Give Your Username Instead Of Your Phone Number

WhatsApp has begun allowing users to reserve unique usernames ahead of a wider rollout planned for later this year. The idea is that, under a new system, WhatsApp users will be able to give someone a username instead of their mobile phone number, meaning they can communicate without revealing the number connected to their account.

WhatsApp explained the reason for the feature, saying: “Sometimes you just want to chat without handing over your digits.”

That could be particularly useful, for example, when joining community groups, meeting someone at an event, communicating with a business or speaking to someone online for the first time.

WhatsApp says the reservation process is being opened gradually because the platform has more than three billion users and many people will inevitably want similar names. Once the option becomes available, users can reserve a name through the Account section of the app’s settings.

How Will Usernames Work?

The feature is designed to provide greater privacy without making WhatsApp users publicly searchable.

It’s understood that there will be no directory of usernames and no suggestions showing people they might want to contact, and someone will need to know the exact username before they can start a conversation.

And A Key

Users will also be able to create an optional username key, providing another layer of protection against unwanted contact.

Once the full feature launches, people who have enabled a username will be able to message a new person or business without their phone number being displayed. However, a mobile number will still be required to create a WhatsApp account in the first place.

For creators, businesses and organisations that want a consistent identity, WhatsApp has also created a way to claim an existing Instagram or Facebook username.

Why Has India Intervened?

However, it seems the rollout quickly attracted regulatory attention in India, WhatsApp’s largest national market.

The Indian government has asked WhatsApp to pause the introduction of usernames in the country while consultations take place, amid concerns that the feature could make fraud, phishing and impersonation easier.

The main concern is that criminals could create usernames resembling those of banks, government departments, businesses or well-known individuals and then use them to contact potential victims without displaying a phone number.

This is particularly significant in India, where authorities have been trying to combat a growing problem with cyber fraud, including so-called digital arrest scams in which criminals impersonate police officers or government officials.

The government intervention came shortly after WhatsApp opened username reservations, transforming the launch from a straightforward product announcement into a test of how privacy features should be balanced against fraud prevention and law enforcement concerns.

What Does WhatsApp Say About The Risks?

WhatsApp argues that it has already built several layers of protection into the system.

High-profile usernames associated with public figures, government bodies, celebrities and verified Meta accounts have been reserved so that they can only be claimed by legitimate owners. The company says variations of well-known names are also being protected.

WhatsApp has also said it will limit the number of new people an account can contact, prevent repeated attempts to guess username keys and use its systems to identify common patterns associated with impersonation and abuse.

Recipients of messages from first-time contacts will also be given contextual information, such as whether the sender has a new account, shares mutual groups with them or is based in another country.

The company says: “We’re taking our time and listening to feedback so that when it rolls out later this year we get it right.”

A Genuine Privacy Benefit

Despite the controversy, there does seem to be quite a clear privacy argument for introducing usernames.

For example, phone numbers are increasingly used as identifiers across banking, online accounts, two-factor authentication and other digital services. Giving one to a stranger can therefore reveal more personal information than someone may realise.

Usernames provide a way to separate someone’s WhatsApp identity from their mobile number, making it easier to communicate with new contacts without immediately sharing that information.

This is particularly relevant for business networking, online marketplaces, community groups, customer enquiries and other situations where people may want to communicate without establishing a deeper personal connection.

WhatsApp summarises the thinking behind the feature by saying: “A phone number is personal and it’s tied to so many parts of your life.”

However, the challenge is that privacy features that protect genuine users can also potentially make life easier for criminals. The debate is therefore not simply about whether usernames are good or bad, but whether platforms can introduce stronger privacy without weakening trust and accountability.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the introduction of WhatsApp usernames could make the platform more useful for customer communication. Employees may be able to speak with customers, suppliers or new contacts without sharing personal mobile numbers, while businesses could create a more consistent identity across WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram.

However, the fraud concerns raised by the Indian government also highlight the growing importance of digital identity verification.

If usernames become widely used, businesses may need to be more careful about how customers identify genuine accounts. Criminals already impersonate banks, suppliers, senior executives and well-known brands, and convincing username variations could create another opportunity for social engineering.

Organisations using WhatsApp for customer service may therefore need to communicate clearly which accounts are genuine, while employees should be trained not to assume that a familiar-looking username proves someone’s identity.

The wider story here is really about the difficult balance between privacy and trust. Hiding phone numbers can protect users from unwanted exposure, but every new layer of anonymity can also create opportunities for abuse.

