‘The ban on Youtube has not been lifted despite the fact that Senate and National Assembly’s Committees on Human Rights have given approval to lift the ban. The Lahore High Court has also ordered to lift the ban on Youtube,’ she deplored.

‘Youtube is an important social media website. In today’s world this website is a source of knowledge and information. Pakistan is the only country which has imposed ban on the Youtube. We have joined the nations which have adopted 3G and 4G means of communication. I appeal to the prime minister to lift the ban on the Youtube considering publics feeling and need,’ Senator Nasree Jalil urged the prime minister.

The News

The protests that followed the posting on YouTube of a blasphemous video were violent and destructive — and carefully coordinated and orchestrated. The silent evasion of the ban by millions, far more numerically than ever participated in any demonstration, is entirely spontaneous, and in that sense may be taken as ‘the will of the people’. No matter that a resolution is passed and that millions of internet users have made their wishes known, a resolution is not binding on the government and there is no indication that the government is likely to respond to popular sentiment.

The minister of state for health services (whose remit ironically doesn’t include website bans) made this clear to the House, saying that the government was interested to find a solution to the problem but that it was ‘sensitive’ — a statement that comes across as a delaying tactic and indicates that the government does not want to be responsible for unblocking the site. The ban has now been in place for 588 days and it must also be noted that YouTube is not blocked even in Saudi Arabia. The website has many advantages including being useful for educational purposes as well as media and music, which the ban is depriving people of. It is high time that the government responded to the will of the people and unblocked this website. There is simply no sense to the ban any more.

Express Tribune

A division bench headed by Justice Irfan Saadat Khan was seized with the hearing of the petition jointly filed by as many as 24 citizens, including students, teachers, and bankers.

They asked the court to declare the censorship and arbitrary ban on certain websites such as YouTube in Pakistan a blatant violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

The petitioners said that it was the duty of the government to safeguard the internet, a medium of expression, the print and electronic media, from censorship and ensure open and free access to it.

They said that censorship of video-sharing platforms like YouTube had a disastrous impact on Pakistani students, teachers, entrepreneurs and other professionals using YouTube for educational, religious, commercial or entertainment purposes. The PTA could ban specific web addresses instead of placing a blanket ban on YouTube, they added.

They submitted that while many countries, including India and those with a Muslim majority such as Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, the Maldives had banned the web addresses of an anti-Islam film, only Pakistan persisted with a blanket ban on YouTube to the detriment of its citizens and their fundamental rights.

They said that the government had also curbed citizens right to privacy as protected under Article 14 of the Constitution by blocking proxy websites.

They requested the court to direct the PTA to desist from any further violation of these fundamental rights and to immediately lift all such bans and censorship detrimental to the fundamental rights of all citizens of Pakistan.

During the hearing on Wednesday, federal law officer Aslam Butt sought time to file comments of the federal government.

The court adjourned the hearing till May 7 and directed the petitioners to place before it a list containing names of the websites which were informative and had blocked.

Probe ordered

Another SHC bench headed by Justice Sajjad Ali Shah on Wednesday ordered the city police chief to appoint an honest police officer to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of holding some citizens for ransom against a suspended police officer, Inspector Shafiq Tanoli.

The bench also directed the city police chief to supervise the inquiry and submit a report by May 6.

It directed that the SSPs concerned and SHOs of the Mochko and Mauripur police stations be examined during the inquiry and asked them to be present at the next hearing.

The bench gave these directions while hearing a set of petitions in missing persons case.

One petition was filed by Kifayatullah who told the court that the police had taken away his brother, Ghulamullah, and other relatives from Masroor Colony on Feb 19.

In another petition, it was alleged that Tanoli released six persons — Ghulamullah, Rafiullah, Saeedur Rehman, Aftab, Khawaja Alam and Faridullah — after taking Rs550,000, the bench had noted.

The bench cited another case, observing that a man and his two sons were arrested by Tanoli, who released one son after subjecting his father to torture. The second son, Mairaj, who was booked in a case, was released when no incriminating material was found against him in that case.—PPI

DAWN

The Cellular companies are worried about streams of their cash-inflows in terms of their voice services as increased speed of data communication in the aftermath of 3G and 4G technology will enable customers to shift towards using communication tools through Facebook, WhatsApp, Viber and Skype more frequently.

All these services all over the world are free so it should be treated the same way. After getting data services with more speed, the customers will be able to make voice communication through WhatsApp, Viber and Skype as free of cost instead of making calls through common mobile phones. But the users will have to purchase smart phones or devices for using these services through their cell phones.

“This is not the issue confronting Pakistan only but all over the world the cellular operators are facing these kinds of problems so when it will be resolved internationally then solution will also come into our market,” a senior official of Ministry of Information Technology (IT) told The News here on Friday.

When this scribe contacted to Secretary Ministry of IT, Ikhalque Ahmed Tarar, he categorically stated that there was no plan to restrict these services in Pakistan. The government, he said, would ask the companies to find out solutions in consultation with other stakeholders.

When contacted, PTA high-ups replied, “We are advising the cellular operators to find a solution with the management of these services by sharing revenues with each other”.This scribe also contacted to one top official of a cellular company operating in Pakistan and he said that they knew the market dynamics so they would come up with viable plan to run 3G and 4G without any problem after the upcoming auction.

However, the sources in Ministry of IT told this scribe that the government was going to arrange special conference in coming May in Islamabad by inviting experts from Singapore, Malaysia and other parts of the world to discuss this issue in detail in Pakistan as the situation emerges in the aftermath of spectrum auction in the country.

The News

Although this draft law contains welcoming procedural safeguards, quite a number of provisions violate international standards on freedom of expression. Digital Rights Foundation Pakistan and International Organization working on freedom of expression, Article 19, have expressed concern in regards to this draft Electronic Crimes law of Pakistan 2014, as it endangers freedom of expression and lacks procedural safeguards against surveillance activities carried out by intelligence agencies.

This draft law has been drafted by the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications and brings together specific crimes, rules of investigation, prosecution and trial of the offences. —Correspondent

The NewsView Post

Given the exponential relevance of the internet in the dissemination of information over the past two decades, the need for internet freedom is justifiably being described as a right of freedom to information.

Low literacy rates, economic disparities and poor infrastructure are commonly blamed for expansion of the internet in developing countries like Pakistan. However, there are other factors behind unhindered internet usage within our country, which also merit further attention.

The unnecessary regulation of internet usage is one evident problem. Pakistan was ranked among the bottom 10 countries in the Freedom on the Net report 2013, which measured the level of internet and digital media freedom in 60 countries. A YouTube ban of over 18 months is an evident example of such restrictions. A judge sitting on a Lahore High Court (LHC) division bench hearing a petition against the YouTube ban recently asked the minister of state for information technology and telecommunication to appear in the court. The judiciary has also rightly questioned why Pakistan is the only Muslim country in the world to have banned YouTube because of a sacrilegious film. While pressure is mounting with the recent judicial activism and the Senate standing committee recommendation to lift the YouTube ban, the populace itself does not seem very keen on demanding internet freedom.

While support is strong across emerging and developing countries for an internet without government censorship, Pakistan recorded the lowest percentage of people expressing opposition to censorship across 24 countries, according to a survey released this past week by the Pew Research Center.

The Pew survey findings have revealed that support for internet freedom is strong in nations with high rates of internet penetration such as Chile and Argentina, where roughly two-thirds of the population is online. It is less common in nations with lower penetration rates like Indonesia and Uganda. Other nations like Venezuela and Egypt have higher levels of support for internet freedom despite lower levels of online penetration. Conversely, support for internet freedom is lower than expected in Russia and Pakistan, given the percentage of people who use the internet.

In Pakistan, while 22 per cent of the people polled expressed opposition to censorship, a significant majority (62 per cent) gave no response, or remained undecided. A majority of younger people (in the 18-29 age bracket) supported unrestricted internet usage in every country, except in Pakistan.

Internet usage in Pakistan is estimated to vary between 10 to 20 per cent, according to different sources. There are probably stark disparities on the basis of urban and rural, socio-economic and gender divides, concerning which there is not adequately reliable data available. The need for overcoming “the digital divide” remains vital to ensure that the benefits of internet usage do not remain confined to those who are already relatively empowered.

Nonetheless, the internet offers unprecedented resources for enhancing access to information and knowledge and it is creating previously unavailable opportunities for expression and participation.
Given this potential, the existing public apathy towards the need for greater internet freedom in our country is troubling, given that public awareness and demand for unhindered access to internet remains a precondition to overcome authoritarian regulations as well as ensuring that a greater proportion of our population can benefit from this technological opportunity.

Express Tribune

Pew Research Center revealed that some nations, such as Venezuela and Egypt, have higher levels of support for internet freedom than might be anticipated, given the degree of online penetration in the country. Venezuela topped the list with 69% wanting freedom of the internet.

Most of the other countries in the poll said that they wanted an internet free from censorship. Pakistani government banned YouTube after the showing off what was termed as a blasphemous film; however, even though the film was removed the ban was not lifted.

In response to the ongoing ban on YouTube for the past 17 months, singer Ali Gul Pir released a song Kholo BC, to mock the government for its inability to lift the ban on such a beneficial online platform. With the main focus on the YouTube ban, Ali and his fellow artiste Adil Omer touched upon various issues related to Pakistani society, its youth and the dichotomy present in the behavior of its ruling elite.

According to the US-based Pakistani website More Magazine, this song is perhaps the most controversial song released by Ali till date and is almost matched to the norm breaking music that was once produced by the Beygairat Brigade, whose songs got banned in cyber space because of their mockery of the Pakistan army.

A censorship-free internet is a priority for most people in emerging countries, especially the younger population, according to the Pew report.

Pew Research Center interviewed nearly 22,000 people in 24 emerging and developing countries. In 22 of those 24 countries, majority of respondents think it is important that people have access to the internet without government censorship. The strength of censorship opposition varied depending on the country, as well as other factors. Support of Internet freedom is prevalent in Latin American countries as well as Lebanon and Egypt, Pew revealed.

Support for internet freedom tends to be strong in nations with high rates of internet penetration, such as Chile and Argentina, where roughly two-thirds of the population is online. It is less common in nations with lower penetration rates, like Indonesia and Uganda. However, two countries bucked that trend; internet-freedom support in Russia (63%) and Pakistan (22%) came in low compared to the level of internet penetration in these countries.

Age is also a major factor; in 14 of the 24 countries surveyed, people aged from 18-29 are more likely than those of 50 or older to think a free internet is important. “These age differences suggest that support for internet freedom will become more widespread with the passage of time,” said Pew in its report.

And in several nations, those with higher incomes are particularly likely to consider internet-freedom a priority. For instance, 71% of high-income Kenyans say internet freedom is important, compared with 44% of people in the low-income category. Nearly eight in 10 Russians in the high-income category (78%) believe it is important, while only 52% of those with low-incomes hold this view.

Express Tribune

ISLAMABAD: The government has admitted that there is no technical way to block all objectionable content on the internet.

In a written reply to a lawmaker’s query, the National Assembly was informed on Monday that the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) had carried out a search for objectionable material on the internet and blocked 31,819 such websites. But, the authority said, it was impossible to filter out all sites offering offensive material.

Begum Tahira Bukhari of the PML-N had submitted the query, seeking an answer from the PTA if any proposal was being considered to unblock YouTube. The video sharing website was banned in September 2012.

The minister in charge of the cabinet division recalled that after the blasphemous movie “Innocence of Muslims” was uploaded in September 2012, the then government had to block the site because Google, the owner of YouTube, refused to remove the film.

In background interviews, PTA officials said the authority had repeatedly told the government that technically it was not possible to block offensive movies even if multi-million dollar filters were used.

A PTA official recalled how the PPP government in December 2012 restored YouTube after taking precautionary measures but had to block it again within 24 hours because of media reports about the presence of the film on the website.

The best possible solution which other Muslim countries had put in place was an automatic warning which informed a viewer trying to watch such material about the nature of the content, he said. Pakistan has also placed the warning on the internet.

“Although the PTA has banned YouTube, computer users can access it through unsecured sites,” he admitted.

DAWN

Classical ballet has always been popular with our daughter. She will watch it for hours, imitating the dancers with a developing confidence and awareness of the storylines of the more popular ballets, with Swan Lake being the long-time favourite. For the umpteenth time, we watched the finale and compared different ballet companies’ versions of the choreography. All very innocent and culturally uplifting –– but possibly dangerous.

We watched Swan Lake on YouTube, an internet source currently blocked by the government. We watched via a proxy –– that I will not name here –– that masked the IP address of my computer and created a spoof address, thus fooling its way around the government ban and giving me and Miss N the chance to enjoy the thrill of seeing the Sorcerer vanquished once again. She is also quite partial to dinosaurs doing extremely unpleasant things to other dinosaurs, flatulent babies and cats up to all manner of tricks.

For my own part, I have used YouTube as a research tool in my daily work, accessing news clips globally, checked out some paint schemes on a model airplane I am building and caught up with the latest clips from the Berlin Philharmonic. Hardly the cutting edge of subversion, is it? Nor is it illegal.

So far as I can determine, I am not breaking any law by finding a workaround for the YouTube ban, and the only law I just might have broken was a presidential ordinance that expired in 2007. The government does not appear to have invoked any piece of legislation beyond some vague references to the blasphemy laws, and the ban is based upon the entirely subjective whim of the government of the day.

It was ordered in the wake of the rumpus about the YouTube posting of a blasphemous video clip. Whilst undoubtedly blasphemous and abhorrent, but no less abhorrent than the beheadings filmed by assorted militant groups and then posted to YouTube.

It must be noted that the beheadings videos predated the posting of the blasphemous clip, yet the government of the day saw no reason to block YouTube on the grounds that it was promoting hatred.
The internet is awash with blasphemy and hate speech, and after some extensive checking in the last few days, it seems that YouTube is one of many offenders in this respect.

The offensive clip has been removed from YouTube as the result of a case brought by an actress who appeared in it –– who maintained that her performance had been misused and dialogues –– that she did not say –– dubbed into her mouth. Google, the parent company of YouTube, says it will fight the ban on the grounds that it is an impediment to freedom of speech and there are going to be lawyers rubbing their hands together at the possibility of a long-running and complex case.

So where have we got to in Pakistan? The government is slowly picking off the proxy sites that enable the workaround, despite which many millions of people simply find a proxy that is working and carry on YouTube-ing as before. So far as I am aware, there has been no attempt to prosecute anybody doing this, and it would be on very shaky legal grounds if such an attempt were to be made. Government agencies are said to harass some of those who circumvent the ban (no… not me… not yet) and there are persistent rumours that sites such as Skype are to be interdicted. Skype connections are all encrypted and thus difficult for the government to monitor traffic or listen in on.

The YouTube ban has achieved nothing more than the appeasement of some particularly excitable extremists. That it persists now makes it sinister rather than pointless. Right… back to Swan Lake. Tootle-pip.

Express Tribune

EVOLVING situations require constantly evolving regulatory mechanisms, and one area where Pakistan is lacking is in terms of internet safety — even though the World Wide Web and its benefits can hardly be said to be new realities. Last year, the Federal Investigation Agency received more than 1,000 complaints regarding cyber crime, particularly malicious stalking, the hijacking of social media accounts and faked identities or impersonation, but the country does not have laws that can be invoked in such situations. This forces the FIA to either redirect the complainant to the Ministry of Information Technology, or to the police, or in a few cases, invoke old laws that are insufficient.

Obviously, this glaring gap in the country’s legislative framework needs to be addressed. Yet whether the state has the stomach to do the needful in the wake of the technological revolution is a moot point. Consider, after all, the fact that it has been over a year since access to YouTube was cut off in the country. The piece of offensiveness that led to this is long forgotten, yet the state has not managed to come up with ways to put itself in a position where it can ask parent companies — Google, in the case of YouTube — for the removal of web content through doing the requisite inter-country paperwork, or find a method to filter content while leaving the sites in general accessible. Whether or not the state should even interfere in civil liberties by indulging in censorship is itself debatable. But even if there are extreme cases where this is deemed necessary, after consultation in parliament and with the public, the means to do so legally, transparently and with the least inconvenience must be devised. After the initial furore, those who have the know-how have found ways to circumvent the blockade; those who don’t have had to learn to do without. Legislators and politicians, otherwise so vocal about their commitment to citizens’ rights, have utterly failed to raise the matter again for redressal.

DAWN