close
Thursday March 28, 2024

Effort afoot to amend cybercrime law

By Ansar Abbasi
June 20, 2020

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Commission for Human Rights (PCHR) in collaboration with UNESCO and Parliamentary Task force on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has prepared a set of amendments to Prevention of Electronic Crime Act 2016 and suggested removal of a legal clause dealing with PTA’s power to remove or block information in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security and defence of Pakistan, decency or morality.

A PCHR document, containing draft amendments, available with The News proposed several amendments to PECA 2019 including the suggestion to remove Section 34 of the law that was included to block or remove any content that is considered indecent or against the glory of Islam or the integrity, security and defence of Pakistan.

The particular section of the law empowers th­e PTA “to remove or block or issue directions for removal or blocking of access to an information through any information system if it considers it necessary in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court or commission of or incitement to an offence under this Act”.

According to the document, prepared by the Parliamentarians Commission for Human rights (PCHR) in collaboration with Parliamentary Task Force on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and UNESCO Pakistan, this section is unconstitutional and contrary to fundamental rights defined in the constitution of Pakistan. “By borrowing language directly from Article 19 of the Constitution this section accords, “The power to interpret constitutional provisions to an Executive Authority.

Only higher courts have the power to interpret the constitution and this power cannot be given to any executive authority,” the document said, adding, “The power accorded to the Authority is completely unchecked and there is no defined mechanism to appeal, challenge or even to make public the decisions being taken by the Authority.”

It said, “Most importantly, censorship is not a subject that can be tackled as a cybercrime. The inclusion of this section in the Act is essentially the creation of an offense that has no civil or criminal liability.”

It suggested, “Priority: Remove this section completely from the Act.”

Referring to a government ministry’s insistence on inclusion of a section that has some form of censorship clause to check objectionable content (in regard to glory of Islam, decency, defence, security of Pakistan etc), the report said, “In that case this clause should have the strictest possible oversight and comply with the necessary and proportionate principles as defined by the UN instruments.”

However, the document added, it is important to repeat that in principle a section dealing with censorship of online content does not sit with the preamble or scheme of a Cybercrime Act as this has nothing to do with curbing cybercrime and does not carry any civil or criminal liability.

It added that in case, the Senate and the Ministry remain unconvinced by the arguments presented by MMfD (Media Matters for Democracy) and other CSOs (civil society organisations) and are determined to include a section dealing with content management, ensuring that instead of borrowing text from a constitutional provision, the law deconstructs the exceptions to free speech to define tangible manifestations of these restrictions (for example restrictions on child pornography and direct incitement to violence) and the process of content management includes;

- A strong oversight mechanism - An inbuilt process of transparency, ensuring that the information about blocked material and the justifications behind blocking is public.

- An in built mechanism to appeal against blocks.

“It is important to reiterate that the removal of Section 34 from this Act would be preferable to the inclusion of any alternate formulations,” said the report.