At a time when cybercrime is becoming a cottage industry in India, it comes as no surprise that online fraud should become the preferred mode. Most times, online fraud is done in a variety of innovative ways. The classic case of the village of Jamtara, Jharkhand, being engaged in online fraud and cybercrime activities is a distinct example in this regard.

Some of the well-known instances include people losing money because of fraudulent calls, fraudulent emails or due to disclosing the details of bank account accidentally. The reasons why online fraud has massively increased in the country are many. The propensity of the new generation to earn a quick buck, mistaken fear that they cannot be tracked, and lack of deterrence in the provisions of law are important causes. We have also seen various call centres and BPOs been raided in connection with making fraudulent calls to foreign citizens, claiming to solve a security problem in the software of a major company.&nbsp;

When I look at the legal ramifications of online fraud, the reason for its proliferation becomes evident. The Indian law has been thoroughly inadequate to deal with online fraud. When one looks at the provisions of the special law pertaining to online environment, the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000, one quickly realises that it does not have adequate provisions for effectively stopping and preventing online fraud.

First and foremost, online fraud dedicatedly has not been brought within the ambit of the specific provisions of the Information &amp; Technology Act, 2000, though I believe that some portion of online fraud could be brought within the ambit of computer-related offences under Section 66 of the Information &amp; Technology Act, 2000. But, then there is a bigger problem that Section 66 read with Section 43 of the Information &amp; Technology Act, 2000, is a bailable offence.

Online fraudsters, even if booked under the Information &amp; Technology Act, 2000, are entitled to bail as a matter of right. Consequently, we find that very few cases get registered and even if they are registered and the persons are arrested, they are immediately released on bail. The orientation of online fraudsters to delete relevant incriminating electronic evidence and to create an obstruction in the prosecution of online frauds is relatively high.&nbsp;

Given the fact that online fraud is happening so frequently and at such an alarming pace, the police are not well equipped to deal with these issues. First, it is a big challenge to get a case registered. Assuming that the case is registered, one still finds that getting the police to act is also a big challenge. Hence, the inadequacy of the law and its provisions and lack of deterrence effectively ensure that getting cybercrime convictions is a tall order.&nbsp;

Further, the Information Technology Act, 2000, does provide another remedy of seeking damages by way of compensation against online fraudsters by virtue of the remedy under Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. However, given the sophisticated tools that online fraudsters use and given the fact that it becomes difficult for individuals to trace online fraudsters, the remedy is not so effective.

Most times, service providers are not willing to cooperate. After the Shreya Singhal judgment, intermediaries have become mute spectators, thereby complicating the entire scenario of effective regulation of online frauds.&nbsp;

A Reserve Bank of India notification has provided some effective remedy to victims of online fraud. As per the RBI Notification of July, 2017, if a person becomes a victim of online fraud by misuse of his credit card details or banking records and he complains to the bank in question within 72 hours, then there is a 0 per cent liability on the consumers, and the bank is required to absorb the losses.&nbsp;

However, the present ad-hoc approach to dealing with online frauds has to stop. The government needs to come up with a stringent legal framework to provide deterrence. The provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, too need to be amended.&nbsp;

Law enforcement agencies need to be more sensitised about adopting a user-friendly approach while registering online complaints. Banks need to put in place far more effective and efficient cybersecurity mechanisms and procedures to minimize the chances of online frauds. More importantly, users must be educated about cybercrime to raise awareness levels.&nbsp;

Currently, it appears that online fraudsters are having a winning edge. Governments and all other stakeholders have to work together to create an effective bulwark, involving multidimensional strategies, against cybercrime. Sample cases need to be selected for expeditious trial. Special cyber courts need to be set up for adjudicating issues concerning online frauds. The journey appears to be a long one. The war against online fraud has just begun.

 
(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-the-murky-web-of-frauds-2690345">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

At a time when cybercrime is becoming a cottage industry in India, it comes as no surprise that online fraud should become the preferred mode. Most times, online fraud is done in a variety of innovative ways.

