Remove Electronic signature Word Computer

According to Information Technology Act 2000(IT Act 2000) and its Amendment here are some of the list of law :OFFENCES:65. Tampering with computer source documents.Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys or alters or intentionally or knowingly causes another to conceal, destroy, or alter any computer Source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network, when the computer source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both.Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, “computer source code” means the listing of programmes, computer commands, design and layout and programme analysis of computer resource in any form.66. Computer related offences.–If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,–(a) the word “dishonestly” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)(b) the word “fraudulently” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.–Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,–(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.Explanation.–For the purpose of this section, terms “electronic mail” and “electronic mail message”means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system,computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, images, audio, video and anyother electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.66B. Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device.–Whoever dishonestly received or retains any stolen computer resource or communication device knowingor having reason to believe the same to be stolen computer resource or communication device,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh or with both.66C. Punishment for identity theft.–Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of theelectronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years andshall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.66D. Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource.–Whoever, by meansof any communication device or computer resource cheats by personating, shall be punished withimprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable tofine which may extend to one lakh rupees.66E. Punishment for violation of privacy.–Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishesor transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstancesviolating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three yearsor with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.Explanation.–For the purposes of this section–(a) “transmit” means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;(b) “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means;(c) “private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast:(d) “publishes” means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public;(e) “under circumstances violating privacy” means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that–(i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private area was being captured; or(ii) any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whetherthat person is in a public or private place.67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.–Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material whichis lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corruptpersons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either descriptionfor a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in theevent of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which mayextend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.67A. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form.–Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in theelectronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished on firstconviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and withfine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction withimprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine whichmay extend to ten lakh rupees.67B. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form.–Whoever,–(a) publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted material in any electronic formwhich depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct; or(b) creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises, promotes,exchanges or distributes material in any electronic form depicting children in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner;or(c) cultivates, entices or induces children to online relationship with one or more children for and on sexually explicit act or in a manner that may offend a reasonable adult on the computer resource;or(d) facilitates abusing children online, or(e) records in any electronic form own abuse or that of others pertaining to sexually explicit actwith children,shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extendto five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequentconviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees:Provided that provisions of section 67, section 67A and this section does not extend to any book,pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation or figure in electronic form–(i) the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on theground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation or figure is theinterest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern; or(ii) which is kept or used for bonafide heritage or religious purposes.Explanation–For the purposes of this section, “children” means a person who has not completedthe age of 18 years.80. Power of police officer and other officers to enter, search, etc.–(1) Notwithstanding anythingcontained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any police officer, not below the rank of a1[Inspector], or any other officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised by theCentral Government in this behalf may enter any public place and search and arrest without warrant anyperson found therein who is reasonably suspected of having committed or of committing or of beingabout to commit any offence under this Act.Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “public place” includes any publicconveyance, any hotel, any shop or any other place intended for use by, or accessible to the public.(2) Where any person is arrested under sub-section (1) by an officer other than a police officer, suchofficer shall, without unnecessary delay, take or send the person arrested before a magistrate havingjurisdiction in the case or before the officer-in-charge of a police station.(3) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall, subject to theprovisions of this section, apply, so far as may be, in relation to any entry, search or arrest, made underthis section.85. Offences by companies.–(1) Where a person committing a contravention of any of the provisionsof this Act or of any rule, direction or order made there under is a company, every person who, at the timethe contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conductof business of the company as well as the company, shall be guilty of the contravention and shall be liableto be proceeded against and punished accordingly:Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to punishmentif he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligenceto prevent such contravention.(2) Not with standing anything contained in sub-section (1), where a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder has been committed by acompany and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance of, or isattributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company,

This might become a question for the trier of fact, were the matter to somehow make it into court (on an action for bsignNow or a declaratory judgment).There’s no particular formality required of a legal signature—any mark that is intended as a signature is a signature. You can sign a document with an “X” or your initials or the words “I got this,” and theoretically it’s just as binding as a perfect cursive script of your name.The custom that signatures are handwritten is based on a traditional method of authentication—if the signature is handwritten in the maker’s usual handwriting, that is actually a fact that helps prove it’s a signature. If the signature is something other than that, it’s good practice to have witnesses also subscribe—in the event of a dispute the witnesses could be asked to testify that yes, they saw the maker sign the instrument and they themselves signed to attests that fact.“E-signing” obviously removes the “handwritten” aspect of the signature, but it doesn’t change the nature of the signature—the “electronic” signature is still a signature if made with the intent of being one.It’s possible that the computer routine that captures the “e-signature” would reject the “signature” if the character were changed. That’s happened to me already when I made a typo in the little box for it. But that’s a matter of programming, not law.The long and the short of it is this is that the variation would be considered in light of the totality of the evidence. It would likely be considered inconsequential by a court considering the issue as long as corroborating evidence such as a consistent IP address and time of submission make it seem more likely than not that the person who typed the name into the box was the same person who was supposed to be signing. Conversely to challenge the signature on this basis, you’d likely need more than just a minor variation in form but the possibility of a plausible explanation involving impersonation or fraud.

The Information Technology Act 2000 (amended in 2008)The Information Technology Act was first drawn up in 2000, and has been revised most recently 2008. The Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2008 amended sections 43 (data protection), 66 (hacking), 67 (protection against unauthorised access to data), 69 (cyberterrorism), and 72 (privacy and confidentiality) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which relate to computer/cybercrimes.Section 43 [Penalty and Compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc.] amended vide Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 reads as under:If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is in-charge of a computer, computer system or computer network:accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network or computer resource (ITAA2008)downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium;introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network;damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer  network, data, computer data base or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer system or computer network;disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network;denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorized to access any computer, computer system or computer network by any means;provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made there under;charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network;destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means (Inserted vide ITAA-2008); andSteals, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage, (Inserted vide ITAA 2008) he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected. (change vide ITAA 2008)Critique: In comparison to the laws enacted in other countries, this provision still falls short of a strong data protection law. In most other countries data protection laws specify:the definition and classification of data types;the nature and protection of the categories of data;that equal protection will be given to data stored offline and data stored manually;that data controllers and data processors have distinct roles;clear restrictions on the manner of data collection;clear guidelines on the purposes for which the data can be put and to whom it can be sent;standards and technical measures governing the collection, storage, access to, protection, retention, and destruction of data;that providers of goods or services must have a clear opt - in or opt - out option; andin addition, most countries provide strong safeguards and penalties against bsignNowes of any of the aboveSection 66 [Computer Related Offences] amended vide Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 reads as under:If any person, dishonestly, or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.Explanation: For the purpose of this section,-the word "dishonestly" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code;the word "fraudulently" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian Penal Code. [Section 66 A] [Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.] (Introduced vide ITAA 2008):Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,-any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; orany information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages (Inserted vide ITAA 2008) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms "Electronic mail" and "Electronic Mail Message" means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.[Section 66 B] [Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device] (Inserted Vide ITA 2008):Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen computer resource or communication device knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen computer resource or communication device, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh or with both.[Section 66C] [Punishment for identity theft] (Inserted Vide ITA 2008):Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.[Section 66D] [Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource] (Inserted Vide ITA 2008):Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.[Section 66E] [Punishment for violation of privacy] (Inserted Vide ITA 2008):Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with bothExplanation - For the purposes of this section--“transmit” means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;“capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means;“private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast;“publishes” means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public;“under circumstances violating privacy” means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that:he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private area was being captured; orany part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.[Section 66F] [Punishment for cyber terrorism]:(1) Whoever,-(A) with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by –denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorized to access computer resource; or attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorized access; orintroducing or causing to introduce any Computer Contaminant and by means of such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under section 70, or(B) knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations; or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.(2) Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life’.Critique: We find the terminology in multiple sections too vague to ensure consistent and fair enforcement. The concepts of ‘annoyance’ and ‘insult’ are subjective. Clause (d) makes it clear that phishing requests are not permitted, but it is not clear that one cannot ask for information on a class of individuals.Section 67 [Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form] amended vide Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 reads as under:Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.[Section 67 A] [Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form] (Inserted vide ITAA 2008):Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.Exception: This section and section 67 does not extend to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure in electronic form-the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art, or learning or other objects of general concern; orwhich is kept or used bona fide for religious purposes.[Section 67 B] Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form:Whoever,-(a) publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted material in any electronicform which depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct or(b) creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises,promotes, exchanges or distributes material in any electronic form depicting children inobscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner or(c) cultivates, entices or induces children to online relationship with one or more children forand on sexually explicit act or in a manner that may offend a reasonable adult on the computer resource or(d) facilitates abusing children online or(e) records in any electronic form own abuse or that of others pertaining to sexually explicit act with children, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with a fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees:Provided that the provisions of section 67, section 67A and this section does not extend to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure in electronic form-(i) The publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern; or(ii) which is kept or used for bonafide heritage or religious purposes Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "children" means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years. [Section 67 C] [Preservation and Retention of information by intermediaries]:(1) Intermediary shall preserve and retain such information as may be specified for such duration and in such manner and format as the Central Government may prescribe.(2) Any intermediary who intentionally or knowingly contravenes the provisions of sub section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Critique: This provision adequately protects both the corporate and the citizen in a positive way.Section 69 [Powers to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource] amended vide Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 reads as under:(1) Where the central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorized by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to beintercepted or monitored or decrypted any information transmitted received or stored through any computer resource.(2) The Procedure and safeguards subject to which such interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.(3) The subscriber or intermediary or any person in charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency which has been directed under sub section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to –(a) provide access to or secure access to the computer resource generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or(b) intercept or monitor or decrypt the information, as the case may be; or (c) provide information stored in computer resource.(4) The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.[ Section 69B] Power to authorize to monitor and collect traffic data or information through any computer resource for Cyber Security:(1) The Central Government may, to enhance Cyber Security and for identification, analysis and prevention of any intrusion or spread of computer contaminant in the country, by notification in the official Gazette, authorize any agency of the Government to monitor and collect traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.(2) The Intermediary or any person in-charge of the Computer resource shall when called upon by the agency which has been authorized under sub-section (1), provide technical assistance and extend all facilities to such agency to enable online access or to secure and provide online access to the computer resource generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such traffic data or information.(3) The procedure and safeguards for monitoring and collecting traffic data or information, shall be such as may be prescribed.(4) Any intermediary who intentionally or knowingly contravenes the provisions of subsection(2) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation: For the purposes of this section,(i) "Computer Contaminant" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 43(ii) "traffic data" means any data identifying or purporting to identify any person, computer system or computer network or location to or from which the communication is or may be transmitted and includes communications origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration or type of underlying service or any other information.Critique: Though we recognize how important it is for a government to protect its citizens against cyberterrorism, we are concerned at the friction between these provisions and the guarantees of free dialog, debate, and free speech that are Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India.Specifically:a) there is no clear provision of a link between an intermediary and the information or resource that is to be monitored.c)the penalties laid out in the clause are believed to be too harsh, and when read in conjunction with provision 66, there is no distinction between minor offenses and serious offenses.e) the ITA is too broad in its categorization of acts of cyberterrorism by including information that is likely to cause: injury to decency, injury to morality, injury in relation to contempt of court, and injury in relation to defamation.Section 72 [BsignNow of confidentiality and privacy] amended vide Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 reads as under:Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person who, in pursuant of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulations made there under, has secured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. [Section 72 A] Punishment for Disclosure of information in bsignNow of lawful contract (Inserted vide ITAA-2008):Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person including an intermediary who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing personal information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in bsignNow of a lawful contract, such material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.General Notes and Critiques:As general notes on the ITA and data protection we find that the Act is lacking in many ways, including:there is no definition of “sensitive personal data or information” and that term is used indiscriminately without.the provisions and protections cover only electronic data and not stored data or non-electronic systems of mediain the absence of a data controller, liability is often imposed on persons who are not necessarily in a position to control datacivil liability for data bsignNow arises where negligence is involvedcriminal liability only applies to cases of information obtained in the context of a service contract.**I am neither a student of law nor attached in any way to the legal system. This is excerpted from Cybercrime and Privacy and merely reproduced here for the sake of convenience.

The Government of India enacted its Information Technology Act 2000 with the objectives stating officially as: “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 facilitate 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 for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.The Act essentially deals with the following issues: Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents Legal Recognition of Digital Signatures Offenses and Contraventions Justice Dispensation Systems for cyber crimes.CYBER CRIME- Cyber Crime is not defined officially in IT Act or in any other legislation. In fact, it cannot be too. Offence or crime has been dealt with elaborately listing various acts and the punishments for each, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and related legislations. Hence, the concept of cyber crime, is just a "combination of crime and computer". Cybercrime means any illegal behavior directed by means of electronic operations that targets the security of computer systems and the data processed by them. Furthermore any illegal behavior committed by means of, or in relation to, a computer system or network, including such crimes as illegal possession and offering or distributing information by means of a computer system or network. Any contract for the sale or conveyance of immovable property or any interest in such property; Any such class of documents or transactions as may be notified by the Central Here are some of the sections of the IT Act 2000 which are related to cyber crimes: Section 43 - Penalty and Compensation for damage to computer, computer system, If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is in-charge of a computer, computer system or computer network – (a) accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network or computer resource (b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data, computer database or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium; (c) introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network- (d) damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer database, or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer system or computer network-3. (e) disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system, or computer network; (f) denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorised to access any computer, computer system or computer network by any means (h) charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer of a computer, computer system or computer network- (g) provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made there under, (h) charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network, (i) destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means, (j) Steals, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage, he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected. Section 43A - Compensation for failure to protect data Where a body corporate, possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information in a computer resource which it owns, controls or operates, is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures and thereby causes wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, such body corporate shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation, not exceeding five crore rupees, to the person so affected. Section 65 - Tampering with Computer Source Documents If any person knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys code or alters or causes another to conceal, destroy code or alter any computer, computer programme, computer system, or computer network, he shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine up to two lakh rupees, or with both. Section 66 - Computer Related Offences If any person, dishonestly, or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both. Section 66A - Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. Section 66B - Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen computer resource or communication device knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen computer resource or communication device,4. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh or with both. Section 66C - Punishment for identity theft Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh. Section 66D - Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personating; shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Section 66E - Punishment for violation of privacy Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, Explanation - For the purposes of this section: (a) “transmit” means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; (b) “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means; (c) “private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast; (d) “publishes” means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public; (e) “under circumstances violating privacy” means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that-- (i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private area was being captured; or (ii) any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place. shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both. Section-66F Cyber Terrorism Whoever,- with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by – (i) denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorized to access computer resource; or (ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorized access; or (iii) introducing or causing to introduce any Computer Contaminant and by means of such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under section 70, Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life. Section 67 - Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which5. may extend to two three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees. Section 67A - Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees. Section 67B - Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form Whoever:- (a) publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted material in any electronic form which depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct or (b) creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises, promotes, exchanges or distributes material in any electronic form depicting children in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner or (c) cultivates, entices or induces children to online relationship with one or more children for and on sexually explicit act or in a manner that may offend a reasonable adult on the computer resource or (d) facilitates abusing children online or (e) records in any electronic form own abuse or that of others pertaining to sexually explicit act with children, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with a fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees: Section 69 - Powers to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource.- (1) Where the central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorized by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information transmitted received or stored through any computer resource. (2) The Procedure and safeguards subject to which such interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) The subscriber or intermediary or any person in charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency which has been directed under sub section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to -6. (a) provide access to or secure access to the computer resource generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or (b) intercept or monitor or decrypt the information, as the case may be; or (c) provide information stored in computer resource. (4) The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 69A - Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource (1) Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource. (2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine. Section 69B. Power to authorize to monitor and collect traffic data or information through any computer resource for Cyber Security (1) The Central Government may, to enhance Cyber Security and for identification, analysis and prevention of any intrusion or spread of computer contaminant in the country, by notification in the official Gazette, authorize any agency of the Government to monitor and collect traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource. (2) The Intermediary or any person in-charge of the Computer resource shall when called upon by the agency which has been authorized under sub-section (1), provide technical assistance and extend all facilities to such agency to enable online access or to secure and provide online access to the computer resource generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such traffic data or information. (3) The procedure and safeguards for monitoring and collecting traffic data or information, shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) Any intermediary who intentionally or knowingly contravenes the provisions of subsection (2) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 71. Penalty for misrepresentation Whoever makes any misrepresentation to, or suppresses any material fact from, the Controller or the signNowing Authority for obtaining any license or Electronic Signature Certificate, as the case may be, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.7. Section 72 - BsignNow of confidentiality and privacy Any person who, in pursuant of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulations made there under, has secured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. These are the IPC Section codes : Section 499. Defamation Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. First Exception.—Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published Second Exception.—Public conduct of public servants Third Exception.—Conduct of any person touching any public question  Fourth Exception.—Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts Fifth Exception.-Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned. Sixth Exception.—Merits of public performance Seventh Exception.—Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another. Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person. Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests Tenth Exception.—Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good Section 500. Punishment for defamation Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.8. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by Court of Session—Compoundable by the person defamed. Para II Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Compoundable by the person defamed with the permission of the court Section 420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Compoundable by the person cheated with the permission of the court. Section 383. Extortion Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”. Example; (a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z give him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion. (b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the note. A has committed extortion. (c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z will sign and deliver to B bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sing and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion. (d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion. Section 384. Punishment for extortion Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both.9. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.Section 463. Forgery Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.Section 465. Punishment for forgery Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Punishment for forgery of such document—Cognizable—Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable. Section 503. Criminal intimidation Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation. The following are the live cases : Section 43 Related Case: Mphasis BPO Fraud: 2005 In December 2004, four call centre employees, working at an outsourcing facility operated by MphasiS in India, obtained PIN codes from four customers of MphasiS’ client, Citi Group. These employees were not authorized to obtain the PINs. In association with others, the call centre employees opened new accounts at Indian banks using false identities. Within two months, they used the PINs and account information gleaned during their employment at MphasiS to transfer money from the bank accounts of CitiGroup customers to the new accounts at Indian banks.10. By April 2005, the Indian police had tipped off to the scam by a U.S. bank, and quickly identified the individuals involved in the scam. Arrests were made when those individuals attempted to withdraw cash from the falsified accounts, $426,000 was stolen; the amount recovered was $230,000. Verdict: Court held that Section 43(a) was applicable here due to the nature of unauthorized access involved to commit transactions. Section 65 Related Case: Syed Asifuddin and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh In this case, Tata Indicom employees were arrested for manipulation of the electronic 32- bit number (ESN) programmed into cell phones theft were exclusively franchised to Reliance Infocomm. Verdict: Court held that tampering with source code invokes Section 65 of the Information Technology Act.Section 66 Related Case: Kumar v/s Whiteley In this case the accused gained unauthorized access to the Joint Academic Network (JANET) and deleted, added files and changed the passwords to deny access to the authorized users. Investigations had revealed that Kumar was logging on to the BSNL broadband Internet connection as if he was the authorized genuine user and ‘made alteration in the computer database pertaining to broadband Internet user accounts’ of the subscribers. The CBI had registered a cyber crime case against Kumar and carried out investigations on the basis of a complaint by the Press Information Bureau, Chennai, which detected the unauthorised use of broadband Internet. The complaint also stated that the subscribers had incurred a loss of Rs 38,248 due to Kumar’s wrongful act. He used to ‘hack’ sites from Bangalore, Chennai and other cities too, they said. Verdict: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, sentenced N G Arun Kumar, the techie from Bangalore to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs 5,000 under section 420 IPC (cheating) and Section 66 of IT Act (Computer related Offence). section 66 A Relevant Case #1: Fake profile of President posted by imposter On September 9, 2010, the imposter made a fake profile in the name of the Hon’ble President Pratibha Devi Patil. A complaint was made from Additional Controller, President Household, President Secretariat regarding the four fake profiles created in the name of Hon’ble President on social networking website, Facebook. The said complaint stated that president house has nothing to do with the facebook and the fake profile is misleading the general public. The First Information Report Under Sections 469 IPC and 66A Information Technology Act, 2000 was registered based on the said complaint at the police station, Economic Offences Wing, the elite wing of Delhi Police which specializes in investigating economic crimes including cyber offences. Relevant Case #2: Bomb Hoax mail In 2009, a 15-year-old Bangalore teenager was arrested by the cyber crime investigation cell (CCIC) of the city crime branch for allegedly sending a hoax e-mail to a private news channel. In the e-mail, he claimed to have planted five bombs in Mumbai, challenging the police to find them before it was too late. At around 1p.m. on May 25, the news channel received an e-mail that read: “I have planted five bombs in Mumbai; you have two hours to find it.” The police, who were alerted immediately, traced the Internet Protocol (IP) address to Vijay Nagar in Bangalore. The Internet service provider for the account was BSNL, said officials. section 66 C Relevant Cases: security number was exposed by Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show. Davis’ identity was used to obtain a $500 cash advance loan. University of Pennsylvania faked his own death, complete with a forged obituary in his local paper. Nine months later, Li attempted to obtain a new driver’s license with the intention of applying for new credit cards eventually.Section 66C: Punishment for identity theft Imprisonment upto three years and Fine upto Rs. 1 Lakhs.Section 66D: Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resourceSection 66E: Punishment for violation of privacy Imprisonment upto three years and/or Fine upto Rs. 2 LakhsSection 66F: Punishment for cyber terrorism May extend to Life imprisonment -do- Non bailable.Section 67: Publishing obscene information in electronic form FirstConviction: Imprisonment upto three years and Fine upto Rs. 5 LakhsSecond or subsequent Conviction : Imprisonment upto five years and Fine upto Rs. 10 Lakhs -do- Bailable in case of first conviction only. Second or subsequent conviction shall be non bailableSection 67A: Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form First Conviction:Imprisonment upto Five years and Fine upto Rs. 10 LakhsSecond or subsequent Conviction : Imprisonment upto Seven years and Fine upto Rs. 10 Lakhs -do- Non-bailable in both first and second conviction.Section 67B: Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form.Section 67C (2): Deliberate Failure by the intermediary to preserve and retain information as specified by the Central Government.Section 68 (2): Deliberate Failure to comply with the order/direction of controller.Section 69 (4): Failure to extend facilities to decrypt information to govt. notified agencySection 69A (3): Punishment for failure by the intermediary to comply with the order of the notified agency to block websites etc.Section 69B (4): Deliberate failure by the intermediary to provide the notified agency with the technical assistance or online access to the computer resource.Section 70: Unauthorized access to protected system directly or indirectly affects the facility of Critical Information Infrastructure.Section 72A: Punishment for Disclosure of information in bsignNow of lawful contract Indian Arms Act 1959 Imprisonment upto three years and Fine .Bailable Imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding one lakh rupees or to both Imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and fine Imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine Cognizable Non bailable Imprisonment for a term upto three years or to a fine upto Rs. 5 Lakhs or to both.Chapter V – Offences and Penalties Sec.25 – Punishment for certain offencesSec.26 – Secret contraventionsSec.27 – Punishment for using arms, etc. Non cognizable -do- Cognizable Non bailable Non Cognizable BailableSec.28 – Punishment for use and possession of firearms or imitation firearms in certain casesSec.29 – Punishment for knowingly purchasing arms, etc., from unlicensed person or for delivering arms, etc., to person not entitled to possess the sameSec.30 – Punishment for contravention of licence or ruleSec.31 – Punishment for subsequent offencesSec.32 – Power to confiscateSec.33 – Offence by companies NDPS ACT On 8th September, 2011, the Government introduced the NDPS (Amendment) Bill, 2011 in the Lok Sabha. The Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on 13th September, 2011 for further consideration. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 is the central law on control, regulation and prohibition of narcotic and psychotropic drugs in India. The Act was last amended in 2001, to rationalize punishment and adopt a sentencing structure based on the quantity of drugs involved. The stringent penal structure and rigid implementation of the NDPS Act created many problems including non-availability of opioid medication and lack of access to drug dependence treatment. The Bill seeks to amend a number of provisions of the NDPS Act including:•Modification of the definitions of ‘small’ and ‘commercial’ quantity to include the entire amount of drugs involved and not only the pure drug content [Section 2(xxiiia) and Section 2(viia)]•Standardisation of punishment for consumption of drugs to a maximum of 6 months or fine [Section 27]•Transfer of power to regulate “poppy straw concentrate” from the State to the Central Government [Sections 9 and 10]•Widening provisions for forfeiture of illegally acquired property, wherein any property of a person who is alleged to be involved in illicit traffic whose source cannot be proved is termed as ‘illegally acquired property’ and liable to be seized [Sections 68-B, 68H and 68-O]•Addition of the term ‘management’ to provisions on treatment for drug dependence [Section 71] Concerns over the Bill The proposed quantity definitions would have far signNowing implications on sentencing for NDPS offences and may expose low-level drug offenders, including people who use drugs to stringent punishment. Despite standardisation of punishment for consumption of drugs, the policy of criminalisation of drug use remains unchanged. The overbroad scope of the forfeiture provision makes it susceptible to misuse and subject to constitutional challenges. Further still, the Bill fails to address key issues and contradictions that have arisen such as, death penalty for repeat offenders, immunity for treatment seeking, regulation of treatment centres, support for harm reduction measures and access to opioid medicines. Read more. The Lawyers Collective expressed these and other concerns to the Standing Committee on Finance through written and oral submissions on the NDPS (Amendment) Bill, 2011 My request to all the people is to be safe and to be alert and not involve in wrong activities.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 came into force on 17.10.2000 vide G.S.R No. 788(E) dated 17.10.2000 and for the first time, a legal definition of “Computer”, “Data”, “electronic record”, “Information” et al were provided. The said Act gave a legal recognition to the electronic records and digital signatures and in Chapter IX thereof provided for penalty and adjudication. Section 43 of the Act interalia provided that in case of unauthorised access, download or copying or damage to data etc, the person responsible shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation not exceeding one crore rupees to the person affected.Apart from civil liability provided under Section 43, Chapter XI (Sections 63 to 78) of the Act of 2000 provided for criminal liability in cases of Tampering, Hacking, publishing or transmitting obscene material, misrepresentation etc. Apart from the same, Section 72 of the Act provided for penalty in case of bsignNow of confidentiality and privacy and laid that in case any person who has secured access to any electronic record, Data or information, discloses the same to any other person without obtaining the consent of the person concerned, he shall be punished with imprisonment upto two years or with fine upto Rupees one lakh or with both.However, the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were not adequate and the need for more stringent data protection measures were felt, the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 was enacted which came into force on 27.10.2009. The said Amendment Act brought in the concepts like cyber security in the statute book and widened the scope of digital signatures by replacing the words “electronic signature”. The amendment act also provided for secure electronic signatures and enjoined the central government to prescribe security procedures and practices for securing electronic records and signatures (Sections 15-16) The amendment Act also removed the cap of Rupees One Crore as earlier provided under Section 43 for damage to computer and computer systems and for unauthorised downloading/ copying of data. The said Amendment Act also introduced Section 43A which provides for compensation to be paid in case a body corporate fails to protect the data. Section 46 of the Act prescribes that the person affected has to approach the adjudicating officer appointed under Section 46 of the Act in case the claim for injury or damage does not exceed Rupees Five crores and the civil court in case, the claim exceeds Rupees Five crores. The amendment act also brought/ introduced several new provisions which provide for offenses such as identity theft, receiving stolen computer resource/ device, cheating, violation of privacy, cyber terrorism, pornography (Section 66A-F & 67A-C). The amendment act also brought in provisions directing intermediaries to protect the data/information and penalty has been prescribed for disclosure of information of information in bsignNow of lawful contract (Section 72A)With the enactment of the Amendment Act of 2008, India for the first time got statutory provisions dealing with data protection. However, as the ingredients of “sensitive personal data and information” as well as the “reasonable security practices and procedures” were yet to be prescribed by the