Category: Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Rethinking about accountability for internet addiction: Who pushes? parents or the social media companies ? by Dr.Debarati Halder

For over a year now internet is being flooded with news of governments banning children under 16 years of age from using social media websites. First it was Australia, then countries like Indonesia  and France also decided to restrict children under 16 to use social media. This was followed by Karnataka in India to ban under 16 children from using social media.

The restrictive action is planned to improve mental and physical wellbeing of children. I am however not very happy with using the word “ban” by the governments in this case. The word carries heavy responsibility for the “banned” to stop doing something and  not to violate prohibitory orders by the authorities.  Can the child mind carry such a load when children have been accustomed with the “entertainment” platform since their babyhood? Infact if we go ahead for average calculation to understand how long GenZ  may have been using social media platforms, the recent verdict of a Los Angeles trial court can give a crystal clear answer: a young woman in her 20’s sued Meta and YouTube as prominent social media companies for making her addicted to the platforms. Court ordered social media giants to pay a hefty amount as compensation. She had been using them since she was 6. 14 years is more than a decade! 

Orkut, a popular social media platform was launched in 2004 and it made all of us, Gen x  and  Y quite addicted to it because it gave us chance to get connected to our long lost friends and make new friends whom we may not meet in real life. Orkut gave way to Facebook which later became a big fat Meta family. Many of us voluntarily led our children to access Orkut and then Facebook in the past 20 years.

If we lookback, there are three issues that may attract the legal lenses :

  • Parental liability : Around 20 years back the social media platforms were designed to “access friends”. This lead to multiple privacy problems where women were the worst sufferers. Everyone wanted to be friends in their own way and some decided to ‘consume’ women for their own sexual gratification. Social media platforms were not much ready to give space to children as users. Therefore, almost all US based social media companies allowed children who are above 13 to use the platforms. But hold on.. many parents across the globe had already given access to their under 13 children to their devices and the social media platforms. Children knew how to scroll, how to read a post and also how to ‘safely’ and ‘secretly’ use parent’s profiles. Social media companies developed their policies to provide parental control, restrictions for accessing privately shared images and contents and reporting mechanisms.

Who is responsible for making children addicted to the moving screen objects, sounds and entertainment? Parents, juridical personalities (social media companies) or the society as a whole?

  •  State as de-facto faulty guardian: Who gives the ‘banning’ order? The State! Have we ever considered how governments are in the net-worked world now? Every department of the government has a Facebook, Instagram, X handle. Apparently whenever anyone wants to lodge a grievance against public services, it is visible not only to the public at large, the intermediary may also become a platform where certain data may rest.  Given this condition, the State has to be extremely cautious about data shared on the platform, with the platform and the security and safety of the users. Digital connectivity enables all including children to access information and share information. This is an extremely positive tool for transparent governance.  But when social media handles of different departments are considered as gateways for accessing e-governance, State needs to be extremely thoughtful to allow or ban them for children.

Who takes the accountability for letting people expose location data and other vulnerable data in the name of appreciation of talents, grievance redressal mechanism ? is it the State? Or the social media websites or the users (some of whom had been using social media platforms for a long time since they were young?)

  • Design of the websites: Now this is the most interesting part! Social media websites are notoriously ‘addictive’ because they have developed such a great algorithm mechanism that even our great astrologers may fail. The social media companies engage millions of software developers and computer engineers who enable the system to read choices of people: be it a political content, lifestyle related content, songs and dances, infotainments, updates about products or tourism destinations or scientific evolutions. Over 20+ years companies like Meta, YouTube, Google have provided us updated ‘customized’  viewer’s choice. Some have also developed a cautionary side doze in the form of calculated screen time. This has generated a huge business. The more the content is ‘watched’, the more the creator earns money. The company shares the revenue as profit for the content creator.  These companies grew up learning about mental health of users and developing tools to measure emotions of users. They developed parental control mechanisms, self-harm monitoring mechanisms and privacy protection mechanisms. Nothing actually proved to be ‘everlasting best mechanism.’ Social media companies have always used immunity veil to escape third party liability. Nonetheless, these companies have engaged with practitioners, researchers from law and other streams to develop their policies against misuse of the platforms, strengthening safety of women and children and men. But they have also found unique legal ways to escape the liability of risking mental health of users especially when they made us the users accept our own liability to use the platforms cautiously with all the safety ‘gears’ of the platforms through their click wrap contracts.    

Meta and YouTube are contesting the Los Angeles court verdict. Even if they pay the compensation and damages for creating ‘addictive products’ can we really remain self-controlled? can our children be free from internet –addiction ? we cannot blame a single stakeholder.

 It must be a collective responsibility of all: the parents, schools, State and the   tech companies to make our and our children’s lives comfortable, happy and active in the internet era. We must not forget the old saying : it takes a village to raise a child. That ‘village’ in today’s world includes all stakeholders mentioned above.

Cite it as Halder Debarati (2026) “Rethinking about accountability for internet addiction:  Who pushes? parents or the social media companies” Published in https://internetlegalstudies.com/2026/03/29/rethinking-about-accountability-for-internet-addiction-who-pushes-parents-or-the-social-media-companies-by-dr-debarati-halder/ on 29-03-2026

Uncategorized

Privacy thy name is………. child: understanding the responsibilities of parents to protect the privacy of children in the digital platforms by Dr.Debarati Halder

DOI: 
10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.70406

In the first week of February, 2025 a short audio-visual content showcasing an embarrassed, extremely traumatized child with his face under blankets became viral on Instagram. It essentially found its way in other social media platforms too. The audible contents and the accompanying texts suggested that the child apparently spent a little fortune for accessing online games. No parent of middle class family would be happy for such behavior of children. Parents of this child were neither! they expressed their frustration and anger by publicly shaming the child by capturing the ‘scolding’s’, child’s crying face, attempts to hide under the blanket and (not to forget) images of other children who were visibly perplexed as whom to support. The issue became viral and attracted netizens attention. Many schooled the parents for such unethical exposure of the child. But, can the parents be really made liable for exposing an embarrassed child in such manner if we see this from various existing laws in India?
How a child becomes victim of over exposure by parents /lawful guardians?
Let me take you, my readers back to 2012, when Aishwarya Rai, former Miss World and a Bollywood celebrity was famously photographed trying to cover her infant daughter’s face by every mean. As a parent she had tirelessly tried to protect her daughter from paparazzi and social media entrepreneurs who attempt to make a fortune by showcasing the images of celebrities from different angels. Aishwarya’s daughter grew up to attract limelight and became subject-matter of content creators who started sharing fake news and even health-updates about her. The child was not exposed by her parents. But she continued to get exposed on different internet platforms without her or her parents’ consent.
In this case, clearly, the parents (who are her legal guardians) are not liable for her over exposure and potential harms of impersonation, privacy infringement, doxing, defamation, cyber stalking, subjecting her images for the purpose of online child sexual abuse materials etc.
But now consider the case of the young boy (mentioned above) who was shamed by his parents on social media handles for spending family fortune for online gaming. The facial image of the boy is identifiable and the exposure has been made by the parents/adult family members. The boy was visibly NOT CONSENTING for photographs.
In numbers of social media profiles, parents continue to upload the images and audio-visual contents of their children and India is no exception. But majority of the parents may not be aware that this very act may expose and over expose their children to different patterns of victimization. Interestingly parents of Gen Z, Gen Alpha and Gen Beta are aware of different kinds of online victimsiation, including patterns of online child sexual abuse materials. But they may not be able to accept the truth that they themselves can become tools for online victimization for their children.
Bossing over the “consent” and privacy of the children
In general, parents are given the profile of “In-Charge” data principal under S.2j of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The Clause defines the data principal as individual to whom the personal data relates and where such individual is a child , includes the parents or lawful guardian of such a child and where the individual is a person with disability (whether adult or child), includes her lawful guardian, acting on her behalf.
But not to forget, Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 or the Draft Digital personal Data Protection Rule, 2025 are not the only legal documents that are giving such “supremacy” for parents to decide about the ‘consent’ of the children to share their data including images (which carries vital personally identifiable data). Laws and statutes like Constitution of India, Indian Contract Act, Indian Penal Code, Indian Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Evidence Act (and now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Adhiniyam, Transfer of Property Act, Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act and so many like this give the parents of minor children key responsibilities to handle their ‘consent’. Until the child turns 18, it is mandatory to accept consent of the parents as that of the child. But there is only one exception to this rule: in case the child is abused or the child feels threatened or uncomfortable due to the act of her/his parents /legal guardians, the court is bound to take note of the consent of the child to relocate her/him with different ‘guardian’. We get to see this in some child custody cases and in cases of child sexual abuse. This is because the philosophy of child welfare is glaringly dominated over the demand for supremacy of parents over the opinions of children regarding their sense of comfort and security through Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in matrimonial dispute cases and in cases, cases of corporeal punishment of children, cases of willful negligence and traumatizing of children by abandoning them and/or by suppressing their basic needs of food , shelter and physical security and in cases of child sexual abuse cases.
Apparently we get to see execution of such ‘bossing over’ mentality of the parents in cases of choice of dresses and accessories, choice of schools, forcing the child to participate in the family functions where he/she is not feeling comfortable and so on. But this bossy decision making nature of the parents (which in India and in many other jurisdictions are accepted as a social norm) may not play good for the safety and security of the children always.

