THE CONCEPTUAL VIEW OF CYBER HACKING UNDER THE

CYBER LAW REGIME

Meaning of Hacking

Hacking (English verb to hack, singular noun a hack) refers to

the re-configuring or re-programming of a system to function in ways

not facilitated by the owner, administrator or designer. The term(s) have

several related meanings in the technology and computer science fields,

wherein a "hack" may refer to a clever or quick fix to a computer

program problem, or to what may be perceived to be a clumsy or

inelegant (but usually relatively quick) solution to a problem

The terms "hack" and "hacking" are also used to refer to a

modification of a program or device to give the user access to features

that were otherwise unavailable, such as DIY circuit bending. It is from

this usage that the term "hacking" is often incorrectly used to refer to

more nefarious criminal uses such as identity theft, credit card fraud or

other actions categorized as computer crime there being a distinction

between security breaking and hacking, a better term for security

breaking would be "cracking.”1

Meaning of Computer Hacking

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/Hack_(technology)

Computer hacking is broadly defined as intentionally accesses a

computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access.

Various state and federal laws govern computer hacking.

Cyber Hacking of Unique Identification Data in India2

India seems to be following the hit and trial method for some of the most

crucial projects in India. The end result is obvious, i.e., wastage of

crores of public money and violation of civil liberties of the Indian

Citizens.

India is notoriously infamous for creating authorities and agencies

without any legal sanction and framework. Surprisingly, a majority of

them pertains to law enforcement and intelligence agencies like CBI, IB,

RAW, etc. What India is actually doing is using administrative circulars

and executive orders to give legitimacy to these institutions. Why these

circulars and orders have still not been declared “unconstitutional” by

Indian judiciary is still a bigger mystery?

The latest in the league is the Unique Identification Authority of India

(UIAI) managing the proposed Unique Identification Cards for Indian

citizens. Where is that authority, what are its rules and regulations, what

legal framework is supporting it, what are the legal and technical

2 Information collected from the Internet : http://Inav.wordpress.com

safeguards available for the possible misuse of the same, etc are some of

the questions that would always vex the Indians.

It seems India has developed a habit of constituting “multiple agencies”

without and legal framework and sanctions. This would result in more

troubles than solutions. None can dispute that the unique identification

number’s database is too precious to be handled so casually.

On the front of security and safety of unique identification number’s

database, even Nandan Nilekani has accepted these concerns to be

“legitimate one”. For instance, it would be a big task to secure such

database from possible hacking and free from any misuse.

Invasion of Privacy of Indian citizens by Indian Government and its

Agencies is certainly going to be there in future. This is more so when

the Indian Government has openly declared its Policy to adopt endemic

surveillance and e-surveillance over Indian citizens. The Indian

Government would spend 800 Crores hard earned public money for

tapping all phones in real time. Ironically, Indian citizens’ money would

be used against Indian only and that also in an illegal and

unconstitutional manner.

With the “Judicial Silence Strategy” adopted by the Delhi High Court

and Supreme Court of India, the fate of the already scarce Privacy and

Data Protection Rights in India is going to face extermination. It would

be a good idea to call for explanation form Indian Government and

stressing upon establishment of proper safeguards before departing with

any sensitive information to the Unique Identification Authority of India

(UIAI).

Cyber Hacking : A Legal Overview

Whenever the word 'Hacking' or 'Hacker' comes to

our mind, the picture or the image which is created is

that of an intelligent being who is criminal by nature, who

attacks other computer systems, damages it, break codes

and passwords, send viruses etc. Their mindset are as if

the 'hackers' are the computer criminals. They have a

very wrong notion in this regard and have a completely

negative attitude and utter dislike for the 'Hackers'.

In this regard, the media has wrongly associated the

computer criminals as 'Hackers'. The media has played a

major role and has its hands behind this creation of

negative connotation of the word 'hacker'. General public

may spread rumours but it is hard to believe, someone

speaking about completely new term, which is also a

totally new concept to him.

But the fact is that the terms 'Hacker' and so

called 'Computer Criminal' are absolutely two different

terms and are not linked with each other in any respect.

They speak what they read and listen from others. For

this, whenever any cyber crime occurred, by

unauthorised use of other computer systems, the news

published and delivered in public was by the use of the

term 'hacking'. So we can say that it is because of media

why people have hatred or negative feeling for the

'hackers'.

Now if such cyber criminals are not hackers then two

major question which arises are:

1. Who are Hackers? And,

2. What are such cyber criminals called?

Actually, 'Hackers' are very intelligent people

who use their skill in a constructive and positive manner.

They help the government to protect national documents

of strategic importance, help organisations to protect

documents and company secrets, and even sometimes

help justice to meet its end by extracting out electronic

evidence. Rather, these are people who help to keep

computer criminals on the run.

Now dealing with the second part, i.e., what are such

cyber criminals called? The actual word for such criminals

is not 'hacker' but 'cracker'.

First let us explain the term 'Hacker', because there is a

great misconception regarding it. Hackers are generally

computer programmers who maintain network systems,

secure documents, etc. So anyone who has a good hand

on computer programming can be termed as 'hacker' in

general.

Ankit Fadia, who is a great master mind of India in the

field of 'Hacking', has said:

"Traditionally, hackers were computer geeks who knew

almost everything about computers and were widely

respected for their wide array of knowledge. But over the

years, the reputation of hackers has been steadily going

down. Today, they are feared by most people and are

looked upon as icons representing the underground

community of our population."

Types of Cyber Hackers

In the light of this general allusion of the term 'hacking',

which is generally construed by people, The word 'hacker'

can be used to describe all of these: -

1. Code Hackers - They know computers inside out.

They can make the computer do nearly anything they

want it to.

2. Crackers - They break into computer systems.

Circumventing Operating Systems and their security is

their favourite past time. It involves breaking the security

on software applications.

3. Cyber Punks - They are the masters of cryptography.

4. Phreakers - They combine their in-depth knowledge

of the Internet and the mass telecommunications system.

5. Virus Builders - Virus incidents have resulted in

significant and data loss at some stage or the other. The

loss could be on account of: -

* Viruses - A virus is a programme that mayor may not

attach itself to a file and replicate itself. It can attack any

area: from corrupting the data of the file that it invades,

using the computer's processing resources in attempt to

crash the machine and more.

* Worms - Worms may also invade a computer and steal

its resources to replicate themselves. They use the

network to spread themselves. "Love bug" is a recent

example.

* Trojan horse - Trojan horse is dicey. It appears to do one

thing but does something else. The system may accept it

as one thing. Upon execution, it may release a virus,

worm or logic bomb.

* Logic bomb - A logic bomb is an attack triggered by an

event, like computer clock reaching a certain date.

Chernobyl and Melissa viruses are the recent examples.

The Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provides in part

as follows:

"(a) Whoever--

1. having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization

or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such

conduct having obtained information that has been

determined by the United States Government pursuant to an

Executive order or statute to require protection against

unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or

foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in

paragraph of Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

with reason to believe that such information so obtained

could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the

advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates,

delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered,

or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit

or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the

same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully

retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or

employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

2. intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or

exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--

A. information contained in a financial record of a

financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in

section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a

consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such

terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15

U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);

B. information from any department or agency of the

United States; or

C. information from any protected computer if the conduct

involved an interstate or foreign communication;

3. intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic

computer of a department or agency of the United States,

accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is

exclusively for the use of the Government of the United

States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such

use, is used by or for the Government of the United States

and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of

the United States;

4. knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected

computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized

access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended

fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the

fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the

computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000

in any 1-year period;

A. knowingly causes the transmission of a program,

information, code, or command, and as a result of such

conduct, intentionally causes damage without

authorization, to a protected computer;

B. intentionally accesses a protected computer without

authorization, and as a result of such conduct,

recklessly causes damage; or

C. intentionally accesses a protected computer without

authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes

damage;

5. knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in

section 1029) in any password or similar information through

which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if--

(a)trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or

such computer is used by or for the Government of the

United States; with intent to extort from any person, firm,

association, educational institution, financial institution,

government entity, or other legal entity, any money or

other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign

commerce any communication containing any threat to

cause damage to a protected computer; shall be punished

as provided in subsection (c) of this section. (b) Whoever

attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this

section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of

this section. (c) The punishment for an offense under

subsection (a) or (b) of this section is--

A. a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than

ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under

subsection (a)(1) of this section which does not occur

after a conviction for another offense under this section,

or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under

this subparagraph; and

B. a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than

twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under

subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a

conviction for another offense under this section, or an

attempt to commit an offense punishable under this

subparagraph; and

(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for

not more than one year, or both, in the case of

an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)

(5)(C), or (a)(6) of this section which does not

occur after a conviction for another offense

under this section, or an attempt to commit an

offense punishable under this subparagraph;

and

i. the offense was committed for purposes of

commercial advantage or private financial

gain;

ii. the offense was committed in furtherance of

any criminal or tortious act in violation of

the Constitution or laws of the United States

or of any State; or

iii. the value of the information obtained

exceeds $5,000;

(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for

not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of

an offense under subsection (a)(2), if--

(C) a fine under this title or imprisonment for

not more than ten years, or both, in the case of

an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3) or

(a)(6) of this section which occurs after a

conviction for another offense under this

section, or an attempt to commit an offense

punishable under this subparagraph; and

(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for

not more than five years, or both, in the case

of an offense under subsection (a)(4), (a)(5)

(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7) of this section which

does not occur after a conviction for another

offense under this section, or an attempt to

commit an offense punishable under this

subparagraph; and (B) a fine under this title or

imprisonment for not more than ten years, or

both, in the case of an offense under

subsection (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), (a)(5)

(C), or (a)(7)of this section which occurs after

a conviction for another offense under this

section, or an attempt to commit an offense

punishable under this subparagraph; and

[former paragraph (4) stricken effective Oct.

11, 1996].

The United States Secret Service shall, in

addition to any other agency having such

authority, have the authority to investigate

offenses under subsections (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)

(B), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of this

section. Such authority of the United States

Secret Service shall be exercised in

accordance with an agreement which shall be

entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury

and the Attorney General."

The Inter-relationship between Hacking and Cracking

The term hacker is a term used by some to mean

'a clever programmer' and by others, especially

journalists or their editors, to mean 'someone who tries

to break into computer systems'. Programmers who use

their skills to cause trouble, crash machines, release

computer viruses, steal credit card numbers, make free

long distance calls (the phone system is so much like a

computer system that it is a common target for

computer criminals), remove copy-protection, and

distribute pirated software may also call themselves

'hackers', leading to more confusion. Hackers in the

original sense of the term, however, look down on these

sorts of activities. Hackers generally deplore cracking.

Among the programming community, and to a large

extent even amongst the illegal programming

community, these people are called 'crackers' and their

activities known as 'cracking' to distinguish it from

hacking.

A cracker is generally someone who breaks into someone

else's computer system, often on a network, bypasses

passwords or licenses in computer programs or in other

ways intentionally breaches computer security. A cracker

can be doing this for profit, maliciously, for some

altruistic purpose or cause, or because the challenge is

there. Some breaking-and-entering has been done

ostensibly to point out weaknesses in a site's security

system.

Even though hacking is not at all an offence but if

construed in a manner which is generally used by he

public the question comes up is that whether sending

viruses can be termed as hacking.

The term cracking means, 'illegal access'. Now,

'access' comprises the entering of the whole or any part

of a computer system (hardware, components, stored

data of the system installed, directories, traffic and

content-related data). However, it does not include the

mere sending of an e-mail message or file to that system.

'Access' includes the entering of another computer

system, where it is connected via public

telecommunication networks or to a computer system on

the same network, such as a LAN (local area network) or

Intranet within an organisation. The method of

communication (e.g. from a distance, including via

wireless links or at a close range) does not matter. So if a

virus is send through an e-mail, it is not an illegal 'access'

and hence cannot be termed as 'cracking'.

Cyber Hacking (or rather Cyber Cracking in

verity), is one of the Cyber Crimes and Cyber Crime is a

universal term that allude to all criminal activities done

using the medium of computers, internet, cyber space

and the world wide web (www). In India, the law

regulating such crimes is the Information Technology Act,

2000 (or the IT Act, 2000). If studied in detail, we will find

that there are still many areas in the said Act, which need

Amendments. Like, it does not even define the term

'Cyber Crime' and the crimes mentioned in Chap. XI

named 'offences' have been declared penal offences

punishable by imprisonment or fine. Then Sec.66 defines

hacking, but it went on defining what is in reality

'cracking'. The definition of hacking provided in Sec.66 of

the Act is also very wide and capable of misapplication.

There is every possibility of this section being misapplied.

Crackers are becoming a peril so uncontrollable

that even the largest companies in the world are finding

it difficult to cope up with their perpetual attacks. Some

crackers just crack systems and gain access to them, for

'fun'. Their intention is not to commit any crime. Now, it is

a question of debate whether such act in itself constitutes

an offence or not. They may not be brought within the

ambit of existing laws because the IT Act uses the word

'destroys or deletes or alters any information' and in this

case they just gain access to the system and nothing

else. The act of such a cracker can perhaps, most

appropriately, be considered in the light of laws relating

to criminal trespass.

Is Trespass to Property : Hacking or not ?

In common language the word 'trespass', means to

go on another's property without permission or right.

Though it is ordinarily a civil wrong, if trespass is done

with criminal intention, it is treated as criminal trespass.

The ingredients of the offence of criminal trespass have

been laid down under sec.441 of the Indian Penal Code.

The object of making trespass a criminal offence is to

keep the trespasser away from the premises of

individuals so the one may enjoy his/her property

uninterrupted by any intruder.

In applying the section to hacking on the Internet, the

question which arises is "whether websites are property".

Many of the words used to describe websites have a basis

in real property: the word 'site' itself is one, as are such

expressions as 'home' pages, 'visiting' Websites,

'travelling' to a site and the like. This usage suggests that

the trespass action might appropriately be applied to

websites as well. That analogies to real property trespass

can be made does not suggest, however, that they should

be made. The fundamental issue is whether the

treatment of websites as property makes sense in light of

the justifications for the institution of property generally.

Thus, as trespass actions are stranded in the idea of

protecting an owner's control over his property and as

even the websites should be considered as a species of

property, there is no reason for not allowing a cause of

action for 'trespass to websites'.

The Liability of the Cyber Hacker in the act of Cyber

Hacking

There is no doubt as far as liability is concerned when

a Cracker is caught. Now this liability can be of two types.

1. Civil Liability

2. Penal Liability

As like in the case of trespass, when just cracking is there

by the cracker, it is of a civil nature but once the intention

to cause harm or rather damage the system is proved,

the liability becomes that of a penal nature.

Now it is not just criminal trespass, which can be done by

cracking but cracking may also result in many other

crimes which are mentioned in the Indian Penal Code,

1860. Like, if a cracker cracks an e-banking website and

transfers money into his own account, this may constitute

a crime under Sec.378 of the Indian Penal Code, which in

this case may also be termed as Cyber Theft. This kind of

act is completely of a penal liability.

