he Pakistan Telecommunication Authority announced, via its Twitter handle, on February 1 that it had degraded the services of Wikipedia due to the website’s failure to comply with its request to remove or block allegedly sacrilegious content hosted on the platform. Sources close to the authority say the content in question was related to a vulnerable group in Pakistan.

States have the power to control internet traffic at various levels. An independent network scan conducted using various internet service providers confirmed that the Wikipedia services in Pakistan were throttled by manipulating the Transmission Control Protocol. Throttling of an internet service means that the internet service providers or the regulator impose a limit on data transfer with a specific source of information, which in this case, was Wikipedia, making it inaccessible to the public trying to access its services.

The degradation of Wikipedia services was criticised by the public, civil society and some sections of the government. Later, a ministerial committee, acting on a directive from the prime minister, reviewed the decision and advised against the blocking. The prime minister promptly directed the restoration of the services. The PTA’s power to ban any website it deems sacrilegious, contravenes the principles of necessity and proportionality. In the past, YouTube was similarly blocked. There is a concern that the regulator may continue to take similar decisions.

With the evolution of communication channels, governments have also increased their efforts to implement modern censorship mechanisms. The PTA is reported to have acquired a web management system in 2019 from the Canadian company Sandvine through a third-party technology business in Pakistan.

The technology enables deep inspection of data packets and analysis of their contents. It also surveys the online activities of internet users. Authoritarian regimes around the world have been using similar technologies to monitor the activities of their citizens, particularly journalists and human rights defenders.

The use of throttling technologies has also been observed in times of political unrest. During the Azadi March, for instance, YouTube services were degraded, making it difficult for PTI leader Imran Khan to communicate with his workers.

Former human rights minister Dr Shireen Mazari had then accused the PTA of using modern censorship technologies against her party. She had specifically pointed to the web management system provided by Sandvine, alleging that it was being used to throttle YouTube services. The fact is that the technology was procured and first employed under the PTI government.

In the domain of internet governance, the question of “who controls the internet?” is important. The answer, however, is not straightforward. Internet management is not the responsibility of a single authority, country or business. Instead, a multi-stakeholder approach has been developed under the United Nations, where internet governance matters are discussed and deliberated upon.

Key stakeholders in internet governance include governments across the globe, internet conglomerates like Google, Meta and Twitter etc and not-for-profit organisations working on internet governance issues, such as ICANN and global and local digital rights organisations like the International Telecommunication Union.

Acting as an executive authority, the PTA has assumed the role of interpreting and determining what is illegal or unlawful under Section 37(1) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016.

The concept of multi-stakeholder-ism in internet governance was introduced under the World Summit on the Information Society. The Geneva Plan of Action which was adopted by the UN General Assembly throught its Eesolution 56/183 in 2001. The roots of this concept were further established in 2005. Since then, the UN has been organising the Internet Governance Forum in collaboration with various host countries every year.

The establishment of the Internet Governance Forum has not resulted in preventing authoritarian actions by governments with regard to content moderation. Moreover, even though numerous well-crafted policy frameworks, such as the UN Guidelines on Business and Human Rights, have been adopted under this forum, this has failed to address issues concerning the role of powerful corporations based in Europe and Western countries, like the US and Canada, which have been exporting invasive surveillance technologies to authoritarian states.

Companies like Sandvine, Gamma International Ltd, and Hacking Team, known for their Orwellian practices, have been sustained by taxpayer funds from countries like Pakistan.

The case of Wikipedia is a classic illustration of the violation of the citizens’ rights. Acting as an executive authority, the PTA has assumed the role of interpreting and determining what is illegal or unlawful under Section 37(1) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016. This has become a significant challenge to the freedom of speech and the right to information.

It is important to note that Section 37 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act uses the language of Article 19 of the constitution, which protects the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The PTA, acting as a regulatory body, has assumed the responsibility of interpreting and determining what information is illegal or unacceptable under Section 37(1) of PECA 2016.

The legislative process that occurred between 2014 and 2016 was flawed. The country was then dealing with the impact of terrorism. A rethinking of the law is imperative. The existing framework has caused significant harm through censorship and self-censorship. Political parties, for instance, have suffered the consequences of provisions like criminal defamation. Journalists and human rights activists too continue to be victims of such laws.

The state has been tightening its control over civil and political rights, particularly freedom of speech, access to information, privacy, and the right to peaceful assembly in online spaces. The increased control has resulted in a reduction of spaces for critical thinkers and progressive individuals, making it difficult for them to express their opinions freely. The process of introducing restrictive internet laws was initiated by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz in 2014. It was supported and continued by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf in 2019.

The current government too is trying to criminalise critical expression under the guise of defamation. The Ministry of Interior has proposed a five-year imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs 10 million for anyone maligning the military or the judiciary. Such approach will not improve the situation. The state institutions should reflect on their past mistakes, respect the constitutional rights of citizens and allow for critical thinking.

It is important to allow citizens to harness the potential of technology. This cannot be achieved without enabling the exercise of their civil, political and economic rights.

The author is a  journalist and digital rights activist. He can be reached at Twitter @advertbalcha