At a time when cybercrime is becoming a cottage industry in India, it comes as no surprise that online fraud should become the preferred mode. Most times, online fraud is done in a variety of innovative ways. The classic case of the village of Jamtara, Jharkhand, being engaged in online fraud and cybercrime activities is a distinct example in this regard. Some of the well-known instances include people losing money because of fraudulent calls, fraudulent emails or due to disclosing the details of bank account accidentally. The reasons why online fraud has massively increased in the country are many. The propensity of the new generation to earn a quick buck, mistaken fear that they cannot be tracked, and lack of deterrence in the provisions of law are important causes. We have also seen various call centres and BPOs been raided in connection with making fraudulent calls to foreign citizens, claiming to solve a security problem in the software of a major company. When I look at the legal ramifications of online fraud, the reason for its proliferation becomes evident. The Indian law has been thoroughly inadequate to deal with online fraud. When one looks at the provisions of the special law pertaining to online environment, the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000, one quickly realises that it does not have adequate provisions for effectively stopping and preventing online fraud. First and foremost, online fraud dedicatedly has not been brought within the ambit of the specific provisions of the Information & Technology Act, 2000, though I believe that some portion of online fraud could be brought within the ambit of computer-related offences under Section 66 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. But, then there is a bigger problem that Section 66 read with Section 43 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000, is a bailable offence. Online fraudsters, even if booked under the Information & Technology Act, 2000, are entitled to bail as a matter of right. Consequently, we find that very few cases get registered and even if they are registered and the persons are arrested, they are immediately released on bail. The orientation of online fraudsters to delete relevant incriminating electronic evidence and to create an obstruction in the prosecution of online frauds is relatively high. Given the fact that online fraud is happening so frequently and at such an alarming pace, the police are not well equipped to deal with these issues. First, it is a big challenge to get a case registered. Assuming that the case is registered, one still finds that getting the police to act is also a big challenge. Hence, the inadequacy of the law and its provisions and lack of deterrence effectively ensure that getting cybercrime convictions is a tall order. Further, the Information Technology Act, 2000, does provide another remedy of seeking damages by way of compensation against online fraudsters by virtue of the remedy under Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. However, given the sophisticated tools that online fraudsters use and given the fact that it becomes difficult for individuals to trace online fraudsters, the remedy is not so effective. Most times, service providers are not willing to cooperate. After the Shreya Singhal judgment, intermediaries have become mute spectators, thereby complicating the entire scenario of effective regulation of online frauds. A Reserve Bank of India notification has provided some effective remedy to victims of online fraud. As per the RBI Notification of July, 2017, if a person becomes a victim of online fraud by misuse of his credit card details or banking records and he complains to the bank in question within 72 hours, then there is a 0 per cent liability on the consumers, and the bank is required to absorb the losses. However, the present ad-hoc approach to dealing with online frauds has to stop. The government needs to come up with a stringent legal framework to provide deterrence. The provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, too need to be amended. Law enforcement agencies need to be more sensitised about adopting a user-friendly approach while registering online complaints. Banks need to put in place far more effective and efficient cybersecurity mechanisms and procedures to minimize the chances of online frauds. More importantly, users must be educated about cybercrime to raise awareness levels. Currently, it appears that online fraudsters are having a winning edge. Governments and all other stakeholders have to work together to create an effective bulwark, involving multidimensional strategies, against cybercrime. Sample cases need to be selected for expeditious trial. Special cyber courts need to be set up for adjudicating issues concerning online frauds. The journey appears to be a long one. The war against online fraud has just begun. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Cyber laws have failed to create a culture of deterrence

Fake news is already a challenge and now a sudden increase in fake videos online have made the battle all the more difficult. Used as another malicious tool on the Internet, users are now increasingly creating and sharing false videos to report misinformation, manipulate public opinion, and promote false propaganda.&nbsp;

It has been found that the Internet is now flooded with a lot of artificial intelligence-powered video tools that have made face -swapping in videos easier than ever before. And these video tools are doing the job with such a precision that it could be difficult for anyone to spot if the video is morphed.&nbsp;

While there are many such online software, FakeApp has gained a lot of momentum over the last few weeks.&nbsp;

There is no information available as to who created this app, but it has been discovered that the app was designed using a Google software. And ever since it appeared on Reddit early this year, it&rsquo;s been downloaded more than 120,000 times.

Some of the fake videos created by Youtuber derpfakes using the much-discussed FakeApp includes the Russian president Vladimir Putin; another one features American comedian Kate McKinnon&#39;s face swapped with that of Hillary Clinton. In another, American actor Alec Baldwin turned into Donald Trump.

A quick search on the Internet will give you thousands of such results and you could find it difficult to spot the real from the fake.&nbsp;&nbsp;

These fake videos are now on the rise and it&rsquo;s becoming a matter of grave concern as these can be used to malign politicians, to create fake porn videos of celebrities, to promote false propaganda, for political sabotage, and to frame people

What is more worrying is that these tools are now within easy reach of basic Internet users.&nbsp;

Apps like Snapchat are already allowing users basic face swapping, and now these artificial intelligence-driven video tools have made advanced-level face-swapping techniques pretty simple for users like you and me. It&rsquo;s now just a few taps away. True that the technique still isn&rsquo;t that simple, but it definitely doesn&rsquo;t remain rocket science anymore.

While technology has made things easier for us, it has also opened doors for misuse. Companies like Pornhub, Twitter and Reddit have already started to ban false videos on their platforms, but the battle doesn&rsquo;t end here.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

The Internet is now flooded with a lot of artificial intelligence-powered video tools that have made face -swapping in videos easier than ever before.

Fake news is already a challenge and now a sudden increase in fake videos online have made the battle all the more difficult. Used as another malicious tool on the Internet, users are now increasingly creating and sharing false videos to report misinformation, manipulate public opinion, and promote false propaganda. It has been found that the Internet is now flooded with a lot of artificial intelligence-powered video tools that have made face -swapping in videos easier than ever before. And these video tools are doing the job with such a precision that it could be difficult for anyone to spot if the video is morphed. While there are many such online software, FakeApp has gained a lot of momentum over the last few weeks. There is no information available as to who created this app, but it has been discovered that the app was designed using a Google software. And ever since it appeared on Reddit early this year, it’s been downloaded more than 120,000 times. Some of the fake videos created by Youtuber derpfakes using the much-discussed FakeApp includes the Russian president Vladimir Putin; another one features American comedian Kate McKinnon's face swapped with that of Hillary Clinton. In another, American actor Alec Baldwin turned into Donald Trump. A quick search on the Internet will give you thousands of such results and you could find it difficult to spot the real from the fake. These fake videos are now on the rise and it’s becoming a matter of grave concern as these can be used to malign politicians, to create fake porn videos of celebrities, to promote false propaganda, for political sabotage, and to frame people What is more worrying is that these tools are now within easy reach of basic Internet users. Apps like Snapchat are already allowing users basic face swapping, and now these artificial intelligence-driven video tools have made advanced-level face-swapping techniques pretty simple for users like you and me. It’s now just a few taps away. True that the technique still isn’t that simple, but it definitely doesn’t remain rocket science anymore. While technology has made things easier for us, it has also opened doors for misuse. Companies like Pornhub, Twitter and Reddit have already started to ban false videos on their platforms, but the battle doesn’t end here. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why AI-driven video tools have become dangerous

In today&rsquo;s time, blogs, forums and the likes are the breakthroughs in citizen development. Social media platforms through the access of the Internet has become a way for people to engage in issues they wish to express their opinion on, influence the government and maintain their anonymity as well.

