#FactCheck-Phishing Scam-LPG dealership of Hindustan Petroleum

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven autonomous weapons are reshaping military strategy, acting as force multipliers that can independently assess threats, adapt to dynamic combat environments, and execute missions with minimal human intervention, pushing the boundaries of modern warfare tactics. AI has become a critical component of modern technology-driven warfare and has simultaneously impacted many spheres in a technology-driven world. Nations often prioritise defence for significant investments, supporting its growth and modernisation. AI has become a prime area of investment and development for technological superiority in defence forces. India’s focus on defence modernisation is evident through initiatives like the Defence AI Council and the Task Force on Strategic Implementation of AI for National Security.

The main requirement that Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) require is the “autonomy” to perform their functions when direction or input from a human actor is absent. AI is not a prerequisite for the functioning of AWSs, but, when incorporated, AI could further enable such systems. While militaries seek to apply increasingly sophisticated AI and automation to weapons technologies, several questions arise. Ethical concerns have been raised for AWS as the more prominent issue by many states, international organisations, civil society groups and even many distinguished figures.

Ethical Concerns Surrounding Autonomous Weapons

The delegation of life-and-death decisions to machines is the ethical dilemma that surrounds AWS. A major concern is the lack of human oversight, raising questions about accountability. What if AWS malfunctions or violates international laws, potentially committing war crimes? This ambiguity fuels debate over the dangers of entrusting lethal force to non-human actors. Additionally, AWS poses humanitarian risks, particularly to civilians, as flawed algorithms could make disastrous decisions. The dehumanisation of warfare and the violation of human dignity are critical concerns when AWS is in question, as targets become reduced to mere data points. The impact on operators’ moral judgment and empathy is also troubling, alongside the risk of algorithmic bias leading to unjust or disproportionate targeting. These ethical challenges are deeply concerning.

Balancing Ethical Considerations and Innovations

It is immaterial how advanced a computer becomes in simulating human emotions like compassion, empathy, altruism, or other emotions as the machine will only be imitating them, not experiencing them as a human would. A potential solution to this ethical predicament is using a 'human-in-the-loop' or 'human-on-the-loop' semi-autonomous system. This would act as a compromise between autonomy and accountability.

A “human-on-the-loop” system is designed to provide human operators with the ability to intervene and terminate engagements before unacceptable levels of damage occur. For example, defensive weapon systems could autonomously select and engage targets based on their programming, during which a human operator retains full supervision and can override the system within a limited period if necessary.

In contrast, a ‘human-in-the-loop” system is intended to engage individual targets or specific target groups pre-selected by a human operator. Examples would include homing munitions that, once launched to a particular target location, search for and attack preprogrammed categories of targets within the area.

International Debate and Regulatory Frameworks

The regulation of autonomous weapons that employ AI, in particular, is a pressing global issue due to the ethical, legal, and security concerns it contains. There are many ongoing efforts at the international level which are in discussion to regulate such weapons. One such example is the initiative under the United Nations Convention on CertainConventional Weapons (CCW), where member states, India being an active participant, debate the limits of AI in warfare. However, existing international laws, such as the Geneva Conventions, offer legal protection by prohibiting indiscriminate attacks and mandating the distinction between combatants and civilians. The key challenge lies in achieving global consensus, as different nations have varied interests and levels of technological advancement. Some countries advocate for a preemptive ban on fully autonomous weapons, while others prioritise military innovation. The complexity of defining human control and accountability further complicates efforts to establish binding regulations, making global cooperation both essential and challenging.

The Future of AI in Defence and the Need for Stronger Regulations

The evolution of autonomous weapons poses complex ethical and security challenges. As AI-driven systems become more advanced, a growing risk of its misuse in warfare is also advancing, where lethal decisions could be made without human oversight. Proactive regulation is crucial to prevent unethical use of AI, such as indiscriminate attacks or violations of international law. Setting clear boundaries on autonomous weapons now can help avoid future humanitarian crises. India’s defence policy already recognises the importance of regulating the use of AI and AWS, as evidenced by the formation of bodies like the Defence AI Project Agency (DAIPA) for enabling AI-based processes in defence Organisations. Global cooperation is essential for creating robust regulations that balance technological innovation with ethical considerations. Such collaboration would ensure that autonomous weapons are used responsibly, protecting civilians and combatants, while encouraging innovation within a framework prioritising human dignity and international security.

