CYBERSPACE

INTRODUCTION

Cyberspace refers to the virtual computer world, and more specifically, is an

electronic medium used to form a global computer network to facilitate online
communication. It is a large computer network made up of many worldwide
computer networks that employ TCP/IP protocol to aid in communication and
data exchange activities.

Two decades ago, the term cyberspace seemed right out of a science fiction movie.
In the second decade of the twenty-first century, cyberspace is probably the place
where most of us spend a major part of our lives. It has become an inseparable
element of our existence. In this article, we will look at what forms cyberspace and
the reasons why laws are important to ensure cyber security.
Cyberspace's core feature is an interactive and virtual environment for a broad
range of participants.
Cyberspace allows users to share information, interact, swap ideas, play games,
engage in discussions or social forums, conduct business and create intuitive
media, among many other activities. The term cyberspace was initially
introduced by William Gibson in his 1984 book, “Neuromancer.” Gibson
criticized the term in later years, calling it “evocative and essentially
meaningless.” Nevertheless, the term is still widely used to describe any facility
or feature that is linked to the Internet.

They can also manipulate electrical, magnetic, and optical impulses to perform
complex arithmetic, memory, and logical functions. The power of one computer is
the power of all connected computers termed as a network-of-network or the
internet.

Cyberspace is the dynamic and virtual space that such networks of machine-
clones create. In other words, cyberspace is the web of consumer
electronics, computers, and communications network which interconnect the
world.
Cyberspace is a concept describing a widespread, interconnected
digital technology. The term entered the popular culture from science fiction
and the arts but is now used by technology strategists, security professionals,
government, military and industry leaders and entrepreneurs to describe the
domain of the global technology environment. Others consider cyberspace to be
just a notional environment in which communication over computer networks
occurs. 

The word became popular in the 1990s when the uses of the Internet,
networking, and digital communication were all growing dramatically and the
term cyberspace was able to represent the many new ideas and phenomena that
were emerging.

As a social experience, individuals can interact, exchange ideas, share

information, provide social support, conduct business, direct actions, create
artistic media, play games, engage in political discussion, and so on, using this
global network. They are sometimes referred to as cybernauts. The
term cyberspace has become a conventional means to describe anything
associated with the Internet and the diverse Internet culture.

The United States government recognizes the interconnected information

technology and the interdependent network of information
technology infrastructures operating across this medium as part of the US
national critical infrastructure.

Amongst individuals on cyberspace, there is believed to be a code of shared

rules and ethics mutually beneficial for all to follow, referred to as cyberethics.
Many view the right to privacy as most important to a functional code
of cybernetics. Such moral responsibilities go hand in hand when working
online with global networks, specifically, when opinions are involved with
online social experiences.

According to Chip Morningstar and F. Randall Farmer, cyberspace is defined

more by the social interactions involved rather than its technical
implementation. In their view, the computational medium in cyberspace is an
augmentation of the communication channel between real people; the core
characteristic of cyberspace is that it offers an environment that consists of
many participants with the ability to affect and influence each other. They
derive this concept from the observation that people seek richness, complexity,
and depth within a virtual world.

The term "cyberspace" first appeared in the visual arts in the late 1960s, when
Danish artist Susanne Ussing (1940-1998) and her partner architect Carsten
Hoff (b. 1934) constituted themselves as Atelier Cyberspace. Under this name
the two made a series of installations and images entitled "sensory spaces" that
were based on the principle of open systems adaptable to various influences,
such as human movement and the behaviour of new materials.

Atelier Cyberspace worked at a time when the Internet did not exist and
computers were more or less off-limit to artists and creative engagement. In a
2015-interview with Scandinavian art magazine Kunstkritikk, Carsten Hoff
recollects, that although Atelier Cyberspace did try to implement computers,
they had no interest in the virtual space as such:

To us, "cyberspace" was simply about managing spaces. There was nothing
esoteric about it. Nothing digital, either. It was just a tool. The space was
concrete, physical.

And in the same interview Hoff continues:

Our shared point of departure was that we were working with physical settings,
and we were both frustrated and displeased with the architecture from the
period, particularly when it came to spaces for living. We felt that there was a
need to loosen up the rigid confines of urban planning, giving back the gift of
creativity to individual human beings and allowing them to shape and design
their houses or dwellings themselves – instead of having some clever architect
pop up, telling you how you should live. We were thinking in terms of open-
ended systems where things could grow and evolve as required.

