#FactCheck - Debunking the AI-Generated Image of an Alleged Israeli Army Dog Attack

Introduction

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology recently released the IT Intermediary Guidelines 2023 Amendment for social media and online gaming. The notification is crucial when the Digital India Bill’s drafting is underway. There is no denying that this bill, part of a series of bills focused on amendments and adding new provisions, will significantly improve the dynamics of Cyberspace in India in terms of reporting, grievance redressal, accountability and protection of digital rights and duties.

What is the Amendment?

The amendment comes as a key feature of cyberspace as the bill introduces fact-checking, a crucial aspect of relating information on various platforms prevailing in cyberspace. Misformation and disinformation were seen rising significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic, and fact-checking was more important than ever. This has been taken into consideration by the policymakers and hence has been incorporated as part of the Intermediary guidelines. The key features of the guidelines are as follows –

• The phrase “online game,” which is now defined as “a game that is offered on the Internet and is accessible by a user through a computer resource or an intermediary,” has been added.
• A clause has been added that emphasises that if an online game poses a risk of harm to the user, intermediaries and complaint-handling systems must advise the user not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update, or share any data related to that risky online game.
• A proviso to Rule 3(1)(f) has been added, which states that if an online gaming intermediary has provided users access to any legal online real money game, it must promptly notify its users of the change, within 24 hours.
• Sub-rules have been added to Rule 4 that focus on any legal online real money game and require large social media intermediaries to exercise further due diligence. In certain situations, online gaming intermediaries:

• Are required to display a demonstrable and obvious mark of verification of such online game by an online gaming self-regulatory organisation on such permitted online real money game
• Will not offer to finance themselves or allow financing to be provided by a third party.
• Verification of real money online gaming has been added to Rule 4-A.

• The Ministry may name as many self-regulatory organisations for online gaming as it deems necessary for confirming an online real-money game.
• Each online gaming self-regulatory body will prominently publish on its website/mobile application the procedure for filing complaints and the appropriate contact information.
• After reviewing an application, the self-regulatory authority may declare a real money online game to be a legal game if it is satisfied that:

• There is no wagering on the outcome of the game.
• Complies with the regulations governing the legal age at which a person can engage into a contract.
• The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 have a new rule 4-B (Applicability of certain obligations after an initial period) that states that the obligations of the rule under rules 3 and 4 will only apply to online games after a three-month period has passed.
• According to Rule 4-C (Obligations in Relation to Online Games Other Than Online Real Money Games), the Central Government may direct the intermediary to make necessary modifications without affecting the main idea if it deems it necessary in the interest of India’s sovereignty and integrity, the security of the State, or friendship with foreign States.
• Intermediaries, such as social media companies or internet service providers, will have to take action against such content identified by this unit or risk losing their “safe harbour” protections under Section 79 of the IT Act, which let intermediaries escape liability for what third parties post on their websites. This is problematic and unacceptable. Additionally, these notified revisions can circumvent the takedown order process described in Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000. They also violated the ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), which established precise rules for content banning.
• The government cannot decide if any material is “fake” or “false” without a right of appeal or the ability for judicial monitoring since the power to do so could be abused to thwart examination or investigation by media groups. Government takedown orders have been issued for critical remarks or opinions posted on social media sites; most of the platforms have to abide by them, and just a few, like Twitter, have challenged them in court.

Conclusion

The new rules briefly cover the aspects of fact-checking, content takedown by Govt, and the relevance and scope of sections 69A and 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Hence, it is pertinent that the intermediaries maintain compliance with rules to ensure that the regulations are sustainable and efficient for the future. Despite these rules, the responsibility of the netizens cannot be neglected, and hence active civic participation coupled with such efficient regulations will go a long way in safeguarding the Indian cyber ecosystem.

Introduction

Targeting airlines and airports, airline hoax threats are fabricated alarms which intend to disrupt normal day-to-day activities and create panic among the public. Security of public settings is of utmost importance, making them a vulnerable target. The consequences of such threats include the financial loss incurred by parties concerned, increased security protocols to be followed immediately after and in preparation, flight delays and diversions, emergency landings and passenger inconvenience and emotional distress. The motivation behind such threats is malicious intent of varying degrees, breaching national security, integrity and safety. However, apart from the government, airline and social media authorities which already have certain measures in place to tackle such issues, the public, through responsible consumption and verified sharing has an equal role in preventing the spread of misinformation and panic regarding the same.

