Twitter on Legal CrossRoads
Introduction
Twitter Inc.’s appeal against barring orders for specific accounts issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was denied by a single judge on the Karnataka High Court. Twitter Inc. was also given an Rs. 50 lakh fine by Justice Krishna Dixit, who claimed the social media corporation had approached the court defying government directives.
As a foreign corporation, Twitter’s locus standi had been called into doubt by the government, which said they were ineligible to apply Articles 19 and 21 to their situation. Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.
The Issue
In accordance with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the Ministry issued the directives. Nevertheless, Twitter had argued in its appeal that the orders “fall foul of Section 69A both substantially and procedurally.” Twitter argued that in accordance with 69A, account holders were to be notified before having their tweets and accounts deleted. However, the Ministry failed to provide these account holders with any notices.
On June 4, 2022, and again on June 6, 2022, the government sent letters to Twitter’s compliance officer requesting that they come before them and provide an explanation for why the Blocking Orders were not followed and why no action should be taken against them.
Twitter replied on June 9 that the content against which it had not followed the blocking orders does not seem to be a violation of Section 69A. On June 27, 2022, the Government issued another notice stating Twitter was violating its directions. On June 29, Twitter replied, asking the Government to reconsider the direction on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality. On June 30, 2022, the Government withdrew blocking orders on ten account-level URLs but gave an additional list of 27 URLs to be blocked. On July 10, more accounts were blocked. Compiling the orders “under protest,” Twitter approached the HC with the petition challenging the orders.
Legality
Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.
Government attorney Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan argued that tweets mentioning “Indian Occupied Kashmir” and the survival of LTTE commander Velupillai Prabhakaran were serious enough to undermine the integrity of the nation.
Twitter, on the other hand, claimed that its users have pushed for these rights. Additionally, Twitter maintained that under Article 14 of the Constitution, even as a foreign company, they were entitled to certain rights, such as the right to equality. They also argued that the reason for the account blocking in each case was not stated and that Section 69a’s provision for blocking a URL should only apply to the offending URL rather than the entire account because blocking the entire account would prevent the creation of information while blocking the offending tweet only applied to already-created information.
Conclusion
The evolution of cyberspace has been substantiated by big tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and many more. These companies have been instrumental in leading the spectrum of emerging technologies and creating a blanket of ease and accessibility for users. Compliance with laws and policies is of utmost priority for the government, and the new bills and policies are empowering the Indian cyberspace. Non Compliance will be taken very seriously, and the same is legalised under the Intermediary Guidelines 2021 and 2022 by Meity. Referring to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which pertains to an exemption from liability of intermediary in some instances, it was said, “Intermediary is bound to obey the orders which the designate authority/agency which the government fixes from time to time.”
Related Blogs
Disclaimer:
This report is based on extensive research conducted by CyberPeace Research using publicly available information, and advanced analytical techniques. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions presented are based on the data available at the time of study and aim to provide insights into global ransomware trends.
The statistics mentioned in this report are specific to the scope of this research and may vary based on the scope and resources of other third-party studies. Additionally, all data referenced is based on claims made by threat actors and does not imply confirmation of the breach by CyberPeace. CyberPeace includes this detail solely to provide factual transparency and does not condone any unlawful activities. This information is shared only for research purposes and to spread awareness. CyberPeace encourages individuals and organizations to adopt proactive cybersecurity measures to protect against potential threats.
CyberPeace Research does not claim to have identified or attributed specific cyber incidents to any individual, organization, or nation-state beyond the scope of publicly observable activities and available information. All analyses and references are intended for informational and awareness purposes only, without any intention to defame, accuse, or harm any entity.
While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, CyberPeace Research is not liable for any errors, omissions, subsequent interpretations and any unlawful activities of the findings by third parties. The report is intended to inform and support cybersecurity efforts globally and should be used as a guide to foster proactive measures against cyber threats.
Executive Summary:
The 2024 ransomware landscape reveals alarming global trends, with 166 Threat Actor Groups leveraging 658 servers/underground resources and mirrors to execute 5,233 claims across 153 countries. Monthly fluctuations in activity indicate strategic, cyclical targeting, with peak periods aligned with vulnerabilities in specific sectors and regions. The United States was the most targeted nation, followed by Canada, the UK, Germany, and other developed countries, with the northwestern hemisphere experiencing the highest concentration of attacks. Business Services and Healthcare bore the brunt of these operations due to their high-value data, alongside targeted industries such as Pharmaceuticals, Mechanical, Metal, Electronics, and Government-related professional firms. Retail, Financial, Technology, and Energy sectors were also significantly impacted.
