A man stabbed and killed his 16-year-old sister on Wednesday because she was using a mobile phone. While to some the very idea may sound ludicrous, to many Pakistanis this is just another day.

Technology related instances of violence are not scarce in Pakistan, although many are not reported. The case is the most recent example of women paying the price for using digital tools such as cell phones, laptops or computers.

Hayat Khan, the 20 year old in question, threw the body out of his house in plain sight. His sister breathed her last as neighbours scrambled to help. While the Digital Rights Foundation condemns the incident and finds the behavior of the brother in question absolutely repugnant, we also know that such kind of cases are nothing unique. 

Media has reported that Khan had asked his sister who she was talking to on the phone. When she responded that it was none of his business she paid the price with her life. Khan said that he had originally intended to only scare her with a kitchen knife but somehow ended up killing her instead. While he claims that he feels immense grief, the fact that he chose to throw his sister outside the house instead of finding her medical help tells another story.

Already, the father of the girl has said that he has forgiven his son for his crime. Interestingly, the police has made itself the complainant in this case so that the relatives of the victim cannot forgive the assailant. Many a times, men who have committed murders in the name of honour killing go scot-free because the family officially pardons them. Moreover, in other cases blood money is offered in return for freedom - and it is currency that is widely accepted. Under the legal loopholes present in Pakistan's laws women have lost their lives repeatedly under the guise of honour. 

In Pakistan, women’s access to technology can lead to violence. Our work through our Hamara Internet project has helped alert us to many such cases where use of technology endangered a young woman’s life. In 2013, two sisters were killed in Gilgit because a video of them playing in the rain was leaked - the assailants included their step brother who felt that they had dishonoured the family.

In another case, a woman asked her  husband to kill her for 'honour' after a video of her an another man getting intimate was released. The incident took place in February in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The husband turned himself in and told the authorities he felt no regret or shame over his actions because his wife had told him to restore his honour by ending her life. Whether the woman truly did ask for her own death can never be ascertained for sure.

We have come across many instances of young women fearing for their lives over reasons entirely out of their control. In cases of blackmail, online harassment, and even revenge, there is a higher likelihood of families taking action against the victims instead of supporting them.

Examples where use of technology has led to a woman's death are countless. Who should know this better than us. However, this culture of blaming the victim has to end - this culture of violence against women needs to be stopped - and it is high time we started taking women’s access to technology and information as their fundamental rights, and not privilege.

The question we must ask ourselves is this: how many more women need to die before using something as mundane as a mobile phone stops being controversial? How many more will be blackmailed, harassed, and yes, killed, before women's existence in digital spaces is acceptable? The time is now to right back against patriarchy and the time is now to reclaim online spaces.

Punjab’s violence against women problem is no small one. And the Protection of Women Against Violence Act 2015 is a good first step in addressing the oft ignored elephant in the room.

Punjab has had a real issue with violence against women. Data from 2014 produced by the Aurat Foundation has shown that the problem comes with big numbers. Punjab has the largest number of domestic violence cases reported of any province in Pakistan, and over 7,010 cases were reported during 2014 alone.

A 2002 study published in the Lancet showed that 99% of housewives and 77% of working women were subjected to domestic abuse by their husbands. Lack of data makes it impossible to figure out whether these numbers have reduced or worsened - but the larger picture is not a pretty one.

With this scenario in mind, the idea of the new Act is a welcome one - but for it to become a well oiled machine, there are still some problems that need weeding. In 2015 the Protection of Women Against Violence Bill was put before the Punjab Assembly, with the specific purpose of providing women in the Punjab with a form of legal protection against violence. On Wednesday, February 24, 2016, the Bill in question passed and became an Act.  

Though the Act in question does ostensibly afford women protection, it requires further serious scrutiny. It defines “violence” as:

“…any offence committed against the human body of the aggrieved person including abetment of an offence, domestic violence, sexual violence, psychological abuse, economic abuse, stalking or a cybercrime”

The bill mentions several forms of violence, and includes stalking and other cybercrimes. However, the bill fails to provide clear indications and explanations of what those terms mean and entail; in comparison, the newly added terms “economic abuse” and “psychological violence” are further elaborated upon in greater length.

But what’s a cybercrime?

It is regrettable that what constitutes as cybercrime is not clearly explained in more detail, especially in the context of cybercrime-related cases that are constantly on the rise. Cyberstalking, harassment through social media, sharing of inappropriate (and usually stolen) material, unauthorised power and access of computer systems, and the distribution of personal information belonging to other people all constitute cybercrimes; it is important that the legislation mentions this salient point, so that laypeople, women in particular, can easily understand what manner of acts can be reported, and what the penalties are.

Moreover, the bill fails to clearly mention which authority body will be looking into cybercrime, and whether it is the role of the police or the Federal Investigation Agency to take on cases relating to it. Should the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill (PECB) be passed, furthermore, we must examine and determine which law will supersede the other.

Complicating the matter is the fact that many cybercrime offenders - including in particular online bullying and cyberstalking - will create numerous fake social media profiles. In doing so, quickly ascertaining who is actually behind the profile, and is the guilty party sought after, before they are aware of police being on their scene, becomes more difficult.

The GPS tracker problem

The bill also utilises abstracts without clear definitions. Provision 7(d) of the bill, for instance, suggests that the defendant:

“wear ankle or wrist bracelet GPS tracker for any act of grave violence or likely grave violence which may endanger the life, dignity or reputation of the aggrieved person;"

The bill does not clarify in what is defined by “dignity or reputation.” Further to this, the wearing of an ankle or wrist GPS tracker does not to be an effective enough deterrent, especially when it comes to harassment, whether online or offline.

There is also the question of what the repercussions maybe for a wife that reports her husband and leads to him being tracked with a wrist GPS. There is the potential danger that a man may react even more violently to the social ridicule and ostracization that may come with it.   

Moreover, there are no provisions to indicate who will be monitoring on the GPS trackers. We also do not know whether Pakistan even has the mechanism or capacity to handle such a medium of monitoring someone. Who will prevent this provision from being abused and how? Will the police, which is already lacking in resources, be able to react in time to a man violating the GPS order and staying away from his victim? There are many questions that need to be posed about these trackers, and the answers are nowhere in sight.

All in all, the bill is a good first step in the right direction. Pakistan, and Punjab, desperately need protective legislation such as this one. However, no legislation should be accepted without scrutiny. And the weaknesses in this Act could pose major problems in the future. In it’s current state, it is a fabulous work in progress that requires improvements.

Have a look at the full text from the Act here: Protection Of Women Against Violence Act 2015

On December 11th, 2015, the Economic Coordination Council (ECC) approved the long awaited Telecom Policy 2015. The policy focuses on several issues faced by cellular mobile operators (CMOs), who, in fact, view this policy as a step forward in order to make the telecom sector more progressive.

Even though the policy may seem to cover the most important of issues, on paper at least, it is essential to note here that the policy document did not consider the CMO's request to have industry prominence, which was to help reduce their tax compulsions, including sales tax, income tax and customs duty, while being compiled.

The report extensively talks about generating a healthy environment for competition in several different categories. However, there is another point to consider when it comes to promoting fair competition: is the new policy really going to promote a more autonomous market or will it simply offer to provide enhanced protection and security to current monopolies?

Looking more closely into the policy document leaves more space for concern, especially when it comes to the proposed cybercrime bill-- the very debatable Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill (PECB).

Section 9.8 of the Telecommunications Policy 2015, titled “Content Management”, talks about the authority given to the PTA along with other authorised bodies to police content. A more detailed explanation of this section is included in Section 9.8.3, which openly states that the Policy will:

“Enable PTA to monitor and manage content including any blasphemous and pornographic material in conflict with the principles of Islamic way of life as reflected in the Objectives Resolution and Article 31 of the Constitution, material viewed as leading to the exploitation or abuse of children or other vulnerable groups, and material that is considered to be a direct incitement to commit a crime of a serious nature and detrimental to national security, or any other category stipulated in any other law.”

To no surprise, the above section 9.8.3 of the telecom policy 2015, blatantly coincides with Section 34 of the PECB, which states:

“The Authority is empowered to manage information and issue directions for removal or blocking of access of any information through any information system. The Authority may direct any service provider to remove any information or block access to such information, if it considers it necessary in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court or commission of or incitement to an offence under this Act. (2) The Authority may prescribe rules for adoption of standards and procedure to manage information, block access and entertain complaints.”

Looking at what Section 9.8.4 states, it is obvious that the PTA is given an almost natural right to regulate “access of content”, whereas, section 9.8.6 says that even though telecom operators as well as service providers will be able to take charge of the content shared with third-parties, the “Government will not require intermediaries to identify content to be filtered or blocked.”

Another disturbing aspect of the Policy is that it creates provisions for Lawful Interception (LI) since, under section 9.9.2, it reads that “the development of new ways of delivering telecommunications services and the new services that are evolving means that lawful interception is a constantly evolving requirement”, meanwhile PTA is to be responsible for the formulation of the framework in order to implement “evolved” Lawful Interception entities.

More specifically, Section 9.9.1 of the policy states that a framework is to be developed together by the PTA and authorised agencies/organizations of the GoP.

The rules will consider inter alia:

• Mechanism for provisioning, maintenance, upgradation and expansion of LI facilities.
• Possibility of joint provisioning of LI facilities by Licensees.
• Provision for multi-stakeholder forum in the Federal Government (MoIT) to review and recommend adjustments in LI mechanisms and incidental regulatory adjustments.

Furthermore, many who have reviewed the policy believe that other problems which need to be taken up by the policy in more detail include, provision of public Wi-Fi hot spots, fast tracking right of way process for telecom infrastructure, abolishing grey telephony, creating telecentres with USF fund to surge coverage in under-served areas and a competition agenda focused to inspire well-organized and good market offering and choice of services to customers. The policy has failed to encourage and offer any incentives for Pakistan- based investors to enter the industry. Some sectors like the mobile virtual network operator (MVNO), Manufacturing/assembly and application should be given priority reservation for local investors, taking inspiration from how other countries operate their telecommunication policies. Learning from our neighboring country, India, and the most democratic country globally, Canada, the Pakistan Telecom Policy 2015 should include Information Technology, which would make Information Technology a part of the document so that it can be called The National ICT Policy or Convergence Policy rather than the Telecom Policy, since the policy claims to abide by universal guidelines.

The telecom policy 2015 also fails to identify a proper structural framework of tax rationalization. Even though  the word on the block is that the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom (MoITT) is spurring up a tax package, the policy itself does not present any reflections of real commitments.

Another very important element missing in the policy is the issue of telecommunication services getting terminated or suspended during so called important days in order to keep a "security" check, with the growing culture of terrorism. The policy does not seem to address this issue nor does it present any solutions to this problem.

Bringing this debate closer to home, let’s look at what this means for the rights of citizens of Pakistan. Specifically, according to Section 34 of the proposed PECB, authorities would have the autonomy to censor and block certain content that is considered to violate or work against the “glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality”.

The PECB alone has been withdrawn and opinions in the Senate have vowed to speak against it, should it be brought forward for debate again. However, now that the Telecommunications Policy 2015 has been passed, the PECB seems more practical now than before since it is to implement provisions that support what has been proposed, and indeed is already being used by bodies such as PEMRA. Even though, the PECB is not a law, PEMRA is able to make sure that, for example, the Pakistani media outlets did not report on the Hajj tragedy of 2015 in a manner that was (justifiably) critical of the way that the Saudi Government took care of the situation, simply because, according to Section 34 of the PECB, it would have negatively effected  “friendly relations with foreign states”.

It is important to look closely at the countless ways in which the state will strengthen the power it possesses of censorship and surveillance.

All said and done, the Telecom policy 2015 has received a positive response from the industry but time will tell how well the policy and its proposals are implemented. Goals and targets of the policy, especially in terms of how the resources are to be acquired to achieve the objectives of the policy, need to be provided and a tool to measure the improvements is desperately needed.

Image courtesy: Daniel Rehn
Written by: Adnan Chaudhri