#FactCheck - AI-Generated Image Falsely Shared as ‘Border 2’ Shooting Photo Goes Viral

Introduction

As our reliance on digital communication technologies increases, so do the risks associated with the same. The propagation of false information is a significant concern. According to the World Economic Forum's 2024 Global Risk Report, India ranks the highest for misinformation and disinformation risk. Indian Vice President Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in the digital information age, addressing Indian Information Service officer trainees at the Vice President's Enclave on 18th June 2024. He has highlighted the issue of widespread misinformation and the need to regulate it. He stated “Information is power, information is too dangerous a power, information is that power which has to be regulated’’.

VC calls for regulation of the Information Landscape 

The Vice President of India, Shri Dhankhar, has called on young Indian Information Service officers to act swiftly to neutralize misinformation on social media. He emphasized the importance of protecting individuals and institutions from fake narratives set afloat on social media. The VP called for the officers to act as information warriors, protecting the privacy and reputation of affected individuals or institutions. 

The VP also highlighted India's vibrant democracy and the need for trust in the government. He called for the neutralization of motivated narratives set by global media and stressed the importance of not allowing others to calibrate them. He also emphasized the need to promote India's development narrative globally, highlighting its rich cultural heritage and diversity. He has expressed the need to regulate information, saying “Unregulated information & fake news can create a disaster of un-imaginable proportion.”

MeitY Advisory dated 1st March 2024

As regards to the issue of misinformation, the recently-issued advisory by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), specifies that all users should be well informed about the consequences of dealing with unlawful information on online platforms, including disabling access, removing non-compliant information, suspension or termination of access or usage rights of the user to their user account and imposing punishment under applicable law. The advisory entails that users are clearly informed, through terms of services and user agreements, about the consequences of engaging with unlawful information on the platform. Measures to combat deepfakes or misinformation have also been discussed in the advisory. The advisory necessitates identifying synthetically-created content across various formats, and advising platforms to employ labels, unique identifiers, or metadata to ensure transparency. Furthermore, the advisory mandates the disclosure of software details and tracing the first originator of such synthetically created content.

Conclusion

The battle against the growing incidences of misinformation and disinformation will not be easily won: developing a robust regulatory framework to counter online misinformation is essential. Alongside the regulatory framework, the government should encourage digital literacy campaigns, promote prebunking and debunking strategies and collaborate with relevant organisations such as cybersecurity experts, fact-checking entities, researchers, and policy analysts to combat misinformation on the Internet. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's statement scores the need to regulate information to prevent the spread of fake news or misinformation.

References:

1. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2026304
2. https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/03/04/meity_ai_advisory_1_march.pdf

‍

Introduction

Big Tech has been pushing back against regulatory measures, particularly regarding data handling practices. X Corp (formerly Twitter) has taken a prominent stance in India. The platform has filed a petition against the Central and State governments, challenging content-blocking orders and opposing the Center’s newly launched Sahyog portal.  The X Corp has furthermore labelled the Sahyog Portal as a 'censorship portal' that enables government agencies to issue blocking orders using a standardized template.

The key regulations governing the tech space in India include the IT Act of 2000,  IT Rules 2021 and 2023 (which stress platform accountability and content moderation), and the DPDP Act 2023, which intersects with personal data governance. This petition by the X Corp raises concerns for digital freedom, platform accountability, and the evolving regulatory frameworks in India. 

Elon Musk vs Indian Government: Key Issues at Stake

The 2021 IT Rules, particularly Rule 3(1)(d) of Part II, outline intermediaries' obligations regarding ‘Content Takedowns’. Intermediaries must remove or disable access to unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or government notification. Notably, the rules do not require government takedown requests to be explicitly in writing, raising concerns about potential misuse. 

X’s petition also focuses on the Sahyog Portal, a government-run platform that allows various agencies and state police to request content removal directly. They contend that the failure to comply with such orders can expose intermediaries' officers to prosecution. This has sparked controversy, with platforms like Elon Musk’s X arguing that such provisions grant the government excessive control, potentially undermining free speech and fostering undue censorship.

The broader implications include geopolitical tensions, potential business risks for big tech companies, and significant effects on India's digital economy, user engagement, and platform governance. Balancing regulatory compliance with digital rights remains a crucial challenge in this evolving landscape.

The Global Context: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

The ‘EU's Digital Services Act’ establishes a baseline 'notice and takedown' system. According to the Act, hosting providers, including online platforms, must enable third parties to notify them of illegal content, which they must promptly remove to retain their hosting defence. The DSA also mandates expedited removal processes for notifications from trusted flaggers, user suspension for those with frequent violations, and enhanced protections for minors. Additionally, hosting providers have to adhere to specific content removal obligations, including the elimination of terrorist content within one hour and deploying technology to detect known or new CSAM material and remove it.

In contrast to the EU, the US First Amendment protects speech from state interference but does not extend to private entities. Dominant digital platforms, however, significantly influence discourse by moderating content, shaping narratives, and controlling advertising markets. This dual role creates tension as these platforms balance free speech, platform safety, and profitability.

India has adopted a model closer to the EU's approach, emphasizing content moderation to curb misinformation, false narratives, and harmful content. Drawing from the EU's framework, India could establish third-party notification mechanisms, enforce clear content takedown guidelines, and implement detection measures for harmful content like terrorist material and CSAM within defined timelines. This would balance content regulation with platform accountability while aligning with global best practices.

Key Concerns and Policy Debates

As the issue stands, the main concerns that arise are:

1. The need for transparency in government orders for takedowns, the reasons and a clear framework for why they are needed and the guidelines for doing so. 
2. The need for balancing digital freedom with national security and the concerns that arise out of it for tech companies. Essentially, the role platforms play in safeguarding the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution of India. 
3. This court ruling by the Karnataka HC will have the potential to redefine the principles upon which the intermediary guidelines function under the Indian laws. 

Potential Outcomes and the Way Forward

While we wait for the Hon’ble Court’s directives and orders in response to the filed suit, while the court's decision could favour either side or lead to a negotiated resolution, the broader takeaway is the necessity of collaborative policymaking that balances governmental oversight with platform accountability. This debate underscores the pressing need for a structured and transparent regulatory framework for content moderation. Additionally, this case also highlights the importance of due process in content regulation and the need for legal clarity for tech companies operating in India. Ultimately, a consultative and principles-based approach will be key to ensuring a fair and open digital ecosystem.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/elon-musks-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations/article69352961.ece
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/elon-musk-s-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations-101742463516588.html
• https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-explainer-why-has-x-accused-govt-of-censorship-3788648/
• https://thelawreporters.com/elon-musk-s-x-sues-indian-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations ‍
• https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/digilinks/2023/february/the-eu-digital-services-act---a-new-era-for-online-harms-and-intermediary-liability

Introduction

On September 27, 2024, the Indian government took a significant step toward enhancing national security by amending business allocation rules through an extraordinary gazette notification. This amendment, which assigns specific roles to different Union Ministries and Departments regarding telecom network security, cybersecurity, and cybercrime, aims to clarify and streamline efforts in these critical areas. With India's evolving cybersecurity landscape, the need for a structured regulatory framework is pressing, as threats grow in complexity. Recent developments, such as the July 2024 global cyber outage and increasing cyber crimes like SMS scams, highlight the urgency of such reforms. Under Article 77 clause (3), the President amended the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, to designate clearer responsibilities, reinforcing India's readiness to tackle emerging digital threats.

Key Highlights of the Gazette Notification

• Telecom Networks Security: A new entry ‘1A’ matters relating to the security of telecom networks" has been added under the Department of Telecommunications, highlighting an increased focus on securing the nation's telecom infrastructure.
• Cyber Security Responsibilities: Cyber security responsibilities have been added as a new entry under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), "5B. This assigns responsibility to MeitY for cybersecurity issues, concerning the Information Technology Act of 2000, giving the ministry the mandate to support other ministries or departments regarding cybersecurity matters.
• Oversight for Cyber Crime: Under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Internal Security, a new entry "36A Matters relating to Cyber Crime" is introduced. This emphasises that the MHA will handle cybercrime issues, highlighting the government's attention toward enhancing internal security against cyber threats.
• Cyber Security Strategic Coordination: Any matter related to the "overall coordination and strategic direction for Cyber Security," has been given to the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). This consolidates the role of the NSCS in guiding cybersecurity strategies at the national level.

Impact on Policy and Governance 

The amendments introduced through the notification are poised to significantly enhance the Indian government's cybersecurity framework by clarifying the roles of various ministries. The clear separation of responsibilities, telecom network security to the Department of Telecommunications, cybercrime to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and overall cyber strategy to the National Security Council Secretariat could seen as better coordination between ministries. This clarity is expected to reduce bureaucratic delays, allowing for quicker response times in addressing cyber threats, cybercrimes, and telecom vulnerabilities. Such efficient handling is crucial, especially in the evolving landscape of digital threats. These changes have been largely welcomed as it recognises the potential for improved regulatory oversight and faster policy implementation and a step forward in bolstering India’s cyber resilience. 

Conclusion 

The Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 amendments mark a critical step in strengthening India's cybersecurity framework. By setting out specific responsibilities for telecom network security, cybercrime, and overall cybersecurity strategy among key ministries, the government seeks to improve coordination and reduce bureaucratic delays. This policy shift is poised to enhance India’s digital resilience, providing a foundation for rapid responses to emerging cyber threats. However, success hinges on effective implementation, resource allocation, and collaboration across ministries. Addressing concerns like potential jurisdictional overlap and ensuring the inclusion of bodies like NCIIPC will be pivotal to ensuring comprehensive cyber protection. The complexity of cyber crimes and threats is evolving every day and the government's ability and preparedness to handle them with regulatory insight is a high priority.

References

• https://egazette.gov.in/(S(4r5oclueuwrjypfvr5b4vtzg))/ViewPDF.aspx 
• https://www.ptinews.com/story/national/govt-specifies-roles-on-matters-related-to-security-of-telecom-network-cyber-security-and-cyber-crime/1856627
• https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/centre-to-further-streamline-mechanism-to-deal-with-cyber-security-cyber-crime/article68694330.ece
• https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/policy/govt-specifies-roles-on-matters-related-to-security-of-telecom-network-cyber-security-and-cyber-crime/113754501 

‍