Debaratiitactcyberterrorimchapter

7
Information Technology Act and Cyber Terrorism: A Critical Review

Debarati Halder

Introduction
After 9/11, it has become a trend for the militant outfits to avail cyber
assistance in order to achieve extremist missions. The Kosovo conflict in 2001
which also ‘inspired’ defacement of numerous NATO websites and denial of
services by hackers who supported the anti NATO activities (Denning, 2010) and
the 1997 Internet Black Tiger’s attack on Sri Lankan embassy which involved
800 emails carrying extremist messages to ‘disrupt the communications’
(Denning, 2001), were some of the early evidences of ‘cyber terrorism’. The 9/11
attack saw typical execution of cyber attack by Al Qaeda against the US
government, which carried not only the threat messages, but also defaced many
websites, disrupted internet communication for government as well as civil
amenities (Denning, 2010) and also created a huge empathy among the Muslim
hackers to support the militant forum in their jihad. The trend thus turned
highlights to Muslim jihadists and their cyber terrorism activities against
governments, from non-Muslim fundamentalist groups against governments. In
India, cyber terrorism has emerged as new phenomena. The probe against the 2008
serial blasts in cities like Ahmedabad, Delhi, Jaipur, and Bangalore found
considerable evidences of cyber terrorism (NDTV Correspondent, 2010); the 2008
attack on Mumbai Taj Hotel, which is now famously known as 26/11 and the
2010 blast in the holy city of Varanasi also had trails of cyber terrorism (NDTV
Correspondent, 2010). Ironically, most of these incidences involved Muslim
Jihadists like the Indian Mujahiddin. However, an analysis on news reports on
extreme usage of cyber communications would show that spreading of terror
messages targeting State Heads or claiming responsibilities for terror attacks had
been done by non-Muslim youths as well. However, all these incidences indicate
two main aspects of cyber terrorism, namely, gathering of information and
spreading of the terror through cyber communications for disruption of national
security and peace.
After the 26/11 attack, the Indian government had brought into effect a set
of proposed amendments to the Information Technology Act 2000, which has
specific provisions for combating cyber terrorism. The provision under section

Chapter published in: Madhava Soma Sundaram, P., & Umarhathab, S. (Eds.), (2011). Cyber Crime and
Digital Disorder. Tirunelveli, India: Publications Division, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University.

66F discusses about cyber terrorism in the broadest sense.1 This provision actually
lays down the punishment to be meted out for actors of cyber terrorism. The
definition of the term cyber terrorism is glaringly missing in the said legal
provision. To strengthen the law on cyber terrorism, the Indian government had
further proposed a set of Rules in 2011,2 which promises to tighten the loose
loops. In this chapter, I claim that, this particular law has addressed cyber
terrorism from a holistic aspect; however, loopholes still exist to withhold the
proper execution of the laws for prosecuting the accused. Further, in this chapter I
aim to analyze the provision of this law in the light of internationally established
nuances of cyber terrorism. This chapter will address the problem from three
different angles, namely:

1. The myth and truth about ‘cyber terrorism’.
2. Could laws regulate this issue?
3. Whether Indian laws really address the issues of cyber terrorism in the light
of freedom of speech.

Background
Even though the issue of cyber terrorism has attracted huge attention from
cyber criminologists, cyber law specialists and social science researchers, very few
researches have been done for analyzing the legal issues involved in cyber
terrorism in India. Globally, the issue of cyber terrorism has been analyzed from
four main angles, namely the missions that are involved in cyber terrorism
(Denning, 2010), the methods that are followed for achieving the ultimate purpose
of cyber terrorism (Denning, 2010; Wykes & Harcus, 2010), the results of cyber
terrorism (Denning, 2010) and the role of laws in combating cyber terrorism
(Trachtman, 2009). Most of these researches have shown that usage of cyber space
by terrorist organizations has a three folded purpose, to spread the threat, to gain
maximum information about the target government and the governmental property
in cases damage to property and civil society is also aimed for and to ‘recruit’ new
forces (Denning, 2010).
Some researches have established that cyber terrorism includes two main
types of activities, viz., cyber crime and misuse of information technology, and
therefore it would be wrong to assume that cyber terrorism is a new kind of cyber
crime (Schjolberg, 2007). It may be worthy to note that the types of cyber crimes
that are involved in cyber terrorism may vary from identity theft (Wykes &
Harcus, 2010), to denial of service attack (Denning, 2010). At the same time, the
extremists may leave a trail in the cyber space after the real terrorist activity has
taken place (Wykes & Harcus, 2010). This may necessarily include visits to the

1
The definition can be found in Section 69F of the information technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008).
The definition will be analyzed in later parts of this chapter.
2
These rules could be found at
http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf


websites, sending emails etc. but the question, which remains, is how the police
and law and justice machinery combat this overall misuse of technology in the
name of Jihad? Due to lack of proper infrastructure and easy methods of deletion
of the evidences, it may become impossible for security experts and the police to
track the trouble creator (Jewkes, 2010). Further, some studies have also shown
that before 9/11, cyber terrorism was not particularly associated with jihad, but
with demands from the extremist groups from the government (Denning, 2010).
After 9/11, the term cyber terrorism has been mostly associated with the cyber
warfare between Muslim fundamentalists and the government, especially the US
and those national governments who support US policies and rules and regulations
(Wykes & Harcus, 2010).
The term cyber terrorism has been attempted to be defined from various
angles. According to the definition provided by the US national infrastructure
protection centre (2001), cyber terrorism may mean

a criminal act perpetrated by the use of computers and telecommunication
capabilities resulting in violence, destruction and/or disruption of services to
create fear by causing confusion and uncertainty with a given population with the
goal of influencing a government or population to conform to particular political,
social or ideological agenda (Denning, 2010, p. 198).

The term has also been defined by the International Handbook on Critical
Information Infrastructure Protection (CIIP) 2006 Vol. II, as “attacks or series of
attacks on critical information carried out by terrorists and instills fear by effects
that are disruptive or destructive and has a political , religious and ideological
motivation” (Schjolberg, 2007, p. 2). As such, the EU convention on cyber crimes,
2001 had laid down strategic roles for the member parties to corroborate with each
other on 24/7 basis in cases of criminal misuse of cyber space.3 Given the fact that
cyber terrorism includes criminal misconduct and trespass in the cyber space,
Schjolberg (2007) had pointed out that domestic courts therefore play great role in
combating cyber terrorism.
From the above literature, it could be understood that cyber terrorism is not
a new phenomena. This is a criminal conduct in the cyber space to disrupt
peaceful governance. Even though countries like the US had developed and is still
developing strategic methods to combat cyber terrorism, lack of focused law,
proper infrastructure and trained experts to trace the details of the extremist pose
serious problems for countries like India to combat terrorism in cyber space.

Core characteristics of cyber terrorism
Cyber terrorism has some universal characteristics, which are as follows:
1. It is done to convey a particular destructive or disruptive message to the
government(s).

3
See chapter III, Article 23-35 of the EU Convention on Cyber Crimes, 2001.


2. There are various methods to convey this message, viz., through denial of
services, sending threatening emails, defacing of government websites,
hacking and cracking of crucial governmental systems or ‘protected
systems’,4 disrupting the civil amenities through destroying the proper
working of the digital information systems, etc.
3. It could affect the computers and the networks as a whole, it could also
affect the governing system, and it could affect the population of target area
to create threat.
4. Computer and digital communication technology are used as a main tool to
achieve extremist purposes.
5. The whole act could be motivated by religious, social or political
ideologies.
6. It is mostly done by hi-tech offenders.

For elaborating these characteristics, I take up the 26/11 Mumbai terror
attack case. Even though the media had highlighted the phenomenal terrorist
attack on crucial business and Jewish settlements in Mumbai, the Indian Ministry
of Home affairs in their annual report (2010) had released a detailed nexus
between digital technology and the (mis)use of the same by extremists. Oh,
Agrawal, and Rao (2011) and LaRaia and Walker (2009) had corroborated the
usage of cyber technology to extremist use to present the scenario of cyber
terrorism which engulfed India as well as the whole world. Both Oh et.al (2011)
and LaRaia and Walker (2009) have elaborated how satellite phones, GPS and
various websites were widely used for fulfilling the mission of the extremists.
Without going into the details, it could be said, that, unlike the Al Qaeda attack on
the twin towers in the US in 9/11, or the Tamil Tiger’s email attacks to computers
in the Sri Lankan embassies, in India, the cyber terrorism scenario has not been
expanded to attack on the machines or the network widely. On the contrary, the
term cyber terrorism has been broadly used by the media especially to identify the
usage of cyber space and /or cyber technology to aide the terrorist activities, gain
information about the target place and population, recruitment and motivation etc.

