The issue of surveillance on Opposition leaders and journalists using spyware software. It highlights the need for accountability and transparency in a democracy, as well as the importance of independent investigations.
Over a dozen Opposition leaders and journalists have received email alerts from Apple stating that their devices were targeted by "state-sponsored attackers."
This suggests a possible repeat of the Pegasus episode, where Pegasus spyware was used to target Opposition leaders, journalists, and dissidents.
In July 2021, the Pegasus Project found that at least 40 journalists, cabinet Ministers, and officials in India were possibly subject to surveillance using Pegasus software.
A Supreme Court panel in India found no conclusive evidence of the spyware on the 29 phones it examined, but noted that the Union government was not cooperating with the panel.
Other governments in the West implemented stringent steps following the disclosures on spyware use, unlike the Indian government's lackadaisical approach.
Apple's iPhones are used by nearly 20% of smartphone users worldwide and 7% in India.
Spyware software like Pegasus has targeted iPhones and iOS since 2016.
Apple has released updates to fix Pegasus exploits and has sued NSO.
The recent alerts sent by Apple do not accuse a specific state actor.
The targets of the surveillance are opposition leaders and journalists.
An independent and empowered investigation is needed to verify if the ruling establishment is subjecting them to surveillance.
The government must disclose its dealings with NSO and its use of software provided by such agencies.
The government should follow other governments in proscribing such entities.
The ownership and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) in the context of artificial intelligence (AI). It highlights the contrasting approaches taken by the United States and India in recognizing AI-generated work for copyright protection.
The Biden administration issued an Executive Order on 'Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI)' on October 30.
The regulation of AI is becoming a priority for global leaders due to its potential implications for humanity.
Ownership and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights in AI is a challenging area.
Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney have raised copyright-related questions.
The use of copyrighted materials as training data and copyright ownership over AI-generated output are among the concerns.
A recent court decision in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia provides insights on copyright in AI-created work.
The case involved an AI system called 'Creativity Machine' that autonomously created a piece of visual art.
The owner of the AI system applied for copyright registration, mentioning the AI system as the author of the work.
The copyright of the work would be transferred to the owner of the AI system.
The copyright office rejected an application for copyright protection because the submitted work lacked human authorship.
The applicant challenged the rejection in the District Court.
The primary legal question before the court was whether a work autonomously generated by an AI system could be copyrightable.
The court concluded that human creativity was essential to copyright protection.
The court's reasoning aligns with the position of the U.S. Copyright Office, which stated that copyright can only protect material that is the product of human creativity.
The U.S. Copyright Office requires applicants to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content in their applications.
The office has also initiated a public consultation on copyright-related questions posed by AI.
In 2020, the Indian Copyright Office registered a work of art called 'Suryast' with an AI system named "RAGHAV Artificial Intelligence Painting App" listed as a coauthor.
The Copyright Office had previously rejected an application where the same AI system was listed as the sole author.
The Copyright Office ignored the human authorship requirement in Indian copyright law when granting registration with an AI system as a co-author.
The office sent a notice to the human co-author declaring its intent to withdraw the registration, but the work remains registered according to the Indian Copyright Office website.
The Copyright Office has not provided any mandatory disclosure requirements on the use of AI or initiated broader consultations on this issue.
The 161st Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce recommended reviewing the Copyright Act 1957 and the Patent Act 1970 to incorporate AI and AI-related inventions.
The report's recommendations aim to relax the standards for securing copyright and patents, but they do not consider the potential adverse implications for the startup ecosystem in India.
IP rights confer monopoly protection and can have negative consequences on society
Existing IP protections may not be suitable for AI-generated work
Traditional economic arguments for copyright or patents do not apply to AI systems
Policymakers and courts in India should be cautious about diluting human-centricity in copyright law.