Why privacy of child matters
Imagine when the little child photographed adorned in dresses and accessories chosen by the parents gets bullied on Instagram by her/his peers shaming the appearance and the dresses that may not suit their taste! Imagine when the child is targeted in real life as the child of parents who are YouTube controversy creators! Imagine if the child is constantly targeted by unknown people because his/her parents are social media influencers and use him/her as example for best parenting tips….
One day the parents will leave internet because of their age, fragile cognitive power or because of their wish to withdraw from the internet. But the contents created with their children (without even considering for their consent) will remain floated on internet. Research , experience and experiments have proved that contents which may have attracted high rate of views, discussions , do not ‘evaporate’ even if the original content creator pulls down the content from their database. There are many ways to download, re-share, forward and recreate the old contents. Minor children, their images and audio visual recordings along with their parents therefore may remain on the internet not only during the lifetime of the ‘children’, but also during the life time of the next generation of such ‘children’. The child in question will never be able to enjoy the right be left alone . his/her medical conditions, mental health conditions, school life, exam records, likes and dislikes will be matters of public affair and the no third party, but his/her own parents will be solely responsible for such privacy infringement of the child.

Can the child sue the parents for privacy infringement in digital platform?
The answer is YES. Even if the parents are in-charge data principal of the children, if the acts of the parents infringe the privacy of the children or exposes the children to grave threat, children can take legal action against their own parents. Not to forget, Protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2013 makes the scope of the Act wide enough to include “whoever” as the perpetrator if the same has violated the laws including creating/distributing etc., of child porn materials. S.67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) also sings the same song. This will be possible if the child takes the complaint to the police, judicial magistrate or the Child Welfare Committee. Not to forget, the Constitution and child welfare centric laws make the State a ‘guardian’ when the natural/legal guardian of the child exposes him/her to dangerous situation which may cause physical and mental trauma. A careful reading of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act along with Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita may also suggest that children can access justice against their own parents if the latter plays crucial role in violating the child’s basic rights including privacy.
The denouement
While parents can have the right to decide for the best interest of the child, the decision may not always fetch best results. Awareness is growing for safer internet for children and adults. But adults must be responsible enough to create safe and healthy examples for children.
Put yourself in the place of the child and think how he/she would be treated for his/her digital presence.
Acknowledge the future risks of online harms even if you are a cyber-security guru.
Take timely action to protect the privacy of the child.
Prepare the child for the BIG BAD world like a pro to have sigma energy.

Uncategorized

Dance of death on the cyber space: Legal trouble for the content creators and viewers for “death” videos. by Dr.Debarati Halder

Image credit: Internet

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

Uncategorized

The Princess and her photos: a modern day fairy tale of internet kingdom by Dr.Debarati Halder

Photo credit: internet

We the common civilians are mostly obsessed with the tales of princes and princesses, their kingdoms, their lifestyles and obviously, their richness, the wealth they display and the wealth of wisdom that is displayed by the media. Today majority of the countries have democratic setup with an elected president as the head of the State. Some countries in Europe, Asia and Africa however have monarchial systems with Kings and Queens as the head of the State. These monarchs ascend the throne as a hereditary right. Post second world war, some monarchs have been ousted either to accommodate the best in the line or to bring in a democratically elected head of the state. In either cases, the lifestyle of the royal families attracts lot of public attention always. It is alleged that this public inquisitiveness is monetized by professional photographers: the more the images of royal women are captured the more these photographers gain monetarily. The tragic death of Diana, princess of Wales is a glaring example. Images of her last moments in the car crash are still floating in the internet and these are heavily searched, giving more profits to those creators who keep on sharing such images with extra touch of editing.

Recently another royal woman, the present Princess of Wales has attracted unwanted attention for an image featuring herself with her three children including future heir to the throne. Apparently Catherine (popularly known as Kate) had undergone for an abdominal surgery which many speculated to be connected with cancer. Post-surgery, Kate and her family had to break this speculation so that neither her family nor the  country may be targeted for an unwanted bash on the health and lifestyle of the Royals which may lead to many diplomatic and  political speculations. All these were finally triggered with a single photograph.

What was the issue: the photograph, shared by the official handles of  Prince and Princess of Wales showed a happy mother holding two children with her hands  and  her three children happily laughing with her. Photo scrutinizers figured out that the photo has been edited and the presentation suggests that the mother’s hand and the daughter’s waist do not match in an ideal way. There was some more editing which raise questions as to whether the children were really sitting with the mother in the outdoors for the happy photograph. Kate later apparently shared an apology to accept that the photograph was (badly) edited. This further raised the speculation of the health update of the Princess and the authenticity of the information shared by the social media handles of the couple (prince and princess of Wales).