In R. v. Gold, prestel systems provided it subscribers free

e-mail facilities and access to its database. The accused -

Gold and Schifreen cracked into its computer and were

charged in England under the Forgery and Counterfeiting

Act, 1981. They were convicted but the Court of Appeal

and the House of Lords as well acquitted them as an

instrument was necessary to commit the offence under

the said Act, which had to be similar to other examples in

the statutory definitions, which were physical objects.

For this, then the Law Commission in England

recommended that cracking be made penal and

proposed: -

* A broad offence that seeks to deter the general practice

of hacking by imposing penalties of a moderate nature on

all types of unauthorized access; and

*  A narrower but more serious offence imposes much

heavier penalties.

Similar considerations apply in our country also. The IT

Act tries to achieve this by providing civil and penal

consequences for cracking and other wrongful activities.

The case concerning Sec.66 of the IT Act, 2000, in India

was first lodged in Lucknow in February, 2001.

Interestingly, the victim of the first cyber crime was none

other than a police employee. The FIR was lodged by

junior engineer, police range, V K Chauhan, whose

password for Internet access was hacked and 100 hours

of connectivity time exhausted even before he could use

it once. The case was registered under Sec.66 of the IT

Act.

The effectiveness of a judicial system is anchored

by regulations which define every aspect of a system's

functioning and primarily, its jurisdiction. A court must

have jurisdiction, venue, and appropriate service of

process in order to hear a case and deliver an effective

judgement. Jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear

and determine a case. Without jurisdiction, a court's

judgement is futile and impotent. Such jurisdiction is

essentially of two types, namely subject matter

jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and these two must

be conjunctively satisfied for a judgement to take effect.

It is the presence of jurisdiction that ensures the power of

enforcement to a court and in the absence of such power,

the decree of a court, is, to say the least, which is of little

or of no use. Moreover, only generally accepted principles

of jurisdiction would ensures that courts abroad also

enforce the orders of other judicial bodies.

The Cyber Crimes like cracking can be seen as multi-

jurisdictional because of the ease which a user can

access the website from anywhere in the world. It can

even be viewed as 'a jurisdictional' in the sense that from

the users' perspective as state and national borders are

essentially transparent.

The Indian jurisprudence with regard to jurisdiction over

the hacking is almost non-existent. In the first place,

there has been very few cases or rather only one case

regarding hacking, to the best of my knowledge, in India

and then secondly, it is an emerging field and that too

where the place of action for the dispute is very difficult

to decide. But an interesting feature of the IT Act is that it

is applicable to offences and contraventions committed

by any person not just in India but also outside India, as

per Sec.1(2) . This principle has been elaborated in

Sec.75 of the Act which provides that Indian Courts will

have jurisdiction over acts committed outside India as

well as over foreigners committing such acts, if the act

amounts to an offence or contravention involving a

computer, computer system or computer network located

in India. Thus the determining factor is the location of

computer, computer system or computer network that is

involved in an act or transaction.

In India, the court would assume jurisdiction over a

defendant, if even a part of the cause of action for the

dispute arose within its jurisdiction. Now these may

appear to be distinct and disparate points of view but

when you get down to examining the essential

ingredients that must be fulfilled in order to satisfy the

requirements of these principles, there are several

similarities between them which may allow the Indian

Courts to assume jurisdiction.

First of all, to conclude I would like to state that there are

lots and lots of fallacies regarding the term hacking. Even

though people are not aware about it today but by the

study of various samples and researches made, I have

found that it is very rapidly expanding its scope and day

by day more and more people are interested in it.

Again it has two aspects. It can help the society to a great

extent but it may also prove to be otherwise. In such

cases punishments must be proportionate and serve as a

sufficient deterrent. As computer data often contain

personal information a cracker can also infringe one's

right to privacy guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution

of India.

Cracking can also be taken as an offence under Indian

Penal Code. For this there are two types of liabilities, i.e.,

'civil' and 'penal'.