This research was conducted by CyberPeace Research using a systematic modus operandi, which included advanced OSINT (Open-Source Intelligence) techniques, continuous monitoring of Ransomware Group activities, and data collection from 658 servers and mirrors globally. The team utilized data scraping, pattern analysis, and incident mapping to track trends and identify hotspots of ransomware activity. By integrating real-time data and geographic claims, the research provided a comprehensive view of sectoral and regional impacts, forming the basis for actionable insights.
The findings emphasize the urgent need for proactive Cybersecurity strategies, robust defenses, and global collaboration to counteract the evolving and persistent threats posed by ransomware.
Overview:
This report provides insights into ransomware activities monitored throughout 2024. Data was collected by observing 166 Threat Actor Groups using ransomware technologies across 658 servers/underground resources and mirrors, resulting in 5,233 claims worldwide. The analysis offers a detailed examination of global trends, targeted sectors, and geographical impact.
Top 10 Threat Actor Groups:
The ransomware group ‘ransomhub’ has emerged as the leading threat actor, responsible for 527 incidents worldwide. Following closely are ‘lockbit3’ with 522 incidents and ‘play’ with 351. Other Groups are ‘akira’, ‘hunters’, ‘medusa’, ‘blackbasta’, ‘qilin’, ‘bianlian’, ‘incransom’. These groups usually employ advanced tactics to target critical sectors, highlighting the urgent need for robust cybersecurity measures to mitigate their impact and protect organizations from such threats.
Monthly Ransomware Incidents:
In January 2024, the value began at 284, marking the lowest point on the chart. The trend rose steadily in the subsequent months, reaching its first peak at 557 in May 2024. However, after this peak, the value dropped sharply to 339 in June. A gradual recovery follows, with the value increasing to 446 by August. September sees another decline to 389, but a sharp rise occurs afterward, culminating in the year’s highest point of 645 in November. The year concludes with a slight decline, ending at 498 in December 2024 (till 28th of December).
Top 10 Targeted Countries:
- The United States consistently topped the list as the primary target probably due to its advanced economic and technological infrastructure.
- Other heavily targeted nations include Canada, UK, Germany, Italy, France, Brazil, Spain, and India.
- A total of 153 countries reported ransomware attacks, reflecting the global scale of these cyber threats
Top Affected Sectors:
- Business Services and Healthcare faced the brunt of ransomware threat due to the sensitive nature of their operations.
- Specific industries under threats:
- Pharmaceutical, Mechanical, Metal, and Electronics industries.
- Professional firms within the Government sector.
- Other sectors:
- Retail, Financial, Technology, and Energy sectors were also significant targets.
Geographical Impact:
The continuous and precise OSINT(Open Source Intelligence) work on the platform, performed as a follow-up action to data scraping, allows a complete view of the geography of cyber attacks based on their claims. The northwestern region of the world appears to be the most severely affected by Threat Actor groups. The figure below clearly illustrates the effects of this geographic representation on the map.
Ransomware Threat Trends in India:
In 2024, the research identified 98 ransomware incidents impacting various sectors in India, marking a 55% increase compared to the 63 incidents reported in 2023. This surge highlights a concerning trend, as ransomware groups continue to target India's critical sectors due to its growing digital infrastructure and economic prominence.
Top Threat Actors Group Targeted India:
Among the following threat actors ‘killsec’ is the most frequent threat. ‘lockbit3’ follows as the second most prominent threat, with significant but lower activity than killsec. Other groups, such as ‘ransomhub’, ‘darkvault’, and ‘clop’, show moderate activity levels. Entities like ‘bianlian’, ‘apt73/bashe’, and ‘raworld’ have low frequencies, indicating limited activity. Groups such as ‘aps’ and ‘akira’ have the lowest representation, indicating minimal activity. The chart highlights a clear disparity in activity levels among these threats, emphasizing the need for targeted cybersecurity strategies.
Top Impacted Sectors in India:
The pie chart illustrates the distribution of incidents across various sectors, highlighting that the industrial sector is the most frequently targeted, accounting for 75% of the total incidents. This is followed by the healthcare sector, which represents 12% of the incidents, making it the second most affected. The finance sector accounts for 10% of the incidents, reflecting a moderate level of targeting. In contrast, the government sector experiences the least impact, with only 3% of the incidents, indicating minimal targeting compared to the other sectors. This distribution underscores the critical need for enhanced cybersecurity measures, particularly in the industrial sector, while also addressing vulnerabilities in healthcare, finance, and government domains.
