All Posts in Internet Governance

November 15, 2015 - Comments Off on Facebook’s 2015 Global Government Requests Report Highlights Growing No. of Demands by Pak Govt

Facebook’s 2015 Global Government Requests Report Highlights Growing No. of Demands by Pak Govt

No. of User/Account requests made by the Pakistani Govt between January - June2015

The no. of user/account requests made by the Pakistani government between January - June 2015. For earlier Pakistan government requests, please click on the image.

In the wake of Snowden, it has become important for large tech corporations to be transparent about their interactions with governments ie requests to either access or remove data from particular social media or websites. Facebook and Google have in recent years released transparency reports that announce the number of data removal/access requests by governments.

On Wednesday 11th 2015 Facebook released their newest Global Government Requests Report, “as part of a broader effort to reform government surveillance in countries around the world by providing more transparency" on a country by country basis. The report can be found here.

Relating to Pakistan in particular, it was revealed that for the period January 2015 – June 2015 there were 192 government requests, with 275 users/accounts requested, with 58.33% of these requests resulting with some “data...produced.” This is an increase from the July 2014 – December 2014 reporting period, where 100 requests were made, 152 users/accounts data requested, and 42% of requests resulting in some data. Going by the increase in current and past government request data, it is more than likely that the number of requests by governments will increase over time.

Facebook and other tech corporations may be taking steps to prove their commitment to respect and protect their users, but it is not enough to take them at their word. While one can approve of this action being taken by Facebook and other corporations, we must be cautious and restrained in our praise. Facebook and other large tech corporations are usually reliant on these same governments to allow them to operate in non-US territories. The 2013 Snowden leaks also revealed that Facebook was an active participant in the NSA's PRISM surveillance programme, wherein information was shared by tech companies with US intelligence agencies, ostensibly to detect foreign threats to the United States of America. And in 2010, let us not forget, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said that privacy was no longer a “social norm”.

The 2015 Corporate Accountability Index released by Ranking Digital Rights – designed to evaluate “world’s most powerful Internet and telecommunications companies on their public commitments and disclosed policies affecting users’ freedom of expression and privacy “ - ranks the commitment of Facebook and others in regards to the quality of those steps being taken. In regards to Facebook, it found that its transparency efforts were not factoring in Instagram and Whatsapp data – two platforms that it purchased in 2012 and 2014, respectively, with a combined global user-base of 13 million users. Ranking Digital Rights gave Facebook an overall score of 41%, which breaks down into 62% for commitment, 35% for freedom of expression, and 36% for privacy. Its score places Facebook 6th out of the 16 corporations evaluated. The 2015 Corporate Accountability Index can be found here.

As Ranking Digital Rights and other watchdog organisations observe, tech corporations “exert growing influence over the political and civil lives of people all over the world”, and a result these “companies share a responsibility to respect human rights.” Facebook and its fellow tech companies must do more to shoulder that responsibility, and must do more to prove that the safety, welfare and rights of their users matter to them, or else they could face a growing backlash from the users, their customer base.

September 21, 2015 - Comments Off on Standing Comm. Passes Draft of PECB, Unseen by Comm. Members

Standing Comm. Passes Draft of PECB, Unseen by Comm. Members

On September 17th 2015, the National Assembly's Standing Committee on Information Technology passed the final draft form of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill, which will now be sent to the National Assembly for final approval.

Disturbingly, members of the committee were not shown the draft form of the bill before its passage. PPP MNAs Shazia Marri and Nauman Islam Sheikh, and PML-N MNA Awais Ahmad Khan Leghari, rightly objected, stressing that the draft bill could not be approved until they and the other members of the committee had read the finalised draft.

Capt Mohammad Safdar (Ret'd), Standing Committee chairman, overruled these objections, saying that as he had seen the draft, that would be sufficient grounds to pass the draft.

Final Draft of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill, September 17th 2015.

