Category: Digital Media

Posted on

Goodbye YouTube

There was a recent news item suggesting that the ministry or governmental authority or whatever had declared that the ban on YouTube was not going to be lifted in Pakistan any time soon. The reason given was that improper content could not be removed from it. By improper content we all know what is meant. Primarily, one particular video is what this ban is all about. Here I think it is important to point out what is otherwise generally known: those really interested in accessing YouTube have already figured out how to do it, ban or no ban. And I am sure that these people are definitely not viewing the aforementioned video. If they really wanted to watch it they have probably done so already. The question then is: why the continued ban on YouTube?

Anybody who uses the internet regularly, especially to read foreign newspapers or any other source of information, inevitably comes across material that could be considered blasphemous. Concerning the notorious cartoons that created quite a stir in Pakistan a few months ago, most foreign newspapers published copies of those cartoons. Interestingly, The New York Times was one major newspaper that avoided doing so. The point really is that much that can be considered blasphemous is available to people in Pakistan even with the YouTube ban. However, as I was researching for a short article on the early history of Islam, I tried to search for ‘Muhammad’. To my utter disbelief, the Wikipedia entry on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was blocked, obviously by the Pakistani side. And that did make me wonder who decides to block which site on the internet.

It is conceivable that as the mullahs keep on agitating against access to anything on the internet that is identifiably uncomplimentary towards Muslims, we will end up with bans on an increasing number of internet sites. However, the mullahs, in their ignorance about the internet, do not realise that blocking any number of sites does not prevent access to the sort of information they find objectionable. The only way to assure that nobody living in Pakistan can read any ‘blasphemous’ material on the internet is to prevent any access to the internet. Perhaps that is the direction we are going in, the so-called slippery slope towards complete censorship. But then we will also have to ban things like satellite television, which provides unfiltered foreign content that could also be quite reprehensible.

The next question about preventing access to inappropriate material brings us to the problem of Pakistanis travelling abroad and those Pakistanis who live in foreign countries, especially in the Godless west where blasphemous material is freely available. In this matter, the mullahs will have to decide pretty soon about the ‘purity’ status of those Pakistanis who have been exposed to such material while abroad and who did not try to kill all those responsible for propagating such material. Should such people even be allowed to re-enter Pakistan in this befouled state? Here, it is obvious that the only way to prevent ordinary Pakistanis from exposure to objectionable stuff is to prevent them from leaving the country. Only people who have been certified by the mullahs to be entirely incapable of either viewing or understanding any form of blasphemy (the totally ignorant?) should be allowed to go abroad. And even then somebody, preferably a mullah, must be with them to keep an eye on them.

This might sound excessive but I still remember a picture from a UN meeting during the heyday of the Soviet Union. The picture showed the Russian representative in front with one person watching him very carefully and another person watching the watcher very carefully. Clearly such surveillance will be necessary for any Pakistani who does go abroad. And if there is any evidence that such a person wilfully and deliberately indulged in watching forbidden materials then that person must be forced to return to Pakistan immediately and face justice. This could open up an entirely new reason for demanding political asylum while visiting any country in the European Union or in the United States and Canada since, on return to Pakistan, a person who willingly indulged in watching forbidden material could be executed urgently.

I can just imagine the hordes of Pakistanis in any of the above countries getting their picture taken with a ‘blasphemous’ cartoon prominently displayed next to them, putting that picture on social media and then demanding asylum. Even though I claim no expertise in such ‘legal’ matters, I am sure that no civilised country will deport a ‘foreigner’ back to a country where he or she might be subject to the death penalty for a crime that is not even considered a crime in the host country. Though I would not be surprised if they somehow made an exception for Pakistanis. Our Pakistani ‘elites’ who frequently frequent countries where blasphemy runs rampant must also be looked at very, very carefully. Clearly such persons must be water boarded to find out if they ever wilfully and deliberately watched blasphemous material while abroad and then punished appropriately. Fortunately, this will probably rid Pakistan of almost the entire leadership of all our political parties. If nothing else that would be great.

Finally, about our impressionable youth. Clearly they must be prevented from any access to the internet lest their fragile minds are contaminated by ‘inappropriate’ material. More importantly, none of these young people should be allowed to go abroad for education. We all know exactly what sort of things they will see and learn about while they are supposedly getting an education. Purity of the fragile Pakistani mind is definitely more important than the inevitable contamination by an advanced education in the Godless west. And, yes, I have a question for our mullahs: how do you figure out that something like a cartoon or a video is blasphemous without first wilfully and deliberately reading, seeing or watching it?

Daily Times

The post Goodbye YouTube appeared first on Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).

Posted on

Pakistan: Draft Cybercrime Law Undermines Freedom of Expression

In early 2014, Pakistan’s Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication introduced a draft cybercrime ordinance, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act. At the time, human rights advocates, including the Centre for Law and Democracy, criticised the draft as a threat to Pakistan’s burgeoning online community and cautioned that its broad language threatened to turn millions of ordinary Internet users into criminals. A slightly revised version (the draft) has now been tabled and we note with concern that few of the main problems have been fixed.

“It is troubling to see that Pakistan is considering adopting this law without having addressed many major concerns,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “With its Internet community still developing, it is vitally important for Pakistan to craft legislation in this area which adequately respects human rights.”

There have been some positive changes, but these do not go nearly far enough. The rule that made it a criminal offence to create or supply any device that could be used for cybercrime now only applies to devices which are used primarily for committing offences. However, many types of legitimate software would still be covered since modifying user data to create an inauthentic result remains a criminal offence. This could criminalise programmes designed to facilitate online privacy, such as Tor, which functions by altering a user’s identifying information. The draft also makes it an offence to use a website or information system in ways which have not been authorised, effectively turning anyone who violates a website or programme’s terms of service, which are often very unclear, into a criminal. The draft also creates a new offence of harming the reputation of a woman online, essentially a criminal defamation provision.

These problems are compounded by the draft’s data retention requirement, mandating that electronic communication service providers store user data for 90 days. Parallel schemes have been found to be unconstitutional in several jurisdictions, most notably by the European Court of Justice, which held that European Union’s Data Retention Directive was incompatible with the privacy and data protection provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in April 2014.

The new draft is currently before a four-member committee of parliamentarians, who have been charged with reviewing and finalising its language. We urge the parliamentary committee to ensure that the provisions of this law are brought into line with international human rights standards before it is passed.

Centre For Law and Democracy

The post Pakistan: Draft Cybercrime Law Undermines Freedom of Expression appeared first on Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).

Posted on

Blocking the internet

 

If there is a single entity that has the capacity to frighten the living daylights out of virtually any government on the planet, it is the internet. Governments often seek to limit access to the World Wide Web, and have gone as far as developing their own versions of the internet that serves just their own population. There is little doubt that future wars will be fought in cyberspace. In fact, it has already turned into quite a battlefield. The internet is home to some deeply unpleasant material that incites hatred and violence. In Pakistan, the internet is becoming no less ubiquitous than in other countries, particularly as more people buy cheaper smart phones and it touches the lives of all of us, however tangentially.

Access to parts of the internet in Pakistan is already blocked, and the ban on the popular YouTube website still persists despite attempts to get it lifted. The Islamabad High Court is currently hearing a case in response to a petition filed by an NGO that seeks to protect the rights of internet users. The case hinges around the shadowy way in which the government operates regulation of the internet. Currently and according to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), it blocks 50,000 pornographic websites and another 10,000 considered blasphemous — but the process by which it does so, and under what legislation, is at issue. The Inter-ministerial Committee for the Evaluation of Websites is completely opaque in its workings. It has yet to cite a law under which any ban may be made. The judiciary appears to be uneasy about this as well, and Justice Athar Minallah questioned the head of the PTA as to this matter — and got no definitive answer. The bans on any website in Pakistan are so widely flouted as to be rendered almost irrelevant in many instances, and it is curious that there has been no attempt to prosecute those who circumvent the ban — presumably because they have not broken any law by so doing. Yes, there are websites that may need to be banned, but a lot more clarity is required as to exactly why and greater transparency about the process is needed, particularly as there are suspicions that some bans are politically motivated.

Express Tribune

The post Blocking the internet appeared first on Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).

Posted on

Facebook apologises, says removal of Hamza Ali Abbasi status was mistake

Facebook apologises, says removal of Hamza Ali Abbasi status was mistake

CEO and Founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg on Monday said his social network’s removal of actor Hamza Ali Abbasi’s status regarding the Charlie Hebdo attack and freedom of expression may have been a mistake.

