[Answered] Examine the challenges to privacy in the contemporary ‘fishbowl society’. Critically analyze the sufficiency of SOPs to curb Non-Consensual Intimate Image Abuse, advocating for comprehensive action.

Introduction

In India’s digitally saturated “fishbowl society,” where over 820 million citizens use the Internet (TRAI, 2024), privacy risks intensify as AI-driven deepfakes and surveillance capitalism erode autonomy beyond conventional data-protection frameworks.

Privacy Challenges in a Contemporary ‘Fishbowl Society’

1. From loss of privacy to loss of autonomy: Deepfake technologies powered by Generative AI, GANs, and synthetic imaging increasingly violate personal autonomy. The Puttaswamy judgment (2017) recognised privacy as intrinsic dignity; however, AI-enabled impersonation diminishes bodily integrity, consent, and agency far beyond “data misuse.”
2. Absence of obscurity in digital ecosystems: “Digital obscurity”—the right to remain unnoticed—has collapsed. As Meredith Broussard warns in Artificial Unintelligence, over-reliance on opaque algorithms exposes individuals to perpetual scrutiny, escalating anxiety, psychological trauma, and social stigma.
3. Rapid spread of Non-Consensual Intimate Image Abuse (NCII): Deepfake pornography disproportionately targets women and transgender persons. CyberPeace Foundation (2023) found over 90% of deepfake victims were women, highlighting gendered vulnerability.
   However, no granular NCRB data exists for NCII, limiting evidence-based policymaking.
4. Structural factors worsening vulnerability: Low digital literacy among young women regarding voyeurism, morphing, deepfakes. Patriarchal norms, victim-blaming, and fear of reputational loss. Social-media virality, platform opacity, and lack of traceability of synthetic content. Undertrained police and limited cyber-forensics capacity.
5. Fragmented legal framework: Although India has: IT Act 2000, DPDP Act 2023, Puttaswamy privacy jurisprudence, Intermediary Guidelines 2021/2025
   the framework does not fully address synthetic media, algorithmic risk, or non-consensual AI-generated imagery.

SOPs on NCII: A Welcome Step but Not Sufficient

The Ministry’s 2025 SOPs requiring 24-hour takedown of NCII content and multiple reporting channels are positive but inadequate in addressing structural and technological complexities.

1. Lack of enforceability and accountability: SOPs do not define: Platform liability, Punitive measures, Standards for AI model governance, Responsibility of developers, unlike EU’s Digital Services Act.
2. Gender-non-inclusive framework: Despite Supreme Court recognition of transgender persons (NALSA vs Union of India, 2014), SOPs lack gender-neutral language, ignoring evidence that transwomen face disproportionate deepfake harassment.
3. Absence of technical safeguards: The SOPs do not mandate: Proactive detection tools, Hash-matching, Content provenance, watermarking of AI-generated media, as adopted under the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) globally.
4. Weak institutional capacity: Without investment in: cyber labs, trained police, ML-based forensics, response will remain symbolic. NCRB data shows a 94% pendency in cybercrime cases (2022) due to investigation delays.
5. Reporting barriers and social stigma: OPs do not address psychological and socio-cultural barriers—fear, shame, moral policing—that deter victims from approaching authorities.
6. Fragmented federal coordination: Since policing is a State List subject, SOPs cannot ensure harmonised implementation. RTI responses revealing lack of State-level data highlight systemic coordination failures.

The Way Forward: Comprehensive, Multi-Level Action

1. Legal Reforms: Enact a dedicated NCII and Deepfake Regulation Law incorporating definitions, graded punishments, and platform duties. Mandate algorithmic transparency, risk assessments, and AI audit trails.
2. Institutional Strengthening: Establish digital forensic units in every district. Integrate NCII modules in police academies, judicial training, and community policing.
3. Platform Accountability: Proactive filtering, hash-databases, watermarking, and reporting dashboards. Penalties for negligent moderation.
4. Victim-Centric Mechanisms: Gender-neutral protection, psychological support, safe reporting channels, immediate access to legal aid, anonymised complaint procedures. Public digital literacy campaigns.

Conclusion

As Shoshana Zuboff warns in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, privacy cannot survive without structural safeguards. SOPs are foundational but insufficient; only comprehensive, rights-based, gender-inclusive reforms can counter NCII harms.