On 4th November 2015, a bus conductor was sentenced to three years in prison for harassing a woman on Facebook. The conviction, by a local court in Islamabad, was the first of its kind.
Amir Qayyum, who is illiterate, had made a fake Facebook profile and asked a woman to marry her. When she declined his proposal, he posted and circulated objectionable photo-shopped pictures of the lady on the social network. The brave woman chose to pursue the case, and the man was eventually thrown behind bars.
But most cyber-stalkers and online blackmailers in Pakistan get away with such activities. The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has more than a thousand pending applications reporting harassment and blackmailing on social media and the internet. The law under which these crimes are being tried does not deal explicitly with harassment, but was aimed at securing digital information.
A number of cases of harassment, intimidation and extortion involving the use of cellular phones are being tried under the Telegraph Act of 1885 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1933, and the courts often ask for evidence in the form of documents. The Electronic Transactions Ordinance of 2002 was meant to regulate digital infrastructure, but only included two criminal offences – violation of privacy and systems damage. This was followed by the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance in 2007. It included an elaborate list of crimes, such as cyber-stalking, spamming, spoofing, interception of digital systems and cyber-terrorism. When the ordinance was promulgated on 31st December 2007, there were no elected assemblies. When a new government took charge in 2008, they extended the law a couple of times, until it lapsed in 2009.
When the controversial new Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act was proposed, there were apprehensions that it would open avenues for censorship, surveillance and government control. Civil society representatives fear that it will negatively affect the already precarious state of freedom of expression in the country, and reduce the social media – the most democratic forum for candid debate – to a space for benign and harmless exchange of opinion.
The act retains the provisions of the 2007 law about cyber-stalking, spamming, electronic fraud and forgery, unauthorized data interceptions and malicious codes, but has also introduced new offences, such as maligning people’s dignity and modesty, and glorification of terrorism and other crimes. The obvious intention of the government, which moved the bill, is to address harassment, intimidation, impersonation, fraud and other crimes on the internet. Like the 2007 law, the new act allows ‘authorized officers’ to collect real time traffic data, and the “blocking and removal of any intelligence” deemed indecent or against religious and national sentiments.
The proposed law was passed by the National Assembly without a serious debate, but the Senate took more interest in the matter. A Senate committee on Information Technology proposed a number of amendments, such as reducing punishments of some of the offences, and new offences such as hate speech, child pornography, and terrorist recruitment. The burden of proof of good faith, the committee says, will be on the investigation agency concerned. A number of opposition Senators proposed their own amendments.
There is no denying the fact that the existing penal law covering the cybersphere is not sufficient. The FIA, which is mandated to investigate cybercrime, is bogged down by thousands of complaints with a limited number of laws and an even more limited capacity. Most countries of the world have had such laws since long. Not a single lawmaker rejects the bill. The debate is about the content, and how much power should be given to the state.
The Pakistani constitution guarantees freedom of expression, and there is a need is to balance the prosecution of internet crime with ensuring free and unhindered expression of opinion on social media. Most of the offences, except for cyber-terrorism and maligning people’s dignity or modesty, are bailable and non-cognizable. That means that no adverse action can be taken without the approval of the court. That is also the case with seizure and real time collection of data, although it is still contentious and controversial.
The act generated a heated debate on social media. It would have been more encouraging if such a debate had also been in the legislatures. But there is hope that the Senate, being the representative of the federation, has exhaustively scrutinized the bill and made sure it balances freedom with responsibility and justice.
Now, the government should begin looking at institutional issues, such as a serious overhaul of the National Response Center (NRC) at FIA, and capacity building in the criminal justice system.
Amir Qayyum, who is illiterate, had made a fake Facebook profile and asked a woman to marry her. When she declined his proposal, he posted and circulated objectionable photo-shopped pictures of the lady on the social network. The brave woman chose to pursue the case, and the man was eventually thrown behind bars.
But most cyber-stalkers and online blackmailers in Pakistan get away with such activities. The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has more than a thousand pending applications reporting harassment and blackmailing on social media and the internet. The law under which these crimes are being tried does not deal explicitly with harassment, but was aimed at securing digital information.
A number of cases of harassment, intimidation and extortion involving the use of cellular phones are being tried under the Telegraph Act of 1885 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1933, and the courts often ask for evidence in the form of documents. The Electronic Transactions Ordinance of 2002 was meant to regulate digital infrastructure, but only included two criminal offences – violation of privacy and systems damage. This was followed by the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance in 2007. It included an elaborate list of crimes, such as cyber-stalking, spamming, spoofing, interception of digital systems and cyber-terrorism. When the ordinance was promulgated on 31st December 2007, there were no elected assemblies. When a new government took charge in 2008, they extended the law a couple of times, until it lapsed in 2009.
The act allows 'authorized officers' to collect real-time internet traffic data
When the controversial new Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act was proposed, there were apprehensions that it would open avenues for censorship, surveillance and government control. Civil society representatives fear that it will negatively affect the already precarious state of freedom of expression in the country, and reduce the social media – the most democratic forum for candid debate – to a space for benign and harmless exchange of opinion.
The act retains the provisions of the 2007 law about cyber-stalking, spamming, electronic fraud and forgery, unauthorized data interceptions and malicious codes, but has also introduced new offences, such as maligning people’s dignity and modesty, and glorification of terrorism and other crimes. The obvious intention of the government, which moved the bill, is to address harassment, intimidation, impersonation, fraud and other crimes on the internet. Like the 2007 law, the new act allows ‘authorized officers’ to collect real time traffic data, and the “blocking and removal of any intelligence” deemed indecent or against religious and national sentiments.
The proposed law was passed by the National Assembly without a serious debate, but the Senate took more interest in the matter. A Senate committee on Information Technology proposed a number of amendments, such as reducing punishments of some of the offences, and new offences such as hate speech, child pornography, and terrorist recruitment. The burden of proof of good faith, the committee says, will be on the investigation agency concerned. A number of opposition Senators proposed their own amendments.
There is no denying the fact that the existing penal law covering the cybersphere is not sufficient. The FIA, which is mandated to investigate cybercrime, is bogged down by thousands of complaints with a limited number of laws and an even more limited capacity. Most countries of the world have had such laws since long. Not a single lawmaker rejects the bill. The debate is about the content, and how much power should be given to the state.
The Pakistani constitution guarantees freedom of expression, and there is a need is to balance the prosecution of internet crime with ensuring free and unhindered expression of opinion on social media. Most of the offences, except for cyber-terrorism and maligning people’s dignity or modesty, are bailable and non-cognizable. That means that no adverse action can be taken without the approval of the court. That is also the case with seizure and real time collection of data, although it is still contentious and controversial.
The act generated a heated debate on social media. It would have been more encouraging if such a debate had also been in the legislatures. But there is hope that the Senate, being the representative of the federation, has exhaustively scrutinized the bill and made sure it balances freedom with responsibility and justice.
Now, the government should begin looking at institutional issues, such as a serious overhaul of the National Response Center (NRC) at FIA, and capacity building in the criminal justice system.