According to a whistleblower disclosure to US authorities, a former top Twitter executive claimed that India forced Twitter to employ one or more people who were “government agents” and had access to a sizable amount of the platform’s user data.
Peiter “Mudge” Zatko, a former Twitter head of safety, filed a complaint with the US Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that “the company did not in fact disclose to users that it was believed by the executive team that the Indian government had succeeded in placing agents on the company payroll” (SEC).
He said that the business “knowingly” allowed an Indian government agent direct, unauthorised access to its networks and user data.
According to a statement from a Twitter representative, Zatko was let go from the firm in January due to “ineffective leadership and poor performance.” “What we’ve seen so far is a false narrative about Twitter and our privacy and data security standards that is rife with contradictions and falsehoods and lacks crucial context,” the company said. The accusations made by Mr. Zatko and his opportunistic timing seem to be intended to garner attention and harm Twitter, its users, and its stockholders. Security and privacy have always been top considerations for Twitter, and they will remain so, the source said.
MeitY announced the Information Technology Rules, 2021, in February of last year. These regulations required social media corporations to hire important employees, or “nodal officers,” whose primary responsibility it was to serve as a point of contact for law enforcement agencies in their investigations. Additionally, the businesses had to employ a grievance officer to handle user complaints and a compliance officer to make sure the requirements were followed.
It’s not obvious if there is any connection between Zatko’s allegations that Twitter employed a “government agent” and the workers the business was required to hire in accordance with the IT Rules, 2021. According to Zatko, US intelligence has been given information to back up this claim, as reported by The Washington Post.
Twitter did not respond to a query seeking clarification on the possibility of this link. An email sent to MeitY too was unanswered until press time.
According to Zatko’s complaint, “the threat of harm to Twitter employees was sufficient to cause (it) to seriously consider complying with foreign government requests that (it) would otherwise fundamentally oppose.” Zatko also claimed that in nations where Twitter needed to have a physical presence and full-time employees. Along with the governments of Russia and Nigeria, the Indian government also “sought, with unequal success, to push Twitter to hire local FTEs (full time employees) that could be used as leverage,” the author continued.
The revelations come as Twitter is engaged in two high-profile legal battles — one with the Centre over some of its content blocking orders, and another one with Tesla CEO Elon Musk in the US over his desire to pull out of his $44-billion bid to buy the social media companies.
The revelations come as Twitter is engaged in two high-profile legal battles — one with the Centre over some of its content blocking orders, and another one with Tesla CEO Elon Musk in the US over his desire to pull out of his $44-billion bid to buy the social media companies.
Last month, the company had moved the Karnataka High Court seeking to overturn 39 links flagged by the MeitY to be blocked, claiming that the blocking orders were beyond the purview of the law.
Musk was also sued by Twitter for attempting to renegotiate his purchase agreement with the website. Notably, Musk has claimed in this court action that the business’ choice to contest MeitY’s blocking orders was a “departure from the customary practise” and put its Indian operations “at jeopardy.” In response, Twitter said that its actions in India are consistent with its “global practise” of contesting government orders or laws if it thinks that they are either “inadequately scoped under local law, are procedurally deficient, or as necessary to defend its users’ rights, including freedom of expression.”
.jpg)
.jpg)
