Information Technology Act, 2000

The Information Technology Act, 2000 or ITA, 2000 or IT Act, was notified on October 17, 2000.
It is the law that deals with cybercrime and electronic commerce in India. In this article, we will
look at the objectives and features of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

In 1996, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the
model law on electronic commerce to bring uniformity in the law in different countries.

Further, the General Assembly of the united nations recommended that all countries must
consider this model law before making changes to their own laws. India became the 12th
country to enable cyber law after it passed the Information Technology Act, 2000.

While the first draft was created by the Ministry of Commerce, government of India as the
ECommerce Act, 1998, it was redrafted as the ‘Information Technology Bill, 1999’, and passed
in May 2000.

Objectives of the Act

The Information Technology Act, 2000 provides legal recognition to the transaction done via
electronic exchange of data and other electronic means of communication or electronic
commerce transactions.

This also involves the use of alternatives to a paper-based method of communication and

information storage to facilitate the electronic filing of documents with the Government
agencies.

Further, this act amended the ipc 1860, the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the Bankers’ Books
Evidence Act 1891, and the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934. The objectives of the Act are as
follows:

i. Grant legal recognition to all transactions done via electronic exchange of data or other
electronic means of communication or e -commerce, in place of the earlier paper-based
method of communication.

ii. Give legal recognition to digital signatures for the authentication of any information or
matters requiring legal authentication

iii. Facilitate the electronic filing of documents with Government agencies and also
departments

iv. Facilitate the electronic storage of data

v. Give legal sanction and also facilitate the electronic transfer of funds
between banks and financial institutions

vi. Grant legal recognition to bankers under the Evidence Act, 1891 and the reserve
bank of India Act, 1934, for keeping the books of accounts in electronic form.
Features of the Information Technology Act, 2000

a. All electronic contracts made through secure electronic channels are legally valid.

b. Legal recognition for digital signatures.

c. Security measures for electronic records and also digital signatures are in place

d. A procedure for the appointment of adjudicating officers for holding inquiries under
the Act is finalized

e. Provision for establishing a Cyber Regulatory Appellant Tribunal under the Act.
Further, this tribunal will handle all appeals made against the order of the Controller or
Adjudicating Officer.

f. An appeal against the order of the Cyber Appellant Tribunal is possible only in the
High Court

g. Digital signatures will use an asymmetric cryptosystem and also a hash function

h. Provision for the appointment of the Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA) to

license and regulate the working of Certifying Authorities. The Controller to act as a
repository of all digital signatures.

i. The Act applies to offences or contraventions committed outside India

j. Senior police officers and other officers can enter any public place and search and
arrest without warrant

k. Provisions for the constitution of a Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee to advise

the Central Government and Controller.
Applicability and Non-Applicability of the Act

Applicability

According to Section 1 (2), the Act extends to the entire country, which also includes Jammu
and Kashmir. In order to include Jammu and Kashmir, the Act uses article 253 of the
constitution. Further, it does not take citizenship into account and provides extra-territorial
jurisdiction.

Section 1 (2) along with Section 75, specifies that the Act is applicable to any offence or
contravention committed outside India as well. If the conduct of person constituting the offence
involves a computer or a computerized system or network located in India, then irrespective of
his/her nationality, the person is punishable under the Act.

Lack of international cooperation is the only limitation of this provision.

Non-Applicability

According to Section 1 (4) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Act is not applicable to
the following documents:

1. Execution of Negotiable Instrument under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, except

cheques.

2. Execution of a Power of Attorney under the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882.

3. Creation of Trust under the Indian Trust Act, 1882.

4. Execution of a Will under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 including any other
testamentary disposition
by whatever name called.

5. Entering into a contract for the sale of conveyance of immovable property or any
interest in such property.

6. Any such class of documents or transactions as may be notified by the Central

Government in the Gazette.

Nature of the Information Technology Act

Information technology is one of the important law relating to Indian cyber laws. In
May 2000, both the houses of the Indian Parliament passed the Information
Technology Bill. The Bill received assent of the President in August 2000 and came
to be known as the Information Technology Act, 2000. Cyber laws are contained in
the IT Act, 2000.This act is helpful to promote business with the help of internet. It
contains set of rules and regulations which apply on any electronic business
transaction. It is “An Act to provide legal recognition for transactions carried out by
means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication,
commonly referred to as “electronic commerce” which involve the use of alternatives
to paper-based methods of communication and storage of information, to facilitate
electronic filing of documents with the Government agencies and further to amend the
Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and
for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.
IT Act, 2000 focuses on three main highlights:
a) Providing legal recognition to the transactions which are carried out through
electronic means or use of Internet.
 b) Empowering the government departments to accept filing, creating and retention of
official documents in the digital format and
c) To amend outdated laws and provide ways to deal with cybercrimes.

