Monday, September 23, 2019

Right to Internet is a fundamental right in India




Internet Access is a fundamental Right held by 

Kerala High Court.

i.e. that the right to have access to the #Internet is part of the right to education as well as the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution .The verdict came on a petition filed by a Kozhikode college student challenging her expulsion for not adhering to restrictions on the use of mobile phone

Justice P.V. Asha made the observation while ordering the Principal of Sree Narayanaguru College, Kozhikode, to re-admit a student who had been expelled from the college hostel for using her mobile phone beyond the restricted hours.

The court observed, “When the Human Rights Council of the United Nations has found that the right of access to Internet is a fundamental freedom and a tool to ensure right to education, a rule or instruction which impairs the said right of the students cannot be permitted to stand in the eye of law.”The verdict came on a petition filed by Faheema Shirin, a third-semester B.A. English student of the college at Chelanur, challenging her expulsion for not adhering to restrictions on the use of mobile phone. As per the rules of the girls’ hostel, inmates were restrained from using mobile phones from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. every day. She, along with a few other inmates, had protested against the restriction, as it was hampering their learning process. 

The Judge observed that the action of the college authorities infringed the fundamental freedom as well as privacy and would adversely affect the future and career of students who want to acquire knowledge and compete with their peers, such

restriction could not be permitted to be enforced.

The court while citing the observations of the SupremeCourt in the S.Rengarajan and others v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) case said t “ the fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicksand of convenience or expediency.”

The court added that the hostel authorities were expected to enforce only those rules and regulations for enforcing discipline. Enforcement of discipline shall not be by blocking the ways and means of the students to acquire knowledge

The court further said that college authorities as well as parents should be conscious of the fact that the students in a college hostel are adults capable of taking decisions as to how and when they have to study.

Monday, September 2, 2019

Cyber Warfare: Two Instances where Kinetic Force was used in response to Cyberattack



Two Tales of Using Kinetic Force in Response to  Cyberattack 

May 2019, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a physical attack on Hamas in immediate response to an alleged cyber-assault. The IDF hit a building in the Gaza Strip with an airstrike after claiming the site had been used by Hamas cyber operatives to attack Israel’s cyber space. It came amid days of intense fighting between the IDF and terror groups in the Gaza Strip.

The IDF claimed it stopped the attack online before launching its airstrike on Hamas. It claims it has now wiped out Hamas’ cyber operational capabilities.

 Israel Defense Forces said via Twitter: “We thwarted an attempted Hamas cyber offensive against Israeli targets. Following our successful cyber defensive operation, we targeted a building where the Hamas cyber operatives work. HamasCyberHQ.exe has been removed.”

 It could mark a change in modern cyber warfare tactics, given that it is the first time a cyber-attack has been met with immediate physical retaliation in real-time during active conflict. However, allegedly the US is still the first country to respond to cyber-attacks with military force. In 2015, USA launched a drone strike to kill the British national in charge of ISIL’s hacker groups Junaid Hussain. Hussain had also dumped personal details of US military forces online.

This 2019 attack is different to the 2015 US retaliation: The IDF apparently reacted immediately, rather than planning its response over weeks or months.

 Operations in cyber space are not governed by the rules of warfare. However, the Geneva protocols and international law do cover a response occurring in the physical domain.  There have been attempts to bring in rules for cyber warfare with the Tallinn Manual on the International Law applicable to Cyber Warfare, but this has not been ratified or adopted by any nation or multinational organization.


Saturday, August 24, 2019

First Space Cybercrime of Indentity Theft




First Space #cybercrime of #identitytheft in ISS 


Nasa is investigating a claim that an astronaut Ms. Anne McClain the first Lady astronaut has allegedly accessed the bank account of her estranged husband from the International Space Station.

Accused has acknowledged the crime but denied any wrongdoing When her husband Mr Summer Worden, had filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission FTC. Lady astronaut has since returned to Earth.

The astronaut claims, she was merely making sure that the family's finances were in order and there was enough money to pay bills and care for Ms Worden's son - who they had been raising together prior to the divorce in 2018

How does the law work in space?

There are five national or international space agencies involved in the ISS - from the US, Canada, Japan, Russia and several European countries - and a legal framework sets out that national law applies to any people and possessions in space.

So if a Canadian national were to commit a crime in space, they would be subject to Canadian law, and a Russian citizen to Russian law.  Space law also sets out provisions for extradition back on Earth, should a nation decide it wishes to prosecute a citizen of another nation for misconduct in space.

As space tourism becomes a reality, so might the need to prosecute space crime, but for now the legal framework remains untested. 


Thursday, August 22, 2019

Cybercrime conviction in Fake Patanjali Website matter




One Vikas Kumar from Patna was Convicted in #cybercrime for 2 years with Rs. 5,000/- fine for operating fake #Patanjali Website & promising distributorship in lieu of ₹3 Lacks by Ahmednagar Court in Maharashtra.

FIR was Registered under S66D of the IT Act,2000 & S420 of IPC


1. District - Ahmednagar


2. Police Station - Cyber Police Station


3. C.R.No. 02/2017, IPC Sections 419, 420,467, 468 IT Act Section 66C


4. Name of Accused - Vikas Kumar, r/o Nalanda, Bihar.


5. Facts of the case - Accused in the said case had allegedly offered Distributorship through a fake website of Patanjali and thereby duped the Complainant to the tune of Rs. 3 Lacs.


Technical Investigation of the said crime was undertaken by PI Pawar and the Accused was arrested from Patna, Bihar.

Proceedings of the said case were conducted before the Court of Chief Magistrate, Ahmednagar .


Almost everyone knows someone has been a Victim. But, there's still an attitude that somehow it always happens to the other guy. But, what if you are the other guy?

All across India, the fastest growing Cyber Crime in the nation has been identified as Identity Theft- and its affecting each one of us in insidious ways.
We have all heard of the problem, but only few have recognized the theft of the identity can be so devastating.


Types of identity theft

1. Criminal identity theft

2. Financial identity theft

3. Identity cloning and concealment


Identity Theft as a term refers to Fraud that involves stealing money or getting other benefits by pretending to be someone else. The term is relatively new and is actually a misnomer, since it is not inherently possible to steal an identity, only to use it. The person whose identity is used can suffer various consequences when they are held responsible for the perpetrator's actions.

Section 66C of the IT Act,2000 :

Punishment for identity theft.- Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Sunday, April 7, 2019

What GOOGLE knows about YOU ?




What does Google know about YOU?

Did you know that unlike searching , when you search on Google, they ? That means they know every search you’ve ever done on Google. That alone is pretty scary, but it’s just the shallow end of the  that they try to collect on people.


What most people don’t realize is that even if you don’t use any Google products directly, they’re still trying to track as much as they can about you. Google trackers have been found on . This means they're also trying to track most everywhere you go on the internet, trying to slurp up your browsing history!


Most people also don’t know that Google runs most of the ads you see across the internet and in apps – you know those ones that follow you around everywhere? Yup, that’s Google, too. They aren’t really a search company anymore – they’re a tracking company. They are tracking as much as they can for these annoying and intrusive ads, including recording every time you see them, where you saw them, if you clicked on them, etc.


But even that’s not all…


If You Use Google Products


If you do use Google products, they try to track even more. In addition to tracking everything you’ve ever searched for on Google (e.g. “weird rash”), Google also tracks every video you’ve ever watched on YouTube. Many people actually don’t know that ; now you know.


And if you use Android (yeah, Google owns that too), then Google is also usually tracking:


Every place you’ve been via Google Location Services.

How often you use your apps, when you use them, where you use them, and whom you use them to interact with. (This is just excessive by any measure.)

All of your text messages, which unlike on iOS, .

Your photos .

If you use Gmail, they of course also have all your e-mail messages. If you use Google Calendar, they know all your schedule. There’s a pattern here: For all Google products (Hangouts, Music, Drive, etc.), you can expect the same level of tracking: that is, pretty much anything they can track, they will.


Oh, and if you use Google Home, they also store a live recording of every command you’ve (or anyone else) has ever said to your device! Yes, you heard that right (err… they heard it) – you can check out all the recordings .


Essentially, if you allow them to, they’ll track pretty close to, well, everything you do on the Internet. In fact, even if you tell them to stop tracking you, Google has been known to not really listen, for example with .


You Become the Product


Why does Google want all of your information anyway? Simple: as stated, Google isn’t a search company anymore, they’re a tracking company. All of these data points allow Google to build a pretty robust profile about you. In some ways, by keeping such close tabs on everything you do, they, at least in some ways, may know you better than you know yourself.

It is alleged that Google also listens to you when the mobile is near you through its App using its ambient noise technology.


And Google uses your personal profile to sell ads, not only on their search engine, but also on over three million other websites and apps. Every time you visit one of these sites or apps, Google is following you around with hyper-targeted ads.


It’s exploitative. By allowing Google to collect all this info, you are allowing hundreds of thousands of advertisers to bid on serving you ads based on your sensitive personal data. Everyone involved is profiting from your information, except you. You are the product.


It doesn’t have to be this way. It is entirely possible for a web-based business to be profitable without making you the product – since 2014,  has been profitable without storing or sharing any personal information on people at all. You can read more about our business model .


The Myth of “Nothing to Hide”


Some may argue that they have “nothing to hide,” so they are not concerned with the amount of information Google has collected and stored on them, but that argument is fundamentally flawed .


Everyone has information they want to keep private: Do you close the door when you go to the bathroom? Privacy is about control over your personal information. You don’t want it in the hands of everyone, and certainly don’t want people profiting on it without your consent or participation.


In addition, privacy is essential to democratic institutions like voting and everyday situations such as getting medical care and performing financial transactions. Without it, there can be significant harms.


On an individual level, lack of privacy leads to putting you into a , getting manipulated by ads, , fraud, and identity theft. On a societal level, it can lead to deepened polarization and societal manipulation like we’ve unfortunately been seeing multiply in recent years.


You Can Live Google Free


Basically, Google tries to track too much. It’s creepy and simply just more information than one company should have on anyone.


Thankfully, there are many good ways to reduce your Google footprint, even close to zero! If you are ready to live without Google,  for services to replace their suite of products, as well as instructions for . It might feel like you are trapped in the Google-verse, but it is possible to break free.





For starters, just switching the search engine for all your searches goes a long way. After all, you share your most intimate questions with your search engine; at the very least, shouldn’t those be kept private? If you switch to the  you will not only make your searches anonymous, but also block Google’s most widespread and invasive trackers as you navigate the web.


If you’re unfamiliar with DuckDuckGo, they are an Internet privacy company that empowers you to seamlessly take control of your personal information online, without any tradeoffs. DuckDuckGo is a search engine alternative to Google at , and offer a  to protect you from Google, Facebook and other trackers, no matter where you go on the Internet.

#privacy #dataprotection #cyber #searchengine 

Thursday, January 17, 2019

WhatsAPP Video Call Divorce: First in Indian Court

WhatsAPP Video Call Divorce
A Nagpur family court has granted divorce & Rs. 10 Lakhs settlement for the wife in the US and husband in India, after recording the wife’s consent via a WhatsApp video call.
The husband, 37, a resident of Khamla in Nagpur, works in Michigan, but was in his home town when the divorce was officially granted by mutual consent.
The wife, 35, is studying in Michigan, US, on a student visa. Expressing her inability to attend the hearing as she was not permitted to seek long leave from her educational institution, the woman had requested that the hearing be conducted via a WhatsApp video call.
After seeking consent from both sides, Nagpur Family Court Judge Swati Chauhan allowed their separation on the condition that the husband would pay the woman a lump-sum one-time alimony of Rs 10 lakh. The divorce was finalised on January 14, 2019 .The family court had obtained the wife’s consent via a WhatsApp video call on the directives of the court.
The couple had an arranged marriage on August 11, 2013, at Secunderabad, now in Telangana. The husband and wife, both engineers, secured jobs in a US-based automobile company.
However, differences cropped up when the wife stayed with her in-laws in Nagpur for some time after her US visa expired. She returned to Michigan later on a student visa. Over time, their differences deepened and the husband filed for divorce at the Nagpur Family Court.
The court referred their case to a counsellor as per existing norms but the hearing took place for some time, as both were abroad. Smita Sarode Singhalkar, the wife’s lawyer, said she then took the lead and arranged a meeting at her office at Khare Town in Nagpur to go for an out of court settlement. The meeting was attended by the husband and his lawyer, while the wife was contacted on WhatsApp video call. The wife’s brother represented her at the negotiation.
While the husband attended the meeting, the wife was represented by her brother. The counsellor interviewed the wife on the terms of settlement via WhatsApp video calls and also consulted the husband. Subsequently, both the lawyers informed the court that since both the husband and wife were already living separately in the US for over a year and the wife was ready for a one-time settlement, a divorce should be granted.
The court turned the divorce case into a mutual consent petition before dissolving the marriage. While the Muslim, women across the world are fighting to ban divorce via Skype and WhatsApp, Indian court grants a divorce to a man in India with the consent of women in the USA 





Tuesday, January 15, 2019

USA Federal Laws for cyber crime of HACKING

Definition of Hacking

Hacking is broadly defined as the act of breaking into a computer system. Hacking isn't always a crime as "ethical hacking" occurs when a hacker is legally permitted to exploit security networks. In other words, it's when a hacker has the appropriate consent or authorization. However, hacking crosses the criminal line when a hacker accesses someone's computer system without such consent or authority.

For instance, if an individual act without consent or any lawful authorization (i.e. from law enforcement agency and/or court order) and penetrates a business' firewall to access private servers and cloud storage systems or uses phishing to install malware to desktop and laptop computers with the intent to monitor communications and activities, they can be charged with a crime.

Federal Hacking Laws

There are several federal laws that address hacking, including:

  • The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA);
  • The Stored Communications Act (SCA);
  • The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA); and
  • The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is the leading federal anti-hacking legislation that prohibits unauthorized access to another's computer system. Although the law was originally meant to protect the computer systems of U.S. government entities and financial institutions, the scope of the Act expanded with amendments to include practically any computer in the country (including devices such as servers, desktops, laptops, cellphones, and tablets).

Criminal Penalties Under the CFAA

The chart below provides select examples of violations of the CFAA and the penalties.

Offense

Penalties (Prison Sentence)

Obtaining National Security Information

10 years; 20 years maximum for a second conviction.

Accessing a Computer to Defraud and Obtain Value

5 years; 10 years maximum for a second conviction.

Accessing a Computer and Obtaining Information

1-5 years; 10 years maximum for a second conviction.1-10 years; 20 years maximum for a second conviction.

Intentionally Damaging by Knowing Transmission

1-10 years; 20 years maximum for a second conviction.

Extortion Involving Computers

5 years; 10 years maximum for a second conviction.

Trafficking in Passwords

1 year; 10 years maximum for a second conviction.

Civil Violations Under the CFAA

Although the CFAA's penalties are mostly for criminal violations, the 1994 amendment expanded the Act to include causes of action for civil suits, in addition to criminal prosecution.

Civil violations include the following:

  • Obtaining information from a computer through unauthorized access;
  • Trafficking in a computer password that can be used to access a computer;
  • Transmitting spam; and
  • Damaging computer data.

Federal anti-hacking legislation provides civil remedies for hacking victims, including the following:

  • Injunctive relief;
  • Seizure of property; and
  • Impounding of the stolen information and the electronic devices used to carry out the invasion.

Other Federal Hacking Laws

The Stored Communications Act mirrors the prohibitions of the CFAA and protects stored electronic communications and data or data at rest (including email, texts, instant messages, social media accounts, cloud computing and storage, and blogs/microblogs). There is a lot of overlap with the CFAA and often hackers will be in violation of both statutes.

The EPCA, a counterpart law to the SCA forbids intentional interception of electronic communications in transit or "data in motion," rather than "data at rest."

FIR : All you want to know about in a criminal case

FIR - What is?  The first information report is a report giving information of the commission of a cognizable crime,  which may be made by t...