- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
PIL filed in Supreme Court seeking ban on use of Zoom app for privacy breach and security issues
A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking a ban on “Zoom”, a popular software application for video-telephony, until formulation of an appropriate legislation.Petitioner Harsh Chugh argued that software application is not safe and does not have end-to-end encryption, and as a consequence, it is violating the Information Technology Act 2000 and Information Technology (Procedure...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking a ban on “Zoom”, a popular software application for video-telephony, until formulation of an appropriate legislation.
Petitioner Harsh Chugh argued that software application is not safe and does not have end-to-end encryption, and as a consequence, it is violating the Information Technology Act 2000 and Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009.
“The reliefs which are sought in the present petition are urgent considering the penetration of offending software increasing with each day and as the concern raised in the present petition have pan-India ramifications,” said the plea.
The plea submitted that the software application is a threat to individual’s privacy and cited that the CEO of Zoom Video Communications has already “apologised publicly and accepted the app to be faulty in terms of providing a secure environment digitally which is against the norms of cyber security”. As a result, the petitioner contended the software application is prone to hacking and cyber breaches, which have already been reported. Therefore, the petition has also impleaded other stakeholders responsible - the Centre through the Ministry of Electronics & IT and Cyber & Information Security Division of MHA.
The plea argued that Zoom App practices data hoarding and cyber hoarding, and also issues of unauthorized access termed as “zoom-bombing”, where a stranger can join Zoom meetings and share objectionable content. “That it is important to realize how Zoom consistently violates its duty to implement and maintain reasonable security practices, and misleads consumers about the security benefits of the product.
The PIL also mentioned about Zoom falsely advertising end-to-end encryption. It further added that on one hand where companies are prioritizing people over profits to fight COVID-19, Zoom on the contrary is prioritizing profits over people and was capitalizing off of the global pandemic by selling user information to Facebook without user consent. The plea contends that it is important to put in place a standard regulation to safeguard the rights of the citizens.