Introduction

The most significant change seen in the Indian cyber laws this year was the passing of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, in the parliament. DPDP Act is the first concrete form of legislation focusing on the protection of Digital Personal Data of Indian netizens in all aspects; the act is analogous to what GDPR is for Europe. The act lays down heavy compliance mandates for the intermediaries and data fiduciaries, this has made it difficult for the tech companies a lot of policy, legal and technical changes have to be made in order to implement the act to its complete efficiency. Recently, the big techs have addressed a letter to the Minister and Minister of State of Meity to extend the implementation timeline of the act. In other news, the union cabinet has given the green light for the much-awaited MoC with Japan focused on establishing a long-term Semiconductor Supply Chain Partnership. 

Letter to Meity

The lobby of the big techs represented by a Trade Body named the Big Tech Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) this week wrote to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity), addressing it to the Minister Ashwini Vaishnav and Minister of State (MoS) Rajeev Chandershekhra recommending a 12-18 month extension on the implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act. This request comes at a time when the government has been voicing its urgency to implement the act in order to safeguard Indian data at the earliest. The trade body represented big names, including Meta, Google, Microsoft, Apple and many more. These big techs essentially comprise the segment recognised under the DPDP as the Significant Data Fiduciaries due to the sheer volume of data processed, hosted, stored, etc. In the protective sense, the act has been designed to focus on preventing the exploitation of personal data of Indian netizens by the big techs, hence, they form an integral part of the Indian Data Ecosystem.  The following reasons/complications concerning the implementation of the act were highlighted in the letter:

• Unrealistic Timelines: The AIC expressed that the current timeline for the implementation of the act seems unrealistic for the big techs to establish technological, policy and legal mechanisms to be in compliance with section 5 of the act, which talks about the Obligations of a Data Fiduciary and the particular notice to be shared with the data principles in accordance with the act. 
• Technical Requirements: Members of AIC expressed that the duration for the implementation of the act is much less in comparison to the time required by the tech companies to set up/deploy relevant technical critical infrastructure, SoPs and capacity building for the same. This will cause a major hindrance in establishing the efficiency of the act.
• Data Rights:  Right to Erasure, Correction, Deletion, Nominate, etc., are guaranteed under the DPDP, but the big techs are not sure about the efficient implementation of these rights and hence will need fundamental changes in the technology architecture of their platform, thus expressing concern of the early implementation of the act. 
• Equivalency to GDPR: The DPDP is taken to be congruent to the European GDPR, but the DPDP focuses on a few more aspects, such as cross-border data flow and compliance mandates for the right to erasure, hence a lot of GDPR-compliant big techs also need to establish more robust mechanisms to maintain compliance to Indian DPDP.     

Indo-Japan MoC

A Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) on the Japan-India Semiconductor Supply Chain Partnership was signed in July 2023 between the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) of India and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) of Japan. This information was shared with the Union Cabinet, which is led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Ministry of Commerce (MoC) aims to expand collaboration between Japan and India in order to improve the semiconductor supply chain. This is because semiconductors are critical to the development of industries and digital technologies. The Parties agree that the MoC will take effect on the date of signature and be in effect for five years. Bilateral cooperation on business-to-business and G2G levels on ways to develop a robust semiconductor supply chain and make use of complementary skills. The cooperation is aimed at harnessing indigenous talent and creating opportunities for higher employment avenues. 

MeitY's purpose also includes promoting international cooperation within bilateral and regional frameworks in the frontier and emerging fields of information technology. MeitY has engaged in Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), Memorandums of Covenants (MoCs), and Agreements with counterpart organisations/agencies of other nations with the aim of fostering bilateral collaboration and information sharing. Additionally, MeitY aims to establish supply chain resilience, which would enable India to become a reliable partner. An additional step towards mutually advantageous semiconductor-related commercial prospects and collaborations between India & Japan is the strengthening of mutual collaboration between Japanese and Indian enterprises through this Memorandum of Understanding. The “India-Japan Digital Partnership” (IJDP), which was introduced during PM Modi's October 2018 visit to Japan, was created in light of the two countries' complementary and synergistic efforts. Its goal is to advance both current areas of cooperation and new initiatives within the scope of S&T/ICT cooperation, with a particular emphasis on “Digital ICT Technologies."

Conclusion 

As we move ahead into the digital age, it is pertinent to be aware and educated about the latest technological advancements, new forms of cybercrimes and threats and legal aspects of digital rights and responsibilities, whether it is the recommendation to extend the implementation of DPDP or the Indo-Japan MoC, both of these instances impact the Indian netizen and his/her interests. Hence, the indigenous netizen needs to develop a keen interest in the protection of the Indian cyber-ecosystem to create a safer future. In our war against technology, our best weapon is technology and awareness, thus implementing the same in our daily digital lifestyles and routines is a must.  

References

• https://www.eetindia.co.in/cabinet-approves-moc-on-japan-india-semiconductor-supply-chain-partnership/
• https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/startup/trade-body-representing-big-tech-urges-govt-to-extend-dpdp-act-implementation-by-1-5-years-11605431.html
• https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://www.eetindia.co.in/cabinet-approves-moc-on-japan-india-semiconductor-supply-chain-partnership/&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoTOTI3Mzg4NzEyODgwMjI2ODk0MDIaOTBiYzUxNmI5YTRjYTE1NTpjb206ZW46VVM&usg=AOvVaw2lEO7-cIBZ_ox1xV39LGLs

‍

‍

Introduction and Brief Analysis

A movie named “The Artifice Girl” portrayed A law enforcement agency developing an AI-based personification of a 12-year-old girl who appears to be exactly like a real person. Believing her to be an actual girl, perpetrators of child sexual exploitation were caught attempting to seek sexual favours. The movie showed how AI aided law enforcement, but the reality is that the emergence of Artificial Intelligence has posed numerous challenges in multiple directions. This example illustrates both the promise and the complexity of using AI in sensitive areas like law enforcement, where technological innovation must be carefully balanced with ethical and legal considerations.

Detection and Protection tools are constantly competing with technologies that generate content, automate grooming and challenge legal boundaries. Such technological advancements have provided enough ground for the proliferation of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM). Also known as child pornography under Section 2 (da) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, it defined it as - “means any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a child which includes a photograph, video, digital or computer-generated image indistinguishable from an actual child and image created, adapted, or modified, but appears to depict a child.”

Artificial Intelligence is a category of technologies that attempt to shape human thoughts and behaviours using input algorithms and datasets. Two Primary applications can be considered in the context of CSEAM: classifiers and content generators. Classifiers are programs that learn from large data sets, which may be labelled or unlabelled and further classify what is restricted or illegal. Whereas generative AI is also trained on large datasets, it uses that knowledge to create new things. Majority of current AI research related to AI for CSEAM is done by the use of Artificial neural networks (ANNs), a type of AI that can be trained to identify unusual connections between items (classification) and to generate unique combinations of items (e.g., elements of a picture) based on the training data used.

Current Legal Landscape

‍

The legal Landscape in terms of AI is yet unclear and evolving, with different nations trying to track the evolution of AI and develop laws. However, some laws directly address CSEAM. The International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (ICMEC) combats Illegal sexual content involving children. They have a “Model Legislation” for setting recommended sanctions/sentencing. According to research performed in 2018, Illegal sexual content involving children is illegal in 118 of the 196 Interpol member states. This figure represents countries that have sufficient legislation in place to meet 4 or 5 of the 5 criteria defined by the ICMEC.

CSEAM in India can be reported on various portals like the ‘National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal’. Online crimes related to children, including CSEAM, can be reported to this portal by visiting cybercrime.gov.in. This portal allows anonymous reporting, automatic FIR registration and tracking of your complaint. ‘I4C Sahyog Portal’ is another platform managed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C). This portal integrates with social media platforms.

The Indian legal front for AI is evolving and CSEAM is well addressed in Indian laws and through judicial pronouncements. The Supreme Court judgement on Alliance and Anr v S Harish and ors is a landmark in this regard. The following principles were highlighted in this judgment.

‍

• The term “child pornography” should be substituted by “Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material” (CSEAM) and shall not be used for any further judicial proceeding, order, or judgment. Also, parliament should amend the same in POCSO and instead, the term CSEAM should be endorsed.
• Parliament to consider amending Section 15 (1) of POCSO to make it more convenient for the general public to report by way of an online portal.
• Implementing sex education programs to give young people a clear understanding of consent and the consequences of exploitation. To help prevent Problematic sexual behaviour (PSB), schools should teach students about consent, healthy relationships and appropriate behaviour.
• Support services to the victims and rehabilitation programs for the offenders are essential.
• Early identification of at-risk individuals and implementation of intervention strategies for youth.

‍

Distinctive Challenges

According to a report by the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a significant number of reports about child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) are linked to perpetrators based outside the country. This highlights major challenges related to jurisdiction and anonymity in addressing such crimes. Since the issue concerns children and considering the cross-border nature of the internet and the emergence of AI, Nations across the globe need to come together to solve this matter. Delays in the extradition procedure and irregular legal processes across the jurisdictions hinder the apprehension of offenders and the delivery of justice to victims.

CyberPeace Recommendations

For effective regulation of AI-generated CSEAM, laws are required to be strengthened for AI developers and trainers to prevent misuse of their tools. AI should be designed with its ethical considerations, ensuring respect for privacy, consent and child rights. There can be a self-regulation mechanism for AI models to recognise and restrict red flags related to CSEAM and indicate grooming or potential abuse.

A distinct Indian CSEAM reporting portal is urgently needed, as cybercrimes are increasing throughout the nation. Depending on the integrated portal may lead to ignorance of AI-based CSEAM cases. This would result in faster response and focused tracking. Since AI-generated content is detectable. The portal should also include an automated AI-content detection system linked directly to law enforcement for swift action.

Furthermore, International cooperation is of utmost importance to win the battle of AI-enabled challenges and to fill the jurisdictional gaps. A united global effort is required. Using a common technology and unified international laws is essential to tackle AI-driven child sexual exploitation across borders and protect children everywhere. CSEAM is an extremely serious issue. Children are among the most vulnerable to such harmful content. This threat must be addressed without delay, through stronger policies, dedicated reporting mechanisms and swift action to protect children from exploitation.

‍

References:

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950193824000433?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=94efffff09e95975
• https://aasc.assam.gov.in/sites/default/files/swf_utility_folder/departments/aasc_webcomindia_org_oi d_4/portlet/level_2/pocso_act.pdf
• https://www.manupatracademy.com/assets/pdf/legalpost/just-rights-for-children-alliance-and-anr-vs-s‍harish-and-ors.pdfhttps://www.icmec.org‍https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/generative-ai

‍

Executive Summary

‍
A viral graphic post on social media claims that India’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was “fake for 10 years.” The post also states that the real economic growth was around 4%, while official figures reported it at 6%. It further cites a former Chief Economic Adviser (Ex-CEA) and presents the claim as a “revelation.”

Research by CyberPeace Research Wing found this claim to be misleading. No official government document, nor India’s Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI), the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), or any recognised international institution has stated that India’s GDP was “fake.”

‍

Claim

‍

On the social media platform Instagram, a user shared a post claiming that the Chief Economic Adviser said India’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was “fake for 10 years.” The link to the post and its archive link are given below, along with a screenshot.

• https://www.instagram.com/reels/DWRquv2zskc/ 
• https://archive.ph/Xk7UB 

‍

The viral post refers to a 2019 research paper linked to former Chief Economic Adviser (Ex-CEA) Arvind Subramanian. In this study, he raised questions about India’s GDP growth estimation and suggested that during 2011–12 to 2016–17, the actual growth could have been around 4.5%, while the official estimate was close to 7%.

However, the study does not conclude anywhere that India’s GDP was “fake” or entirely incorrect. It only presents an alternative estimation based on different assumptions and methods, which has also been challenged by other economists and government agencies.

• https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/faculty-working-papers/india-gdp-overestimate?utm_source
• https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/faculty-working-papers/india-gdp-overestimate?utm_source 

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion:

The claim circulating on social media is misleading. The former Chief Economic Adviser provided an academic view on GDP estimation, but there is no evidence or official confirmation that India’s GDP was “fake for 10 years.” The data released by the Government of India was not validated by the figures circulated on social media.

‍