New Year Sale 2026! 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 CIPP/A Exam - 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:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Francine
3 months ago
Really? That seems surprising, was it really that bad?
upvoted 0 times
...
Peggie
4 months ago
Wait, I didn't know it was ruled unconstitutional!
upvoted 0 times
...
Edelmira
4 months ago
I thought it was about tampering with documents?
upvoted 0 times
...
Dewitt
4 months ago
Totally agree, it was a huge overreach!
upvoted 0 times
...
Dannette
4 months ago
It prohibited sending offensive messages.
upvoted 0 times
...
Minna
5 months ago
I vaguely recall that it was about restricting certain types of messages online, so I'm leaning towards D as well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Truman
5 months ago
I feel like it might have had something to do with publishing private images, but that doesn't sound right for this section.
upvoted 0 times
...
Christa
5 months ago
I remember practicing a question on this topic, and it was definitely related to online communication. Could it be option D?
upvoted 0 times
...
Margery
5 months ago
I think Section 66A was about sending offensive messages, but I'm not entirely sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cheryl
5 months ago
Ah, I remember this topic from our discussions in class. I think I know the answer, but I'll double-check the options just to be sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Casey
5 months ago
I'm a little unsure about this question. The options seem pretty broad, and I'm not super familiar with the details of this law. I'll have to make an educated guess.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jacqueline
5 months ago
Alright, I've got a good feeling about this one. I remember learning about this in class, so I think I can narrow it down pretty quickly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Andra
5 months ago
Okay, let me see here. I'm pretty sure this has to do with online content, but I'm not sure exactly what kind of content was prohibited. I'll have to read the options closely.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kerry
5 months ago
Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the different options and what Section 66A of the IT Act might have prohibited.
upvoted 0 times
...
Geraldo
1 year ago
Offensive messages, huh? Sounds like the legislators were a bunch of snowflakes. D is the winner here, no doubt.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rickie
1 year 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
1 year ago
My money's on option D. Sending offensive messages online? What could go wrong with that? *rolls eyes*
upvoted 0 times
Chana
1 year ago
I agree with you, D. Sending offensive messages can have serious consequences.
upvoted 0 times
...
Emmett
1 year ago
I believe it was A. Publishing images with sexually explicit content is definitely not okay.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aleta
1 year ago
I think it was C. Publishing private images of others is a serious violation of privacy.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Brunilda
1 year ago
Actually, it was publishing images with sexually explicit content.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stevie
1 year ago
I believe it was sending offensive messages.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sharan
1 year ago
Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to criminalize 'offensive messages'? Talk about a violation of free speech.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brunilda
1 year ago
I think it prohibited publishing private images of others.
upvoted 0 times
...
Quinn
1 year ago
Section 66A was a huge overreach, I'm glad it was struck down. Option D all the way!
upvoted 0 times
Myong
1 year ago
Section 66A was definitely overreaching. Option D was a clear infringement on our rights.
upvoted 0 times
...
Horace
1 year ago
I'm glad Section 66A was ruled unconstitutional. Option D was a violation of free speech.
upvoted 0 times
...
Niesha
1 year ago
Sending offensive messages should not be a criminal offense. Option D is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
An
1 year ago
I agree, Section 66A was too restrictive. Option D is definitely the right choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel