R2R NEWSPAPER NOTES

Fresh SSB batches starts 1st & 15th of every month. Referred articles were published in The Hindu.

1. What is the European Commission age verification check to keep children safe online?

• European Commission's Initiative:
  • Developing an age verification app under the Digital Services Act (DSA) to protect minors from harmful content online.
  • Aims to stop children from accessing unsafe content while protecting adult users' privacy.
  • Deadline for implementation: Early 2025.
• Challenges and Concerns:
  • Privacy implications: Critics argue the app might involve mass surveillance and compromise privacy due to the collection of personal data.
  • Effectiveness: Concerns about the app's ability to truly verify ages and prevent minors from bypassing age checks.
  • "Self-declaration" issues: Simply asking users to declare their age is not sufficient, as children can easily lie.
  • Digital Divide: Concerns about the impact on individuals who lack access to smartphones or digital literacy.
  • Industry Opposition: Most companies are against mandatory age verification, preferring self-regulation.
  • Content Restrictions: The debate extends to whether certain social media platforms should be allowed to restrict access to adult content based on age.
• Proposed Solutions and Approaches:
  • Open-source specifications: The app's technical specifications will be freely available to view and use.
  • Interoperability: The app aims to be interoperable across different platforms and services.
  • Privacy-preserving technologies: The Commission emphasizes the use of privacy-preserving technologies like cryptographic methods.
  • Alternative methods: Exploring options like "digital wallets" (eID) and "passive checks" (e.g., analyzing Browse behavior).
  • Industry collaboration: Encouraging cooperation between platforms and privacy groups to develop effective and ethical solutions.
  • "Know-your-customer" principles: Applying these principles to online content to ensure age verification.
• Criticism from Privacy Advocates:
  • Organizations like EDRI and digital rights groups argue that age verification could lead to "systemic surveillance".
  • Clemens Vasters (Microsoft) states that "The only proven way to know the user's age is to require a state-issued ID," which raises privacy concerns.
  • Journalist Jennifer L. Homsley highlights that "the proposed age verification system is cumbersome and potentially invasive."

• India's AI Strategy:
  • Proactive Approach: India is stepping up its efforts to shape the global AI governance debate.
  • MyGov.in Platform: Launched a nationwide consultation through this platform in June, inviting input from students, researchers, startups, and civil society groups.
  • Goal: To advance inclusive growth, improve development, and protect the planet through AI.
• Pledges and Report Cards:
  • Digital Public Infrastructure: India's digital tools, such as Aadhaar and UPI, can serve as a foundation for ethical AI development.
  • Responsible AI: India's approach emphasizes accuracy without hallucination, building trust, ensuring privacy, and achieving democratic outcomes.
  • AI Pledge and Report Card: The framework includes 10 pledges and a public website to track progress.
  • Multilingual Model Challenge: A $50 million prize for developing a multilingual AI model.
• Challenges and Opportunities:
  • Global Divide: The geopolitical divide between the US, Europe, and China impacts AI governance.
  • Fragmentation: The debate around AI is fragmented, requiring a unified approach.
  • Trust and Transparency: The need for AI systems to be explainable, transparent, and accountable.
  • Safety and Security: Addressing concerns about hallucination, cybersecurity, and misuse of AI.
  • Inclusivity: Ensuring AI benefits all, not just privileged groups.
• Global Leadership:
  • Middle Ground: India seeks to establish a middle ground between the US and China on AI governance.
  • Bletchley Park Summit (2023): India expressed its desire to contribute to global AI safety discussions.
  • Collaboration: India can foster collaboration with other nations on AI safety, red teaming, and stress tests.
  • Trust-based Framework: India's emphasis on trust and ethics positions it as a leader in responsible AI.

• Controversy over Temple Management:
  • Issue: The extent of state control over Hindu temples in India, particularly regarding the Religious Endowments Act.
  • Historical Context: Roots in British colonial rule (1858 onwards), which sought to control temple wealth.
  • Madras Religious Endowments Act 1927: Allowed the government to divert temple funds for non-religious purposes.
• Legal Framework and Challenges:
  • Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959: Empowers the government to receive surplus funds from temples.
  • Section 36 of the 1959 Act: Permits trustees to appropriate surplus funds for other religious purposes.
  • Criticism: These provisions are seen as enabling mismanagement and diversion of temple funds.
  • Madras High Court Rulings: The court has upheld the right of the government to control temple administration.
• Arguments for and Against State Control:
  • Pro-Control Arguments:
    • Prevent Mismanagement: State control is necessary to prevent corruption and mismanagement of temple funds.
    • Historical Precedent: Colonial era laws established state oversight.
    • Social Welfare: Temple funds can be used for public welfare.
  • Anti-Control Arguments:
    • Religious Freedom: Interference violates the religious freedom of Hindus.
    • Discrimination: Only Hindu temples are subjected to such extensive state control.
    • Lack of Accountability: Critics argue that state control often leads to further corruption.
    • Political Interference: Allows for political interference in religious matters.
• Social Justice Implications:
  • Accessibility: Temples were historically places of social justice, providing welfare and educational facilities.
  • Inclusivity: The debate highlights how temples can be more inclusive and serve the wider community.
  • Dalit Rights: Some argue that temples should remain open to all, irrespective of caste.
• Calls for Reform:
  • Shift in Policy: There is a need for a shift towards a more equitable and transparent governance model for temples.
  • Devolution of Power: Advocates for greater autonomy for temple administration.
  • Uniform Civil Code: Some argue that a uniform civil code could address the disparities in religious laws.

• Allegations of Genocide:
  • South Africa's Complaint: South Africa lodged a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.
  • Basis of Allegation: Based on the 1948 Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
  • Key Evidence: Alleged widespread destruction of infrastructure, forced displacement of Palestinians, high death tolls, and rhetoric from Israeli officials.
• ICJ Proceedings and Rulings:
  • January 2024: ICJ issued provisional measures, ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts and ensure humanitarian aid access.
  • May 2024: ICJ reiterated its order, instructing Israel to halt military operations in Rafah.
  • Compliance Issues: Critics argue Israel has not fully complied with the ICJ's orders.
• International Legal Debate:
  • Intent: The core legal debate revolves around proving "specific intent" to destroy a group.
  • "Plausible" Genocide: The ICJ's provisional measures indicate a "plausible" risk of genocide, but a final ruling on intent is pending.
  • Experts' Opinions:
    • Some legal experts believe Israel's actions and rhetoric suggest genocidal intent.
    • Others argue that Israel's actions are self-defense and do not meet the high bar for genocide.
  • Distinction between War Crimes and Genocide: The debate distinguishes between violations of international humanitarian law (war crimes) and genocide, which requires specific intent to destroy.
• Humanitarian Crisis:
  • Casualties: Over 37,000 Palestinians killed (as of June), with a high proportion of women and children.
  • Displacement: Over 1.7 million people displaced (nearly 75% of Gaza's population).
  • Infrastructure Destruction: Widespread destruction of homes, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure.
  • Famine: Concerns about impending famine due to aid restrictions.
• International Response:
  • UN Calls: Calls for an immediate ceasefire and unimpeded humanitarian aid access.
  • UNSC Resolutions: Resolutions demanding a ceasefire and protection of civilians.
  • Sanctions: Calls for sanctions against Israel by some international actors.
  • US Stance: The US generally supports Israel's right to self-defense but has expressed concerns about civilian casualties.
• Historical Context:
  • Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The conflict has deep historical roots, making a resolution complex.
  • Previous ICJ Cases: The ICJ has previously dealt with cases of alleged genocide, setting precedents for current proceedings.

NEWS IN SHORTS