Articles

Indian Evidence Act and Digital Evidence
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contains set of rules and regulations regarding admissibility of evidence in the Indian Courts of law. Indian Evidence Act was passed by the British Parliament in 1872 setting up a path-breaking judicial measure by changing traditional legal systems of different social groups and communities. Since then from time to time amendments are made in the Indian Evidence Act to make it compatible with changing times.


The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contains set of rules and regulations regarding admissibility of evidence in the Indian Courts of law. Indian Evidence Act was passed by the British Parliament in 1872 setting up a path-breaking judicial measure by changing traditional legal systems of different social groups and communities. Since then from time to time amendments are made in the Indian Evidence Act to make it compatible with changing times.

What If?
1,791 numbers of cases registered in India in 2011 under the Information Technology Act and concerning provisions. (Source NCRB database). Many more must have been registered in 2012 (Stats are yet to be declared) and much more go unnoticed due many reasons. Thanks to CHmag, every week I get at least 3-4 emails asking about different queries about law and procedures (unfortunately most of the people look for “free” advice). So, from this issue onwards I am going to discuss some of the most common questions.


1,791 numbers of cases registered in India in 2011 under the Information Technology Act and concerning provisions. (Source NCRB database). Many more must have been registered in 2012 (Stats are yet to be declared) and much more go unnoticed due many reasons.

Thanks to CHmag, every week I get at least 3-4 emails asking about different queries about law and procedures (unfortunately most of the people look for “free” advice). So, from this issue onwards I am going to discuss some of the most common questions.

Case Study - Section 66C
Vinod Kaushik and Ors. V. Madhvika Joshi and Ors., Before Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, AdjudicatingOfficer,Information Technology Act, 2000, Government of Maharastra, At Mantralaya,Mumbai- 400032, Complaint No.2 of 2010192 The adjudicating officer held that the act of the wife to access information from the email account ofthe husband without his permission is unauthorized access under Section 43 of the IT Act, 2000.


Vinod Kaushik and Ors. V. Madhvika Joshi and Ors., Before Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, AdjudicatingOfficer,Information Technology Act, 2000, Government of Maharastra, At Mantralaya,Mumbai- 400032, Complaint No.2 of 2010192

Offensiveness and Freedom of Speech – A Comparative Study of our Rights and Duties in the Digital World
"Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.” ― Jim C. HinesYes, you have guessed it right, it with reference to current things happenings around. Although I had written in one of the earlier editions about Sec. 66A my intention behind writing this article is to give readers a fair idea about legal status in India about the burning issue of Freedom of speech and expression and rights in the digital world.


“Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.” ― Jim C. Hines

Yes, you have guessed it right, it with reference to current things happenings around.

Although I had written in one of the earlier editions about Sec. 66A my intention behind writing this article is to give readers a fair idea about legal status in India about the burning issue of Freedom of speech and expression and rights in the digital world.

Recent incidents

Social Media & Indian Cyber Law
In India, there has been a lot of controversy over the last few months over Section 66A of the Indian Cyberlaw being the amended Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 on different occasions. In Professor AmbikeshMahapatra case, Professor AmbikeshMahapatra was arrested on account of forwarding of caricature/cartoons on Facebook.  Further, Ravi Srinivasan Twitter case showed how on a complaint, a person’s tweets could be brought within the ambit of Section 66A of the amended Indian Information Technology Act, 2000. In K V Rao case, two men K.V. Rao and Mayank from Mumbai, were arrested for allegedly posting offensive comments against some leaders on their Facebook group.


In India, there has been a lot of controversy over the last few months over Section 66A of the Indian Cyberlaw being the amended Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 on different occasions. In Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra case, Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra was arrested on account of forwarding of caricature/cartoons on Facebook. Further, Ravi Srinivasan Twitter case showed how on a complaint, a person’s tweets could be brought within the ambit of Section 66A of the amended Indian Information Technology Act, 2000.

Landmark Cases Decided by the Adjucation Office U/Chapt. IX of the IT Act
(I) Shri.Thomas Raju Vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai Case decided by – the Adjudicating officer, Government of Tamilnadu. Civil Jurisdiction. Petition No. 3 of 2011 Dated– 16th May, 2011 Petitioner, an employee of a Chennai based IT company, suffered a loss of Rs. 1, 62,800/- as a result of the phishing attack. The said amount was supposed to have been transferred on the account of another customer of ICICI Bank. Petitioner claimed that he had suffered a wrongful loss due to unauthorised access to his savings account at the Anna Nagar branch of ICICI Bank.


(I)  Shri.Thomas Raju Vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai

Case decided by – the Adjudicating officer, Government of Tamilnadu.

Civil Jurisdiction.

Petition No. 3 of 2011

Dated– 16th May, 2011

Petitioner, an employee of a Chennai based IT company, suffered a loss of Rs. 1, 62,800/- as a result of the phishing attack. The said amount was supposed to have been transferred on the account of another customer of ICICI Bank.

Firos Vs. State of Kerala AIR2006 Ker 279, 2006
The Government of Kerala issued a notification u/s 70 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) declaring the FRIENDS application software as a protected system. Sec. 70 of the IT Act reads as – Protected System 1. The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any computer resource which directly or indirectly affects the facility of Critical Information Infrastructure, to be a protected system.


Introduction

The Government of Kerala issued a notification u/s 70 of the Information Technology Act,  2000 (IT Act) declaring the FRIENDS application software as a protected system.

Sec. 70 of the IT Act reads as –

Protected System

Landmark cases decided by the Indian courts
Having covered almost all the cyber legal issues till date, we will have a look at some of the landmark cases decided by the Indian courts till date from this issue onwards. First in the list is famous case of Baazee.com. I hope you will enjoy reading verdicts given by Indian courts.


Having covered almost all the cyber legal issues till date, we will have a look at some of the landmark cases decided by the Indian courts till date from this issue onwards. First in the list is famous case of Baazee.com. I hope you will enjoy reading verdicts given by Indian courts.

Avnish Bajaj Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi

(2005)3CompLJ364 (Del), 116(2005) DLT427, 2005(79) DRJ576

Facts –

VARIOUS AUTHORITIES UNDER THE IT ACT
CCA is appointed by the Central Government under section 17 of the IT Act. Some of the functions of CCA are – Act. To exercise supervision over the activities of Certifying Authorities; To supervise public keys of the Certifying Authorities; To lay down the standards to be maintained by the Certifying Authorities; To specify the qualifications and experience which employees of the Certifying Authorities should possess; To specify the conditions subject to which the Certifying Authorities shall conduct their business;


(1)     Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA)
CCA is appointed by the Central Government under section 17 of the IT Act.

Some of the functions of CCA are –

Section 66E - Punishment for violation of Privacy Policy
In some of the latest articles we have focused on the areas of data privacy, due diligence to be observed by the companies handling sensitive personal data, etc. But, not much has been spoken/written on violation of person’s privacy. I.e. ensuring privacy on an individual at the places where he/she under the normal circumstances expects to be in a private environment.


In some of the latest articles we have focused on the areas of data privacy, due diligence to be observed by the companies handling sensitive personal data, etc. But, not much has been spoken/written on violation of person’s privacy. I.e. ensuring privacy on an individual at the places where he/she under the normal circumstances expects to be in a private environment.

A reference can be given to infamous Pune spycam incident where a 58-year old man was arrested for installing spy cameras in his house to ‘snoop’ on his young lady tenants.

SECTION 66D - Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource
Whoever, by means for any communication device or computer resource cheats by personating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Illustration Revati receives an email that appears to have been sent from a famous online shopping website in India. Email promises her to an iPod at a discounted price if she pays Rs. 500 as a deposit amount.