But not all is well with the governments supporting this citizen development. People are facing penalties and getting arrested for sharing and publishing content in the name of cybersecurity or as the critics call it cyber sovereignty. According to a report from freedom house, a pro-democracy think tank, Internet freedom around the world declined in 2016 for the sixth consecutive year. It listed China dead last out of all nations surveyed.

The Great Firewall of China, not a physical barrier but a virtual one, prevents harmful information from entering the country. Apparently, it seems it was not enough as China&rsquo;s cyber administration has recently released a new cybersecurity law to tighten control and strengthen the oversight mechanism over Internet discussion.&nbsp;

These regulations demand that all social media users register accounts only with proper identification; a prior censorship for all Internet comments in the form of first approve then post system; Internet companies to assist public security organisations in protecting national security, and allowing the state to establish undefined systems for cybersecurity monitoring.

In addition to the above mentioned monitoring requirements, the law mandates that personal information and other important data collected in China must be stored on servers physically located within mainland China. The law also requires firms that operate critical information infrastructure to comply with all other obligations created by law or administrative regulation.&nbsp;

Moreover, local and overseas firms are required to submit to security checks and their business licenses can be revoked for serious violations.

The sad part about these restrictions is the lack of definitional detail present in them. There is no precise enumeration of which sectors constitute critical information infrastructure that requires enhanced cybersecurity measures. The guidelines mentioned in the law are written in vague terminology and absent official guidance, increasing the scope of state authority in an ambiguous manner.

The requirement for the companies to verify an individual&rsquo;s real identity before providing Internet services nullifies the blessing of being anonymous to users. The extensive terms and conditions of the law also present huge problems for foreign corporations attempting to comply with it. International law firms are worried that companies could be asked to provide source code, encryption, or other crucial information for review by the authorities, increasing the risk of this information being lost, passed on to local competitors, or used by the authorities themselves.&nbsp;

Moreover, these companies now face at least four separate security audits by different Chinese government agencies with unclear jurisdictions. This new cybersecurity law is not only curbing freedom of expression but can also be used for political purposes to delay or block market access. It can damage global trade in services and disrupt cross-border transfers of information that are routine in the ordinary course of business. The law has also raised concerns among foreign companies over greater data controls as well as increased risks of intellectual property theft.

Government-backed Internet commentators can flood the web in China with pro-regime propaganda. It can also threaten to shut down foreign technology companies out of various sectors considered critical. The Economist has warned that the new law could well constitute &lsquo;a Trojan horse designed to promote China&rsquo;s aggressive policy of indigenous innovation. &nbsp;Also, the substantial investment by Chinese technology firms in recent years to establish domestic data centres is believed to bolster the domestic Chinese data management and telecommunications industry against global competitors.

Moreover, China&rsquo;s refusal to accede to the Budapest Convention on Cyber Crime reflects its developing state-centric approach to international agreements on cyberspace. The Convention is a multilateral agreement that serves as a framework for international cooperation on cybercrime and a guide for the development of national cybercrime legislation

The proponents of this law have called it an information security policy. It is linked with Xi Jinping&rsquo;s dictum that without cyber security there is no national security. It can be used to counter threats of hacking, terrorism and other cyber crimes. Though, the reality for the critics is far from the objective. China hopes to reap the economic benefits of cyber-development while actively shaping and constraining the ideas available to the country&rsquo;s citizens. It is moving its model of Internet sovereignty for the world by making it a legal reality at home.

Internet censorship in this information age is hard to gulp in seeing the overwhelming presence of real-time news and data availability. Cyber powers all around the world need to talk about in practical technological and human terms. If China calls its cybersecurity policy as an information security policy, then international information security and the peace in cyberspace is highly questioned. For the people of China, living in a society where speech and expression can be freely exchanged is becoming a distant reality. 
&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

People are facing penalties and getting arrested for sharing and publishing content in the name of cybersecurity or as the critics call it cyber sovereignty.

