Date : 31/10/2023
Relevance:GS Paper 2 – Polity ( Also Relevant for GS Paper 3 – Science and Technology)
Keywords: Deepfake, AI, End to End Encryption, Right to Privacy
Context-
The link between politics and misinformation has been established for years, and as elections approach, tackling political misinformation remains a top policy concern. Given the intricacies involved, it is crucial to address the potential repercussions and debates related to Rule 4(2) of the 2021 Information Technology (IT) Intermediary Guidelines. This rule aims to combat the escalating issue of political deep fakes.
What is Political Deep Fake?
- Political deepfakes refer to highly sophisticated manipulated or fabricated audio, video, or images that appear to be authentic and feature political figures or candidates.
- These falsified media pieces are created using artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning techniques, making it challenging to distinguish them from genuine content.
- Political deepfakes can involve altering speeches, interviews, or public appearances of politicians, often with the intent to deceive, manipulate public opinion, or influence political events such as elections.
- These manipulated media can be shared on social media platforms, news outlets, or other online channels, potentially causing significant harm by spreading misinformation and undermining trust in political processes and leaders.
Concerns Regarding Misinformation in Politics
- Advancements in Synthetic Media Recent AI advancements have made it easier to create convincing deep fake images, videos, and voices, escalating the issue of misinformation in politics.
- Influence on Voter’s Actions Synthetic media can mislead users, influencing their actions, especially during elections, raising concerns about the deliberate misuse of such technology.
Government Measures to Address Misinformation
- Rule 4(2) of the 2021 IT Intermediary Guidelines The government plans to use Rule 4(2) to combat political deep fakes, demanding social media entities to identify the first originator of information on their platforms.
- Originator Identification Process Originator identification can be invoked under a court order or government powers, raising debates about privacy, security, and the potential misuse of this rule.
Controversies Surrounding Rule 4(2)
- Targeting End-to-End Encryption Rule 4(2) primarily targets end-to-end encrypted platforms, sparking debates about privacy versus security and the government's right to access encrypted communications.
- Privacy vs. Security Debate The rule triggers concerns about privacy invasion, analogous to attaching a "movement tag" to every citizen, potentially compromising privacy rights in the pursuit of security objectives.
- Unclear Grounds for Implementation Broadly defined grounds like the maintenance of public order can lead to overreach, with potential misuse highlighted in various contexts, making it challenging to implement the rule judiciously.
- Undefined First Originator Ambiguity arises due to the undefined term "first originator," leading to potential confusion and the risk of unintentional individuals becoming originators, while malicious actors can evade identification.
- Logistical Challenges and Privacy Concerns The need for message origin logs compromises the privacy of all users, raising questions about proportionality and practicality, with experts arguing that traceability methods are privacy-invasive and unfeasible.
What is the End-to-End Encryption Rule?
End-to-end encryption is a secure communication method that protects data exchanged between two devices by encrypting it. This encryption technique ensures that third parties, such as cloud service providers, internet service providers (ISPs), and cybercriminals, are unable to access the data during transmission.
How Does It Work?
In end-to-end encryption, cryptographic keys used for both encryption and decryption are stored on the communicating devices. The process involves employing a specific algorithm to transform standard text into an unreadable format. This encrypted format can only be deciphered and understood by individuals possessing the decryption keys. Notably, these keys are exclusively stored on the communicating devices and are not shared with any third parties, including the service providers facilitating the communication.
Legal Challenges to Rule 4(2) of IT Intermediary Guidelines 2021
Praveen Arimbrathodiyil vs. Union of India
- In the Kerala High Court, a petition contested Rule 4(2) citing its violation of citizens' encryption rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The challenge also claimed that traceability provisions impede intermediaries, infringing on the freedom to trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g).
Anthony Clement vs. Union of India
- The Madras High Court addressed the co-existence of user traceability with end-to-end encryption. A proposal suggested adding originator information to each message, displayed during decryption, aiming to reconcile the issue.
WhatsApp vs. Union of India (2021)
- WhatsApp Inc. and Facebook challenged Rule 4(2) in the Delhi High Court, arguing it breaches end-to-end encryption, violating the fundamental right to privacy established in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017). They contended it lacked proportionality, necessity, and minimization.
Recent Tripura HC Order
- The Tripura High Court stayed an order demanding the origin of a fake resignation letter from WhatsApp, citing the lack of established threat to public order by the trial court.
Government's Perspective on Rule 4(2) of IT Intermediary Guidelines 2021
- No Intent to Violate Right to Privacy The government asserts its recognition of the right to privacy as fundamental but emphasizes its duty to maintain law, order, and national security. It contends that the traceability provision does not compromise privacy rights, being a reasonable restriction within the bounds of fundamental rights.
- Rule 4(2) Qualifies the Proportionality Test According to the government, Rule 4(2) passes the proportionality test, as it serves public interest. It argues that traceability is essential to detect and penalize individuals responsible for crimes, aligning with the greater public good.
Conclusion
The ongoing discussion surrounding Rule 4(2) and its impact on political deep fakes and electoral integrity is gaining momentum. Courts are currently examining the validity of Rule 4(2) due to these concerns. Achieving a delicate equilibrium between privacy and security proves to be a formidable task. The urgent need remains for a solution that effectively addresses the issue without exacerbating the situation.
Probable Questions for UPSC Mains Exam
- In the context of rising political deepfakes, explain the ethical and societal implications of misinformation in the political sphere. Discuss the role of end-to-end encryption and the challenges posed by Rule 4(2) of the IT Intermediary Guidelines 2021 in addressing this issue. What measures can be taken to safeguard the integrity of democratic processes in the face of advancing technology? (10 marks, 150 words)
- Political deepfakes have emerged as a significant concern for electoral integrity. Analyze the potential impact of deepfake technology on public trust in political processes and leaders. Evaluate the effectiveness of Rule 4(2) in countering political deepfakes while considering the balance between individual privacy and national security. What strategies can be adopted to raise awareness and educate the public about the dangers of political deepfakes? (15 marks, 250 words)
Source- The Indian Express
