Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6801754cb1db0-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6801754cb1db0-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6801754cb1db0-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 32071,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Hindustan Times, 9 September, 2016, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a/story-z4pcVE55mQLuvchIbUx3dI.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4680147,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 32071,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,social media,internet,crime,NCRB,National Crime Records Bureau&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-Hindustan Times

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 32071,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Hindustan Times, 9 September, 2016, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a/story-z4pcVE55mQLuvchIbUx3dI.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4680147,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 32071
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,social media,internet,crime,NCRB,National Crime Records Bureau&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-Hindustan Times

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-Hindustan Times

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-Hindustan Times<br /><br />The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.<br /><br />The NCRB&rsquo;s &lsquo;Crime in India&rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.<br /><br />Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.<br /><br />The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.<br /><br />On&thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.<br /><br />Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.<br /><br />&ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.<br /><br /><em>The goof up<br /></em><br />NCRB&rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.<br /><br />A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.<br /><br /><em>Implications<br /></em><br />Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.<br /><br />So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.<br /><br />Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.<br /><br />But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.<br /><br /><em>Problems elsewhere too<br /></em><br />NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6801754cb1db0-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6801754cb1db0-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6801754cb1db0-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 32071,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Hindustan Times, 9 September, 2016, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a/story-z4pcVE55mQLuvchIbUx3dI.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4680147,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 32071,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,social media,internet,crime,NCRB,National Crime Records Bureau&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-Hindustan Times

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 32071,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Hindustan Times, 9 September, 2016, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a/story-z4pcVE55mQLuvchIbUx3dI.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4680147,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 32071
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,social media,internet,crime,NCRB,National Crime Records Bureau&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-Hindustan Times

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-Hindustan Times

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-Hindustan Times<br /><br />The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.<br /><br />The NCRB&rsquo;s &lsquo;Crime in India&rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.<br /><br />Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.<br /><br />The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.<br /><br />On&thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.<br /><br />Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.<br /><br />&ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.<br /><br /><em>The goof up<br /></em><br />NCRB&rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.<br /><br />A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.<br /><br /><em>Implications<br /></em><br />Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.<br /><br />So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.<br /><br />Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.<br /><br />But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.<br /><br /><em>Problems elsewhere too<br /></em><br />NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6801754cb1db0-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801754cb1db0-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6801754cb1db0-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6801754cb1db0-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 32071,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Hindustan Times, 9 September, 2016, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a/story-z4pcVE55mQLuvchIbUx3dI.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4680147,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 32071,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,social media,internet,crime,NCRB,National Crime Records Bureau&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-Hindustan Times

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 32071,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Hindustan Times, 9 September, 2016, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a/story-z4pcVE55mQLuvchIbUx3dI.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4680147,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 32071
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,social media,internet,crime,NCRB,National Crime Records Bureau&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-Hindustan Times

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Hindustan Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;Crime in India&amp;rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On&amp;thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&amp;thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&amp;rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&amp;rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The goof up&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB&amp;rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Implications&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&amp;rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Problems elsewhere too&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-Hindustan Times

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-Hindustan Times<br /><br />The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.<br /><br />The NCRB&rsquo;s &lsquo;Crime in India&rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.<br /><br />Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.<br /><br />The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.<br /><br />On&thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.<br /><br />Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.<br /><br />&ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.<br /><br /><em>The goof up<br /></em><br />NCRB&rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.<br /><br />A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.<br /><br /><em>Implications<br /></em><br />Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.<br /><br />So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.<br /><br />Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.<br /><br />But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.<br /><br /><em>Problems elsewhere too<br /></em><br />NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 32071,
		'title' => 'NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-Hindustan Times<br />
<br />
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.<br />
<br />
The NCRB&rsquo;s &lsquo;Crime in India&rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.<br />
<br />
Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.<br />
<br />
The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.<br />
<br />
On&thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.<br />
<br />
Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.<br />
<br />
<em>The goof up<br />
</em><br />
NCRB&rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.<br />
<br />
A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.<br />
<br />
<em>Implications<br />
</em><br />
Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.<br />
<br />
So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.<br />
<br />
Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.<br />
<br />
But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.<br />
<br />
<em>Problems elsewhere too<br />
</em><br />
NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'Hindustan Times, 9 September, 2016, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a/story-z4pcVE55mQLuvchIbUx3dI.html',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 4680147,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 32071,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Section 66A of IT Act,social media,internet,crime,NCRB,National Crime Records Bureau',
	'metaDesc' => '
-Hindustan Times

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-Hindustan Times<br /><br />The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.<br /><br />The NCRB&rsquo;s &lsquo;Crime in India&rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.<br /><br />Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.<br /><br />The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.<br /><br />On&thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.<br /><br />Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.<br /><br />&ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.<br /><br /><em>The goof up<br /></em><br />NCRB&rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.<br /><br />A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.<br /><br /><em>Implications<br /></em><br />Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.<br /><br />So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.<br /><br />Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.<br /><br />But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.<br /><br /><em>Problems elsewhere too<br /></em><br />NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.</div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 32071,
	'title' => 'NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-Hindustan Times<br />
<br />
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.<br />
<br />
The NCRB&rsquo;s &lsquo;Crime in India&rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.<br />
<br />
Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.<br />
<br />
The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.<br />
<br />
On&thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.<br />
<br />
Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.<br />
<br />
<em>The goof up<br />
</em><br />
NCRB&rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.<br />
<br />
A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.<br />
<br />
<em>Implications<br />
</em><br />
Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.<br />
<br />
So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.<br />
<br />
Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.<br />
<br />
But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.<br />
<br />
<em>Problems elsewhere too<br />
</em><br />
NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'Hindustan Times, 9 September, 2016, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a/story-z4pcVE55mQLuvchIbUx3dI.html',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'ncrb-goofs-up-on-number-of-arrests-under-cyber-law-sec-66a-aloke-tikku-4680147',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 4680147,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 32071
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku'
$metaKeywords = 'Section 66A of IT Act,social media,internet,crime,NCRB,National Crime Records Bureau'
$metaDesc = '
-Hindustan Times

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-Hindustan Times<br /><br />The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year.<br /><br />The NCRB&rsquo;s &lsquo;Crime in India&rsquo; report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.<br /><br />Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false.<br /><br />The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision.<br /><br />On&thinsp;Friday evening, the NCRB&thinsp;put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report.<br /><br />Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn&rsquo;t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB.<br /><br />&ldquo;Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,&rdquo; Chandrasekhar said.<br /><br /><em>The goof up<br /></em><br />NCRB&rsquo;s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report.<br /><br />A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity.<br /><br /><em>Implications<br /></em><br />Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB&rsquo;s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures.<br /><br />So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration.<br /><br />Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A.<br /><br />But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015.<br /><br /><em>Problems elsewhere too<br /></em><br />NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

NCRB goofs up on number of arrests under cyber law Sec 66A -Aloke Tikku

-Hindustan Times The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) conceded on Friday that its crime statistics for 2014 and 2015 had misreported cases registered under Section 66A, a cyber law under the Information Technology Act that was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year. The NCRB’s ‘Crime in India’ report released last month had put the number of people arrested under Section 66A at 3,137 in 2015 and 2423 in 2014. This implied that the police arrested, on an average, 8 people every day in 2015 though the law had been scrapped for violating the constitutional freedom of speech and expression. Section 66A prescribed a three-year jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false. The NCRB reviewed figures in its reports after the Hindustan Times report, SC scrapped it, but thousands held last year under dead cyber law , provoked widespread outrage. Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who had campaigned against Section 66A, wrote to the Prime Minister and called for an end to abuse of the provision. On Friday evening, the NCRB put our a corrigendum on its website to fix errors in its report. Told about the errors, Chandrasekhar told HT that he was happy to know that the provision wasn’t as abused as the NCRB report had indicated. But he stressed the episode had an important lesson for the NCRB. “Given that NCRB is the repository of all crime data--that forms the basis for public opinion and policy decisions-- this body needs to be a lot more circumspect about the integrity of the data that it produces,” Chandrasekhar said. The goof up NCRB’s review indicated that it had collected a combined figure for Section 66, which relates to unauthorised access to a computer or an account, and Section 66A from the state police forces. But this combined figure was attributed to Section 66A in the NCRB report. A quick inquiry revealed that a software engineer who wrote the computer program two years back apparently knocked out Section 66 because the two sections did not fit in. The engineer did not realise how it would impact the data integrity. Implications Since the error had crept in 2014, the NCRB’s report for last year too has the same inaccuracy but it went undetected. And thus, no attempt at NCRB to review its figures, and procedures. So when Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy asked the government how many people were booked under Section 66A, the then IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad relied on the same set of NCRB figures. Parliament was told that 4037 cases had been registered by the police under Section 66A in 2014. As it now turns out, this too was an exaggeration. Since the state crime records bureau also use the same NCRB software, corresponding state-level reports also suffer from the same anomaly vis-a-vis Section 66A. But this also means that nobody really knows how many people were really sent to jail under the draconian provision in 2014, or 2015. Problems elsewhere too NCRB officials have also detected issues with regard to another set of data, but this is on account of faulty reporting by the state police. According to the NCRB report, the courts had compounded hundreds of cases relating murder and rape. If this was true, it too would be in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines that restrict high courts from dismissing heinous criminal cases even if the victim and accused arrive at a compromise. When HT pointed it out, an NCRB official said it could be a mistake in reporting from the states. He said a clarification would be sought from the states.