Skip to content

Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

A student-run group at NALSAR University of Law

Menu
  • Home
  • Newsletter Archives
  • Blog Series
  • Editors’ Picks
  • Write for us!
  • About Us
Menu

December, 2014: Fireworks and more!

Posted on January 2, 2015 by Kartik Chawla

December, 2014, has been the month when the Indian community received a multitude of shocks, one after the other and each one more powerful, on the issue of internet-related legal problems.

First, we had the lamentable Uber issue, which was followed by Airtel announcing (and later withdrawing) its VoIP-data plan, which violated Net Neutrality down to the first principle. This also inspired TRAI to work on a consultation on Net Neutrality. Soon after, we learnt that SoI had filed a case against Google for “displaying an incorrect map” of India. And just as the month was wrapping up, Airtel and Hathway accidentally blocked all of imgur rather than just a single image.

Read more

[SpicyIP Cross-Post] Innovation in the time of SEPs & FRAND licensing

Posted on January 2, 2015 by Kartik Chawla

This post first appeared on SpicyIP, here. (Image Source: https://flic.kr/p/hoAtp)

In the last few years, smartphone manufacturers have seemingly been as popular for their patent-wars as they are for their phones. And these famed patent wars have recently come to India. Of specific note in this regard is the Xiaomi-Ericsson dispute. The main issues in this dispute, as Prof Shamnad Basheer has explained here, are the Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) owned by Ericsson, who licenses them out to smartphone manufacturers. Ericsson also brought cases against Intex, Micromax and Gionee, on similar grounds and perhaps even the same patents.

Read more

Indian Convergence Law – Forever 'in the Pipelines'?

Posted on January 1, 2015 by Kartik Chawla

(Image Source: https://flic.kr/p/pVxM7q)

Back in the year 2001, when the same government was in power, it tried to pass a bill called the Communication Convergence Bill, 2001. The Bill failed, due to reasons mentioned later in the post, but apparently it isn’t quite ready to die yet.  The Bill has now been revived as the Communication Convergence Bill, 2014, with news reports indicating that the Telecom Minister is quite definitely going to push for it.

Read more

Editors' Picks (14/12/2014)

Posted on December 13, 2014 by Kartik Chawla

1. Cases that will define the contours of Free Speech over the Internet in India, CCG NLU-D,

2. Government admits that S. 66 A is prone to abuse, Supreme Court says the Section lacks guidelines, by Gaurav Pathak, LiveLaw.

Read more

Digital India: the Draft Internet of Things Policy (and an aside on the NOFN)

Posted on December 5, 2014 by Kartik Chawla

(Image Source: https://flic.kr/p/8RU8QS)

In October this year, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) of the Ministry of Communications and IT quietly released a Draft Internet of Things (IoT) Policy, the feedback period for which closed on the 31st of October. The Policy is a part of the current government’s Digital India initiative, focusing on developing the academic, infrastructural and regulatory capacities of the country in the IoT sector. The draft policy is available here. This post is a short summary of the report, a sort of TL;DR. If you don’t want to read the details, just read the first section, Wrap-Up, which also has an interesting side note on the National Optical Fibre Network (NOFN). (Anything which I found personally interesting has been marked bold).

Read more

Thoughts on 3D Printing: Possibilities and Regulations

Posted on December 1, 2014 by Sahebjot Singh
(Image Source: https://flic.kr/p/kvjYDJ)
3D Printing in India
3D printing in india was initially quite stagnant, but a sudden boom in 3D printing startups has created a whole culture of 3D printer industries. Most of the Indian startups aim to make a cost effective 3D printer. While they currently aim at industries, they will soon design products for regular people as they try to make their printers cheaper. As of right now, our economy prefers cheap over high quality.
Restrictions on 3D Printers
The reasons for regulating 3D printers have been covered by Kartik in his post here. As mentioned therein, the main reason why it is almost impossible to regulate 3D printing is because the =&0=&So the users can modify the operating system and the hardware of the printers to use them however way they want. They can even add parts or remove parts as 3D printers are generally quite customisable, with many how-to guides on the internet. A general rule of thumb for hacking is that it is tougher to hack something if you don’t have the hardware, but it gets very easy if you have the hardware. The people with the know-how can easily remove the restrictions put in by the manufacturers, no matter what these restrictions are. These people will then release guides, allowing other people to to do the same. =&1=& * Websites selling 3D printed guns/other illegal commodities. * Websites selling 3D printers capable of creating illegal commodities. * Restrictions on the materials (plastics , metals , ceramics etc), so people buying these in large quantities could be possibly manufacturing illegal things in government’s eyes. That is where I think this article is slightly off the mark. In its discussion of the ‘Reliability’ point, the author therein says that 3D printers typically use plastics. While that is currently true, that is because plastics are relatively cheap, and 3D printing is still practically in its infancy. But it is also technology that is quickly gaining funding. Thus, while plastics, being cheap and easy to manufacture, are used as of now, it will soon be quite easy to use metal and other forms of inks. It is not currently cost effective, but the growth of 3D printing industry will be exponential. According to me, it is not possible in any way to put a restriction on 3d printers after they are bought. Only on the outlets that sell the printers and the quantity of material sold can there be possibility of successful restriction. =&2=& * Closed source : The underlying code of the 3D printer is hidden, making it extremely hard, but not impossible, to find loop holes even for experts. To bypass this most people will just replace the full operating system with a custom version. * DRM on purpose-built hardware/similar schemes : It is tough to build the hardware to protect the secret key against a sufficiently determined adversary. This is the restriction we should expect in commercial 3D printers. * Software based DRM/similar schemes : This form of restriction is usually easy to break, as the decryption keys would be present with the software for decryption of the content. As a side note, an interesting concept is that of 3D printed cars. The convergence of the automotive industry with 3D printing technology is quite powerful an idea. At an individual level, it will be possible to download car’s design, print it, drive it. But at the industrial level, this (extremely exciting) technology is still in its infancy, and it won’t achieve its true potential until the automotive giants bring their capital, and their excellent R&D departments, to invest in the technology themselves.

Read more

Editors' Picks (30/11/2014)

Posted on November 30, 2014 by Kartik Chawla

1. Should digital monopolies be broken up?, The Economist.

2. The Snowden effect, quantified, Alex Wilhelm, TechCrunch.

Read more

'Skirting' the Law, Part I

Posted on November 30, 2014 by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR
(Image Source: https://flic.kr/p/6LUL9s)
This is the first in a two-part series by Deepthi Bavirisetty on the law on upskirt photography in USA, Japan and India. Deepthi is a 4th Year Law student at the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Calcutta. She is extremely interested in the intersection between gender and technology. She has previously authored a paper on Revenge Porn.

 ‘Upskirt’ photography, as the term suggests, refers to the voyeuristic practice of covertly taking pictures of women under their clothing without their consent or knowledge. These pictures, labeled ‘creepshots’, are generally pictures of a woman’s private areas. They are then widely disseminated via the internet, infamously through sites such as Reddit and 4chan.

In 2014, the legality of upskirt photography was brought into question before the US Courts across three different jurisdictions –Washington DC, Massachusetts and Texas. The first part of this post addresses the American perspective on the issue. It seeks to illustrate how America would rather err on the side of caution and permit the morally reprehensible acts of upskirt photography than curtail free speech. The second portion of the post looks into the Japanese perspective on creepshots, which is the polar opposite. Japan prioritizes women’s safety above free speech concerns. This portion of the post also looks into the curious phenomenon of cellphone manufacturers taking law into their own hands to regulate upskirt photography. I argue that this is a classic example of Lessig’s adage ‘code is law, law is code’. I conclude by extrapolating where India lies on the legal spectrum with regard to regulating upskirt photography.

Read more

'Skirting' the Law, Part II

Posted on November 30, 2014 by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR
(Image Source: https://flic.kr/p/6LUL9s)
This is the second in a two-part series by Deepthi Bavirisetty on the law of upskirt photography in USA, Japan and India – this part deals with Japan and India. The first part is available here.

Japan

1. Anti-Nuisance Ordinance

Read more

Editors' Picks (23/11/14)

Posted on November 23, 2014 by Kartik Chawla

1. Cyberwar is bullshit, by Russell Brandon, the Verge.

2. Microsoft now has robot security guards, by Imad Khan, the Daily Dot.

Read more
  • Previous
  • 1
  • …
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • …
  • 33
  • Next

Subscribe

Recent Posts

  • Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Berhubungan dengan Kejadian Ketuban Pecah Dini di RSUD Lamaddukelleng Kabupaten Wajo
  • The Fate of Section 230 vis-a-vis Gonzalez v. Google: A Case of Looming Legal Liability
  • Paid News Conundrum – Right to fair dealing infringed?
  • Chronicles of AI: Blurred Lines of Legality and Artists’ Right To Sue in Prospect of AI Copyright Infringement
  • Dali v. Dall-E: The Emerging Trend of AI-generated Art
  • BBC Documentary Ban: Yet Another Example of the Government’s Abuse of its Emergency Powers
  • A Game Not Played Well: A Critical Analysis of The Draft Amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
  • The Conundrum over the legal status of search engines in India: Whether they are Significant Social Media Intermediaries under IT Rules, 2021? (Part II)
  • The Conundrum over the legal status of search engines in India: Whether they are Significant Social Media Intermediaries under IT Rules, 2021? (Part I)
  • Lawtomation: ChatGPT and the Legal Industry (Part II)

Categories

  • 101s
  • 3D Printing
  • Aadhar
  • Account Aggregators
  • Antitrust
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Bitcoins
  • Blockchain
  • Blog Series
  • Bots
  • Broadcasting
  • Censorship
  • Collaboration with r – TLP
  • Convergence
  • Copyright
  • Criminal Law
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Data Protection
  • Digital Piracy
  • E-Commerce
  • Editors' Picks
  • Evidence
  • Feminist Perspectives
  • Finance
  • Freedom of Speech
  • GDPR
  • Insurance
  • Intellectual Property
  • Intermediary Liability
  • Internet Broadcasting
  • Internet Freedoms
  • Internet Governance
  • Internet Jurisdiction
  • Internet of Things
  • Internet Security
  • Internet Shutdowns
  • Labour
  • Licensing
  • Media Law
  • Medical Research
  • Network Neutrality
  • Newsletter
  • Online Gaming
  • Open Access
  • Open Source
  • Others
  • OTT
  • Personal Data Protection Bill
  • Press Notes
  • Privacy
  • Recent News
  • Regulation
  • Right to be Forgotten
  • Right to Privacy
  • Right to Privacy
  • Social Media
  • Surveillance
  • Taxation
  • Technology
  • TLF Ed Board Test 2018-2019
  • TLF Editorial Board Test 2016
  • TLF Editorial Board Test 2019-2020
  • TLF Editorial Board Test 2020-2021
  • TLF Editorial Board Test 2021-2022
  • TLF Explainers
  • TLF Updates
  • Uncategorized
  • Virtual Reality

Tags

AI Amazon Antitrust Artificial Intelligence Chilling Effect Comparative Competition Copyright copyright act Criminal Law Cryptocurrency data data protection Data Retention e-commerce European Union Facebook facial recognition financial information Freedom of Speech Google India Intellectual Property Intermediaries Intermediary Liability internet Internet Regulation Internet Rights IPR Media Law News Newsletter OTT Privacy RBI Regulation Right to Privacy Social Media Surveillance technology The Future of Tech TRAI Twitter Uber WhatsApp

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
best online casino in india
© 2025 Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme