The dark web represents a concealed segment of the internet that facilitates anonymous communication and transactions, attracting both individuals seeking privacy and those engaged in illicit activities. This paper provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the complexities surrounding anonymity in the dark web, emphasizing the significant challenges it poses to law enforcement agencies and legal jurisdictions.

By examining various case studies, the research highlights the difficulties in identifying and prosecuting cybercriminals who exploit the dark web's protective features. Furthermore, it explores existing legal frameworks and their inadequacies in addressing the evolving nature of cybercrime. The study advocates for enhanced international cooperation and the development of updated legal standards to effectively combat these unique challenges.

Ultimately, this analysis underscores the urgent need for a collaborative global approach to ensure the enforcement of laws in an increasingly anonymous digital landscape. This paper examines the legal implications of anonymity on the dark web, focusing on how it complicates law enforcement efforts and jurisdictional challenges. By analyzing case studies and existing legal frameworks, the study highlights the difficulties in prosecuting cybercriminals who exploit these hidden networks. The paper argues for the need for international cooperation and updated legal standards to effectively address the unique challenges posed by the dark web.

Definition of the Dark web and its relation to cyber-crime
The dark web is a portion of the internet that is encrypted and inaccessible to the general public using conventional search engines like Google. The dark web, also referred to as the "darknet," comprises up a large portion of online illegal activities. To a lesser extent, legitimate users also utilise it for legal purposes, like protecting the privacy of certain information or wishing to join an exclusive online club or social network.

Users must first know the specific URL of a website to access it on the dark web due to its unusual naming conventions. Dark web URLs typically end in ".onion," a special-use domain suffix associated with The Onion Router (Tor), rather than more common ones like ".com," ".org," or ".edu." These URLs consist of a random mix of letters and numbers, making them challenging to find and remember.[1]

Given the current landscape of cybersecurity threats, it is crucial for managers, beyond just cybersecurity professionals, to be aware of the risks posed by the dark web. It is now essential that every department understands how to manage the dangers associated with online activities and how hackers, counterfeiters, and intellectual property thieves exploit the dark web.

Security professionals are increasingly recognizing that solely relying on security controls is not enough to form a comprehensive preventive security strategy. Companies must adopt a proactive approach to identifying and evaluating risks from sources beyond their firewalls, physical security perimeters, and automated fraud controls. However, only 42% of businesses are currently gathering intelligence from closed or dark web sources, according to the SANS Cyber Threat Intelligence Survey.

Legal Implications of Anonymity in Cyber-Crime Cases

The anonymity provided by the dark web and other online platforms presents significant legal challenges in addressing cyber-crime. Key considerations include:

• Challenges in Identifying Offenders:
  • Anonymizing Technologies: Tools such as Tor and VPNs obscure users' IP addresses, making it difficult to trace criminal activities to specific individuals.
  • Identity Fraud: Criminals often use fake identities, further complicating law enforcement’s ability to uncover the real-world identity of offenders.
• Jurisdictional Issues:
  • Cross-Border Crimes: Cyber-crime frequently spans multiple countries, leading to jurisdictional complexities. Countries have different laws regarding data privacy and cybercrime, creating legal uncertainties.
  • Extradition Challenges: The anonymity of perpetrators can hinder extradition efforts, especially when crimes are committed in countries lacking formal agreements with the suspect’s home nation.
• Evidence Collection and Admissibility:
  • Digital Forensics: Collecting digital evidence from anonymous sources poses challenges in ensuring that the evidence is admissible in court. Maintaining a proper chain of custody and adhering to legal standards is essential.
  • Privacy Concerns: Legal standards for search and seizure must balance with privacy rights, raising questions about the legality of monitoring anonymous online activity.
• Legal Accountability:
  • Attribution of Criminal Acts: Assigning responsibility for illegal acts becomes more complex when anonymity is involved, making it difficult for courts to address issues of intent and accountability.
  • Vicarious Liability: Companies and platforms that enable anonymous communication may face questions of liability for crimes committed by their users, potentially leading to legal reforms.
• Legislative Responses:
  • Updating Laws: Existing laws may need revision, or new legislation may be required, to address the unique challenges posed by anonymity in cyber-crime. This includes considering impacts on personal privacy and civil liberties.
  • International Cooperation: Enhancing international treaties and cooperation frameworks can help law enforcement tackle crimes occurring on the dark web more effectively.
• Impact on Policy and Enforcement:
  • Resource Allocation: Law enforcement agencies may need to invest more resources into cyber investigations, including specialized training and technology, to effectively combat crimes committed by anonymous individuals.
  • Public Awareness and Education: Raising public awareness about the risks associated with online anonymity and the dark web can promote informed discussions and lead to more effective policy responses.

