| . | Two news items reported yesterday highlighted the problems in formulating an acceptable Cyber Law regime on a global scale. One was about a meeting of experts in Berlin to discuss standards for Cyber Crimes between different countries. The other was a proposed treaty in this respect being drafted by some authorities. Unfortunately India doesn't seem to have participated in either of these two meetings and hence has lost an opportunity to express its views. With the passage of the ITA-2000, India has already set a Cyber Law standard applicable within its jurisdiction. The Act also declares that it is effective even against Non Indians and those residing outside India. In the absence of an appropriate treaty between different countries however, the intention to apply Indian Laws beyond the indisputable jurisdiction would be an abortive effort. The issues such as Pornography as well as "Free Speech" are likely to be contentious issues in which Indian laws will be different from many others and will be sources of friction when attempted to be implemented across the boundaries. In a way, the attempt of ITA-2000 to apply its laws beyond its boundaries, recognizes the existence of a Cyber Society whose jurisdiction extends beyond the geographical boundaries. If therefore the treaties such as the ones being discussed bring about a standard for this "Cyber Society", they may become defacto laws defining the applicability of the ITA-2000 beyond India. India had therefore a reason to participate and take a leading role in the discussions at the Berlin Meet as well as in the reported draft treaty between the Europe and USA. It is unfortunate that an opportunity was lost in this respect. I hope that atleast in future, MIT would keep a watch on such developments and ensure Indian participation in such global meets. The Divide Between the nations: An Internet Expert's meeting in Berlin is reported to have discussed the need for uniform Cyber Crime Prevention Policy across different nations. During the meeting, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called for global standards to help fight a rapid spread of cyber crime. Internet specialists from the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations indicated however that it would not be easy to agree on global standards. The Italian delegation stated that the setting of common standards has to take into account all sorts of cultural difference between different countries the countries are not yet in a position to set common standards for these issues. The Canadian delegation pointed out that in USA the freedom of speech law is strong and what can be banned elsewhere cannot be banned in USA. etc. The Divide Between Specialists: In a draft treaty on Cyber Crimes being drafted by the 41 nation European council and USA, there is an attempt to declare any form of "Hacking" a Cyber Crime. The treaty makes it illegal to write or possess hacking software. The treaty also includes aiding and abetting rules that appear to make the publishing of software vulnerabilities or "exploits" illegal and also make vulnerability mailing lists, such as BugTraq and NTBugTraq ,both with well over 30,000 subscribers, illegal. In this attempt to define "Hacking", security experts say that even a genuine Security Research may be treated as "Hacking" by law.. According to computer scientists, "hacking" merely means research by disassembly. The end result of hacking is understanding how something works and occasionally suggesting an improvement. Using such knowledge to break into computers to steal information is "Stealing" and not "Hacking" according to them. Readers may note that the Indian Cyber Laws has already brought in this kind of a situation because of the ITA-2000 trying to define "Hacking". Naavi |
. |