Investigative Journalism and Cyberspace

From yesterday onwards Times Now is claiming to have exploded e-mail scandals of correspondances between Sushma Swarajji,Lalit Modi and Keith Waz, the British MP wherein Sushmaji has supposedly asked for favor for her kin from Lalit Modi.
As a numero uno channel with so claimed highest proprietory to Active journalism,I feel this channel has exceeded its limit in the name of investigative journalism. If the channel claims to have in its custody the emails exchanged between the trio, the natural question comes to my mind is How third party got access with the pesonal e-mails of these persons. Has Times Now engaged hacers to hack e-mail accounts or either of three willingly gave access to TIME NOW for accessing the said mails?
Secondly probability seems to be improbable and hence certainity about first possibility is obvious.

Information Technology Act under section 43 (a) says that if any person without permisssion of owner or any other person who is incharge of such computer,computer network or computer system accesses or secures access to such system then he shall be liable to pay damages. And if this act in section 43a is done with dishonest or fraudulent intention then he shall be punished with imprisonment or fine or with both.

Now keeping the political issue apart from this act of Times Now,the question remains How they accessed the e-mails without prior permisssion. Mr.Waz has made it clear that this act of Times Now in punishable under British Laws and Indian laws have similar provisions.

Does investigative journalism gives immunity for acts forbidden under law? If not then why legal action under section 66a should not be initiated?

Under RTI act also you can not seek someons personal information and in many matters even court has upheld privacy of the individual supreme. Even our Fundamental Rights does not compell someone to testify against himself so all persons have inherrent immunity against depositions about themselves.

Considering these logic ,the source of emails must be explained by Times Now and if they fail to disclose there souce then legal action should be initiated immedialtely against them.

Also when contacted with senior editor Mr.Praveen Bardapurkar,he opinioned that Nobody has given free run to invade anyone’s privacy and this act of Times Now has exceeded all the limits of investigative journalism.

I T Act also has provision to punish who assists in such criminal act and hence even Times Now have not hired the Hackers they should be punished under this provison of act.

The bigger issue is Can anybody’s privacy in Cyberspace is so fragile? And if yes then its an eye-opner for MISSION DIGITAL INDIA. Today its emails between politicians and tomorrow it could be emails between officials and day after it could be conversations between head of state.
Its high time to rethink about security in Cyberspace and laws and its implementation must be strengthened to such extent that cyber criminals will think twice before committing such misadventures.
There has to be a nation-wide debate amongst Law Enforcement Agencies, Politicians, Academicians, Legal Professionals and Telecom Service Providers on this issue, which is concerned with safety and security of the Nation as well as future of this Young India

MY VIEWS ON TCS's BIGGEST ANNUAL SURVEY ON DIGITAL LIFESTYLES OF URBAN TEENS .

Recently a survey called as “The biggest Annual survey on Digital Lifestyles of Urban Indian Teens” was conducted by one of the leading I T Company in India i.e. TCS.

The survey can be studied and inferences can be drawn by various angles and Cyber Awareness Organisation wishes to express its own supposition about the survey. 

Let’s first see what salient features of the survey are.

1)    The survey was conducted in Metros like Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Kolkata and also emerging metros like Nagpur, Pune, Ahmadabad and Indore etc. In all14 cities with 1739 schools and 12365 high school students between age group of 12 to 18 years were the participants of this survey.

2)    72 % students own Smartphone and 85% use social media which they think as essential for keeping in touch with friends and knowing current affairs. Whatsapp, a free messenger platform, is used by almost 58% students without understanding inherent dangers of freeware.

3)    67% have shopped online and survey is silent about whether they used credit/debit card or Cash on delivery option. About 76% students spent 60 minutes per day on SNS.30% post daily on SNS while another 33% posts thrice a week 52% students opinioned that SNS helps in increasing friends whereas 23% feel that SNS helps them in studies. More than half respondents have stated that their parents monitor their online activity.

4)    In Nagpur 21% students follow their teachers on Twitter whereas in India 14% students follow their teachers. Surprisingly Pune, which is considered as bastion of Education, only 9% students follow their Teachers on Twitter.

