#FactCheck - Video Showing Sadhus in Ice Is Artificially Generated

Introduction

In 2022, Oxfam’s India Inequality report revealed the worsening digital divide, highlighting that only 38% of households in the country are digitally literate. Further, only 31% of the rural population uses the internet, as compared to 67% of the urban population. Over time, with the increasing awareness about the importance of digital privacy globally, the definition of digital divide has translated into a digital privacy divide, whereby different levels of privacy are afforded to different sections of society. This further promotes social inequalities and impedes access to fundamental rights.

Digital Privacy Divide: A by-product of the digital divide

The digital divide has evolved into a multi-level issue from its earlier interpretations; level I implies the lack of physical access to technologies, level II refers to the lack of digital literacy and skills and recently, level III relates to the impacts of digital access. Digital Privacy Divide (DPD) refers to the various gaps in digital privacy protection provided to users based on their socio-demographic patterns. It forms a subset of the digital divide, which involves uneven distribution, access and usage of information and communication technology (ICTs). Typically, DPD exists when ICT users receive distinct levels of digital privacy protection. As such, it forms a part of the conversation on digital inequality. 

Contrary to popular perceptions, DPD, which is based on notions of privacy, is not always based on ideas of  individualism and collectivism and may constitute internal and external factors at the national level. A study on the impacts of DPD conducted in the U.S., India, Bangladesh and Germany highlighted that respondents in Germany and Bangladesh expressed more concerns about their privacy compared to respondents in the U.S. and India. This suggests that despite the U.S. having a strong tradition of individualistic rights, that is reflected in internal regulatory frameworks such as the Fourth Amendment, the topic of data privacy has not garnered enough interest from the population. Most individuals consider forgoing the right to privacy as a necessary evil to access many services, and schemes and to stay abreast with technological advances. Research shows that 62%- 63% of Americans believe that companies and the government collecting data have become an inescapable necessary evil in modern life. Additionally, 81% believe that they have very little control over what data companies collect and about 81% of Americans believe that the risk of data collection outweighs the benefits. Similarly, in Japan, data privacy is thought to be an adopted concept emerging from international pressure to regulate, rather than as an ascribed right, since collectivism and collective decision-making are more valued in Japan, positioning the concept of privacy as subjective, timeserving and an idea imported from the West.

Regardless, inequality in privacy preservation often reinforces social inequality. Practices like surveillance that are geared towards a specific group highlight that marginalised communities are more likely to have less data privacy. As an example, migrants, labourers, persons with a conviction history and marginalised racial groups are often subject to extremely invasive surveillance under suspicions of posing threats and are thus forced to flee their place of birth or residence. This also highlights the fact that focus on DPD is not limited to those who lack data privacy but also to those who have (either by design or by force) excess privacy. While on one end, excessive surveillance, carried out by both governments and private entities, forces immigrants to wait in deportation centres during the pendency of their case, the other end of the privacy extreme hosts a vast number of undocumented individuals who avoid government contact for fear of deportation, despite noting high rates of crime victimization.

DPD is also noted among groups with differential knowledge and skills in cyber security. For example, in India, data privacy laws mandate that information be provided on order of a court or any enforcement agency. However, individuals with knowledge of advanced encryption are adopting communication channels that have encryption protocols that the provider cannot control (and resultantly able to exercise their right to privacy more effectively),  in contrast with individuals who have little knowledge of encryption, implying a security as well as an intellectual divide. While several options for secure communication exist, like Pretty Good Privacy, which enables encrypted emailing, they are complex and not easy to use in addition to having negative reputations, like the Tor Browser. Cost considerations also are a major factor in propelling DPD since users who cannot afford devices like those by Apple, which have privacy by default, are forced to opt for devices that have relatively poor in-built encryption. 

Children remain the most vulnerable group. During the pandemic, it was noted that only 24% of Indian households had internet facilities to access e-education and several reported needing to access free internet outside of their homes. These public networks are known for their lack of security and privacy, as traffic can be monitored by the hotspot operator or others on the network if proper encryption measures are not in place. Elsewhere, students without access to devices for remote learning have limited alternatives and are often forced to rely on Chromebooks and associated Google services. In response to this issue, Google provided free Chromebooks and mobile hotspots to students in need during the pandemic, aiming to address the digital divide. However, in 2024, New Mexico was reported to be suing Google for allegedly collecting children’s data through its educational products provided to the state's schools, claiming that it tracks students' activities on their personal devices outside of the classroom. It signified the problems in ensuring the privacy of lower-income students while accessing basic education.

Policy Recommendations

Digital literacy is one of the critical components in bridging the DPD. It enables individuals to gain skills, which in turn effectively addresses privacy violations. Studies show that low-income users remain less confident in their ability to manage their privacy settings as compared to high-income individuals. Thus, emphasis should be placed not only on educating on technology usage but also on privacy practices since it aims to improve people’s Internet skills and take informed control of their digital identities.

In the U.S., scholars have noted the role of libraries and librarians in safeguarding intellectual privacy. The Library Freedom Project, for example, has sought to ensure that the skills and knowledge required to ensure internet freedoms are available to all. The Project channelled one of the core values of the library profession i.e. intellectual freedom, literacy, equity of access to recorded knowledge and information, privacy and democracy. As a result, the Project successfully conducted workshops on internet privacy for the public and also openly objected to the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to shut down the use of encryption technologies in libraries. The International Federation of Library Association adopted a Statement of Privacy in the Library Environment in 2015 that specified “when libraries and information services provide access to resources, services or technologies that may compromise users’ privacy, libraries should encourage users to be aware of the implications and provide guidance in data protection and privacy.” The above should be used as an indicative case study for setting up similar protocols in inclusive public institutions like Anganwadis, local libraries, skill development centres and non-government/non-profit organisations in India, where free education is disseminated. The workshops conducted must inculcate two critical aspects; firstly, enhancing the know-how of using public digital infrastructure and popular technologies (thereby de-alienating technology) and secondly, shifting the viewpoint of privacy as a right an individual has and not something that they own.

However, digital literacy should not be wholly relied on, since it shifts the responsibility of privacy protection to the individual, who may not either be aware or cannot be controlled. Data literacy also does not address the larger issue of data brokers, consumer profiling, surveillance etc. Resultantly, an obligation on companies to provide simplified privacy summaries, in addition to creating accessible, easy-to-use technical products and privacy tools,  should be necessitated. Most notable legislations address this problem by mandating notices and consent for collecting personal data of users, despite slow enforcement. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in India aims to address DPD by not only mandating valid consent but also ensuring that privacy policies remain accessible in local languages, given the diversity of the population.

References

• https://idronline.org/article/inequality/indias-digital-divide-from-bad-to-worse/ 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02669 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.07936#:~:text=The%20DPD%20index%20is%20a,(33%20years%20and%20over). 
• https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• /https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6265&context=law_lawreview 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• https://bosniaca.nub.ba/index.php/bosniaca/article/view/488/pdf 
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/just-24-of-indian-households-have-internet-facility-to-access-e-education-unicef/story-a1g7DqjP6lJRSh6D6yLJjL.html 
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/05/the-pandemic-has-unmasked-the-digital-privacy-divide/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/Privacy%20protection%20in%20Japan.pdf 
• https://socialchangenyu.com/review/the-surveillance-gap-the-harms-of-extreme-privacy-and-data-marginalization/ 

Introduction

Words come easily, but not necessarily the consequences that follow. Imagine a 15-year-old child on the internet hoping that the world will be nice to him and help him gain confidence, but instead, someone chooses to be mean on the internet, or the child becomes the victim of a new kind of cyberbullying, i.e., online trolling. The consequences of trolling can have serious repercussions, including eating disorders, substance abuse, conduct issues, body dysmorphia, negative self-esteem, and, in tragic cases, self-harm and suicide attempts in vulnerable individuals. The effects of online trolling can include anxiety, depression, and social isolation. This is one example, and hate speech and online abuse can touch anyone, regardless of age, background, or status. The damage may take different forms, but its impact is far-reaching. In today’s digital age, hate speech spreads rapidly through online platforms, often amplified by AI algorithms. 

As we celebrate today, i.e., 18th June, the International Day for Countering Hate Speech, if we have ever been mean to someone on the internet, we pledge never to repeat that kind of behaviour, and if we have been the victim, we will stand against the perpetrator and report it. 

This year, the theme for the International Day for Countering Hate Speech is “Hate Speech and Artificial Intelligence Nexus: Building coalitions to reclaim inclusive and secure environments free of hatred. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in his statement, said, “Today, as this year’s theme reminds us, hate speech travels faster and farther than ever, amplified by Artificial Intelligence. Biased algorithms and digital platforms are spreading toxic content and creating new spaces for harassment and abuse."

Coded Convictions: How AI Reflects and Reinforces Ideologies

Algorithms have swiftly taken the place of feelings; they tamper with your taste, and they do so with a lighter foot, invisibly. They are becoming an important component of social media user interaction and content distribution. While these tools are designed to improve user experience, they frequently inadvertently spread divisive ideologies and push extremist propaganda. This amplification can strengthen the power of extremist organisations, spread misinformation, and deepen societal tensions. This phenomenon, known as “algorithmic radicalisation,” demonstrates how social media companies may utilise a discriminating content selection approach to entice people down ideological rabbit holes and shape their ideas. AI-driven algorithms often prioritise engagement over ethics, enabling divisive and toxic content to trend and placing vulnerable groups, especially youth and minorities, at risk. The UN’s Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, launched on June 18, 2019, recognises that while AI holds promise for early detection and prevention of harmful speech, it also demands stringent human rights safeguards. Without regulation, these tools can themselves become purveyors of bias and exclusion. 

India’s Constitutional Resolve and Civilizational Ethos against Hate

India has always taken pride in being inclusive and united rather than divided. As far as hate speech is concerned, India's stand is no different. The United Nations, India believes in the same values as its international counterpart. Although India has won many battles against hate speech, the war is not over and is now more prominent than ever due to the advancement in communication technologies. In India, while the right to freedom of speech and expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a), its exercise is limited subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Landmark rulings such as Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. and Amish Devgan v. UOI have clarified that speech can be curbed if it incites violence or undermines public order. Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, empowers the government to block content, and these principles are also reflected in Section 196 of the BNS, 2023 (153A IPC) and Section 299 of the BNS, 2023 (295A IPC). Platforms are also required to track down the creators of harmful content and remove it within a reasonable hour and fulfil their due diligence requirements under IT rules.

While there is no denying that India needs to be well-equipped and prepared normatively to tackle hate propaganda and divisive forces. India’s rich culture and history, rooted in philosophies of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and pluralistic traditions, have long stood as a beacon of tolerance and coexistence. By revisiting these civilizational values, we can resist divisive forces and renew our collective journey toward harmony and peaceful living.

CyberPeace Message

The ultimate goal is to create internet and social media platforms that are better, safer and more harmonious for each individual, irrespective of his/her/their social and cultural background. CyberPeace stands resolute on promoting digital media literacy, cyber resilience, and consistently pushing for greater accountability for social media platforms. 

‍

References

‍

• https://www.un.org/en/observances/countering-hate-speech 
• https://www.artemishospitals.com/blog/the-impact-of-trolling-on-teen-mental-health 
• https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/from-clicks-to-chaos-how-social-media-algorithms-amplify-extremism ‍
• https://www.techpolicy.press/indias-courts-must-hold-social-media-platforms-accountable-for-hate-speech/

About Global Commission on Internet Governance 

The Global Commission on Internet Governance was established in January 2014 with the goal of formulating and advancing a strategic vision for Internet governance going forward. Independent research on Internet-related issues of international public policy is carried out and supported over the two-year initiative. An official commission report with particular policy recommendations for the future of Internet governance will be made available as a result of this initiative.

There are two goals for the Global Commission on Internet Governance. First, it will encourage a broad and inclusive public discussion on how Internet governance will develop globally. Second, through its comprehensive policy-oriented report and the subsequent marketing of this final report, the Global Commission on Internet Governance will present its findings to key stakeholders at major Internet governance events.‍

‍The Internet: exploring the world wide web and the deep web

The Internet can be thought of as a vast networking infrastructure, or network of networks. By linking millions of computers worldwide, it creates a network that allows any two computers, provided they are both online, to speak with one another.

The Hypertext Transfer Protocol is the only language spoken over the Internet and is used by the Web to transfer data. Email, which depends on File Transfer Protocol, Usenet newsgroups, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, and instant messaging, is also used on the Internet—not the Web. Thus, even though it's a sizable chunk, the Web is only a part of the Internet [1]. In summary, the deep Web is the portion of the Internet that is not visible to the naked eye. It is stuff from the World Wide Web that isn't available on the main Web. Standard search engines cannot reach it. More than 500 times larger than the visible Web is this enormous subset of the Internet [1-2].

