Discussion about the Deepfake and its Regulations and Telangana-Andhra Pradesh Water Dispute

Deepfake and its Regulations 

Why in news?

The circulation of a Deepfake video featuring an Indian actress has triggered both outrage and apprehension, highlighting the potential misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) in generating lifelike yet deceptive videos, commonly referred to as deepfakes.

 

About Deepfakes

• They are digital media which are created by altering media — images, video, or audio using technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning, thereby blurring the lines between fiction and reality.
• The first-ever use of deepfake technology can reportedly be traced back to a Reddit contributor who in 2017 had used a publicly available AI-driven software to create pornographic content by imposing the faces of celebrities onto the bodies of ordinary people.

• Deepfakes require a large amount of data, such as photos or videos, of the source and the target person, which are often collected from the internet or social media without their consent or knowledge.
• Deepfakes are a part of Deep Synthesis, which uses technologies, including deep learning and augmented reality, to generate text, images, audio and video to create virtual scenes

 

Deep learning: It a subset of machine learning, has revolutionized the way machines process and interpret data. It teaches computers to do what comes naturally to humans; for example, in the case of Self-Driving cars, recognizing the signals to stop or go. Deep Learning involves the use of neural networks with multiple layers (three or more layers) to simulate human brain functions. Deep learning technology lies behind everyday products and services (for example, digital assistants, voice-enabled TV remotes, and credit card fraud detection), as well as emerging technologies (for example, self-driving cars)

 

Positive Applications of Deep Learning:

• Deep learning technology has enabled positive advancements, such as restoring lost voices and recreating historical figures.
• Deep learning techniques have been applied in comedy, cinema, music, and gaming to enhance artistic expression.
• Synthetic avatars of people with physical or mental disabilities will help express themselves online.
• It enhances medical training and simulation by generating diverse and realistic medical images. It also creates virtual patients and scenarios for simulating medical conditions and procedures, improving training efficiency.
• It can also be used to enhance the interaction and immersion of Augmented Reality and gaming applications

 

• Concerns Regarding the Deepfakes:

Deepfakes present a significant challenge due to their potential for diverse malicious applications, including:

• Disseminating propaganda and false information.
• Influencing elections and shaping public opinion.
• Engaging in blackmail and extortion of individuals or organizations.
• Tarnishing the reputation and credibility of public figures such as celebrities, politicians, activists, and journalists.
• Generating non-consensual pornography and revenge porn.
• The harms associated with deepfakes extend to eroding trust in institutions, media, and democratic processes, as well as undermining the rule of law and human rights. Furthermore, the technology can infringe upon the privacy, dignity, and reputation of individuals, posing a threat to the mental health and well-being of victims, particularly women who are frequently targeted by such malicious manipulations

Detection:

• Look for visual and audio inconsistencies in the media.
• Use reverse image search to find the original source or similar images.
• Use AI-based tools to analyze the quality, consistency, and authenticity of the images or videos.
• Using digital watermarking or blockchain to verify the source and integrity of the media.
• Educate oneself and others about deepfake technology and its implications

 

India’s approach to deal with Deepfake:

• India lacks specific laws to address deepfakes and AI-related crimes, but provisions under a plethora of legislations could offer both civil and criminal relief.
  • For instance, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) is applicable in cases of deepfake crimes that involve the capture, publication, or transmission of a person’s images in mass media thereby violating their privacy.
  • Such an offence is punishable with up to three years of imprisonment or a fine of ₹2 lakh.
  • Similarly, Section 66D of the IT Act punishes individuals who use communication devices or computer resources with malicious intent, leading to impersonation or cheating.
    • An offence under this provision carries a penalty of up to three years imprisonment and/or a fine of ₹1 lakh.
  • Further, Sections 67, 67A, and 67B of the IT Act can be used to prosecute individuals for publishing or transmitting deep fakes that are obscene or contain any sexually explicit acts.
  • The IT Rules, also prohibit hosting ‘any content that impersonates another person’ and require social media platforms to quickly take down ‘artificially morphed images’ of individuals when alerted.
  • Provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) can also be resorted to for cybercrimes associated with deepfakes — Sections 509 (words, gestures, or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 499 (criminal defamation), and 153 (a) and (b) (spreading hate on communal lines) among others.
  •  The Delhi Police Special Cell has reportedly registered an FIR against unknown persons by invoking Sections 465 (forgery) and 469 (forgery to harm the reputation of a party) in the Mandanna case.
  • The Copyright Act of 1957 can be used if any copyrighted image or video has been used to create deepfakes.
    • Section 51 prohibits the unauthorised use of any property belonging to another person and on which the latter enjoys an exclusive right

