Tag Archives: uk

Articles

Cyber Threats: An Overview

Leave a comment

This Article is written by S Muthu Praba & S Sankar Ganesh, students of Dr. Ambedkar Law University, School of Excellence in Law, Tamilnadu

INTRODUCTION

In this modern era of digitalization, internet and social media has became an inevitable part of human life. The emerging risks in the virtual platform creates more vulnerable environment for all the people irrespective of their age. During the COVID-19 pandemic, people carry out all their activities virtually through different media, which has resulted in miscellaneous intrusions from anonymous persons paving way for cyber threats. India is a country which has stringent legislations for the various offences occurring throughout the country. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and various rules given by the government regarding the prevailing conditions in the society curtailed the increasing cyber threats. Proper regulatory measures have been introduced to ensure strong cyber security in the virtual platform. The researchers give limelight on the prevailing cyber threats and existing legal remedies available in India compared to the international perspective. Though there is no explicit legislation for cyber law, the IT Act and various other acts together serve the sole purpose of reducing cybercrimes. Judicial precedents help in the application of various provisions of the legislations thus rendering justice to the people affected by virtual crimes.

CYBER THREATS IN INDIA

Cyber threat is defined as the possibility of a malicious attempt to damage or disrupt a computer network or system. Cyberattacks occur through different means with multiple intention of threatening the targeted system or person. In 2020, the most observed forms of cyber threat are:

  • Distributed denial of service (DDoS attacks)
  • Social engineering
  • Cloud computing vulnerabilities
  • Third Party Software
  • Ransomware

During the pandemic, data breaches and other cyber security issues reported are rapidly increasing when compared to the first quarter of the year 2019. Around 3,137 cyber security related issues were reported every day in 2020 in mediocre level. Due to the unintended shift to the digital services, people became more vulnerable to cyber threats. In 2020, nearly 1.16 million cases of cyberattacks were reported which is far greater than that of the cases reported in 2019. Further, the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) has observed 11,58,208 cyber security incidents in the year 2020 which has led to various cyber threats.

Researchers have warned that the cyber threats are likely to increase in 2021 due to the extended virtual working platform. The government has issued several guidelines and other cyber security measures in order to curb the cyberattacks. 

CYBER LAWS IN INDIA

Though there is no exclusive legislation for cyber laws in India, they are governed by the existing legislations which deal with cyber security and related issues. The Information Technology Act, 2000 guides all the Indian legislations regarding e-commerce, e-banking and e-governance thus providing various provisions offences occurring in computer networking and virtual platform.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is invoked along with the IT Act as it also deals with certain offences applicable in cyberspace also. The forgery occurring in digital format and examination of such evidence are governed by the Indian Evidence Act.

The cybersecurity obligations and other responsibilities of the companies registered under the Companies Act, 2013 are refined under this legislation. The SFIO (Serious Frauds Investigation Office) is vested with the power to prosecute the company and its directors. They became stern and proactive after the Companies Inspection, Investment and Inquiry Rules, 2014.

Under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), the government issues notification regarding the rules and regulations of cyber security which must be coordinated by the authorities to the public.  Further, data protection framework and data governance related rules are structured whenever required.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has authorized Cybersecurity Framework (NCFS) for cyber risk management through which the guidelines and standards for cyber- related issues are fixed.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

In Shreya Singhal v Union of India, the honourable Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This decision was made by the court based on three concepts viz, Discussion, Advocacy, and Incitement. 

It was held in Shamsher Singh Verma v State of Haryana, the accused challenged the High Court Order, The Supreme Court held that Compact Disc is also a document, and it is not necessary obtain permission or disclaimer regarding a document under Section 294 (1) of CrPC personally from the accused, the complainant, or the witness.

It was held in Avnish Bajaj v State (NCT) of Delhi, it was regarding the broadcasting of cyber pornography materials, the accused was arrested but it was contended by the accused that he is only the service provider. The court granted bail subject to 2 sureties and the burden of proof to him as only the service provider and not posted such materials. 

It was held State of Tamil Nadu v Suhas Katti, a landmark case, in which the accused was a family friend and who intended to marry a girl, but she was married to some other person. The accused created a false e-mail account in the name of the victim and posted slanderous, obscene, and annoying information about the victim. The court convicted the accused person under 469, 509 of IPC, 1860 and Sec 67 of IT Act, 2000.

