Instagram's New Nudity Protection Feature

Introduction

Monopolies in any sector can have a great impact on economic efficiency and, by extension, on the market and the larger economy. Data monopolies hurt both small startups and large, established companies, and it is typically the biggest corporate players who have the biggest data advantage. Google has recently lost a major antitrust case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, which focused on the company's search engine dominance and expensive partnerships to promote its products. The lawsuit accused Google of using its dominant position in the search engine market to maintain a monopoly. The case has had a significant impact on consumers and the tech industry as a whole. This dominance allowed Google to raise prices on advertisers without consequences, and delay innovations and privacy features that consumers want when they search online.

Antitrust Allegations Against Google in the US and EU

In the case filed by the US Department of Justice, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google was monopolistic. In the 10-week-long trial, Google lost the major antitrust lawsuit, and it was established that the tech giant had a monopoly in the web search and advertising sectors. The lawsuit accused Google of using its dominant position in the search engine market to elbow out rivals and maintain a monopoly. The tech giant’s exclusive deals with handset makers were brought before the court as evidence. Additionally, the European Commission has fined Google €1.49 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules in 2019.

The Impact of Big Tech Monopolies on the Digital Ecosystem and Beyond 

• Big-tech companies collect vast amounts of personal data, raising concerns about how this data is used and protected. The concentration of data in the hands of a few companies can lead to privacy breaches and misuse of personal information.
• The dominance of a few tech giants in digital advertising markets can stifle competition, leading to higher prices for advertisers and fewer choices for consumers. This concentration also allows these companies to exert major control over what ads are shown and to whom.
• Big-tech platforms have substantial power over the dissemination of information. Their algorithms and policies on content moderation can influence public discourse and may spread misinformation. The lack of competition means fewer alternatives are accessible for users seeking different content moderation policies. In 2021 Google paid $26.3 billion to ensure its search engine is the default on smartphones and browsers and to keep control of its dominant market share.

Regulatory Mechanisms in the Indian Context

In India, antitrust issues are governed by the Competition Act of 2002 and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) checks monopolistic practices. In 2022, the CCI imposed a penalty of Rs 1,337.76 crore on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets for 'anti-competitive practices' in the Android mobile device ecosystem. The Draft Digital Competition Bill, 2024, has been proposed as a legislative reform to regulate a wide range of digital services, including online search engines, social networking platforms, video-sharing sites, interpersonal communication services, operating systems, web browsers, cloud services, advertising services, and online intermediation services. The bill aims to promote competition and fairness in the digital market by addressing anti-competitive practices and dominant position abuses in the digital business space.

Conclusion

Big-tech companies are increasingly under scrutiny from regulators due to concerns over their monopolistic practices, data privacy issues, and the immense influence on markets and public discourse. The U.S. Department of Justice's victory against Google and the European Commission's hefty fines are indicators of a global paradigm shift towards more aggressive regulation to foster competition and protect consumer interests. The combined efforts of regulators across different jurisdictions underscore the recognition that monopolistic practices by such big tech giants can stifle innovation, harm consumers’ interests, and create barriers for new entrants, thus necessitating strong legal frameworks to ensure fair and contestable markets. Overall, the increasing regulatory pressure signifies a pivotal moment for big-tech companies, as they face the challenge of adapting to a more tightly controlled environment where their market dominance and business practices are under intense examination.

References

• https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/googles-future-siege-u-s-court-explores-breaking-up-company-after-landmark-ruling-11723648047735.html
• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/what-is-the-google-monopoly-antitrust-case-and-how-does-it-affect-consumers/article68495551.ece 
• https://indianexpress.com/article/business/google-has-an-illegal-monopoly-on-search-us-judge-finds-9497318/

‍

Introduction

Bumble’s launch of its ‘Opening Move’ feature has sparked a new narrative on safety and privacy within the digital dating sphere and has garnered mixed reactions from users. It was launched against the backdrop of women stating that the ‘message first’ policy of Bumble was proving to be tedious. Addressing the large-scale review, Bumble launched its ‘Opening Move’ feature, whereby users can either craft or select from pre-set questions which potential matches may choose to answer to start the conversation at first glance. These questions are a segue into meaningful and insightful conversation from the get-go and overstep the traditional effort to start engaging chats between matched users. This feature is an optional feature that users may enable and as such does not prevent a user from exercising the autonomy previously in place.

