Skip to content

CS Professional · Banking and Insurance - Laws and Practice · Digital Banking

An insider at a private bank gains unauthorised access to a restricted database holding information relating to security of the State, knowingly and intentionally, with reason to believe it may be used to injure India's sovereignty and integrity. No violence or disruption of services results. Which statement is correct under Section 66F of the IT Act, 2000?

The act falls under Section 66F(1)(B), which does not require death, injury or disruption. Unauthorised access to restricted security-related data with reason to believe it may harm India's sovereignty is cyber terrorism, punishable, including for conspiracy, with imprisonment up to life.

  1. AIt is not cyber terrorism because no death, injury or disruption occurred
  2. BIt is cyber terrorism under clause (B), and commission or conspiracy is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for lifeCorrect
  3. CIt is cyber terrorism only if the bank is a notified critical information infrastructure
  4. DIt is cyber terrorism punishable with a maximum of three years' imprisonment

Explanation

Clause (B) covers knowingly or intentionally accessing a computer resource without authorisation and obtaining restricted information with reason to believe it may be used to injure India's sovereignty, security of the State etc. Harm or disruption is required only under clause (A). Section 66F(2) provides imprisonment which may extend to life for commission or conspiracy.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Digital Banking shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Digital Banking questions