Anonymity on the Dark web

Overview of anonymity tools (eg. Tor, VPNs)
Anonymity in online communication refers to methods that conceal the identities of users. The primary goal is to protect the communication channel from unauthorized access. Common examples include The Onion Routing (Tor) and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). Both employ encryption and tunneling techniques to maintain the integrity of the connection. While Tor is commonly used on the dark web, VPNs are more frequently utilized by businesses to ensure secure communications.

VPN
A virtual private network, or VPN, is a type of network technology that uses security and tunnelling protocols to give privacy services to communication lines between individuals or groups that use public communications infrastructure. The utilisation of tunnels is a feature of the VPN itself. It provides the communication channel between nodes security and privacy. VPN tunnelling is the common term for VPN technology. A kind of network technology called tunnelling includes a certain kind of protocol that comprises datagrams and packets from several protocols. As an illustration, a Windows VPN employs protocol package for point-to-point tunnelling (PPTP) to supplement and transfer private network traffic like TCP/IP over open networks like the Internet.[3]

TOR
A computer network system called Onion Routing (Tor) makes multiple hops use of the routing procedure to reach the destination. The encryption procedure takes place while the data is being routed to certain hops. The hops that passed through perform the encryption process three times. Tor offers the kind of information delivery security coming from the communication path's anonymous side. The customer will be linked to the destination via going via the entry node, middle relay, and exit relay, three relays in total. The data encryption operation will thereafter be carried out.

Legal Implications of Anonymity in Cyber-Crime Cases

The anonymity provided by the dark web and other online platforms presents significant legal challenges in addressing cyber-crime. Key considerations include:

• Challenges in Identifying Offenders:
  • Anonymizing Technologies: Tools such as Tor and VPNs obscure users' IP addresses, making it difficult to trace criminal activities to specific individuals.
  • Identity Fraud: Criminals often use fake identities, further complicating law enforcement’s ability to uncover the real-world identity of offenders.
     
• Jurisdictional Issues:
  • Cross-Border Crimes: Cyber-crime frequently spans multiple countries, leading to jurisdictional complexities. Countries have different laws regarding data privacy and cybercrime, creating legal uncertainties.
  • Extradition Challenges: The anonymity of perpetrators can hinder extradition efforts, especially when crimes are committed in countries lacking formal agreements with the suspect’s home nation.
     
• Evidence Collection and Admissibility:
  • Digital Forensics: Collecting digital evidence from anonymous sources poses challenges in ensuring that the evidence is admissible in court. Maintaining a proper chain of custody and adhering to legal standards is essential.
  • Privacy Concerns: Legal standards for search and seizure must balance with privacy rights, raising questions about the legality of monitoring anonymous online activity.
     
• Legal Accountability:
  • Attribution of Criminal Acts: Assigning responsibility for illegal acts becomes more complex when anonymity is involved, making it difficult for courts to address issues of intent and accountability.
  • Vicarious Liability: Companies and platforms that enable anonymous communication may face questions of liability for crimes committed by their users, potentially leading to legal reforms.
     
• Legislative Responses:
  • Updating Laws: Existing laws may need revision, or new legislation may be required, to address the unique challenges posed by anonymity in cyber-crime. This includes considering impacts on personal privacy and civil liberties.
  • International Cooperation: Enhancing international treaties and cooperation frameworks can help law enforcement tackle crimes occurring on the dark web more effectively.
     
• Impact on Policy and Enforcement:
  • Resource Allocation: Law enforcement agencies may need to invest more resources into cyber investigations, including specialized training and technology, to effectively combat crimes committed by anonymous individuals.
  • Public Awareness and Education: Raising public awareness about the risks associated with online anonymity and the dark web can promote informed discussions and lead to more effective policy responses.

In conclusion, the legal challenges posed by anonymity in cyber-crime are significant, requiring a comprehensive understanding of technology, law, and policy. Collaboration among legal experts, law enforcement, and policymakers is essential to develop frameworks that balance security and individual rights.