When asked by one profile Angelic Munni what Zuckerberg has to say about his network’s deletion of Hamza’s post, Mark Zuckerberg responded: “I don’t think this should have been blocked. Our team might have made a mistake. Justin, can you look into this?”

In the response, Zuckerberg tagged Justin Osofsky, whose Facebook profile identifies him as Vice President of Global Operations and Media Partnerships for Facebook. The CEO’s comment has so far got over 950 ‘likes’.

Osofsky later commented on the thread and apologised. “As Mark mentioned, we made a mistake in taking this down. We try to do our best, but sometimes make mistakes. We apologize for this error, and hope that the author will re-post it as we are not able to restore it from our end. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.”

Pakistani actor and director Hamza Ali Abbasi Sunday said that Facebook authorities deactivated his profile and removed his status in which he had condemned the killings at the Parisian office of satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo.

Hamza posted a screenshot of the deleted post on Sunday along with Facebook’s notification that said they had removed it since it violated the social networking website’s community standards.

The actor, who is vocal on social media about his views related to social issues, politics, culture, and religion had condemned the killings at Paris’ Charlie Hebdo office last week and said, “even my blood boils when someone insults my Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) but that does not give individuals the right to kill”.

In the status shared on his verified Facebook account – which has over 1.6 million followers – he said that while “freedom of expression should include criticism, disagreement or even rejection of faiths or ideology but should not and must not allow “insult”.

Hamza went on to say that the West must revisit and fix its definition of ‘freedom of speech,’ otherwise someone from the two billion Muslim population “will go ballistic and kill unjustly”.

“Would it be ‘freedom of expression’ if I brand black people as niggers or if I say Hitler was a messiah?” he added.

Hamza Ali Abbasi glad Zuckerberg responded

Speaking to Dawn.com, Hamza relates how it all came about. “I had been trying to log into my Facebook for a couple of hours and it wasn’t accepting the password. I genuinely thought it had been hacked but then I got an email from Facebook saying that my account had been temporarily blocked and my status had been deleted and this was the first of three warnings. That really made me angry so I took the screen grab and posted it as soon as I had access to my account.”

He adds, “I post so many controversial things on my Facebook, I believe in voicing my opinion. It’s just funny that their selective freedom of speech caused them to delete only this particular post of all things.”

On learning that Mark Zuckerberg had responded and called it a mistake, he said, “I’m glad that it has gotten back to him and that it’s brought attention to exactly what I was trying to convey in my post. Freedom of expression that is not universal is not really freedom, is it?

Elaborating on what his post was about, the young actor said, “It’s not fair that when we say things that go against the West, we are branded as racists or intolerant. One is allowed to disagree, one is allowed to criticise but we must not make fun of exemplary/religious figures. I can make fun of Gandhi but that doesn’t mean I will. It’s important to address such issues and convey our message in the most civilised manner possible. When you stoop to a level of derogatory insults, there is a possibility of some backlash from a community of over two billion people.”

Internet activists slam Facebook decision

Internet rights groups in Pakistan had slammed Facebook ‘double standards’ on Monday, a day after Pakistani actor and director Hamza Ali Abbasi Sunday said the network deactivated his profile and removed a post in which he had called on the West to rethink its definition of ‘freedom of expression’.

“This is beyond ridiculous,” Sana Saleem of Bolo Bhi tells Dawn. “I don’t understand what this double standard is.”

Saleem, whose organisation advocates digital security and privacy, said the social network was guilty of hypocrisy. “Facebook removes pictures of a woman breastfeeding, but they won’t, for instance, remove images of child pornography,” she said, citing the example of Facebook’s refusal to take down a page promoting child prostitution despite repeated complaints.

“What are the standards for Facebook when it comes to removing content? How does it work? Is it automated? If so, it’s completely flawed,” says Saleem. “If it’s a team reviewing content, it is flawed.”

“This is very worrying because Facebook now owns Intsagram and Whatsapp. If the same policies are applied across the board, that will be the death of freedom of expression,” she adds.

