In a recent Instagram post shared by some Instagram handles in early July, 2024, a boy of 16 is seen collapsing in the school corridor in India due to heart attack and  consequently he passes away. Previously, another video clipping of a young girl jumping to her death in Kota, Rajasthan apparently due to study pressure shook the net-world. Apparently the clippings were seemed to have been taken from CCTV cameras and later they  became viral. This is not the first time that the sudden deaths due to heart attacks or deaths due to accidents or violent attacks of minors and adults were shown in the internet platforms specially in India. Noticeably images of such sorts of mishaps were accessed from surveillance cameras affixed in the buildings, public roads and traffic signals. These unfortunate images (in most of the cases, clear facial image of the victim may not be available) are generally shared from one user and then the clipping lands in the hands of content makers and influencers who may share this for the purpose of profit making whereby they may get revenue from the internet platforms like YouTube on the basis of ‘views’ .The most disturbing fact in this context is that, the intermediaries or the websites through which such contents are shared, may not suspend  the content from public viewing even though it may continue to re-victimize  the family members of the victim.

There are three issues that everyone must understand before watching such “dying” videos  :

1. The clipping of “death” carries crucial information about reasons for death, nature of death and place and time of death. This may also provide crucial health information, traffic violation information or even any sort of information about criminal activities. It can also provide information about the accountability of the stakeholders who were responsible for providing first aid, preventing adults and children from committing suicides or for preventing any sort of criminal activities in the premises where death has occurred.
2. No one other than the authorized agent can cull out any specific clipping from the chain of images that are the being recorded in any cctv camera. Such accessing and taking out of specific images must be done with proper authorization which may permit not only accessing and taking out specific images from the chain of the images, but also for downloading and archiving the same for specific legal purposes.
3. Every accidental death and abnormal death need to be documented by the police and analyzed by the courts for understanding the cause of the death, compensating the victims and punishing the offenders who may have caused the death.  In doing this, the courts need to analyze forensic report for the death as well as the forensic report of the images that have been captured, the virtual footprints on the images for understanding the broader cause and effects of the death.

Now let us understand how these above mentioned issues are connected with statutes including Information Technology Act 2000(amended in 2008) which may make the unauthorized interceptor fall in legal trouble: S.69(1) of the Information Technology Act , 2000(amended in 2008) says as follows:

Power to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource.–(1) Where the Central Government or a State Government or any of its officers specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.

Now, concentrate on the words “ Central Government or a State Government or any of its officers specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government”: these very clearely suggest that any data captured by computer and digital information communicator can only be intercepted and decrypted by the authorized agencies only. Again, let us look into the words  …. “it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.” This may mean that accessing the specific image and downloading and sharing the same may not be considered a private act for profit gain or name gain.

Let us now understand how such sharing of “dying” may disturb the court proceedings and victim’s right to justice: courts may need to analyze the entire content (this will be considered as electronic record now) for understanding the reasons for death and the responsibilities of the concerned stakeholders: the electronic record may need to be admissible as a good evidence as per S.63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Act, 2023. Once the content/electronic record becomes eligible as an admitted evidence, it may help the court to reach conclusion for causation of death. The chain of digital footprint may also help the court to understand whether the electronic record has been decrypted and modified illegally to add or delete any valuable information. This electronic record may include text messages or voice or any other graphic added to the content or electronic record. The court may also need to analyze the associated comments of the creator, conveyer and the bystanders.

 Generally, the comments of the bystanders (who are popularly known as “viewers”) may also lead the court to understand how the victim may have survived, how the victim died, the situation/environment which may have killed the victim. The comments of the viewers may also lead the court to predict probable prohibitions and punishments.

As we may understand from the above, accessing and decrypting any CCTV camera image of deaths or death like real life incidences therefore can be considered as punishable offence and bystanders can also be considered answerable. Contents depicting real life death should not be commercialised. It becomes the responsibility of us the civil society members to respect the laws and legal norms on internet and help the intermediaries to take a note of such misuse of the platforms by reporting such contents, rather than sharing it for profit and name gain.  

Please don’t violate the copyright of this writeup. Please cite as Halder Debarati (2024).Published in https://internetlegalstudies.com/2024/07/08/dance-of-death-on-the-cyber-space-legal-trouble-for-the-content-creators-and-viewers-for-death-videos-by-dr-debarati-halder/ on 08-07-2024