#FactCheck - Edited Video Falsely Claims as an attack on PM Netanyahu in the Israeli Senate

The World Economic Forum reported that AI-generated misinformation and disinformation are the second most likely threat to present a material crisis on a global scale in 2024 at 53% (Sept. 2023). Artificial intelligence is automating the creation of fake news at a rate disproportionate to its fact-checking. It is spurring an explosion of web content mimicking factual articles that instead disseminate false information about grave themes such as elections, wars and natural disasters. 

According to a report by the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, a Canadian think tank, the most prevalent effect of Generative AI is the ability to flood the information ecosystem with misleading and factually-incorrect content. As reported by Democracy Reporting International during the 2024 elections of the European Union, Google's Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, and Microsoft’s AI interface ‘CoPilot’ were inaccurate one-third of the time when engaged for any queries regarding the election data.   Therefore, a need for an innovative regulatory approach like regulatory sandboxes which can address these challenges while encouraging responsible AI innovation is desired.

What Is AI-driven Misinformation?

False or misleading information created, amplified, or spread using artificial intelligence technologies is AI-driven misinformation. Machine learning models are leveraged to automate and scale the creation of false and deceptive content. Some examples are deep fakes, AI-generated news articles, and bots that amplify false narratives on social media.

The biggest challenge is in the detection and management of AI-driven misinformation. It is difficult to distinguish AI-generated content from authentic content, especially as these technologies advance rapidly. 

AI-driven misinformation can influence elections, public health, and social stability by spreading false or misleading information. While public adoption of the technology has undoubtedly been rapid, it is yet to achieve true acceptance and actually fulfill its potential in a positive manner because there is widespread cynicism about the technology - and rightly so. The general public sentiment about AI is laced with concern and doubt regarding the technology’s trustworthiness, mainly due to the absence of a regulatory framework maturing on par with the technological development. 

Regulatory Sandboxes: An Overview

Regulatory sandboxes refer to regulatory tools that allow businesses to test and experiment with innovative products, services or businesses under the supervision of a regulator for a limited period. They engage by creating a controlled environment where regulators allow businesses to test new technologies or business models with relaxed regulations.

Regulatory sandboxes have been in use for many industries and the most recent example is their use in sectors like fintech, such as the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority sandbox. These models have been known to encourage innovation while allowing regulators to understand emerging risks. Lessons from the fintech sector show that the benefits of regulatory sandboxes include facilitating firm financing and market entry and increasing speed-to-market by reducing administrative and transaction costs. For regulators, testing in sandboxes informs policy-making and regulatory processes. Looking at the success in the fintech industry, regulatory sandboxes could be adapted to AI, particularly for overseeing technologies that have the potential to generate or spread misinformation.

The Role of Regulatory Sandboxes in Addressing AI Misinformation

Regulatory sandboxes can be used to test AI tools designed to identify or flag misinformation without the risks associated with immediate, wide-scale implementation. Stakeholders like AI developers, social media platforms, and regulators work in collaboration within the sandbox to refine the detection algorithms and evaluate their effectiveness as content moderation tools.

These sandboxes can help balance the need for innovation in AI and the necessity of protecting the public from harmful misinformation. They allow the creation of a flexible and adaptive framework capable of evolving with technological advancements and fostering transparency between AI developers and regulators. This would lead to more informed policymaking and building public trust in AI applications.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations 

Regulatory sandboxes offer a mechanism to predict solutions that will help to regulate the misinformation that AI tech creates. Some policy recommendations are as follows: 

1. Create guidelines for a global standard for including regulatory sandboxes that can be adapted locally and are useful in ensuring consistency in tackling AI-driven misinformation.
2. Regulators can propose to offer incentives to companies that participate in sandboxes. This would encourage innovation in developing anti-misinformation tools, which could include tax breaks or grants.
3. Awareness campaigns can help in educating the public about the risks of AI-driven misinformation and the role of regulatory sandboxes can help manage public expectations.
4. Periodic and regular reviews and updates to the sandbox frameworks should be conducted to keep pace with advancements in AI technology and emerging forms of misinformation should be emphasized.

‍

Conclusion and the Challenges for Regulatory Frameworks

Regulatory sandboxes offer a promising pathway to counter the challenges that AI-driven misinformation poses while fostering innovation. By providing a controlled environment for testing new AI tools, these sandboxes can help refine technologies aimed at detecting and mitigating false information. This approach ensures that AI development aligns with societal needs and regulatory standards, fostering greater trust and transparency. With the right support and ongoing adaptations, regulatory sandboxes can become vital in countering the spread of AI-generated misinformation, paving the way for a more secure and informed digital ecosystem.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/on-the-importance-of-regulatory-sandboxes-in-artificial-intelligence/article68176084.ece
• https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/regulatory-sandboxes-in-artificial-intelligence_8f80a0e6-en.html
• https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/
• https://democracy-reporting.org/en/office/global/publications/chatbot-audit#Conclusions

‍

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

‍Transforming Misguided Knowledge into Social Strength

‍

यत्र योगेश्वरः कृष्णो यत्र पार्थो धनुर्धरः । तत्र श्रीर्विजयो भूतिर्ध्रुवा नीतिर्मतिर्मम ॥ (Bhagavad Gita) translates as “Where there is divine guidance and righteous effort, there will always be prosperity, victory, and morality.”  In the context of the idea of rehabilitation, this verse teaches us that if offenders receive proper guidance, their skills can be redirected. Instead of causing harm, the same abilities can be transformed into tools for protection and social good. Cyber offenders who misuse their skills can, through structured guidance, be redirected toward constructive purposes like cyber defence, digital literacy, and security innovation. This interpretation emphasises not discarding the “spoiled” but reforming and reintegrating them into society.

