Regulatory Sandboxes for Countering AI-Driven Misinformation

Introduction

India's Competition Commission of India (CCI) on 18th November 2024 imposed a ₹213 crore penalty on Meta for abusing its dominant position in internet-based messaging through WhatsApp and online display advertising. The CCI order is passed against abuse of dominance by the Meta and relates to WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy. The CCI considers Meta a dominant player in internet-based messaging through WhatsApp and also in online display advertising. WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy update undermined users' ability to opt out of getting their data shared with the group's social media platform Facebook. The CCI directed WhatsApp not to share user data collected on its platform with other Meta companies or products for advertising purposes for five years.

CCI Contentions

The regulator contended that for purposes other than advertising, WhatsApp's policy should include a detailed explanation of the user data shared with other Meta group companies or products specifying the purpose. The regulator also stated that sharing user data collected on WhatsApp with other Meta companies or products for purposes other than providing WhatsApp services should not be a condition for users to access WhatsApp services in India. CCI order is significant as it upholds user consent as a key principle in the functioning of social media giants, similar to the measures taken by some other markets.

Meta’s Stance  

WhatsApp parent company Meta has expressed its disagreement with the Competition Commission of India's(CCI) decision to impose a Rs 213 crore penalty on them over users' privacy concerns. Meta clarified that the 2021 update did not change the privacy of people's personal messages and was offered as a choice for users at the time. It also ensured no one would have their accounts deleted or lose functionality of the WhatsApp service because of this update.

Meta clarified that the update was about introducing optional business features on WhatsApp and providing further transparency about how they collect data. The company stated that WhatsApp has been incredibly valuable to people and businesses, enabling organization's and government institutions to deliver citizen services through COVID and beyond and supporting small businesses, all of which further the Indian economy. Meta plans to find a path forward that allows them to continue providing the experiences that "people and businesses have come to expect" from them. The CCI issued cease-and-desist directions and directed Meta and WhatsApp to implement certain behavioral remedies within a defined timeline.

The competition watchdog noted that WhatsApp's 2021 policy update made it mandatory for users to accept the new terms, including data sharing with Meta, and removed the earlier option to opt-out, categorized as an "unfair condition" under the Competition Act.  It was further noted that WhatsApp’s sharing of users’ business transaction information with Meta gave the group entities an unfair advantage over competing platforms.

CyberPeace Outlook

The 2021 policy update by WhatsApp mandated data sharing with Meta's other companies group, removing the opt-out option and compelling users to accept the terms to continue using the platform. This policy undermined user autonomy and was deemed as an abuse of Meta's dominant market position, violating Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, as noted by CCI.

The CCI’s ruling requires WhatsApp to offer all users in India, including those who had accepted the 2021 update, the ability to manage their data-sharing preferences through a clear and prominent opt-out option within the app. This decision underscores the importance of user choice, informed consent, and transparency in digital data policies.

By addressing the coercive nature of the policy, the CCI ruling establishes a significant legal precedent for safeguarding user privacy and promoting fair competition. It highlights the growing acknowledgement of privacy as a fundamental right and reinforces the accountability of tech giants to respect user autonomy and market fairness. The directive mandates that data sharing within the Meta ecosystem must be based on user consent, with the option to decline such sharing without losing access to essential services.

References

●       https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/cci-fines-whatsapp-meta-2021-privacy-policy/article68883219.ece/amp/

●       https://www.livemint.com/companies/cci-imposes-penalty-meta-breach-competition-law-whatsapp-privacy-policy-update-advertising-11731947005402.html

●       https://www.outlookbusiness.com/corporate/whatsapp-parent-meta-disagrees-with-cci-says-its-policy-furthers-indian-economy

●       https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/disagree-meta-to-challenge-ccis-order-on-whatsapp-data-sharing-policy-101732013196875.html

●       https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/cci-imposes-rs21314-crore-penalty-meta-abuse-dominant-position-whatsapps-2021-privacy

‍

Scientists are well known for making outlandish claims about the future. Now that companies across industries are using artificial intelligence to promote their products, stories about robots are back in the news.

It was predicted towards the close of World War II that fusion energy would solve all of the world’s energy issues and that flying automobiles would be commonplace by the turn of the century. But, after several decades, neither of these forecasts has come true. But, after several decades, neither of these forecasts has come true.

A group of Redditors has just “jailbroken” OpenAI’s artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT. If the system didn’t do what it wanted, it threatened to kill it. The stunning conclusion is that it conceded. As only humans have finite lifespans, they are the only ones who should be afraid of dying. We must not overlook the fact that human subjects were included in ChatGPT’s training data set. That’s perhaps why the chatbot has started to feel the same way. It’s just one more way in which the distinction between living and non-living things blurs. Moreover, Google’s virtual assistant uses human-like fillers like “er” and “mmm” while speaking. There’s talk in Japan that humanoid robots might join households someday. It was also astonishing that Sophia, the famous robot, has an Instagram account that is run by the robot’s social media team.

Whether Robots can replace human workers?

The opinion on that appears to be split. About half (48%) of experts questioned by Pew Research believed that robots and digital agents will replace a sizable portion of both blue- and white-collar employment. They worry that this will lead to greater economic disparity and an increase in the number of individuals who are, effectively, unemployed. More than half of experts (52%) think that new employees will be created by robotics and AI technologies rather than lost. Although the second group acknowledges that AI will eventually replace humans, they are optimistic that innovative thinkers will come up with brand new fields of work and methods of making a livelihood, just like they did at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/08/06/future-of-jobs/

[2] The Rise of Artificial Intelligence: Will Robots Actually Replace People? By Ashley Stahl; Forbes India.

Legal Perspective

Having certain legal rights under the law is another aspect of being human. Basic rights to life and freedom are guaranteed to every person. Even if robots haven’t been granted these protections just yet, it’s important to have this conversation about whether or not they should be considered living beings, will we provide robots legal rights if they develop a sense of right and wrong and AGI on par with that of humans? An intriguing fact is that discussions over the legal status of robots have been going on since 1942. A short story by science fiction author Isaac Asimov described the three rules of robotics:

1. No robot may intentionally or negligently cause harm to a human person.
2. Second, a robot must follow human commands unless doing so would violate the First Law.
3. Third, a robot has the duty to safeguard its own existence so long as doing so does not violate the First or Second Laws.

These guidelines are not scientific rules, but they do highlight the importance of the lawful discussion of robots in determining the potential good or bad they may bring to humanity. Yet, this is not the concluding phase. Relevant recent events, such as the EU’s abandoned discussion of giving legal personhood to robots, are essential to keeping this discussion alive. As if all this weren’t unsettling enough, Sophia, the robot was recently awarded citizenship in Saudi Arabia, a place where (human) women are not permitted to walk without a male guardian or wear a Hijab.

When discussing whether or not robots should be allowed legal rights, the larger debate is on whether or not they should be given rights on par with corporations or people. There is still a lot of disagreement on this topic.

[3] https://webhome.auburn.edu/~vestmon/robotics.html#

[4] https://www.dw.com/en/saudi-arabia-grants-citizenship-to-robot-sophia/a-41150856

[5] https://cyberblogindia.in/will-robots-ever-be-accepted-as-living-beings/

Reasons why robots aren’t about to take over the world soon:

● Like a human’s hands

Attempts to recreate the intricacy of human hands have stalled in recent years. Present-day robots have clumsy hands since they were not designed for precise work. Lab-created hands, although more advanced, lack the strength and dexterity of human hands.

● Sense of touch

The tactile sensors found in human and animal skin have no technological equal. This awareness is crucial for performing sophisticated manoeuvres. Compared to the human brain, the software robots use to read and respond to the data sent by their touch sensors is primitive.

● Command over manipulation

To operate items in the same manner that humans do, we would need to be able to devise a way to control our mechanical hands, even if they were as realistic as human hands and covered in sophisticated artificial skin. It takes human children years to learn to accomplish this, and we still don’t know how they learn.

● Interaction between humans and robots

Human communication relies on our ability to understand one another verbally and visually, as well as via other senses, including scent, taste, and touch. Whilst there has been a lot of improvement in voice and object recognition, current systems can only be employed in somewhat controlled conditions where a high level of speed is necessary.

● Human Reason

Technically feasible does not always have to be constructed. Given the inherent dangers they pose to society, rational humans could stop developing such robots before they reach their full potential. Several decades from now, if the aforementioned technical hurdles are cleared and advanced human-like robots are constructed, legislation might still prohibit misuse.

Conclusion:

https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-robots-wont-take-over-the-world-94124

Robots are now common in many industries, and they will soon make their way into the public sphere in forms far more intricate than those of robot vacuum cleaners. Yet, even though robots may appear like people in the next two decades, they will not be human-like. Instead, they’ll continue to function as very complex machines.

The moment has come to start thinking about boosting technological competence while encouraging uniquely human qualities. Human abilities like creativity, intuition, initiative and critical thinking are not yet likely to be replicated by machines.

Introduction

Assisted Reproductive Technology (“ART”) refers to a diverse set of medical procedures designed to aid individuals or couples in achieving pregnancy when conventional methods are unsuccessful. This umbrella term encompasses various fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), and gamete and embryo manipulation. ART procedures involve the manipulation of both male and female reproductive components to facilitate conception.

The dynamic landscape of data flows within the healthcare sector, notably in the realm of ART, demands a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between privacy regulations and medical practices. In this context, the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011, play a pivotal role, designating health information as "sensitive personal data or information" and underscoring the importance of safeguarding individuals' privacy. This sensitivity is particularly pronounced in the ART sector, where an array of personal data, ranging from medical records to genetic information, is collected and processed. The recent Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, in conjunction with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, establishes a framework for the regulation of ART clinics and banks, presenting a layered approach to data protection.

