it act cyber terror

7/28/2019 IT Act Cyber Terror

1/11

Chapter published in: Madhava Soma Sundaram, P., & Umarhathab, S. (Eds.), (2011). Cyber Crime andDigital Disorder.Tirunelveli, India: Publications Division, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University.

7Information Technology Act and Cyber Terrorism: A Critical Review

Debarati Halder

IntroductionAfter 9/11, it has become a trend for the militant outfits to avail cyber

assistance in order to achieve extremist missions. The Kosovo conflict in 2001

which also inspired defacement of numerous NATO websites and denial of

services by hackers who supported the anti NATO activities (Denning, 2010) and

the 1997 Internet Black Tigers attack on Sri Lankan embassy which involved

800 emails carrying extremist messages to disrupt the communications(Denning, 2001), were some of the early evidences of cyber terrorism. The 9/11

attack saw typical execution of cyber attack by Al Qaeda against the US

government, which carried not only the threat messages, but also defaced many

websites, disrupted internet communication for government as well as civil

amenities (Denning, 2010) and also created a huge empathy among the Muslim

hackers to support the militant forum in their jihad. The trend thus turned

highlights to Muslim jihadists and their cyber terrorism activities against

governments, from non-Muslim fundamentalist groups against governments. In

India, cyber terrorism has emerged as new phenomena. The probe against the 2008

serial blasts in cities like Ahmedabad, Delhi, Jaipur, and Bangalore foundconsiderable evidences of cyber terrorism (NDTV Correspondent, 2010); the 2008

attack on Mumbai Taj Hotel, which is now famously known as 26/11 and the

2010 blast in the holy city of Varanasi also had trails of cyber terrorism (NDTV

Correspondent, 2010). Ironically, most of these incidences involved Muslim

Jihadists like the Indian Mujahiddin. However, an analysis on news reports on

extreme usage of cyber communications would show that spreading of terror

messages targeting State Heads or claiming responsibilities for terror attacks had

been done by non-Muslim youths as well. However, all these incidences indicate

two main aspects of cyber terrorism, namely, gathering of information and

spreading of the terror through cyber communications for disruption of nationalsecurity and peace.

After the 26/11 attack, the Indian government had brought into effect a set

of proposed amendments to the Information Technology Act 2000, which has

specific provisions for combating cyber terrorism. The provision under section


2/11


66F discusses about cyber terrorism in the broadest sense.1

This provision actually

lays down the punishment to be meted out for actors of cyber terrorism. The

definition of the term cyber terrorism is glaringly missing in the said legal

provision. To strengthen the law on cyber terrorism, the Indian government had

further proposed a set of Rules in 2011,2

which promises to tighten the loose

loops. In this chapter, I claim that, this particular law has addressed cyberterrorism from a holistic aspect; however, loopholes still exist to withhold the

proper execution of the laws for prosecuting the accused. Further, in this chapter I

aim to analyze the provision of this law in the light of internationally established

nuances of cyber terrorism. This chapter will address the problem from three

different angles, namely:

1. The myth and truth about cyber terrorism.2. Could laws regulate this issue?3. Whether Indian laws really address the issues of cyber terrorism in the light

of freedom of speech.

Background

Even though the issue of cyber terrorism has attracted huge attention from

cyber criminologists, cyber law specialists and social science researchers, very few

researches have been done for analyzing the legal issues involved in cyber

terrorism in India. Globally, the issue of cyber terrorism has been analyzed from

four main angles, namely the missions that are involved in cyber terrorism

(Denning, 2010), the methods that are followed for achieving the ultimate purpose

of cyber terrorism (Denning, 2010; Wykes & Harcus, 2010), the results of cyber

terrorism (Denning, 2010) and the role of laws in combating cyber terrorism(Trachtman, 2009). Most of these researches have shown that usage of cyber space

by terrorist organizations has a three folded purpose, to spread the threat, to gain

maximum information about the target government and the governmental property

in cases damage to property and civil society is also aimed for and to recruit new

forces (Denning, 2010).

