Girls number to talk n text in bangalore dating dirtbombs girl
I would argue that in its current form this provision is unconstitutional, since there is no countervailing interest in criminalising false and persistent "insults", etc., that will allow those parts of this provision to survive the test of 'reasonableness' under Art.19(2).Furthermore, even bits that survive are largely redundant.This doesn't seem to be what is intended by the legislature, but the section might end up having that effect. Section 66A bears a striking resemblance to the three parts of this law from 1935, with clauses (b) and (c) being merged in the Indian law into a single clause (b) of s.66A, with a whole bunch of new "purposes" added.Interestingly, the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, was never amended to add this provision.It seems the Indian government decided to subject the prison term to hyper-inflation to cover for the time.If this had happened for the punishment for, say, criminal defamation, then that would have a jail term of up to 72 years!(The version introduced in Parliament in 2006 had only 66A(a) and (b).) This was done in response to the observation by the Standing Committee on Information Technology that there was no provision for spam.Hence it is clear that this is meant as an anti-spam provision.
Furthermore, it may also prevent remailers, tunnelling, and other forms of ensuring anonymity online. But given that it is quite sparse, in this post I will examine s.66A in detail. 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, images, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message. A large part of s.66A can be traced back to s.10(2) of the UK's Post Office (Amendment) Act, 1935: If any person —(a) sends any message by telephone which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character; or(b) sends any message by telephone, or any telegram, which he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety to any other person; or(c) persistently makes telephone calls without reasonable cause and for any such purposes as aforesaid;he shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to both such fine and imprisonment.The latter part of s.66A(c), which talks of deception, is sufficient to combat spam and phishing, and hence the first half, talking of annoyance or inconvenience is not required.Additionally, it would be beneficial if an explanation could be added to s.66A(c) to make clear what "origin" means in that section.However, the careless phrasing makes it anything but an anti-spam provision.If instead of "for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages" it was "for the purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience and to deceive and to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages", it would have been slightly closer to an anti-spam provision, but even then doesn't have the two core characteristics of spam: that it be unsolicited and that it be sent in bulk.