Hoax Airline Threats

The recent spate of bomb hoax threats to Indian airlines has witnessed false reports about threats to (over) 500 flights since 14/10/2024, the majority being traced to posts on social media handles which are either anonymous or unverified. Some recent incidents include a hoax threat on Air India's flights from Delhi to Mumbai via Indore which was posted on X, 30/10/2024 and a flight from Nepal (Kathmandu) to Delhi on November 2nd, 2024.

As per reports by the Indian Express, steps are being taken to address such incidents by tweaking the assessment criteria for threats (regarding bombs) and authorities such as the Bomb Threat Assessment Committees (BTAC) are being selective in categorising them as specific and non-specific. Some other consideration factors include whether a VIP is onboard and whether the threat has been posted from an anonymous account with a similar history. 

CyberPeace Recommendations

1. For Public 

• Question sensational information: The public should scrutinise the information they’re consuming not only to keep themselves safe but also to be responsible to other citizens. Exercise caution before sharing alarming messages, posts and pieces of information
• Recognising credible sources: Rely only on trustworthy, verified sources when sharing information, especially when it comes to topics as serious as airline safety.
• Avoiding Reactionary Sharing: Sharing in a state of panic can contribute to the chaos created upon receiving unverified news, hence,  it is suggested to refrain from reactionary sharing.

2. For the Authorities & Agencies

• After a series of hoax bomb threats, the Government of India has issued an advisory to social media platforms calling for them to make efforts for the removal of such malicious content. Adherence to obligations such as the prompt removal of harmful content or disabling access to such unlawful information has been specified under the IT Rules, 2021. They are also obligated under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 to report certain offences on their platform. The Ministry of Civil Aviation’s action plan consists of plans regarding hoax bomb threats being labelled as a cognisable offence, and attracting a no-flyers list as a penalty, among other things.

These plans also include steps such as :  

• Introduction of other corrective measures that are to be taken against bad actors (similar to having a non-flyers list).
• Introduction of a reporting mechanism which is specific to such threats.
• Focus on promoting awareness, digital literacy and critical thinking, fact-checking resources as well as encouraging the public to report such hoaxes

Conclusion

Preventing the spread of airline threat hoaxes is a collective responsibility which involves public engagement and ownership to strengthen safety measures and build upon the trust in the overall safety ecosystem (here; airline agencies, government authorities and the public). As the government and agencies take measures to prevent such instances, the public should continue to share information only from and on verified and trusted portals. It is encouraged that the public must remain vigilant and responsible while consuming and sharing information. 

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/business/flight-bomb-threats-assessment-criteria-serious-9646397/
• https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-airline-flight-bound-for-new-delhi-from-nepal-receives-hoax-bomb-threat-amid-rise-in-similar-incidents-772795
• https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Oct/26/centre-cautions-social-media-platforms-to-tackle-misinformation-after-hoax-bomb-threat-to-multiple-airlines
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/amid-rising-hoax-bomb-threats-to-indian-airlines-centre-issues-advisory-to-social-media-companies/articleshow/114624187.cms 

‍

Introduction

Misinformation in India has emerged as a significant societal challenge, wielding a potent influence on public perception, political discourse, and social dynamics. A potential number of first-time voters across India identified fake news as a real problem in the nation. With the widespread adoption of digital platforms, false narratives, manipulated content, and fake news have found fertile ground to spread unchecked information and news.

In the backdrop of India being the largest market of WhatsApp users, who forward more content on chats than anywhere else, the practice of fact-checking forwarded information continues to remain low. The heavy reliance on print media, television, unreliable news channels and primarily, social media platforms acts as a catalyst since studies reveal that most Indians trust any content forwarded by family and friends. It is noted that out of all risks, misinformation and disinformation ranked the highest in India, coming before infectious diseases, illicit economic activity, inequality and labour shortages. World Economic Forum analysts, in connection with their 2024 Global Risk Report, note that “misinformation and disinformation in electoral processes could seriously destabilise the real and perceived legitimacy of newly elected governments, risking political unrest, violence and terrorism and long-term erosion of democratic processes.”

