#FactCheck - Viral Photo of Dilapidated Bridge Misattributed to Kerala, Originally from Bangladesh

Introduction

The European Union has fined the meta $ 1.3 billion for infringing the EU privacy laws by transferring the personal data of Facebook users to the United States. The EU fined Meta’s business in Ireland. As per the European Union, transferring Personal data to the US is a breach of the General data protection Regulation or European Union law on data protection and privacy.

GDPR Compliance

The terms of GDPR promise to gather users’ personal information legally and under strict conditions. And those who collect and manage personal data must protect users’ personal data from exploitation. The GDPR restricts an organisation’s capacity to transfer personal data outside the EU if the transfer is solely based on that body’s evaluation of the sufficiency of the personal data’s protection. Transfers should only be made where European authorities have determined that a third country, a territory within that third country, or an international organisation provides acceptable protection for data protection.

Violation by Meta

The punishment, announced by Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, might be one of the most significant in the five years since the European Union passed the landmark General Data Protection Regulation. According to regulators, Facebook failed to comply with a 2020 judgment by the European Union’s top court that Facebook data transferred over the Atlantic was not sufficiently safeguarded from American espionage agencies. However, whether Meta will ever need to encrypt Facebook users’ data in Europe is still being determined. Meta announced it would appeal the ruling, launching a potentially legal procedure.

Simultaneously, European Union and American officials are negotiating a new data-sharing pact that would provide legal protections for Meta and scores of other companies to continue moving information between the US and Europe. This pact could overturn much of the European Union’s Monday ruling.

Article 46(1) GDPR Has been violated by the meta, And as per the Irish privacy.  

What is required by the GDPR before transferring personal information across national boundaries?

Personal data transfers to countries outside the European Economic Area are generally permitted if these nations are regarded to provide a sufficient degree of data protection. According to Article 45 of the GDPR, the European Commission evaluates the degree of personal data protection in third countries.

The European Union judgment demonstrates how government rules are upending the borderless way data has traditionally migrated. Companies are increasingly being pressed to store data within the country where it is acquired rather than allowing it to transfer freely to data centres around the world as a result of data-protection requirements, national security laws, and other regulations.

The US internet giant had previously warned that if forced to stop using SCCs (standard contractual clauses) without a proper alternative data transfer agreement in place, it would be compelled to shut down services such as Facebook and Instagram in Europe.

What will happen next for Facebook in Europe?

The ruling includes a six-month transition period before it must halt data flows, meaning the service will continue to operate in the meantime. (More specifically, Meta has been given a five-month transition period to freeze any future transfer of personal data to the United States and a six-month deadline to terminate the unlawful processing and/or storage of European user data it has previously transferred without a legitimate legal basis. Meta has also stated that it will appeal and appears to seek a stay of execution while it pursues its legal arguments in court.

Conclusion

The GDPR places restrictions on transferring personal data outside the European Union to third-party nations or international bodies to ensure that the GDPR’s level of protection for individuals is not jeopardised. But the meta violated the European Union’s privacy laws by the user’s personal information to the US. Under the compliance of GDPR, transferring and sending personal information to users intentionally is an offence. and presently, the personal data of Facebook users has been breached by the Meta, as they shared the information with the US.

Introduction

In an age where the lines between truth and fiction blur with an alarming regularity, we stand at the precipice of a new and dangerous era. Amidst the wealth of information that characterizes the digital age, deep fakes and disinformation rise like ghosts, haunting our shared reality. These manifestations of a technological revolution that promised enlightenment instead threaten the foundations upon which our societies are built: trust, truth, and collective understanding.

These digital doppelgängers, enabled by advanced artificial intelligence, and their deceitful companion—disinformation—are not mere ghosts in the machine. They are active agents of chaos, capable of undermining the core of democratic values, human rights, and even the safety of individuals who dare to question the status quo.

The Perils of False Narratives in the Digital Age

As a society, we often throw around terms such as 'fake news' with a mixture of disdain and a weary acceptance of their omnipresence. However, we must not understate their gravity. Misinformation and disinformation represent the vanguard of the digital duplicitous tide, a phenomenon growing more complex and dire each day. Misinformation, often spread without malicious intent but with no less damage, can be likened to a digital 'slip of the tongue' — an error in dissemination or interpretation. Disinformation, its darker counterpart, is born of deliberate intent to deceive, a calculated move in the chess game of information warfare.

Their arsenal is varied and ever-evolving: from misleading memes and misattributed quotations to wholesale fabrications in the form of bogus news sites and carefully crafted narratives. Among these weapons of deceit, deepfakes stand out for their audacity and the striking challenge they pose to the concept of seeing to believe. Through the unwelcome alchemy of algorithms, these video and audio forgeries place public figures, celebrities, and even everyday individuals into scenarios they never experienced, uttering words they never said.

The Human Cost: Threats to Rights and Liberties

The impact of this disinformation campaign transcends inconvenience or mere confusion; it strikes at the heart of human rights and civil liberties. It particularly festers at the crossroads of major democratic exercises, such as elections, where the right to a truthful, unmanipulated narrative is not just a political nicety but a fundamental human right, enshrined in Article 25 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In moments of political change, whether during elections or pivotal referenda, the deliberate seeding of false narratives is a direct assault on the electorate's ability to make informed decisions. This subversion of truth infects the electoral process, rendering hollow the promise of democratic choice.

This era of computational propaganda has especially chilling implications for those at the frontline of accountability—journalists and human rights defenders. They find themselves targets of character assassinations and smear campaigns that not only put their safety at risk but also threaten to silence the crucial voices of dissent.

It should not be overlooked that the term 'fake news' has, paradoxically, been weaponized by governments and political entities against their detractors. In a perverse twist, this label becomes a tool to shut down legitimate debate and shield human rights violations from scrutiny, allowing for censorship and the suppression of opposition under the guise of combatting disinformation.

Deepening the societal schisms, a significant portion of this digital deceit traffic in hate speech. Its contents are laden with xenophobia, racism, and calls to violence, all given a megaphone through the anonymity and reach the internet so readily provides, feeding a cycle of intolerance and violence vastly disproportionate to that seen in traditional media.

Legislative and Technological Countermeasures: The Ongoing Struggle

The fight against this pervasive threat, as illustrated by recent actions and statements by the Indian government, is multifaceted. Notably, Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar's commitment to safeguarding the Indian populace from the dangers of AI-generated misinformation signals an important step in the legislative and policy framework necessary to combat deepfakes.

Likewise, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's personal experience with a deepfake video accentuates the urgency with which policymakers, technologists, and citizens alike must view this evolving threat. The disconcerting experience of actor Rashmika Mandanna serves as a sobering reminder of the individual harm these false narratives can inflict and reinforces the necessity of a robust response.

In their pursuit to negate these virtual apparitions, policymakers have explored various avenues ranging from legislative action to penalizing offenders and advancing digital watermarks. However, it is not merely in the realm of technology that solutions must be sought. Rather, the confrontation with deepfakes and disinformation is also a battle for the collective soul of societies across the globe.

As technological advancements continue to reshape the battleground, figures like Kris Gopalakrishnan and Manish Gangwar posit that only a mix of rigorous regulatory frameworks and savvy technological innovation can hold the front line against this rising tidal wave of digital distrust.

This narrative is not a dystopian vision of a distant future - it is the stark reality of our present. And as we navigate this new terrain, our best defenses are not just technological safeguards, but also the nurturing of an informed and critical citizenry. It is essential to foster media literacy, to temper the human inclination to accept narratives at face value and to embolden the values that encourage transparency and the robust exchange of ideas.

As we peer into the shadowy recesses of our increasingly digital existence, may we hold fast to our dedication to the truth, and in doing so, preserve the essence of our democratic societies. For at stake is not just a technological arms race, but the very quality of our democratic discourse and the universal human rights that give it credibility and strength.

Conclusion  

In this age of digital deceit, it is crucial to remember that the battle against deep fakes and disinformation is not just a technological one. It is also a battle for our collective consciousness, a battle to preserve the sanctity of truth in an era of falsehoods. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of the digital world, let us arm ourselves with the weapons of awareness, critical thinking, and a steadfast commitment to truth. In the end, it is not just about winning the battle against deep fakes and disinformation, but about preserving the very essence of our democratic societies and the human rights that underpin them.

