Kela Republic : Girls arrested for Facebook post criticizing Thackeray

[Trichromatic]

Also, regarding IP tracking done by an ISP using the URL of a Facebook post it a hit and miss at but I am eager to find out how it is done. If I gave you the URL of an FB post how will you as an ISP return an IP address from where it was posted?

From the logs. :dontknow:

[CG]

Majority of broadband users have dynamic Ips.But each router has a mac add which is far more easier to trace.Also If many have used proxy servers to get around these.

[Trichromatic]

^ Proxy server won't help in case of ISP tracking.

[CG]

^ Proxy server won't help in case of ISP tracking.

I read somewhere that isp deletes the logs after 2-3 days and if you used a proxy server to visit facebook then its difficult to get it back.

[Trichromatic]

I read somewhere that isp deletes the logs after 2-3 days and if you used a proxy server then its difficult to get it back.

Yeah, with proxy server you can hide your address from websites or services you access. That's why it's difficult to get back. Sites maintain log for long time. For ex - there is record of all IP addresses which has been used members of this forum to access it. Admins can see it easily. On who's online page, mods can see ip addresses of all users (guests and members) with their current activity. If someone doesn't use proxy server then they can easily find approximate location of the user.

[Crookbond]

I read somewhere that isp deletes the logs after 2-3 days and if you used a proxy server to visit facebook then its difficult to get it back.

It is difficult but still possible. The ONLY way to stay "clean" is to use Tor.

[Raghav_12]

At this rate, this thread would soon be moved to Nerd Talk section :banghead:

[BeautifulGame]

A young law student from Delhi has gone to the Supreme Court to challenge a controversial law that was used to arrest two young women recently in Maharashtra for their posts on Facebook. Shreya Singhal from Delhi has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that describes Section 66(A) of the Information and Technology Act as unconstitutional - it allows for arrests based on messages that are offensive or annoying and are sent electronically. "I feel it is a violation of free speech, it hasn't been updated, and people are using it wrongly," Ms Singhal told NDTV. The Chief Justice of India, Altmas Kabir, agreed with the exigent need to revisit the law. "The way the little children were arrested, it outraged the sentiments of the country. The way these things had been taking place needs some consideration so that in future it does not take place," he said, referring to the arrests of two women in their 20s - on Facebook, one was critical of the near shutdown of Mumbai after the death of Shiv Sena president Bal Thackeray; the other liked her post. "We were wondering why no one has approached the Supreme Court (over this) and even thought of taking up the issue suo moto," the Chief Justice said. Section 66A of the IT Act, framed in 2008, provides for upto three years in jail as punishment for sending "offensive" or "annoying" messages which the sender knows are false through a computer or communication device. Critics say that the law needs to be reworded more precisely, and that potential violations must be clearly defined. Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal met with civil society activists and other stakeholders for internet freedom today. He said that states have been informed that to prevent the misuse of Section 66(A), a senior police officer (of Inspector General rank in urban areas, for example) will have to sanction the registration of any cases under this law. However, the government at this point is reportedly not looking at clearly defining what sort of content would qualify as "annoying" or "offensive" messages. Mr Sibal has promised to meet all stakeholders every quarter to assess how the law is being implemented.

[ganeshran]

The girl's family was a high-profile one in her town, so it's a lot more probable that someone on her friend's list ratted her out. Also, regarding IP tracking done by an ISP using the URL of a Facebook post it a hit and miss at but I am eager to find out how it is done. If I gave you the URL of an FB post how will you as an ISP return an IP address from where it was posted?

+1 It would be like searching for a needle in a haystack. How would the police know the ISP of the user? Even if they did, using the url to find out the IP address is even more difficult.

[Nova]

Case dropped by Maharashtra police. Girls are free..

[Prakat]

@Ganesh true. Also, when you post a status on FB it gets appended to the top of your current feed like any other update. An ajax method in the background sends the content to the FB server. Mostly the only time you access the URL to a status is when it is sent to you as a link because you don't know the poster (and it will load if their privacy settings lowered to allow "Anyone" access to their updates). So if someone posted it, someone liked it and then someone else sent you a link which you viewed, an IP check of all IPs to visit that URL will show up only your IP to begin with.

[Raghav_12]

Case dropped by Maharashtra police. Girls are free..

That's great news. Rarely you see public reaction leading to any concrete results. But in this case, it forced government to take action. :two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up:

[Crookbond]

Not only just case dropped but there is an actual serious consideration to change the Sec 66 A of the IT act. . Shreya Singhal, a student from Delhi, has also filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against Section 66A of the IT act [1]. The SC has accepted this PIL challenging this act [2]. In addition, the Supreme Court of India has asked for an explanation (within a four week time frame) from the Maharashtra government (the state in which the girls reside) regarding the arrests [3]. [1] http://www.livemint.com/Politics/PumX6XBqAeMAeNpspY1BLM/Who-is-Shreya-Singhal.html [2] http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=782088 [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20551955

[Clarke]

Not only just case dropped but there is an actual serious consideration to change the Sec 66 A of the IT act. . Shreya Singhal' date=' a student from Delhi, has also filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against Section 66A of the IT act [1']. The SC has accepted this PIL challenging this act [2]. In addition, the Supreme Court of India has asked for an explanation (within a four week time frame) from the Maharashtra government (the state in which the girls reside) regarding the arrests [3]. [1] http://www.livemint.com/Politics/PumX6XBqAeMAeNpspY1BLM/Who-is-Shreya-Singhal.html [2] http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=782088 [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20551955

That really takes the cake; na rahega baans, na bajegi baansuri

[Raghav_12]

Charges dropped against girls held for FB post on Thackeray

Stating that the complaint against Palghar girls Shaheen Dhada (21) and Rinu Srinivasan (21), who had posted and liked a message on Facebook on the shutting down of Mumbai after the demise of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, is false, the police filed a closure report in the Palghar court on Tuesday. The report was filed as per the provisions of Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ÿe filed a final report C-summary in the Palghar court. It was admitted by the judge, Vijaykant Sagar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Boisar, told The Hindu. The arrest of the girls under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act sparked an outrage across the country. Initially, on the complaint of Shiv SenaÃÔ Palghar unit chief Bhushan Sankhe, they were booked under Section 295A for outraging religious beliefs. The charge was withdrawn the next day after a public outrage. Chairperson of the Press Council of India Markandey Katju wrote to the Chief Minister, demanding action against the errant police officials. A few heads rolled after that and the Director General of Police announced that they would file a closure report, as no case was made out against the girls. ůo charge sheet will be filed against them in the case, Sanjeev Dayal had said. The girls lawyer refused to call it a relief though. He said that if the government was honest about the investigation, it should have filed a B-summary report. Ÿe are yet to go through it. We will have to read the police opinion in the report to understand what they have said, Sudhir Gupta told The Hindu. He said a C-summary report meant the complaint was false but it was not made maliciously. Ūf it is a B-summary report, the police have to become the complainant and register a case against the original complainant, stating that he had complained to the police with malicious intent. A public servant can complain that an individual has purposely given false information, and can register a complaint against him. If the government has admitted that the arrests of Shaheen and Rinu were wrong, they should have shown the honesty of filing a B-Summary complaint under Sections 182 and 211 of the IPC. A C-summary report only showed that the government did not want to prosecute Bhushan Sankhe. Court scrutiny ŵhe report has been submitted only now. The court will scrutinise it and see if any offence is made out in the matter. It will also send a notice to the complainant, asking him if he agrees with the report. The complainant has the option of seeking the courtÃÔ directive to issue summons to the girls on the basis of a protest petition filed by him. Mere filing of a closure report does not mean that the case is shut. The court should admit it, he said adding that the procedure may take quite some time.

