Context and Scale
- Delhi cybercrime losses (2024): Over ₹700 crore — highest among Indian cities.
- Despite rising digital adoption (banking, UPI, social media), institutional response lags.
- IT Act, 2000 provision: Only Inspectors or above can investigate cybercrimes — but most cyber police stations lack such officers.
Relevance : GS 3(Cyber Security)
Public Awareness: High but Uneven
- 93% aware of cybercrime reporting possibility.
- Awareness of common scams:
- OTP scams, reward frauds, fake banking calls: >90%
- ‘Digital arrest’ scams: Only 61% aware (emerging threat).
- Gaps in reporting literacy:
- Only 42% aware of helpline 1930
- Just 25% aware of cyber police stations
- 30% know about the cybercrime.gov.in portal
Government Initiatives: Mixed Perception
- 72% recalled mass messages & calls as awareness campaigns.
- Only 19% aware of Cyber Swachhta Kendra.
- Perception of effectiveness:
- Only 16% rated govt response as “very effective”
- 55% said “somewhat effective”, and 24% saw it as inadequate
Citizen Practices & Digital Divide
- Common preventive actions:
- Avoid suspicious links (87%)
- Download trusted apps (85%)
- Use strong passwords (79%)
- Advanced measures lag:
- Regular password changes: 50%
- Antivirus use: 50%
- Income-wise digital safety gap:
- Antivirus: High-income 73% vs. Low-income 20%
- Two-factor authentication: High-income 75% vs. Low-income 31%
Confidence in Protection
- Overall belief in precautions: 80% trust them to a “great or some extent”
- Confidence levels vary by income:
- High-income: 89% confident
- Low-income: 61% confident
Reporting Behaviour: Worryingly Low
- Cybercrime awareness: 96% have heard of online scams.
- Sources of awareness:
- Social media (38%), media (37%), friends/family (36%)
- Banks: Only 8%
- Only 21% of victims formally reported incidents.
- Why not? Mistrust, unawareness, or procedural complexity.
- Reporting channels used:
- Local police (29%), cyber cells (26%), banks (24%)
- Website (20%), helpline 1930 (15%)
Redressal & Recovery: Institutional Apathy
- Perception of recovery:
- 48% believe money once lost is gone
- Only 33% hopeful of recovery
- Actual recovery (among victims):
- 70% recovered nothing
- 17% full recovery, 6% partial
Complaint Process Experience
- Ease of filing complaints:
- 35%: “Very easy”
- 24%: “Somewhat easy”
- 37% found it difficult
- Satisfaction with institutional support:
- Only 27% satisfied
- 48% fully dissatisfied
- Satisfaction lower in low-income groups
Nature of Cybercrime Impact
- Financial loss:
- 27% lost ₹10,001–₹50,000
- 14% lost over ₹50,000
- Mental stress: Reported by 26%
Trust in Digital Ecosystem
- High trust in digital payment apps despite institutional weaknesses.
- Preferred government action:
- 40% prioritised awareness campaigns over technical/legal fixes.
Policy Way Forward
- Institutional reforms:
- Adequate staffing of cyber police stations
- Decentralised grievance redressal with trained officers
- Digital equity: Targeted digital literacy for low-income & elderly groups
- Recovery framework: Mandate banks/platforms to aid fund recovery
- Awareness scale-up: Focus on helplines, real-time alerts, and multilingual campaigns
- Behavioral nudges: Gamified learning on scams in schools & apps
