Technology Laws & Cyber Security Essentials in New Age India
Technology laws exist in India since 2000; however, with the advent of smart phones, and with wide internet penetration, the awareness and development of these laws have gradually increased. When I started practicing in cyber laws, smart phones were very new in India – a very few people owned them. But we have seen how during the last decade, society has changed and adapted to the technology, and also how technologies are being misused for committing frauds, thefts and other crimes. Over a few years, there has been an exponential rise in cyber-crimes – about 300% in the last one year in India alone. Today, there is a digital element everywhere. We find cyber-crime all around us, in various forms. Hacking, data theft, unauthorized access and cyber pornography are the most happening crimes. Besides, Internet has become a medium to commit conventional crimes such as theft, fraud and adultery. For example, most matrimonial offenses in divorce cases lie in the whatsapp chats, facebook posts and e-mails, which contain the evidence of adultery and cruelty. Online matrimonial portals have become the playground for fraudsters which are out to dupe gullible people seeking life partners. Social engineering is another way of phishing and vishing scams. I believe, almost every reader of this article must by now have received one or the other phishing/ vishing email with the subject ‘a beautiful woman is seeking a partner’ or an e-mail ‘proclaiming you have inherited a fortune,’ or a call ‘asking you to reset your debit card PIN number’ – all these clearly show how criminals have evolved from pick pocketing to committing credit/ debit card frauds and ATM skimming. Information Technology Act The Information Technology Act, 2000 (also known as ITA-2000, or the IT Act) is the primary law in India dealing with the cybercrime and electronic commerce. A brief outline of some of the provisions of the Act as amended in 2008 read with the Rules thereunder are elucidated hereunder. Section 66A This section was the one of the most controversial ones. It came in the limelight because under this section, arrests could be made for anything that caused annoyance or menace to another on the internet. It was struck off by the Supreme Court as the terms ‘menace’ and ‘annoyance’ are ambiguous and there can be no standard to define what is menacing or annoying for every individual in society. Section 43A This Section of the Information Technology Act imposes a liability of upto INR 5 crores on a body corporate who fails to secure the sensitive personal data of any individual which would include clients, employees and any other third parties whose data is stored by them. This is a very huge penalty and no other law in India imposes such a high penalty. There is a clear distinction between sensitive personal data and information (SPDI) and personal information (PI). SPDI includes, but is not limited to biometric information, sexual orientation, credit/ debit card data, and bank account details and passwords; whereas personal information (PI) includes any information which can be used to identify an individual like age, name, telephone number, address etc. The Intermediary Guidelines of 2011 render for an intermediary liable for failure to protect both SPDI and PI. Indian law is clearly very comprehensive that covers PI as well, unlike the laws of many countries which offer protection to SPDI only. There are provisions for penalizing for theft where any person receives or and retains a stolen computer device including smart phones (Section 66B); for identity theft where one uses the identity of someone else on the internet (66C); and for cyber impersonation where one impersonates as someone else on Internet (66D), including offenders who make fake social media profiles. Section 67, 67A and 67B deal with Cyber Pornography that do not render online pornography illegal. Creating and distributing pornography online is an offence however, downloading the same for private viewing is not an offence, with an exception of child pornography where even downloading is an offence. Duty of companies (Section 72A) Companies have a duty to protect the data of their clients and users especially if the same is contractually agreed. In case of failure, they are penalized under Section 72A of the Act. The Act defines an ‘Intermediary’ as any person who on behalf of another person stores or transmits a message or provides any service with respect to that message. This definition includes telecom service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online-payment sites, online auction sites, online market places and cyber cafes. Section 79 of the Act is very crucial and provides respite to Intermediaries to some extent from an absolute liability. The requirement for liability under this section is the receipt of actual knowledge of offence by Intermediary and has been combined with a notice and take down duty. There is a time limit of 36 hours to respond to such a request and if an intermediary refuses to do so, it can be dragged to the court as a co-accused. These safe harbour provisions are available under the Amendment Act of 2008 only to an intermediary whose function is limited to giving access to a communication network over which information, made available by the third party, is transmitted or temporarily stored or where the intermediary does not initiate the transmission, does not select the receiver of the transmission and does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission. Authorities under the Act Cases of violations of the Information Technology Act are filed before the Adjudicating Officer appointed under this Act – one for each State. Appeals from the orders passed by Adjudicating Officer are filed before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi. The Court of the Adjudicating Officer is bound by the Rules of the Civil Procedure Code. An appeal from the Order of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal lies before the High Court, and appeals from all matters of the High Court lie before the Supreme…