Misuse of information technology, digital devices and rise of cyber crimes

http://www.cybervictims.org

In India consumption of information technology and electronic mediums for the same has seen steep high since the new millennium. I remember a Tamil movie in the late 1990s which showed how the computers would be used in future; it showed people are literally throwing off their desk tops  to the dustbins since they were “over used”,  people belonging to average income group have the power to buy laptops and grass root level workers are using mobile phones. Nonetheless, I am talking about an era when a desk top computer would have costed not less than twenty thousand rupees ( nearly $400) and an ordinary mobile phone with no device other than device for speaking and hearing would have costed not less than two thousand rupees (nearly $40). Cost of internet and pre paid sim cards for mobile phones were not generally accessible by people belonging to lower to middle income group.  As such, computers and mobile phones were considered to be prized possessions for the creamy layers. India was slowly getting introduced to cyber crimes like hacking. Crimes like child pornography, phishing etc were still considered as “not our problem still now”. Things have changed since then.

            Back in 2012, couple of days ago I was sitting at the railway station waiting for my train which will connect us to the international flight to Sweden. I was online through my husband’s IPad,  searching for some last moment details about the conference we were about to attend in couple of hours. Suddenly a woman shouted at me telling “ you will not spare the computer even at the railway station? be careful.. somebody might steal it.” Stunned, I looked  at her:  the woman must be in her late twenties, in a dirty sari, neatly pinned up here and there. She was a schizophrenic; must have been abandoned by her family and she remembers clearly how the computer screen looks like when one is online.  She sat on the floor near me and from her distracted communication with her imaginary child, I could clearly understand that she was  persuading the child to not to sit with “mobile phones”.  Within an hour or so, I saw another man, a daily wage earner who commutes from nearby place, speaking loudly over his prize possession, a cell phone with camera. I remember another incidence: on my way to Kolkata couple of years back, I got a few co passengers who were contract labourers from north Indian states. A couple of stations later, a young woman boarded the same compartment. She was accompanied by a man who could be her colleague, or even her boyfriend. Both of them looked well educated and professionals. One of the earlier co passengers made good use of his mobile phone; he started clicking the camera device randomly. When the woman noticed it, she instantly demanded not to click her and the owner of the device politely told her that he is getting accustomed to the device and doesn’t know how to handle it......lame excuse indeed. The lady’s companion snatched the phone and found a few pictures of the woman in different poses. He patiently deleted all of them and warned the owner that if he again does it, he will take stern action. The woman was probably spared because the owner of the device got down in the next halt without making any more attempt to ruin the peace.

What did I learn from all these incidences? Digital technology if put in wrong hands, can be devastating.  We can divide the cyber miscreants in two different sects: one who do it for fun; one who don’t do it for fun. There are numerous examples  of sexting cases, phone bullying cases involving children where you can see the  first sect of miscreants.  In many such  US court cases, defence had established ignorance of the accused. But what about miscreants who are not minors and who intentionally mishandle it for the purpose of experimenting the devices? Basically we can do nothing. There is no law in any country which prohibits ignorant persons from possessing a digital device with information and communication technology, be it a computer, or a mobile phone.  But off course, experience can turn an ignorant into a mighty individual. I sadly note that when laymen such as the above gather experience in handling the devices, the results may not be good. My assumption may not testify all, but surely would testify some.   The devices have inbuilt mechanism and the internet always opens it doors with both good and bad shades, which allures new users to experiment. This can lead to devastating effect including hacking and sexual offences of cyber space. What these people lack actually is the knowledge of cyber etiquette. Remember the old tradition of  attaching license for possessing radio? Perhaps it is time now for the companies making computers and electronic gadgets like the cell phones to think of attaching a module of user manual including etiquettes  with their products. May be this could bring down purposeful mishandling of the devices which gives rise to various sorts of cyber crimes.

Or you need to believe..... no gain no pain...

Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2012), “Misuse of information technology, digital devices and rise of cyber crimes”, 21^st June,2012, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/”

Stop people: spare the disputed Mamata Banerjee cartoon

http://www.cybervictims.org

The cartoon controversy of  West Bengal Chief minister  has  created a new focus point for cyber law researchers like me. Why wouldn’t an individual express his political ideologies through cartoons? Why would the government gag this right?  Most supporters of liberal free speech guarantee protested the  Chief  Minister’s angry protests when a professor of a reputed university had reportedly spread the cartoon through someone else’s email id. When the lady noted the issue and the man behind this was indicted by the police, he apologetically accepted his first mistake, sending message from someone else’s email id. But he failed to understand the mistake which created such a big controversy, i.e spreading a supposedly offensive cartoon about Mamata Banerjee’s administrative skill and  human resource managerial skill. The cartoon was made after the then minister Trivedi was dropped by Banerjee because of some internal tip offs between the two. It apparently depicts parts of a  conversation between the two characters of a famous detective series film made by the legendary film maker Satyajit Ray for children. The cartoon picture which was widely circulated in the Facebook, showed Mamata’s face cut and pasted along with other two ministers, where one of the individuals tells “ei sei dustu lok”, meaning this is the bad man, and mamata says “dustu lok vanish”, meaning bad man vanish. She apparently speaks similar words like the villain in the noted children’s film where the person pushes another one to death and clarifies to the child protagonist that he has made him ‘vanished’(see Professor arrested for poking fun at Mamata. HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times

Kolkata, April 13, 2012. http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/WestBengal/Professor-arrested-for-poking-fun-at-Mamata/Article1-839847.aspx) .

What irked mamata were using her picture for conveying this ‘bad’ image, and also using the speech which according to her, conveyed the same meaning to the audience as the film characters did.... murdering the man in question  and removing him  from her path. According to the reports that posted her feelings for the issue, she had felt it was a cyber crime because it involved morphing of the pictures and it was insulting and injurious to her as well as her political party’s image(See Cartoon row: Mamata loses cool, storms out of live TV session, May 18, 2012. published in http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/cartoon-row-mamata-loses-cool-storms-out-of-live-tv-session-212905). Both of these crimes are recognised by the Indian Information Technology Act; the first under section 66 of the Act, which states that “If any person, dishonestly, or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both,”( To be more detailed about this, section 43 also includes unauthorised access to computer documents and altering the document for misuse of the same, among some other types of typical computer related crimes); the second under section 66A which prescribes punishment for sending grossly offensive messages or which have menacing character, or which is false, injurious, insulting etc. Well, that is her defence, and when she expressed her defence, a battery of intellectuals and common people burst out in protest saying this is nothing but gagging the freedom of speech and expression which is, according to me, is the most coveted right enshrined in the Indian constitution. Well, that is the people’s defence. People of India have not forgotten the emergency period that was created by erstwhile prime minister Indira Gandhi in the 1970’s,  when extremely strict regulations were brought in regarding journalism and also regular right to speech. This time, the protest was stronger because Mamata herself  belongs to that generation which grew up learning what should not be done with this almost sacred right.

But still then, I stand on the opposite platform. I feel there should be a limit line in activities which keep the soul of democracy alive, namely criticising the ruling party’s decision. However, there is one ‘myth’ that anti cartoon row people believed and  I would like to break. My defence line may look very thin,  but I stand strong on that.The incidence may not have involved “morphing” of the pictures of the individuals in the true meaning of morphing. The pictures were used as it is, however, they were accompanied by set of conversations which were framed and with visual indication lines  as to from whom they are originating. Well, ask me what is morphing and how affected people feel for it, for in my capacity as a cyber victim counseller, I get to see hundreds of such pictures of women especially, and I know their pain.  

But  my defence stands on the main  ground:  usage of  the logo of a government department,i.e the Indian railways for the purpose of such cartoons, which may derogate the actual purpose of  putting up the logo in the original government website. It must be understood that the cartoons were not meant to derogate a government establishment, but criticising people in it. Unauthorised usage of government emblems for trade, business, calling and professional practices is prohibited under section 3 of The Emblems And Names (Prevention Of Improper Use) Act, 1950. If the wordings of this section are pulled broadly, probably this very cartoon row would establish another milestone in Indian legal research field; for not to forget a small observation by a wise parliamentarian Sharifuddin  Shariq, who pointed out that cartoonists are given this chance to paint the politicians “wrong”(see “We ourselves have given the chance to cartoonists”, published in The Hindu on May, 14,2012, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3419130.ece), which turns my attention to another question...can cartoonists fall under this law ?

People, it is wise to be a part of the largest democracy wisely. But do remember, you cannot wrongly ride over the law of the land to insult the core values of democracy.

Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2012), “Stop people: spare the disputed Mamata Banerjee cartoon”, 19^hMay,2012, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/”

CYBER VICTIMIZATION: The lawyer says: what are the Indian laws to prevent cyber stalking?

