The recent noises being made in the Indian media after ASSOCHAM orchestrated a campaign on the amendments proposed to ITA 2000 indicate a conspiracy by vested interests to revert the law to an Intermediary friendly form.
I propose to address some of the objections that ASSOCHAM has cited to suggest that the amendments should be aborted and why I consider them as untenable.
The objections raised by ASSOCHAM and a few others who have joined the chorus now to demand the withdrawal of the Bill are as follows:
1. The amendment bill was passed without debate in the Parliament
2. Amendments make ITA 2000 criminal friendly and weak
3. Amendments donot address “Data Protection” requirements of the industry.
4. Amendments donot address issues such as “Spam”
I would like to clarify that Naavi.org was one of the first to object to the passage of the amendment bill without adequate debate in the Parliament. However, after the contents of the amendments have been made public, Naavi.org was quick to focus on the positive features of the amendment and its “Security Orientation” and come to the conclusion that the amendments are good for the Country at the present point of time. Naavi.org being a Netizen Rights Conscience keeper, has been also suggesting that the security orientation of the amendments creates certain powers at different levels of the Government including the Police which are amenable for abuse and hence there is a need for a “Netizen Protection Commission” or its equivalent.
In order to appreciate why Naavi.org considers the ASSOCHAM led campaign a “Conspiracy” it is necessary to place the following facts before the public.
1. After the Section 67 case filed on Baazee.com in 2004, a campaign was started in the media that ITA 2000 was faulty. Many of the IT Company chiefs without understanding the concept of Vicarious liability which is part of every law in India, jumped in to sugest that the law required amendments to make intermediaries immune from liability arising out of Cyber Crimes committed in their network.
2. Born out of such an unethical objective, the “Expert Committee” then formed which consisted of mainly powerful portal lobby, came up with recommendations which made people like Naavi realise that there is an attempt to dilute the laws to bail out intermediaries from liabilities even if in the process it made the laws criminal friendly. (Ref articles-2005 at: http://www.naavi.org/naavi_comments_itaa/index.htm ). Hence after August 2005, Naavi.org took up a mission to highlight the unfairness of the proposed amendments which were also accepted by the Ministry and presented as a Bill through Information Technology Act amendment bill 2006.
3.Thanks to the efforts of the Nikhil Kumar who chaired the Parliamentary Standing committee, the Bill of 2006 was returned for changes to the department and Information technology Amendment Bill 2008 to amend the Bill of 2006 was introduced in the current Parliament on December 15th and passed on December 24th. It was then sent to the President for assent. There are conflicting reports about whether the assent has been received or not. After the Presidential assent, the Minsitry of Communications and Information technology has to notify the act along with the necessary rules and can hold up the implementation for some time.
4. While it is not easy to conceive that the Bill may be aborted at this stage, some enthusiasts in Delhi appear to believe in the clout of ASSOCHAM that the Act may still be put in cold storage and to support such an action are conspiring with planted stories in the media misleading the public that the “Amendments will introduce a weak Cyber law in the country”, “It will be criminal friendly”, “There is no data protection” etc. (refer Business Standard report: IT Amendment soft on Cyber Criminals )
I don’t know how ASSOCHAM can come to the conclusion that the amendments are criminal friendly, soft and lacks provision for data protection or Spam.
The facts are as follows:
1.The amendment addresses data protection under Sections 43A and 72A. 43A provides unlimited liability for data breach and 72A provides for 3 year imprisonment.
2. The amendment addresses Spam under Section 66A along with Phishing,
3. The amendment introduces life term for cyber terrorism. The cyber terrorism acts include DDOS,Hacking,Virus introduction with intent to strike terror and adversely affecting critical IT infrastructure as well as “Conspiracy” to commit a terrorist activity
4. The amendment  introduces punishments for child pornography,video voyeurism, receiving stolen computer, maintenance of data for specific periods by intermediaries, etc.
The number of sections dealing with offences has more than doubled. All most all offences are cognizable. Govt agencies now have powers to intercept, monitor,decrypt, block access and demand traffic data from intermediaries.
The only dilution is in introduction of pre conditions for application of Section 66 (dishonesty and fraudulent intention) and making the offences compoundable. These are not sufficient reasons to call the amendments weak.
