Currently viewing the category: "Internet Freedom"

How do we address the problem of access denial in Pakistan?

The dilemma authorities and now the court is faced with is this: on the one hand are sentiments that need to be respected; on the other are freedoms that also need to be protected. And this debate is currently ongoing at the Lahore High Court, where a petition regarding the ban on YouTube is being heard.

It has already been established that the ban on YouTube is overbroad; access to a lot of educational videos among other content, has been restricted. However, the problem with reopening YouTube in Pakistan – officially – remains linked to the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ video. There judge’s view is that reopening the platform without restricted access to the video has the potential of sparking off violence. And so as soon as access to the video can be restricted, YouTube can be reopened.

The simple solution would be just not to watch the video. Unless one makes an effort to go to the specific URL, the video will not just show up. The other thing to do for those who feel strongly about the content would be to flag it. If enough people consider the content to be hurtful, they have the option of reporting it. Once a certain threshold is reached, a video is  reviewed against community guidelines to see whether it violates them and is taken down. However, neither of these are the popular solutions. Not that the take-down system itself is free of problems – it also has the potential of being misused.

Is blocking URLs really possible? This, too, came up in court, addressed first by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) officials in the hearing held on April 12, and then by non-state technology experts on April 26. According to PTA, despite blocking links to the video, new links cropped up every day. PTA’s argument was that given the current capacity, they could not keep restricting access to links leading to the video, and so had to shut down the domain. This is a justification presented by the authorities time and again for blanket bans.

[See our statements on arbitrary blocks and bans published in various articles and press releases]

The architecture of the Internet is such that there is no way of really restricting access; there are always ways of getting to something. And so trying to block is really an exercise in futility. As it is, most Pakistanis have been accessing YouTube through the use of proxies, rendering the ban in place redundant.

Amicus Khurram Zafar maintained it was not the business of the state to determine what one should view or not view. That discretion should be exercised in the home. He advocated self regulation vs state regulation. Just as parents use safety tools and browsers that prevent their children from accessing certain content, the same can be done for the video in question – users can install softwares in their own machines to restrict access. But one person’s morality cannot be applied to another’s or extended to apply to the country’s people as a whole.

Interestingly enough, the PTA official also said content blocking was not their mandate, and neither should it be. Rightly so. Currently, it appears to be the mandate of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Evaluation of Websites (IMCEW). The IMCEW comprises representatives of the following ministries: Ministry of Information and Technology, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Cabinet Division and, apparently also a representative of the ISI, as revealed by the PTA official. In fact, it was the federation lawyer who mentioned it was the IMCEW that had ordered an ‘IP level’ ban on YouTube in September, when it convened to discuss the issue. A document in this regard with the decision in writing was submitted to court on April 12. But this also raises the question, whether government functionaries should be the sole decision makers?

[See our E-Regulations Timeline]

At one point, there was also discussion on existing methods of blocking – which by the way are manual at the moment. Those present at the hearing were asked by the judge how this is done in other Muslim countries. The PTA official was quick to say they have better technology and thousands of employees to carry out this task. But again he expressed the reservation that PTA was not the authority that should shoulder this responsibility.
There was also talk of procurement of filtering softwares – which is a dangerous road to go down. The court was cautioned that among the many negatives, it slows down internet speed and breaches user privacy.

According to the PTA representative, a system has been acquired by PTCL (Pakistan Telecommunications Company Limited) – one of the two gatekeepers with landing rights to the Internet – but is glitchy. However, he assured it would be up and running in the next two to three months, and should be functional for the next two to three years. What exactly is the capability of this system and how will it be used is unclear. On the face of it, these systems are supposedly acquired to block anti-Islamic and pornographic content but, their many uses involve curbing political dissent. Citizen Lab’s report ‘Planet Blue Coats’ was was submitted to court by Bolo Bhi, which extensively discusses the types of filtering softwares in place in various countries, and the problems with them.

There was extensive talk about http and https too. As explained by the PTA official, most websites use https – a secure network. And anything on https is virtually impossible to block and cannot be done their end. He also mentioned that doing away with the https layer would be detrimental to commerce and especially the banking industry. The concluding argument on the technology side of this issue was this: there is nothing that can be done from within Pakistan to block links to the video; it is something only YouTube can do. This moved the discussion to a resolution of sorts on the policy side of this issue.

[See our timeline on varying statements on the YouTube ban]

Since the outcry against the video, in Pakistan the question being asked was: why doesn’t YouTube just block it? There was no simple answer to this. One contention by the company was that for a video to be removed by them, it had to violate community guidelines which, according to the Google Transparency Report released on April 25, 2013, this video didn’t. Then why was it blocked in other countries and not in Pakistan was the other question. Local versions of YouTube – i.e. country level domains – exist in countries where the video was restricted. This was true of many Muslim countries, where even today YouTube is officially accessible. But why not in Pakistan?

The policy perspective to this query is: Google and its subsidiary YouTube have no legal presence in Pakistan. While a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT)  was being viewed as the solution to this, it really isn’t. The MLAT is a treaty signed between two countries – in this case, it would be Pakistan and the US. The treaty facilitates an exchange of information and action but on the basis of corresponding laws. And in this particular case, there are no corresponding laws to address the situation. This was explained in detail by Ministry of Information and Technology’s Member Legal, Kamran Ali, on April 26.

While Saroop Ijaz, another amicus in the case, raised the point that nothing should be blocked, however, the judge pointed out that the video would have to be blocked, and that was a given. What was important to establish  according to him was, how could that be achieved and the platform reopened.
The debate then shifted to localization. If Google was registered in Pakistan, would it then restrict access to the video at the country level? And what is required for Google be localized in Pakistan? While there would be multiple factors only the company can make clear, one is definitely intermediary liability.

What is intermediary liability? Under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance (ETO) 2002 of Pakistan, an intermediary is defined as “a person acting as a service provider in relation to the sending, receiving, storing or processing of the electronic communication or the provision of other services in relation to it.” Clause 40 of Chapter 9 of the Ordinance states:

40. Limitation on liability of network service providers.—In the absence of intent to facilitate, aid or abet, a network service provider shall not be subject to any civil or criminal liability solely for the reason of use of his telecommunication system in connection with a contravention of this Ordinance by a person not subject to the direction or control of the network service provider.

Just like telecom companies are not held responsible for what their users say to each other while using their services, similarly, in other parts of the world, providers of Internet services or platforms for content sharing are also not held liable for what their users post. This is the basic distinction between traditional platforms from non-traditional platforms. While publishers and broadcasters apply offline editorial policies online, and screen content before posting it, the same is not true of platforms video-sharing platforms for example, that do not actively screen content but merely offer their services and allow the users to upload directly. And so in many parts of the world, there exist legal protections in law providing safe harbours to companies.

In Pakistan, this protection exists for ISPs under the ETO, but not for companies. Without this, no company would take on the risk of registering in a country, and have local laws apply without any protections in place.

To extend this protection to Google as a primer to localization would require an amendment to the ETO or, enactment of new legislation. Since both these are long-term processes, in the hearing held on April 26, the judge said intermediary liability protection could be extended to Google through a court order for the interim period, so that progress is made to unblock YouTube. In this regard, he has called Caretaker Minister for Information and Technology (MoIT), Dr Sania Nishtar, to appear in court on May 3, 2013. In addition to this, instructions have been issued to the MoIT representative to write to Google and solicit its view on the case.

While the policy solution to unblock YouTube has now been identified by the court, and Google’s response is awaited, the issue that remains to be tackled is what are we going to do when tomorrow something ‘objectionable’ shows up on another site?

Do we block everything, block selectively or nothing at all? This is what will come up for discussion in the next hearings.

Farieha Aziz was appointed as an amicus curiae on behalf of Bolo Bhi on April 4, 2013, by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah in the YouTube case currently being heard in the Lahore High Court.

Timeline of updates on Youtube Block & Unblock in Pakistan:

  • 13th september: Pakistan orders anti-Islam video block on YouTube [Associated Press]  - ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Thursday blocked access to an anti-Islam film as security measures beefed up around US diplomatic missions, following attacks on American consulates and embassies in Libya, Egypt and Yemen.
  • 17th september: Pakistan PM orders suspension of YouTube over anti-Islam film [Reuters report]

Read Full Article →

There is a fine line between what constitutes Freedom of Expression and what is Hate Speech.

Many times, under the garb of free expression, malicious acts are carried out with the intent to harm sentiments and enrage others. Earlier, caricatures and now the movie, The Innocence of Muslims, has caused a furore among Muslims globally, who view this as a deliberate attempt on part of the filmmakers to disrespect the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

The preferred mode of protest in Pakistan, to date has been of two kinds. One, to hold mass protest rallies and burn flags of US and Israel, and march towards the US embassy for a sit-in. Two, block URLs in addition to writing to YouTube, Facebook or Twitter for the removal of blasphemous content and, in the event of non-compliance, block the domain. Read Full Article →

The Global Network Initiative hosted its first Learning Forum in Washington DC on June 14, 2012. The discussion centred on safeguarding human rights, privacy and freedom of expression on the Internet. The other very interesting focus of discussion was on practices by businesses and Internet companies, and the engagement between them and governments where user data is concerned.

Learning Forum 2012 boasted a great line-up of speakers with considerable experience and expertise in their respective fields (see below or go here):

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society (via videoconference)

Dan Baer, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, US Department of State

Bob Boorstin, Director, Public Policy, Google

Jermyn Brooks, Independent Chair, Global Network Initiative

Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute

Emily Butselaar, Online Editor, Index on Censorship (via videoconference)

Bennett Freeman, Senior Vice President, Sustainability Research and Policy, Calvert Investments

Leslie Harris, President and CEO, Center for Democracy and Technology

Rebecca Mackinnon, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation

Mike Newman, Chief Financial Officer, Websense

Sara Nordbrand, Sustainable Investment-Corporate Engagement, Church of Sweden

Ebele Okobi, Director, Business and Human Rights Program, Yahoo!

Meg Roggensack, Senior Advisor, Business & Human Rights, Human Rights First

Jillian York, Director for International Freedom of Expression, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Moderator
John Kampfner, GNI European Advisor and former Chief Executive, Index on Censorship

The Learning Forum started with an introductory note by Susan Morgan, (Executive Director, GNI). The proceedings of the day were broken down into three sessions with an interactive Q&A session at the end of every panel discussion . The first was titled Digital Freedoms in International Law: Practical Steps to Protect Human Rights Online. Ian Brown of the Oxford Internet Institute presented a report co-authored by him and Douwe Korff from London Metropolitan University. This was followed by a discussion between Dan Baer (Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, US Department of State), Bob Boorstin (Director, Public Policy, Google), Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of Expression, Electronic Frontier Foundation) and Sunil Abraham (Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society [via videoconference]). The recording of this session can be viewed here: GNI Learning Forum 2012 – Session 1.

The second session focused on Policy Engagement on Business and Human Rights in the ICT Sector. Mike Newman (Chief Financial Officer at Websense) spoke about the stand they took against Pakistan’s Internet Filtration by making a public statement that Websense would not bid for the project. Other speakers, Emily Butselaar (Online Editor, Index on Censorship [via videoconference]), Sara Norband (Sustainable Investment-Corporate Engagement, Church of Sweden) and Meg Roggensack (Senior Advisor, Business & Human Rights, Human Rights First) discussed other country-specific issues and how they’ve been dealt with.

The third and final session began with a video message by Marietje Schaake, Dutch Member of European Parliament (D66/ALDE Group) after which GNI Board Members Ebele Okobi (Director, Business and Human Rights Program, Yahoo!), Bennett Freeman (Senior Vice President, Sustainability Research and Policy, Calvert Investments), Leslie Harris (President and CEO, Center for Democracy and Technology), Rebecca MacKinnon (Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation) gave their remarks on the day’s discussion and the way forward. The day came to an end with a concluding note by Jermyn Brooks, Independent Chair, GNI.

See also #GNI2012 for tweets by attendees during the session and questions that were sent in.  You can also find a lot of the speakers on Twitter.

 

no twitter 150x150 Twitter Banned in Pakistan

Once again, Internet users in Pakistan have been slapped with a ban.

Early in the day on May 20, 2012, Twitter users in Pakistan started encountering problems logging into their Twitter accounts. At first, Twitter was mostly inaccessible through browsers but accessible through applications on phones. It varied from one ISP to another as well as mobile networks, but by mid-afternoon Twitter was no longer accessible across Pakistan.

Speculation that the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) had ordered ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to block the website proved true. Speaking to the Express Tribune, PTA Chairman Dr Mohammad Yaseen said the Authoirty had been instructed by the Ministry of Information and Technology (MoIT) to block Twitter after the administrators of the website refused to entertain their request “to stop a discussion on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which was considered derogatory.”

Speaking to Dunya TV, Minister for Information and Technology, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf said Facebook complied with the government’s request to remove blasphemous content, but Twitter refused. According to Yaseen, PTA simply passed on the orders to the ISPs and has no knowledge of how long the website is likely to remain blocked. Ironically, this ban comes hours after assurances by Interior Minister Rehman Malik that no such thing would happen.

Is this the first time a blanket ban has been imposed? No. Will it be the last time? Probably not.

Time and again, the government has blocked websites supposedly to protect ‘public sentiments and emotions’ and to prevent blasphemous material from circulating within Pakistan. This is being cited as a reason for the Twitter ban too. But this is akin to hitting your own foot with a hammer. Firstly, each time blanket bans are imposed, more attention is actually drawn towards such competitions and discussions. Secondly, what does banning the website in the country achieve?

As established at the time of the Facebook ban, banning such websites in Pakistan does not in any way hurt them monetarily. Trying to make an impact by taking away a minuscule percentage of users are delusions and nothing more. The increasing trend to engage with the administrators of these websites and ask them to remove certain content and subsequently blocking them when they don’t comply communicates one message: the government wants to make it clear that the website can operate in the country on their terms only and not otherwise. (See: E-regulations Timeline)

The more important question is, how long are Internet users in Pakistan going to put up with these bans? Why should the authority to make such decisions unilaterally reside with any state institution? Where do the end users figure? Where is the forum to engage and discuss to thresh out such issues and devise a plan of action? Where is the legislative framework to deal with such incidents? Calling shots unilaterally is dictatorial, not democratic, but that is all that is ever done. Then why harp on, “we are a democracy” … “we are committed to saving democracy in the country.”

Nobody intends any disrespect for religion or seeks to hurt the sentiments of the masses. There are ways to manage situations and banning certainly is not it. Visibly, the attitude of the authorities as evident through blanket bans is: “you do this or I do this.” And not only is this the tone adopted when dealing with the ‘aggressors’ so to speak, but also with one’s own people. Those who seek to oppose the ban are talked down to much in the same manner. The retorts are, “You want us to do nothing about blasphemous content” … “Are you supporting them?” Basically, if you are not with us, you are with them.

What is urgently required is the following:

Dialogue: A platform for all stakeholders to raise their concerns and be heard.

Framework: For a legal and policy framework to be constituted and put into place with the consensus of multi-stakeholders, in order to devise a proper system to respond to incidents of this nature and others.

Democracy: The power to unilaterally order blanket bans be diminished.

The ban on Twitter should be revoked and all plans of banning other websites in the coming days should be scrapped. It’s time enough that this issue is addressed properly once and for all instead of being up in arms every few months.

 

 

Access, global movement for digital freedom, have launched a campaign to pressure international companies not to bid for Pakistan’s pending firewall. Our partners, in the campaign, Business Human Rights Resource Centre , were able to get four international companies to commit not to apply for government’s proposal for a URL filtering and blocking system. However, we have until friday the 16th of March’2012 to build pressure on the remaining companies.

Please sign the access now petition and join in the struggle to end internet censorship in Pakistan, 20 million online voices may be silenced:

 

What if one morning you woke up one morning and couldn’t access Facebook? YouTube? Wikipedia? Even Google?

The government of Pakistan is attempting to bolster their existing internet filtering system and creating a national Chinese-style censorship firewall that would censor 20 million internet users in one go! What’s more, in a shocking display of arrogance, they put an ad in their national papers asking for companies to submit proposals to help them build it!

But we can do something about it — put pressure on technology companies to not respond. No corporations to build it, no censorship system! At least five western IT companies have already said they won’t participate (Websense, Cisco, Verizon, Sandvine, and OpenDNS). Now we need to help persuade other firms to urgently follow suit before the bidding deadline of next Friday.

I’ve already signed the Access petition urging corporations to publicly denounce the project and vow not to submit proposals to build this outrageous censorship system. And I think you should too. Add your name to the petition below calling upon Bluecoat, Huawei, McAfee, Netsweeper, ZTE, and all other bidders to refuse to play a role in putting up the walls of censorship.

Sign now: http://www.accessnow.org/20-million-silenced

Share:  20M silenced in Pakistan? Sign @accessnow petition 2 #stopcensoringpk:bit.ly/wKCfis @mcafee @bluecoatnews @huaweipress @ztepress

 

As we continue the campaign against internet censorship, we feel it is crucial to inform  supporters in order to maintain momentum. Civil society groups both within and outside Pakistan have been working collectively against the impending internet censorship in Pakistan.
We still have not heard back from the Government, Ministry of IT or ICT Rnd Fund
The timeline below enlists statement and media coverage the issue has received thus far.
Day one press release:
Day two press release:
Media Coverage:

Efforts have been made by governments around the world, both authoritarian and democratic, to shut down Web sites, silence bloggers, filter out certain words or censor negative information.In order to highlight the diverse opinions on internet regulations and the concept of ‘Free Internet’ we will be publishing a wide range of opinions to get the debate going. The idea that ‘morality’ and ‘objectionable content’ is subjective, can be seen through these opinion pieces. Here’s one by Dr. Muddassar Farooq,
Professor & Head (Department of Electrical Engineering) FAST-NUCES Islamabad 

Pieces published here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Bolo Bhi Team, unless otherwise stated. 

 

I– in principle — do not agree with the so-called fancy term “Free Internet” because that does not exist. The word “Freedom” has at least two dimensions: (1) the freedom to access any informaton on the Internet; and (2) the gurantee that my privacy is not breached (while I a surfing) due to evaesdropping. No country (to the best of my knowledge) in the world gurantees both freedoms to its citizens (especially in post 9/11 arena). For example, in Germany nobody can say anything about “Holocast” because it is protected under a Law as an exception.

The constiution of a country defines (at least in the civilized world) everthing — dos and do nots — and our constiution says that “Pakistan is an Islamic Republic”. In other word, our Parliment decided with the needed majority that we are not going to be a Secular country. Those of us who want to make Pakistan a Secular country should keep on following their struggle but until the Constiution is ammended, merely voicing concerns on Secular paradimgs is of little legal value.

Once we want to filter the contents three types of things — based on our religion and culture — come to ones mind: (1) contents related to Blasphemy; (2) pornogrpahic adulat content; and (3) Anti-state content. I belive our constiution allows us to block the first two types because of its foundation in religion; however, the anticiapted misuse (or fear of misuse) is blocking “anti-state content” (recall arena of dictators in Pakistan).

I suggest the following roadmap, if we were to have this system

1. RFP has given approximately 1 month to respond to the call. I have been writing ICTRDF proposal; therfore, rest assured that most of the proposals would be third party vendor solutions or adapting already developed solutions. Writing a knowledge-driven idea cannot happen within a month. This undue haste is creating the impression that the Board wants to favor some company that has already a solution (may be inappropriate for this purpose). If we have lived for 15 years without such a system, we could live for couple of more years as well but let us first develop consensus on the need and requirements of the system by consulting all stakeholders.

2. If we were to have that sytem ultimately deployed, then first bring all stakeholders on a table — Politicians, Religioius Scholars, IT experts, Policy Analysts etc. Since PM is the chairman of the Board, an act of Parilment is the best option to back this solution. The same act could clearly identify a commitee — consisting of 5 judges of Suprement Court nominated by the Judicial Commission — that is authorized to issue an order to block the websites. No body in the establishment (Civil or Military) can be assigned this duty. This would ensure that if some agencies are pissed off with a site, they could not block it. Similary, the people in the government could not arbitrarly delcare a site as “anti-state” if it is criticizing the government.

To conclude, let us not put the “cart infront of the horse”. Once the parliment has an act, I can say with pride that if the Parliment of Germany says “No comments on Holocast” as a Law and everyone respects that then everyone must respect the decision of the “Pakistani Parliment” as well. The technology can be developed later (or in parallel) once we have a consensus-driven legal framework. Last but not least, blocking the websites would not merely solve the problem because of mirror sites. The requirement to detect and classify banned content (an accurate content filtering system) is also needed. Just to highlight the challenge, we were unable to develop an accurate “skin filter” that has high detection accuracy and low false alarms. Such an intelligent system is a true challenge and falls with regular ICTRDF R & D proposals category as well.

I wish you and ICTRDF best of luck. I hope my suggestions would provide a comprehensive review to the problem and might help in developing and refining a better Website Blocking and Filtering law (or policy) and implementaton stratiges.

Page 1 of 3123