As students of the 2nd Semester at Amar Singh College, Srinagar, we recently conducted a field-based study under our Skill Enhancement Course, Cybercrime Administration, under the academic guidance of Dr. Zubair Nazeer, Head of the Department of Public Administration. The fieldwork was carried out in Khimber Area, Harwan Block, with the objective of understanding an issue that rarely receives the attention it deserves: the non-reporting of cybercrimes.
To explore this question, our group interacted with residents across Khimber using a structured thirteen-question survey supplemented by face-to-face interviews. Approximately 92 percent of respondents actively used smartphones and internet services, while 84 percent stated that they were aware of cybercrime as a concept. However, as discussions progressed, it became clear that awareness was often superficial. Many respondents admitted that if they received a suspicious call or lost money online, they would not know where to report the matter. Some did not know that cybercrime complaints could be filed online, while others were unaware of the existence of the National Cyber Crime Portal altogether.
Perhaps the most striking finding of our survey was related to Helpline 1930, the national emergency helpline for financial cyber frauds. Only 12 percent of respondents had heard of the helpline, while 88 percent were completely unaware of it.
The case studies collected during our fieldwork further illustrated the diverse nature of cyber threats facing local communities. One respondent, Gowhar, lost approximately Rs. 3.53 lakh after receiving a fraudulent telecom-related call. The caller convinced him that his SIM card would be deactivated unless he shared an OTP. Although a portion of the amount was eventually recovered, more than Rs. 2.5 lakh was permanently lost. Another case involved an individual who lost approximately Rs. 5 lakh through an online gaming platform that initially generated small profits before inducing larger deposits. Once the substantial amount was transferred, the platform effectively disappeared. We also encountered cases involving courier frauds, QR-code scams, fake transaction messages, advance-fee frauds on online marketplaces, and military impersonation scams.
Only 25 percent of respondents expressed trust that cyber fraud cases could be effectively resolved, while 75 percent did not share that confidence. During our fieldwork, we observed a noticeable difference between younger and older respondents. Many younger participants acknowledged a widespread perception that cybercriminals frequently remain ahead of investigators in terms of technology and operational sophistication. Older respondents were often far more direct, openly expressing little faith in the ability of existing mechanisms to trace highly organised cybercriminal networks. Whether this perception accurately reflects reality is a separate question. What matters is that such beliefs strongly influence reporting behaviour.
Even more revealing was the issue of privacy. Around 85 percent of respondents feared that their identity might not remain confidential after filing a complaint. Many worried about unnecessary public exposure, social embarrassment, family disputes, or community gossip. One elderly respondent shared that he had lost approximately two to two-and-a-half lakh rupees in a dispute involving a relative but never approached the authorities because he feared reporting the matter could escalate tensions within the family without guaranteeing any meaningful recovery of funds. Our interviews also highlighted an important concern regarding smaller fraud cases. A significant number of respondents believed that victims who lose relatively small amounts often feel discouraged from reporting incidents because they assume their complaints will not receive serious attention. Many residents questioned this logic, arguing that even ten thousand rupees may represent months of savings for an ordinary worker. When respondents were asked how reporting systems could be improved, several recommendations appeared consistently. The most common suggestion was the establishment of block-level cyber help desks to make reporting more accessible. Participants also emphasised the need for large-scale awareness campaigns regarding Helpline 1930 and stronger assurances regarding privacy protection for complainants.
Our experience in Khimber suggests that strengthening cyber security is not only about improving software or surveillance capabilities. It is equally about ensuring that ordinary citizens know where to seek help, trust the institutions available to them, and feel confident that reporting a crime is worth the effort. In the end, perhaps the most important lesson from our fieldwork is a simple one: people cannot report what they do not fully understand, and they cannot rely on a system they do not fully trust. Building that understanding and trust may be one of the most effective forms of cybercrime prevention available today.
Other students who participated in the survey and the compilation of above report are Jannat Nayeem Khan, Rabia Javed, Asif Reyaz, Bazila Zehra, Hazika Nabi, Iqra Mohidin, Arzeena Yousuf.