Some researches have established that cyber terrorism includes two main

types of activities, viz., cyber crime and misuse of information technology, and

therefore it would be wrong to assume that cyber terrorism is a new kind of cyber

crime (Schjolberg, 2007). It may be worthy to note that the types of cyber crimes

that are involved in cyber terrorism may vary from identity theft (Wykes &

Harcus, 2010), to denial of service attack (Denning, 2010). At the same time, the

extremists may leave a trail in the cyber space after the real terrorist activity has

taken place (Wykes & Harcus, 2010). This may necessarily include visits to the

1 The definition can be found in Section 69F of the information technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008).The definition will be analyzed in later parts of this chapter.2 These rules could be found at

http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf


3/11


websites, sending emails etc. but the question, which remains, is how the police

and law and justice machinery combat this overall misuse of technology in the

name of Jihad? Due to lack of proper infrastructure and easy methods of deletion

of the evidences, it may become impossible for security experts and the police to

track the trouble creator (Jewkes, 2010). Further, some studies have also shown

that before 9/11, cyber terrorism was not particularly associated with jihad, butwith demands from the extremist groups from the government (Denning, 2010).

After 9/11, the term cyber terrorism has been mostly associated with the cyber

warfare between Muslim fundamentalists and the government, especially the US

and those national governments who support US policies and rules and regulations

(Wykes & Harcus, 2010).

The term cyber terrorism has been attempted to be defined from various

angles. According to the definition provided by the US national infrastructure

protection centre (2001), cyber terrorism may mean

a criminal act perpetrated by the use of computers and telecommunicationcapabilities resulting in violence, destruction and/or disruption of services to

create fear by causing confusion and uncertainty with a given population with the

goal of influencing a government or population to conform to particular political,

social or ideological agenda (Denning, 2010, p. 198).

The term has also been defined by the International Handbook on Critical

Information Infrastructure Protection (CIIP) 2006 Vol. II, as attacks or series of

attacks on critical information carried out by terrorists and instills fear by effects

that are disruptive or destructive and has a political , religious and ideological

motivation (Schjolberg, 2007, p. 2). As such, the EU convention on cyber crimes,

2001 had laid down strategic roles for the member parties to corroborate with eachother on 24/7 basis in cases of criminal misuse of cyber space.

3Given the fact that

cyber terrorism includes criminal misconduct and trespass in the cyber space,

Schjolberg (2007) had pointed out that domestic courts therefore play great role in

combating cyber terrorism.

From the above literature, it could be understood that cyber terrorism is not

a new phenomena. This is a criminal conduct in the cyber space to disrupt

peaceful governance. Even though countries like the US had developed and is still

developing strategic methods to combat cyber terrorism, lack of focused law,

proper infrastructure and trained experts to trace the details of the extremist pose

serious problems for countries like India to combat terrorism in cyber space.

Core characteristics of cyber terrorism

Cyber terrorism has some universal characteristics, which are as follows:

1. It is done to convey a particular destructive or disruptive message to thegovernment(s).

3 See chapter III, Article 23-35 of the EU Convention on Cyber Crimes, 2001.


4/11


2. There are various methods to convey this message, viz., through denial ofservices, sending threatening emails, defacing of government websites,

hacking and cracking of crucial governmental systems or protected

systems,4

disrupting the civil amenities through destroying the proper

working of the digital information systems, etc.

3. It could affect the computers and the networks as a whole, it could alsoaffect the governing system, and it could affect the population of target area

to create threat.

4. Computer and digital communication technology are used as a main tool toachieve extremist purposes.

5. The whole act could be motivated by religious, social or politicalideologies.

6. It is mostly done by hi-tech offenders.For elaborating these characteristics, I take up the 26/11 Mumbai terror

attack case. Even though the media had highlighted the phenomenal terroristattack on crucial business and Jewish settlements in Mumbai, the Indian Ministry

of Home affairs in their annual report (2010) had released a detailed nexus

between digital technology and the (mis)use of the same by extremists. Oh,

Agrawal, and Rao (2011) and LaRaia and Walker (2009) had corroborated the

usage of cyber technology to extremist use to present the scenario of cyber

terrorism which engulfed India as well as the whole world. Both Oh et.al (2011)

and LaRaia and Walker (2009) have elaborated how satellite phones, GPS and

various websites were widely used for fulfilling the mission of the extremists.

