Imagine sipping some Champère at a château in Paris (clearly someone has been following Emily in Paris ardently). With the tech policy landscape only appearing to be somewhat calm (fingers crossed, we’re not jinxing it by hoping for more movement!) it really sounds like the perfect way to head into 2024’s last quarter. We might not be toasting in Paris, but we’re here to deliver the freshest in tech policy straight to your inbox. This month we spotlight our whitepaper on user verification; and share updates on pieces like finfluencer regulations, digital competition and the latest telecom rules. We dissect some global stories and track what’s been up in the Indian courts.
Source: New Yorker
In the spotlight: The verification tightrope – between anonymity and security
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) is likely to write to the IT Ministry advocating for some KYC processes for social media platforms. This has been a matter of considerable debate in the past too.
We have been working on the issue of user verification methods for a while now, and recently published a paper as well.
In our recent paper 'User Verification on the Internet: Balancing Anonymity, Security, And Innovation’, we explore the complex debate around user verification requirements on social media platforms, their impact on online anonymity and citizens’ fundamental rights— and examine whether (and to what extent) user verification should be required on social media platforms.
Mandatory online verification is like forcing everyone to wear a name tag at a masquerade ball. Imagine having to provide your Aadhaar card to simply binge-watch homemade pizza recipes on YouTube. Or sharing your passport details just to doom scroll GRWM reels on Instagram. Sounds a little much, right?
Online anonymity is a coin with two completely different sides. On one side, it may cloak the identity of malicious actors — leading to increased calls for mandatory online verification on social media platforms. On the flip side, it enables citizens to exercise free speech to voice their opinions, safeguards the privacy of people like whistleblowers and journalists, and offers safe spaces for marginalized communities. So, imposing rigid verification requirements across the board may lead to an unfair trade-off of rights.
In fact, global experience shows that strict verification does not necessarily reduce online harms. For instance, South Korea struck down a policy requiring people to use their real names, since it violated citizens’ freedom of speech. There was also no real evidence that sufficiently suggested that the policy helped in decreasing online harms.
In our paper, we share how to keep it real (but not too real) on social media platforms:
●Proportionality principle: Requirements for user verification should be (a) constitutionally and legally backed, (b) necessary for their objective, (c) proportional to that objective, and (d) accompanied by adequate safeguards. For instance, requiring users to submit their government IDs for signing up on social media platforms may be disproportionate.
● Least intrusive measure: Focus should be on identifying bad actors, rather than verifying all users. The government should adopt the least intrusive measure for identification of perpetrators. Online services already collect extensive metadata (like IP addresses and device information) that can aid in detecting and investigating online offenses, which can be used by law enforcement.
● One size doesn’t fit all: The verification mechanism should be proportionate to the risk involved. Different scenarios may merit different responses, ranging from simple CAPTCHAs to more stringent verifications. Platforms should implement algorithms to check for suspicious user activity and prompt verification only when necessary.
● Building a resilient ecosystem: Policy approaches should prioritize building ecosystem resilience over prescriptive solutions. This includes leveraging existing laws to address online harms, focusing on training law enforcement authorities, and educating internet users.
● Tailoring solutions for India: There are also broader policy considerations for India—the need for a robust digital architecture and resources to safely collect and store the data of millions of users; and the alienation of Indian citizens, especially from marginalized communities, who may not have relevant official identity documents. Mandatory verification will also increase compliance costs for new and smaller players, hindering innovation. Solutions must accommodate our rapidly growing internet user base while ensuring that digital infrastructure can secure user data. Ecosystem players can also consider self-regulation or co-regulation frameworks, where platforms develop voluntary codes for online safety and user identification.
Connecting the dots...
SEBI steps in to regulate finfluencers
The Indian securities’ regulator, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has been keeping a close tab on finfluencers — removing over 15,000 content sites in the past 3 months. To tighten scrutiny further, SEBI amended three regulations for depositories, security contracts, and intermediaries — restricting them from being “associated” with entities not regulated by the regulator. This means that a SEBI regulated entity must refrain from interacting with any person who provides advice or recommendations or makes an explicit claim of return for any securities. They can’t have any transactions, take client referrals, or incorporate their IT systems with these individuals. One way to think about this is that a SEBI regulated entity cannot sponsor a finfluencer who is not registered with SEBI.
But, this restriction is not applicable if it happens through a “specified digital platform”—one that has necessary mechanisms to ensure that advice doesn’t come from unregistered sources. But what these mechanisms are, we still don’t know. The way SEBI defines such platforms in the future will have ripple effects on intermediaries, as well as financial content creators.
DCB – where you at?
The draft Digital Competition Bill (DCB) came out in March 2024 and saw considerable movement in the form of consultations. However, most recent reports suggest that the bill is being pushed to next year.
Notably, stakeholders don’t seem to agree on what the bill should regulate. The Digital News Publishers Association, which represents the digital arms of leading news publishers in India, wanted the incorporation of a bargaining code between news publishers and the big tech companies to ensure a fair revenue sharing model. Others asked for a provision to address “killer acquisitions”, which occur when a dominant company buys a smaller competitor to stifle potential competition, in digital markets. Yet others said that the DCB should consider the impact of quick commerce companies eating into the share of kirana stores and undermining their businesses. Unlike our grocery orders, which reach us insta-ntly with the blink of an eye, we need to be patient and see what the bill has in store for us.
New telecom rules in town
The central government has gradually been issuing rules under the new Telecommunications Act, 2023. The Department of Telecommunications released four sets of draft rules last month (all open for comments till September 28, 2024).
