Yesterday there was an event in Chennai organized by CYSI in which FDPPI was also a partner. It was a well attended program at Anna University Centenary Library auditorium and graced by two Judges namely honourable Justice N Ananda Venkatesan and honourable Justice (Rtd) Mr P. N. Prakash.
The topic for discussion was “Is Cyber Security more essential for Humans or for Information”? Most of the speakers anticipated that we will discuss about the how the law addresses the need to secure a cyber crime victim and how technology addresses “Security” in terms of “Data” being secured and not the person to be secured.
Every body including the speakers were expecting a discussion on how to balance the security efforts between protecting the Privacy of the person behind data and the security of the data itself in the CIA concept. But it was interesting to note that the entire discussion was diverted into a fundamental discussion on the philosophy of Cyber space. It was perhaps unintended but nevertheless very interesting and probably will be a watershed moment in such discussions in India.
It has always been one of the starting points of our discussions on how “Data Security” is not “Securing Data” per-se but securing the person behind “Data”. In this regard we discuss how law like ITA 2000 which is focussed on Cyber Crime prevention is invokable when there is a cause of action for an individual having suffered a loss on account of some contravention of ITA 2000 where as a law like DPDPA is more concerned on how an organization protects “Personal Data”.
The discussion in Chennai took an unexpected turn after the Chief Guest honourable Justice Mr Anand Venkatesan raised the fundamental philosophical thought of whether “Cyber Space” is a distinct “Space” different from the “meta Space” we live on and whether a person transfers himself into the Cyber Space when he is in front of the screen. He highlighted how the society is evolving in the use of Internet and why it is necessary for us to think differently when we address Cyber Security.
The introduction of this new thought by Justice Anand was a refreshing revelation of how the society is thinking of this concept whether “Cyber Space” as defined by Mr William Gibson in Neuromancer needs to be re-visited in the context of “Cyber Security”.
Naavi has in the past discussed this in the context of “Digital Contracts” and whether “Jurisdictional issues” in E Commerce transactions can be settled on the basis of whether the visitor of a E-Commerce website travels from his physical location to the location of the Website owner when he enters into a transaction on the website.
To some extent this has been answered by the ITA 2000 by stating that the “location” from which a message is deemed to have been sent is the “Usual Place of Residence” of the sender irrespective of the physical place from which the message was sent.(Section 13 of ITA 2000).
While discussing the status of “Netizens” I have also discussed the concepts of “CiNezens” as a hybrid category of persons who are “Citizens” of a sovereign state while also being “netizens” of a “borderless state”.
This concept also went into the background since the discussion “Cyber Laws is for Netizens” and can be distinct including punishments such as “Banishing from Cyber Space” did not get the traction as rules of the physical space went on to claim the “Cyber Space” as their own extended jurisdiction like the sea or the airspace around the geographical space. It became a fait accompli that “Implementation of all Cyber Laws” was not for the “Cyber Space” but for the “Residents of the Physical Space using Internet”. Hence though Internet had no geographical boundaries, Internet laws created jurisdictional boundaries artificially.
Now Justice Anand pointed out the “Psychological” perception of an Internet user and how he immerses himself in a Cyber Transaction and forgets the world around him even without an AR device or a Meta Verse interaction.
While discussing the “Blue Whale” game and finding a rationale for the victim’s behaviour, I have often referred to the concept of “Cyber hypnotism”. I have also alluded to the same principle to rationalize the recent “Digital Arrest” cases also.
While discussing “Artificial Intelligence Regulation”, I have also discussed the thought that AI is just a software and the Section 11 of ITA 2000 attributes it to an individual and therefore all legal consequences that may be attributed to an AI can be attributed to the human behind the AI and consequently, there is no need to discuss if AI is a “Juridical Person” or not.
While preparing for the event at Chennai I however reflected on how the society is evolving from the days when there were no computers to current day where Computers and mobiles are the life. As this evolution took shape, Internet ushered in a concept of “Cyber Space” as a “Binary Transaction space” independent of the “Internet and the device space”. The “Information” became distinct from the device in which it was stored, transmitted or experienced by the humans”. This “Disassociation” of the “Information” from the device has also been discussed by me while discussing Section 65B/63 concept justifying the need for human intervention in the form of “Certification”. This concept syncs with the concept of “Matter wave theory” of de Broglie the Physicist and concept of “Maya” by Adi Shankaracharya.
While it was easy to answer the question raised in the panel discussion “Is Cyber Security for humans or for information” in once sentence that even “Information Security” is for the benefit of the humans only, the actual discussions have opened up the “Deemed Cyber Space” concept where a person behaves as if he is in a different world when he is on the Internet. The issues arising out of such “Deemed Cyber Space” will be more relevant in the “Meta Verse” scenario where individuals transform themselves into “Avatars” and interact on the Cyber space.
This thought of a “Deemed Cyber Space” arising the instant a person enters the Internet space such as Face Book or Instagram gives me a new logical explanation of how “Cyber Hypnotism” takes place in the case of “Digital Arrest” instances.
This concept has been discussed by us in another concept when we argued for “Neuro Rights” legislation where we have discussed how by recognizing “Neuro signals” as equivalent o “Binary Signals” (Which they actually are), we can extend the ITA 2000 to the manipulation of human thoughts with the use of technology. This thought can be further explored as the creation of the “Deemed Cyber Space”. I will try to explain this concept in greater details some times later.
Yet another thought I got during the preparation of this topic was whether we the current day humans as a society are a dying species and we need to accept the ” Cinezens” as part of the current society and prepare ourselves to accept Cyborgs and Super Intelligent AI embedded humanoid robots as part of the society. The end result of this is that the human race as we know today will become second class citizens shortly and extinct over time and the world will be ruled by the Cyborgs and humanoid robots. The Cyborgs will be the masters and the humanoid robots will be their servants. By 2026, Mr Elon Musk is expected to send a humanoid robot to Mars and when this humanoid robot meets the aliens in a few decades hence, perhaps it will represent the primitive natives of the the then evolving “Planet of the Cyborgs” which Earth will be.
I am not sure that the audience were able to meet their expectations of the half day seminar or the discussions went tangentially away from the expected topic. However I was pleased with the vindication of some of my 25 year old concepts and opening up of some new thoughts for discussion in the future.
Naavi
