#FactCheck - Bangladeshi Migrant’s Arrest Misrepresented as Indian in Viral Video!

Introduction

In the age of digital technology, the concept of net neutrality has become more crucial for preserving the equity and openness of the internet. Thanks to net neutrality, all internet traffic is treated equally, without difference or preferential treatment. Thanks to this concept, users can freely access and distribute content, which promotes innovation, competition, and the democratisation of knowledge. India has seen controversy over net neutrality, which has led to a legal battle to protect an open internet. In this blog post, we’ll look at the challenges of the law and the efforts made to safeguard net neutrality in India.

Background on Net Neutrality in India

Net neutrality became a hot topic in India after a major telecom service provider suggested charging various fees for accessing different parts of the internet. Internet users, activists, and organisations in favour of an open internet raised concern over this. Millions of comments were made on the consultation document by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) published in 2015, highlighting the significance of net neutrality for the country’s internet users.

Legal Battle and Regulatory Interventions

The battle for net neutrality in India acquired notoriety when TRAI released the “Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations” in 2016. These laws, often known as the “Free Basics” prohibition, were created to put an end to the usage of zero-rating platforms, which exempt specific websites or services from data expenses. The regulations ensured that all data on the internet would be handled uniformly, regardless of where it originated.

But the legal conflict didn’t end there. The telecom industry challenged TRAI’s regulations, resulting in a flurry of legal conflicts in numerous courts around the country. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act and its provisions of it that control TRAI’s ability to regulate internet services were at the heart of the legal dispute.

The Indian judicial system greatly helped the protection of net neutrality. The importance of non-discriminatory internet access was highlighted in 2018 when the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) upheld the TRAI regulations and ruled in favour of net neutrality. The TDSAT ruling created a crucial precedent for net neutrality in India. In 2019, after several rounds of litigation, the Supreme Court of India backed the principles of net neutrality, declaring that it is a fundamental idea that must be protected. The nation’s legislative framework for preserving a free and open internet was bolstered by the ruling by the top court.

Ongoing Challenges and the Way Forward

Even though India has made great strides towards upholding net neutrality, challenges persist. Because of the rapid advancement of technology and the emergence of new services and platforms, net neutrality must always be safeguarded. Some practices, such as “zero-rating” schemes and service-specific data plans, continue to raise questions about potential violations of net neutrality principles. Regulatory efforts must be proactive and under constant watch to allay these worries. The regulatory organisation, TRAI, is responsible for monitoring for and responding to breaches of the net neutrality principles. It’s crucial to strike a balance between promoting innovation and competition and maintaining a free and open internet.

Additionally, public awareness and education on the issue are crucial for the continuation of net neutrality. By informing users of their rights and promoting involvement in the conversation, a more inclusive and democratic decision-making process is assured. Civil society organisations and advocacy groups may successfully educate the public about net neutrality and gain their support.

Conclusion

The legal battle for net neutrality in India has been a significant turning point in the campaign to preserve an open and neutral internet. A robust framework for net neutrality in the country has been established thanks to legislative initiatives and judicial decisions. However, due to ongoing challenges and the dynamic nature of technology, maintaining net neutrality calls for vigilant oversight and strong actions. An open and impartial internet is crucial for fostering innovation, increasing free speech, and providing equal access to information. India’s attempts to uphold net neutrality should motivate other nations dealing with similar issues. All parties, including politicians, must work together to protect the principles of net neutrality and ensure that the Internet is accessible to everyone.

Introduction

With the rise of AI deepfakes and manipulated media, it has become difficult for the average internet user to know what they can trust online. Synthetic media can have serious consequences, from virally spreading election disinformation or medical misinformation to serious consequences like revenge porn and financial fraud. Recently, a Pune man lost ₹43 lakh when he invested money based on a deepfake video of Infosys founder Narayana Murthy. In another case, that of Babydoll Archi, a woman from Assam had her likeness deepfaked by an ex-boyfriend to create revenge porn.

Image or video manipulation used to leave observable traces. Online sources may advise examining the edges of objects in the image, checking for inconsistent patterns, lighting differences, observing the lip movements of the speaker in a video or counting the number of fingers on a person’s hand. Unfortunately, as the technology improves, such folk advice might not always help users identify synthetic and manipulated media.

‍

The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)

‍

One interesting project in the area of trust-building under these circumstances has been the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA). Started in 2019 by Adobe and Microsoft, C2PA is a collaboration between major players in AI, social media, journalism, and photography, among others. It set out to create a standard for publishers of digital media to prove the authenticity of digital media and track changes as they occur.

When photos and videos are captured, they generally store metadata like the date and time of capture, the location, the device it was taken on, etc. C2PA developed a standard for sharing and checking the validity of this metadata, and adding additional layers of metadata whenever a new user makes any edits. This creates a digital record of any and all changes made. Additionally, the original media is bundled with this metadata. This makes it easy to verify the source of the image and check if the edits change the meaning or impact of the media. This standard allows different validation software, content publishers and content creation tools to be interoperable in terms of maintaining and displaying proof of authenticity.

‍

‍

‍

The standard is intended to be used on an opt-in basis and can be likened to a nutrition label for digital media. Importantly, it does not limit the creativity of fledgling photo editors or generative AI enthusiasts; it simply provides consumers with more information about the media they come across.

‍

Could C2PA be Useful in an Indian Context?