Whoever, by means for any communication device or computer resource cheats by personating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

Illustration

Section 66C - Punishment for identity theft
The term identity theft was coined in 1964. However, it is not literally possible to steal an identity so the term is usually interpreted with identity fraud or impersonation. Identity Theft is a form of stealing someone's identity by pretending to be someone else typically in order to access resources or obtain credit and other benefits in that person's name.


Introduction

The term identity theft was coined in 1964. However, it is not literally possible to steal an identity so the term is usually interpreted with identity fraud or impersonation.

Identity Theft is a form of stealing someone's identity by pretending to be someone else typically in order to access resources or obtain credit and other benefits in that person's name.

SOME OF THE INCIDENTS

Provisions of Sec. 66B
Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device As we have discussed in the earlier articles, under the amended Information Technology Act, Section 66 has been completed amended to remove the definition of hacking. Amendments also introduced a series of new provisions under Section 66 covering almost all major cybercrime incidents.


Section 66A - Sending offensive or false messages
From this article onwards we will look at those sections. With internet and telecommunication virtually controlling communication amongst people, amendments in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) have made it clear that transmission of any text, audio or video that is offensive or has a menacing character can land a sender in jail. The punishment will also be attracted if the content is false and has been transmitted for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger or insult.


Liability of Intermediaries under the Information Technology Act
Recently Delhi high court has summoned Google, Facebook and Twitter to remove objectionable content from their website within the prescribed time period failing to which may result into blocking of the websites in India. So the question which triggers is What is the liability of the intermediaries like Google, Facebook and Twitter under Indian law?


Powers of Government under the Information Technology Act, 2000
Internet Censorship is today‘s hot topic with the passage of statements by our Honorable Ministers. But the billion dollars question is ―Can online activities of individuals be censored/monitored in India?‖


Reasonable Security Practices under Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008
Organizations are required to take “reasonable security practices and procedures” to protect personal data or information of its customers. The ICT Ministry with the recent clarification has also settled the confusion which existed regarding the application of the Rules.


Law relating to Cyberterrorism
Before looking into the issue of Cyberterrorism it is important to understand that it should not be confused with “Internet and terrorism” i.e. Presence of terrorist groups on the internet.


Law relating to Child Pornography in India
Law relating to Child Pornography in India Child pornography means portrayal of children in all forms of media incl. images, films and, in some cases, writings depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child. Due to the free availability of information on the Internet, a major risk that a child may be exposed to is inappropriate material, sexual, hateful, or violent in nature, or encourages activities that are dangerous or illegal.


Law relating to Cyber Pornography in India
Pornography or obscenity is very sensitive issue all over the world yet there is no settled definition of the word under any law. What is nude art or sexually explicit thing for one person may be obscene or porn for another. Hence, it is very difficult to define “What is porn?”


Patent Law and Computer technology
Patent Inventions are protected by Patents. It is a legal monopoly granted to the owner of new invention, for a limited period of time. It can be granted for product as well as process.


Trademark Law and Cyberspace
A Trademark is a mark used by an individual or business organization which represents trade or business and which is capable of distinguishing goods or services from that of others.


Copyright and Cyberspace
[This concept is explained using simple fictional illustrations involving Revati, who has created easyPDF, a computer program for converting documents into PDF (Portable Document Format)] According to Section 14 of the Copyright Act, "Copyright" means the exclusive right to do (or authorize the doing of) any of the following:-


Cybercrimeopedia: New Rules under Information Technology Act
Rules under sections 6A, 43A and 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the IT Act) have recently been notified. The Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 has now come into force. The amended Information Technology Act has brought in the requirement for almost all entities to undergo an ISO 27001 audits.


The Information Technology Rules, 2011
For personal privacy we have no control or “law” to keep check on what we share, but for professional privacy especially of a digital data we have a law called “The Information Technology Act, 2000” (IT Act). Sec. 43 and 43A of the IT Act focuses of “data privacy”.