The much contested Pakistan Electronic Crimes Bill (PECB) has been passed unanimously by the Senate of Pakistan but only after proposing 55 amendments, eight of which were added at the last moment. The bill has returned to the National Assembly where it will be discussed and, in case of approval, sent for presidential assent. In case, the National Assembly suggests further amendments, the draft will be discussed in the joint session of the parliament for approval.

The parliamentarians who discussed the bill, the civil society members and the lawyers who participated in the process believe that though the draft is not an ideal piece of legislation, it is far better than what it was before these amendments were proposed.

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) senators Aitzaz Ahsan and Sherry Rehman were instrumental in giving a better shape to the draft and for a reason. The party chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari has reportedly termed several sections of the draft to be violative of human rights and directed the PPP senators not to support the bill till proper amendments were introduced.

Among the amendments, the right to appeal in the High Court against a decision in review by the authority to block or remove certain content online is of great importance as it introduces judicial oversight in the implementation of the law. Furthermore, a section has also been incorporated for periodical parliamentary oversight over the implementation of the law.

Some of the other proposed amendments are mentioned below.

The data of the Internet Services Providers (ISPs) will not be obtained without permission of the authorised court, which will be established on the directives of high courts. Moreover, no investigation agency or person could start probing a cybercrime without court orders.

If any investigation agency or data service provider misuses any electronic data, a punishment up to three-year imprisonment and fine of up to Rs1 million may be awarded.

Section 34 of the bill be omitted altogether as according to the Senate the document borrows language from Article 19 of the Constitution, giving the power of interpreting Constitutional provisions to an executive authority such as Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). The authority could unilaterally block content that it found against national interest, friendly states, glory of Islam etc. (Section 34 has remained the most vehemently opposed provision of this Bill. It has been universally denounced by all civil society groups).

The minister assured in the house that the law will not be applicable on the license holders under the rules of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA).

Convicts under the bill will have 30 days to appeal the sentence in a high court.

Pemra licensees, including TV and radio stations, will not fall under the ambit of this law.

Under Section 49-A added to the draft, the agency designated or established under section 26 of the Act shall submit a half yearly report to both houses of the parliament for consideration by the relevant committee in camera, in respect of its activities, without disclosing identity information, in a manner as prescribed under the Act.

So, the question is to what extent the proposed draft will serve the purpose of making the law citizen-friendly. Nighat Dad, Founder Digital Rights Foundation, states that the IT minister had promised in her speech that the government will pass the bill with the proposed amendments. If she fulfills this commitment, she says, there is hope the government will be open to future amendments as well.

She tells TNS that there are still several issues with the draft that need to be addressed. For example, she says, the bill is too vague and does not define cyber-terrorism while providing life sentences for offense primarily related to illegal access and misuse of critical data. Another vague statement, she says, is about "creating a website for negative purposes." The question is who will define the term negative purpose and what mechanism will be there to check wrong interpretation of this clause, she adds.

Dad objects to criminalisation of spamming and says that everywhere in the world spammers are warned and fined but not sent behind bars "but here there is a jailed term prescribed as well".

A senior official in the telecom ministry terms fears related to the proposed PECB as misplaced, saying the required safeguards against its misuse are very much there. "Even then if there are flaws they can be removed later on as this draft is not the last word," he says. "It seems to be a matter of distrust as most of the objections by the civil society and the politicians are about the implementation and very few are about the contents. How can you oppose such an important law just on the basis of apprehensions."

The official asserts that a law on cyber crimes is a necessity and it must be passed without further delay.

Sana Saleem, Director at Bolo Bhi, a not-for-profit organisation advocating citizens’ digital rights, says the bill will be discussed in the National Assembly but she fears "it may reject some of the amendments stating that it originated from the lower house and the Senate is just a recommending body." Even though she is not clear about the nature of the independent investigating body as suggested in the draft and the criteria of gauging its independence, she thinks "the proposed draft is much better than the one before amendments".

"An important amendment is that data retention should be for three months instead of a year. This is not only impractical for ISPs; it is also a major issue for privacy. For instance, the bill does not mention how this data will be secured when stored. So all the personal information of a person is being tracked and secured by the internet provider for up to a year without much focus on ensuring that the data is secured and not modified," she says.

"The section about prohibition of unathorised data access is quite tricky as the proposed law does not differentiate between authorised and unauthorised data. This will definitely affect the work of journalists. The question here is that whether an investigative journalist digging out exclusive information to expose corruption of a government functionary will be punishable under the clause if this information is declared unauthorised data. Besides, what will be the status of the whistle blower who shares important and undisclosed information with journalists," she asks.