Twitter steps up fight against fake accounts
San Francisco, Oct 2 : To further protect the integrity of elections, Twitter on Tuesday said it will now delete fake accounts engaged in a variety of emergent, malicious behaviours.
As platform manipulation tactics continue to evolve, the micro-blogging platform said it is expanding rules to better reflect how it identifies fake accounts and what types of inauthentic activity violate its guidelines before the US mid-term elections in November.
"Some of the factors that we will take into account when determining whether an account is fake include use of stock or stolen avatar photos, use of stolen or copied profile bios and use of intentionally misleading profile information, including profile location," said Del Harvey, Vice President, Trust and Safety, Twitter, in a blog post.
"We are expanding our enforcement approach to include accounts that deliberately mimic or are intended to replace accounts we have previously suspended for violating our rules," she added.
Twitter has also expanded the criteria for when it will take action on accounts which claim responsibility for a hack, which includes threats and public incentives to hack specific people and accounts.
"In August, we removed approximately 50 accounts misrepresenting themselves as members of various state Republican parties," informed Yoel Roth, Head of Site Integrity at Twitter.
"We have also taken action on Tweets sharing media regarding elections and political issues with misleading or incorrect party affiliation information," he added.
In August, Twitter removed 770 accounts engaging in coordinated behaviour which appeared to originate in Iran.
"Our automated detections continue to identify and challenge millions of potentially spammy and automated accounts per week. In the first half of September, we challenged an average of 9.4 million accounts each week," said Roth.
Twitter is also witnessing a decline in the average number of spam-related reports it receives from users each day -- from an average of approximately 17,000 per day in May to approximately 16,000 per day in September.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Supreme Court lauds Tamil Nadu for using preventive detention against cyber offenders
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday commended the Tamil Nadu government for invoking preventive detention laws to tackle cybercrime, observing that conventional criminal laws have proven ineffective in curbing such offences.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, while hearing a plea challenging a detention order against an accused in a cyber fraud case, remarked, “This is a good trend coming from the state that preventive detention laws are being used against cyber law offenders. It's a very welcome approach. Normal criminal laws are not proving successful against these offenders.”
The bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi was considering a special leave petition filed by the father of the detenu, Abhijeet Singh, against a Madras High Court judgment that upheld his preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982.
The detenu, a resident of New Delhi and originally from Punjab, was arrested on July 25, 2024, following a complaint at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Theni District. The complainant, Bhanumathi, alleged that she was defrauded of ₹84.5 lakh, of which ₹12.14 lakh had reportedly been transferred to an account operated by the detenu under the name ‘M/s Creative Craaft.’
Police investigation revealed that Abhijeet Singh had established four companies in his and his family members’ names and opened multiple bank accounts to route the defrauded money. A preventive detention order was issued against him by the District Collector on August 23, 2024. The Advisory Board confirmed the detention on September 25, 2024, and the State Government ratified it for a full term of 12 months on November 9, 2024.
Before the apex court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the detention was unconstitutional, citing a violation of Article 22(5) and procedural lapses. He contended that the incident was a one-time offence and did not disturb public order. He also pointed out that the detenu had no previous criminal record and was not given adequate time to make a representation, with the notice for a September 25 hearing being served only on September 23, while the detenu was in Madurai and the hearing was in Chennai.
Justice Mehta questioned whether these issues were raised before the Advisory Board, to which the counsel replied affirmatively. The bench noted that the duration of detention lies within the state's discretion and cannot be curtailed by the court unless the detention itself lacks legal basis.
“If there is no basis for detention then the order itself has to go; the period cannot be curtailed based on that. You come on Wednesday, we will see,” Justice Mehta said, adjourning the matter to June 25 for further hearing.
Earlier, the Madras High Court had dismissed the habeas corpus plea, concluding that the detention did not suffer from any procedural or constitutional infirmities. The High Court held that all relevant materials had been placed before the Advisory Board and the detenu’s representations were duly considered.
The Supreme Court will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday, June 25, 2025.
