Author: Explains

Context

In last 1 year at least 20 individuals have been lynched or beaten to death in incidents across India, where rumours on WhatsApp have inspired vigilante mobs to swarm visitors accused of being child kidnappers. Dozens more have been injured in similar attacks.

Meaning

Fake news refers to the deliberate creation of misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media shaping the belief of people around the nation and world.

What gives rise to the fake news?

1. Lack of regulation – The online platforms, unlike the mainstream media, do not fall under comprehensive regulation. A number of online news/information portals are being set up due to the lack of proper entry barriers. The lack of binding rules and the ability to keep owners and editors private, offers a larger scope for wrongdoing in case of online platforms.
2. Communal polarisation – The growing polarisation of society on ideological lines has made the job of spreading fake news easier. Also, the spread of hatred-inducing content among leaders/groups of the opposing ideologies, further deepens the prevailing communal hatred.
3. Reach – In the past, communal violence in India was more a localised affair. However, in recent days it is extensively being triggered through the Internet on a much larger scale. The online and mobile platforms serve like nodal agencies distributing unverified information.
4. Quick gains – Spreading false news is becoming a way to make advertising money through click baits. In India, numerous sites are being set up to commercialise fake news with click-bait headlines. Users are enticed with multiple link pages to click and continue reading making the content go viral.
5. Cheap data plans – The proliferation of technology, cheap smartphones, and reasonable data rates has enabled the democratization of online content. The flip side is that the speed of content distribution has made traditional journalistic controls of verification unfeasible.

Why is fake news dangerous?

1. People’s faith in social, print and electronic media reduces which could affect the benefits of these Media.
2. It can lead to violence between two or more communities thereby creating enmity and hatred between them.
3. It can disturb the social fabric of the society and tensions among communities persists for long times.
4. It reduces the tendencies of cooperation between different communities.
5. Political parties try to gain political advantages by polarizing the voter’s mind which further intensifies the tensions between different sections of society.
6. Politics of development takes back seat and communal tendencies emerge in politics.
7. In its purest form, fake news is completely made up, manipulated to resemble credible journalism and attract maximum attention and, with it, advertising revenue.
8. Political campaigning has progressed from mere appeals in the name of identity or loyalty or tall promises to something akin to psychological warfare. Parties that master the tools of such psych ops have a distinct edge over those stuck in the traditional mud. Fake news spreads on social media.

How can we control the fake news menace?

Pre-Censorship is Impossible

1. Pre-censorship of news and information, while being virtually impossible due to the speed of content creation, will also violate the guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
2. On the one hand, such legislation could divest individuals of autonomy.
3. On the other, it could bolster the power of the government to censor opinions it is uncomfortable with.
4. Any screening in the context of social media applications such as WhatsApp could also violate the fundamental right to privacy recognized by the Supreme Court.

Self- Censorship can work

1. A cautionary approach warrants avoiding overarching regulation in the form of anti-fake news legislation, irrespective of the benignity of its motivations.
2. Entrusting a judge, the state or companies like Facebook with the task of making an evaluation of veracity will facilitate judicial, government or private censorship.
3. This can breed a chilling effect and self-censorship.

A decentralized three-point agenda to address fake news

• To ensure critical media literacy, with critical digital literacy as a component.

1. This would focus on encouraging individuals to learn the skills required to navigate the internet and question the content they are exposed to.
2. Users should understand the limitations of digital media.
3. Full Fact and Facebook’s toolkit offer useful suggestions about this. Design changes to social media platforms that flag content can also be incorporated.

• To nurture a general culture of scepticism among citizens towards information

1. Good practices, such as verifying the source of the news and corroboration with related news, ought to be advanced in schools and through public education campaigns.
2. The role of the district administration and local community leaders is key in this regard.
3. Heartening examples such as the Satyameva Jayate programme in Kannur schools and initiatives by the superintendent of police in Gadwal demonstrate the potential of such an approach.

• Limited Legal Interventions can be explored

1. In a limited set of situations, such as when there is threat to life or national security, targeted and proportionate legal interventions can be explored.
2. They should account for existing speech offences to avoid overlap.
3. Despite their own flaws, existing provisions on hate speech, sedition and defamation already deal with certain kinds of harm that may be substantially similar to those posed by fake news.

Other steps Which Government can take

1. The government must take the initiative to make all sections of the population aware of the realities of this information war and evolve a consensus to fight this war. It must also take strict action
2. News being spread using chatbots and other automated pieces of software should automatically be selected for special screening. Ordinary consumers of news can play a big role by, first, waking up to the reality that all they read on WhatsApp and Twitter is not the gospel truth, and then, by refusing to pass on what they cannot independently verify with other sources.
3. Websites that mimic well-known, credible media outlets in their name should be exposed with the vigour with which jokes are shared on social media.
4. Government should have independent agency to verify the data being circulated in social and other media. The agency should be tasked with presenting real facts and figures.
5. Government should have mechanism for immediately issuing of notice against sites/people/agencies involved in spreading fake news.
6. There should be a provision of effective balances and check of filtering fake posts before it getting viral.
7. Social media websites should be made accountable of such activities so that it becomes their responsibility to have better controlling restricting the spread of fake news.
8. Government should take active measures for promoting awareness among people about fake news and their consequences.
9. Government should enlist penal provisions to perpetrators of fake news if it causes violence or deaths.
10. Government should make mandatory for Print and Electronic media to have internal mechanism for verifying incidents, facts and figures.
11. Public should verify the accuracy and of reliability of any news or data either from government or any independent agency specifically involved in such task.
12. Public should not blindly trust any sensitive news and should not forward it to others.
13. Public should inform concerned department about any fake post as soon as they come across. They should act as active vigilant for maintaining peace and harmony in the society.
14. NGO’s and other civil society groups can play important role in spreading awareness about the ill effects of fake news.

Question

1. In the post-truth world, digitisation and fake news has become a deadly combo. Discuss. What steps can be taken to counter the menace?

Why in news

The Union Cabinet has approved The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill 2018.

Key features of the Bill

1. It allows law enforcement agencies to collect DNA samples, create “DNA profiles” and special databanks for forensic-criminal investigations.
2. It states that all DNA data, including DNA samples, DNA profiles and records, will be only used for identification of the person and not for any other purpose.
3. It creates DNA Profiling Board (DPB) that will be the final authority that will authorise the creation of State-level DNA databanks, approve the methods of collection and analysis of DNA-technologies.
4. It makes accreditation and regulation mandatory for DNA laboratories.
5. It allows the government to set up DNA databanks across India to store profiles.
6. These banks will maintain a national database for identification of victims, accused, suspects, undertrials, missing persons and unidentified human remains.
7. It also empowers the government to impose a jail term of up to 3 years and fine of up to Rs. 1 lakh on those who leak information stored in such facilities.
8. It prescribes similar punishment for those who seek information on DNA profiles illegally.

The objective of the Bill

1. Forensic DNA profiling helps in offences categorized as affecting the human body and those against property. It includes murder, rape, human trafficking, or grievous hurt and theft, burglary, dacoity.
2. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) put the number of such crimes in excess of 3 lakhs per year. Of these, only a very small proportion is being subjected to DNA testing at present.
3. The primary purpose of the Bill is thus to expand the application of DNA-based forensic technologies.

DNA Profiling Board

1. The Board, with 11 members, is supposed to be the regulatory authority that will grant accreditation to DNA laboratories and lay down guidelines, standards and procedures for their functioning.
2. It will advise central and state governments on “all issues relating to DNA laboratories”.
3. It will also be the authority to make recommendations on ethical and human rights, including privacy, issues related to DNA testing.

DNA Data Bank

1. A national databank of DNA profiles is proposed to be set up, along with regional databanks in every state
2. The new draft does not specify the location of the national databank. All regional DNA databanks will be mandated to share their information with the national databank.
3. Certain DNA Profiling Board-accredited labs would be authorised to carry out DNA testing and analysis. These are the only places to which DNA samples, picked up from a crime scene can be referred for analysis
4. Data from the analyses will need to be shared with the nearest regional DNA databank which will store it and share it with the national databank.
5. The databanks will maintain five sets of databases — for DNA samples picked up from crime scenes, for suspects or undertrials, and for offenders, missing persons, and unidentified dead bodies.

Significance of Bill

1. Bill will ensure that with proposed expanded use of DNA profiling technology in the country, there will be also assurance that DNA test results are reliable and data remain protected from misuse or abuse in terms of the privacy rights of our citizens.
2. It will also ensure speedier justice delivery and increased conviction rate.
3. It will also enable cross-matching between persons who have been reported missing on one hand and unidentified dead bodies found in various parts of the country on other, and also for establishing the identity of victims in mass disasters.
4. It will set in place, an institutional mechanism to collect and deploy DNA technologies to identify persons based on samples collected from crime scenes or for identifying missing persons.
5. The aggregate incidence of such crimes in the country, as per the statistics of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) for 2016, is in excess of 3 lakhs per year.
6. Of these, only a very small proportion is being subjected to DNA testing at present.
7. It is expected that the expanded use of this technology in these categories of cases would result not only in speedier justice delivery but also in increased conviction rates, which at present is only around 30% (NCRB Statistics for 2016).

Criticisms

1. The main issue is whether DNA technology is foolproof, and whether the proposed law adequately addresses the possibility of abuse.
2. It has been argued that although DNA technology is the best method available to carry out this kind of identification, it is still probabilistic in nature.
3. There are chances, however remote, that a wrong match is generated. If the DNA result is taken as the ultimate evidence, no recourse will be available to an individual who has been wrongly matched.
4. More frequently asserted are the privacy-related objections. Questions such as whose DNA can be collected and under what circumstances, whether the consent of the individual is required, who can access the database, to what uses the DNA information can be put apart from identifying an individual, and the circumstances under which a record can be deleted, have been raised repeatedly.
5. It has been pointed out that information like ancestry or susceptibility to a disease, or other genetic traits, is liable to be misused.
6. It has also been argued that DNA tests have not led to an improvement in conviction rates in countries where it is already being followed.

Way forward

1. Privacy issue can be handled by adopting the best practices from the world. The Bill does not set a limit to how long someone’s DNA will keep on record. In countries like UK, DNA data of a recordable offence can be kept for only six year.
2. The Law Commissions report related to scientific collection of data need to be incorporated.
3. Maintenance of strict confidentiality with regard to keeping of records of DNA profiles and their use as recommended by Malimath report can be followed.
4. Safeguard to prevent illegal collection and use of DNA data as stated by A. P. Shah Committee.
5. Need for robust process and structure for collection of DNA samples from crime scene to the laboratory for analysis, to the DNA Bank for storage and comparison.

Question

1. Highlighting its key features, critically examine the DNA Technology Regulation Bill 2018. Suggest reforms, if any.