103
Despite its positives, the Bill does not tackle a few issues. For instance, when does
an innocent cyber voyage cross over to the dark side, when does a search engine
become an “indecent scrutiny” and just who is liable when “objectionable” material
changes hands?
Thus, clear guidelines on what constitutes a cyber crime are an absolute must.
In the absence of such a blueprint, “Net policing” might become more rabid.
The cyber
danda
,
if not wielded properly, could cause a major setback to our
Internet forays.
The IT Bill is also silent on issues such as “cyber squatting.” Cyber squatting,
simply put, is the stealing or assumption of a domain name by a dotcom, which has the
same name as that of an established and reputed company in the bricks-and-mortar
world. Some individuals have already tried to “squat” on names such as the Tatas, Infosys,
Reliance, and yes, even Chandrababu Naidu, and other stuff that spells a big banner.
The IT Bill says nothing about how such cases can be handled and how the
established players can seek redressal for such cyber squatting. We are told that the
new Copyright Law will possibly have these provisions.
And now, Clause 79. Some experts are agitated that Clause 79 gives unlimited
powers to a Police officer, not below the rank of a deputy superintendent, or an
officer either belonging to or authorized by the Central government, to enter any
public place, search and arrest without warrant any person they suspect of having
committed or is about to commit any offence under the Act.
But such a provision is already there in the Indian Penal Code. The consolation is
that the interests of citizens are somewhat safe-guarded by vesting only a DSP and
above with such powers. Legal experts believe that dropping the clause might be
worse since even a sub inspector can exercise this power. Therefore, more than the
IT Bill, the other laws of the country need to be changed.
In summary, the IT Bill is a step in the right direction. But much will depend on its
careful implementation.
n
