1

Im under the Indian jurisprudence and this is what the Indian Information Act of 2000/66F says on the matter,

Indian Information Act 2000/66F

Punishment for 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 authorised to access computer resource; or

(ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access; or

(iii) introducing or causing to introduce any computer contaminant,

Since the administrator of the API has authorised only a certain number of API calls for a network, can it be construed as a violation of 66F clause 2 if we try to circumvent the rate limit even though the information is on public domain?

3

can it be construed as a violation of 66F clause 2 if we try to circumvent the rate limit even though the information is on public domain?

No, unless the element of intent to threaten [...] or strike terror can be proved. I'm assuming that by "clause 2" you mean the excerpt you posted.

Although circumventing the limit of API calls sounds in "exceeding authorised access" and might even lead to DOS, it does not imply an intent to threaten the security/sovereignty/etc. or strike terror. The statute is premised on such intent.

The fact that the information(packets) is(are) on public domain is irrelevant. For instance, an intent to strike terror and/or actually causing a DOS can involve [targeting] a public domain.

3
  • Despite the weird wording of the law, it seems that precedence has been established to regulate cyber-security. I'm interested to know if my above situation can argued as an DDoS attack. Thanks, Vaidhyanathan. Nov 27 '20 at 13:29
  • "I'm interested to know if my above situation can argued as an DDoS attack". That depends on the intensity of the requests and other factors. An excess over the rate limit does not necessarily amount to a DDoS attack. Regardless, absent the aforementioned element of intent, there is no violation of that excerpt of 66F. Nov 27 '20 at 13:45
  • Thank you. That helped. Nov 27 '20 at 13:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.