What is the legal issue: After the tragic death of Diana, princess of Wales, her son Prince of Wales had emphasised for privacy of the family like any other common civilian family. The introduction of UK Data Protection Act, 2018 made the right to privacy a significant right for all including members of royal family. While this may prevent third party infringement of the right to privacy for the members of royal family, question arises about legal protection against public expression through comments on the specific photograph shared by the social media handles. Here two main issues may be identified: what was shown by the image creator/distributor and what expression /actions are being generated by various stakeholders about the data owner (in this case, the Princess of Wales). Courts in England have highlighted the need for protecting privacy of medical records which may be ‘presumed’ and shared for ‘public interest’ on the basis of photographs : Naomi Campbell’s case is the best example in this regard.  In Kate’s case, the issue may be connected to a certain extent because she and her children are not ‘photographed’ like Naomi. Rather, she had consensually been photographed and had apparently taken right to edit the photograph. Here emphasis is shifted to expressed comments /speech that may affect her reputation, her health records and obviously the privacy of her children. But can an individual or a family (even if it is a Royal Family) silence the speech which expresses speculations and  may build up theories of non-reliance of information shared by individuals who are followed and watched by many?  judicial precedents to a large extent have removed that protection from public figures unless such speech is passing through clear and present danger test.

The risk-factor for all: But in this case apprehend harm is more intense. The photo scrutinizers have not only checked the blurred parts, additions and deletions, they have revealed information about possible stay of the family including the children in specific locations, vulnerable mental health factors and obviously the ‘body search’ of the mother and children. This throws a challenge for all women across the globe who would wish to share their selfies, images of their children and locations. Any one now can scrutinise the dress, sitting positions and the facial images to understand the body size (which may fall within the category of sensitive personal data), specific identifiable marks in the face and geo locations. This may make it easy for predators for image cloning for criminal purposes, virtual striptease and online sexual assault of women and children by using Artificial intelligence supported by human imagination.

Is there any suggestion for protection? Yes off course! While the application of copyright laws is being prescribed worldwide to prevent unwanted usage of the images and get relief, Data protection laws and penal codes are offering solutions for preventing the wrong doer from causing more harm and punishing for wrong doer. But the originators/creators may still need to take the responsibility for controlling who may access the images and when they may access such images. We may not control the public interest into the lives of celebrities. But definitely a growing awareness about privacy and respect to privacy may go a long way to let the princes and princesses, actors, players, influencers who have become highly ‘consumable’ in the era of internet live safely forever.

Please don’t violate the copyright of this writeup. Please cite as Halder Debarati (2024).The Princess and her photos: a modern day fairy tale of internet kingdom. Published in https://internetlegalstudies.com/2024/03/22/the-princess-and-her-photos-a-modern-day-fairy-tale-of-internet-kingdom-by-dr-debarati-halder/ on 22-03-2024

Uncategorized

Looking for 5 star restaurants or amenities or service providers? Here is the reality by Dr.Debarati Halder

Image courtesy: author

Recently there was a news report of a woman losing a little fortune for a pencil marketing scam in India. In the contemporary world, digital marketing has become a lucrative job for all. This promises a good income from the home comfort zone and just needs two tools: internet connection and a digital technology enabled device (it can be either a smart phone or a laptop or desktop computer). But this is a myth bursting report for everyone who may read this article. I have been contacted by a recruiter agency recently and I got to see a practical example as how such agencies dupe people, especially women.

  1. How do these agencies get the phone numbers of the target victims?

Apparently they have a super research team who may go for data mining from every possible source: this can be data base of the shops where we may have recently visited and shared the phone numbers, our phone data recharging agencies where our phone numbers are supposedly saved for processing the data, third party service providers who may be working with our phone numbers, Aadhar data etc., for our professional workspaces etc. The one who contacted me (un)smartly shared that they collect ‘verified numbers’ by partnering with telecom companies for the purpose of market survey for their clients. Now the question is: who are these telecom companies? Apparently they are the digital communication service providers like Airtel, Jio, Vodafone etc. But not really: there are many telecom agencies who are middlemen. They are the agents of the main data fiduciary. They are data collectors, recharge service providers and they are all bound in the same legal chain, namely Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008).

  • Modus operandi: These ‘agency’ people filter the profile of data profiles on the basis of certain criteria. This may include age, gender and geo-location. They may contact the target through SMS or through WhatsApp. In the case of later, they may start the conversation by stating about the daily estimated income and after that they may share the trial task. It is but obvious that they do not stick to a static number. Hence if one completes the trial task and shares the bank details, the scammer may ‘vanish’ with account details and some essential confidential information that may enable them to access the account without much hard work.
  • Now comes the question as what type of task would be given and what is the ‘job’. This surprised me because I am a foodie and I really trust the ‘stars’. But its time to come out of the myth. No restaurant may have a neat 5 star from customers and diners. It’s the manipulative work of digital marketing companies that may outsource the job to people like me and you and in between some scammers may join to mint money from both the parties. I was asked to rate restaurants from Google map and the ‘task’ restaurant was somewhere 260 kilometers away from where I stay. I have never visited the restaurant and the place where it is situated. I have never seen their menu card nor I have tasted their food (nope, not even by Zomato  or Swiggy because they wont deliver any food item so far).

Now probably you may know how some restaurants, shops, hotels or even health care service providers may get 5 stars and stay at the top of search list!

But that’s not all. These agencies may necessarily provide links to upload positive comments and stars. A click on them may invite many more digital trouble.

