Cybercrime in the digital age with respect

to human rights
We are at a time when 40% of world’s population and over 76% of people of developed
countries are internet users in spite of it we have not found a universal and standard definition for
cyberspace. The internet takes up our major part of our daily life and is actively used and
acknowledged for it making our life easier, however, the anonymity characteristic allows
malefactors to involve in various cyber crimes. Existence of cybercrime law is to identify and set
principles for acceptable behavior for information and communication technology (ICT) users. It
also needs to actively strike a balance between society and laws which can work to prevent
people, data, systems, infrastructures and especially human rights. At present the status of
cybercrime law is it provides rule and standard for use of internet, computer and other
technologies. There are also rule contingent to criminal procedure, evidence and criminal justice
matters in the cyber world with a vision to scale down the risk to individual or organizations.

Cybercrimes related to defamation of government officers, disrespect for authority and obscenity
or pornographic material is an obstacle in exercising of human rights. And, in order to tackle
such issues there is procedural provisions of cyber law providing us with tools and methods as to
how the investigation should be carried which at times facilitate to the interception of electronic
surveillance which also curbs our human rights such as privacy. Despite of knowing that there is
a need of investigation and cybercrime control symmetry is yet to be found with respect to
human rights. International human right law has provided a free pass to certain restrictions
regarding human rights which is termed as lawful restriction. These restrictions are imposed
based on national law in accordance with matter relating to natural security, economic security,
health security, protection of morals, and protection of the rights of others. This law should be
out in public for them to regulate their behavior and empathize with the powers to enforce these
laws. At times, unspecific references are given under the name of “national security”, “terrorism”
which are vague and unjustified and are not clear laws. The laws which are required should be
useful, reasonable and desirable and they must not just be on paper but also achievable by the
state. It is rightly said by The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that the rights
which are protected offline must also be protected online with regard to freedom of expression.
Policymakers have brought several national policies with the intent to protect Internet and other
information communication technologies (ICT) systems against malicious practices on the digital
platform. Despite of these policies made in goodwill it sometimes feel unjust and lack clear
checks and balances or hampers the democratic instrument, which leads to abuse of human
rights. For instances, in today’s time under the name of cyber security law authorities monitor
communications and often go to an extent of criminalizing online users for expressing their
views.
As we are in the digital age, human rights analogous to the same is debated openly and usually
we can see news and cases on human rights violation and privacy of citizens are at stake with
recent upgrade in the cyber space. These includes freedom of expression and sexual harassment
through internet i.e., cyber bullying, cyber racism, cyber homophobia. The digital space has now
opened up new prospects and medium for realization of the right to freedom of expression
because internet provides speed, worldwide reach and anonymity. If we go through ICCPR
Article 19(3) there are some permissible limitations on the rights provided under Article 19 (2)
which are regarding respect for rights and reputation, freedom from discrimination, cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment also Right to privacy with respect to honor and reputation.

Cyber security breaches the human rights of freedom to speech and expression, right to privacy,
freedom of opinion and also free flow of communication. The state explains security as
protecting itself from political instability, applies measures to ensure preservation of the state and
its policies. As we may have come across certain restrictions and guidelines regarding what we
can post, discuss or write on such platforms because most often cyber security laws can be a
remedy to censor and monitor such communications. Government officials have access to track
user’s communication any point of time whenever suspicion arises which directly violates human
right given by UHDR or countries own law. The case which started this discussion was the
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, where 2 girls were arrested by the Mumbai Police for
expressing their displeasure against a strike by Shiv Sena on Shiv Sena chief’s death on social
media which involved comments on Facebook by them. The question raised here was whether
Section 66A of Information Technology Act violating fundamental right of freedom of speech
and expression. The court concluded that Section 66A is not restrictive in nature and should be
read with open mind and not covered under Section 19 (2) of Indian Constitution. Section 66A
actually had no proximity or link with causing disturbance to public order or with incitement to
commit an offence and hence it was struck down by the court. The approach adopted by the court
was to protect the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and in no way the
legislation can take away this right by claiming the shield under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

There is no denying that there is existence of cyber law to stop cyber crime in India but somehow
we fail at implementing them. Hackers are always a step ahead with their new techniques to
surpass all the cyber security and hack data of prime importance. Also, the development of laws,
policy and norms on cyber security takes place in a securitized setting which does not focus on
the civil society or human rights. The most crucial point to understand here is cyber insecurity
should never be dealt by violating human rights. Instead, we should recognize that protection of
human rights should by the centre while forming cyber security policies. After all this there is a
possibility of protecting human rights and collaterally fighting against the cyber crime.