Cybercrime law

The controversial Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill, 2016 is coming close to becoming a law. This despite the concerns raised by various internet-and human rights groups. However, it seems the constructive criticism offered by civil society and human rights groups has largely been ignored. The bill was presented before the National Assembly in April this year before it was stalled due to continued outrage from opposition parties and rights group. Now the Senate Standing Committee on IT and Telecommunications has passed it in an almost unchanged form and it will be presented before the upper house. The bill remains dangerously out of tune with the realities of the digital world. The major objection still remains that it has the very real potential to infringe on human rights and be used to stifle democratic dissent. No change has been made in the controversial definition of what exactly constitutes cyber-terrorism or spreading hate material. The law hopes to cover a gap in Pakistan’s legal infrastructure where the burgeoning use of the internet and social media remains completely unregulated. But the law as it stands remains a seriously flawed one. Vaguely defined crimes like the illegal use of internet data or tampering with mobile phones carry jail sentences of up to three years. The trouble with redrafting the law is the defensive attitude of the government, especially IT Minister Anusha Rehman, that has painted critics of the law as people conspiring against the country.

No one has argued against the need for a cybercrimes law. Instead, the objections have been raised over the potential abuses the law opens up. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has continued to raise ‘grave concerns’ over adopting the bill in its current form. It has noted a threat to constitutional rights, freedom of expression, privacy, human rights and democracy. In a detailed criticism published this week, the HRCP has accused the state of questioning the motives of the civil society, instead of taking them on board. The law does in fact prescribe harsh punishments with an ill-defined process of how an investigation will take place. The unchecked powers of censorship accorded to the already trigger-happy PTA are another major concern, especially since the body remains under government control. A number of provisions remain in contravention of fundamental human rights. Activists have asked for specific provisions to exempt political and artistic expression from sections pertaining to the glorification of an offence. The retention of internet usage data for up to one year without any provisions ensuring privacy will be protected. Surveillance procedures are also thought to be contradictory to the Fair Trial Act. The law is an important step towards regulating the digital world. But lawmakers need to lend a sympathetic ear to the criticism coming their way.