TRAI issues guidelines to Access Service Providers to prevent misuse of messaging services

Introduction

Misinformation poses a significant challenge to public health policymaking since it undermines efforts to promote effective health interventions and protect public well-being. The spread of inaccurate information, particularly through online channels such as social media and internet platforms, further complicates the decision-making process for policymakers since it perpetuates public confusion and distrust. This misinformation can lead to resistance against health initiatives, such as vaccination programs, and fuels scepticism towards scientifically-backed health guidelines.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation surrounding healthcare largely encompassed the effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption, marijuana use, eating habits, physical exercise etc. However, there has been a marked shift in the years since. One such example is the outcry against palm oil in 2024: it is an ingredient prevalent in numerous food and cosmetic products, and came under the scanner after a number of claims that palmitic acid, which is present in palm oil, is detrimental to our health. However, scientific research by reputable institutions globally established that there is no cause for concern regarding the health risks posed by palmitic acid. Such trends and commentaries tend to create a parallel unscientific discourse that has the potential to not only impact individual choices but also public opinion and as a result, market developments and policy conversations. 

A prevailing narrative during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic was that the virus had been engineered to control society and boost hospital profits. The extensive misinformation surrounding COVID-19 and its management and care increased vaccine hesitancy amongst people worldwide. It is worth noting that vaccine hesitancy has been a consistent trend historically; the World Health Organisation flagged vaccine hesitancy as one of the main threats to global health, and there have been other instances where a majority of the population refused to get vaccinated anticipating unverified, long-lasting side effects. For example, research from 2016 observed a significant level of public skepticism regarding the development and approval process of the Zika vaccine in Africa. Further studies emphasised the urgent need to disseminate accurate information about the Zika virus on online platforms to help curb the spread of the pandemic. 

In India during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite multiple official advisories, notifications and guidelines issued by the government and ICMR, people continued to remain opposed to vaccination, which resulted in inflated mortality rates within the country. Vaccination hesitancy was also compounded by anti-vaccination celebrities who claimed that vaccines were dangerous and contributed in large part to the conspiracy theories doing the rounds. Similar hesitation was noted in misinformation surrounding the MMR vaccines and their likely role in causing autism was examined.  At the time of the crisis, the Indian government also had to tackle disinformation-induced fraud surrounding the supply of oxygens in hospitals. Many critically-ill patients relied on fake news and unverified sources that falsely portrayed the availability of beds, oxygen cylinders and even home set-ups, only to be cheated out of money. 

The above examples highlight the difficulty health officials face in administering adequate healthcare. The special case of the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted how current legal frameworks failed to address misinformation and disinformation, which impedes effective policymaking. It also highlights how taking corrective measures against health-related misinformation becomes difficult since such corrective action creates an uncomfortable gap in an individual’s mind, and it is seen that people ignore accurate information that may help bridge the gap. Misinformation, coupled with the infodemic trend, also leads to false memory syndrome, whereby people fail to differentiate between authentic information and fake narratives. Simple efforts to correct misperceptions usually backfire and even strengthen initial beliefs, especially in the context of complex issues like healthcare. Policymakers thus struggle with balancing policy making and making people receptive to said policies in the backdrop of their tendencies to reject/suspect authoritative action. Examples of the same can be observed on both the domestic front and internationally. In the US, for example, the traditional healthcare system rations access to healthcare through a combination of insurance costs and options versus out-of-pocket essential expenses. While this has been a subject of debate for a long time, it hadn’t created a large scale public healthcare crisis because the incentives offered to the medical professionals and public trust in the delivery of essential services helped balance the conversation. In recent times, however, there has been a narrative shift that sensationalises the system as an issue of deliberate “denial of care,” which has led to concerns about harms to patients.

Policy Recommendations

The hindrances posed by misinformation in policymaking are further exacerbated against the backdrop of policymakers relying on social media as a method to measure public sentiment, consensus and opinions. If misinformation about an outbreak is not effectively addressed, it could hinder individuals from adopting necessary protective measures and potentially worsen the spread of the epidemic. To improve healthcare policymaking amidst the challenges posed by health misinformation, policymakers must take a multifaceted approach. This includes convening a broad coalition of central, state, local, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, and research partners to assess the impact of misinformation and develop effective preventive measures. Intergovernmental collaborations such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should be encouraged whereby doctors debunk online medical misinformation, in the backdrop of the increased reliance on online forums for medical advice. Furthermore, increasing investment in research dedicated to understanding misinformation, along with the ongoing modernization of public health communications, is essential. Enhancing the resources and technical support available to state and local public health agencies will also enable them to better address public queries and concerns, as well as counteract misinformation. Additionally, expanding efforts to build long-term resilience against misinformation through comprehensive educational programs is crucial for fostering a well-informed public capable of critically evaluating health information.

From an individual perspective, since almost half a billion people use WhatsApp it has become a platform where false health claims can spread rapidly. This has led to a rise in the use of fake health news. Viral WhatsApp messages containing fake health warnings can be dangerous, hence it is always recommended to check such messages with vigilance. This highlights the growing concern about the potential dangers of misinformation and the need for more accurate information on medical matters.

Conclusion

The proliferation of misinformation in healthcare poses significant challenges to effective policymaking and public health management. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the role of misinformation in vaccine hesitancy, fraud, and increased mortality rates. There is an urgent need for robust strategies to counteract false information and build public trust in health interventions; this includes policymakers engaging in comprehensive efforts, including intergovernmental collaboration, enhanced research, and public health communication modernization, to combat misinformation. By fostering a well-informed public through education and vigilance, we can mitigate the impact of misinformation and promote healthier communities.

References

1. van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Jin, Y. (2019), “Seeking Formula for Misinformation Treatment in Public Health Crises: The Effects of Corrective Information Type and Source” Health Communication, 35(5), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295 
2. “Health Misinformation”, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/health-misinformation/index.html 
3. Mechanic, David, “The Managed Care Backlash: Perceptions and Rhetoric in Health Care Policy and the Potential for Health Care Reform”, Rutgers University. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751184/pdf/milq_195.pdf 
4. “Bad actors are weaponising health misinformation in India”, Financial Express, April 2024.

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-bad-actors-are-weaponising-health-misinformation-in-india-3448871/ 

5. “Role of doctors in eradicating misinformation in the medical sector.”, Times of India, 1 July 2024. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/national-doctors-day-role-of-doctors-in-eradicating-misinformation-in-the-healthcare-sector/articleshow/111399098.cms 

‍

Introduction

The integration of Artificial Intelligence into our daily workflows has compelled global policymakers to develop legislative frameworks to govern its impact efficiently. The question that we arrive at here is: While AI is undoubtedly transforming global economies, who governs the transformation? The EU AI Act was the first of its kind legislation to govern Artificial Intelligence, making the EU a pioneer in the emerging technology regulation space. This blog analyses the EU's Draft AI Rules and Code of Practice, exploring their implications for ethics, innovation, and governance.

Background: The Need for AI Regulation

AI adoption has been happening at a rapid pace and is projected to contribute  $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030. The AI market size is expected to grow by at least 120% year-over-year. Both of these statistics have been stated in arguments citing concrete examples of AI risks (e.g., bias in recruitment tools, misinformation spread through deepfakes). Unlike the U.S., which relies on sector-specific regulations, the EU proposes a unified framework to address AI's challenges comprehensively, especially with the vacuum that exists in the governance of emerging technologies such as AI. It should be noted that the GDPR or the General Data Protection Regulation has been a success with its global influence on data privacy laws and has started a domino effect for the creation of privacy regulations all over the world. This precedent emphasises the EU's proactive approach towards regulations which are population-centric. 

Overview of the Draft EU AI Rules

This Draft General Purpose AI Code of Practice details the AI rules for the AI Act rules and the providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risks. The European AI Office facilitated the drawing up of the code, and was chaired by independent experts and involved nearly 1000 stakeholders and EU member state representatives and observers both European and international observers.

