Thursday, December 24, 2009

National Security And Internal Security Infrastructure Of India

National security of India has recently received a rejuvenation attempt by the Government of India (GOI). This is good news at a time where the national security issues are grossly ignored in India. The national security of India and internal security of India are suffering not only on the count of lack of political will but also due to absence of suitable policies and strategies.

The ICT Trends of India 2009 have also proved that India has failed on the fronts of Cyber law of India, Cyber Terrorism in India, E-Courts in India, E-Learning in India, Unique Identification Project of India, Serious Frauds and White Collar Crimes, National Security Issues, Crime Reporting by Media, Internet Banking Frauds, Cyber Security of Defense Forces, Cyber War in India, E-Surveillance in India, etc.

According to Praveen Dalal, Managing Partner of Perry4Law and the leading Techno-Legal Expert of India, “Indian approach in this regard is not sensible at all. We should not invest thousands of crores of Indian rupees into security projects that can be manipulated and sabotaged in minutes. Rather we should first analyse the weaknesses and security holes of the same before buying and installing it.

After all security of a Nation is proper application of “common sense” rather than wasting unlimited amount of money. Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) of India, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIAI), Rs 800 crores centralised facility to control phone tapping activities in India, etc are some of the projects that require common sense application before their implementation. They have to be tested in a “limited environment” before using them in a full fledged manner, says Praveen Dalal.

It seems Indian security initiatives have to be holistically analysed and suitably applied. The Indian security infrastructure and workforces are not in good shape and require rejuvenation. We need a techno-legal security workforce and not personnel who do not have even the basic facilities and technological means and knowledge. The terrorist attacks have really shattered the deep pervasive false sense of security present in the Indian government mentality. We have to think and act against such internal and external threats by going beyond a "political debate". We can fool ourselves by bragging about India’s capabilities and victories against terrorism and cyber terrorism and keep on facing future attacks and bear the traumatic casualties. Alternatively, we must accept our weaknesses against such attacks and take constructive steps to anticipate, prevent and counter such future terrorist and cyber terrorism activities, warns Praveen Dalal.

With a new ray of hope shown by the recent stress upon national security of India we can expect some good results in this direction. However, India is famous for mere assurances and proposals without actually implementing them. Similarly, due to faulty management and policies even the implemented projects have failed in the past. Let us hope that this time India would do the proper homework before starting an initiative that it cannot implement and run.


Saturday, December 5, 2009


A blue print of the National Mission for Delivery of Justice and Legal Reforms (NMDJLR) has been recently released by the Law Minister M Veerappa Moily. The NMDJLR Plan is a very ambitious plan and if implemented properly may go a long way in reducing the backlog of cases in India on the one hand and effective Judicial Reforms on the other.

However, keeping in mind the prior experience of the Government of India (GOI) this Plan is too ambitious to be accomplished. The Plan cannot be accomplished till we honestly and dedicatedly work in this direction. In the absence of accountability and transparency and omnipresent corruption and red tappism in India, this Plan is not going to meet its benign objective.

What should be done to make the NMDJLR Plan effective and workable? I think the same requires “Committed Services” the day this Plan has been declared. After all mere declaration is worst that the “chaos” with which the current Judicial System of India is badly suffering. We make false and exaggerated statements and press releases that raise the hope of India citizens. When those hopes are not met, this brings not only a bad name to the Indian institutions like Judiciary but also declines the faith and trust in the same.

Take a perfect example in this regard. India has been claiming establishment and opening of E-Courts since 2003. However, there is not even a single e-court in India despite contrary claims. It seems Indian Government/Judiciary is repeating the history once again. The Delhi High Court has declared that it would open an e-court at its premises on 8th December, 2009. However, if we see the website of Delhi High Court even on 6th December, 2009 (15.10 PM) there are no “signs” of the same. It seems India is once again opening another e-court on “Papers Alone”.

Interestingly, the NMDJLR Plan has appreciated the “basic requirements” of establishment of e-courts in India. However, there is a dichotomy between the NMDJLR Plan and the other e-courts initiatives that are presently undergoing. These initiatives are wasting hundred Crores of hard earned public money upon “computerisation” of traditional judicial function with no actual e-courts capabilities.

The worst aspect of this e-court fiasco and other judicial reforms is that there is neither accountability nor any transparency in these initiatives. The GOI is “blindly” allowing “Yearly Extensions” without asking for performance and accomplishments. Why the GOI allows an extension for even a single year when there is no development and performance in this direction is a big question?

Perhaps, some “miracle” would happen on 8th December, 2009 that would establish the first e-court of India. But the chances of the same are next to impossible and we are heading for “another extension” in the month of February 2010.

Monday, November 30, 2009


Perry4Law is the First and Exclusive Techno-Legal ICT Law Firm in India and one of the best in the World. Perry4Law Techno-Legal Base (PTLBTM/SM) is managing various Techno-Legal Consultancy, Litigation, Research, E-Learning, Higher Education and many more such “Highly Specialised” and “Domain Specific Services”.

Some areas where Perry4Law can collaborate and provide its Specialised Techno-Legal Services in the E-Learning, Higher Education, Life Long Education Fields are:

(1) Educational Consortiums, Partnerships, Research Partnerships, etc

(2) Lifelong Learning, Adult Education, Continuing Education,

(3) E-Learning Collaborations and Partnerships,

(4) Certified Courses awarding Diploma(s) and Certificate(s),

(5) Techno-Legal Knowledge and Skill Development,

(6) Faculty Development Programs (FDPs),

(7) Contents Development and Upgradation,

(8) Techno-Legal Partnerships after signing Memorandum Of Understandings (MOUs), etc.

For availing the Techno-Legal Professional Services of Perry4Law in the abovementioned fields, visit its “Contact Point” and fulfill the prerequisites mentioned therein.

Sunday, November 29, 2009


Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) Project (CCTNS Project) has been approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs. It has a financial cushion of Rs.2000 Crores as per the 11th Five Year Plan. The Project would be initiated by the Ministry of Home Affairs and implemented by the National Crime Records Bureau. The CCTNS project is to be implemented in a manner where the major role would lie with the State Governments in order to bring in the requisite stakes, ownership and commitment, and only certain core components would be in the hands of the Central Government, apart from the required review and monitoring of project implementation on a continuing basis.

The broad objectives of the CCTNS project are streamlining investigation and prosecution processes, strengthening of intelligence gathering machinery, improved public delivery system and citizen-friendly interface, nationwide sharing of information across on crime and criminals and improving efficiency and effectiveness of police functioning. The Project aims to fulfill various specified objectives over a period of three years. An indicative list of e-services expected from CCTNS to citizens would be filing of complaints / information to concerned Police Station; obtaining status of complaints / cases registered at Police Stations; obtaining copies of FIRs, post-mortem reports and other permissible documents etc.

CCTNS Project is a complicated and time consuming initiative. It must be preceded by suitable “Policy Framework” as well as by “Adequate Techno-Legal Training” of the persons going to manage the same. A similar initiative undertaken by the US Government to modernise the FBI’s crime tracking system known as the “Virtual Case File” failed miserably due to lack of planning and effective strategies. There is no sense in wasting Rs.2000 Crores and then realising that grave mistakes failed the much needed imitative. We must “Eliminate all the possible and anticipated causes of failures” one by one to achieve the best results. We must enhance a “Techno-Legal Training Infrastructure” before jumping upon this unexplored arena.

Perry4Law is one such “Techno-Legal Training Providers” which can manage the Policy, Training, Education, Implementation, Enforcement and Other Aspects of the CCTNS Project and similar projects. Perry4Law is the First and Exclusive Techno-Legal ICT Law Firm of India and one of the Best in the World. It is providing Techno-Legal Services regarding Cyber Law In India, Cyber Security in India, Cyber Forensics In India, Due Diligence And Cyber Law Compliances In India, ADR And ODR In India, etc. Perry4Law is the only Firm that is providing Services regarding E-Courts In India, E-Judiciary In India, Digital Evidencing In India, Legal Enablement Of ICT Systems In India, Techno-Legal And Cyber Law Expert Witness Services In India, Critical Infrastructure Protection In India, Critical ICT Infrastructure Protection In India, Legal Framework For Information Society In India, etc.

PTLBTM/SM is one of its Premier and Highly Specialised Techno-Legal Initiatives that is providing Consulting, Litigation, Training, Education and Skill Development Services regarding Cyber Law In India, Cyber Security In India, Cyber Forensics In India, Cyber Terrorism in India, Cyber War in India, Ethical Hacking in India, etc.

Perry4Law and PTLBTM/SM also possess Techno-Legal Expertise to provide “International Best Practices” and implementation of “Models and Functionality” in the areas of “Policing, Public Security, National Security, Internal Security, etc regarding CCTNS Project and similar Projects. Perry4Law has also provided a “10 Point Legal Framework for Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies in India” to the Government of India. Further, Perry4Law has also provided a techno-legal Framework for E-Surveillance in India and its limits, legalities, constitutionality, etc.