Conclusion

AWS and AI in warfare present significant ethical, legal, and security challenges. While these technologies promise enhanced military capabilities, they raise concerns about accountability, human oversight, and humanitarian risks. Balancing innovation with ethical responsibility is crucial, and semi-autonomous systems offer a potential compromise. India’s efforts to regulate AI in defence highlight the importance of proactive governance. Global cooperation is essential in establishing robust regulations that ensure AWS is used responsibly, prioritising human dignity and adherence to international law, while fostering technological advancement.

References

●     https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/reaim-summit-ai-war-weapons-9556525/

●     https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2024/04/25/the-road-less-travelled-ethics-in-the-international-regulatory-debate-on-autonomous-weapon-systems/

●     https://disarmament.unoda.org/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/background-on-laws-in-the-ccw/

●     https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/5FD01B5A96116766C3B1273490B24897/S0892679423000357a.pdf/banning-autonomous-weapons-a-legal-and-ethical-mandate.pdf

●     https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1846937

In the vast, uncharted territories of the digital world, a sinister phenomenon is proliferating at an alarming rate. It's a world where artificial intelligence (AI) and human vulnerability intertwine in a disturbing combination, creating a shadowy realm of non-consensual pornography. This is the world of deepfake pornography, a burgeoning industry that is as lucrative as it is unsettling.

According to a recent assessment, at least 100,000 deepfake porn videos are readily available on the internet, with hundreds, if not thousands, being uploaded daily. This staggering statistic prompts a chilling question: what is driving the creation of such a vast number of fakes? Is it merely for amusement, or is there a more sinister motive at play?

Recent Trends and Developments 

An investigation by India Today’s Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) team reveals that deepfake pornography is rapidly morphing into a thriving business. AI enthusiasts, creators, and experts are extending their expertise, investors are injecting money, and even small financial companies to tech giants like Google, VISA, Mastercard, and PayPal are being misused in this dark trade. Synthetic porn has existed for years, but advances in AI and the increasing availability of technology have made it easier—and more profitable—to create and distribute non-consensual sexually explicit material. The 2023 State of Deepfake report by Home Security Heroes reveals a staggering 550% increase in the number of deepfakes compared to 2019. 

What’s the Matter with Fakes? 

But why should we be concerned about these fakes? The answer lies in the real-world harm they cause. India has already seen cases of extortion carried out by exploiting deepfake technology. An elderly man in UP’s Ghaziabad, for instance, was tricked into paying Rs 74,000 after receiving a deep fake video of a police officer. The situation could have been even more serious if the perpetrators had decided to create deepfake porn of the victim.

The danger is particularly severe for women. The 2023 State of Deepfake Report estimates that at least 98 percent of all deepfakes is porn and 99 percent of its victims are women. A study by Harvard University refrained from using the term “pornography” for creating, sharing, or threatening to create/share sexually explicit images and videos of a person without their consent. “It is abuse and should be understood as such,” it states.

Based on interviews of victims of deepfake porn last year, the study said 63 percent of participants talked about experiences of “sexual deepfake abuse” and reported that their sexual deepfakes had been monetised online. It also found “sexual deepfake abuse to be particularly harmful because of the fluidity and co-occurrence of online offline experiences of abuse, resulting in endless reverberations of abuse in which every aspect of the victim’s life is permanently disrupted”.

Creating deepfake porn is disturbingly easy. There are largely two types of deepfakes: one featuring faces of humans and another featuring computer-generated hyper-realistic faces of non-existing people. The first category is particularly concerning and is created by superimposing faces of real people on existing pornographic images and videos—a task made simple and easy by AI tools.

During the investigation, platforms hosting deepfake porn of stars like Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone, Jennifer Aniston, Aishwarya Rai, Rashmika Mandanna to TV actors and influencers like Aanchal Khurana, Ahsaas Channa, and Sonam Bajwa and Anveshi Jain were encountered. It takes a few minutes and as little as Rs 40 for a user to create a high-quality fake porn video of 15 seconds on platforms like FakeApp and FaceSwap.

The Modus Operandi 

These platforms brazenly flaunt their business association and hide behind frivolous declarations such as: the content is “meant solely for entertainment” and “not intended to harm or humiliate anyone”. However, the irony of these disclaimers is not lost on anyone, especially when they host thousands of non-consensual deepfake pornography.

As fake porn content and its consumers surge, deepfake porn sites are rushing to forge collaborations with generative AI service providers and have integrated their interfaces for enhanced interoperability. The promise and potential of making quick bucks have given birth to step-by-step guides, video tutorials, and websites that offer tools and programs, recommendations, and ratings.

Nearly 90 per cent of all deepfake porn is hosted by dedicated platforms that charge for long-duration premium fake content and for creating porn—of whoever a user wants, and take requests for celebrities. To encourage them further, they enable creators to monetize their content.

One such website, Civitai, has a system in place that pays “rewards” to creators of AI models that generate “images of real people'', including ordinary people. It also enables users to post AI images, prompts, model data, and LoRA (low-rank adaptation of large language models) files used in generating the images. Model data designed for adult content is gaining great popularity on the platform, and they are not only targeting celebrities. Common people are equally susceptible.

Access to premium fake porn, like any other content, requires payment. But how can a gateway process payment for sexual content that lacks consent? It seems financial institutes and banks are not paying much attention to this legal question. During the investigation, many such websites accepting payments through services like VISA, Mastercard, and Stripe were found.

Those who have failed to register/partner with these fintech giants have found a way out. While some direct users to third-party sites, others use personal PayPal accounts to manually collect money in the personal accounts of their employees/stakeholders, which potentially violates the platform's terms of use that ban the sale of “sexually oriented digital goods or content delivered through a digital medium.”

 Among others, the MakeNude.ai web app – which lets users “view any girl without clothing” in “just a single click” – has an interesting method of circumventing restrictions around the sale of non-consensual pornography. The platform has partnered with Ukraine-based Monobank and Dublin’s BetaTransfer Kassa which operates in “high-risk markets”.

BetaTransfer Kassa admits to serving “clients who have already contacted payment aggregators and received a refusal to accept payments, or aggregators stopped payments altogether after the resource was approved or completely freeze your funds”. To make payment processing easy, MakeNude.ai seems to be exploiting the donation ‘jar’ facility of Monobank, which is often used by people to donate money to Ukraine to support it in the war against Russia.

The Indian Scenario 

India currently is on its way to design dedicated legislation to address issues arising out of deepfakes. Though existing general laws requiring such platforms to remove offensive content also apply to deepfake porn. However, persecution of the offender and their conviction is extremely difficult for law enforcement agencies as it is a boundaryless crime and sometimes involves several countries in the process.

A victim can register a police complaint under provisions of Section 66E and Section 66D of the IT Act, 2000. Recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 aims to protect the digital personal data of users. Recently Union Government issued an advisory to social media intermediaries to identify misinformation and deepfakes. Comprehensive law promised by Union IT minister Ashwini Vaishnav will be able to address these challenges.

Conclusion 

In the end, the unsettling dance of AI and human vulnerability continues in the dark web of deepfake pornography. It's a dance that is as disturbing as it is fascinating, a dance that raises questions about the ethical use of technology, the protection of individual rights, and the responsibility of financial institutions. It's a dance that we must all be aware of, for it is a dance that affects us all.

References

• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/deepfake-porn-artificial-intelligence-women-fake-photos-2471855-2023-12-04
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/the-legal-net-to-trap-peddlers-of-deepfakes-101701520933515.html
• https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/with-deepfakes-getting-better-and-more-alarming-seeing-is-no-longer-believing/

Misinformation spread has become a cause for concern for all stakeholders, be it the government, policymakers, business organisations or the citizens. The current push for combating misinformation is rooted in the growing awareness that misinformation leads to sentiment exploitation and can result in economic instability, personal risks, and a rise in political, regional, and religious tensions. The circulation of misinformation poses significant challenges for organisations, brands and administrators of all types. The spread of misinformation online poses a risk not only to the everyday content consumer, but also creates concerns for the sharer but the platforms themselves. Sharing misinformation in the digital realm, intentionally or not, can have real consequences.

