A bill before lawmakers in Pakistan to prevent online crime in Pakistan has raised deep concern both in the country and abroad, with critics in the country’s political opposition and civil society accusing the proposal’s supporters of seeking to impose “electronic martial law”.
Local observers claim that the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill 2015, commonly known as the Cyber Crimes Bill, would give the government and Pakistan’s telecommunications regulator unchecked powers that endanger the freedom of the press online – a fear heightened by the country’s unfortunate record of political censorship.
The law traces its origins back to 2007, when then-President Pervez Musharraf issued a similarly titled ordinance, which was widely perceived as draconian in scope. The measure was subject to a number of revisions in subsequent years up to December 2014, when 141 people, mostly children, were killed in an attack by Islamist militants on a school in Peshawar.
Following the attack, Pakistani authorities launched a 20-point National Action Plan to respond to terrorism, including terrorist material posted online. The Plan set the stage for introduction of the Cyber Crimes Bill, which limits what content can be shared, accessed or published online.
However, local observers note, the measure provides no judicial oversight over takedowns of links and entire websites. They also argue that the bill potentially breaches the privacy of Internet users’ online activity and personal data, and criminalises defamation occurring online, imposing penalties in some circumstances of up to three years in prison.
In addition to criticising the bill’s content, observers also have objected to the secretive manner in which it was drafted. Press freedom defenders only obtained access to the bill’s current language after it was leaked online, and opposition members of Parliament were largely kept in the dark during the drafting process.
One of those who have objected to the bill is Farieha Aziz, the director of Bolo Bhi, a civil society organisation working on Internet freedom, privacy and gender rights in Pakistan. The International Press Institute (IPI) spoke with Aziz to highlight some of the Cyber Crimes bill’s potential curbs on speech, media freedom and access to information.
IPI: One of the main concerns expressed is the lack of judicial oversight over the executive powers the bill gives to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, allowing it to block an entire website when deemed necessary.
Aziz: One of the most contentious clauses has been Sec. 34, which [has a] title [that] reads “Power to manage on-line information”. What it does is, it copy-pastes Art. 19 from the Constitution of Pakistan, which gives citizens the right to speech; except that [right] is limited to certain categories that are exempted. The problem is that the government is trying to empower the Internet regulator, which is the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, to make content judgments unilaterally, and then apply them. And giving them the ability to take down whatever they feel fits a particular category by themselves. This is something that’s being hotly debated in Pakistan. We’ve had a lot of political censorship in the past and in the name of blocking anti-religious or pornographic material, a lot of political speech against certain political parties or figures, or military, has been curtailed, and that’s one of the concerns.
IPI: Another contentious provision is Sec. 18, which criminalises the act of spreading “false” information that “harms” the reputation of a person. How can this impact the conversations on social media?
Aziz: Firstly, a Cyber Crime bill addresses crime online [and not content issues]; the lack of judicial oversight and other contentious provisions have been added to the bill where they don’t belong at all. Interestingly, Sec. 18 pertaining to harm to reputation exempts the electronic media. For example, whatever is said on a talk show on TV would not be covered under this bill. However, the moment the same TV show is uploaded online, its content becomes liable, and then you can use the ‘harm to reputation’ clause. Social networks have been used as an alternate citizens’ platform or used by journalists. A lot of times, mainstream media will not publish or go against a particular view. But social media has been that avenue where people have been able to bring certain things to light and there will be a chilling effect, because people will not only be liable when something happens, but a lot of people will start self-censoring or being very careful about what they do or do not do.
IPI: The current version of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill includes penalties for those who leak documents. How do you think this provision might impact investigative journalism in Pakistan?
Aziz: So, there are two sections on this regard. Sec. 3 pertains to unauthorised access to an information system and Sec. 4 to unauthorised copy or transmission of data. Unauthorised access to information and data carries a penalty of three months in jail and unauthorised copy or transmission of data carries a penalty of six months. So, again, it’s fairly loosely worded. If somebody wishes to obtain documents and it was obviously not authorised for it to be copied, that means that that person could be liable to a fine. So, not only does this criminalise the journalists using it, your sources – sometime your sources are within government institutions. Of course, there’s various debates about what is classified and whether it can be shared or not; so not only the person [who shared] this information will be liable, but also the source will be liable to a fine or jail time as well.
IPI: The journalistic community sees in the current shape of the law a potential serious threat to fundamental rights and freedoms, and an attempt by the government to promote the criminalisation of dissent?
Aziz: There are privacy concerns – the kind of intrusive powers that are being given to investigation agencies. One of the sub-clauses is that people will need to hand over passwords to give access to encrypted data, there’s no parameter within which it will deal with seized data. So, once a device containing data is seized, what will be the chain of custody? How do you know that it’s not going to be misused? None of these things are very clear. Similarly, in terms of judicial oversight, the requirement for warrants – so, while for arrest and certain seizure there’s a requirement to issue a warrant; but what about seizing of data? And not only content data, but also traffic data, which is also identifiable data?
IPI: How do you see this bill moving forward? Will the national and international pressure help in any way to improve the wording and the content of the text?
Aziz: Earlier it seemed as if the law would just be passed by the National Assembly, which is the lower house of the Parliament. But because there has been tremendous opposition inside the legislature by opposition parties – all of them have filed their amendments – I am hoping to see debate on this. And then the Senate, which is the upper house, has drawn a very clear line saying that the bill will not be allowed to pass in its current form. The senators want this bill to be brought in line with several other principles, so I am hoping that there will be a proper debate inside the legislature on this, and that this bill will be fixed. The ideal situation would be that the bill is completely redrafted, but given how things work that perhaps might not happen. But I am hopeful that, at least, at the Senate stage this will be reviewed substantively.
***********************************************************
Resources:
Version of the PECB as approved by the Pakistan National Assembly’s Standing Committee on IT in September 2015:
