Kaashvi Hiranandani AI Porn Case Exposes Flaws in India’s Harassment Laws
Kaashvi Hiranandani became the target of AI porn with morphed nudes being spread and sold online. The case was reduced to online harassment. This article gets into why Indian laws urgently need reform to protect streamers, women and other identities.
Image Via Kaashvi's Instagram
Imagine a world where morphed explicit images of you are sold, distributed and held against your will despite your pleas of reason, all hidden behind aliases of terror. That is the living reality of Kaashvi Hiranandani, alongside millions of streamers and common people. The crime? All shoved under Online Harassment. But, is that term really fair?
Kaashvi got her partial justice because she had community and pressure alongside her…but what if she didn't? And even if she has, what about the scars and trauma that she’ll likely carry for the rest of her life. Is that the cost of streaming or the cost of the system failing us instead? Should streamers be protected under special laws?
Let’s take China for example — an authoritarian country, yes, has premeditated laws set in place before such heinous acts can even be committed. India has the longest constitution in the world yet it doesn’t account for premeditation in such crimes. Why? Democracy isn’t the justification. Outdated thinking is.
This article isn’t a foolproof solution or absolute truth. It’s an angle few talk about… even if they could be impacted the most by it. This article is going to be complex and layered, so if you actually want to go past ‘new valorant drops’, let’s get into it. Otherwise, you have plenty of options anyways.
Should Streamers Get Specific Laws?
Kaashvi is one person, xyz is another. Whoever it is, might also be the face of India. It sounds far-fetched but that’s kind of the hold ‘soft power’ has. So, shouldn’t India also nurture streamers and protect them? To draw a comparison, Fortnite had to be cordial with NINJA even if they didn't like him at the peak of his career. Why? Because of the power he held.
Sure, some can point out that streamers are only seeking their own profit. But, they still are citizens, which means they deserve to be properly protected, especially from such AI circulated images. Some will disregard this statement, but it has the same notion as taking Sage to self heal, ultimately they also heal the rest as well. You can’t blame the career just like you can’t blame the agent — you end up blaming the game: system
And that system is exactly what we need to question. Take Kaashvi’s case, morphed images of her were created, circulated and profited off but ended up being listed under Online Harassment. Why is it not included under financial crime? The same crime that covers betting, money laundering and even child porn. In simpler words online harassment doesn’t really take into account the economic side, it’s just treated as a moral or criminal offense. But, those images were profited off of her body.
She was objectified and stripped from her dignity and in a sense…”bought”. So, why isn’t it under financial crime, the same way child porn is considered due to the digital trafficking and financial transactions? Not to compare the crimes, but it creates a question, especially when such pictures of streamers are circulated and usually bought through UPI — can it not be traced? A thought I’ll fully explore in my second article, but before that:
VPN Comes In Question
It’s like walling off a site and just forgetting about it in lower lobbies. The internet gives people power and VPN is the sceptre. It makes people think that they are invincible and invisible.
But that’s the catch, just like omen tping over that wall, VPN is just a tool. They help secure your privacy especially in countries where it’s sorely needed. The issue arises when that privacy becomes a shield for such predators.
VPN shouldn’t be controlled but like Valorant’s new pre-banning system. If such images are being bought using discord, telegram etc, then why can’t they be more safeguarded with AI? After all, why not fight fire with fire? Laws have to keep up with the evolving society and not be segregated in a way that makes it look like it sees women as just a commodity. Ofcourse, one can argue the law can’t modify specific apps. It can't, but it can try — especially when it’s already done so with Whatsapp. If they’re willing to do so for their benefit, why not for the benefit of citizens as well now?
In a world where digital bodies of streamers are being sold, it deserves to be treated as more than just online harassment. The issue is even more complex and layered. So, if you want an even deeper dive, follow along for my article that will look into UPI transactions that may or may not tip-toe a very fine line between democratic or authoritarian — along with what helps it tip in our favor. If you want to put forward more ideas, reach out to me on my linkedin page.
Written By Sarah Dar (Freelancer, India Today Gaming)