4
Section 70 of the Information technology act, 2000 (amended in 2008) describes protected system and
regulations related to it as follows: (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, declare any computer resource which directly or indirectly affects the facility of Critical
Information Infrastructure, to be a protected system. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "Critical
Information Infrastructure" means the computer resource, the incapacitation or destruction of which , shall
have debilitating impact on national security, economy, public health or safety. (Substituted vide ITAA-
2008)
(2) The appropriate Government may, by order in writing, authorize the persons who are authorized to
access protected systems notified under sub-section (1)
(3) Any person who secures access or attempts to secure access to a protected system in contravention of
the provisions of this section shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which
may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) The Central Government shall prescribe the information security practices and procedures for such
protected system (Inserted vide ITAA 2008).


There are several reports on the hacking and defacement of Indian
government websites. Some of the examples are the 2010 hacking and defacement
of the CBI website by the Pakistani hackers, who called themselves ‘Pakistan
cyber army’, wherein the hackers had put up a message stating ‘Pakistan cyber
army is warning the Indian cyber army not to attack their websites’ (NDTV
Correspondent, 2010). The website was affected, but not the regular emailing
services. The media stated that the experts hoped that it was a mere defacement
and not the case data vandalizing because the server hosting the website was
different from the one, which managed confidential correspondences (NDTV
Correspondent, 2010). During the period of January to June 2011, a total of 117
government websites had been defaced (Saxena, 2011). Some important websites
like the website of National Investigation Agency (NIA) was also affected, but it
was temporarily disabled and not hacked. Investigation on these offences is still
going on. Experts had suggested that regular cyber security audits could prevent
such attacks (NDTV Correspondent, 2010). Such types of attacks actually fulfill
the qualities of cyber attacks against government. Basing on this very assumption,
Duggal commented on the web defacement of the CBI website as an act of cyber
terrorism (NDTV Correspondent, 2010).

Indian interpretation of cyber terrorism
A minute analysis of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks would show that cyber
communication between the terrorists and usage of cyber technology by them to
be acquainted with the target population and the place, created similar devastating
results in India. In July 2011, the digital technology was further used for bomb
blasts in a crowded city market in Jhaveri Bazaar, Mumbai. The 2010 Varanasi
blast case also saw the usage of cyber communication wherein the Indian
Mujahiddin claimed responsibility for the blast.
Awakened by this, the Government of India took strong steps to strengthen
the cyber security, including prohibition of terrorist activities through cyber space
by way of amending the existing Indian information Technology Act, 2000. The
provision that was specifically inserted in this legislature for this purpose was
section 66F which defines and describes cyber terrorism. Section 66F mentions
that
(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 –
(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, or
(B) knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource
without authorisation 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’.

From the above definition, it could be inferred that, cyber terrorism is an
act of hacking, blocking and /or computer contaminating in order to restrict legally
authorized persons to access computer resources in general, and /or to gain or
obtain unauthorized access to any information which is a ‘restricted information’
for the purpose of security of the state, or foreign relation etc. These are gruesome
acts which is done with an intention to threaten the security, sovereignty and
integrity of India or strike terror in the minds of people or a section of people; and
which may result in death and injury to people, damage to properties, disruption of
civil services which are essential to the life of a community, and also affects the
critical information infrastructure. However, in the case of 26/11 Mumbai attacks,
it could be seen that terrorists had used communication services not to hack or
block the protected information, but to aide the terrorists to carry on with the
massacre. The intercepted messages that were availed by the Government of India
during the prosecution of the Mumbai attack case would clearly show the
extremists were communicating purely on the basis of their personal freedom of
speech. However, when looked at the communication in total, it could be seen that
this speech was carried on to disrupt the peace, security and sovereignty of India
and thereby it looses its nature of a protected speech under Art 19A of the
Constitution of India. At the same time, it is an act of terrorism. In the definition
provided by section 66F, this particular aspect is glaringly absent. The Information
Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) had painstakingly taken efforts to secure
protected systems, which is defined by Section 70. “The appropriate Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any computer resource
which directly or indirectly affects the facility of Critical Information
Infrastructure, to be a protected system.” Explanation added to this section further
explains that "Critical Information Infrastructure" would mean that vital computer
resource regarding national security, economy, public health and safety, which if
destructed or damaged, shall have a “debilitating impact” on these issues.


I argue that the present Indian legal approach towards cyber terrorism has
therefore emphasized unauthorized access to ‘restricted information only, which is
but a part of the whole modus operandi of terrorism through cyber space. This is
very much evident from the two specific provisions which are dedicated to define
and describe cyber security under section 2(nb); and unauthorized access to
computer and computer network system and contamination etc under section 43 of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008). Further, to strengthen
these two sections, section 69, 69A and 69B were also enacted. Section 69 speaks
about powers to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of
any information through any computer resource; section 69A speaks about power
to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any
computer resource, and section 69B speaks about power to authorize to monitor
and collect traffic data or information through any computer resource for Cyber
Security. All these sections may signify the communicational aspect of cyber
terrorism, which is missing in the definition of cyber terrorism in section 66F. The
unfortunate truth is that this legislation could not come out of the basic scope of
legal recognition of electronic commerce that was laid down at the time of the
birth of this law. This scope was further enhanced in the Information Technology
Amendment Bill, 2006 to cover e-governance, e-commerce, e-transactions,
protection of personal data and information and protection of critical information
infrastructure. Even though the amended Act in 2008 had included provisions,
which would protect personal data, prevent financial frauds and restrict offensive
communication, the purpose of preventing extremist usage of the cyber
communications was not properly satisfied.
In this connection, I need to further emphasize that the term ‘cyber
terrorism’ was coined in 1996 by Barry Collin, who defined the term as the
“convergence of cybernetics and terrorism” (cited in Krasavin, 2002, para 6).
However, the definition was not stagnated in this meaning alone. Various
researchers have attempted to define the term from various angles, which include
the usage of the term to mean using information technology with political
motivation to attack on civilians (Pollit, 1997 cited in Krasavin, 2002). This term
has further gained popularity due to the media, who interpreted the term from
mischievous pranks to terrorize others (Krasavin, 2002), to even serious attacks
like the Mumbai attack ((NDTV Correspondent, 2010). It could therefore be seen
that cyber terrorism could be defined depending upon the term’s linguistic usage
and interpretation of the same through various approaches. As I had mentioned
earlier, cyber terrorism is a holistic term. This includes general usage of the cyber
space, which would also aide to terrorist purposes. Oh et.al (2010) had showed
that apart from general websites giving details about Mumbai target areas, the
terrorists had extensively used Twitter posts made by common people to gather
information about the current status of situations. Most of these posts were made
in connection of warning people about sensitive areas, blood donation camps that
were set up to supply blood to the wounded, information for friends and relatives.


Apparently, these posts were well within their constitutional limits; however, they
fed unconstitutional missions. From these points, it could be seen that the present
law failed to understand the reach of terrorist’s physical communication to cyber
space. This failure had further motivated more cyber usage for terrorist purposes.
The 2011 Javeri Bazaar blast, again in Mumbai is a glaring example.
It could further be seen that due to this lacuna in the legislation, the
prosecution pays minimum heed to the application of this law in the course of
prosecuting the accused. After the amended version of the Information
Technology Act was brought in, section 69F was sparingly used to nip the bud of
cyber terrorist acts. In most cases, cyber reliance by the terrorists or extremists
was used for forensic evidences (NDTV Correspondent, 2010). Even though no
official report has still come out on the usage of this provision (Duggal, 2011), this
law could mostly be referred for hacking and defacement of government websites
like that of the case of defacement of CBI website by the “Pakistan cyber army”
that is referred above; provided this law creates threat to the population and also
threat to sovereignty and integrity of the country, or cases of misuse of identity for
financial gains towards the fulfillment of terrorist purposes. However, I refuse to
call Pakistan cyber army hacking and defacement case as a case of cyber
terrorism. Such attacks on government websites could be vital as this may actually
hamper the machine, the congenital government data as well as the network.
However, this attack neither affected the confidential data (NDTV Correspondent,
2010), nor created extreme threat to the sovereignty and integrity of nation, neither
threat to population of a targeted area as was done in Mumbai attack, and thereby
failed to attract the core characteristics of cyber terrorism. These are cases of
Terrorists use of Internet and not Cyber Terrorism per se.
Ironically, the provisions in the proposed Information Technology
guidelines for cyber café Rules, 2011, have provided ancillary support towards the
prevention of cyber terrorism. The cyber smart extremists prefer to avoid private
internet connections through home computers, as the internet protocol address (I.P
address) may easily disclose the location data. India had witnessed the usage of
cyber café for such mischievous purposes (NDTV Correspondent, 2010). The two
particular sections of this proposed Rule attract my attention for this specific
purpose; section 2(bb) of this proposed rule defines log register as “a register
maintained by the Cyber Café for access and use of computer resource” and
thereby indicates that every cyber café must have a log register to notify the
persons who would are using cyber cafes for accessing and using computer
resources. Section 4 of this proposed rule further states regulations for Cyber café.
The rule has also proposed that the cafes responsibility must also include
prohibiting any user from accessing the computer or computer networks
established in the café unless
1. the intended user produces a valid identity proof as has been specified
under section 4(1) of this Rule;


2. the intended user actually allows the café to store his data through
photocopy of the same, as has been specified under section 4(2) of this
Rule;
3. if the intended user is a minor, he/she is accompanied by an adult as has
been specified under section 4(4) of this Rule;
4. the accompanying person (if any) of the intended user produces identity
data as has been specified under section 4(5) of this Rule.
Apparently these provisions are made to monitor the users of cyber café . It
is evident from these proposed regulations that drafters of the Indian laws towards
protection of cyber communication are well aware of the misuse of the public
server facilities that are provided by the cyber café (Halder, 2011).

Conclusion
Apparently a legislation made to safeguard the e-commerce, cannot be
pulled in to protect non-commercial issues including extremist communications
and ideologies that are hatched in the cyber space. In India, extremist activities
which are carried out to disrupt the sovereignty and integrity are strictly regulated
the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (repeal ordinance, 2004), besides various
provisions under the Indian Penal code, especially chapter VI, which deals with
offences against the State. The prime focus of these legislations is to restrict
terrorist activities in India. As such, they also emphasize on the forensic evidences
that could trace the motive, the master plan as well as the master planner and the
executers of such plans. With the growth of digital communications, the Indian
Evidence Act has also adopted the cyber forensic specimens as evidences for the
extremist ideologies and activities. A minute analysis of the Information
Technology Act, 2008 would show that the language of the provisions, especially
section 69 F, fails to recognize the inherent meaning of terrorism through cyber
space. Rather, this law remained a shadow of the existing anti terrorism
legislations. Vandalizing the cyber space could definitely be termed as cyber
terrorism, but cyber communication carried out to vandalize the peace of civil
society must not be ignored.
Nothing but a focused law could be the only answer for preventing cyber
terrorist activities in India. It could be seen that Information Technology Bill 2006
had a larger holistic statement of objects and reasons. Para 1 and 2 of the
statement of objects and reasons of this Bill stated as follows:
The Information Technology Act was enacted in the year 2000 with a view to
give a fillip to the growth of electronic based transactions, to provide legal
recognition for e-commerce and e-transactions, to facilitate e-governance, to
prevent computer based crimes and ensure security practices and procedures in
the context of widest possible use of information technology worldwide. With
proliferation of information technology enabled services such as e-governance, e-
commerce and e-transactions, protection of personal data and information and
implementation of security practices and procedures relating to these applications


of electronic communications have assumed greater importance and they require
harmonisation with the provisions of the Information Technology Act. Further,
protection of Critical Information Infrastructure is pivotal to national security,
economy, public health and safety, so it has become necessary to declare such
infrastructure as a protected system so as to restrict its access.

However, the amended Act of 2008 does not show case these objects and
reasons. Here lies the pivotal focus of my argument. A law meant for safeguarding
electronic commerce could go to save the personal data of the individuals, but it
may not successfully envelop the issues of terrorism, even though such terrorist
move could disrupt the commercial transactions through cyber space and thereby
cause financial loss to the nation. In order to make the present Information
Technology Act, 2008 a focused legislation to prevent cyber atrocities, especially
cyber terrorism, the following recommendations could be adopted:
1. The statement of object and reasons must be stretched to cover crimes
committed in the cyber space, and not limited to safeguard electronic
commerce and related communications only.
2. Cyber terrorism must be broadly defined to include the usage of cyber
space and cyber communication.
3. The language of Section 66F must be stretched to cover cyber
communication that is carried out with intent to fulfill terrorist missions.
Further, the provisions of section 69, which speaks about power to issue for
interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any
computer resource, must be included in the ambit of section 66 E. This
could form a new chapter dedicated for cyber terrorism and extremist
speeches in the main legislation.

References
Collin, B. (1996). The Future of CyberTerrorism. Proceedings of 11th Annual
International Symposium on Criminal Justice Issues, The University of Illinois
at Chicago.
Denning, D. E. (2001). Cyberwarriors: Activists and Terrorists turn to cyberspace.
Harvard International Review, XXIII(2), 70-75.
Denning, D. E. (2010). Terror’s Web: How the Internet is transforming Terrorism.
In Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (Eds.), Handbook of Internet Crimes (pp. 194 - 213).
Cullumpton: Willan Publishing.
Duggal, P. (May 30, 2011). Cyber Terrorism – Some legal perspectives. Retrieved
on 12.08.2011 from http://neurope.eu/cybersecurity2011/?p=47
Halder D. (7 August 2011). The café with better responsibility. Retrieved on
12.08.2011 from http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/2011/08/cafe-with-better-
responsibility.html
Jewkes, Y. (2010). Public Policing and Internet crime. In Y. Jewkes & M. Yar
(Eds.), Handbook of Internet Crimes (pp. 525 - 545). Cullumpton: Willan
Publishing.


Krasavin, S. (2002). What is Cyber-terrorism? Retrieved on 12.08.2011 from
http://www.crime-research.org/library/Cyber-terrorism.htm.
LaRaia, W., & Walker, M. C. (2009). The Siege in Mumbai: A Conventional
Terrorist Attack Aided by Modern Technology. In M. R. Haberfeld., & A.V.
Hassell. (Eds.), A New Understanding of Terrorism (pp. 309-340). New York:
Springer.
NDTV Correspondent (2010). Hacked by 'Pakistan cyber army', CBI website still
not restored. Retrieved on 12.08.2011 from
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/hacked-by-pakistan-cyber-army-cbi-
website-still-not-restored-70568
Oh, O., Agrawal, M., & Rao, H. R. (2011) Information control and terrorism:
Tracking the Mumbai terrorist attack through twitter. Information Systems
Frontiers, "Special Issue on Terrorism Informatics", 13(1), 33-43.
Pollitt, M. M. (1997). A Cyberterrorism Fact or Fancy?. Proceedings of the 20th
National Information Systems Security Conference (pp. 285-289).
Saxena, A. (August 4 2011). 117 Indian Government Websites Defaced Till July.
MEDIANAMA. Retrieved on 12.08.2011 from
http://www.medianama.com/2011/08/223-indian-government-websites-
hacked/
Schjolberg, S. (2007) Terrorism in Cyberspace - Myth or reality? Retrieved on
12.08.2011 from http://www.cybercrimelaw.net/documents/Cyberterrorism.pdf
Trachtman, J. P. (2009). Global Cyberterrorism, Jurisdiction, and International
Organization. In M. F. Grady & F. Parisi (Eds.), The Law and Economics of
Cybersecurity (pp. 259 - 296). New York: Cambridge.
Wykes, M. & Harcus, D. (2010). Cyber-terror: construction, criminalisation and
control. In Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (Eds.), Handbook of Internet Crimes (pp. 214 -
229). Cullumpton: Willan Publishing.


Debaratiitactcyberterrorimchapter

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (10)

Similar a Debaratiitactcyberterrorimchapter

Similar a Debaratiitactcyberterrorimchapter (20)

Más de Operation Noah's Ark Organization

Más de Operation Noah's Ark Organization (20)

Debaratiitactcyberterrorimchapter