| . | E-Way of living is fast becoming a part of our life. As more and more Netizens start buying products and services on the Net, there will be issues concerning Consumer Protection for E-transactions. But do we need a law for such consumer protection? Perhaps No. India has adopted the ITA-2000 for defining the basic structure of the Cyber Law framework for the country. These laws can be invoked by or against any Citizen of the Country. The Act provides a clean "Bridge" between the E-World and the P-World (Physical world) by stating that wherever any law requires documents to be in writing or required to be signed, it would be deemed to have been done so if the document is in electronic form or the signature is a digital signature as defined in the Act. The Act also defines how the parties to a business contract can be identified, and how the time and place of the contract can be determined. The law is therefore clear and unambiguous. If there are any problem areas, it will be while identifying certain activities undertaken in the E-World as to whether they are products and services as defined elsewhere in the P-World law which was enacted when there was no vision of the E-World. While some experts hold the view that by clearly defining the Cyber Laws, confusion can be prevented, we must also recognize that this could make the ITA-2000, another Income Tax Act which provides for clauses and sub clauses for every conceivable contravention's, real or hypothetical. If the society has to accept a law and abide by it, the law should be simple. If we want to ensure that the law covers all hypothetical cases, it would only complicate its implementation, introduce loopholes and defeat the purpose of developing a self complying society. An example for such a tendency can already be found in the first draft of the ITA-2000. The standing committee which reviewed the draft before its passage in the Parliament added the definition of "Hacking" in the Act. In the process they forgot that there were already clauses in the Act where several aspects of "Network Abuse" had been covered. The explicit definition of "Hacking" under Ch 11 of the Act therefore introduces a doubt whether the law can treat "Hacking" different from "Unauthorised Access" etc. Similarly, in defining the responsibilities of the "Controller", attempt has been made to provide him with the powers to control the Certifying Authorities which normally a CEO should exercise (Such as determining the product features, product pricing, customer relation handling, accounting methods etc). Let's therefore not raise a non existent issue that ITA-2000 doesnot
protect "E-Comm Consumers" as the Business Standard of date has raised
and call for more laws. What we need is the understanding of the spirit
of the law and the "Normal Consumer behaviour" in the E-transactions and
interpret the existing law accordingly.
|
. |