See our previous and ongoing coverage of the cybercrimes bill, here: http://digitalrightsfoundation.pk/work/cyber-crime-bill/

April 21, 2015 - Comments Off on New Cybercrime Bill Threatens the Rights to Privacy and Free Expression in Pakistan

New Cybercrime Bill Threatens the Rights to Privacy and Free Expression in Pakistan

ARTICLE 19 and Digital Rights Foundation Pakistan have serious concerns about measures contained in Pakistan’s proposed Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill (‘PEC Bill’). The Bill contains a number of provisions that, if implemented, would violate the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. We urge members of the Senate of Pakistan to reject the Bill and call on the Pakistani parliament to ensure that any new cybercrime legislation is fully compliant with international human rights standards.

In our joint legal analysis, ARTICLE 19 and Digital Rights Foundation Pakistan address the following concerns:

  1. Power to manage intelligence and issue directions for removal or blocking of access of any intelligence through any information system

  2. Overbroad offences against misuse of computers and lack of public interest defence

  3. Glorification of an offence and hate speech

  4. Overly broad cyber-terrorism offence

  5. Offences against dignity of natural persons

  6. Offences against modesty or a natural person and minor

  7. Cyberstalking

  8. Spoofing

  9. Criminalising the production, distribution and use of encryption tools

Read more information, including our recommendations, in the PDF below:

Pakistan Cyber Crime Joint Analysis

 

December 16, 2014 - Comments Off on KPK and Punjab Public Bodies Consistently Fail to Comply with RTI Laws

KPK and Punjab Public Bodies Consistently Fail to Comply with RTI Laws

Provincial governments of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) have failed to comply with their respective Right to Information (RTI) laws, as the year long research reports indicates.

Lahore, January 1, 2015:

Annual research report titled ‘The State of Proactive Disclosure of Information in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab Public Bodies’ reaffirms earlier findings that public bodies in both the provinces have failed to comply with their own right to information laws. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab public bodies are required to proactively disclose categories of information mentioned in Sections 5 and 4 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Right to Information Act 2013 and Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013,  respectively.

This report was an effort initiated by Coalition of Right to Information (CRTI) and Digital Rights Foundations with a broader aim to measure how public bodies have been using the web. With advancements of technologies, it has become crucial for public bodies to start using their web presence more effectively in order to promote good governance and reduce corruption. This research scaled if the government departments are keeping properly maintained websites and promoting citizens' feedback. However, the primary purpose of these quarterly reports was to measure against respective RTI laws if the bodies were complying with their own laws.

While civil society and citizens appreciate elected governments of Punjab and KPK for having passed their local RTI laws, it is disappointing to see the unwillingness of public bodies to comply with those regulations. What was even more surprising though was the discovery that Information Commission of Punjab and Information Department of KPK even lack a website of their own. If the information commissions are themselves not promoting RTI laws and lack web presence and / or conformity to RTI laws, how do they expect other departments to uphold those policies?

As pointed in our earlier quarterly reports, this final report of year 2014 also kept up with the finding of having no example where a department has disclosed information about recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by the public bodies. Transparency will not witness any improvement if information commissions and local government do not promote their departments to proactively disclose financial information, concessions, and benefits their employees receive as it is an important way forward to good governance.

A lot has to be done by the KPK and Punjab Information Commissions to ensure that public bodies comply with the right to information laws,  present information in user-friendly way proactively, and promote raising awareness of citizens' right to information and their required feedback in governance.

Link to the report: Proactive Disclosure Report 

Contact: nighat@digitalrightsfoundation.pk

– End –

“Coalition of Right to Information seeks to promote an open information and communications policies at the federal, provincial and district levels across Pakistan. With various initiatives, the coalition of civil society organizations aims to promote citizen awareness and improve dialogue between the citizens and state.”

 

Digital Rights Foundation is a research based advocacy organisation based in Pakistan focusing on ICTs to support human rights, democratic processes and better digital governance. DRF opposes any and all sorts of online censorship and violations of human rights both on ground and online. We firmly believe that freedom of speech and open access to online content is critically important for the development of socio-economy of the country. www.digitalrightsfoundation.pk

 

December 04, 2014 - Comments Off on Freedom on the Net 2014 – Pakistan’s Scores Going from Bad to Worse

Freedom on the Net 2014 – Pakistan’s Scores Going from Bad to Worse

Freedom on the Net 2014 – Pakistan’s Falling Scores on Internet Freedom Ranking

Lahore, December 4, 2014: The latest Freedom on the Net report of Freedom House that is conducted in 60 countries around the world shows declining scores for Pakistan. Inclusion of online spaces as evidence in the draconian laws of Blasphemy while having no strong legal-cyber framework and implementation of technologies to censor political and social content remain the worrying highlights of this year's Net Freedom report.

FoTN 2014 report was meticulously researched by Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan along with the research analysts of Freedom House. This report is an attempt to compile and assess the limits on content, violations of user rights in Pakistan, and overall Net Freedom in the country. Here are some of the highlights of Freedom on the Net 2014 report on Pakistan:

  • Four women were brutally killed for using mobile technology in rural areas of Pakistan
  • Citizen Lab researchers found Netsweeper technology automatically blocking political and social content on Pakistan’s largest ISP
  • In April 2014, a judge in Punjab sentenced a Christian couple to death for blasphemy in relation to a text message they deny sending
  • Lawyer Rashid Rehman was shot dead on May 7 after receiving threats for representing a professor jailed on charge of committing blasphemy on Facebook
  • Pakistan started offering faster mobile internet connectivity (limited to urban centers) in the form of 3G and 4G
  • YouTube has been blocked since September 2012 while officials jockey to systematize control over the platform
  • Authorities' newly blocked film details referencing Baloch independence and a gay community website
  • Pakistan Protection Ordinance 2013 (now an Act) categorized unspecified “internet offenses” as terrorism, with suspects subject to arbitrary detention

“Pervasive  and Increased government control on the Internet whether in form of censorship or with new surveillance tactics, is limiting freedom of expression and amplifying self censorship among the internet users in Pakistan. The dangerous trend of introducing draconian and repressive laws to limit the civil liberties in the online space is only an effort to block political dissent and diverse opinions," commented Nighat Dad, Director, Digital Rights Foundation. "Pakistani government should understand that increased Internet censorship and data surveillance can only turn this democratic state into a repressive regime.”

Sanja Kelly, Project Director for Freedom on the Net talking about how legal framework is being constructed at the expense of citizen privacy mentioned, “authoritarian and democratic leaders alike believe the internet is ripe for regulation and passed laws that strengthen official powers to police online content. The scramble to legislate comes at the expense of user rights, as lawmakers deliberately or misguidedly neglect privacy protections and judicial oversight.The situation is especially problematic in less democratic states where citizens have no avenues to challenge or appeal government’s actions”

Pakistan scored 69 points (on a list of 0 to 100, where 100 is worst), two points down from last year's ranking. It is concerning for the civil society and Internet users in the country to see an elected government not respecting citizen's privacy or access to the Internet. Pakistan is in dire need of strong, citizen-centric cyber laws that could protect users from online crimes and false witnesses.

To view full country report of Pakistan, please visit Freedom on the Net, 2014.

– End –

Digital Rights Foundation is a research based advocacy organisation based in Pakistan focusing on ICTs to support human rights, democratic processes and better digital governance. DRF opposes any and all sorts of online censorship and violations of human rights both on ground and online.  We firmly believe that freedom of speech and open access to online content is critically important for the development of socio-economy of the country. www.digitalrightsfoundation.pk

Join the talk on Twitter @digitalrightspk, follow the hashtag #FOTN14 or like us on Facebook!

November 11, 2014 - Comments Off on “The State of Proactive Disclosure of Information in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab Public Bodies” Research Report Released

“The State of Proactive Disclosure of Information in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab Public Bodies” Research Report Released

Lahore, November 11, 2014:

The second quarterly of research report ‘The State of Proactive Disclosure of Information in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab Public Bodies’ reaffirms our earlier finding that public bodies in both provinces are not complying with their respective right to information laws. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab public bodies are required to proactively disclose categories of information mentioned in Sections 5 and 4 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Right to Information Act 2013 and Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013.

The broader aim of this research report, conducted by Digital Rights Foundation, a member organization of Coalition on Right to Information’, (CRTI) is to measure how public bodies have been using the web and making it easier for citizens in the processes of getting information and filing requests. Major aim of this effort is also to promote public bodies who are proactively sharing information with citizens on self-basis.

The current report indicates a serious lack of maintenance of websites by departments. In the process of doing research for the current report, many websites were found in the same state as they were during the previous quarter, in terms of both their conformation with RTI laws and updating their websites with regular news and information. Which shows that while the public bodies have adopted to the latest web standards and have created and somewhat maintained a web presence, there is a significant lack of tangible reforms adopted to implement key sections of the respective laws of the provinces. Specifically, the public bodies do not share information pertaining to public employees’ remuneration, benefits, and any other privileges in line with the provisions of their provincial right to information laws.

The coalition and DRF has decided to add the websites of information commissions of both the provinces in the next phase of this research report. Commissions are expected to be a role model for other governmental bodies when it comes to have a maintained websites sharing information proactively with citizens on self-basis along with outlining proper procedures with named contacts for citizens to ask queries.

Digital Rights Foundation urges Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information Commission and Punjab Information Commission to ensure public bodies comply with the right to information laws and make available information specified for proactive disclosure under relevant provisions of provincial right to information laws. The websites of these aforementioned commissions will be included in the next quarterly report.

Link to the report: Proactive Disclosure Report

Contact: nighat@digitalrightsfoundation.pk

– End –

 

“Coalition of Right to Information seeks to promote an open information and communications policies at the federal, provincial and district levels across Pakistan. With various initiatives, the coalition of civil society organizations aims to promote citizen awareness and improve dialogue between the citizens and state.”

 

Digital Rights Foundation is a research based advocacy organisation based in Pakistan focusing on ICTs to support human rights, democratic processes and better digital governance. DRF opposes any and all sorts of online censorship and violations of human rights both on ground and online. We firmly believe that freedom of speech and open access to online content is critically important for the development of socio-economy of the country. www.digitalrightsfoundation.pk

September 10, 2014 - Comments Off on Turkey with its 29 Tweeters Still Behind the Bars Makes IGF ’14 Quite an Ironic Event

Turkey with its 29 Tweeters Still Behind the Bars Makes IGF ’14 Quite an Ironic Event

As we close off the Internet Governance Forum 2014 here at Istanbul and as I leave for Lahore, I can’t help but feel that this year's IGF kept on with its tradition of being a "talk-house" since past few years, creating no tangible actions. Sponsored by the United Nations, IGF hosted some 3,000 government, corporate, and civil society leaders and representatives making it a perfect venue for talking about difficult challenges, moving forward and making decisions. The event is organized every year to help shape the future of the Internet, however, it feels as if this reunion every year is drifting away from the actual problems concerning the people of the Internet especially in the authoritarian countries.

IGF certainly retains its singular prestigious place for highlighting challenges in an open-ended consultative process, enabling civil society and individuals voice their perspectives and concerns during the conference. However, it was felt throughout the civil society community that government officials weren’t keen on engaging in the dialogue discussing serious concerns about unfortunate events that have happened in their respective countries.

Being hosted in Turkey, it was an important place to discuss internet governance where government officials could have set a precedent for digital governance elsewhere. Turkey’s prosecution of 29 Twitter users has been a global example for the repressive regimes. Government prosecuted these tweeters who are being tried in Izmir facing up to three years in jail for posting critical tweets during last year’s protests. This case was charged by the Turkish officials as the one to “incite the public to break the law”. It is this stark hypocritical stance of the government to host one of the most important internet governance events in the country all the while censoring and harming freedom of speech online domestically.

To talk about repressive regimes’ ruthless behavior towards human rights activists and the hush by the government officials at the IGF, a group of civil society members and individuals hosted another conference during the IGF week. Titled as Internet Ungovernance Forum, the conference was organized to demand a free, secure, and open internet with fundamental freedoms, openness and net neutrality. Proving to be a vivid example of the increasing lack of empathy on the IGF forum, this group of Turkish activists weren't allowed to attend the conference. Ungovernance Forum's stakeholders believed that due to the representation of various governments that “don’t deserve” representation at a forum like IGF, ungovernance forum is designed to talk about the most important issues, create a space to raise voices of civil society members and common people, and then solve these problems while working towards a path for action.

Participants at this year's IGF also felt an evident gender gap especially during the opening ceremony. Freedom House presented this statement about the lack of gender equality at IGF 2014:

The 2014 IGF included numerous workshops on topics of human rights, including freedom of expression, gender, privacy, and access. Yet the value of this enterprise is undermined when governments can use the IGF to promote themselves, but civil society groups are forbidden by the ad hominem principle from criticizing them. Likewise, gender equality cannot genuinely be discussed when the vast majority of individuals at high-level meetings, delivering speeches, and participating on workshop panels are men. Access also cannot be addressed when remote participation fails to adequately provide two-way discussion from those who cannot attend in person. The IGF should include these voices not only to promote multistakeholderism and inclusion, but also to improve the quality of discussion and the prospects for solutions.

Active participation of civil society members and individuals in the Ungovernance Forum shows sheer disappointment that was felt in the fraternity having attended the IGF in Turkey which failed to acknowledge its own domestic internet governance challenges. While we may dream of creating better future for Internet and its citizens, it is of the utmost importance to talk about the most pressing issues when it comes to online freedom of dissidents and common people. Failure of the host country by ignoring hard questions put up by the journalists only undermines the importance of freedom of speech online. Unless repressive regimes aren’t ready to talk about their internal issues and lack of empathy towards their own citizens, it is only but ironic to see such states having an incredible part in the future of the Internet. God forbid how oppressive and censored that future is to be.

 

July 13, 2014 - Comments Off on Why exactly is ‘Protection of Pakistan Act’ problematic?

Why exactly is ‘Protection of Pakistan Act’ problematic?

Signed today into law by President Mamnoon Hussain, Protection of Pakistan Act is an extremely repressive law giving unquestionable powers to armed and police forces. Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the civil society of Pakistan has aggressively opposed the bill for curbing fundamental constitutional and human rights.

Several provisions of PPA, 2014 are problematic along with a number of vaguely defined terms that can be misused by Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs). As the powerful elite of the country has most of the police loyalties with the legal system already in a shambles, PPA gives “green light for abusing suspects”, as put by HRW.

The new law doubles the maximum sentence for terrorism offences to 20 years and permits security forces to shoot suspects on sight. The scheduled offences are not only non-bailable but keep the burden of proof on the detainee who will be considered guilty unless proven otherwise.

The provisions of Protection of Pakistan Act 2014 also give safe-outs to police officers of BPS-15 grade or higher on the basis of good faith which can create huge troubles in the country where police is hardly trusted by the citizens.

Here are the details on why exactly the civil society opposes Protection of Pakistan Act and what are the problematic provisions. Please share the details widely among your circle to better inform your friends and families about this law which will remain in effect for two years and can have huge repercussions for a common citizen, bloggers, and especially dissidents.

protection of pakistan act 2014

ppa 2014

protection of pakistan act 2014

June 30, 2014 - Comments Off on Release of "The State of Proactive Disclosure of Information in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab Public Bodies" Research Report

Release of "The State of Proactive Disclosure of Information in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab Public Bodies" Research Report

Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa public bodies do not comply with provincial Right to Information Laws

Lahore, June 30, 2014:

The research report ‘The State of Proactive Disclosure of Information in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab Public Bodies’ shows that public bodies in both provinces are not complying with the respective right to information laws of their provinces. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab public bodies are required to proactively disclose categories of information mentioned in Sections 5 and 4 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Right to Information Act 2013 and Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013.

The broader aim of this research report, conducted by Digital Rights Foundation, a member organization of Coalition on Right to Information’, (CRTI) is to measure how public bodies have been using the web and making it easier for citizens in the processes of getting information and filing requests.

The report indicates that while the public bodies have adopted to the latest web standards and have created / maintained a web presence, there is a significant lack of tangible reforms adopted to implement key sections of the respective laws of the provinces. Specifically, the public bodies do not share information pertaining to public employees' remuneration, benefits, and any other privileges in line with the provisions of their provincial right to information laws.

Digital Rights Foundation urges Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information Commission and Punjab Information Commission to ensure public bodies comply with the right to information laws and make available information specified for proactive disclosure under relevant provisions of provincial right to information laws.

Link to the report: Proactive Disclosure report

Contact: nighat@digitalrightsfoundation.pk

- End -

 

"Coalition of Right to Information seeks to promote an open information and communications policies at the federal, provincial and district levels across Pakistan. With various initiatives, the coalition of civil society organizations aims to promote citizen awareness and improve dialogue between the citizens and state."