The Global Commission on Internet Governance will concentrate on four principal themes:

• Improving the legitimacy of government, including standards and methods for regulation;

• Promoting economic innovation and expansion, including the development of infrastructure, competition laws, and vital Internet resources; 

• Safeguarding online human rights, including establishing the idea of technological neutrality for rights to privacy, human rights, and freedom of expression;

• Preventing systemic risk includes setting standards for state behaviour, cooperating with law enforcement to combat cybercrime, preventing its spread, fostering confidence, and addressing disarmament-related issues.

Dark Web 

The part of the deep Web that has been purposefully concealed and is unreachable using conventional Web browsers is known as the "dark Web." Dark Web sites are a platform for Internet users who value their anonymity since they shield users from prying eyes and typically utilize encryption to thwart monitoring. The Tor network is a well-known source for content that may be discovered on the dark web. Only a unique Web browser known as the Tor browser is required to access the anonymous Tor network (Tor 2014). It was a technique for anonymous online communication that the US Naval Research Laboratory first introduced as The Onion Routing (Tor) project in 2002. Many of the functionality offered by Tor are also available on I2P, another network. On the other hand, I2P was intended to function as a network inside the Internet, with traffic contained within its boundaries. Better anonymous access to the open Internet is offered by Tor, while a more dependable and stable "network within the network" is provided by I2P [3].

Cybersecurity in the dark web

Cyber crime is not any different than crime in the real world — it is just executed in a new medium: “Virtual criminality’ is basically the same as the terrestrial crime with which we are familiar. To be sure, some of the manifestations are new. But a great deal of crime committed with or against computers differs only in terms of the medium. While the technology of implementation, and particularly its efficiency, may be without precedent, the crime is fundamentally familiar. It is less a question of something completely different than a recognizable crime committed in a completely different way [4].”

Dark web monitoring

The dark Web, in general, and the Tor network, in particular, offer a secure platform for cybercriminals to support a vast amount of illegal activities — from anonymous marketplaces to secure means of communication, to an untraceable and difficult to shut down infrastructure for deploying malware and botnets.

As such, it has become increasingly important for security agencies to track and monitor the activities in the dark Web, focusing today on Tor networks, but possibly extending to other technologies in the near future. Due to its intricate webbing and design, monitoring the dark Web will continue to pose significant challenges. Efforts to address it should be focused on the areas discussed below [5].

Hidden service directory of dark web

A domain database used by both Tor and I2P is based on a distributed system called a "distributed hash table," or DHT. In order for a DHT to function, its nodes must cooperate to store and manage a portion of the database, which takes the shape of a key-value store. Owing to the distributed character of the domain resolution process for hidden services, nodes inside the DHT can be positioned to track requests originating from a certain domain [6].

Conclusion

The deep Web, and especially dark Web networks like Tor (2004), offer bad actors a practical means of transacting in products anonymously and lawfully.

The absence of discernible activity in non-traditional dark web networks is not evidence of their nonexistence. As per the guiding philosophy of the dark web, the actions are actually harder to identify and monitor. Critical mass is one of the market's driving forces. It seems unlikely that operators on the black Web will require a great degree of stealth until the repercussions are severe enough, should they be caught. It is possible that certain websites might go down, have a short trading window, and then reappear, which would make it harder to look into them.

References

1. Ciancaglini, Vincenzo, Marco Balduzzi, Max Goncharov and Robert McArdle. 2013. “Deepweb and Cybercrime: It’s Not All About TOR.” Trend Micro Research Paper. October. 
2. Coughlin, Con. 2014. “How Social Media Is Helping Islamic State to Spread Its Poison.” The Telegraph, November 5. 
3. Dahl, Julia. 2014. “Identity Theft Ensnares Millions while the Law Plays Catch Up.” CBS News, July 14. 
4. Dean, Matt. 2014. “Digital Currencies Fueling Crime on the Dark Side of the Internet.” Fox Business, December 18.
5. Falconer, Joel. 2012. “A Journey into the Dark Corners of the Deep Web.” The Next Web, October 8. 
6. Gehl, Robert W. 2014. “Power/Freedom on the Dark Web: A Digital Ethnography of the Dark Web Social Network.” New Media & Society, October 15. http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/ 10/16/1461444814554900.full#ref-38.

‍