Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

IAPP Exam CIPP-A Topic 2 Question 69 Discussion

Actual exam question for IAPP's CIPP-A exam
Question #: 69
Topic #: 2
[All CIPP-A Questions]

In 2015, Section 66A of India's IT Act was ruled unconstitutional. What did this section previously prohibit?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

by Taryn at Sep 14, 2024, 08:34 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CIPP-A Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Geraldo
8 months ago
Offensive messages, huh? Sounds like the legislators were a bunch of snowflakes. D is the winner here, no doubt.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rickie
8 months ago
Ah, the good old days of the 'Draconian Statutes' era. Thank goodness those are behind us now. D is the correct answer, I reckon.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zona
8 months ago
My money's on option D. Sending offensive messages online? What could go wrong with that? *rolls eyes*
upvoted 0 times
Chana
7 months ago
I agree with you, D. Sending offensive messages can have serious consequences.
upvoted 0 times
...
Emmett
7 months ago
I believe it was A. Publishing images with sexually explicit content is definitely not okay.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aleta
7 months ago
I think it was C. Publishing private images of others is a serious violation of privacy.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Brunilda
8 months ago
Actually, it was publishing images with sexually explicit content.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stevie
8 months ago
I believe it was sending offensive messages.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sharan
9 months ago
Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to criminalize 'offensive messages'? Talk about a violation of free speech.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brunilda
9 months ago
I think it prohibited publishing private images of others.
upvoted 0 times
...
Quinn
9 months ago
Section 66A was a huge overreach, I'm glad it was struck down. Option D all the way!
upvoted 0 times
Myong
8 months ago
Section 66A was definitely overreaching. Option D was a clear infringement on our rights.
upvoted 0 times
...
Horace
8 months ago
I'm glad Section 66A was ruled unconstitutional. Option D was a violation of free speech.
upvoted 0 times
...
Niesha
8 months ago
Sending offensive messages should not be a criminal offense. Option D is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
An
8 months ago
I agree, Section 66A was too restrictive. Option D is definitely the right choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel