While the ban on YouTube is as effective as Mamnoon Hussain is as the president of Pakistan, you may blow your cool if you go through the events which have unfolded since the authorities in Pakistan slapped a ban on it. The prohibition was challenged in the courts and the government is seen going back and forth in its defence. The later, in fact, has been issuing sporadic half-promises of lifting the ban, while insisting that the ban will remain in place. Given such absurd tactics and delays on the part of the government it goes without saying that it has handled the issue in a manner that has only made a mockery of Pakistan. An estimated 15 to 20 million netizens in Pakistan have been deprived of direct access to YouTube. Accessing the site from Pakistan is no big deal thanks to the countless proxy servers helping its netizens view prohibited material on the web but the very fact that hundreds and thousands of netizens from Pakistan, most of them practicing Muslims, are increasingly turning to unlawful means to access YouTube, speaks volumes about the adequacy of the ban. This silent evasion of the ban by many Pakistanis shows that people consider it to be unjustified. However, accessing YouTube via proxy servers slows down the buffering speed and thus affects those users who have low bandwidth (mostly students) more than the users surfing the web with a faster connection. Our artistes, who used YouTube as an inexpensive and censor-free platform to launch their work e.g., Aaloo Anday, Waderay ka beta, are among the people who have really suffered at the hands of this ban.

The question is: what purpose has this two-year-old prohibition served apart from exposing the amount of inertia and lack of thinking that runs from top to bottom in the government-run institutions. What message has this ban delivered to cybercitizens in our country apart from teaching them how to use illegal means to access a website which is essentially a useful resource for hundreds and thousands of students, professionals and researchers? What has Pakistan gained in the two years since the ongoing ban on YouTube? While the world is moving ahead in terms of using the internet, we are only being plunged into a recess of the dark ages from where there is no way forward. The ban on YouTube is purely a naked power play by the authorities and is all about controlling the behaviour of millions of netizens in Pakistan and denying them censor free access to the internet.

A recent United Nations Human Rights Council report has examined the important question of whether internet access is a basic human right which enables individuals to “exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression”. The report was released after the 17th United Nations session on Human Rights. In it, the United Nations emphasised the importance of broadband and internet access throughout the special rapporteur’s conclusions in the report. The report has also underlined that restricting internet access completely will always be a breach of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to freedom of expression.

Access to information is a right that cannot be denied. The Government of Pakistan has been wanting to place ‘filtration mechanisms’ to disallow the viewing of blasphemous videos on the video-sharing website in Pakistan and thus moving in a direction which has no end. The amount of efforts and money invested in devising such a programme is bound to head in only one direction: straight down. As an IT professional, I strongly believe that there is no technical solution that can be used to implement such a filter or block certain content on YouTube despite the ridiculous claims made by the information minister that such a software has been developed.

In the short-term, interstitial warnings — a warning page before a video plays — seems the only acceptable solution if the government is serious about lifting the ban. Google has offered interstitials to Pakistan just like they were offered to Bangladesh, which accepted the solution last year and ended the ban. As a matter of fact, the Government of Pakistan doesn’t even have to request Google for interstitials as YouTube has already applied this on every copy of the video hosted on YouTube and this can be extended to any future videos that result in a crisis of this sort. All the incumbent government needs to do is to restore access to the video-sharing website that has many advantages including being useful for educational, artistic and informative purposes. But for some unfathomable reason, YouTube still remains banned in the country whilst innumerable jihadist websites are easily accessible on the web.

Freedom of expression and information is already curtailed in a country like ours, where democracy is still at a rather nascent stage, and thus we need to resist any attempt to thwart it further. It is imperative to fight against internet censorship in general and the ban imposed on YouTube in particular. Such bans must be seen as a threat to clamp down on civil liberties. We need to strongly resist such tactics aiming to plunge us in a dark era where a centralised authority is able to control our behaviours and all access to information. Instead of concentrating energies on vain attempts, such as deciding what content is permissible for us to watch on YouTube, the government needs to respond to the will of the people and lift the ban from the website.

The writer is a freelance columnist and a political activist who keeps a keen eye on Pakistan’s socio-political issues and global affairs. He tweets at @alisalmanalvi

Express Tribune

Why is absence of YouTube such a big deal; some people ask. Well, YouTube is the world’s most-diverse and vast marketplace of free video content. In fact, YouTube is the Google of audiovisual content, with its dynamic interface entertaining and educating global citizens.