It was held in CBI v Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh Case), it’s a peculiar cybercrime, in which a person unknowingly used the credit card information of another and purchased Sony TV. The credit card user informed the wrong usage of the card to the bank and the bank approached the company, then it was found that a call centre guy Arif Azim misused the information and committed the crime. The Court relying on the age and the first-time offence, had a lenient action on that boy. 

It was held in SMC Pneumatics (India) P Limited v Jogesh Kwatra, the employee of the company sent filthy emails to employers, subsidiaries and derogated, defamed the company. It was found that the employee sent the mails from a internet café. The defendant was terminated from the service. The Court held that the evidence is not qualify as certified evidence U/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

It was held in Manik Taneja v State of Karnataka, the accused posted a bad comment about the inspector, police personnel of a particular police station in the face book page of the Police. The police filed a case against him. The Court held that the social media platform is to express the grievance and it was made with good intention. Hence the accused was not doing was not punishable offence. 

It was held in Gagan harsh Sharma v The State of Maharashtra, the individuals were accused of theft of data and software from the employer, they were booked under Sec 408 and 420 of IPC along with Sec 43, 65 and 66 of IT Act, 2000. The accused pleaded for dropping of provisions under IPC and to charge only under IT Act, 2000 relying on Sharat Babu Digumarti Case. The Bombay High Court upheld the plea of the petitioners and dropped the provisions under IPC. 

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON CYBER THREATS

Secret is the only thing which is under amaze in this cyber world. Every country is fighting against the cyber threat, cyber warfare to protect its secrets, its citizens. 

In UK, National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) formed and headed by the cyber security experienced professionals to tackle the cyber threat and cyber warfare. The policy of “active defence” and “hacking back the hackers” are the potentials used by NCSC to fight against the cyber threat or cyber warfare.

In US, the nation with latest technologies and leading in the cyber security has enacted an act, to handle Cyber threats viz, Cyber Security Act of 2015. In addition to that Cyber Security National Action Plan has also been initiated by the Government to work with commercial tech giants, to handle cyber threats and to protect the citizens. 

In Europe, NIS directive was initiated in the year 2016 to protect from cyber threats. Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) was formed by the directive to protect and to have greater control.

In China, introduced a law with more stringent measures and broad new cyber security law to protect and to have control over cyber threats. 

In India, Digital India is proposed and taken into every root of the Government Concerns. Indeed, aiding to keep Digital India ahead of the latest cyber-threats is a key unease for those working on the project, whether they are connoisseurs in policy, government services, or security technologies such as PKI.

CONCLUSION

The world is changing and so the technical and technological developments. Everything which soothes the operation will have more impact on us, thus the Cyber Space, which helps us to reach more but it has every potential threat. 

Every nation and every individual are apprehended to the cyber warfare and cyber threats, through the bold and clear strategy this can be handled. Its an endless limit to the desire of individuals and hence the threat has no limitations. 

The world in which we live is transforming, and so are the perils that we face daily. Governments around the globe must now ensure they are adaptable and swift enough to distinguish when the muggers are moving ahead, and act accordingly.

Legal News

Apple threatens to exit UK over $7-billion lawsuit

Leave a comment

Tech giant Apple has threatened to quit the United Kingdom markets if asked to pay $7 billion by the local courts over a patent infringement lawsuit. Apple’s lawyers have said paying such an exorbitant amount over the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Optis Cellular is “commercially unacceptable.”

According to a report by This is Money, if forced to pay the amount by the courts in the UK, the US company could quit its operations in the region.

Optis Cellular Technology, which owns globally-distributed patent families relating to 3G and 4G LTE essential technologies, sued Apple for patent infringement after the iPhone creator refused to pay a licence fee worth $7 billion for using ‘standardised’ smartphone technology in its products.

According to the report by This is Money, though Apple is a leader in smartphones, it does not own the technology used in iPhones and pays licence fees to companies like Optis. A UK high court judge had passed a ruling last month confirming that Apple had infringed two Optis patents that help iPhones connect to 3G and 4G networks.

As per a Bloomberg Law report, Apple does not want to commit to taking a licence before the rate is determined. The trial date set for next week will focus on whether Apple is an “unwilling licensee.” If so, it could mean a possible sales ban in the UK. If the court rules in favour of Optis, this would result in companies committing to take a court-determined rate once a patent is found valid and infringed. Refusal to do so could lead to their products being banned in the UK.

The trial, among the first of its kind, has implications for companies sued in global disputes over patents essential to technological standards. They may have to commit to take a court-determined rate once a patent is found valid and infringed or risk their products being blocked from the UK markets.

If Apple decides to quit the lucrative UK market, it would not just spell an end to the sale of iPhones in UK but also discontinuation of services and upgrades to its existing customers.

This is not the first court battle that Apple is facing with Optis in the UK. Another case filed by Optis over patent infringement comes up for trial in 2022.

Last year, the UK Supreme Court had pronounced a ruling that a UK court should set the rate that Apple must pay for all of its iPhone patents worldwide though the court only considers the infringement of UK patents. If it is enacted, it is a sure sign of the British authorities trying to rein in the US giants who have a strong grip on the UK markets.

Articles

DOCTRINE OF “WORK FOR HIRE” UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAW : A CRITICAL SURVEY OF U.K., US AND INDIAN CASES

Leave a comment

To get daily updates, Join Team Attorneylex’s WhatsApp group. 

Also, check us out on Instagram and Twitter

  This article is written by Nadiya Yakub Patel, a student at Thakur Ramnarayan College of Law, Mumbai University.

INTRODUCTION :

Copyright is a intellectual property that gives the owner the exclusive right to make copies of a creative work usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in literary, artistic, educational, musical form. Also the Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations such as the fair use doctrine in the U.K., US and in India.

Some jurisdictions require ‘fixing’ copyrighted works in a tangible form or  manner. It is often shared among the multiple authors and each authors holds a set of rights to use or license the work.

And the Public law duration of a copyright expires 50-100 years after the creator dies, depending on jurisdiction. And in general most of them believe that the long copyright duration guarantees the better protection of works.

BACKGROUND :

The copyright developed after the printing press came into use. The printing press made it much cheaper to produce works but as there was initially no copyright law anyone can rent press and also print any text. Popular new works were immediately re-set and also re-published by competitors so printers needed a constant stream of the new material. The Fees paid to authors for new works were high and also significantly supplemented the incomes of many academics. Printing brought profound the social changes. Prices of the reprints were low so the  publications could be bought by poorer people and creating a mass audience. 

 

OBTAINING PROTECTION :

Ownership :

In ownership the original holder of the copyright is the employer of the author rather than the author himself if the work is a “work for hire”. The first owner of a copyright is the person who created the work which is know as the author. When more than one person creates the work and then case of joint authorship can be made provided some criteria are met.

Eligible works:

Copyright may apply to a very large range of creative intellectual. Specifics jurisdiction but these can include poems, fictional characters, and other literary works, choreography, musical, sound recordings, paintings, sculptures, photographs, computer software, radio and television broadcasts. Graphic designs may have overlapping laws applied to them in some jurisdictions. Copyright does not cover ideas as well as information themselves only the form in which they are expressed.

Originality :

A work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright and then the copyright expires after a set period of time. In the UK there has to be some skill, labour, and judgment that has gone into it. In United Kingdom it has been held that a single word is insufficient to comprise a copyright work.

Copyright law recognizes the right of author based on the work actually is an original creation rather than based on whether it is unique two authors may own copyright on two substantially identical works if it determined that the duplication was coincidental and neither was copied from other.

ENFORCEMENT :

Copyrights enforced in a civil law court but there are also criminal infringement statutes in some jurisdictions. The Criminal sanctions or law are generally at serious counterfeiting activities but now becoming more and more common place as copyright collectives

In most jurisdictions copyright holder must bear cost of enforcing copyright. This will usually involve engaging legal representation court costs. In 1978  scope was expanded to apply any expression that has been fixed in any medium this protection granted automatically whether maker wants it or also not no registration required.

Copyright Infringement :

For a work to be considered to infringe upon copyright its use must have occurred in a nation that has domestic copyright laws to established international convention. Improper use of materials outside of legislation is deemed and know as unauthorized edition not copyright infringement.

Statistics regarding effects of the  copyright infringement are also difficult to determine. According to Studies have attempted to determine whether there is a monetary loss for industries affected by the copyright infringement by predicting what portion of pirated works would have been formally purchased if they not been freely available. Other reports says that copyright infringement does not have an adverse effect on entertainment industry and can have a positive effect.

RIGHTS GRANTED :

According to the World Intellectual Property Organisation, copyright protects two types of rights. Economic rights and Moral rights.

According to U.K., US and India

Economic Rights : 

As the Economic Rights allow the right owners to derive the financial reward from the use of their works by the others. 

a) Reproduction of the work in various forms such as printed publications, sound recordings.

b) Distribution of copies of work.

c) Public performance of work.

d) Broadcasting or any other communication of the work to public.

e) Translation of the work into any other languages.

f) Adaptation of the work.

Moral Rights :

Allow authors and creators to take certain actions to protect their link with their work. 

a) Protection of work.

b) To determine how and under what conditions the work may be marketed, publicly displayed, reproduced, distributed, etc.

c) To produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies.

d) To import or export work.

e) To create derivative works.

f) To perform the work publicly.

g) To sell these rights to others.

h) To transmit by radio, video or internet.

PUBLICPUBLIC DOMAIN :

Copyright like other intellectual property rights and is subject to a statutorily determined term. Once the term of a copyright has expired the formerly copyrighted work enters the public domain and may be used by anyone without obtaining permission, and normally without payment. Courts in common law countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom have rejected the doctrine of common law copyright. Public domain works should not be in confused with works which are publicly available. Works posted in the internet such as  publicly available but are not generally in the public domain.

CONCLUSION :

Copyrights law has been developing and also changing to provide better protection as well as stronger hold to the owners. Recognition a serious crime not only damaging creative potential but as well as causing economic loss. Awareness among people proper enforcement efficient copyright cells as well as copyright societies can bring down the infringement.

Articles

Drone Laws: The New Generation

Leave a comment

This Article is written by Yash Jain, Tanishka Valecha & Aman Monga, students at Amity Law School, Noida

In contrast to the existing guidelines where their use was limited only to the Indian subcontinent, the application of the UAS Unintentional Rules extended to all UAS registered in India, or operating outside the Indian subcontinent. In addition, its provision will apply to all persons wishing to own or own, or who wish to participate in the import, manufacture, trade, lease, operation, transfer or retention of UAS in India. According to the Indian aviation authority, the Department of Public Aviation, drone flying is legal in India, but we recommend that we know and comply with the drone rules listed below before doing so. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation India has announced Preliminary Requirements for Civil Aviation ( CAR) for drones aircraft on August 27, 2018 will take effect on December 1, 2018.Before all aircraft, drone pilots are required to apply for a flight permit via a mobile application, which will automatically process the application and grant or reject it. India calls its program “No Permission, No Departure” (NPNT). If a drone pilot tries to fly without obtaining permission from the Digital Sky Platform, he will simply not be able to take off.

All drone pilots will register their drone and request permission to fly each aircraft via Digital Sky Platform of India.

UAS PLANNING 

While the existing guidelines are limited to RPAS only, UAS Unintended Regulations continue to differentiate UAS from the following:

  1. Remotely Aircraft System (ie UAS tested from remote driver station)
  1. Model System Remotely Aircraft System (e.g. UAS which works without download and is used for educational or experimental purposes only within visual view)
  1. Autonomous Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS that does not require pilot intervention in air traffic control)

In addition, the UAS classification under the UAS Framework Rules is the same as the existing guidelines (i.e. stomach-based classification) parameters based on maximum speed (e.g. 15 m / s), height (e.g. 15 meters) and achievable distance (i.e. 15 meters). -100) 

The aforementioned re-appointment of Nano Drones may have implications for the current Drone system and be a challenge for its producers and existing operators. Currently, such drones are exempt from meeting the various conditions determined under the existing guidelines. However, to further the discovery of such releases, the manufacturer may need to build a specific geo capacity to limit the performance of Nano Drones above speed and altitude limits.

“The drone market in India has the potential to hit more than $ 1 trillion. We plan to improve drone production not only in the domestic market but also in other countries,” said  Suresh Prabhu, adding that India’s technology is reflected in its innovative capabilities. -cost solutions. The minister said these drone rules have taken a long time to be developed due to various safety and security issues that need to be addressed. His department, however, identified three specific reasons why these laws have taken so long to develop: Drone technology has developed rapidly.

Many countries are still experimenting with their own drone regulations and no ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) has been established. India’s security zone needs more vigilance. Minister of State for Civil Aviation Jayant Sinha said Drone Regulations 1.0 had been established as “the whole digital process” which will take effect from 1 December, at which point the “Digital Sky” platform will be operational.

DIGITAL PLATFORM

As Sinha also pointed out, the new Digital Sky platform will be the first national unregulated national traffic management (UTM) platform that uses a ‘no-go, and no-go’ system for remote controlled aircraft. Users will be required to register only their drones, pilots and their owners on the platform, which will also allow online filing of a particular flight path and use.

Drone Task Force

The Drone Task Force, under the chairmanship of Sinha, will provide draft recommendations for the following series of rules – Drone Regulations 2.0. In terms of service, the following rules will address, inter alia, the following issues:

  1. Ensure safe and secure operation of hardware and software hardware
  2. Airspace management through automated functions linked to the overall air management framework Without visual-line-of-sight performance,
  3. Contribution to the establishment of world standards. Suggestions for modification of existing CAR (public aviation requirements) and / or new CARs.

Operational requirements

The new regulations separate drones into five different types, according to their weight. The rules that apply to drones will depend on the weight category they fall in, starting at less than 250 grams and increasing to over 150 pounds. Five types are nano, micro, small, medium, and large. With the exception of nano, all other categories of drones require government registration and are issued with a Unique Identification Number (UIN). Drones owed to intelligence agencies also do not have this requirement, it is not surprising. In addition to these permits, Unmanned Aircraft Operator Permit (UAOP) is also required for drone users, with the exception of nano-drones operating less than 50 meters and micro-drones operating less than 200 meters.

Airspace, too, is divided by the government into various areas. Here’s what they show you:

Red Location: Flying is not allowed.

Yellow Zone: Controlled air space – permit required before flight.

Green Zone: Uncontrolled air space – default permissions

Apart from this, there are some places in the country that are marked as ‘No Drone Zones’. Some of these Non-Drones have been identified as areas around the airports, those near the international border, the Vijay Chowk in New Delhi, the State Secretariat Complex in state capitals and what the department called “strategic areas / strategic and military areas”.

Equipment needed on board

  1. GNSS – Global Navigation System
  2. Return to Home (RTH) feature
  3. The anti-collision lamp
  4. ID-Plate
  5. Flight controller with flight data entry capability
  6. Radio Frequency ID and SIM / No Permission No Take off (NPNT)

A Comparative Analysis: Drone laws in India with laws in the UK and USA

A view of Drone laws in the UK:

Drones are divided into three categories: A, B and C – with the smallest and most complex category in A, and the highest category C – based on their weight, technical complexity, and working environment. Drones usually weigh up to 7 kg in category A. The drones in this category do not need a certificate, but pilots must demonstrate their capabilities. Operation on VLOS must be performed. VLOS performance is a typical operating limit not to exceed 500 meters horizontally or 400 meters above his or her height. Class B drones typically weigh between 7 and 150 kg. The Drones in the team need aircraft authorization and performance as well as proof of their driving skills. The process will take place in VLOS and Extended-VLOS regions. Class C drones also weigh 7 to 150 pounds [7 to 150 kg] but are extremely difficult to operate technically and are used in complex work environments. Drones received full reviews under this category and have strict permissions. Driver and operational requirements are similar to those of Class B drones because they are allowed to operate in air spaces over VLOS and are more complex. While the full independent operation of the UAS is not authorized, certain parts of the operation can be performed without human interference with prior authorization from the authorities.

Drone rules view in USA:

The regulations in the USA are broadly divided into ‘Fly for Fun’ and ‘Fly for Work. The drone must be registered in the ‘Fly for Fun’ category if its weight exceeds 249.48 grams and does not exceed 24.95 kg. This will operate 8.05 kilometers from the airports and will alert the airport and the air traffic control unit to see if operations are being carried out in the area. And in the group ‘Fly for Work’ the drone weight should be less than 24.95 kilograms. All drones weighing more than 250 grams used in this category must be registered. They can travel between VLOS and 400-foot-AGL lengths during the day. The operator must be at least 16 years old on the appointment of a ‘Lease Aircraft,’ to complete a preliminary assessment of aviation skills in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and must be approved by the Transportation Safety Administration. The FAA allows flights on private drones even though it is subject to certain restrictions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that while most of the recent drone debate has focused on state use of drones for military purposes and purposes, the use of drones by the public and the public should be taken into account. There is an urgent need to strengthen policy and co-operation between India and the United States at any given opportunity in the event of a commercial drone market in India. There is a need for political agreement and cooperation between the Department of Defense, the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Public Aviation, in order to establish and develop the drone industry in India, Industry and International Trade Promotion Department, and planning commission, among others. In addition, large-scale policy funding requires drone education – operator training, drone production capacity, drone identification and monitoring, remote pilot degrees, and other relevant drone services. It is time for India to partner with the United States in the growth of its commercial market, establish and develop a regulatory environment so that commercial drones can be used efficiently and effectively, and with declining demand.