The rules empower the government to suspend telecom services and networks, intercept messages transmitted through telecom services, place obligations on telecom companies with Critical Telecommunication Infrastructure and require telecom entities to implement robust measures for cybersecurity.
Tech Stories
Is Telegram Crumbling?
Peer-to-peer communications service Telegram is among the largest messaging platforms in the world, with over 950 million active monthly users. But things don’t seem to be going too well for the company. France was the hotseat but not just for the Paris Olympics — Telegram’s founder Pavel Durov was arrested and taken into custody by the French police for questioning. After being formally investigated for a range of charges, including complicity in managing an online platform that allowed illegal activities including the spread of child sexual abuse content, facilitating money laundering, and enabling fraud; and refusal to cooperate with law enforcement, he’s been released on bail for USD 5.5 million but is barred from leaving France.
Why are they behind Telegram? Telegram has had a questionable reputation for its content moderation practices. Another criticism levied against the platform across governments is its lack of cooperation with law enforcement agencies during investigations. The company prides itself on disclosing 0 bytes of user data to third parties including governments. But it looks like they are here to make amends, and Durov said that they will tackle content moderation more seriously.
Is Telegram better in India? Closer home, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) have been investigating Telegram’s alleged involvement in criminal activities such as extortion and gambling, impersonation and committing frauds, leaking exam papers, and spreading CSAM content within India. Complaints about lack of cooperation during investigations have arisen here too. MeitY had issued specific notices to remove CSAM or forego the safe harbour immunity.
This is perhaps the first time in the last decade that a major platform’s CEO has been arrested. Will such an action set the precedent for other countries to prosecute different platform CEOs for being criminally liable due to the content on these platforms? Will we see platforms take more stringent steps towards moderation (as may have been indicated by Telegram), and move towards more censorship? These are some trends we’re keeping a close watch on.
X vs Brazil
Brazil loves X — since 2022, over 25 million people have been using the app, making it an important market for X’s business. But, towards the end of August, the platform became inaccessible to everyone in Brazil.
What changed suddenly?
Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court had ordered all internet service providers to suspend access to the social media platform. From 2020 to 2023, the Supreme Court has been looking into social media platforms for a range of issues including the dissemination of fake news.
In April, Justice Moraes ordered X to ban some far-right accounts which spread harmful fake news during the elections in 2022. Elon Musk did not follow this order, and the accounts continued to remain active. After Justice Moraes threatened to arrest the local representative for breaking Brazilian laws, Musk shut down the office in Brazil, leaving the company with no physical presence.
In Brazilian law, a foreign company must have a legal representative in the country. A deadline was given to appoint a new representative. This didn’t happen and a ban followed.
Interestingly, the judge also froze the assets of Elon Musk’s other business in Brazil — the Starlink satellite that provides internet services. This was done to collect the USD 3 million levied in fines on X. Justice Moraes said that these companies are part of the same “economic group”. This decision by Justice Moraes was later affirmed by a panel of 5 judges of the Supreme Court in Brazil. It is likely that the case will be heard by the full court of 11 judges later.
Platform use realigns
This ban has cost X. Many fan pages went offline. Over 3 million new users have been added to its competitor Bluesky and even Threads saw some benefits.
It is worth noting that in the last month alone, we have seen two democracies (France and Brazil) take stringent actions either against platforms or against the people who run large tech businesses. Usually, this would be reserved for extreme authoritarian governments. X for example is banned in countries like North Korea, China etc.
But as this case and the Telegram one highlights, there seems to be a growing mood where regulators are willing to threaten imprisonment and penalties on the people who run these platforms to get them to fall in line.
From the courtrooms to your inbox
● Looming ban on Wikipedia: ANI Media sued Wikipedia over alleged defamatory edits about their news site. On August 20, 2024, the Delhi High Court ordered Wikipedia to disclose the identities of the individuals who made the allegedly defamatory edits. After Wikipedia failed to comply, ANI filed a contempt plea. The court warned that non-cooperation could lead to a potential government block of Wikipedia in India.
● Caution: Do not circulate Bhaker’s interview with Dua!: The Delhi High Court has ordered social media users to remove posts labeling journalist Rohan Dua’s interview with Olympic athlete Manu Bhaker as sexist. The interview, which was approved by Bhaker, faced backlash for comments perceived as sexist. Users have until next week to delete the posts or social media platforms like X and Meta will be required to block them. The court is also seeking Bhaker’s confirmation that she had no issues with the interview. More recently, the Delhi High Court vacated its order against one of the accounts (journalist Abhishek Baxi), and added that others who are aggrieved by the court’s order can file appropriate applications.
● An AI for an AI?: The Delhi High Court has urged the IT Ministry to regulate deepfakes and other harmful AI technologies. The court discussed the need for counter-technologies to address the misuse of AI. The next hearing on this issue is scheduled for October 24, 2024.
● Tightening Takedowns: A few months back, the Bombay High Court ordered Meta and Telegram to delete fake videos and content circulating on its platforms which falsely showed the National Stock Exchange’s CEO making stock market tips and promising guaranteed returns. The platforms were required to delete all fake information within 10 hours of receiving a complaint by the NSE. As per the NSE, the intermediaries would take over 10 days to take down the content. Weeks later, on September 3, 2024 MeitY issued an advisory to take down illegal content promptly and proactively, and not wait for the time limit to expire.
That’s all from us, for now. Stay tuned for the next version of the Ticker! Till then, don’t keep us to yourself, sharing is caring.
We’d love to hear from you about our TechTicker. Please feel free to write to us on contact@ikigailaw.com with your feedback, concerns, issues you’d want us to look at or just drop in to say Hi.
You can also follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and not miss any future updates.
