Category: Uncategorized

Uncategorized

3 ways how Artificial Intelligence may make women land in trouble

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN BY DEBARATI HALDER

Image result for artificial intelligence free images

Image curtsy : Google 

Information communication technology and digital communication technology have opened up new vistas for human relationships. The innovative technology with the help of Artifical Intelligence (AI) can now read minds,[1] predict illness,[2] predict crime occurrence,[3]enhance the professional and social network, and help in better analytical understanding of subjects. But it can also leave devastating impacts on human life. It can alter the data (including personal data), harm social reputation and can even instigate victims to take extreme steps like committing suicide.[4]All these may be done by positive and negative usage   of artificial intelligence which plays the base role for empowering Apps which in turn may be used for positive and negative usages.  Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been used by web companies like Facebook for facial recognition of users earlier. AI has also been used for companies (other than web companies) for processing employee data. In short, AI has been used to access private information of individuals either consensually or without consent. Here are three ways as how AI may create an uncomfortable situation for women specifically in India :
1.    Facial Recognition Apps and harassment of women: Remember the time when Facebook suddenly started asking for nude photos individuals for upgrading their own safety system apparently for providing safety mechanisms for subscribers?[5] This project was intended to build up a safety mechanism against revenge porn with the help of Artificial Intelligence. Facebook wanted to empower their subscribers, especially women to report revenge porn. But before that, the company wanted to ensure that the revenge porn content showcased the image that belonged to the victim specifically. The facial recognition app, the skin texture, hair color, biometric recognition technology would be matching both the images (the nude picture of the victim and the revenge porn content created by the perpetrator) and would be identifying the revenge porn content as illegal. But this project received stern objections because there were more possibilities of misuse of nude photos than positive use of the same. Facebook -Cambridge analytica case did prove that nothing is impossible when it comes to preservation of data by body-corporates and data of individuals is always profitable and the security of the  same is vulnerable. But this may not seem to be as dangerous as misuse of Face App may seem to be . FaceApp is basically used to change the face structure of the person whose photograph would be used in this App. It can change the texture of the skin and density of hair including facial hair.  In July, 2019, FaceApp became the center of concern for Indian cyber security stakeholders especially when several celebrities started using FaceApp and started showcasing their changed faces on Instagram.   While FaceApp was basically being used for fun purposes, it may also throw challenges for data safety and security of person concerned. FaceApp helps to change the structure of faces. But we should not forget that the altered facial image can be saved in devices and cloud of different individuals. This altered image may be used for several illegal activities. Predators may unauthorizedly access the social media profiles and change facial images of the victims to create fake profiles; they may also use such images to create a completely new impersonating profile to harass women. Altered facial images of women may also be used for revenge purposes especially when the victim is looking for opportunities in the entertainment or advertisement sector where her appearance may be considered as her biggest asset. Apart from this, FaceApp may be used to attract bullies and trolls to intensify victimization of women.
2.    Bringing back the memory: No one, but the web companies clearly remember what we posted in last summer. Every day social media companies would show what was posted by the user a year back or a couple of years back and would gently remind the user that he/she can share the said post as a memory. How does it happen? The web companies look for algorithm and the highest likes and comments for posts on daily or even hourly basis. When the posts earn more likes and comments, the AI decides to bring it forth. In certain situations, such refreshing of memories might not be ‘wanted’ at all especially when the victim might had a bitter ending of the relationship with persons in the said image or the text in question may no longer evoke good memories, but rather traumatize the victim more. But machine intelligence does not fail the company: it is a matter of consent and choice after all. But consider if the account is unauthorizedly accessed: the hacker may get to know something from the past which the victim may never wanted the hacker to know.
3.    Reminding the user about best low prices : AI runs over the internet like blood vessels carrying oxygen all over the body. When a user decides to compare prices of any product or services, AI helps to share the same almost always on any platform the user would be visiting. It might be extremely embarrassing for any woman if such searches start showing results when she is surfing the social media or even the search engine with a friend or another individual. Nothing is left by the AI from prices of lipsticks, hotels at cheaper rate, flight details to last watched videos on how to conceive. This might also make women face discrimination, office bullying and harassment due to several reasons.
These are but some of the many ways as how AI may make women to land in trouble. AI is necessarily connected with data privacy protection policies of web companies. The EU General Data Protection Regulation, 2018 provides that personal data may not be processed without the consent of the owner of the data.[6]But in this case, there can be legal tangles as web companies may  claim that they do not breach the data confidentiality or transfer the data to any other jurisdiction, neither they process the data without proper authorization. Here, multiple stakeholders may be involved which may include the original owner of the content or the picture which may have been processed for the purpose of harassment : the perpetrator, who may have carried out changes on the data using the AI supported Apps, perpetrators who may have unauthorizedly  stored the altered contents, picture or information or may have used the altered information, picture for creating impersonating profile etc. As per Indian legal understanding, altering, modifying etc of contents/ information/ image /images without proper authorization of the original owner of the  information etc may attract penal provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008): these provisions may include Ss 43 (Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system etc, ), 66 (computer related offences, 66C (punishment for identity theft) and 66D (punishment by cheating by impersonation by using computer resource etc. This may also attract penal provisions for Copy Right violation as well. Further, the web companies may be narrowly be liable for protecting data properly under several provisions including S.43A which speaks about body corporates liability to protect data. But irrespective of existing provisions, web companies may always escape the clutches of law due to due diligence clause and on the question of consent expressly or impliedly provided by the woman victim concerned. In the EU, courts are becoming more and more concerned about policy violations by web companies to fool the users. In India too, the courts must throw light on the web companies responsibility as data repository. Regulations like Data protection Bill, 2018 must be considered with utmost care. These may have the key to solve problems of online victimization of women.
Also, women users need to be extremely cautious about machine intelligence. Awareness must be spread about how the hidden ‘safety valves’ of the web companies (which may actually make the web companies more powerful against claims of lack of due diligence) may be used properly.  
 Please do not violate the copy right of this blog. If you need to use this blog for your writeup/assignment/project , then please cite it as Halder Debarati(2019) 3 ways how Artificial Intelligence may make women land in trouble. Published in in http://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com

2019

[1] For example, see Nosta John (2019) A.I. Can Now Read Your Thoughts—And Turn Them Into Words and Images. Published @ https://fortune.com/2019/05/07/artificial-intelligence-mind-reading-technology/ on May 7, 2019
[2]For example, see PTI (2019), These AI tools can predict early death risk due to chronic diseases
Published @//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/68611835.cms?from=mdr&utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst on March 28, 2019
[4]Halder D., & Jaishankar, K (2016.) Cyber crimes against women in India.
New Delhi: SAGE Publications. ISBN: 9789385985775
[5]See for example Solon Olivia (2017) Facebook asks users for nude photos in project to combat \’revenge porn\’. Published in https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/07/facebook-revenge-porn-nude-photos on November 7, 2017
[6] For more, see S.7 of the EU GDPR . URL: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/ Accessed on 17-08-2019
CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN IN INDIA
Uncategorized

Mamata Banerjee, Priyanka Chopra and Aishwariya Rai : What bonds them together and why

