#FactCheck - Digitally Altered Video of Olympic Medalist, Arshad Nadeem’s Independence Day Message

Introduction

Misinformation is, to its basic meaning, incorrect or misleading information, it may or may not include specific malicious intent and includes inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information and selective or half-truths. The main challenges in dealing with misinformation are defining and distinguishing misinformation from legitimate content. This complexity arises due to the rapid evolution and propagation which information undergoes on the digital platforms. Additionally, balancing the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression with content regulation by state actors poses a significant challenge. It requires careful consideration to avoid censorship while effectively combating harmful misinformation. 

Acknowledging the severe consequences of misinformation and the critical need to combat misinformation, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 has implemented key measures to address misinformation in India. These new provisions introduced under the new criminal laws in India penalise the deliberate creation, distribution, or publication of inaccurate information. Previously missing from the IPC, these sections offer an additional legal resource to counter the proliferation of falsehoods, complementing existing laws targeting the same issue.

Section 353 of the BNS on Statements Conducing to Public Mischief criminalises making, publishing, or circulating statements, false information, rumours, or reports, including through electronic means, with the intent or likelihood of causing various harmful outcomes. 

This section thus brings misinformation into its ambit, since misinformation has been traditionally used to induce public fear or alarm that may lead to offences against the State or public tranquillity or inciting one class or community to commit offences against another. The section also penalizes the promotion of enmity, hatred, or ill will among different religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups. 

BNS also prescribes punishment of imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both for offences under section 353. Interestingly, a longer imprisonment of up to 5 years along with a fine has been prescribed to curb such offences in places of worship or during religious ceremonies. The only exception that may be availed under this section is granted to unsuspecting individuals who, believing the misinformation to be true, spread misinformation without any ill intent. However, this exception may not be as effective in curbing misinformation, since at the outset, the offence is hard to trace and has multiple pockets for individuals to seek protection without any mechanism to verify their intent.

The BNS also aims to regulate misinformation through Section 197(1)(d) on Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration. Under this provision, anyone who makes or publishes false or misleading information, whether it is in the form of spoken words, written, by signs, in visible representations, or through electronic communication, therefore, results in jeopardising the sovereignty, unity, integrity, or security of India is liable to face punishment in the form of imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both and if it occurs in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies, the quantum of punishment is increased to imprisonment for up to five years and may include a fine. Additionally, Section 212 (a) & (b) provides against furnishing false information. If a person who is legally obligated to provide information to a public servant, knowingly or reasonably believes that the information is false, and still furnishes it, they now face a punishment of six months imprisonment or a fine up to five thousand rupees or both. However,  if the false information pertains to the commission or prevention of an offence, or the apprehension of an offender, the punishment increases to imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

Enforcement Mechanisms: CyberPeace Policy Wing Outlook

To ensure the effective enforcement of these provisions, coordination between the key stakeholders, i.e., the law enforcement agencies, digital platforms, and judicial oversight is essential. Law enforcement agencies must utilize technology such as data analytics and digital forensics for tracking and identifying the origins of false information. This technological capability is crucial for pinpointing the sources and preventing the further spread of misinformation. Simultaneously, digital platforms associated with misinformation content are required to implement robust monitoring and reporting mechanisms to detect and address the generated misleading content proactively. A supporting oversight by judicial bodies plays a critical role in ensuring that enforcement actions are conducted fairly and in line with legal standards. It helps maintain a balance between addressing misinformation and upholding fundamental rights such as freedom of speech. The success of the BNS in addressing these challenges will depend on the effective integration of these mechanisms and ongoing adaptation to the evolving digital landscape.

Resources:

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf 
• https://www.foxmandal.in/changes-brought-forth-by-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023/ 
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/spreading-fake-news-could-land-people-in-jail-for-three-years-under-new-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-bill/articleshow/102669105.cms?from=mdr 

‍

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.

INTRODUCTION:

The Ministry of Defence has recently designated the Additional Directorate General of Strategic Communication in the Indian Army as the nodal officer now authorised to send removal requests and notices to social media intermediaries regarding posts consisting of illegal content with respect to the Army. Earlier, this process was followed through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). The recent designation gives the Army the autonomy of circumnavigating the old process and enables them to send direct notices (as deemed appropriate by the government and its agency). Let us look at the legal framework that allows them to do so and its policy implications. 

BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK:

Section 69 of the IT Act 2000 gives the government the power to issue directions for interception, monitoring or decryption of any data/information through any computer resource. This is done so under six reasons related to:

• Upholding the sovereignty or integrity of India
• Security of the state
• Defence of India
• Friendly relations with foreign states
• Public order or for preventing incitement of any cognisable offence
• Investigations of offences related to the aforementioned reasons 

Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act 2000 is another aspect of the law related to the removal of data on notification. It allows for all intermediaries (including internet service providers and social media platforms) to have safety harbours from the liability of the content put out by third parties/users on their platforms. This, however, is only applicable when the intermediary has either received a notification or actual knowledge by the appropriate government or its agency of the data on their platform being used for unlawful acts and complies promptly by removing the data from their platform without tampering with evidence.

PLAUSIBLE REASONS FOR POLICY DECISION:

Cases related to the Indian Army are sensitive for a number of reasons, rooted in the fact that they directly pertain to the nation's security, integrity and sovereignty. The impact of the spread of misinformation and disinformation is almost instantaneous and the stakes are high in any circumstance, but exceptionally so when it comes to the Armed Forces and the nation’s security status. A mechanism to tackle cases of such a security level should allow for quick action from the authorities. Owing to the change in the ability to notify directly rather than through another ministry, the army can now promptly deal with these concerns as and when they arise. One immediate benefit of this change is that the forces can now quickly respond to instances where foreign states and actors with malicious intent put out information that can cause harm to the nation’s interests, image and integrity. 

This step helps the forces deal with countering misinformation, ensuring national security and even addressing issues of online propaganda. An example of sensitive content about the army leading to legal intervention is the case of Delhi-based magazine The Caravan. The Defence Ministry, along with the Intelligence Bureau and the Jammu and Kashmir police ordered the Delhi-based publication to remove an article claiming the murder and torture of civilians by the Indian army in Jammu and Kashmir citing the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The instruction was challenged by the magazine in the courts.

CONCLUSION:

This move brings with it potential benefits along with risks and the focus should always be on maintaining a balanced approach. Transparency and accountability are imperative and checks on related guidelines so as to prevent misuse while simultaneously protecting national security should be at the centre of the objective of the policy approach. Misinformation in and about the armed forces must be dealt with immediately.

REFERENCES:

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/army-can-now-directly-issue-notices-to-remove-online-posts-101730313177838.html
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/inside-79-3-b-the-content-blocking-provision-with-many-legal-grey-areas-101706987924882.html
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-orders-magazine-to-take-down-article-on-army-torture-and-murder-in-jammu/article67840790.ece
• https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/army-gains-authority-to-directly-issue-notice-to-take-down-online-posts

‍