TRAI on Promotional Messages & Calls
Introduction
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), on March 13 2023, published a new rule to regulate telemarketing firms. Trai has demonstrated strictness when it comes to bombarding users with intrusive marketing pitches. In a report, TRAI stated that 10-digit mobile numbers could not be utilised for advertising. In reality, different phone numbers are given out for regular calls and telemarketing calls. Hence, it is an appropriate and much-required move in order to suppress and eradicate phishing scammers and secure the Indian Cyber-ecosystem at large.
What are the new rules?
The rules state that now 10-digit unregistered mobile numbers for promotional purposes would be shut down over the following five days. The rule claim that calling from unregistered mobile numbers had been banned was published on February 16. In this case, using 10-digit promotional messages for promotional calling will end within the following five days. This step by TRAI has been seen after nearly 6-8 months of releasing the Telecommunication Bill, 2022, which has focused towards creating a stable Indian Telecom market and reducing the phoney calls/messages by bad actors to reduce cyber crimes like phishing. This is done to distinguish between legitimate and promotional calls. According to certain reports, some telecom firms allegedly break the law by using 10-digit mobile numbers to make unwanted calls and send promotional messages. All telecom service providers must execute the requirements under the recent TRAI directive within five days.
How will the new rules help?
The promotional use of a cellphone number with 10 digits was allowed since the start, however, with the latest NCRB report on cyber crimes and the rising instances and reporting of cyber crimes primarily focused towards frauds related to monetary gains by the bad actors points to the issue of unregulated promotional messages. This move will act as a critical step towards eradicating scammers from the cyber-ecosystem, TRAI has been very critical in understanding the dynamics and shortcomings in the regulation of the telecom spectrum and network in India and has shown keen interest towards suppressing the modes of technology used by the scammers. It is a fact that the invention of the technology does not define its use, the policy of the technology does, hence it is important to draft ad enact policies which better regulate the existing and emerging technologies.
What to avoid?
In pursuance of the rules enacted by TRAI, the business owners involved in promotional services through 10-digit numbers will have to follow these steps-
- It is against the law to utilise a 10-digit cellphone number for promotional calls.
- You should stop doing so right now.
- Your mobile number will be blocked in the following five days if not.
- Users employed by telemarketing firms are encouraged to refrain from using the system in such circumstances.
- Those working for telemarketing firms are encouraged not to call from their mobile numbers.
- Users should phone the company’s registered mobile number for promotional purposes.
Conclusion
The Indian netizen has been exposed to the technology a little later than the western world. However, this changed drastically during the Covid-19 pandemic as the internet and technology penetration rates increased exponentially in just a couple of months. Although this has been used as an advantage by the bad actors, it was pertinent for the government and its institutions to take an effective and efficient step to safeguard the people from financial fraud. Although these frauds occur in high numbers due to a lack of knowledge and awareness, we need to work on preventive solutions rather than precautionary steps and the new rules by TRAI point towards a safe, secured and sustainable future of cyberspace in India.
Related Blogs
.webp)
Introduction
In the labyrinthine world of digital currencies, a new chapter unfolds as India intensifies its scrutiny over the ethereal realm of offshore cryptocurrency exchanges. With nuance and determination that virtually mirrors the Byzantine complexities of the very currencies they seek to regulate, Indian authorities embark on a course of stringent oversight, bringing to the fore an ever-evolving narrative of control and compliance in the fintech sector. The government's latest manoeuvre—a directive to Apple Inc. to excise the apps of certain platforms, including the colossus Binance, from its App Store in India—signals a crescendo in the nation's efforts to rein in the unbridled digital bazaar that had hitherto thrived in a semi-autonomous expanse of cyberspace.
The directive, with ramifications as significant and intricate as the cryptographic algorithms that underpin the blockchain, stems from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, which has cast eight exchanges, including Bitfinex, HTX, and Kucoin, into the shadows, rendering their apps as elusive as the Higgs boson in the vast App Store universe. The movement of these exchanges from visibility to obscurity in the digital storefront is cloaked in secrecy, with sources privy to this development remaining cloaked in anonymity, their identities as guarded as the cryptographic keys that secure blockchain transactions.
The Contention
This escalation, however, did not manifest from the vacuum of the ether; it is the culmination of a series of precipitating actions that began unfolding on December 28th, when the Indian authorities unfurled a net over nine exchanges, ensnaring them with suspicions of malfeasance. The spectre of inaccessible funds, a byproduct of this entanglement, has since haunted Indian crypto traders, prompting a migration of deposits to local exchanges that operate within the nation's regulatory framework—a fortress against the uncertainties of the offshore crypto tempest.
