C Y B E R S A A T H I

Loading

“The government is well within its rights to ask fake news to be taken down, said Supreme Court lawyer N.S. Nappinai, the founder of Cyber Saathi, a cyber safety initiative that disseminates information on cyber laws. However, Nappinai cautions against the use of blanket bans, as the first reaction to any problem. Advisories flagging fake news themselves would have helped, she said.”

Live Mint, 24.05.2021

“In India, personal data is protected under two provisions – Section 43A and Section 72A of the IT Act -- the first for civil remedies and second for criminal prosecution, according to N S Nappinai, a Supreme Court lawyer and founder, Cyber Saathi. “The government has taken a definitive stand before court that WhatsApp’s policy change is contrary to Indian laws and followed it through with a letter. It can act against WhatsApp under those sections or treat it as an intermediary. If it’s the latter then WhatsApp runs the risk of jeopardising it’s intermediary exemptions,” she said.”

The Hindu Business Line, 20.05.2021

“Under the current IT Act, there are provisions for both criminal and civil lawsuits that can be filed by the owner of the data if health records are shared without consent,” said NS Nappinai, a Supreme Court advocate and founder of Cyber Saathi that works in creating awareness and promoting online safety. Health is sensitive data and banks can use it for credit ratings or taking a decision if loans should be given or not,” she said.”

Telecom.com From the Economic Times, 13.05.2021

“That (ban) will not happen, as it is not what the provisions say,” said to NS Nappinai, Supreme Court lawyer and founder of Cyber Saathi. “Moreover, the platforms seem to be under the misapprehension that only by appointing a compliance officer they will become subject to India’s jurisdiction. They are already subject to the country’s laws and are bound to comply with them,”

Hindustan Times, 26.05.2021

“It is also most important that victims file complaints. It is only when we take recourse under the law, can we ensure that systems function effectively and with more complaints coming to the fore and more stories of action against criminals getting reported, law itself will act as a deterrent, victims taking action. Effective enforcement and sufficient awareness of such outcomes will also then become preventive deterrents.”

City Spidy, 15.05.2021

"Unlike harassment in physical workplaces that required the victim or eyewitnesses to provide evidence, harassment in the workplace can be tracked through digital footprints, video recording and screenshots. The best way to counter sexual harassment is through deterrence. Employers must provide simple and transparent policy documents with concrete scenarios to employees so that they understand legal consequences of their actions.”

Money Control, 26.05.2021

“According to Supreme Court advocate N S Nappinai, Founder of Cyber Saathi, it is open to both Twitter and the individuals whose accounts are to be blocked to contest the notice before Indian courts. Instead taking law into one’s own hands could lead to prosecution and also losing it’s safe harbour under Section 79 IT Act. “If an intermediary (Twitter, in this instance) believes that these provisions have not been complied with its only remedy is to seek recourse from court. It cannot decide unilaterally to not comply with such an order” she said.”

Hindu Business Line, 10.02.2021

“The government is well within its rights to ask fake news to be taken down, said Supreme Court lawyer N.S. Nappinai, the founder of Cyber Saathi, a cyber safety initiative that disseminates information on cyber laws. However, Nappinai cautions against the use of blanket bans, as the first reaction to any problem. Advisories flagging fake news themselves would have helped, she said.”

Live Mint, 24.05.2021

“According to Supreme Court advocate N S Nappinai, Founder of Cyber Saathi, it is open to both Twitter and the individuals whose accounts are to be blocked to contest the notice before Indian courts. Instead taking law into one’s own hands could lead to prosecution and also losing it’s safe harbour under Section 79 IT Act. “If an intermediary (Twitter, in this instance) believes that these provisions have not been complied with its only remedy is to seek recourse from court. It cannot decide unilaterally to not comply with such an order” she said.”

Hindu Business Line, 10.02.2021

I Always Wish India would Lead: Interview with N. S. Nappinai (2)

Interviewer / Editor Lina Kamada, BTCBox - 2020

In the early 2000’s India was primarily concerned with more stable and secure e-commerce rules which encouraged them to create the very first Information Technology Act in 2000. However, the focus changed immediately after the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and the GhostNet attack in 2009, when the Indian government realized that critical infrastructure and government information networks have to be equally securitized.As an instant reaction to this event, the Indian Government passed a new, amended IT Act in 2008, which then included distinct regulations for activities that threatened the nation’s sovereignty or integrity. The four most important added amendments were (1) tampering with source code; (2) deleting, destroying or altering any data on any computer resource with mala fide intent to cause wrongful loss or to diminish its value; (3) publishing ortransmitting pornographic material through a computer resource; and (4) provisions pertaining to encryption technology, the right to governments to intercept and decrypt such data and to call upon any entity or individual to decrypt such data’. (numbers added) This rapid reaction to the Mumbai attacks with a new draft of the ITAA shows that the cyber security as an issue was highly politicized and elevated to an advanced urgency level. Nevertheless, Nappinai would argue that it was ‘hastily tabled before the Parliament and was passed hastily and without any debate whatsoever’. What that basically meant for cyber security in India was that an IT Act was created, but the implementation and eligibility of the amendments were not adequately thought-through, tested and discussed, hence the legitimacy of this catalogue of regulations was relatively low. Securitization of cyberspace in India: A question of policy focus and implementation

By Melanie Schweiger
All Rights Reserved. © Copyright 2020 – N. S. Nappinai Founder, 
Cyber Saathi

“Cyber Saathi is a not for profit initiative of the founders intended only for information and knowledge and personal use of Users. Nothing contained herein is legal advice or opinion. Copyright to contents in its entirety of website, case studies, articles, stories and data shared, except News, is owned by N. S. Nappinai, founder, Cyber Saathi. Copying, reproducing, sharing, distributing or using for any other purpose is an infringement. Quotes from the website to be attributed to “Cyber Saathi – An Initiative of N. S. Nappinai”. Content, which violates third party IPR shall not be shared and grievances to be submitted for action. Parental guidance and consent are mandated as case studies and content may relate to heinous offences. Cyber Saathi shall not be liable in any manner whatsoever including, for loss or damages, as set out in its Terms of Usage and other policies, for use of this website or sharing of information. By continuing further on this website, User is deemed to have read, understood and agreed to abide by the Terms of Usage, Copyright Policy and Privacy Policy.”

“The website and modules therein contain details of different kinds of cybercrimes and violations and some of such content or material on Cyber Saathi may contain language or details which may not be explicit / sensitive in nature and may not be appropriate for Users below the age of 18 years. For users below18 years of age, parental consent and guidance is mandatory. Parents are advised to review content in advance. “

Designed & Developed By: Jemistry Info Solutions LLP