Thanks to the mistake committed by the Delhi Police, the case of go2nextjob.com has continued to create confusion in the market place about the definition of "Hacking". Consequent to the arrest of the owners of the  web hosting company which withdrew its services ostensibly due to non payment of fees (In a communication to naavi.org, Mr Man Mohan Gupta of go2nextjob.com has stated that  they had no arrears of payment with the hosting company and hence the discontinuance of service was in correct.), it has been reported that several clients have threatened various service providers that they would file cases against them if the sites blocked for similar reasons are not restored. (See article in TOI).

It has also been reported that NASSCOM president Dewang Mehta, has expressed his disagreement with the interpretation put forth by the Police in this case. Since a well publicised error has the unfortunate effect of gaining a false legitimacy, we would like to reiterate our view that it is totally wrong to consider that the action of a hosting service provider in withdrawing the service for any reason is not "Hacking". This is a contractual issue between the service provider and the user and if there is any breach of duty on the part of any one of them, the remedy is as per the contractual terms. Such terms may exist in writing or they may be implied. 

Technically speaking, when a hosting service provider withdraws his service, he is not in any way damaging the content of the site. He is de linking the existing  default page of the relevant directory to the DNS and linking a new page. This de-linking and linking is a normal network administrator's function. This is not the same as a third party unauthorisedly entering into the Network and defacing an existing page or diverting the DNS link to some other page.  

Will this act "Diminish the value of the content"?... The correct answer to this is that the Content is in tact elsewhere and it might not have been tampered with at all. Hence its value remains in tact even though it is not at that moment available for exploitation.

In order to understand this situation let's us take some other examples. Take for example the case of a Hire Purchase Financier or a Banker. If the payment has not been made as per the terms of finance, the asset financed may be seized. This does not amount to "Stealing". Take the example of the content provider like go2nextjob.com or naukri.com or an auction site or any other service site. The service may allow the user to post some content of his own say his resume or product details on the site for some consideration in cash or otherwise for a certain period. If after the lapse of such period, the service is withdrawn, it does not amount to "Diminishing the Value of Content" and "Hacking".

In the instant case or in other similar cases there is another problem area. It is in regard to what is the message the service provider has given on the new page which he has now linked the DNS to. If this new page contains a message, "Site not available due to technical reasons" or words to similar effect, it is an acceptable message. (It goes without saying that this right can be used only if there has been a breach in contractual terms by the other party and there has been a "Reasonable Notice" of discontinuance of service). If the message contains words that can be construed as "Derogatory", then it is a matter for the affected person to sue the service provider for "Defamation". If the discontinuance was on wrong grounds, he can also sue for "Damages caused by wrongful discontinuance of service." This situation is similar to a banker returning a cheque for reasons such as "Refer to Drawer" which may be considered "Defamatory" while a reason such as "Exceeds Arrangement" or "Not Arranged For" amy be considered reasonable even though both are used when there is no funds in the account.

I would therefore urge the community not to misinterpret the word "Hacking". In drafting the ITA-2000, a mistake has already been committed by defining the word" Hacking" under Section 66. This definition is more like "Cracking" as the community understood. In Australian law the distinction is made between "Hacking" and "Criminal Hacking". The Indian law has by defining "Cracking" as "Hacking", removed the word "Cracking" from the dictionary of Computer crimes. Now the interpretation of the Delhi Police is set to remove the word "Contractual Disagreements" and replace with "Hacking Conspiracies". This is unfair and incorrect.
 

Related Article in TOI

Read the Earlier Article at naavi.org

Related Article in EFE