In today’s time, blogs, forums and the likes are the breakthroughs in citizen development. Social media platforms through the access of the Internet has become a way for people to engage in issues they wish to express their opinion on, influence the government and maintain their anonymity as well. But not all is well with the governments supporting this citizen development. People are facing penalties and getting arrested for sharing and publishing content in the name of cybersecurity or as the critics call it cyber sovereignty. According to a report from freedom house, a pro-democracy think tank, Internet freedom around the world declined in 2016 for the sixth consecutive year. It listed China dead last out of all nations surveyed. The Great Firewall of China, not a physical barrier but a virtual one, prevents harmful information from entering the country. Apparently, it seems it was not enough as China’s cyber administration has recently released a new cybersecurity law to tighten control and strengthen the oversight mechanism over Internet discussion. These regulations demand that all social media users register accounts only with proper identification; a prior censorship for all Internet comments in the form of first approve then post system; Internet companies to assist public security organisations in protecting national security, and allowing the state to establish undefined systems for cybersecurity monitoring. In addition to the above mentioned monitoring requirements, the law mandates that personal information and other important data collected in China must be stored on servers physically located within mainland China. The law also requires firms that operate critical information infrastructure to comply with all other obligations created by law or administrative regulation. Moreover, local and overseas firms are required to submit to security checks and their business licenses can be revoked for serious violations. The sad part about these restrictions is the lack of definitional detail present in them. There is no precise enumeration of which sectors constitute critical information infrastructure that requires enhanced cybersecurity measures. The guidelines mentioned in the law are written in vague terminology and absent official guidance, increasing the scope of state authority in an ambiguous manner. The requirement for the companies to verify an individual’s real identity before providing Internet services nullifies the blessing of being anonymous to users. The extensive terms and conditions of the law also present huge problems for foreign corporations attempting to comply with it. International law firms are worried that companies could be asked to provide source code, encryption, or other crucial information for review by the authorities, increasing the risk of this information being lost, passed on to local competitors, or used by the authorities themselves. Moreover, these companies now face at least four separate security audits by different Chinese government agencies with unclear jurisdictions. This new cybersecurity law is not only curbing freedom of expression but can also be used for political purposes to delay or block market access. It can damage global trade in services and disrupt cross-border transfers of information that are routine in the ordinary course of business. The law has also raised concerns among foreign companies over greater data controls as well as increased risks of intellectual property theft. Government-backed Internet commentators can flood the web in China with pro-regime propaganda. It can also threaten to shut down foreign technology companies out of various sectors considered critical. The Economist has warned that the new law could well constitute ‘a Trojan horse designed to promote China’s aggressive policy of indigenous innovation. Also, the substantial investment by Chinese technology firms in recent years to establish domestic data centres is believed to bolster the domestic Chinese data management and telecommunications industry against global competitors. Moreover, China’s refusal to accede to the Budapest Convention on Cyber Crime reflects its developing state-centric approach to international agreements on cyberspace. The Convention is a multilateral agreement that serves as a framework for international cooperation on cybercrime and a guide for the development of national cybercrime legislation The proponents of this law have called it an information security policy. It is linked with Xi Jinping’s dictum that without cyber security there is no national security. It can be used to counter threats of hacking, terrorism and other cyber crimes. Though, the reality for the critics is far from the objective. China hopes to reap the economic benefits of cyber-development while actively shaping and constraining the ideas available to the country’s citizens. It is moving its model of Internet sovereignty for the world by making it a legal reality at home. Internet censorship in this information age is hard to gulp in seeing the overwhelming presence of real-time news and data availability. Cyber powers all around the world need to talk about in practical technological and human terms. If China calls its cybersecurity policy as an information security policy, then international information security and the peace in cyberspace is highly questioned. For the people of China, living in a society where speech and expression can be freely exchanged is becoming a distant reality. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Is China curtailing freedom in the name of cybersecurity?

cybercrime

Cybercrime, News on Cybercrime, stories on Cybercrime, articles on Cybercrime, Cybercrime stories at Wion, Cybercrime news, Cybercrime latest news