India’s latest demand that WhatsApp suspend a global username feature has raised alarms about censorship and regulatory overreach. On June 29, WhatsApp began rolling out usernames, a function that lets users chat without sharing their phone numbers. The Indian government has objected to the rollout, arguing that pseudonymous accounts could make it easier for bad actors to impersonate others and carry out scams and financial fraud.
Tensions rise between Delhi and Meta
India has also sought explanations from Telegram and Signal, which already allow users to create accounts using usernames instead of phone numbers. The government asked all three platforms to respond by July 9. WhatsApp has reportedly submitted a written response, which the government is reviewing. The country is WhatsApp’s largest market with over 850 million users. The app underpins everything from personal messaging to banking, ticketing, and shopping in the nation.
Experts say the Indian government has not backed up its argument with evidence. “Yes, WhatsApp can be misused for cybercrimes. So can email. So can your phone. So can everything. That’s pretty much the definition of infrastructure: It can be used for good and for bad,” security technologist Bruce Schneier told Rest of World. He noted that allowing usernames could help users separate online identities from real-world identities, protecting those facing harassment or political retaliation.
Related: Older Adults Know AI Is Slop but Still Love It
While authorities can still trace user information through legal channels, the proposed change touches on the fundamental architecture of the app. “The ability to use a username is not yet live and will roll out slowly later this year,” a WhatsApp spokesperson told Rest of World. The company said it has held the highest-profile names so they can only ever be claimed by their legitimate owners. Users still require a phone number to use WhatsApp.
If WhatsApp gives in to India’s pressure and modifies or scraps the feature, it could lead to far-reaching consequences that may discourage innovation and encourage copycat demands globally. “It’s a slippery slope because the moment you concede something in one jurisdiction and make it known as something that is possible to do technically, other countries will follow suit,” Namrata Maheshwari, senior policy counsel at international nonprofit Access Now, told Rest of World.
Allowing usernames could help users separate online identities from real-world identities, protecting those facing harassment or political retaliation. Even without the username feature, the app has faced several allegations of propagating financial fraud, data theft, and misinformation. The government has not released data suggesting that Telegram or Signal’s username features have led to a notable increase in cybercrime, despite India’s focus on those platforms.
Related: Chinese universities drop language majors for AI
India is doing something different. It is objecting to a design before any harm has occurred, and asking companies to justify a feature “to the satisfaction of the government.” No law allows that, according to Apar Gupta, founder-director at digital rights advocacy group Internet Freedom Foundation.
“Most governments around the world are vying to co-opt the kind of power and access that technology companies have over people’s lives and personal data,” Maheshwari said. Government and Big Tech have historically addressed product design questions in closed rooms, and this public notice is a “less harsh form of regulation than blocking or investigating the service,” Rihan Shareef, research analyst at nonprofit public research institution Aapti Institute, told Rest of World.
The Indian government’s move may lead companies to ship different versions of secure communication tools in different jurisdictions. This risks weakening privacy protections incrementally, one market at a time, and that does not bode well for citizens, journalists, and anyone who wants privacy without being treated as suspects, Mishi Choudhary, technology lawyer and founder of nonprofit SFLC.in, told Rest of World.