For instance, we imagined a kind of mobile production unit, but unfortunately

the drawings have been lost. It was a kind of truck with a nozzle at the back.
Like a bee building its hive. The nozzle would emit and apply material that
grew to form amorphous mushrooms or whatever you might imagine. It was
supposed to be computer-controlled, allowing you to create interesting shapes
and sequences of spaces. It was a merging of organic and technological systems,
a new way of structuring the world.
And a response that counteracted industrial uniformity. We had this idea that
sophisticated software might enable us to mimic the way in which nature creates
products – where things that belong to the same family can take different forms.
All oak trees are oak trees, but no two oak trees are exactly alike. And then a
whole new material – polystyrene foam – arrived on the scene. It behaved like
nature in the sense that it grew when its two component parts were mixed.
Almost like a fungal growth. This made it an obvious choice for our work in
Atelier Cyberspace.

The works of Atelier Cyberspace were originally shown at a number of

Copenhagen venues and have later been exhibited at The National Gallery of
Denmark in Copenhagen as part of the exhibition "What’s Happening?"

The term "cyberspace" first appeared in fiction in the 1980s in the work
of cyberpunk science fiction author William Gibson, first in his 1982 short story
"Burning Chrome" and later in his 1984 novel Neuromancer. In the next few
years, the word became prominently identified with online computer networks.
The portion of Neuromancer cited in this respect is usually the following:

Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of

legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical
concepts... A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every
computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged
in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights,
receding.

Now widely used, the term has since been criticized by Gibson, who
commented on the origin of the term in the 2000 documentary
All I knew about the word "cyberspace" when I coined it, was that it seemed
like an effective buzzword. It seemed evocative and essentially meaningless. It
was suggestive of something, but had no real semantic meaning, even for me, as
I saw it emerge on the page.

Metaphorical

Don Slater uses a metaphor to define cyberspace, describing the "sense of a

social setting that exists purely within a space of representation and
communication ... it exists entirely within a computer space, distributed across
increasingly complex and fluid networks.

" The term "Cyberspace" started to become a de facto synonym for the Internet,
and later the World Wide Web, during the 1990s, especially in academic
circles and activist communities. Author Bruce Sterling, who popularized this
meaning, credits John Perry Barlow as the first to use it to refer to "the present-
day nexus of computer and telecommunications networks". Barlow describes it
thus in his essay to announce the formation of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (note the spatial metaphor) in June 199

In this silent world, all conversation is typed. To enter it, one forsakes both
body and place and becomes a thing of words alone. You can see what your
neighbors are saying (or recently said), but not what either they or their physical
surroundings look like.

Town meetings are continuous and discussions rage on everything from sexual
kinks to depreciation schedules. Whether by one telephonic tendril or millions,
they are all connected to one another. Collectively, they form what their
inhabitants call the Net. It extends across that immense region of electron states,
microwaves, magnetic fields, light pulses and thought which sci-fi writer
William Gibson named Cyberspace.
— John Perry Barlow, "Crime and Puzzlement", 1990-06-08
As Barlow, and the EFF, continued public education efforts to promote the idea
of "digital rights", the term was increasingly used during the Internet boom of
the late 1990s.

Virtual environments

Although the present-day, loose use of the term "cyberspace" no longer implies
or suggests immersion in a virtual reality, current technology allows the
integration of a number of capabilities (sensors, signals, connections,
transmissions, processors, and controllers) sufficient to generate
a virtual interactive experience that is accessible regardless of a geographic
location. It is for these reasons cyberspace has been described as the
ultimate tax haven.
In 1989, Autodesk, an American multinational corporation that focuses on 2D
and 3D design software, developed a virtual design system called Cyberspace.

Recent definitions of Cyberspace

Although several definitions of cyberspace can be found both in scientific

literature and in official governmental sources, there is no fully agreed official
definition yet. According to F. D. Kramer there are 28 different definitions of
the term cyberspace. See in particular the following links: "Cyberpower and
National Security: Policy Recommendations for a Strategic Framework," in
Cyberpower and National Security, FD Kramer, S. Starr, L.K. Wentz (ed.),
National Defense University Press, Washington (DC) 2009; see also Mayer, M.,
Chiarugi, I., De Scalzi,
N., https://www.academia.edu/14336129/International_Politics_in_the_Digital_
Age.

