Law and Emerging Technology Unit 3
Law and Emerging Technology Unit 3
Issues of jurisdiction and sovereignty have quickly come to the fore in the era of the Internet. The Internet
does not tend to make geographical and jurisdictional boundaries clear, but Internet users remain in physical
jurisdictions and are subject to laws independent of their presence on the Internet. As such, a single
transaction may involve the laws of atleast three jurisdictions:
(1) The laws of the state/nation in which the user resides.
(2) The laws of the state/nation that apply where the server hosting the transaction is located, and
(3) The laws of the state/nation which apply to the person or business with whom the transaction takes place.
Another major area of interest is net neutrality, which affects the regulation of the infrastructure of the
Internet. Though not obvious to most Internet users, every packet of data sent and received by every user on
the Internet passes through routers and transmission infrastructure owned by a collection of private and
public entities, including telecommunication companies, universities, and governments, suggesting that the
Internet is not very independent. This is turning into one of the most critical aspects of cyber law and has
immediate jurisdictional implications, as laws in force in one jurisdiction have the potential to have dramatic
effects in other jurisdictions when host servers or telecommunications companies are affected.
Many of the jurisdictional and substantive quandaries raised by border-crossing electronic communications
could be resolved by one simple principle: conceiving of Cyberspace as a distinct “place” for purposes of
legal analysis by recognising a legally significant border between Cyberspace and the “real world”.
Treating Cyberspace as a separate “space” to which distinct laws apply should come naturally, because entry
into this world of stored online communications occurs through a screen and (usually) a “password”
boundary. There is a “placeness” to Cyberspace because the messages accessed there are persistent and
accessible to many people. No one accidentally strays across the border into Cyberspace. Crossing
Cyberspace is a meaningful act that would make application of a distinct “law of Cyberspace” fair to those
who pass over the electronic boundary.
1. Pecuniary Jurisdiction: It limits the power of the court to hear cases upto a pecuniary limit only. As
Section 6 of the CPC provides “nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over
suits the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits of its ordinary
jurisdiction.
2. Subject matter Jurisdiction: Section 16 to 18 deals with suits relating to immovable property. Section 19
of the CPC states that here a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if
the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or
carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court,
the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts. Section 20 of the Code
states that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement
of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit,
actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such
case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or
personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
Under traditional contracts, the governing law is the law of the State where the transaction occurred, unless
agreed otherwise by the parties to the contract, for which the rules of private international law were used in
case of transnational contracts. Nonetheless, moving over to e-contracts, where the parties belong to
different countries, and where there is no specific factor to determine the place of consummation of the
contract, and there is no mention of what the proper law is, in the rules of most of the domestic legislations
this sets the courts in motion to apply the law of the country that has the closest and the most substantial
connection to the contract, with the courts again differing in the factors that they take into consideration in
arriving at the decision.
One of the interesting provisions of Section 75 of IT Act, 2000 which contemplates for offences or
contraventions committed outside India. According to this section, the Act shall apply to an offence or
contravention committed outside India by any person if the act or conduct constituting the offence or
contravention involves a computer, computer system or computer network located in India.
On the same footing Section 179 of the CrPC defines, when an act is an offence by reason of anything which
has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, if the thing has been done in one local area and the
consequence has ensued in another local area.
Due to increase in the number of netizens, misuse of technology in the cyberspace was clutching up which
gave birth to cyber crimes at the domestic and international level as well. It could be hackers vandalizing
your site, viewing confidential information, stealing trade secrets or intellectual property with the use of
internet. It can also include denial of services and virus attacks preventing regular traffic from reaching your
site. Cyber crimes are not limited to outsiders except in case of viruses and with respect of security related
cyber crimes that are usually done by the employees of particular company who can easily access the
password and data storage of the company for their benefits.
Cyber crimes can be classified under different categories which are as follows:
Cyber crimes always affects the companies of any size because almost all the companies gain an online
presence and take advantage of the rapid gains in the technology but greater attention needs to be given to its
security risks. In the modern cyber world, cyber crimes is the major issue which is affecting individual as
well as society at large too.
Prevention is always better than cure. A citizen should take certain precautions while operating the Internet
and should follow certain preventive measures for cyber crimes which can be defined as:
Identification of exposures through education will assist responsible companies and firms to meet these
challenges.
One should avoid disclosing any personal information to strangers via e-mail or while chatting.
A person should never send his credit card number to any site that is not secured, to guard against frauds.
Web servers running public sites must be physically separately protected from internal corporate
network.
It is better to use security programmes by the body corporate to control information on sites.
Strict statutory laws need to be passed by the Legislatures keeping in mind the interest of citizens.
In Shreya Singhal v. UOI, in the instant case, the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act was challenged
before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court based its decision on three concepts namely: discussion,
advocacy, and incitement. It observed that mere discussion or even advocacy of a cause, no matter how
unpopular, is at the heart of the freedom of speech and expression. It was found that Section 66A was
capable of restricting all forms of communication and it contained no distinction between mere advocacy or
discussion on a particular cause which is offensive to some and incitement by such words leading to a causal
connection to public disorder, security, health, and so on. In response to the question of whether Section
66A attempts to protect individuals from defamation, the Court said that Section 66A condemns offensive
statements that may be annoying to an individual but not affecting his reputation. However, the Court also
noted that Section 66A of the IT Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because there
existed an intelligible difference between information communicated through the internet and through other
forms of speech. Also, the Apex Court did not even address the challenge of procedural unreasonableness
because it is unconstitutional on substantive grounds.
In Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, the accused preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court
after the High Court rejected the application of the accused to exhibit the Compact Disc filed in defence and
to get it proved from the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Supreme Court held that a Compact Disc is also
a document. It further observed that it is not necessary to obtain admission or denial concerning a document
under Section 294 (1) of CrPC personally from the accused, the complainant, or the witness.
In Shankar v. State Rep, the petitioner approached the Court under Section 482, CrPC to quash the charge
sheet filed against him. The petitioner secured unauthorized access to the protected system of the Legal
Advisor of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) and was charged under Sections 66, 70,
and 72 of the IT Act. The Court observed that the charge sheet filed against the petitioner cannot be quashed
with respect to the law concerning non-granting of sanction of prosecution under Section 72 of the IT Act.
1. Intrusive Offence
Illegal Access: “Hacking” is one of the major forms of offences that refer to unlawful access to a
computer system.
Data Espionage: Offenders can intercept communications between users (such as e-mails) by targeting
communication infrastructure such as fixed lines or wireless and any Internet service (e.g., e-mail
servers, chat or VoIP communications).
Data Interference: Offenders can violate the integrity of data and interfere with them by deleting,
suppressing or altering data and restricting access to them.
2. Content-related Offence
Pornographic Material (Child Pornography): Sex related content was among the first content to be
commercially distributed over the Internet.
Racism, Hate Speech, Glorification of Violence: Radical groups use mass communication systems
such as the Internet to spread their propaganda.
Religious Offences: A growing number of websites present material that is in some countries covered
by provisions related to religious offences, e.g., anti-religious written statements.
Spam: Offenders send out bulk mails by an unidentified source and the mail server often contains
useless advertisements and pictures.
5. Combination Offence
Cyber Terrorism: The main purposes of it are propaganda, information gathering, preparation of real-
world attacks, publication of training material, communication, terrorist financing and attacks against
critical infrastructure.
Cyber Warfare: It describes the use of ICTs in conducting warfare using the Internet.
Cyber Laundering: Conducting crime through the use of virtual currencies, online casinos, etc.
In the UK, way back in 1868, the Court laid down the Hicklin test in Regina vs Hicklin, and held that the
test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those
whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.
Hicklin test postulated that a publication has to be judged for obscenity based on isolated passages of a work
considered out of context and judged by their apparent influence on most susceptible readers, such as
children or weak-minded adults.
Security challenges in cyberspace require a web of responses by public and private sector stakeholders at all
levels down to the individual. International agreements are an important part of the response but with
exceptions they have been difficult to reach.
International efforts to address cyber-crime and e-evidence as a matter of criminal justice have been pursued
since the 1980s, initially by the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
Development (OECD), and from the mid-1990s also by the G-8. At the Council of Europe, led this to the
adoption of a soft law recommendation providing guidance on the criminalisation of computer-related
offences (1989) and on law enforcement powers regarding cyber-crime and electronic evidence six years
later (1995). these were precursors to the Budapest Convention which was opened for signature in 2001.
At the UN, it has not been possible to reach a consensus so far as to whether an international treaty on cyber-
crime was necessary and feasible and what it would possibly comprise. The matter of “combating the
criminal misuse of information technologies” was the subject of a resolution at the UN Congress on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice in Havana in 1990. it referred to the work of the OECD and the Council of
Europe, but no follow-up was given by the UN. In 2001 and 2002, it was taken up again in UN General
Assembly Resolutions but at that point, the Budapest Convention had been opened for signature.
It would seem that from around 2001, the focus within the UN had shifted from cyber-crime as a matter of
criminal justice to the protection of critical information infrastructure and cyber or information security as a
matter of international security. From 2004, Groups of Government Experts (GGEs) have been meeting to
examine “existing and potential threats from the cyber-sphere and possible cooperative measures to address
them.”
The Budapest Convention provides for (i) the criminalisation of conduct, ranging from illegal access, data
and systems interference to computer-related fraud and child pornography, (ii) procedural law rules to make
the investigation of cyber-crime and the securing of tools to make the investigation of cyber-crime and the
securing of e-evidence in relation to any crime more effective and (iii) international police and judicial
cooperation on cyber-crime and e-evidence.
In 2007 and 2008, India and the Council of Europe cooperated in the forum of India’s Information
Technology Act. These reforms brought the legislation of India broadly in line with the Budapest
Convention.
While membership of the Budapest Convention more than doubled since then, India is yet to join this treaty.
The reasons are not entirely clear.
The Convention is the first international treaty on crimes committed via the Internet and other computer
networks, dealing particularly with infringements of copyright, computer-related fraud, child pornography,
hate crimes and violations of network security. It also contains a series of powers and procedures such as the
search of computer networks and lawful interceptions.
Its main objective, set out in the preamble, is to pursue a common criminal policy aimed at the protection of
society against cyber-crime, especially by adopting appropriate legislation and fostering international
cooperation.
The Convention is the product of four years of work by European and International experts. It has been
supplemented by an Additional Protocol making any publication of racist and xenophobic propaganda via
computer networks a criminal offence, similar to Criminal Libel laws. Currently, cyber terrorism is also
studied in the framework of the Convention.
In this day and age when almost everybody owns a mobile device like smart phones, there is also a
continuous rise in mobile crimes.
Mobile technology over the years have evolved up to a large extent be it on grounds of flexibility or
portability. Security measures too have improved, but not at the desired expected rate to absolutely curb
crimes rates.
Widened introspection of Section 2(i) of the IT Act, 2000 makes mobile phones fall within the definition of
word “computer” as mobile phones are used for exchanging of information.
Sections 294, 504, 506, 507 and 509 of the IPC, lay down legal provisions for those expressing offensive
feelings by means of mobile phone or computer.
Section 67(a) of the IT Act lays down provisions for punishment against publication or spreading of
materials containing sexually active acts, etc., in electronic form. Similarly, Sections 292, 292(a) of the IPC
also lays down punishment on initial conviction for imprisonment and also fine.
Thus, legal provisions along with established legislations have played a major role towards, curbing
increasing crime rates being committed over mobile phones.