‍

The World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2024, identifies India as a significant hotspot for misinformation. The recent AI Regulation report by MeitY indicates an interest in tools for watermarking AI-based synthetic content for ease of detecting and tracking harmful outcomes. Perhaps C2PA can be useful in this regard as it takes a holistic approach to tracking media manipulation, even in cases where AI is not the medium.

Currently, 26 India-based organisations like the Times of India or Truefy AI have signed up to the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI), a community that contributes to the development and adoption of tools and standards like C2PA. However, people are increasingly using social media sites like WhatsApp and Instagram as sources of information, both of which are owned by Meta and have not yet implemented the standard in their products.

India also has low digital literacy rates and low resistance to misinformation. Part of the challenge would be showing people how to read this nutrition label, to empower people to make better decisions online. As such, C2PA is just one part of an online trust-building strategy. It is crucial that education around digital literacy and policy around organisational adoption of the standard are also part of the strategy.

The standard is also not foolproof. Current iterations may still struggle when presented with screenshots of digital media and other non-technical digital manipulation. Linking media to their creator may also put journalists and whistleblowers at risk. Actual use in context will show us more about how to improve future versions of digital provenance tools, though these improvements are not guarantees of a safer internet.

The largest advantage of C2PA adoption would be the democratisation of fact-checking infrastructure. Since media is shared at a significantly faster rate than it can be verified by professionals, putting the verification tools in the hands of people makes the process a lot more scalable. It empowers citizen journalists and leaves a public trail for any media consumer to look into.

‍

Conclusion

‍

From basic colour filters to make a scene more engaging, to removing a crowd from a social media post, to editing together videos of a politician to make it sound like they are singing a song, we are so accustomed to seeing the media we consume be altered in some way. The C2PA is just one way to bring transparency to how media is altered. It is not a one-stop solution, but it is a viable starting point for creating a fairer and democratic internet and increasing trust online. While there are risks to its adoption, it is promising to see that organisations across different sectors are collaborating on this project to be more transparent about the media we consume.

References

‍

• https://c2pa.org/
• https://contentauthenticity.org/
• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/kate-middleton-9-signs-edited-photo-9211799/  
• https://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/fakes-frauds-and-forgeries-how-to-detect-image-manipulation--cms-22230
• https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/detect-fakes/overview/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO0WvudbO04&pp=0gcJCbAJAYcqIYzv
• https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2024.pdf
• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/ai-law-may-not-prescribe-penal-consequences-for-violations-9457780/
• https://thesecretariat.in/article/meity-s-ai-regulation-report-ambitious-but-no-concrete-solutions
• https://www.ndtv.com/lifestyle/assam-what-babydoll-archi-viral-fame-says-about-india-porn-problem-8878689
• https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/02/9f6e99572739a3024c9cdaec53a0a0ef.pdf

‍

Introduction

A bill requiring social media companies, providers of encrypted communications, and other online services to report drug activity on their platforms to the U.S. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) advanced to the Senate floor, alarming privacy advocates who claim the legislation transforms businesses into de facto drug enforcement agents and exposes many of them to liability for providing end-to-end encryption.

‍Why is there a requirement for online companies to report drug activity?

The reason behind the bill is that there was a Kansas teenager died after unknowingly taking a fentanyl-laced pill he purchased on Snapchat. The bill requires social media companies and other web communication providers to provide the DEA with users’ names and other information when the companies have “actual knowledge” that illicit drugs are being distributed on their platforms.

There is an urgent need to look into this matter as platforms like Snapchat and Instagram are the constant applications that netizens use. If these kinds of apps promote the selling of drugs, then it will result in major drug-selling vehicles and become drug-selling platforms.

Threat to end to end encryption

End-to-end encryption has long been criticised by law enforcement for creating a “lawless space” that criminals, terrorists, and other bad actors can exploit for their illicit purposes. End- to end encryption is important for privacy, but it has been criticised as criminals also use it for bad purposes that result in cyber fraud and cybercrimes.

Cases of drug peddling on social media platforms  

It is very easy to get drugs on social media, just like calling an Uber. It is that simple to get the drugs. The survey discovered that access to illegal drugs is “staggering” on social media applications, which has contributed to the rising number of fentanyl overdoses, which has resulted in suicide, gun violence, and accidents.

According to another survey, drug dealers use slang, emoticons, QR codes, and disappearing messages to reach customers while avoiding content monitoring measures on social networking platforms. Drug dealers are frequently active on numerous social media platforms, advertising their products on Instagram while providing their WhatApps or Snapchat names for queries, making it difficult for law officials to crack down on the transactions.

There is a need for social media platforms to report these kinds of drug-selling activity on specific platforms to the Drug enforcement administration. The bill requires online companies to report drug cases going on websites, such as the above-mentioned Snapchat case. There are so many other cases where drug dealers sell the drug through Instagram, Snapchat etc. Usually, if Instagram blocks one account, they create another account for the drug selling. Just by only blocking the account does not help to stop drug trafficking on social media platforms.

Will this put the privacy of users at risk?

It is important to report the cybercrime activities of selling drugs on social media platforms. The companies will only detect the activity regarding the drugs which are being sold through social media platforms which are able to detect bad actors and cyber criminals. The detection will be on the particular activities on the applications where it is happening because the social media platforms lack regulations to govern them, and their convenience becomes the major vehicle for the drugs sale.

Conclusion

Social media companies are required to report these kinds of activities happening on their platforms immediately to the Drugs enforcement Administration so that the DEA will take the required steps instead of just blocking the account. Because just blocking does not stop these drug markets from happening online. There must be proper reporting for that. And there is a need for social media regulations. Social media platforms mostly influence people.