Use Of Technology To Fight Cross Border, Transnational And White Collor Crimes

Technology has increasingly being used to commit cross border, transnational and white collor crimes. As law enforcement technologies evolved even cyber criminals devised novel and undetectable methods to indulge in their nefarious activities.

Use of Hidden Internet for committing cross border, transnational and white collor crimes has increased a lot. Since the activities are not available and accessible to ordinary search engines and net surfers, the Hidden Internet has become a breeding ground for cyber criminals.

Now it has been proposed to use technology to fight drugs, human trafficking and illicit networks. Technology is also been used to prevent and tackle cyber crimes and cyber attacks. Now even Google and Interpol have decided to use technology to fight these crimes.

We at Perry4Law and PTLB welcome this move of Google and Interpol. We also believe that Hidden Internet would post tremendous challenges before Google and Interpol in their drive against white color crimes and transborder crimes. It would be a good idea to explore methods to take care of crimes originating at Hidden Internet as well.

Natgrid Project Of India: The Do Or Die Stage

The National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid) Project of India is one of the most ambitious Projects of India. It has been passing through rough weathers in the past. The good news is that the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) has approved an Rs 1,100-crore allocation for the NATGRID and has also granted an extension to it. The CCS has also allowed NATGRID to acquire certain technological items mentioned in the Detailed Project Report (DPR).

The bad news is that till now we have no Accountability and Transparency about the NATGRID Project. Another major lacuna of NATGRID Project is that it is beyond the reach of Parliamentary Oversight in India. Similar problems are also plaguing the National Counter Terrorism Centre of India.

Recently the Department of Telecommunication (DOT) refused to allow the Home Ministry of India to intercept private communications disregarding individual Privacy under the pretext of National Security. Civil Liberties Issues have been raised from time to time in India vis-à-vis National Security Projects like NATGRID. They cannot be ignored in India any more.

I hope these “Shortcomings” of the NATGRID Project and NCTC would be removed very soon and NATGRID Project and NCTC would be a valuable tool for strengthening National Security of India. I also hope that Indian Government would maintain a “Balance” between National Security and Privacy Protection requirements in India while implementing Projects like NATGRID.

Now coming back to the recent new lease of life that has been given to NATGRID by CCS. The funds granted to NATGRID would be utilised for procuring equipment, technology and for building a data centre. We need to have High Security Infrastructure and Secured Communication Lines, opined NATGRID Chief Raghu Raman.

I also believe that this “Technological Upgradation” is a must for NATGRID Project to successfully complete the next stage. However, this is not an easy task especially keeping in mind the Red Tape that is hindering the successful implementation of NATGRID Project of India.

Law Enforcement Technologies In India

Law enforcement plays a crucial role in maintaining law and order situation in a region. In India, the law enforcement responsibility is managed by numerous law enforcement agencies. Indian Constitution has demarcated law enforcement subject as a matter of State List. This means that a majority of law enforcement functions in various States are performed by respective State.

There are some functions that are closely related to law enforcement responsibilities and that require a unified approach. To take care of such issues, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs acts in a centralised manner.

The Union Home Ministry of India has prescribed many intelligence and law enforcement related projects that rely upon information and communication technology (ICT). These include projects like national intelligence grid (Natgrid), crime and criminal tracking network and systems (CCTNS), national counter terrorism centre (NCTC), etc.

Besides, projects like central monitoring system, centre for communication security research and monitoring (CCSRM), Aadhar/UID, national cyber coordination centre (NCCC) of India, national critical information infrastructure protection centre (NCIPC) of India, etc are also in pipeline.

All these efforts are praiseworthy and deserve public support. However, all of these projects are suffering from a common constitutional problem. None of these projects are governed by any constitutionally sound legal framework. These projects must maintain a balance between civil liberties and national security requirements. This balance is presently missing and these projects are operating with great disregard to constitutional rights and freedoms and human rights.

Similarly, we have no constitutionally sound legal framework for law enforcement and intelligence agencies of India. Parliamentary oversight of intelligence and law enforcement agencies of India is missing. After all intelligence gathering is not above right to privacy in all circumstances.

Take the example of the central bureau of investigation (CBI) and intelligence agencies like intelligence bureau (IB) of India. The Indian government is not willing to bring transparency and accountability regarding law enforcement and intelligence agencies of India.