Objectives of IT Act 2000: The following are the objectives of IT Act 2000

a) To give legal recognition to any transaction which is done by electronic way or use
of internet?
b) To give legal recognition to digital signature for accepting any agreement via
computer.
c) To provide facility of filling documents online relating to school admission or
registration in employment exchange.
d) According to I.T. Act 2000, any company can store their data in electronic storage.
e) To stop computer crime and protect privacy of internet users.
f) To give more power to IPO, RBI and Indian Evidence act for restricting electronic
crime.
g) To give legal recognition for keeping books of accounts by bankers and other
companies in electronic form.

CYBERTERRORISM

Cyberterrorism is the use of the INTERNET to conduct violent acts that result in, or
threaten, loss of life or significant bodily harm, in order to achieve political or ideological
gains through threat or intimidation. It is also sometimes considered an act of Internet
terrorism where terrorist activities, including acts of deliberate, large-scale disruption
of computer networks, especially of personal computers attached to the Internet by means of
tools such as computer viruses, computer worms, phishing, and other malicious software and
hardware methods and programming scripts. Cyber terrorism is a controversial term. Some
authors opt for a very narrow definition, relating to deployment by known terrorist
organizations of disruption attacks against information systems for the primary purpose of
creating alarm, panic, or physical disruption. Other authors prefer a broader definition, which
includes cybercrime. Participating in a cyber attack affects the terror threat perception, even
if it isn't done with a violent approach. By some definitions, it might be difficult to
distinguish which instances of online activities are cyber terrorism or cybercrime.
Cyber terrorism can be also defined as the intentional use of computers, networks, and public
internet to cause destruction and harm for personal objectives. Experienced cyber terrorists,
who are very skilled in terms of hacking can cause massive damage to government systems,
hospital records, and national security programs, which might leave a country, community or
organization in turmoil and in fear of further attacks.[3] The objectives of such terrorists may
be political or ideological since this can be considered a form of terror.
There is much concern from government and media sources about potential damage that
could be caused by cyber terrorism, and this has prompted efforts by government agencies
such as the federal bureau of investigation (FBI) and the central intelligence agency (CIA) to
put an end to cyber attacks and cyber terrorism.
There have been several major and minor instances of cyber terrorism. Al - qqeda utilized the
internet to communicate with supporters and even to recruit new members. estonia, a Baltic
country which is constantly evolving in terms of technology, became a battleground for cyber
terror in April, 2007 after disputes regarding the removal of a WWII soviet statue located in
Estonia's capital Tallinn.
Cyber fraud
Internet fraud is a type of fraud or deception which makes use of the internet and could
involve hiding of information or providing incorrect information for the purpose of tricking
victims out of money, property, and inheritance. Internet fraud is not considered a single,
distinctive crime but covers a range of illegal and illicit actions that are committed
in cyberspace. It is, however, differentiated from theft since, in this case, the victim
voluntarily and knowingly provides the information, money or property to the perpetrator. It
is also distinguished by the way it involves temporally and spatially separated offenders.
According to the FBI's 2017 Internet Crime Report, the Internet Crime Complaint Center
(IC3) received about 300,000 complaints. Victims lost over $1.4 billion in online fraud in
2017.[4] According to a study conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS) and McAfee, cybercrime costs the global economy as much as $600 billion, which
translates into 0.8% of total global GDP.[5] Online fraud appears in many forms. It ranges
from email spam to online scams. Internet fraud can occur even if partly based on the use of
Internet services and is mostly or completely based on the use of the Internet.

Example of online automotive fraud

A fraudster uses the web to advertise a nonexistent vehicle, typically a luxury or sports car, at
well below its market value. The details of the vehicle, including photos and description, are
typically lifted from sites such as Craigslist, AutoTrader.com, or Cars.com. An interested
buyer emails the fraudster, who responds saying the car is still available but is located
overseas; or that the seller is out of the country but the car is at a shipping company. The
fraudster then instructs the victim to send a deposit or full payment via wire transfer to
initiate the "shipping" process. To make the transaction appear more legitimate, the fraudster
will ask the buyer to send money to a fake agent or other a third party that claims to
provide purchase protection. The victims wire the funds but then do not receive the vehicle.
In response, auto sales websites may post warnings to buyers which warn not to accept offers
in which vehicles are shipped, where funds are paid using Western Union or wire transfer,
etc.

1}Charity fraud

2}Internet ticket fraud

3}Gambling fraud

4}Online gift card fraud

What is Hacking?

Hacking is identifying weakness in computer systems or networks to exploit its

weaknesses to gain access. Example of Hacking: Using password cracking algorithm to gain
access to a system
Computers have become mandatory to run a successful businesses. It is not enough to have
isolated computers systems; they need to be networked to facilitate communication with
external businesses. This exposes them to the outside world and hacking. Hacking means
using computers to commit fraudulent acts such as fraud, privacy invasion, stealing
corporate/personal data, etc. Cyber crimes cost many organizations millions of dollars every
year. Businesses need to protect themselves against such attacks.

Who is a Hacker? Types of Hackers

A Hacker is a person who finds and exploits the weakness in computer systems and/or
networks to gain access. Hackers are usually skilled computer programmers with knowledge
of computer security.

Hackers are classified according to the intent of their actions. The following list classifies
hackers according to their intent.

Symbol Description

Ethical Hacker (White hat): A hacker who gains access

identified weaknesses. They may also perform pene
assessments.
Cracker (Black hat): A hacker who gains unauthorized
personal gain. The intent is usually to steal corporate dat
funds from bank accounts etc.

Grey hat: A hacker who is in between ethical and black

computer systems without authority with a view to identi
the system owner.
 Script kiddies: A non-skilled person who gains access to
made tools.

Hacktivist: A hacker who use hacking to send soci

messages. This is usually done by hijacking websites
hijacked website.

Phreaker: A hacker who identifies and exploits weak

computers.

What is Cybercrime?

Cyber crime is the use of computers and networks to perform illegal activities such as
spreading computer viruses, online bullying, performing unauthorized electronic fund
transfers, etc. Most cybercrimes are committed through the internet. Some cybercrimes can
also be carried out using Mobile phones via SMS and online chatting applications.
Type of Cybercrime

 The following list presents the common types of cybercrimes:

 Computer Fraud: Intentional deception for personal gain via the use of computer
systems.
 Privacy violation: Exposing personal information such as email addresses, phone
number, account details, etc. on social media, websites, etc.
 Identity Theft: Stealing personal information from somebody and impersonating that
person.
 Sharing copyrighted files/information: This involves distributing copyright
protected files such as eBooks and computer programs etc.
 Electronic funds transfer: This involves gaining an un-authorized access to bank
computer networks and making illegal fund transfers.
 Electronic money laundering: This involves the use of the computer to launder
money.
 ATM Fraud: This involves intercepting ATM card details such as account number
and PIN numbers. These details are then used to withdraw funds from the intercepted
accounts.
 Denial of Service Attacks: This involves the use of computers in multiple locations
to attack servers with a view of shutting them down.
 Spam: Sending unauthorized emails. These emails usually contain advertisements.

What is Ethical Hacking?

Ethical Hacking is identifying weakness in computer systems and/or computer networks and
coming with countermeasures that protect the weaknesses. Ethical hackers must abide by the
following rules.

 Get written permission from the owner of the computer system and/or computer

network before hacking.
 Protect the privacy of the organization been hacked.
 Transparently report all the identified weaknesses in the computer system to the
organization.
 Inform hardware and software vendors of the identified weaknesses.

Why Ethical Hacking?

 Information is one of the most valuable assets of an organization. Keeping

information secure can protect an organization’s image and save an organization a lot
of money.
 Hacking can lead to loss of business for organizations that deal in finance such as
PayPal. Ethical hacking puts them a step ahead of the cyber criminals who would
otherwise lead to loss of business.
Legality of Ethical Hacking

Ethical Hacking is legal if the hacker abides by the rules stipulated in the above section
on the definition of ethical hacking. The International Council of E-Commerce Consultants
(EC-Council) provides a certification program that tests individual’s skills. Those who pass
the examination are awarded with certificates. The certificates are supposed to be renewed
after some time.

What is cyberstalking?

As mentioned, cyberstalking can take many different forms, but in the broadest sense, it is
stalking or harassment that takes place via online channels such as social media, forums or
email. It is typically planned and sustained over a period of time.

Cases of cyberstalking can often begin as seemingly harmless interactions. Sometimes,

especially at the beginning, a few strange or perhaps unpleasant messages may even amuse
you. However, if they become systematic, it becomes annoying and even frightening.

For example, if you’ve received a few negative comments on Facebook and Instagram, it may
upset or annoy you, but this isn’t cyberstalking yet. For some people, such as semi-celebrities
looking for attention, negative comments are actually welcomed.

However, once you start receiving unwanted and annoying messages repeatedly and feel
harassed, then the line has likely been crossed. Cyberstalkers might terrorize victims by
sending unpleasant messages systematically, perhaps even several times a day. It is especially
unnerving when such messages come from different accounts managed by the same person. It
is probably a good idea to report this to both the website owners and law enforcement
agencies.

Cyberstalking doesn’t have to involve direct communication, and some victims may not even
realize they are being stalked online. Perpetrators can monitor victims through various
methods and use the information gathered for crimes like identity theft. In some cases, the
line between cyberspace and real life can become blurred. Attackers can collect your personal
data, contact your friends and attempt to harass you offline.
USING FAKE PROFILES TO ACT AS DECOYS

This may sound extreme, but it could be helpful in some situations to add profiles to social
networks that include fake personas using your name or picture. You can supply those
profiles with different addresses, jobs and interests. You can also change some information in
your real profiles and use one of the fake accounts as your primary for some time.

This tactic will help to mislead the cyberstalker and create doubts that this is really you. Just
be sure to check the rules and regulations for those platforms before doing this.

Cyberstalking is a big problem, but it is easier to prevent it than to try to solve it and
eliminate the consequences.

Fortunately, law enforcement agencies, security professionals and social media platforms are
on your side and are ready to provide you with useful tools and methods of protection. For
example, social media platforms make it easy to report abuse and reputable VPN providers
will help you hide your IP address and encrypt your communication. If needed, don’t hesitate
to contact the police to report cyberstalking or similar crimes.

Legal aspects of cyberstalking

It is difficult to find and punish professional attackers because they know how to anonymize
themselves behind fake personas. Plus, most countries have not yet adopted specific laws that
regulate cyberstalking. For example, in the US, cyberstalking falls under harassment and anti-
stalking laws. Depending on the severity of the case, a fine or even imprisonment may be
applied.

Cyberstalking specifically has been addressed in U.S. federal law – the Violence Against
Women Act.  However, there still remains a lack of federal legislation to address stalking by
electronic means, and the majority of legislation is done at the state level. The first U.S.
cyberstalking law went into effect in California. Since 1999, there have been a number of
high-profile legal cases related to cyberstalking.

What is Cyber Bullying?

Cyber bullying is the harassment or bullying executed through digital devices like computers,
laptops, smartphones, and tablets. The platforms where cyber bullying can occur include
 social media, chat rooms, and gaming platforms where people can view and participate in the
sharing of content.

The different types of cyber bullying involve causing humiliation through hateful comments
on online platforms/apps, or through SMS or messaging. It comprises posting, sending or
sharing negative, nasty or false information about another individual for causing humiliation
and character assassination.

Different Types of Cyber Bullying

A cognizance of the different types of cyber bullying is necessary. This enables parents and
young adults to report cyber bullying and adopt measures to prevent cyber bullying.
Following are some of the common types of cyber bullying:
 Posting hurtful, nasty or humiliating rumors or comments about an individual online
 Publishing an embarrassing or nasty photo or video
 Creating a fake or nasty webpage about another individual
 Issuing online threats provoking an individual to kill themselves or hurt someone else
 Triggering religious, racial, ethnic or political vitriol online by posting hate comments
or content
 Faking an identity online to ask for or post personal or fake information about
someone

Also, one should be aware of “doxing’’ here. It is a practice prevalent on the Internet for
researching and publishing personal information about an individual. One obtains
information from the person’s social media accounts and other online profiles. It is then used
for online harassment, online defamation and other forms of cyber bullying.

Cyber Bullying in India

With increasing availability of affordable data services and social media presence, cyber
bullying in India has witnessed an alarming rise.

According to research conducted by Symantec, nearly 8 out of 10 individuals are subject to

the different types of cyber bullying in India. Out of these around 63% faced online abuses
and insults, and 59% were subject to false rumors and gossips for degrading their image.

The same study ranks India as the country facing the highest cyber bullying in the Asia
Pacific region, more than Australia and Japan.

In fact, 50% of women residing in prime Indian cities are a victim of online abuse, according
to a survey by Feminism.

Spurred by the increasing cases of cyber bullying in India, the Ministry of Women and Child
Development has launched a distinct helpline to report cyber bullying, online harassment, and
cyber defamation, particularly against women and children.
Some Horrifying Incidents of Cyber Bullying in India

In November 2017, an MBBS student in Kerala jumped to her death from the highest floor of
her college building. An examination of her Facebook profile showed her displeasure over
the nasty comments made one of her peers. Police suspect that cyber bullying provoked her to
take this extreme step.

In February 2017, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) attacked students at a
literary event in Delhi’s Ramjas College.

At that time, little did a 20-year-old student from Lady Shri Ram College, Delhi, imagine that
her online campaign against the violence would change her life forever? The student,
Gurmehar Kaur, has ever since been trolled and abused extensively on social media
platforms. Worse still, she has even been receiving death and rape threats!

This is just another example of the ugly state of cyber bullying in India. Sadly, each day yet
another innocent life is subject to online torments and cyber bullying in India.
Obscenity and Pornography

Obscenity refers to a narrow category of pornography that violates contemporary community

standards and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. For adults at least,
most pornography — material of a sexual nature that arouses many readers and viewers —
receives constitutional protection. However, two types of pornography receive no First
Amendment protection: obscenity and child pornography. Sometimes, material is classified
as “harmful to minors” (or obscene as to minors), even though adults can have access to the
same material.
Obscenity is a confounding area of First Amendment law
Obscenity remains one of the most controversial and confounding areas of First Amendment
law, and Supreme Court justices have struggled mightily through the years to define
it. Justice Potter Stewart could provide no definition for obscenity in Jacobellis v.
Ohio  (1964), but he did exclaim: “I know it when I see it.” Stewart found that the Court was
“faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable.” In a later case, Interstate
Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas  (1968), Justice John Marshall Harlan II referred to this area as the
“intractable obscenity problem.”
The Hicklin rule was a broad and suppressive test
Several early U.S. courts adopted a standard for obscenity from the British case Regina v.
Hicklin (1868). The Hicklin rule provided the following test for obscenity: “whether the
tendency of the matter . . . is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such
immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.”
This test allowed material to be declared obscene based on isolated passages of a work and its
effect on particularly susceptible persons. Using this broad test, the British court ruled
obscene books deemed to be anti-religious. The two major problems with
the Hicklin  test were that it allowed works to be judged obscene based on isolated passages,
and it focused on particularly susceptible persons instead of reasonable persons. This focus
led to suppression of much free expression.
Roth test applied contemporary community standards in determining obscenity
The Supreme Court squarely confronted the obscenity question in Roth v. United
States  (1957), a case contesting the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting
the mailing of any material that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . or other
publication of an indecent character.” The Court, in an opinion drafted by Justice William J.
Brennan Jr., determined that “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected
speech or press.”
He articulated a new test for obscenity: “whether to the average person, applying
contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole
appeals to the prurient interest.” The Roth  test differed from the Hicklin test in that it focused
on “the dominant theme” of the material as opposed to isolated passages and on the average
person rather than the most susceptible person.
The Miller test is now the leading test for obscenity cases
In the 1970s, the Burger Court determined that the obscenity standard was too rigid for
prosecutors. Therefore, in Miller v. California  (1973) the Court adopted a new three-part test
— what Chief Justice Warren E. Burger called “guidelines” for jurors — that was more
favorable to the prosecution:
 (1) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would
find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
 (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the applicable state law;
 and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value.
In Miller,  the Court reasoned that individuals could not be convicted of obscenity charges
unless the materials depict “patently offensive hard core sexual conduct.” Under that
reasoning, many sexually explicit materials — pornographic magazines, books, and movies
— are not legally obscene. Ironically, Justice Brennan dissented in Miller and Paris Adult
Theatre I v. Slaton  (1973), changing his position on obscenity. He determined that obscenity
laws were too vague and could not be applied without “jeopardizing fundamental First
Amendment values.”
The contemporary community standards prong of the Miller test is confusing in the
Internet Age
The Miller  test remains the leading test for obscenity cases, but it continues to stir debate. In
its 1987 decision in Pope v. Illinois  (1987), the Court clarified that the “serious value” prong
of the Miller test was not to be judged by contemporary community standards. Obscenity
prosecutions do, however, impose contemporary community standards, even though a
distributor may transport materials to various communities. Thus interesting issues emerge
when a defendant in California is prosecuted in a locale with more restrictive community
standards.
This phenomenon has caused some legal experts and interested observers to call for the
creation of a national standard, particularly in the age of the Internet. In Ashcroft v. American
Civil Liberties Union  (2002), several justices expressed concern about applying local
community standards to the Internet as required by the Child Online Protection Act of 1998.
For example, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in his concurring opinion that “to read the
statute as adopting the community standards of every locality in the United States would
provide the most puritan of communities with a heckler’s veto affecting the rest of the
Nation.” Similarly, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in her concurrence, wrote that “adoption of
a national standard is necessary in my view for any reasonable regulation of Internet
obscenity.”

