NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA, CUTTAK

Project of

LAW OF TORTS

On

CYBER TORTS

Submitted To:

Ms. Sudatta Barik, Ms. Sonal Singh

SEMESTER 1

B.A. L.L.B
Batch 2019-2024

Submitted By- Yash Chhikara, Devansh Sehgal, Arjun Tyagi

P a g e 1 | 21
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2

TABLE OF CASES ........................................................................................................................ 4

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5

(I) WHAT ARE CYBER TORTS? ....................................................................................... 6

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CYBER TORTS AND CONVENTIONAL TORT........................... 7

REASONS FOR OCCURRENCE OF CYBER TORT .................................................................. 8

(I) CAPACITY TO STORE DATA IN COMPARATIVELY SMALL SPACE ................. 8

(II) EASY TO ACCESS ......................................................................................................... 8

(III) COMPLEXITY OF SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 8

(IV) NEGLIGENCE................................................................................................................. 8

(V) LOSS OF EVIDENCE ..................................................................................................... 9

CLASSIFICATIONS OF CYBER TORTS .................................................................................... 9

(I) CYBER-STALKING ....................................................................................................... 9

A) E-MAIL SPOOFING .................................................................................................... 9

B) HARASSMENT VIA E-MAILS .................................................................................. 9

(II) DISSEMINATION OF OBSCENE MATERIAL/ INDECENT EXPOSURE/

PORNOGRAPHY/ POLLUTING THROUGH INDECENT EXPOSURE ............................. 10

(III) DEFAMATION ............................................................................................................. 10

(IV) UNAUTHORIZED CONTROL/ACCESS OVER COMPUTER SYSTEM ................. 11

(V) COMPUTER VANDALISM ......................................................................................... 11

(VI) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CRIMES / DISTRIBUTION OF PIRATED

SOFTWARE ............................................................................................................................. 11

(VII) CYBER TERRORISM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ....... 12

P a g e 2 | 21
 (VIII) TRAFFICKING .......................................................................................................... 12

(IX) FRAUD & CHEATING ................................................................................................. 12

(X) CYBER TRESPASS ...................................................................................................... 13

CYBER LAWS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES ............................................................................. 14

(I) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ....................................................................... 14

(II) THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ............................................................................... 14

(III) KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA ................................................................................. 15

(IV) CHINA ........................................................................................................................... 15

(V) INDIA............................................................................................................................. 16

SOME IMPORTANT HIGHLIGHTS OF THE IT ACT, 2000 ........................................... 16

INTERNATIONAL BODIES FOR CYBER LAWS ................................................................... 17

(I) G8 ................................................................................................................................... 17

(II) UNITED NATIONS ...................................................................................................... 17

(III) ITU ................................................................................................................................. 17

(IV) COUNCIL OF EUROPE ............................................................................................... 18

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 20

P a g e 3 | 21
 TABLE OF CASES

Cases

2009 SCC OnLine CyAT 1: 2009 SCC OnLine CyAT 1 ............................................................... 8

Airforce Bal Bharti School Case (2001) ....................................................................................... 11

Braintech Inc. v. Kostiuk (B.C.C.A., 1999) 63 B.C.L.R. (3d) 156, 1999 BCCA 0169, leave to
appeal refused, [1999] S.C.C.A. 236 ........................................................................................ 13

CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc (3 FEB 1997) .......................................................... 14

Gutnick v Dow Jones 326 U.S. 310 (1945) .................................................................................. 11

Martinez v. Cybergold 947 F. Supp 1328 (1996). ...................................................................... 11

State of New Jersey vs. Dharun Ravi............................................................................................ 10

Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) .............................................................................................. 14

United States v. Morris ................................................................................................................. 12

University of West Australia in Rindos v. Hardwick ................................................................... 10

Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora and another, 1999 Arb. L. R. 620 .................................................... 13

Statutes

The Information Technology Act, Act no. 21 of 2000 ................................................................. 22

Article

Jay C. Carle, Henry H. Perritt Jr., “Civil Liability on the Internet”, GPSolo Magazine, January-
February 2006,
http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_maga
zine_index/civilliability.html? ..................................................................................................... 6

P a g e 4 | 21
 INTRODUCTION

We are living in 21st century where technology has advanced and everyone from an auto-rikshaw
driver to a big businessman is using technology in their daily life. Now instead of searching a
simple rikshaw, people prefer to go online and use an OLA, instead of waiting in a large queue,
people prefer to do it via various websites. Internet has helped a large number of people but it has
brought with its various harms and treats as well.

Because of enormous online exercises and gigantic information trade over web unpredicted
circumstances develops each other day extending from business exchanges to digital torts and from
rupture of IPR's to unapproved access. A frantic lawful system is required to adapt and work in
consonance with rising issues. The Information Technology Act, 2000 means to supply legitimate
structure so lawful approval is given to any advanced or electronic records and various procedures
dole out by computerized or electronic exchanges. The IT Act, 2000 undertakings to improve
obsolete laws and approaches to adapt to digital issues.

It includes the crime which target the processor or a workstation basically its database, its network,
its software which they misuse to blackmail a person on the basis of the information gained from
the system’s record. They use one’s personal history, medical information, commercial data to
fulfill their own malicious intentions.

The Internet is a community center, bank, insurance broker, news source, and a way to handle
myriad day-to-day chores such as renewing your driver’s license. Although the Internet is an
exciting new forum for informational and commercial exchange, it is also an instrument of many
civil wrongs, appropriately termed “cyber-torts.” The common law must expand to perform its
traditional function of allocating the burdens associated with risks of harm so as to maximize social
welfare, which includes both technological innovation and consumer peace of mind.1

1
Jay C. Carle, Henry H. Perritt Jr., “Civil Liability on the Internet”, GPSolo Magazine, January-February 2006,
http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/civilliabilit
y.html?
P a g e 5 | 21
 (I) WHAT ARE CYBER TORTS?
Cyber-torts are more intricate than the traditional/ conventional torts as they deal with unlawful
activities occurring in an intangible medium of cyber space. The issue of jurisdiction and the
liability of the Internet Service Provider were two of the major concerns involving cyber-torts
when this field was evolving. These issues have been addressed to some extent but continue to be
a bone of contention.

Cyber Torts are a new and evolving field of law and thus there are not many cases concerning the
issue yet. The term ‘Cyber Tort’ is a misnomer. This term has nowhere been defined in any statute
/Act passed or enacted by the Indian Parliament. The concept of cyber tort is not radically different
from the concept of conventional tort. Both include conduct whether act or omission, which causes
breach of rights, vested in the persons and counterbalanced by the sanction of the state.

Cyber tort is the latest and perhaps the most complicated problem in the cyber world. “Any
tortuous activity that uses a computer either as an instrumentality, target or a means for
perpetuating further torts comes within the ambit of torts”.

A generalized definition of cyber torts may be “unlawful acts wherein the computer is either a tool
or target or both”. The computer may be used as a tool in the following kinds of activity-cyber
cracking, spamming, squatting, e-mail spoofing, forgery, cyber defamation, cyber stalking.

P a g e 6 | 21
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CYBER TORTS AND CONVENTIONAL TORT

There is no difference as such between cyber tort and conventional tort. Both are included in law
of torts and there is a wrongful act or an infringement of someone’s right which leads to legal
liability.

However, the substantiated difference between the two is that in cyber tort, at any stage there
should be an involvement of cyber space i.e. any cyber medium to perform a tortious act or a
means to perform further perpetuating torts.

What is cyber medium?

Cyber medium is a like a virtual medium which includes the use of computer, mobile phone,
tablets, laptops etc.

For example: If a reporter publishes a defamatory article in the newspaper about a particular
person intentionally written to lower someone repute in front of general public than it results in a
tort of defamation. But if the same person uses any virtual medium to publish the same article
online then the same article will be addressed under the tort of cyber defamation.

A generalized definition of cyber torts may be “unlawful acts wherein the computer is either a
tool or target or both”. The computer may be used as a tool in the following kinds of activity-cyber
cracking, spamming, squatting, e-mail spoofing, forgery, cyber defamation, cyber stalking.

The first ever case of cyber law filed in India was Antares Systems Ltd Versus CI India Pvt. Ltd.
and others.2 Antares Systems Ltd, a Bangalore based company, alleged violation of copyright and
intellectual property rights claiming damages amounting to Rs 25 Lakh.

2
2009 SCC OnLine CyAT 1: 2009 SCC OnLine CyAT 1
P a g e 7 | 21
 REASONS FOR OCCURRENCE OF CYBER TORT

Hart in his work “The Concept of Law” has said ‘human beings are vulnerable so rule of law is

required to protect them’. Applying this to the cyberspace we may say that computers are

vulnerable so rule of law is required to protect and safeguard them against cyber tort. The

reasons for the vulnerability of computers may be said to be:

(I) CAPACITY TO STORE DATA IN COMPARATIVELY SMALL SPACE

The computer has unique characteristic of storing data in a very small space. This affords to
remove or derive information either through physical or virtual medium makes it much easier.

(II) EASY TO ACCESS

The problem encountered in guarding a computer system from unauthorized access is that there is
every possibility of breach not due to human error but due to the complex technology. By secretly
implanted logic bomb, key loggers that can steal access codes, advanced voice recorders; retina
imagers etc. that can fool biometric systems and bypass firewalls can be utilized to get past many
a security system.

(III) COMPLEXITY OF SYSTEMS

The computers work on operating systems and these operating systems in turn are composed of
millions of codes. Human mind is fallible and it is not possible that there might not be a lapse at
any stage. These lacunas can be taken advantage of and computer security systems can be
penetrated into.

(IV) NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is very closely connected with human conduct. It is therefore very probable that while
protecting the computer system there might be any negligence, which in turn provides a loop hole
to gain access and control and in turn misuse the computer system.

P a g e 8 | 21
 (V) LOSS OF EVIDENCE
Loss of evidence is a very common & obvious problem as all the data are routinely destroyed as
they are updated every next moment. Further collection of data outside the territorial extent also
paralyses this system of investigation.

CLASSIFICATIONS OF CYBER TORTS

(I) CYBER-STALKING
The Cambridge dictionary defines stalking as "pursuing stealthily". Cyber stalking involves
following a person's movements by using the internet as a medium by posting messages on the
bulletin boards frequently used by the victim, targeting the social media accounts of an
individual, entering the chat-rooms frequented by the victim, spamming the victim with emails
etc. This happened in the case of State of New Jersey vs. Dharun Ravi3, where Dharun Ravi
was a college student who secretly filmed his roommate's sexual liaison with another man,
then posted it online.

a) E-mail spoofing
E-mail spoofing can be described as a process of sending an e-mail which misrepresents its origin.
It shows its origin to be different from the one it actually originated from. In a controversial
decision, an anthropologist was denied tenure at the University of West Australia in Rindos v.
Hardwick4, as he was charged guilty of ‘E-mail spoofing’ the university’s official mail in order to
inquire about an official update.

b) Harassment via e-mails

Harassment through e-mails is very similar to harassing through letters. Sending unwanted E-mails
with malicious intentions so as to trouble the victim amount to the cyber tort of harassment via E-
mails.

3
State of New Jersey vs. Dharun Ravi
4
University of West Australia in Rindos v. Hardwick
P a g e 9 | 21
 (II) DISSEMINATION OF OBSCENE MATERIAL/ INDECENT EXPOSURE/ PORNOGRAPHY/
POLLUTING THROUGH INDECENT EXPOSURE
Pornography on the net may take various forms like:

 It may include the hosting of web site containing these prohibited materials.
 Use of computers for producing these obscene materials.
 Downloading through the Internet, obscene materials. These obscene matters may cause
harm to the mind of the adolescent and tend to deprave or corrupt their mind.

A very well-known case of pornography is the Air Force Bal Bharati case5. In this case, there
was a student in the school who was being teased by his classmates for having a pockmarked
face. Dejected by this harassment he tried to take a revenge. He set up a site and added
pornographic material and scanned photographs of girls and the teachers, morphed them with
nude photographs and put them on the website. Since a computer and the internet was used as
a medium in the commission of the offence, it essentially brings it under the umbrella of cyber
tort.