The most recent draft definition is the following:

Cyberspace is a global and dynamic domain (subject to constant change)
characterized by the combined use of electrons and the electromagnetic
spectrum, whose purpose is to create, store, modify, exchange, share, and
extract, use, eliminate information and disrupt physical resources. Cyberspace
includes:

a) physical infrastructures and telecommunications devices that allow for the

connection of technological and communication system networks, understood
in the broadest sense (SCADA devices, smartphones/tablets, computers,
servers, etc.);

b) computer systems (see point a) and the related (sometimes embedded)

software that guarantee the domain's basic operational functioning and
connectivity;

c) networks between computer systems;

d) networks of networks that connect computer systems (the distinction between

networks and networks of networks is mainly organizational);
e) the access nodes of users and intermediaries routing nodes;

f) constituent data (or resident data). Often, in common parlance (and

sometimes in commercial language), networks of networks are called the
Internet (with a lowercase

i), while networks between computers are called intranet. Internet (with a
capital I, in journalistic language sometimes called the Net) can be considered a
part of the system a). A distinctive and constitutive feature of cyberspace is that
no central entity exercises control over all the networks that make up this new
domain.

Just as in the real world there is no world government, cyberspace lacks an

institutionally predefined hierarchical centre. To cyberspace, a domain without
a hierarchical ordering principle, we can, therefore, extend the definition of
international politics coined by Kenneth Waltz: as being "with no system of law
enforceable.

" This does not mean that the dimension of power in cyberspace is absent, nor
that power is dispersed and scattered into a thousand invisible streams, nor that
it is evenly spread across myriad people and organizations, as some scholars
had predicted. On the contrary, cyberspace is characterized by a precise
structuring of hierarchies of power.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Department of Defense define

cyberspace as one of five interdependent domains, the remaining four being
land, air, maritime, and space.
CYBERSPACE OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (also known as ITA-2000, or the IT

Act) is an Act of the Indian Parliament (No 21 of 2000) notified on 17 October
2000. It is the primary law in India dealing with cybercrime and electronic
commerce. It is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration recommended by the General Assembly of United
Nations by a resolution dated 30 January 1997.

The bill was passed in the budget session of 2000 and signed by President K. R.
Narayanan on 9 May 2000. The bill was finalised by group of officials headed
by then Minister of Information Technology Pramod Mahajan.

The original Act contained 94 sections, divided into 13 chapters and

4 schedules. The laws apply to the whole of India. If a crime involves a
computer or network located in India, persons of other nationalities can also be
indicted under the law, .

The Act provides a legal framework for electronic governance by giving

recognition to electronic records and digital signatures. It also defines cyber
crimes and prescribes penalties for them. The Act directed the formation of a
Controller of Certifying Authorities to regulate the issuance of digital
signatures. It also established a Cyber Appellate Tribunal to resolve disputes
rising from this new law. The Act also amended various sections of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Banker's Book Evidence
Act, 1891, and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to make them compliant
with new technologies.

Information Technology Act, 2000 was enacted on 17th May, 2000 to provide

legal recognition for electronic transactions and facilitate E-Commerce. It was
later amended by passing Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

The following are the important objectives of Information Technology Act,

2000 :

1. Grant legal recognition to E-Transactions

2. Provide legal recognition to Digital Signatures for authentication
 3. Facilitate E-Filing of data and information
4. Allow Electronic storage of data
5. Grant recognition to maintenance of books of accounts in Electronic
Form

Penalties, Compensation and Adjudication under Information Technology

Act, 2000

 Section 43: Where a person without the permission of owner or any other

person-in-charge damage the Computer, or Computer System, or
Computer Network, the he shall be liable for Penalty and Compensation
to such person so affected.

 Section 44: Where a person fails to furnish any document, return, report

to the controller, or certifying authority, then he shall be liable to pay
penalty upto Rs.1,50,000/- per failure. Further where a person fails to
furnish any information, books or other documents within time specified,
then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.5,000/- per day. Further
provided that where a person fails to maintain books of accounts or other
records, then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.10,000/- per day.

