NEW DELHI: The central government on Friday raised alarm over the dangers of unchecked online activity after it presented to the court a fake yet verified account of "Supreme Court of Karnataka."
"We created this account. It is verified. I can now post anything, and lakhs would believe that the Supreme Court of Karnataka has said it," Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta said, pointing out the anonymity and lack of accountability that currently exists online.
To further prove the point, Mehta informed that they had also created an "AI-generated video where Your Lordship appears to speak against the nation."
"It's unlawful, but it doesn't fit any category under Section 69A," he told the court. Justice Nagaprasanna labeled the act in question as "unlawful" and AI-generated, prompting Mehta to clarify that the legal framework allows for both strict and mild responses.
This came during a hearing on X Corp’s challenge to government takedown orders issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. X Corp argues that only Section 69A, along with the applicable IT Rules, provides the proper legal framework for issuing content blocking directives.
Representing the Centre in its ongoing clash with social media giant X Corp, Mehta cited the account as a key example of how easily digital platforms can be exploited to spread misinformation and deceive the public.
Objecting to this, senior advocate KG Raghavan, representing X Corp, said, "You cannot pass this off to the Court without scrutiny or context."
Raghavan acknowledged the potential for misuse on digital platforms but pointed out that misinformation isn't exclusive to the online world, referencing a 2002 case involving false reporting by the press. He later informed the court that X had removed the fake account in question.
Mehta reiterated the Centre’s longstanding position, first outlined in the landmark Shreya Singhal case, that internet users effectively function as their own publisher, printer, and broadcaster, complicating but justifying the need for regulation. He clarified that the fake account in question was never used to post any content and was created purely to illustrate how quickly impersonation can occur online.
The matter has be scheduled for July 25.
"We created this account. It is verified. I can now post anything, and lakhs would believe that the Supreme Court of Karnataka has said it," Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta said, pointing out the anonymity and lack of accountability that currently exists online.
To further prove the point, Mehta informed that they had also created an "AI-generated video where Your Lordship appears to speak against the nation."
"It's unlawful, but it doesn't fit any category under Section 69A," he told the court. Justice Nagaprasanna labeled the act in question as "unlawful" and AI-generated, prompting Mehta to clarify that the legal framework allows for both strict and mild responses.
This came during a hearing on X Corp’s challenge to government takedown orders issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. X Corp argues that only Section 69A, along with the applicable IT Rules, provides the proper legal framework for issuing content blocking directives.
Representing the Centre in its ongoing clash with social media giant X Corp, Mehta cited the account as a key example of how easily digital platforms can be exploited to spread misinformation and deceive the public.
Objecting to this, senior advocate KG Raghavan, representing X Corp, said, "You cannot pass this off to the Court without scrutiny or context."
Raghavan acknowledged the potential for misuse on digital platforms but pointed out that misinformation isn't exclusive to the online world, referencing a 2002 case involving false reporting by the press. He later informed the court that X had removed the fake account in question.
Mehta reiterated the Centre’s longstanding position, first outlined in the landmark Shreya Singhal case, that internet users effectively function as their own publisher, printer, and broadcaster, complicating but justifying the need for regulation. He clarified that the fake account in question was never used to post any content and was created purely to illustrate how quickly impersonation can occur online.
The matter has be scheduled for July 25.
You may also like
No mercy for those who spread drugs, says Punjab CM
Child killed in Minehead school bus crash was 10-year-old boy, police confirm
Anti-LWE operations: Security forces recover six Maoists' bodies; cache of weapons seized
Indian Pilots' Body Seeks Role In AI-171 Crash Probe As Technical Adviser To Ensure Transparency
Royal Family LIVE: Prince Harry's Angola trip 'signals thaw with King' for this key reason
