India Bangladesh Cyber Security Cooperation

Introduction

An age of unprecedented problems has been brought about by the constantly changing technological world, and misuse of deepfake technology has become a reason for concern which has also been discussed by the Indian Judiciary. Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the consequences of this quickly developing technology, citing a variety of issues from security hazards to privacy violations to the spread of disinformation. In general, misuse of deepfake technology is particularly dangerous since it may fool even the sharpest eye because they are almost identical to the actual thing.

SC judge expressed Concerns: A Complex Issue

During a recent speech, Supreme Court Justice Hima Kohli emphasized the various issues that deepfakes present. She conveyed grave concerns about the possibility of invasions of privacy, the dissemination of false information, and the emergence of security threats. The ability of deepfakes to be created so convincingly that they seem to come from reliable sources is especially concerning as it increases the potential harm that may be done by misleading information.

Gender-Based Harassment Enhanced

In this internet era, there is a concerning chance that harassment based on gender will become more severe, as Justice Kohli noted. She pointed out that internet platforms may develop into epicentres for the quick spread of false information by anonymous offenders who act worrisomely and freely. The fact that virtual harassment is invisible may make it difficult to lessen the negative effects of toxic online postings. In response, It is advocated that we can develop a comprehensive policy framework that modifies current legal frameworks—such as laws prohibiting sexual harassment online —to adequately handle the issues brought on by technology breakthroughs.

Judicial Stance on Regulating Deepfake Content

In a different move, the Delhi High Court voiced concerns about the misuse of deepfake and exercised judicial intervention to limit the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated deepfake content. The intricacy of the matter was highlighted by a division bench. The bench proposed that the government, with its wider outlook, could be more qualified to handle the situation and come up with a fair resolution. This position highlights the necessity for an all-encompassing strategy by reflecting the court's acknowledgement of the technology's global and borderless character.

PIL on Deepfake 

In light of these worries, an Advocate from Delhi has taken it upon himself to address the unchecked use of AI, with a particular emphasis on deepfake material. In the event that regulatory measures are not taken, his Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which is filed at the Delhi High Court, emphasises the necessity of either strict limits on AI or an outright prohibition. The necessity to discern between real and fake information is at the center of this case. Advocate suggests using distinguishable indicators, such as watermarks, to identify AI-generated work, reiterating the demand for openness and responsibility in the digital sphere.

The Way Ahead: 

Finding a Balance

• The authorities must strike a careful balance between protecting privacy, promoting innovation, and safeguarding individual rights as they negotiate the complex world of deepfakes. The Delhi High Court's cautious stance and Justice Kohli's concerns highlight the necessity for a nuanced response that takes into account the complexity of deepfake technology.
• Because of the increased complexity with which the information may be manipulated in this digital era, the court plays a critical role in preserving the integrity of the truth and shielding people from the possible dangers of misleading technology. The legal actions will surely influence how the Indian judiciary and legislature respond to deepfakes and establish guidelines for the regulation of AI in the nation. The legal environment needs to change as technology does in order to allow innovation and accountability to live together.

Collaborative Frameworks: 

• Misuse of deepfake technology poses an international problem that cuts beyond national boundaries. International collaborative frameworks might make it easier to share technical innovations, legal insights, and best practices. A coordinated response to this digital threat may be ensured by starting a worldwide conversation on deepfake regulation.

Legislative Flexibility: 

• Given the speed at which technology is advancing, the legislative system must continue to adapt. It will be required to introduce new legislation expressly addressing developing technology and to regularly evaluate and update current laws. This guarantees that the judicial system can adapt to the changing difficulties brought forth by the misuse of deepfakes.

AI Development Ethics: 

• Promoting moral behaviour in AI development is crucial. Tech businesses should abide by moral or ethical standards that place a premium on user privacy, responsibility, and openness. As a preventive strategy, ethical AI practices can lessen the possibility that AI technology will be misused for malevolent purposes.

Government-Industry Cooperation: 

• It is essential that the public and commercial sectors work closely together. Governments and IT corporations should collaborate to develop and implement legislation. A thorough and equitable approach to the regulation of deepfakes may be ensured by establishing regulatory organizations with representation from both sectors.

Conclusion

A comprehensive strategy integrating technical, legal, and social interventions is necessary to navigate the path ahead. Governments, IT corporations, the courts, and the general public must all actively participate in the collective effort to combat the misuse of deepfakes, which goes beyond only legal measures. We can create a future where the digital ecosystem is safe and inventive by encouraging a shared commitment to tackling the issues raised by deepfakes. The Government is on its way to come up with dedicated legislation to tackle the issue of deepfakes. Followed by the recently issued government advisory on misinformation and deepfake.

References:

• https://www.medianama.com/2023/12/223-chaitanya-rohilla-petition-deepfakes-delhi-hc/
• https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/litigation/sc-judge-voices-concern-over-online-harassment-says-deepfake-tech-raises-privacy-invasion-alarms/105872768

Introduction

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Minister of State at the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, has emphasised the need for an open internet. He stated that no platform can deny content creators access to distribute and monetise content and that large technology companies have begun to play a significant role in the digital evolution. Chandrasekhar emphasised that the government does not want the internet or monetisation to be in the purview of just one or two companies and does not want 120 crore Indians on the internet in 2025 to be catered to by big islands on the internet.

The Voice for Open Internet 

India's Minister of State for IT, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, has stated that no technology company or social media platform can deny content creators access to distribute and monetise their content. Speaking at the Digital News Publishers Association Conference in Delhi, Chandrasekhar emphasized that the government does not want the internet or monetization of the internet to be in the hands of just one or two companies. He argued that the government does not like monopoly or duopoly and does not want 120 crore Indians on the Internet in 2025 to be catered to by big islands on the internet.

Chandrasekhar highlighted that large technology companies have begun to exert influence when it comes to the dissemination of content, which has become an area of concern for publishers and content creators. He stated that if any platform finds it necessary to block any content, they need to give reasons or grounds to the creators, stating that the content is violating norms.

As India tries to establish itself as an innovator in the technology sector, a recent corpus of Rs 1 lakh crore was announced by the government in the interim Budget of 2024-25. As big companies continue to tighten their stronghold on the sector, content moderation has become crucial. Under the IT Rules Act, 11 types of categories are unlawful under IT Act and criminal law. Platforms must ensure no user posts content that falls under these categories, take down any such content, and gateway users to either de-platforming or prosecuting. Chandrasekhar believes that the government has to protect the fundamental rights of people and emphasises legislative guardrails to ensure platforms are accountable for the correctness of the content.

Monetizing Content on the Platform

No platform can deny a content creator access to the platform to distribute and monetise it,' Chandrasekhar declared, boldly laying down a gauntlet that defies the prevailing norms. This tenet signals a nascent dawn where creators may envision reaping the rewards borne of their creative endeavours unfettered by platform restrictions.

An increasingly contentious issue that shadows this debate is the moderation of content within the digital realm. In this vast uncharted expanse, the powers that be within these monolithic platforms assume the mantle of vigilance—policing the digital avenues for transgressions against a conscribed code of conduct. Under the stipulations of India's IT Rules Act, for example, platforms are duty-bound to interdict user content that strays into territories encompassing a spectrum of 11 delineated unlawful categories. Violations span the gamut from the infringement of intellectual property rights to the propagation of misinformation—each category necessitating swift and decisive intervention. He raised the alarm against misinformation—a malignant growth fed by the fertile soils of innovation—a phenomenon wherein media reports chillingly suggest that up to half of the information circulating on the internet might be a mere fabrication, a misleading simulacrum of authenticity.

The government's stance, as expounded by Chandrasekhar, pivots on an axis of safeguarding citizens' fundamental rights, compelling digital platforms to shoulder the responsibility of arbiters of truth. 'We are a nation of over 90 crores today, a nation progressing with vigour, yet we find ourselves beset by those who wish us ill,' 

Upcoming Digital India Act

Awaiting upon the horizon, India's proposed Digital India Act (DIA), still in its embryonic stage of pre-consultation deliberation, seeks to sculpt these asymmetries into a more balanced form. Chandrasekhar hinted at the potential inclusion within the DIA of regulatory measures that would sculpt the interactions between platforms and the mosaic of content creators who inhabit them. Although specifics await the crucible of public discourse and the formalities of consultation, indications of a maturing framework are palpable.

Conclusion 

It is essential that the fable of digital transformation reverberates with the voices of individual creators, the very lifeblood propelling the vibrant heartbeat of the internet's culture. These are the voices that must echo at the centre stage of policy deliberations and legislative assembly halls; these are the visions that must guide us, and these are the rights that we must uphold. As we stand upon the precipice of a nascent digital age, the decisions we forge at this moment will cascade into the morrow and define the internet of our future. This internet must eternally stand as a bastion of freedom, of ceaseless innovation and as a realm of boundless opportunity for every soul that ventures into its infinite expanse with responsible use. 

References 

• https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-no-platform-can-deny-a-content-creator-access-to-distribute-and-monetise-content-says-mos-it-rajeev-chandrasekhar-3386388/
• https://indianexpress.com/article/india/meta-content-monetisation-social-media-it-rules-rajeev-chandrasekhar-9147334/
• https://www.medianama.com/2024/02/223-rajeev-chandrasekhar-content-creators-publishers/

‍

Introduction

In a distressing incident that highlights the growing threat of cyber fraud, a software engineer in Bangalore fell victim to fraudsters who posed as police officials. These miscreants, operating under the guise of a fake courier service and law enforcement, employed a sophisticated scam to dupe unsuspecting individuals out of their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident, as several cases of similar fraud have been reported recently in Bangalore and other cities. It is crucial for everyone to be aware of these scams and adopt preventive measures to protect themselves.

Bangalore Techie Falls Victim to ₹33 Lakh

The software engineer received a call from someone claiming to be from FedEx courier service, informing him that a parcel sent in his name to Taiwan had been seized by the Mumbai police for containing illegal items. The call was then transferred to an impersonator posing as a Mumbai Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), who alleged that a money laundering case had been registered against him. The fraudsters then coerced him into joining a Skype call for verification purposes, during which they obtained his personal details, including bank account information.

Under the guise of verifying his credentials, the fraudsters manipulated him into transferring a significant amount of money to various accounts. They assured him that the funds would be returned after the completion of the procedure. However, once the money was transferred, the fraudsters disappeared, leaving the victim devastated and financially drained.

Best Practices to Stay Safe

1. Be vigilant and skeptical: Maintain a healthy level of skepticism when receiving unsolicited calls or messages, especially if they involve sensitive information or financial matters. Be cautious of callers pressuring you to disclose personal details or engage in immediate financial transactions.
2. Verify the caller’s authenticity: If someone claims to represent a legitimate organisation or law enforcement agency, independently verify their credentials. Look up the official contact details of the organization or agency and reach out to them directly to confirm the authenticity of the communication.
3. Never share sensitive information: Avoid sharing personal information, such as bank account details, passwords, or Aadhaar numbers, over the phone or through unfamiliar online platforms. Legitimate organizations will not ask for such information without proper authentication protocols.
4. Use secure communication channels: When communicating sensitive information, prefer secure platforms or official channels that provide end-to-end encryption. Avoid switching to alternative platforms or applications suggested by unknown callers, as fraudsters can exploit these.
5. Educate yourself and others: Stay informed about the latest cyber fraud techniques and scams prevalent in your region. Share this knowledge with family, friends, and colleagues to create awareness and prevent them from falling victim to similar schemes.
6. Implement robust security measures: Keep your devices and software updated with the latest security patches. Utilize robust anti-virus software, firewalls, and spam filters to safeguard against malicious activities. Regularly review your financial statements and account activity to detect any unauthorized transactions promptly.

Conclusion:

The incident involving the Bangalore techie and other victims of cyber fraud highlights the importance of remaining vigilant and adopting preventive measures to safeguard oneself from such scams. It is disheartening to see individuals falling prey to impersonators who exploit their trust and manipulate them into sharing sensitive information. By staying informed, exercising caution, and following best practices, we can collectively minimize the risk and protect ourselves from these fraudulent activities. Remember, the best defense against cyber fraud is a well-informed and alert individual.