Innovative Approach to Conversation Starters

Many users consider this feature as innovative; not only does it act as a catalyst for fluid conversation but also cultivates insightful dialogue, fostering meaningful interactions that are devoid of the constraint of superficial small talk. The ‘Opening Moves’ feature may also be aligned with unique scientific research indicating that individuals form their initial attractions within 3-seconds of intimate interaction, thereby proving to be a catalyst to the decision-making process of an individual in the attraction time frame. 

Organizational Benefits and Data Insights

From an organisational standpoint, the feature is a unique solution towards localisation challenges faced by apps; the option of writing a personalised ‘Opening Move’ implies setting prompts that are culturally relevant and appropriate in a specific area. Moreover, it is anticipated that Bumble may enhance and improve user experience within the platform through data analysis. Data from responses to an ‘Opening Move’ may provide valuable insights into user preferences and patterns by analysing which pre-set prompts garner more responses over others and how often is a user-written ‘Opening Move’ successful in obtaining a response in comparison with Bumble’s pre-set prompts. A quick glance at Bumble’s privacy policy[1] shows that data storing and transferring of chats between users are not shared with third parties, further safeguarding personal privacy. However,  Bumble does use the chat data for its own internal purposes after removing personally identifiable information from chats. The manner of such review and removal of data has not been specified, which may raise challenges depending upon whether the reviewer is a human or an algorithm.

However, some users perceive the feature as counterproductive to the company’s principle of ‘women make the first move’. While Bumble aims to market the feature as a neutral ground for matched users based on the exercise of choice, users see it as a step back into the heteronormative gender expectations that most dating apps conform to, putting the onus of the ‘first move’ on men. Many male users have complained that the feature acts as a catalyst for men to opt out of the dating app and would most likely refrain from interacting with profiles enabled with the ‘Opening Move’ feature, since the pressure to answer in a creative manner is disproportionate with the likelihood their response actually being entertained.[2] Coupled with the female users terming the original protocol as ‘too much effort’, the preset questions of the ‘Opening Move’ feature may actively invite users to categorise potential matches according to arbitrary questions that undermine real-life experiences, perspectives and backgrounds of each individual.[3]

Additionally, complications are likely to arise when a notorious user sets a question that indirectly gleans personal or sensitive, identifiable information. The individual responding may be bullied or be subjected to hateful slurs when they respond to such carefully crafted conversation prompts.

Safety and Privacy Concerns

On the corollary, the appearance of choice may translate into more challenges for women on the platform. The feature may spark an increase in the number of unsolicited, undesirable messages and images from a potential match. The most vulnerable groups at present remain individuals who identify as females and other sexual minorities.[4] At present, there appears to be no mechanism in place to proactively monitor the content of responses, relying instead on user reporting. This approach may prove to be impractical given the potential volume of objectionable messages, necessitating a more efficient solution to address this issue. It is to be noted that in spite of a user reporting, the current redressal systems of online platforms remain lax, largely inadequate and demonstrate ineffectiveness in addressing user concerns or grievances. This lack of proactiveness is violative of the right to redressal provided under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. It is thought that the feature may actually take away user autonomy that Bumble originally aimed to grant since Individuals who identify as introverted, shy, soft-spoken, or non-assertive may refrain from reporting harassing messages altogether, potentially due to discomfort or reluctance to engage in confrontation. Resultantly, it is anticipated that there would be a sharp uptake in cases pertaining to cyberbullying, harassment and hate speech (especially vulgar communications) towards both the user and the potential match. 

From an Indian legal perspective, dating apps have to adhere to the Information Technology Act, 2000 [5], the Information Technology (Intermediary and Digital Media Ethics) Rules 2021 [6] and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, that regulates a person’s digital privacy and set standards on the kind of content an intermediary may host. An obligation is cast upon an intermediary to uprise its users on what content is not allowed on its platform in addition to mandating intimation of the user’s digital rights. The lack of automated checks, as mentioned above, is likely to make Bumble non-compliant with the ethical guidelines. 

