#FactCheck -AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows Car Stuck on Delhi–Jaipur Highway Signboard

Introduction

The nation got its first consolidated data protection regulation in the form of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, in the month of August, and the Indian netizens got their independence in terms of data protection and privacy. The act lays heavy penalties for non-compliance with the provisions, and the same is under the jurisdiction of a Data Protection Board set up by the Central Government, which enjoys powers equivalent to a civil court. The act upholds the right to data privacy as the fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(A) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The same has been judicially supported in the form of the landmark judgement,  Jus. K.S Puttawamy vs. Union of India of 2018. Let us take a look at the impact the act will make on the Indian netizens. 

‍

What is Personal Data? 

Personal Data refers to any form of digitised data which can be directly replicated by any person. This includes email IDs, mobile numbers, health data, banking data, photos, etc. A person to whom the personal data belongs is called the Data Principle. A Data principle is anyone who is above the age of 18 years and consents to the data of children/minors. In the case of children/minors, it is mandatory for the parents or guardians to provide their express consent for the processing of personal data for all or any purposes. Any individual who is processing personal data is known as the Data Fiduciry, and individuals registered under the act may act as consent managers to make the consent transparent.  When it comes to the rights of the netizens, it is seen that the act is created with an aspect of  “Safety by Design” to secure the rights and responsibilities of the netizens. 

‍

Rights secured under the DPDP Act 2023

• Right to Grievance Redressal: The Data fiduciary and the consent manager are required to respond to the grievances of the Data Principal within a time period, which is soon to be prescribed, thus creating a blanket of responsibility for the data fiduciary and consent manager. 
• Right to Nominate: Data Principals have the right to nominate any other individual who shall, in the event of death or incapacity of the data principal, exercise his/her rights.  
• Right to access to information: The Data principal has the right to seek confirmation from Data fiduciaries regarding the processing of their personal data and the summary of the processed data as well. 
• Right to Erasure and Correction: Data principals can reach out to the data fiduciaries in order to exercise their right to correct, complete, update and erasure of their personal data.  
• Territorial Rights: The data is to be processed within India, and processing outside India should be in regard to the services provided in India. 
• Material Rights: The rights are applicable to any personal data collected in digitised form and also for the data collected in a non-digital form but subsequently digitised. 

Obligations for Data Fiduciaries 

The data fiduciaries are mandated to oblige with the following provisions in order to maintain compliance with the laws of the land and by securing the Digital rights of the netizens. 

These are the obligations of the data fiduciaries: 

• Implement technical and organisational measures to safeguard Personal Data. 
• Determine the legal grounds for processing and obtaining consent from Data principals where required. 
• Provide a privacy notice while obtaining consent from Data principals. 
• Implement a mechanism for data principals to exercise their rights.
• Implement a grievance redressal mechanism for handling the queries from Data principals. 
• Irrecoverably delete personal data after the purpose for which it was collected has expired or when the consent has been withdrawn. 
• Have a breach management policy to notify the data protection board and the data principals in accordance with prescribed timelines. 
• Sign a valid contract with Data processors to ensure key obligations are abided by them, including timely deletion of data. 

Conclusion 

As the world steps into the digital age, it is pertinent for the governments of the world to come up with efficient and effective legislation to protect cyber rights and responsibilities, but as cyberspace has no boundaries, nations need to work in synergy to protect their cyber interests and netizens. This can only begin once all nations have indigenous Cyber laws and rights to protect netizens, and the same has been addressed by the Indian Government in the form of the Digital Perosnl Data Protection Act, 2023. The future is full of emerging technologies and the evolution of cyber laws; hence, consolidating a basic legal structure now is of utmost importance and the same is expected to be strengthened in India by the soon-to-be-released Draft Digital India Bill.  

‍

Introduction:  The Internet’s Foundational Ideal of Openness

The Internet was built as a decentralised network to foster open communication and global collaboration. Unlike traditional media or state infrastructure, no single government, company, or institution controls the Internet. Instead, it has historically been governed by a consensus of the multiple communities, like universities, independent researchers, and engineers, who were involved in building it. This bottom-up, cooperative approach was the foundation of Internet governance and ensured that the Internet remained open, interoperable, and accessible to all. As the Internet began to influence every aspect of life, including commerce, culture, education, and politics, it required a more organised governance model.  This compelled the rise of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model in the early 2000s. 

The Rise of Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Representatives from governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector congregated at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Per this Agenda, internet governance was defined as “… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Internet issues are cross-cutting across technical, political, economic, and social domains, and no one actor can manage them alone. Thus, stakeholders with varying interests are meant to come together to give direction to issues in the digital environment, like data privacy, child safety, cybersecurity,  freedom of expression, and more, while upholding human rights. 

Internet Governance in Practice: A History of Power Shifts

While the idea of democratizing Internet governance is a noble one, the Tunis Agenda has been criticised for reflecting geopolitical asymmetries and relegating the roles of technical communities and civil society to the sidelines.  Throughout the history of the internet, certain players have wielded more power in shaping how it is managed. Accordingly, internet governance can be said to have undergone three broad phases.

In the first phase,  the Internet was managed primarily by technical experts in universities and private companies, which contributed to building and scaling it up.  The standards and protocols set during this phase are in use today and make the Internet function the way it does. This was the time when the Internet was a transformative invention and optimistically hailed as the harbinger of a utopian society, especially in the USA, where it was invented. 

In the second phase, the ideal of multistakeholderism was promoted, in which all those who benefit from the Internet work together to create processes that will govern it democratically. This model also aims to reduce the Internet’s vulnerability to unilateral decision-making, an ideal that has been under threat because this phase has seen the growth of Big Tech. What started as platforms enabling access to information, free speech, and creativity has turned into a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, cybercrime, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and privacy concerns. The rise of generative AI only compounds these challenges. Tech giants like Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have amassed vast financial capital, technological monopoly, and user datasets. This gives them unprecedented influence not only over communications but also culture, society, and technology governance. 

The anxieties surrounding Big Tech have fed into the third phase, with increasing calls for government regulation and digital nationalism. Governments worldwide are scrambling to regulate AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity, often through processes that lack transparency. An example is India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was passed without parliamentary debate. Governments are also pressuring platforms to take down content through opaque takedown orders. Laws like the UK’s  Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, are criticised for giving the government the power to indirectly mandate encryption backdoors, compromising the strength of end-to-end encryption systems. Further, the internet itself is fragmenting into the “splinternet” amid rising geopolitical tensions, in the form of Russia’s “sovereign internet” or through China’s Great Firewall. 

Conclusion

While multistakeholderism is an ideal, Internet governance is a playground of contesting power relations in practice. As governments assert digital sovereignty and Big Tech consolidates influence, the space for meaningful participation of other stakeholders has been negligible. Consultation processes have often been symbolic. The principles of openness, inclusivity, and networked decision-making are once again at risk of being sidelined in favour of nationalism or profit. The promise of a decentralised, rights-respecting, and interoperable internet will only be fulfilled if we recommit to the spirit of Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance, not just its structure. Efficient internet governance requires that the multiple stakeholders be empowered to carry out their roles, not just talk about them. 

‍

References

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/can-the-internet-be-governed 
• https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-PolicyBrief-InternetGovernance-20151030-nb.pdf 
• https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf\
• https://nrs.help/post/internet-governance-and-its-importance/
• https://daidac.thecjid.org/how-data-power-is-skewing-internet-governance-to-big-tech-companies-and-ai-tech-guys/ 

‍

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.