(III) DEFAMATION
Defamation can be defined as an act of imputing any person with an intent to lower the person in
the eyes of a reasonable man; to cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred,
contempt or ridicule at the hands of the society. Cyber defamation differs from conventional
defamation, as there is an involvement of a virtual medium i.e. the internet. In the case of Gutnick
v Dow Jones6, the defendant Dow Jones & Co Inc was the publisher of Barrons, an American
magazine while the plaintiff, Gutnick was an Australian entrepreneur. The plaintiff alleged that
defamatory remarks about him were published on the defendant's website which was hosted in
New Jersey. Also, the web site was subscription based with several hundred subscribers from
Victoria, Australia. The Supreme Court of Victoria concluded that there was publication in
Victoria. In the case of Maritz zinc v. Cybergold,7 a corporation located in California operated an
Internet site that allowed users to sign onto an e-mailing list to receive web advertisements. Before
the e-mail service became operational, Maritz, a Missouri firm which provided an e-mail service

5
Airforce Bal Bharti School Case (2001)
6
Gutnick v Dow Jones 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
7
Martinez v. Cybergold 947 F. Supp 1328 (1996).
P a g e 10 | 21
under its trademark Goldmail, filed suit in Missouri claiming trademark infringement. Following
the legal reasoning in Inset, the Court here articulated that through its website, CyberGold had
“consciously decided to transmit advertising information to all Internet users, knowing that such
information will be transmitted globally.”

(IV) UNAUTHORIZED CONTROL/ACCESS OVER COMPUTER SYSTEM

In layman’s terms this can be defined as ‘hacking’. Hacking, is the process of gaining unauthorized
access to a restricted domain of a thing or purpose. The first judicial opinion to mention the Internet
was in the case of United States v. Morris.8 The defendant in Morris, was a graduate student who
had released an internet worm that paralyzed thousands of university and military computers
throughout the US resulting in huge losses to both the university and military departments. In
another case of United states v Riggs, Bell south Telephone Company is a telephone service
provider and holds various emergency services using a system called E911 system. Craig Neidorf
and Robert Riggs planned to steal the files related to E911 system so that it could be printed in
Neidorf’s computer newsletter. Riggs unlawfully accessed the Bell south’s computer and stole the
system files and gave it to Robert Riggs. Riggs was found guilty, following which he was
sentenced to 21 months in prison.

(V) COMPUTER VANDALISM

Vandalism can be described as deliberately destroying or damaging property belonging to
someone else. Thus, computer vandalism may include within its ambit any kind of physical harm
done to the computer of any person. These acts may take the form of damaging a computer, some
part of a computer or a peripheral attached to the computer.

(VI) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CRIMES / DISTRIBUTION OF PIRATED SOFTWARE

Intellectual property consists of a bundle of rights extending to copyright, trademark, patent which
are granted to protect the an individual or a group’s original work. Any unlawful act by which the
owner is deprived completely or partially of his rights as the can be termed as an offence. Various
forms of IPR violation include offences like software piracy, copyright infringement, trademark
and service mark violation, theft of computer source code, etc. In India, a landmark case of Yahoo!

8
United States v. Morris
P a g e 11 | 21
Inc. v. Akash Arora and another9, the defendant Akash Arora was held liable of infringement of a
domain name which was similar to the domain used by yahoo incorporation. Also, since the
genesis of cyber torts is the very use of internet which is accessible everywhere; cyber torts also
raise legal challenges like in deciding the authority of jurisdiction. This happened in the case of
Braintech Inc. v. Kostiuk (B.C.C.A., 1999)10 .

(VII) CYBER TERRORISM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION

At this juncture a necessity may be felt that what is the need to distinguish between cyber terrorism
and cyber torts. Both are dangerous acts. However, there is a compelling need to distinguish
between both these acts. A cyber tort is generally a domestic issue, which may have international
consequences, however cyber terrorism is a global concern, which has domestic as well as
international consequences. The common form of these terrorist attacks on the Internet is by
distributed denial of service attacks, hate websites and hate emails, attacks on sensitive computer
networks, etc. Technology savvy terrorists are using 512-bit encryption, which is next to
impossible to decrypt. The recent example may be cited of – Osama Bin Laden, the LTTE, attack
on America’s army deployment system during Iraq war.

(VIII) TRAFFICKING
Trafficking may assume different forms. It may be trafficking in drugs, human beings, arms
weapons etc. These forms of trafficking are going unchecked because they are carried on under
pseudonyms. In India, a racket was busted in Chennai where drugs were being sold under the
pseudonym of honey.