Introduction

‍

Words and places are often associated with positive and negative aspects based on their history, stories, and the activities that might happen in that certain place. For example, the word “hacker” has a negative connotation, as does the place “Jamtara”, which is identified with its shady history as a cybercrime hotspot, but often people forget that there are lots of individuals who use their hacking skills to serve and protect their nation, also known as “white hat hackers”, a.k.a. ethical hackers, and places like Jamtara have a substantial number of talented individuals who have lost their way and are often victims of their circumstances. This presents the authorities with a fundamental issue of destigmatising cybercriminals and the need to act on their rehabilitation. The idea is to shift from punitive responses to rehabilitative and preventive approaches, especially in regions like Jamtara. 

The Deeper Problem: Systemic Gaps and Social Context

‍

Jamtara is not an isolated or a single case; there are many regions like Mewat, Bharatpur, Deoghar, Mathura, etc., that are facing a crisis, and various lives are uprooted because youth are entrapped in cybercrime rings, often to escape unemployment, poverty, and simply in the hope of a better life. In one such heart-wrenching story, a 24-year-old Shakil, belonging to Nuh, Haryana, was arrested for committing various cybercrimes, including sextortion and financial scams, and while his culpability is not in question here, his background reflects a deeper issue. He committed these crimes to pay for his diabetic father’s mounting bills and to see his sister, Shabana, married. This is the story of almost every other individual in the rural areas who is forced into committing these crimes, if not by a person, but by their circumstances. In a news report covered in 2024, an intervention was launched by various Meo leaders and social organisations in the Mewat region aimed at weaning the youth away from cybercrimes.

Not only poverty, but lack of education, social awareness, and digital literacy have acted as active agents for pushing the youth of India away from mainstream growth and towards the dark trenches of the cybercrime world. The local authorities have made active efforts to solve this problem; for instance, to dispel Jamtara’s unfavourable reputation for cybercrime and set the city firmly on the path to change, community libraries have been established in all 118 panchayats spread across six blocks of the district by IAS officer and DM Faiz Aq Ahmed Mumtaz.

The menace of cybercrimes is not limited to rural areas, as various reports surfaced during and post-COVID, where young children from urban areas became victims of various cybercrimes such as cyberbullying and stalking, and often perpetrators were someone from the same age group, adding to the dilemma. The issue has been noticed by various agencies, and the a need to deal with both victims and the accused in a sensitised manner. Recently, ex-CJI DY Chandrachud called for international collaboration to combat juvenile cybercrimes, as there are many who are ensnared and coerced into these criminal gangs, and swift resolution is the key to ensuring justice and rehabilitation.

CyberPeace Policy Outlook 

Cybercrime is often a product of skill without purpose. The youth who are often pushed into these crimes either have an incomplete idea of the veracity of their actions or have no other resort. The legal system and the agencies will have to look beyond the nature of the crimes and adopt and undertake a reformative approach so that these people can make their way into society and harness their skills ethically. A good alternative would be to organise Cyber Bootcamps for Reform, i.e., structured training with placement support, and explain to them how ethical hacking and cybersecurity careers can be attractive alternatives. One way to make the process effective is to share real-world stories of reformed hackers. There are many who belong to small villages and districts who have written success stories on reform after participating in digital training programmes. The crime they commit doesn’t have to be the last thing they are able to do in life; it doesn’t have to be the ending. The digital programmes should be organised in a way and in a vernacular that the youth are well-versed in, so there are no language barriers. The programme may give training for coding, cyber hygiene, legal literacy, ethical hacking, psychological counselling, and financial literacy workshops.

It has become a matter of reclaiming the misdirected talent, as rehabilitation is not just humane; it is strategic in the fight against cybercrime. On 1st April 2025, IIT Madras Pravartak Technologies Foundation finished training its first batch of law enforcement officers in cybersecurity techniques. The initiative is commendable, and a similar initiative may prove effective for the youth accused of cybercrimes, and preferably, they can be involved in similar rehabilitation and empowerment programmes during the early stages of criminal proceedings. This will help prevent recidivism and convert digital deviance into digital responsibility. In order to successfully incorporate this into law enforcement, the police can effectively use it to identify first-time, non-habitual offenders involved in low-impact cybercrimes. Also, courts can exercise the authority to require participation in an approved cyber-reform programme as a condition of bail in addition to bail hearings. 

Along with this, under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, children in conflict with the law can be sent to observation homes where modules for digital literacy and skill development can be implemented. Other methods that may prove effective may include Restorative Justice Programmes, Court-monitored rehabilitation, etc. 

Conlusion 

A rehabilitative approach does not simply punish offenders, it transforms their knowledge into a force for good, ensuring that cybercrime is not just curtailed but converted into cyber defence and progress.

References

‍

1.  Ismat Ara, How an impoverished district in Haryana became a breeding ground for cybercriminals, FRONTLINE (Jul 27, 2023, 11:00 IST), https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/spotlight-how-nuh-district-in-haryana-became-a-breeding-ground-for-cybercriminals/article67098193.ece )
2.  Mohammed Iqbal, Counselling, skilling aim to wean Mewat youth away from cybercrimes, THE HINDU (Jul. 28, 2024, 01:39 AM), https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/counselling-skilling-aim-to-wean-mewat-youth-away-from-cybercrimes/article68454985.ece
3. Prawin Kumar Tiwary,Jamtara’s journey from cybercrime to community libraries, 101 REPORTERS (Feb. 16, 2022), https://101reporters.com/article/development/Jamtaras_journey_from_cybercrime_to_community_libraries . 
4. IIT Madras Pravartak completes Training First Batch of Cyber Commandos, PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU (Apr. 1, 2025, 03:36 PM), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2117256