Shahzad Ahmad of NGO Bytes for All says, “In cases of ambiguity, Bytes for All urges Facebook to err on the sideof freedom of expression rather than censorship, and only block those accounts and posts which directly and intentionally call for violence in an actionable manner.

He adds however, “Having said this, we do not endorse the contents of Hamza Ali Abbasi’s post. Rather we believe that criticisin, questioning, or even insulting, any individual or ideology does come under freedom of expression, even if it is offensive to many, so long as it is does not directly and intentionally incite violence.”

The incident comes just days after Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg stressed on the company’s commitment to freedom of speech, and pointed out that a ‘extremist in Pakistan’ had tried to have him sentenced to death for refusing to ban content about Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him). In the January 9 post, he had said, “I won’t let that happen on Facebook. I’m committed to building a service where you can speak freely without fear of violence.”

Daily Dawn

The post Facebook apologises, says removal of Hamza Ali Abbasi status was mistake appeared first on Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).

Posted on

Media curbs proposed in backdrop of APS attack

Media curbs proposed in backdrop of APS attack

ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly’s standing committee on information has proposed a set of restrictions on mainstream media as well as social media in the wake of the Peshawar school tragedy.

The recommendations were submitted in a report titled “Proposals to strengthen media’s role in combating terrorism”. It is perhaps the first time that any NA panel has proposed measures aimed at regulating social media.

Citing several sections and provisions of existing laws including the Anti-Terrorism Act, the committee recommended that individual journalists be slapped with a penalty in case of any violation. It also called for an “amicable settlement of issues” between the government and media stakeholders —with the panel acting as a bridge.

Recently, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, ruled out the possibility of journalists, politicians and common citizens being tried in military courts. The minister also said that military courts cannot pursue a case without prior approval of the federal government.

But a legal expert pointed out that the recommendations of the parliamentary panel could be problematic for journalists. He said currently there is no constitutional or legal guarantee if a journalist is booked under anti-terrorism laws and then his case would not be referred to military courts. “All assurances by state functionaries are verbal,” he said. According to him, the law discourages discriminatory conduct but this report proposed a “discriminatory recommendation” for penalising a working journalist in case of violation.

The standing committee on information, broadcasting and national heritage held two meetings on 24 December and 30 December 2014, respectively, on an emergency review of media laws, ethical and professional issues with reference to terrorism.

The panel proposed that the government ensure the passage of pending legislation on cyber crime to counter the terrorists’ narrative on social media to avoid Arab spring like situation. The report also referred to websites from where terrorists are disseminating their messages and ensure new membership for their terror network, saying that verification of users is necessary to find the real culprits behind fake Facebook accounts and Google IDs.

The report suggested refresher courses for media persons. It also recommended that services of doctors and psychologists should also be acquired to haul the nation out of depression, stress and trauma.
The committee recommended that a consultative body between government and all representative media meet more often during the so called war time period to discuss issues which required clarity on the counterterrorism narrative.

The committee proposed strict adherence to existing media laws, as well as a refresher course of the same for all media organization staff and politicians. The committee proposed the need for an overall mindset change and capacity building at media houses for implementing laws crucial for ending terrorism.

Citing international best practices, the report also incorporated BBC Editorial Guidelines as potential guidelines and suggested a similar process for Pakistani media. “If the oldest democracy of the world can impose certain restrictions then why not we?” asked MNA Marvi Memon. The report suggested that media should also be assigned to counter Indian narratives regarding border violation.

Mechanism for Social media

The report says social media is fast becoming mainstream because it carries mainstream media content, generates its own content, and has a decisive edge over mainstream media in terms of outreach and speed. Social media has little transparency, identity clarity and controls.

This new media causes durable information flows that define long-term public perceptions of right and wrong, good and bad. There are no rules for opinion, expression. There is no check on fake sites. Anyone can say anything (true or false) and get away with the impact on the populace or individuals.

Express Tribune

The post Media curbs proposed in backdrop of APS attack appeared first on Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).

Posted on

Social media activism matters

Social media activism matters

It may sound hyperbolic to say this, but here goes: the battle for the soul of Pakistan’s political future will be won or lost just as much on Facebook and Twitter as it will on the streets.

