#FactCheck -AI-Manipulated Video Falsely Claims ₹50 Crore Deal Involving Bhupen Bora

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

‍

Risk Management

‍

The ‘Information Security Profile’ prioritises and informs cybersecurity operations based on the company's risk administration procedures. It assists in choosing areas of focus for security operations that represent the desired results for producers by supporting periodic risk evaluations and validating company motivations. A thorough grasp of the business motivations and safety requirements unique to the Production system and its surroundings is necessary in order to manage cybersecurity threats. Because every organisation has different risks and uses ICS and IT in different ways, there will be variations in how the profile is implemented.

Companies are currently adopting industry principles and cybersecurity requirements, which the Manufacturing Information is intended to supplement, not replace. Manufacturers have the ability to identify crucial operations for key supply chains and can order expenditures in a way that will optimise their impact on each dollar. The Profile's primary objective is to lessen and manage dangers associated with cybersecurity more effectively. The Cybersecurity Framework and the Profile are not universally applicable methods for controlling security risks for essential infrastructure.

Producers will always face distinct risks due to their distinct dangers, weaknesses, and tolerances for danger. Consequently, the ways in which companies adopt security protocols will also change.

‍

Key Cybersecurity Functions: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover

‍

1. Determine 

Create the organisational knowledge necessary to control the potential hazards of cybersecurity to information, systems, resources, and competencies. The Identify Function's tasks are essential for using the Framework effectively. An organisation can concentrate its efforts in a way that aligns with its approach to risk mitigation and company needs by having a clear understanding of the business environment, the financial resources that assist with vital operations, and the associated cybersecurity threats. Among the outcome characteristics that fall under this function are risk evaluation, mitigation strategy, the administration of assets, leadership, and the business environment.

‍

2.  Protect

Create and put into place the necessary measures to guarantee the provision of crucial infrastructure amenities. The Protect Function's operations enable the limitation or containment of the possible impact of a cybersecurity incident. Instances of results Access Management, Knowledge and Instruction, Data Safety and Security, Data Protection Processes and Instructions, Repair, and Defensive Systems are some of the classifications that fall under this role.

‍

3. Detect

Create and carry out the necessary actions to determine whether a cybersecurity event has occurred. The Detect Function's operations make it possible to find vulnerability occurrences in an efficient way. This function's result subcategories include things like abnormalities and incidents, constant security monitoring, and identification processes.

‍

4. React

Create and carry out the necessary plans to address a cybersecurity event that has been discovered. The Response Function's operations facilitate the capacity to mitigate the effects of a possible cybersecurity incident. Within this Scope, emergency planning, interactions, analysis, prevention, and enhancements are a few examples of result categories.

‍

5. Recover

Create and carry out the necessary actions to uphold resilience tactics and restore any services or competencies that were hampered by a cybersecurity incident. In order to lessen the effects of a vulnerability incident, the Recovery Function's efforts facilitate a prompt return to regular operations. The following are a few instances of outcome subcategories under this role: communications, enhancements, and recovery planning.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Information Security Profile, when seen in the framework of risk mitigation, offers producers a tactical method to deal with the ever-changing cybersecurity danger scenario. The assessment directs safeguarding operations prioritisation by recognising specific business reasons and connecting with corporate goals. The Profile enhances the cybersecurity standards and established industry guidelines by taking into account the differences in vulnerabilities and organisational subtleties among producers. It highlights the significance of a customised strategy, acknowledging that every business has unique risks and weaknesses. 

The fundamental tasks of the Framework, to Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover, serve as a thorough roadmap, guaranteeing a proactive and flexible approach to cybersecurity. The Profile's ultimate goal is to increase the efficacy of risk mitigation techniques, understanding that cybersecurity is a constantly shifting and evolving subject for the manufacturing sector.

‍

References

• https://csrc.nist.gov/news/2020/cybersecurity-framework-v1-1-manufacturing-profile
• https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2020/NIST.IR.8183r1.pdf
• https://mysecuritymarketplace.com/reports/cybersecurity-framework-version-1-1-manufacturing-profile/

‍

Introduction

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) serves as the backbone of e-governance, enabling governments to deliver services more efficiently, transparently, and inclusively. By leveraging information and communication technology (ICT), digital governance systems reconfigure traditional administrative processes, making them more accessible and citizen-centric. However, the successful implementation of such systems hinges on overcoming several challenges, from ensuring data security to fostering digital literacy and addressing infrastructural gaps.

This article delves into the key enablers that drive effective DPI and outlines the measures already undertaken by the government to enhance its functionality. Furthermore, it outlines strategies for their enhancement, emphasizing the need for a collaborative, secure, and adaptive approach to building robust e-governance systems.