Cyber- crime on the Dark- web

Jurisdiction in cyberspace is challenging to define due to the borderless nature of the digital world. The internet's decentralized structure, combined with the ease of cross-border communication and transactions, complicates the determination of which government holds authority in a given cyberspace incident. Traditional concepts of territorial authority become blurred as digital activities transcend physical borders.

The issue is further complicated by conflicting laws and regulations across different countries, as each may assert jurisdiction over online activities. This results in uncertainty and confusion, making it difficult for legal systems to effectively address cybercrime, resolve disputes, and protect the rights and interests of individuals and businesses. Establishing a universally recognized framework for jurisdiction in cyberspace is a complex task that requires international cooperation and legal harmonization.

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

• Section 1(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): The provisions of the Sanhita also apply to offenses committed by:
  • a) Any Indian citizen outside India;
  • b) Any person on an Indian-registered ship or aircraft, regardless of location;
  • c) Any person outside India committing an offense targeting a computer resource located within India.
  Explanation: "Offense" includes any act committed outside India that, if committed within India, would be punishable under this Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
• Section 75 of the IT Act, 2000: This section states that the Act applies to offenses committed outside India by any person, provided the offense involves a computer, computer system, or computer network located in India. Section 75 has a broader scope than Section 1(5) of the BNS, as it encompasses offenses involving any computer system or network located in India, not only those specifically targeting a computer resource within India, as outlined under the BNS.
• Section 199 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (NSS): This section specifies that an act constitutes an offense based on both the actions taken and their consequences. A court can investigate or try such an offense within its jurisdiction if:
  • 1. The act was committed within that jurisdiction.
  • 2. The consequences of the act occurred within that jurisdiction.
• Section 202 of the NSS: This section relates to offenses involving cheating, particularly through letters or fraudulent means. A court can investigate or try such offenses if:
  • 1. The letters were sent or received within its jurisdiction.
  • 2. The deceived person delivered the property, or the accused received it, within that jurisdiction.

Case Law: Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India

Facts: The appellant, an NRI based in Dubai, conspired with others to defraud Chandigarh Bank by fraudulently obtaining foreign letters of credit. Ruling: The court held that the act of dishonestly inducing the bank constituted an offense. It determined that a foreign national could be subject to jurisdiction under Sections 199 and 202 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Although the crime occurred in Dubai, its consequences materialized in Chandigarh, thereby establishing the court’s jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction In Civil Disputes

Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) outlines where legal suits involving property must be filed. It specifies that, subject to legal limitations, suits related to:

1. Recovery of immovable property, irrespective of rent or profits.
2. Partition of immovable property.
3. Foreclosure, sale, or redemption of a mortgage or charge on immovable property.
4. Determination of rights or interests in immovable property.
5. Compensation for damage to immovable property.
6. Recovery of movable property currently under distraint or attachment.

These suits must be filed in the court that has jurisdiction over the location of the property. Proviso: If a suit seeks relief or compensation for wrongs involving immovable property held by the defendant, and such relief can be achieved through the defendant’s personal compliance, the suit may be filed either in the court with jurisdiction over the property or in the court where the defendant resides, conducts business, or works for gain^[8].

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "property" refers to property located within India.

• Section 20 of the CPC addresses where other types of suits should be filed, stating that these suits must be instituted in a court within the local jurisdiction where:
  1. The defendant (or each defendant, if there are multiple) voluntarily resides, conducts business, or works for gain at the time the suit is filed.
  2. Any of the defendants resides, conducts business, or works for gain, provided that either the court’s permission is obtained or the non-residing defendants consent to the suit being filed there.
  3. The cause of action arises, either wholly or partially.
      
• Section 13 of the IT Act, 2000 clarifies the timing of dispatch and receipt of electronic records, which is crucial in the formation of e-contracts. This section serves as a framework for understanding electronic contracts in India, without altering existing contract law. To comprehend the formation of electronic contracts, Section 13 must be read alongside Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which outlines rules on communication of proposals, acceptance, and revocation. For instance:
  1. Acceptance is considered complete against the offeror when the electronic record is dispatched and enters the acceptor’s computer resource.
  2. For the acceptor, acceptance is complete when the electronic record enters the offeror’s designated information system, or, if none is designated, when it enters the offeror's system.
  3. In Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas and Co., the Supreme Court of India differentiated between "postal rules" and "receipt rules." It ruled that Section 4 applies only to non-instantaneous communication methods and not to instantaneous communication.
      
