The Brazilian Parliament is all set to consider a fake news legislation next week which includes a traceability provision much like the proposed amendments to India’s intermediary guidelines.
Traceability has also become a hot button issue before courts in India and IFF is an intervenor in one of the cases currently pending before the Supreme Court. It would be interesting to see how this issue plays out in Brazil since we will face a similar challenge when the Indian government decides to notify the amendments to the intermediary guidelines.
What do others think about this issue? Is traceability even technically feasible? What are its implications for rights beyond privacy such as freedom of speech and association?
This is an interesting thing. I think the distinction has to be drawn between news and op-eds. IMO news is more about facts than interpretation. Interpretation are opinions which should not come under the purview.
Now that I think of it, Press should have a body which can examine the posts and the claim made by media if it is a news. Again, it’s scope should not include opinion. The blurred line between the two has lead to the ignorance. There should be clear distinction between the two. It must also be noted that facts doesn’t mean what the govt data portrays, it can be independently sourced but the reliability is what matter of both.
IMO news is more about facts than interpretation
While technically true, I can see news channels bypass this by claiming that they are entertainment.
The blurred line between the two has lead to the ignorance.
OT, but I think cause and effect are reversed here. We have access to all the information in the world. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is literally one click away. But people still think that the solar eclipse is a bad time to eat and will justify their beliefs with all sorts of BS. People choose what they want to believe.
I think the ignorance is a result of questioning and free-thinking not being considered virtues, sometimes being actively dissuaded. The media is just the vulture pecking at that wound.
You still have a point though. I believe that If this distinction is made and enforced in good spirit, the “effect” will propogate backwards and lead to positive change.
Agreed and this I believe can be the starting point. Zee Cinema and Zee News should be two different categories and News should not be for entertainment. One can argue then Bollywood masala or paparazzi kind of stuff is also news but then they also have the option to run this on their entertainment channels.
As for ignorance, I would let people interpret and believe whatever they want. On the other hand the portrayal or painting of the picture can be corrected with a good over watch(in the direction of accountability, think Radio Rawanda here) and we can hope that people will understand. Although I would not be in support for that either but then the misuse of freedom of press in the name of News is wide spread. Press should be equally answerable to the people as the govts., they cannot just limit themselves to holding a placard with authority of questioning and not be questioned.
“It assumes that application providers are always able to identify and distinguish forwarded and non-forwarded content, and also able to identify the origin of a forwarded message. This depends in practice on the service architecture and on the relation between the application and the service.” Can you please explain what this means in a non technical way?
For example, whatsapp could have a full chain of history for a message - who composed it, who forwarded it, who viewed it.
Whereas gmail, it doesn’t know. A could have typed it in hotmail, sent it to B on yahoo mail, and C running an mail server herself eventually forwarded it to a gmail account of D. Chain of ‘custody’ is not intact.
Therefore Gmail cannot be sure whether C was the originator or forwarder.
If you try using things like detecting “Fw” or “Fwd” or inline quotes, they can be easily spoofed since it can be edited, added or removed manually.