For availing the Cyber Law, Cyber Security, Cyber Forensics and other Techno-Legal Professional Services of Perry4Law, visit its “Contact Point” and fulfill the prerequisites mentioned therein.

Saturday, November 28, 2009


The merit and competency of Indian Judiciary is well known all over the World. There is virtually nothing that Indian Judiciary is not capable of resolving. However, there is always scope for the improvement. One such improvement that is urgently required to be adopted, implemented and inculcated by the Judges of District Courts, High Courts and Supreme Court of India pertains to Techno-Legal acumen and knowledge.

Techno-Legal acumen is difficult to acquire as it requires a sound working and practical knowledge of both technical as well as legal aspect of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) related aspects. Issues like Cyber Law, International Telecommunications Laws, Cyber Forensics, Digital Evidencing, Cyber Security, etc pose difficult and sometimes non-understandable legal issues before the Courts. The Judges in India must fill in this much needed and unnoticed legal gap that has not yet been explored by them.

Since the Techno-Legal issues are difficult to understand and more importantly scant to provide in the absence of adequate Techno-Legal Experts and Specialists in India, there is an emergent need to start Techno-Legal Judicial Training of Judges of India. Perry4Law is the First and Exclusive Techno-Legal ICT Law Firm of India and one of the Best in the World. It provides Techno-Legal Services and Training in the field of Cyber Law, Cyber Forensics, Cyber Security, E-Courts, E-Governance, E-Commerce, Telecommunication Laws, Technology Laws, etc.

Perry4Law also provides Cyber Law Training In India, Cyber Security Training In India, Cyber Forensics Training In India, Computer Forensics Training In India, E-Courts Training In India, Digital Evidencing Training In India, Digital Investigation Training in India, Techno-Legal Judicial Training in India, Training for Judges In India, Techno-Legal Training for Lawyers in India, Techno-Legal Training for Corporate Executives in India, etc.

Any person or institution interested in seeking the Professional Techno-Legal Services and Techno-Legal Judicial and Legal Training of Perry4Law must visit the “Contact Point” of Perry4Law and follow the requirements mentioned therein. Telephone conversation facility and a meeting after the appointment is fixed are also available subject to advance payment of the “Hourly Rates” of the respective Partner(s).

Tuesday, November 24, 2009


Cyber terrorism is a controversial term. Some authors choose a very narrow definition, relating to deployments, by known terrorist organizations, of disruption attacks against information systems for the primary purpose of creating alarm and panic. By this narrow definition, it is difficult to identify any instances of cyber terrorism. Cyber terrorism can also be defined much more generally, for example, as “The premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives.” This broad definition was created by Kevin G. Coleman of the Technolytics Institute.[1]

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), a bipartisan organization of legislators and their staff created to help policymakers of all 50 states address vital issues such as those affecting the economy or homeland security by providing them with a forum for exchanging ideas, sharing research and obtaining technical assistance defines cyber terrorism as follows:

“The use of information technology by terrorist groups and individuals to further their agenda. This can include use of information technology to organize and execute attacks against networks, computer systems and telecommunications infrastructures, or for exchanging information or making threats electronically. Examples are hacking into computer systems, introducing viruses to vulnerable networks, web site defacing, Denial-of-service attacks, or terroristic threats made via electronic communication.[2]

In May 2007 Estonia was subjected to a mass cyber-attack in the wake of the removal of a Russian World War II war memorial from downtown Talinn. The attack was a distributed denial-of-service attack in which selected sites were bombarded with traffic in order to force them offline; nearly all Estonian government ministry networks as well as two major Estonian bank networks were knocked offline.

The traditional concepts and methods of terrorism have taken new dimensions, which are more destructive and deadly in nature. In the age of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) terrorists have acquired an expertise to produce the most deadly combination of weapons and technology, which if not properly safeguarded in due course of time, will take its own toll. The damage so produced would be almost irreversible and most catastrophic in nature. In short, we are facing the worst form of terrorism popularly known as "Cyber Terrorism".

The definition of "cyber terrorism" cannot be made exhaustive as the nature of crime is such that it must be left to be inclusive in nature. The nature of "cyberspace " is such that new methods and technologies are invented regularly; hence it is not advisable to put the definition in a straightjacket formula or pigeons hole. In fact, the first effort of the Courts should be to interpret the definition as liberally as possible so that the menace of cyber terrorism can be tackled stringently and with a punitive hand. The law dealing with cyber terrorism in India is, however, not adequate to meet the precarious intentions of these cyber terrorists and requires a rejuvenation in the light and context of the latest developments all over the world.

