India demands WhatsApp ban new username feature

The latest request from India for a WhatsApp modification shows an escalating clash between state oversight of online platforms and the protection of user privacy.

Global concerns over the new username feature

WhatsApp initiated a worldwide rollout of a username option on June 29, letting people converse without disclosing their telephone numbers. New Delhi has pushed back against this addition, contending that anonymous profiles could simplify impersonation, scams and financial fraud.

India has also asked Telegram and Signal—services that already permit accounts based on usernames rather than phone numbers—for clarification. The authorities set a July 9 deadline for all three companies to answer. WhatsApp is said to have filed a written reply, which is now under governmental review.

Should WhatsApp bow to Indian pressure and alter or abandon the feature, the repercussions could be extensive. Access Now senior policy counsel Namrata Maheshwari warned that yielding to one jurisdiction creates a precedent.

“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,” Maheshwari said. “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.”

Arguments against the Indian government’s stance

With more than 850 million users, India represents WhatsApp’s biggest market. The platform supports a wide range of activities in the country, from personal chats to banking, ticketing and e-commerce. Even before the username rollout, the service has faced accusations of facilitating financial scams, data breaches and the spread of false information.

Security specialist Bruce Schneier noted that the government has offered no evidence to back its claim. “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,” Schneier said.

Allowing users to adopt usernames could enable them to separate their online persona from their real-world identity, shielding individuals who experience harassment or political pressure. Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff technologist Erica Portnoy said that authorities can still obtain user data through legal processes when necessary.

Privacy and security implications

A WhatsApp spokesperson said that the username capability is still in a phased rollout and will become generally available later this year. To mitigate impersonation risks, the company has reserved high-profile identifiers for public figures, government bodies, celebrities and verified Meta accounts. A phone number remains mandatory to register for WhatsApp.

The firm has incorporated several safeguards into the username system, including a “username key.” Contacts must know the exact username before initiating a conversation, and users may add an optional key for extra security. WhatsApp will cap the number of new contacts an account can reach, block repeated attempts to guess a username key, and employ detection tools to flag and remove patterns indicative of impersonation or abuse.

Telegram, launched in 2013, offers optional public usernames but does not provide end-to-end encryption. Signal, by contrast, is widely regarded as one of the most secure messaging apps and gathers minimal user information. Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, “If India’s IT ministry wants to make the argument that Telegram and Signal’s username features have led to a notable increase in cybercrime, they are welcome to make their case, but they make no attempt to do so here.”

Apar Gupta, founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, observed that India is taking an unusual step. “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,” Gupta said.

The risk of fragmented digital privacy

Historically, regulators and large tech firms have debated product-design issues behind closed doors; this public notice represents a “less harsh form of regulation than blocking or investigating the service,” research analyst Rihan Shareef of the Aapti Institute said. “However, the question of government overreach and control remains.”