Crowd-funded anti-bribery portal shuts after amassing 2 lakh users in 48 hrs

A crowd-funded anti-corruption platform called Bribes.fyi, launched by a 20-year-old Delhi-based engineering student, gained rapid popularity before shutting down just 48 hours after its launch. The site, which allowed users to anonymously report instances of bribery across India, attracted 2 lakh new users and recorded 5 million requests within a short span. However, the platform abruptly went offline, citing concerns related to traffic surges, data security, spam, duplicate entries, and potential misuse. The creators described the closure as a voluntary and precautionary measure, stating that they lacked the necessary infrastructure to handle such widespread attention securely. The initiative, developed by Aryan Nishad, featured a neon-red interactive map displaying reports of alleged bribe demands against various government bodies including police departments, RTOs, revenue and land records offices, and passport offices. By August 17, the site had received reports from 253 cities across the country. Notably, 37 percent of the reports indicated that users had refused to pay bribes and still managed to complete their tasks. The platform emphasized that these submissions were unverified and not officially confirmed cases of corruption. The sudden closure of Bribes.fyi sparked discussions among legal experts and advocacy groups regarding the implications of such platforms. Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act criminalizes the act of giving or promising an undue advantage to a public servant, with penalties ranging up to seven years' imprisonment following a 2018 amendment. However, this provision includes exceptions for individuals who are compelled to pay bribes but report the incident within seven days. Mishi Choudhary, a technology lawyer and founder of the Software Freedom Law Center, highlighted the legal complexities surrounding such platforms. She pointed out that public admissions on websites could expose individuals to potential criminal liability. Choudhary argued that platforms should prioritize designing systems with built-in anonymity and security features, avoiding the collection of personal identifiers altogether. She suggested that the safest approach involves minimizing data collection since complainants might face double jeopardy for actions forced upon them by systemic issues. Apar Gupta, founder director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, discussed the intermediary liability challenges associated with platforms like Bribes.fyi. He noted that Safe Harbour protections under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act apply primarily to intermediaries that host content without selecting or modifying it. Moderating and approving reports, however, constitutes an active function that could extend beyond the scope of such protections. Gupta referenced ongoing legal battles involving Wikipedia in Delhi, emphasizing that removal of content typically requires judicial orders or government notifications rather than private complaints. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), platforms collecting personal data such as names, phone numbers, or IP addresses are considered data fiduciaries and face severe penalties for security lapses. Although Section 17 of the DPDP Act provides exemptions for government agencies, platforms cannot guarantee anonymity if they retain identifying records. Data must be disclosed within 72 hours of an authorized request, and excessive demands can be contested under privacy rights established by the landmark Puttaswamy judgment. Gupta further mentioned that there is limited legal protection for individuals who speak out online, citing a Lokniti-CSDS survey indicating that nearly two-thirds of respondents feared legal repercussions for their digital expressions. Despite the existence of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, it has yet to be effectively implemented. For future initiatives, Gupta proposed measures such as eliminating account creation, avoiding IP logging, stripping metadata, using aggregated statistics instead of individual names, referring complaints to newsrooms, appointing grievance officers, and publishing transparency reports. He cautioned that decentralization alone does not serve as a legal defense, referencing instances where platforms like BitChat and GitHub faced restrictions during recent protests in Delhi.