The extent of the authorities' reach manifests further, beckoning Alphabet Inc.'s Google to follow in Apple's footsteps. Yet, in a display of the unpredictable nature of enforcement, the Google Play Store in India still played host to the very apps that Apple's digital Eden had forsaken as of a nondescript Wednesday afternoon, marked by the relentless march of time. The triad of power-brokers—Apple, Google, and India's technology ministry—has maintained a stance as enigmatic as the Sphinx, their communications as impenetrable as the vaults that secure the nation's precious monetary reserves.
Compounding the tightening of this digital noose, the Financial Intelligence Unit of India, a sentinel ever vigilant at the gates of financial propriety, unfurled a compliance show-cause notice to the nine offshore platforms, an ultimatum demanding they justify their elusive presence in Indian cyberspace. The FIU's decree echoed with clarity amidst the cacophony of regulatory overtures: these digital entities were tethered to operations sequestered in the shadows, skirting the reach of India's anti-money laundering edicts, their websites lingering in cyberspace like forbidden fruit, tantalisingly within reach yet potentially laced with the cyanide of non-compliance.
In this chaotic tableau of constraint and control, a glimmer of presence remains—only Bitstamp has managed to brave the regulatory storm, maintaining its presence on the Indian App Store, a lone beacon amid the turbulent sea of regimentation. Kraken, another leviathan of crypto depths, presented only its Pro version to the Indian connoisseurs of the digital marketplace. An aura of silence envelops industry giants such as Binance, Bitfinex, and KuCoin, their absence forming a void as profound as the dark side of the moon in the consciousness of Indian users. HTX, formerly known as Huobi, has announced a departure from Indian operations with the detached finality of a distant celestial body, cold and indifferent to the gravitational pull of India's regulatory orbit.
Compliances
In compliance with the provisions of the Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 and the recent uproar on crypto assessment apps, Apple store finally removed these apps namely Binance and Kucoin from the store after receiving show cause notice. The alleged illegal operation and failure to comply with existing money laundering laws are major reasons for their removal.
The Indian Narrative
The overarching narrative of India's embrace of rigid oversight aligns with a broader global paradigm shift, where digital financial assets are increasingly subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as their physical analogues. The persistence in imposing anti-money laundering provisions upon the crypto sector reflects this shift, with India positioning its regulatory lens in alignment with the stars of international accountability. The preceding year bore witness to seismic shifts as Indian authorities imposed a tax upon crypto transactions, a move that precipitated a downfall in trading volumes, reminiscent of Icarus's fateful flight—hubris personified as his waxen appendages succumbed to the unrelenting kiss of the sun.
On a local scale, trading powerhouses lament the imposition of a 1% levy, colloquially known as Tax Deducted at Source. This fiscal shackle drove an exodus of Indian crypto traders into the waiting, seemingly benevolent arms of offshore financial Edens, absolved of such taxational rites. As Sumit Gupta, CEO of CoinDCX, recounted, this fiscal migration witnessed the haemorrhaging of revenue. His estimation that a staggering 95% of trading volume abandoned local shores for the tranquil harbours of offshore havens punctuates the magnitude of this phenomenon.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the story of India's proactive clampdown on offshore crypto exchanges resembles a meticulously woven tapestry of regulatory ardour, financial prudence, and the inexorable progression towards a future where digital incarnations mirror the scrutinised tangibility of physical assets. It is a saga delineating a nation's valiant navigation through the tempestuous, cryptic waters of cryptocurrency, helming its ship with unwavering determination, with eyes keenly trained on the farthest reaches of the horizon. Here, amidst the fusion of digital and corporeal realms, India charts its destiny, setting its sails towards an inextricably linked future that promises to shape the contour of the global financial landscape.
References
- https://www.business-standard.com/markets/cryptocurrency/govt-escalates-clampdown-on-offshore-crypto-venues-like-binance-report-124011000586_1.html
- https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/india-escalates-clampdown-on-offshore-crypto-exchanges-like-binance-18763111.htm
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/centre-blocks-web-platforms-of-offshore-crypto-apps-binance-kucoin-and-others/articleshow/106783697.cms?from=mdr
Executive Summary:
A photo circulating on the web that claims to show the future design of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center, BARC building, has been found to be fake after fact checking has been done. Nevertheless, there is no official notice or confirmation from BARC on its website or social media handles. Through the AI Content Detection tool, we have discovered that the image is a fake as it was generated by an AI. In short, the viral picture is not the authentic architectural plans drawn up for the BARC building.
Claims:
A photo allegedly representing the new outlook of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) building is reigning over social media platforms.
Fact Check:
To begin our investigation, we surfed the BARC's official website to check out their tender and NITs notifications to inquire for new constructions or renovations.
It was a pity that there was no corresponding information on what was being claimed.
Then, we hopped on their official social media pages and searched for any latest updates on an innovative building construction, if any. We looked on Facebook, Instagram and X . Again, there was no information about the supposed blueprint. To validate the fact that the viral image could be generated by AI, we gave a search on an AI Content Detection tool by Hive that is called ‘AI Classifier’. The tool's analysis was in congruence with the image being an AI-generated computer-made one with 100% accuracy.
To be sure, we also used another AI-image detection tool called, “isitai?” and it turned out to be 98.74% AI generated.
Conclusion:
To conclude, the statement about the image being the new BARC building is fake and misleading. A detailed investigation, examining BARC's authorities and utilizing AI detection tools, proved that the picture is more probable an AI-generated one than an original architectural design. BARC has not given any information nor announced anything for such a plan. This makes the statement untrustworthy since there is no credible source to support it.
Claim: Many social media users claim to show the new design of the BARC building.
Claimed on: X, Facebook
Fact Check: Misleading
Introduction:
Welcome to the second edition of our blog on Digital forensics series. In our previous blog we discussed what digital forensics is, the process followed by the tools, and the subsequent challenges faced in the field. Further, we looked at how the future of Digital Forensics will hold in the current scenario. Today, we will explore differences between 3 particular similar sounding terms that vary significantly in functionality when implemented: Copying, Cloning and Imaging.
In Digital Forensics, the preservation and analysis of electronic evidence are important for investigations and legal proceedings. Replication of the data and devices is one of the fundamental tasks in this domain, without compromising the integrity of the original evidence.
Three primary techniques -- copying, cloning, and imaging -- are used for this purpose. Each technique has its own strengths and is applied according to the needs of the investigation.
In this blog, we will examine the differences between copying, cloning and imaging. We will talk about the importance of each technique, their applications and why imaging is considered the best for forensic investigations.
Copying
Copying means duplicating data or files from one location to another. When one does copying, it implies that one is using standard copy commands. However, when dealing with evidence, it might be hard to use copy only. It is because the standard copy can alter the metadata and change the hidden or deleted data .
The characteristics of copying include:
- Speed: copying is simpler and faster,compared to cloning or imaging.
- Risk: The risk involved in copying is that the metadata might be altered and all the data might be captured.
Cloning
It is the process where the transfer of the entire contents of a hard drive or a storage device is done on another storage device. This process is known as cloning . This way, the cloning process captures both the active data and the unallocated space and hidden partitions, thus containing the whole structure of the original device. Cloning is generally used at the sector level of the device. Clones can be used as the working copy of a device .
Characteristics of cloning:
- bit-for-bit replication: cloning keeps the exact content and the whole structure of the original device.
- Use cases: cloning is used when it is needed to keep the original device intact for further examination or a legal affair.
- Time consuming: Cloning is usually longer in comparison to simple copying since it involves the whole detailed replication. Though it depends on various factors like the size of the storage device, the speed of the devices involved, and the method of cloning.
Imaging:
It is the process of creating a forensic image of a storage device. A forensic image is a replica copy of every bit of data that was on the source device, this including the allocated, unallocated, and the available slack space .
The image is then used for analysis and investigation, and the original evidence is left untouched. Images can’t be used as the working copies of a device. Unlike cloning, which produces working copies, forensic images are typically used for analysis and investigation purposes and are not intended for regular use as working copies.
Characteristics of Imaging:
- Integrity: Imaging ensures the integrity and authenticity of the evidence produced
- Flexibility: Forensic image replicas can be mounted as a virtual drive to create image-specific mode for analysis of data without affecting the original evidence .
- Metadata: Imaging captures metadata associated with the data, thus promoting forensic analysis.
Key Differences
- Purpose: Copying is for everyday use but not good for forensic investigations requiring data integrity. Cloning and imaging are made for forensic preservation.
- Depth of Replication: Cloning and imaging captures the entire storage device including hidden, unallocated, and deleted data whereas copying may miss crucial forensic data.
- Data Integrity: Imaging and cloning keep the integrity of the original evidence thus making them suitable for legal and forensic use. Which is a critical aspect of forensic investigations.
- Forensic Soundness: Imaging is considered the best in digital forensics due to its comprehensive and non-invasive nature.
- Cloning is generally from one hard disk to another, where as imaging creates a compressed file that contains a snapshot of the entire hard drive or a specific partitions
Conclusion
Therefore, copying, cloning, and imaging all deal with duplication of data or storage devices with significant variations, especially in digital forensic. However, for forensic investigations, imaging is the most selected approach due to the correct preservation of the evidence state for any analysis or legal use . Therefore, it is essential for forensic investigators to understand these rigorous differences to avail of real and uncontaminated digital evidence for their investigation and legal argument.