It has by now become cliche for there to be social media outrage at the many everyday horrors that pass for routine life in Pakistan. It is equally cliche for people to use that same forum to express what they view as the uselessness of venting on social media while tragedies continue unabated offline. There is certainly merit to the thought that activism that spills over to the physical public space matters a great deal, but to minimise the importance of speaking out online is to severely underestimate its power.

Let us take a look at some numbers first. There are over 20 million internet users in Pakistan, 16 million users from Pakistan on Facebook, and over two million LinkedIn users, according to WeAreSocial, a Singapore-based consulting firm. Twitter statistics by country are difficult to find, but it is a safe assumption that there are probably more Pakistanis on Twitter than on LinkedIn. These numbers indicate that while internet usage in Pakistan is far from universal, it is not confined to the economic elite of the country either.

The average Pakistani spends about an hour online every day, according to Ansr.io, a mobile survey company, and a significant proportion of that is spent on social media. Think about that for a minute. Over 16 million Pakistanis interacting on a regular basis with each other on Facebook, millions of them doing so every single day for a significant proportion of the day. Facebook, in short, is the public square writ large.

I am not suggesting, of course, that Facebook activism has the power to change governments or the structure of the political system, at least not overnight. But it matters for the same reason that a protest on a street corner matters: it is a forum for letting people know where you stand. And for likeminded people who were afraid to speak out, it is the comforting indication that they are not alone. It is that feeling of kinship among likeminded individuals that gives voice to ideas that are, for the moment, on the fringe of popular political opinion and brings them closer to the mainstream.

This process is just as influential in changing norms of acceptable behaviour, perhaps even more so, than face-to-face interactions, even among people who do not have the internet. Ideas have a tendency to spread beyond online spaces and into the political mainstream.

For example, a leading news channel’s apology for hate speech against Ahmadis was a reaction to protests that were entirely online, but news of it will likely spread far beyond the internet-using population of Pakistan. At first, it will have little effect. But then, the more polite sections of our society, who nonetheless give in to casual bigotry, will be reminded of it the next time they think they want to say something against a religious or ethnic minority. Perhaps, they will even go so far as to restrain themselves from making a bigoted comment. At the next Twitter outrage, they will be reminded again of their previous restraint and this time they may go one step further and discreetly move the conversation in a different direction. The third time it happens, perhaps they will even gently chide someone else for their bigotry. And thus the idea will be planted inside that particular social circle, from where it will spread to others.

The above example, of course, is an accelerated timeline of how social change happens. But this is how we will create space for freedom of thought in Pakistan. ‘Live and let live’ will become prevalent online before it comes onto the physical realm. This is not to say, of course, that protests on the streets will not be necessary. But the Facebook and Twitter outrage is how we got from a handful of people at candle-light vigils at Salmaan Taseer’s assassination to the hundreds protesting at Lal Masjid in Islamabad. That is how much we have progressed in just four years. Imagine how much further we can go if we keep pushing.

Express Tribune

The post Social media activism matters appeared first on Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).

Posted on

Panel proposes wartime role for media

Panel proposes wartime role for media

ISLAMABAD: A parliamentary panel on Tuesday discussed wartime recommendations for the media to counter the narrative of extremists and terrorists in the country, while proposing changes in the existing laws governing public discourse and behaviour on broadcast and social media.

The issue came under discussion during a meeting of the National Assembly Standing Committee on Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage that met with Marvi Memon in the chair.

“Among the issues discussed were the range of pre-existing sections of laws that, if implemented, would constrain the space for violent extremism and terrorism in the national discourse, such as Section 123 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Pemra Ordinance 2002,” said a statement.

The proposed changes were drafted on the basis of the recommendations made in the previous meeting of the committee in which representatives from the Pakistan Broadcasters’ Association, the All Pakistan Newspapers Society, the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors, as well as experts on the media and public discourse participated.

During the meeting, representatives of Pemra and broadcasters urged to devise a unanimous strategy on how to ensure that 10 per cent of the programming of television channels would be dedicated to public service messages.

The committee asked Pemra and the broadcasters to devise a way to agree on the specific mechanism of determining “what constituted public service messaging”, as there was substantial discord on this point.

The committee also discussed proposals to “restrict the broadcast of any direct and quoted statements, confessions, threats of violence from the members of banned organisations”.

Express Tribune

The post Panel proposes wartime role for media appeared first on Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).