WhatsApp’s challenge is to prove that usernames can provide meaningful privacy without making impersonation and fraud easier. How that balance is achieved could influence not only the future of WhatsApp, but also how messaging platforms around the world design privacy features in the years ahead.

The post Featured Article : Fraud Fears Over New WhatsApp Usernames appeared first on Mear Technology.

Which Tracks? 

The music tracks that 52-year-old Michael Smith from North Carolina in the US allegedly used came from a co-conspirator, a music promoter, and the CEO of an AI music company, who (from 2018) supplied him with hundreds of thousands of AI-generated songs – songs described as “instant music” by the alleged co-conspirator. 

Uploaded To Music Streaming Platforms 

Smith then allegedly uploaded these tracks to music streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, and YouTube Music. Typically, when songs are uploaded to music streaming platforms, the artists earn royalties based on the number of streams their songs receive.  

Then Used Automated Bots To Inflate The Number of Streams 

In the case of Mr Smith, the allegation is that he then used “bots” (automated programs) to stream the AI-generated songs billions of times. The indictment says that, at the height of his alleged fraudulent scheme, Mr Smith “used over a thousand bot accounts simultaneously to artificially boost streams of his music across the Streaming Platforms”. It’s alleged that by manipulating the streaming data in this way, Smith was able to fraudulently obtain “more than $10 million in royalty payments to which he was not entitled”. 

How Royalties Work Via Music Streaming Platforms 

Royalties paid to songwriters, composers, lyricists, and music publishers (“Songwriters”) are funded by streaming platforms like Spotify and Apple Music. These platforms allocate a percentage of their revenue (called the “Revenue Pool”) to performance rights organisations (PROs) and the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC). PROs manage performance royalties, while the MLC handles digital mechanical royalties for reproducing and distributing songs. The streaming platforms send both streaming data and revenue to these organisations, which then distribute royalties proportionally to the Songwriters based on the number of streams their songs received. 

Similarly, performing artists and record companies (“Artists”) receive royalties from a separate pool, also funded by a percentage of streaming platform revenues. These funds are allocated based on the total number of streams each artist’s recordings receive, and the royalties are typically paid to Artists through record labels and distribution companies. 

Why Fraud? 

Streaming fraud, using bots to inflate stream numbers, diverts royalties from legitimate creators to those engaging in fraudulent activity. In this case, the allegation is that Michael Smith committed fraud by making false and misleading statements to streaming platforms, the above-mentioned performance rights organisations (PROs), and music distribution companies. It’s been alleged that his intent was to conceal a massive streaming manipulation scheme, where he used bots to inflate the number of streams for AI-generated songs. By doing so, prosecutors say that Smith used deceptive practices, to fraudulently divert royalties meant for legitimate creators who earned their revenue through real consumer engagement / real listeners (not automated bots). 

Technology Improved Over Time 

Emails obtained from Smith and other participants in the scheme, also appear to show how the technology used to create the tracks improved over time, thereby making his scheme more difficult for the streaming platforms to detect. For example, an email from February shows Mr Smith claiming that his “existing music has generated at this point over 4 billion streams and $12 million in royalties since 2019.” 

Not The Only Case Of This Kind 

Although prosecutors in this case have described it as the first criminal case of its kind, it’s not the only music platform streaming fraud case of recent years. For example:  

– The Danish executive case (2024) where a Danish executive got an 18-month prison sentence after using bots from 2013 to 2019 to inflate streams on platforms like Spotify and Tidal, earning around $635,000 in fraudulent royalties. 

– The Boomy AI fraud incident (2023) where Boomy, an AI music startup, had millions of its tracks blocked by Spotify due to suspected bot-driven streaming fraud, leading to increased scrutiny of AI-generated music on platforms. 

– The Tidal fake streams investigation (2019), where Norwegian authorities investigated Tidal (a global music streaming platform) for allegedly inflating streams for artists like Beyoncé and Kanye West by hundreds of millions, resulting in massive royalty payouts and one of the largest streaming fraud cases to date. 

Other AI-Related Music Incidents of Note 

It’s not just using bots to inflate streams on platforms that have caused AI-driven problems in the music world. For example: 

– In 2023, a song titled “Heart on My Sleeve” featuring AI-generated voices that mimicked ‘Drake and The Weeknd’ (a Canadian singer/songwriter) went viral on platforms like TikTok and Spotify. Created by a user named Ghostwriter977, the track accumulated millions of streams before being pulled from streaming services following a complaint from Universal Music Group (UMG). UMG argued that the AI technology used to clone the artists’ voices breached copyright law and harmed the rights of real artists. Despite its removal, the incident highlighted growing concerns over the use of AI in the music industry and its potential legal implications. 

