Information technology act
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 31 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
If someone simply goes to the email providers webpage,clicks on forgot password, types in the email id then reset password. the service provider sends an email to the alternate email of the email id owner that will enable him or her to change/create to a new password instead of his old password.
No data has been theft, no identity theft/loss has been done, no spam, no wrongful loss/damage or diminishing the value of any substance or any utility nor affected anybody injuriously, nothing, at the best it can be classified as a prank or a mischief.
Now can this be punished under sections 43,46,66 or any other section of the IT Act or the penal code?
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 31 December 2011
Ethical hacking is not recognised in IT Act.
So it is surely punishable under the Act.
Actual damage is not always the criteria of punishment.
If your logic is accepted then every house trespassing by strangers should be let scot free.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 31 December 2011
Sir,
Agree BUT whether trespassing occurred or not is the fact.
HACKING as per 66 of IT Act--
1) Whoever with the intent of cause or knowing that is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person destroys or deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means, commits hacking.
So no doubt an act has occurrd BUT if in that act no loss occured, no damage has occured, the value has not diminished, utility is not affected injuriously, then can it be said that an offense has been committed ?
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 31 December 2011
Breach of privacy is definitely a loss in this circumstances. Who could prove that the said person has not taken any private information of the said person?
And you have admitted that hacking is made.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 31 December 2011
Sir,
How are you saying Breach of Privacy has occurred? The person has not even logged into the email account of the other person(tresspassing has not occured, he is outside the boundary). Neither he had the old password with which he could log into the email ID, nor he has logged in with the new password, the log records from the email provider can show that there was no logging into the email account.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 31 December 2011
only the old password has been disabled and to log in to the email id, the person will have to click on the email sent to his alternate email id and then create a new password for his new email ID. It was simply a prank. So all the communications have been personal to the rightful owner, only that it was initiated by another person and no loss has occured to the rightful owner or anybody else.
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 31 December 2011
Agree with Ld. Mr.barman
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 31 December 2011
Mr. Nair how do u agree with breach of privacy when the email account has not all been opened? If I have not enetred into ur house how can u slap tresspassing on me?
Please explain. Email ID is public info, Messages are the personal info, someone simply resets the password without logging in ur account only after which one can read or send messages then what offense can you make out? Dont disagree that it was not the authorized but can you go beyond offense prescribed in the Act and whether any offense as prescribed in the Act is made out?
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 31 December 2011
Tresspassing means accessing the property of another without his consent or knowledge.
In this case, your act amounts to tresspass.
Let me Explain:-
I admit that you did not enter my house, but you palyed mischief with my door and the door lock without my consent or knowledge.
My address is a public info, but my house is my personal property.
If your friend files a case, then it is upto the court to see whether an offence is made out or not.
In that event, you have to prove that your intention was clear.
Guest
(Expert) 31 December 2011
Dear Anonymous,
You have not come out with the clear problem. You have not stated whether you reset the password for your own email ID or someone else's account, who would have given your email ID, as an alternate email address.
Unless you provide such infor, you may get the response of experts and counter arguments unnecessarily without getting the real solution.
If I am not incorrect in my guess and if you have been punished, you would have reset some other person's password.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 31 December 2011
Sir,
It has happened with me. Harmlessly due to some confusion because of tension with an ongoing litigation with the other person unknowingly typed in the other persons email ID and tried to log in but because I was mentally very tensed so I was not able to realize my mistake. So I simply clicked on the forgot password and entered the other persons email ID. When the password reset occured I realized that I was typing in the other persons email ID.
But it is without doubt that my opposite litigant would try to take advantage of this act and initiate more proceedings against me to break me up.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 31 December 2011
the alternate email id to which the password change was sent was the other persons email id himself, not mine, so i could not have in any way also got any information to change his password even if he says it was my intention to log in to his account.
Guest
(Expert) 31 December 2011
Yes dear, whether you used/misused or not or whether that was with mistake or intentional, your action comes under the purview of hacking of email account. Your opponent can very well say that you had tried to hack both the accounts just to retrieve his private information available in the email ID concerned as well as of the alternative email ID that too by using his own computer, etc.
You were required to convince the judge about your action to be merely through an oversight/ confusion, but not with the intention to damage data or computer system or to retrieve any private information from his computer or emails data.
mahendrakumar
(Expert) 01 January 2012
you can very well plead your innocense in the case and in view of the afore said facts,it is justifiable,as the new password is only sent to the alternate emaild,which could be opened by only the genuine owner,as he only have the password for the same.
I do not think your acts amount to a hacking.
Vijayashankar
(Expert) 01 January 2012
This can be considered as an "attempt to commit an offence under Section 66". Punishment can be imprisonment upto 18 months.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 01 January 2012
Several amendments in IT Act were introduced in 2008 of which you should take note.
http://www.cyberlaws.net/itamendments/IT%20ACT%20AMENDMENTS.PDF
All relevant sections mentioned by have been changed section 66 quoted by you now reads as below:
32. For sections 66 and 67 of the principal Act, the following sections shall be
substituted, namely:—
‘66. If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section
43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
(a) the word “dishonestly” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section
24 of the Indian Penal Code;
(b) the word “fraudulently” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section
25 of the Indian Penal Code.
66A. Any pe r son who s ends , by me ans of a comput e r r e sour c e or a
communication device,—
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of
causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal
intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer
resource or a communication device,
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing
annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient
about the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
with fine.
‘Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, terms “electronic mail” and
“electronic mail message” means a message or information created or transmitted or
received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device
including attachments in text, images, audio, video and any other electronic record,
which may be transmitted with the message.
66B. Whoever dishonestly received or retains any stolen computer resource or
communication device knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen computer
resource or communication device, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh
or with both.
66C. Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature,
password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine with may extend to rupees one lakh.
66D. Whoever, by means for any communication device or computer resource cheats
by personating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupee.
66E. Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image
of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the
privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years
or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section—
(a) “transmit” means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it
be viewed by a person or persons;
(b) “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or
record by any means;
(c) “private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area,
buttocks or female breast:
(d) “publishes” means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making
it available for public;
(e) “under circumstances violating privacy” means circumstances in which a
person can have a reasonable expectation that—
(i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an
image of his private area was being captured; or
(ii) any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public,
regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
66F. (1) Whoever,—
(A) with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or
to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by—
(i) denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorized to
access computer resource; or
(ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without
authorisation or exceeding authorised access; or
(iii) introducing or causing to introduce any computer contaminant;
and by means of such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons
or damage to or destruction of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause
damage or discruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or
adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under section 70, or
(B) knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without
authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct btains
access to information, data or computer database that is restriced for reasons for the
security of the State or foreign relations, or any restrictued information, data or computer
database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so
obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty
and integrity of India, the secrity of the State, friendly relations with foreign States,
public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals
or otherwise,
commits the offence of cyber terrorism.
(2) Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life.’.
67. Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in
the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest
or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having
regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied
in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh
rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which
may extend to ten lakh rupees.
67A. Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted
in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall
be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and
in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten
lakh rupees.
67B. Whoever,—
(a) publishes or transmites or causes to be published or transmitted material in
any electronic form which depiets children engaged in sexually esplicit act or conduct;
or
(b) creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises,
promotes, exchanges or distributes material in any electronic form depicting children
in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner; or
(c) cultivates, entices or induces children to online relationship with one or more
children for and on sexually explicit act or in a manner that may offend a reasonable
adult on the computer resource; or
(d) facilitates abusing children online, or
(e) records in any electronic form own abuse or that of others pertaining to sexually explicit act with children,
shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event
of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either discription for a term which
may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees:
Provided that provisions of section 67, section 67A and this section does not
extend to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation or
figure in electronic form—
(i) the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public
good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing drawing, painting
representation or figure is the interest of science, literature, art or learning or
other objects of general concern; or
(ii) which is kept or used for bonafide hertiage or religious purposes.
Explanation- For the purposes of this section “children” means a persons who
has not completed the age of 18 years.
67C (1) Intermediary shall preserve and retain such information as may be specified
for such duration and in such manner and format as the Central Government may
prescribe.
(2) any intermediary who intentionally or knowingly contravences the provisions
of sub-section (1) shall be punished with an inprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and also be liable to fine.
.....................................................
study it carefully then if any doubt or argument you have,return for discussion.These amendments are critical a few appreciable and a few very condemnable,but then law is law even if jurisprudence behind that is wrong.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 01 January 2012
Though as per definition of Act, offence is established but as you have not logged in the account of that person so the plea of mense-rea is openly available to you which cannot be ignored by any court of law and you shall get its full benefit. Innocence is always available to any person charged with an offence if everything comes on court file.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 02 January 2012
I think this is not a right query, there is something amiss.
The answer is simply provided by Ld. Makkad.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
