Skip to main content

Phishing

 

                                          Phishing


INTRODUCTION

Phishing is a type of impersonation in which a website poses as a legitimate source and gathers personal information. "Band spoofing" and "carding" are other terms for it. The act is divided into two parts, the first of which is the theft of identity and the second of which is the collecting of confidential information. As a result, it's also known as a "two-fold swindle" or "cybercrime double play." With the rising use of the internet and online transactions, the number of phishing victims and losses has skyrocketed. This was amplified by the introduction of COVID-19, which expanded people's use of the internet. Cybercrime is expected to cost $10.25 trillion in total damage by 2025, according to current estimates.


Anti-phishing laws


Despite the fact that laws are ineffective, having them is necessary. It is preferable to recognise a crime as such and punish those who perpetrate it rather than to ignore it because it is more difficult to regulate. The legislation has two options. It has the ability to prevent phishing from occurring in the first place, as well as attack and penalize phishing that has already occurred.

 

The United States of America — While legislation such as the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, the US Safe Web Act of 2006, and the I-SPY Prevention Act of 2007 exist at the federal level, there is no explicit law that specifically penalizes phishing. In 2005, a bill called the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005 was proposed. It has not, however, been made enforceable. This bill suggested making phishing emails and websites illegal regardless of whether the recipient or visitor incurred any harm. Senator Leahy introduced this bill, stating, "The Act safeguards the integrity of the Internet in two ways." For starters, it makes the bait illegal. It makes it criminal to send out a faked email that contains links to bogus websites with the aim to commit a crime. Second, it makes phony websites, which are the genuine crime scene, illegal." This act, however, was never passed. Many states in the United States, however, have anti-phishing legislation.

India's legislative response resembles that of Australia and the United States. India is currently one of the most popular targets for phishers. While no regulation specifically targets phishing, there are laws that cover phishing-related actions. The Delhi High Court, in the well-known case of NASSCOM v. Ajay Sood, in 2005, identified the behaviour as phishing. According to the court, there are no statutes against "phishing," but laws against misrepresentation and passing off are employed to combat phishing. The Information Technology Act of 2000 was later updated in 2008 to include measures for identity theft and impersonation cheating. The amendment, however, included no mention of "phishing." Legislations that criminalize phishing are the IT Act 2000, the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and personal data or information) Rules, 2011 (SPDI rules) regulate the corporate bodies that handle personal data. Also, it is to be noted that the Reserve Bank of India regulates payment gateways and payment aggregators.


Conclusion

To conclude, it is to be noted that companies that fall victim to phishing are affected seriously. Not only do they lose data, but also face monetary loss, productivity loss, customer loss, IP theft, and most importantly, the reputation and company value are severely affected. Also, when companies fall victim, they are held responsible. Heavy fines must be paid by an organisation on account of mishandling customers’ data. For example, Sony paid millions of dollars in 2014. The data that was leaked contained personal information about Sony Pictures employees, emails between employees, information about executive salaries at the company, copies of then-unreleased Sony films, plans for future Sony films, scripts for certain films, etc.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree