Relevance: GS-2: Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability, e-governance- applications, models, successes, limitations, and potential;transparency & accountability and institutional and other measures.

Key Phrases: Information Technology Act 2000, Technology Platforms, non-consensual intimate images, Intermediary Guidelines 2021, Hashing Technology, Child-Sex Abuse Material, Threat to Free Speech, e-Safety Commissioner, Automated Tools

Why in News?

• Recently, the intimate pictures of a woman were shared online without her consent.
• The case highlights the need for courts, law enforcement, and technology platforms to have a coordinated response to the sharing of non-consensual intimate images (NCII) online.

Key Highlights:

• Publishing NCII is a criminal offence under the Information Technology Act 2000, with platforms doing their best to filter out such content.
• While a criminal conviction is desirable, the more urgent need is to stop the spread of this illegal content.
• The Intermediary Guidelines 2021 provide a partial solution.

Intermediary Guidelines 2021:

• It empowers victims to complain directly to any website that has allowed the uploading of non-consensual images or videos of a person in a state of nudity or engaging in a sexual act.
• This includes content that has been digitally altered to depict the person as such.
• The website must remove the content within 24 hours of receiving a complaint or risk facing criminal charges.

Issues with the Guidelines:

• The approach relies on victims identifying and sharing every URL hosting their intimate images.
• The same images may be re-uploaded at different locations or by different user accounts in the future.
• While the Intermediary Guidelines do encourage large social media platforms to proactively remove certain types of content, the focus is on child pornography and rape videos.
• Victims of NCII abuse have few options other than lodging complaints every time their content surfaces, forcing them to approach courts.

What is Stop NCII.org (Stop Non-Consensual Intimate Image Abuse)?

• The social media tech firm Meta, formerly Facebook, has introduced this website to stop women from being exploited on the internet.
• Meta operates the platform with the UK’s Revenge Porn Helpline which is an independent organisation.
• The platform is used to stop non-consensual intimate images from being shared on Facebook and Instagram.
• The tool relies on a “hashing” technology to match known NCII against future uploads.
• A victim whose intimate images have been shared without their consent can use the tool to create a “hash” (or unique identifier) of the offending image, which is shared with the platform.
• The platform then compares this user-generated hash with the hashes of all other images on its site, allowing for the identification and takedown of content identical to that reported by the victim.
• The victim’s private images stay with them, with only the hash being added to a database to guard against future uploads.
• Similar technology is already used against child-sex abuse material (CSAM) with promising results.

What are the concerns associated with these Automated Tools?

1. Threat to Free Speech:
   • The use of automated tools raises free speech concerns that lawful content may accidentally be taken down.
   • Automatic filters often ignore context i.e., content that may be illegal in one context may not be illegal in another.
   • This is precisely why free speech advocates are wary of using automated tools to remove harmful content online.
2. Assaults committed by Public Figures likely to be taken down:
   • The courts may be required to intervene while depicting a public figure committing sexual assault.
   • The vast majority of NCII has no public interest component and can be taken down quickly.
   • In the past, courts have required victims to continually supply URLs or directed intermediaries to remove all content remotely related to NCII.

Way Forward:

1. Use of NCII hash database by other Websites:
   • If well-designed and administered, other websites could eventually use this NCII hash database to identify illegal content they may be unwillingly hosting.
   • Victims could report NCII abuse at a centralised location and have it taken down across a range of websites.
2. Grievance Redressal Mechanism:
   • The government can also play a role in facilitating a redressal mechanism.
   • For example, Australia has appointed an “e-Safety Commissioner” who receives complaints against NCII and coordinates between complainants, websites, and individuals who posted the content with the Commissioner empowered to issue “removal notices” against illegal content.
   • Pairing a hash database with an independent body like the Commissioner may significantly reduce the spread of NCII.
3. Image-matching technology for Surveillance:
   • Image-matching technology could be used for surveillance or to simply remove unpopular (but not illegal) content from the internet.
   • For Example, use of the image-matching software “PhotoDNA” tool of CBI built to identify CSAM for investigatory purposes.
   • To counter such risks, the hash database for CSAM is not maintained by either any private company or any government but rather by independent organisations.
   • Similarly, Meta has partnered with the Revenge Porn Helpline to administer its NCII tool.
4. Coordinated Response of Government, Companies and Independent Organisations:
   • The government’s reported overhaul of the Information Technology Act is an opportunity to develop a coordinated response to NCII-abuse that will provide victims meaningful redress without restricting online speech.
   • In the interim, courts should balance the harm caused by NCII with the need to protect online speech.
5. Verification of URL:
   • Courts may consider tasking a state functionary or independent body with verifying the URLs and coordinating with online platforms and internet service providers.
6. Taking Down of Illegal content only:
   • Courts should direct platforms to take down NCII only where the NCII-content will be illegal in every foreseeable context.
7. Reinstatement of Content:
   • It must be ensured that the individual who posted the content can seek reinstatement.
   • Also, they should not demand absolute outcomes but rather require that platforms take affirmative steps to address the issue.

Source: Indian Express

Mains Question:

Q. What are the legal provisions in India with respect to sharing of non-consensual intimate images (NCII)? Highlight the issues associated with them and the efforts taken to tackle the spread of NCII. (250 words).