MeitY Warns WhatsApp Username Feature Could Increase Cybercrime in India
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) in Delhi has raised serious concerns over WhatsApp's proposed "username" feature, warning that the update could lead to a spike in cybercrimes. While the instant messaging platform claims the feature will enhance user privacy, the government fears the resulting anonymity will be exploited by criminals.
WhatsApp publicly announced the optional username feature on June 29, though it has not yet been rolled out in India. Under the proposal, unique usernames would prevent a user's phone number from being accessed by strangers. WhatsApp argues this setup will protect individuals from fraud and impersonation.
However, MeitY has communicated its apprehensions directly to WhatsApp, listing several online crimes that could compromise informational privacy. The ministry warned that bad actors could exploit usernames to assume false identities, leading to an increase in online fraud, phishing, digital arrest scams, and identity spoofing. MeitY is particularly concerned that criminals could adopt usernames that closely resemble those of genuine individuals, public authorities, financial institutions, and government agencies.
The ongoing debate references legal precedents set by the Supreme Court of India. In an August 2017 judgment delivered by a nine-judge Bench in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case, the court held that "informational privacy" is a facet of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court recognized that threats to privacy could arise from both State and non-State actors.
While critics argue that the government cannot legally intervene in the launch of a lawful feature without a clear statutory basis, the government maintains its communication seeking clarification is consistent with safeguarding public welfare and national security. The 2017 Supreme Court judgment noted that concerns of national security arise because the web can be exploited to threaten financial systems.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court previously addressed the tension between security and freedom in the Anuradha Bhasin case, observing that "the pendulum of preference should not swing in either extreme direction so that one preference compromises the other."