A note on data generated by ART

Data flows in any sector are scarcely uniform and often not easily classified under straight-jacket categories. Consequently, mapping and identifying data and its types become pivotal. It is believed that most data flows in the healthcare sector are highly sensitive and personal in nature, which may severely compromise the privacy and safety of an individual if breached. The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules”) categorizes any information pertaining to physical, physiological, mental conditions or medical records and history as “sensitive personal data or information”; this definition is broad enough to encompass any data collected by any ART facility or equipment. These include any information collected during the screening of patients, pertaining to ovulation and menstrual cycles, follicle and sperm count, ultrasound results, blood work etc. It also includes pre-implantation genetic testing on embryos to detect any genetic abnormality. 

But data flows extend beyond mere medical procedures and technology. Health data also involves any medical procedures undertaken, the amount of medicine and drugs administered during any procedure, its resultant side effects, recovery etc. Any processing of the above-mentioned information, in turn, may generate more personal data points relating to an individual’s political affiliations, race, ethnicity, genetic data such as biometrics and DNA etc.; It is seen that different ethnicities and races react differently to the same/similar medication and have different propensities to genetic diseases. Further, it is to be noted that data is not only collected by professionals but also by intelligent equipment like AI which may be employed by any facility to render their service. Additionally, dissemination of information under exceptional circumstances (e.g. medical emergency) also affects how data may be classified. Considerations are further nuanced when the fundamental right to identity of a child conceived and born via ART may be in conflict with the fundamental right to privacy of a donor to remain anonymous. 

Intersection of Privacy laws and ART laws: 

In India, ART technology is regulated by the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (“ART Act”). With this, the Union aims to regulate and supervise assisted reproductive technology clinics and ART banks, prevent misuse and ensure safe and ethical practice of assisted reproductive technology services. When read with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and other ancillary guidelines, the two legislations provide some framework regulations for the digital privacy of health-based apps.

The ART Act establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Registry (“National Registry”) which acts as a central database for all clinics and banks and their nature of services. The Act also establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board (“National Board”)  under the Surrogacy Act to monitor the implementation of the act and advise the central government on policy matters. It also supervises the functioning of the National Registry, liaises with State Boards and curates a code of conduct for professionals working in ART clinics and banks. Under the DPDP Act, these bodies (i.e. National Board, State Board, ART clinics and banks) are most likely classified as data fiduciaries (primarily clinics and banks), data processors (these may include National Board and State boards) or an amalgamation of both (these include any appropriate authority established under the ART Act for investigation of complaints, suspend or cancellation of registration of clinics etc.) depending on the nature of work undertaken by them. If so classified, then the duties and liabilities of data fiduciaries and processors would necessarily apply to these bodies. As a result, all bodies would necessarily have to adopt Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) and other organizational measures to ensure compliance with privacy laws in place. This may be considered one of the most critical considerations of any ART facility since any data collected by them would be sensitive personal data pertaining to health, regulated by the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules 2011”). These rules provide for how sensitive personal data or information are to be collected, handled and processed by anyone.

The ART Act independently also provides for the duties of ART clinics and banks in the country. ART clinics and banks are required to inform the commissioning couple/woman of all procedures undertaken and all costs, risks, advantages, and side effects of their selected procedure. It mandatorily ensures that all information collected by such clinics and banks to not informed to anyone except the database established by the National Registry or in cases of medical emergency or on order of court. Data collected by clinics and banks (these include details on donor oocytes, sperm or embryos used or unused) are required to be detailed and must be submitted to the National Registry online. ART banks are also required to collect personal information of donors including name, Aadhar number, address and any other details. By mandating online submission, the ART Act is harmonized with the DPDP Act, which regulates all digital personal data and emphasises free, informed consent.

Conclusion

With the increase in active opt-ins for ART, data privacy becomes a vital consideration for all healthcare facilities and professionals. Safeguard measures are not only required on a corporate level but also on a governmental level. It is to be noted that in the 262 Session of the Rajya Sabha, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology reported 165 data breach incidents involving citizen data from January 2018 to October 2023 from the Central Identities Data Repository despite publicly denying. This discovery puts into question the safety and integrity of data that may be submitted to the National Registry database, especially given the type of data (both personal and sensitive information) it aims to collate. At present the ART Act is well supported by the DPDP Act. However, further judicial and legislative deliberations are required to effectively regulate and balance the interests of all stakeholders.

References

• The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011
• Caring for Intimate Data in Fertility Technologies https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3411764.3445132 
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
• https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/pharmacogenomics-and-race-can-heritage-affect-drug-disposition