CYBER VICTIMIZATION: The lawyer says: what are the Indian laws to prevent cyber stalking?

http://www.cybervictims.org

When women pose as men in the virtual world

http://www.cybervictims.org

Couple of years back when Laurie Drew posed as a man to befool teenager Megan, who would subsequently commit suicide, women posing as men to date with women was a very underreported and unfocussed issue. When I picked up this very  issue of women posing as men to harass women earlier in my book “Cyber crime and the Victimization of Women: Laws, Rights, and Regulations”. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. ISBN: 978-1-60960-830-9 , I noticed that one of the main causes behind such behaviour for women was a burning desire to take revenge on her victim.... jealousy.....thy green eyes.... The perpetrator woman generally feels extremely satisfied when she realises that she is driving the victim woman for nothing else but utter emotional disaster. Drew posed as a boy to give Megan a feeling how unworthy she is in the eyes of a boy.....a would be man, who would subsequently approve the worthiness of a woman. Most feminist scholars have argued since long against this very apparently (un)disputed truth. But this remains a fact for a majority of women and men alike. The reason behind such a nasty game by Drew was nothing but the anger, frustration and jealousy which arose due to her own daughter’s not so friendly and comfortable relationship with Megan. 

But note that I have used “one of the main cause” to describe my reasoning behind the issue. Apart from jealousy, there is something else which also drives women to play this nasty game. Imagine when a woman poses as a man just to have fun at the cost of the emotional distress of another woman! Don’t think that such behaviours are abnormal for women; but in reality, such trend is growing.  I do get to see couple of reported cases where women, mostly younger women play this fun game. Putting on the shoes of the opposite sex and playing with other women as charming prince in dating sites and also social networking sites is no more uncommon now. I refuse to believe that this could be the result of “penis envy” only, a Freudian psychoanalysis term.  Probably this might call for deep research on cyber psychology; but something in me tells that this could also be the result of acute loneliness in the wrongdoer as well as the victim. The ‘man’ woman unknowingly falls in the self created trap when the victim woman senses something wrong with the camouflaged identity. Not to forget the trail of private investigations, police complaints and even the risk of being banned by the website itself..... the perpetrator ‘man’ woman may become a victim herself as she may invite open threats regarding her sexuality, sexual orientation and following gradual out casting by the virtual society on which she would have depended heavily to change her monotonous life.

It is high time ‘man’-woman that you go ahead with some other positive productive leisure activity, for the painful crash of your imaginary ‘flight’ to the reality-ground  may become extremely hard to cope with.

Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2012), “When women pose as men in the virtual world”, 18^th March, 2012, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/”

Did the court do justice to Orkut posts that reportedly called Adnan to see his end?

http://www.cybervictims.org

In the time when web censorship is getting lime light due to the recent on going tussle between the courts and the Google and other websites, the news of acquittal of four  murder accused of Adnan Patrawala pulls out  mixed response from me. In 2007, this teenager was found dead some where in Navi Mumbai. He was the son of an affluent businessman; he loved life and social networking through Orkut. He reportedly became friendly with  his alleged murderers  through Orkut (see Did Orkut friends kidnap and kill Adnan?(August 20, 2007), published in http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/20adnan1.htm) and was allured by one “Angel” to go out where he  met his bloody end (See Adnan murder trial opens on Orkut;Published on  Friday, Aug 24, 2007, By Arun Ram; availbale @ http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_adnan-murder-trial-opens-on-orkut_1117311). No body knows whether he really met “angel” of Orkut or not, but the police depended heavily on the indirect evidences including the Orkut exchanges which vouched that he went out to meet some one. His family later received two calls asking for a lump sum for Adnan, who was reportedly in their custody when the calls were made. The news was leaked in the media and it created a huge wave of sympathy among Adnan’s friends who started discussing the issue in many communities. Some believe that the alleged kidnappers got panicked with the out break of the news. The media highlighted how Adnaan’s friends in Orkut have started a virtual investigation.  Resultant the wrong doers killed the teenager.  In 2012, when the alleged murderers were  acquitted, the court justified its sentencing by stating that both forensic and circumstantial evidences were “assembled so loosely that it ended up cutting down each other rather than forming a cohesive thread against the accused” (Court acquits murder accused in Mumbai teenager Adnan case, pg 20,  The Hindu on January 31, 2012). The Orkut messages between the four accused men and Adnan were considered as the “key evidences” by the police; further the police reportedly drew the conclusion that Adnan was murdered by these guys on the notion that he was last seen with one of them. The police picked up the accused on the testimony of a garment dealer who saw one of the accused lifting apparently unconscious Adnan; later on the day, when he read about the whole issue, he informed the police. The defence lawyer emphasised that “there were no eye witnesses and an identification parade did not inspire the court’s confidence”.

The question of acceptability of the exchange of messages through Orkut really presents thin chances to target the four men. This is especially so since the identity of  “Angel” remained a mystery and no one could prove that the profile was operated by any of the accused or either their aide. The case presents a tangled web in every sense. Many suspected that all the profiles may have been fake and they were made to trap the poor little rich boy. But nonetheless, the boy did fall in the trap and the whole issue, as reported in the media, created an example as how virtual friends can allure one to come out of the net and face real life danger. But the court gave more weight on the production of solid evidences rather than depending on evidences such as these. True, the court stuck to the principles of rule of law, where flimsy evidences do not find any space. Perhaps the court did the right thing on not depending too much on the Orkut messages especially when the police themselves did not go for a stringent thorough   search. The news reports suggested that the police relied mainly on the  person who saw the boy was being lifted in the car. He didn’t see the act of strangling; neither could he hear what Adnan had to say about this.  The other way round, many may shift the blame on the victim as why did he trust Angel, who was probably a fake identity; and this is probably the reason that the court didn’t want to reply upon the circumstantial evidences that came up from  the Orkut message exchanges. What did the profile owners do? They made the victim to believe them, especially Angel and come out of his home. But for what?  Every individual has right to express and simultaneously every individual has his/her own right to reciprocate or not to reciprocate to the subjects expressed by the other. But that can not be the point to draw up the conclusion and shift the burden as heavy as planning a murder and finally executing the same, to the creator of the message unless the proper nexus is proved.  Perhaps the court felt not to do injustice with these accused on the grounds of this principle................. perhaps not..

I really wish that further investigation takes place when the family goes for appeal  , and this question is answered. If the prosecution can really prove that there lies strong nexus between the Orkut friend’s messages and his murder (may be by someone who was/were operating the profiles), probably a new history would be created in Indian evidence law which is shifting very much towards cyber space happenings.

Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2012), “Did the court do justice to Orkut posts that reportedly called Adnan to see his end?”, 1^st February, 2012, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/” 

Is India’s national integrity really in danger?

http://www.cybervictims.org

Since December, I was following the ups and downs of the relationship between the 21 websites including Google, Facebook and our government through the court notices and judgements.  The whole issue begun when Vinay Rai, a journalist had notified  the court about defamatory and obscene depictions of Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammed and various other Hindu deities through a petition in December. the legal provisions that have been used to tie the bells on the cats are sections 292 (sale of obscene books etc), 293 (sale of obscene objects to young person etc ) and section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) ...all from the Indian penal Code which has been used since long to prevent any kind of damage to the image of the rich heritage and culture of a united India along with many other social crimes. The trial  court had issued summons to the websites ; in return, these web giants through their legal representatives in India  preferred a stay petition in the Delhi High court  on the summons issued  by the trial court. They replied that it is simply not possible to filter and monitor the web posts. “Angered” by such reply the Delhi high court warned these web giants that if they fail to monitor, they may face the same fate as had happened in China (see http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/delhi-high-court-to-hear-google-facebooks-petition-today-167302?slider). By the time this blog reaches you my readers, the Delhi High court would have probably created a landmark judgment in the field of Information technology law in India. Without going into the critical analysis of the hypothesis that the court may or may not prefer a judgement on the responsibility of the ISPs, let me tell you that what Rai had noticed is not totally false. I being a member of Orkut and Facebook for  more than 3/4 years, have also noticed the tooth and nail fights  over religious issues in these websites by  individual users.  Also note that Rai has so minutely watched this issue from a holistic perspective and he has not stopped with the abuse of Hinduism only.  True, many have taken sites like Google, Facebook, Yahoo etc to express inner frustration and anger over various issues, including religion. Many times such verbal duets do not lay as written posts in the Google/ Facebook/Yahoo communities or even blogs or walls. They may create huge rift between individuals including religious communities. How many of us could forget one of the  Orkut-community  generated  rift over Shivaji Maharaj in Maharastra?  True ... enmity, hatred etc can be temporarily gagged in a human mind, but such feelings tend to get back to life at the slightest spark and internet can play havoc in this case.  But again, note that I have used the word “many have taken sites....”... leave the political colours while preparing the argument for and against the core reason behind such highlights on this issue (see http://www.firstpost.com/india/social-media-screening-sibals-target-was-political-blasphemy-182117.html), but this is the hard truth that people take internet to express themselves  FREELY and with help of technical tic tacs ..many may do this under  anonymous cloak.  And this is the core reason that  the representation made by Mukul Rohtagi  on behalf of Goolge India, cannot be ignored either. When billions of people throughout the world are crossing boundaries in the cyber space to use US hosted platforms for good as well as bad usage, with or without camouflaged identities, it becomes impossible for any authority to check the legality and illegality of each post. Each of these websites have their own policy guidelines to check the decency of communication and protect themselves from any liability, which are primarily based on section 230(c)(1) of the Communication Decency Act.... a prominent US law. But truly, who cares?........ in this world of busy people having these websites as “hangouts”, every one tends run over the emotions  and feelings of others without noticing what damage is being done.