Without going into the details, it could be said, that, unlike the Al Qaeda attack on

the twin towers in the US in 9/11, or the Tamil Tigers email attacks to computersin the Sri Lankan embassies, in India, the cyber terrorism scenario has not been

expanded to attack on the machines or the network widely. On the contrary, the

term cyber terrorism has been broadly used by the media especially to identify the

usage of cyber space and /or cyber technology to aide the terrorist activities, gain

information about the target place and population, recruitment and motivation etc.

4 Section 70 of the Information technology act, 2000 (amended in 2008) describes protected system and

regulations related to it as follows: (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official

Gazette, declare any computer resource which directly or indirectly affects the facility of Critical

Information Infrastructure, to be a protected system. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "Critical

Information Infrastructure" means the computer resource, the incapacitation or destruction of which , shallhave debilitating impact on national security, economy, public health or safety. (Substituted vide ITAA-

2008)(2) The appropriate Government may, by order in writing, authorize the persons who are authorized to

access protected systems notified under sub-section (1)

(3) Any person who secures access or attempts to secure access to a protected system in contravention of

the provisions of this section shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, whichmay extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

(4) The Central Government shall prescribe the information security practices and procedures for such

protected system (Inserted vide ITAA 2008).


5/11


There are several reports on the hacking and defacement of Indian

government websites. Some of the examples are the 2010 hacking and defacement

of the CBI website by the Pakistani hackers, who called themselves Pakistan

cyber army, wherein the hackers had put up a message stating Pakistan cyber

army is warning the Indian cyber army not to attack their websites (NDTV

Correspondent, 2010). The website was affected, but not the regular emailingservices. The media stated that the experts hoped that it was a mere defacement

and not the case data vandalizing because the server hosting the website was

different from the one, which managed confidential correspondences (NDTV

Correspondent, 2010). During the period of January to June 2011, a total of 117

government websites had been defaced (Saxena, 2011). Some important websites

like the website of National Investigation Agency (NIA) was also affected, but it

was temporarily disabled and not hacked. Investigation on these offences is still

going on. Experts had suggested that regular cyber security audits could prevent

such attacks (NDTV Correspondent, 2010). Such types of attacks actually fulfill

the qualities of cyber attacks against government. Basing on this very assumption,Duggal commented on the web defacement of the CBI website as an act of cyber

terrorism (NDTV Correspondent, 2010).

Indian interpretation of cyber terrorism

A minute analysis of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks would show that cyber

communication between the terrorists and usage of cyber technology by them to

be acquainted with the target population and the place, created similar devastating

results in India. In July 2011, the digital technology was further used for bomb

blasts in a crowded city market in Jhaveri Bazaar, Mumbai. The 2010 Varanasi

blast case also saw the usage of cyber communication wherein the IndianMujahiddin claimed responsibility for the blast.

Awakened by this, the Government of India took strong steps to strengthen

the cyber security, including prohibition of terrorist activities through cyber space

by way of amending the existing Indian information Technology Act, 2000. The

provision that was specifically inserted in this legislature for this purpose was

section 66F which defines and describes cyber terrorism. Section 66F mentions

that(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 accesscomputer resource; or

(ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation

or exceeding authorized 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 disruption of supplies or services essential to the life


6/11


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 authorized access, and by means of such

conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted

for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations; or any restricted

information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that suchinformation, 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, thesecurity 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.

From the above definition, it could be inferred that, cyber terrorism is an

act of hacking, blocking and /or computer contaminating in order to restrict legallyauthorized persons to access computer resources in general, and /or to gain or

obtain unauthorized access to any information which is a restricted information

for the purpose of security of the state, or foreign relation etc. These are gruesome

acts which is done with an intention to threaten the security, sovereignty and

integrity of India or strike terror in the minds of people or a section of people; and

which may result in death and injury to people, damage to properties, disruption of

civil services which are essential to the life of a community, and also affects the

critical information infrastructure. However, in the case of 26/11 Mumbai attacks,

it could be seen that terrorists had used communication services not to hack or

block the protected information, but to aide the terrorists to carry on with themassacre. The intercepted messages that were availed by the Government of India

during the prosecution of the Mumbai attack case would clearly show the

extremists were communicating purely on the basis of their personal freedom of

speech. However, when looked at the communication in total, it could be seen that

this speech was carried on to disrupt the peace, security and sovereignty of India

and thereby it looses its nature of a protected speech under Art 19A of the

Constitution of India. At the same time, it is an act of terrorism. In the definition

provided by section 66F, this particular aspect is glaringly absent. The Information

Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) had painstakingly taken efforts to secure

protected systems, which is defined by Section 70. The appropriate Governmentmay, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any computer resource

which directly or indirectly affects the facility of Critical Information

Infrastructure, to be a protected system. Explanation added to this section further

explains that "Critical Information Infrastructure" would mean that vital computer

resource regarding national security, economy, public health and safety, which if

destructed or damaged, shall have a debilitating impact on these issues.


7/11


I argue that the present Indian legal approach towards cyber terrorism has

therefore emphasized unauthorized access to restricted information only, which is

but a part of the whole modus operandi of terrorism through cyber space. This is

very much evident from the two specific provisions which are dedicated to define

and describe cyber security under section 2(nb); and unauthorized access to

computer and computer network system and contamination etc under section 43 ofthe Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008). Further, to strengthen

these two sections, section 69, 69A and 69B were also enacted. Section 69 speaks

about powers to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of

any information through any computer resource; section 69A speaks about power

to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any

computer resource, and section 69B speaks about power to authorize to monitor

and collect traffic data or information through any computer resource for Cyber

Security. All these sections may signify the communicational aspect of cyber

terrorism, which is missing in the definition of cyber terrorism in section 66F. The

unfortunate truth is that this legislation could not come out of the basic scope oflegal recognition of electronic commerce that was laid down at the time of the

birth of this law. This scope was further enhanced in the Information Technology

Amendment Bill, 2006 to cover e-governance, e-commerce, e-transactions,

protection of personal data and information and protection of critical information

infrastructure. Even though the amended Act in 2008 had included provisions,

which would protect personal data, prevent financial frauds and restrict offensive

communication, the purpose of preventing extremist usage of the cyber

communications was not properly satisfied.

In this connection, I need to further emphasize that the term cyber

terrorism was coined in 1996 by Barry Collin, who defined the term as theconvergence of cybernetics and terrorism (cited in Krasavin, 2002, para 6).

However, the definition was not stagnated in this meaning alone. Various

researchers have attempted to define the term from various angles, which include

the usage of the term to mean using information technology with political

motivation to attack on civilians (Pollit, 1997 cited in Krasavin, 2002). This term

has further gained popularity due to the media, who interpreted the term from

mischievous pranks to terrorize others (Krasavin, 2002), to even serious attacks

like the Mumbai attack ((NDTV Correspondent, 2010). It could therefore be seen

that cyber terrorism could be defined depending upon the terms linguistic usage

and interpretation of the same through various approaches. As I had mentioned

earlier, cyber terrorism is a holistic term. This includes general usage of the cyber

space, which would also aide to terrorist purposes. Oh et.al (2010) had showed

that apart from general websites giving details about Mumbai target areas, the

terrorists had extensively used Twitter posts made by common people to gather

information about the current status of situations. Most of these posts were made

in connection of warning people about sensitive areas, blood donation camps that

were set up to supply blood to the wounded, information for friends and relatives.


8/11


Apparently, these posts were well within their constitutional limits; however, they

fed unconstitutional missions. From these points, it could be seen that the present

law failed to understand the reach of terrorists physical communication to cyber

space. This failure had further motivated more cyber usage for terrorist purposes.

The 2011 Javeri Bazaar blast, again in Mumbai is a glaring example.

It could further be seen that due to this lacuna in the legislation, theprosecution pays minimum heed to the application of this law in the course of

prosecuting the accused. After the amended version of the Information

Technology Act was brought in, section 69F was sparingly used to nip the bud of

cyber terrorist acts. In most cases, cyber reliance by the terrorists or extremists

was used for forensic evidences (NDTV Correspondent, 2010). Even though no

official report has still come out on the usage of this provision (Duggal, 2011), this

law could mostly be referred for hacking and defacement of government websites

like that of the case of defacement of CBI website by the Pakistan cyber army

that is referred above; provided this law creates threat to the population and also

threat to sovereignty and integrity of the country, or cases of misuse of identity forfinancial gains towards the fulfillment of terrorist purposes. However, I refuse to

call Pakistan cyber army hacking and defacement case as a case of cyber

terrorism. Such attacks on government websites could be vital as this may actually

hamper the machine, the congenital government data as well as the network.