Central Government, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology vide Notification No. GSR 313 (E) dated 11th April 2011 made the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information ) Rules, 2011 (the said rules). Rule 3 of the said rules defines personal sensitive data or information and provides that the same may include information relating to password, financial information such as bank account or credit card details, health condition, medical records etc. Rule 4 enjoins every body corporate which receives or deals with information to provide a privacy policy. Rule 5 prescribes that every body corporate shall obtain consent in writing from the provider of the sensitive information regarding purpose of usage before collection of such information and such body corporate will not collect such information unless it is collected for a lawful purpose connected with the function or activity of such body corporate and collection of such information or data is necessary and once such data is collected, it shall not be retained for a period longer than what is required. Rule 6 provides that disclosure of the information to any third party shall require prior permission from the provider unless such disclosure has been agreed to in the contract between the body corporate and the provider or where the disclosure is necessary for compliance of a legal obligation. The Body corporate has been barred to publish sensitive information and the third parties receiving such information have been barred to disclose it further. Rule 7 lays down that the body corporate may transfer such information to any other body corporate or person in India or outside, that ensure the same level of data protection and such transfer will be allowed only if it is necessary for performance of lawful contract between the body corporate and provider of information or where the provider has consented for data transfer. Rule 8 of the said rules further provide reasonable security practises and procedures and lays down that international standard IS/ISO/IEC 27001 on “Information Technology- Security Techniques- Information Security Management System- requirements “ would be one such standard.The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology further issued a press note dated 24th August 2011 and clarified that the said rules are applicable to the body corporate or any person located within India. The press note further provides that any body corporate providing services relating to collection or handling of sensitive personal data or information under contractual obligation with any other legal entity located within India or outside is not subject to requirements of Rules 5 &6 as mentioned hereinabove. A body corporate providing services to the provider of information under a contractual obligation directly with them however has to comply with Rules 5 &6. The said press note also clarifies that privacy policy mentioned in Rule 4 relates to the body corporate and is not with respect to any particular obligation under the contract. The press note at the end provides that the consent mentioned in Rule 5 includes consent given by any mode of electronic communication.Data Protection relates to issues relating to the collection, storage, accuracy and use of data provided by net users in the use of the World Wide Web. Visitors to any website want their privacy rights to be respected when they engage in e-Commerce. It is part of the confidence-creating role that successful e-Commerce businesses have to convey to the consumer. If industry doesn't make sure it's guarding the privacy of the data it collects, it will be the responsibility of the government and it's their obligation to enact legislation.Any transaction between two or more parties involves an exchange of essential information between the parties. Technological developments have enabled transactions by electronic means. Any such information/data collected by the parties should be used only for the specific purposes for which they were collected. The need arose, to create rights for those who have their data stored and create responsibilities for those who collect, store and process such data. The law relating to the creation of such rights and responsibilities may be referred to as ‘data protection’ law.The world’s first computer specific statute was enacted in the form of a Data Protection Act, in the German state of Hesse, in 1970.The misuse of records under the Nazi regime had raised concerns among the public about the use of computers to store and process large amounts of personal data.The Data Protection Act sought to heal such memories of misuse of information. A different rationale for the introduction of data protection legislation can be seen in the case of Sweden which introduced the first national statute in 1973.Here, data protection was seen as fitting naturally into a two hundred year old system of freedom of information with the concept of subject access (such a right allows an individual to find out what information is held about him) being identified as one of the most important aspects of the legislation.In 1995, the European Union adopted its Directive (95/46/EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (hereinafter, the Directive), establishing a detailed privacy regulatory structure. The Directive is specific on the requirements for the transfer of data. It sets down the principles regarding the transfer of data to third countries and states that personal data of EU nationals cannot be sent to countries that do not meet the EU “adequacy” standards with respect to privacy.In order to meet the EU “adequacy” standards, US developed a ‘Safe Harbour’ framework, according to which the US Department of Commerce would maintain a list of US companies that have self-certified to the safe harbor framework. An EU organization can ensure that it is sending information to a U.S. organization participating in the safe harbor by viewing the public list of safe harbor organizations posted on the official website.Data protection has emerged as an important reaction to the development of information technology. In India data protection is covered under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter, the Act). The Act defines ‘data’ as, “‘data’ means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalized manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processed or has been processed in a computer system or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the computer”. Protection of such data and privacy are covered under specific provisions in the Act. In the recent past, the need for data protection laws has been felt to cater to various needs. The following analyses the position of data protection law with respect to some of the needs.Data Protection Law In Respect of Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES)India started liberalizing its economy in the 1990’s and since then a huge upsurge in the IT business process outsourcing may be witnessed. Financial, educational, legal, marketing, healthcare, telecommunication, banking etc are only some of the services being outsourced into India. This upsurge of outsourcing of ITES into India in the recent past may be attributed to the large English-speaking unemployed populace, cheap labour, enterprising and hardworking nature of the people etc. Statistics have shown that the outsourcing industry is one of the biggest sources of employment. In a span of four years, the number of people working in call centers in the country supporting international industries has risen from 42,000 to 3,50,000. Exports were worth $5.2 billion in 2004-2005 and are expected to grow over 40% this fiscal year. US is currently the biggest investor in Indian ITES, taking advantage of cheap labour costs. Statistics indicate that software engineers with two-years experience in India are being paid about 1/5th of an equivalent US employee.Concerns about adequacy of lawBPO FraudsWith globalization and increasing BPO industry in India, protection of data warrants legislation. There are reasons for this. Every individual consumer of the BPO Industry would expect different levels of privacy from the employees who handle personal data. But there have been situations in the recent past where employees or systems have given away the personal information of customers to third parties without prior consent. So other countries providing BPO business to India expect the Indian government and BPO organizations to take measures for data protection. Countries with data protection law have guidelines that call for data protection law in the country with whom they are transacting.For instance, in, the European Union countries according to the latest guidelines, they will cease to part with data, which are considered the subject matter of protection to any third country unless such other country has a similar law on data protection. One of the essential features of any data protection law would be to prevent the flow of data to non-complying countries and such a provision when implemented may result in a loss of "Data Processing" business to some of the Indian companies.In the recent past, concerns have been raised both within the country as well as by customers abroad regarding the adequacy of data protection and privacy laws in the country. A few incidents have questioned the Indian data protection and privacy standards and have left the outsourcing industry embarrassed. In June 2005, ‘The Sun’ newspaper claimed that one of its journalists bought personal details including passwords, addresses and passport data from a Delhi IT worker for £4.25 each. Earlier BPO frauds in India include New York-based Citibank accounts being looted from a BPO in Pune and a call-center employee in Bangalore peddling credit card information to fraudsters who stole US$398,000 from British bank accounts.UK's Channel 4 TV station ran broadcast footage of a sting operation exposing middlemen hawking the financial data of 200,000 UK citizens. The documentary has prompted Britain's Information Commissioner's Office to examine the security of personal financial data at Indian call centers.In the absence of data protection laws, the kind of work that would be outsourced to India in the future would be limited. The effect of this can be very well seen in the health-care BPO business, which is estimated to be worth close to $45 billion. Lack of data protection laws have left Indian BPO outfits still stagnating in the lower end of the value chain, doing work like billing, insurance claims processing and of course transcription. Besides healthcare, players in the retail financial sector are also affected. Financial offshoring from banks is limited because of statutory compliance requirements and data privacy laws protecting sensitive financial information in accounts. In the Human Resource (HR) domain, there are many restrictions on sharing of personal information. In the medical domain, patient history needs to be protected. In credit card transactions, identity theft could be an issue and needs to be protected. Companies in the banking, financial services and insurance (BFSI) sector and healthcare have excluded applications/processes which use sensitive information from their portfolio for offshoring till they are comfortable about the data protection laws prevalent in the supplier country.Since there is lack of data protection laws in India, Indian BPO outfits are trying to deal with the issue by attempting to adhere to major US and European regulations. MNCs have to comply with foreign Regulations so that they don’t lose on their international partners. There are problems involved in this. Efforts by individual companies may not count for much if companies rule out India as a BPO destination in the first place in the absence of data protection law.Today, the largest portion of BPO work coming to India is low-end call centre and data processing work. If India has to exploit the full potential of the outsourcing opportunity, then we have to move up the value chain. Outsourced work in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)-intensive areas such as clinical research, engineering design and legal research is the way ahead for Indian BPO companies. The move up the value chain cannot happen without stringent laws. Further, weak laws would act as deterrents for FDI, global business and the establishment of research and development parks in the pharmaceutical industry.Looking to the above scenario, we can say that for India to achieve heights in BPO industry stringent laws for data protection and intellectual property rights have to be made. . Thus, a law on data protection on India must address the following Constitutional issues on a "priority basis" before any statutory enactment procedure is set into motion:(1) Privacy rights of interested persons in real space and cyber space.