3rd July 2024 (9 Topics)
1
Jul
2
Jul
3
Jul
4
Jul
5
Jul
6
Jul
8
Jul
9
Jul
10
Jul
11
Jul
12
Jul
13
Jul
15
Jul
16
Jul
17
Jul
18
Jul
19
Jul
20
Jul
22
Jul
23
Jul
24
Jul
25
Jul
26
Jul
27
Jul
29
Jul
30
Jul
31
Jul
Digital Jurisprudence in India, in an AI Era
You must be logged in to get greater insights. click here to login
Context
The advent of Generative AI (GAI) poses unique challenges to existing legal frameworks and judicial precedents. The current legal infrastructure, designed for a pre-AI era, struggles to govern the rapidly evolving technology, necessitating a comprehensive re-evaluation of digital jurisprudence.
Safe Harbour and Liability Fixation
- Introduction to the Issue: The issue of liability fixation for intermediaries hosting content has been a persistent and contentious one. The Shreya Singhal judgment upheld Section 79 of the IT Act, granting intermediaries ‘safe harbour’ protection contingent on meeting due diligence requirements.
- Contrasting Views on GAI Tools: GAI tools are seen by some as intermediaries, similar to search engines, while others view them as conduits for user prompts, complicating the application of safe harbour protections.
- Legal Conflicts: Legal conflicts involving GAI outputs, such as the 2023 lawsuit against OpenAI, highlight the challenges in classifying GAI tools and assigning liability, particularly when user reposts are involved.
Copyright Conundrum
- Existing Provisions: Section 16 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 does not accommodate AI-generated works, raising questions about the need for revisions to include AI-authored content.
- Questions of Authorship: The 161st Parliamentary Standing Committee Report indicates that the current Copyright Act is ill-equipped to address authorship and ownership by AI, leading to uncertainty in liability for copyright infringement.
- Enforcement Challenges: ChatGPT’s ‘Terms of Use’ shift liability to the user, but the enforceability of such terms in India is uncertain, complicating legal actions against copyright infringements by AI tools.
Data Privacy and Personal Information
- Privacy Jurisprudence: The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment laid the foundation for privacy jurisprudence, leading to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP), which introduces rights to erasure and the right to be forgotten.
- Challenges with GAI Models: GAI models' inability to unlearn absorbed data poses significant challenges in exercising control over personal information, despite DPDP provisions.
- Implications for Personal Data: The integration of personal information into AI models raises critical questions about safeguarding individual rights while leveraging powerful AI technologies.
Steps to Pursue
- Learning by Doing: Granting temporary immunity from liability to GAI platforms through a sandbox approach allows responsible development and data gathering to inform future regulations.
- Data Rights and Responsibilities: Overhauling data acquisition processes for GAI training to ensure proper licensing and compensation, potentially through revenue-sharing or licensing agreements.
- Licensing Challenges: Creating centralised platforms for licensing data, akin to stock photo websites, to streamline access and ensure data integrity against historical biases and discrimination.
UPSC Mains Question
Q. Evaluate the impact of generative AI on data privacy and personal information. How can individuals exercise control over their personal data within the framework of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023?
Courses
Study
Notes
Home
Resources
More