  • Would they be worried if you tell them you have lifted the ‘innocent veil’ and found out who they are? Answer is ‘no’. That’s because they would take seconds to change their phone numbers and delete all texts shared with the victims to disable the latter to take any evidence to the police.

Why are they targeting women? A possible answer is women, especially undergraduate students and home makers may need to make money from the comfort of home. It’s a moonlighting while the home makers are involved in full time household chores.  And yes, most the targets may not be able to suspect the scammers because they may use women’s photographs in their WhatsApp profiles. As such, we may never know who accesses our WhatsApp or Instagram profile pictures and how they may be misused.

The laws that may help: First of all, understand why they are called scammers and what sort of crime they are doing. Digital personal data protection Act , 2023 has mandated that all data collectors must mandatorily explain the reason behind colleting the personal data (including the phone numbers) of data principals. All data fiduciaries are also mandated to explain why and how the collected data will be processed. Have you ever heard from your shopping mall or any other service provider stating you clearly why they are collecting your number? It’s not n for future connection. But its for sharing our phone numbers (whether consciously or unconsciously) with scammers who may continue to feed other business establishments   by providing unauthorized information. S.43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008) makes the body corporate liable to pay damages to data owners for negligence to protect the integrity of the data. But this is the live example as how all stakeholders in this regard dupe the actual data principle.

Often victims who may understand that they are trapped, may try to counter these scammers by calling them, sharing photos and numbers of the scammers on the social media portals, or even try to reach out to them searching for the physical office addresses. Each of these may invite different kinds of trouble. The best way to address this is to be aware of the patterns of  fraudulent activities done by such scammers, block and report the phone  numbers to the intermediary and report the matter to the portal of https://cybervolunteer.mha.gov.in/webform/Volunteer_AuthoLogin.aspx  . Remember, we women are the chosen target for cyber crooks because they feel women are less empowered. It is our right to be safe and duty to prove them wrong!

Stay safe.

Please don’t infringe the copyright of this write-up. Please cite this as Halder.D(2023). Looking for 5 star restaurants or amenities or service providers? Here is the reality. Published on 11-11-2023 @https://wordpress.com/post/internetlegalstudies.com/1472

Editor's column, Uncategorized

THE DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT, 2023: can women expect any meaningful protection for Data privacy now? by Dr.Debarati Halder
Women for women

On 11th August, 2023 the much awaited The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, (DPDA) 2023 came into existence finally. Drafted majorly in the shadow of the EU general Dara Protection Regulations, DPDA offers certain rights to the data principals and certain duties to the data fiduciaries. But first, let me break a myth: DPDA is not an exclusive statute for providing privacy to our Data. The words ‘protection’ and ‘privacy’ may not be synonymous always.

 If we look into the preamble of DPDA we would see that the preamble offers four reasons for enacting this law:

  1. To provide for the processing of digital personal data in a legalised manner
  2. To recognise the right of individuals to protect their personal data and
  3. To recognise the  need to process such personal data
  4. To recognise the  lawful purposes for processing the data

Every individual is a data principal according to S.2(J) of the DPDA. Irrespective of gender and age a data principal is a person to whom the concerned data is related. However, this provision clarifies the status of children and disabled by stating that for the former the parents or the lawful guardians will become the data principal and the for later, the lawful guardian will be the data principal. As we know from the Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008), data means nothing but information that may represent many profiles of individuals: these may include financial status, health status, educational status, maturity status, marital status, and what not. Data itself may be extremely costly especially when it is processed and formally associated with specific organizations or institutions. According to S.2(x) “processing” in relation to personal data, means a wholly or partly automated operation or set of operations performed on digital personal data, and includes operations such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation, retrieval, use, alignment or combination, indexing, sharing, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, restriction, erasure or destruction

Interestingly,  DPDA therefore advocates not only for the protection of the integrity of the data while it is being processed, it also bats for right to be forgotten.

For years I have been observing that women are targeted on the cyberspace for many illegal acts. I have witnessed the amendment of Indian Penal Code whereby a dedicated series of S.354 was introduced for penalizing several patterns of criminalities on cyber space. These included cyber stalking, voyeurism, disrobing women in the physical space and photographing the assault, sexual harassment and using sexually explicit language, gestures etc. Several other laws such as The sexual harassment at workplace (prevention, prohibition and redressal) Act, Indecent representation of women (prohibition) Act etc, were introduced, amended to provide further protection to women and support Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008). None could actually completely prevent online crimes against women. On the contrary, perpetrators have found new ways to commit cyber-crimes against women. At present we get to see women are targeted more by fraudsters who are tricking them for financial loss.

DPDA creates a layer of protection against the data processing stakeholders. A processed data may contribute for creating identity of the data principal, educational degrees, health records, financial records etc.  Most of these are vulnerable sensitive personal data. DPDA therefore has enhanced the responsibility of the data fiduciaries to protect the consensual data that is shared with them.

But now let us see how DPDA may not protect the interest of women:

  1. Who manages the Artificial intelligence that will be applied for processing of the data under S.2(X) of the DPDA?

The Act indicates that the Data fiduciaries and the data processors may be responsible for controlling the AI for processing the data. But where is the data pool for the AI which will be working with the data ? we must not forget that most data fiduciaries may use foreign based AI for  processing data. In that case is there any specific rule to control the foreign entity who may be controlling the AI? The answer may be found in S.3(b) of the DPDA which shares about the scope of the Act. It says as follows:

        Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall (b)        ………..also apply to processing of digital personal data outside the territory of India, if such processing is in connection with any activity related to offering of goods or services to Data Principals within the territory of India ;

The answer may also be found in S.11 which speaks about rights of the data principal. But again, this needs a clear explanation.

It is not very clear if the AI system (that will be applied for data processing) falls within the meaning of “services to data principles within the territory of India”. If this falls within this category, then we need to see whether the contractual obligations between the data fiduciary and the AI creator company/entity can be made transparent to the data principal.

2.How would the non-digitized data be digitized without manipulating the original data?

Let us go back to S.3 of the DPDA again. While explaining the scope of the DPDA, S.3 (a) mentions that this Act shall apply to the processing of digital personal data within the territory of India where the personal data is collected…….in non-digital form and digitised subsequently. In such case and also in the case of processing digital data, DPDA does not mention what security procedure may be applied to restrict the leaking of sensitive personal data of data principals, especially women. Such question may be answered through the DPDA Rules that we are looking forward for. But honestly, there may be many occasions where data would be exposed unauthorisedly by the data protectors themselves. We need to see how far the statute would be implemented to heal the harm and compensate the data principal directly especially when the data principal is a senior citizen or a minor or educationally challenged or a disabled woman.

3.Now comes the question of grievance redressing mechanism system that must be set up by data fiduciary as has been mentioned in S.8(10) of the DPDA.

The Act remains silent about the infrastructure of the said mechanism. If we look into Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008) we get to see the court system where the qualification of the forum members (for example, Administrator for civil offences etc) are clearly mentioned. But neither the Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008) mention anything about the qualification of the grievance redressal officers. IT(intermediary guidelines and digital media ethics) Code, 2021 discusses in detail about engaging grievance redressal mechanism by the intermediaries in Rule 3(focusing on due diligence by intermediaries ) and Rule 10 (furnishing and processing of grievance), and Chapters 2, 3 and 4(which discuss about level 1, 2 and 3 of self regulating mechanism and oversight related mechanism. We have to see if DPDA applies parts of   IT(intermediary guidelines and digital media ethics) Code, 2021 for mandating the data fiduciaries to set up grievance redressal mechanisms. In my opinion, data fiduciaries must consider engaging women officers to look after the grievances from women data principals. This may make the female data principals (especially those coming from orthodox societies and those who may be educationally and/or socio-economically challenged to access the male dominated grievance redressal mechanisms) feel comfortable to share their grievances. This may also encourage better reporting of criminal activities on cyber space.

  • DPDA under S.3© very clearly withdraws its scope from the data principals in the following situations:

(i)    personal data processed by an individual for any personal or domestic purpose; and

(ii)   personal data that is made or caused to be made publicly available

by—(A)   the Data Principal to whom such personal data relates; or (B) any other person who is under an obligation under any law for the time being in force in India to make such personal data publicly available.

The explanation to S.3 of the DPDA explicitly shows that if a data principal voluntarily shares her personal data publicly, DPDA provisions (regarding the responsibilities of data fiduciaries) will not be applicable here. In my capacity as cybercrime victim counsellor, I have seen the unfortunate rise of cybercrime cases and more unfortunate cases of victim blaming in cases such as those mentioned in the exception of S.3© of the DPDA: bloggers, digital creators and social media influencers intentionally share their personal data for profit gain. In case of infringement of their data integrity or data breach, they will now become ‘guardian-less victims’ who should brace themselves to face challenges in the system of criminal justice. But here lies the legal twist: such women may claim the protection of DPDA if their sensitive personal data integrity is violated due to the negligence of the data fiduciary i.e., the intermediary/website/web domain etc, who are providing them platforms to publish their blogs, write-ups, opinions, videos, business related information etc.  As such, women bloggers, digital creators and social media influencers must go ahead with their data sharing and data processing contracts with the primary data fiduciary (the web domains, websites etc) with extreme care. Such women (and men too) must now consult lawyers to prepare an agreement for entering into contract with such intermediaries etc, who have always tried to dominate the contractual relationships with their custom made agreements which may enable them to escape the liabilities by using immunity veils.

4. Last, but not the least is the question of “lawful purposes” that makes the data fiduciaries liable to share the personal sensitive data with the government stakeholders.

The issue of surveillance is mention-able here. While there may be surveillance in the name of safety of the nation, peace and security of the community, friendly relationship with neighbouring countries and even for protecting the rights of the fellow citizens as has been stated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, misuse of power by government officials including police officers to breach the integrity of personal data of women may be a serious blow on the right to protection and privacy of digital data.