Month Wise Incident Trends in India:
The chart indicates a fluctuating trend with notable peaks in May and October, suggesting potential periods of heightened activity or incidents during these months. The data starts at 5 in January and drops to its lowest point, 2, in February. It then gradually increases to 6 in March and April, followed by a sharp rise to 14 in May. After peaking in May, the metric significantly declines to 4 in June but starts to rise again, reaching 7 in July and 8 in August. September sees a slight dip to 5 before the metric spikes dramatically to its highest value, 24, in October. Following this peak, the count decreases to 10 in November and then drops further to 7 in December.
CyberPeace Advisory:
- Implement Data Backup and Recovery Plans: Backups are your safety net. Regularly saving copies of your important data ensures you can bounce back quickly if ransomware strikes. Make sure these backups are stored securely—either offline or in a trusted cloud service—to avoid losing valuable information or facing extended downtime.
- Enhance Employee Awareness and Training: People often unintentionally open the door to ransomware. By training your team to spot phishing emails, social engineering tricks, and other scams, you empower them to be your first line of defense against attacks.
- Adopt Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Think of MFA as locking your door and adding a deadbolt. Even if attackers get hold of your password, they’ll still need that second layer of verification to break in. It’s an easy and powerful way to block unauthorized access.
- Utilize Advanced Threat Detection Tools: Smart tools can make a world of difference. AI-powered systems and behavior-based monitoring can catch ransomware activity early, giving you a chance to stop it in its tracks before it causes real damage.
- Conduct Regular Vulnerability Assessments: You can’t fix what you don’t know is broken. Regularly checking for vulnerabilities in your systems helps you identify weak spots. By addressing these issues proactively, you can stay one step ahead of attackers.
Conclusion:
The 2024 ransomware landscape reveals the critical need for proactive cybersecurity strategies. High-value sectors and technologically advanced regions remain the primary targets, emphasizing the importance of robust defenses. As we move into 2025, it is crucial to anticipate the evolution of ransomware tactics and adopt forward-looking measures to address emerging threats.
Global collaboration, continuous innovation in cybersecurity technologies, and adaptive strategies will be imperative to counteract the persistent and evolving threats posed by ransomware activities. Organizations and governments must prioritize preparedness and resilience, ensuring that lessons learned in 2024 are applied to strengthen defenses and minimize vulnerabilities in the year ahead.
Introduction
The Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications notified the Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024 on 22nd November 2024. These rules were notified to overcome the vulnerabilities that rapid technological advancements pose. The evolving nature of cyber threats has contributed to strengthening and enhancing telecom cyber security. These rules empower the central government to seek traffic data and any other data (other than the content of messages) from service providers.
Background Context
The Telecommunications Act of 2023 was passed by Parliament in December, receiving the President's assent and being published in the official Gazette on December 24, 2023. The act is divided into 11 chapters 62 sections and 3 schedules. The said act has repealed the old legislation viz. Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1933. The government has enforced the act in phases. Sections 1, 2, 10-30, 42-44, 46, 47, 50-58, 61, and 62 came into force on June 26, 2024. While, sections 6-8, 48, and 59(b) were notified to be effective from July 05, 2024.
These rules have been notified under the powers granted by Section 22(1) and Section 56(2)(v) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.
Key Provisions of the Rules
These rules collectively aim to reinforce telecom cyber security and ensure the reliability of telecommunication networks and services. They are as follows:
The Central Government agency authorized by it may request traffic or other data from a telecommunication entity through the Central Government portal to safeguard and ensure telecom cyber security. In addition, the Central Govt. can instruct telecommunication entities to establish the necessary infrastructure and equipment for data collection, processing, and storage from designated points.
● Obligations Relating To Telecom Cybersecurity:
Telecom entities must adhere to various obligations to prevent cyber security risks. Telecommunication cyber security must not be endangered, and no one is allowed to send messages that could harm it. Misuse of telecommunication equipment such as identifiers, networks, or services is prohibited. Telecommunication entities are also required to comply with directions and standards issued by the Central Govt. and furnish detailed reports of actions taken on the government portal.
● Compulsory Measures To Be Taken By Every Telecommunication Entity:
Telecom entities must adopt and notify the Central Govt. of a telecom cyber security policy to enhance cybersecurity. They have to identify and mitigate risks of security incidents, ensure timely responses, and take appropriate measures to address such incidents and minimize their impact. Periodic telecom cyber security audits must be conducted to assess network resilience against potential threats for telecom entities. They must report security incidents promptly to the Central Govt. and establish facilities like a Security Operations Centre.
● Reporting of Security Incidents:
- Telecommunication entities must report the detection of security incidents affecting their network or services within six hours.
- 24 hours are provided for submitting detailed information about the incident, including the number of affected users, the duration, geographical scope, the impact on services, and the remedial measures implemented.
