This article has been written by Mayank Bhandari, pursuing the Diploma in Cyber Law, FinTech Regulations and Technology Contracts from LawSikho. The article has been edited by Zigishu Singh (Associate, LawSikho) and Smriti Katiyar (Associate, LawSikho).

Introduction

We now live in a digital era. Digital technology has evolved over the last decade to become the dominant technology for producing, processing, transferring, and storing information, knowledge, and intellectual assets. Information refers to knowledge that may be expressed and developed in several dimensions, such as audio, video, text, and picture. Digital technology has made it simple and practical to digitize any and all forms of information, including knowledge and intellectual assets.

Digital technology is an impeccable improvement upon the previous conventional technology, and it offers several benefits such as simple access, searching, modification, and transmission. Recent breakthroughs in software development, such as plug-and-play tools for capturing, processing, accessing, and transmitting digital data, have made it simple to modify and alter data without leaving any visible signs of tampering.

Forgeries are not a new problem for humanity, they have existed since antiquity. While forgery used to be restricted to art and literature, with little impact on the common people,  in today’s world it impacts the majority of the common people and is rampant. 

What is digital forgery?

Forgery is defined as the production of a document that is known to be fake but appears to be genuine. It is usually seen in documents such as cheques, passports, visas, certificates, other identification documents etc and people are easily hoodwinked, especially when the forgery is done digitally. It is impossible to tell the difference between genuine and falsified documents unless you’ve been trained to do so. Forgeries are dangerous because they are frequently difficult to spot as fakes. As a result of digital forgeries, the victims of these activities may suffer financial loss as well as a loss of reputation. The number of crimes pertaining to forgery is increasing day by day.

It is not very hard for forgers to falsify documents and signatures especially if it is a digital one but it can be extremely difficult for a layman to figure out the minute indications and details in a document that distinguish a fake one from an original. Digital forgery is at an all-time high in today’s contemporary world and as a matter of fact, the majority of people do not realise when their documents are forged. 

Problems of digital forgery

The topic of digital forgeries study is still in its early stages. Many practical and specialized strategies and solutions have also been presented. The originality and validity of financial, legal, and medical documents and data, as well as other high-value assets, is crucial and imperative. In many circumstances, figuring out the originality and validity of a picture or data is a difficult and painstaking task. Identifying and distinguishing data and images captured by devices from computer-generated data and images is a multifarious topic that has captivated scholars all over the globe.

The technology of digital resource repositories is moving at a much faster rate due to social networking sites, making it very difficult to find the original source of the forgeries. As a result, tracing the history of digital fakes becomes a major challenge. In the network context, certain efforts are being made to determine the lineage of data, but to our knowledge, no one has attempted to locate the lineage of digital resources. The pursuit of answers leads to the resolution of today’s most concerning issues particularly the genuineness of intellectual property.

Solutions

There are several approaches and tools available today for detecting forgeries. Apart from standard procedures like ocular analysis of a picture and parameter adjustment (such as brightness, contrast, and so on), the forensic experts employ the following: 

1. reflections and shadows, 
2. lighting,
3. analysis of thumbnails,
4. error level analysis (ELA),
5. examination of brightness gradients, 
6. principal component analysis (PCA),
7. clone detection,
8. stamp investigation of chromatic aberrations,
9. noise analysis.

There are several approaches like file structure analysis, metadata analysis, and others that are more commonly utilised for detecting picture or video creation processes, but not for forgery detection.

Even without detecting methods for a picture or video creation, the number of methods applied is rather extensive. The problem is that different techniques of image encoding and the variety of alterations that may be applied to digital pictures change the features of the image that are available for forensic inspection in different ways. For example, the ELA approach can only be used with JPEG images; looking for cloned sections won’t help you identify a single insertion or hand retouch; shadows analysis won’t help you with photos taken in overcast weather; and so on.

As a result, it is imperative for examiners to grasp the reasons for picture forgeries, as well as the tools available for detecting them.

Forgery under Indian Law 

The provisions of the IPC in respect to forgery were updated by Section 91 of the Information Technology (IT) Act (read with the Second Schedule) to embrace electronic records as well. The Indian Penal Code has been amended to include Section 29A, which defines electronic records. The terms “electronic record” and “electronic record” will have the same meaning as in Section 2(1)(t)2 of the IT Act.

Section 464 of the IPC was amended by Section 91 of the IT Act to include a false electronic record. Under Section 464, a person is said to make a false electronic record: 

1. Who makes or transmits any electronic record or part of an electronic record dishonestly or fraudulently, or affixes any digital signature on any electronic record, or makes any mark denoting the authenticity of a digital signature, with the intent of making it appear that such electronic record or part of an electronic record or digital signature was made, executed, transmitted, or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or whose affixed 
2. Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently alters an electronic record in any material part thereof after it has been made, executed, or affixed with a digital signature by himself or by any other person, whether such person is alive or dead at the time of such alteration, by cancellation or otherwise.
3. Who deceptively or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute, or alter an electronic record, or to affix his digital signature to any electronic record, knowing that such person cannot, or that he does not know the contents of the electronic record or the nature of the alteration, due to insanity or intoxication.

Explanation 3 to Section 464 has also been added, which states that the term “affixing digital signature” has the same meaning as it does in Section 2(1)(d)3 of the IT Act for the purposes of this Section.

Section 463 of the IPC, after amendment, defines forgery, in relation to electronic records, as the making of any false electronic record or part thereof with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. 

Section 466 (forgery of record of Court or of Public register, etc.), Section 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), Section 469 (forger for purpose of harming reputation), Section 470 (forged document or electronic record), Section 471 (using as genuine a forged document), Section 474 (having possession of the document described in Section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine) and Section 476 (counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents other than those described in Section 467, or possessing counterfeit marked material) have also been suitably amended to include electronic records. 

It should be noted, however, that Section 467, which deals with forgery of valuable securities, wills, and other documents, has not been amended because Section 1(4) prohibits the IT Act from being applied to certain documents such as a will, trust, power of attorney, contract for sale or conveyance of immovable property, and so on. As a result of the modifications in the IT Act, digital forgery and offences linked to it are now covered under the IPC.

Conclusion

As the cases of digital forgery become rampant the common people will become more aware and cautious before entering into a venture pertaining to technology such as digital art, software. People will become wary of digital signatures and other forms of digital material. The complexity of the forgery will become more intricate and the current detection methods will be futile. Advanced forgery detection software and tools need to be developed in order to counter such intricate forgeries. The increasing amount of forgeries will also give rise to research in the area of digital forgeries among the digital communities. The authenticity of any digital material will consequently decrease at face value and will only be accepted as genuine after a thorough examination by a professional. Digitization is the future and people should be responsible enough to tackle the issue of digital forgery by using all means necessary and keeping oneself informed and updated about the same.

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/L9vr7LmS9pJjYTQ9

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.