Two popular Indian actors, Rashmika Mandanna and Katrina Kaif, have been the latest victims of deepfake tech. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as artificial intelligence (AI) and its prodigal offspring, deepfake technology, look set to hold an unbridled sway over the digital landscape in the coming weeks and months.
The recent deepfake nudes of children from a school in New Jersey in the US are enough for all the warning bells to toll full blast — deepfakes is not about celebrities or some harmless social media fun. It could well come to destroy a life near you.
“Deepfake is an advanced stage of cancer in the digital ecosystem,” said Virag Gupta, cyber law expert, told THE WEEK. And what can Indian law do about it? The answer may shock you — more or less, nothing.
“There is no substantial legal recourse,” said Gupta.
After South Indian star Rashmika Mandanna’s clip, where deepfake AI tools were used to alter a video by British influencer Zara Patel walking into an elevator in swimwear to make it look like it was Mandanna, all the government could do was to put the onus on social media intermediaries to remove deepfake and misinformation within 36 hours, as per the provisions of the intermediary rules.
IT minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar said, “Deepfakes are a major violation…our government takes the responsibility of safety and trust of all citizens very very seriously, and more so about our children and women who are targeted by such content.”
What is interesting is the only recourse the government has to offer, though — file an FIR at your nearest police station and avail the remedies provided under the IT rules 2021, that pertain to social intermediaries. This particular provision, in turn, just puts the onus on social media or digital platforms like Facebook, YouTube etc. to remove the objectionable content within 36 hours, or else Rule 7 is invoked, which allows the aggrieved to take these platforms to court under the Indian Penal Code.
If this wasn’t bad enough, the reality is worse. In many cases, even when individuals or even the mighty government had protested against certain content, the social media entities, mostly global behemoths headquartered in the US, have resisted, arguing they can remove content only once are told to by the courts.
To be fair, Section 66D of the IT Act 2000 does have a provision that says anyone using a communication device or a computer resource to cheat by ‘personating’ can be punished with three years in jail or a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh. However, there is many a miss when the cup approaches the lip — is it ‘cheating’ per se when there is no financial misappropriation? And how can an ordinary citizen fight for months doing the rounds of police stations and courts, even while a potentially reputation-damaging deepfake content continues to be available to all and sundry over the internet? The damage would be done, by then!
With the digital and internet landscape transmuting at a fervent pace, regulatory authorities are playing ineffectual catch-up. Despite many amendments, India’s IT Act is a 23-year-old legacy legislation that is simply not able to deal with the changed scenario. The new law to replace it, the Digital India Act, is still at the draft stage, though Chandrasekhar assured this correspondent sometime ago that it will be ‘future proof’. It seems the need for it is to be ‘present’ and ‘past’ proof as well.
