Barbie malware

Overview of the India-UK Joint Tech Security Initiative

India and the UK have been deepening their technological and security ties through various initiatives and agreements. One of the key developments in this partnership is the India-UK Joint Tech Security Initiative, which focuses on enhancing collaboration in areas like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence (AI),telecommunications, and critical technologies. Building upon the bilateral cooperation agenda set out in the India-UK Roadmap 2030, which seeks to bolster cooperation across various sectors, including trade, climate change, antidefense, the UK and India launched the Joint Tech Security Initiative (TSI) on July 24, 2024. This initiative will priorities collaboration in critical and emerging technologies across priority sectors. Coordinating with the national security agencies of both countries, the TSI will set priority areas and identify interdependencies for cooperation on critical and emerging technologies. This, in turn, will help build meaningful technology value chain partnerships between India & the UK.

The TSI will be coordinated by the National Security Advisors (NSAs) of both countries through existing and new dialogues. The NSAswill set priority areas and identify interdependencies for cooperation on critical and emerging tech, helping build meaningful technology value chain partnerships between the two countries. Progress made on the initiative will be reviewed on a half-yearly basis at the Deputy NSA level. A bilateral mechanism will be established led by India's Ministry of External Affairs and the UK government for promotion of trade in critical and emerging technologies, including resolution of relevant licensing or regulatory issues. Both countries view this TSI as a platform and a strong signal of intent to build and grow sustainable and tangible partnerships across priority tech sectors. They will explore how to build a deeper strategic partnership between UK and Indian research and technology centres and Incubators, enhance cooperation across UK and India tech and innovation ecosystems, and create a channel for industry and academia to help shape the TSI.

The UK and India are launching new bilateral initiatives to expand and deepen their technology security partnership. These initiatives will focus on various domains, including telecoms, critical minerals, semiconductors, and energy security.

In telecoms, the UK and India will build a new Future Telecoms Partnership, focusing on joint research on future telecoms, open RAN systems, testbed linkups, telecoms security, spectrum innovation, software and systems architecture. This will include collaboration between UK's SONIC Labs, India's Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT), and Dot's Telecoms Startup Mission.

In critical minerals, the UK and India will expand their collaboration on critical minerals, working together to improve supply chain resilience, explore possible research and development and technology partnerships along the complete critical minerals value chain, and share best practices on ESG standards. They will establish a roadmap for cooperation and establish a UK-India ‘critical minerals’ community of academics, innovators, and industry.

Key Areas of Collaboration:

• Strengthening cybersecurity defense and enhancing resilience through joint cybersecurity exercises and information-sharing and developing common standards and best practices while collaborating with their respective organisations, ie, CERT-In and NCSC.
• Promotion of ethical AI development and deployment with AI ethics guidelines and frameworks, and efforts encouraging academic collaborations. Support for new partnerships between UK and Indian research organizations alongside existing joint programmes using AI to tackle global challenges.
• Building secure and resilient telecom infrastructure with a focus on security and exchange of expertise and regulatory cooperation. Collaboration on Open Radio Access Networks tech to name as an example.
• Critical and emerging technologies development by advancing research and innovation in the quantum, semiconductors and biotechnology niches. Promoting and investing in tech startups and innovation ecosystems. Engaging in policy dialogues on tech governance and standards.
• Digital economy and trade facilitation to promote economic growth by enhancing frameworks and agreements for it. Collaborating on digital payment systems and fintech solutions and most importantly promoting data protection and privacy standards.

Outlook and Impact on the Industry

The initiative sets out a new approach for how the UK and India work together on the defining technologies of this decade. These include areas such as telecoms, critical minerals, AI, quantum, health/biotechnology, advanced materials and semiconductors. While the initiative looks promising, several challenges need to be addressed such as the need to put robust regulatory frameworks in place, and develop a balanced approach for data privacy and information exchange in the cross-border data flows. It is imperative to install mechanisms that ensure that intellectual property is protected while the facilitation of technology transfer is not hampered. Above all, geopolitical risks need to be navigated in a manner that the tensions are reduced and a stable partnership grows. The Initiative builds on a series of partnerships between India and the UK, as well as between industry and academia.  Abilateral mechanism, led by India’s Ministry of External Affairs and the UK government, will promote trade in critical and emerging technologies, including the resolution of relevant licensing or regulatory issues.

