"Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025" gets green flag from both houses of parliament

Introduction

According to a shocking report, there are multiple scam loan apps on the App Store in India that charge excessive interest rates and force users to pay by blackmailing and harassing them. Apple has prohibited and removed these apps from the App Store, but they may still be installed on your iPhone and running. You must delete any of these apps if you have downloaded them. Learn the names of these apps and how they operated the fraud.

Why Apple banned these apps?

• Apple has taken action to remove certain apps from the Indian App Store. These apps were engaging in unethical behaviour, such as impersonating financial institutions, demanding high fees, and threatening borrowers. Here are the titles of these apps, as well as what Apple has said about their suspension.
• Following user concerns, Apple removed six loan apps from the Indian App Store. Loan apps include White Kash, Pocket Kash, Golden Kash, Ok Rupee, and others.
• According to multiple user reviews, certain apps seek unjustified access to users’ contact lists and media. These apps also charge exorbitant fees that are not necessitated. Furthermore, companies have been found to engage in unethical tactics such as charging high-interest rates and “processing fees” equal to half the loan amount.
• Some lending app users have reported being harassed and threatened for failing to return their loans on time. In some circumstances, the apps threatened the user’s contacts if payment was not completed by the deadline. According to one user, the app company threatened to produce and send false photographs of her to her contacts.
• These loan apps were removed from the App Store, according to Apple, because they broke the norms and standards of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement. These apps were discovered to be falsely claiming financial institution connections.

Issue of Fake loan apps on the App Store

• The App Store and our App Review Guidelines are designed to ensure we provide our users with the safest experience possible,” Apple explained. “We do not tolerate fraudulent activity on the App Store and have strict rules against apps and developers who attempt to game the system.
• In 2022, Apple blocked nearly $2 billion in fraudulent App Store sales. Furthermore, it rejected nearly 1.7 million software submissions that did not match Apple’s quality and safety criteria and cancelled 428,000 developer accounts due to suspected fraudulent activities.
• The scammers also used heinous tactics to force the loanees to pay. According to reports, the scammers behind the apps gained access to the user’s contact list as well as their images. They would morph the images and then scare the individual by sharing their fake nude photos with their whole contact list.

Dangerous financial fraud apps have surfaced on the App Store

• TechCrunch acquired a user review from one of these apps. “I borrowed an amount in a helpless situation, and a day before the repayment due date, I got some messages with my picture and my contacts in my phone saying that repay your loan or they will inform our contacts that you are not paying the loan,” it said.
• Sandhya Ramesh, a journalist from The Print, recently tweeted a screenshot of a direct message she got. A victim’s friend told a similar story in the message.
• TechCrunch contacted Apple, who confirmed that the apps had been removed from the App Store for breaking the Apple Developer Program License Agreement and guidelines.

Conclusion

Recently, some users have claimed that some quick-loan applications, such as White Kash, Pocket Kash, and Golden Kash, have appeared on the Top Finance applications chart in recent days. These apps necessitate unauthorised and intrusive access to users’ contact lists and media. According to hundreds of user evaluations, these apps charged exorbitantly high and useless fees. They used unscrupulous techniques such as demanding “processing fees” equal to half the loan amount and charging high-interest rates. Users were also harassed and threatened with restitution. If payments were not made by the due date, the lending applications threatened to notify users’ contacts. According to one user, the app provider even threatened to generate phoney nude images of her and send them to her contacts.

Introduction

On April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that cast a sharp light on one of the most overlooked yet pressing issues in modern governance—digital inequity. In a country that has a staggering 900 million Internet users, the ruling highlights a disheartening reality, a paradox that brings the “digital divide” to centre stage. While India may be the world’s second-largest online market, a significant segment of its population remains digitally disenfranchised. The judgment, delivered in response to two interconnected petitions, underscored that access to the internet is no longer a luxury but a lifeline integral to exercising fundamental rights. The court pointed out in clear terms that the government must build a digital ecosystem that is inclusive and accessible to all and attributed the right to digital access as an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 as enshrined under the Indian Constitution. 

Understanding the Context: What Prompted the Petitions? 

The judgment springs out of two writ petitions, which sought instructions or guidelines for people with blindness or limited vision and acid attack survivors, respectively, to conduct digital Know Your Customer (KYC)/e-KYC/video KYC mandated by RBI’s KYC Master Directions, 2016, which were reserved for judgment on January 28. The court delivered the judgment on April 30, 2025, emphasising the fact that true inclusion in this digital era is confounded in an inclusive digital infrastructure, and it must provide reasonable accommodation to those who face impediments due to any disability or disfigurement. 

In consonance with its view, it laid down various guidelines that ensure that all persons with disabilities or acid attack survivors are treated even when digital processes are involved in accordance with the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “RPwD Act”)

Another major observation made by the Honourable SC judges is that the mode of facilitation of government services is through digital platforms, i.e., e-governance, and access to all these welfare schemes is the right of every citizen, irrespective of the fact that they suffer from any disability. The failure of the provisioning of e-governance of these facilities to these individuals is a gross failure of the objectives of these schemes. 