14th November 2024 marks the publishing of the first draft of the EU’s General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, established by the EU AI Act. As per Article 56 of the EU AI Act, the code outlines the rules that operationalise the requirements, set out for General-Purpose AI (GPAI) model under Article 53 and GPAI models with systemic risks under Article 55. The AI Act is legislation that finds its base in product safety and relies on setting harmonised standards in order to support compliance. These harmonised standards are essentially sets of operational rules that have been established by the European Standardisation bodies, such as the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute. Industry experts, civil society and trade unions are translating the requirements set out by the EU sectoral legislation into the specific mandates set by the European Commission. The AI Act obligates the developers, deployers and users of AI on mandates for transparency, risk management and compliance mechanisms 

The Code of Practice for General Purpose AI

The most popular applications of GPAI include ChatGPT and other foundational models such as CoPilot from Microsoft, BERT  from Google, Llama from Meta AI and many others and they are under constant development and upgradation.  The 36-pages long draft Code of Practice for General Purpose AI is meant to serve as a roadmap for tech companies to comply with the AI Act and avoid paying penalties. It focuses on transparency, copyright compliance, risk assessment, and technical/governance risk mitigation as the core areas for the companies that are developing GPAIs. It also lays down guidelines that look to enable greater transparency on what goes into developing GPAIs. 

The Draft Code's provisions for risk assessment focus on preventing cyber attacks, large-scale discrimination, nuclear and misinformation risks, and the risk of the models acting autonomously without oversight. 

Policy Implications

The EU’s Draft AI Rules and Code of Practice represent a bold step in shaping the governance of general-purpose AI, positioning the EU as a global pioneer in responsible AI regulation. By prioritising harmonised standards, ethical safeguards, and risk mitigation, these rules aim to ensure AI benefits society while addressing its inherent risks. While the code is a welcome step, the compliance burdens on MSMEs and startups could hinder innovation, whereas, the voluntary nature of the Code raises concerns about accountability. Additionally, harmonising these ambitious standards with varying global frameworks, especially in regions like the U.S. and India, presents a significant challenge to achieving a cohesive global approach.

Conclusion

The EU’s initiative to regulate general-purpose AI aligns with its legacy of proactive governance, setting the stage for a transformative approach to balancing innovation with ethical accountability. However, challenges remain. Striking the right balance is crucial to avoid stifling innovation while ensuring robust enforcement and inclusivity for smaller players. Global collaboration is the next frontier. As the EU leads, the world must respond by building bridges between regional regulations and fostering a unified vision for AI governance. This demands active stakeholder engagement, adaptive frameworks, and a shared commitment to addressing emerging challenges in AI. The EU’s Draft AI Rules are not just about regulation, they are about leading a global conversation. 

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/new-eu-ai-code-of-practice-draft-rules-9671152/ 
• https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-code-practice 
• https://www.csis.org/analysis/eu-code-practice-general-purpose-ai-key-takeaways-first-draft#:~:text=Drafting%20of%20the%20Code%20of%20Practice%20is%20taking%20place%20under,the%20drafting%20of%20the%20code. 
• https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/12/16/first-draft-of-the-general-purpose-ai-code-of-practice-has-been-released/

In the vast, interconnected cosmos of the internet, where knowledge and connectivity are celebrated as the twin suns of enlightenment, there lurk shadows of a more sinister nature. Here, in these darker corners, the innocence of childhood is not only exploited but also scarred, indelibly and forever. The production, distribution, and consumption of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) have surged to alarming levels globally, casting a long, ominous shadow over the digital landscape. 

In response to this pressing issue, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has unfurled a comprehensive four-part advisory, a beacon of hope aimed at combating CSAM and safeguarding the rights of children in this digital age. This advisory dated 27/10/23 is not merely a reaction to the rising tide of CSAM, but a testament to the imperative need for constant vigilance in the realm of cyber peace.

The statistics paint a sobering picture. In 2021, more than 1,500 instances of publishing, storing, and transmitting CSAM were reported, shedding a harsh light on the scale of the problem. Even more alarming is the upward trend in cases reported in subsequent years. By 2023, a staggering 450,207 cases of CSAM had already been reported, marking a significant increase from the 204,056 and 163,633 cases reported in 2022 and 2021, respectively.

The Key Aspects of Advisory

The NHRC's advisory commences with a fundamental recommendation - a redefinition of terminology. It suggests replacing the term 'Child Pornography' with 'Child Sexual Abuse Material' (CSAM). This shift in language is not merely semantic; it underscores the gravity of the issue, emphasizing that this is not about pornography but child abuse. 

Moreover, the advisory calls for the definition of 'sexually explicit' under Section 67B of the IT Act, 2000. This step is crucial for ensuring the prompt identification and removal of online CSAM. By giving a clear definition, law enforcement can act swiftly in removing such content from the internet.

The digital world knows no borders, and CSAM can easily cross jurisdictional lines. NHRC recognizes this challenge and proposes that laws be harmonized across jurisdictions through bilateral agreements. Moreover, it recommends pushing for the adoption of a UN draft Convention on 'Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes' at the General Assembly.

One of the critical aspects of the advisory is the strengthening of law enforcement. NHRC advocates for the creation of Specialized State Police Units in every state and union territory to handle CSAM-related cases. The central government is expected to provide support, including grants, to set up and equip these units. 

The NHRC further recommends establishing a Specialized Central Police Unit under the government of India's jurisdiction. This unit will focus on identifying and apprehending CSAM offenders and maintaining a repository of such content. Its role is not limited to law enforcement; it is expected to cooperate with investigative agencies, analyze patterns, and initiate the process for content takedown. This coordinated approach is designed to combat the problem effectively, both on the dark web and open web.

The role of internet intermediaries and social media platforms in controlling CSAM is undeniable. The NHRC advisory emphasizes that intermediaries must deploy technology, such as content moderation algorithms, to proactively detect and remove CSAM from their platforms. This places the onus on the platforms to be proactive in policing their content and ensuring the safety of their users. 

New Developments 

Platforms using end-to-end encryption services may be required to create additional protocols for monitoring the circulation of CSAM. Failure to do so may invite the withdrawal of the 'safe harbor' clause under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. This measure ensures that platforms using encryption technology are not inadvertently providing safe havens for those engaged in illegal activities. 

NHRC's advisory extends beyond legal and law enforcement measures; it emphasizes the importance of awareness and sensitization at various levels. Schools, colleges, and institutions are called upon to educate students, parents, and teachers about the modus operandi of online child sexual abusers, the vulnerabilities of children on the internet, and the early signs of online child abuse. 

To further enhance awareness, a cyber curriculum is proposed to be integrated into the education system. This curriculum will not only boost digital literacy but also educate students about relevant child care legislation, policies, and the legal consequences of violating them. 

NHRC recognizes that survivors of CSAM need more than legal measures and prevention strategies. Survivors are recommended to receive support services and opportunities for rehabilitation through various means. Partnerships with civil society and other stakeholders play a vital role in this aspect. Moreover, psycho-social care centers are proposed to be established in every district to facilitate need-based support services and organization of stigma eradication programs. 

NHRC's advisory is a resounding call to action, acknowledging the critical importance of protecting children from the perils of CSAM. By addressing legal gaps, strengthening law enforcement, regulating online platforms, and promoting awareness and support, the NHRC aims to create a safer digital environment for children. 

Conclusion 

In a world where the internet plays an increasingly central role in our lives, these recommendations are not just proactive but imperative. They underscore the collective responsibility of governments, law enforcement agencies, intermediaries, and society as a whole in safeguarding the rights and well-being of children in the digital age. 

NHRC's advisory is a pivotal guide to a more secure and child-friendly digital world. By addressing the rising tide of CSAM and emphasizing the need for constant vigilance, NHRC reaffirms the critical role of organizations, governments, and individuals in ensuring cyber peace and child protection in the digital age. The active contribution from premier cyber resilience firms like Cyber Peace Foundation, amplifies the collective action forging a secure digital space, highlighting the pivotal role played by think tanks in ensuring cyber peace and resilience. 

References:

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/nhrc-issues-advisory-regarding-child-sexual-abuse-material-on-internet-101698473197792.html
• https://ssrana.in/articles/nhrcs-advisory-proliferation-of-child-sexual-abuse-material-csam/
• https://theprint.in/india/specialised-central-police-unit-use-of-technology-to-proactively-detect-csam-nhrc-advisory/1822223/

‍