Tightening the cyber noose

Most countries and their companies want to assure their people that their online data will remain private and safe and that it cannot be shared without their consent. State authorities can only access data in the most serious cases such as when a crime has already been committed. This is how things are on the surface at least, though the revelations of Edward Snowden and others have proven that unjust government surveillance is a problem even in the most ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic' of countries. In Pakistan, the authorities are seemingly not even bothered to keep up with the pretence. Such is the low regard in which the people’s rights are held. After the sporadic restrictions on X (formerly Twitter) access dating back to last year, we now have the PTA proposing a new regulatory framework requiring all Over-The-Top (OTT) services, including prominent platforms like YouTube, Netflix, WhatsApp, Facebook, and X (Twitter), to register locally for 15 years. The draft framework cites the Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content Rules 2021, to call for OTT services to register locally. This is a law that the Islamabad High Court directed the authorities to review over two years ago to ensure that it aligns with constitutional rights but, somewhat predictably, it is yet to be revised. The PTA’s new framework calls for 'personal data' to be stored exclusively in Pakistan and for content monitoring and evaluation to be overseen by relevant government ministries and organizations. Some digital rights activists say this new framework could pave the way for the authorities to have virtual on-demand access to private citizen’s data.

Why is such a system needed when we reportedly already have the Lawful Intercept Management System (LIMS), which apparently allows access to private messages, video/audio content, call records, and web browsing histories, according to court documents? The PTA allegedly mandated telecom companies to finance, import, and install this mass surveillance system which could have impacted up to four million citizens. Maybe this figure is too small for the kind of surveillance that is needed. When not monitoring or seeking to expand access to citizens' data and activity online, the state also simply decides to suspend internet access altogether from time to time.

Now, it is important not to downplay the security concerns faced by Pakistan, especially during religiously sensitive events. However, is this really the price the people must pay for safety? Many countries around the world have security concerns. Do they all simply cut people’s internet off? Surely a better balance between safety and digital freedom and privacy can be struck. And this is coming from the same governments that are asking people to shell out more and more in taxes. Where do they think the incomes that generate those taxes come from in the 21st century? Have they thought at all about the damage these suspensions and new registration and monitoring systems will do to the country’s nascent IT ecosystem? What will they do to dissuade the freelancers who have had enough of their work being compromised every few months and decide to leave the country, taking their incomes and foreign exchange with them? What will they do once companies decide that our IT rules are simply too restrictive to warrant any great commitment in Pakistan? Do the people driving these policies ever want to get out from under IMF loans and current account deficits? Isolating people from the future and new avenues of information is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes. This is the only way to secure permanent control, by basically freezing time. Sadly, what this means for the country is being frozen in place and getting left further and further behind by everyone else.