IT law

src: www.michalsons.com

The Information technology law (also called "cyberlaw") concerns the laws of information technology, including computing and the internet. It is related to legal informatics, and regulates the digital deployment of both (digitizing) information and software, information security and electronic commerce. aspect and has been described as a "paper law" for "paperless environment". It raises specific issues of intellectual property in computing and online, contract law, privacy, freedom of expression, and jurisdiction.

Video IT law

Histori

Information technology legislation, through computing and the internet evolved from the development of the first publicly funded network, such as the ARPANET and NSFNET in the United States or JANET in the UK.

Maps IT law

Legal area

IT law does not constitute a separate jurisdiction but covers aspects of the contract, intellectual property rights, privacy, and data protection laws. Intellectual property is an essential component of IT law, including copyright, fair use rules, and special rules about copy protection for digital media, and the avoidance of such schemes. The software patent area is controversial, and still growing in Europe and elsewhere.

Topics related to software licenses, end-user licensing agreements, free software licenses, and open source licenses may involve discussion of product liability, individual developer professional responsibility, warranties, contract law, trade secrets, and intellectual property.

In many countries, the field of computing and communications industry is regulated - often strictly - by government agencies.

There are rules about the use of computers and computer networks that can be included, in particular there are rules about unauthorized access, data privacy and spam. There is also a limit on the use of encryption and equipment that can be used to defeat copy protection schemes. The export of hardware and software between certain countries in the United States is also controlled.

There are laws governing commerce on the Internet, taxation, consumer protection, and advertising.

There are laws on censorship versus freedom of expression, rules on public access to government information, and individual access to information held by them by private bodies. There are laws about what data should be stored for law enforcement, and what may not be collected or stored, for privacy reasons.

Under certain circumstances and jurisdictions, computer communications may be used as evidence, and to make contracts. The new methods of eavesdropping and supervision made possible by computers have very different rules about how they can be used by law enforcement agencies and as evidence in court.

Computerized voting technology, from voting machines to the internet and voting via cell phones, raises a number of legal issues.

Some countries restrict access to the Internet, by law and by technical means.

src: i.ytimg.com

Jurisdiction

The issue of jurisdiction and sovereignty quickly emerged in the Internet age.

Jurisdiction is an aspect of state sovereignty and refers to judicial, legislative and administrative competence. Although jurisdiction is an aspect of sovereignty, it does not coerce with it. The law of a country may have an extraterritorial impact that expands the jurisdiction beyond the sovereign and territorial boundaries of that country. This is very problematic because the Internet media does not explicitly recognize territorial sovereignty and boundaries. There is no uniform international jurisdiction law for universal application, and such questions are generally a matter of legal conflict, particularly private international law. An example is where website content is legal in one country and illegal in another. In the absence of a uniform code of jurisdiction, legal practitioners are generally left with legal problem conflicts.

Another major issue of cyberlaw lies in whether it treats the Internet as if it were a physical space (and thus subject to the laws of jurisdiction granted) or acts as if the Internet is a separate world (and hence free of such restrictions). Those who support the latter view often feel that the government must leave the Internet community to self-regulate. John Perry Barlow, for example, has spoken to governments in the world and states, "Where there is a real conflict, where there is a mistake, we will identify them and handle them in our way.We form our own Social Contract. the condition of our world, not yours, our world is different ". A more balanced alternative is the Cybersecession Declaration: "Humans have minds, which are completely free to live in without legal restrictions." Human civilization is developing its own (collective) mind. "What we want is to be free to inhabit it, without legal restrictions. can not harm you, you have no ethical right to interfere with our lives so stop interrupting! "Other scholars argue for more compromise between two ideas, such as Lawrence Lessig's argument that" The legal issue is to find out how the norms of both communities is applied given that the subject they apply may be in both places at once "(Lessig, Code 190).

With Internet internationalism, jurisdiction is a far more complicated area than ever before, and courts in various countries have taken various views on whether they have jurisdiction over published items on the Internet, or business agreements entered into the internet. This may include areas of contract law, trade standards and taxes, through rules about unauthorized access, data privacy and spam to more political areas such as free speech, censorship, defamation or sedition.

Of course, the frontier notion that the law does not apply in "Cyberspace" is incorrect. In fact, conflicting laws from different jurisdictions may apply, simultaneously, to the same event. The Internet does not tend to make geographical boundaries and jurisdictions clear, but Internet users remain in physical jurisdiction and are subject to laws independent of their presence on the Internet. Thus, a single transaction may involve the law of at least three jurisdictions:

1. the state/country law in which the user is located,
2. applicable state/country laws where the hosting hosting server is located, and
3. applicable state/nation law for the person or business conducting the transaction.

So a user in one of the United States doing transactions with other users in the UK via a server in Canada can theoretically submit to the laws of the three countries because they deal with transactions at hand.

In practical terms, Internet users are subject to state or state laws where they are online. Thus, in the US, Jake Baker faces criminal charges for his e-conduct, and many peer-to-peer file-sharing software users are subject to civil suits for copyright infringement. However, this system is in conflict when this setting is international. Simply put, legal behavior in one country may be clearly illegal in another. In fact, even different standards of burden of proof in civil cases can cause jurisdictional problems. For example, an American celebrity, admittedly humiliated by an online magazine America, faces the difficult task of winning a lawsuit against the magazine for defamation. But if a celebrity has ties, economic or otherwise, to England, he can sue slander in the British court system, where the standard "defamatory speech" is much lower.

Internet governance is a matter of living in international forums such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the current role of the US-based coordinating body, the Internet Corporation for Specified Names and Numbers (ICANN) is discussed in the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in December 2003

src: www.hellocounsel.com

Internet law

The laws governing the Internet should be considered in the context of the geographical scope of the Internet and the political boundaries crossed in the data transmission process worldwide. The unique global structure of the Internet not only creates jurisdictional issues, that is, the authority to create and enforce laws affecting the Internet, but also questions about the nature of the law itself.

In their essay "Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace", David R. Johnson and David G. Post argue that it is necessary for the Internet to govern itself rather than obey certain state laws, "Internet citizens" will obey the laws of the entity electronics such as service providers. Instead of identifying as a physical person, Internet citizens will be known by their usernames or email addresses (or, more recently, by their Facebook accounts). Over time, the suggestion that the Internet can be self-regulated as a transnational "nation" itself is being replaced by many regulators and external and internal forces, both government and private, at various levels. The nature of Internet law remains a shift in the paradigm of the law, deeply in the process of development.

Leaving aside the most obvious example of monitoring government content and internet censorship in countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, there are four major strengths or modes of Internet governance derived from socioeconomic theory called the daft Pathetic theory by Lawrence Lessig in his book, > Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace :

1. Law : The so-called Lessig "Standard East Coast Code", of a law passed by the government in Washington D.C. This is the most obvious of the four regulatory modes. Due to many clearly-defined laws, codes, and laws on US law, many actions on the Internet are subject to conventional law, both with respect to transactions made on the internet and on the content posted. Areas such as gambling, child pornography, and fraud are organized in a very similar way online as off-line. While one of the most controversial and unclear areas of emerging legislation is the determination of what forums have jurisdictional issues over activities (economic and other) conducted on the internet, mainly because cross-border transactions affect local jurisdictions, substantial parts of Internet activity are subject to traditional regulations, and that online unlawful behavior is illegal in nature online, and subject to similar enforcement of laws and regulations.
2. Architecture : The so called Lessig "West Coast Code", from the Silicon Valley programming code. This mechanism concerns the parameters of how information can and can not be transmitted across the Internet. Everything from internet filtering software (which searches certain keywords or URLs and blocks them even before they appear on the computer asks them), to the encryption program, to a very basic TCP/IP protocol architecture and user interface fall under this category, especially private rules. It is arguable that all other internet setting modes depend on, or are significantly affected by, the West Coast Code.
3. Norms : As in all other social interaction modes, behavior is governed by social norms and conventions in significant ways. Although certain Internet behavior or behavior types are not specifically prohibited by Internet code architectures, or are strictly prohibited by traditional government law, they are governed by the standards of the community where the activity takes place, in this case the "user" of the internet. Just as certain patterns of behavior will cause an individual to be excluded from our real world society, certain actions will also be censored or self-regulated by whatever community norms one chooses to connect to on the internet.
4. Market : Closely related to rules based on social norms, markets also set certain patterns of behavior on the Internet. While the economic market will have limited influence over the noncommercial part of the Internet, the internet also creates a virtual market for information, and that information affects everything from the comparative assessment of services to traditional stock valuations. In addition, the increasing popularity of the Internet as a means to transact all forms of commercial activity, and as a forum for advertising, has brought the law of supply and demand to the virtual world. The power of supply and demand markets also affects connectivity to the Internet, bandwidth costs, and availability of software to facilitate the creation, posting, and use of Internet content.

The power or regulator of the Internet is not acting independently of one another. For example, government laws can be influenced by larger social norms, and markets are influenced by the nature and quality of codes that operate certain systems.

Neutrality neutral

Another key area of ​​interest is net neutrality, which affects Internet infrastructure arrangements. Although it is not clear to most Internet users, every packet of data sent and received by every user on the Internet passes the routers and transmission infrastructure owned by a collection of private and public entities, including telecommunications companies, universities, and governments. This turned out to be one of the most critical aspects of cyber Law and has direct jurisdictional implications, since the law applicable in one jurisdiction has the potential to have a dramatic effect in other jurisdictions when the host server or telecommunication company is affected. Recently, the Netherlands became the first country in Europe and the second in the world, after Chile passed a law related to it. In the US, on March 12, 2015, the FCC released specific details of the new net neutrality rules. And on April 13, 2015, the FCC issued the final rule on the new rules

Free pronunciation on the Internet

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls for the protection of freedom of expression in all media.

Compared to traditional print-based media, the accessibility and relative anonymity of cyber space has undermined traditional barriers between individuals and their ability to publish. Everyone with an internet connection has the potential to reach millions of viewers. This complexity has taken many forms, three important examples are the Jake Baker incident, where the obscene Internet post boundaries are the problem, the controversial distribution of the DeCSS code, and Gutnick v Dow Jones, where defamation laws are considered in the context online publishing. The last example is very important because it symbolizes the inherent complexity of applying one country's law (specific by definition of nation) to internet (international by nature). In 2003, Jonathan Zittrain considered this issue in his paper, "Be Careful What You Ask: Reconcile Global Internet and Local Law".

In the UK, Keith-Smith v Williams's case insists that defamation laws apply to internet discussions.

In the case of ISP tort responsibilities and internet forum host, Section 230 (c) of the Communications Decision Act may provide immunity in the United States.

Internet censors

In many countries, speech through cyberspace has proven to be another means of communication that has been governed by the government. The "Open Net Initiative", whose mission statement is "to investigate and challenge state-of-the-art screening and screening practices" to "... produce a credible picture of these practices," has released many reports documenting Internet speech filtering in different countries.. While China has so far proven to be the most stringent in its efforts to filter unwanted parts of the internet from its citizens, many other countries - including Singapore, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia - have been involved in similar Internet censorship practices. In one of the most obvious examples of information controls, the Chinese government for a short time transparently forwarded requests to Google search engines to search engines controlled by the state.

These filtering examples carry many fundamental questions about freedom of speech. For example, does the government have a legitimate role in limiting access to information? And if so, what form of acceptable rules? For example, some argue that blocking "blogspot" and other sites in India fail to reconcile conflicting interests from speech and expression on the one hand and legitimate government concerns on the other.

src: i.ytimg.com

Making privacy in US Internet law

Warren and Brandeis

At the close of the 19th century, concerns about privacy appealed to the general public, and led to the publication of 1890 Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis: "The Right to Privacy". The vitality of this article can be seen today, when checking the USSC decision Kyllo v. United States , 533 US 27 (2001) cited by the majority, those who agree, and even those in disagreement.

The motivation of the two writers to write such articles is highly debated among scholars, however, the two developments during this time provide some insight for the reasons behind it. First, the sensational press and the rise and use of simultaneous "yellow journalism" to promote newspaper sales in the post-Civil War period brought privacy to the forefront of the public eye. Another reason that brings privacy to the forefront of public concern is the development of "instant photography" technology. This article sets the stage for all privacy laws to follow for 20 and 21 century.

Fair Expectations Privacy Test and new technology

In 1967, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States of America, 389 US 347 (1967) defines what is known as the Fair Hope of Privacy Test to determine the application of the Fourth Amendment in a situation. It should be noted that the test was not recorded by the majority, but instead it was articulated by the same opinion about Judge Harlan. Under this test, 1) a person must show "true (subjective) expectations of privacy" and 2) "hope [should] be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'natural'".

Privacy Act 1974

Inspired by the Watergate scandal, the United States Congress enacted the Privacy Act of 1974 just four months after President Richard Nixon's resignation. In passing this Act, Congress found that "the privacy of a person is directly affected by the collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of personal information by Federal agencies" and that "the increasing use of computers and advanced information technology, while essential for efficient operation of the Government , has greatly increased the danger to individual privacy that may occur from the collection, maintenance, use or dissemination of personal information ".

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

Codified on 50 U.S.C. Ã,§Ã,§ 1801-1811, this measure establishes standards and procedures for the use of electronic surveillance to collect "foreign intelligence" in the United States. Ã,§1804 (a) (7) (B). FISA overtook the Electronic Communications Privacy Act during an investigation when foreign intelligence was a "significant goal" of the investigation. 50 U.S.C.Ã, Ã,§ 1804 (a) (7) (B) and Ã,§1823 (a) (7) (B). Another interesting result from FISA, is the establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Oversight Court (FISC). All FISA commands are reviewed by a special court of federal judge. The FISC meets in secret, with all the usual processes also held from both the public eye and the targets of the intended supervision For more information see: Foreign Intelligence Act

(1986) Electronic Communications Privacy Act

ECPA is an attempt by the United States Congress to modernize federal intercepting legislation. ECPA changed Title III (see Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968) and included two new actions in response to the development of computer technology and communications networks. So the ECPA in a domestic place becomes three parts: 1) the Wiretap Act, 2) the Stored Communications Act, and 3) The Pen Register Act.

• Communication Type
  • Wire Communications: Any communication that contains a human voice that runs at a point across a wired media such as a radio, satellite, or cable.
  • Oral Communication:
  • Electronic Communications

1. The Wiretap Act: For Information, see the Wiretap Act
2. Stored Communications Act: For more information, see the Stored Communications Act
3. Invite Register Act: For information see Registry Register

(1994) Driver Privacy Protection Act

DPPA was passed in response to countries that sold motor vehicle records to private industries. These records contain personal information such as name, address, telephone number, SSN, medical information, height, weight, gender, eye color, photograph and date of birth. In 1994, Congress passed the Privacy Protection of Driver (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. Ã,§Ã,§ 2721-2725, to stop this activity For more information, see: Driver's Privacy Protection Act

(1999) Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

This behavior endorses the sharing of personal information widely by financial institutions such as banks, insurance companies, and investment companies. The GLBA allows sharing of personal information between affiliated and affiliated companies and unaffiliated companies. To protect privacy, such actions require various agencies such as SEC, FTC, etc. To establish "appropriate standards for financial institutions subject to their jurisdiction" to "ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information" and "protect against unauthorized access" to this information. 15 U.S.C.Ã,§Ã, 6801
For more information see: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

(2002) Domestic Security Act

- Obtained by Congress in 2002, the Internal Security Act, 6 U.S.C.Ã,Ã ¢ 222, consolidated 22 federal agencies into what is commonly known today as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The HSA, also created the Privacy Office under DoHS. The Secretary of Homeland Security must "appoint a senior official to assume primary responsibility for the privacy policy." The responsibilities of this privacy officer include but are not limited to: ensuring compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974, evaluating "legislative and regulatory proposals involving the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by the Federal Government", while also preparing annual reports for the Congress.
For more information see: Homeland Security Act

(2004) Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Action Prevention

-This command mandates that intelligence should be "provided in the most shareable form" that the heads of intelligence agencies and federal departments "promote a culture of information sharing." IRTPA also seeks to establish privacy and civil liberties protection by establishing a five member Board of Privacy Supervision and Citizenship Supervision. The Council offers advice to the President of the United States and all the executive branches of the Federal Government on its actions to ensure that branch information sharing policies adequately protect privacy and civil liberties. For more information see: Intelligence Reform and the Terrorism Prevention Act

src: www.itwillbefun.eu

Legal provisions - examples

United Kingdom

The Computer Misuse Act 1990 adopted by the United Kingdom on 29 June 1990, and which came into effect on 29 August 1990, is an example of one of the earliest of these laws. This law is in force for the purpose of making "provisions for the safeguarding of computer material against unauthorized access or modification." Certain major provisions of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 relate to:

• "unauthorized access to computer material",
• "unauthorized access with the intent to commit or facilitate further commission breaches", and
• "unauthorized computer material modifications."

The Impact of the Computer Abuse Act of 1990 has been limited and with the adoption of the Council of Europe adopting the World Cybercrime Convention, it has been indicated that law amendments will be introduced in the 2004-05 parliamentary sessions to correct any possible loopholes. in its coverage, that much.

The 1990 CMA has many disadvantages; the most important is its inability to fulfill, or provide appropriate protection against, a number of high tech crimes/attacks that have become more common in the past decade. Certain attacks such as DDOS and BOTNET attacks can not be effectively brought to justice under the CMA. This action has been reviewed for several years. Computer crimes such as electronic theft are usually prosecuted in the UK under the laws that serve traditional theft (Theft Act 1968), because CMA is not very effective.

India

One example of the information technology legislation is the Information Technology Act of India, 2000, which was substantially amended in 2008. The IT Act 2000 came into force on 17 October 2000. This law applies to all of India, and its provisions also apply to any offense or contradiction, committed even outside the territory of the jurisdiction of the Republic of India, by any person regardless of nationality. To withdraw the provisions of this Act, such offenses or violations shall involve computers, computer systems or computer networks located in India. The IT Act 2000 provides extraterritorial implementation of its provisions under section 1 (2) is read in section 75. This law has 90 sections.

The Indian Information Technology Act of 2000 has tried to assimilate the legal principles available in some of the laws (related to information technology) applied before in other countries, as well as guides related to information technology legislation. The law provides legal validity for electronic contracts, electronic signature recognition. This is a modern law that makes actions like hacking, data theft, virus spread, identity theft, defamation (sending offensive messages) pornography, child pornography, cyber terrorism, criminal offenses. The law comes with a number of rules that include rules for, cyber cafe, electronic delivery service, data security, website blocking. It also has rules to comply with due diligence by internet intermediaries (ISPs, network service providers, cyber cafes, etc.). Any person affected by data theft, hacking, spreading of the virus may apply for compensation from the Adjudicator appointed under Section 46 as well as to file a criminal complaint. The appeal of the adjudicator lies with the Maya Court of Appeals.

Important case

Part 66

• In February 2001, in one of the first cases, Delhi police arrested two men running a web-hosting company. The company has closed a website for not paying dues. The site owner claimed that he had paid and complained to the police. Delhi police have accused the men of hacking under Section 66 of the IT Act and breaches of trust under Article 408 of the Indian Criminal Code. The two men had to spend 6 days in Tihar prison waiting for a guarantee. Bhavin Turakhia, chief executive officer of directi.com, the webhosting company said that this legal interpretation would be a problem for web-hosting companies.

Part 66A Deleted

• In September 2010, a freelance cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act, Section 2 Prevention of Humiliation for the National Honor Act, 1971 and for incitement under Section 124 of the Indian Criminal Code. His cartoons depicting widespread corruption in India are considered offensive.
• On April 12, 2012, a chemistry professor from Jadavpur University, Ambikesh Mahapatra, was arrested for sharing a cartoon from West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and then Minister of Railways Mukul Roy. The email was sent from the residential community email address. Subrata Sengupta, the secretary of the housing community, was also arrested. They are charged under Section 66A and B of the IT Act, for defamation under Section 500, for indecent conduct against a woman under Section 509, and conspiring with crimes under Section 114 of the Indian Criminal Code.
• On October 30, 2012, a businessman Puducherry Ravi Srinivasan was arrested under Section 66A. He sent a tweet accusing Karti Chidambaram, son of Minister of Finance P. Chidambaram, corrupt. Karti Chidambaram has complained to the police.
• On November 19, 2012, a 21-year-old girl was arrested from Palghar for posting a message on Facebook criticizing the closure in Mumbai for the Thackeray's burial. Another 20-year-old girl was arrested for "liking" the post. They were initially charged under Section 295A of the Indian Criminal Code (hurting religious sentiments) and Section 66A of the IT Law. Subsequently, Section 295A is replaced by Section 505 (2) (promoting classroom hostility). A group of Shiv Sena workers ravaged the hospital run by the uncle of one of the girls. On January 31, 2013, the local court overturned all charges against the girls.
• On March 18, 2015, a teenage boy was arrested from Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, for making a post on Facebook insulting politician Azam Khan. The post allegedly contained hate speech against the community and was wrongly attributed to Azam Khan by the boy. He was indicted under Section 66A of the IT Act, and Section 153A (promoting hostility among different religions), 504 (insult deliberately with the intention to provoke violations of peace) and 505 (public mischief) of the Indian Criminal Code. After Section 66A was revoked on March 24, the state government said it would continue the prosecution with the remaining indictment.

The collection of digital evidence and cyber forensics remains at a very new stage in India with few experts and less than adequate infrastructure. In a recent case, the Indian Court has admitted that damaging digital evidence is very easy.

More

Many Asian and Middle Eastern countries use a combination of code-based rules (one of the four methods of Lessig's net rules) to block material that their government deems inappropriate to be seen by its citizens. The PRC, Saudi Arabia and Iran are three examples of countries that have achieved a high level of success in regulating citizens' access to the Internet.

Electronic signature law

• Australia - 1999 Electronic Transaction Transactions (Cth) (also note that there are laws of the State and Territory mirrors)
• Costa Rica - Digital Signature Law 8454 (2005)
• The European Union - Electronic Signature Directive (1999/93/EC)
• Mexico - E-Commerce Act [2000]
• US. - Digital Signatures And Electronic Authentication Laws
  • • • US. - Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN)
• US. - Government Document Removal Act (GPEA)
• US. - Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
• US. - Uniform Electronic Transaction Law - adopted by 46 states
• UK - s.7 Electronic Communications Act 2000

Information technology law

1. Florida Electronic Security Act
2. Illinois Electronic Commerce Security Act
3. The Texas Criminal Code - Statute of Computer Crimes
4. Maine Criminal Code - Computer Crime
5. Singapore Electronic Transaction Act
6. Malaysian Computer Crimes Act
7. Malaysia Digital Signature Act
8. UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce
9. Information Technology Act 2000 from India
10. Thai Computer Crimes Act B.E.2550

Information Technology Guidelines

1. ABA's Digital Signature Manual
2. Office of Management and Budget of the United States

src: www.studiocalamiaebianchi.com

Enforcement Agents

The Information Technology Act of various countries, and/or their criminal law generally establishes law enforcement agencies, who are entrusted with the task of enforcing legal requirements and requirements.

US Federal Agents

Many US federal agencies oversee the use of information technology. Their rules are enacted in the United States Federal Regulatory Code.

More than 25 US federal agencies have rules regarding the use of digital and electronic signatures.

India

Source of the article : Wikipedia