Re: Evolution of cybercrime laws in Tamil nadu

I am puzzled that such draconian laws are needed to deal with what is
essentially a non-violent crime.

The benefits are not at all clear to me, but the risks are obviously many.

Any opinions on why some of the most wealthy states in India need such laws?
On Aug 13, 2014 11:51 AM, "Banibrata Dutta" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Karnataka has had a similar good fortune... let's join in the celebration
> :-)
>
>
> http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-07-30/news/52237723_1_goonda-act-offences-offenders
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Summary:
>>
>> Cybercrime offenders to be treated on par with hardened
>> criminals and sex offenders, and can face up to a year of preventive
>> detention in the state of Tamil Nadu.
>>
>> There have been previous attempts to do this in TN,
>>
>> http://www.ndtv.com/article/south/tamil-nadu-to-bring-cyber-crime-under-goondas-act-307528
>>
>> The latest is this:
>>
>>
>> http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/amendments-will-be-violative-of-article-21-22-experts/article6306765.ece
>>
>> "More significantly, the Bill also proposes to bring under the Goondas
>> Act the offences listed in Chapter XI of the Information Technology
>> Act. This includes Section 66(A) that prohibits “offensive messages
>> through communication service.”
>>
>> In recent times, a number of persons have been booked under this
>> Section in many parts of the country for posting “offensive” messages
>> on social media sites attracting outrage from rights activists.
>>
>> In fact, moving one step further, the amendments in the Bill make even
>> “preparations” for engaging in a cyber crime an offence if it had the
>> potential to affect public order.
>>
>> “By bringing within its ambit those persons who are preparing to
>> engage in the commission of a cyber-law offence, the police will be
>> authorised to detain individuals who simply visit a website that
>> carries derogatory material that, if disseminated, will endanger
>> public order. Such a provision is hardly reasonable and is
>> constitutionally suspect,” feels Abhishek Sudhir, Assistant Director
>> of the Centre for Public Law and Jurisprudence at the Jindal Global
>> Law School. “Such a provision is violative of Article 21 of the
>> Constitution [which protects right of life and personal liberty].”
>>
>> As on April 7, Tamil Nadu had 1851 persons detained under the TPDA."
>>
>> Other reasons to be concerned, besides cybercrime:
>>
>> http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/activists-fear-misuse-of-law/article6307809.ece?homepage=true
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> India-gii mailing list
>> India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
>> https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii
>>
>
>
>
> --
> regards,
> Banibrata
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/bdutta
> http://twitter.com/edgeliving
>

_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii