ASSOCHAM has surprised Cyber Law observers in India with its strong Press Release dated 4th February 2009, urging the Government not to enact ITA 2000 amendments since it does not provide “Data Protection”. It has also acted with alacrity calling for a workshop on 5th February 2009 to discuss the issues.
This show of commitment to get a “Data Protection Friendly ITA 2000″ is very strange since in the past ASSOCHAM did not evince any interest on the legislation particularly over the last three years when Naavi.org and a few others have been crying hoarse on the proposed amendments.
When the amendments were first proposed by an expert committee followed by a version of the amendment bill presented to the Parliament in 2006, Naavi.org called the proposal “Criminal Friendly” and that the “Amendments will turn a Tiger into a Pussy Cat” (Please see the series of articles written on ITAA 2005). In the three years from August 2005 to December 2008, when discussions were raging on the amendments, ASSOCHAM did not think the proposed legislation did not help Data Protection or it was Criminal friendly. Now suddenly, it feels so when most of us have started hinting that the amendments were perhaps too stingent and in some parts even draconian.
Though agreeing with the need for a strong law in the current circumstances, Naavi.org has been urging that there is a need for appropriate safeguards against abuse of the law and hence is pressing for a “National Netizen’s Rights Commission”, “State Netizen Rights Advisory Board” etc.
Today’s article in Indian Express titled “Yes, Snooping is Allowed“, highlights the concern.
ASSOCHAM has not made public its report which leads to the drastic conclusion. We feel that Section 43A which provides compensation for data security breach Section 72A which provides criminal liabilities for data security breach, the definition of “Sensitive Personal Data” and ”Reasonable Security Practices” will together provide some framework for data protection which was hiter to absent. Even Sections 69, 69A and 69 B can be used for ensuring investigation and prosecution of data criminals.
So the statement that the amendments do not provide data protection is not founded on sound grounds. We lookforward to more information from ASSOCHAM on why it is leading the path of recommending withdrawal of the Bill. ( Naavi.org did say that the Bill should be returned by the President immediately after December 23 2008, for the reasons that the Bill was not debated and the details were not available for public scrutiny. It was only later that it was found that substantial changes have occurred between the earlir version of the Bill and what was passed and hence, there was no reason for us to continue the demand. On the other hand, Naavi is now working on the setting up of appropriate safeguards to prevent possible abuse of the law.)
The current view taken by ASSOCHAM gives raise to the thought that probably the vested interests who wanted an “Intermediary Friendly legislation” and were aghast at the current provisions which under various sections and under Section 67 C in particular have now started firing from the shoulders of the ASSOCHAM to get the Bill further amended.
We trust ASSOCHAM would throw open its study which leads to such a conclusion for the public to evaluate. It does not augur well for the reputation of ASSOCHAM to take a view which is neither in the interest of the security of the nation nor for upholding the Privacy rights of the Netizens.
Naavi of Naavi.org
Loading ...
3 users commented in " ASSOCHAM takes a Contrarian View about ITA 2000 Amendments "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThis is with reference to your conflicting and divergent views upon the topic. You claimed at http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=15710178 that:
“The Bill has already received the assent of the President and we will know the date of effectiveness soon. In my opinion the amended act is quite strict and Assocham’s views are not fully justified”.
This is very confusing. It is not clear whether you are in favour of the amendments or against it? Or are you opining according to circumstances?
In any case, Naavi you are wrong for many reasons.
Firstly, you are the odd man out if you are supporting the IT Amendment Bill, 2008. Except you none has claimed the amended IT Act, 2000 be strict and appropriate. It seems now you are falling back from your criminal friendly stand, for reasons best known to you.
Secondly, it is good to see that even the Indian Judiciary has now endorsed the opinion and views of Mr. Praveen Dalal and Perry4Law.
Thirdly, there is no official and governmental source that has either posted the amendment bill or confirmed the presidential assent (at least not to my knowledge).
Fourthly, as you are aware a mere presidential assent does not make a bill an act. The government has yet to notify the amended bill. That has still not happened and will never happen as no government can afford to go to elections with such blatant mockery of the constitution of India. The way in which the amended bill has been passed is really unconstitutional. I wonder why the Supreme Court of India or the Delhi high court has not taken suo motu action of declaring the bill unconstitutional. This is more so after the recent endorsement of a weak cyber law by the Indian Judiciary.
Finally, it is good to have cyber law, cyber security and cyber forensic specialists and experts like Mr. Praveen Dalal who is responsible for keeping the cyber law of India reasonable and non-arbitrary from governmental apathy towards cyber law and cyber security. Your contrary stand is really depressing as that may ruin the already weak cyber law regime of India.
See what the learned Supreme Court judge is saying about the cyber law of India at http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/it-act-has-to-be-more-deterrent-justice-sirpurkar_100152559.html.
Dear Cathy
I cannot be wrong because I am the odd man out stating that the amendments are strict. I also think that I am not the odd man saying so. Any body who can understand the provisons can come only to the conclusion. If there is any difference it would be to the extent of how strict it is and whether it is so strict as to scare human rights activists. I leave this debate to revolve around my suggestion on Netizen Rights Protection mechanism.
If you have any doubt, let me say that I am in favour of the amendments as proposed in the 2008 version. I was against the 2005 and 2006 version and any change in my opinion is because the 2008 version is totally different from 2005/2006 versions and incorporates many security oriented suggestions supported by me earlier.
You are misrepresenting when you state Judiciary has endorsed your stand. You are referring to the speech of Justice Sirpukar in a seminar in Trivandrum in which it is reported to have passed some views. Praveen Dalal or Perry4law is a non entity as for as Justice Sirpukar was concerned when he spoke and you donot know if he was referring to the current ITA 2000 or the amendments of 2005 or 2006 or 2008 when he spoke.
There is official confirmation now that the President’s assent was granted to the Bill on February 5, 2009. Find out the source. A copy of the amended bill constructed earlier out of the Parliamentary proceedings is already on my site since last week of December. A similar document will be publsihed in due course by the Government publsihers also shortly.
You are living in a world of fantacy when you think that the Bill after the assent of the President will not be notified. Congress knows that if it resorts to such tactics, it will yield a major ground to BJP in the elections. We will remind Mr Chidambaram if necessary if there is undue delay in the notification. Anyway this neing an amendment act and not the original act, I suppose it will be notified sooner than it normally takes for a fresh act to be notified.
If you think Pr Praveen Dalal knows what he is doing, and there are constitutional improprieties that warrant that the Bill is aborted, I suggest he files a PIL in Supreme Court for the purpose. Let’s see what the Court decides.
Leave A Reply