Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Facebook On Plea For Action Against Impersonation And Other Privacy Concerns In The Platform
The Delhi High Court has sought a response from Facebook in a plea of breach of privacy and impersonation, which takes on the social media platforms. While admitting the petition, Justice Yogesh Khanna issued notices to Facebook Inc and its Indian subsidiary within a week on rules/procedure/mechanism for redressal of the complaints, including cyber-crimes on their platform and...
The Delhi High Court has sought a response from Facebook in a plea of breach of privacy and impersonation, which takes on the social media platforms.
While admitting the petition, Justice Yogesh Khanna issued notices to Facebook Inc and its Indian subsidiary within a week on rules/procedure/mechanism for redressal of the complaints, including cyber-crimes on their platform and website.
The petitioner, a practising advocate, has approached the Court with the complaint of his impersonation using a duplicate ID allegedly asking for money from the petitioner's friends and acquaintances on Facebook Messenger.
The impersonated profile used his personal pictures and other details, attempting to cheat other people at the behest of the petitioner by asking for money and passing his bank details. In furtherance of the same, the petitioner approached the social media platform where a complaint was generated. However, it is alleged in the petition that Facebook took no steps after that.
The petitioner served a legal notice to Facebook India on the following points: (a) details of different yardsticks for security and privacy in India and other third-world countries; (b) why the platform does not check impersonation by mandating verification of a Government Identification Card for a new Facebook account; and (c) intended steps to ensure such impersonation does not happen again on the platform. However, the platform absolved itself of any responsibility asking the petitioner to contact the USA-based Facebook Inc.
The petitioner, a victim of cyber-crime, made representations to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, citing its failure to make stringent rules and penalty clauses for intermediaries who fail to deploy technology-based automated tools to proactively identify and remove fake users or scamster etc.
The petitioner is seeking protection from the State under Article 38(1) of the Indian Constitution. It states that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.
The petition also states that the majority of the cyber complaints go unregistered due to the lacklustre approach of the enforcement agencies and the lack of stringent regulations for social media platforms and intermediaries. The social media companies are keeping the security and privacy of the citizens of India at bay, the petition adds.
Referring to The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the petition states that it has failed to make stringent rules and impose penalty clauses for intermediaries who fail to deploy technology-based automated tools proactively identifying and removing fake users or scamster etc. It further adds,
"The said Guidelines also has also failed to make provisions for these intermediaries to report the such cyber-crimes which takes place using the platform of these intermediaries, on their own to the law enforcement agencies."
Title: Pankaj Yadav v. Union of India & Facebook
Read The Order