– In April this year, over 200 prominent artists including Billie Eilish, Chappell Roan, Elvis Costello, and Aerosmith, signed an open letter calling for an end to the “predatory” use of AI in the music industry. This letter, coordinated by the Artist Rights Alliance, highlighted concerns that AI technology is being used irresponsibly to mimic artists’ work without permission, undermining creativity, and devaluing musicians’ rights. The artists warned that AI models are being trained on their copyrighted work without consent, with the potential to replace human artistry and dilute the royalties that artists depend on. They called for developers and platforms to commit to avoiding AI usage which infringes on artists’ rights or denies them fair compensation. 

Can Tech Firms Steal Your Voice? 

In an interesting AI-related case of a notable class action lawsuit filed in 2024, voice actors Paul Skye Lehrman and Linnea Sage accused AI startup Lovo of illegally cloning and selling their voices without consent. The pair were originally contacted via Fiverr in 2019 and 2020, where they were asked to record voiceover samples for what they were told were “academic research” or radio test scripts. Lehrman was paid $1,200, and Sage $400, with both assured that their recordings wouldn’t be used for anything beyond these stated purposes. However, they later discovered their voices had been cloned using AI and used in commercial content without permission. 

However, much to Lehrman’s surprise and shock, he heard his voice on a YouTube video about the Russia-Ukraine conflict, discussing topics he had never recorded. The irony of his situation deepened when he heard his voice again on the podcast “Deadline Strike Talk,” where his AI-generated voice was used to discuss the impact of AI on Hollywood and the ongoing strikes, i.e. issues central to the lawsuit itself! Sage similarly discovered her voice in promotional materials for Lovo. The lawsuit claims that Lovo misappropriated their voices to market AI-generated versions under pseudonyms, “Kyle Snow” and “Sally Coleman,” which damaged their careers by reducing job opportunities and potentially replacing their work entirely with AI. 

This lawsuit highlights a growing concern in the entertainment industry about AI’s unchecked use to clone voices and likenesses without authorisation, raising issues of intellectual property, consent, and fair compensation. 

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The rise of AI in the music and entertainment industry introduces both exciting opportunities and serious risks for music streaming platforms, artists, and individuals whose voices or music may be used without consent. For streaming platforms, cases like Michael Smith’s alleged fraudulent streaming manipulation expose real vulnerabilities in royalty systems, which requires platforms to implement more robust detection methods. As AI-generated content becomes more sophisticated, distinguishing between real and artificial streams will be crucial to prevent fraudulent activity that undermines royalty distribution and trust. 

For artists, AI’s ability to clone voices, styles, and entire songs presents an existential challenge to creativity and ownership. The growing number of cases, including the Heart on My Sleeve incident and the lawsuit against Lovo, highlight how AI can be used to replicate an artist’s voice or music without permission. This threatens not only their revenue but also their creative integrity. This illustrates why prominent artists, as seen in the open letter signed by Billie Eilish, Chappell Roan, and others, are calling for clearer protections and industry standards i.e., to prevent AI from being used in ways that exploit human artistry without proper compensation. 

Voice actors and other professionals who rely on their vocal talents are particularly vulnerable to AI voice cloning. Lehrman and Sage’s experience with Lovo illustrates how voice recordings can be misappropriated and used commercially under false pretenses, damaging careers and reducing future opportunities. This case highlights the need for businesses, especially those in the tech and entertainment sectors, to perhaps develop transparent and ethical policies around AI-generated content, thereby ensuring that creators are properly informed, compensated, and protected. 

Beyond the entertainment industry, AI misuse poses a potential risk for the rest of us, especially when it comes to the unauthorised use of voices or faces. AI technology, like voice cloning and deepfakes, can be used to imitate individuals without their consent, creating the potential for serious ethical and legal challenges. For businesses, this means increased vulnerability to fraud, such as the possibility of AI-generated voices being used to impersonate employees or executives in phishing scams. Without proper safeguards, AI can become weaponised to deceive customers or commit fraud against organisations by replicating voices or faces in ways that can bypass security measures, leading to financial and reputational damage. 

In response to these growing concerns, industry experts and creators are calling for stronger regulations and protections. Clear consent processes, the development of intellectual property rights linked to a person’s voice and likeness, and technological solutions for detecting fraudulent AI usage now appear to be essential. Ideally, companies and platforms now need to collaborate with policymakers and rights organisations to try and ensure that AI is used ethically, protecting the creative economy and the rights of individuals.

The post Featured Article : Musical Misconduct appeared first on Mear Technology.