Re: Evolution of cybercrime laws in Tamil nadu

IMHO, government wants to send a "strong message", and that alone is the
intent.

Murderers, rapists, robbers can get bail... if they can prove that they are
not repeat offenders, but breaking the draconian IT laws can lead to you
being put in solitary confinement, interrogation with 3rd degree --
intended to break you and accept a lie, and not give you a chance to
represent your side to justice.

'Draconian' would be a rather sweet and mild word for the nature of this
law.


On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Vickram Crishna <v1clist-/[email protected]>
wrote:

> 'Need', or 'have'? The lawbooks are full of antediluvian laws, a matter I
> understand was very much part of the deliberations of the Constitutional
> Assembly, correct me if I'm mistaken, as among the things a democratically
> appointed Parliament would redefine or remove. So it took some 40 years for
> this august body to decide that some persons hailing from some tribes in
> some parts of India were not, after all, criminals by virtue of their
> birth, for instance.  I'm sure they had other terribly pressing matters on
> the mind in the interim, and still have.
>
> Is it any wonder that it does not act to halt cowboy actions by some
> police officers somewhere, doubtless in honest reliance upon their own
> judgment of right and wrong, but which are then flaunted happily by lesser
> beings puffed up with their position? Just because a state has some rule or
> even law, does not mean that the people of the state have knowingly decided
> this is suitable for themselves and is something they wish to have in
> place, and furthermore, acted upon in this fashion. But I don't think we
> actually have such a benighted state anywhere in this country.
>
> Incidentally, the powers ascribed to state and center are fairly well
> defined, and telecom, data services, wireless etc are central matters. I
> don't think states have the power to yank in persons for actions that are
> governed by a different set of laws, central laws, under flimsy parochial
> perceptions. Am I right?
>
> Or am I a goonda for asking?
>
> Vickram
> http://communicall.wordpress.com
> http://vvcrishna.wordpress.com
>
>
>
>  On Thursday, 14 August 2014, 9:37, Srini RamaKrishnan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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