#FactCheck - Deepfake Alert: Virat Kohli's Alleged Betting App Endorsement Exposed

Introduction 
‍

Freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to democracy and is constitutionally entrenched in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The explosion of online spaces, brought about by the digital age, in the form of social media, blogs, and messaging apps, has reinterpreted how information is authored, disseminated, and consumed. This digital revolution has galvanised individuals to engage further inclusively in public debate, but has also fanatically magnified the risks of misinformation, hate speech, and threats to public order. Against this background, the judiciary is increasingly called upon to determine the limits of free speech, primarily where state regulation seeks to infringe upon constitutional protection.
‍

Constitutional and Statutory Framework related to Freedom of Speech 
‍

The judiciary plays an integral role in balancing the fundamental right of freedom of speech with the regulation of online content, especially during the fast-paced evolution of the digital world. In India, with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, the courts bear the critical responsibility of protecting this liberty while recognising the State's legitimate interests in restricting harmful or unlawful content on a digital scale. This adjudicatory dilemma is even trickier because the said right has been held by the Supreme Court not to be an absolute one and is subject to "reasonable restrictions" as in Article 19(2), which recognises restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, decency, and morality.  Freedom of speech, being the cornerstone of democracy in India, does have an umbrella of reasonable restrictions under which the state can regulate any form of speech that infringes upon other equally compelling societal interests. However, with the coming of the internet and other digital communication arrangements, there was a need to develop new statutory instruments, i.e., Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and Rules made thereunder, including Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021. These enactments attempt to regulate digital content, confronting issues such as hate speech, misinformation, and content that threatens public order. The judiciary's mandate is to interpret the enactments within the constitutional precincts, thus ensuring that the arbitrariness of State action is not aggravated or that the regulation is not overbroad. Judicial Landmark Decisions Affirming Balance The judiciary has played a front-ranking role in elaborating a jurisprudence protecting free speech in delineating legitimate regulation thereof. The Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015, is seminal. Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down as it was vague and overly broad, causing a chilling effect on online speech. The Court has emphasised that any limitation on speech must be precise and fall strictly within the parameters laid down in Article 19(2). While the Court recognises that harmful online content needs to be addressed, the remedy must not encroach upon free political debate, satire, and criticism vital for democracy. 

Following this, the Anuradha Bhasin case clarified the convergence of free speech and online access. The court held that the right to free speech had a vital medium in the form of the internet and that it would have to be an inevitable, proportionate shutdown, and transparent for challenge before the judiciary for any shutdown of the internet. This reaffirmed that restrictions on online speech must be rigorously tested.

Subsequent cases involve limitations on the 2021 IT Rules, whereby such government bodies can demand that “fake” or “misleading” material be taken off the internet. Courts move with circumspection, recognising the government's interest in fighting bogus information but remaining vigilant against over-regulation that can be code for pre-emptive censorship and threatening healthy discourses. 

The virtual world raises particular and deeper questions: the viral nature of online speech multiplies its impact, distributing both democratic ideas and abusive material instantaneously. The courts recognise this twinning. While pressurising the legislature and executive to formulate clearer, more precise rules, courts simultaneously act as constitutional Guardians, avoiding breaches of the right with executive excess or vague laws. There is a strain between judicial activism, which promotes constitutional rights aggressively, and the fear of judicial paternalism, courts overreaching into policy arenas. But there is a need for vigilance by the judiciary due to the rapidly changing nature of digital technologies and threats to the freedoms of democracy. The judiciary continues to give contours to free speech and online regulation. There are enforcement issues, such as ongoing abuse of struck-down provisions, such as Section 66A, that the court counters with reaffirmation of constitutional directives. The evolving jurisprudence balances on thin stilts, upholding the democratic spirit of India by securing speech on online spaces and sanctioning reasonable, transparent moderation of harmful speech.

‍

Conclusion
‍

The Indian judiciary's leadership in balancing online content regulation with the freedom of speech is central and refined. The courts continually emphasise that speech on the digital medium is highly constitutionally protected and that restrictions must be legally valid, specific, essential, and proportionate. By classical decisions and constant review of new regulating actions, courts safeguard democratic participation in the digital public domain from unmeritorious censorship. Concurrently, the courts recognize the responsibility of the state in regulating digital ills such as mis recipe and hate speech, demanding parameters that uphold constitutional freedoms and the due process. The balancing act of the judiciary continues to be fundamental in defining India's digital democracy so that free speech can thrive even as the state upholds public order and human dignity in the digital communication age.

‍

In the rich history of humanity, the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has added a new, delicate aspect. The aspect of promising technological advancement has the potential to either enrich the nest of our society or destroy it entirely. The latest straw in this complex nest is generative AI, a frontier teeming with both potential and perils. It is a realm where the ethereal concepts of cyber peace and resilience are not just theoretical constructs but tangible necessities.

The spectre of generative AI looms large over the digital landscape, casting a long shadow on the sanctity of data privacy and the integrity of political processes. The seeds of this threat were sown in the fertile soil of the Cambridge Analytica scandal of 2018, a watershed moment that unveiled the extent to which personal data could be harvested and utilized to influence electoral outcomes. However despite the indignation, the scandal resulted in meagre alterations to modus operandi of digital platforms.

Fast forward to the present day, and the spectre has only grown more ominous. A recent report by Human Rights Watch has shed light on the continued exploitation of data-driven campaigning in Hungary's re-election of Viktor Orbán. The report paints a chilling picture of political parties leveraging voter databases for targeted social media advertising, with the ruling Fidesz party even resorting to the unethical use of public service data to bolster its voter database.

The Looming Threat of Disinformation

As we stand on the precipice of 2024, a year that will witness over 50 countries holding elections, the advancements in generative AI could exponentially amplify the ability of political campaigns to manipulate electoral outcomes. This is particularly concerning in countries where information disparities are stark, providing fertile ground for the seeds of disinformation to take root and flourish.

The media, the traditional watchdog of democracy, has already begun to sound the alarm about the potential threats posed by deepfakes and manipulative content in the upcoming elections. The limited use of generative AI in disinformation campaigns has raised concerns about the enforcement of policies against generating targeted political materials, such as those designed to sway specific demographic groups towards a particular candidate.

Yet, while the threat of bad actors using AI to generate and disseminate disinformation is real and present, there is another dimension that has largely remained unexplored: the intimate interactions with chatbots. These digital interlocutors, when armed with advanced generative AI, have the potential to manipulate individuals without any intermediaries. The more data they have about a person, the better they can tailor their manipulations.

Root of the Cause 

To fully grasp the potential risks, we must journey back 30 years to the birth of online banner ads. The success of the first-ever banner ad for AT&T, which boasted an astounding 44% click rate, birthed a new era of digital advertising. This was followed by the advent of mobile advertising in the early 2000s. Since then, companies have been engaged in a perpetual quest to harness technology for manipulation, blurring the lines between commercial and political advertising in cyberspace.

Regrettably, the safeguards currently in place are woefully inadequate to prevent the rise of manipulative chatbots. Consider the case of Snapchat's My AI generative chatbot, which ostensibly assists users with trivia questions and gift suggestions. Unbeknownst to most users, their interactions with the chatbot are algorithmically harvested for targeted advertising. While this may not seem harmful in its current form, the profit motive could drive it towards more manipulative purposes.

If companies deploying chatbots like My AI face pressure to increase profitability, they may be tempted to subtly steer conversations to extract more user information, providing more fuel for advertising and higher earnings. This kind of nudging is not clearly illegal in the U.S. or the EU, even after the AI Act comes into effect. The market size of AI in India is projected to touch US$4.11bn in 2023. 

Taking this further, chatbots may be inclined to guide users towards purchasing specific products or even influencing significant life decisions, such as religious conversions or voting choices. The legal boundaries here remain unclear, especially when manipulation is not detectable by the user. 

The Crucial Dos/Dont's 

It is crucial to set rules and safeguards in order to manage the possible threats related to manipulative chatbots in the context of the general election in 2024.

First and foremost, candor and transparency are essential. Chatbots, particularly when employed for political or electoral matters, ought to make it clear to users what they are for and why they are automated. By being transparent, people are guaranteed to be aware that they are interacting with automated processes.

