Labeling requirements under the draft synthetic information rules are premature and impose significant burdens without consummate benefits, the digital services industry body Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) says. This comes as part of its submission to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) on the draft amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021). The amendment adds regulations for synthetically generated information (SGI), which the rules define as “information which is artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered using a computer resource, in a manner that such information reasonably appears to be authentic or true.”
One of the requirements mentioned under the draft synthetic information rules is for SGI service providers to prominently label, or embed metadata or a unique identifier within said content.
“We respectfully submit that the inclusion of proposed Rule 3(3), which would mandate prominent, persistent labelling and the embedding of permanent unique identifiers on synthetic content by intermediaries that enable its creation or modification, is premature at this stage. The proposed rule risks mandating technologies that are not yet mature, reliable, interoperable, or privacy-preserving,” IAMAI explained. Similarly, IT and business process outsourcing (BPO) trade body Nasscom has also pushed back against the rules, arguing that, based on the definition of synthetically generated information in the rules, a bulk of the data on the internet would need a label.
Key comments from industry bodies about the synthetic information rules:
Absence of distinctions between AI intermediaries and social media platforms:
The definition of intermediary under the IT Act applies to any person who receives, stores, or transmits content on behalf of another person. IAMAI says that this definition applies to platforms that host third-party content instead of the delivery of direct AI services. “Rule 3(3) of the Draft Amendments applies to any intermediary offering ‘a computer resource which may enable, permit, or facilitate the creation, generation, modification, or alteration’ of SGI – this inadvertently encompasses both intermediary platforms (including content disseminators) as well as AI service providers (including content generators),” IAMAI explains.
By imposing intermediary obligations on AI service providers, the draft synthetic information rules expand liability beyond the existing regime without a clear legal basis for doing so. As such, it urges the government to remove this rule from the amendment.
Define deceptive synthetic Content instead of SGI:
Both IAMAI and Nasscom expressed concern about the broad nature of the SGI definition. To address this, Nasscom suggested that the government should conceptualise ‘deceptive synthetic content’ as…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