Good news. Public outrage resulting in some action being taken. However it may not mean that legal trouble is over for these girls completely. Complainant which I believe is Shiv Sena leader in this case, can still go in higher court and appeal against discharging.

[Clarke]

Farhan Akhtar @FarOutAkhtar How can 2 girls be arrested in less than 24 hrs for a harmless FB post but Owaisi roams free after his blatantly communal rant? #JustAsking Finally someone speaks out from Bollywood. Don't close this thread

[jairamesh]

Farhan Akhtar @FarOutAkhtar How can 2 girls be arrested in less than 24 hrs for a harmless FB post but Owaisi roams free after his blatantly communal rant? #JustAsking Finally someone speaks out from Bollywood. Don't close this thread

:orderorder: lock pls.

[veer]

jairamesh.. i saw what you did in that other thread.. hahah :cantstop:

[Raghav_12]

Case against these two girls have been closed by court and this whole saga come to an end. Good to hear this and wish if we can see such swiftness for all the cases which keep lingering in courts for years. Case closed, ordeal ends for Palghar girls http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Case-closed-ordeal-ends-for-Palghar-girls/articleshow/18281272.cms

MUMBAI: A Palghar court on Thursday closed the case against local girls Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, bringing to an end their ordeal that began in November with their arrests over innocuous online comments on Mumbai shutting down after Bal Thackeray's death. The Palghar sessions court accepted the police closure report seeking dropping of charges against the two youths. The Boisar police had filed a 'C' summary report in December to close the criminal case on the grounds that it was 'neither true nor false'. Both Dhada and Srinivasan reacted with relief to the court order, stressing that it was the final vindication of their innocence. "Now I feel like I am truly free," said Dhada, who long suffered the distress of living under "house arrest" because of the presence of uniformed policemen outside her residence. A reassured Srinivasan said she is now looking forward to starting a two-year sound engineering course in Chennai in June. The girls, both aged 21, were arrested on November 19 on the complaint of a member of Shiv Sena's Palghar unit. The Sainik took offence at Dhada's harmless post on Facebook lamenting the region-wide shutdown following Bal Thackeray's death. Srinivasan had 'liked' the comment on the social website. The girls' subsequent torment at the hands of the police sparked an outpouring of outrage around the country that left the Maharashtra government shame-faced and prompted the Centre to make it harder for the men in khaki to arrest people for online comments. In the aftermath of the furore, two police officersÃÕhen Thane Rural SP Ravindra Sengaonkar and Palghar senior inspector Srikant PingleÃØere suspended. Further, a first-class judicial magistrate at Palghar who gave the girls bail was shifted out. Later, the police in their report concluded that the FIR filed in Palghar police station was an outcome of misunderstanding and that there was no evidence against the girls. The complainant, Bhushan Sankhe of Sena's Palghar unit, had disputed the police report and asked the court to issue summons against Dhada and Srinivasan. First-class judicial magistrate V S Yadav, however, accepted the police summary report. On Thursday, Sankhe's counsel Kiran Gaikwad said they will file a criminal revision appeal before the Palghar sessions court. The complainant has 90 days from the date of receipt of the court order to file the revision petition. If the court admits the plea, there will be three partiesÃÕhe state government, Dhada and Srinivasan. For now, the girls' advocate Sudhir Gupta said, the court's acceptance of the 'C' summary report means that Dhada and Srinivasan are no longer accused in the case. The Palghar police are yet to file a chargesheet in the case of vandalism of the clinic of Dhada's uncle Dr Abdul Dhada. The clinic was wreaked by a mob of alleged Shiv Sainiks angered by Dhada's Facebook post. While a case of rioting was registered against more than 50 people, the police have so far charged around 30 men.

[Dumbbells]

ha ha ha...Gotta love shiv sena and mns. They are so appealing to young men. They get the job done by hook or crook.