Introduction

The Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed a new legislation. On the 10th of November, 2023, a draft bill emerged, a parchment of governance seeking to sculpt the contours of the nation's broadcasting landscape. The Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, is not merely a legislative doctrine; it is a harbinger of change, an attestation to the storm of technology and the diversification of media in the age of the internet.     

The bill, slated to replace the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995, acknowledges the paradigm shifts that have occurred in the media ecosystem. The emergence of Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), over-the-top (OTT) platforms and other digital broadcasting services has rendered the previous legislation a relic, ill-suited to the dynamism of the current milieu. The draft bill, therefore, stands at the precipice of the future, inviting stakeholders and the vox populi to weigh in on its provisions, to shape the edifice of regulation that will govern the airwaves and the digital streams.

Defining the certain Clauses of the bill

Clause 1 (dd) - The Programme 

In the intricate tapestry of the bill's clauses, certain threads stand out, demanding scrutiny and careful consideration. Clause 1(dd), for instance, grapples with the definition of 'Programme,' a term that, in its current breadth, could ensnare the vast expanse of audio, visual, and written content transmitted through broadcasting networks. The implications are profound: content disseminated via YouTube or any website could fall within the ambit of this regulation, a prospect that raises questions about the scope of governmental oversight in the digital realm.

Clause 2(v) - The news and current affairs 

Clause 2(v) delves into the murky waters of 'news and current affairs programmes,' a definition that, as it stands, is a maelstrom of ambiguity. The phrases 'newly-received or noteworthy audio, visual or audio-visual programmes' and 'about recent events primarily of socio-political, economic or cultural nature' are a siren's call, luring the unwary into a vortex of subjective interpretation. The threat of potential abuse looms larger, threatening the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It is a clarion call for stakeholders to forge a definition that is objective and clear, one that is in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which upheld the sanctity of digital expression while advocating for responsible content creation.

Clause 2(y) Over the Top Broadcasting Services 

Clause 2(y) casts its gaze upon OTT broadcasting services, entities that operate in a realm distinct from traditional broadcasting. The one-to-many paradigm of broadcast media justifies a degree of governmental control, but OTT streaming is a more intimate affair, a one-on-one engagement with content on personal devices. The draft bill's attempt to umbrella OTT services under the broadcasting moniker is a conflation that could stifle the diversity and personalised nature of these platforms. It is a conundrum that other nations, such as Australia and Singapore, have approached with nuanced regulatory frameworks that recognise the unique characteristics of OTT services.

Clause 4(4) - Requirements for Broadcasters and Network Operators 

The bill's journey through the labyrinth of regulation is fraught with other challenges. The definition of 'Person' in Clause 2(z), the registration exemptions in Clause 4(4), the prohibition on state governments and political parties from engaging in broadcasting in Clause 6, and the powers of inspection and seizure in Clauses 30(2) and 31, all present a complex puzzle. Each clause, each sub-section, is a cog in the machinery of governance that must be calibrated with precision to balance the imperatives of regulation with the freedoms of expression and innovation.

Clause 27 - Advisory Council

The Broadcast Advisory Council, envisioned in Clause 27, is yet another crucible where the principles of impartiality and independence must be tempered. The composition of this council, the public consultations that inform its establishment, and the alignment with constitutional principles are all vital to its legitimacy and efficacy.

A Way Forward 

It is up to us, as participants in the democratic process and citizens, to interact with the bill's provisions as it makes its way through the halls of public discourse and legislative examination. To guarantee that the ultimate version of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, is a symbol of advancement and a charter that upholds our most valued liberties while welcoming the opportunities presented by the digital era, we must employ the instruments of study and discussion.

The draft bill is more than just a document in this turbulent time of transition; it is a story of India's dreams, a testament to its dedication to democracy, and a roadmap for its digital future. Therefore, let us take this duty with the seriousness it merits, as the choices we make today will have a lasting impact on the history of our country and the media environment for future generations.

References 

• https://scroll.in/article/1059881/why-indias-new-draft-broadcast-bill-has-raised-fears-of-censorship-and-press-suppression#:~:text=The%20bill%20extends%20the%20regulatory,regulation%20through%20content%20evaluation%20committees.
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1976200
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-broadcast-bill-may-also-cover-those-who-put-up-news-content-online-101701023054502.html