If some persons are calling this amendments “Weak Cyber Laws”, perhaps there is a need to examine if there are any other motives behind the move.
The lobby that wanted an “Intermediary friendly laws” and had successfully manipulated an “Expert Committee Recommendation” and “ITA amendment Bill 2006″ were frustrated by the Parliamentary Standing Committee under MP Nikhil Kumar . This lobby is doing its best to reverse the developments. Media should see through this game and ensure that the security oriented amendments are not sidelined for any reasons. If they succeed, I think BJP will get a great boost to their election campaign that the UPA government developed cold feet in introducing strong legislation to prevent Cyber Crimes.
Those who want to challenge this view may kindly visit www.naavi.org, peruse the amendments, compare it section by section with the present as well as the 2005 and 2006 versions of amendments proposed and rejected and then come to their own conclusion.
Naavi
.
Loading ...
15 users commented in " Conspiracy to abort Information Technology Act amendments.. advantage BJP "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackDude seems ur reading lot of science fiction novels and watching similar movies these days. chill up and take a brake and stop this conspiracy theory. it is both way u say proposed law is fine others are saying it is bad. what is the big deal? it is a personal opinion just like urs. i do not agree with u but still know how to respect ur right to speech why cannot u do the same?
This is non sense. While the stand of assocham is purely commercial with no inputs and reasons for its stand there are reports in the media with sufficient links and inputs justifying the removal of the bill. However i like ur stand at least u have taken one clearly. i also visted the site and saw ur good work in this direction. even if we remove assocham from the scene there must be very strong reasons to deny that the bill is going to serve any purpose. i also saw the provisions of the bill and being an IT professional i can assure u it is ansolutely inadequate. the biggest mistake india committed is to enact such provisions that would completely take away the liberty and privacy of indians. to make the situation worst there are no safeguards to prohibit the same. u call it a good law. there is no cyber security in india as is evident from mea website compromise. forget about cyber forensics as every time police has to rush to anerica for solving the cases. there may be a commercial interest for assocham but none for some of the leading techno-legal experts of india who are fortunately located in delhi and have good techno-legal expertise.
The politicians of our country are making fool of us. I saw a secretary saying that new amendments would be made in the bill. If new amendments are made at this point the bill would be kept in deep freezer for another 5 years if congress comes into power. The opposition is going to encash the weak cyber law coin at the coming elections and congress cannot take it lightly. Though the terrorism trick failed but the weak cyber law trick may succeed. If at all there is a conspiracy that is by the govt to keep the opposition silent by making dummy laws that it never intends to bring into force. The industrial players like assocham know this truth and they act as the supporter of the govt. the public is not fool. I was analysing the views on this aspect and found two segments. One by mr naavi who maintains the law is strong while the other by mr praveen dalal who maintains the law is weak. As far as my knowledge goes the bill has not yet been notified. There is still a chance for healthy debate about the desirability of the bill. I presume that if given a change mr naavi would himself like the bill to be amended. As far as other cyber law experts are concerned they are taking diplomatic stand. They r not clear whether the bill is good or bad. So ignore assocham or other experts and concentrate upon those having a clear vision. Finally mr naavi u should not succumb to the fact that it is too late to act now. We still have lot of time as this bill is not going to be notified for at least two more years.
if at all someone is conspiring it is the government. why have not yet they have made their acts public till now if they are fair? public speculations are spreading like a fire and government is doing nothing. it is high time govt must take a stand either way.
Mr Shantanu,
It is possible to think that the law is inadequate.I also agree that more saeguards should be built to prevent abuse. Definitely there was scope for improvement.
However, we need to look at the relative position. After 8 years we decided to amend the act. We need to consider whether it is now better than the previous version? or More importantly, is it better than the 2005 or 2006 proposed amendments?.
I think that it is an improvement particularly from the proposed amendments of 2005/2006 from the point of view of better focus on security.
If security is not the yardstick but say “Promotion of E-Commerce” is the yardstick, then one can have a different view. I am perfectly with it.
But to say that the law is “Criminal Friendly” does not appear to be justified. To use this as an excuse to stop the amendment would be a retrograde step. If it is done, then we are reverting to the 8 year old version and most probably the amendments as proposed in 2005/2006 would be pushed in the next attempt. This is what I sense is happenning in Delhi. May be it is “lobbying” and not “Conspiracy”. I have only used the word for force and readers can substitute it with lobbying if they prefer.
