What Cyber Terrorism Is
Chapter One Hundred Thirty-One
Syllabus topic 4.6, "Cyber Terrorism."
Pages 852 to 857 of 948
In one line
Cyber terrorism has no agreed international definition, India has a statutory one in section 66F, and the whole subject turns on distinguishing it from three neighbours that look like it.
Why there is no agreed definition
Terrorism itself has no agreed definition in international law. The United Nations has twelve sectoral conventions on particular acts, hijacking, hostage-taking, bombing, financing, and no comprehensive convention, because States have never agreed on whether acts of national liberation movements or acts of State forces are within it. A comprehensive convention has been on the table since 1996 and has not been concluded, and India has been its principal sponsor.
So an offence defined by reference to terrorism inherits that problem. Add to it the difficulty that a computer intrusion looks the same whoever does it and for whatever motive, and the reason the offence is defined by intent rather than by conduct becomes obvious.
The Budapest Convention does not deal with it at all. Its four groups of offences are about confidentiality, integrity and availability, computer-related fraud and forgery, content, and copyright. Terrorism is absent. Chapter 590.
India defined it anyway, in section 66F, inserted by the Amendment Act of 2008 after the Mumbai attacks of that year, and the definition is by reference to intent and to consequence. Chapter 1320.
The four categories
One: cyber crime. A computer offence committed for gain, for revenge, for curiosity or for its own sake. The intent is private. Chapter 1090.
Two: hacktivism. A computer offence committed to make a political or social point: defacing a government website with a slogan, a denial of service attack against an organisation the actor disapproves of, leaking documents to embarrass. The intent is expressive and political.
Three: cyber terrorism. A computer offence committed with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of the State, or to strike terror in the people, and causing or likely to cause death, injury, damage, or the disruption of essential supplies or services. The intent is coercive and the consequence is grave.
Four: cyber warfare. Operations by or on behalf of a State against another State, in or in preparation for armed conflict. The actor is a State.
And the tests that separate them.
| Actor | Intent | Consequence required | Governing law | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyber crime | Any person | Private: gain, revenge, curiosity | Damage or loss, or none | This Act and the Sanhita |
| Hacktivism | Any person or group | Political expression | Usually disruption or embarrassment | This Act, as ordinary cyber crime; there is no offence of hacktivism |
| Cyber terrorism | Any person | To threaten the State or strike terror | Death, injury, damage, disruption of essential supplies, or harm to critical infrastructure | Section 66F, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita section 113, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 |
| Cyber warfare | A State | State policy | Variable | International humanitarian law and the law on the use of force, not domestic criminal law |
The rest of this chapter
Module one is free. The rest of this chapter comes with the LL.M. Intellectual Property and Information Technology Semester 3 notes.
You are reading a chapter from a later module. Everything in module one of every subject stays free, and so does every question paper and the syllabus.
Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or notes only: ₹499
Or solved papers only: ₹499
Free either way: question papers, the syllabus, and module one of every subject.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.