Ramsha Jahangir is a fellow at Tech Policy Press.
KARACHI, PAKISTAN – AUGUST 9, 2023: Preparations for Pakistan Independence Day on the streets of Karachi. Hasnain Qureshi, Shutterstock
In Pakistan, censorship tactics that were once hidden in the shadows are now operating out in the open, serving as a clear and present reminder of the clear and present threat posed by the government’s tightening control over the internet. Each new censorship measure brings Pakistan one step closer to a world where access to information, freedom of expression, and privacy are distant memories. Here’s how it happened (and this is just the tip of the iceberg):
Monitoring millions
Amid growing concerns about privacy rights, the Pakistani government has given its spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), sweeping new powers to intercept phone calls, messages and even web browsing data, just days after a high court ruling questioned the legality of government surveillance.
The court ruling said the Lawful Intercept Management System (LIMS) allows the ISI to conduct surveillance without independent oversight and capture the “full content of communications” including audio, video and web browsing data. The ruling came after private phone conversations involving former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife were recorded and leaked on social media.
Adding to concerns, LIMS also collects encrypted data from communication apps, but it cannot decrypt the content itself. To access the contents of encrypted messages, Pakistani authorities would have to make a separate decryption request directly to the social media companies behind apps like WhatsApp. “Based on rough estimates, more than four million citizens may be subject to surveillance at any given time,” the ruling noted.
But it gets even worse: the court order revealed serious flaws in Pakistan’s surveillance practices: no warrant has ever been sought under the legal framework that is supposed to govern state surveillance, the Fair Trial Investigations Act of 2013. This revelation not only exposes an abuse of executive power, but also a glaring lack of accountability, privacy and data protection safeguards in the law itself.
The lack of transparency in Pakistan’s surveillance activities raises many troubling questions. Is the system truly “legal” if it operates entirely outside of judicial oversight and potentially violates fundamental rights enshrined in the country’s constitution? Without warrants or clear criteria for targeting individuals, the system opens the door to abuse and disproportionate enforcement. How will citizens know if they are being monitored and on what basis? These concerns go beyond legality. How will this data be used and where will it be stored? The potential for misuse, from suppression of dissent to selective targeting, looms large. The blurred line between national security and individual privacy calls for a clear and transparent legal framework with strong checks and balances before Pakistan plunges unwittingly into a surveillance society.
X ban continues
Since February 17, 2024, X (formerly Twitter) has been inaccessible to Pakistani users. After months of denials, confusion and obfuscation, the government confirmed that it would not lift the ban. In a written response to the Sindh High Court, which is hearing several petitions against the ban, the interior ministry defended its actions, claiming that X poses a “threat to peace and national security” by “spreading disinformation and inciting violence.”
Pakistan’s Ministry of Interior, while acknowledging the ban on social media platform X, maintains that it does not violate the freedom of expression or access to information protected under Article 19 of the Constitution. The ministry cited the Removal and Blocking of Illegal Online Content Rules, 2020 (issued under Section 37 of PECA 2016) as the legal basis for blocking X for failing to comply with local rules. Interestingly, these rules have been challenged in court and prima facie found to be in violation of Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution.
Justifying the ban, the ministry said it was a move to promote “responsible use of social media platforms in accordance with local laws.” The ministry cited precedent for the X ban; in the past, the interior ministry had taken similar action against TikTok due to “objectionable content” on the platform. However, the ministry claims that the ban was lifted after TikTok signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the government and agreed to abide by Pakistani laws.
This push for localization remains difficult to reconcile with the internationally recognized principles of necessity and proportionality. Without a clear and transparent legal basis for regulation, Pakistani authorities expect companies to enforce updated terms of use that ban a wide range of hard-to-define content, including content that “offends religious, cultural or ethnic sensitivities” and “national security,” and monitor their services accordingly.
In a separate petition seeking a nationwide ban on TikTok for allowing “un-Islamic” posts, the company told the court it had shifted responsibility for removing blasphemous content to the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, adding that it removes videos after receiving complaints from the regulator.
A clear notice-and-takedown mechanism, in line with international best practice, would include establishing a legal framework based on the principles of necessity and proportionality, specifying specific criteria for content removal, and ensuring judicial oversight of decisions. The way forward requires a delicate balance; such a restrictive model of state regulation risks further undermining human rights.
***
Some in the government argue that Pakistan’s tightening internet controls simply reflect a global trend toward content moderation and national security measures. But this justification falls short for several reasons. First, unlike many countries, Pakistan’s actions lack transparency, a clear and consistent legal basis, and independent oversight. Second, effective content moderation can be achieved without sacrificing fundamental rights. Democracies often prioritize transparency, judicial review, and collaboration with social media platforms to develop clear guidelines and content moderation strategies. Pakistan’s current approach risks isolating the country from these best practices and creating a digital environment that prioritizes control over freedom.