The Central Govt. may require the affected entity to provide further information, such as its cyber security policy, or conduct a security audit.
CyberPeace Policy Analysis
The notified rules reflect critical updates from their draft version, including the obligation to report incidents immediately upon awareness. This ensures greater privacy for consumers while still enabling robust cybersecurity oversight. Importantly, individuals whose telecom identifiers are suspended or disconnected due to security concerns must be given a copy of the order and a chance to appeal, ensuring procedural fairness. The notified rules have removed "traffic data" and "message content" definitions that may lead to operational ambiguities. While the rules establish a solid foundation for protecting telecom networks, they pose significant compliance challenges, particularly for smaller operators who may struggle with costs associated with audits, infrastructure, and reporting requirements.
Conclusion
The Telecom Cyber Security Rules, 2024 represent a comprehensive approach to securing India’s communication networks against cyber threats. Mandating robust cybersecurity policies, rapid incident reporting, and procedural safeguards allows the rules to balance national security with privacy and fairness. However, addressing implementation challenges through stakeholder collaboration and detailed guidelines will be key to ensuring compliance without overburdening telecom operators. With adaptive execution, these rules have the potential to enhance the resilience of India’s telecom sector and also position the country as a global leader in digital security standards.
References
● Telecommunications Act, 2023 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:767484b8-4d05-40b3-9c3d-30c5642c3bac
● CyberPeace First Read of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/the-government-enforces-key-sections-of-the-telecommunication-act-2023
● Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024
Introduction
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an advisory on March 1 2024, urging platforms to prevent bias, discrimination, and threats to electoral integrity by using AI, generative AI, LLMs, or other algorithms. The advisory requires that AI models deemed unreliable or under-tested in India must obtain explicit government permission before deployment. While leveraging Artificial Intelligence models, Generative AI, software, or algorithms in their computer resources, Intermediaries and platforms need to ensure that they prevent bias, discrimination, and threats to electoral integrity. As Intermediaries are required to follow due diligence obligations outlined under “Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)Rules, 2021, updated as of 06.04.2023”. This advisory is issued to urge the intermediaries to abide by the IT rules and regulations and compliance therein.
Key Highlights of the Advisories
- Intermediaries and platforms must ensure that users of Artificial Intelligence models/LLM/Generative AI, software, or algorithms do not allow users to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update, or share unlawful content, as per Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules.
- The government emphasises intermediaries and platforms to prevent bias or discrimination in their use of Artificial Intelligence models, LLMs, and Generative AI, software, or algorithms, ensuring they do not threaten the integrity of the electoral process.
- The government requires explicit permission to use deemed under-testing or unreliable AI models, LLMs, or algorithms on the Indian internet. Further, it must be deployed with proper labelling of potential fallibility or unreliability. Further, users can be informed through a consent popup mechanism.
- The advisory specifies that all users should be well informed about the consequences of dealing with unlawful information on platforms, including disabling access, removing non-compliant information, suspension or termination of access or usage rights of the user to their user account and imposing punishment under applicable law. It entails that users are clearly informed, through terms of services and user agreements, about the consequences of engaging with unlawful information on the platform.
- The advisory also indicates measures advocating to combat deepfakes or misinformation. The advisory necessitates identifying synthetically created content across various formats, advising platforms to employ labels, unique identifiers, or metadata to ensure transparency. Furthermore, the advisory mandates the disclosure of software details and tracing the first originator of such synthetically created content.
Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Union Minister of State for IT, specified that
“Advisory is aimed at the Significant platforms, and permission seeking from Meity is only for large platforms and will not apply to startups. Advisory is aimed at untested AI platforms from deploying on the Indian Internet. Process of seeking permission , labelling & consent based disclosure to user about untested platforms is insurance policy to platforms who can otherwise be sued by consumers. Safety & Trust of India's Internet is a shared and common goal for Govt, users and Platforms.”
Conclusion
MeitY's advisory sets the stage for a more regulated Al landscape. The Indian government requires explicit permission for the deployment of under-testing or unreliable Artificial Intelligence models on the Indian Internet. Alongside intermediaries, the advisory also applies to digital platforms that incorporate Al elements. Advisory is aimed at significant platforms and will not apply to startups. This move safeguards users and fosters innovation by promoting responsible AI practices, paving the way for a more secure and inclusive digital environment.
References
- https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/03/04/meity_ai_advisory_1_march.pdf
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/govts-ai-advisory-will-not-apply-to-startups-mos-it-rajeev-chandrasekhar/articleshow/108197797.cms?from=mdr
- https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Advisory%2015March%202024.pdf