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
One of the biggest keys in a child pornography case is the element that the defendant
possessed, distributed, produced or sold “obscene matter” that involved a minor engaging in
sexual conduct. If this element is not meant, you cannot be convicted of a child pornography
crime.

Child Pornography Crimes Requiring Obscene Matter as an Element

Several child pornography crimes require the prosecution to prove that the material involved
is obscene. These crimes include:

 Production of child pornography (PC 311.1)

 Distribution of child pornography (PC 311.1(a))
 Advertising child pornography (PC 311.10)
 Production of obscene live conduct involving a minor (PC 311.4)

However, this element can be tricky to define. What does the term “obscene matter” actually
mean? Let’s explore this element of child pornography crimes in depth.

Obscene Matter in a Child Pornography Case

Where the term gets tricky is how the word “obscene” is defined.
Defining obscenity is something that has confounded even the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice
Potter Stewart famously wrote in a case concerning whether a film was pornographic:
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced
within that shorthand description [“hard-core pornography”], and perhaps I could never
succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved
in this case is not that.”
Justice Stewart’s candid observation that people know obscenity when they see it highlights
why the concept is so hard to pin down. With this difficulty in mind, California’s prosecutors
now use the definition of obscene found in California Penal Code Section 311.
Under this law, material is considered “obscene” if:

 It shows or describes sexual conduct in an obviously offensive way

 A reasonable person would conclude that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or
scientific value, and
 An average adult person, applying the contemporary standards of California, would
conclude that it appeals to a prurient interest

“Prurient interest” is a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex. This means the
material appeals to something beyond what is considered a normal, healthy interest in sex.
Essentially, this definition means that not all representations of sexual conduct by minors will
be considered child pornography. For example, if a film about the relationship between
young lovers contains explicit scenes where two teenaged actors simulate sexual intercourse,
the film could be considered to have significant artistic value. This means it would not be
considered “obscene” despite this explicit scene.
Contact the Criminal Defense Attorneys at Wallin & Klarich Today

If you or a loved one is facing child pornography charges, it is critical that you speak to an
experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.
At Wallin & Klarich, our criminal defense lawyers have more than 35 years of experience
successfully defending clients facing child pornography crimes. Our lawyers will use their
knowledge and skill to help you obtain the best possible outcome in your case.
With offices in Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, San Diego, West
Covina, Torrance and Victorville, there is an experienced Wallin & Klarich criminal defense
attorney available to help you no matter where you are located.

Penalties, Compensation and Adjudication under Information Technology Act, 2000

Section 43: Where a person without the permission of owner or any other person-in-charge
damage the Computer, or Computer System, or Computer Network, the he shall be liable for
Penalty and Compensation to such person so affected.
Section 44: Where a person fails to furnish any document, return, report to the controller, or
certifying authority, then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,50,000/- per failure.
Further where a person fails to furnish any information, books or other documents within
time specified, then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.5,000/- per day. Further
provided that where a person fails to maintain books of accounts or other records, then he
shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.10,000/- per day.

