17 Apr 14 | Digital Freedom, News and features, Pakistan
(Image: Aleksandar Mijatovic/Shutterstock)
As states have been revealed to be snooping on citizens and other governments, and we are confronted by data breaches and security issues like the latest Heartbleed crisis, more people are becoming aware of their internet rights. Voters and civil society around the world are pushing their governments to provide secure and private online spaces for internet users. It is quite refreshing to see Pakistan’s government working for internet laws. However, though some provisions of the proposed Computer Crimes Law (CCL) are copied from other countries’ legislation, several parts of the draft version violate international human rights, including the freedom of expression.
In an attempt to offer support to the government of Pakistan, Article 19 and Digital Rights Foundation Pakistan dissected the draft legislation to point out the provisions that need to be amended, and to help the government conform to international human rights norms. It is mandatory at this point to pressure the government to put in place better internet legislation in order to avoid future misuse of the legal framework, as has happened with other laws.
A leading example of how such poorly devised laws help authorities abuse power is the Monitoring and Reconciliation of International Telephone Traffic Regulations (MRITT), also known as the Grey Traffic legislation. Passed in 2010 to help the government ban anonymous communication and VPN usage, MRITT mandates the monitoring and blocking of any encrypted and unencrypted traffic that originates or terminates in Pakistan, including phone calls and data.
MRITT legitimised blocking and internet monitoring on a massive scale — allowing a ban on VPN and VoIP services like Skype, Viber, WhatsApp and SpotFlux among others. The implementation of this legislation raises several concerns especially among the business community of Pakistan. The first official notification citing the MRITT to block VPN was issued in July 2011, targeting “all mechanisms which conceal communication to the extent that prohibits monitoring”.
The global reliance on the internet for communications and the, at times, complete blackouts of certain services by the government of Pakistan pose serious economic challenges. Not only business, but educational activities are hampered by the implications of MRITT. It also affects the privacy rights of Pakistani citizens. License deploying monitoring systems are expected to provide data — including a complete list of Pakistani consumers and their details — to the authorities when required under sub clause 6(d) of Part II of the regulation.
The Pakistan Protection Amendment Bill 2014 is another scary example of a woolly worded law. It was recently passed by Pakistan’s national assembly and is awaiting approval by the senate. Human Rights Watch stated that: “The vague definition of terrorist acts, which could be used to prosecute a very wide range of conduct — far beyond the limits of what can reasonably be considered terrorist activity. Besides ‘killing, kidnapping, extortion,’ the law classifies highly ambiguous acts including ‘Internet offences’ and ‘disrupting mass transport systems,’ as prosecutable crimes without providing specific definitions for such offences.”
The latest version of the Computer Crimes Law has been drafted by the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunications (MoITT). The proposed law establishes various computer crimes and sets out rules for investigation, prosecution and trial of these offences. Acts such as illegal access to and interference with programs, data or information systems; cyber terrorism; electronic forgery and fraud; making of devices for use in these types of offences; and unauthorised interception of communication are included. Like MRITT, it is feared that the Computer Crimes Law in its current draft form, if passed, would include several violations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Pakistan acceded in 2010.
The concerns over the Computer Crimes legislation mentioned by Article 19 and Digital Rights Foundation, include lack of proper definitions of terms like content, data, information system or program. Their recommendations also highlight concerns about broader cyber-terrorism offences under Section 7 (a) and (b), and more importantly, the lack of procedural safeguards against unchecked surveillance activities carried out by the country’s intelligence agencies.
At this stage of the process, it is important for regional and international civil society and internet privacy rights groups to put pressure on the government of Pakistan to make the right amendments to the law before passing it. This law is extremely important for providing safety and security to Pakistani internet users and cannot be abolished or delayed. It is only right, then, that it introduces correct and clearly defined provisions to make it effective, and not vulnerable to abuse by authorities.
This article was published on 17 April 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
06 Mar 14 | European Union, Religion and Culture
A policy paper published by Article 19 has provided guidelines to help establish the difference between hate speech and freedom of expression, especially in reference to the use of hate speech against LGBTI people.
By focusing on “international standards and domestic trends countering the advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to hostility, discrimination or violence (“incitement”) specifically, and hate speech more generally,” Article 19 aims to define what constitutes as hate speech as well as making recommendations for the protection of freedom of expression.
The paper comes after human rights advocates, policy makers and the general public demanded clarity as to where the line should be drawn between free speech and hate speech, in particular that surrounding LGBT people.
In a statement on their own website, Article 19 said: “The paper is guided by the principle that coordinated and focused action to promote the rights to freedom of expression and equality is essential for fostering a tolerant, pluralistic and diverse democratic society in which all human rights can be realised, including those of LGBTI people.”
The policy paper points out the need for all “domestic prohibitions” to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics, but that these laws need to conform to international standards on limiting the right to freedom of expression and information.
Through the paper Article 19 hopes to establish clear boundaries “between permissible and impermissible expression” as well as providing guidelines to help others determine what fits into each category. Not only this, but the report will also contribute to “ensuring that all people are able to enjoy both the right to freedom of expression and the right to equality.”
The report also includes a breakdown of the current jurisdiction against hate speech in 36 countries, primarily in Europe, to highlight the difference between the constitutional and philosophical choices that each country makes when drawing up legislation on free speech and equality.
Read the full report here.
31 Jan 14 | About Index, Campaigns, Egypt, Statements
PDF: Arabic Version
Leading international media freedom and human rights organisations call on the EU and US to demand Egypt’s authorities drop charges against Al-Jazeera journalists and release those under arrest
Article 19, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Index on Censorship and Reporters Without Borders today said the Egyptian authorities must stop their attacks on media freedom and freedom of expression. The deteriorating environment for journalists to operate safely and report freely is of grave concern. The deliberate chilling of media freedom and free speech through arrests and criminalisation of legitimate journalism has all the hallmarks of the authoritarian Egypt of the Mubarak era.
The organisations call on the leaders of the European Union and the US to demand that Egypt’s authorities immediately release the Al-Jazeera journalists and end their clamp-down on media freedom, free speech and freedom of assembly without delay. The EU and US must support all those standing up for democracy, human rights and media freedom in Egypt.
Egyptian prosecutors have said that 20 journalists face charges though only 8 are currently under arrest. Four of these are believed to be foreigners and the other 12 said to be Egyptians.
Thomas Hughes, Executive Director, Article 19
Joel Simon, Executive Director, Committee to Protect Journalists
Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive, Index on Censorship
Christophe Deloire, Secretaire Général, Reporters Without Borders
Press Contacts
Article 19: Ayden Peach, 07973911993
Committee to Protect Journalists: Samantha Libby, [email protected] / +1 212 300 9032 ext 124
Index on Censorship: Padraig Reidy, [email protected] / 0207 260 2660
Reporters Without Borders: Isabelle Gourmelon, [email protected] / +33 01 44 83 84 56
17 Jan 14 | About Index, Campaigns, Statements
Leading free speech and privacy organisations call on the world’s elite assembled at Davos to tackle the challenge of global mass surveillance of electronic communications.
ARTICLE 19, English PEN, Index on Censorship and Open Rights Group are urging global leaders to discuss how states ensure security measures do not undermine rights and individual liberties, following revelations that the security agencies have been conducting secret mass surveillance of the digital communications of millions of people around the world.
The organisations said:
“The mass surveillance of our communications by the NSA, GCHQ and others undermines the right to privacy, free speech and media freedom. As such it is an assault on democracies and our societies. The leaders assembled at Davos must take a stand against surveillance – stop spying on us now.”
Secret mass surveillance is a threat to democracy and the rule of law.
If people are unable to know about the extent of government surveillance, we are unable to protect our fundamental rights.
When private communications are monitored by the state in secret, confidence in digital communications technology is unacceptably compromised, which has a severe chilling effect on freedom of expression and dangerously risks restricting the free flow of information.
Online surveillance programmes threaten to weaken the general security and privacy of communications systems and undermines trust in digital services. This has economic implications, as well as compromising the ability of people to express themselves.
We believe that:
Surveillance is only legitimate when it is targeted, authorised by a warrant, and when it is necessary and proportionate.
Mass population-wide surveillance is never justified.
Secret agreements that sanction mass surveillance undermine democracy. Citizens need a clear legal framework that governs state surveillance, in order to protect their rights.
All surveillance should be sanctioned by an independent judge on a case-by-case basis.
There must be effective, independent oversight of surveillance to command public confidence that such surveillance is not being abused.
For further information or interviews please contact:
Jo Glanville, Director, English PEN – tel 0771 302 0971
Kirsty Hughes, CEO, Index on Censorship – tel 07577 483 815
Jim Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group – tel 0789 449 8127
ARTICLE 19 – tel 0207 324 2510
Liberty