(IX) FRAUD & CHEATING

Online fraud and cheating are one of the most tempting businesses that are growing today in the
cyber world, capable of assuming different forms. Some of the cases of online fraud and cheating

9
Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora and another, 1999 Arb. L. R. 620
10
Braintech Inc. v. Kostiuk (B.C.C.A., 1999) 63 B.C.L.R. (3d) 156, 1999 BCCA 0169, leave to appeal refused, [1999]
S.C.C.A. 236
P a g e 12 | 21
that have come to light are those pertaining to credit card crimes, contractual crimes, offering jobs,
etc. In the case of Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996)11, a telephone long-distance carrier prevailed
on fraud and conversion theories against Myron and Susan Bezenek-whose teenage sons employed
computer technology in their efforts to crack plaintiff's access and authorization codes and make
long distance phone calls without paying for them-garnering a judgment, including attorney fees,
just shy of $50,000.

(X) CYBER TRESPASS

A person is said to be guilty of cyber trespass if he or she modify, disrupts, changes, destructs
computer network, its program intentionally without any certified access. In the case of
CompuServe Inc. v Cyber Promotions Inc,12 the plaintiff CompuServe Inc. was the online service
providers in the united states. They provided a platform to the various contents within their
network. Primary role of the company was like an email service provider. The defendants were a
cyber promotions email advertising company which provided advertisement (basically spam) to
the users of CompuServe. The subscribers of the CompuServe complained of the spam which was
send to them and threatened to discontinue their subscription. CompuServe’s primary argument
before the court was that Cyber Promotion was “trespassing” on CompuServe’s personal property.
Judge of the case Mr. Graham remarked that sending advertisement through mails do amount to
cyber trespass because by sending these mails CompuServe’s network computers were being
intentionally disrupted and access to server gets slow down and the value of the paid resources get
reduced.

11
Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996)
12
CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc (3 FEB 1997)
P a g e 13 | 21
 CYBER LAWS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

(I) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The United States is the world leader in cybercrime. It was the world's top impacted nation with
23 percent of the world's cybercrime rate in terms of internet-related offences. It is also the nation
with the most powerful cyber laws in place, though. Approximately 60% of registered cyber
instances end in conviction and jail sentences. First established in 1984, the first effective law
against such crimes was called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). However, the act did
not include a provision that uses malicious code to intentionally harm equipment. Or in the
language of the lay man, for viruses.

The National Infrastructure Protection Act (NIIA) has been implemented to enhance the act. The
act included prior legislation on espionage and rendered it illegal without permission to view
computer data. The US has created rigid definitions and penalties for cybercrimes beyond and
beyond these legislations. From penalties such as deportation to criminal misdemeanor to cyber
bullying felony. Penalty for theft of identity for 15 years imprisonment and fines. To punish six to
twenty years in prison for hacking and damaging computer property. The United States has a
stronghold on cyber laws.

The first effective law against such crimes was first established in 1984 termed as The Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). However, the act did not include a provision for intentional harming
of devices by using malicious code. Or in the language of the lay man, for viruses. The National
Infrastructure Protection Act (NIIA) was created to enhance the act.

(II) THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

The UAE has the most extensive and powerful law against cyber criminals among the middle-
eastern countries. UAE is facing a meager 5 percent of cyber threats from around the world. How
ever, being the Gulf Regions ' economic capital, it has powerful legislation to safeguard its comp
anies against attacks.

Every offense as well as the punishment connected with each has been very obviously defined by
the country. From a maximum two-year imprisonment penalty or 250-000-500,000 AED (Arab

P a g e 14 | 21
Emirates Dirham) for cyber-stalking and harassment fundamental crime. To imprisonment and
fines for falsification of up to 2,000,000 AED. To cyber-terrorism life imprisonment. For any cyber
risk, the UAE has clear, stringent legislation in place.

(III) KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

Compared to the globe, Saudi Arabia's cybercrime rate is comparatively small. These offences,
however, have been steadily on the increase over the years. 76% of this involves pornography and
in 2016 cost the country about $6.5 million. While KSA has some legislation in place, it does not
define most other cyber cases such as cyber bullying, piracy, signature falsification, etc.

The only regulations in place are against hacking, unlawful data access, pornography, service
denial, and cyber terrorism. The penalties range from a one-year jail sentence and a fine of 100,000
riyals to a maximum 10-year jail sentence and a fine of 5,000,000 riyals for cyber terrorism.

(IV) CHINA
China's cyber laws have always set a precedent. Although its regulations may seem dictatorial to
outside forces, they are vital to the Chinese government. Cybercrime recognition and punishment
started in 1997 with the State Council's codified' Computer Information Network and Internet
Security, Protection and Management Regulations.' According to criminal law, acts such as
hacking, sabotaging information or producing and propagating digital viruses result in
imprisonment for at least three years. In serious instances, the phrase increases phenomenally,
involving delicate information.

After 2010, the law also says that' the internet is under China's sovereignty within Chinese
territory.' This means that the state has complete and complete control of the internet within its
boundaries. As such, China is prohibited from many of the world's most famous websites. Google,
for example. While this may seem absurd to us, it has been useful to China's indigenous e-
commerce and digital businesses.

P a g e 15 | 21
The recent legislation in China is the Cybersecurity Law that went into force this June. The law
needs all foreign businesses to store in the nation itself their vital usage data. Also enable the
government to carry out checks on the network and information of the business.

(V) INDIA
India is facing a meager 3% of the total cyber-attacks in the world. However, to tackle them, it
also has only one powerful law in place. The Information Technology Act of 200 is the only law
regulating cyber threats in India and its consequent amendments. While the law includes numerous
offences such as privacy breaches, identity theft, sending obscene material, child pornography, and
cyber terrorism.

It's lacking on different fronts like cyber bullying, forgery, piracy, etc. From penalties of up to two
lakh rupees and imprisonment for privacy violation. To a fine of up to ten lakh rupees and up to
five years in prison for creating and sharing child pornography. To lifelong imprisonment for cyber
terrorism. India's regulations are quite rigorous, but a lot of loopholes still have to be covered.

SOME IMPORTANT HIGHLIGHTS OF THE IT ACT, 2000

• Data, electronic forms and electronic records get legal recognition. They are now admissible in
evidence just like paper-based documents.

• The Act gives legal recognition to the system of digital signatures. Digital signature performs the
duty of a regular signature. Government will prescribe rules for affixing digital signature.

• Applications and documents can be filed with Government in electronic form. Government can
publish gazette in electronic form.

• The Bill creates regularly authorities like- Controller and Certifying Authorities. They are
empowered to deal with various issues associated with E-Commerce transactions.

P a g e 16 | 21
 INTERNATIONAL BODIES FOR CYBER LAWS

Cybercrime is' international' or' transnational' –there are' no country-to-country cyber frontiers.'[2]
International cybercrimes often challenge the efficiency of national and global legislation and
regulation. Since current regulations are not tailored to cope with cybercrime in many nations,
criminals are increasingly committing offences on the Internet to take advantage of the less serious
penalties or tracking problems. Regardless, governments and sectors have gradually realized the
huge threats to financial and political security and government interests of cybercrime in
developing or developed nations.

Complexity in cybercrime kinds and forms, however, improves the challenge of fighting back.
Combating cybercrime in this sense requires global collaboration. Different organizations and
governments have already created joint attempts to establish global law and enforcement norms
on a regional and international scale.

(I) G8
Group of Eight (G8) is made up of the heads of eight industrialized countries: the U.S., the United
Kingdom, Russia, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, and Canada.

In 1997, the G8 published a Communiqué of Ministers containing an action plan and principles to
tackle cybercrime and safeguard information and systems from unlawful damage. The G8 also
mandates that all law enforcement staff be trained and equipped to deal with cybercrime and
designates all member nations to have a 24-hour, 7-day weekly contact point.

(II) UNITED NATIONS

The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on computer crime laws in 1990. The UN GA
enacted a resolution in 2000 to combat the criminal misuse of IT. A second resolution on the
criminal abuse of information technology was enacted by the UN GA in 2002.

(III) ITU
As a specialized agency within the United Nations, the International Telecommunications Union
(ITU) plays a major position in standardizing and developing telecommunications and
cybersecurity problems. The ITU was the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) lead
agency.

P a g e 17 | 21
The Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Geneva Action Plan were published in 2003,
highlighting the significance of action in the battle against cybercrime. The Tunis Commitment
and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society were introduced in 2005.

(IV) COUNCIL OF EUROPE

The Council of Europe is an international organization whose 47 European Member States focus
on the growth of human rights and democracy.

The Cybercrime Convention, the first international convention directed at Internet criminal
behavior, was co-drafted by the Council of Europe in 2001 with the addition of the United States,
Canada and Japan and signed by its 46 member states. But only 25 nations were later ratified. The
objective is to provide the foundation for an efficient legal framework for combating cybercrime,
by harmonizing the qualification of cybercrime offenses, by providing for legislation empowering
law enforcement and by facilitating global collaboration.

P a g e 18 | 21
 CONCLUSION

India had no laws to regulate cyberspace until 1999. But in the cyber globe, e-commerce and
related internet operations have already started to create a permanent impression. New
communication technologies and digital technology have dramatically changed the way we
operate. Computers are increasingly being used to generate, communicate and store data. Internet
connectivity has decreased geographical distances significantly and made communication even
faster. While activities are constantly rising in this limitless new universe, regulations need to be
established to monitor these operations. Some nations were rather vigilant and created some
legislation that governed the net.

India is one of the few countries to implement cyber laws, including Australia, Italy, Japan,
Malaysia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines,
Poland, Singapore, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. It should be noted at the
outset that the Act does not define cybercrimes, although it covers some of the cybercrimes. The
Act is basically E enabling and, among other things, aims at recognizing digital signatures.

The following conclusions can be made after the research:

a. Cyber-torts evolved with the emergence of the Internet. The field of Cyber Torts is a
new domain in the conventional torts and will evolve over time.
b. Cyber Torts are not as serious as Cyber-crimes, which involve intervention by the state.
c. There are numerous types of cyber-torts including cyber-defamation, stalking, e-mail
bombing, dissemination of online pornography etc.
d. The IT Act, 2000 provides with provisions for compensation under Chapter IX of the
same act for unlawful activities mentioned therein. This forms the basis of cyber tort in
India. There are suitable adjudicating bodies to hear and decide the issues.
e. Cyber-torts are different with Cyber-crimes in the same way as conventional torts are
different from crimes. The only difference is that here there is greater overlap between
the contents of the two.

P a g e 19 | 21
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

1. Justice Yatindra Singh, Cyber Laws, Universal Publishing Co., 4th Edition, 2010
2. Rodney D. Ryder, Guide to Cyber Laws, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur, 2nd Edition,
2005
3. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF TORTS (A division of RELX India Pvt
Ltd)2016: It is commendable that the Twenty seventh edition of Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s
Commentary on the Law of Torts covers all significant cases of Supreme Court as well as
important decisions of various High Courts.
4. R.K. Bangia, The Law of Torts (Twenty-Third edition, 2013): The book contains dynamic
interpretation of the related concepts by the courts, required the revision of the book. The
Law of Torts is growing. Its roots have descended to the grounds to become new trunks.
5. Ramasyamy Iyer, The Law of Torts (A division of Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd.) 2007.
6. Winfield & Jolowicz, TORT (Sweet & Maxwell, Nineteenth Edition)
7. Tony Weir, A Casebook on Tort (Sweet & Maxwell, Tenth Edition)
8. Charlesworth & Percy, Negligence (Sweet & Maxwell, Twelfth Edition)

Articles

1. Jay C. Carle, Henry H. Perritt Jr., “Civil Liability on the Internet”, GPSolo Magazine,
January-February 2006,
http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_
magazine_index/civilliability.html
2. http://www.ebook sdownloadfree.com/Security/Cyber-Situational-Awareness-Issues-and-
Research-BI10250.html
3. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/famadv39&id=85&collection=jou
rnals&index=

P a g e 20 | 21
Online Resources

1. Shreya Dave, Astha Srivastava, Cyber Torts, (May 30, 2012)

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/cyber-torts-1134-1.html
2. http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~idjlaw/PDF/13-1/13-1 Rustad Koenig.pdf
3. http://www.cyberessays.com/lists/cyber-torts/page0.html
4. https://unbumf.com/cyber-laws-what-have-different-countries-done-to-prevent-cyber-
crime/

Legislations

1. The Information Technology Act, Act no. 21 of 2000

P a g e 21 | 21