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN BY DEBARATI HALDER

On 14-05-2019 the Supreme Court of India created one more example of broadening the freedom of speech when it ordered for the immediate release of Priaynka  Sharma, a BJP activist. Sharma had allegedly posted a meme of Mamta Banerjee which contained morphed  picture of Mamata Banerjee on Priayanka Chopra’s image that  was taken in Met Gala, 2019. Chopra was heavily trolled for her attire and make-up and several people started created memes with Chopra’s picture.  The Supreme Court on an appeal by the brother of Sharma ordered for an immediate release of Sharma (who was arrested by the West Bengal police) emphasizing the fact that she should apologies to Banerjee because it has hurt her. The court also mentioned that freedom of speech cannot be unfettered when it infringes other’s right.[1] As per the news reports, she was however released after 24 hours.
This is not the first time in India that someone got arrested for ‘posting’ images/comments etc  on social media which apparently questions/defames/teases political personalities including members of the ruling government  party. After the coming into effect of the amended version of  Information technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008), S.66A (which prescribed punishment for offensive, annoying etc. speech) has been over and again used by the police to arrest individuals who had posted comments which apparently questioned/ridiculed/defamed/teased political personalities. Before S.66A could have been properly interpreted, [2]the Supreme Court felt that the provision was being grossly misused for the ill drafting and in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, the apex court ruled it unconstitutional.  In the recent Mamata Banerjee meme case, Supreme court stuck to its earlier understanding that no arbitrary arrest may be made for posting contents on social media targeting particular political personalities (including those in the ruling government parties) because this hampers freedom of speech.  Let me also state here that Banerjee has sister -politician who had been ‘victims’ of memes : she is none other than German chancellor Angela Merkel whose  latest memes appeared with Narendra Modi  when the BJP official website got hacked.  There is rarely any information available whether Merkel had made the police arrest the individuals who had been creating or sharing the memes including the morphed images of Merkel.  
My concern here however does not cover the repetition of the act of Mamata Banerjee government in arresting individuals targeting political personalities including herself.  I look at the issue from two perspectives here: (i) morphing the image of a woman and thereby creating/distributing/sharing the same as a non-consensual image (and not nonconsensual pornography); (ii) who should be ideally liable and under which law, and whether this issue attracts any legal liablity or not.  As the reports and the  image in question (which is still available when we search with key words such Mamata Banerjee meme ) suggests , it was not one, but two women were targeted : Priyanka Chopra, the original person in the image, who was heavily trolled because of her Met Gala, 2019  attire  and Mamata Banerjee, whose  face was morphed with the picture of Priyanka Chopra . Priyanka Chopra has not yet filed any police complaint for trolling; neither she has filed any complaint for morphing her picture.  It was not the same case for Banerjee:  she made it sure that the individual who shared the image should get arrested  under several provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) including S.500 of the Indian Penal Code which prescribes punishment for defamation. The news reports however did not mention about the specific provisions of IT Act under which she was arrested. Noticeably, neither Information Technology Act, nor Indian Penal Code recognizes any offence of’ ‘morphing’. The term does not find any mention in any law. Further, the existing laws neither specifically focuses attention for creation of  morphed image  of women for  damaging her reputation. However, cutting and pasting  of face is holistically addressed under several laws including Indecent Representation of women prevention Act (especially when the content is used to show case women in an indecent manner), S.509 of the IPC (which prescribes punishment for word, gesture, or any act made to insult the modesty of a woman), Ss66D( Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource) 66E Punishment for violation of privacy) etc, which may be coupled with Ss..67 (Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) or 67A ( Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form), (this is especially when the image or related text suggests sexual offences ) or S.354 C IPC (which prescribes punishment for voyeurism targeting women). A minute scrutiny of these provisions may suggest that they may loosely  skirt around the concept of anti-defamation law as well especially when the reputation of the targeted victim is at stake due to the content  created/transmitted .
In this political memes targeting women (and ridiculing them), one more celebrity woman Aishwarya Rai now joins with  Mamata Banerjee and Priyanka Chopra. Rai was featured in a meme created and shared  by another actor from the film industry who, the media reports suggest, had an emotional bondage with Aishwarya Rai before she got married to her present husband Abhishek Bacchan. Rai’s meme showcases not one , but three  photos with texts which had been the center of debate and ‘amusement’ for many. The first photo shows Rai with Salman Khan, a prominent actor of Bollywood who had a relationship with Rai many years back when she was a debutant in Bollywood. She reportedly came out of the relationship because of physical abuses and harassment. This photo has a caption which reads ‘opinion poll’. The next is with Vivek Oberoi, who has allegedly created the meme. This has a caption which reads ‘exit poll’ and the last in the line is Rai’s family photo with her husband and daughter, which reads ‘result’. Noticeably, this meme attracted attention of many because this centered around a celebrity woman actor who is supposed to be one of world’s most beautiful women. She has been trolled many times earlier. But this is probably the first time that she, her husband  and her minor daughter are pulled in for political meme. Oberoi was slammed by many of his fellow Bollywood women actors who considered this as disgraceful, classless, disgusting etc.[3]While accepting the fact that Rai is a favorite subject for trolls for many years, what no one understood in this was, Rai’s daughter does not deserve this as a child. Even though as a celebrity child, she and her mother  had been trolled; could anyone understand how her right to privacy and basic child rights have been violated ? That’s the curse of being the daughter of a celebrity mother which follows all children of all women celebrities including women actors, politicians, sports persons etc.
As such, both Mamata Bannerjee , Priayanka  Chopra and Aishwarya Rai could have availed any of these laws mentioned above if they were not public figures and if the photographs that had been the major issue here, had been their personal  photographs or it would have been created specifically for sexual gratification which happens to most of the women actors.[4]
Then in that case, if the photographs were their personal properties, could they have pursued the police for arrest?    We have to turn our attention to chapter IV of the Copyright Act, 1957 for this : three sub clauses of S.17 attract my attention here which are as follows:
17. First owner of copyright.— Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first
owner of the copyright therein:
Provided that—
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in the course of his
employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of
service or apprenticeship, for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar
periodical, the said proprietor shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first
owner of the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to the publication of the work
in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to the reproduction of the work for the
purpose of its being so published, but in all other respects the author shall be the first owner of the
copyright in the work;
 (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait
drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of
any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of
the copyright therein;
(c) in the case of a work made in the course of the author’s employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clause (a) or clause (b) does not apply, the employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;
Neither Priyanka Chopra, nor Mamata Banerjee claimed that the photographs in question were their personal photographs which they ‘owned’ as per Copyright Act. The photographs were then properties of different persons or agencies who probably had captured both the women with consent.  Given this fact, neither (especially Banerjee) may proceed to complaint for arresting unless it has harmed her reputation or caused her financial loss or caused grave threat. Here, we must note that the Supreme Court has very narrowly touched upon the private sentiment of  Banerjee when it stated that such production and sharing of photograph may have infringed her right (not any specific right, but understandably it was largely right to reputation under Right to Life with dignity).   But what the court failed to note here was the liability of the website where it was published and shared. Websites like Facebook however may not count this as impersonation (again we have to go back to the understanding as who is ‘owner’ of the photograph) unless the image has been used to grossly defame the person whose photo is involved. The websites would neither recognize this as offensive if seen from the perspective of US laws of Freedom of speech which is extremely broad. This has been the major concern for many women victims of morphing, revenge porn and nonconsensual porn throughout the world.  In India the due diligence clause under S. 79 of the Information Technology Act (exemptions from liability of intermediary in certain cases) had been a major savvier for  US based web companies like Facebook or Twitter when it comes to liability of websites for offences including generating /continuing the harassment of women for nonconsensual photographs.   There is however one more solution from EU : Article 13 of the EU directives on Copyright in the single market[5]which makes the websites liable for illegal hosting of contents if they do not acquire license from the right holders of such contents. This means that the third party liability in offensive and illegal content sharing becomes more stringent as per the EU copyright Law. But in India such laws are not yet implemented or executed.
What we see from the above discussion is, Supreme Court has yet again broadened the meaning of freedom of speech, but failed to provide guidelines which may have strengthened rights of women who may be victimized by way of morphing in general. The court was in a hurry to undo the wrong of a political persona and the police who may have acted under her direction. But failed to create a lasting (and impressive) interpretation of  laws which could have saved millions of women victims of nonconsensual  images.
*Please note : Please do not violate the copyright of this blog. If you need to share/use this blog for your writeup/project/story, please cite it as Halder.Debarati (2019)Mamata Banerjee, Priyanka Chopra and Aishwariya Rai  : What bonds them together and why. Published in  http://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com

[1] Singh V.P. (2019) Mamta Banerjee Meme: What For Did The SC Ask Priyanka Sharma To Apologise?
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/mamta-banerjee-meme-what-for-did-the-sc-ask-priyanka-sharma-to-apologise-145069 . Published on May 15, 2019
[2] See Mamata Banerjee meme: SC grants bail to BJP worker Priyanka Sharma, asks her to apologise after release. Published in https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/lok-sabha-2019/story/mamata-banerjee-meme-bjp-worker-bail-west-bengal-priyanka-supreme-court-1524467-2019-05-14   on May 14, 2019.
[3] See ET online (2019)Vivek Oberoi tweet Aishwarya Rai\’s meme; Sonam Kapoor, Jwala Gutta lash out at actor
Published @//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/69413084.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst on May 21, 2019. Accessed on May 21, 2019
[4]Halder D., & Jaishankar K. (2016) Celebrities and Cyber Crimes: An
Analysis of the Victimization of Female Film Stars on the Internet. Temida
– The journal on victimization, human rights and gender. 19(3-4), 355-372.
ISSN: 14506637
[5] See Art 13 in the DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on copyright in the Digital Single Market @ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016PC0593

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN IN INDIA
Uncategorized

WhatsApp reporting of women and child abuse videos: The common understanding versus the reality