Then for deciding the applicability of jurisdiction of a

case, the court faces a lot of problem, due to its

insensitiveness to local constraints. So, even when

inventions and discoveries had widened the scientific

horizons, it has also posed new challenges for the legal

world. This Information Technology has posed new

problems in jurisprudence to which it is very difficult to

give a concrete shape.

IS HACKING AN OFFENCE UNDER THE INDIAN LAW ?

After the Recent Amendments in the Information Technology Act of

2000, the scope has been widened. Under the Indian Law by virtue of

Sections 43 and Sections 66 of the Act, which talks about Penalties and

Compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc and

Computer related offences respectively. So, it can be easily identifiable

that yes hacking is an offence in India under the terms of Information

Technology Act, and Section 66 clearly lays down, “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.”3

14 CASE LAWS RELATING TO CYBER HACKING

Case Laws on Hacking

There are very few cases on Hacking around the world, let alone a

selected few in India. There exists the case of DPP v. Bignell4, here two

police officers were charged for using the police national computer to

gain access to details of motor cars for private purposes and they were

charged with unauthorized access to computer material. Their appeal

was allowed by the Crown Court and later confirmed by the QB

Divisional Court. It was observed that the police officers were entitled to

access such computer information as part of their normal duties thereby

decided that no offence had occurred. Another case is of Nirav

Navinbhai Shah and Others. V/s. State of Gujarat and Another5, here it

was alleged that hacking was done with a computer system and that the

accused has stolen important data, the court held that the complainant

does not contain any essential ingredient for maintaining criminal

proceedings for the alleged offence which resulted in the quashing of the

FIR has the defense submitted that the alleged material that has been

said to be stolen exists on other sites and the courts believed that the

3 http://www.mediaverso.com/cyber-hacking-welcome-to-the-21st-century.html4 1998 1 Cr App R 85 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10291 of 2006 decided on 28.09.2006

offence alleged is not strictly affecting or infringing any individual or

citizen, so the continuation of the same is not in interest of justice and

the dispute is resolved by amicable settlement.

15. THE SECURITY MEASURES THAT PREVENT CYBER

HACKING

There are various security measures that can prevent cyber

hacking.6 They are as follows :

Passwords

Passwords are one of the earliest “devices” developed in the main-frame

environment to prevent access to intruders. Hacker dictionary

programme helps in finding out the password. The comprehensive

hacker dictionary programmes combined with high speed of computers

make breaking of common passwords possible within minutes or hours.

These security breaches can be detected even by an ordinary security

program.7

Firewalls

Firewalls create a ‘wall’ of protection between a network and possible

intruders. It was developed in the mid 1980s by the American

Department of Defence for protecting classified documents from being

6 Cyber Law in India – Law on the Internet : Dr. Farooq Ahmed – Page No. 3357 Winn Schwartau New keys to Network Security, INFO World, may 15,1995, at 51.

accessed or leaked.8 Firewalls prevent information from exiting or

entering a firm’s computer or LAN via a modern. If firewall is

configured to accept and process only a particular request of specified

addressees, it will not accept any other request of the person whose

address does not figure in the specified address.9

Encryption

Encryption refers to any algorithm applied to an electronic record that

converts plaintext into cyhertext, rendering it meaningless for all except

the one who has a key to decrypt it. Encryption technology has

significantly increased the security on-line commerce. Initially, most

secure systems used single key algorithm but now public key/private key

encryption technology is used which is now considered as a practical

solution for secure Internet transactions.10

Digital Signatures

Digital signatures are now considered a part of legal infrastructure in the

information security field.11 These digital signatures help in signer

authentication, document authentication affirmative acts signifying a

signature and efficacy.