Conclusion

This initiative, at its core, will drive forward a bilateral partnership that is framed on boosting economic growth and deepening cooperation across key issues including trade, technology, education, culture and climate.  By combining their strengths, the UK and India are poised to create a robust framework for technological innovation and security that could serve as a model for international cooperation in tech.

References

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-uk-launch-joint-tech-security-initiative-101721876539784.html
• https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-india-technology-security-initiative-factsheet/uk-india-technology-security-initiative-factsheet
• https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/india-uk-unveil-futuristic-technology-security-initiative-to-seal-fta-soon-124072500014_1.htm
• https://bharatshakti.in/india-uk-technology-security-initiative/

Introduction

‍

The courts in India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of “enhanced customer protection” and “limited liability” on their part. The rationale behind such imperatives is to extend security against exploitation by institutions that are equipped with all the means to manipulate customers. India, with its looming financial literacy gaps that have to be addressed, needs to curb any manipulation on the part of banking institutions. Various studies have highlighted this gap in recent times; for example, according to the National Centre for Financial Education, only 27% of Indian people are financially literate, which is much less than the 42% global average. With only 19% of millennials exhibiting sufficient financial awareness yet expressing high trust in their financial skills, the issue is very worrisome. Thus, the increasing number of financial frauds intensifies the issue. 

Zero Liability in Cyber Frauds: Regulatory Safeguards for Digital Banking Customers

‍

In light of the growing emphasis on financial inclusion and consumer protection, and in response to the recent rise in complaints regarding unauthorised debits from customer accounts and cards, the framework for assessing customer liability in such cases has been re-evaluated. The RBI’s circular dated July 6, 2017 titled “Customer Protection-Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions”  serves as the foundation for regulatory protections for Indian customers of digital banking. A clear and organised framework for determining customer accountability is outlined in the circular, which acknowledges the exponential increase in electronic transactions and related scams. It assigns proportional obligations for unauthorised transactions resulting from system-level breaches, client carelessness, and bank contributory negligence. Most importantly it establishes the zero responsibility concept, which protects clients from monetary losses in cases when the bank or another system component is at fault and the client promptly reports the breach. 

This directive’s sophisticated approach to consumer protection is what makes it unique. It requires banks to set up strong fraud prevention systems, proactive alerting systems, and round-the-clock reporting systems. Furthermore, it significantly alters the power dynamics between financial institutions and customers by placing the onus of demonstrating customer negligence completely on the bank. The circular emphasises prompt reversal of funds to impacted customers and requires banks to implement Board-approved policies on liability to redress. As a result, it is a consumer rights charter rather than just a compliance document, promoting confidence and financial accountability in India’s digital banking sector. 

Judicial Endorsement in Reinforcing the Zero Liability Principle

‍

 In the case of Suresh Chandra Negi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Writ (C) No. 24192 of 2022) The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving consumer accountability rests firmly on the banking institution, hence reaffirming the zero liability concept in circumstances of unapproved electronic banking transactions. The Division bench emphasised the regulatory requirement that banks provide adequate proof before assigning blame to customers, citing Clause 12 of the RBI’s circular dated June 6, 2017, Customer Protection—Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions. In a similar scenario, the Bombay HC held that a customer is entitled to zero liability when an authorized transaction occurs due to a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor the customer, provided the fraud is promptly reported. 

The zero liability principle, as envisaged under Clause 8 of the RBI circular, has emerged as a cornerstone of consumer protection in India’s digital banking ecosystem.  