CAO see’s the increasing pattern of using Smartphone and Social media as a cause of concern for these teens. It has been proved by various studies that increased reliance on electronic gadgets is disturbing feature in retention capacity of the students. So it can be inferred that young Digital Generation will be having very short memories and will rely more on electronic gadgets.

In other words, where most of the life of Digital Generation will be more electronically driven in coming years, all the required passwords/mail passwords/ banking passwords will also be remembered by the gadgets and if gadget is lost or stolen entire privacy of this generation can be exposed to various dangers.

When free apps are used more often for communication, the security is certainly liable to be compromised. It has been proven time and again that all these freeware applications are primarily crated for data collection and currently there are no legal regulations for governing such applications.

The non-regulatory mechanism either on ground of fundamental right of free speech and expression or non-understanding of potential dangers of data collection is really a cause of serious concern and CAO wishes to highlight this issue again on backdrop of this survey.

There has to be a nation-wide debate amongst Law Enforcement Agencies, Politicians, Academicians, Legal Professionals and Telecom Service Providers on this issue, which is concerned with safety and security of the Nation as well as future of this Young India. Can we imagine such India, which will be Youngest Democracy in coming years, wherein its citizen’s entire personal data would be in hands of some company which is located out of India and which could be able to dance the citizens of free India on its own tunes, owing to sensitive personal information held by it?  

Another disturbing trend is shopping online which is exhibited by 67% students. Normal principles of purchasing decision making authority lying IN HANDS OF Money Earner seems to be changing from money earner to technology user, because these students we don’t expect to earn on their own and thereby spending the hard earned money by their parents. This pattern is really disturbing because these students have not earned on their own still they have option of decision making on how it should be spent online and here the entire decision making expertise of their parents is making way to these inexperienced and immature generation which is best opportunity for trickster and fraudsters to promote various products through various fake online shopping portals. Unfortunately, presently, there are hardly any rules and regulations governing these online shopping portals. Nor people know about any remedial mechanism, set up by government, to report such frauds.

In such sorry situation, if online purchasing trend is increasing then again it’s a cause of concern.

 Encouraging results of survey are 50% parents monitoring their wards online activity as well as @ 25% students sharing their passwords with parents. It indicates that half the parents are aware about online threats and take interest in monitoring wards online behavior also.

In our views survey should have asked questions about Cyber Bullying and Awareness level of Cyber Security issues.

Cyber Awareness Organisation is NGO which helps to victims of cyber crimes to come forward and avail civil/criminal remedy provided under I T Act. Many times due to ignorance of available remedies cyber crime victims are left with no option than to curse themselves. To make such cyber crime victims more informed and aware about the remedy CAO has appealed them to call on CYBER CRIME HELPLINE 09225109900 or mail to info@cyberorgindia.com.

Does Equality really exists in India, while reporting CYBER CRIMES??????

A day before there was a news about "CM Fadnavis' personal secretary cheated by cyber fraudsters" in many newspapers mostly published from Mumbai.

There was a huge shock in store when on very next day it was reported that " E-fraudester's a/c frozen in a day after Maharashtra CM aide loses Rs.64,000/".

Its not clear to me whether I should appreciate the commendable work of investigation carried out by Mumbai Police or think rationally about the fundamental right guaranteed under Indian Constitution which speaks about All are Equal before Law and All will have Equal Protection of Law.

I must clarify about this dilemma.

Does police take similar prompt action if person involved is not soms one as influential as PA of Hon. C M of Maharashtra?

The normal questions asked by police would be "Why you compromised your password?"," When you yourself disclosed the information,why ask police to investigate?","First go to bank and report the matter and they will do the needful?,"From where money is withdrawn,the location is not in our jurisdiction.Pl file FIR in Kolkota","You won't get your money back and hence don't waste your as well as our time".

And many more such questions would have been asked by police and FIR would have been reported only if the complainant would have been successful in answering all the questions. And you yourself can guess the numbers.

But look in this matter.On very next day of filing FIR police have even frozen the beneficiary account where money was credited.

