case study cyber law

Landmark Cyber Law cases in India

• Post author By ashwin
• Post date March 1, 2021

By:-Muskan Sharma

Introduction

Cyber Law, as the name suggests, deals with statutory provisions that regulate Cyberspace. With the advent of digitalization and AI (Artificial Intelligence), there is a significant rise in Cyber Crimes being registered. Around 44, 546 cases were registered under the Cyber Crime head in 2019 as compared to 27, 248 cases in 2018. Therefore, a spike of 63.5% was observed in Cyber Crimes [1] .

The legislative framework concerning Cyber Law in India comprises the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “ IT Act ”) and the Rules made thereunder. The IT Act is the parent legislation that provides for various forms of Cyber Crimes, punishments to be inflicted thereby, compliances for intermediaries, and so on.

Learn more about  Cyber Laws Courses with Enhelion’s Online Law Course ! 

However, the IT Act is not exhaustive of the Cyber Law regime that exists in India. There are some judgments that have evolved the Cyber Law regime in India to a great extent. To fully understand the scope of the Cyber Law regime, it is pertinent to refer to the following landmark Cyber Law cases in India:

• Shreya Singhal v. UOI [2]

In the instant case, the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Facts: Two women were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act after they posted allegedly offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook concerning the complete shutdown of Mumbai after the demise of a political leader. Section 66A of the IT Act provides punishment if any person using a computer resource or communication, such information which is offensive, false, or causes annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, hatred, injury, or ill will.

The women, in response to the arrest, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act on the ground that it is violative of the freedom of speech and expression.

Decision: The Supreme Court based its decision on three concepts namely: discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It observed that mere discussion or even advocacy of a cause, no matter how unpopular, is at the heart of the freedom of speech and expression. It was found that Section 66A was capable of restricting all forms of communication and it contained no distinction between mere advocacy or discussion on a particular cause which is offensive to some and incitement by such words leading to a causal connection to public disorder, security, health, and so on.

Learn more about  Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

In response to the question of whether Section 66A attempts to protect individuals from defamation, the Court said that Section 66A condemns offensive statements that may be annoying to an individual but not affecting his reputation.

However, the Court also noted that Section 66A of the IT Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because there existed an intelligible difference between information communicated through the internet and through other forms of speech. Also, the Apex Court did not even address the challenge of procedural unreasonableness because it is unconstitutional on substantive grounds.

• Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana [3]

In this case, the accused preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court after the High Court rejected the application of the accused to exhibit the Compact Disc filed in defence and to get it proved from the Forensic Science Laboratory.

The Supreme Court held that a Compact Disc is also a document. It further observed that it is not necessary to obtain admission or denial concerning a document under Section 294 (1) of CrPC personally from the accused, the complainant, or the witness.

• Syed Asifuddin and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. [4]

Facts: The subscriber purchased a Reliance handset and Reliance mobile services together under the Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Scheme. The subscriber was attracted by better tariff plans of other service providers and hence, wanted to shift to other service providers. The petitioners (staff members of TATA Indicom) hacked the Electronic Serial Number (hereinafter referred to as “ESN”). The Mobile Identification Number (MIN) of Reliance handsets were irreversibly integrated with ESN, the reprogramming of ESN made the device would be validated by Petitioner’s service provider and not by Reliance Infocomm.

Questions before the Court: i) Whether a telephone handset is a “Computer” under Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act?

• ii) Whether manipulation of ESN programmed into a mobile handset amounts to an alteration of source code under Section 65 of the IT Act?

Decision: (i) Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act provides that a “computer” means any electronic, magnetic, optical, or other high-speed data processing device or system which performs logical, arithmetic, and memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic, or optical impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, computer software or communication facilities which are connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network. Hence, a telephone handset is covered under the ambit of “computer” as defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act.

(ii)  Alteration of ESN makes exclusively used handsets usable by other service providers like TATA Indicomm. Therefore, alteration of ESN is an offence under Section 65 of the IT Act because every service provider has to maintain its own SID code and give its customers a specific number to each instrument used to avail the services provided. Therefore, the offence registered against the petitioners cannot be quashed with regard to Section 65 of the IT Act.

• Shankar v. State Rep [5]

Facts: The petitioner approached the Court under Section 482, CrPC to quash the charge sheet filed against him. The petitioner secured unauthorized access to the protected system of the Legal Advisor of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) and was charged under Sections 66, 70, and 72 of the IT Act.

Decision: The Court observed that the charge sheet filed against the petitioner cannot be quashed with respect to the law concerning non-granting of sanction of prosecution under Section 72 of the IT Act.

• Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors . [6]

Facts: The Complainant, a Luxury shoes manufacturer filed a suit seeking an injunction against an e-commerce portal www.darveys.com for indulging in a Trademark violation with the seller of spurious goods.

The question before the Court was whether the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s mark, logos, and image are protected under Section 79 of the IT Act.

Decision: The Court observed that the defendant is more than an intermediary on the ground that the website has full control over the products being sold via its platform. It first identifies and then promotes third parties to sell their products. The Court further said that active participation by an e-commerce platform would exempt it from the rights provided to intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act.

• Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi [7]

Facts: Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com was arrested under Section 67 of the IT Act for the broadcasting of cyber pornography. Someone else had sold copies of a CD containing pornographic material through the bazee.com website.

Decision: The Court noted that Mr. Bajaj was nowhere involved in the broadcasting of pornographic material. Also, the pornographic material could not be viewed on the Bazee.com website. But Bazee.com receives a commission from the sales and earns revenue for advertisements carried on via its web pages.

The Court further observed that the evidence collected indicates that the offence of cyber pornography cannot be attributed to Bazee.com but to some other person. The Court granted bail to Mr. Bajaj subject to the furnishing of 2 sureties Rs. 1 lakh each. However, the burden lies on the accused that he was merely the service provider and does not provide content.

• State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti [8]

The instant case is a landmark case in the Cyber Law regime for its efficient handling made the conviction possible within 7 months from the date of filing the FIR.

Facts: The accused was a family friend of the victim and wanted to marry her but she married another man which resulted in a Divorce. After her divorce, the accused persuaded her again and on her reluctance to marrying him, he took the course of harassment through the Internet. The accused opened a false e-mail account in the name of the victim and posted defamatory, obscene, and annoying information about the victim.

A charge-sheet was filed against the accused person under Section 67 of the IT Act and Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Decision: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore convicted the accused person under Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of the IT Act. The accused was subjected to the Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 469 of the IPC, Simple Imprisonment of 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 509 of the IPC, and Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 4,000 under Section 67 of the IT Act.

• CBI v. Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh case)

A website called www.sony-sambandh.com enabled NRIs to send Sony products to their Indian friends and relatives after online payment for the same.

In May 2002, someone logged into the website under the name of Barbara Campa and ordered a Sony Colour TV set along with a cordless telephone for one Arif Azim in Noida. She paid through her credit card and the said order was delivered to Arif Azim. However, the credit card agency informed the company that it was an unauthorized payment as the real owner denied any such purchase.

A complaint was therefore lodged with CBI and further, a case under Sections 418, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered. The investigations concluded that Arif Azim while working at a call center in Noida, got access to the credit card details of Barbara Campa which he misused.

The Court convicted Arif Azim but being a young boy and a first-time convict, the Court’s approach was lenient towards him. The Court released the convicted person on probation for 1 year. This was one among the landmark cases of Cyber Law because it displayed that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be an effective legislation to rely on when the IT Act is not exhaustive.

• Pune Citibank Mphasis Call Center Fraud

Facts: In 2005, US $ 3,50,000 were dishonestly transferred from the Citibank accounts of four US customers through the internet to few bogus accounts. The employees gained the confidence of the customer and obtained their PINs under the impression that they would be a helping hand to those customers to deal with difficult situations. They were not decoding encrypted software or breathing through firewalls, instead, they identified loopholes in the MphasiS system.

Decision: The Court observed that the accused in this case are the ex-employees of the MphasiS call center. The employees there are checked whenever they enter or exit. Therefore, it is clear that the employees must have memorized the numbers. The service that was used to transfer the funds was SWIFT i.e. society for worldwide interbank financial telecommunication. The crime was committed using unauthorized access to the electronic accounts of the customers. Therefore this case falls within the domain of ‘cyber crimes”. The IT Act is broad enough to accommodate these aspects of crimes and any offense under the IPC with the use of electronic documents can be put at the same level as the crimes with written documents.

The court held that section 43(a) of the IT Act, 2000 is applicable because of the presence of the nature of unauthorized access that is involved to commit transactions. The accused were also charged under section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 and section 420 i.e. cheating, 465,467 and 471 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jogesh Kwatra [9]

Facts: In this case, Defendant Jogesh Kwatra was an employee of the plaintiff’s company. He started sending derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, abusive, and filthy emails to his employers and to different subsidiaries of the said company all over the world to defame the company and its Managing Director Mr. R K Malhotra. In the investigations, it was found that the email originated from a Cyber Cafe in New Delhi. The Cybercafé attendant identified the defendant during the enquiry. On 11 May 2011, Defendant was terminated of the services by the plaintiff.

Decision: The plaintiffs are not entitled to relief of perpetual injunction as prayed because the court did not qualify as certified evidence under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Due to the absence of direct evidence that it was the defendant who was sending these emails, the court was not in a position to accept even the strongest evidence. The court also restrained the defendant from publishing, transmitting any information in the Cyberspace which is derogatory or abusive of the plaintiffs.

The Cyber Law regime is governed by the IT Act and the Rules made thereunder. Also, one may take recourse to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 when the IT Act is unable to provide for any specific type of offence or if it does not contain exhaustive provisions with respect to an offence.

However, the Cyber Law regime is still not competent enough to deal with all sorts of Cyber Crimes that exist at this moment. With the country moving towards the ‘Digital India’ movement, the Cyber Crimes are evolving constantly and new kinds of Cyber Crimes enter the Cyber Law regime each day. The Cyber Law regime in India is weaker than what exists in other nations.

Hence, the Cyber Law regime in India needs extensive reforms to deal with the huge spike of Cyber Crimes each year.

[1] “Crime in India – 2019” Snapshots (States/UTs), NCRB, available at: https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/CII%202019%20SNAPSHOTS%20STATES.pdf (Last visited on 25 th Feb; 2021)

[2] (2013) 12 SCC 73

[3] 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1242

[4] 2005 CriLJ 4314

[5] Crl. O.P. No. 6628 of 2010

[6] (2018) 253 DLT 728

[7] (2008) 150 DLT 769

[8] CC No. 4680 of 2004

[9] CM APPL. No. 33474 of 2016

• Tags artificial intelligence courses online , aviation law courses india , best online law courses , business law course , civil courts , civil law law courses online , civil system in india , competition law , corporate law courses online , covaxin , covid vaccine , diploma courses , diploma in criminal law , drafting , fashion law online course , how to study law at home , indian law institute online courses , innovation , Intellectual Property , international law courses , international law degree online , international law schools , introduction to law course , invention , knowledge , labour law course distance learning , law , law certificate courses , law certificate programs online , law classes , law classes online , law college courses , law courses in india , law firms , law schools , lawyers , learn at home , legal aid , legal courses , online law courses , online law courses in india , pfizer , pleading , space law courses , sports law , sports law courses , study criminal law online , study later , study law at home , study law by correspondence , study law degree online , study law degree online australia , study law distance education , study law distance learning , study law online , study law online free , study law online uk , study legal studies online , teach law online , technology law courses , trademark

Cyber Brief: Key Cyber-related Court Cases

The Cyber Vault has gathered below a compendium of basic documents from certain key cyber-related court cases. Court documents are often crucial to understanding the judicial history of legal quandaries related to internet technology as well as how the United States investigates and prosecutes cyber-enabled crime and espionage. 

The list is in alphabetical order by defendant.  We encourage users to suggest additional cases or to provide relevant documents.

Ajily, Mohammed Saeed and Rezakhah, Mohammed Reza

April 21, 2016 Superseding Indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont

American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. James R. Clapper, Keith B. Alexander, Charles T. Hagel, Eric H. Holder, and Robert S. Mueller III

August 26, 2013 Declaration of Professor Edward W. Felton in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

February 1, 2016 Affidavit of Special Agent Matthew C Knight, Application and Order Requiring Apple, Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Associated Press, Gannett Satellite Information, and Vice Media LLV v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

September 16, 2016 Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

September 30, 2017 Memorandum Opinion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Bangladesh Bank vs. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, et al.

January 31, 2019 Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

Boggs, Andrew Otto and Liverman, Justin Gray

September 2, 2016 Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division

Bonthu, Sudhakar Reddy

June 28, 2018 Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Cruz-Zamora, Omar

June 4, 2018 Memorandum Order in the United States District Court of Kansas

Das, Mittesh

April 5, 2016 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

Democratic National Committee v. the Russian Federation et al.

April 20, 2018 Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

October 3, 2018 Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

January 18, 2019 Second Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Dokuchaev, Dmitry; Sushchin, Igor; Belan, Alexsey; Baratov, Karim

February 28, 2017 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Dreamhost LLC

August 18, 2017 Non-Party Dreamhost, LLC’s Response in Opposition to United States’ Motion for Dreamhost to Show Cause in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

EPIC v. ODNI

June 26, 2017 Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts as to which there is no Genuine Issue, Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgement in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

June 26, 2017 Declaration of Edward Gistaro, Deputy Directore of National Intelligence for Intelligence Integration in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Fathi, Ahmad (et al.)

March 24, 2016 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Federal Election Commission

November 23, 2016 Memorandum Opinion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated

January 17, 2017 Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint for Equitable Relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

July 27, 2018 United States District Court for the Western Washington District at Seattle, "United States of America v. Dmytro Valerievich Fedorov, aka hotdima, superseding indictment"

July 27, 2018 United States District Court for the Western Washington District at Seattle, "United States of America v. Fedir Oleksiyovych Hladyr, superseding indictment"

July 27, 2018 United States District Court for the Western Washington District at Seattle, "United States of America v. Andrii Kolpakov, superseding indictment"

“Flux” and “Flux 2”

November 28, 2016 Declaration of Special Agent Aaron O. Francis in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Hongjin Tan

December 20, 2018 Criminal Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma

Huawei Indictments

January 16, 2019 United States of America v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd ., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. – Indictment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

January 24, 2019 United States of America v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd ., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Skycom Tech Co., Ltd., and Wanzhou Meng – Superseding Indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Hutchins, Marcus

July 11, 2017 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

August 4, 2017 Continued Initial Appearance in Rule 5(c)(3) Proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas Division

Iat hong, Bo Zheng, and Chin Hung

October 13, 2016 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

In RE: Botnet of Compromised Computers

October 18, 2018 Warrant and Order in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Internet Research Agency LLC et al

February 16, 2018 Indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Jahanrakhshan, Kamyar

July 29, 2016 Criminal Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

Kaspersky Lab, Inc. and Kaspersky Labs Limited v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security

December 18, 2017 Complaint In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Originally contributed by Thomas Fox-Brewster, Forbes

February 5, 2018 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application for a Preliminary Injunction In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Originally contributed by Matt Kahn, The Lawfare Institute

February 12, 2018 Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Application for a Preliminary Injunction In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Originally contributed by Matt Kahn, The Lawfare Institute

Kemp, Brian

September 15, 2017 Second Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

September 17, 2018. Order in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Khusyaynova, Elena Alekseevna

September 28, 2018 Criminal Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Levashov, Peter Yuryevich (a/k/a “Petr Levashov,” “Peter Severa,” “Petr Severa,” and “Sergey Astakhov”)

April 4, 2017 Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska

April 20, 2017 Indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

March 30, 2018 Application for a Search Warrant in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska

Love, Lauri

September 16, 2016 Application for Extradition in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court

Martin, Harold T.

February 8, 2017 Indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

February 23, 2018 Government’s Brief in Response to Order dated February 16, 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

December 17, 2018 Memorandum Opinion in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Mesri, Behzad

November 8, 2017 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Microsoft Corporation v. United States of America

July 14, 2016 Decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

October 13, 2016 Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

June 23, 2017 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States

Mohamud, Mohamed Osman

August 9, 2017 Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy & Technology, and New America's Open Technology Institute in Support of Petitioner in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Morenets, Aleksei Sergeyevich; Serebriakov, Evgenii Mikhaylovich; Yermakov, Ivan Sergeyevich; Malyshev, Artem Andreyevich; Badin, Dmitriy Sergeyevich; Sotnikov, Oleg Mikhaloyvich; Minin, Alexey Valerevich

October 4, 2018 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

October 4, 2018 Exhibits A-G in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Netyksho, Viktor Borisovich (et al)

July 13, 2018 Indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Ngia Hoang Pho

October 11, 2017 Plea Agreement in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

November 29, 2017 Information in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

March 5, 2018 Letter to the Honorable George L. Russell, III in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

OPM Data Breach Class Action

September 19, 2017 Memorandum Opinion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Park Jin Hyok

June 8, 2018 United States of America v. Park Jin Hyok – Criminal Complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

September 6, 2018 The United States Department of Justice criminal complaint and arrest warrant for North Korean hacker Park Jin Hyok

Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

December 5, 2017 Brief of Former National Security and Technology Officials as Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Radchenko, Artem, and Ieremenko, Oleksandr

January 15, 2019 Indictment in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

Ralsky, Alan M.; Bradley, Scott K.; Devenow, Judy M.; Bown, John S.; Neil, William C.; Neil, Anki K.; Bragg, James E.; Fite, James E.; Severa, Peter; How Wai John Hui; Tribble, Francis A. “Frankie”

December 14, 2007 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Rafatnejad, Gholamreza et al

March 23, 2018 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation

January 25, 2019 Opinion in the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.

Safoo, Ashraf al (a/k/a Abu Al’-Abbas Al-Iraqi, Abu Shanab, and Abbusi)

October 16, 2018 Criminal Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Sahurovs, Peter and Maslabjeva, Marina

May 17, 2011 Indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

Salahi, Mohammedou Ould v. Barack H. Obama

April 9, 2010 Memorandum Order in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Savandi, Faramarz, and Mansouri, Mohammad Mehdi Shah

November 26, 2018 Indictment in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

Schulte, Joshua Adam

January 8, 2018 Transcript of Proceedings  in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

June 18, 2018 Superseding Indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

February 12, 2019 RE: United States v. Joshua Adam Schulte, S2 17 Cr. 548 (PAC) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Seleznev, Roman

March 16, 2011 Superseding Indictment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle

April 14, 2017 Sentencing Memorandum in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle

Seo, Katelin Eunjoo v. State of Indiana

August 21, 2018 Opinion in the Court of Appeals in Indiana

Shahnaz, Zoobia

December 13, 2017 Indictment in the Eastern District of New York.

Tyurin, Andrei (a/k/a “Andrei Tiurin”)

January 22, 2017 Superseding Indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Ulbricht, Ross – also “Dread Pirate Roberts” and “Silk Road”

September 5, 2014 Declaration of Christopher Tarbell in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

October 1, 2014 Declaration of Joshua J Horowitz in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

May 31, 2017 Brief for Defendant-Appellant in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

United Microelectrics Corporation, et al.

September 27, 2018 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

United States of America v. Ardit Ferizi

Ardit Ferizi, a.k.a. Th3Dir3ctorY, was a citizen of Kosovo on trial for providing support to ISIL and for related crimes involving computer information.

October 6, 2015 Criminal Complaint – Final In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Originally contributed by Joe Davidson, Washington Post

September 16, 2016 Indictment In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia< Originally contributed by Joseph Cox, Independent Journalist

September 16, 2016 Position of the United States with Respect to Sentencing In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Originally contributed by Joseph Cox, Independent Journalist

September 16, 2016 Defendant’s Reply to Government’s Position on Sentencing Factors and Response to Defendant’s Exhibit 1 In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Originally contributed by Joseph Cox, Independent Journalist

Vinnik, Alexander

January 17, 2017 Superseding Indictment, Arrest Warrant, and Motion to Seal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Wang Dong, Sun Kailiang, Wen Xinyu, Huang Zhenyu, and Gu Chunhui

May 1, 2014 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Winner, Reality

June 3, 2017 Application for a Search Warrant in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

June 5, 2017 Affidavit of Special Agent Justin C. Garrick in Support of an Application for an Arrest Warrant in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

June 7, 2017 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

September 29, 2017 Verbatim Transcription of the United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

September 29, 2017 Detention Hearing before the Honorable Brian K. Epps in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

August 14, 2018 Government’s Sentencing Memorandum in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

Witt, Monica Elfriede; Masoumpour, Mojtaba; Mesri, Behzad; Parvar, Hossein; and Paryar, Mohamad

February 8, 2019 Indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Wu Yingzhuo, Dong Hao, and Xia Lei

September 13, 2017 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

March 21, 2018 Criminal Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

April 4, 2018 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Yahoo! Incorporated Class Action

October 22, 2018 Settlement Agreement and Release in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Zhu Hua and Zhang Shilong

December 17, 2018 Sealed Indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Zhukov, Aleksandr; Timokhin, Boris; Andreev, Mikhail; Avdeev, Denis; Novikov, Dmitry; Ovsyannikov, Sergey; Isaev, Aleksandr; and Timchenko, Yevgeiny

November 27, 2018 Indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Document 02

• --> Login or Sign Up

Shop by Author

• Sabrineh Ardalan
• Robert Bordone
• Robert Clark
• John Coates
• Susan Crawford
• Alonzo Emery
• Heidi Gardner
• Philip B. Heymann
• Howell E. Jackson
• Wendy Jacobs
• Adriaan Lanni
• Jeremy McClane
• Naz Modirzadeh
• Catherine Mondell
• Ashish Nanda
• Charles R. Nesson
• John Palfrey
• Bruce Patton
• Todd D. Rakoff
• Lisa Rohrer
• Jeswald W. Salacuse
• James Sebenius
• Joseph William Singer
• Holger Spamann
• Carol Steiker
• Guhan Subramanian
• Lawrence Susskind
• David B. Wilkins
• Jonathan Zittrain

Shop by Brand

• Howell Jackson
• Ashish Nanda and Nicholas Semi Haas
• Chad M. Carr
• John Coates, Clayton Rose, and David Lane
• Ashish Nanda and Lauren Prusiner
• Ashish Nanda and Lisa Rohrer
• Ashish Nanda and Monet Brewerton
• View all Brands
• $0.00 - $0.00
• $0.00 - $1.00
• $1.00 - $1.00
• Published Old-New
• Published New-Old

The Snowden Effect

Anastasia Tolu, under supervision of Charles R. Nesson

Algorithmic Allegories (version 1.0)

Marcus Comiter, Ben Sobel, and Jonathan Zittrain

Prosecutorial Discretion in Charging and Plea Bargaining: The Aaron Swartz Case (B)

Elizabeth Moroney, under the supervision of Adriaan Lanni and Carol Steiker

Prosecutorial Discretion in Charging and Plea Bargaining: The Aaron Swartz Case (A)

Elizabeth Moroney, under supervision of Adriaan Lanni and Carol Steiker

Game Changers: Mobile Gaming Apps and Data Privacy

Susan Crawford, Jonathan Zittrain and Lisa Brem

The Smart Grid

Sonia McNeil, with Paul Kominers, J. Palfrey and J. Zittrain

The WikiLeaks Incident: Background, Details, and Resources

Alan Ezekiel, under supervision of John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain

The Case of the Federal Defender's Advice

David Abrams

Cyber Law - Notes, Case Laws And Study Material

Cyber law is fundamentally the branch of law that deals with legal issues related to the use of information technology..

Cyber law is fundamentally the branch of law that deals with legal issues related to the use of information technology. It essentially encompasses laws relating to electronic and digital signatures, cybercrime, cybersecurity, intellectual property, data protection and privacy. The governing mechanisms and legal structures that oversee electronic commerce in India also fall within the domain of cyber law.

As the number of internet users is on the rise, the need for cyber laws and their application has also gathered great momentum.

Legal Bites brings you the best study material to understand the fundamentals of cyber law. The course has been designed keeping in mind the requirements of budding cyber lawyers and cybersecurity experts. The three modules of this course will help readers master the technicalities of cyber and information technology laws. The study material also focuses on the key aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, e-contracts and e-governance.

Important Articles and Study Material on Cyber And Information Technology Law – Click on the links to Read:

Module i: introduction to cyber space and cyber law.

• Cyber Space: Meaning, Regulation and Scope
• Distinction Between Conventional Crime And Cyber Crime
• Cyber Law: The Information Technology Law and its Application
• The Information Technology Law: Important Definitions
• Jurisdictional Issues in Cyber Space

Module II: Electronic Contracts

• E-Commerce and E-Contracts: Overview And Analysis
• Technical and Legal issues in electronic contracts
• Electronic Contracts: Enforceability, Security and Privacy Issues
• Digital Signature: Concept, Object and Usage
• A General Overview of Data Privacy in India

Module III: Intellectual Property Rights in Cyber Space

• Trademark issues in Cyber Space
• Copyright Issues in Cyberspace
• Right to be Forgotten: Case Study: Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez
• Copyright and its Subject Matter
• Copyright Infringement
• Doctrine of Fair Dealing: Meaning, importance and Case Laws
• Copyright Protection in the Cyberspace within the IT Act, 2000

Module IV: Cyber Crime

• Cyber Crimes and their types
• International Legal Regime relating to Cyber Crimes
• Cyberbullying Laws in India
• Cyber Activism: An Infoxication
• Child Pornography – A Menace
• Plagiarism in the Cyberspace

Other Articles

Strengthening Cyber Security and Data Protection in India: An Analysis of Legal Frameworks and Case Studies

• Information Technology Act, 2000 (with Amendments)
• Digital Signature and Electronic Signature
• E-Governance
• Technology and Cyber Legal Challenges

How to Register a Cyber Crime Complaint? – Complete Complaint Procedure for help from Cyber Cell

Your valuable feedback in the form of comments or any desired inputs are encouraged and always welcome. Every contribution toward a goal is valuable, regardless of how small it may be.

Admin Legal Bites

Legal Bites Study Materials correspond to what is taught in law schools and what is tested in competitive exams. It pledges to offer a competitive advantage, prepare for tests, and save a lot of money.

Related News