Digital graveyard

ARBITRARY network shutdowns and slow internet speeds have been the defining feature of 2024. The ever-revolving circle on the screen harks back to the dial-up days, where one would hear a cacophony of sound while waiting to connect to the internet. Sudden disconnections often took place when someone picked up the receiver of the landline. 2024 was all about someone constantly picking up the receiver of the landline, without warning, frequently and deliberately, and leaving it off the hook, again and again and again.

Instead of refraining from shutdowns and disruptions, the government, reportedly, has come up with a novel idea to exempt special technology zones and incubation centres. Uninterrupted supply will only be available in these zones and centres, much like if you reside on the same street as someone “important” and there is no load-shedding. Is the expectation for companies and individuals — who have either established set-ups or are freelancers and work remotely — to relocate to these zones and centres? Like the VPN registration regime, this approach also presumes that only some people require access, not everyone. And the only kind of access permissible is under government scrutiny, with red tape and additional costs.

Report upon report quotes losses in the billions as a result of network disruptions. People have lost clients, companies are relocating or setting up back offices, Pakistan is suffering from reputational damage with reluctance to outsource work due to the uncertainty. Yet, supposedly we are on our way to becoming a digital nation. This week, the Digital Nation bill was tabled in the National Assembly, ironically, amidst heated speeches on the state of internet connectivity in the country. The bill seeks to “transform Pakistan into a digitally empowered nation”. It speaks of a “digital masterplan” for “optimising digital initiatives”.

The more pressing issue tied to the proposed legislation is one of privacy in relation to ‘digital identity’.

The bill’s intent is supposedly to foster “a digital society, digital economy and digital governance”. This is laughable, given the current state of affairs. But the more pressing issue tied to this proposed legislation is one of privacy in relation to ‘digital identity’. To date, there is no data protection law in Pakistan. Jurisprudence on Article 14 is scant and the right on its own serves as a weak safeguard in practice. Procedures laid down in laws and the few pronouncements by courts requiring their enforcement in conjunction with fundamental rights are not heeded. Unlawful seizure of devices and access to them once in custody is a norm by LEAs. Privacy is violated on a routine basis without any accountability despite the fact that provisions in Peca criminalise unauthorised access and use of data.

Whether commercially or in the hands of public sector organisations, citizens’ data remains up for grabs. There have been breaches in the past compromising citizens’ data held by public sector entities such as Nadra. Political persecution is rampant and surveillance is expansive; a consolidated digital identity poses more risks than benefits.

Time and again, false equivalences are drawn to jurisdictions elsewhere with the justification: ‘but it also happens elsewhere’. Elsewhere, there exists a semblance of rule of law, privacy legislation, checks on executive power, accountability for violations and stringent processes for storing, processing and obtaining citizens’ data. It is not free for all the way it is here.

Here, bills receive approval overnight, drafts are not made public, lawmaking is reduced to a numbers game. If at all there is the facade of a consultation, it is about mere optics before proceeding with the original plan, disregarding all input. Case in point: The Punjab Defamation Law. Recently, the National Forensic Agency bill was passed. Amendments to Peca have been reported on but no bill has been shared. Hasty legislation backed by unqualified claims is the order of the day.

State Minister for IT, Shaza Fatima, made many unsubstantiated claims in the National Assembly this week. One of them was that only two per cent use X in Pakistan and that the ban is not a freedom of expression issue. What the minister fails to grasp is that the fundamental issue with the ban on X is of overly broad and illegal executive action. Whether it is one user or many, the ban on X is both a denial of access and freedom of expression issue. National security is thrown around as a justification, but never qualified.

In the US, the impending ban on TikTok has been linked to national security too, but this claim has been taken head on. An amicus brief filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression challenges this connection to national security. Posting the brief on X, they wrote: “National security can be a compelling interest. But before censoring 170 million Americans, the government must provide equally compelling evidence of a specific threat — and prove the TikTok ban is necessary to address it.” Their summary of arguments states that the burden of proof rests with the government and that there must be First Amendment scrutiny since it concerns the right of Americans to speak and receive information. They go on to state that “the law’s purpose reveals illegitimate intent to suppress disfavoured speech and generalised concerns about data privacy and national security”.

Filed this week, they will be heard by the US supreme court on Jan 10. Here, petitions challenging the ban on X, network disruptions, installation of the firewall, etc., have been pending for many months now. But it seems scrutiny of executive action, disruptions in connectivity, suppression of fundamental rights and the right to do business are non-issues for our courts, hence the lack of urgency in listing and hearing these petitions, let alone providing relief in them.

For 2025, there are promises of 5G and increased bandwidth. Lay all the cables and bring 5G, but pulling the plug on communications, throttling and banning are policy decisions which have nothing to do with a lack of infrastructure. It is fundamentally a mindset issue which is driven by control. Unless this changes, better infrastructure will not bring more stability or economic opportunity.

The writer is a co-founder of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights.

Published in Dawn, December 21st, 2024