• Discussion on the Legal Framework for Cross-Border Cyber-Crime Investigations:
  1. When examining international approaches to cyberspace jurisdiction and artificial intelligence (AI) regulation, countries adopt varied strategies. In the United States, AI regulation is more flexible, industry-driven, and focuses on sector-specific rules rather than broad legislation.
  2. The European Union (EU) has taken a more cautious, human-centric approach, implementing regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to safeguard individual rights.
  3. China has adopted a proactive stance on AI regulation, encouraging innovation while imposing strict controls to ensure data privacy and cybersecurity.
  4. India's AI regulations are still developing, with efforts to balance innovation and ethics as policies evolve to address data privacy and accountability.
      
• Lessons from International Jurisdictional Practices:
  1. International perspectives on jurisdiction in cyberspace provide valuable insights into how these concepts are applied in the digital era. Two key examples are the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
  2. These frameworks illustrate the complexities of extraterritoriality and highlight the need for harmonization across jurisdictions.
  3. The lessons learned from the GDPR and CCPA can inform India's approach to cyberspace jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of clear legal frameworks, accountability, and the protection of individual privacy rights in the digital environment.
      
• International Treaties and Agreements:
  1. India has actively participated in various international cybersecurity agreements to address the growing challenges in cyberspace. A prominent example is the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.
  2. India’s involvement in this convention underscores its commitment to addressing global cyber threats.
  3. Future treaty recommendations should aim to enhance India’s role in global cyberspace governance and encourage increased collaboration among nations to tackle emerging cyber challenges effectively.
      
• Government Notifications and Initiatives:
  1. The Indian government has recently introduced significant notifications and initiatives related to cyberspace jurisdiction. A notable example is the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
  2. These rules impose key responsibilities on digital media platforms and intermediaries to prevent the spread of unlawful content and establish mechanisms for grievance redressal.

Additionally, the government is planning further initiatives to strengthen cybersecurity, with a focus on enhancing the resilience of India’s digital infrastructure against cyber threats. The Computer Emergency Response Team-India (CERT-In) plays a crucial role in this effort, managing cybersecurity incidents, addressing vulnerabilities, and coordinating efforts to protect the nation’s information infrastructure. The initiatives and actions of CERT-In are essential in boosting cybersecurity in India. These government notifications and initiatives are instrumental in shaping the legal framework and understanding of jurisdiction in cyberspace.[13]

Balancing Anonymity and Law enforcement

Analysis of the tension between individual privacy and law enforcement needs.

The balance between individual privacy and law enforcement needs is a complex and often contentious issue. As technology evolves, the stakes for both personal privacy and public safety intensify, creating a nuanced landscape for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and citizens. Below are key aspects of this tension:

1. Fundamental Rights vs. Public Safety
   • Privacy as a Fundamental Right: Individual privacy is often enshrined in constitutional and human rights frameworks. It is essential for personal autonomy, freedom of expression, and dignity. Violations can lead to a chilling effect on free speech and hinder democratic participation.
   • Law Enforcement Objectives: Law enforcement agencies prioritize public safety and crime prevention. They argue that access to personal data, communications, and location information is vital for preventing crime and ensuring community safety.
2. Technological Advancements
   • Surveillance Technologies: Advances in surveillance technologies, such as facial recognition and data mining, have equipped law enforcement with powerful tools. While these technologies can enhance public safety, they also raise concerns about mass surveillance and the erosion of privacy rights.
   • Data Collection and Retention: Law enforcement often requires access to vast amounts of data from telecommunications companies and online platforms. This can lead to the collection of information on innocent individuals, raising questions about the scope and necessity of such data retention.
3. Legal Frameworks and Regulations
   • Inadequate Legal Protections: In many jurisdictions, existing laws may not adequately protect individual privacy in the face of law enforcement needs. This gap can lead to overreach and abuse of power, as agencies may exploit vague laws to access private data without sufficient oversight.
   • Proportionality and Necessity: Legal standards often require that any infringement on privacy must be proportional and necessary for a legitimate aim. The challenge lies in determining what constitutes a legitimate law enforcement need and whether less invasive methods could achieve the same goals.
4. Public Perception and Trust
   • Erosion of Trust: Excessive surveillance and perceived invasions of privacy can erode public trust in law enforcement. Communities may feel less secure and more alienated if they believe they are under constant scrutiny, undermining cooperative relationships between the police and the public.
   • Informed Consent: There is growing demand for transparency in how data is collected and used by both governments and corporations. Individuals increasingly seek control over their personal information, and without clear consent mechanisms, privacy violations can lead to public backlash.
5. Balancing Act
   • Collaborative Approaches: Finding a middle ground requires collaboration between law enforcement, policymakers, and civil society. This could involve developing clear guidelines that outline when and how personal data can be accessed, as well as mechanisms for accountability.

Technological Solutions: Innovations in privacy-preserving technologies, such as encryption and anonymization, can help balance privacy rights with law enforcement needs. These technologies can allow for the investigation of criminal activity without compromising individual privacy unnecessarily.

The tension between individual privacy and law enforcement needs is a critical issue that requires careful navigation. Striking the right balance is essential for upholding democratic values while ensuring public safety. Ongoing dialogue, robust legal frameworks, and the adoption of innovative technologies will be key in addressing this challenge in an increasingly digital world.[14]

Discussion of potential solutions(e.g. data retention, encryption backdoors)
Navigating the tension between individual privacy and law enforcement requirements necessitates a careful consideration of various potential solutions. Below are some key strategies that have been proposed, along with their benefits and drawbacks:

Data Retention Policies

Data retention policies require service providers to retain user data for a specified period, allowing law enforcement access when necessary.

Benefits:

• Enhanced Investigative Capabilities: Law enforcement can access historical data that may be crucial for investigations.
• Structured Framework: Clearly defined retention periods can help standardize practices across different jurisdictions.

Drawbacks:

• Privacy Concerns: Mandatory retention can lead to the collection of data from innocent individuals, raising significant privacy issues.
• Risk of Data Breaches: Storing large amounts of data increases the risk of unauthorized access or data breaches, potentially exposing sensitive personal information.

Encryption and Backdoors

Encryption:

• Encryption protects data by converting it into a secure format that can only be read with a specific key.

Backdoors:

• Backdoors are intentional vulnerabilities in software that allow third parties (such as law enforcement) to bypass encryption and access data.

Benefits of Encryption:

• Strong Data Protection: Encryption enhances user privacy and protects against unauthorized access.
• Public Trust: Providing robust security measures can bolster user confidence in digital services.

Drawbacks of Backdoors:

• Security Risks: Introducing backdoors creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited by malicious actors, undermining overall cybersecurity.
• Undermining Encryption: Backdoors can weaken encryption standards, making all encrypted data more susceptible to breaches.

Judicial Oversight

Requiring judicial approval before law enforcement can access personal data or conduct surveillance.

Benefits:

• Checks and Balances: Judicial oversight can prevent abuses of power and ensure that privacy rights are respected.
• Transparency: Court involvement can lead to greater transparency in law enforcement practices.

Drawbacks:

• Potential Delays: Obtaining warrants may slow down urgent investigations, potentially hindering law enforcement efforts.
• Resource Intensive: The judicial process can be time-consuming and may require significant resources.

Data Minimization Principles

The principle of collecting only the data necessary for a specific purpose, reducing the amount of personal information retained.

Benefits:

• Reduced Privacy Risks: Limiting data collection minimizes the risk of exposure and misuse of personal information.
• Compliance with Privacy Regulations: Adhering to data minimization can help organizations comply with privacy laws such as GDPR.

Drawbacks:

• Challenges in Law Enforcement: Restricting data access may limit the tools available for law enforcement investigations, potentially hindering crime prevention efforts.

Public Awareness and Consent Mechanisms

Educating the public about data collection practices and implementing consent mechanisms for data usage.

Benefits:

• Empowered Users: Informing individuals about how their data is used allows them to make informed decisions.
• Greater Accountability: Organizations may be more diligent about data handling if they know users are aware and concerned about privacy issues.

Drawbacks:

• Complexity: Users may struggle to understand complex privacy policies, leading to uninformed consent.
• Limited Engagement: Many individuals may not actively engage with privacy policies, resulting in passive consent.

Notable Cyber-Crime Cases on the Dark Web

1. Silk Road and its implications: The Silk Road was an early dark web marketplace in which users could buy and sell illegal products and services anonymously using Bitcoin. Ross Ulbricht founded it in 2011, and it remained operational until 2013, when the FBI took it down. Ulbricht was later captured and convicted to life in prison for his involvement in the scheme.
    
2. Banmeet Singh’s $100M+ dark web drug empire gets brought to light: Beginning with a recent case, Banmeet Singh of Haldwani, Northern India, was sentenced to eight years in prison in late January 2024 after being discovered to have built and led a multi-million dollar drug organisation. Singh gave over $150 million in cryptocurrencies, which turned out to be illegal drug money laundered into bitcoin. Singh built his narcotics enterprise on a variety of dark web marketplaces, transporting drugs from Europe to eight distribution centres in the United States, and shipping them across the Americas.
    
3. Former Navy Seal found guilty in dark web child pornography case: Most dark web sites cater to regular internet users, niche communities, and those seeking anonymity. Unfortunately, this story demonstrates that there are still some very awful pages on the dark web.

In 2023, former Navy Seal Robert Quido Stella was convicted of manufacturing, possessing, and accessing child pornography. He accomplished the latter by using Bitcoin to purchase a subscription to a dark web child pornography site. In 2021, Homeland Security obtained information that Quido had entered a dark web child pornography site. This sparked a search of his home, where agents discovered child pornography on his personal gadgets.

Most dark web sites cater to regular internet users, niche communities, and those seeking anonymity. Unfortunately, this story demonstrates that there are still some very awful pages on the dark web.

In 2023, former Navy Seal Robert Quido Stella was convicted of manufacturing, possessing, and accessing child pornography. He accomplished the latter by using Bitcoin to purchase a subscription to a dark web child pornography site.

In 2021, Homeland Security obtained information that Quido had entered a dark web child pornography site. This sparked a search of his home, where agents discovered child pornography on his personal gadgets. He also had hidden cameras, which he used to take inappropriate photos and recordings of youngsters.

Conclusion
Dark Web networks like TOR allow criminals to trade both lawful and illegitimate items anonymously. The Dark Web is being used for unlawful activities and materials. Protection processes should be proactive in correcting these issues. Taking steps to eradicate them. This article investigates the impact of the Dark Web on secrecy and confidentiality of the Dark Web, and the data reveal that anonymous users visit this Internet part every day.

However, by adopting a proactive and adapting approach, we can mitigate these risks. International cooperation, harmonized legal frameworks, and innovative technologies can enhance tracking and tracing capabilities. By shedding light on these shadows, we can forge a more secure and just digital future, protecting citizens and safeguarding global cybersecurity.

Suggestion
To effectively navigate the complexities of the dark web and cybercrime, policymakers should develop international agreements on governance, establish clear guidelines for law enforcement, and implement AI- powered tracking tools. Technological solutions include advanced forensic tools, block chain- based tracking, and machine learning algorithms. Research should focus on evaluating existing laws, emerging threats, and novel forensic techniques.

Law enforcement strategies should include regular training, international cooperation, undercover operations, and specialized cybercrimes unit. Public awareness campaigns should educate users about risks, promote cybersecurity best practices, and encourage responsible reporting.

Finally legislative reforms should update existing laws, clarify jurisdictional ambiguities, strengthen penalties, protect whistle blowers, and establish guidelines for digital evidence handling. By adopting a multifaceted approach, we can mitigate the dark web’s risks and create a safer cyber landscape.

End Notes:

• Jha R, Kharga P, Bholebawa I Z, Satyarthi S and Kumari S 2014, International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security 6, 49
• Chen, H., Chung, W., Qin, J., Reid, E., Sageman, M., & Weimann, G. (2008). Uncovering the Dark Web: A case study of Jjihad on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20838
• Jha R, Kharga P, Bholebawa I Z, Satyarthi S and Kumari S 2014 International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security 6, 49
• Hurlburt, G. (2017). Shining Light on the Dark Web. Computer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2017.110
• Gehl, R. W. (2016). Power/freedom on the dark web: A digital ethnography of the Dark Web Social Network. New Media and Society. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814554900
• The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 No. 45 of 2023
• The Information Technology Act, 2000, 21 of 2000
• The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908)
• The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872)
• AIR 543 1966 SCR (1) 656
• Geist, M. (2003). Cyber Law 2.0. Boston College Law Review, 44(2), 359-396
• Hurlburt, G. (2017). Shining Light on the Dark Web. Computer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2017.110
• Verma A, Kaur S and Chhabra B 2017 International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security 15, 66
• Schultz T (2008) Carving up the Internet: Jurisdiction, Legal Orders, and the Private/Public International Law Interface. European Journal of International Law 19(4):799–839
• United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71
• Former Navy Seal found guilty in dark web child pornography case. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/canyon-country-man-sentenced-20-years-federal-prison-producing-child-sexual-abuse