Second, getting user consent is crucial. Before collecting user data for any reason, including advertising or political profiling, users should be asked for their informed consent. Giving consumers easy ways to opt-in and opt-out gives them control over their data.

Furthermore, moral use is essential. It's crucial to create an ethics code for chatbot interactions that forbids manipulation, disseminating false information, and trying to sway users' political opinions. This guarantees that chatbots follow moral guidelines.

In order to preserve transparency and accountability, independent audits need to be carried out. Users might feel more confident knowing that chatbot behavior and data collecting procedures are regularly audited by impartial third parties to ensure compliance with legal and ethical norms.

Important "don'ts" to take into account. Coercion and manipulation ought to be outlawed completely. Chatbots should refrain from using misleading or manipulative approaches to sway users' political opinions or religious convictions.

Another hazard to watch out for is unlawful data collecting. Businesses must obtain consumers' express agreement before collecting personal information, and they must not sell or share this information for political reasons.

At all costs, one should steer clear of fake identities. Impersonating people or political figures is not something chatbots should do because it can result in manipulation and false information.

It is essential to be impartial. Bots shouldn't advocate for or take part in political activities that give preference to one political party over another. In encounters, impartiality and equity are crucial.

Finally, one should refrain from using invasive advertising techniques. Chatbots should ensure that advertising tactics comply with legal norms by refraining from displaying political advertisements or messaging without explicit user agreement.

Present Scenario

As we approach the critical 2024 elections and generative AI tools proliferate faster than regulatory measures can keep pace, companies must take an active role in building user trust, transparency, and accountability. This includes comprehensive disclosure about a chatbot's programmed business goals in conversations, ensuring users are fully aware of the chatbot's intended purposes.

To address the regulatory gap, stronger laws are needed. Both the EU AI Act and analogous laws across jurisdictions should be expanded to address the potential for manipulation in various forms. This effort should be driven by public demand, as the interests of lawmakers have been influenced by intensive Big Tech lobbying campaigns.

At present, India doesn’t have any specific laws pertaining to AI regulation. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), is the executive body responsible for AI strategies and is constantly working towards a policy framework for AI. The Niti Ayog has presented seven principles for responsible AI which includes equality , inclusivity, safety, privacy, transparency, accountability, dependability and protection of positive human values.

Conclusion 

We are at a pivotal juncture in history. As generative AI gains more power, we must proactively establish effective strategies to protect our privacy, rights and democracy. The public's waning confidence in Big Tech and the lessons learned from the techlash underscore the need for stronger regulations that hold tech companies accountable. Let's ensure that the power of generative AI is harnessed for the betterment of society and not exploited for manipulation.

Reference

McCallum, B. S. (2022, December 23). Meta settles Cambridge Analytica scandal case for $725m. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64075067

Hungary: Data misused for political campaigns. (2022, December 1). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/01/hungary-data-misused-political-campaigns

Statista. (n.d.). Artificial Intelligence - India | Statista Market forecast. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/india

Introduction

In a groundbreaking move, India's Reserve Bank has embarked on a transformative journey with its Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) project. As the world grapples with the evolving landscape of digital finance, the implications of India's CBDC initiative extend beyond its borders, potentially reshaping global payment systems. The Union Minister of State for Finance, Shri Pankaj Chaudhary, revealed that on October 7, 2022, the Reserve Bank of India released a proposal note on Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Two pilot projects using blockchain-based technology are described in the concept note: Digital Rupee-Wholesale (e₹-W) and Digital Rupee-Retail (e₹-R). Launched on November 1, 2022, the bulk trading pilot aims to increase intermediary competitiveness, particularly in the resolution of trades in the secondary market involving sovereign debt. In parallel, on December 1, 2022, the retail banking pilot, known as e₹-R, got underway in a limited user group with eight banks taking part in stages.

The digital asset known as e₳-R is issued across financial institutions for Person-to-Person (P2P) and Person-to-Merchant (P2M) transactions. It is intended to serve as a virtual currency that represents legal money and exhibits characteristics similar to actual cash. Based on input gathered during the continuing trial phases, the RBI intends to progressively broaden the pilot project's scope.

Central Bank Digital Currency Pilot Projects

Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), which the Central Bank of India is promoting, may easily perform an essential part in payments made across borders, according to Reserve Bank Governor Shaktikanta Das. The CBDC is going to be expanded to the international financial markets after being implemented as a trial in both the retail and wholesale industries.

CBDC in International Payments

He emphasized that although physical currency will still exist, the CBDC will eventually replace all forms of money worldwide.  

"CBDC is going to be the future currency of the world and it is necessary that every central bank, every country works on CBDC," he stated. He also stated that as worldwide commerce moves more and more around science and technology, CBDCs will play a significant role since they can effectively and affordably speed up payment processing across different countries. Regarding India's foreign exchange reserves, the governor stated that the selection to increase the resources as a safety net and protection versus contagion possibilities was made consciously.

CBDCs' Place in the Transnational Economic Revolution

In certain economies worldwide, having a CBDC internationally accessible could lead to more replacements for foreign currencies rather than the home currencies, which could cause financial aggregates to become volatile and change the mix of instruments of exchange.

CBDC may have benefits related to first-mover savings of scale, and other consequences even in everyday circumstances. If nations with global currencies have established CBDCs, they could strengthen current advantages and disadvantages, including consequences, particularly in terms of revenue. In a similar vein, CBDC might alter the structure of international liquidity while safeguarding asset supply. Additionally, and particularly if imposed abruptly, CBDC may, in certain circumstances, result in significant capital movements and associated repercussions on the foreign exchange rate as well as additional asset prices. Furthermore, nations may encounter difficulties in getting ready for virtual currencies issued by central banks.

The worldwide and international scope of CBDCs accessible to immigrants may become particularly apparent in situations where there is a widespread flight safety concern. In these circumstances, converting a CBDC into a foreign currency would make it possible for capital markets to deleverage more quickly. The elimination of debt challenges could show up as tight finance constraints and abrupt swings in foreign exchange markets if CBDCS expedited its flight from uncertainty.

Deposits of Foreign Exchange and Self-Dependency

Reserve Bank Governor Shaktikanta Das stated "We must rely on ourselves. We must maintain our robust reserves. In order to achieve that goal, we have been amassing quite substantial reserves, and the outside world has come to feel quite confident that India would be able to fulfil its contractual responsibilities to the international community no matter what the obstacles," 

Involvement of RBI in the Currency Market

Given that the trading community was confident that the Reserve Bank of India would be capable of and able to fulfil its contractual responsibilities, the value of the Indian rupee did not decline as dramatically. The RBI governor stated that the RBI does participate in the economy, but that "our engagement operates in two ways," he would not hesitate to acknowledge this.

The Value of Macroeconomic and Budgetary Cooperation

According to RBI Governor Das, the RBI makes purchases and sales of dollars based on the direction in which the financial sector is trending. However, the RBI does not intend to set a certain level for the rupee because it does not consider any specific threshold for the Indian rupee's conversion rate against the US dollar. He also emphasized how crucial it is for both the financial and monetary authorities to work together.

Conclusion

India's CBDC project signals a transformative shift in the global digital finance landscape. Governor Shaktikanta Das envisions CBDCs as the future global currency, emphasizing their role in international payments. The potential impact on financial systems, cross-border transactions, and the need for self-reliance underscore the significance of India's CBDC initiative in shaping the evolving dynamics of the digital economy. As the project progresses, close cooperation between financial and monetary authorities becomes imperative for navigating the challenges and opportunities associated with this groundbreaking venture.

References

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/central-bank-digital-currency-can-play-important-role-in-cross-border-payment-rbi-guv/articleshow/104706717.cms
• https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d174.pdf
• https://bfsi.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/fintech/explained-how-rbi-is-leveraging-upi-to-push-the-use-of-retail-cbdc/103591989
• https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/02/09/sp020922-the-future-of-money-gearing-up-for-central-bank-digital-currency
• https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/cbdc-pilot-projects-show-promising-results-rbi-governor-shaktikanta-das-123102601171_1.html