#FactCheck - Viral Postcard Attributing Fake UGC Statement to Keshav Prasad Maurya Is False

Introduction

MEITY’s Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) in collaboration with SISA, a global leader in forensics-driven cyber security company, launched the ‘Certified Security Professional for Artificial Intelligence’ (CSPAI) program on 23rd September. This initiative marks the first of its kind ANAB-accredited AI security certification. The CSPAI also complements global AI governance efforts. International efforts like the OECD AI Principles and the European Union's AI Act, which aim to regulate AI technologies to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in AI systems are the sounding board for this initiative.

About the Initiative

The Certified Security Professional for Artificial Intelligence (CSPAI) is the world’s first ANAB-accredited certification program that focuses on Cyber Security for AI. The collaboration between CERT-In and SISA plays a pivotal role in shaping AI security policies. Such partnerships between the public and private players bridge the gap between government regulatory needs and the technological expertise of private players, creating comprehensive and enforceable AI security policies. The CSPAI has been specifically designed to integrate AI and GenAI into business applications while aligning security measures to meet the unique challenges that AI systems pose. The program emphasises the strategic application of Generative AI and Large Language Models in future AI deployments. It also highlights the significant advantages of integrating LLMs into business applications. 

The program is tailored for security professionals to understand the do’s and don’ts of AI integration into business applications, with a comprehensive focus on sustainable practices for securing AI-based applications. This is achieved through comprehensive risk identification and assessment frameworks recommended by ISO and NIST. The program also emphasises continuous assessment and conformance to AI laws across various nations, ensuring that AI applications adhere to standards for trustworthy and ethical AI practices.

Aim of the Initiative

As AI technology integrates itself to become an intrinsic part of business operations, a growing need for AI security expertise across industries is visible. Keeping this thought in the focal point, the accreditation program has been created to equip professionals with the knowledge and tools to secure AI systems. The CSPAI program aims to make a safer digital future while creating an environment that fosters innovation and responsibility in the evolving cybersecurity landscape focusing on Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs).

Conclusion

This Public-Private Partnership between the CERT-In and SISA, which led to the creation of the  Certified Security Professional for Artificial Intelligence (CSPAI) represents a groundbreaking initiative towards AI and its responsible usage. CSPAI can be seen as an initiative addressing the growing demand for cybersecurity expertise in AI technologies. As AI becomes more embedded in business operations, the program aims to equip security professionals with the knowledge to assess, manage, and mitigate risks associated with AI applications. CSPAI as a programme aims to promote trustworthy and ethical AI usage by aligning with frameworks from ISO and NIST and ensuring adherence to AI laws globally. The approach is a significant step towards creating a safer digital ecosystem while fostering responsible AI innovation. This certification will significantly impact the healthcare, finance, and defence sectors, where AI is rapidly becoming indispensable. By ensuring that AI applications meet the requirements of security and ethical standards in these sectors, CSPAI can help build public trust and encourage broader AI adoption.

References

• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2057868 
• https://www.sisainfosec.com/training/payment-data-security-programs/cspai/ 
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/cert-in-and-sisa-launch-ai-security-certification-program-to-integrate-ai-into-business-applications/articleshow/113622067.cms 

‍

Introduction:

Technology has become a vital part of everyone’s life nowadays, it occupies essential activities of a person’s life whether we are working or playing and studying. I would say from education to corporate, technology makes everything easier and simpler to achieve the goals for a particular thing.  Corporate companies are using technology for their day-to-day work and there are many law-based foundations that are publishing blogs and papers for legal awareness, many lawyers use internet technology for promoting themselves which amounts to growth in their work. Some legal work can now be done by machines, which was previously unthinkable. Large disputes frequently have many documents to review. Armies of young lawyers and paralegals are typically assigned to review these documents. This work can be done by a properly trained machine. Machine drafting of documents is also gaining popularity. We’ve also seen systems that can forecast the outcome of a dispute. We are starting to see machines take on many tasks that we once thought was solely the domain of lawyers.

How to expand law firms and the corporate world with the help of technology?

If we talk about how lawyers’ lives will be impacted by technology then I would explain about law students first. Students are the one who is utilizing the technology at its best for their work, tech could be helpful in students’ lives. as law students use SCC online and manupatra, which are used for case laws. And during their law internships, they use it to help their seniors to find appropriate cases for them. and use it as well for their college research work. SCC and manupatra are very big platforms by which we can say if students use technology for their careers, it will impact their law career in the best ways.

A lawyer running a law firm is not a small task, and there are plenty of obstacles to that, such as a lack of tech solutions, failure to fulfil demands, and inability to innovate, these obstacles prevent the growth of some firms. The right legal tech can grow an organization or a law firm and there will be fewer obstacles.

Technology can be proven as a good mechanism to grow the law firm, as everything depends on tech, from court work to corporate. If we talk about covid during 2020, everything shifted towards the virtual world, court hearings switched to online mode due to covid which proved as a bone to the legal system as the case hearings were speedy and there was no physical contact due to that.

Legal automation is also helping law firms to grow in a competitive world. And it has other benefits also like shifting tedious tasks from humans to machines, allowing the lawyer to work on more valuable work. I would say that small firms should also need to embrace automation for competition in the corporate sector. Today, artificial intelligence offers a solution to solve or at least make the access-to-justice issue better and completely transform our traditional legal system.

There was a world-cited author, Richard Susskind, OBE, who talked about the future of law and lawyers and he wrote a book, Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Richard argues that technology is going to bring about a fascinating decade of change in the legal sector and transform our court system. Although automating our old ways of working plays a part in this, even more, critical is that artificial intelligence and technology will help give more individuals access to justice.

The rise of big data has also resulted in rapid identification systems, which allow police officers to quickly see an individual’s criminal history through a simple search.The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) system matches individuals with their criminal history information using biometrics such as fingerprints, palm prints, iris recognition, and facial recognition. The NGI’s current technologies are constantly being updated, and new ones are being added, to make the NGI the most comprehensive way to gather up-to-date information on the person being examined

During covid, there were e-courts services in courts, and lawyers and judges were taking cases online. After the covid, the use of technology increased in the law field also from litigation to corporate. As technology can also safeguard confidential information between parties and lawyers. There was ODR, (online dispute resolution) happening meetings that were taking place online mode.

File sharing is inevitable in the practice of law. Yet sometimes the most common ways of sharing (think email) are not always the most secure. With the remote office, the boom has come an increased need for alternate file-sharing solutions. There is data encryption to protect data as it is a reliable method to protect confidential data and information.

Conclusion-

Technology has been playing a vital role in the legal industry and has increased the efficiency of legal offices and the productivity of clerical workers. With the advent of legal tech, there is greater transparency between legal firms and clients. Clients know how many fees they must pay and can keep track of the day-to-day progress of the lawyer on their case. Also, there is no doubt that technology, if used correctly, is fast and efficient – more than any human individual. This can prove to be of great assistance to any law firm.  Lawyers of the future will be the ones who create the systems that will solve their client’s problems. These legal professionals will include legal knowledge engineers, legal risk managers, system developers, design thinking experts, and others. These people will use technology to create new ways of solving legal problems. In many ways, the legal sector is experiencing the same digitization that other industries have, and because it is so document-intensive, it is actually an industry that stands to benefit greatly from what technology has to offer.

Introduction

In September 2024, the Australian government announced the  Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 ( CLA Bill 2024 hereon), to provide new powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the statutory regulatory body for Australia's communications and media infrastructure, to combat online misinformation and disinformation. It proposed allowing the ACMA to hold digital platforms accountable for the “seriously harmful mis- and disinformation” being spread on their platforms and their response to it, while also balancing freedom of expression. However, the Bill was subsequently withdrawn, primarily over concerns regarding the possibility of censorship by the government. This development is reflective of the global contention on the balance between misinformation regulation and freedom of speech. 

Background and Key Features of the Bill

According to the BBC’s Global Minds Survey of 2023, nearly 73% of Australians struggled to identify fake news and AI-generated misinformation. There has been a substantial rise in misinformation on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok since the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during major events like the bushfires of 2020 and the 2022 federal elections. The government’s campaign against misinformation was launched against this background, with the launch of The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation in 2021. The main provisions of the CLA Bill, 2024 were: 

1. Core Transparency Obligations of Digital Media Platforms: Publishing current media literacy plans,  risk assessment reports, and policies or information on their approach to addressing mis- and disinformation. The ACMA would also be allowed to make additional rules regarding complaints and dispute-handling processes.
2. Information Gathering and Record-Keeping Powers: The ACMA would form rules allowing it to gather consistent information across platforms and publish it. However, it would not have been empowered to gather and publish user information except in limited circumstances.
3. Approving Codes and Making Standards: The ACMA would have powers to approve codes developed by the industry and make standards regarding reporting tools, links to authoritative information, support for fact-checking, and demonetisation of disinformation. This would make compliance mandatory for relevant sections of the industry. 
4. Parliamentary Oversight: The transparency obligations, codes approved and standards set by ACMA under the Bill would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. ACMA would be required to report to the Parliament annually. 
5. Freedom of Speech Protections: End-users would not be required to produce information for ACMA unless they are a person providing services to the platform, such as its employees or fact-checkers. Further,  it would not be allowed to call for removing content from platforms unless it involved inauthentic behavior such as bots. 
6. Penalties for Non-Compliance: ACMA would be required to employ a “graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach” to non-compliance and enforcement in the form of formal warnings, remedial directions, injunctions, or significant civil penalties as decided by the courts, subject to review by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). No criminal penalties would be imposed.

Key Concerns

• Inadequacy of Freedom of Speech Protections: The biggest contention on this Bill has been regarding the issue of possible censorship, particularly of alternative opinions that are crucial to the health of a democratic system. To protect the freedom of speech, the Bill defined mis- and disinformation, what constitutes “serious harm” (election interference, harming public health, etc.), and what would be excluded from its scope. However, reservations among the Opposition persisted due to the lack of a clear mechanism to protect divergent opinions from the purview of this Bill. 
• Efficacy of Regulatory Measures: Many argue that by allowing the digital platform industry to make its codes, this law lets it self-police. Big Tech companies have no incentive to curb misinformation effectively since their business models allow them to reap financial benefits from the rampant spread of misinformation. Unless there are financial non- or dis- incentives to curb misinformation, Big Tech is not likely to address the situation at war footing.  Thus, this law would run the risk of being toothless. Secondly, the Bill did not require platforms to report on the “prevalence of” false content which, along with other metrics,  is crucial for researchers and legislators to track the efficacy of the current misinformation-curbing practices employed by platforms.  
• Threat of Government Overreach:  The Bill sought to expand the ACMA’s compliance and enforcement powers concerning misinformation and disinformation on online communication platforms by giving it powers to form rules on information gathering, code registration, standard-making powers, and core transparency obligations. However, even though the ACMA as a regulatory authority is answerable to the Parliament, the Bill was unclear in defining limits to these powers. This raised concerns from civil society about potential government overreach in a domain filled with contextual ambiguities regarding information.

Conclusion

While the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill sought to equip the ACMA with tools to hold digital platforms accountable and mitigate the harm caused by false information, its critique highlights the complexities of regulating such content without infringing on freedom of speech. Legislations and proposals regarding the matter all over the world are having to contend with this challenge. Globally, legislation and proposals addressing this issue face similar challenges, emphasizing the need for a continuous discourse at the intersection of platform accountability, regulatory restraint, and the protection of diverse viewpoints.

To regulate Big Tech effectively, governments can benefit from adopting a consultative, incremental, and cooperative approach, as exemplified by the European Union’s Digital Services Act 2023. Such a framework provides for a balanced response, fostering accountability while safeguarding democratic freedoms.

Resources

• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-misinformation-disinformation-bill.pdf 
• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation 
• https://www.mi-3.com.au/07-02-2024/over-80-australians-feel-they-may-have-fallen-fake-news-says-bbc 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/misinformation-inquiry 
• https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2024 
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-is-the-misinformation-bill-and-why-has-it-triggered-worries-about-freedom-of-speech/4n3ijebde 
• https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-work-no-pay-no-food/internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic#:~:text=The%20Telegraph%20Act%20allows%20authorities,preventing%20incitement%20to%20the%20commission 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/submissions/2024/11/8/submission-combatting-misinformation?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation&utm_content=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation+Preview+CID_31c6d7200ed9bd2f7f6f596ba2a8b1fb&utm_source=Email%20campaign&utm_term=Read%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Law%20Centres%20submission%20to%20the%20inquiry

‍