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN BY DEBARATI HALDER

Image credit : Google

Couple of days ago my friend shared an alarming news with me on Facebook about WhatsApp. It says that several cyber security think tanks including Cyber Peace Foundation are now finding out how WhatsApp groups are circulating child sexual abuse videos and how these contents are growing viral.[1] This is not an uncommon incident now. In 2015 from Centre for Cyber Victim Counselling, we had done an empirical research titled “Harassment via WhatsApp in Urban and Rural India: A Baseline Survey Report (2015).[2]This research was conducted in three cities namely Tirunelveli, Kolkata and Delhi with responders from the age group of 19-40. Even though this research did not include survey on WhatsApp groups , but it did emphasize on personal harassment or receiving of the sexually explicit images, harassing videos of others etc. Some of the findings of this report are as follows:
Ø32.8% stated that they are aware of the safety tools in WhatsApp and 42.7% said they feel it is safer than other internet communication services. 41.2% stated that they were not aware of the safety tools and 13.7% stated that they don’t feel that WhatsApp is safer than other internet communication services. 1.5% did not want to tell about their knowledge of awareness regarding safety tools in WhatsApp and 11.5% did not want to tell about their feelings whether WhatsApp is safer than other internet communication services. 24.4% stated that they have heard about the safety tools in WhatsApp but have no direct knowledge about it. 32.1% stated that they have heard about other internet communication services, but they do not have direct knowledge, whether WhatsApp is safer because they do not use other services.
ØIn answer to the question whether they had received any sexually explicit or obscene images including videos/images of rape, sexual abuse of women or children or men or LGBT people etc, among the 131 respondents, 11.5% stated that they had received sexually explicit or obscene images, 51.9% stated they did not receive such images and 2.3% did not want to answer. 34.4% stated that they are not aware of being targeted with such images because they do not use WhatsApp or have stopped using the services.[3]
This suggests that WhatsApp had been a “chosen platform” by predators since long.
 But why WhatsApp has become more dearer to predators than other social media websites like Facebook or Instagram especially for those including pedophiliacs or persons who  create and circulate abusive videos including sexual abuse videos of women  ?  Let’s have a reality check about WhatsApp here:
ØWhat is WhatsApp and how it works: As we had mentioned in the research report, WhatsApp messenger was started approximately in 2009 in the US by Jan Koumand Brian Action as a “better SMS alternative” (WhatsApp, 2014) and it is available for iPhone, Blackberry, Android, Windows phone, Nokia etc. This app uses the user’s phone number as the basic verification mode and it does not support calls via VoIP (Schrittwieser,Fr¨uhwirt, Kieseberg, Leithner, Mulazzani, Huber, & Weippl, 2014). Some of the basic features of WhatsApp include status update, profile picture update, uploading of address book (Schrittwieser, et. al., 2014), options to create/join groups (Terpstra, 2013), updates about location, uploading and circulating photos and videos and voice recordings. Typically WhatsApp verification may include a three stage procedure which involves (i) logging on to the download page of WhatsApp @ https://www.whatsapp.com/download/ and clicking on the chosen device icon and start downloading; (ii) the server then sends a 4-digit PIN number by SMS to the prospective user’s phone by SMS for verification and authentication (Schrittwieser, et. al., 2014), (iii) the user copies the code to the WhatsApp’s application graphical user interface (GUI) and after cross checking by the WhatsApp server the app gets activated on the phone of the user (Schrittwieser, et. al., 2014). Once connected with WhatsApp, the user can get the information about other WhatsApp users by simply checking his/her phone address book or call log history or Gmail address book. This is because WhatsApp may access the user’s contact list or address book to keep track of other mobile phone numbers who use the WhatsApp services and may store this information on the server (WhatsApp, 2014, see sub- para B in Para 3) to get people connected instantly, profile pictures of other users and one WhatsApp user may get instantly connected to others through the server.[4]
ØHow do users create network on WhatsApp and how the groups may be busted?
After downloading the app and activating the same, the user may get connected to his friends or like minded people by doing a simple search in his phone address book. Other numbers with WhatsApp applications may show up. Users may choose to circulate their messages in several ways through WhatsApp :
üBy using broadcasting feature whereby a single text/audio visual  message may be conveyed to a batch of people : The Boradcasting list may be created as below:
Image source : WhatsApp
üBy forwarding the message to maximum five recipients at one time. Now, this “forwarding” may reach a wider recipient list if it is done in a group.  WhatsApp group can be created  by any individual by going to the chat tab and creating a new group. 
Image source: WhatsApp
Interestingly, WhatsApp groups can be private or be public as well. Most of the groups who circulate images /contents of sexual abuse including  for self-gratification or group gratification, may keep their group private so that the group may not be disturbed by any 3rdparty monitoring authority including the police. These group members generally may have a mutual understanding and trust whereby the contents shared by them would not be reported outside.  The members may necessarily download /save the sexual abuse/harassment videos/contents in their own devices  for individual gratification or for unethical gaining by further circulation as well. The end to end encryption by WhatsApp may make it more favorable for such group members to widely discuss and circulate such contents.
Public groups on the other hand are more open groups where people may join for discussions and it may not necessarily private for those whom the admin/s have invited or made them join. Unlike the private groups, public groups may be monitored if any  third party monitoring authority joins the discussion in disguise or any other group member decides to bring in the police or other monitoring stakeholders. In both these cases, admin’s responsibilities have been scrutinized by courts in India. The recent report suggests that the courts have held  responsible for allowing to spread seditious, inciting messages.[5]  WhatsApp group members and admins have also been booked for creating /circulating child sexual abuse materials for sexual gratification.[6]
ØWhat if the group admin is an underage user?
It is important to know the age barrier about WhatsApp users. There are infact not two, but three options given by WhatsApp. Lets check it:
1.     The minimum age criterion for European region including European Union countries is 16.
2.     For other countries the, the minimum age criteria is 13 unless the domestic laws of the said countries have fixed a higher age for using of WhatsApp.[7]
3.     Overlooking both, a child can use the WhatsApp services of the parents if the parent allows the child to use the services under his/her monitoring.
This in fact shows that a child may use WhatsApp, may create his/her own profile and may create contents him/herself for private or public sharing on WhatsApp with whoever he/she wants. 
ØWhat happens to the producer/distributor of the offensive contents?
In broader understanding, the child is legally permitted to create content  which he/she thinks can be circulated. Now, this has been a question for several courts : when a child is creating a sexting content and circulating the same with fellow children (including his/her boy/girl friend ),  how the courts (and the laws )would treat him/her ? Is he the perpetrator? Is he the victim? Or is he a ‘child’ with no liabilities?[8] S.67B of the Information technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008), Ss. 13 and 14 of the Protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2012 clearly mention that “whoever’ creates, circulates, produces etc  contents depicting children in sexually contents may be penalized. These cane be considered non-baliable, which would suggest that the punishment can be heavier.  Similarly, Ss. 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008) also penalizes ‘anyone’ who creates, distributes etc  sexually explicit and obscene materials. S. 354C of the Indian Penal Code also touches upon penalizing men who  private images of woman who would not consent for sharing such contents with third parties . S.375 and 376 of the Indian penal Code also touches upon capturing rape videos and storing or circulating the same. These offences can also be non-bailable and can have heavier punishments.
The contents that the children would have created also carries significance: if a child creates a sexting video or sexual abuse video or a non consensual porn image/content or  even a revenge porn content and sends it to his friend/s, the recipient may decide not to receive the content if from the look at the content or the text attached with it, the recipient feels that it should not be opened or should not be further circulated because it contains ‘bad stuff’.  WhatsApp is smart enough to have created limited policy guideline and security feature whereby one can report his/her child who may be using WhatsApp without parental guidance  and the parents feel that the child may be doing /victimized due to illegal /risky contents and connections.  It says
“If your underage child created a WhatsApp account, you can show them how to delete their account. You can learn how to delete an account in our Help Center.If you\’d like to report an account belonging to someone underage, please send us an email. In your email, please provide the following documentation and redact or hide any unrelated personal information:
Proof of ownership of the WhatsApp number (e.g., copy of government-issued identification card and phone bill with the same name)
Proof of parental authority (e.g., copy of birth or adoption certificate for the underage child)
Proof of child\’s date of birth (e.g., copy of birth or adoption certificate for the underage child)
We\’ll promptly disable the WhatsApp account if it\’s reasonably verifiable that the account belongs to your underage child. You won\’t receive confirmation of this action. Our ability to review and take appropriate action on a report significantly improves with the completeness of the information requested above. “[9]
Removal /deactivating of the said account is however at the discretion of WhatsApp especially when they would not be reasonably convinced .
But in case the reporting individual is not the parent of the child who may be doing illegal stuff  or who may be a potential victim, WhatsApp suggests to contact the parents of the child.
For adult wrong doers, WhatsApp has a typical formula which is followed by almost all social media companies : they would suggest to block the number so that the user of that particular number would not be able to contact the blocker  unless the earlier is being unblocked . Here is what WhatsApp suggests regarding how to block a number:
Image source: WhatsApp
ØThe producer/distributor of the offensive content has been arrested. What about the offensive image?
The above information would not serve much purpose for blocking /reporting of the content unless the same is considered as an offending  subject through a police report. In such case, the said content may be made disabled from their own server, but they would rather work like email or SMS and would not access individual devices to dig out the offensive content to block and disable it. In such case, even if the persons (owning the WhatsApp numbers and profiles) may be blocked, the contents may keep on circulatingunless these have been ‘ordered ‘ to be disabled from the server.  This is how the objectionable contents float from one device to another and reach out to millions after the original sender may have deleted from his device to save himself or he may have been arrested by the police.
Nothing but a police report or a court order about the said content therefore could be the best answer for blocking the content from being further circulated. But a few things can not be ignored when this is suggested: the police must act accordingly to make WhatsApp delete the content from its server and block the circulation whenever it appears on WhatsApp from which ever device. But this may become a herculean task especially when the police and the courts  may feel  challenged due to lack of infrastructure and proper laws. As long as this does not take place, WhatsApp users have to be responsible enough to not to circulate such contents even if they receive it from known or unknown numbers. Not to be forgotten, the police may arrest individuals who may store child sexual harassment videos /images unknowingly as well. But the unfortunate fact is this may not be the same for adult sexual abuse cases. But if the users use WhatsApp responsibly, the problem may definitely be address.

Please note : Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use information provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2019), \” WhatsApp reporting of women and child abuse videos:  The common understanding vs the reality”  29th April, 2019 , published in http://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com

[1] Cuthbertson Anthony (2019). WHATSAPP IS HOTBED FOR CHILD SEX ABUSE VIDEOS IN INDIA, STUDY FINDS. Published in https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-child-sex-abuse-videos-groups-india-a8885811.html?fbclid=IwAR251ajPe20Y7zcXtD2o1s0w–86-Pr5UrKHVgv7IF_7swAH_dvEGQTzcZQon 26th April, 2019. Retrieved on 26th April, 2019
[2] Halder, D., & Jaishankar, K. (2015). Harassment via WhatsApp in Urban
and Rural India: A Baseline Survey Report (2015). Tirunelveli, India:
Centre for Cyber Victim Counselling. Available @ https://www.cybervictims.org/CCVCresearchreport2015.pdfRetrieved on 27.04.2019
[3] Ibid
[4] See pp 2 in ibid
[5] See WhatsApp ‘admin’ spends five months in an Indian jail. Published in https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44925166Accessed on 22.04.2019
[6] See Sandhya Nair (2018) WhatsApp group sharing child porn busted, 5 held
Published in http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/65263327.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppstAccessed on 22.04.2019
[8] Halder, D., & Jaishankar. (2013). Revenge Porn by Teens in the United
States and India: A Socio-legal Analysis. International Annals of
Criminology, 51(1-2), 85-111. ISSN: 00034452 (UGC Listed Journal)

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN IN INDIA
Uncategorized

The TikTok ban : Why the ban may fail to prevent online victimization of women

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN BY DEBARATI HALDER

Image credit: Google 

On 24th April Madras High court would decide on the plea of Bytedance, which owns TikTok regarding the much talked about ban of the app. Tik Tok, , a nongaming app launched in 2019 has given a tough competition in regard to its popularity to all the social media giants because of the unique features  which allows users to create and share short videos with special effects. Teenagers and adults  in India loved the app because unlike other social media platforms including YouTube, TikTok has simple features to upload and publish videos. Unlike PubG however, this did not necessarily have gaming features.
In early April, 2019, the Madurai bench of Madras High court had in an interim order directed the government stakeholders in the State and Centre to ban the video app TikTok as the Public Interest Litigation in this regard emphasized that it encourages pornography and underage users are vulnerable to be exposed to sexually explicit contents, pornography etc, which may not be good for their mental and physical health.[1] Incidentally the Madurai Bench of the Madras High court was the first court in India to take suo motu cognizance in BlueWhale game case and asked the Central government and the social media website, web companies like Google etc to monitor what is being generated and catered to the users through their platform.[2]But in this case, the situation stands on a different platform: consequent to the interim order, Google and Apple removed TikTok app  from their Play Stores.  Resultant, Bytedance had incurred huge loss. But the later has now challenged this interim order on the ground that the interim order was passed on the basis of ex parte hearing. The company had stated that the app allows users to create videos and circulate them for fun and amusement and it does not pose any threat to security of individuals. Bytedance also stated that such bans are against right to speech and expression.[3]
We can see here two important points:
First : before the governments took prohibitory actions (like what happened for PubG ban in Gujarat, where police started arresting those who downloaded and played PubG even after the ban order was conveyed to the public)[4], Web company like Google  and phone and software manufacturing company Apple had followed the mandates of S.79 (exemption of liability of intermediary in certain cases) and Rule 3 of  Information technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rule, 2011 : specially mentionable are Rules 3(3) and 3(4) which states as follows:
Rule 3(3) states that The intermediary shall not knowingly host or publish any information or shall not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of transmission, and select or modify the information contained in the transmission as specified in sub-rule (2): provided that the following actions by an intermediary shall not amount to hosing, publishing, editing or storing of any such information as specified in sub-rule: (2) — (a) temporary or transient or intermediate storage of information automatically within the computer resource as an intrinsic feature of such computer resource, involving no exercise of any human editorial control, for onward transmission or communication to another computer resource; (b) removal of access to any information, data or communication link by an intermediary after such information, data or communication link comes to the actual knowledge of a person authorised by the intermediary pursuant to any order or direction as per the provisions of the Act;
And Rule 3(4) of the above rule states The intermediary, on whose computer system the information is stored or hosted or published, upon obtaining knowledge by itself or been brought to actual knowledge by an affected person in writing or through email signed with electronic signature about any such information as mentioned in sub-rule (2) above, shall act within thirty six hours and where applicable, work with user or owner of such information to disable such information that is in contravention of sub-rule (2). Further the intermediary shall preserve such information and associated records for at least ninety days for investigation purposes.
These companies apparently did not want to invite any more troubles like the past when they were repeatedly called by the court to explain why they had not taken any action to block and ban contents and materials victimizing children which are regularly shared through their platforms.
Second: Bytedance, the parent company of TikTok has alleged that they were not heard by the court before pronouncing the ban order. Apparently, they may become the first web company to stress upon the point as why they should be banned when they have their flagging system and they do take care of the contents that are flagged. This case would make a history in India where the court has taken a decision influenced by the happenings of the past, and the concerned web company promises to break the glass ceiling because they know this is not the end. While many information as how to use (activate/download) TikTok without Google/Apple Play stores have started surfacing on internet,[5] my concern is not how the app may or may not be downloaded legally or illegally.
Exposing children to pornography, using women as items of sexual gratification, grooming, creating “dangerous contents” which may cause damage to public health, online victimization of women and children etc would not stop if one video creating and sharing app is banned. In that case, the courts must also consider picking up social media giants Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram etc, and search engines like Google for banning them because of their constant failure to monitor misogynist, sexist, child abusive contents. All social media companies including YouTube have data mined several images, contents and marked them as adult specific. Several videos are not available unless the users verify their age. But how will you search the needle in the hey stack? The courts could not yet make strict regulations for virtual age verification by the web companies. The web companies (hosted in US and other countries) are confused about the law relating to pornography because India does not have any focused law defining pornography still now. Further, the web companies also do not accept all contents (which are alleged to be porn as per Indian understanding) as offensive because the ever expanding free speech and expression jurisprudence of the US does not allow the web companies to take down the contents unless it is gravely threatening to the physical and virtual privacy  and security of the person concerned or damages the reputation of the woman (in case the victim is a woman). Children can still be exposed to online dangers through Facebook, Instagram or YouTube. Women are continued to be victimized through all pockets of internet.
As such, there may be practically no solution for this and ban would encourage more law breaking. Google and Apple had already shown that they are willing to follow the local laws (or rather, not to fall in any legal tangles regarding web service providers liability). It is expected that India creates focused laws to address different emerging and existing types of online victimization and the same are implemented in proper way. Otherwise, the orders of banning may lead to ground ZERO.
Please note : Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use information provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2019), \”The TikTok ban : Why it may fail to prevent online victimization of women”  23rd April, 2019 , published in http://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com

[1] For more, see J.Sam Daniel (2019). Ban TikTok, Its encouraging pornography : Madras High court to Centre. Published in NDTV on April 4, 2019. URL https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/madras-high-court-directs-centre-to-prohibit-downloading-of-tik-tok-app-2017482Accessed on 12.04.2019
[2] Halder, D.(2018) The #Bluewhale challenge to the Indian judiciary: A
critical analysis of the response of the Indian higher judiciary to risky
online contents with special reference to Bluewhale Suicide game. In
Sourdin Tania & Zariski Archie (eds.), The responsive judges. USA:Springer  ISBN no. 978-981-13-1022-5  pp 259-276.
[3] See  Live law news network (2019). TikTok Ban : SC Says Ban Will Stand Lifted If Madras HC Fails To Decide On Interim Order By April 24. Available @https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/tiktok-ban-sc-says-ban-will-stand-lifted-if-madras-hc-fails-to-decide-on-interim-order-by-april-24-144438 . Publshed in on 22nd April, 2019.  Accessed on 23rd April, 2019
[4] See Ahaskar Abhijit (2019). Why playing PUBG Mobile can get you arrested in Gujarat. Published in https://www.livemint.com/news/india/why-playing-pubg-mobile-can-get-you-arrested-in-gujarat-1552849965539.htmlon 18th March, 2019. Accessed on 12.04.2019
[5] For example, see SC hearing on TikTok: Why it is difficult to ban the app in India. Published in https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/internet/tiktok-ban-after-madras-hc-decision-reality-banned-apps-tiktok-pubg/story/339286.html   on April 22, 2019. Accessed on 22.04.2019