The recent private bill titled intelligence services (powers and regulation) bill, 2011 was shelved out by none other than the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh who announced that law on intelligence agencies would be formulated soon. However, it proved nothing but a “time gaining tactics” and so far intelligence agencies of India are not governed by any legal framework and parliamentary oversight. Interestingly, even the central bureau of investigation (CBI) is riding the same boat. The draft central bureau of investigation act, 2010 is another example where the Indian government is just interested in making “declaration” with no actual “intention” to implement the same. It is high time to show political will to tackle these crucial and controversial issues as they cannot be ignored any more.

In our subsequent posts, we would cover the techno legal aspects of intelligence and law enforcement agencies of India.

Lawful Interception In India Missing

Lawful interception of Internet, mobile and other technology related communications is a big challenge for Indian government. Indian government is trying to do the same that can best serve its interests. However, in its zest to ensure technology communication interceptions in India, Indian government is landing up in doing “unlawful interceptions”.

The lawful interception law is needed in India and the same is still missing despite contrary governmental claims. Till now, phone tapping in India is not constitutionally performed. The truth is that big brother in India is violating Indian constitution and even courts are silent on this aspect.

Indian government has been taking many steps that are strengthening its e-surveillance and censorship capabilities without meeting the constitutional requirements. For instance, the central monitoring system project of India,  national cyber coordination centre (NCCC) of India, national intelligence grid (Natgrid), national counter terrorism centre (NCTC) of India, Aadhar project of India, etc are all proposed without any legal framework supervising and justifying their functioning.

On the one hand the home ministry is mulling lawful interception law of India and on the other hand it has forced Blackberry messenger service to be an e- surveillance tool in India.  Telenor’s security clearance was blocked by home ministry recently and even the FIPB rejected Telenor’s joint venture proposal as pre mature. 

Civil liberties in India and technological revolution are considered mutually exhaustive in India. Initiatives like surveillance of Internet traffic in India are executed without any procedural safeguards and constitutional rights. E-surveillance in India is presently done with virtually no legal framework. Whatever rules that have been framed in this regard by Indian government, they are clearly violating the constitutional freedoms and rights.

As a matter of fact, civil liberties protection in cyberspace in India have been totally ignored and false claims of national security are raised to suppress civil liberties in India. ICT policies and strategies of India are grossly defective and clearly violating human rights in cyberspace. In fact, there is a dedicated resource titled websites, blogs and news censorship by Google and Indian government that is making a database of various censorship and results manipulation activities in India.

Indian government must ensure civil liberties protection in Indian cyberspace as that is its constitutional as well as human right obligation. Further, parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies of India is needed. Till now there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence agencies in India. The sooner these initiatives would be taken the better it would be for the larger interest of India.

US India Cyber Security Relationship Needs Rejuvenation

International community is taking cyber security very seriously. Even NATO had requested cyber security cooperation from India. Indian cyber security and international cooperation must be rejuvenated in the context of contemporary developments. Keeping this is mind, the Indo US cyber security relationship needs improvements.  

United States is presently engaged in serious cyber security initiatives at national and international levels. At the national level, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) has been proposed to be enacted. It is claimed that CISPA would boost the cyber security capabilities of US.

However, the US White House has issued a dissenting Statement of Administration Policy on Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). After reading various media reports and dissenting opinion, one may ponder whether CISPA really a remedy or a bad idea.

Meanwhile, India has its own share of problems. Unable to deal with the technology and foreign technology companies, Facebook, Google, etc may be forced to install servers in India. Even the foreign direct investment (FDI) issues have also been impacted by the national security concerns. FDI in telecom sector of India may be modified by the national security requirements of India.

In the recent past, the India US cyber security cooperation agreement was signed. It was a part of broader India US homeland security dialogue to boost counter terrorism and cyber security capabilities. Similarly, US has already made clear its international strategy for cyberspace. Even the White House is mulling federal cyber security law.

However, international organisations must play a more direct and pro active role to fight cyber crimes. This is more so when we have no universally acceptable international cyber law treaty and international cyber security treaty. This is resulting in conflict of laws in cyberspace and India is getting impatient in this regard.

If US India cyber security cooperation has to be successful, both India and US must sort out many crucial differences. The sooner it is done the better it would be for the interests of both countries.