A ban(if imposed)  may make the web giants aware of their duties. But would it really create any difference with the people who are the actual actors? Probably the forthcoming judgment may make a fraction of people aware of the red line of freedom of speech.. and if it does, it would be huge success for the court, for I expect that these fractions of people  may spread the awareness about how to control one self when in the web world.

Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2012), “Is India’s national integrity really in danger”, 16^th January,2012, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/”

The online abettors for suicide : examples of extreme (mis)use of internet

http://www.cybervictims.org

The past week saw an array of editorials and headlines on cyber security, free speech in the internet and government’s decision to ‘do some thing’ for checking internet contents for curbing hate speech etc. A very small news clipping caught my eyes on 23^rd  November which read “man checks net for suicide tips before hanging himself.”(seehttp://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Chennai/article2652331.ece). The man in the news had apparently everything anyone would have wanted to live a good life. But what I got from the news report is that the police on a first hand search for evidences, found out the internet pages that he was supposedly checking before his death. The pages spoke about suicide, death by hanging, common mistakes people make while hanging themselves etc.  The police booked the case under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation on unnatural death, which suggests that they are investigating on the issues as why and how did  he commit suicide and whether it was really a death by self strangulation or a cold blooded murder. But what the police would not note was, if this was a death by self strangulation, would the creators of the web-pages, that he was seeing before death,  be taken as ‘aides’ or abettors  for his death? Most of the free speech advocates would laugh at this ‘ridiculous’ point raised by me. But think, how the *right* to expression of some body  has pushed a man to extreme steps.  Still then, to clarify, I had a quick view of  some of the pages which speak about suicides. Some are really dangerous, as they show how to make the death painless. Any human being suffering from extreme depression probably would not stop in testing these steps. But, a further reading showed me the conclusion stanzas of most of these write-ups direct the reader to think something positive. Most of them speak of *living* , leaving these dreadful thoughts. But anyone in ‘madness’ to die, would hardly look at the conclusion. Mostly they will look for the steps to quick ending of the ‘disaster’ called life leaving endless web –writers  in the danger of being called ‘provocative’ or ‘suicide predators’ .

Now that internet is being used for anything and everything, this presents a potential danger for young people, adolescent teens especially who turn suicidal at the slightest of unhappiness. But thinking from the other side, the creators of the web pages who speak about suicide are practicing their own rights to express and their write ups don’t really fall under the category of unprotected speech unless these write-ups are not accompanied by some positive notes or warnings. Under the Indian Penal Code, abettor for suicide is liable for an imprisonment term which may extend to ten years and which may also be accompanied by pecuniary fine under section 306. I don’t know what the investigation reports would suggest for this particular case. But if it is proved that this youth took his own life ‘provoked’ by the suicide method write-ups (off course this may not be the only ‘provocation’) due to extreme depression, could section 306, I.P.C be extended to tap those writers? Probably no, probably yes. Nonetheless,  if the answer is yes, there would be huge hue and cry to fit this Indian provision in the light of US free speech guarantee and safe harbor policies, but this could definitely send a message to the ‘suicide predators’ on internet who specifically target their speech to particular person/s to provoke for suicide.

Think twice before exercising your free speech right. It can take some one’s life.

Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2011), “The online ‘suicide predators’: examples of extreme (mis)use of internet ”, 10^th December,2011, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/”