INTRODUCTION
Today, digital space is like an alternative or a second home to lots of data, be it someone’s biometric data or preferences, extending the concept of Identity and giving birth to a term known as ‘Online Identity’[1].
As we’re aware along with the positives, the negative side of technology exists, and it has not been very kind, especially to children, which is one of the most vulnerable categories of all. Online identity abuse, being one of them, refers to the misuse or unauthorized use of someone’s personal information, images, videos, or other identifiable data on the internet. This can be done in various ways such as accessing their data through social media or other sources, and further inducing some modifications, in many cases.
Some categories[2] of wrongs that come under the ambit of online Identity abuse are Identity theft, impersonation, cyberbullying, defamation, harassment, etc. These despicable acts not only violate children’s right to privacy among other rights, but also leave a lasting impact on them, resulting in a lot of emotional and psychological distress, causing deep-rooted trauma and nightmares in many cases.
Technology today allows anyone to induce modifications in media and there are plenty of easily accessible tools to do so. These modifications involved in online identity abuse can be done with the help of notorious deepfake and cheap fake technology. While these media editing and manipulating tools, prima facie, may seem very similar but are programmed very differently and generate outcomes with different intentions. A brief overview of such technology is as follows:
MEDIA EDITING TOOLS: DEEPFAKE AND CHEAPFAKE DECEPTIONS
Deepfake technology[3] creates synthetic media, in which a person in a given picture/ video is replaced by the likeliness of someone else, which may or may not be computer generated. It works on Deep learning[4] that trains artificial neural networks[5], a type of deep learning model, to learn and make decisions on their own, which results in more sophisticated results than the usual machine learning programs.
On the other hand, cheapfakes[6], also known as ‘Poor Man’s deepfake’, are nothing but cheaper and more easily accessible media editing software tools.
Adobe’s Photoshop, Illustrator, Luminar, Snapseet, Adobe’s Premiere, Sony Vegas Pro, etc. are some common examples are cheapfakes[7] that do not incorporate deep learning but AI and machine learning to automate certain tasks, such as adjusting a person’s age and facial expressions in a picture. Adobe’s Photoshop[8] is one of the recognized tools, that uses neural filters[9] to adjust the age and facial expressions among other things in digital media.
These technologies[10] are capable of doing so much good. From Cheapfakes applications varying for entertainment purposes such as experimenting with the fun filters of Snapchat to increasing sophistication with various photo editing tools to ‘upgrade’ your face and body in a given picture and deepfake technology’s application in the entertainment industry to resurrect dead characters to restoring the voice of people who’ve lost them to some diseases, It’s not a malicious thing, necessarily. But it comes with a huge potential to blur the lines between reality and fiction and make online a potentially unsafe space to be in, especially for children.
Activities or interactions carried out in the digital sphere result in the creation of a digital footprint[11] or a digital shadow, which can be accessed and have far-reaching implications, and the latter results in a case of Online Identity abuse.
To understand the concept with better clarity, through a classic case of someone creating illicit images and then leaking them on the web, let’s look at the different kinds of online Identity abuse:
- Cheapfake Manipulation[12]– A cheap fake is a cheap and affordable kind of technology that is easily accessible by anyone.
- Deepfake Creation[13]– One of the ill-usages of deepfake technology is deepfake porn creation.
- Revenge Porn[14]– It’s a kind of digital abuse where explicit content such as photos and videos are being shared without the consent of the person in a given media.[15]
The impact these crimes leave on an individual lasts for longer than one can imagine and has the potential to destroy the victim’s self-esteem. Hence, individuals must be aware of the potential risks and consequences associated with different kinds of online identity abuse.
THE CONCEPT OF SHARENTING:
If we look today, social media has transcended its role as a mere connection platform and become a vast landscape of emotions and expressions. People share posts and pictures to convey their deepest feelings, and parents are no exception. Even when their children are too young or unaware to comprehend, parents often share their little ones’ moments without considering the question of consent. This has given rise to a new phenomenon known as ‘Sharenting’[16] – a fusion of ‘sharing’ and ‘parenting’, which is now a popular term and was coined by The Wall Street Journal[17] in 2012. Sharenting refers to the act of parents sharing their children’s data, including images and videos, on various online platforms. Data[18] has shown that around 75% of parents in the US share their kid’s data on social media, and 24% of parents keep their posts open to whom everyone has access.
Posting photos of kids on social media is a common way for parents to share their joy and love with friends and family. However, what seems like an innocent and affectionate memory to parents may be perceived merely as ‘data’ to others, presenting an opportunity for exploitation. Children, being more vulnerable in the digital world, are susceptible to potential dangers associated with identity abuse and manipulation. When children’s sensitive information is being added online such as images, preferences, age, etc. it creates an Online identity and activities leaving a digital footprint behind, opening a huge door of potential for online identity abuse for children.
Not just that, Sharenting also raises question marks on the right to privacy[19] of children given their lack of consent and even annoyance over the posted content, in most of the cases.
LEGAL PROVISIONS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST ONLINE IDENTITY ABUSE:
Some of the provisions of the Information Technology Act [IT Act] and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 protect against online identity abuse such as revenge porn as mentioned as follows:
- IT ACT[20]:
- Section 66E[21]: Mentions about violation of privacy by transmission of explicit material to an individual without their consent for which punishment of imprisonment of up to 3 years with a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs are prescribed.
- Section 67[22]– Talks about the publication and transmission of obscene material, the punishment for which is imprisonment which may extend to 5 years on a second conviction with a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs.
- Section 67A[23] Talks about the publication and transmission of sexually explicit content punishment for which is imprisonment may extend to 7 years along with a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs on the second conviction.
- Section 67B[24]: Penalizes the publication and transmission of sexual and obscene content featuring a child and prescribes a punishment of imprisonment of 5 years with a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860[25]:
- Section 354[26]– Deals with outraging the modesty of women through criminal force or assault.
- Section 354A[27]– Advancing sexual contact towards a woman, asking for sexual favors, showing her pornography against her will, or making sexually colored remarks or statements.
- Section 354C[28]– Says that capturing the image or video of a woman engaging in a private act without her knowledge and consent and disseminating such content will be guilty of voyeurism.
- Section 406[29]– Says that making the content with the knowledge and consent of the victim but disseminating it without knowledge or consent will be guilty of criminal breach of trust.
- Section 500[30]– This provision is applicable for acts involving all necessary elements of Crime Defamation where the involved person can be punished for up to 2 years.
- Section 509[31]– Talks about criminally intimidating the victim with content referred to in section 406[32].[33]
CONCLUSION
After delving into the dark corners of cybercrimes such as revenge porn and deepfake crimes in the context of online identity abuse, needless to say, it is crucial to equip ourselves with the knowledge to safeguard online identities, especially of our children.
It’s high time for parents to realize that these spontaneous posting of ‘memories’ is literally a doorway to the world of cybercrimes. As technology continues to evolve, so do the risks associated with online identity abuse and manipulation. By ensuring proper consent of children along with safety and boundaries, parents can commit to protecting the identities of children and the innocent of their childhood.
The legal landscape definitely offers protection, but there are still gaps and challenges that need to be addressed, because as technology advances, so should our legal frameworks. Let’s lead a safer digital landscape, one where our online identities are respected and protected, towards a future where technology empowers rather than threatens!
Author(s) Name: Khilansha Mukhija (Institute of Law, Nirma University)
References:
[1] Aleks Krotoski, ‘online identity: Can we really be whoever we want to be?’ (The Guardian, 19 June, 2011) < https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jun/19/aleks-krotoski-online-identity-turkle> accessed on 11 October 2023.
[2] David Finkelhor, Heather Turner, Deirdre Colburn, ‘Which dynamics make online child sexual abuse and cyberstalking more emotionally impactful: Perpetrator identity and images?’ (2023) 137 ScienceDirect 20.
[3] Ian Sample, ‘What are deepfakes- and how can you spot them?’ (The Guardian, 13 Jan 2020) < https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/13/what-are-deepfakes-and-how-can-you-spot-them> accessed on 15 October 2023.
[4] Coursera, ‘What is Depp Learning? Definition, Examples, and Careers’ (Coursera, 15 June 2023) < What Is Deep Learning? Definition, Examples, and Careers | Coursera> accessed on 10 October 2023.
[5] Tam Nguyen, ‘What is a neural network? A computer scientist explains’ (The Conversation, 11 December, 2020) < What is a neural network? A computer scientist explains (theconversation.com)> accessed on 14 October, 2023.
[6] Britt Paris, Joan Donovan, ‘Deepfake and Cheapfakes’ (Data & Society, 18 September 2019) < Data & Society — Deepfakes and Cheap Fakes (datasociety.net)> accessed on 12 October 2023.
[7] Hyosun You, ‘What are Cheapfakes (Shallowfakes)?’ (Samsung SDS Corporate Venture ‘Team9’, 23 Mayy, 2022) < https://www.samsungsds.com/en/insights/what-are-cheapfakes.html> accessed on 18 October, 2023.
[8] James Vincent, ‘Adobe wants to make a big splash with its new machine learning tools’ (Adobe, 20 Oct 2020) < Photoshop’s AI neural filters can tweak age and expression with a few clicks (theverge.com)> accessed on 15 Oct 2023.
[9] Jenn Mishra, ‘how to Use Neural Filters in Photoshop (Step by Step) (Expert Photography
[10] Ian Sample, ‘What are deepfakes- and how can you spot them?’ (The briefing, 13 Jan 2020) < What are deepfakes – and how can you spot them? | Internet | The Guardian> accessed on 14 October 2023.
[11] Ben Lutkevich, ‘Digital Footpirnt’ (WhatIs.com, 15 October 2020) < What is digital footprint? | Definition from TechTarget> accessed on 18 October, 2023.
[12] Jon Bateman, ‘Synthetic Media in the Financial System: Assessing Threat Scenarios’ (Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, 8 July 2020) < https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/07/08/deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-in-financial-system-assessing-threat-scenarios-pub-82237> accessed on 18 October 2023.
[13] ibid
[14] Raslin Saluja, ‘What to do if you are a victim of revenge porn’ (Ipleaders, 4 June, 2021) < https://blog.ipleaders.in/victim-revenge-porn/#:~:text=Revenge%20porn%20is%20referred%20to,of%20time%20was%20not%20possible.> accessed on 19 October, 2023.
[15] Alexandra Benisek, ‘What is Revenge Pornography’ (WebMD, 4 August 2022) < What Is Revenge Pornography? (webmd.com)> accessed on 16 Oct 2023.
[16] Denis Manyinsa, ‘What is Sharenting? And Why You Should Avoid Doing It’ (MakeUseOf, 20 Jul, 2023)< https://www.makeuseof.com/what-is-sharenting/> accessed on 15 Oct 2023.
[17] Cynthia Vinney,’ The Impact of ‘Sharenting’: How much Info is Too Much?’ (Verywellmind, 1 November, 2022) < The Impact of ‘Sharenting’: How Much Info Is Too Much? (verywellmind.com)> accessed on 15 October, 2023.
[18] Arooj Ahmed, ‘Report’ (Digital Information World, 25 May 2021)< https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2021/05/report-shows-75-percent-of-parents.html#:~:text=Around%201%20in%204%20of%20parents%20have%20put,and%20they%20have%20never%20met%20face%20to%20face> accessed on 16 Oct 2023.
[19] Laila Robiatul Adawiah, Yeni Rachmawati, ‘Parenting Program to Protect Children’s Privacy: The phenomenon of Sharenting Children on social media’ [2021]15 Jurnal Pendidikan Usia Dini 163.
[20] Vinod Joseph and Deeya Ray, ‘India: Cyber Crimes Under The IPC and IT Act- An Uneasy Co-Existence’ (Mondaq, 10 February, 2020) < https://www.mondaq.com/india/it-and-internet/891738/cyber-crimes-under-the-ipc-and-it-act—an-uneasy-co-existence> accessed on 12 October, 2023.
[21] Information Technology Act 2000 (India)
[22] Information Technology Act 2000 (India)
[23] Information Technology Act 2000 (India)
[24] Information Technology Act 2000 (India)
[25] ibid
[26] Indian Penal Code 1860 (India)
[27] Indian Penal Code 1860 (India)
[28] Indian Penal Code 1860 (India)
[29] Indian Penal Code 1860 (India)
[30] Indian Penal Code 1860 (India)
[31] Indian Penal Code 1860 (India)
[32] Indian Penal Code 1860 (India)
[33] Nikhil Thakur, ‘Section 406 IPC: What is the punishment for criminal breach of trust’ (Ipleaders, 18 February, 2022) < https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-406-ipc-what-is-the-punishment-for-criminal-breach-of-trust/> accessed on 19 October, 2023.