Offences under Information Technology Act, 2000

 Section 65: Any person tamper, conceal, destroy, or alter any computer

source document intentionally, then he shall be liable to pay penalty
upto Rs.2,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both.

 Section 66: Any person dishonestly, or fraudulently does any act as

referred in Section 43, then he shall be liable to pay penalty
upto Rs.5,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both.

 Section 66B: Any person dishonestly, or fraudulently receives or retains

any stolen computer resource or communication device, then he shall be
liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 3 years,
or both.
 Section 66C: Any person dishonestly, or fraudulently make use of
Electronic Signature, Password or any other Unique Identification
Feature of any other person, then he shall be liable to pay penalty
upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both.

 Section 66D: Any person dishonestly, or fraudulently by means of any

communication device or computer resource cheats by personating, then
he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment
upto 3 years, or both.

 Section 66E: Any person intentionally captures, publishes, or transmits

image of private area of any person without consent, then he shall be
liable to pay penalty upto Rs.2,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 3 years,
or both.

 Section 66F: Any person does any act electronically, or with use of

computer with intent to threaten unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty
of India, then he shall punishable with Imprisonment for Life.

 Section 67: Any person publishes, or transmits in electronic form any

material which appeals to prurient interest, or if its effect is such as to
tend to deprave and coorupt persons who are likely to read, see, or hear
matter contained in it, then he shall be liable to pay penalty
upto Rs.5,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both, And in the
event of second or subsequent conviction, he shall be liable to pay
penalty upto Rs.10,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 5 years, or both.

 Section 67A: Any person publishes, or transmits in electronic form any

material which contains sexually explicit act, or conduct, then he shall be
liable to pay penalty upto Rs.10,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 5 years,
or both, And in the event of second or subsequent conviction, he shall be
liable to pay penalty upto Rs.10,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 7 years,
or both.
 Section 68: The Controller may, by order, direct a Certifying Authority
or any employee of such Authority to take such measures or cease
carrying on such activities as specified in the order if those are necessary
to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act, rules or any
regulations made thereunder and if any person who intentionally or
knowingly fails to comply with the order, then he shall be liable to pay
penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 2 years, or both.

 Section 69: Where the Central Government or a State Government or any

of its officers specially authorized by the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is
necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of the sovereignty or
integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the
commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for
investigation of any offence, it may with reasons to be recorded in
writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to
intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or
decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in
any computer resource, Any person who fails to comply with the order,
then he shall be liable to Imprisonment of 7 years, along with the fine
(amount of fine is not specified in the act).

 Section 70: 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, Any person who fails to comply with the notification,
then he shall be liable to Imprisonment of 10 years, along with the fine
(amount of fine is not specified in the act).

 Section 71: Whoever makes any misrepresentation to, or suppresses any

material fact from the Controller or the Certifying Authority for obtaining
any License or Electronic Signature Certificate, as the case may be, then
he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment
upto 2 years, or both.

 Section 72: If any person who has secured access to any electronic
record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other
material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such
 electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document
or other material to any other person, then he shall be liable to pay
penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 2 years, or both.

 Section 72A: If any person who has secured access to any material
containing personal information about another person, with the intent to
cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain
discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a
lawful contract, then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.5,00,000/-,
or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both.

 Section 73: If any person publishes a Electronic Signature Certificate, or

make it available to any other person with the knowledge that
 Certifying Authority has not issued it, or
 Subscriber has not accepted it, or
 Certificate has been revoked or suspended
then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment
upto 2 years, or both.

 Section 74: If any person knowingly creates, publishes, or otherwise

makes available Electronic Signature Certificate for any fraudulent or
unlawful purpose, then he shall be liable to pay penalty
upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 2 years, or both.

 Section 75: If any person have committed an offence, or contravention

committed outside India, and if the act or conduct constituting the offence
or contravention involves a computer, computer system or computer
network located in India, then the provisions of this Act shall apply also
to any offence or contravention committed outside India by any
person irrespective of his nationality.

 Section 76: Any computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks,

tape drives, or any other accessories related thereto, in respect of which
any provision of this Act, rules, orders, or regulations made thereunder
has been, or is being contravened, shall be liable to confiscation.
 However, if it is proved that such resources were not used in committing
fraud then only person in default will be arrested.