DPDA, 2023 offers many positive aspects for data protection. But this is a beginning of a new understanding of data protection regime in India. We need to have lot more research on the practical applicability of the Law to provide safety to women. Let this ‘new beginning’ bring more positive attitude and awareness for a holistic safety on cyber space.

Please note: please do not violate the copy right of this writeup. If you want to use it for your article, assignment, project etc, please cite it has Halder Debarati (August, 2023) THE DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT, 2023: can women expect any meaningful protection for data privacy now? Published in https://wordpress.com/post/internetlegalstudies.com/1433 on 24-08-2023

Uncategorized

What is meant by “Website”? by Dr.Debarati Halder

We are in 2022 and the pandemic has not left us yet. News channels are tirelessly sharing updates on surging cases, further closure orders for schools, virtual hearing of the courts etc. Where are we sharing the information? From where are we getting some information? It is “websites”. There are millions of websites hosted and also managed by different stakeholders who share different information on WorldWideWeb. Strangely, we do not find the definition of the term website in majority of legal documents but when we see from the perspective of cybercrimes, we cannot avoid the role of websites as websites provide a platform for sharing contents which may be offensive.

The term website is connected with the concept of world wide web which was invented in 1989  by British scientist Tim Barnes Lee who worked on Interlinking of webpage and websites as a scientist with European organization for  nuclear research (CERN). Lee’s work led to connect creation of worldwide web to attributing ip address, domain names, .ccreation of hypertext markup language , uniform resource locator (URL) etc. The major reason behind creating the web was to facilitate the demands of information sharing between the government stakeholders including the military, scientists in the universities and other institutes all over the world for the purpose of information sharing, gathering and strengthening national security including cyber security infrastructure and military intelligentsia. However, very soon in the millennium tech companies started appearing to create, host, maintain etc., of websites which were interactive, passive or hybrid types of websites and which could be used for either e-commerce purposes, or for interaction, peer to peer networking and information sharing or for all. At this juncture it became necessary to explain the term “website”. Even though, we do not get to see any uniform definition of the term in specific legal documents, the term has been attempted to be defined by different stakeholders. It may be broadly explained as collection of hyperlinked pages over the web and related contents which may be identified by common domain name and which may get published on world wide web by some web server.

Now we are dependent completely on different kinds of websites and we manage our homes and offices through these websites. Presently we get to see many legal persons, i.e., companies which may create their own websites which may be used mainly for information sharing, e-commerce purposes and interacting with people. There are different technology companies like Meta (earlier known as Facebook), specifically created for sponsoring, creating, maintaining websites and webpages who also collect data of the users/subscribers/.  We have heard a lot about liability of the websites. But websites in general are inanimate. They become legal persons only when they are operated by people who may create websites, connect to web pages, get a domain name for the websites, publish contents and facilitate peer to peer networking and/or share information as a passive website. Liability of the websites therefore depend on their activities that are decided by the creators/administrators/distributors/users of the websites.

Intermediary and Website are not the same: Even though there are several laws and policy guidelines have been made worldwide to consider liabilities of the websites including The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, we have not yet seen the proper definition of website.  Even though S.2w of the Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008) defines the term intermediary as “any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, web-housing service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online auction sites, online market places and cyber cafes”, the same should not be confused with the term ‘website’. An intermediary however can create, maintain a website.

Please note: Please  do not violate the copyright of this writeup. Please site it as Halder Debarati (2022) What is a website? Published in https://internetlegalstudies.com/2022/01/03/what-is-meant-by-website-by-dr-debarati-halder/ on 03-01-2022

News update on cybercrimes against women and laws, Uncategorized

Gender and Internet : Web magazine for Cyber law for women News update for October 25- November, 30. 2021
#orangetheworld #Endviolenceagainstwomen #stopcybercrimesagainstwomen Image courtesy : UN Women

Police arrests man for sending lewd texts, threat messages and repeated calls to a female actor in India and charges him under different provisions of Information Technology Act. The accused is produced before the magistrate and sent for judicial custody for 10 days.
https://www.telegraphindia.com/my-kolkata/news/lewd-texts-threats-to-actress-lead-to-mans-arrest-from-jadavpur/cid/1841214

Woman falls into the trap of e-commerce fraudsters, shares bank account details and looses a little fortune. After making a police report immediately, the fraudsters’ details along with the bank details were tracked and frozen by the police. The woman received the lost amount to her bank account within record time.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/timely-act-by-police-helps-woman-recover-money-lost-to-online-fraud/article37759802.ece

Report suggests female gamers in Australia are preferring more online games than socializing and going for dating on physical space.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGllClRsWpWhThqkGNFkJRSDvjv