It very clearly shows that if Police wish to crack cyber crimes like Credit Cards Frauds ,as in above case, they can crack the same within hours.

So why many such victims complain that their FIR is even not registered?

And here I am sad to say that Does Equality really exists in India???

If and only if you are some influential person then only you are assured of Justice otherwise you are left on your own destiny.

Compare present case scenario which is almost similar to thousands of other cases,wherein people have lost corers of Rupees, but since Equality is not practiced those victims are denied their due share of Justice.
Is it not shameful for all of us???

The number of such incidents received by me indicates that Police are still evasive about filing FIR though all offenses under Information Technology Act are cognizable. And this prevents me from applauding commendable investigation carried out by police in above referred matter.

I can only prey that Police follow the same principles when it comes to reporting of Cyber Crimes.

My head hangs in shame!!!!!

                                                    

Cyber Security is very much hot topic for discussions these days. There are numerous online banking frauds, online shopping portal frauds and online job frauds and so on and so forth. The real issue today is everyone has accepted the benefits on online transaction from their own views and neglecting the security issues to be taken care of by others.

Like in an old story of Elephant being described by seven blind men, everyone thought his description of elephant perfect, as it was based on that part of elephant which that blind person got hold of. So naturally the person touching the leg thought it to be very strong and the person catching hold of trunk of elephant certainly described it at very thin and weak.

Cyber security scenario is similar to this description by seven blind persons, the only difference is, here people look from their own perspective and firmly disbelieve the views of others.

The recent example of issuing warning to CM’s Official Facebook page being vulnerable to hacking is such small example which shows what is the concern for security?

It is sorrow state of situation wherein the page with more than 1.3 million following is at the mercy of good will of Hackers!!!! I am really and deeply concerned about the same.

The owners of the page are not aware about the possible consequences of any such attack from unwanted elements and ignoring the security signals and warnings provided to them, time and again. This is very disturbing and worrying signal as they even don’t have that acumen to understand what is written between the lines.

Were they ever thought of what could be possible fallout of losing control of such a powerful Facebook page? Can they foresee what will happen if the control of this Facebook page is snatched by some unscrupulous element?

And that’s why my Head hangs in shame!!!

Why we are doing this thankless job of intimating and advising about issues concerning Cyber Security?

When Cyber Security is nobody’s baby who we are to look after and take care for the same????

If people are so fascinated and charmed by Cyberspace and ready to come forward only to celebrate every time the reasonable restrictions are removed but not coming forward to have some self regulation which will take us in direction of more safe and secured Cyberspace God alone can save the netizens!!!!

With such visionary at the helm of affairs of such responsible social media pages REALLY MY HEAD HANGS IN SHAME!!!!!!!

My analysis of Judgment on Section 66A

The Hon Supreme Court of India has pronounced its verdict on 24 March 2015 regarding Scrapping of I T Act’s section 66A.In the words of Hon Supreme Court, “Section 66A is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1) (a) and not saved under Article 19(2).”

The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the I T Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.

Everywhere it is seen as Huge Victory of Netizens as A DRACONIAN ACT has been shown death bed by Hon.SC but in fact SC has never referred the said provisions of act AS DRACONIAN anywhere.

Let me critically examine the observations in 123 pages verdict delivered by Hon Judges.

In para 9 SC highlighted that Public Criticism is essential for Democracy as Freedom of Speech and Press is Ark of Covenant of Democracy. In para 10 judges referred that Importance of Freedom of speech though not absolute but were necessary as we need to tolerate unpopular views. Informed citizeny is a precondition for meaningful governance the culture of open dialogue is generally of great social importance.

Here Hon. SC has reposed more faith in wisdom of citizens than law makers. Indeed Time will upset the current faith and belief of SC that Free Trade of Ideas on Social platforms is according to the true spirit of Freedom of Speech and Expression. Informed citizeny is indeed a pre condition but Are our citizen really well informed and Digital Literate? Are our young netizens really bothered about whatever is available through this medium? When preferred site for downloading songs is hosted from outside India and due to which huge quantum of revenue is lost by Film Industry, are these citizen be called as Informed? When most of the traffic on internet is related to Pornographic search, are these citizen be called well informed? When Cyber crimes are increasing at rapid pace and in geometric progression Are these citizen be called well informed? Does our informed citizens believe POER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER ABSOLUTELY? Now as the 66A is repealed these informed citizens will have Absolute Power of expression which hopefully will be utilized with restrain.

Para 12 mentions “To justify suppression of Freedom of Free Speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil result if free speech is practiced.”“It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,” said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. In Para 13, It was highlighted that concepts of understanding Freedom of Speech and Expression are Discussion, Advocacy and Incitement. It is only when such Discussion or Advocacy reaches level of Incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.

Is there any measuring device available which will tell with certainty that now Incitement level is reached? With the magnitude of users and reach internet can cover and also cultural, linguistic, religious diversities will it be really possible to identify whether the expressions are limited to discussions or advocacy or have they crossed to the level of incitement? And who will be proper Judge to decide?

Para 14 is very unique one wherein SC has made its observations “A word needs to be said about use of American Judgments in context of 19(1). In virtually every judgment of SC reference has been made to judgments across the Atlantic. IS IT SAFE TO DO SO????

Can we not apply our own logic for the medium specially developed, owned and controlled by states across the Atlantic????

In Para 20 judges relied on across the Atlantic Justice Jackson’s stating “It is not function of government to keep citizen from falling into error; it is function of citizen to keep Government from falling into error.”

So if government is not supposed to prevent and protect its citizen from falling into errors then what is meaning of Welfare State? The government has brought the section 66A with very genuine intention of protecting rights of its citizen in cyberspace and from falling them into various traps laid by this new medium of communication, which is in its very early days, but government machinery failed miserably in its implementation.

In fact in subsequent Paras 28 Judges have clearly accepted the distinction between Internet and other media and rejected to accept that Article 14 has any say in the matter.

In subsequent Paras court has observed that “Mere annoyance need not cause disturbance of public order. Under Sec 66A the offence is complete by sending a message for purpose of causing annoyance either persistently or otherwise, without in any manner impacting public order.” “The definition of offences under the provision was “open-ended and undefined”. “An article in order to be banned must have a tendency to excite persons to acts of violence”. The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. “The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which ‘incites’ anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of ‘discussion’ or ‘advocacy’ of a ‘particular point of view’. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,” the court held.

Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as “open-ended, undefined and vague”, the court said: “Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.”

By applying the same logic SC has accepted that the terms are open-ended and undefined. In my view open ended terms can be very well defined by the authorities as per case to case basis. Judiciary wanted to reestablish its supremacy in interpretation of statues and does not want to delegate it to any other agency. Have we not observed in many cases from our judiciary where one court interprets in one way and other court reverses the interpretation? Can it not be said that when a thing can be offending to one person his right to retaliate is invaded now? The cases which were before SC were the one’s in which SC viewed from one angle and left other angle totally unseen due to its openness and vagueness but not considering True spirit behind the same.

The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. “Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,” the court said.

So it would have been more appropriate had SC asked to narrow down the scope of open-ended ,under defined and vague words to finality so that people would have understood it more properly. Even in Para 49, SC maintained that wholesale substitution of provisions as suggested by ASG, is not possible for acceptance.

In paras 82 to 90 SC has merely pointed out that Sec 66 A has absolutely no manageable standards by which to book a person for offence under it. The section is cast so widely that virtually any opinion or any subject matter would be covered by it. Such is the reach of the section 66A and if it is to withstand the test of Constitutionality the chilling effect on Freedom of speech would be total. Section 66A needs to be struck down on grounds of over breadth and vagueness. Also submission of government about doctrine of severability is vague as government did not indicate which part of Section 66A can possibly be saved. SC also opinioned that possibility of Section 66A being applied for purpose not sanctioned by Constitution can not be ruled out and it must therefore be held to be wholly unconstitutional and void.

So by examining the entire judgment I feel that only due to open-ended words or vagueness of words Hon SC thought the provisions of Section 66A as unconstitutional. Had it not been the CUT COPY PASTE tendency of our lawmakers and a little application of mind so as to at least define the terms in Section 2 of I T Act, rather than leaving then open and for broader interpretation, there was no flaw in Section 66A. SC has only decided on issue brought before it and still there is ample time for government to learn from mistakes of past. The government should define precisely all the words prior to their insertion in any statute and enact new Section 66A in much simplified form but at the earliest.

Cyberspace can not be left to be ruled by whims and fancies of the netizens and their self consciousness, as it has totally changed the rules of game. Governments may come and go but the possible destruction by such lawlessness in Cyberspace may have severe impact on humanity and probably we would not be alive to witness the same. The aftermath of lawlessness in Cyberspace would be very devastating and which we will be witnessing soon.

The hysteria shown by activists after the verdict is yet to settle down. Everybody is celebrating it as day of independence of internet. I can only PREY TO GOD “FORGIVE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT KNWOING WHAT THEY ARE CELEBRATING”.

Free Guidance for Online Fraud Victims - A need of Hour

Cyber Awareness Organisation is spreading awareness about various events in cyber space and also providing advisory services for cyber fraud victims through its CYBER CRIME HELPLINE 09225109900.

Nowadays with spread of internet and mobile telephony, e-commerce has attracted attention of many and it includes cyber criminals also. The growth of online shopping/online money transfer activities is welcome and the benefit of customers is of immense value. But a few are witnessing some acts of bad elements like non-receipt of goods or receipt of goods with changed specification or of inferior quality etc.

In this situation the customer is left with no option than to blame himself as citing jurisdiction issues police don’t register FIR not customer is aware about legal remedy available . And hence to educate consumers about their rights while making Online shopping is a need of hour now!!!!!!

To provide free advice to such customers CYBER AWARENESS ORGANISATION appeals them to visit its office at, Lakshmikeshav Apartments, Soniline, Opp. Patwardhan High school, Sitabuldi Nagpur-440012, with all necessary documents between 4-6 pm. The complainant can also mail info@cyberorgindia.com with all details.    

Police Investigations and Cyber Crime

Today there were two news reports related to cyber crime in local news paper.

One related to success of Police in nabbing cyber criminals involved in Fake phone calls for compromise of ATM password and other details and thereafter making huge purchases from various online portals and used same online route to dispose the used goods!!!!

Other related to filing the FIR in similar job scam.But this story in reality is somewhat different where Police in Nagpur almost took more than a month to file this FIR.

In first case Police needs to be congratulated for their splendid efforts and hard work in connecting the dots!!

But in second matter citing Jurisdiction issue is not at all understandable!When I T Act provides for Global Jurisdiction why police make these petty issue of local jurisdiction?Don't they understand that by such their act they are indirectly helping the criminals by not registering the matters?They are also wasting valuable time of investigation.Cyber Criminals could be nabbed if police act swiftly and here our police are wasting much time in deciding the jurisdiction issue.By these tactics Police may be successful in discouraging the complainant about the thought of Filing FIR and seeking Justice but on the contrary they have helped criminals by letting them a easy escape!!!!!!

Do we need such attitude of police in matters of CYBER CRIMES?????

Hon.Chief Minister Maharashtra has ordered for set up of three new CYBER POLICE STATIONS in Mumbai.But what about Second capital and other cities?Don't they witness cyber crimes or whatever they lose is not of significance????Or by the cyber crimes reported by Police it is only Mumbai which is witnessing Cyber Crimes and in rest of the state ALL IS WELL????

The other worrying aspect is Online portals like QUIKR and OLS are used by criminals to buy as well as sell the goods.So are we to understand that ONLINE PORTALS ARE SAFE HEAVENS FOR CYBER CRIMINALS?????

In fact I regularly advice the complainants of missing Mobile phones to visit various online resale portals for finding their lost/stolen mobile phones.

And if these portals are used for such fraudulent activities should they be governed by some rules are not????

The scenario is getting worse day by day by addition new online users.


I  can only say that GOD ONLY CAN SAVE DIGITAL ILLITERATES!!!!!