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN IN INDIA
Uncategorized

Women’s Day, 2019 : Views of a #webwonderwoman

webwonderpic

Picture Curtsy: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/centre-honours-30-web-wonder-women-for-driving-reforms-via-social-media-2003833?fbclid=IwAR0h6TDvuaPHOP_mFZuq2Z3Tbk8szdy–8inqBOiBqhd4bVpo7rTudLeY1s

 

In a late afternoon in the last week of February, 2019 I received a message from Ministry of Women & Child Affairs, Government of India congratulating me for winning the #webwonderwomen award in the category of Legal/policy . #Webwonderwomen is an initiative of Ministry of women & Child, BreakThrough India, an NGO which works for women and girls and Twitter to honor 30 women  from diverse fields who had used Twitter positively for spreading awareness, reaching out to people in need and above all, advocating for women empowerment. Among the 30 women were women activists, lawyers, journalists, sanitation & public health activists, food blogger & nutritionist, film maker, activist promoting breast-feeding, women government officials and myself, who works for victims, especially women victims of cyber crimes.  There were different heartwarming  as well as heart breaking stories told by award winners ; they shared stories of  failures and success, happiness and pain, the feeling of being ridiculed by others because of their support to other women. No wonder, I have also gone through the same while executing my wish to help victims of cyber crimes: I have been cyber  bullied, stalked, trolled and threatened by men and women for my work . I have been asked ridiculous questions regarding my “attachment” with the virtual world. Finally with this award, I could prove that being on Twitter or Facebook or Instagram or on internet as a whole for more than the time allotted for general women by their families and societies is not that bad. I have an “unlimited” (in regard to time)  access to net and my husband respects my time on net.  I am fortunate to make this space. I have seen many women who are not allowed to be on net for more than a limited period by their families especially men folk, who may be enjoying (consuming) avatars of other women when their women enter the ‘restricted time period’ for net surfing on a daily basis.

This women’s day is special because as #webwonderwomen awardee I have become a proud ambassador of the Ministry of women and children affairs like my fellow award winners. This is also special because on the very day when I received the award, I saw nothing changed when it comes to cyber crimes against women. While going through the newspaper that very morning, I noticed two news items which  made me think how womens day becomes meaningless for several thousands of women victims of cyber crimes : one was regarding a gang rape survivor who came across the clipping of her own rape scene and dared to walk into the police station to report not only about the physical rape, but also about the virtual consumption of her physical assault by many. The second was about duping of a woman in a renowned matrimonial site . None of these incidents is new for me. However, I salute the rape survivor who took the matter to the police. She must have undergone severe secondary victimization and traumatization by now just like the other victim that I mentioned above. We do not know what would happen to them later: how far the police and prosecution  may help  them ? with a limited legal awareness and fear of  societal taboo, many victims like these two have to withdraw their cases and disappear.

Women’s day is necessarily  related to The Convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW), which was adopted by the UN general Assembly in 1979 and which defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”  The scope of this definition has automatically expanded to include gender discrimination, misogyny and abuse of women’s rights online.  I was more interested in the award ceremony because of Twitter as its  partner.  Social media like Twitter, Faceook , Instagram, YouTube etc are used for women empowerment. But they are notorious platforms for victimization of women. This year’s theme for International women’s day is “Think equal, build smart, innovate for change” , which signifies women empowerment in the field of technology and innovative work by women and men alike for gender equality and betterment of  situation of women across the globe. This won’t fructify unless web companies take the responsibility of  providing safety against gross abuse of women. As women activists, many of us know that there more takers of CEDAW; but how many States are actually ensuring proper implementation of laws especially for women victims of cybercrimes is a question that needs to be researched. There is no uniform law to recognize several cyber offences against women. Majority of countries have no laws for prevention of cyber bullying, stalking, impersonation  of women, online sexual offences  targeting women.  Sexting and revenge porn still fall in the grey line in majority of the countries. It is still considered a taboo for women to watch porn ; women who are caught watching porn/porn contents  are severely moral policed by the society . But on the other hand, when men watch porn including revenge porn and nonconsensual porn, it is still considered as normal because unless the websites flag them as illegal , men (and in certain cases women and  children too) may not be prevented even by the courts because apparently the victims would not have moved the police and / or the courts for taking action to take down the offensive contents .   Majority of these victims may be completely unware of the fact that they have been made subjects of  online consumption as ‘sex items’. Consider the case of  socio-economically poor  women who may be trafficked and their videos of having sexual activities may be floating for many years without making them understand how they are being ‘consumed’ by millions.[1]

“Think equal, build smart, innovate for change” would be possible only when the society including the government stakeholders  as a whole come together to take a holistic step towards preventing cyber victimization of women and creating safe place for women and girls online and in real life.

Wish you all, a very happy WOMEN’S DAY . Lets “Think equal, build smart, innovate for change”.

 

[1] See for example Halder D., & Jaishankar, K. (2014). Online Victimization of Andaman Jarawa Tribal Women: An Analysis of the Human Safari YouTube Videos (2012) and its Effects. British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 673-688. (Impact factor 1.556). DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azu026.

 

Please Note: This blog was first posted @   “Halder D. (2019), ” Women’s Day, 2019 : Views of a #webwonderwoman”  8th March, 2019 ,@https://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com/2019/03/womens-day-2019-views-of-webwonderwoman.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR1-zH4VuTEEisNLYWogvHvMDOfWDduzkGWvlRl05_CzfopCRtF9OJ3tLTc

Continue reading “Women’s Day, 2019 : Views of a #webwonderwoman” →

Uncategorized

Women’s Day, 2019 : Views of a #webwonderwoman

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN BY DEBARATI HALDER

In a late afternoon in the last week of February, 2019 I received a message from Ministry of Women & Child Affairs, Government of India congratulating me for winning the #webwonderwomen award in the category of Legal/policy . #Webwonderwomen is an initiative of Ministry of women & Child, BreakThrough India, an NGO which works for women and girls and Twitter to honor 30 women  from diverse fields who had used Twitter positively for spreading awareness, reaching out to people in need and above all, advocating for women empowerment. Among the 30 women were women activists, lawyers, journalists, sanitation & public health activists, food blogger & nutritionist, film maker, activist promoting breast-feeding, women government officials and myself, who works for victims, especially women victims of cyber crimes.  There were different heartwarming  as well as heart breaking stories told by award winners ; they shared stories of  failures and success, happiness and pain, the feeling of being ridiculed by others because of their support to other women. No wonder, I have also gone through the same while executing my wish to help victims of cyber crimes: I have been cyber  bullied, stalked, trolled and threatened by men and women for my work . I have been asked ridiculous questions regarding my “attachment” with the virtual world. Finally with this award, I could prove that being on Twitter or Facebook or Instagram or on internet as a whole for more than the time allotted for general women by their families and societies is not that bad. I have an “unlimited” (in regard to time)  access to net and my husband respects my time on net.  I am fortunate to make this space. I have seen many women who are not allowed to be on net for more than a limited period by their families especially men folk, who may be enjoying (consuming) avatars of other women when their women enter the ‘restricted time period’ for net surfing on a daily basis.
This women’s day is special because as #webwonderwomen awardee I have become a proud ambassador of the Ministry of women and children affairs like my fellow award winners. This is also special because on the very day when I received the award, I saw nothing changed when it comes to cyber crimes against women. While going through the newspaper that very morning, I noticed two news items which  made me think how womens day becomes meaningless for several thousands of women victims of cyber crimes : one was regarding a gang rape survivor who came across the clipping of her own rape scene and dared to walk into the police station to report not only about the physical rape, but also about the virtual consumption of her physical assault by many. The second was about duping of a woman in a renowned matrimonial site . None of these incidents is new for me. However, I salute the rape survivor who took the matter to the police. She must have undergone severe secondary victimization and traumatization by now just like the other victim that I mentioned above. We do not know what would happen to them later: how far the police and prosecution  may help  them ? with a limited legal awareness and fear of  societal taboo, many victims like these two have to withdraw their cases and disappear.
Women’s day is necessarily  related to The Convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW), which was adopted by the UN general Assembly in 1979 and which defines discrimination against women as \”…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.\”  The scope of this definition has automatically expanded to include gender discrimination, misogyny and abuse of women’s rights online.  I was more interested in the award ceremony because of Twitter as its  partner.  Social media like Twitter, Faceook , Instagram, YouTube etc are used for women empowerment. But they are notorious platforms for victimization of women. This year’s theme for International women’s day is “Think equal, build smart, innovate for change” , which signifies women empowerment in the field of technology and innovative work by women and men alike for gender equality and betterment of  situation of women across the globe. This won’t fructify unless web companies take the responsibility of  providing safety against gross abuse of women. As women activists, many of us know that there more takers of CEDAW; but how many States are actually ensuring proper implementation of laws especially for women victims of cyber crimes is a question that needs to be researched. There is no uniform law to recognize several cyber offences against women. Majority of countries have no laws for prevention of cyber bullying, stalking, impersonation  of women, online sexual offences  targeting women.  Sexting and revenge porn still fall in the grey line in majority of the countries. It is still considered a taboo for women to watch porn ; women who are caught watching porn/porn contents  are severely moral policed by the society . But on the other hand, when men watch porn including revenge porn and non-consensual porn, it is still considered as normal because unless the websites flag them as illegal , men (and in certain cases women and  children too) may not be prevented even by the courts because apparently the victims would not have moved the police and / or the courts for taking action to take down the offensive contents .   Majority of these victims may be completely unaware of the fact that they have been made subjects of  online consumption as ‘sex items’. Consider the case of  socio-economically poor  women who may be trafficked and their videos of having sexual activities may be floating for many years without making them understand how they are being ‘consumed’ by millions.[1]
“Think equal, build smart, innovate for change” would be possible only when the society including the government stakeholders  as a whole come together to take a holistic step towards preventing cyber victimization of women and creating safe place for women and girls online and in real life.
Wish you all, a very happy WOMEN’S DAY . Lets “Think equal, build smart, innovate for change”.
Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use information provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2019), \” Women’s Day, 2019 : Views of a #webwonderwoman”  8thMarch, 2019 , published in http://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com