The Supreme Court of India on Misinformation

The Supreme Court of India, through various judgements, has noted the impact of misinformation on democratic processes within the country, especially during elections and voting. In 1995, while adjudicating a matter pertaining to keeping the broadcasting media under the control of the public, it noted that democracy becomes a farce when the medium of information is monopolized either by partisan central authority or by private individuals or oligarchic organizations. 

In 2003, the Court stated that “Right to participate by casting a vote at the time of election would be meaningless unless the voters are well informed about all sides of the issue in respect of which they are called upon to express their views by casting their votes. Disinformation, misinformation, non-information all equally create an uninformed citizenry which would finally make democracy a mobocracy and a farce.” It noted that elections would be a useless procedure if voters remained unaware of the antecedents of the candidates contesting elections. Thus, a necessary aspect of a voter’s duty to cast intelligent and rational votes is being well-informed. Such information forms one facet of the fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a) pertaining to freedom of speech and expression. Quoting James Madison, it stated that a citizen’s right to know the true facts about their country’s administration is one of the pillars of a democratic State.

On a similar note, the Supreme Court, while discussing the disclosure of information by an election candidate, gave weightage to the High Court of Bombay‘s opinion on the matter, which opined that non-disclosure of information resulted in misinformation and disinformation, thereby influencing voters to take uninformed decisions. It stated that a voter had the elementary right to know the full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament/Assemblies.

While misinformation was discussed primarily in relation to elections, the effects of misinformation in other sectors have also been discussed from time to time. In particular, The court highlighted the World Health Organisation’s observation in 2021 while discussing the spread of COVID-19, noting that the pandemic was not only an epidemic but also an “infodemic” due to the overabundance of information on the internet, which was riddled with misinformation and disinformation. While condemning governments’ direct or indirect threats of prosecution to citizens, it noted that various citizens who relied on the internet to provide help in securing medical facilities and oxygen tanks were being targeted by alleging that the information posted by them was false and was posted to create panic, defame the administration or damage national image. It instructed authorities to cease such threats and prevent clampdown on information sharing.

More recently, in Facebook v. Delhi Legislative Assembly [(2022) 3 SCC 529], the apex court, while upholding the summons issued to Facebook by the Delhi Legislative Assembly in the aftermath of the 2020 Delhi Riots, noted that while social media enables equal and open dialogue between citizens and policymakers, it is also a tool in the where extremist views are peddled into mainstream media, thereby spreading misinformation. It noted Facebook’s role in the Mynmar, where misinformation and posts that Facebook employees missed fueled offline violence. Since Facebook is one of the most popular social media applications, the platform itself acts as a power center by hosting various opinions and voices on its forum. This directly impacts the governance of States, and some form of liability must be attached to the platform. The Supreme Court objected to Facebook taking contrary stands in various jurisdictions; while in the US, it projected itself as a publisher, which enabled it to maintain control over the material disseminated from its platform, while in India, “it has chosen to identify itself purely as a social media platform, despite its similar functions and services in the two countries.”

Conclusion

The pervasive issue of misinformation in India is a multifaceted challenge with profound implications for democratic processes, public awareness, and social harmony. The alarming statistics of fake news recognition among first-time voters, coupled with a lack of awareness regarding fact-checking organizations, underscore the urgency of addressing this issue. The Supreme Court of India has consistently recognized the detrimental impact of misinformation, particularly in elections. The judiciary has stressed the pivotal role of an informed citizenry in upholding the essence of democracy. It has emphasized the right to access accurate information as a fundamental aspect of freedom of speech and expression. As India grapples with the challenges of misinformation, the intersection of technology, media literacy and legal frameworks will be crucial in mitigating the adverse effects and fostering a more resilient and informed society.

References

• https://thewire.in/media/survey-finds-false-information-risk-highest-in-india 
• https://www.statista.com/topics/5846/fake-news-in-india/#topicOverview
• https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/digest/  
• https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/20428/20428_2020_37_1501_28386_Judgement_08-Jul-2021.pdf
• Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt, of India and Others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Another [(1995) 2 SCC 161]
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 399]
• Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant and Others [(2014) 14 SCC 162]
• Distribution of Essential Supplies & Services During Pandemic, In re [(2021) 18 SCC 201]
• Facebook v. Delhi Legislative Assembly [(2022) 3 SCC 529]

‍