Another landmark judgment that has given this principle the front stage in addressing banking frauds is Hare Ram Singh vs RBI &Ors. (W.P. (C) 13497/2022) laid down by Delhi HC which is an important legal turning point in the development of the zero liability principle under the RBI’s 2017 framework. The court reiterated the need to evaluate customer diligence in light of new fraud tactics like phishing and vishing by holding the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for a cyber fraud incident even though the transactions were authenticated by OTP. The ruling made it clear that when complex social engineering or technical manipulation is used, banks are nonetheless accountable even if they only rely on OTP validation. The legal protection provided to victims of unauthorised electronic banking transactions is strengthened by the court’s emphasis on the bank having the burden of evidence in accordance with RBI standards. 

Importantly, this ruling lays the full burden of securing digital banking systems on financial organisations and supports the judiciary’s increasing acknowledgement of the digital asymmetry between banks and consumers. It emphasises that prompt consumer reporting, banks’ failure to disclose important credentials, and their own operational errors must all be taken into consideration when determining culpability. As a result, this decision establishes a strong precedent that will increase consumer confidence, promote systemic advancements in digital risk management, and better integrate the zero liability standard into Indian digital banking law. In a time when cyber vulnerabilities are growing, it acts as a beacon for financial accountability. 

Conclusion

‍

The Zero Liability Principle serves as a vital safety net for customers navigating an increasingly intricate and precarious financial environment in a time when digital transactions are the foundation of contemporary banking. In addition to codifying strong safeguards against unauthorized electronic transactions, the RBI’s 2017 framework rebalanced  the fiduciary relationship by putting financial institutions squarely in charge. Through significant rulings, the courts have upheld this protective culture and emphasised that banks, not the victims of cybercrime, bear the burden of proof. 

It would be crucial to execute these principles consistently, review them frequently, and raise public awareness as India transitions to a more digital economy. In order to ensure that consumers are not only protected but also empowered must become more than just a policy on paper. 

‍

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/making-money-vs-managing-money-india-s-critical-financial-literacy-gap-125021900786_1.html 
• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-ruling-bank-liability-unauthorized-electronic-transaction-and-customer-fault-297962 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1635616/cyber-law-series-2-issue-10-the-zero-liability-principle-in-cyber-fraud-hare-ram-singh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-ors-case 

‍

About Global Commission on Internet Governance 

The Global Commission on Internet Governance was established in January 2014 with the goal of formulating and advancing a strategic vision for Internet governance going forward. Independent research on Internet-related issues of international public policy is carried out and supported over the two-year initiative. An official commission report with particular policy recommendations for the future of Internet governance will be made available as a result of this initiative.

There are two goals for the Global Commission on Internet Governance. First, it will encourage a broad and inclusive public discussion on how Internet governance will develop globally. Second, through its comprehensive policy-oriented report and the subsequent marketing of this final report, the Global Commission on Internet Governance will present its findings to key stakeholders at major Internet governance events.‍

‍The Internet: exploring the world wide web and the deep web

The Internet can be thought of as a vast networking infrastructure, or network of networks. By linking millions of computers worldwide, it creates a network that allows any two computers, provided they are both online, to speak with one another.

The Hypertext Transfer Protocol is the only language spoken over the Internet and is used by the Web to transfer data. Email, which depends on File Transfer Protocol, Usenet newsgroups, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, and instant messaging, is also used on the Internet—not the Web. Thus, even though it's a sizable chunk, the Web is only a part of the Internet [1]. In summary, the deep Web is the portion of the Internet that is not visible to the naked eye. It is stuff from the World Wide Web that isn't available on the main Web. Standard search engines cannot reach it. More than 500 times larger than the visible Web is this enormous subset of the Internet [1-2].

The Global Commission on Internet Governance will concentrate on four principal themes:

• Improving the legitimacy of government, including standards and methods for regulation;

• Promoting economic innovation and expansion, including the development of infrastructure, competition laws, and vital Internet resources; 

• Safeguarding online human rights, including establishing the idea of technological neutrality for rights to privacy, human rights, and freedom of expression;

• Preventing systemic risk includes setting standards for state behaviour, cooperating with law enforcement to combat cybercrime, preventing its spread, fostering confidence, and addressing disarmament-related issues.