Naavi u r absolutely right. the amendments are real improvement over the fraud amendments proposed in 2005. I also came accross ur point to incorporate safeguards. i would not say amendments are criminal fiendly. however with due respect to ur view i am still not convinced by both the manner in which the bil was passed as well as by the language of various sections. the present bill is an improvement upon it act, 2000 but the sections are so badly drafted that every section is a trap and power to abuse. we cannot legislate in this manner. the proper method is to draft every section one by one keeping in mind all the positive and negative aspects. the bill sipmly ignored this golden rule. even for the newly introduced provisions, the language is lax and deficient. it may be good for academic purposes but in courts it is going to creat a havoc. this is my concern and i think there is still time to act, without any ulterior mitive.
Dear Shantanu,
If ASSOCHAM or anybody else had stated that the Bill needs to be withdrawn because it is amenable for abuse I would have no reason to raise any objection. If ASSOCHAM states that it is too stringent on E-Business or ISPs or Portals and hence it is not acceptable, then also I have no issue. But why say that it is weak and criminal friendly?
Dear naavi
Firstly the bill is not criminal friendly but having the tendencies to implicate innocents and a platform providing abusive powers. Assocham must be saying it a criminal friendly law because some sections dealing with offences have been diluted.in any case assocham’s stand is purely commercial with no intent to serve the interest of indians. unlike the efforts of techno-legal experts like mr praveen dalal and u i see no institution or person doing good to india. unfortunately u 2 are on different sides of the table but that is what life is all about.
Secondly, a law that is missing some aspects it is supposed to cover is a better law than a badly drafted law. in the latter case u make a law that takes away the life liberty privacy etc of the citizens. that makes the law a really weak piece of law subject to both public criticism as well as constitutional attack, like mr dalal says.
Thirdly, if judiciary is keeping a mum right now there is no gurantee that it would provide reliefs to the citizens for illegal snooping and violations of their rights. citizes have to act now before their fate is sealed forever.
Finally, a law that is not just reasonable and strong is nothing but a weak and ineffective piece of law.
These are my views that may differ from u or others but i cannot help it.
Shantanu says that a law that is not just reasonable and strong is weak. These are semantics to justify the stand taken by Praveen Dalal.
ASSOCHAM has a reason to oppose the amendments since its members may want a comfortable law. But why should professionals like Praveen Dalal endorse the views of ASSOCHAM?
As regards freedom and privacy, unfortunately they have become victims of the current security situation. We have to sacrifice some of the freedom just because we live in a terrorised world. This requires tough laws.The amendments appear to attempt drafting of tough criminal sections. If the drafting is bad, we should say so.
If the opposition to the amendment is an honest stand then how can we say that there is no “Data Protection” related provision?
The fact is that people who are opposing the amendments are not opposing it for specific reasons that are stated and justified. Naavi has given point by point view why he thinks ASSOCHAM is wrong. I find more such information in his site.
But similar point by point justification of why the amendments are bad enough to be withdrawn at this stage is not forthcoming from either ASSOCHAM or Praveen. If somebidy gives the links to such reasoned arguments, it would help students like us to understand why the so called experts should have such diametrically opposite views
Ajesh u have raised some valid points. However ur mistaken when u said praveen endorsed assocham’s viewpoint. it is the other way. assocham endorsed Mr praveen dalal’s viewpoint as he has been opposing the amendments since 2005 and assochan is a new player in this field. being a student u have definetely a disadvantage of not understanding the law, especially the constitution of India. if ur interested in this field i suggest u join some good law school so that u may be aware how the law is interpreted and applied.
Now one point that u have raised is section wise analysis of the bill. i absolutely agrre with that and give credit to naavi for doing that. may be a section wise interpretation by others is in the pipeline, may be they must have given it to the government directly, may be opinion of experts like mr dalal would be taken by the govt before finally coming out with the bill, may be mr naavi’s suggestions must be accepted by the govt? i do not know the truth. finally it is not a matter belonging to mr naavi, mr dalal or assocham alone but to all of us. they r simply the voice of public, whether distorted or correct,but they are not the caretakers of cyber law in India. so do not confuse my wordings as a loyality or semantic for any body. i have my own viewpoint and i am expressing the same.