Amendments

A major amendment was made in 2008. It introduced Section 66A which

penalized sending "offensive messages". It also introduced Section 69, which
gave authorities the power of "interception or monitoring or decryption of any
information through any computer resource". Additionally, it introduced
provisions addressing child porn, cyber terrorism and voyeurism. The
amendment was passed on 22 December 2008 without any debate in Lok Sabha.
The next day it was passed by the Rajya Sabha. It was signed into law by
President Pratibha Patil, on 5 February 2009.

Offences

List of offences and the corresponding penalties:

Section Offence Description Penalty

65 Tampering with If a person knowingly or Imprisonment up

computer source intentionally conceals, to three years,
documents destroys or alters or or/and with fine up
intentionally or to ₹200,000
knowingly causes another
to conceal, destroy or
alter any computer source
code used for a computer,
computer programme,
computer system or
computer network, when
 the computer source code
is required to be kept or
maintained by law for the
time being in force.

If a person with the intent

to cause or knowing that
he is likely to cause
wrongful loss or damage
to the public or any Imprisonment up
Hacking with person destroys or deletes to three years,
66
computer system or alters any information or/and with fine up
residing in a computer to ₹500,000
resource or diminishes its
value or utility or affects
it injuriously by any
means, commits hack.

A person receives or
retains a computer
Receiving stolen Imprisonment up
resource or
computer or to three years,
66B communication device
communication or/and with fine up
which is known to be
device to ₹100,000
stolen or the person has
reason to believe is stolen.

A person fradulently uses

Imprisonment up
the password, digital
Using password of to three years,
66C signature or other unique
another person or/and with fine up
identification of another
to ₹100,000
person.

If a person cheats Imprisonment up

Cheating using someone using a to three years,
66D
computer resource computer resource or or/and with fine up
communication. to ₹100,000
 If a person captures,
transmits or publishes Imprisonment up
Publishing private images of a person's to three years,
66E
images of others private parts without or/and with fine up
his/her consent or to ₹200,000
knowledge.

If a person denies access

to an authorised personnel
to a computer resource,
accesses a protected
system or introduces
Acts Imprisonment up
66F contaminant into a
of cyberterrorism to life.
system, with the intention
of threatening the unity,
integrity, sovereignty or
security of India, then he
commits cyberterrorism.

If a person publishes or
transmits or causes to be
published in the electronic
form, any material which
is lascivious or appeals to
Publishing the prurient interest or if Imprisonment up
information which its effect is such as to tend to five years,
67
is obscene in to deprave and corrupt or/and with fine up
electronic form. persons who are likely, to ₹1,000,000
having regard to all
relevant circumstances, to
read, see or hear the
matter contained or
embodied in it.

67A Publishing images If a person publishes or Imprisonment up

containing sexual transmits images to seven years,
acts containing a sexual or/and with fine up
 explicit act or conduct. to ₹1,000,000

Imprisonment up
If a person captures,
to five years,
publishes or transmits
or/and with fine up
images of a child in a
to ₹1,000,000 on
Publishing child sexually explicit act or
first conviction.
67B porn or predating conduct. If a person
Imprisonment up
children online induces a child into a
to seven years,
sexual act. A child is
or/and with fine up
defined as anyone under
to ₹1,000,000 on
18.
second conviction.

Persons deemed as
intermediatary (such as an
Imprisonment up
Failure to maintain ISP) must maintain
67C to three years,
records required records for
or/and with fine.
stipulated time. Failure is
an offence.

68 Failure/refusal to The Controller may, by Imprisonment up

comply with orders order, direct a Certifying to 2 years, or/and
Authority or any with fine up
employee of such to ₹100,000
Authority to take such
measures or cease
carrying on such activities
as specified in the order if
those are necessary to
ensure compliance with
the provisions of this Act,
rules or any regulations
made thereunder. Any
person who fails to
comply with any such
order shall be guilty of an
 offence.

If the Controller is
satisfied that it is
necessary or expedient so
to do in the interest of the
sovereignty or integrity of
India, the security of the
State, friendly relations
with foreign States or
public order or for
preventing incitement to
the commission of any
cognizable offence, for
reasons to be recorded in
writing, by order, direct
any agency of the
Government to intercept Imprisonment up
Failure/refusal
69 any information to seven years and
to decrypt data
transmitted through any possible fine.
computer resource. The
subscriber or any person
in charge of the computer
resource shall, when
called upon by any
agency which has been
directed, must extend all
facilities and technical
assistance to decrypt the
information. The
subscriber or any person
who fails to assist the
agency referred is deemed
to have committed a
crime.

Imprisonment up
70 Securing access or The appropriate to ten years, or/and
 Government may, by
notification in the Official
Gazette, declare that any
computer, computer
system or computer
network to be a protected
system.

attempting to The appropriate

secure access to a Government may, with fine.
protected system
by order in writing,
authorise the persons who
are authorised to access
protected systems. If a
person who secures
access or attempts to
secure access to a
protected system, then he
is committing an offence.
If anyone makes any
misrepresentation to, or
suppresses any material Imprisonment up
fact from, the Controller to 2 years, or/and
71 Misrepresentation
or the Certifying with fine up
Authority for obtaining to ₹100,000
any license or Digital
Signature Certificate.

NOTABLE CASES

Section 66

 In February 2001, in one of the first cases, the Delhi police arrested two
men running a web-hosting company. The company had shut down a
 website over non-payment of dues. The owner of the site had claimed that he
had already paid and complained to the police. The Delhi police had charged
the men for hacking under Section 66 of the IT Act and breach of trust under
Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. The two men had to spend 6 days
in Tihar jail waiting for bail. Bhavin Turakhia, chief executive officer of
directi.com, said that this interpretation of the law would be problematic for
web-hosting companies.

 In February 2017, M/s Voucha Gram India Pvt. Ltd, owner of Delhi
based Ecommerce Portal www.gyftr.com made a Complaint with Hauz Khas
Police Station against some hackers from different cities accusing them for
IT Act / Theft / Cheating / Misappropriation / Criminal Conspiracy /
Criminal Breach of Trust / Cyber Crime of Hacking / Snooping / Tampering
with Computer source documents and the Web Site and extending the threats
of dire consequences to employees, as a result four hackers were arrested by
South Delhi Police for Digital Shoplifting

Section 66A

 In September 2012, a freelance cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was arrested

under the Section 66A of the IT Act, Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to
National Honour Act, 1971 and for sedition under the Section 124 of
the Indian Penal Code. His cartoons depicting widespread corruption in
India were considered offensive.

 On 12 April 2012, a Chemistry professor from Jadavpur University,

Ambikesh Mahapatra, was arrested for sharing a cartoon of West
Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and then Railway Minister Mukul
Roy. The email was sent from the email address of a housing society.
Subrata Sengupta, the secretary of the housing society, was also arrested.
They were charged under Section 66A and B of the IT Act, for defamation
under Sections 500, for obscene gesture to a woman under Section 509, and
abetting a crime under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

 On 30 October 2012, a Puducherry businessman Ravi Srinivasan was

arrested under Section 66A. He had sent tweet accusing Karti Chidambaram,
 son of then Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, of corruption. Karti
Chidambaram had complained to the police.

 On 19 November 2012, a 21-year-old girl was arrested from Palghar for

posting a message on Facebook criticising the shutdown in Mumbai for the
funeral of Bal Thackeray. Another 20-year-old girl was arrested for "liking"
the post. They were initially charged under Section 295A of the Indian Penal
Code (hurting religious sentiments) and Section 66A of the IT Act. Later,
Section 295A was replaced by Section 505(2) (promoting enmity between
classes). A group of Shiv Sena workers vandalised a hospital run by the
uncle of one of girls. On 31 January 2013, a local court dropped all charges
against the girls.

 On 18 March 2015, a teenaged boy was arrested from Bareilly, Uttar

Pradesh, for making a post on Facebook insulting politician Azam Khan.
The post allegedly contained hate speech against a community and was
falsely attributed to Azam Khan by the boy. He was charged under Section
66A of the IT Act, and Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different
religions), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and
505 (public mischief) of Indian Penal Code. After the Section 66A was
repealed on 24 March, the state government said that they would continue
the prosecution under the remaining charges.

CRITICISMS

Section 66A and restriction of free speech

From its establishment as an amendment to the original act in 2008, Section

66A attracted controversy over its unconstitutional nature:
Section Offence Description Penalty

Any person who sends by any

means of a computer resource any
information that is grossly
offensive or has a menacing
Publishing
character; or any information
offensive, Imprisonment
which he knows to be false, but
66A false or up to three
for the purpose of causing
threatening years, with fine.
annoyance, inconvenience,
information
danger, obstruction, insult shall be
punishable with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three
years and with fine.

In December 2012, P Rajeev, a Rajya Sabha member from Kerala, tried to pass

a resolution seeking to amend the Section 66A. He was supported by D.
Bandyopadhyay, Gyan Prakash Pilania, Basavaraj Patil Sedam, Narendra
Kumar Kashyap, Rama Chandra Khuntia and Baishnab Charan Parida. P Rajeev
pointed that cartoons and editorials allowed in traditional media, were being
censored in the new media. He also said that law was barely debated before
being passed in December 2008.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar suggested the 66A should only apply to person to person

communication pointing to a similar section under the Indian Post Office Act,
1898. Shantaram Naik opposed any changes, saying that the misuse of law was
sufficient to warrant changes. Then Minister for Communications and
Information Technology Kapil Sibal defended the existing law, saying that
similar laws existed in US and UK. He also said that a similar provision existed
under Indian Post Office Act, 1898. However, P Rajeev said that the UK dealt
only with communication from person to person.
 Petitions challenging constitutionality

In November 2012, IPS officer Amitabh Thakur and his wife social activist
Nutan Thakur, filed a petition in the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High
Court claiming that the Section 66A violated the freedom of speech guaranteed
in the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. They said that the section
was vague and frequently misused.

Also in November 2012, a Delhi-based law student, Shreya Singhal, filed

a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India. She argued that
the Section 66A was vaguely phrased, as result it violated Article 14, 19 (1)(a)
and Article 21 of the Constitution. The PIL was accepted on 29 November
2012. A similar petition was also filed by the founder of MouthShut.com, Faisal
Farooqui, and NGO Common Cause represented by Prashant Bhushan[28] In
August 2014, the Supreme Court asked the central government to respond to
petitions filed by Mouthshut.com and later petition filed by the Internet and
Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) which claimed that the IT Act gave the
government power to arbitrarily remove user-generated content.

Revocation by the Supreme Court

On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court of India, gave the verdict that Section
66A is unconstitutional in entirety. The court said that Section 66A of IT Act
2000 is "arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free
speech" provided under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. But the Court
turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal
with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites.

Strict data privacy rules

The data privacy rules introduced in the Act in 2011 have been described as too
strict by some Indian and US firms. The rules require firms to obtain written
permission from customers before collecting and using their personal data. This
has affected US firms which outsource to Indian companies. However, some
companies have welcomed the strict rules, saying it will remove fears of
outsourcing to Indian companies
 Section 69 and mandatory decryption

The Section 69 allows intercepting any information and ask for information
decryption. To refuse decryption is an offence. The Indian Telegraph Act,
1885 allows the government to tap phones. But, according to a 1996 Supreme
Court verdict the government can tap phones only in case of a "public
emergency.
But, there is no such restriction on Section 69. On 20 December 2018,
the Ministry of Home Affairs cited Section 69 in the issue of an order
authorising ten central agencies to intercept, monitor, and decrypt “any
information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer.”  While
some claim this to be a violation of the fundamental right to privacy, the
Ministry of Home Affairs has claimed its validity on the grounds of national
security.

Conclusion

We have discussed some positive uses of cyberspace. Computer games and

simulations are used for entertainment or training. Medical proceedures can
be practised on simulated human bodies without the risk of injury to the
patient. We have also seen some negative uses namely warfare and there is
the problem with blurring of the distinction between simulated and real.
The boundaries between what is real and what is virtual are decreasing as
technology improves. Cyberspace may dehumanise us leading to a crisis of
identity. Computers offer clinical precision during warfare that alienates us
from the realities. The Internet is growing in popularity and slowly becomming
part of our lives. Cyberspace is invasive. So we need to understand the
technology and identify when it is used and when it is being abused. When we
understand these things Cyberspace becomes a useful tool.