The laws of India have to take care of the problems originating at the international level because the Internet, through which these terrorist activities are carried out, recognises no boundaries. Thus, a cyber terrorist can collapse the economic structure of a country from a place with which India may not have any reciprocal arrangements, including an "extradition treaty". The only safeguard in such a situation is to use the latest technology to counter these problems. Thus, a good techno-legal combination of the latest security technology and a law dealing with cyber terrorism is the need of the hour.

The most common method for cyber terrorism is the use of distributed denial of services attacks (DDOS) to overburden the Government and its agencies electronic bases. This is made possible by first infecting several unprotected computers by way of virus attacks and then taking control of them. Once control is obtained, they can be manipulated from any locality by the terrorists. These infected computers are then made to send information or demand in such a large number that the server of the victim collapses. Further, due to this unnecessary Internet traffic the legitimate traffic is prohibited from reaching the Government or its agencies computers. This results in immense pecuniary and strategic loss to the government and its agencies. It must be noted that thousands of compromised computers can be used to simultaneously attack a single host, thus making its electronic existence invisible to the genuine and legitimate netizens and end users.
The main aim of cyber terrorist activities is to cause networks damage and their disruptions. This activity may divert the attention of the security agencies for the time being thus giving the terrorists extra time and makes their task comparatively easier. This process may involve a combination of computer tampering, virus attacks, hacking, etc.

The menace of cyber terrorism in India can be effectively curbed, if not completely eliminated, if the three sovereign organs of the Constitution work collectively and in harmony with each other. Further, a vigilant citizenry can supplement the commitment of elimination of cyber terrorism.

The judiciary can play its role by adopting a stringent approach towards the menace of cyber terrorism. It must, however, first tackle the jurisdiction problem because before invoking its judicial powers the courts are required to satisfy themselves that they possess the requisite jurisdiction to deal with the situation. Since the Internet "is a cooperative venture not owned by a single entity or government, there are no centralized rules or laws governing its use. The absence of geographical boundaries may give rise to a situation where the act legal in one country where it is done may violate the laws of another country. This process further made complicated due to the absence of a uniform and harmonised law governing the jurisdictional aspects of disputes arising by the use of Internet.

Generally, the scholars point towards the following "theories" under which a country may claim prescriptive jurisdiction:

(a) a country may claim jurisdiction based on "objective territoriality" when an activity takes place within the country,

(b) a "subjective territoriality" may attach when an activity takes place outside a nation's borders but the "primary effect" of the action is within the nation's borders,

(c) a country may assert jurisdiction based on the nationality of either the actor or the victim,

(d) in exceptional circumstances, providing the right to protect the nation's sovereignty when faced with threats recognised as particularly serious in the international community.

In addition to establishing a connecting nexus, traditional international doctrine also calls for a "reasonable" connection between the offender and the forum. Depending on the factual context, courts look to such factors, as whether the activity of individual has a "substantial and foreseeable effect" on the territory, whether a "genuine link" exists between the actor and the forum, the character of the activity and the importance of the regulation giving rise to the controversy, the extent to which exceptions are harmed by the regulation, and the importance of the regulation in the international community. The traditional jurisdictional paradigms may provide a framework to guide analysis for cases arising in cyberspace.[3] It must be noted that by virtue of section 1(2) read with section 75 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 the courts in India have “long arm jurisdiction” to deal with cyber terrorism.

The menace of cyber terrorism is not the sole responsibility of State and its instrumentalities. The citizens as well as the netizens are equally under a solemn obligation to fight against the cyber terrorism. In fact, they are the most important and effective cyber terrorism eradication and elimination mechanism. The only requirement is to encourage them to come forward for the support of fighting against cyber terrorism.

The government can give suitable incentives to them in the form of monetary awards. It must, however, be noted that their anonymity and security must be ensured before seeking their help. The courts are also empowered to maintain their anonymity if they provide any information and evidence to fight against cyber terrorism.

The problem of cyber terrorism is multilateral having varied facets and dimensions. Its solution requires rigorous application of energy and resources. It must be noted that law is always seven steps behind the technology. This is so because we have a tendency to make laws when the problem reaches at its zenith. We do not appreciate the need of the hour till the problem takes a precarious dimension. At that stage it is always very difficult, if not impossible, to deal with that problem. This is more so in case of offences and violations involving information technology. A timely and appropriate legislation is always a good step forward to fight cyber terrorism. India has to cover a long gap before it can secure its traditional boundaries and cyber space.


[2] Id.

[3] Dawson Cherie; “Creating Borders on the Internet- Free Speech, the United States and International Jurisdiction”, Virginia Journal of International Law, V-44, No-2 (Winter, 2004).