#FactCheck - MS Dhoni Sculpture Falsely Portrayed as Chanakya 3D Recreation

Introduction

‍

The use of AI in content production, especially images and videos, is changing the foundations of evidence. AI-generated videos and images can mirror a person’s facial features, voice, or actions with a level of fidelity to which the average individual may not be able to distinguish real from fake. The ability to provide creative solutions is indeed a beneficial aspect of this technology. However, its misuse has been rapidly escalating over recent years. This creates threats to privacy and dignity, and facilitates the creation of dis/misinformation. Its real-world consequences are the manipulation of elections, national security threats, and the erosion of trust in society. 

‍

Why India Needs Deepfake Regulation

‍

Deepfake regulation is urgently needed in India, evidenced by the recent Rashmika Mandanna incident, where a hoax deepfake of an actress created a scandal throughout the country. This was the first time that an individual's image was superimposed on the body of another woman in a viral deepfake video that fooled many viewers and created outrage among those who were deceived by the video. The incident even led to law enforcement agencies issuing warnings to the public about the dangers of manipulated media.

This was not an isolated incident; many influencers, actors, leaders and common people have fallen victim to deepfake pornography, deepfake speech scams, defraudations, and other malicious uses of deepfake technology. The rapid proliferation of deepfake technology is outpacing any efforts by lawmakers to regulate its widespread use. In this regard, a Private Member’s Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in its Winter Session. This proposal was presented to the Lok Sabha as an individual MP's Private Member's Bill. Even though these have had a low rate of success in being passed into law historically, they do provide an opportunity for the government to take notice of and respond to emerging issues. In fact, Private Member's Bills have been the catalyst for government action on many important matters and have also provided an avenue for parliamentary discussion and future policy creation. The introduction of this Bill demonstrates the importance of addressing the public concern surrounding digital impersonation and demonstrates that the Parliament acknowledges digital deepfakes to be a significant concern and, therefore, in need of a legislative framework to combat them.

‍

Key Features Proposed by the New Deepfake Regulation Bill

‍

The proposed legislation aims to create a strong legal structure around the creation, distribution and use of deepfake content in India. Its five core proposals  are: 

1. Prior Consent Requirement: individuals must give their written approval before producing or distributing deepfake media, including digital representations of themselves, as well as their faces, images, likenesses and voices. This aims to protect women, celebrities, minors, and everyday citizens against the use of their identities with the intent to harm them or their reputations or to harass them through the production of deepfakes.

2. Penalties for Malicious Deepfakes: Serious criminal consequences should be placed for creating or sharing deepfake media, particularly when it is intended to cause harm (defame, harass, impersonate, deceive or manipulate another person). The Bill also addresses financially fraudulent use of deepfakes, political misinformation, interfering with elections and other types of explicit AI-generated media. 

3. Establishment of a Deepfake Task Force: To look at the potential impact of deepfakes on national security, elections and public order, as well as on public safety and privacy. This group will work with academic institutions, AI research labs and technology companies to create advanced tools for the detection of deepfakes and establish best practices for the safe and responsible use of generative AI. 

4. Creation of a Deepfake Detection and Awareness Fund: To assist with the development of tools for detecting deepfakes, increasing the capacity of law enforcement agencies to investigate cybercrime, promoting public awareness of deepfakes through national campaigns, and funding research on artificial intelligence safety and misinformation.

‍

How Other Countries Are Handling Deepfakes

‍

1. United States
Many States in the United States, including California and Texas, have enacted laws to prohibit the use of politically deceptive deepfakes during elections. Additionally, the Federal Government is currently developing regulations requiring that AI-generated content be clearly labelled. Social Media Platforms are also being encouraged to implement a requirement for users to disclose deepfakes.

2. United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to create or distribute intimate deepfake images without consent; violators face jail time. The Online Safety Act emphasises the accountability of digital media providers by requiring them to identify, eliminate, and avert harmful synthetic content, which makes their role in curating safe environments all the more important.

3. European Union:
The EU has enacted the EU AI Act, which governs the use of deepfakes by requiring an explicit label to be affixed to any AI-generated content. The absence of a label would subject an offending party to potentially severe regulatory consequences; therefore, any platform wishing to do business in the EU should evaluate the risks associated with deepfakes and adhere strictly to the EU's guidelines for transparency regarding manipulated media.

4. China:
China has among the most rigorous regulations regarding deepfakes anywhere on the planet. All AI-manipulated media will have to be marked with a visible watermark, users will have to authenticate their identities prior to being allowed to use advanced AI tools, and online platforms have a legal requirement to take proactive measures to identify and remove synthetic materials from circulation.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Deepfake technology has the potential to be one of the greatest (and most dangerous) innovations of AI technology. There is much to learn from incidents such as that involving Rashmika Mandanna, as well as the proliferation of deepfake technology that abuses globally, demonstrating how easily truth can be altered in the digital realm. The new Private Member's Bill created by India seeks to provide for a comprehensive framework to address these abuses based on prior consent, penalties that actually work, technical preparedness, and public education/awareness. With other nations of the world moving towards increased regulation of AI technology, proposals such as this provide a direction for India to become a leader in the field of responsible digital governance.

