词条 | Information Technology Act, 2000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
释义 |
| image = | imagesize = 150 | imagelink = | imagealt = | caption = | long_title = the Act to provide legal recognition for transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as "electronic commerce", which involve the use of alternatives to paper-based methods of communication and storage of information, to nusta editing electronic filing of documents with the Government agencies and further to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and favour | citation = Information Technology Act, 2000 | enacted_by = Parliament of India | date_enacted = 9 June 2000 | date_assented = 9 June 2000 | date_signed = 9 May 2000 | date_commenced = 17 October 2000 | bill = | bill_citation = | bill_date = | introduced_by = | 1st_reading = | 2nd_reading = | 3rd_reading = | white_paper = | committee_report = | amendments = IT (Amendment) Act 2008 | repeals = | related = | summary = | keywords = | status = in force }} The Information Technology Act, 2000 (also known as ITA-2000, or the IT Act) is an Act of the Indian Parliament (No 21 of 2000) notified on 17 October 2000. It is the primary law in India dealing with cybercrime and electronic commerce. It is based on the United Nations Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996 (UNCITRAL Model) recommended by the General Assembly of United Nations by a resolution dated 30 January 1997.[1] BackgroundThe bill was passed in the budget session of 2000 and signed by President K. R. Narayanan on 9 May 2000. The bill was finalised by group of officials headed by then Minister of Information Technology Pramod Mahajan.[2] SummaryThe original Act contained 94 sections, divided into 13 chapters and 4 schedules. The laws apply to the whole of India. Persons of other nationalities can also be indicted under the law, if the crime involves a computer or network located in India.[3] The Act provides a legal framework for electronic governance by giving recognition to electronic records and digital signatures. It also defines cyber crimes and prescribes penalties for them. The Act directed the formation of a Controller of Certifying Authorities to regulate the issuance of digital signatures. It also established a Cyber Appellate Tribunal to resolve disputes rising from this new law.[3] The Act also amended various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Banker's Book Evidence Act, 1891, and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to make them compliant with new technologies.[3] AmendmentsA major amendment was made in 2008. It introduced Section 66A which penalized sending of "offensive messages". It also introduced Section 69, which gave authorities the power of "interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource". It also introduced provisions addressing child porn, cyber terrorism and voyeurism. The amendment was passed on 22 December 2008 without any debate in Lok Sabha. The next day it was passed by the Rajya Sabha. It was signed into law by President Pratibha Patil, on 5 February 2009.[4][5][6][7] OffencesList of offences and the corresponding penalties:[8][9]
Notable casesSection 66
Section 66A
CriticismsSection 66A and restriction of free speechFrom its establishment as an amendment to the original act in 2008, Section 66A attracted controversy over its unconstitutional nature:
In December 2012, P Rajeev, a Rajya Sabha member from Kerala, tried to pass a resolution seeking to amend the Section 66A. He was supported by D. Bandyopadhyay, Gyan Prakash Pilania, Basavaraj Patil Sedam, Narendra Kumar Kashyap, Rama Chandra Khuntia and Baishnab Charan Parida. P Rajeev pointed that cartoons and editorials allowed in traditional media, were being censored in the new media. He also said that law was barely debated before being passed in December 2008.[25] Rajeev Chandrasekhar suggested the 66A should only apply to person to person communication pointing to a similar section under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Shantaram Naik opposed any changes, saying that the misuse of law was sufficient to warrant changes. Then Minister for Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal defended the existing law, saying that similar laws existed in US and UK. He also said that a similar provision existed under Indian Post Office Act, 1898. However, P Rajeev said that the UK dealt only with communication from person to person.[23]Petitions challenging constitutionalityIn November 2012, IPS officer Amitabh Thakur and his wife social activist Nutan Thakur, filed a petition in the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court claiming that the Section 66A violated the freedom of speech guaranteed in the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. They said that the section was vague and frequently misused.[24] Also in November 2012, a Delhi-based law student, Shreya Singhal, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India. She argued that the Section 66A was vaguely phrased, as result it violated Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The PIL was accepted on 29 November 2012.[25][26] A similar petition was also filed by the founder of MouthShut.com, Faisal Farooqui,[27] and NGO Common Cause represented by Prashant Bhushan[28] In August 2014, the Supreme Court asked the central government to respond to petitions filed by Mouthshut.com and later petition filed by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) which claimed that the IT Act gave the government power to arbitrarily remove user-generated content.[29] Revocation by the Supreme CourtOn 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court of India, gave the verdict that Section 66A is unconstitutional in entirety. The court said that Section 66A of IT Act 2000 is "arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech" provided under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. But the Court turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites. [30][31] Strict data privacy rulesThe data privacy rules introduced in the Act in 2011 have been described as too strict by some Indian and US firms. The rules require firms to obtain written permission from customers before collecting and using their personal data. This has affected US firms which outsource to Indian companies. However, some companies have welcomed the strict rules, saying it will remove fears of outsourcing to Indian companies.[32] Section 69 and mandatory decryption{{See also|Mandatory decryption}}The Section 69 allows intercepting any information and ask for information decryption. To refuse decryption is an offence. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 allows the government to tap phones. But, according to a 1996 Supreme Court verdict the government can tap phones only in case of a "public emergency". But, there is no such restriction on Section 69.[5] On 20 December 2018, the Ministry of Home Affairs cited Section 69 in the issue of an order authorising ten central agencies to intercept, monitor, and decrypt “any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer.” [33] While some claim this to be a violation of the fundamental right to privacy, the Ministry of Home Affairs has claimed its validity on the grounds of national security. [34][35] Future changesOn 2 April 2015, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Devendra Fadnavis revealed to the state assembly that a new law was being framed to replace the repealed Section 66A. Fadnavis was replying to a query Shiv Sena leader Neelam Gorhe. Gorhe had said that repeal of the law would encourage online miscreants and asked whether the state government would frame a law to this regard. Fadnavis said that the previous law had resulted in no convictions, so the law would be framed such that it would be strong and result in convictions.[36] On 13 April 2015, it announced that the Ministry of Home Affairs would form a committee of officials from the Intelligence Bureau, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, Delhi Police and ministry itself to produce a new legal framework. This step was reportedly taken after complaints from intelligence agencies that, they were no longer able to counter online posts that involved national security matter or incite people to commit an offence, such as online recruitment for ISIS.[37][38] Former Minister of State with the Ministry of Information Technology, Milind Deora has supported a new "unambiguous section to replace 66A".[39] See also
References1. ^{{cite book|author1=B.M.Gandhi|title=Indian Penal Code|publisher=Eastern Book Company|location=India |isbn=9788170128922|pages=41}} 2. ^{{cite news|title=IT Act to come into force from August 15|url=http://www.rediff.com/business/2000/aug/09itact.htm|accessdate=14 April 2015|work=Rediff|date=9 August 2000}} 3. ^1 2 {{cite book|author1=Sujata Pawar|author2=Yogesh Kolekar|title=Essentials of Information Technology Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=m6mjBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT296|accessdate=14 April 2015|date=23 March 2015|publisher=Notion Press|isbn=978-93-84878-57-3|pages=296–306}} 4. ^{{cite web|title=Section 66A of the Information Technology Act|url=http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-66A-information-technology-act|publisher=Centre for Internet and Society (India)|access-date=14 April 2015}} 5. ^1 {{cite news|title=Yes, snooping’s allowed|url=http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/yes-snooping-s-allowed/419978/0|accessdate=14 April 2015|work=The Indian Express|date=6 February 2009}} 6. ^{{cite news|title=Deaf, Dumb & Dangerous - 21 Minutes: That was the time our MPs spent on Section 66A. How they played|url=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150326/jsp/frontpage/story_10924.jsp#.VRTZco6upng|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=The Telegraph (India)|date=26 March 2015}} 7. ^{{cite news|title=Amended IT Act to prevent cyber crime comes into effect|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/amended-it-act-to-prevent-cyber-crime-comes-into-effect/article39398.ece|accessdate=8 May 2015|work=The Hindu|date=27 October 2015}} 8. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.itlaw.in|title=The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=7 May 2017}} 9. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.itlaw.in/bareact/chapter-11-offences/|title=Chapter 11: Offences Archives - Information Technology Act|author=|date=|website=Information Technology Act}} 10. ^{{cite news|title=Cyber crime that wasn't?|url=http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/feb/19cyber.htm|accessdate=14 April 2015|work=Rediff|date=19 February 2001}} 11. ^{{Cite news|url=http://www.itlaw.in/digital-shoplifting-four-hackers-arrested-south-delhi/|title=Four Hackers Arrested in Delhi, Cyber Crime, Gift Vouchers, Hacking, Section 65 / 66 of IT Act, Gyftr|date=2010-02-10|work=Information Technology Act|access-date=2017-05-07|language=en-US}} 12. ^{{cite news|title='If Speaking The Truth Is Sedition, Then I Am Guilty'|url=http://www.outlookindia.com/article/If-Speaking-The-Truth-Is-Sedition-Then-I-Am-Guilty/282245|accessdate=14 April 2015|work=Outlook India|date=10 September 2010}} 13. ^{{cite news|title=Indian cartoonist Aseem Trivedi jailed after arrest on sedition charges|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/10/indian-cartoonist-jailed-sedition|accessdate=14 April 2015|work=The Guardian|date=10 September 2010}} 14. ^Section 66A: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. 15. ^{{cite news|title=Professor arrested for poking fun at Mamata|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/professor-arrested-for-poking-fun-at-mamata/article1-839847.aspx|accessdate=14 April 2015|work=Hindustan Times|date=14 April 2012}} 16. ^{{cite news|title=Cartoon a conspiracy, prof an offender: Mamata|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/cartoon-a-conspiracy-prof-an-offender-mamata/article1-840108.aspx|accessdate=14 April 2015|work=Hindustan Times|date=13 April 2012}} 17. ^{{cite news|title=Arrest over tweet against Chidambaram's son propels 'mango man' Ravi Srinivasan into limelight|url=http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/arrest-tweet-chidambaram-son-karti-ravi-srinivasan/1/227402.html|accessdate=14 April 2015|work=India Today|date=2 November 2012}} 18. ^{{cite news|title=Mumbai shuts down due to fear, not respect|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mumbai-shuts-down-due-to-fear-not-respect/article4111814.ece?ref=relatedNews|accessdate=23 April 2015|work=The Hindu|date=19 November 2012}} 19. ^{{cite news|title=FB post: 10 Sainiks arrested for hospital attack|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/fb-post-10-sainiks-arrested-for-hospital-attack/article4114966.ece?ref=relatedNews|accessdate=23 April 2015|work=The Hindu|date=20 November 2012}} 20. ^{{cite news|title=Facebook row: Court scraps charges against Palghar girls|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/facebook-row-court-scraps-charges-against-palghar-girls/article4365469.ece|accessdate=23 April 2015|work=The Hindu|date=31 January 2013}} 21. ^{{cite news|title=Teen arrested for Facebook post attributed to Azam Khan gets bail|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Teen-arrested-for-Facebook-post-attributed-to-Azam-Khan-gets-bail/articleshow/46620033.cms|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=The Times of India|date=19 March 2015}} 22. ^{{cite news|title=UP tells SC that prosecution on boy for post against Azam Khan will continue|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/up-tells-sc-that-prosecution-on-boy-for-post-against-azam-khan-will-continue/|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=The Indian Express|date=24 April 2015}} 23. ^1 {{cite news|title=Section 66A of IT Act undemocratic: RS MPs|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Section-66A-of-IT-Act-undemocratic-RS-MPs/articleshow/17623782.cms|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=The Times of India|date=15 December 2012}} 24. ^{{cite news|title=After Mumbai FB case, writ filed in Lucknow to declare section 66A, IT Act 2000 as ultra-vires|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social-media/After-Mumbai-FB-case-writ-filed-in-Lucknow-to-declare-section-66A-IT-Act-2000-as-ultra-vires/articleshow/17310326.cms?referral=PM|accessdate=14 April 2015|work=The Times of India|date=21 November 2012}} 25. ^{{cite news|title=SC accepts PIL challenging Section 66A of IT Act|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-accepts-PIL-challenging-Section-66A-of-IT-Act/articleshow/17412246.cms|accessdate=23 April 2015|work=The Times of India|date=29 November 2012}} 26. ^{{cite news|title=Shreya Singhal: The student who took on India's internet laws|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32036574|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=BBC News|date=24 March 2015}} 27. ^{{cite news|title='Heavens Won't Fall' if Controversial Parts of IT Act are Stayed, Says Supreme Court|url=http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/heavens-wont-fall-if-controversial-parts-of-it-act-are-stayed-says-supreme-court-708522|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=NDTV|date=4 December 2014}} 28. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/03/24/the-heroes-in-the-battle-against-section-66a/|title=Newslaundry - Sabki Dhulai|first=|last=Newslaundry|date=|website=newslaundry.com}} 29. ^{{cite news|title=SC seeks govt reply on PIL challenging powers of IT Act|url=http://www.livemint.com/Politics/DSjZ9XsezZ4fN2GGfkWu1N/SC-seeks-govt-reply-on-PIL-challenging-powers-of-IT-Act.html|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=Live Mint|date=30 August 2015}} 30. ^{{cite news|title=SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.ece|accessdate=23 April 2015|work=The Hindu|date=25 March 2015}} 31. ^{{cite news|title=SC quashes Section 66A of IT Act: Key points of court verdict|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-quashes-Section66A-IT-Act/listshow/46673677.cms|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=The Times of India|date=24 March 2015}} 32. ^{{cite news|title=India data privacy rules may be too strict for some U.S. companies|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/india-data-privacy-rules-may-be-too-strict-for-some-us-companies/2011/05/18/AF9QJc8G_story.html|accessdate=23 April 2015|work=The Washington Post|date=21 May 2011}} 33. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/all-computers-can-now-be-monitored-by-govt-agencies/article25792523.ece|title=All computers can now be monitored by govt. agencies|date=2018-12-21|work=The Hindu|access-date=2018-12-27|others=Special Correspondent|language=en-IN|issn=0971-751X}} 34. ^{{Cite web|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-editorials/a-spy-state-home-ministrys-blanket-surveillance-order-must-be-tested-against-fundamental-right-to-privacy/|title=A spy state? Home ministry’s blanket surveillance order must be tested against fundamental right to privacy|date=2018-12-24|website=Times of India Blog|language=en-US|access-date=2018-12-27}} 35. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/government-s-surveillance-order-key-to-national-security-mha-officials/story-4gNFGn0hyUuz0XrEDuq9NJ.html|title=Government’s surveillance order key to national security: MHA officials|date=2018-12-27|website=https://www.hindustantimes.com/|language=en|access-date=2018-12-27}} 36. ^{{cite news|title=Centre working on new law similar to Section 66A: Devendra Fadnavis|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social/Centre-working-on-new-law-similar-to-Section-66A-Devendra-Fadnavis/articleshow/46780443.cms|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=The Times of India|date=2 April 2015}} 37. ^{{cite news|title=Section 66A of the IT Act likely to be back in softer avatar|url=http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-04-14/news/61142309_1_social-media-posts-shreya-singhal-ministry-official|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=The Economic Times|date=14 April 2015}} 38. ^{{cite news|title=New panel to work on Section 66A alternative|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-panel-to-work-on-sec-66a-alternative/article1-1336917.aspx|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=Hindustan Times|date=14 April 2015}} 39. ^{{cite news|title=Former IT minister Milind Deora: Why we need a new Section 66A|url=http://www.rediff.com/news/column/former-it-minister-milind-deora-why-we-need-a-new-section-66a/20150402.htm|accessdate=6 May 2015|work=Rediff|date=2 April 2015}} Further reading
External links
12 : Computing legislation|Acts of the Parliament of India 2000|2000 in India|2000 in law|Vajpayee administration|Information technology in India|Censorship in India|Internet in India|Manmohan Singh administration|2008 in India|2008 in law|Medical privacy legislation |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。