Consequences for Platforms

Platforms have been scrutinised for the content they allow to be published and what they don't. It is important to understand not only how this misinformation affects platform users, but also its impact and consequences for the platforms themselves. These consequences highlight the complex environment that social media platforms operate in, where the stakes are high from the perspective of both business and societal impact. They are:

• Legal Consequences: Platforms can be fined by regulators if they fail to comply with content moderation or misinformation-related laws and a prime example of such a law is the Digital Services Act of the EU, which has been created for the regulation of digital services that act as intermediaries for consumers and goods, services, and content. They can face lawsuits by individuals, organisations or governments for any damages due to misinformation. Defamation suits are part of the standard practice when dealing with misinformation-causing vectors.  In India, the Prohibition of Fake News on Social Media Bill of 2023 is in the pipeline and would establish a regulatory body for fake news on social media platforms. 
• Reputational Consequences: Platforms employ a trust model where the user trusts it and its content. If a user loses trust in the platform because of misinformation, it can reduce engagement. This might even lead to negative coverage that affects the public opinion of the brand, its value and viability in the long run. 
• Financial Consequences: Businesses that engage with the platform may end their engagement with platforms accused of misinformation, which can lead to a revenue drop. This can also have major consequences affecting the long-term financial health of the platform, such as a decline in stock prices.
• Operational Consequences: To counter the scrutiny from regulators, the platform might need to engage in stricter content moderation policies or other resource-intensive tasks, increasing operational costs for the platforms. 
• Market Position Loss: If the reliability of a platform is under question, then, platform users can migrate to other platforms, leading to a loss in the market share in favour of those platforms that manage misinformation more effectively.
• Freedom of Expression vs. Censorship Debate: There needs to be a balance between freedom of expression and the prevention of misinformation. Censorship can become an accusation for the platform in case of stricter content moderation and if the users feel that their opinions are unfairly suppressed. 
• Ethical and Moral Responsibilities: Accountability for platforms extends to moral accountability as they allow content that affects different spheres of the user's life such as public health, democracy etc. Misinformation can cause real-world harm like health misinformation or inciting violence, which leads to the fact that platforms have social responsibility too.

Misinformation has turned into a global issue and because of this, digital platforms need to be vigilant while they navigate the varying legal, cultural and social expectations across different jurisdictions. Efforts to create standardised practices and policies have been complicated by the diversity of approaches, leading platforms to adopt flexible strategies for managing misinformation that align with global and local standards.

Addressing the Consequences

These consequences can be addressed by undertaking the following measures:

• The implementation of a more robust content moderation system by the platforms using a combination of AI and human oversight for the identification and removal of misinformation in an effective manner. 
• Enhancing the transparency in platform policies for content moderation and decision-making would build user trust and reduce the backlash associated with perceived censorship. 
• Collaborations with fact checkers in the form of partnerships to help verify the accuracy of content and reduce the spread of misinformation.
• Engage with regulators proactively to stay ahead of legal and regulatory requirements and avoid punitive actions. 
• Platforms should Invest in media literacy initiatives and help users critically evaluate the content available to them. 

Final Takeaways

The accrual of misinformation on digital platforms has resulted in presenting significant challenges across legal, reputational, financial, and operational functions for all stakeholders. As a result, a critical need arises where the interlinked, but seemingly-exclusive priorities of preventing misinformation and upholding freedom of expression must be balanced. Platforms must invest in the creation and implementation of a robust content moderation system with in-built transparency, collaborating with fact-checkers, and media literacy efforts to mitigate the adverse effects of misinformation. In addition to this, adapting to diverse international standards is essential to maintaining their global presence and societal trust.

References

• https://pirg.org/edfund/articles/misinformation-on-social-media/ 
• https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/12/674
• https://scroll.in/article/1057626/israel-hamas-war-misinformation-is-being-spread-across-social-media-with-real-world-consequences 
• https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/01-09-2022-infodemics-and-misinformation-negatively-affect-people-s-health-behaviours--new-who-review-finds 

‍