Consolidated FDI Policy Of India 2012 By DIPP

It is very cumbersome and inconvenient to report all links to our previous posts on the topic consolidated FDI policy of India 2012 in every subsequent post. Therefore, Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) have decided to report the previous posts in this regard at this post.

This post would act as the base for all previous posts on this topic and we would keep on updating this post from time to time to make it updated, holistic and composite. We hope our readers would find this arrangement more useful and convenient.

Till now we have covered the following posts in this regard:

(1) Consolidated FDI policy of India 2012 by DIPP: objectives,

(2) Consolidated FDI policy of India 2012 by DIPP: definitions,

(3) Consolidated FDI policy of India 2012 by DIPP: general provisions,

(4) FDI in limited liability partnerships (LLPs) in India 2012,

(5) Permissible direct and indirect foreign investment in an Indian company,

(6) Foreign investment promotion board (FIPB) and FDI policy of India 2012,

(7) Prohibited sectors under the consolidated FDI policy of India 2012,

(8)  FDI in agriculture and animal husbandry under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012,  

(9) FDI in mining sector of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012,

(10) FDI in petroleum and natural gas sector of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012

(11) FDI in micro and small enterprises (MSEs) sector of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012

(12) FDI in defence sector of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012

(13) FDI in broadcasting sector of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012

(14) FDI in print media sector of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012

(15) FDI in civil aviation sector of India under consolidated FDI policy Of India 2012

(16) FDI in courier services sector of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012

(17) FDI in construction development sector of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012

(18) FDI in industrial parks segment of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012

(19) FDI in satellites and private security agencies sectors of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012

(20) FDI in telecom services, ISPs and telecom infrastructure providing sectors of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012 and FDI in telecom sector of India and national security issues,

(21) FDI in wholesale trading and e-commerce sectors of India under consolidated FDI policy of India 2012

(22) FDI In Asset Reconstruction Companies Of India Under Consolidated FDI Policy Of India 2012

(23) FDI In Banking Sector Of India Under Consolidated FDI Policy Of India 2012

(24) FDI In Commodity Exchanges Sector Of India Under Consolidated FDI Policy Of India 2012

(25) FDI In Credit Information Companies (CIC) Of India Under Consolidated FDI Policy Of India 2012

(26) FDI In Infrastructure Company In The Securities Market Of India Under Consolidated FDI Policy Of India 2012

(27) FDI In Insurance Sector Of India Under Consolidated FDI Policy Of India 2012

(28) FDI In Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFC) Sector Of India Under Consolidated FDI Policy Of India 2012

(29) FDI In Pharmaceuticals Sector Of India Under Consolidated FDI Policy Of India 2012

Latest Techno Legal Initiatives Of Perry4Law Organisation And PTLB

Perry4Law has launched certain techno legal initiatives that are of public importance. These initiatives basically cover areas like trainings and education, online disputes resolution, e-courts,

Perry4Law is the legal segment of Perry4Law’s Organisation and Perry4Law is taking care of the technology laws and ICT related legal issues. Perry4Law Organisation is the umbrella body that governs the organisational issues at national and international level.

Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) is the premier techno legal segment of Perry4Law Organisation that takes care of basic level techno legal trainings. Perry4Law Techno Legal ICT Training Centre (PTLITC) is providing domain specific and highly expertise based techno legal trainings of Perry4Law’s Organisation.

Now Perry4Law Organisation has launched few more techno legal dispute resolution initiatives. These include initiatives named Electronic Courts, E-Judiciary, ODR India, Online Arbitration, etc.

With this disputes pertaining to technology, domain names, cross border commercial transactions, etc could be resolved in a speedier and cost effective manner. We hope all stakeholders would find these initiatives useful.

Virtualisation, Cloud Solutions And Encryption Usage In India

Virtualisation, cloud solutions and encryption are three issues that are interrelated. These aspects are interrelated through various applicable laws in India that all virtualisation and cloud computing companies must follow to avoid legal liabilities.

The present trend in India in this regard is not very encouraging. Virtualisation and cloud computing service providers are either not aware of applicable Indian laws or they are working in gross regard of the same. Even requirements of Indian laws pertaining to encryption usage in India are not followed in proper manner.

Virtualisation and cloud computing service providers in India must not only follow the encryption laws of India but they must also ensure cyber law due diligence in India. This is more so when the cyber law due diligence for companies in India has become very stringent and foreign companies and websites are frequently prosecuted in India for non exercise of cyber due diligence.

Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) have provided the projected cyber law trends of India 2012. According to this trend, cyber due diligence for cloud computing, social media, virtualisation services, etc would be required to be exercised frequently in India by various technology players.

Further, although we have no dedicated legal framework for cloud computing in India as on date yet legal and regulatory issues of cloud computing in India would arise in future. In fact, cloud computing in India is legally risky. Further, e-discovery for cloud computing in India would also bring its own share of techno legal issues.

Companies dealing in virtualisation and cloud computing services must ensure that they are complying with various techno legal requirements in India.

Legal Immunity From Criminal Prosecutions To Armed Forces At Foreign Jurisdictions

Legal immunity from criminal prosecutions of armed forces personnel of one nation present in another nation is a complicated aspect. It requires analysis of public international law, international treaties and convention, multilateral agreement, bilateral agreements between two countries and so on.

For instance, if a member of United States armed forces commits felony, sedition, murder or any other offence against national security of the nation where he/she is present, his/her criminal prosecution is imminent. However, who would criminally prosecute such US personnel is the real question. Will it be the US government/armed force or would it be the criminal courts of the nation whose criminal laws have been violated?

It all depends upon either the international treaty/multilateral agreement in this regard to which both the US and that nation are party or it may depend upon a bilateral agreement between the US and that nation. However, there is nothing like an automatic immunity or absolute immunity to such US personnel in all circumstances. In fact, there may be circumstances where such US personnel may be prosecuted under the criminal laws of the nation whose criminal laws have been violated.

In short, armed forces immunity can be claimed either under the international law and in a member country alone that is also part to any treaty in this regard to which US is also a member or it must be claimed through an executive agreement with the concerned country where US armed forces are stationed.

Until the post-World War II era, status of forces agreement (SOFAs) addressed this conflict between sovereigns and US policy was to rely heavily on the concept of immunity from host nation criminal jurisdiction created by the host nation's implied consent in expressly consenting to US forces being stationed there. The US policy of insisting on complete immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction continued in the early post-World War II period, but ultimately gave way to the negotiation of systems of "concurrent jurisdiction" in SOFAs and bilateral supplementary agreements.

With the exception of the multilateral SOFA among the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries, a SOFA is specific to an individual country and is in the form of an executive agreement. A US personnel who is accused of a criminal act in another country may be criminally prosecuted in the host country, especially if the alleged criminal act has nothing to do with the official duty of such personnel.

Google Staff Got Confused While Dealing With DMCA Notice

The confusion regarding the recent suspension of some of our posts has resolved now. Simultaneously when we were sending the legal response to such suspension, we received an e-mail from the Blogger team. It intimated us that they have complied with our request to remove contents from the offending platforms.

We were surprised as we did not send any such request. All we requested was removal of “weblinks” of posts that are violating our copyright from SERPs, blog search, etc. Clearly, it is a case of misunderstanding. We replied back to Blogger team and clarified the matter as follows:

“Dear Google

Thanks for your mail.

However, it seems there has been some misunderstanding.

We requested you to remove the copyright violating posts “weblinks” from SERPs, blog search and other places at Google. We also requested you to invoke your manual action against the repeatedly offending website to demote it in your search results.

You have confused it as a “contents copyright violation” complaint. Further, you have also kept the weblinks intact and they are still appearing at your SERPs, blog search, etc.

Further, you have by mistake suspended the “original source” of contents itself instead of removing the weblinks of the copyright offending posts from your SERPS, blog searches, etc.

We said:

“This is the “second time” that posterous.com has picked up our articles despite our express and stern objections. Our previous DMCA compliant with Google in this regard is already pending bearing a number [#980893***].

We also said:

“The copyright violating posts and the original sources respectively are”

It means the first link was the copyright violating post and the later link was the original source that we represent.

You have removed the original source and left the weblinks of the copyright violating posts intact.

It seems you were confused while removing the weblinks of the offending posts.

Kindly restore the original posts and remove the weblinks of the copyright violating posts appearing at Posterous.com from SERPs, blog search, etc.

Kindly feel free to get any clarification in this regard”.

We hope with this our original contents would be restored by Google immediately and those guilty of frequent copyright violation would be punished accordingly.