[1] See for example Halder D., & Jaishankar, K. (2014). Online Victimization of Andaman Jarawa Tribal Women: An Analysis of the Human Safari YouTube Videos (2012) and its Effects. British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 673-688. (Impact factor 1.556). DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azu026.

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN IN INDIA
Uncategorized

Trolling on Instagram photos: Should women restrain from uploading personal pictures?

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN BY DEBARATI HALDER

Image curtsy : Google

 

Off-late I have been getting to see many incidences of trolling on personal pictures of individuals, especially women on Instagram. These photos may include photos of young women and girls in trendy clothes, showing more skin than expected by orthodox societies. Such pictures may attract the attention of self-acclaimed moral police trolls who wish to condemn women for their choice of outfits; these trolls use extremely harsh words which may even go to the extent of threatening women for their choices. They may even broaden their harassment pattern by sharing the target pictures through different profiles to defame the victims, threat the victims and create many more morphed images of the victims and this may go on till the victims reach a stage to withdraw from the social media. This indeed generates various levels of criminal liability, some of which have been addressed by laws in India. Apart from self-acclaimed moral police trolls, several women have also complained of fashion police trolls who intentionally data mine and troll women, whose fashion sense according to the trolls is not upto the mark. Unlike the moral police trolls, the fashion police trolls  may not create security or life risking threats, but they may definitely target the reputation of the victims and  their self-esteem.

 

Now let us see what sorts of harm or damage can be done by both types of trolls:
trolling can creation of threat, intimidation
trolls necessarily create posts which are defamatory; these can be teasing remarks  and extremely  insulting comments
trolling can result in reputation damage, violation of privacy, unauthorised access to data, copyright violation (in certain cases)
Trolls are necessarily bullies. But bullying and trolling are not the same. Trolling can be more vicious than bullying. Trolling infact attracts more perpetrators and more victims in the same thread. These victims and perpetrators may not be known to  each other  previously; resultant, the new “victims” who may have joined the thread to support or disagree with the primary victim  may finally put all blames to the primary victim for the victimisation by way of trolling. Trolling is more public than bullying. As such the effects of trolling may be more traumatising than bullying. Trolling can not only damage reputation of the primary victims, trolls may go a long way to harass cyber bystanders or commenters who may support or disagree with the victims as well as with the trolls. The situation worsens if these bystanders or commenters are women; trolls may threaten these secondary victims with legal consequences (for aggravating the issues) which may force the latter to withdraw from social media just like the primary victims.
This may adversely affect women’s usage of Instagram : Instagram unlike Facebook may instantly help the user to get connected with people/group with common interest especially when the user uses the hashtags. The pictures/videos armed with hashtags may help the user to reach a wider audience. Several people including women aspiring to showcase their creativity in fashion industry, upcoming models, actors singers, anchors, performers etc, who use the platform for getting connected with the industry people, mentors and a wider audience, may suffer hugely if trolls attack them on Instagram. Victims may not only feel completely withdrawn, they may also be pulled into unnecessary legal tangles especially if the trolls misuse their pictures which may have been uploaded by the victims for promoting certain brands (which in turn may not appreciate such negative publicity of their product).
        But this in no way should mean that women should restrain from uploading pictures on Instagram. There are several ways to protect the privacy, reputation and the copyright of the pictures of the users :
1.  Women and girls should always opt for privacy options in Instagram. This may reduce the responsibility of the users and increase that of the website. The victims may directly charge the websites for not applying due diligence and  neglecting the security features which should have restricted unwanted people from infringing the privacy and copyrights. Further, in case the women wish to make the profiles open for public and had been harassed/trolled/stalked/unauthorisedly accessed etc, the victims must report the matter to the websites. The websites would not be letting the victim know the about the original identity of the harasser in case the profile is that of unknown person/s; but they would be duty bound to repair the damage, i.e. , restrict the unauthorised circulation of the image of the victim and generating anymore message that may harm the reputation of the victims. S.79(3) of the Information technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008) (exceptions to exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases)  may be applied in such cases.
2.  Indian laws do not recognise online trolling and bullying as separate offences. This definitely had created problems for proper justice delivery to the victims. However, basing on the modus operandi for trolling several penal provisions may be applied; for instance, S.509 (punishment for harming the modesty of women), 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous person), 499 and 500 (defamation and punishment for the same), 354D (punishment for stalking including cyber stalking) of the IPC may be used for posting intimidating, insulting, defamatory comments, stalking, creating threats etc.
3.  If trolling results in creation of Fake avatars especially sexually explicit contents, obscene contents etc, and if this involves unauthorised access to data, manipulation of data etc, the police may also apply provisions including Ss. 43(unauthorized access to the computer, data etc) 66 (punishment for computer related offences), 66C (punishment for fraudulently using password, unique identification features etc of any other person), 66D (punishment for cheating by impersonation), 66E (violation of privacy)(incase the picture has been used to create morphed pictures/images), 67 (punishment for creating sexually explicit contents), 67A (punishment for creating obscene contents ) of the Information technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008), S.354C IPC(punishment for voyeurism) etc. Police may also necessarily apply provisions from Indecent representation of women (prohibition )Act, 1986 for indicting the accused for indecent representation of the victim online.
Some of the above mentioned laws are non bailable and cognizable. This means that trolling may not be considered as a simple offence especially if it results in heavy offences including creation of sexually explicit contents ( the contents include not only the images, but the texts as well) etc. As such, women should not refrain from using Instagram fearing trolling. But they must be aware of their rights against trolling and the duties of the websites.
Let us unite against misogynist trolling. Let us spread the message that trolling, its modus operandi and its consequences should not be taken lightly and the criminal justice machinery must emphasise with the victims of trolling.

