highlighting these developments is important to examine how global regulatory trends influence India's digital asset policies.

Impact of Global Development on India’s Approach 

Global regulatory developments have an impact on Indian policies on digital assets. The European Union's Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) is to introduce a comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies that could act as an inspiration for India. MiCA regulation covers crypto-assets that are not currently regulated by existing financial services legislation. Its particular focus on consumer protection and market integrity resonates with India in terms of investigating needs related to digital assets, including fraud and price volatility. Additionally, evolving policies in the US, such as regulating crypto exchanges and classifying certain tokens as securities, could also form the basis for India's regulatory posture.

Collaboration on the international level is also a chief contributing factor. India’s regular participation in global forums like the G20, facilitates an opportunity to align its regulations on digital assets with other countries, tending toward an even more standardised and predictable framework for cross-border transactions. This can significantly help India given that the nation  has a huge diaspora providing a critical inflow of remuneration.

CyberPeace Outlook

Though digital assets offer many opportunities to India, challenges also exist. Cryptocurrency volatility affects investors, posing concerns over fraud and illicit dealings. A balance between the need for innovation and investor protection is paramount to avoid killing the growth of India's digital asset ecosystem with overly restrictive regulations.

Financial inclusion, efficient cross-border payments with low transaction costs, and the opening of investment opportunities are a few opportunities offered by digital assets. For example, the tokenisation of real estate throws open real estate investment to smaller investors. To strengthen the opportunities while addressing challenges, some policy reforms and new frameworks might prove beneficial. 

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

• Establish a regulatory sandbox for startups working in the area of blockchain and digital assets. This would allow them to test innovative solutions in a controlled environment with regulatory oversight minimising risks.
• Clear guidelines for the taxation of digital assets should be provided as they will ensure transparency, reduce ambiguity for investors, and promote compliance with tax regulations. Specific guidelines can be drawn from the EU's MiCA regulation.  
• Workshops, online resources, and campaigns are some examples of initiatives aimed at improving consumer awareness about digital assets, benefits and associated risks that should be implemented. Partnerships with global fintech firms will provide a great opportunity  to learn best practices.

Conclusion

India is positioned at a critical juncture with respect to the debate on digital assets. The challenge which lies ahead is one of balancing innovation with effective regulation. The introduction of the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) and the development of new policies signal a willingness on the part of the regulators to embrace the digital future. In contrast, issues like volatility, fraud, and regulatory compliance continue to pose hurdles. By drawing insights from global frameworks and strengthening ties through international forums, India can pave the way for a secure and dynamic digital asset ecosystem. Embracing strategic measures such as regulatory sandboxes and transparent tax guidelines will not only protect investors but also unlock the immense potential of digital assets, propelling India into a new era of financial innovation and inclusivity.

References

• https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/10/different-countries-navigating-uncertainty-digital-asset-regulation-election-year/ 
• https://www.acfcs.org/eu-passes-landmark-crypto-regulation 
• https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2022-23/doc/Finance_Bill.pdf 
• https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/10/different-countries-navigating-uncertainty-digital-asset-regulation-election-year/
• https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Digital_Assets_Regulation_2024.pdf 

‍