#FactCheck -AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as IAF Pilot Complaining After Sukhoi-30 Crash

Introduction

Deepfakes are artificial intelligence (AI) technology that employs deep learning to generate realistic-looking but phoney films or images. Algorithms use large volumes of data to analyse and discover patterns in order to provide compelling and realistic results. Deepfakes use this technology to modify movies or photos to make them appear as if they involve events or persons that never happened or existed.The procedure begins with gathering large volumes of visual and auditory data about the target individual, which is usually obtained from publicly accessible sources such as social media or public appearances. This data is then utilised for training a deep-learning model to resemble the target of deep fakes.

Recent Cases of Deepfakes-‍

‍
In an unusual turn of events, a man from northern China became the victim of a sophisticated deep fake technology. This incident has heightened concerns about using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to aid financial crimes, putting authorities and the general public on high alert.
During a video conversation, a scammer successfully impersonated the victim’s close friend using AI-powered face-swapping technology. The scammer duped the unwary victim into transferring 4.3 million yuan (nearly Rs 5 crore). The fraud occurred in Baotou, China.

AI ‘deep fakes’ of innocent images fuel spike in sextortion scams
Artificial intelligence-generated “deepfakes” are fuelling sextortion frauds like a dry brush in a raging wildfire. According to the FBI, the number of nationally reported sextortion instances came to 322% between February 2022 and February 2023, with a notable spike since April due to AI-doctored photographs. And as per the FBI, innocent photographs or videos posted on social media or sent in communications can be distorted into sexually explicit, AI-generated visuals that are “true-to-life” and practically hard to distinguish. According to the FBI, predators often located in other countries use doctored AI photographs against juveniles to compel money from them or their families or to obtain actual sexually graphic images.

Deepfake Applications

• Lensa AI.
• Deepfakes Web.
• Reface.
• MyHeritage.
• DeepFaceLab.
• Deep Art.
• Face Swap Live.
• FaceApp.

Deepfake examples

There are numerous high-profile Deepfake examples available. Deepfake films include one released by actor Jordan Peele, who used actual footage of Barack Obama and his own imitation of Obama to convey a warning about Deepfake videos.
A video shows Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg discussing how Facebook ‘controls the future’ with stolen user data, most notably on Instagram. The original video is from a speech he delivered on Russian election meddling; only 21 seconds of that address were used to create the new version. However, the vocal impersonation fell short of Jordan Peele’s Obama and revealed the truth.

The dark side of AI-Generated Misinformation

• Misinformation generated by AI-generated the truth, making it difficult to distinguish fact from fiction.
• People can unmask AI content by looking for discrepancies and lacking the human touch.
• AI content detection technologies can detect and neutralise disinformation, preventing it from spreading.

Safeguards against Deepfakes-

Technology is not the only way to guard against Deepfake videos. Good fundamental security methods are incredibly effective for combating Deepfake.For example, incorporating automatic checks into any mechanism for disbursing payments might have prevented numerous Deepfake and related frauds. You might also:

• Regular backups safeguard your data from ransomware and allow you to restore damaged data.
• Using different, strong passwords for different accounts ensures that just because one network or service has been compromised, it does not imply that others have been compromised as well. You do not want someone to be able to access your other accounts if they get into your Facebook account.
• To secure your home network, laptop, and smartphone against cyber dangers, use a good security package such as Kaspersky Total Security. This bundle includes anti-virus software, a VPN to prevent compromised Wi-Fi connections, and webcam security.

What is the future of Deepfake –

Deepfake is constantly growing. Deepfake films were easy to spot two years ago because of the clumsy movement and the fact that the simulated figure never looked to blink. However, the most recent generation of bogus videos has evolved and adapted.
There are currently approximately 15,000 Deepfake videos available online. Some are just for fun, while others attempt to sway your opinion. But now that it only takes a day or two to make a new Deepfake, that number could rise rapidly.

Conclusion-

The distinction between authentic and fake content will undoubtedly become more challenging to identify as technology advances. As a result, experts feel it should not be up to individuals to discover deep fakes in the wild. “The responsibility should be on the developers, toolmakers, and tech companies to create invisible watermarks and signal what the source of that image is,” they stated. Several startups are also working on approaches for detecting deep fakes.