Key Observations and Directives

The court directed the government to release fresh guidelines that establish alternative methods to conduct digital KYC/e-KYC for all persons who suffer any impairment, low vision, or disfigurement with greater sensitivity, particularly for acid-attack survivors. The court made its intention very clear that the right to digital access is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty. All the tasks that are included within the ambit of digital KYC, such as pen-on-paper signatures, screen signatures, and the brief window for OTP entry, create an inaccessible and exclusionary framework, violating not just the dignity but the legal rights granted protection under the RPwD Act, 2016. The ruling directs a fundamental reimagining of digital governance through the lens of inclusion, equality, and dignity. 

Conclusion

The court is not mincing its words when it declares digital accessibility as a constitutional imperative; it has made it clear that bridging the digital divide is no longer optional but a legal duty. The decision marks the new beginning and a propeller of digital transformation, and a delightful amalgamation of digital access and the rights of people. The effect of this judgment will not be restricted to one class of people. Still, it will cater to all those individuals who face these obstacles on a daily basis due to the exclusionary nature of digital platforms. 

References

• https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/right-to-digital-access-part-of-article-21-supreme-court-directs-to-make-ekyc-process-accessible-to-persons-with-disabilities-290778

‍

Introduction

Google is set to change its storage and access of users' "Location History" in Google Maps, reducing the data retention period and making it impossible for the company to access it. This change will significantly impact "geofence warrants," a controversial legal tool used by authorities to force Google to hand over information about all users within a given location during a specific timeframe. This decision is a significant win for privacy advocates and criminal defense attorneys who have long decried these warrants.

The company aims to protect people's privacy by removing the repository of location data dating back months or years. Geofence warrants, which provide police with sensitive data on individuals, are considered dangerous and could turn innocent people into suspects. 

Understanding Geofence Warrants

Geofence warrants, also known as reverse-location warrants, are used by law enforcement agencies to obtain locational data stored by tech companies within a specified geographical area and timeframe to identify devices near a crime scene. In contrast to general warrants, which allow law enforcement agencies to obtain data of one individual (usually the suspect), geofence warrants enable law enforcement authorities to obtain data for all individuals in a specific location and subsequently track and trace any device that may be linked to a crime scene. Geofence warrants have become a major issue, with law enforcement agencies utilising them to obtain location data from tech companies.

Privacy Concerns of Geofence Warrants

While Geofence warrants allow law enforcement agencies to determine and identify potential suspects, these warrants have sparked controversy for their invasive characteristics. Civil rights activities and various technology companies have raised concerns over the impact of these warrants on the rights of data principals. It is noted that geofence warrants mark a rise in cases of state surveillance and police harassment. Not only is any data principal in the vicinity of the crime scene classified as a potential suspect, but companies are also compelled to submit identifying personal data on every device/phone in a marked geographic space.

From Surveillance to Safeguards

Geofence warrants have become a contentious tool for law enforcement worldwide, with concerns over privacy and civil liberties, especially in sensitive situations like protests and healthcare. Google is considering allowing users to store their location data on their devices, potentially ending the use of geofence warrants, which law enforcement agencies use to obtain location data from tech companies.

Google is changing its handling of Location History data, moving it on-device instead of on its servers. The default data retention period will be reduced. Google Maps' product director, Marlo McGriff, stated that the company will automatically encrypt backed-up data for cloud backups, preventing anyone from reading it. When these changes are implemented, Google will have no geodata fishing options for users. Google confirmed that it will no longer be able to respond to new geofence warrants once these changes are implemented, as it will not have access to the relevant data. The changes were designed to put an end to dragnet searches of location data.

Conclusion

Google's decision to change storage and access policies for users' location history in Google Maps marks a pivotal step in the ongoing narrative of law enforcement's misuse of geofence warrants. This move aims to safeguard individual privacy by significantly restricting the data retention period and limiting Google's ability to comply with geofence warrants. This change is welcomed by privacy advocates and legal professionals who express concerns over the intrusive nature of these warrants, which may potentially turn innocent individuals into suspects based on their proximity to a crime scene. As technology companies take steps to enhance user privacy, the evolving landscape calls for a balance between law enforcement needs and protecting individual rights in an era of increasing digital surveillance.  

References:

• https://techobserver.in/news/policy/will-googles-transition-to-on-device-location-storage-end-geofence-warrants-abuse-280852/

• https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/google-to-end-geofence-warrant-requests-for-users-location-data/106081499
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2023/12/14/google-just-killed-geofence-warrants-police-location-data/?sh=313da3c32c86
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-how-google-maps-is-preventing-authorities-from-accessing-users-location-history-data/articleshow/106086639.cms

‍