Dark Web 

The part of the deep Web that has been purposefully concealed and is unreachable using conventional Web browsers is known as the "dark Web." Dark Web sites are a platform for Internet users who value their anonymity since they shield users from prying eyes and typically utilize encryption to thwart monitoring. The Tor network is a well-known source for content that may be discovered on the dark web. Only a unique Web browser known as the Tor browser is required to access the anonymous Tor network (Tor 2014). It was a technique for anonymous online communication that the US Naval Research Laboratory first introduced as The Onion Routing (Tor) project in 2002. Many of the functionality offered by Tor are also available on I2P, another network. On the other hand, I2P was intended to function as a network inside the Internet, with traffic contained within its boundaries. Better anonymous access to the open Internet is offered by Tor, while a more dependable and stable "network within the network" is provided by I2P [3].

Cybersecurity in the dark web

Cyber crime is not any different than crime in the real world — it is just executed in a new medium: “Virtual criminality’ is basically the same as the terrestrial crime with which we are familiar. To be sure, some of the manifestations are new. But a great deal of crime committed with or against computers differs only in terms of the medium. While the technology of implementation, and particularly its efficiency, may be without precedent, the crime is fundamentally familiar. It is less a question of something completely different than a recognizable crime committed in a completely different way [4].”

Dark web monitoring

The dark Web, in general, and the Tor network, in particular, offer a secure platform for cybercriminals to support a vast amount of illegal activities — from anonymous marketplaces to secure means of communication, to an untraceable and difficult to shut down infrastructure for deploying malware and botnets.

As such, it has become increasingly important for security agencies to track and monitor the activities in the dark Web, focusing today on Tor networks, but possibly extending to other technologies in the near future. Due to its intricate webbing and design, monitoring the dark Web will continue to pose significant challenges. Efforts to address it should be focused on the areas discussed below [5].

Hidden service directory of dark web

A domain database used by both Tor and I2P is based on a distributed system called a "distributed hash table," or DHT. In order for a DHT to function, its nodes must cooperate to store and manage a portion of the database, which takes the shape of a key-value store. Owing to the distributed character of the domain resolution process for hidden services, nodes inside the DHT can be positioned to track requests originating from a certain domain [6].

Conclusion

The deep Web, and especially dark Web networks like Tor (2004), offer bad actors a practical means of transacting in products anonymously and lawfully.

The absence of discernible activity in non-traditional dark web networks is not evidence of their nonexistence. As per the guiding philosophy of the dark web, the actions are actually harder to identify and monitor. Critical mass is one of the market's driving forces. It seems unlikely that operators on the black Web will require a great degree of stealth until the repercussions are severe enough, should they be caught. It is possible that certain websites might go down, have a short trading window, and then reappear, which would make it harder to look into them.

References

1. Ciancaglini, Vincenzo, Marco Balduzzi, Max Goncharov and Robert McArdle. 2013. “Deepweb and Cybercrime: It’s Not All About TOR.” Trend Micro Research Paper. October. 
2. Coughlin, Con. 2014. “How Social Media Is Helping Islamic State to Spread Its Poison.” The Telegraph, November 5. 
3. Dahl, Julia. 2014. “Identity Theft Ensnares Millions while the Law Plays Catch Up.” CBS News, July 14. 
4. Dean, Matt. 2014. “Digital Currencies Fueling Crime on the Dark Side of the Internet.” Fox Business, December 18.
5. Falconer, Joel. 2012. “A Journey into the Dark Corners of the Deep Web.” The Next Web, October 8. 
6. Gehl, Robert W. 2014. “Power/Freedom on the Dark Web: A Digital Ethnography of the Dark Web Social Network.” New Media & Society, October 15. http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/ 10/16/1461444814554900.full#ref-38.

‍