 

 Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2018), ” Trolling on Instagram photos: should women restrain from uploading personal pictures?” 15th January, 2019, published in http://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com

 

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN IN INDIA
Uncategorized

Need for a model prohibitory provision for preventing and punishing Cybercrimes targeting women

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN BY DEBARATI HALDER

The festive seasons not only bring joy and happiness, but also brings tinges of tensions, disappointment, frustrations and unnecessary worries especially for women and girls. This is because of the negative use of digital and information technology; women and girls may be photographed inappropriately, touched inappropriately and may be photographed in such conditions, they may be stalked, their data may be unauthorisedly accessed and misused and over all, they may also be targeted for revenge porn. It may generally happen even during non-festive seasons too. But during the festive seasons such off-line and online harassment targeting women may increase more. In my previous research I have observed that this may happen due to two main reasons : lack of strict central laws relating to public place photography and engagement of the police force in crowd management. It may necessarily become almost impossible to protect every woman and girl in the crowds from the perpetrators who may be digitally empowered to violet the privacy.  The second reason plays a major role in motivating the perpetrators to take the harassment of women and girls online so that victims may not be able to understand the impact of victimisation immediately; simultaneously the perpetrators may not only satisfy their sadistic ego by harassing women and girls online, but may also gain unethically by  supplying the voyeur pictures and clippings to adult sites and even to YouTube. By the time  the victims understand and feel the impact of victimisation, their reputation may have been badly damaged due to viral spreading of the images.  
A year back the ministry of women and children rolled out project for portal to complain about online harassment. But this could neither reduce the alarming growth of online victimisation of women. The reason could be ill drafted laws and poor execution of the existing laws. These ill drafted laws may include S.66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008) which prescribed punishment for offensive, annoying etc speech, which was later scrapped off in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of india & others (however, the Information Technology Act has not been amended so far to either amend or delete this provision from the present version of the Provision); Ss. 354 C and D of the Indian Penal Code which speaks about voyeurism and cyber stalking, S.509 of the Indian Penal Code which speaks about word gesture etc about harming the modesty of women etc.[1]I have also created a model law for penalising revenge porn and had submitted the same to the ministry of women and child affairs.[2]However, no step has been taken on this so far even though revenge porn does exist in the Indian cyber space context as well.
It needs to be noted that the internet has provided a broader platform for expressing views and opinions and women are using it share their opinion on various issues including sexual harassment that may have been meted out to them through Me too movement. But this would definitely have another side of the coin. Many women may prefer to bring up the issue of sexual harassment on public platforms through social media; but the accused persons may neither leave these victims on the cyber space. They may try to counter attack them through trolls, bullies and hired-hackers who may try to vandalise the victims reputations online by infringing the digital privacy of the Me Too fighters. This in other ways may also affect the documentary evidences that the victim/s may have saved in their electronic devices for further court proceedings.
At this juncture It is time that  the existing law must be amended to include provisions for offensive communication and revenge porn. On behalf of Centre for Cyber Victim Counselling a  draft model Law  is proposed as below:
Model law for prohibiting Cybercrime against women
Chapter 1 : preliminary
S.1 Extent and purpose:
It extends to the whole of India.
It has been seen that even though Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 has introduced several new provisions for the safety of women, but still there exists lacuna. Further, the Information technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) also failed to prevent crimes against women which include cyber bullying, trolling and revenge porn.
In view of the above, this model law is proposed to bring amendment to (a) the present provisions especially in the Indian penal Code (specifically in Ss. 354 C & D) and insert new provision for prohibiting and punishing revenge porn, (b) amend and introduce new version of S.66A to create preventive law to prevent offensive communication including bullying, trolling, online harassment etc against women and individuals in general, (c) to introduce special provision in the Information technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) to provide confidentiality to the victims.
Chapter 2 : Proposed amendments
S.2 Insertion of a new provision on Revenge porn:[3]
The model Revenge porn prohibitory provision :(This can be included in Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code as S.354E, which may be inserted after S.354D (stalking)).
1.    Anyone, who in order to satisfy his anger and frustration for a broken relationship, takes revenge  through publishing, transmitting, conveying, publicizing false and sexually provocative portrayal of his/her victim, by misusing the information that he may have known naturally and that he may have stored in his personal computer, or that which may have been conveyed to his electronic device by the victim herself, or may have been stored in the device with the consent of the victim herself; and which may have been done to publicly defame the victim essentially, commits the offence of revenge porn.
2.    Whoever commits the offence of revenge porn, shall be punished in the first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine of not less than 1 lakh rupees and pay reasonable compensation to the victim for damaging his/her reputation in real life and online. If he be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine of not less than 5 lakh Rupees and reasonable compensation to the victim.
 Provided that the perpetrator must also be liable to remove the offensive image either original or morphed, irrespective of the fact whether the image was conveyed to him by the victim herself or not, from his own electronic device/s and from the websites and social media profiles where he may have uploaded the same for the purpose of taking revenge.
Provided further, that the investigating officer shall immediately after coming to know of the offence of revenge porn committed by the perpetrator as reported by the victim or anyone on behalf of the victim, contact the concerned website to remove such contents including any text accompanying the image/s which may falsely portray the victim.
Provided further that if the website concerned fails to cooperate with the police on being alerted by the investigating police officer and also if the website concerned fails to remove the content within 36 hours  after being alerted by the victim herself, the said website would not be exempted from third party liability as has been explained under S.79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) and would be liable to pay compensation to the victim for an amount not less than Rs. 5 lakhs and also fine.
Explanation:
In Subsection 1, the words “publishing, transmitting, conveying, publicizing false and  sexually provocative portrayal of his/her victim” shall include  publishing, transmitting, conveying  any image of woman whether nude, semi-nude or normal to anyone individual and/or to any website including social media, with an intention to take revenge on that said woman.
(Rationale behind proposing a new law: Why S.354C IPC would not be able to regulate revenge porn:
1.    S.354C IPC speaks about voyeurism which is inclusive of “private acts” whereby victim’s private body parts may be shown. It does not mention anything about publishing/conveying/morphing etc of pictures of women for taking revenge. The ultimate motive, i.e., taking revenge is absent here.
2. S.354C does not speak about morphed pictures published/conveyed/transferred etc for gratifying revenge. In cases of revenge porn, majority of the offensive images may be morphed. This has neither been covered under S.66E of the Information Technology Act.
3.    Creation of revenge porn may be done with normal, innocent, un-morphed pictures as well. In such case, we need to look into the accompanying text that describes the image. For example, a normal picture of the woman victim may be published with a text describing her as “horny”, “Prostitute”, “my sexy wife during honeymoon”(when in reality, the woman is not married to the perpetrator, or even if married, did not allow publication of such normal photo with such text ).
4.    Revenge porn differs from non-consensual pornography as well. Non-consensual pornography is a larger term which may include revenge porn, voyeurism or even sexual slavery including forcing the woman to be captured naked for some unethical gain. Hence, revenge porn needs a separate definition.)
S.3.  Amendment to the definition of voyeurism under S.354C of the Indian Penal Code (punishment for voyeurism) : In the place of “Any man”, it should  Any one and the amended provision should be  read as follows:
Any one who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanations:   For the purpose of this section, “private act” includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim’s genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.
  
Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.
S.4. Amendment to S.354D of the Indian Penal Code (punishment for stalking including cyber stalking): In the place of Any man, it should be anyone. The amended version should be read as follows:
1) Anyonewho—
   follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
   monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,commits the offence of stalking;
 Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that—
it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
  