Man appears semi naked in virtual courtroom hearing for Karnataka High-count, Karnataka, India in spite of senior woman lawyer raising objection to the same. Senior lawyer plans to lodge sexual harassment compliant against the man.
https://www.barandbench.com/news/indira-jaising-to-lodge-sexual-harassment-complaint-after-man-appears-semi-nude-during-virtual-hearing-before-karnataka-high-court?fbclid=IwAR1mxwyvJImBCu1D59Ui2GW5GxYeWmrHliZknejZHJKXlUqj84Au6Y3WK-k

Man shares rape threats to the infant daughter of the celebrity Indian cricketer and gets arrested by the police in India. he is charged with offences including child online sexual abuse, criminal intimidation, defamation etc.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/12/sport/virat-kohli-abuse-arrest-intl-hnk/index.html

Leicester police starts investigation for illegal live streaming of paid for TV programs and arrested woman over suspicion of livestreaming such programs along with another accused man. Charges framed under copyright laws and police warns for consumers who are consuming sch contents over illegal livestreaming platforms.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-59476662

State attorneys general launches investigation into Meta (earlier known as Facebook) on the failure of liability of its platform Instagram to control harmful impact on children.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/18/tech/meta-instagram-kids-attorneys-general-investigation/index.html

Police warns users of social media to secure their profiles as women in Victoria, Australia faces sextortion by perpetrators who culled out sensitive personal data by unauthorisedly accessing the profiles of the friends of the victims.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7521310/victorian-women-warned-of-sextortion-scams/

Norwich doctor uses pinhole camera for voyeurism purposes targeting women in his home, female doctors, nurses and mother of a child patient. He is charged with offences of voyeurism and has now been pleaded guilty for several offences in the nature of cyber crimes targeting women including voyeurism, unauthoirsedly accessing icloud system and douwnloading naked photos etc. He is punished with jailterm for two years and eight months by St Albuns Crown Court, England.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-59353540

Uncategorized

Gender and Internet : Web magazine for Cyber law for women News update for August 2-August 25, 2021
Image courtesy : Debarati Halder

Former editor of New York observer newspaper Kenneth Kurson faces charges by New York Prosecutors on the issue of installing spyware on the computer of his ‘then-wife’ for cyber stalking her.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/18/politics/kenneth-kurson-trump-pardon-kushner/index.html

Perpetrators gets arrested for morphing pictures to earn money
https://www.the420.in/morphed-image-of-tiktok-star-shared-on-social-media-to-earn-money-5-arrested/

Penang police in Malayasia receives reports of job scam, majority of the victims are women.
https://www.thesundaily.my/local/penang-cops-receive-149-reports-on-job-scams-this-year-EA8211336

Pasay City office of the prosecutor in Philippines suggests for bringing charges against former US diplomat for violating laws for protecting children from sexual offences under Republic Act (RA) 7610 or the “Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination” and RA 9775 or the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009.
The victim was made to involve in sexual activities and she was filmed.
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/08/16/news/national/former-us-diplomat-faces-sex-abuse-raps/1811092

Cyber cons are targeting police officers, judicial officers and educated people including women for financial frauds
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/new-age-cyber-cons-target-high-profile/articleshow/85193236.cms

Small time actress Meera Mithun gets arrested for her communal hate speech over cyber platforms in south India
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=meera+mithun

Uncategorized

Gender and Internet : Web magazine for Cyber law for women News update for January 7th-January 17th, 2021

Women clothes sellers on e-commerce platforms are not spared! Predators target them with nasty messages asking about private questions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55661022

Senior Indian woman journalist reports of phishing attack after realizing that offer to join Harvard university was a phishing mechanism.
https://www.ndtv.com/blog/how-i-fell-for-a-phishing-attack-my-story-by-nidhi-razdan-2353395

Man takes revenge for cyber bullying his girl friend by stealing 500 laptops from medical colleges in India
https://www-indiatimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.indiatimes.com/amp/news/india/man-steals-at-least-500-medical-college-laptops-to-avenge-cyberbullying-of-girlfriend-531944.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D&fbclid=IwAR2kF1YDcJMlXvLo9juNiWDjvPmgPRvW_WN2vtJeP4ifkCRR2Lh58w7TPZM#aoh=16106782822311&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiatimes.com%2Fnews%2Findia%2Fman-steals-at-least-500-medical-college-laptops-to-avenge-cyberbullying-of-girlfriend-531944.html

YouTubers in India get arrested after their channel showcase woman talking about sex, alcohol
https://www-news18-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.news18.com/amp/news/buzz/three-youtubers-arrested-in-chennai-after-video-of-woman-talking-about-sex-alcohol-goes-viral-3282737.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D&fbclid=IwAR1rJlAkySrIGEOwxlk5MWvP36e14n5l2sT-p02t0OdrBE9JA-c8kL91kas#ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.news18.com%2Fnews%2Fbuzz%2Fthree-youtubers-arrested-in-chennai-after-video-of-woman-talking-about-sex-alcohol-goes-viral-3282737.html