Procedural History: 

‍

The case started with a 2011 Madras High Court ruling that included the appellant’s personal information. In the case discussed, the court decided in 2024, the appellant went to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to request that his name and other identifying information from that previous ruling be redacted. He argued that his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was violated by the ongoing release of such private information into the public arena. He claimed that the revelation had hurt him in real ways, such as having his application for an Australian visa denied. Therefore, without compromising the ideals of open justice, the current procedures aimed to have the court recognize a person’s “Right to be Forgotten” within a broader framework of privacy and data protection.

‍

Background and Factual Matrix

‍

The appellant was charged under Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC. The trial court convicted him in 201, but later, the High Court in 2014 fully, completely and unconditionally acquitted him, which was not based on the benefit of doubt. Following the acquittal, he remarried and has three children. The judgment of both the High Court and the Trial Court has personal and intimate details about him. Being available in the public domain has caused him significant repercussions, as he was denied a visa to travel to Australia by authorities, citing the criminal cases. The appellant has filed a plea seeking a mandamus directing the Registrar General, Additional Registrar General, and Registrar (IT-Statistics) as R1, R2, R3 to redact his name and other identities from the acquittal judgment. He has sought a direction from Ikanoon Software Development Private Limited (R4) to reflect the redaction in its publication. 

‍

Issue 

‍

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can lie against a High Court for redaction of personal details from its own judgment, or does such a prayer tantamount to a High Court issuing a writ against itself?
2. Whether the High Court, being a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, is entitled to preserve its record for perpetuity in its original form without any modification or redaction?
3. Whether the ‘Right to be Forgotten' can be recognised and enforced in the absence of a specific statutory provision or Supreme Court direction, given that it constitutes an exception to the fundamental principle of open courts and open justice?

‍

Adjudication and Reasoning

The division bench has allowed the Writ appeal and granted the following relief:

1. R4 directed to take down the judgment in Crl.A. (MD) No.321 of 2011 dated 30.04.2014 forthwith.
2. R1 to R3 directed to redact the name and other details of the Writ Petitioner relating to his identity from the judgment dated 30.04.2014 in Crl.A.(MD) No. 321 of 2011 and ensure that only the redacted judgment is available for publication or for uploading.

‍

Rule 

‍

1. Courts have a wide discretion in deciding whether to allow redaction or not. Such discretion can either be granted at the request of the party seeking redaction or, in appropriate cases, even suo moto by the court.
2. The accused who have earned full, complete and unconditional acquittal without any benefit of doubt have a legitimate claim to move forward for redaction of personal information.
3. The open Court doesn’t require absolute disclosure of all personal information, and the courts, while deciding the concern of privacy and the right to ensure that in litigations to leave behind parts of their past which are no longer relevant, have to balance the concept of open Court on the one hand and privacy concerns of a citizen on the other.
4. As the High Court is the repository of a wide range of information and is entitled to preserve the original record in perpetuity. However, without diluting the sanctity of the original record, the public reflection of that record can be moderated to preserve the privacy of the person to whom that record pertains.

‍

Reasoning 

‍

1. Drawing on the judgment K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court found Article 21 to protect not only informational privacy but also the "right to be forgotten," which gives individuals the right to request the deletion of any personal data when there is no longer any legitimate public interest in retaining such information. Such irreparable reputational damage is thus an infringement on constitutional privacy that demands judicial redaction. 
2. The court rejected the argument that a writ against its own order is impermissible, drawing a distinction between challenging the legal correctness of a judgment and seeking redaction of personal information. Allowing redaction will not question the validity of the judgment; rather, it will simply change its public appearance to ensure privacy.
3. Since a High Court is a Court of Record with an obligation to preserve its judgments in their unaltered form forever, the court held here that such internal maintenance of complete records was not incompatible with the issuance of a redacted public version. Institutional integrity is maintained when the original kept in the archives is supplemented with a public version that masks the privacy areas.
4. Open justice principles work to establish transparency, accountability, and public confidence, but these are not absolute. The court took a proportionality stance: personal identifiers, where they neither educate nor have precedential value and continue to inflict harm, may be expunged without affecting the established legal principles of judgment.
5. Although the DPDP Act exempts courts from several statutory obligations, the court held that it can, by virtue of its inherent discretion, protect personal data, and in so doing, exercise that power without the need for any legislative command. Traditionally the Madras High Court rules provide for the possibility of restriction of certified copies, thus establishing redaction as feasible both legally and administratively.

‍

Introduction

The rise of unreliable social media newsgroups on online platforms has significantly altered the way people consume and interact with news, contributing to the spread of misinformation and leading to sources of unverified and misleading content. Unlike traditional news outlets that adhere to journalistic standards, these newsgroups often lack proper fact-checking and editorial oversight, leading to the rapid dissemination of false or distorted information. Social media transformed individuals into active content creators. Social media newsgroups (SMNs) are social media platforms used as sources of news and information. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center (July-August 2024), 54% of U.S. adults now rely on social media for news. This rise in SMNs has raised concerns over the integrity of online news and undermines trust in legitimate news sources. Social media users are advised to consume information and news from authentic sources or channels available on social media platforms.

The Growing Issue of Misinformation in Social Media Newsgroups

Social media newsgroups have become both a source of vital information and a conduit for misinformation. While these platforms allow rapid news sharing and facilitate political and social campaigns, they also pose significant risks of unverified information. Misleading information, often driven by algorithms designed to maximise user engagement, proliferates in these spaces. This has led to increasing challenges, as SMNs cater to diverse communities with varying political affiliations, gender demographics, and interests. This sometimes results in the creation of echo chambers where information is not critically assessed, amplifying the confirmation bias and enabling the unchecked spread of misinformation. A prominent example is the false narratives surrounding COVID-19 vaccines that spread across SMNs, contributing to widespread vaccine hesitancy and public health risks.

Understanding the Susceptibility of Online Newsgroups to Misinformation

Several factors make social media newsgroups particularly susceptible to misinformation. Some of the factors are listed below:

• The lack of robust fact-checking mechanisms in social media news groups can lead to false narratives which can spread easily. 
• The lack of expertise from admins of online newsgroups, who are often regular users without journalism knowledge, can result in the spreading of inaccurate information. Their primary goal of increasing engagement may overshadow concerns about accuracy and credibility.
• The anonymity of users exacerbates the problem of misinformation. It allows users to share unverified or misleading content without accountability. 
• The viral nature of social media also leads to the vast spread of misinformation to audiences instantly, often outpacing efforts to correct it.
• Unlike traditional media outlets, online newsgroups often lack formal fact-checking processes. This absence allows misinformation to circulate without verification, making it easier for inaccuracies to go unchallenged.
• The sheer volume of user engagement in the form of posts has created the struggle to moderate content effectively imposing significant challenges.
• Social Media Platforms have algorithms designed to enhance user engagement and inadvertently amplify sensational or emotionally charged content, which is more likely to be false.

Consequences of Misinformation in Newsgroups 

The societal impacts of misinformation in SMNs are profound. Political polarisation can fuel one-sided views and create deep divides in democratic societies. Health risks emerge when false information spreads about critical issues, such as the anti-vaccine movements or misinformation related to public health crises. Misinformation has dire long-term implications and has the potential to destabilise governments and erode trust in media, in both traditional and social media leading to undermining democracy. If unaddressed, the consequences could continue to ripple through society, perpetuating false narratives that shape public opinion.

Steps to Mitigate Misinformation in Social Media Newsgroups 

• Educating users in social media literacy education can empower critical assessment of the information encountered, reducing the spread of false narratives. 
• Introducing stricter platform policies, including penalties for deliberately sharing misinformation, may act as a deterrent against sharing unverified information. 
• Collaborative fact-checking initiatives with involvement from social media platforms, independent journalists, and expert organisations can provide a unified front against the spread of false information.
• From a policy perspective, a holistic approach that combines platform responsibility with user education and governmental and industry oversight is essential to curbing the spread of misinformation in social media newsgroups.

Conclusion 

The emergence of Social media newsgroups has revolutionised the dissemination of information.  This rapid spread of misinformation poses a significant challenge to the integrity of news in the digital age. It gets further amplified by algorithmic echo chambers unchecked user engagement and profound societal implications. A multi-faceted approach is required to tackle these issues, combining stringent platform policies, AI-driven moderation, and collaborative fact-checking initiatives. User empowerment concerning media literacy is an important factor in promoting critical thinking and building cognitive defences. By adopting these measures, we can better navigate the complexities of consuming news from social media newsgroups and preserve the reliability of online information. Furthermore, users need to consume news from authoritative sources available on social media platforms. 

References

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/sep/24/social-media-owners-survey-misinformation-online-news
• https://pirg.org/edfund/articles/misinformation-on-social-media/ ‍
• https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/mobile-based-social-media-what-is-cutting/77292