Flawed cyber laws make Net criminals thrive
KOTA NEELIMA

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 24: Double your surfing speed' from `Microsoft Support Team' was too enticing for many of Raipur's netizens. In less than a fortnight, those who accessed the package -- among them were bankers, stockbrokers, corporate businesses, and government officials -- found their internet hours drying up fast and fraud in accounts.

Last week, two men of a local computer teaching institute were arrested under Section 66 of the Information Technology (IT) Act for hacking, Section 420 of IPC for illegal gain, Section 379 for theft and Section 426 for mischief for introducing the programme to Net users. The programme which copied down passwords, database and files had enabled the senders to hack secret files of banks, businesses and e-mails.

Interestingly, this is only the second case registered under the IT Act which was formulated in October 2000. The other case was of a cyber hacking reported in Vishakhapatnam.

It is not that there have been very few cyber crimes in India. The inadequacies in the Act have failed to bring Net criminals to court.

According to experts, the biggest flaw in the Act could be that even releasing a computer virus into a system is only a civil offence. This is a gaping loophole coming in the wake of the `I love you' virus which led to the loss of approximately $1.2 billion worldwide.

Under the Indian Act, releasing a computer virus is a civil offence and not a criminal offence, unlike in the US. The difference is that while under a criminal offence, the accused can face imprisonment and fine or both, in the case of a civil offence, the accused faces only a payment of compensation.

There are few other crimes defined in the IT Act. Section 43 of the Act specifies eight categories of criminal acts on the basis of which the victim can ask for compensation for the loss. There are no cases registered under this section either. However, stalking, harassment, defamation cannot be brought to book under the Act though these are widespread.

Says Pavan Duggal, a senior advocate with the Supreme Court, specialising in cyber crimes, ``It appears like the hands of the law have been tied by the legislature. The IT Act was meant to be a law for promoting e-commerce and infrastructure. However, substantial cyber crimes have not been defined despite the fact that at the time of enactment, the first two cases of cyber crime had already taken place.''

He also points out that the cyber law, anyway, is vague on a few common issues. Like theft, which is an offence under Section 379 of IPC for movable property and, therefore, cannot apply to cyber crime like theft of passwords etc.

Not punishing enough