Naavi.org

Times of India has reported a story today from Surat (Refer: Decoder of Secret Information stolen..) in which it is reported that a precious decoder used by Police to decode encrypted messages has been stolen.

The report states “The device which is of the size of a briefcase can work anywhere in the world. Once turned on, it receives encrypted messages and translates it into readable form. The device was stolen during early hours on March 14 and police registered a theft complaint“

It is necessary to recognize that this is not a simple “Theft” as the report makes it out to be. It can be considered as an offence under Section 66B since the device may be considered as a “Computer” under the definition used in ITA 2000/8.

More importantly the device can be used for committing a “Terrorist Act”, the theft can be considered as an “Attempt to Commit Cyber Terrorism under Section 66F of ITA 2008”.

Section 66B has 3 year imprisonment and Section 66F has “Life imprisonment” as possible punishment. In the event an ordinary thief (not a Naxalite) is involved in the crime, he should think of returning the device and surrendering to avoid the life imprisonment.

Gujarat Government may consider releasing an advertisement inviting surrender and also announcing an incentive to any informers just as in the case of a terrorist event.

Naavi

The much awaited judgement on whether Section 66A of ITA 2008 is constitutionally valid or not is expected to be pronounced tomorrow at 10.30 am.

Section 66A has been frequently abused by Police when it has been used to arrest persons making posts on FaceBook, Twitter or Blogs. In at least one case, a person was arrested for clicking on “I like” on a Facebook post.

Most of the arrests under Section 66A has been related to criticisms of politicians in the form of comments and cartoons under the pretext that it was “Defamatory” and “Caused annoyance”.

Simultaneously, Section 79 of the Act may also come under review. Under this section, a few people have interpreted that it is necessary for a blog owner to remove a content within 36 hours of an objection having been lodged.

Both the arrests under Section 66A and the perception of mandatory removal of content under Sec 79 are being held out as leading to the sections being adversely affecting the “Freedom of Expression” as guaranteed by the constitution.

Naavi.org has debated this section in detail in the past and links to these articles are found below. The essence of the views expressed are that “Abuse of Section 66A” is a matter of ignorance, as well as misuse of the powers by Police and Politicians. Section 66A in our opinion was meant for addressing the issues such as Cyber bullying, Cyber Stalking, Spamming, Phishing, Threatening by SMS/Email etc. The section 66A is very much required to meet these requirements. Similarly, Section 79 imposes no obligation to “Remove Content” when objection is raised by a person who perceives himself to be a victim. Only a judicial review can order removal of content. This has been clarified by the Government subsequently though the original notification was not worded properly by the Government.

It would be interesting to note whether Supreme Court judgement would be dictated by the “Perception” or “Reality”. Wide spread perception is that the section 66A or 79 may curtail the freedom of expression but the reality is that this perception is the result of misuse of law by politicians and police. Such misuse has been in existence before these sections became available and will continue even if these sections are removed.

I wish Supreme  Court judgement would reflect this reality. I will be happy if the Supreme Court suggests some checks and balances where by misuse of the section by Police is made punishable rather than removing the provisions themselves which have other uses.

It is however acknowledged that the Government might not have put up its case properly and the decision may reflect only how effectively the two sides have argued the matter in the court.

Afterall, in computers we say “Garbage in, Garbage out”. Similarly in the Indian system of justice dispensation, it is the relative strengths of the adversarial arguments that determine the judgement and a perception of “Judicial Precedent”.

If the decision is in favour of removal of the section, then Government needs to think of bringing a suitable amendment to ITA 2008 retaining the major part of the section and accommodating the Supreme Court observations as explanations.

Naavi

Other related articles in Naavi.org:

 Section 66A and Section 79 of ITA 2008 at Supreme Court

Section 66A coming for review at Supreme Court..the issues

IRDA files Section 66A Complaint against an activist

Mumbai High Court on Section 66A

No Arrests under Section 66A without prior approval of higher officers

 Section 66A abused again

Advisory on Section 66A

Mis-perceptions about Section 66A

Section 66A is not meant for “Cyber Defamation”

Government issues clarification on Section 79 rules

Bank frauds have been so common in India that it hardly surprises any body when a new fraud is reported. The Banks are after technology in a hurry and RBI has either no clue to the risks or is just unable/unwilling to regulate the banks as we have frequently pointed out.

The reason for the situation is that RBI has not been implementing its own regulations to secure Banking in Cyber Space and Banks have effectively silenced Adjudicators and the Cyber Appellate Tribunal so that fraud victims are unable to get justice.  The “Lawlessness” is so palpable that cyber criminals are emboldened to try commission of frauds at every opportunity. RBI in the meantime is busy diluting the security in cyber banking and remaining silent when non compliance of law is brought to their notice.

To bring the discussion to the context, TOI reports today that “Anti-Nationals pull off Rs 6.9 crores” using cloned and stolen cards. What the report fails to recognize is that the cloned cards were one of the instruments used and the other major instrument used was “Bank Accounts” opened by the fraudsters in some Bank/s (Name of the card issuing Banks and the money receiving not revealed in the article). These Banks have opened the accounts without proper KYC and are mainly responsible under Anti Money Laundering as accessories/abetters to the fraud.

The report states that the fraudsters were Dubai based and hence they were “Anti Nationals”. But what about the Banks which opened the accounts for these Anti-Nationals? Are they also not “Anti Nationals”?

The main culprits in such cases of KYC failures leading to frauds are AXIS Bank and ICICI Bank with PNB and SBI not far behind.

Will RBI name and shame these Banks? Will it dismiss or take disciplinary proceedings against the Chair Persons of these Banks instead of the Governor dining with them with IMF dignitaries?

The fraud is an indication of lack of security in the Banking system for which RBI is solely the custodian. It appears that Mr Raghuraman Rajan has failed to assume responsibility for the security of Banking and has to start looking at this part of his role also. If he wants to remain only as an Inflation Monitor, Government needs to look at creating another organization that is solely responsible for regulating the security in the Banking system and take this responsibility away from RBI.

Naavi