The optional nature of the ‘Opening Move’ grants users some autonomy. However, some technical updates may enhance the user experience of this feature. Technologies like AI are an effective aid in behavioural and predictive analysis. An upgraded ‘matching’ algorithm can analyse the number of un-matches a profile receives, thereby identifying and flagging a profile having multiple lapsed matches. Additionally, the design interface of the application bearing a filter option to filter out flagged profiles would enable a user to be cautious while navigating through the matches. Another possible method of weeding out notorious profiles is by deploying a peer-review system of profiles whereby a user has a singular check-box that enables them to flag a profile. Such a checkbox would ideally be devoid of any option for writing personal comments and would bear a check box stating whether the profile is most or least likely to bully/harass. This would ensure that a binary, precise response is recorded and any coloured remarks are avoided. [7]

Governance and Monitoring Mechanisms

From a governance point of view, a monitoring mechanism on the manner of crafting questions is critical. Systems should be designed to detect certain words/sentences and a specific manner of framing sentences to disallow questions contrary to the national legal framework. An onscreen notification having instructions on generally acceptable manner of conversations as a reminder to users to maintain cyber hygiene while conversing is also proposed as a mandated requirement for platforms. The notification/notice may also include guidelines on what information is safe to share in order to safeguard user privacy. Lastly, a revised privacy policy should establish the legal basis for processing responses to ‘Opening Moves’, thereby bringing it in compliance with national legislations such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Conclusion

Bumble's 'Opening Move' feature marks the company’s ‘statement’ step to address user concerns regarding initiating conversations on the platform. While it has been praised for fostering more meaningful interactions, it also raises not only ethical concerns but also concerns over user safety. While the 'Opening Move' feature can potentially enhance user experience, its success is largely dependent on Bumble's ability to effectively navigate the complex issues associated with this feature. A more robust monitoring mechanism that utilises newer technology is critical to address user concerns and to ensure compliance with national laws on data privacy.

Endnotes:

• [1] Bumble’s privacy policy https://bumble.com/en-us/privacy  
• [2] Discussion thread, r/bumble, Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Bumble/comments/1cgrs0d/women_on_bumble_no_longer_have_to_make_the_first/?share_id=idm6DK7e0lgkD7ZQ2TiTq&utm_content=2&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1&rdt=65068 
• [3] Mcrea-Hedley, Olivia, “Love on the Apps: When did Dating Become so Political?”, 8 February 2024 https://www.service95.com/the-politics-of-dating-apps/ 
• [4] Gewirtz-Meydan, A., Volman-Pampanel, D., Opuda, E., & Tarshish, N. (2024). ‘Dating Apps: A New Emerging Platform for Sexual Harassment? A Scoping Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 752-763. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162969 
• [5]  Information Technology Act, 2000 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13116/1/it_act_2000_updated.pdf 
• [6]  Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics) Rules 2021 https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Information%20Technology%20%28Intermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital%20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20%28updated%2006.04.2023%29-.pdf 
• [7]  Date Confidently: Engaging Features in a Dating App (Use Cases), Consaguous, 10 July 2023 https://www.consagous.co/blog/date-confidently-engaging-features-in-a-dating-app-use-cases  

‍

Introduction

In this ever-evolving world of technology, cybercrimes and criminals continue to explore new and innovative methods to exploit and intimidate their victims. One of the recent shocking incidents has been reported from the city of Bharatpur, Rajasthan, where the cyber crooks organised a mock court session This complex operation, meant to induce fear and force obedience, exemplifies the daring and intelligence of modern hackers. In this blog article, we’ll go deeper into this concerning occurrence, delving into it to offer light on the strategies used and the ramifications for cybersecurity.to frighten their targets.

The Setup

The case was reported from Gopalgarh village in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, and has unfolded with a shocking twist -the father-son duo, Tahir Khan and his son Talim Khano — from Gopalgarh village in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, has been fooling people to gain their monetary gain by staging a mock court setting and recorded the proceedings to intimidate their victims into paying hefty sums. In the recent case, they have gained 2.69 crores through sextortion. the duo uses to trace their targets on social media platforms, blackmail them, and earn a hefty amount.

An official complaint was filed by a 69-year-old victim who was singled out through his social media accounts, his friends, and his posts Initially, they contacted the victim with a pre-recorded video featuring a nude woman, coaxing him into a compromising situation. As officials from the Delhi Crime Branch and the CBI, they threatened the victim, claiming that a girl had approached them intending to file a complaint against him. Later, masquerading as YouTubers, they threatened to release the incriminating video online. Adding to the charade, they impersonated a local MLA and presented the victim with a forged stamp paper alleging molestation charges. Eventually, posing as Delhi Crime Branch officials again, they demanded money to settle the case after falsely stating that they had apprehended the girl. To further manipulate the victim, the accused staged a court proceeding, recording it and subsequently sending it to him, creating the illusion that everything was concluded. This unique case of sextortion stands out as the only instance where the culprits went to such lengths, staging and recording a mock court to extort money.  Furthermore, it was discovered that the accused had fabricated a letter from the Delhi High Court, adding another layer of deception to their scheme.

The Investigation

The complaint was made in a cyber cell. After the complaint was filed, the investigation was made, and it was found that this case stands as one of the most significant sextortion incidents in the country. The father-son pair skillfully assumed five different roles, meticulously executing their plan, which included creating a simulated court environment. “We have also managed to recover Rs 25 lakh from the accused duo—some from their residence in Gopalgarh and the rest from the bank account where it was deposited.

The Tricks used by the duo
The father-son The setup in the fake court scene event was a meticulously built web of deception to inspire fear and weakness in the victim. Let’s look at the tricks the two used to fool the people.

• Social Engineering strategies: Cyber criminals are skilled at using social engineering strategies to acquire the trust of their victims. In this situation, they may have employed phishing emails or phone calls to get personal information about the victim. By appearing as respectable persons or organisations, the crooks tricked the victim into disclosing vital information, giving them weapons they needed to create a sense of trustworthiness.
• Making a False Narrative: To make the fictitious court scenario more credible, the cyber hackers concocted a captivating story based on the victim’s purported legal problems. They might have created plausible papers to give their plan authority, such as forged court summonses, legal notifications, or warrants. They attempted to create a sense of impending danger and an urgent necessity for the victim to comply with their demands by deploying persuasive language and legal jargon.
• Psychological Manipulation: The perpetrators of the fictitious court scenario were well aware of the power of psychological manipulation in coercing their victims. They hoped to emotionally overwhelm the victim by using fear, uncertainty, and the possible implications of legal action. The offenders probably used threats of incarceration, fines, or public exposure to increase the victim’s fear and hinder their capacity to think critically. The idea was to use desperation and anxiety to force the victim to comply.
• Use of Technology to Strengthen Deception: Technological advancements have given cyber thieves tremendous tools to strengthen their misleading methods. The simulated court scenario might have included speech modulation software or deep fake technology to impersonate the voices or appearances of legal experts, judges, or law enforcement personnel. This technology made the deception even more believable, blurring the border between fact and fiction for the victim.

The use of technology in cybercriminals’ misleading techniques has considerably increased their capacity to fool and influence victims. Cybercriminals may develop incredibly realistic and persuasive simulations of judicial processes using speech modulation software, deep fake technology, digital evidence alteration, and real-time communication tools. Individuals must be attentive, gain digital literacy skills, and practice critical thinking when confronting potentially misleading circumstances online as technology advances. Individuals can better protect themselves against the expanding risks posed by cyber thieves by comprehending these technological breakthroughs.

What to do?

Seeking Help and Reporting Incidents: If you or anyone you know is the victim of cybercrime or is fooled by cybercrooks. When confronted with disturbing scenarios such as the imitation court scene staged by cybercrooks, victims must seek help and act quickly by reporting the occurrence. Prompt reporting serves various reasons, including increasing awareness, assisting with investigations, and preventing similar crimes from occurring again. Victims should take the following steps:

• Contact your local law enforcement: Inform local legal enforcement about the cybercrime event. Provide them with pertinent incident facts and proof since they have the experience and resources to investigate cybercrime and catch the offenders involved.
• Seek Assistance from a Cybersecurity specialist: Consult a cybersecurity specialist or respected cybersecurity business to analyse the degree of the breach, safeguard your digital assets, and obtain advice on minimising future risks. Their knowledge and forensic analysis can assist in gathering evidence and mitigating the consequences of the occurrence.
• Preserve Evidence: Keep any evidence relating to the event, including emails, texts, and suspicious actions. Avoid erasing digital evidence, and consider capturing screenshots or creating copies of pertinent exchanges. Evidence preservation is critical for investigations and possible legal procedures.

Conclusion

The setting fake court scene event shows how cybercriminals would deceive and abuse their victims. These criminals tried to use fear and weakness in the victim through social engineering methods, the fabrication of a false narrative, the manipulation of personal information, psychological manipulation, and the use of technology. Individuals can better defend themselves against cybercrooks by remaining watchful and sceptical.