About the Author: Magizhini is a Student of the Tamilnadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, School of Excellence in Law.
INTRODUCTION
DeepFake, in its broad sense, refers to the manipulation of substances to create humanistic structures and features with the help of Artificial intelligence and machine processors. Generative methods are used to process human-like expressions and gestures. With the vivid creation of the DeepFake creations, there has been a boost towards the creation of DeepFake detectors.[1] It is like a war between the offender and the defender, aside from the act of commission and prevention of the offence, also on who evolves more and further to outwit one another. As the famous saying goes, “If you know the enemy and yourself, then you could fight a hundred battlegrounds”.[2] But this was not the situation under the DeepFake, as the creator is anonymous. The emergence of anything was never to subject anyone to malicious outcomes, but as the benign in something grows, so does the malignant differentia.
The offence under DeepFake requires expertise in the field to make it indisputable. It is not necessary that the outcome should be deceiving as the very purpose it had been created is not what it is now.
USE AND MISUSE – THE MONSTER AND THE MAGNIFICENT
The indispensable uses of the DeepFake applications include the media, entertainment, and gaming in their first phase. DeepFakes were used in the films to create clones of actors in sequences risky to the actors and also in cases where the actor is unavailable in reality. This has been done at times to present tribute to the actors who are no more. Entertainment shows began to use DeepFakes to create quality content that is visually engaging with the audience rather than monotonous dramas and pre-determined sequences. There have been movies made entirely out of the customized digital clones of actors. In this century of social media, this is used by social media users and influencers to gather the watchers’ attention towards them. As long the purpose served the will of the users, it wasn’t trouble.
These features were used to blackmail and threaten people by creating absurd, unruly outcomes of pictures, audio, videos, and expressions of the people themselves. There have been cases where the politically elected representatives have been blackmailed and made victims to data that has been generated solely to victimize them.[3] Fake investment opportunities have flooded online platforms, aimed to scam people, and fake endorsements by use of DeepFakes of renowned celebrities have fooled people into investing their data and money. Fake giveaways and fraudulent cryptocurrency ads have made many people vain.
Audio DeepFakes is also deceiving; a UK-based CEO of a firm was fooled into transferring 220,000 euros to a bank, and the voice was impersonated to suit the voice of the company’s parent firm’s chief executive.[4] These have also been used to popularize and de-popularize politicians, renowned industrialists, and famous personalities. DeepFake pornography has remained controversial with no end to its discrepancies.
As remarked, it is the monster and the magnificent, as it has also been used in cases of forensic science in image identification and processing. It was used in the US in 2018 to create awareness about DeepFake itself by combining the picture and the voice of former American President Barack Obama and Jordan Peele.[5]
WHERE DOES THE ETHICAL CONSIDERATION PUT ITS BAR?
The first bar is the trustworthiness and credibility of the resources available online. The DeepFake technology is progressing at an accelerating motion at a speed more than what would be expected by ordinary mankind. Society needs to evolve to suit the motion of the progression. DeepFakes are disastrous, as they could defame others and create an imperious impression on the receivers about the people.
The next is that DeepFakes are on the verge of promoting hate speech, impairing the trust in media and journalism. These speeches led to the destruction of the defined structure of democracy. This spreads misinformation, which is revolutionary and faster spreading than that of the truth. The truth falls behind the false.
These have a tremendous impact on shaping public opinion and impair their considerations for decision-making. The misuse of the online platform by DeepFakes leads to the impairment of the rights that are operating on true and credible information. As to the fear of misinformation and rebellious speeches spreading online, the platform has been restricted in places, limiting the rights of honest information disseminators.
The ethical considerations of these activities would surely lead to the stoppage of the transit of the popular culture of DeepFakes. How these could be imposed and made part of the individuals and the provided regulations remained a question of concern.
LEGAL REGULATIONS
The Indian law doesn’t have an explicit provision or Act directed towards the penalization or regulation of activities as a result of the misuse of Artificial intelligence or DeepFakes. However, there exist provisions under the existing legislation that could provide scope for the subject matter of such activities.
Information Technology Act 2000 – [6]
- Section 66E of The Information Technology Act, 2000 recognizes capturing, transmitting, and publication of pictures of individuals as a violation of their right to privacy. It is an offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or a fine of up to 2 Lakhs.[7]
- Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, holds the offenders liable for an imprisonment of three years or a fine of 1 lakh if computers or such devices are used with the unruly intention of impersonation or cheating.[8]
- If there has been a projection of DeepFakes that are sexually intricate[9] or obscene[10], then they are liable to be published as per Sections 67A and 67 of The Information Technology Act 2000, for a fine of up to 10 lakhs and imprisonment of five years.
- Section 67B of The Information Technology Act, 2000 prohibits child pornography[11], that is for the prevention of transmission of sexually explicit material depicting children with stringent punishments towards it.
Cybercrimes associated with DeepFakes can be addressed under Sections 509, 499, and 153 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. If any copyrighted content has been used in the creation of DeepFakes, it could be addressed under Section 51 of The Copyright Act, 1957.[12]
In the case of Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and Ors, the actor was provided with protection against the use of his attributes, which in turn restricted entities from using these attributes for commercial purposes.[13]
In the case of Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Negi and Ors, the actor was provided with protection against the unauthorized use of his identity and attributes.[14]
SUGGESTIONS
- National guidelines and a well-amended Personal Data Protection Act can make the activities more controllable in aspects of imposing distinct restrictions on those acts.
- The authenticity of the data online should be monitored by any regulatory bodies with the help of DeepFake detectors.
- Well-defined legislations are the supreme combatants in controlling the malicious use of DeepFake generators.
- In addition to punishments for acts that have happened, preventive measures should be directed.
- The investigatory mechanism in these cases should be drawn to find the person who is liable for these acts and make them accountable.
CONCLUSION
There have been concerns about the DeepFake technology used against mankind, in a preview of its credibility, accountability, viability, trustworthiness, and the intent behind its use to defame and detour the mental peace and stability of society. As the intention of the DeepFake offenders is largely to impair the peace of others and make personal benefits, ethics doesn’t work with them. It explicitly needs the want of regulatory provisions imposed upon them, as they would not be bound to the ethics or moral values. A draft of intact legislation would be the supreme way to combat the commission of malicious acts through Deepfake.
References:
[1] Felix Juefei-Xu et al., ‘Countering Malicious DeepFakes: Survey, Battleground, and Horizon’ (2022) 130 International Journal of Computer Vision <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11263-022-01606-8> accessed 08 January 2025
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Jesse Damiani, ‘A Voice Deepfake Was Used To Scam A CEO Out Of $243,000’ (Forbes, 03 September 2019) <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessedamiani/2019/09/03/a-voice-deepfake-was-used-to-scam-a-ceo-out-of-243000/> accessed 16 January 2025
[5] Aja Romano, ‘Jordan Peele’s Simulated Obama PSA Is a Double-Edged Warning Against Fake News’ (Vox, 19 April 2018) <https://www.vox.com/2018/4/18/17252410/jordan-peele-obama-deepfake-buzzfeed> accessed 08 January 2025
[6] Aaratrika Bhaumik, ‘Regulating Deepfakes and Generative AI in India Explained’ The Hindu (04 December 2023) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/regulating-deepfakes-generative-ai-in-india-explained/article67591640.ece> accessed 08 January 2025
[7] Information Technology Act 2000, s 66E
[8] Information Technology Act 2000, s 66D
[9] Information Technology Act 2000, s 67A
[10] Information Technology Act 2000, s 67
[11] Information Technology Act 2000, s 67B
[12] Ibid
[13] Nupur Thapliyal, ‘Delhi High Court Protects Actor Anil Kapoor’s Personality Rights, Restrains Use Of His Name, Image Or Voice Without Consent’ (Live Law, 20 September 2023) <https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/delhi-high-court-anil-kapoor-voice-image-misuse-personality-rights-238217> accessed 08 January 2025
[14] Vikrant Rana et al., ‘Deepfakes, Personal Data, Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Learning: Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Information Technology Act’ (Live Law, 24 November 2023) <https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/deepfakes-personal-data-artificial-intelligence-machine-learning-ministry-of-electronics-and-information-technology-information-technology-act-242916#:~:text=Amitabh%20Bachchan%20in%20the%20case,image%2C%20likeness%20for%20commercial%20use> accessed 08 January 2025