(2) Mandates of freedom of information U/A 19 (1) (a).(3) Mandates of right to know of people at large U/A 21.Once the data protection rules are enforced in India, companies outsourcing to India are unlikely to dismantle the systems they have in place straightaway, and move data more freely to India. Hence ,the need for data protection laws would win over the confidence of international business partners; protect abuse of information; protection of privacy and personal rights of individuals would be ensured; there would be more FDI inflows, global business and the establishment of research and development parks in the pharmaceutical industry & impetus to the sector of e-Commerce at national and international levels would be provided.Data protection law in India (Present status):-Data Protection law in India is included in the Act under specific provisions. Both civil and criminal liabilities are imposed for violation of data protection.(1) Section 43 deals with penalties for damage to computer, computer system etc.(2) Section 65 deals with tampering with computer source documents.(3) Section 66 deals with hacking with computer system.(4) Section 72 deals with penalty for bsignNow of confidentiality and privacy. Call centers can be included in the definition of ‘intermediary’and a ‘network service provider’ and can be penalized under this section.These developments have put the Indian government under pressure to enact more stringent data protection laws in the country in order to protect the lucrative Indian outsourcing industry. In order to use IT as a tool for socio-economic development, employment generation and to consolidate India’s position as a major player in the IT sector,amendments to the IT Act, 2000 have been approved by the cabinet and are due to be tabled in the winter session of the Parliament.Proposed amendments:-The amendments relate to the following[22]:(i) Proposal at Sec. 43 (2) related to handling of sensitive personal data or information with reasonable security practices and procedures.(ii) Gradation of severity of computer related offences under Section 66, committed dishonestly or fraudulently and punishment thereof.(iii) Proposed additional Section 72 (2) for bsignNow of confidentiality with intent to cause injury to a subscriber.It is hoped that these amendments will strengthen the law to suffice the need.Data Protection Laws In Order To Invite ‘Data Controllers’.There has been a strong opinion that if India strengthens its data protection law, it can attract multi-national corporations to India. India can be home to such corporations than a mere supplier of services.In fact, there is an argument that the EU’s data protection law is sufficient to protect the privacy of its people and thus lack of strong protection under Indian law is not a hindrance to the outsourcing industry. To enumerate, consider a company established in EU (called the ‘data controller’) and the supplier of call center services (‘data processor’) in India. If the data processor makes any mistake in the processing of personal data or there are instances of data theft, then the data controller in the EU can be made liable for the consequences. The Indian data processor is not in control of personal data and can only process data under the instructions of the data controller. Thus if a person in EU wants to exercise rights of access and retrieve personal data, the data controller has to retrieve it from the data processor, irrespective of where the data processor is located. Thus a strong data protection law is needed not only to reinforce the image of the Indian outsourcing industry but also to invite multi-national corporations to establish their corporate offices here.Data Protection And TelemarketingIndia is faced with a new phenomenon-telemarketing. This is facilitated, to a large extent, by the widespread use of mobile telephones. Telemarketing executives, now said to be available for as low as US $70 per month, process information about individuals for direct marketing. This interrupts the peace of an individual and conduct of work. There is a violation of privacy caused by such calls who, on behalf of banks, mobile phone companies, financial institutions etc. offer various schemes. The right to privacy has been read into Article 21, Constitution of India, but this has not afforded enough protection. A PIL against several banks and mobile phone service providers is pending before the Supreme Court alleging inter alia that the right to privacy has been infringed.The EC Directive confers certain rights on the people and this includes the right to prevent processing for direct marketing. Thus, a data controller is required not to process information about individuals for direct marketing if an individual asks them not to. So individuals have the right to stop unwanted marketing offers. It would be highly beneficial that data protection law in India also includes such a right to prevent unsolicited marketing offers and protect the privacy of the people.Data Protection With Regard To Governance And PeopleThe Preamble to the Act specifies that, the IT Act 2000, inter alia, will facilitate electronic filing of documents with the Government agencies. It seeks to promote efficient delivery of Government services by means of reliable electronic records. Stringent data protection laws will thus help the Government to protect the interests of its people.Data protection law is necessary to provide protection to the privacy rights of people and to hold cyber criminals responsible for their wrongful acts. Data protection law is not about keeping personal information secret. It is about creating a trusted framework for collection, exchange and use of personal data in commercial and governmental contexts. It is to permit and facilitate the commercial and governmental use of personal data.The Data Security Council of India (DSCI) and Department of Information Technology(DIT) must also rejuvenate its efforts in this regard on the similar lines. However, the best solution can come from good legislative provisions along with suitable public and employee awareness. It is high time that we must pay attention to Data Security in India. Cyber Security in India is missing and the same requires rejuvenation. When even PMO's cyber security is compromised for many months we must at least now wake up. Data bsignNowes and cyber crimes in India cannot be reduced until we make strong cyber laws. We cannot do so by mere declaring a cat as a tiger. Cyber law of India must also be supported by sound cyber security and effective cyber forensics.Indian companies in the IT and BPO sectors handle and have access to all kinds of sensitive and personal data of individuals across the world, including their credit card details, financial information and even their medical history. These Companies store confidential data and information in electronic form and this could be vulnerable in the hands of their employees. It is often misused by unsurplous elements among them. There have been instances of security bsignNowes and data leakages in high profile Indian companies. The recent incidents of data thefts in the BPO industry have raised concerns about data privacy.There is no express legislation in India dealing with data protection. Although the Personal Data Protection Bill was introduced in Parliament in 2006, it is yet to see the light of day. The bill seems to proceed on the general framework of the European Union Data Privacy Directive, 1996. It follows a comprehensive model with the bill aiming to govern the collection, processing and distribution of personal data. It is important to note that the applicability of the bill is limited to ‘personal data’ as defined in Clause 2 of the bill.The bill applies both to government as well as private enterprises engaged in data functions. There is a provision for the appointment of, “Data Controllers”, who have general superintendence and adjudicatory jurisdiction over subjects covered by the bill. It also provides that penal sanctions may be imposed on offenders in addition to compensation for damages to victims.The stringency of data protection law, whether the prevailing law will suffice such needs, whether the proposed amendments are a welcome measure, whether India needs a separate legislation for data protection etc are questions which require an in-depth analysis of the prevailing circumstances and a comparative study with laws of other countries. There is no consensus among the experts regarding these issues. These issues are not in the purview of this write-up. But there can be no doubt about the importance of data protection law in the contemporary IT scenario and are not disputable.

Good question. My guess is either:Satoshi was a truly selfless individual who wanted bitcoin to remain consensus based.Satoshi is dead and is not really committed to anonymity; orSatoshi is actually a group of people. Probably including several of the likely suspects below. Although the original code may have been written by one person the language in chat rooms, message boards and even the white paper itself suggest many unique contributors. Given this vision there were also probabaly non coders/developers who helped distribute the idea and were essentially “the political advocates” who brought the code to the internet at large. These are likely some of the people listed below that I have seen referenced as “potential Satoshi’s” (although none of these leads ever panned out).In a 2011 article in The New Yorker, Joshua Davis claimed to have narrowed down the identity of Nakamoto to a number of possible individuals, including the Finnish economist Dr. Vili Lehdonvirta and Irish student Michael Clear , then a graduate student in cryptography at Trinity College Dublin and now a post-doctoral student at Georgetown University.In October 2011, writing for Fast Company, investigative journalist Adam Penenberg cited circumstantial evidence suggesting Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry could be Nakamoto.They jointly filed a patent application that contained the phrase "computationally impractical to reverse" in 2008, which was also used in the bitcoin white paper.May 2013, Ted Nelson speculated that Nakamoto is really Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki.Later, an article was published in The Age newspaper that claimed that Mochizuki denied these speculations, but without attributing a source for the denial.A 2013 article in Gawker listed Gavin Andresen, Jed McCaleb, Casey Botticello, or a government agency as possible candidates to be Nakamoto. Dustin D. Trammell, a Texas-based security researcher, was suggested as Nakamoto, but he publicly denied it. Casey Botticello, the head of the Cryptocurrency Alliance has refused to comment.In 2013, two Israeli mathematicians, Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir, published a paper claiming a link between Nakamoto and Ross William Ulbricht. The two based their suspicion on an analysis of the network of bitcoin transactions, but later retracted their claim.Some considered Nakamoto might be a team of people; Dan Kaminsky, a security researcher who read the bitcoin code.

You have a very intelligent daughter…your husband on the other hand… well let's just hope she takes after your genes.Firstly, this is happening… Margot Robbie To Star As Mattel’s Live-Action BarbieSo expect barbie to be a big trending topic soon.Secondly… The Designer's Doll - 09/01/2009And lastly BARBIE ISN'T DRUGS, SEX, OR POSTING STUPID VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE THAT WILL HAUNT HER LONG INTO ADULTHOOD. So back off and count yourself lucky. In fact go hug your kid and thank her for being one of the good eggs.Not to mention the money to be made!!!Think the only barbie worth money is the original or really old ones? Think again. In a 2018 study done by 24/7 Wall St. Insightful Analysis and Commentary for U.S. and Global Equity InvestorsThe most expensive barbies might be in your toybox right now. With some of the more recent years seeing a market for designer collaboration. I personally have been looking for the Moschino barbie doll since it sold out a few years ago.Barbie is one of the most popular toys ever, selling about 1 billion dolls since debuting in 1959. And even though Barbies have been purchased by millions of people from 150 countries, some versions of the doll are more valuable than others.There are legions of collectors searching the internet and other places for rare editions of the doll. What makes some Barbies more valuable than others are the doll’s unique accessories; the physical condition of the item; variations on Barbie’s career outfits; limited edition dolls; versions found only in some countries; and if the box is unopened.Collecting rare and valuable Barbies has become more than a cottage industry, so with that in mind, 24/7 Wall St. compiled a list of the most valuable Barbies using the latest available .*No one would have predicted such zealous collecting of the toy back in 1959, when Barbie debuted at the New York Toy Fair. That year, the doll cost $3. Today, a mint condition Barbie from 1959, wearing a black and white bathing suit and clutching sunglasses, can garner more than $20,000 on eBay.*FOOTNOTE #1 SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE*Barbie made an appeal to history aficionados in 2003 by taking a turn as Marie Antoinette and decked out in a flowing gown. That Barbie was being auctioned for as much as $2,000 on eBay. Themes tied to television shows such as “I Love Lucy” also are popular with collectors.Several one-of-a-kind Barbies have sold for exorbitantly high prices, outshining dolls even on this list. The most expensive version of the doll was sold for $302,500 in 2010. That doll was designed to raise money for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Another doll sold for $85,000 in 1999. As the introduction to designer dolls, that Barbie was clad in a gold bikini top and a belt featuring 160 diamonds.To identify the 50 most valuable Barbie dolls, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed Barbie dolls currently for sale on eBay. Price data was obtained on March 5, 6, and 7. To be considered, dolls needed to have maintained similar price ranges over that period. The year each Barbie was released came from Mattel. Release dates not listed by the dollmaker were obtained from news archives, collector’s blogs, and other sources. The rare qualities of these dolls were listed on eBay, and often among the key drivers of each doll’s price. We only considered the most expensive doll within a given model. We included identical models only when accessories, certain rare qualities, or the context of a special release meaningfully distinguished duplicates.Page 2 of 1150. Midnight Tuxedo Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $995> Year released: 2001> Rare qualities: Never removed from box49. Pink Splendor Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $999> Year released: 1996> Rare qualities: Limited Edition48. Carol Spencer Holiday Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $999> Year released: 1994> Rare qualities: Prototype47. The Glory of the 80’s Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,000> Year released: 2017> Rare qualities: 1 of 100 in existence, never removed from box46. Dahlia Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,000> Year released: 2006> Rare qualities: Never removed from boxPage 3 of 1145. Lucky Charm Ken Doll> Estimated value: $1,000> Year released: 2017> Rare qualities: 1 of 500 in existence, never removed from box44. “Sales Resistance!” I Love Lucy Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,050> Year released: 2004> Rare qualities: N/A43. Empress Josephine Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,099> Year released: 2005> Rare qualities: Never removed from box42. Chataine Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,150> Year released: 2002> Rare qualities: Limited Edition41. Debut Silkstone Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,150> Year released: 2009> Rare qualities: Exclusive Paris ConventionPage 4 of 1140. La Belle Epoque Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,395> Year released: 2012> Rare qualities: Exclusive Paris Convention, signed by Robert Best39. Calvin Klein Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,414> Year released: 1996> Rare qualities: Good condition38. Escada Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,414> Year released: 1996> Rare qualities: Limited edition, made in Japan37. Trace of Lace Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,475> Year released: 2004> Rare qualities: Platinum Label36. Coach Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,500> Year released: 2013> Rare qualities: Plus 3 genuine coach bagsPage 5 of 1135. Happy Holidays Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,500> Year released: 1994> Rare qualities: Special edition, signed by Ruth Handler34. Barbie Doll As Medusa> Estimated value: $1,500> Year released: 2008> Rare qualities: Never removed from box33. Faerie Queen Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,500> Year released: 2004> Rare qualities: Limited edition, platinum label32. Summer Daydreams Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,514> Year released: 1997> Rare qualities: Never removed from box31. Princess of the Korean Court Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,514> Year released: 2005> Rare qualities: 25th AnniversaryPage 6 of 1130. Monique Lhuillier Bride Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,600> Year released: 2006> Rare qualities: Signed by Monique Lhuillier29. Violette Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,750> Year released: 2005> Rare qualities: Platinum Edition28. Sparkle Beach Barbie> Estimated value: $1,999> Year released: 1995> Rare qualities: New in box27. Marie Antoinette Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 2003> Rare qualities: Gold label, never removed from box26. “I Love Lucy” Starring Lucy as Santa in “The Christmas Show” Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 2007> Rare qualities: Platinum EditionPage 7 of 1125. Winter Glamour White Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 2006> Rare qualities: 1 of 15 in existence24. Gold Jubilee Prototype Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 1994> Rare qualities: Sample sticker on box23. Pretty in Plaid BArbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 1998> Rare qualities: Includes prototype, never removed from box22. Chicago Cubs Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 2000> Rare qualities: Limited edition, never removed from box21. Cher Ringmaster Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 2007> Rare qualities: Platinum Label, never removed from boxPage 8 of 1120. Galleries Lafayette Blonde Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 1999> Rare qualities: Original box19. NASCAR Official #94 Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,293> Year released: 1999> Rare qualities: Never removed from box18. Summer Splendor Enchanted Seasons Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,495> Year released: 1996> Rare qualities: Limited Edition17. Designer Dress Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,500> Year released: 2009> Rare qualities: Platinum Label, Original box16. American Girl Barbie> Estimated value: $2,500> Year released: 1966> Rare qualities: European exclusive, near mint conditionPage 9 of 1115. Walking Jamie Furry Friends Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,500> Year released: 1970> Rare qualities: Nearly mint condition14. Hair Happenin’s Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,500> Year released: 1971> Rare qualities: Never removed from box13. A Date with Barbie in Atlanta Doll> Estimated value: $2,500> Year released: 1998> Rare qualities: White dress, 1 of 25 in existence12. City Smart Silkstone Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,995> Year released: 2003> Rare qualities: 1 of 600 in existence11. Blonde Bubble Cut Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,999> Year released: 1962> Rare qualities: N/APage 10 of 1110. Pink Jubilee Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $3,000> Year released: 1989> Rare qualities: Limited Edition, 30th anniversary9. Bild Lilli Hausser Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $3,200> Year released: 1964> Rare qualities: Near mint condition8. Career Girl Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $3,495> Year released: N/A> Rare qualities: Japanese exclusive7. American Girl Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $3,500> Year released: 1966> Rare qualities: Mint condition, original box6. Lively Barbie Figure & Fashion Dress-up Doll> Estimated value: $3,838> Year released: N/A> Rare qualities: N/APage 11 of 115. Aqua Queen of the Prom Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $5,000> Year released: 2001> Rare qualities: 1 of 30 in existence4. Karl Lagerfeld Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $6,000> Year released: 2014> Rare qualities: Platinum Label, original shipper box3. #4 Blonde Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $8,999> Year released: 1960> Rare qualities: Original wrist tag2. Barbie & Major Matt Mason> Estimated value: $15,000> Year released: 1967> Rare qualities: Original store display, “Funny Face” contest1. #1 Blonde Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $23,999> Year released: 1959> Rare qualities: Collectors Edition, mint conditionSource: Sandi Holder's Doll AtticBarbie Brio AuctionIn most cases, turning a profit in the world of doll collecting requires a great deal of research and patience. But a very recent example shows that trend spotting can be an exception to the rule.In October of 2011, Mattel released tokidoki Barbie, complete with a pink bob hairdo, tattoos and cactus friend, Bastardino. The dolls retailed for $50 and are, as of this writing, listed on Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & morestarting at $400 and going for as much as $1,590. That kind of escalation in value is rare in a market where vintage or antique is typically the way to go.“There was a limited amount made,” said Sandi Holder, author of Barbie, A Rare Beauty and owner of the Doll Attic in Union City, Calif. “It was in the news and it became controversial because mothers disapproved. More media attention drove up the demand.”Typically, though, the money to be made collecting Barbie dolls revolves around acquiring vintage dolls that are, optimally, still in the box with all their accessories, including the stand. Barbie was launched in 1959 and that original version, where she’s wearing a black-and-white striped bathing suit, can fetch between $7,000 and $27,000 depending upon the condition.The latter price tag is a Guinness record set in May 2006 for “highest price paid for a Barbie doll in an auction” and is held by Holder’s store. During her last auction, in November 2011, a doll sold for a whopping $19,000.“The Barbie market and values are strong,” Holder said.There are two camps in the collecting world: Never Removed From Box (NRFB) and De-Boxed. For investment purposes, NRFB is ideal, but many collectors prefer to enjoy the dolls by displaying them out of the box.Source: Sandi Holder's Doll AtticBarbie Japanese Auction“I do it for fun and love of the hobby,” Holder said. “I play Santa Claus 365 days a year. It lets people recreate childhood memories, especially in the dismal days we have right now.”For the purposes of investing, Holder recommends researching and consulting with someone who knows the business before making a signNow purchase. In Barbie collecting, for example, dolls from the 1970s — a.k.a. “the Malibu era” — can sell for around $200. It is also important to keep up with what special editions catch hold and which ones don’t. For instance, the artist series — in which dolls are dressed in clothes resembling the art of masters like Van Gogh and Renoir — is not as coveted as, say, Holiday Barbie, a tradition that began in 1988; only a limited number of each are sold annually.“It’s all about demand and what people will want to pay,” Holder said.That’s one universal truth in doll collecting. Another is that whether it’s Barbie, Madame Alexander, Russian or papier mache, words like “pristine” or “perfect” will drive up the value. At Patricia Vaillancourt’s eBay store called Antique Dolls, the starting bid on a Jumeau — 19th century French doll made of bisque — in “perfect” condition is $6,200. A rare glass-eyed China doll, also described as “perfect,” begins at $3,500.Denise Van Patten, a long-time doll collector and dealer of modern, vintage and antique dollswhose online home base is http://About.com, recommends that an aspiring collector explore the answers to these questions to get started: Are you interested in antique, vintage or modern? Are you interested in a narrow time period or one particular material? Do you want to collect based on a theme or variations of one doll?Alternative Investing - A CNBC Special Report - See Complete Coverage“Whether you are new to doll collecting or have been doll collecting for years, you need to have a good grasp of doll collecting basics,” Van Patten writes. “The basics you’ll need range from how to value and identify your dolls, to how to protect and preserve your dolls, to how to photograph your dolls and get the best prices for them on eBay.”Van Patten is the author of The Official Price Guide To Dolls, but the resource material out there, in print and on the web, is vast and constantly updated.Whether trying to assess the value of a doll found in an old attic or if it’s worth buying the latest model of Barbie, Holder said it’s worth consulting an expert. She felt it particularly gratifying to be able to give a retired couple $27,000 for a doll they brought to have appraised. They were astounded.“They set out to buy a motor home and see the world,” Holder said. “It was a very beautiful story."———HISTORICALBarbie’s full name is Barbara Millicent Roberts.Barbie was named after Ruth Handler’s daughter, Barbara. Her son was Kenneth.She is from (fictional) Willows, Wisconsin where she attended High School.Barbie doll’s official birthday is March 9, 1959 – the exact date she was unveiled to the toy industry during New York Toy Fair.Barbie first appeared in the now-famous black-and-white striped swimsuit.The first Barbie doll was sold for $3.00.Barbie’s first commercial aired during Mikey Mouse Club in 1959.Barbie doll’s signature color is Barbie™ Pink (PMS 219).Barbie doll stands 11.5 inches tall.The best-selling Barbie doll ever was 1992 Totally Hair™ doll, with hair from the top of her head to her toes.In 1968, the first black doll was introduced to the line.CAREERSBarbie doll has had over 200 inspirational careers including astronaut, robotics engineer, journalist and entrepreneur to name a few.Barbie traveled into space in 1965, four years before man walked on the moonAlthough she has never won an election, Barbie® has run for president 6 times since 1992. In 2016, she ran on the first all-female ticket.In the 1970s, Barbie saved lives in the operating room as a Surgeon, at a time when few women were applying to medical school.In the 1980s she took to the boardroom as “Day to Night” CEO Barbie, just as women began to break into the C-suite.In the 1990s, Barbie ran for President, before any female candidate ever made it onto the presidential ballot.In the 2000s, with only 24% of today’s STEM careers held by women, Barbie has been a Computer Engineer, Video Game Developer, Mars Explorer and Robotics Engineer, just to name a few.ICONIt takes a professional staff of top fashion designers, makeup artists and the most elite couturiers – more than 100 people in all – to create a Barbie doll and her fashions.Barbie® has been a muse to many artists over the past six decades – including Andy Warhol and Peter Max.Twiggy was the first celebrity to have a doll in her likeness.Oscar de la Renta was the first designer collaboration in the 1980s.The #1 honor from the Barbie brand is to be immortalized in plastic. The brand has honored role models from ages 6-99.In 2014, Jeremy Scott’s Moschino show was inspired by Barbie, complete with her dream wardrobe.In 1997, the hit song “Barbie Girl” by Aqua came on the scene.Barbie has fans of all ages. The National Barbie Doll Collectors Convention has been driven by doll clubs across the country for over 25 years.POWERBarbie is the most popular fashion doll ever produced and the No. 1 fashion doll property in the US.Barbie’s DreamHouse is sold every 2 minutes and was first introduced in 1962.Barbie is the most diverse fashion doll on the market.There are more than 100 dolls sold every minute, with a total of 58 million sold annually.Barbie is sold in 150 countries worldwide.Barbie has products in 45 categories, including food, fitness and clothing.The brand has over 99% brand awareness globally.Barbie’s YouTube channel has over 5 million subscribers, making Barbie the #1 girls brand on YouTubeBarbie has a powerful social media presence with over 14 million fans on Facebook, 263,000 followers on Twitter and over 1.2 million followers on Instagram (@Barbie).CONTENTBarbie has over 30 entertainment titles released to date.More than 151 million minutes of content has been watched on Barbie’s YouTube.Barbie has a powerful social media presence with over 14 million fans on Facebook, 263,000 followers on Twitter and over 1.2 million followers on Instagram (@Barbie).@barbiestyle launched in 2014 and quickly signNowed 1.9 million followers – it is one of the fastest growing fashion Instagram channels to date.In 2015, Barbie launched her first video blog (vlog) on YouTube which propelled the channel to be the #1 girls brand on YouTube.There is over 18 billion minutes of Barbie user generated content each year.CITATION REMOVED BECAUSE IT WAS FLAGGED AS SPAM, MY SINCERE APOLOGIES TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR WHO POSTED THE FOLLOWING ON THE WEBSITE 24/7 WALL ST. SOME PEOPLE HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN TO TRY TO REPORT EVERY LITTLE THING THEY CAN ON A POST THAT IS GETTING MORE LIKES OR VIEWS THAN THEIRS IN HOPES THAT IT GETS REMOVED REGARDLESS OF IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE FALSIFIED OR NOT. I HAVE APPEALED THE REMOVAL AND HOPEFULLY CAN RE-ADD THE LINK SOON.