#Fact Check: Old Photo Misused to Claim Israeli Helicopter Downed in Lebanon!

Introduction

There is a rising desire for artificial intelligence (AI) laws that limit threats to public safety and protect human rights while allowing for a flexible and inventive setting. Most AI policies prioritize the use of AI for the public good. The most compelling reason for AI innovation as a valid goal of public policy is its promise to enhance people's lives by assisting in the resolution of some of the world's most difficult difficulties and inefficiencies and to emerge as a transformational technology, similar to mobile computing. This blog explores the complex interplay between AI and internet governance from an Indian standpoint, examining the challenges, opportunities, and the necessity for a well-balanced approach.

Understanding Internet Governance

Before delving into an examination of their connection, let's establish a comprehensive grasp of Internet Governance. This entails the regulations, guidelines, and criteria that influence the global operation and management of the Internet. With the internet being a shared resource, governance becomes crucial to ensure its accessibility, security, and equitable distribution of benefits.

The Indian Digital Revolution

India has witnessed an unprecedented digital revolution, with a massive surge in internet users and a burgeoning tech ecosystem. The government's Digital India initiative has played a crucial role in fostering a technology-driven environment, making technology accessible to even the remotest corners of the country. As AI applications become increasingly integrated into various sectors, the need for a comprehensive framework to govern these technologies becomes apparent.

AI and Internet Governance Nexus

The intersection of AI and Internet governance raises several critical questions. How should data, the lifeblood of AI, be governed? What role does privacy play in the era of AI-driven applications? How can India strike a balance between fostering innovation and safeguarding against potential risks associated with AI?

• AI's Role in Internet Governance: 

Artificial Intelligence has emerged as a powerful force shaping the dynamics of the internet. From content moderation and cybersecurity to data analysis and personalized user experiences, AI plays a pivotal role in enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of Internet governance mechanisms. Automated systems powered by AI algorithms are deployed to detect and respond to emerging threats, ensuring a safer online environment.

A comprehensive strategy for managing the interaction between AI and the internet is required to stimulate innovation while limiting hazards. Multistakeholder models including input from governments, industry, academia, and civil society are gaining appeal as viable tools for developing comprehensive and extensive governance frameworks.

The usefulness of multistakeholder governance stems from its adaptability and flexibility in requiring collaboration from players with a possible stake in an issue. Though flawed, this approach allows for flaws that may be remedied using knowledge-building pieces. As AI advances, this trait will become increasingly important in ensuring that all conceivable aspects are covered.

The Need for Adaptive Regulations

While AI's potential for good is essentially endless, so is its potential for damage - whether intentional or unintentional. The technology's highly disruptive nature needs a strong, human-led governance framework and rules that ensure it may be used in a positive and responsible manner. The fast emergence of GenAI, in particular, emphasizes the critical need for strong frameworks. Concerns about the usage of GenAI may enhance efforts to solve issues around digital governance and hasten the formation of risk management measures.

Several AI governance frameworks have been published throughout the world in recent years, with the goal of offering high-level guidelines for safe and trustworthy AI development. The OECD's "Principles on Artificial Intelligence" (OECD, 2019), the EU's "Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI" (EU, 2019), and UNESCO's "Recommendations on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence" (UNESCO, 2021) are among the multinational organizations that have released their own principles. However, the advancement of GenAI has resulted in additional recommendations, such as the OECD's newly released "G7 Hiroshima Process on Generative Artificial Intelligence" (OECD, 2023).

Several guidance documents and voluntary frameworks have emerged at the national level in recent years, including the "AI Risk Management Framework" from the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a voluntary guidance published in January 2023, and the White House's "Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights," a set of high-level principles published in October 2022 (The White House, 2022). These voluntary policies and frameworks are frequently used as guidelines by regulators and policymakers all around the world. More than 60 nations in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Europe had issued national AI strategies as of 2023 (Stanford University).

Conclusion

Monitoring AI will be one of the most daunting tasks confronting the international community in the next centuries. As vital as the need to govern AI is the need to regulate it appropriately. Current AI policy debates too often fall into a false dichotomy of progress versus doom (or geopolitical and economic benefits versus risk mitigation). Instead of thinking creatively, solutions all too often resemble paradigms for yesterday's problems. It is imperative that we foster a relationship that prioritizes innovation, ethical considerations, and inclusivity. Striking the right balance will empower us to harness the full potential of AI within the boundaries of responsible and transparent Internet Governance, ensuring a digital future that is secure, equitable, and beneficial for all.

References

1. The Key Policy Frameworks Governing AI in India - Access Partnership
2. AI in e-governance: A potential opportunity for India (indiaai.gov.in)
3. India and the Artificial Intelligence Revolution - Carnegie India - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
4. Rise of AI in the Indian Economy (indiaai.gov.in)
5. The OECD Artificial Intelligence Policy Observatory - OECD.AI
6. Artificial Intelligence | UNESCO
7. Artificial intelligence | NIST

Introduction

On March 12, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) proposed the Bill to curb anti-competitive practices of tech giants through ex-ante regulation. The Draft Digital Competition Bill is to apply to ‘Core Digital Services,’ with the Central Government having the authority to update the list periodically. The proposed list in the Bill encompasses online search engines, online social networking services, video-sharing platforms, interpersonal communications services, operating systems, web browsers, cloud services, advertising services, and online intermediation services. 

The primary highlight of the Digital Competition Law Report created by the Committee on Digital Competition Law presented to the Parliament in the 2nd week of March 2024 involves a recommendation to introduce new legislation called the ‘Digital Competition Act,’ intended to strike a balance between certainty and flexibility. The report identified ten anti-competitive practices relevant to digital enterprises in India. These are anti-steering, platform neutrality/self-preferencing, bundling and tying, data usage (use of non-public data), pricing/ deep discounting, exclusive tie-ups, search and ranking preferencing, restricting third-party applications and finally advertising Policies.

Key Take-Aways: Digital Competition Bill, 2024

1. Qualitative and quantitative criteria for identifying Systematically Significant Digital Enterprises, if it meets any of the specified thresholds. 

• Financial thresholds in each of the immediately preceding three financial years like turnover in India, global turnover, gross merchandise value in India, or global market capitalization.
• User thresholds in each of the immediately preceding 3 financial years in India like the core digital service provided by the enterprise has at least 1 crore end users, or it has at least 10,000 business users.
• The Commission may make the designation based on other factors such as the size and resources of an enterprise, number of business or end users, market structure and size, scale and scope of activities of an enterprise and any other relevant factor.

2. A period of 90 days is provided to notify the CCI of qualification as an SSDE. Additionally, the enterprise must also notify the Commission of other enterprises within the group that are directly or indirectly involved in the provision of Core Digital Services, as Associate Digital Enterprises (ADE) and the qualification shall be for 3 years.
3. It prescribes obligations for SSDEs and their ADEs upon designation. The enterprise must comply with certain obligations regarding Core Digital Services, and non-compliance with the same shall result in penalties. Enterprises must not directly or indirectly prevent or restrict business users or end users from raising any issue of non-compliance with the enterprise’s obligations under the Act. 
4. Avoidance of favouritism in product offerings by SSDE,  its related parties, or third parties for the manufacture and sale of products or provision of services over those offered by third-party business users on the Core Digital Service in any manner.
5. The Commission will be having the same powers as vested to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when trying a suit.
6. Penalty for non-compliance without reasonable cause may extend to Rs 1 lakh for each day during which such non-compliance occurs (max. of Rs 10 crore). It may extend to 3 years or with a fine, which may extend to Rs 25 crore or with both. The Commission may also pass an order imposing a penalty on an enterprise (not exceeding 1% of the global turnover) in case it provides incorrect, incomplete, misleading information or fails to provide information. 

Suggestions and Recommendations

• The ex-ante model of regulation needs to be examined for the Indian scenario and studies need to be conducted on it has worked previously in different jurisdictions like the EU. 
• The Bill should be aimed at prioritising the fostering of fair competition by preventing monopolistic practices in digital markets exclusively. A clear distinction from the already existing Competition Act, 2002 in its functioning needs to be created so that there is no overlap in the regulations and double jeopardy is not created for enterprises.
• Restrictions on tying and bundling and data usage have been shown to negatively impact MSMEs that rely significantly on big tech to reduce operational costs and enhance customer outreach.
• Clear definitions of "dominant position" and "anti-competitive behaviour" are essential for effective enforcement in terms of digital competition need to be defined. 
• Encouraging innovation while safeguarding consumer data privacy in consonance with the DPDP Act should be the aim. Promoting interoperability and transparency in algorithms can prevent discriminatory practices. 
• Regular reviews and stakeholder consultations will ensure the law adapts to rapidly evolving technologies. 
• Collaboration with global antitrust bodies which is aimed at enhancing cross-border regulatory coherence and effectiveness.

Conclusion

The need for a competition law that is focused exclusively on Digital Enterprises is the need of the hour and hence the Committee recommended enacting the Digital Competition Act to enable CCI to selectively regulate large digital enterprises. The proposed legislation should be restricted to regulate only those enterprises that have a significant presence and ability to influence the Indian digital market. The impact of the law needs to be restrictive to digital enterprises and it should not encroach upon matters not influenced by the digital arena. India's proposed Digital Competition Bill aims to promote competition and fairness in the digital market by addressing anti-competitive practices and dominant position abuses prevalent in the digital business space. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has received 41-page public feedback on the draft which is expected to be tabled next year in front of the Parliament. 

References

1. https://www.medianama.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DRAFT-DIGITAL-COMPETITION-BILL-2024.pdf
2. https://prsindia.org/files/policy/policy_committee_reports/Report_Summary-Digital_Competition_Law.pdf
3. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/meity-meets-india-inc-to-hear-out-digital-competition-law-concerns/articleshow/111091837.cms?from=mdr
4. https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/dms/getdocument?mds=gzGtvSkE3zIVhAuBe2pbow%253D%253D&type=open
5. https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/digital-competition-laws-beginning-of-a-new-era
6. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/policy-explainer-digital-competition-bill-nimisha-srivastava-lhltc/
7. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5722a078-1839-4ece-aec9-49336ff53b6c

‍

In the pulsating heart of the digitized era, our world is rapidly morphing into a tightly knit network of interconnections. Concurrently, the vast expanse of the cyber realm continues to broaden at an unparalleled pace. As we, denizens of the Information Revolution, pioneer this challenging new frontier, a novel notion is steadily gaining traction as an essential instrument for tackling the multifaceted predicaments and hazards emanating from our escalating dependency on digital technology. This novel notion is cyber diplomacy.

Recently, a riveting discourse unraveling the continually evolving topography of cyber diplomacy unfolded on the podcast 'Patching the System.' Two distinguished personalities graced the conversation - Benedikt Wechsler, Switzerland's Ambassador for Digitization, and Kaja Ciglic, Senior Director of Digital Diplomacy at Microsoft. This thought-provoking dialogue provides a mesmerizing peek into the intricate maze of this freshly minted diplomatic domain - a landscape still in the process of carving out its rules against an ever-escalating high stakes backdrop.

Call for Robust International Norms 

During their enlightening exchange, Wechsler and Ciglic shed light on the dire need of robust international norms and regulations in dynamic cyberspace. The drew comparison with well established norms governing maritime and airspace activities, suggesting a similar framework to maneuver the intricacies of the digital realm. The necessity of this mammoth task is accentuated by swift technological development and the unique nature of the internet where participation is diverse. 

Their discourse also underscores the critical argument that cyberspace cannot be commoditized. It has evolved into critical infrastructure that demands collective supervision. Wechsler also advocated for collaboration and the importance of a united front composed of big tech giants and the government working in tandem for creation of a resilient and secured digital landscape. 

Dual Edged Sword

Their conversation courageously plunged into the more sinister depths of the digital world and dissected the rising tide of cyberspace militarisation. Illustrative case point, recent cyber operations in Ukraine starkly underscore how malevolent elements have exploited digital tools to disastrous effect. Ciglic astutely pointed out the inherent dual nature of this scenario - while malignant entities will persistently manipulate technologies like AI, these identical tools can simultaneously serve as critical allies in reinforcing cyber defenses.

In finality, the dialogue unspools a potent call to arms. Both Wechsler and Ciglic fervently endorse the inception of a permanent body under the United Nations' purview specifically designed to tackle cyber-related quandaries. They also amplified the significance of an inclusive engagement process involving diverse stakeholders cutting across sectors - private entities, academia, civil society.

In India, this strategy is very practical. India has been making proactive investments in cybersecurity and digital resilience due to its rapidly developing digital ecosystem and strong IT industry. The government of the country, business executives, and academic institutions understand how strategically important it is to protect vital digital infrastructure and data. For example, India has seen a number of high-profile assaults on its vital infrastructure, like the Mumbai power outage in 2020, which emphasizes the necessity for extensive cybersecurity protections. The security components of the digital ecosystem have been given top priority by the Indian government's "Digital India" project, which aims to promote digital inclusion. This program has improved cybersecurity while simultaneously making great progress toward closing the nation's digital gap, especially in rural areas.

India's growing influence on global affairs and its prowess in the digital realm highlight how important it is to incorporate Indian viewpoints into the larger plan. By doing this, it guarantees a thorough and all-encompassing strategy that negotiates the intricacies of the Indian and global digital ecosystems. This strategy enhances cybersecurity at the national level and establishes India as a key global partner in the endeavor to make the internet a safer and more secure place for everyone. The whole community may benefit greatly from India's experiences and activities in combating cyber dangers and enhancing resilience in an increasingly interconnected world.

Conclusion 

As we meticulously chart our trajectory across the cyber wilderness, the wisdom disseminated by Wechsler and Ciglic emerges as a priceless navigational aid. They inspire us to remember that while the gauntlet we face may be daunting, the opportunities unfurling before us are equally, if not more, monumental in their potential. By embracing a multi-faceted, synergistic approach, we set the stage for a shared journey towards a safer, resilient digital habitat.

The timeless words of Albert Einstein echo these sentiments: 'Technology advances could have made human life carefree and happy if the development of the organizing power of men [and women] had been able to keep pace with its technical advances.' As we grapple with the perplexities and burstiness of the digital age, let these words guide our collective endeavor as we strive to balance our organizing prowess with our rapid technological advancements.

‍