If YouTube is so important but inaccessible, why not use proxies; others suggest. Well, the countless virus-infested proxies do not come close to the original streaming experience. Other video-hosting sites simply do not have the features, usage-base, and most-importantly, the content and ecosystem that YouTube has. It’s just not the same.

Government does not want to restore YouTube-–it seems that way. That’s essentially a decision. But the government must also recognise the consequences as well. And there are many.

The government’s Vision 2025 talks about making Pakistan a Knowledge Economy by 2025. Lots of enablers, both offline and online, would be needed for that.

A continuous YouTube ban will deprive Pakistan’s large illiterate and semi-literate populations–who are gradually gaining broadband access-–of the immense and free audiovisual learning (e.g. ‘how to’ video tutorials) on a variety of subjects and fields.

The ban is also a setback for academics, artists, and small businesses that relied on this platform for a wider audience. Home-based entrepreneurs are now devoid of a low-cost advertising/promotion avenue. The ban is a bane for creativity and field-convergence. Aspiring musicians can no more upload their covers or originals; dramatists and directors suffer the same fate; no more videos going viral.

YouTube is a formidable, opens-source platform for creating and sharing both local and localised video content. Pakistan’s mobile broadband segment-–which is currently in nascence following the 3G/4G license award in May 2014-–could be helped by imaginative, user-friendly, and solution-centric local content. The jury is out on the data adoption rates in the initial phase, but a prolonged YouTube ban is surely adoption-negative.

Video streaming is universally popular and thus eats up a major slice of global data consumption pie. And YouTube is the foremost video streaming platform available. Mobile broadband adoption rates in Pakistan can be faster if YouTube is around. While the 3G operators may save on their bandwidth costs (video being a bandwidth-guzzler), their business case may suffer in the long run.

List of negatives is long. The ban has also exposed a deep fissure in Pakistani society. When it comes to freedom of expression, it seems that some expressions are more equal than others. Government’s response to YouTube-sparked religious outrage in September 2012 was to ban the platform altogether.

In the aftermath, lives of sections of population (big or small is not the issue here) continue to suffer in a variety of ways, artistic and academic, cultural and commercial, personal and professional.

The appeasement is discomforting. Shouldn’t there be fairness and balance here? Shouldn’t the government move quickly to find that balance? Are some sentiments more equal than others?

It has been almost five month since the National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution to restore YouTube.

There has been no word from the government since, other than the committee-committee refrain. Parliament represents people’s collective wisdom, but where is its legislative writ; some wonder. One finds hard to answer that these days…

Business Recorder

The ban had been imposed on September 17, 2012 by then prime minister Raja Pervez Ashraf following national outrage over a sacrilegious video clip. The video had sparked outrage across the Muslim world and prompted temporary bans on the website in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sudan. Threat of bans in Saudi Arabia prompted YouTube to selectively curb access in that country and it took a court order to censor it in Brazil.

But even after a US court ordered YouTube to take down versions of the video following a suit filed by one of the actors appearing in the clip, the site remains inaccessible in Pakistan. The refrain, that the clip hurts religious sentiments of the people, is obscene or hurts national security has acted as an effective screen for a process which is less than transparent and has gone on to impact services and content beyond just pornography and blasphemous videos.

“We should understand that our government has realised the power of online media and is afraid of political dissent which finds space on the Internet,” says Nighat Dad of the Digital Rights Foundation.

“We have witnessed in the past that Ministry of Information Technology (MoIT) has been trying to curb political dissent and we have examples like taking down Asif Zaradari shut up video and Laal musical band’s Facebook page.”

The extent of blocking by the government through the Inter-Ministerial Committee has gone on to affect satirical videos, news articles and news websites by elements the state has a less than favourable view of.

The non-governmental organisation Bytes For All had taken the government to court over the blocking of YouTube. After 20 court hearings and a document of consensus reached by several different stakeholders including petitioner (Bytes for All), the MoIT, the PTA and technical experts from the IT and Telecom industries, it was concluded that filtering the Internet was futile owing to technological reasons.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah of the Lahore High Court observed that banning YouTube because of one undesirable video is like shutting down of an entire library because of an offensive book on its shelves. The LHC refrained from issuing an order, though. Instead it directed the litigants to approach the Supreme Court for an interpretation of the September 17, 2012 order which instituted the blanket ban on YouTube.