Key Enablers of DPI

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), the foundation for e-governance,  relies on common design, robust governance, and private sector participation for efficiency and inclusivity. This requires common principles, frameworks for collaboration, capacity building, and the development of common standards. Some of the key measures undertaken by the government in this regard include: 

1. Data Protection Framework: The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023 establishes a framework to ensure consent-based data sharing and regulate the processing of digital personal data. It delineates the responsibilities of data fiduciaries in safeguarding users' digital personal data.
2. Increasing Public-Private Partnerships: Refining collaboration between the government and the private sector has accelerated the development, maintenance, expansion, and trust of the infrastructure of DPIs, such as the AADHAR, UPI, and  Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture (DEPA). For example, the Asian Development Bank attributes the success of UPI to its “consortium ownership structure”, which enables the wide participation of major financial stakeholders in the country.
3. Coordinated Planning: The PM-Gati Shakti establishes a clear coordination framework involving various inter-governmental stakeholders at the state and union levels. This aims to significantly reduce project duplications, delays, and cost escalations by streamlining communication, harmonizing project appraisal and approval processes, and providing a comprehensive database of major infrastructure projects in the country. This database called the National Master Plan, is jointly accessible by various government stakeholders through APIs.
4. Capacity Building for Government Employees:  The National e-Governance Division of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology routinely rolls out multiple training programs to build the technological and managerial skills required by government employees to manage Digital Public Goods (DPGs). For instance, it recently held a program on “Managing Large Digital Transformative Projects”. Additionally, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions has launched the Integrated Government Online Training platform  (iGOT) Karmayogi for the continuous learning of civil servants across various domains. 

Digital Governance; Way Forward

E-governance utilizes information and communication technology (ICT) such as Wide Area Networks, the Internet, and mobile computing to implement existing government activities, reconfiguring the structures and processes of governance systems. This warrants addressing certain inter-related challenges such as : 

1. Data Security: The dynamic and ever-changing landscape of cyber threats necessitates regular advancements in data and information security technologies, policy frameworks, and legal provisions. Consequently, the digital public ecosystem must incorporate robust data cybersecurity measures, advanced encryption technologies, and stringent privacy compliance standards to safeguard against data breaches.
2. Creating Feedback Loops: Regular feedback surveys will help government agencies improve the quality, efficiency, and accessibility of digital governance services by tailoring them to be more user-friendly and enhancing administrative design. This is necessary to build trust in government services and improve their uptake among beneficiaries. Conducting the decennial census is essential to gather updated data that can serve as a foundation for more informed and effective decision-making.
3. Capacity Building for End-Users: The beneficiaries of key e-governance projects like Aadhar and UPI may have inadequate technological skills, especially in regions with weak internet network infrastructure like hilly or rural areas. This can present challenges in the access to and usage of technological solutions.  Robust capacity-building campaigns for beneficiaries can provide an impetus to the digital inclusion efforts of the government.
4. Increasing the Availability of Real-Time Data: By prioritizing the availability of up-to-date information, governments and third-party enterprises can enable quick and informed decision-making.  They can effectively track service usage, assess quality, and monitor key metrics by leveraging real-time data. This approach is essential for enhancing operational efficiency and delivering improved user experience.
5. Resistance to Change: Any resistance among beneficiaries or government employees to adopt digital governance goods may stem from a limited understanding of digital processes and a lack of experience with transitioning from legacy systems.  Hand-holding employees during the transitionary phase can help create more trust in the process and strengthen the new systems. 

Conclusion

Digital governance is crucial to transforming public services, ensuring transparency, and fostering inclusivity in a rapidly digitizing world. The successful implementation of such projects requires addressing challenges like data security, skill gaps, infrastructural limitations, feedback mechanisms, and resistance to change. Addressing these challenges with a strategic, multi-stakeholder approach can ensure the successful execution and long-term impact of large digital governance projects. By adopting robust cybersecurity frameworks, fostering public-private partnerships, and emphasizing capacity building, governments can create efficient and resilient systems that are user-centric, secure, and accessible to all. 

References

• https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/865106/adbi-wp1363.pdf 
• https://www.jotform.com/blog/government-digital-transformation-challenges/ 
• https://aapti.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AaptixONI-DPIGovernancePlaybook_compressed.pdf 
• https://community.nasscom.in/sites/default/files/publicreport/Digital%20Public%20Infrastructure%2022-2-2024_compressed.pdf 
• https://proteantech.in/articles/Decoding-Digital-Public-Infrastructure-in-India/ 

‍

‍