Offences under Information Technology Act, 2000

Section 65: Any person tamper, conceal, destroy, or alter any computer source document
intentionally, then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.2,00,000/-, or Imprisonment
upto 3 years, or both.
Section 66: Any person dishonestly, or fraudulently does any act as referred in Section 43,
then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.5,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or
both.
Section 66B: Any person dishonestly, or fraudulently receives or retains any stolen computer
resource or communication device, then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-,
or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both.
Section 66C: Any person dishonestly, or fraudulently make use of Electronic Signature,
Password or any other Unique Identification Feature of any other person, then he shall be
liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both.
Section 66B: Any person dishonestly, or fraudulently receives or retains any stolen computer
resource or communication device, then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-,
or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both.
Section 66C: Any person dishonestly, or fraudulently make use of Electronic Signature,
Password or any other Unique Identification Feature of any other person, then he shall be
liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both.
Section 66D: Any person dishonestly, or fraudulently by means of any communication
device or computer resource cheats by personating, then he shall be liable to pay penalty
upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both.
Section 66E: Any person intentionally captures, publishes, or transmits image of private area
of any person without consent, then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.2,00,000/-, or
Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both.
Section 66F: Any person does any act electronically, or with use of computer with intent to
threaten unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, then he shall punishable
with Imprisonment for Life.
Section 67: Any person publishes, or transmits in electronic form any material which appeals
to prurient interest, or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and coorupt persons who are
likely to read, see, or hear matter contained in it, then he shall be liable to pay penalty
upto Rs.5,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both, And in the event of second or
subsequent conviction, he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.10,00,000/-, or Imprisonment
upto 5 years, or both.
Section 67A: Any person publishes, or transmits in electronic form any material which
contains sexually explicit act, or conduct, then he shall be liable to pay penalty
upto Rs.10,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 5 years, or both, And in the event of second or
subsequent conviction, he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.10,00,000/-, or Imprisonment
upto 7 years, or both.
Section 68: The Controller may, by order, direct a Certifying Authority or any employee of
such Authority to take such measures or cease carrying on such activities as specified in the
order if those are necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act, rules or any
regulations made thereunder and if any person who intentionally or knowingly fails to
comply with the order, then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or
Imprisonment upto 2 years, or both.
Section 69: Where the Central Government or a State Government or any of its officers
specially authorized by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be,
in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of the
sovereignty or integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any
cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may with reasons
to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to
intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any
information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource, Any person
who fails to comply with the order, then he shall be liable to Imprisonment of 7 years, along
with the fine (amount of fine is not specified in the act).
Section 70: The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare
any computer resource which directly or indirectly affects the facility of Critical Information
Infrastructure, to be a protected system, Any person who fails to comply with the notification,
then he shall be liable to Imprisonment of 10 years, along with the fine (amount of fine is
not specified in the act).
 Section 71: Whoever makes any misrepresentation to, or suppresses any material fact from
the Controller or the Certifying Authority for obtaining any License or Electronic Signature
Certificate, as the case may be, then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or
Imprisonment upto 2 years, or both.
Section 72: If any person who has secured access to any electronic record, book, register,
correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the person
concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information,
document or other material to any other person, then he shall be liable to pay penalty
upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 2 years, or both.
Section 72A: If any person who has secured access to any material containing personal
information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to
cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the person concerned,
or in breach of a lawful contract, then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.5,00,000/-, or
Imprisonment upto 3 years, or both.
Section 73: If any person publishes a Electronic Signature Certificate, or make it available to
any other person with the knowledge that

 Certifying Authority has not issued it, or

 Subscriber has not accepted it, or
 Certificate has been revoked or suspended
then he shall be liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 2 years, or
both.
Section 74: If any person knowingly creates, publishes, or otherwise makes available
Electronic Signature Certificate for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose, then he shall be
liable to pay penalty upto Rs.1,00,000/-, or Imprisonment upto 2 years, or both.
Section 75: If any person have committed an offence, or contravention committed outside
India, and if the act or conduct constituting the offence or contravention involves a computer,
computer system or computer network located in India, then the provisions of this Act shall
apply also to any offence or contravention committed outside India by any
person irrespective of his nationality.
Section 76: Any computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives, or any
other accessories related thereto, in respect of which any provision of this Act, rules, orders,
or regulations made thereunder has been, or is being contravened, shall be liable to
confiscation. However, if it is proved that such resources were not used in committing fraud
then only person in default will be arrested.