However, the hurdles that the NGO members had to face during the litigation process offer a glimpse on how closely does the state wish to keep its ‘weapon’ of censorship hidden away from the prying eyes of the very people it impacts.

An emailed response from Bytes For All detailed how baseless accusations were levelled against them and a defamation campaign was run against them by the government and pro-censorship lawyers.

“There were articles written in some pro-government publications in which Bytes for All was accused of being the agents of west and working against the national interest. We were labelled as ‘Followers of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ during one of the hearing, which was amusing and sad at the same time.”

Dad questioned the legality of the Inter-Ministerial Committee. “This committee should be renamed as the ‘Mysterious committee’ which decides for 184.4 million of what to see on internet and what not. “

She further complained how politicians, who championed the cause of freedom prior to being elected, performed near volte-face once acquiring office.

“[Minister for IT] Anusha Rehman was once a champion for online freedom before coming into the government. She had promised in her election campaign that unblocking YouTube will be the first thing she does once she assumes office. Two years on there are no developments.”

It is odd how in their annual list of achievements, Rehman lists the auction of 3/4G licenses. Yet, sites and services continue to be blocked without a coherent reason or as much as a public announcement.

“Nothing should be blocked on internet. Let people decide what they want to see and what not. Government shouldn’t decide on our behalf,” says Dad.

Express Tribune

In Pakistan, where freedom of expression is largely perceived as a Western notion, the Snowden revelations have had a damaging effect. The deeply polarized narrative has become starker as the corridors of power push back on attempts to curb government surveillance. “If the citizens of the United States of America cannot have these rights, how can you? ..” is an argument that rights advocate hear way too often. The Snowden revelations quickly became a moment of recognition for those otherwise labeled as conspiracy theorists who believed that all digital transmissions become a tool that can be used by the U.S. government. Unlike, for example, Brazil, which has fought back, the government of Pakistan is working on ways it could replicate a NSA-like model in this country.

Just months after the revelations, some of which reported that Pakistan was one of the leading countries (second only to Iran) being surveilled by the U.S. National Security Agency, a draft of a Cybercrime Law surfaced. The draft, reportedly commissioned by the government, contained provisions for the constitution of an NSA-like cyber authority and Pakistan’s very own 5 Eyes program (a signals intelligence-sharing alliance). The draft bill was quickly shot down after pushback from civil society, but attempts at tabling new legislation have not stopped.

Recently, a report commissioned by the Supreme Court and produced by a retired judge and a renowned media personality suggested that the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) and the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) be merged, and effectively categorized social media as broadcast media, recommending that it be monitored in a similar manner. Given the ad hoc manner in which authorities in Pakistan crack down on Internet content, treating media on the Internet as broadcast media could have severe repercussions for freedom of expression. Take, for example, the case of YouTube, which the government says it blocks because of certain content deemed blasphemous. This stems from a misconception that all Internet content is broadcast rather than accessed voluntarily. The presence of specific content on a large platform should not legitimize the denial of access to the whole thing.

Furthermore, any merger of PTA and PEMRA would entail scrapping current laws related to the two regulators and the enacting of new legislation. Given the absence of laws protecting free speech and given that Article 19 under the 1973 Constitution is subject to vague restrictions such as the “glory of Islam,” new legislation would likely be problematic. In the past three years, more than three parties including a university professor, a Christian couple, and a student have been accused or charged with blasphemy on the basis of a Facebook post and text messages. Furthermore, The Protection of Pakistan Ordinance, which was recently passed despite severe opposition, makes “Internet offenses” a prosecutable offense without specifying what constitutes such a crime.

Meanwhile, as the YouTube ban persists, there is also a push for data localization as an attempt to make companies subject to Pakistani law. These attempts increased significantly in light of the Snowden revelations as people became paranoid about the treatment of their data. More recently PTCL, the country’s largest Internet provider, which is often accused of having a monopoly in the market, partnered with Daily Motion to bring a “localized video sharing platform.”

From the policy landscape to the public narrative regarding free speech and privacy, the Snowden revelations have strengthened the state’s argument for surveillance. With the recent shutdown of Geo TV and rival media channels seemingly busy with public infighting, freedom of expression has taken a big hit. Journalists, reporters, and rights advocates now live with the fear that it is not only their own Government monitoring their movements but foreign governments and agencies too. As anyone who follows Pakistani media knows, journalists often face the dilemma of self-censorship at certain boundaries. Now the walls have closed in even more.

Sana Saleem is a director of Bolo Bhi, an Internet rights group based in Pakistan, and an advisory board member for the Courage foundation, Snowden’s legal defense fund.

Committee to Protect Journalists

The answer was assumedly the responsibility of the then PPP government, which opted instead to let the issue slide and become the incoming PML-N’s headache. To its credit, the PML-N brought in the right person for the job — Information Technology Minister Anusha Rehman was among the most vocal and progressive voices in the previous government’s National Assembly Standing Committee on Information Technology. She was absolutely in favour of unblocking YouTube — so what went wrong? Plenty.

Since assuming power, the government has refused to tackle the issue seriously, opting instead to issue intermittent vague promises of an end to the ban, while near simultaneously insisting the ban would remain in place. This strategy may have worked indefinitely if it wasn’t for a petition filed in the Lahore High Court that resulted in a court ordered meeting in May between petitioners Bytes For All, members of the Ministry of Information Technology, including Anusha Rehman, and the heads of multiple government and corporate organisations, including the chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority.

The outcome of the meeting was positive and a joint submission by all stakeholders to the court is in the pipeline. This week, the National Assembly also unanimously adopted a resolution to lift the ban on YouTube, but stakeholders close to the issue are divided on whether these developments signal real progress.

“The National Assembly resolution is a big drama. A representative from YouTube has visited Pakistan three times in the last year but the minister refused to meet him,” a source close to the issue said, adding that Google submitted a solution in writing to the Senate months ago: interstitial warnings — a warning page before a video plays — that appears on every copy of Innocence of Muslims hosted on YouTube, not just in Pakistan, but globally.

Additionally, the source said Google also agreed to blocking any copies of the video in future if notified by Pakistan; however, a first list submitted by the government included numerous video block requests that were not copies of Innocence of Muslims. Given such tactics and massive delays on the part of the government, Google went ahead with this solution anyway.

“It’s really simple. Interstitials were offered to Pakistan just like they were offered to Bangladesh, which accepted the solution last year and ended the ban,” says Director of BoloBhi Farieha Aziz. “YouTube has already applied this, Pakistan doesn’t even have to request it — it’s been done. All that remains is for the PML-N government to make the decision to unban YouTube and move forward.”

For Google, this system was easy to implement as a stopgap solution until Pakistan introduces an intermediary liability protection (ILP) law, which the company has been demanding in order to establish a localised version of YouTube. The localised version of the site would give both Pakistan and Google greater flexibility in responding to such a crisis in future, but this option remains in limbo as ILP is part and parcel of the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Ordinance which has remained in draft form for the last five years and was, ironically, the legislation Anusha Rehman worked on at length.

Those in the industry say Google is also not interested in ‘going down the Facebook path’ — a reference to the social network’s agreement with the government to restrict access to pages and groups as submitted by the PTA.

The agreement has been roundly criticised by human rights organisations due to its clandestine nature, and in light of the fact that Facebook pages such as that of Roshni.pk — an independent group lobbying for secularism in Pakistan — were restricted for local users by Facebook, while pages run by banned organisations and militant groups continue to operate with relative impunity.

According to those working on the issue, the interstitial warnings solution seems the only acceptable way forward in the short term.

“I can say with absolute authority there is no technical solution to blocking content on YouTube … even the government has realised that,” says Country Director of Bytes For All Pakistan Shahzad Ahmad, in reference to the recent joint meeting ordered by the LHC.

“Intermediary liability protection laws will also not be enough … mechanisms would have to be developed as simply imposing a law with no real systems in place will cause more harm than good,” he adds.

Given that interstitial warnings are already in place for Innocence of Muslims on YouTube and can be applied to any future videos that result in a crisis-like situation, ending the ban on YouTube appears to only be a question of political will — end the ban, flip the switch.

But what if interstitials are ‘not enough’ for the extremist elements that led the violent riots resulting in the ban on YouTube?

As Ahmad recalls, “This point has been brought up many times in the courtroom, and it has been used as a threat as well, with groups walking into sessions warning of dire consequences…but stopping danga fasaad is the state’s job, isn’t it? If mobs come out on the streets and break the law, should we fold over, or stay the course and do the right thing?”

Dawn

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

On September 17, 2012, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) blocked YouTube after the website refused to remove the trailer of the controversial, amateurish anti-Islam film, Innocence of Muslims by Sam Bacile (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula). The then PPP-led government declared the following Friday “Love The Prophet Day,” hoping to encourage peaceful protests. However, the violence that ensued was yet another disturbing reminder of the growing influence of the conservative right in Pakistani society. Although YouTube remains blocked in Pakistan, two days ago the TTP launched its official website through its media partner, Umar Media, which serves as a central information portal featuring videos, publications and statements made by its leaders. The website, until recently accessible in Pakistan, has been criticized for carrying propaganda that incites violence, especially against Pakistan’s security forces.

The war Pakistan seems to fighting is not just against the physical presence of the Taliban but also the entrenchment of their it Islamic ideologies. This ideological infiltration has become more pronounced courtesy of the mainstream media, allowing both militant groups as well as conservative right-wing parties to exploit mainstream media attention and gain access to a larger audience.

The Pakistani media has given extensive space to statements made by militant leaders and has readily covered terrorist incidents throughout the country. While this may fall within the ambit of the media’s responsibility, the editorializing and depiction of such incidents has only further emboldened the militants. By negotiating with militants, the government has transformed those who were previously seen as “enemies of the state” into “stakeholders,” granting them the appearance of valor, along with tremendous legitimacy and leverage.

Against the backdrop of negotiations, leaders of different militant groups and conservative right-wing individuals like Maulana Abdul Aziz (former chief cleric of the Lal Masjid, infamous for fleeing under a burqa during an operation in 2007) have regularly appeared on political talk shows voraciously defending their rigid views on Shariah implementation. TTP leaders frequently give statements to national papers from undisclosed locations. In an interview given to Newsweek Pakistan, TTP spokesperson, Shahidullah Shahid claimed that, “We consider Mullah Omar as the Amir-ul-Momineen. In Pakistan, Mullah Fazlullah is leading us and he has all the qualities to lead the Pakistani nation.” Given the state’s weak negotiating position, extensive Taliban coverage not only glorifies and emboldens the militants but also creates space for a militant narrative.

While the media can easily be criticized for engaging in a ratings race, the truth remains that it cannot function in an environment where it is under constant threat and intimidation. The government, desperately preoccupied with coaxing a peace deal out of the TTP, has failed to prioritize the security of its citizens and the media.

Threats have been issued to journalists and media owners across the board. Since last year, militants have attacked the liberal Express Media Group in five separate incidents. Bomb attacks and shooting incidents outside the Karachi office caused much alarm and prompted the media group to ask the state for protection. Earlier this year, the TTP killed three employees of the same media group, prompting the Express Tribune to shift its editorial policy and refrain from publishing criticisms of the group, whether in its reports or in the opinion pages. In addition to this, the group’s TV channel also allowed TTP spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan to appear on one of its talk shows and promised adequate coverage in return for a halt against attacks. Despite that, an assassination attempt targeting renowned journalist and outspoken Taliban critic Raza Rumi took place in Lahore on March 28. Rumi, a noted columnist, is also a TV anchor for the Express News channel. The militants’ strategy is clear and two pronged: exploit the media to carve out a space for its own narrative while at the same time intimidate media groups and individuals who dissent from their view.

The lack of security granted by the government has prompted some media groups to provide private security to the owners, editors and heads of their news channels. However, the fact remains that Pakistani media and journalists face a serious threat and the government has so far failed to allay the media’s concerns or provide adequate security. Adding salt to the wounds, in the general atmosphere of competition and ratings, TV channels even now fail to unite; coverage of media attacks is fleeting and names are absent if the victim is a competitor. This trend is troublesome and the journalist community faces a dangerous challenge, one that will require non-traditional solutions to address.

In Afghanistan, following the unfortunate attack on Serena Hotel, which killed nine people including a well-known AFP journalist and his family, Afghan journalists declared a 15-day boycott of news reporting on the Taliban. It is unlikely that the same action would be taken in Pakistan, where many remain sympathetic to the terrorist agenda.

Given the violence and intimidation, the absence of a liberal counter-narrative, and the government’s policy of appeasement, the militant narrative has been able to gain increasing prominence in mainstream media. Where once a media appearance by a leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for the killing of 19,000 civilians was an anomaly, today it is common and tomorrow it will be normal.

Using the powerful tools at their disposal to reclaim the ability to shape national discourse will undoubtedly be an uphill task for the Pakistani media, made particularly difficult in the absence of security and support provided by the government. However, the Pakistani media must stand tall. And it must stand united.

If for nothing else, it must do so for its own survival.

Arsla Jawaid is a journalist and managing editor at the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Follow her on Twitter @arslajawaid

The Diplomatic

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

Additionally, objectionable content using secure protocols could not be blocked, said sources, adding that everyday more and more content was being shifted to secure protocols. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has identified the URLs of obnoxious videos, flagged the links and passed on the same to Google Inc. All the videos flagged by PTA, were responded by Google with the warning message displayed on every video. Up till now 975 blasphemous videos displayed the warning message and the flag is being raised every day.

A US Appeals Court on February 26, 2014, ordered Google Inc to remove from its Youtube video-sharing website anti-Islamic film “Innocence of Muslims” on a copyright issue. However, the US court of Appeals in its order on February 28, 2014 had modified its earlier decision and allowed Google to display copies of “Innocence of Muslims” that does not include Cindy Garcia’s performance. The movie is still available on Youtube, sources maintained. The Supreme Court in constitutional Petition No 104 of 2012 ordered to block offending material on Youtube website or any other website. The government was making efforts to comply with the SC decision and Youtube would be opened after the Court order, said State Minister for Information Technology Anusha Rehman while briefing a parliamentary panel.

After blasphemous movie was uploaded on Youtube in September 2012, the Ministry of IT approached the management of Google and Facebook. In response, Google refused to block the blasphemous movie links/URLs in the absence of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. However, the management of Facebook agreed to block secured website links. Due to bulk of blasphemous links/URLs and considering law & order situation in the country, the YouTube (www.youtube. com) at IP level was blocked on September 17, 2012 on the instructions of Inter Ministerial Committee (IMC). In order to monitor blasphemous and pornographic material on the internet, the PTA has established a Web Analysis Directorate. In addition, a Web Analysis Cell “WAC” has been created to proactively monitor and identify the blasphemous and pornographic content. The objectionable sites are then blocked and up till now 18,828 links have been blocked.

The PTA has co-ordinated deployment of a technical filtering solution at the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) and TWA, which are the bandwidth providers. The PTA has interacted with the management of “Facebook” and “Twitter”, and arrived at an arrangement whereby the objectionable URLs being reported to them are blocked. The PTA has coordinated with “Google”, with special reference to activations of warnings on the reported blasphemous videos of “Innocence of Muslims”.

Business Recorder

Addressing senior journalists and intellectuals at the Aiwan-e-Iqbal in Lahore, the minister, however, refused to give a definite date for unblocking YouTube.

Turning to the ongoing militancy, Rashid said that there were two types of terrorists. “There are those who use weapons – and there are those who [seek domination] through ideas and beliefs,” he said. “Now it’s up to the media to decide whether it supports the state or the ideology of terrorists.”

He stressed that media houses should not highlight the extremist standpoint of those, ‘who want to create a state within state and impose their opinion and beliefs on others’.

The information minister said it was against the interests of the state to highlight nefarious acts of terrorists and keep them alive through media coverage.

He said terrorists believed that only their faith was true and the rest were false. Rashid urged the media to condemn terrorists as it was ‘their prime responsibility as an independent institution in a democratic country’.

He dispelled the perception that there was a ‘super-committee’ comprising the prime minister, interior minister and an adviser to hold talks with Taliban

“Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan is the focal person and the prime minister himself gets briefings on the progress of the government negotiating committee with the Taliban. Defence Minister Khawaja Asif also attends these briefing,” he added.

Regarding terrorist attacks by militants despite the ongoing talks, the minister said pro-dialogue Taliban had disowned these acts of terrorism. “Let the dialogue with the Taliban complete,” he said, adding that the government would take action against those who were not amenable to peace talks.

Express Tribune