However, this attack neither affected the confidential data (NDTV Correspondent,

2010), nor created extreme threat to the sovereignty and integrity of nation, neither

threat to population of a targeted area as was done in Mumbai attack, and thereby

failed to attract the core characteristics of cyber terrorism. These are cases of

Terrorists use of Internet and not Cyber Terrorism per se.

Ironically, the provisions in the proposed Information Technologyguidelines for cyber caf Rules, 2011, have provided ancillary support towards the

prevention of cyber terrorism. The cyber smart extremists prefer to avoid private

internet connections through home computers, as the internet protocol address (I.P

address) may easily disclose the location data. India had witnessed the usage of

cyber caf for such mischievous purposes (NDTV Correspondent, 2010). The two

particular sections of this proposed Rule attract my attention for this specific

purpose; section 2(bb) of this proposed rule defines log register as a register

maintained by the Cyber Caf for access and use of computer resource and

thereby indicates that every cyber caf must have a log register to notify the

persons who would are using cyber cafes for accessing and using computer

resources. Section 4 of this proposed rule further states regulations for Cyber caf.

The rule has also proposed that the cafes responsibility must also include

prohibiting any user from accessing the computer or computer networks

established in the caf unless

1. the intended user produces a valid identity proof as has been specifiedunder section 4(1) of this Rule;


9/11


2. the intended user actually allows the caf to store his data throughphotocopy of the same, as has been specified under section 4(2) of this

Rule;

3. if the intended user is a minor, he/she is accompanied by an adult as hasbeen specified under section 4(4) of this Rule;

4. the accompanying person (if any) of the intended user produces identitydata as has been specified under section 4(5) of this Rule.

Apparently these provisions are made to monitor the users of cyber caf . It

is evident from these proposed regulations that drafters of the Indian laws towards

protection of cyber communication are well aware of the misuse of the public

server facilities that are provided by the cyber caf (Halder, 2011).

Conclusion

Apparently a legislation made to safeguard the e-commerce, cannot be

pulled in to protect non-commercial issues including extremist communications

and ideologies that are hatched in the cyber space. In India, extremist activitieswhich are carried out to disrupt the sovereignty and integrity are strictly regulated

the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (repeal ordinance, 2004), besides various

provisions under the Indian Penal code, especially chapter VI, which deals with

offences against the State. The prime focus of these legislations is to restrict

terrorist activities in India. As such, they also emphasize on the forensic evidences

that could trace the motive, the master plan as well as the master planner and the

executers of such plans. With the growth of digital communications, the Indian

Evidence Act has also adopted the cyber forensic specimens as evidences for the

extremist ideologies and activities. A minute analysis of the Information

Technology Act, 2008 would show that the language of the provisions, especiallysection 69 F, fails to recognize the inherent meaning of terrorism through cyber

space. Rather, this law remained a shadow of the existing anti terrorism

legislations. Vandalizing the cyber space could definitely be termed as cyber

terrorism, but cyber communication carried out to vandalize the peace of civil

society must not be ignored.

Nothing but a focused law could be the only answer for preventing cyber

terrorist activities in India. It could be seen that Information Technology Bill 2006

had a larger holistic statement of objects and reasons. Para 1 and 2 of the

statement of objects and reasons of this Bill stated as follows:

The Information Technology Act was enacted in the year 2000 with a view togive a fillip to the growth of electronic based transactions, to provide legal

recognition for e-commerce and e-transactions, to facilitate e-governance, to

prevent computer based crimes and ensure security practices and procedures in

the context of widest possible use of information technology worldwide. With

proliferation of information technology enabled services such as e-governance, e-

commerce and e-transactions, protection of personal data and information and

implementation of security practices and procedures relating to these applications


10/11


of electronic communications have assumed greater importance and they require

harmonisation with the provisions of the Information Technology Act. Further,

protection of Critical Information Infrastructure is pivotal to national security,

economy, public health and safety, so it has become necessary to declare such

infrastructure as a protected system so as to restrict its access.

However, the amended Act of 2008 does not show case these objects andreasons. Here lies the pivotal focus of my argument. A law meant for safeguarding

electronic commerce could go to save the personal data of the individuals, but it

may not successfully envelop the issues of terrorism, even though such terrorist

move could disrupt the commercial transactions through cyber space and thereby

cause financial loss to the nation. In order to make the present Information

Technology Act, 2008 a focused legislation to prevent cyber atrocities, especially

cyber terrorism, the following recommendations could be adopted:

1. The statement of object and reasons must be stretched to cover crimescommitted in the cyber space, and not limited to safeguard electronic

commerce and related communications only.2. Cyber terrorism must be broadly defined to include the usage of cyber

space and cyber communication.

3. The language of Section 66F must be stretched to cover cybercommunication that is carried out with intent to fulfill terrorist missions.

Further, the provisions of section 69, which speaks about power to issue for

interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any

computer resource, must be included in the ambit of section 66 E. This

could form a new chapter dedicated for cyber terrorism and extremist

speeches in the main legislation.

References

Collin, B. (1996). The Future of CyberTerrorism. Proceedings of 11th Annual

International Symposium on Criminal Justice Issues, The University of Illinois

at Chicago.

Denning, D. E. (2001). Cyberwarriors: Activists and Terrorists turn to cyberspace.

Harvard International Review,XXIII(2), 70-75.

Denning, D. E. (2010). Terrors Web: How the Internet is transforming Terrorism.

In Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (Eds.),Handbook of Internet Crimes (pp. 194 - 213).

Cullumpton: Willan Publishing.

Duggal, P. (May 30, 2011). Cyber Terrorism Some legal perspectives. Retrieved

on 12.08.2011 from http://neurope.eu/cybersecurity2011/?p=47

Halder D. (7 August 2011). The caf with better responsibility. Retrieved on

12.08.2011 from http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/2011/08/cafe-with-better-

responsibility.html

Jewkes, Y. (2010). Public Policing and Internet crime. In Y. Jewkes & M. Yar

(Eds.), Handbook of Internet Crimes (pp. 525 - 545). Cullumpton: Willan

Publishing.


11/11


Krasavin, S. (2002). What is Cyber-terrorism? Retrieved on 12.08.2011 from

http://www.crime-research.org/library/Cyber-terrorism.htm.

LaRaia, W., & Walker, M. C. (2009). The Siege in Mumbai: A Conventional

Terrorist Attack Aided by Modern Technology. In M. R. Haberfeld., & A.V.

Hassell. (Eds.),A New Understanding of Terrorism (pp. 309-340). New York:

Springer.NDTV Correspondent (2010). Hacked by 'Pakistan cyber army', CBI website still

not restored. Retrieved on 12.08.2011 from

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/hacked-by-pakistan-cyber-army-cbi-

website-still-not-restored-70568

Oh, O., Agrawal, M., & Rao, H. R. (2011) Information control and terrorism:

Tracking the Mumbai terrorist attack through twitter. Information Systems

Frontiers, "Special Issue on Terrorism Informatics", 13(1), 33-43.

Pollitt, M. M. (1997). A Cyberterrorism Fact or Fancy?. Proceedings of the 20th

National Information Systems Security Conference (pp. 285-289).

Saxena, A. (August 4 2011). 117 Indian Government Websites Defaced Till July.MEDIANAMA. Retrieved on 12.08.2011 from

http://www.medianama.com/2011/08/223-indian-government-websites-

hacked/

Schjolberg, S. (2007) Terrorism in Cyberspace - Myth or reality? Retrieved on

12.08.2011 from http://www.cybercrimelaw.net/documents/Cyberterrorism.pdf

Trachtman, J. P. (2009). Global Cyberterrorism, Jurisdiction, and International

Organization. In M. F. Grady & F. Parisi (Eds.), The Law and Economics of

Cybersecurity (pp. 259 - 296). New York: Cambridge.

Wykes, M. & Harcus, D. (2010). Cyber-terror: construction, criminalisation and

control. In Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (Eds.),Handbook of Internet Crimes (pp. 214 -229). Cullumpton: Willan Publishing.

it act cyber terror

Documents