DPDP Bill 2023 A Comparative Analysis

In the vast, uncharted territories of the digital world, a sinister phenomenon is proliferating at an alarming rate. It's a world where artificial intelligence (AI) and human vulnerability intertwine in a disturbing combination, creating a shadowy realm of non-consensual pornography. This is the world of deepfake pornography, a burgeoning industry that is as lucrative as it is unsettling.

According to a recent assessment, at least 100,000 deepfake porn videos are readily available on the internet, with hundreds, if not thousands, being uploaded daily. This staggering statistic prompts a chilling question: what is driving the creation of such a vast number of fakes? Is it merely for amusement, or is there a more sinister motive at play?

Recent Trends and Developments 

An investigation by India Today’s Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) team reveals that deepfake pornography is rapidly morphing into a thriving business. AI enthusiasts, creators, and experts are extending their expertise, investors are injecting money, and even small financial companies to tech giants like Google, VISA, Mastercard, and PayPal are being misused in this dark trade. Synthetic porn has existed for years, but advances in AI and the increasing availability of technology have made it easier—and more profitable—to create and distribute non-consensual sexually explicit material. The 2023 State of Deepfake report by Home Security Heroes reveals a staggering 550% increase in the number of deepfakes compared to 2019. 

What’s the Matter with Fakes? 

But why should we be concerned about these fakes? The answer lies in the real-world harm they cause. India has already seen cases of extortion carried out by exploiting deepfake technology. An elderly man in UP’s Ghaziabad, for instance, was tricked into paying Rs 74,000 after receiving a deep fake video of a police officer. The situation could have been even more serious if the perpetrators had decided to create deepfake porn of the victim.

The danger is particularly severe for women. The 2023 State of Deepfake Report estimates that at least 98 percent of all deepfakes is porn and 99 percent of its victims are women. A study by Harvard University refrained from using the term “pornography” for creating, sharing, or threatening to create/share sexually explicit images and videos of a person without their consent. “It is abuse and should be understood as such,” it states.

Based on interviews of victims of deepfake porn last year, the study said 63 percent of participants talked about experiences of “sexual deepfake abuse” and reported that their sexual deepfakes had been monetised online. It also found “sexual deepfake abuse to be particularly harmful because of the fluidity and co-occurrence of online offline experiences of abuse, resulting in endless reverberations of abuse in which every aspect of the victim’s life is permanently disrupted”.

Creating deepfake porn is disturbingly easy. There are largely two types of deepfakes: one featuring faces of humans and another featuring computer-generated hyper-realistic faces of non-existing people. The first category is particularly concerning and is created by superimposing faces of real people on existing pornographic images and videos—a task made simple and easy by AI tools.

During the investigation, platforms hosting deepfake porn of stars like Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone, Jennifer Aniston, Aishwarya Rai, Rashmika Mandanna to TV actors and influencers like Aanchal Khurana, Ahsaas Channa, and Sonam Bajwa and Anveshi Jain were encountered. It takes a few minutes and as little as Rs 40 for a user to create a high-quality fake porn video of 15 seconds on platforms like FakeApp and FaceSwap.

The Modus Operandi 

These platforms brazenly flaunt their business association and hide behind frivolous declarations such as: the content is “meant solely for entertainment” and “not intended to harm or humiliate anyone”. However, the irony of these disclaimers is not lost on anyone, especially when they host thousands of non-consensual deepfake pornography.

As fake porn content and its consumers surge, deepfake porn sites are rushing to forge collaborations with generative AI service providers and have integrated their interfaces for enhanced interoperability. The promise and potential of making quick bucks have given birth to step-by-step guides, video tutorials, and websites that offer tools and programs, recommendations, and ratings.

Nearly 90 per cent of all deepfake porn is hosted by dedicated platforms that charge for long-duration premium fake content and for creating porn—of whoever a user wants, and take requests for celebrities. To encourage them further, they enable creators to monetize their content.

One such website, Civitai, has a system in place that pays “rewards” to creators of AI models that generate “images of real people'', including ordinary people. It also enables users to post AI images, prompts, model data, and LoRA (low-rank adaptation of large language models) files used in generating the images. Model data designed for adult content is gaining great popularity on the platform, and they are not only targeting celebrities. Common people are equally susceptible.

Access to premium fake porn, like any other content, requires payment. But how can a gateway process payment for sexual content that lacks consent? It seems financial institutes and banks are not paying much attention to this legal question. During the investigation, many such websites accepting payments through services like VISA, Mastercard, and Stripe were found.