it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
  
in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
 (2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(Rationale behind broadening the concept of perpetrator for Ss.354 C&D: It has been seen that women may also commit voyeurism and cyber stalking for victimising fellow women.  This amendment may help reduce such sorts of victimisation.)
S.5. Insertion of new provision prohibiting photography of individuals in general without the consent of the individuals concerned (this may be inserted after S.268 of the Indian penal Code as S.268A)
1. Anyone who uses his camera devices in any public place to capture the images of anyone including men, women, children, people belonging to LGBT groups, with a motive to either sexual gratification of the self, or sexual gratification of others, or uses these images for unethical gain, or for ridiculing or causing hatred,  defamation , damage to the reputation of the said persons by way creating, circulating, spreading etc of such images through electronic medium  without the consent of  such men, women, children  or member of LGBT group when the said men, women, children, or member of LGBT group are  not expected to give consent and/or not expected to be alert for not allowing such photography,  and also publishes, transmits, circulates the same through electronic medium shall be punished with an imprisonment  of either description for a term which shall not be less than six months r, but which may extend to one year , and shall also be liable to fine of not less than 20 thousand  rupees and pay reasonable compensation to the victim for damaging his/her reputation in real life and online. If he be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one  year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine of not less than 50 thousand Rupees and reasonable compensation to the victim.
 Provided that the perpetrator must also be liable to remove the non-consensual offensive image either original or morphed, from his own electronic device/s and from the websites and social media profiles where he may have uploaded the same for the purpose mentioned above.
Provided further, that the investigating officer shall immediately after coming to know of the offence mentioned above committed by the perpetrator as reported by the victim or anyone on behalf of the victim, contact the concerned website to remove such contents including any text accompanying the image/s which may falsely portray the victim.
Provided further that if the website concerned fails to cooperate with the police on being alerted by the investigating police officer and also if the website concerned fails to remove the content within 36 hours  after being alerted by the victim herself, the said website would not be exempted from third party liability as has been explained under S.79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) and would be liable to pay compensation to the victim for an amount not less than Rs. 5 lakhs and also fine.
Explanation:
In Subsection 1, the words “capture images” shall also include  capturing images of accident victims and doing so without offering any help to the victim, any other heinous, serious or petty crimes and doing so without reporting the matter to the police and offering help to the victim, capturing images of  rape or sexual molestation or sexual assault of any women or children, taking self portraits or selfies in the above situations.
Explanation 2: The act of capturing the images of men, women, children and members of the LGBT groups may not be considered as an offence if the same is done for academic and research purposes, provided the person/s capturing such images has prior consent of proper authorities, or for medical research purposes or for the purpose of creating documentary evidences which must be provided to the criminal justice machinery including the courts for further legal actions to punish the wrong doers.
S.6. Amendment to Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008):
Punishment for offensive speech (this can be inserted after S.66 (offences related to the computer) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008). This may also be considered as the amended version of S.66A (punishment for annoying etc speech), which was scrapped off by the Supreme court in Shreya Singhal’s case)
1.      Anyone who sends, posts produces, publishes, creates, circulates or sponsors to be circulates  any offensive speech including any text or cartoon or caricature or image accompanied with text to any woman by way of electronic, digital and information communication, which may damage her reputation, damage the reputation of her family and  children create threat to her, her family and children, damage her reputation to an extent that may affect her job or may affect her reputation in the prospective job, shall be punished with an imprisonment for in the first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine of not less than 1 lakh rupees and pay reasonable compensation to the victim for damaging his/her reputation in real life and online. If he be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine of not less than 5 lakh Rupees and reasonable compensation to the victim.
 Provided that the perpetrator must also be liable to remove the offensive speech from his own electronic device/s and from the websites and social media profiles where he may have published etc the said speech targeting the woman.
Provided further, that the investigating officer shall immediately after coming to know of the offence of posting, publishing etc of the offensive speech committed by the perpetrator as reported by the victim or anyone on behalf of the victim, contact the concerned website to remove such contents including any text accompanying the image/s which may falsely portray the victim and damage her reputation.
Provided further that if the website concerned fails to cooperate with the police on being alerted by the investigating police officer and also if the website concerned fails to remove the content within 36 hours  after being alerted by the victim herself, the said website would not be exempted from third party liability as has been explained under S.79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) and would be liable to pay compensation to the victim for an amount not less than Rs. 5 lakhs and also fine.
Explanation:
For the purpose of this section, offensive speech targeting women shall include the followings:
1.      Any speech which lowers the moral character of the woman concerned within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the constitution of India.
2.    Any speech which defames the woman concerned in the society as a whole within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the constitution of India as well as Ss.499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Indecent representation of women Prohibition Act.
3.    Any speech which includes Cyber bullying. Cyber bullying  may mean attacking anyone with harsh or rude  words in the cyber space, including publicly available web platforms, social media, private and public  chat rooms, emails, blogs etc, and such harsh or rude words are particularly made to ridicule one’s body shape, gender, gender orientation, physical or mental incapability, race, colour, opinion, educational background, language  etc.
4.    Any speech which includes Cyber trolling. Cyber trolling is  an extreme usage of freedom of speech which is exercised to disrupt the community discussions in social networking sites and which is done to deliberately insult ideologies such as feminism, secularism etc; of the topic starter or the supporters of the topic starter.
5.     Any speech which contains Cyber hate propaganda. Cyber hate propaganda may mean offensive communication between the sender and multiple recipients with intent to spread hatred against a particular individual for her opinion, race, gender etc.
It is expected that if this model Act is considered by the government, the growing rate of cyber crimes against women may be brought down.
Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2018), ” Need for a model prohibitory provision for preventing and punishing Cybercrimes targeting women”  22ndOctober 2018 , published in http://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com

[1] My observations on these laws can be found in my book. (Cyber Crimes against Women in India. New Delhi: SAGE Publishing. ISBN: 978-9385985775, https://in.sagepub.com/en-in/sas/cyber-crimes-against-women-in-india/book253900  (co-authored with Professor K.Jaishankar.
[2]See the model law @Halder.D(2017) Criminalizing Revenge Porn From The Privacy Aspects: The Model Revenge Porn Prohibitory Provision. Available @
 at: https://www.livelaw.in/criminalizing-revenge-porn-privacy-aspects-model-revenge-porn-prohibitory-provision/
[3]This was published in supra@2

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN IN INDIA
Uncategorized

The great Facebook hack: Liability of Facebook as service provider

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN BY DEBARATI HALDER

Photo curtsy: Google

By the late evening of 28th September, 2018 almost all of Facebook users would have received messages in their electronic devices that their “session expired”. It indicated that the subscriber needs to log in again to continue the Facebook activities. Many of the users felt it was a hoax, many felt it was a hackers act and some could understand it was an alert alarm as they were always ‘online’ and never logged off even when their phones were ‘sleeping’ or switched off. By late night-early morning on 29th September, 2018 the Facebook subscribers got an official information from Facebook help center stating that the company had discovered that there was an attack on their system and the attackers had illegally accessed Facebook access tokens which would give way to access the subscribers’ data. On an emergency precautionary step, Facebook logged off all users so that they can log on again with a secured code provided by Facebook. It was confirmed that Facebook was trying to exercise due diligence to protect the data of the users and in the course of the same users were directed to log off.
Due diligence has been addressed by  S.512 © of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998 which indicates that the intermediary may be saved from third party liabilities (especially for copyright infringements) if  the intermediary practiced due diligence, i.e., it   did not have the requisite level of information about the said infringement, it must not have been financially benefited from such infringement, it must have taken expeditious measures to take down the content concerned or block the access to the material concerned upon receiving the information of the infringement. The same has also been addressed by S.79 (3) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) and has been further explained in Information Technology intermediary guidelines Rules, 2011 whereby the term cyber security incident has been defined as follows:
Rule .2(d) “Cyber security incident” means any real or suspected adverse
event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicit or implicity
applicable security policy resulting in unauthorised access, denial of
service or disruption, unauthorised use of a computer resource for
processing or storage of information or changes to data, information
without authorisation;
The rules further goes on to explain what are the due diligence practices that should be adopted by the intermediary under Rule.3(3), which states that  The intermediary shall not knowingly host or publish any information or shall not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of transmission, and select or modify the information contained in the transmission as specified in sub-rule (2):
Interestingly Rule. 4 of the Intermediary Guidelines Rule further provides a clear direction to the intermediaries as what is to be done and within how much time when the intermediary has come to know about any information which harms the interest of users or threatens the security of the nation etc (which are mentioned in rule 3), by stating that The intermediary, on whose computer system the information is stored or hosted or published, upon obtaining knowledge by itself or been brought to actual knowledge by an affected person in writing or through email signed with electronic signature about any such information as mentioned in sub-rule (2) above, shall act within thirty six hours and where applicable, work with user or owner of such information to disable such information that is in contravention of sub-rule (2). Further the intermediary shall preserve such information and associated records for at least ninety days for investigation purposes.
This Rule 4 (read with Rule 3) mentions that the intermediary should either remove the offensive content or block the access to the content. Facebook in its action in practicing due diligence and exercising reasonable security practices (in India, the guiding principle in this regard is mentioned in the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011), had alerted the users, logged them off and logged them in with fresh code and also expressed that they are not aware whether any individual has been affected by such unauthorised access to the Facebook system as a whole.
By doing this Facebook actually tried to escape its liability as a ‘negligent body corporate’ or a company which may be brought to the courts under S.43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008). Compare the incident of Facebook- Cambridge analytica data breach and how the EU parliament addressed the issue by accusing Facebook for having extremely poor cyber security measures compared to Europe. Facebook users were also advised by an Illinois court to go for a class suit against the company (Facebook) for unethically scanning and storing personal photos and information of the users.[1]The recent news also suggests that in the US Facebook users have started going for class actions against Facebook for data breach which occurred apparently because of  the company’s negligence in securing the data.[2]Under the Indian information technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008), S.43A empowers the victims of privacy (including data ) breach to claim compensation from the faulting body corporate to a maximum limit of Rs. 5 Crores, which however is subject to modification depending upon the damage suffered by the victims, reputation harm etc and the discretion of the adjudicator. Not many users have applied this law for bringing big companies under the Indian scanners. There are however some cases of bank’s liability or hospital managements liability which are now coming up because of the awareness among the users/data owners and their lawyers.
However, web companies like Google, Facebook etc may have another option to shred the liability: they may always shift the major burden to the data owners or data managers, i.e. the private individuals who upload data almost every minute in average to expose their private information.[3]It is for this that we need to be vigilant on our own practices of data sharing.
Stay safe, play safe.
Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2018), “ The great Facebook hack : Liability of Facebook as service provider”  30thSeptember, 2019 , published in http://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com

[1]See Halder Debarati (2018), FB, Its content regulation policies & photo matching tech: boon or bane for Indian women from privacy law aspect. Published in LiveLaw on April, 20018 @https://www.livelaw.in/fb-its-content-regulation-policies-photo-matching-tech-boon-or-bane-for-indian-women-from-privacy-law-aspects/
[2]See for instance, see Knoop Joseph (2018), Facebook sued over data breach that involved 50 million accounts . available @ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/facebook-breach-lawsuit/
[3] For better understanding about this see Halder & Jaishankar ((November 2016). Cyber Crime against Women in India. New Delhi: SAGE. ISBN: 978-93-859857-7-5.

CYBER CRIME AGAINST WOMEN IN INDIA