8 Gary H. Authes, Hackers Stay a Step Ahead, COMPUTERWORLD, Oct. 17, 1994, at 14.9 Michael Rustad and Lori. E. Eisenschmidt, The Commercial Law of Internet Security, High Technology Law Journal (Vol. 10:2) 1995 at 22710 See Bruce Schneier, Applied Cyrptography 273-74 (1994)11 See American Bar Association Digital Signature Guidelines Draft July 26, 1995

Clipper Chip

Clipper Chip is used to prevent cellular based security breaches. It is a

single key based algorithm SKIPJACK. It is a Government sponsored

designed by the American National Security Agency (NSA) with a sole

object to prevent private parties from using encrypted cellular-based

communications for illegal purposes.12 The Chipper Chip has two keys

which are of two parts, to be kept with two different Government

departments.13 The law enforcement officers would be able to decode

the clipper encrypted communications with the help of secret keys.

Routers or Gateways

A router is a device that employs special communication protocols. A

gateway is either hardware or software that is used to translate protocols

between two or more systems. Routers or gateways filter messages

which are destined for recipients outside the local network and receive

messages from remote networks to be delivered locally on the LAN.

These help in detecting errors with the help of additional protocols.

12 Privacy Issues in the Telecommunications Industry : Testimony before the Subcomm on Technology and the Law of the Sennate Comm on the Judiciary 103d Cong. 2d Sess (1994)13 The departments are : Treasury Department’s Automated Systems Division and Commerce Departments’ NIST

Conclusion

The concept of hacking is seen as one of the gravest cyber

crimes in India. It is one of the noteable and most common form of

cyber crimes easily recognized under law attracting criminal action.

Though we have many security agencies to protect hacking in the cyber

world, much needs to be done in the changing era of times when it

comes to cyber crime is concerned. In the world of cyber crimes and

cyber hacking in particular, evil bytes are fast replacing whizzing

bullets. The Indian authorities are aware of the fight ahead. But the

future does not look optimistic, shares experts. Life is about a mix of

good and evil. So is the Internet. For all the good it does us, cyberspace

has its dark sides too. Unlike conventional communities though, there

are no policemen patrolling the information superhighway, leaving it

open to everything from Trojan horses and viruses to cyber stalking,

trademark counterfeiting and cyber terrorism. Awareness is very much

important, and any matter should be reported at once. More importantly,

users must try and save any electronic information trail on their

computers. That's all one can do, then, until laws become more stringent

or technology more advanced.

The cyber crimes in general have become a biggest problem in

this whole world and is increasing day by day, precise from my paper,

and the offenders are out of the reach of the punishment due to which it

has put forth a new challenge to the whole world as well as to our

country.

Suggestions

Many countries in the world have come up with new law to deal with

cyber crimes and India has passed a law controlling all kinds of cyber

crimes including cyber hacking under the Information Technology Act

of 2000. Inspite of coming this effective law the offenders are out of

reach of the police as it is committed online by simply sitting on the net

and unnecessarily causing illegal computer hacking in India. Our

country’s police face so many problems to trace the offenders and

ultimately in large number of cases they failed to catch the offender. The

reason behind such failure is lack of competence amongst the police

officers and ignorance of cyber crime, cyber hacking and cyber world.

They are well educated in this field due to which all such problem

comes.14

Our government should recruit and appoint competent persons to deal

with such matters and should also setup a new department where such

type of cases can be registered and immediate action with skilled and

effective team can be taken.

The new legislation which can cover all the aspects of the Cyber Crimes

(especially cyber hacking) should be passed so the grey areas of the law 14 Information collected from a website : http : // airwebworld.com

can be removed. Moreover, I personally believe that only the technology

and its wide expansion can give strong fight to the problems. The

software’s are easily available for download should be restricted by the

Government by appropriate actions. New amendments to curb cyber

hacking should be included to the Information and Technology Act,

2000 to make it efficient and active against the crimes. The training and

public awareness programs should be organized in the Companies as

well as in common sectors. The number of the cyber cops in India

should be increased. The jurisdiction problem is there in the

implementation part which should be removed because the cyber

criminals engaging in cyber hacking does not have any jurisdiction limit

then why do the laws have, after all they laws are there, to punish the

criminal but present scenario gives them the chance to escape.