By the way ajesh have u gone through legal enablement of ict systems in india available at http://legalenablementofictinindia.blogspot.com/. it is covering the interaction between law and information technology in the widest possible manner. it is a new resource and has already raised a strom at the international and national level. i suggested this because ur interested in point wise analysis. there the analysis is not 0nly point wise but also segment wise. besides cyber law u will get knowledge about e-courts, e-governance, cyber security, cyber forensics, etc. just a passing thought.
Mr Shantanu,
It is nice to know that ASSOCHAM endorsed the views of Praveen Dalal. I thought Mr Pavan Duggal who is better known in the Cyber Law field was the advisor to ASSOCHAM and if ASSOCHAM takes any views it is the considered views of Pavan Duggal and not that of any body else.
As far as my reading goes, Pavan Duggal is a tall personality in Indian Cyber Law and Praveen Dalal is a person who entered the field much later. Pavan Duggal is known to have provided consultation to the Indian Government and also some foreign Governments on Cyber Law. He is also in the forefront as to litigation on Cyber Crimes and has many clients who are associated with ASSOCHAM. It is unlikely that ASSOCHAM would depend on anybody other than Pavan Duggal for farming their views. I hope you are not confusing Pavan Duggal with Praveen Dalal.
If somebody has opposed 2005 version it is not necessary that he should also oppose the 2008 version since both are diametrically opposite in its effect. In fact what surprises me is that somebody who studied the 2005 version..say Praveen Dalal(Which you have called the fraud version) should not appreciate that 2008 version is better. If he thinks this is also weak, also criminal friendly, bad enough to be withdrawn, then it means that he has not identified the differences between the two versions.
I know that Mr Praveen Dalal has many followers who always quickly post supplementary comments without ever forgetting that he is the leading Techno Legal consultant, Government of India is waiting for his recommendations, Government of India has endorsed his recommendations, Without him India would not have developed etc. These are part of my study on the net on Indian Cyber Law developments.
I presume that you also know him so well and hence feel compelled to reiterate that he is bigger than Pavan Duggal. Somehow I find it difficult to accept this.
Please let me know what is the constitutional provisions got to do with this discussion. Please also let me have links to any of the articles of Praveen Dalal on the amendments which clearly explain why he thinks this is a weak law, deserves to be withdrawn etc. I only find statements of him on the net without much of substantiation.
May be you have done greater research.
Ajesh ur biased and have a closed mind attitude. that is preventing u 2 appreciate things properly. i do not wish to continue this unproductive conversation any more. if all u have 2 do is to criticise praveen go ahead and spit your poison. i wish to clarify for u specially that i have neither an affiliation to nor an allergy from naavi, pawan, assocham, praveen and i do understand that different persons have different perspectives. in ur bias u even failed to do a preliminary research on net and get the true and right picture. of course i would not prevent u from making any specific person a hero for no reason but kindly do not target any person with a biased mind and negative framework. if u cannot appreciate do not criticise. this is a friendly advice and u can continue to do whatever u like. all the best for ur praises and criticisms.
hey dudes chill up and see http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/23616 what others are saying for india. why dont ajesh and shantanu send their own viewpoints to indian govt as the law is still to be finally made.
I hope this forum does not become a battleground for Pavan Duggal and Praveen Dalal followers. Dear Ajesh, I appreciate your observations but let us end this debate here.
I personally know Pavan and he continues to be my good friend and a respected professional despite my disagreement with the ASSOCHAM issue. I also know Praveen Dalal as a young bright lawyer with lots of energy. I am proud that he started his writing on Cyber Laws first on Naavi.org and I wish him all the best to emulate Pavan in future.
When me, Pavan Duggal and Rohas Nagpal of Pune started working on Cyber Laws in India in different capacities way back in 1998-2000 period, there were not many in India who could even discuss the basics of Cyber Laws in India.
It is a show of progress today that there are many others who can comment on the amendments and even advise the Government.
For the information of all I have received the confirmation that the ITAmendment Bill 2008 has received the consent of the President on 5th February 2009.
Naavi
Leave A Reply