Digital Rights Foundation is a research based advocacy organisation based in Pakistan focusing on ICTs to support human rights, democratic processes and better digital governance. DRF opposes any and all sorts of online censorship and violations of human rights both on ground and online.  We firmly believe that freedom of speech and open access to online content is critically important for the development of socio-economy of the country. www.digitalrightsfoundation.pk

Join the talk on Twitter @digitalrightspk  and like us on Facebook!

April 15, 2014 - Comments Off on An open letter to Senate of Pakistan regarding Pakistan Protection Ordinance 2014 "Pakistan's new law: no free speech… and you're a terrorist unless you can prove otherwise"

An open letter to Senate of Pakistan regarding Pakistan Protection Ordinance 2014 "Pakistan's new law: no free speech… and you're a terrorist unless you can prove otherwise"

Irfan-Cybercrime1-660x330 Respected Senators,

The recent uproar over the Pakistan Protection Ordinance 2014 has created quite a stir in the country’s digital media platforms, and rightly so. The Government of Pakistan has recently passed, what appears to be, the most draconian and regressive anti-terror law in the National Assembly. The Pakistan Protection Ordinance 2014 has already been signed by the President and will soon be presented - and most likely approved - by the Senate on April 20, 2014.

The proposed law clearly inhibits fundamental rights to freedom of speech, privacy and peaceful assembly on the Internet. In its current form, the law could be used to suppress peaceful political opposition and criticism of government policy online, on social media for instance. In its schedule of offences, the law also lists “crimes against computers including cyber crimes, internet offenses and other offenses related to information technology etc". Also, instances where a person who commits any crime mentioned in the scheduled offenses becomes a cognizable and non bailable offense.

Any person accused within the sphere of scheduled offences will be liable to face a charge on grounds of reasonable evidence against him/her, and will be assumed to be engaged in waging a war or insurrection against Pakistan, unless he/she establishes his/her non-involvement in the offence, which reverses the burden of proof and undermines the right to due process and fair trial. The scheduled offence shall be punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to 10 years, with fine and confiscation of property.

The provision regarding internet crimes is so vague that it can be abused against  journalists, politicians, minorities, students, activists, political dissidents and groups who are using the internet for activities which would not in any way be counted and ascertained as terrorism. From a due process perspective, there doesn’t seem to be a very strong case for introducing cyber crimes in the PPO 2014, when a separate Electronic Cyber Crime bill is already being drafted. So, what is the true intent of introducing an additional or supplementary provisions with regard to “Internet Crimes”?

The state of open access to internet in our country is dismal. In the 2013 Freedom on the Net report, Pakistan’s Internet freedom status in 2012-13 was ‘Not Free.’ The introduction to the report states: Successive military and civilian governments have adopted various measures to control the internet in Pakistan, which they frame as necessary for combating terrorism. In Freedom of Press, Pakistan ranks 159 among 179 countries. In the planned Ordinance, provision related to warrant less raids is in violation of Article 14 of our Constitution.

With the Electronic Cyber Crime bill, Pakistan has the momentous opportunity to set the benchmark in South Asia and the Global South in right to free speech online. This right necessitates freedom from persecution for all citizens who use digital communications platforms to express opinions, dissent, or critique against the state. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” 

In an era where individuals, non-governmental organizations and international institutions rely on the multiplier effect of social media and digital news outlets to highlight issues of injustice and human rights violations, it doesn’t augur well for the country’s freedom of speech and human rights index to even consider this Ordinance.

Digital Rights foundation demands and calls on the senators to protect the rights to freedom of speech and privacy in accordance with Pakistan's obligations under international conventions, remove the clause of cyber crimes from Pakistan Protection Ordinance 2014 and revise the law with the consultation of relevant stake holders.

Contact: nighat@digitalrightsfoundation.pk

- End -

Digital Rights Foundation is a research based advocacy organisation based in Pakistan focusing on ICTs to support human rights, democratic processes and better digital governance. DRF opposes any and all sorts of online censorship and violations of human rights both on ground and online.  We firmly believe that freedom of speech and open access to online content is critically important for the development of socio-economy of the country. www.digitalrightsfoundation.pk