‍

References 

‍

1. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/lok-sabha-introduces-bill-to-regulate-deepfake-content-with-consent-rules-9761943
2. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/shiv-sena-mp-introduces-private-members-bill-to-regulate-deepfakes/articleshow/125802794.cms
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-67305557
4. https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/ag-data-dive/california-deepfake-laws-first-in-country-to-take-effect
5. https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-21-165/ 
6. https://www.mishcon.com/news/when-ai-impersonates-taking-action-against-deepfakes-in-the-uk#:~:text=As%20of%2031%20January%202024,of%20intimate%20deepfakes%20without%20consent. 
7. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-tech-ai-deepfakes-labeling-rules-images-elections-iti-c2pa/ 
8. https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/china-seeks-to-root-out-fake-news-and-deepfakes-with-new-online-content-rules-idUSKBN1Y30VT/

‍

Misinformation is a scourge in the digital world, making the most mundane experiences fraught with risk. The threat is considerably heightened in conflict settings, especially in the modern era, where geographical borders blur and civilians and conflict actors alike can take to the online realm to discuss -and influence- conflict events. Propaganda can complicate the narrative and distract from the humanitarian crises affecting civilians, while also posing a serious threat to security operations and law and order efforts. Sensationalised reports of casualties and manipulated portrayals of military actions contribute to a cycle of violence and suffering. 

A study conducted by MIT found the mere thought of sharing news on social media reduced the ability to judge whether a story was true or false; the urge to share outweighed the consideration of accuracy (2023).  Cross-border misinformation has become a critical issue in today's interconnected world, driven by the rise of digital communication platforms. To effectively combat misinformation, coordinated international policy frameworks and cooperation between governments, platforms, and global institutions are created.

The Global Nature of Misinformation

Cross-border misinformation is false or misleading information that spreads across countries. Out-of-border creators amplify information through social media and digital platforms and are a key source of misinformation. Misinformation can interfere with elections, and create serious misconceptions about health concerns such as those witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, or even lead to military conflicts. 

The primary challenge in countering cross-border misinformation is the difference in national policies, legal frameworks and governance policies of social media platforms across various jurisdictions. Examining the existing international frameworks, such as cybersecurity treaties and data-sharing agreements used for financial crimes might be helpful to effectively address cross-border misinformation. Adapting these approaches to the digital information ecosystem, nations could strengthen their collective response to the spread of misinformation across borders. Global institutions like the United Nations or regional bodies like the EU and ASEAN can work together to set a unified response and uniform international standards for regulation dealing with misinformation specifically. 

Current National and Regional Efforts

Many countries have taken action to deal with misinformation within their borders. Some examples include:

• The EU’s Digital Services Act has been instrumental in regulating online intermediaries and platforms including marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, etc. The legislation aims to prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation.
• The primary legislation that governs cyberspace in India is the IT Act of 2000 and its corresponding rules (IT Rules, 2023), which impose strict requirements on social media platforms to counter misinformation content and enable the traceability of the creator responsible for the origin of misinformation. Platforms have to conduct due diligence, failing which they risk losing their safe harbour protection. The recently-enacted DPDP Act of 2023 indirectly addresses personal data misuse that can be used to contribute to the creation and spread of misinformation. Also, the proposed Digital India Act is expected to focus on “user harms” specific to the online world. 
• In the U.S., the Right to Editorial Discretion and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act place the responsibility for regulating misinformation on private actors like social media platforms and social media regulations. The US government has not created a specific framework addressing misinformation and has rather encouraged voluntary measures by SMPs to have independent policies to regulate misinformation on their platforms.

The common gap area across these policies is the absence of a standardised, global framework for addressing cross-border misinformation which results in uneven enforcement and dependence on national regulations.

Key Challenges in Achieving International Cooperation

Some of the key challenges identified in achieving international cooperation to address cross-border misinformation are as follows:

• Geopolitical tensions can emerge due to the differences in political systems, priorities, and trust issues between countries that hinder attempts to cooperate and create a universal regulation.
• The diversity in approaches to internet governance and freedom of speech across countries complicates the matters further.
• Further complications arise due to technical and legal obstacles around the issues of sovereignty, jurisdiction and enforcement, further complicating matters relating to the monitoring and removal of cross-border misinformation. 

CyberPeace Recommendations 

• The UN Global Principles For Information Integrity Recommendations for Multi-stakeholder Action, unveiled on 24 June 2024, are a welcome step for addressing cross-border misinformation. This can act as the stepping stone for developing a framework for international cooperation on misinformation, drawing inspiration from other successful models like climate change agreements, international criminal law framework etc. 
• Collaborations like public-private partnerships between government, tech companies and civil societies can help enhance transparency, data sharing and accountability in tackling cross-border misinformation. 
• Engaging in capacity building and technology transfers in less developed countries would help to create a global front against misinformation. 

Conclusion

We are in an era where misinformation knows no borders and the need for international cooperation has never been more urgent. Global democracies are exploring solutions, both regulatory and legislative, to limit the spread of misinformation, however, these fragmented efforts fall short of addressing the global scale of the problem. Establishing a standardised, international framework, backed by multilateral bodies like the UN and regional alliances, can foster accountability and facilitate shared resources in this fight. Through collaborative action, transparent regulations, and support for developing nations, the world can create a united front to curb misinformation and protect democratic values, ensuring information integrity across borders.

References

• https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2023-10/A%20Model%20of%20Online%20Misinformation.pdf 
• https://www.indiatoday.in/global/story/in-the-crosshairs-manufacturing-consent-and-the-erosion-of-public-trust-2620734-2024-10-21 
• https://laweconcenter.org/resources/knowledge-and-decisions-in-the-information-age-the-law-economics-of-regulating-misinformation-on-social-media-platforms/ ‍
• https://www.article19.org/resources/un-article-19-global-principles-for-information-integrity/

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 

‍