International best practices:

• In October 2023, US President Joe Biden signed a far-reaching executive order on AI to manage its risks, ranging from national security to privacy.
• In January, the Cyberspace Administration of China rolled out new regulations to restrict the use of deep synthesis technology and curb disinformation.
• The European Union (EU) has strengthened its Code of Practice on Disinformation to ensure that social media giants like Google, Meta, and Twitter start flagging deepfake content or potentially face multi-million dollar fines.

 

Way Forward

• Formulating and enforcing comprehensive laws and regulations specifically addressing the creation and dissemination of deepfakes, while striking a balance with the principles of freedom of speech and expression.
• Increasing public awareness and media literacy regarding the potential risks and consequences of deepfakes, promoting critical thinking, and advocating for the verification of sources and media content.
• Developing and adopting technical solutions and standards capable of detecting, preventing, and removing deepfakes, including the implementation of digital watermarks and blockchain technology.
• Advocating for the ethical and responsible use of deep learning technology and synthetic media, establishing codes of conduct, and promoting best practices for both creators and users of deepfakes.
• Encouraging collaboration and coordination among diverse stakeholders, including governments, media, civil society, academia, and industry, to collectively address the challenges and opportunities arising from the presence of deepfakes

Telangana-Andhra Pradesh Water Dispute

Why in news?

• The dispute over the water share of the Krishna River between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana remains unresolved, even nine years after the bifurcation of the combined State.

  

 

About Krishna River

• 2^nd largest east flowing river of Peninsular India
• Originates in Mahabaleshwar near Jor Village (Satara, Maharashtra) and meets Bay of Bengal in Andhra Pradesh.
• It causes heavy soil erosion during monsoon season.
• Major Dams: Almatti Dam, Srisailam Dam, Nagarjuna Sagar Dam, Prakasham Barrage
• Right Bank Tributary: Venna, Koyna, Panchaganga, Dudhganga, Gharaprabha, Malaprabha, Tungabhadra.
• Left Bank Tributary: Bhima, Dindi, Peddavagu, Musi, Paleru, Munneru, Halia.

 

About the Krishna water dispute

• Beginning – Gentlemen’s Agreement:
  • The dispute dates back to the formation of Andhra Pradesh in November, 1956.
  • Before the formation of Andhra Pradesh, four senior leaders each from different regions of Andhra, including the Rayalaseema Region and the Telangana region, signed a Gentlemen’s Agreement on February 20, 1956.
• Protection of Telangana’s interests and needs:
  • Among others, one of the provisions of the agreement was the protection of Telangana’s interests and needs with respect to the utilisation of water resources with equitable distribution based on treaties followed globally.
• Issue:
  • However, the focus of the combined dispensation with respect to irrigation facilities was on Andhra, which already had systems developed by the British at the cost of in-basin drought-prone areas in Telangana — a fact which was argued by the leaders of the latter region from the beginning.

Bachawat Tribunal (KWDT-I):

• In 1969, the Bachawat Tribunal (KWDT-I) was constituted to settle the dispute around water share among the riparian States of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (before bifurcation).
• Allocation of water:
  • The Tribunal allocated 811 tmcft dependable water to Andhra Pradesh.
  • The Tribunal had also recommended taking the Tungabhadra Dam ( a part of the Krishna Basin) water to the drought-prone Mahabubnagar area of Telangana.
    • However, this was not followed through, giving birth to discontent among the people.
    • Telangana had time and again reiterated how it had been met with injustice in Andhra Pradesh when it came to the matter of distributing water resources.

Arrangement for water sharing after the bifurcation

• Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014:
  • There is no mention of water shares in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, since the KWDT-I Award, which was still in force, had not made any region-wise allocation.
• Ad hoc arrangement:
  • At a meeting convened by the then Ministry of Water Resources in 2015, the two States had agreed for sharing water in the 34:66 (Telangana : A.P.) ratio as an ad hoc arrangement with the minutes clearly specifying that it has to be reviewed every year.
  • The arrangement in the Act was only for the management of water resources by setting up two Boards,
    • The Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) and
    • The Godavari River Management Board (GRMB).
• Demand of equal share:
  • In October 2020, Telangana raised its voice for an equal share, till water shares are finalised.
  • At a Board meeting held earlier this month, Telangana refused to continue the existing arrangement.
    • Unable to convince the member States, the river Board has referred the matter to the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS).

What does each State claim?

• Telangana’s demand:
  • Telangana has been asking the Centre to finalise water shares from day one of its formation.
  • Citing treaties and agreements followed globally in sharing river waters, Telangana has been arguing that as per the basin parameters, it is entitled for at least a 70% share in the allocation of the 811 tmcft.
  • Besides, it has been highlighting how Andhra Pradesh has been diverting about 300 tmcft water to the areas outside the basin from fluoride-affected and drought-prone areas within the basin in Telangana.
• Andhra Pradesh’s claim:
  • On the other hand, Andhra Pradesh has also been staking claim for a higher share of water to protect the interests of command areas already developed.

Centre’s stand

• The Centre has convened two meetings of the Apex Council comprising the Union Minister and Chief Ministers of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in 2016 and 2020 without making any attempt to deal with the issue.
  • Following a suggestion made by the MoJS in 2020, Telangana has withdrawn its petition over the issue in the Supreme Court as the Ministry had assured to refer the matter of water shares to a Tribunal.
  • However, the Centre has yet to resolve the issue for over two years now even as the two States continue to spar over the matter day in and day out.

 

Constitutional Provisions

• Entry 17 of the State List deals with water i.e., water supply, irrigation, canal, drainage, embankments, water storage and hydro power.
• Entry 56 of the Union List empowers the Union Government for the regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys to the extent declared by Parliament to be expedient in the public interest.
• Article 262 of the Constitution deals with the adjudication of water disputes.
  • Article 262 (1):  Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State River or river valley.
  • Article 262 (2):  Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may, by law, provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1).

 

Parliamentary Legislations

• As per Article 262 the Parliament has enacted the two laws, the River Boards Act (1956) and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act (1956).
  • River Board Act, 1956: This empowered the GoI to establish Boards for Interstate Rivers and river valleys in consultation with State Governments. To date, no river board has been created.
  • Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956: In case, if a particular state or states approach the Centre for the constitution of the tribunal, the Central Government should try to resolve the matter by consultation among the aggrieved states. In case, if it does not work, then it may constitute the tribunal. Supreme Court shall not question the Award or formula given by tribunal, but it can question the working of the tribunal.

 

What are the Issues with Interstate Water Dispute Tribunals?

• Protracted proceedings and extreme delays in dispute resolution. Water disputes such as the Godavari and Cauvery disputes in India have faced long delays in resolution.
• Opacity in the institutional framework and guidelines that define these proceedings; and ensuring compliance.
• The composition of the tribunal is not multidisciplinary, and it consists of persons only from the judiciary.
• The absence of water data that is acceptable to all parties currently makes it difficult to even set up a baseline for adjudication.
• The growing nexus between water and politics has transformed the disputes into turfs of vote bank politics. This politicisation has led to increasing defiance by states, extended litigations and subversion of resolution mechanisms.