Those who have failed to register/partner with these fintech giants have found a way out. While some direct users to third-party sites, others use personal PayPal accounts to manually collect money in the personal accounts of their employees/stakeholders, which potentially violates the platform's terms of use that ban the sale of “sexually oriented digital goods or content delivered through a digital medium.”

 Among others, the MakeNude.ai web app – which lets users “view any girl without clothing” in “just a single click” – has an interesting method of circumventing restrictions around the sale of non-consensual pornography. The platform has partnered with Ukraine-based Monobank and Dublin’s BetaTransfer Kassa which operates in “high-risk markets”.

BetaTransfer Kassa admits to serving “clients who have already contacted payment aggregators and received a refusal to accept payments, or aggregators stopped payments altogether after the resource was approved or completely freeze your funds”. To make payment processing easy, MakeNude.ai seems to be exploiting the donation ‘jar’ facility of Monobank, which is often used by people to donate money to Ukraine to support it in the war against Russia.

The Indian Scenario 

India currently is on its way to design dedicated legislation to address issues arising out of deepfakes. Though existing general laws requiring such platforms to remove offensive content also apply to deepfake porn. However, persecution of the offender and their conviction is extremely difficult for law enforcement agencies as it is a boundaryless crime and sometimes involves several countries in the process.

A victim can register a police complaint under provisions of Section 66E and Section 66D of the IT Act, 2000. Recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 aims to protect the digital personal data of users. Recently Union Government issued an advisory to social media intermediaries to identify misinformation and deepfakes. Comprehensive law promised by Union IT minister Ashwini Vaishnav will be able to address these challenges.

Conclusion 

In the end, the unsettling dance of AI and human vulnerability continues in the dark web of deepfake pornography. It's a dance that is as disturbing as it is fascinating, a dance that raises questions about the ethical use of technology, the protection of individual rights, and the responsibility of financial institutions. It's a dance that we must all be aware of, for it is a dance that affects us all.

References

• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/deepfake-porn-artificial-intelligence-women-fake-photos-2471855-2023-12-04
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/the-legal-net-to-trap-peddlers-of-deepfakes-101701520933515.html
• https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/with-deepfakes-getting-better-and-more-alarming-seeing-is-no-longer-believing/

Introduction

In 2019 India got its bill on Data protection in the form of the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019. This bill focused on digital rights and duties pertaining to data privacy. However, the bill was scrapped by the Govt in mid-2022, and a new bill was drafted, Successor bill was introduced as the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022 on 18th November 2022, which was made open for public comments and consultations and now the bill is expected to be tabled at the parliament in the Monsoon session.

What is DPDP, 2022?

Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, is the lasted draft regulation for data privacy in India. The bill has been essentially focused towards data protection by companies and the keep aspect of Puttaswamy judgement of data privacy as a fundamental right has been upheld under the scope of the bill. The bill comes after nearly 150 recommendations which the parliamentary committee made when the PDP, 2019 was scrapped.

The bill highlights the following keen aspects-

• Data Fiduciary- The entity (an individual, company, firm, state, etc.) which decides the purpose and means of processing an individual’s personal data.
• Data Principle- The individual to whom personal data is related.
• Processing- The entire cycle of operations that can be carried out concerning personal data.
• Gender Neutrality- For the first time in India’s legislative history, “her” and “she” have been used to refer to individuals irrespective of gender.
• Right to Erase Data- Data principals will have the right to demand the erasure and correction of data collected by the data fiduciary.
• Cross-border data transfer- The bill allows cross-border data after an assessment of relevant factors by the Central Government.
• Children’s Rights- The bill guarantees the right to digital privacy under the protection of parents/guardians.
• Heavy Penalties- The bill enforces heavy penalties for non-compliance with the provisions, not exceeding Rs 500 crore.

Data Protection Board

The bill lays down provisions for setting up a Data Protection Board. This board will be an independent body acting solely on the factors of data privacy and protection of the data principles and maintaining compliance by data fiduciaries. The board will be headed by a chairperson of essential and relevant qualifications, and members and various other officials shall assist him/her under the board. The board will serve grievance redressal to the data principles and can conduct investigation, inquiry, proceeding, and pass orders equivalent to a Civil court. The proceeding will be undertaken on the principle of natural justice, and the aggrieved can file an appeal to the High Court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Global Comparison

Many countries have data protection laws that regulate the processing of personal data. Some of the notable examples include:

• European Union: The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is one of the world’s most comprehensive data protection laws. It regulates public and private entities’ processing of personal data and gives individuals a wide range of rights over their personal data.
• United States: The US has several data protection laws that apply to specific sectors or types of data, such as health data (HIPAA) or financial data (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act). However, there is no comprehensive federal data protection law in the US.
• Japan: Japan’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) regulates the handling of personal data by private entities and gives individuals certain rights over their personal data.
• Australia: Australia’s Privacy Act 1988 regulates the handling of personal data by public and private entities and gives individuals certain rights over their personal data.
• Brazil: Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (LGPD) regulates the processing of personal data by public and private entities and gives individuals certain rights over their personal data. It also imposes heavy fines and penalties on entities that violate the provisions of the law.

Overall, while there are some similarities in data protection laws across countries, there are also significant differences in scope, applicability, and enforcement. It is important for organisations to understand the data protection laws that apply to their operations and take appropriate steps to comply with these laws.

Parliamentary Asscent

The case of violation of the privacy policy by WhatsApp at the Hon’ble Supreme Court resulted in a significant advocacy for Data privacy as a fundamental right, and it was held that, as suggested otherwise in the privacy policy, Whatsapp was sharing its user’s data with Meta. This massive breach of trust could have led to data mismanagement affecting thousands of Indian users. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken due consideration of data privacy and its challenges in India and asked the Govt to table the bill in Parliament. The bill will be tabled for discussion in the monsoon session. The Supreme Court has set up a constitutional bench to check the bill’s scope, extent and applications and provide its judicial oversight.  The constitution bench of Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar has fixed the matter for hearing in August in order to enforce the potential changes and amendments in the act post the parliamentary discussion.

Conclusion

India is the world’s largest democracy, so the crucial aspects of passing laws and amendments have always been followed by the government and kept under check by the judiciary. The discussion over bills is a crucial part of the democratic process, and bills as important as Digital Personal Data Protection need to be discussed and analysed thoroughly in both houses of Parliament to ensure the govt passes a sustainable and efficient law.

Introduction

Twitter Inc.’s appeal against barring orders for specific accounts issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was denied by a single judge on the Karnataka High Court. Twitter Inc. was also given an Rs. 50 lakh fine by Justice Krishna Dixit, who claimed the social media corporation had approached the court defying government directives.

As a foreign corporation, Twitter’s locus standi had been called into doubt by the government, which said they were ineligible to apply Articles 19 and 21 to their situation. Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.

The Issue

In accordance with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the Ministry issued the directives. Nevertheless, Twitter had argued in its appeal that the orders “fall foul of Section 69A both substantially and procedurally.” Twitter argued that in accordance with 69A, account holders were to be notified before having their tweets and accounts deleted. However, the Ministry failed to provide these account holders with any notices.

On June 4, 2022, and again on June 6, 2022, the government sent letters to Twitter’s compliance officer requesting that they come before them and provide an explanation for why the Blocking Orders were not followed and why no action should be taken against them.

Twitter replied on June 9 that the content against which it had not followed the blocking orders does not seem to be a violation of Section 69A. On June 27, 2022, the Government issued another notice stating Twitter was violating its directions. On June 29, Twitter replied, asking the Government to reconsider the direction on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality. On June 30, 2022, the Government withdrew blocking orders on ten account-level URLs but gave an additional list of 27 URLs to be blocked. On July 10, more accounts were blocked. Compiling the orders “under protest,” Twitter approached the HC with the petition challenging the orders.

Legality

Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.

Government attorney Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan argued that tweets mentioning “Indian Occupied Kashmir” and the survival of LTTE commander Velupillai Prabhakaran were serious enough to undermine the integrity of the nation.

Twitter, on the other hand, claimed that its users have pushed for these rights. Additionally, Twitter maintained that under Article 14 of the Constitution, even as a foreign company, they were entitled to certain rights, such as the right to equality. They also argued that the reason for the account blocking in each case was not stated and that Section 69a’s provision for blocking a URL should only apply to the offending URL rather than the entire account because blocking the entire account would prevent the creation of information while blocking the offending tweet only applied to already-created information.

Conclusion

The evolution of cyberspace has been substantiated by big tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and many more. These companies have been instrumental in leading the spectrum of emerging technologies and creating a blanket of ease and accessibility for users. Compliance with laws and policies is of utmost priority for the government, and the new bills and policies are empowering the Indian cyberspace. Non Compliance will be taken very seriously, and the same is legalised under the Intermediary Guidelines 2021 and 2022 by Meity. Referring to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which pertains to an exemption from liability of intermediary in some instances, it was said, “Intermediary is bound to obey the orders which the designate authority/agency which the government fixes from time to time.”